XIII.   OBEDIENCE TO THE MORAL LAW. 

     We can sum up everything that the law requires in one single word, love.  This word is synonymous with the word benevolence.  This love consists in choosing the highest good of God and of the universe as an end as our goal or purpose in life.  We choose this for its own sake.  This choice is what I have called, an ultimate intention.  In short, we have seen that good will to others is, generally, obedience to the moral law.  Now the question before us is, what doesn’t this good will, or this unselfish ultimate intention imply? 
     Since the law of God, as revealed in the Bible, is the only standard we can use to decide the question concerning what entire sanctification does and does not imply; it is fundamentally important that we understand what is and what is not implied in entire obedience to this law.  We cannot rely on our judgment of our own state, or the state of others, until these questions are settled.  Christ was perfect, and yet, the notions of the Jews concerning what perfection was were so wrong that they thought that He was possessed by a devil, instead of being holy as He claimed to be.  (Perfection: the state of moral excellence; blameless)
     We will now look at what entire obedience to the moral law does not imply, as I understand it.  The law, as epitomized by Christ, says “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself” (Deut. 6:5)  In one sentence, Christ lays down our whole duty to God and to our fellow creatures.  Now, the questions are, what is not, and what is, implied in perfect obedience to this law?

 

A     What perfect obedience to this law does not imply? 

1     Perfect obedience does not imply any change in the substance of our soul or our body.  The law does not require any physical or natural changes; and we would not have to obey it if it did, because the requirement would be inconsistent with natural justice, and therefore, not law.  When we obey, we simply consecrate all of our physical powers, just as they are, to God.  Obedience does not imply any change in them, but simply the right use of them. 

2     Perfect obedience does not imply annihilating any constitutional traits of our character, such as our zeal or our impulsiveness.  Certainly, there is nothing in God’s law that requires us to annihilate any traits.  We should simply and properly direct these traits when we use them.

3     Perfect obedience does not imply annihilating of any of our constitutional appetites or feelings.  Some believe that our constitutional appetites and feelings are sinful, and that completely conforming to God’s law implies annihilating them.  I am greatly surprised to find that some people resort to this assumption so they can set aside the doctrine of complete sanctification in this life.  However, let us appeal to the law.  Does the law anywhere condemn man’s physical constitution, or require us to annihilate anything that is properly a part of our constitution?  Does God’s law require us to annihilate our appetite for food, or is it satisfied with simply regulating its indulgence?  (Indulgence:  self-gratification; gratification of one’s desires without restraint)  In short, does God’s law anywhere require anything more than consecrating all our powers, appetites, and feelings of our body and our mind to the service of God? 

4     Perfect obedience does not imply annihilating our natural affection, or our natural resentment.  By natural affection I mean, that certain people may be naturally pleasing to us.  Christ appears to have had a natural affection for John.  By natural resentment I mean, that, from the way God created us, we must resent or feel opposed to injustice or ill treatment.  This does not mean that we want to retaliate or seek revenge, or that such behavior is consistent with the law of God.  Perfect obedience to the law of God does not imply that we should have no sense of injury and injustice when someone abuses us.  God has a sense of injury or injustice, and should have it, and every moral being has a sense of injustice.  To love your neighbor as yourself does not imply that if someone injures you, you shouldn’t have a sense of injury or injustice; but, in spite of your feelings, you should love him and do him good, even though he treated you unfairly. 

