THE TWO COVENANTS by Uriah Smith

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · May 9, 1878

THE TWO COVENANTS.

By Uriah Smith

"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." Heb. 8:8.

The subject of this text is the new covenant. This new covenant is called in the preceding verse, the second covenant. But a new implies an old, and a second implies a first. Two covenants are thus singled out in the word of God, as standing in this relation to each other: the one called the first, or old, covenant; the other called the second, or new, covenant. Why are two covenants thus coupled together, and made so prominent in the Sacred Scriptures? It is because these relate particularly to that great work, the redemption of a lost race, for the furtherance of which, even the Scriptures themselves are given, which have consequently received the names of the Old and New Testaments. This is shown in the fact, that the new covenant is designed to bring all those who avail themselves of its proffered blessings into such a relation to God that their sins and iniquities will be remembered no more; which can be accomplished only by redemption. The conclusion is therefore clear, that these two covenants embody two grand divisions of the work which Heaven has undertaken for human redemption, and cover two especial dispensations devoted to the development of this work.

The subject of the covenants is one in which every person has reason to feel the most lively interest; for it embraces the whole question of our relation to God in this world, and of all our hope for the future. There is no evil which, through Christ, we hope to escape, from which we are not guarded by these covenants which God has so graciously condescended to make with his people, and no good which we hope to obtain, which is not embraced in, and secured to us, by them.

Paul, in Ephesians 2:11, 12, sets forth the condition of those who do not place themselves within the provisions of the covenants: "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

This presents in a startling light the condition of every unconverted man; and a more utterly wretched and abject condition it would be difficult to describe. No Christ, no hope, no God! Such is the condition of him who is a stranger from these covenants of promise. It becomes therefore a matter of infinite moment to ascertain what the new covenant is, upon what conditions its blessings are suspended; and what we are to do, in order to become partakers of its benefits.

In addition to this general statement, we may remark that the subject of the covenants is becoming a theme of particular interest to Seventh-day Adventists at the present time, because it is just now considered a favorite point of attack by some of those who oppose the doctrine of the perpetuity of the ten commandments, and the still binding obligation of the original Sabbath. Having exhausted every other source of theoretical opposition to the Sabbath in their futile efforts to overthrow it, they now claim that in the doctrine of the covenants they find conclusive evidence that the ten commandments have been superseded by something better, and that the seventh-day Sabbath, at least, has consequently come to an end.

It is more particularly with reference to this phase of the question that the present examination will proceed. We will therefore fairly state, and then candidly examine, these claims of our opponents.

Briefly stated, then, their claim is this: That the ten commandments constituted the first or old covenant; that that covenant was faulty and has been done away; which is simply to say, in other words, that the ten commandment law was imperfect, and has been all abolished, the Sabbath with the rest.

In proof of this they quote a few texts of Scripture, which to new hearers would seem quite pertinent and positive. Thus, Deut. 4:12, 13: "And the Lord spake unto you, out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

Here, they claim that the ten commandments are plainly called the covenant. Then they turn to Deut. 5:2, 3, to show that this covenant had no previous existence, but was established at Horeb, where Paul also, quoting from the prophet, says that the first covenant was made: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day."

Having found these texts so much to their mind, they turn to 1 Kings 8:21, for a statement to settle forever the controversy: "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." Verse 9 of the same chapter says, "There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb." They ask us what can be plainer. There was nothing in the ark but the two tables of stone, containing the ten commandments; yet Solomon says that in the ark was the covenant which the Lord made with the fathers of his people when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. Therefore those commandments were the covenant. And having established this point, they have only to quote Paul's testimony, that the old covenant has waxed old and vanished away, carrying with them the obnoxious seventh-day Sabbath into their eternal tomb.

Now to one who has not made this matter a subject of study, this seems very plausible. To not familiar with this question, the quotations would seem to be to the point, the reasoning consistent, and the conclusion inevitable, that the ten commandments constituted the old covenant which has been abolished. To such we would say that this cable which our opponents make appear to the uninformed of such strength and fair proportions, does not contain one solitary fiber upon which they can justly hang a single proposition contained in either their claims or their conclusions. This we think we can clearly show.

That the old covenant has been abolished by being superseded by the new, Paul plainly states; of this there is no question. And we affirm further that nothing has been abolished but the old covenant. Whatever has been abolished was included in that covenant, and whatever was not included in that covenant still remains, unaffected by the change from old to new. If the ten commandments constituted the old covenant, then they are forever gone; and no man need contend for their perpetuity or labor for their revival. But if they did not constitute the old covenant, then they have not been abolished, and no man need breathe a doubt in regard to their perpetuity and immutability. This therefore becomes a test question. It determines as definitely as any one subject can, the whole question of the perpetuity or abolition of the moral law.

Can we then tell what did constitute the first, or old, covenant. What does the word, covenant, mean? Webster defines it thus: "A mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, in writing and under seal, to do or to refrain from, some act or thing; a contract; stipulation." This is the primary, leading definition of the word; and in looking for the old covenant, we look for some transaction to which this definition will apply.

We have definite data from which to work. We are told who was the author of the first covenant. It was God. We are told with whom it was made. It was made with Israel. We are told when it was made. It was made with that people when they came out of the land of Egypt. Jer. 31:32; Heb. 8:9. By these circumstances the old covenant is clearly distinguished from the Adamic, the Abrahamic, or any other covenant brought to view in the Bible.

We go back therefore to the history of Israel as they came out of Egypt, and lay down this as a consistent and self-evident principle: That the very first transaction we find taking place between God and the Israelites after they left Egypt, which answers to the definition of the word covenant, must be the first covenant, unless some good reason can be shown why it is not.

Do we find anything of this kind in the experience of that people? Anything which constitutes a formal and mutual agreement between God and themselves, based upon mutual promises? We find one, and only one, transaction of that kind. The record of it commences in Ex. 19:3: "And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say unto the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bear you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people, for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

The briefest glance at this language shows it to be a formal proposition on the part of the Lord to the Israelites. Moses was the minister through whom the negotiation was carried on. Go down, said God to Moses, and make to the people this proposition. If you will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, I will secure you in the possession of certain special blessings above all people. With this instruction Moses went down to the people, and God waited for their answer.

Verses 7, 8: "And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord."

Such was the response of the people. They said, "We agree to the terms; we will enter into the arrangement." We now have the two parties before us, and the mutual, voluntary action on the part of each. This is the first transaction of the kind recorded between God and that people. It answers most strictly to the meaning of the word covenant. Therefore we say that this has the primary claim to be considered the old covenant of which Jeremiah prophesied and Paul discoursed. (To be continued.) U. S.