Review of Wellcome and Goud.
By John H. Waggoner
THOUGH there are many covenants of agreement or promise noticed in the Scriptures, we find only one “covenant commanded,” and this even “to a thousand generations.” 1 Chron. 16:15. This period is surely not expired. And that this commanded covenant is the ten commandments, is proved by the fact that it was “confirmed to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant.” Verse 17. I do not see how it is possible for any one to read the book of Messrs. Wellcome and Goud without observing their contradiction, not only of the Scriptures, but of themselves, on the subject of the covenants, and I am forced to believe that many have recommended their book, not because they can reconcile its statements, nor because they can indorse all its assertions, but because they are anxious to have the conclusions at which it aims, sustained. On this subject they say: “But the above-named class of objectors claim that because the law of the Aaronic priesthood was given at Sinai, therefore it is the first covenant, and of which Paul treats in Heb. 8:6, 8. We deny that any covenant was made with the Aaronic priesthood at Sinai. The above claim proceeds upon the principle that because a covenant is a law, therefore all laws are covenants. . . . In support of the above singular claim, a text is often quoted from Num. 25:12, 13.” Page 44. And again on the same subject. “Here we will digress from our point for a time, to meet an objection often raised against this position by the class of teachers above referred to: viz., that there were two covenants made on Mount Sinai; one of ten commandments, and another concerning the Levitical priesthood; that they are entirely separate; and that while the latter is disannulled, the former is yet in full force on believers. The strenuous efforts of seventh-day teachers to make this statement appear true have so confused the minds of many honest persons that they fail to see, or, if they see, do not appreciate, the true relation of the priesthood to the covenant. The above claim, if admitted, would prove fatal both to the law and priesthood, and to the hope of the people, so far as they (the people) are concerned. But Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews and Galatians, places this subject in such a light that those teachers are fully aware that if the aforesaid idea fails, their seventh-day theory falls to the ground. Hence they claim that the covenant of ten commandments says nothing about priesthood, ordinances, or sacrifices.” Page 46. There are some very singular statements in the above quotations, and when I read these pages I could but think they contained evidence of great blindness or great deception on the part of the writers. 1. They deny “that because a covenant is a law therefore all laws are covenants.” All laws are, indeed, covenants, but all covenants are not laws. A covenant may be a promise, merely, as that to Noah. But Greenfield says a covenant is “a body of laws or precepts;” though this is not its first or ordinary meaning. The assumption put forth in this book is the reverse of the truth, or the true distinction is inverted, and their conclusions are erroneous. 2. We do not, as a “class of objectors,” hold that “the covenant of the priesthood” was the first covenant; nor is Num. 25:12, 13 often quoted by us to sustain such a claim. This assertion of Messrs. Wellcome and Goud is without foundation. In a tract on “The Two Laws and Two Covenants,” by Moses Hull, this text is quoted and referred to in such a manner as to give the reader to understand that he held such a view; but beside this I know of no author among Seventh-day Adventists who ever put forth such a claim. On the contrary, I always objected to that, as well as to other positions taken by Mr. Hull, and I know of others among us who likewise objected to the same, in whose judgment I have more confidence than I have in my own. And my objections were frankly stated to Mr. Hull at the time his tract was published. If any have been so easily misled as to follow him in that position, it is a matter of regret. That its publication by any one gives our opponents an opportunity to make capital against us, must be admitted. But that we as a “class” ever placed any reliance on that position, is not true. They who are acquainted with our writings, know that I speak correctly on this subject. 3. It is not true that we as a people attach any importance to that idea, or that we “are fully aware” or believe, that if that position fails our theory falls to the ground. If they understand our “theory” as they pretend, they will know that “that position” has no particular relation to it. 4. I cannot imagine why it is that to admit that claim “would prove fatal both to the law and the priesthood, and to the hope of the people, so far as they (the people) are concerned.” If the first covenant was the “covenant of the priesthood,” it would still be true that that covenant could pass away without abolishing the law. And the assertion that it would “prove fatal to the hope of the people, so far as they (the people) are concerned,” seems to prove conclusively that Messrs. Wellcome and Goud wanted to say something on the subject without having any clear idea of what it should be! 5. We still affirm that the “ten commandments say nothing about priesthood, ordinances, or sacrifices.” And we have the Scriptures to sustain us in the affirmation. In Ex. 19:5, the condition of obeying the voice of God has undoubted reference to obeying that which God spake with his voice, viz.: the ten commandments. See Deut. 4:12, 13. Also in Jer. 11:1–4, the Lord refers to the words of the covenant which he commanded to their fathers, saying, “Obey my voice, and do them;” that is, the words which his voice proclaimed, and in Jer. 7:22, he says: “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice.” Therefore obeying God’s voice, or doing what God’s voice uttered—the ten commandments—was not necessarily connected with the system of offerings or sacrifices. And our authors themselves have acknowledged the same thing, by saying if that law had not been broken, there would have been no sin; and if no sin, of course, no priesthood nor sacrifices. The transgression of that law created the necessity for sacrifices, therefore that law must have existed before the sacrifices. And if it once existed without that system of sacrifices, why might it not again? They have offered no reason why it might not. But if they still wish to contest the point, we invite them to settle it by pointing to the place in the ten commandments where they do speak of priesthood or sacrifices. “An agreement or covenant was made between the Father and Son from the foundation of the world, that Christ should come in the flesh (see 2 John 7), fulfill the law (Matt. 5:18), suffer, the just for the unjust (1 Pet. 3:18), and thereby redeem Adam, and18in him, the race from death, and the earth from the curse, and place him on a second probation under a law (of faith in Christ), (Gal. 3:13; 1 Cor. 9:21), which when broken could only give life on repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and whose penalty is the second death. Rev. 21:8.” Page 106. Messrs. Wellcome and Goud have a most singular system of theology, if crude ideas thrown together without form or connection can be called a system. 