5     Perfect obedience does not imply any unhealthy degree of mental excitement.  We must interpret moral law so that it is consistent with physical law.  God’s laws certainly don’t clash with each other.  And moral law cannot require such a state of constant mental excitement that it will destroy him physically.  Moral law cannot require any more mental excitement than is consistent with all the laws, attributes, and circumstances of both the soul and body.  Moral law does not imply that we must strain our organs and faculties to its limit all the time.  This would soon exhaust and destroy any and every organ in the body.  No matter what may be true about the mind it is certain that a constant state of excitement is impossible.  When our mind is strongly excited, there is a natural increase of blood to the brain.  A high degree of excitement cannot continue for a long time, without wearing the person down physically, adversely affecting his brain, and possibly causing physical as well as mental damage.  The law of God does not require any degree of emotion or mental excitement that is inconsistent with life and health.  Our Lord Jesus Christ does not appear to have been in a state of constant mental excitement.  After He and His disciples had been greatly excited for a time, they would turn aside, “and rest a while” (Mark 6:31) 
     Who does not know that the high degree of excitement that we sometimes witness in religious revivals cannot last or the people may become physically and emotionally drained.  Some may become deranged, listening to the voice of their mind or a spirit, rather than reasonably following the leading of the Holy Spirit.  Because a true revival is a supernatural visitation from God which awakens hearts and produces joyful obedience, sometimes, a high degree of excitement must prevail for a while, to attract public and individual attention, and to draw people away from their pursuits to attend to the concerns of their souls.  But if anyone thinks that this high degree of excitement is either necessary or desirable or can last for a long time, he has never really thought about the results of such continued stress and excitement.  This is a huge mistake in many churches.  They think that a revival consists mostly in highly excited emotions, rather than in conforming the human will to the law of God.  Hence, when the reasons for all their excitement fade away and everybody begins to calm down, they immediately feel that the revival is declining, when, in fact, with much less excited emotion there may be a lot more true religion in the community.  Excitement is often important and indispensable, but vigorous acts of the will are infinitely more important.  And a strong will can exist in the absence of highly excited emotions. 

6     Nor does perfect obedience imply that the same amount of emotion, the same strength of conscious decisions or intellectual efforts, are required all the time.  Different conscious decisions don’t need the same amount of strength.  They can’t have the same amount strength, because the reasons that produce them vary.  Should a man exercise the same strength of will to pick up an apple, as she would use to extinguish the flames of a burning house?  Should a mother, watching over her sleeping infant when everything is quiet and secure, put forth as much willpower as he would need to rescue it from devouring flames?  Now, suppose that this mother was just as devoted to God in watching her sleeping baby and in rescuing it from the jaws of death.  Her holiness would not consist in the fact that she exercised her will using the same strength in both situations, but that in both situations her conscious decision is enough to accomplish the thing that needed to be done.  So people can be holy and yet the strength of their affections, emotions, or conscious decisions, will vary according to their circumstances, their physical health, and the business that they are engaged in. 
     We must hold all the powers of our body and mind at the service and disposal of God.  Just so much physical, intellectual, and moral energy can be expended in performing our duty as the nature and the circumstances of the situation requires.  And nothing is further from the truth than believing that the law of God requires a constant, intense state of emotion and mental action on any and every subject alike.

7     Perfect obedience does not imply that God must be the direct object of our attention and affection all the time.  First, this would leave us with no time left over for us to think of or love our neighbor as ourselves.  The law of God requires that we love God with all our heart.  This means that our mind’s supreme preference should be that God is the object of our supreme preference.  But this is perfectly consistent with engaging in any of the necessary busi­nesses of life, giving those businesses the attention they need, and exercising all those affections and emotions that their nature and importance demands. 
     If a man loves God supremely, and he engages in any business to promote God’s glory, if his eye is single, his affections and conduct, as far as they have any moral character, are completely holy when he engages them in the right transaction of his business, although for the time being, none of his thoughts or affections may be focused on God.  A man, who is intensely devoted to his family, may be acting consistently with his love for his family and rendering his family his heart-felt service even when he isn’t thinking about them at all.  Our heart’s desire is our mind’s supreme preference.  Our physical heart pumps our blood through our body.  Now there is a striking analogy between our physical heart and our heart’s desire.  And just as our physical heart pumps life through our bodies, so our heart’s desire pumps life and character into all our moral actions.  For example, suppose that I am teaching math; my ultimate intention is to glorify God as a teacher.  Now in preparing, teaching, and correcting papers, I must spend many hours every weekday giving my entire attention to my job.  While my mind is intensely occupied to success­fully performing my teaching duties, I really don’t have the time to even think about God, or even have the time to exercise any direct affections, or emotions, or conscious decisions, towards Him.  Yet, if, in my job, I exclude all selfishness, and my supreme purpose is to glorify God, my heart is in a state of complete obedience even though, for the time being, I do not think about God at all. 
     Please understand that I am obedient as long as my supreme preference or intention excludes all selfishness and it applies just the right amount of strength of conscious decisions, thoughts, affections, and emotions that I need to use to do what I have to do.  This means that I apply the exact intensity of thought and energy of action that the nature and importance of the job I do demands at that time. 
     This means that our physical brains together with our current physical condition is such that the required amount of thought, feeling, etc., is possible.  If we were so physically exhausted that we are unable to put forth the amount of effort that the situation demands, even though our efforts may be much less than the importance of the subject demands, it would be all that the law of God requires.  Whoever, therefore, thinks that a state of entire obedience implies blotting out everything from the mind but God, labors under a serious error.  Such a state of mind is inconsistent with our duty; and it is impossible as long as we are in the flesh.  (Flesh: human or bodily attributes; not spiritual, but physical; Sensibilities; the five senses)
     The fact is, the language and the spirit of the law have been grossly misunderstood and inter­preted to mean things that were never intended.  Many a mind has been exposed to the assaults of Satan and kept in a state of constant bondage and condemnation because they couldn’t always make God the direct object of their thoughts, affections, and emotions; and because they couldn’t keep their mind in a state of perfect tension and always strained to the limit.  

