Review of Wellcome and Goud.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE NEW COVENANT WAS MADE BY MOSES.
THE OPPOSERS OF THE LAW OF GOD have uniformly denounced us as followers of Moses, and accused us of adhering to the covenant made by Moses, while they have professed to reject all that was taught by Moses, and to listen only to the teachings of Christ. But while we pay a just respect to Moses as a prophet most highly favored of God. (Num. 12: 6–8), and regard him, not as standing opposed to Christ, but by inspiration of God's Spirit testifying of Christ (Deut. 18: 15; John 5: 46, 47), we nevertheless regard him only “as a servant for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after.” Heb. 3: 5. But we consider it no discredit to our names as Christian worshipers of the Most High God, that we obey the words which he has spoken, and keep his commandments, which an inspired writer has said “is the love of God,” (John 5: 3), regarding Jesus, his Son, as “the [only] mediator of the new covenant,” (Heb. 12: 24), and the only means of being free from the carnal mind, and so being brought into subjection to the law of God (compare Rom. 8: 7 with 5: 1). Or, in other words, we do not consider it inconsistent with our Christian profession to unite the keeping of the commandments of God with the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14: 12), and to do the will of the Father as well as to call Jesus, Lord. Matt. 7: 21. But Messrs. Wellcome and Goud have outstripped all parties who have ever written on the covenants, or on the mission of Moses, inasmuch as they have Moses make the new covenant with Israel as well as the old! It is hardly worth while to inquire whether those who recommend this book so highly noted this point, or if they noted it, whether they can indorse it: they indorse the conclusion aimed at in the book, to wit, that the Sabbath law is not binding. And years of observation have taught us that those who aim at that conclusion are not generally at all particular as to the means of reaching it. The idea itself is not more singular and absurd than is their method of proving it. Thus they write: “We have before remarked that there are but two covenants mentioned in the Scriptures as being made with the descendants of Abraham. The first was made with the FATHERS of Israel and Judah when the Lord took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; and was made at Sinai (Horeb). Now, if we can find a covenant made with Israel and Judah, beside the one made with their fathers at Sinai, we shall have found the new covenant; especially if it bears the aforesaid marks of that covenant. We will turn our attention then to Deuteronomy (which name signifies second law); and we find Moses, forty years after the exode from Egypt, (during which they had wandered in the wilderness and received the first covenant from Sinai), lodging by the springs of Pisgah, over against Beth-peor, in Moab. Here he recapitulates to the people their history in the wilderness, and the giving of the first covenant at Horeb (Sinai), together with its statutes and judgments; the fathers to whom that covenant was made being all dead, except Caleb and Joshua, because of their breaking that covenant.” The first error in this quotation is that referring the term “fathers,” in Deut. 1–5, &c., to those who came out of Egypt, as it refers to the patriarchal fathers in every instance of its use. As much depends on this fact, in order to a proper understanding of this point, I will copy the passages where it occurs: “Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and their seed after them.” Chap. 1: 8. “Behold, the Lord thy God hath set the land before thee; go up and possess it as the Lord God of thy fathers hath said unto thee.” Verse 21. “Surely, there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land which I sware to give unto your fathers, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh.” Verses 35, 36. “And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt.” Chap. 4: 37. The same expressions are found in chap. 6: 10, 23, and “thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” are named in verse 10. But as they lay particular stress upon chap. 5: 1–3, I copy their quotation and comment as follows: “The Lord our God made a covenant [the first one] with us in Horeb (Sinai). The Lord made not this covenant [this second one, which I speak in your ears this day] with our fathers [in the wilderness], but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day,” Page 146. A very little consideration, with a becoming freedom from prejudice, must have convinced them that their comment was a perversion of the text. Moses was therein speaking of but one covenant. The “fathers” referred not to those who came out of Egypt, but to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as in the other passages quoted. All of the words of Moses concerning the making of a covenant refer to a single transaction in the past, and not as their comment would make it, to one covenant in the past and one then present. There is an ellipsis in verse 3, which when supplied, at once shows the fallacy of their comment. “The Lord made not this covenant with your fathers, but [the Lord made this covenant] with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” This properly places “this covenant” in the past, and he goes on to say in the next sentence, “The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount, out of the midst of the fire.” That only one covenant is there referred to, is so plain that many words are not necessary to prove it. Again, they err in referring the name Deuteronomy [“second law”] to the new or second covenant. Any one who reads this book of Deuteronomy will see that it is a rehearsal of law given in the past, and not the introduction of another law or system of laws. The name is not derived from the Hebrew, as is well known. Dr. Clark says: “We have borrowed the name of this book, as in former cases from the Vulgate Latin, Deuteronomium, as the Vulgate has done from the Greek version of the