p. 68 | There Is One Lawgiver by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Feb 27, 1879

"There Is One Lawgiver."

By Editor

WE would not by any means underrate the objections urged against our faith. Though very many of them prove only the strength of prejudice, or how far people may be led from the plain truth of the word of God by tradition, they have all the force of real objections in the minds of those who put them forth, and are therefore entitled to a fair examination.

Many suppose our application of the above text is wrong, because Christ was raised a prophet "like unto" Moses, who was both a lawgiver and mediator; and in the Scriptures we have the phrases, "Law of Moses" and "Law of Christ."

We accept the facts, but insist that they prove the correctness of our application of the text. In the first place, inasmuch as the text is in the New Testament, our opposers should show, if possible, that it may be harmonized with their interpretation. Should they attempt to do this we think they would fail.

There is not in all the Old Testament a law which Moses gave on his own authority. As direct a testimony as the Bible contains is found in John 7:23, which ascribes circumcision to "the law of Moses," and this is an example or illustration of all. Yet the Lord gave circumcision directly to Abraham long before Moses; and in the following manner it was given by, or really through, Moses:—

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying." Lev. 12:1-3.

Then follows the order for circumcision. Inasmuch as all those laws came directly from God, the text of James was strictly true in the time of Moses. Jehovah was the "One Lawgiver," and Moses gave no law except as the instrument through whom the Lord spake to Israel. This being so, a becoming reverence should check the sneering manner of all those who are wont to speak so contemptuously of "the law of Moses."

And the same is true, also, of Christ. He never claimed any independent authority, nor to speak for himself or in his own name. Everything is ascribed to the Father. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." Therefore Jesus said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." "I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear I judge; and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me I speak these things." All is summed up in the following words: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son."

Now as "God cannot deny himself," and "with him is neither variableness nor shadow of turning," he could not send his Son to contradict him, or to speak contrary to the revelation of his own will. The morality of both Testaments must necessarily be the same. A moral precept once proclaimed must ever remain the same until God denies himself, or until with him is variableness.

A mediator has respect, in his work, to moral law; such as God proclaimed with his own voice, and himself declared to be the rule of holiness in life. Instead of mediating for positive laws, they are severally parts of the plan of mediation and redemption. It is manifestly true that if Christ gave a new moral law (the very idea of which is an absurdity), or gave any law on an independent basis, that is, by his own sole authority, he could not mediate in respect to that law, for "a mediator is not a mediator of one."