8     Nor does perfect obedience imply being calm all the time.  Christ was not always calm.  The deep peace in His heart was never disturbed, but His mind and emotions were often excited.  For example: Christ had all the constitutional appetites and feelings of human nature.  If this was not true, He could not have been “in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15), nor could He have been tempted in any point as we are, if He did not possess a constitution similar to our own.  Christ also manifested natural love for His mother and for His other friends.  He also showed that He had a sense of injury and injustice, and exercised a suitable resentment when He was injured and persecuted.  He was not always in a state of great excitement.  He appears to have had times of excitement and of calm, of labor and rest, of joy and sorrow, just like other people.  Some people speak of entire obedience to the law, as if it implies a state that is always calm, and as if every kind and degree of excited feeling except the feeling of love of God, is inconsistent with this state.  But Christ often became very excited when reproving the enemies of God.  In short, Christ’s life should lead us to conclude that His calmness and His excitement varied according to the circumstances that He was in.  And sometimes He was so pointed and severe in His reproof, that others accused Him of being pos­sessed by a devil.  Yet, His emotions and feelings were only those that were called for, and were suited for that situation.

9     Nor does perfect obedience imply a state that is always sweet, that never has any indignation or holy anger at sin and sinners.  Anger at sin is only one form of love for others in general.  A sense of justice, or a desire to have the wicked punished for the benefit of God’s government, is only another form of love.  Indignation and anger are essential to the existence of love, when circumstances call for us to exercise them.  There were times, when Christ became angry.  He often manifested anger and indignation.  “God is angry with the wicked every day” (Psalms 7:11)  And holiness, or a state of obedience, instead of being inconsistent with anger, always implies the existence of anger, whenever circumstances occur which demand its exercise.  

10     Perfect obedience does not imply a state of mind that is all compassion, with no sense of justice.  Compassion is only one form of love.  Justice, or willfully desiring that God executes the law and punishes sin, is another form of love.  God, Christ, and all holy beings exercise all those dispositions that constitute the different forms of love under every possible circumstance.

11     Obedience does not imply that we should love or hate all men alike, without paying attention to their importance, circumstances, and relationships.  One person may have a greater ability to do good, and be much more important in this world than another person.  Impartiality and the law of love require us not to regard everybody alike, but to regard everyone and everything according to their nature, relationships, circumstances, and importance.

12     Nor does perfect obedience imply a perfect knowledge of all our relationships.  If we interpreted the law this way, it would become necessary for us to understand all our relationships perfectly, before we could be perfectly obedient.  This would imply that we would need to be all-knowing; for certainly there is no one in the whole universe that we don’t have some kind of relationship with, no matter how small that relationship is.  And knowledge of all these relationships clearly implies infinite knowledge.  It is clear that the law of God cannot require anything like this.

13     Nor does perfect obedience imply freedom from being wrong.  Some believe that the grace of the gospel promises to give us perfect knowledge, or at least enough knowledge as would exempt us from making any mistakes.  I can’t stop here to debate this question, but I would simply say that the law does not require that our judgment must be infallible.  It only requires us to make the best use we can of all the light we have.  

