Hear Ye Him by Roswell F. Cottrell

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 5, 1865

“Hear Ye Him.”

By Roswell F. Cottrell

THUS said the voice from Heaven, concerning the beloved Son of God, on the mount of transfiguration. To this every true Christian will respond, Amen.

But the text is often quoted for the purpose of setting aside a part of the law of the Father—the only law ever given to men in the handwriting of Jehovah.

It is claimed that Christ did not re-enact the Sabbath law, therefore this commandment is not now binding. We admit that he did not re-enact this commandment; and it was for the same reason that he did not re-enact any other one of the ten, i. e., not one of them was ever abolished, and therefore they needed no re-enactment to make them obligatory upon us.

We are willing to hear the Son of God upon the very point in dispute—whether he came to subvert the existing law of God, or to ratify it, whether this law was limited, or perpetual. He testifies upon this point. "Hear him:" "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven." Matt. v, 17-19. Thus we see he confirms the entire law existing at that time—the ten commandments—and shows its perpetuity, not only by saying, "Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," but by requiring every person, in all the unlimited future, to do its commandments, as a test of their admission into the kingdom of Heaven. See Matt. v, 20. We say to all, Hear him; and hear him upon the very point at issue.

A few weeks since, I heard a man discoursing from our text to a congregation, and he made this assertion: "If we are to hear him, we are not to hear Moses, or any one else." This argument was not infallibly conclusive to my mind. If indeed Moses and Christ disagree and are in opposition to each other, then if we hear the one, we reject the other. But if they are in perfect harmony on the point in question, we need not reject the testimony of either. In the few remarks my friend had to offer, he said we should not build up a theory on "some strange sayings of the prophets," but that we should "hear what the apostles say." Did he mean we should hear the apostles and not hear Christ? No; but Christ and the apostles are in harmony. By hearing one, we do not offend the others.

Now in respect to the ten commandments, Moses and the prophets, Christ and the apostles, are all perfectly agreed. Our speaker himself said, "They do not disagree in any moral duty." Who authorized him to say what part of the "perfect law" of the infinite Law-giver is of moral obligation, and what part is not? Inspiration has never pointed to such a distinction in this law, nor hinted that any such existed.

From the fact that Moses and Elijah were conversing very amicably with the Saviour, concerning the decease of the latter, which was about to take place at Jerusalem, a moment before the voice from Heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him," I infer that they were not at variance with each other. And when we go back to Moses' prophecy of Christ, in Deut. xviii, 15-19, we find him in perfect harmony with the voice from Heaven at the transfiguration—"Unto him ye shall hearken," says Moses. Christ did not come to speak his own words and give us his law to the subversion of the law of his Father. Says the Father, "Whosoever will not hearken to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." Jesus testified the same thing. "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, [already revealed in his law,] he shall know the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jno. vii, 16, 17. So Christ did not come as an independent law-giver, but in this respect was the Prophet, "like unto" Moses—hearing the words at the Father's mouth, and speaking them to the people.

The fact is, the Father, the Son, angels, prophets and apostles, are one in the great work of salvation, and one in their testimony respecting the published will of God, the ten commandments. And he who would put them at variance, to answer his own selfish purposes or prejudices, possesses a character the very reverse of the peacemaker, and, of consequence, cannot claim the promise of being reckoned among the "children of God;" for he would sow discord among brethren, and separate chief friends. The Master is not honored by traducing his servant Moses; neither is the Son exalted by affecting to place him above his Father and his holy law. Jesus might truly say to such, as he said to the Jews: "I honor my Father, and ye do dishonor me."

R. F. COTTRELL.