p. 12 | Editorial by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 14, 1910

Editorial

By Editor

The psalmist said, by inspiration, “O how love I thy law!” and Jesus said, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.”

“Perpetuity of the Law.” — Under this title, Elder J. N. Andrews wrote in the first volume of the REVIEW (January, 1851), replying as follows to the no-law theories of the day:—

Matt. 5:17-19: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law. . . . Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” Rom. 3:31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 7:7: “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” We here inquire how an abolished law could convict a man of transgression? And, further, how the apostle could hold such a struggle with the law as he describes in Romans 7, when that law had ceased to exist? Further, how can the royal law convince men of sins as transgressors, after God has abolished it? See James 2:8-11. A law embodying the moral perfections of the infinite Jehovah, must from its nature be unchangeable and immutable like its author.

The sum of our opponents’ position may be fairly reduced to this proposition: The Jews were the only people amenable to the law of God. Hence we say that our opponents show them to be the only transgressors. For it is clear that those only who have the law can be capable of transgressing it. To carry this point further, we say that not only does this view make the Jews the only sinners, but it would show them to be the only persons redeemed by Christ. For he died to redeem them that were under the law. Gal. 4:5; 3:13. But the question, Who has abolished the law? becomes deeply interesting. . . . There can be but one being in the universe who can be supposed to possess this power; we mean the great “Lawgiver.” James 4. And it would be well for our opponents to show how the Most High can take back a law which is perfect, spiritual, holy, just, and good. How can he abolish a law which says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”? How can he take back the statute which forbids the worship of idols? How can he say to man, I repeal the law which forbids you to take my name in vain? How give men the license to profane the day which he has sanctified as a memorial of himself? Or, which is the substance of the whole matter, How can he abolish the great commandment which says, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”? For on this great commandment hang those precepts which contain our duty to God.

STRANGE, is it not, that in all our history we have had to meet the no-law arguments from professing Christian teachers? It shows that the spirit of “that lawless one” is spreading through Christendom as it is seen that loyalty to the law of God means the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord our God.