14     Perfect obedience does not imply the same degree of knowledge that we might have had if we had made more efficient use of our time acquiring this knowledge.  The law could require us to love God or our neighbor as well as we might have been able to love them if we had always made better use of our time in obtaining all the knowledge we could about their nature, character, and interests.  But, if the requirements of the law implied this, not be one saint on earth or in heaven could ever obey.  What is lost is lost, and we could never be able to make up, in the future, what we have lost in the past.  It will no doubt be true throughout all eternity that we will have less knowledge than we might have possessed if we had filled up all our time acquiring it.  We do not, we cannot, nor will we ever be able to love God as well as we might have loved Him if we had always applied our minds to acquiring knowledge about Him.  And if perfect obedience means that we must love God as much as we would have loved him if we had all the knowledge we could have had, then I repeat that there is not a saint on earth or in heaven, nor ever will be that is entirely obedient.

15     Perfect obedience does not imply the same amount of service that we might have rendered if we had never sinned.  The law of God does not imply that our physical and mental powers must be in a perfect state; that our physical or mental strength has to be what it would have been if we had never sinned.  But perfect obedience only requires us to use what strength we currently have.  The way the law is worded is proof positive that it extends its demands only to the full amount of what strength we have.  And, this is true of every moral being no matter how great or small.

a     The most perfect development and improvement of our powers must depend on the most perfect use of them.  And every time we depart from their perfect use diminishes their highest development, and that hampers their capabilities to serve God in the highest and best manner possible.  All sin, then, does just so much towards crippling and curtailing the powers of our body and mind, and rendering them, by just so much, incapable of performing the service they might otherwise have rendered. 

b     To this view some have objected, saying that Christ taught an opposite doctrine when He said to the woman who washed His feet with her tears, “To whom little is forgiven, the same loves little”.  (Luke 7:47)  But, can anyone actually believe that Christ is teaching us that the more we sin the greater our love and our ultimate virtue will be?  But if this is what He was teaching us, I don’t see why it does not follow that the more sin in this life the better, so that God can forgive us more.  If our sins could improve our virtue, wouldn’t it make good sense, for both for God and man, to sin as much as we can while we are in this world?  Certainly, Christ never meant anything like this.  He undoubtedly meant to teach that a person, who was truly sensitive to the seriousness of his sins, would exercise more of the love of gratitude than he would exercise if he had little sense of his sinful condition.

16     Perfect obedience does not imply the same degree of faith that we might have exercised if it wasn’t for our ignorance and past sin.  We cannot believe anything about God if we don’t have evidence or knowledge.  Therefore, how we perceive the truth limits our faith.  The heathen don’t have to believe in the thousands of things related to Christ and Christian­ity because they don’t know anything about those things.  Perfection in a heathen would imply much less faith than perfection in a Christian.  Perfection in an adult would imply much more and greater faith than perfection in a child.  And perfection in an angel would imply much greater faith than perfection in a man.  It is in proportion to how much more of God the angel knows than we know.  Please remember, that total obedience to God never implies something that is naturally impossible.  It is naturally impossible for us to believe something that we aren’t aware of.  Total obedience implies nothing more than our heart’s faith or confidence in all the truth that our mind perceives.

17     Nor does obedience imply the conversion of all men in answer to our prayers.  Some believe that entire obedience implies the offering of prevailing prayer for the conversion of all men.  To this I reply: then even Christ did not obey, because He offered no such prayer.  The law of God makes no such demands.  We have no right to believe that all men will be converted in answer to our prayers, unless we have an express or implied promise from God to that effect.  Since there is no such promise, we are under no obligation to offer such a prayer.  Nor does the non‑conversion of the world imply no saints in this world fully obey God’s law.  (Saint: one who is holy)

a     Perfect obedience does not imply the conversion of anybody, for whom there is not an express or implied promise in the word of God.  The fact that Judas was not converted in answer to Christ’s prayer does not prove that Christ did not fully obey.

