p. 4 | “The Testator” Error

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 31, 1907

“The Testator” Error

THE covenant of grace has been of force since the gospel was first preached in Eden. The promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent comprehended the whole plan for the salvation of those who would believe on him who was God manifest in the flesh; and faith in him before the Word became flesh brought just as complete salvation from sin to Abel, Abraham, Enoch, and all other believers of the olden time as to Paul, John, James, and the long roll of worthies since their time.

The first advent and the death of Christ did not open up a new way of salvation or introduce any new gospel principles. There was a development of the old truths, but they were not set aside. There was a change in gospel ordinances, by virtue of which the typical services pointing to a coming Redeemer were superseded by such as kept in mind the great fact that the Son of God had actually been manifested according to the promise, and that faith should now lay hold upon a crucified, but risen and ascended, Saviour. By the death of Christ the covenant of promise, already made valid by the oath of God, was ratified by the blood of the all-sufficient offering, but no new conditions were introduced into the covenant.

It becomes necessary to call attention again and again to these simple facts because of the widespread and constantly fostered idea that some fundamental change in the plan of salvation was effected by the life and death of Christ. As a sample of this kind of teaching, and to show how one error grows out of another, we will quote the following from the sermon of a revivalist in Kansas, as reported in a local paper:—

I said and maintain that Christ lived under, and observed to the letter, the Mosaic law; the new testament could not exist until the death of the testator; Christ came to fulfil the law, and it was not fulfilled until his death. A man makes a will, codicil, testament, or covenant, as you may choose to call it, and it is not until after his death that his executors or administrators begin the execution of the will, and the disposition of the estate can possibly be made legally; that the demands by that testament may be executed. Therefore the new testament, fulfilled by the shedding of the blood of Christ, was not in effect until his death. This question also brings in the observance of the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day. The Mosaic Sabbath was Saturday, and was commanded by the Jewish law; it was compulsory. The Lord’s death fulfilled, or completed, the law. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a command that Christians observe the Sabbath. The Lord’s day was not commanded, but was established by the Christians’ love for Christ. He arose on the first day of the week; the three thousand were added on Pentecost,—the Lord’s day,—and it was thus that the Lord’s day was established from a pure motive of love.

Here we have a strange mixture of unfounded and illogical assertions — declarations which could not be made by a thoughtful student of the Scriptures, and which never would be made by any one if it did not seem to be necessary to provide some sort of an excuse for keeping Sunday instead of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Note the unsupported statements which are so utterly contrary to sound doctrine: there was no new covenant until the death of Christ; Christ fulfilled the law by his death; Christ was the testator whose will became effective after his death; there was no Sabbath commandment in the will, or new testament; therefore there is no Sabbath in the new covenant, but Christians, through the pure motive of love, have established a day to take its place.

The first fundamental error in this combination of errors is the assumption that the new covenant was a testament, or will, of which Christ was the testator, and which therefore became of force at his death. This interpretation of the meaning of “covenant” is not sustained by the real teaching of the Scriptures, and can not be applied in the various places where the covenant is considered. The truth of this last statement can easily be demonstrated by attempting to substitute “will” for “covenant” throughout the New Testament. This matter is quite fully considered in another article in this department, with the title “Covenant or Testament?” and therefore does not need to be discussed further here.

The second fundamental error in this preacher’s teaching is that “the Lord’s death fulfilled, or completed, the law,” meaning thereby that the death of Christ abolished the law. It was the work of Christ to magnify the law and to make it honorable both in his life and in his death, and to make it possible for all who believe in him to establish the law in their hearts by faith; but he did not make it void, neither did he teach his followers to do so. He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law.” The death of Christ was the most weighty evidence possible of the eternal nature of the law of God. If that law could have been changed or abolished, Christ need not have died.

In asserting that the Lord’s day “was established by the Christians’ love for Christ” this teacher shows plainly that he is not conversant with early church history, and so does not know how this rival sabbath really came to be observed; and in assuming that Pentecost came on Sunday he goes contrary to some weighty evidence, although it does not make the least difference in deciding which day is the Sabbath whether Pentecost came on the seventh day or the first day. The Sabbath does not rest upon unwarranted inferences drawn from uncertain historical data. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.”

What a pity that professed representatives of Christ should so misrepresent him and his work!