A QUESTION by J. H. W.

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 28, 1868

A QUESTION.

By J. H. W.

BRO. WAGGONER: Will you please show the harmony between the following-named scriptures, which speak of the covenants: Heb. viii, 7–12; Jer. xxxi, 31–34, compared with Deut. v, 2, 3; 1 Kings viii, 21, and Deut. iv, 13? In these scriptures different facts are stated, as follows: Deut. iv, 13, says that the ten commandments are God's covenant; Deut. v, 2, 3, says that God made not this covenant with the patriarchal fathers; 1 Kings viii, 21, declares that the ten commandments is the covenant that God made with his people when he brought them out of Egypt; and Heb. viii, 7–12, resting on the prophecy of Jer. xxxi, 31–34, says that a new covenant is to be made. Do not all of these texts speak of the ten-commandment covenant; and is not the idea of there being a covenant in Ex. xix, and of its being referred to afterward in the Scriptures, rather fanciful and far-fetched?

E. N. N.

REPLY.

That your difficulty lies in a misapprehension of some of the above texts is very evident from your remarks. Let us first notice that, and then see if there is any want of harmony. And I must here say that I think most of the misapprehension that exists on this subject arises from the practice of taking the word “covenant,” in a certain text, and then applying indiscriminately what is said any or everywhere about a covenant, to that text. That there are intricacies in this subject, as well as in most others, I freely admit, but much apparent difficulty will be removed if we discriminate between the different covenants, and exercise due care in the application of facts.

1. It is true that the ten commandments are called God's covenant, but they are not the only covenant mentioned in these texts. And we sometimes find two different covenants brought together in the context or even in the same verse, as in 2 Kings xxiii, 3: “And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and with all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant,” i. e., which he made with them. Hilkiah, the priest, had found the book in the house of the Lord, and Huldah, the prophetess, had told them of all the evil the Lord would bring upon the people and the land because they had departed from the words of the book that had been deposited in the temple, and so long neglected. Therefore the king made a covenant (agreement) which the people stood to, to perform the words of the covenant written in the book (condition or obligation). Now we find similar facts and the same relations brought to view in Ex. xix, 5–8. Then a covenant (agreement) was entered into by the people, to keep the covenant (commandments) which the Lord soon afterward uttered with his voice, and wrote on the tables of stone. And again both of these covenants, namely, that of agreement, Ex. xix, 5–8, and that of obligation, Ex. xx, 3–17, are brought to view in Deut. v. The covenant of commandments is substantially repeated in verses 7–21, and this is referred to in verse 4: “The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.” In verse 5, a parenthetical remark is thrown in which explains the meaning of the speaker in regard to something previously spoken. Let it be noticed that there are two classes of facts presented in Deut. v, 2–5, and these are so well identified by other scriptures that with a little care we can hardly err in their application. We will take first the fact stated in verse 4. “The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.” This will not apply to the covenant or agreement made in Ex. xix, 5–8, for such was not the fact then; but it will apply to the covenant spoken of in Deut. iv, 12, 13, found in Ex. xx, 3–17, for the Lord did speak directly to them when that covenant was given.

Now we take another fact stated in verse 5. “I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount.” This, to the contrary, will not apply to the covenant of Deut. iv, 12, 13; Ex. xx, 3–17, for that was spoken to the people directly, “face to face” (verse 4), and they all heard his voice. But it does exactly apply to the covenant of Ex. xix, 5–8, for Moses did stand between the Lord and the people when that covenant was made; compare verses 3, 7, 8; and also between them in all matters pertaining to that covenant, its rites, offerings, &c., after the ten commandments were spoken. See Ex. xx, 18 and onward. From this it is evident that Deut. v, 5, parenthetical and explanatory of the previous remarks, clearly distinguishes between the covenants of verses 2, 3, and of verse 4; as it applies directly to verses 2, 3, but cannot be applied to verse 4. I cannot see how the above arrangement of facts can possibly be denied; and if not, there remains no difficulty in Ex. xix, and Deut. v.

2. I think you are quite mistaken when you say 1 Kings viii, 21, “declares that the ten commandments is the covenant that God made with his people when he brought them out of Egypt.” You infer that, but no such statement is there made. The verse is as follows: “And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.”

You seem to think that the expression, “wherein is the covenant,” &c., refers to “the ark.” I think it refers to the “place for the ark.” And I think you must be mistaken for the following very good reason: the covenant made with them when the Lord brought them out of Egypt was put “in the place”—the most holy—where the ark was put; but it was not put in the ark. The distinction between “the covenant made with them” and the “covenant commanded” to them, is too clearly defined to be mistaken; but verse 8 says there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone—the ten commandments. The covenant made with them was put in the “place” appointed or “set” for the ark, and not in the ark itself, as the language of Scripture proves. Thus it was said to Moses, “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” Deut. xxxi, 26. This book was written by Moses, see verse 24, and contained all the matter which the Lord had spoken to them through Moses.