b     Nor does perfect obedience imply that God will grant all those things that the Bible promises in answer to our prayers.  A state of perfect love implies exercising all our known duty.  And strictly speaking, nothing can be our duty if we don’t know about it.  Therefore, it cannot be our duty to believe a promise that we are completely ignorant about, or to apply a promise to any specific object when we do not know how to apply it.

c      If there is sin in a situation such as this, it lies in the fact that our soul neglects to know what it should know.  But we should always understand that the sin lies in neglecting to know, and not in neglecting something that we have no knowledge about.  Perfect obedience is inconsistent with any intentional neglect to know the truth; for such neglect is sin.  But perfect obedience is consistent with us not doing something that we know nothing about.  James says, “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17)  Jesus said to the Pharisees, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, `We see.’  Therefore your sin remains.”  (John 9:41)  

18     Perfect obedience to God’s Divine law does not imply that others will think that our state of mind and our outward life completely conforms to the law.  The Jews believed that Christ was possessed by a wicked spirit instead of the Holy Spirit.  Their ideas of holiness were so wrong, that they were certain that the Spirit of God was not leading Jesus.  One of the main reasons they believed this was because of His opposition to the Jewish orthodoxy, and to the ungodliness of the religious teachers of the day.  Now, who does not see that when the church conforms to the world, a spirit of holiness in anyone would certainly lead the carnally minded to aim their sharpest rebukes at the spirit and life of that righteous individual, no matter what his social standing might be.  (Carnal: living supremely to gratify the five senses; worldly) And who does not see that this would naturally result in people accusing him of possessing a wicked spirit?  And who does not know that when a religious teacher, like Jesus, needs to attack false orthodoxy, he will certainly be hunted, almost as a beast of prey, by the religious teachers of today, whose authority, influence, and orthodoxy are being attacked?

19     Nor does obedience imply that we are exempt from sorrow or mental suffering.  Jesus was not exempted from sorrow or mental suffering.  Obedience is perfectly consistent with sorrowing over our own past sins, and sorrowing because we no longer have the health, vigor, knowledge, and love that we might have had if we had sinned less.  Certainly there is nothing wrong in feeling sorry for those around us, or experiencing sorrow when we see human sinfulness, or suffering.  These are all consistent with a state of joyful love for God and man, and indeed are natural results of it.  

20     Nor is obedience inconsistent with living in a human society where we must mingle on the streets and engage in the affairs of this world.  Some believe that mingling in society is inconsistent with perfect obedience.  This absurd and ridiculous notion has prompted many to retire to monasteries and convents, taking vows of poverty, and retiring to a life of devotion.  Now I believe that voluntarily excluding yourself from human society is totally inconsistent with God’s commandment to love our neighbor as yourselves.  How can you love your neighbor if you separate yourself from him? 

21     Nor does obedience imply that your temper and manners must always be serious.  Nothing is further from the truth than this.  It is said of Xavier, who was one of the holiest men that have ever lived, that “he was so cheerful that he was often accused of being lightheaded”.  Cheerful­ness is certainly the result of a holy love.  And perfect obedience does not imply being serious or somber in this world any more than it does in heaven. 
     In all the discussions I have seen on the subject of Christian holiness, writers seldom or never raise the question: What does obedience to the law of God imply, and what does it not imply?  Instead of bringing everything to this test, they seem to lose sight of it.  They include things that the law of God never required of man in his present state.  Thus, they lay a stumbling‑block and a snare for the saints, to keep them in perpetual bondage, believing that the way to keep them humble is to place the standard of holiness totally beyond their reach.  Or, they void the law so they can no longer make it binding.  Or they fritter away what is really implied in the law until there is nothing left of its requirements but a sickly, whimsical, inefficient sentimentalism, or perfectionism, which, when we see it manifested, appears to me to be something totally different from what the law of God requires.  (Manifestation: the revealing or demonstrating of a fact or person in a clear and plain manner)

22     Obedience does not imply that we constantly aim at, or intend to do our duty.  That is, it does not imply that our intention terminates on our duty as our ultimate end.  It is our duty to aim at or intend the highest good of God and the universe as an ultimate end, or for its own sake.  We must always aim at this infinitely important end.  It is our duty to aim at this.  While we aim at this we do our duty, but to aim at doing our duty is not doing our duty.

