Liberty
Letters
December 15, 2004
John Jay, #13
The Moral Law
is Fixed -- and Always Has Been
by Steve Farrell
When your children come home from college this
Christmas, most of them -- if you can pry it out of
them -- will tell you how their Christian beliefs
were assaulted, almost relentlessly, by their
college professors.
Sad to say, some may have already fallen by the
wayside, or worse, become part of the next
generation of anti-Christian 'students' and
'educators.'
One of the 'enlightened' positions I can assure
you your kids have been taught is the Communist
evolutionary answer to faith. Some of you may
believe it yourself, and don't even know it.
Religion, Marx taught, like man, evolved. His
proof? The stark contrast between the cruel, 'eye
for an eye, tooth for a tooth,' Old Testament, Law
of Moses God, and the forgiving, 'love your
neighbor as yourself,' New Testament, Christian
God. Since God is supposedly unchanging, this
proves he doesn't exist.
It's that simple. Or is it?
John Jay, one of the three co-authors of the
Federalist Papers, and the First Chief of
the Supreme Court -- you know, one of the supposed
Deists that founded our country -- has an answer
for Marx and your kid's professors.
The moral law, never changed, only institutions
and ordinances did, and there were reasons, some
manmade, others part of God's plan prior to the
coming of Christ. And as to his supposed previous
cruelness? Well, read on, then think again, and
then share it with your college student children.
It will be some of the best time you ever
invested.
Says Jay,
- The moral or natural law was given by the
Sovereign of the universe to all mankind; with
them it was co-eval, and with them it will be
co-existent. Being founded by infinite wisdom
and goodness on essential right, which never
varies, it can require no amendment or
alteration.
-
- Divine positive ordinance and institutions,
on the other hand, being founded on expediency,
which is not always perpetual or immutable,
admit of, and have received, alteration and
limitation in sundry instances.
-
- There were several Divine positive
ordinances and institution at very early
periods. Some of them were of limited
obligation, as circumcision; others of them were
of universal obligation, as the Sabbath,
marriage, sacrifices, the particular punishment
for murder.
-
- The Lord of the Sabbath caused the
day to be changed. The ordinances of Moses
suffered the Israelites to exercise more than
the original liberty allowed to marriage, but
our Savior repealed the indulgence. When
sacrifice had answered their purpose as types of
the great Sacrifice, etc., they ceased. The
punishment for murder has undergone no
alteration, either by Moses or by Christ.
-
- I advert to this distinction between the
moral law and positive institutions, because it
enables us to distinguish the reasonings which
apply to the one, from those which apply
only to the other -- ordinances being
mutable, but the moral law always the same.
-
- To this you observe, by way of objection,
that the law was given by Moses, but that grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ; and hence that,
even as it relates to the moral law, a
more perfect system is enjoined by the
gospel than was required under the law, which
admitted of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth, tolerating a spirit of retaliation. And
further, that, if the moral law was the same now
that it was before the flood, we must call in
question those precepts of the gospel which
prohibit some things allowed of and practiced by
the patriarchs.
-
- It is true that the law was given by Moses,
not however in his individual or private
capacity, but as the agent or instrument, and by
the authority of the Almighty. The law demanded
exact obedience, and proclaimed: "Cursed is
every one that continueth not in all things
which are written in the book of the law to do
them." The law was inexorable, and by requiring
perfect obedience, under a penalty so
inevitable and dreadful, operated as a
schoolmaster to bring us to Christ for
mercy.
-
- Mercy, and grace, and favour did come by
Jesus Christ; and also that truth which verified
the promises and predictions concerning him, and
which exposed and corrected the various errors
which had been imbibed respecting the Supreme
Being, his attributes, laws, and dispensations.
Uninspired commentators have dishonored the law,
by ascribing to it, in certain cases, a sense
and meaning which it did not authorize, and
which our Saviour rejected and reproved.
-
- The inspired prophets, on the contrary,
express the most exalted ideas of the law. They
declare that the law of the Lord is
perfect; that the statutes of the Lord
are right; and that the commandment of the Lord
is pure; that God would magnify
the law and make it honorable, etc.
-
- Our Saviour himself assures us that he came
not to destroy the law but to fulfill; that
whoever shall do and teach the commandments,
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven;
that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than [one] title of the law to fail.
This certainly amounts to a full approbation of
it. Even after the resurrection of our Lord, and
after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and after
the miraculous conversion of Paul, and after the
direct revelation of the Christian dispensation
to him, he pronounced this memorable encomium on
the law, viz.: 'The law is holy, and the
commandments holy, just, and
good."
-
- It is true that one of the positive
ordinances of Moses, to which you allude, did
ordain retaliation or, in other words, a tooth
for a tooth. But we are to recollect that it was
ordained, not as a rule to regulate the conduct
of private individuals towards each other, but
as a legal penalty or punishment for certain
offenses. Retaliation is also manifest in the
punishment prescribed for murder -- life for
life. Legal punishments are adjusted and
inflicted by the law and magistrate, and not by
unauthorized individuals. These and all other
positive laws or ordinances established by
Divine direction, must of necessity be
consistent with the moral law. It certainly was
not the design of the law or ordinance in
question, to encourage a spirit of personal or
private revenge. On the contrary, there are
express injunctions in the law of Moses which
inculcate a very different spirit; such as
these: 'Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any
grudge against the children of thy people; but
thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' 'Love
the stranger, for ye were strangers in Egypt.'
'If thou meet thy enemy's ox or his ass going
astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him,'
etc., etc.
-
- There is reason to believe that Solomon
understood the law in its true sense, and we
have his opinion as to retaliation of injuries,
viz.: 'Say not, I will recompense evil; but wait
upon the Lord, and He will save thee.' Again:
'Say not, I will do to him as he hath done to
me. I will render to the man according to his
work.' And again: "If thine enemy be hungry,
give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty,
give him water to drink; for thou shalt heap
coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall
reward thee."
-
- But a greater than Solomon has removed all
doubts on this point. On being asked by the
Jewish lawyer which was the great commandment in
the law, our Saviour answered: "Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the
first and the great commandment, and the
second is like unto it: Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
It is manifest, therefore, that the love of God
and the love of man are enjoined by the law; and
as the genuine love of the one comprehends that
of the other, the apostle assures us that "Love
is the fulfilling of the law."
-
- It is, nevertheless, certain, that erroneous
opinions respecting retaliation, and who were to
be regarded as neighbors, had long
prevailed, and that our Savior blamed and
corrected those and many other unfounded
doctrines.
-
- That the patriarchs sometimes violated the
moral law, is a position not to be disputed.
They were men, and subject to the frailties of
our fallen nature. But I do not know nor
believe, that any of them violated the moral by
the authority or with the approbation of the
Almighty. I can find no instance of it in the
Bible. Nor do I know of any action done
according to the moral law, that is censured or
forbidden by the gospel. On the contrary, it
appears to me that the gospel strongly enforces
the moral law, and clears it from the vain
traditions and absurd comments which had
obscured and misapplied certain parts of it.
(1)
Our public education system has been hijacked by
socialists, communists, and secular humanists who
hate America and its founding values -- especially
on the University level -- who would have your
children, first, confused; next, alienated; and
finally, antagonistic toward the faith of their
fathers -- by claiming, in part, that the law of
God has changed.
It is your parental duty to counter them.
Founder John Jay has come to the rescue on this one
point. Use it. Share it. Discuss it.
Footnote
1. Jay, John. "Letter to John Murray, April 15,
1818," as quoted in Cousins, Norman. In God We
Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the
American Founding Fathers, pgs. 366-368.
Farrell
Archive
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|