1. What can be the difference between “faith in Christ,” and “the law of faith in Christ?” Just what distinction the authors design to make is more than I can imagine. The law of faith, when broken, can only give life through faith! Lucid, is it not? 2. The opposers of the law of God have never failed to revile it, because it cursed the transgressor; for which we honor it, because it shows that the law is opposed to wrong. But on their own ground, what must they think of the gospel! The law, they say, inflicted only temporal death, while the penalty of the gospel is eternal death. Well, the law would not curse the obedient; will the gospel save the disobedient? There is room for some thought here on the part of the opposers of the law. 3. We have never learned from the Scriptures that sin is the transgression of the gospel! An inspired writer in the New Testament says “sin is the transgression of the law;” another says, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” These two texts contain the same idea and express the same fact; and that “the law” therein refers to the ten commandments, and not to the gospel, is proved in that it is a law which will not justify, but only condemns; and our authors have so applied it in another place, by referring Paul’s expressions in Rom. 3 to the ten commandments. And again they said the same thing when they referred to that law and said, The law gives the knowledge of man’s sinful, lost condition, and all the race are proved sinners by it. Why not be consistent with the Scriptures, and even with their own previous declaration? Because, as has been said, error cannot follow a straight line. Why not recognize the evident relation between the law and the gospel? the one condemning sin, the other saving from sin by taking away the carnal mind, and bringing back the rebel to subjection to the law. The gospel does not contain the penalty of death; it is good news; it will avert the penalty of the law if we faithfully embrace it. But if we reject the gospel (or pardon), the law is allowed to take its course and to enforce its penalty; for “the wages of sin is death,” and “sin is the transgression of the law.” They who are yet transgressing, if they do not wish to receive the wages, had better cease from the service, and repent toward God by ceasing to transgress his law, and have faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of past transgression. OFFERINGS AND THE SANCTUARY.
On the relation of type and antitype they make the following remarks: “To this view all the law types of the atonement agree: the body—the flesh—serves as food for the physical system, or to burn upon the altar; it was never carried into the holy of holies; they pointed only to the resurrection of the physical body, the resuscitation of the race, and the lost inheritance. But not so with the blood, as we shall show in its proper place.” Page 113. “In all the above passages of Scripture, the Saviour is presented in his official character as high priest, in Heaven itself (the antitype of the holiest of all on earth), officiating with his own blood; for it is said, ‘If he were on earth he should not be a priest;’ and here we repeat that priests never carried the body of the victim sacrificed into the holy of holies; it was left in the outer court to be used as food, or burned on the altar, while the blood was offered by the high priest in the holiest of all, to obtain forgiveness. Page 136. The assertion that the bodies, or flesh, of the offerings, were not carried into the holy of holies, or most holy place, is true, and would not require a notice were it not that the inference is designed to be conveyed that they were taken into the holy. But what is true of the most holy is also true of the holy in this respect. The body or flesh was never taken into the sanctuary at all, neither into the holy or most holy; while the blood was sprinkled in both, with this difference, that into the most holy it was only taken on the tenth day of the seventh month—the day of atonement. I notice this because an effort is made by that “class of teachers” to distinguish between “the sanctuary,” and the “holy of holies.” But they admit that the blood was taken by the high priest into the most holy place for sin; and Paul says in Heb. 13:11, that the “blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin.” Where, then, do they obtain the distinction between the sanctuary and the most holy place? Again, they assert that “Heaven itself” is the antitype of the “holiest of all” on earth. By this they would be understood that the antitype of the sanctuary, or holy, is not in Heaven. Notice a few facts on this subject: 1. As above shown, the blood was taken into the sanctuary, both into the holy and most holy; but the bodies were taken into neither. 2. Paul says our high priest, Jesus, is a minister of the sanctuary in Heaven, of which that made by Moses was a pattern. Heb. 9:23. The earthly sanctuary, and not the most holy place alone, was a shadow or example of the heavenly. Heb. 8:1–5. 3. Paul says the HOLY PLACES made with hands are the figures of the true where Christ is gone. This is clear and positive proof that both the holy and the most holy places are figures of the true sanctuary where Christ is gone. Heb. 9:23, 24. 4. The book of Revelation contains statements concerning the position of our high priest in Heaven, which confirm our view. When John was caught up in the Spirit into Heaven, there to receive a view or vision of the opening of the seals and sounding of the trumpets, he described the throne of God and its surroundings, saying, There were seven lamps of fire burning before it. In the pattern or figure of this, the seven lamps of fire (improperly translated candlesticks), were in the holy—not in the most holy. And in the holy, before the door, on the south side of which were set the lamp-stands, the Lord promised to meet the priests of Israel and his glory should be there manifested. See Ex. 29:42, 43. But when the trumpets were all sounded, and under the seventh, John saw the temple of God opened in Heaven where was the ark of his testament. Rev. 11:14–19. This was the most holy place, and only opened on the day of atonement. 5. Though much stress is laid by our opponents on Paul’s words in Heb. 6:19, 20, we find this in perfect harmony with the view we here advocate. This text says that Jesus has entered “within the vail.” On this they assert that the vail divided between the holy and the most holy, and that therefore Jesus entered the most holy, when he ascended to Heaven, and not, as we teach, under the sounding of the seventh trumpet. Their conclusion would be just were there but one vail. But Paul says, Heb. 9:3. “And after THE SECOND VAIL the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all.” Now there cannot be a second without a first; and there cannot be a first and second unless there are two. So their conclusion is groundless, and must so appear unless they can prove that Paul refers to “the second vail” in Heb. 6:19, which they cannot.