a     Nor does perfect obedience imply that we are always thinking about our moral obligation to intend the good of others.  Our obligation is a first truth, and every moral agent naturally assumes it.  This assumption is a condition of our moral agency.  But, it is not at all essential to virtue or true obedience that to have our moral obligation present in our thoughts all the time.

b     Nor does perfect obedience imply that the glory of God and the good of our neighbor is always the object of our attention.  We can intend the glory of God and the good of our neighbor without spending all our time dwelling on the moral character of this intention.  The intention is no less virtuous even if such thoughts are not on our mind.  We unconsciously assume that unselfish love is right, just as we assume other first truths, without being distinctly aware of that assumption.  Therefore, it is not essential to obedience at all to have the virtuousness of love before our minds all the time.

23     Nor does obedience to the moral law imply that the law itself should constantly be the object of our attention. 
     The law, as a rule of duty, is a subjective idea that develops in the mind of every moral agent.  We all have this idea, and thus we are a law to ourselves.  Nevertheless, this law or idea is not always the object of our attention and thought.  We may exercise good will or love to God and our neighbor without constantly thinking that this love is required of us by the moral law.  In fact, the unselfish person generally exercises love so spontaneously that he rarely thinks that he is required to love God with all his heart.  But he is no less virtuous because of this.  If the infinite importance of God’s good and of His infinite goodness constrains me to love Him with all my heart, can any one believe that God sees my heart as being any less virtuous because I do not wait and reflect that God commanded me to love Him and that it was my duty to do so?

a     My intention must terminate on the good of others and not on the law that requires me to will it.  When I will what is in God’s best interest, I will the right end, and this willing is virtue whether I think about it or not.  If someone says that I can will that end for a wrong reason, and, therefore willing it is not virtue; if someone says that unless I will it because I intend to obey the moral law or God, it is not virtue; I answer that this objection is absurd.  I cannot will the good of God and of my neighbor as an ultimate end for a wrong reason.  The reason for the choice and the end I choose is identical, so that if I will the good of others as an ultimate end I will it for the right reason.

b     We cannot will God’s good as an end because of His authority.  This makes His authority the end chosen.  Therefore, to will anything simply because God requires it, is to will God’s requirement as an ultimate end.  Therefore, I cannot love God with any acceptable love simply because He commands it.  God never wanted to make His creatures love Him or make them will His good by commanding them to do so.

24     Obedience to the moral law does not imply that we should treat all interests that are of equal importance according to their importance.  For example, the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:19), cannot mean that I must take equal care of my own soul, and the soul of every other human being.  That’s impossible.  Nor does it mean that I should take the same care and oversight of all the families of the earth as I would my own.  Nor that I should equally divide what little property, time, or talent I have, among all mankind.  This is:

a     Impossible.

b     Not economical for the universe.

c      More good will result if each individual would give his attention to promoting those interests that are within his reach, and that are so under his influence, because he is in a better position to promote those interests.  Every interest must be prized according to its relative importance; but our efforts to promote particular interests should depend on our relationship and our ability to promote them.  We may be under no obligation to promote certain interests of great importance mainly because we don’t have the ability to promote them, while we may be under an obligation to promote interests of much less importance because we are able to promote them.  We must aim at promoting those interests that we can most surely and extensively promote, but always in a way that will not interfere with others who are promoting other interests according to their relative importance.  Every man must promote his own salvation (Phil 2:12) and the salvation of his family (Acts 16:30-34), not because they belong to self, but because they are important in themselves and because they are particularly committed to him as being directly within his reach.  This is a principle everywhere assumed in the government of God.  I want you to remember this as we proceed in our investigations, because it will not only prevent misunderstandings, but it will also avoid unnecessary repetition later on.  The true intent and meaning of the moral law is we will esteem every interest or good known to a moral being according to its importance.  In our efforts to promote good, we must aim at securing the greatest practical amount of good, and to concentrate our efforts where, as it appears from our circumstances and relationships, we can accomplish the greatest good.  Ordinarily, we can only do this by promoting those particular interests, which are most within the reach of our influence.