Dr. Clarke says it was put “beside” the ark—not in the ark as might be inferred from the expression—“in the side of the ark.” Bernard's Bible says “by the side,” and so also Matthew Henry. By the aid of the Concordance to the Hebrew, we learn that the word tzad, here rendered “in the side,” is used in the following texts: Josh. iii, 16: “from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan;” chap. xii, 9: “Ai, which is beside Bethel;” Ruth ii, 14: “And she sat beside the reapers;” 1 Sam. vi, 8: “In a coffer by the side thereof;” Chap. xx, 25: “And Abner sat by Saul's side,” &c. All this shows that it was put beside the ark—in the place set for the ark—and Deut. xxxi, 26, would have been correctly so rendered.

A few words in regard to the contents of “the book” may not be out of place. The Lord made a specific agreement with the children of Israel, Ex. xix, 5–8, by the mediation of Moses. After the ten commandments were spoken, instruction through Moses was resumed, and all the special duties pertaining to that covenant were so given. By Deut. xxix, 1, we learn that certain things were given to them in the land of Moab, “beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.” All these things were written in the book, together with the ten commandments, which were copied from the tables of stone. The expression, “tables of the covenant,” has reference to the commandments, for the tables contained nothing else. But “the book of the covenant” has reference to the covenant made with them, in distinction from that on tables of stone. True, the book contained a copy of that on the tables, and has so much in common with them; but it contained also all the words given through Moses, which the tables did not. Therefore “the book” might with propriety be taken to represent that which

was peculiar to itself, to wit, the covenant made with them.

It only remains now to be seen to which of the covenants brought to view in the scriptures already noticed, Jer. xxxi, 31–34, and Heb. viii, 6–12, refers. It is evident that we learn nothing at all from the mere word “covenant,” for there are many covenants spoken of in the Scriptures; they must be identified by their characteristics, or the facts presented in reference to them. Paul says the Lord found “fault with them” for not continuing in the covenant; for that reason it became a nullity, and another became necessary. The contrast which the apostle draws may be readily seen by the following:

Ex. xix. If ye will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant. —Then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto me. Heb. viii. They continued not in my covenant. —I regarded them not saith the Lord.

Also that the new covenant was to be established on “better promises,” see as follows:

Ex. If ye will keep my covenant, (i. e. if ye will not sin.) Heb. Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Now a covenant or agreement is nullified by the failure of one party. But a “law” is not affected in its nature or validity by any failure to comply with its requirements. Nor do we need a law to be changed or abolished because it is broken; the requirement of justice is that it be vindicated and enforced. And this is done in the case of the law of God: it is honored and vindicated in Christ through whose death, for the violation of the law, God can be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. All this shows that the contrast in Jeremiah and Hebrews is with the covenant made in Ex. xix, 5–8, and not with that spoken in Ex. xx.

Again, when the covenant of Ex. xix was made, it was based on a condition, to wit.: the law which the Lord should speak with his voice—the covenant of ten commandments. It was a covenant based on another covenant; presenting exactly the same relation we find in 2 Kings xxiii, 3. And all the rites and offerings given to them through Moses, belonging to that covenant, depended upon the law for their basis—their use or necessity arising out of the relation the people sustained to the law. So also the new covenant was to have “law” as its condition, this to be written on the heart. Some are so blind or prejudiced—I must refer it to one of these—as to say this was a better law than that of the first covenant. The apostle says it is established on “better promises;” but does not even hint about a better law. Indeed, when the Scriptures inform us that that was holy, perfect, and contained the whole duty of man, we cannot imagine why a better was required, or how it could be given. But “better promises” were needed, because the promises of the first did not embrace forgiveness of sin; they were for obedience only. Jeremiah himself, by whom this promise was made 600 years before the new covenant was introduced, had clearly shown the difference between the law of God and those things pertaining to the old covenant made with Israel; and the relation they sustained to each other, in that a rejection of the law rendered worthless all their worship and offerings. See Jer. vi, 19, 20; vii, 22, 23.

This argument might be strengthened, if necessary, by examining those texts which speak of the law and prove its perpetuity, because as its perpetuity is shown, all inferences that it was the first covenant which passed away, are at once seen to be worthless. But as these remarks were designed to answer your questions directly, and on that point only, I close by expressing my firm belief that the “idea of there being a covenant in Ex. xix,” is neither “fanciful” nor “far-fetched,” but a legitimate and unavoidable conclusion from facts plainly set forth in the Scriptures. That there was an “agreement” made there, none will deny. But that is one of the meanings of the word covenant; therefore that a covenant is given in Ex. xix, is beyond the possibility of denial. J. H. W.