Septuagint, Deuteronomion, which is a compound term literally signifying the second law, because it seems to contain a repetition of the preceding laws, from which circumstance it has been termed by the Rabbins, mishneh ha-torah, the iteration or doubling. It appears that both these names are borrowed from chap. 17: 18, where the king is commanded to write him a copy of this law. The original is mishneh ha-torah, a repetition or doubling of the law.” He also says, “In Hebrew, like the preceding books, it takes its name from its commencement, elleh ha-debareem, these are the words.” No one would ever think of making such an application of this name as is made by Messrs. Wellcome and Goud, unless it were to make a plea for a cause which was hard pressed for argument to sustain it. Another reason for saying that Moses made the new or gospel covenant with the Israelites, they draw from Deut. 4: 29–31: “The Lord thy God is a merciful God.” On this they say: “And though now scattered among the nations, as Moses said they should be, yet in this condition he presents to them the doctrine of mercy (Deut. 4: 29–31—a doctrine unknown in the first covenant, as facts had shown).” Page 145. Had I first opened the book at this place, and read the foregoing, I should have been surprised at such a declaration; but a careful reading of the preceding pages had prepared me for any assertion the book might contain, however absurd it might be. Let the42reader bear in mind that by “first covenant” they mean the ten commandments; they then put Deut. 4 in contrast with the commandments, because Deut. 4 contains a recognition of the mercy of God, which the ten commandments do not! Whether they were so ignorant as to believe the statement they made, or whether they intended to presume on the ignorance of their readers I do not care to inquire. But I will quote from the ten commandments: “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Here are introduced justice and mercy: justice against those who hate and disobey God, and mercy toward those who love him and keep his commandments (the ten commandments). And here I remark, though the idea has probably never suggested itself to Messrs. W. and G., that the ten commandments reveal the very elements presented in the gospel. We have found justice and mercy in the above quotation from the law. In Rom. 3: 23–26, the gospel system is fully set forth; Christ a propitiation, that God might be just, and the justifier of the believer in Christ. Now inasmuch as the law is established and not made void through faith, verse 31, the two must harmonize, as has been before shown. The law offers mercy to the loving and obedient, and the gospel secures this mercy while it maintains the justice of the law. But a single reading of Deut. 4, to notice its connections, will show the fallacy of the position of our authors, without any argument. In speaking of this new covenant they say: “In Christ’s sermon on the mount, recorded in Matt. chaps. 5, 6 and 7, we hear him contrasting his commandments of the new law with those of the old, and sums them up as follows: ‘Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.’ Matt. 7: 12.” Here is an idea purely original with these authors: that “the law and the prophets” mean the gospel! Wonder if the same expression in Luke 16: 16, 17, refers to the same thing? Our opponents have so long and so often affirmed that Christ, in Matt. 5, contrasts his commandments with the commandments of the decalogue, that it would be pleasing, if for nothing but the sake of variety, if they would attempt to offer a little proof on the point. When Christ said he came not to destroy but to fulfill the law, he could not have meant the gospel. Matt. 5: 17; and so in verses 18, 19, the law and commandments to be fulfilled, or done and taught, could not refer to the gospel, but to the law of his father. In verses 27–32 he comments on the law of marriage, showing the extent of the law, and the spirit of the institution. I heard Eld. Carr of Maine, who is proverbial for echoing the sentiments of Mr. Wellcome, say that the Saviour in Matt. 5: 28 presented a contrast with the seventh commandment of the decalogue! The commandment says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” A contrast with this would read, Thou shalt commit adultery. The Saviour quotes the commandment, but does he then say that it is abolished, that its force is weakened, or that he has a substitute. No; he first repeats the commandment, and then says it can be broken by the look of the eye and desire of the heart. This truly magnifies the law, and instead of making it void, shows its strictness and the extent of its obligation. He certainly does not intimate that the commandment may now be broken, but he does show the purity of its morality, in that it reaches to “thoughts and intents of the heart.” And I would ask our authors and their associates in such teachings, If it be wrong—if it be adultery, to look upon a woman with lustful desires, by what is that wrong shown, or that action forbidden, if not by the commandment which says, Thou shalt not commit adultery? Where, then, is the contrast, of which you speak? And it will be noticed, that the Saviour does not directly say that it is wrong thus to look upon a woman, nor does he forbid it. But he does say that it is adultery, and thus rests it entirely upon the authority of the commandment which forbids adultery. And so, as Paul says, instead of making void the law, he establishes it. The Saviour did present a contrast between his teachings and the “sayings” of “them of old time,” and even many of the forms of their ceremonial and civil law, because these were temporary, and to cease at his cross. But he never contrasted his teachings with the ten commandments, nor with any of them, nor with any principle directly growing out of them: but he invariably vindicated them, both in his life and teachings. And if the opposers of God’s holy, just, and good law, still persist in recommending a contrast of the ten commandments I hope in charity that their lives may prove better than their teachings.