p. 1 | Review of Wellcome and Goud by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 2, 1870

Review of Wellcome and Goud.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

“MOSES’ NEW COVENANT.”

A FEW more remarks on the objects and differences of the covenants made by Moses, as presented by the book, may not be out of place. Thus they write:

“Once more from Moses’ new covenant. ‘Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth which the Lord thy God giveth thee forever.’ Deut. 4: 40.” Page 155.

The obligation and promise of this text they present in contrast with the obligation and promises revealed in the ten commandments. But no such contrast nor difference exists.

1. The context forbids it. In all this chapter Moses was rehearsing things in their past experience, especially in connection with the giving of the law on Sinai. In verse 36 he said, “Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he showed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.” He then exhorted them to obey God’s commandments, as quoted, and immediately proceeded to point out the cities of refuge on the east side of Jordan. And the proclamation of God’s mercy, verse 31, as before referred to by them to prove that the new covenant is the subject of this chapter is in the midst of a warning against the violation of the second commandment; and the same offer of mercy is given in that second commandment.

2. The promise of the text, Deut. 4: 40, is the very same that is contained in the fifth commandment. “That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”

3. The objects which they assign to the commandments of the new covenant which they say was made by Moses, are precisely those which the Scriptures ascribe to the commandments which God spake to Israel. Thus they write:

“The commandments of this [new] covenant, are for our life and good. Some of these are: ‘Hear O Israel. The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.’ Deut. 6: 4, 5. ‘Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the Lord.’ Lev. 19: 18.” Page 152.

1. That the new covenant is for our life and good, is true; but that is no evidence that Deut. 6 refers to the new covenant. For in this respect there is no difference between the law and the gospel. Paul says the law was ordained unto life. Rom. 7: 10; and Messrs. W. and G. have affirmed that this refers to the ten commandments. And so Moses said unto the people:

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call Heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” Deut. 30: 15–19.

That this refers to the commandments given at Sinai, cannot be disputed. The blessing of “life and good” was offered to the people who were soon to pass “over Jordan to go to possess” the land; and the commandments for “life and good” were evidently the condition of the covenant made with that people. And again, Moses speaks in the very chapter referred to by them, Deut. 6, in a manner that cannot be mistaken, pointing out the law given to that people who came out of Egypt.

Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee. And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land, which the Lord sware unto thy fathers. To cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as the Lord hath spoken. And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God hath commanded you? Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt: and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand: and the Lord shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes: and he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us. Deut. 6: 17–25.

This law was for “life and good,” because it was “righteousness” to obey it; and this agrees with Paul, who says “the law is spiritual.” Rom. 7: 14. Had they fulfilled the righteousness of that law, it would have been well with them: God would have loved and blessed them. And Jesus came as the mediator of the new covenant, not to make void, but to establish, the law. Rom. 3: 31, and to take away the carnal mind which is not subject to the law, and to thus enable his followers to fulfill the righteousness of the law. Rom. 8: 4–7.

2. They declare that Deuteronomy refers to another law than that given at Sinai, because the matter of the book was spoken nearly forty years after the law was given at Sinai; and then they quote Lev. 19 as a part of that new law, given forty years after, though Lev. 19, was spoken less than one year after they left Egypt, and before they left Sinai! If such a method of proof is accepted, anything may be proved.

Evidence against their assumption may be found on every page of Deuteronomy. In all the passages to which they refer, Moses was assuring them that great benefit would be the result of their keeping God’s commandments; and to affirm that these refer to the new covenant, because a blessing would attend obedience, is to assume that this were not the case in regard to God’s law. But this is contrary to the whole tenor of the Scriptures; contrary to the express declaration of Jehovah, as stated in the covenant made with Israel. Ex. 19: 5–8. On this point the proof is inexhaustible; I only add one testimony from Messrs. Wellcome and Goud. They say:

“If Adam had obeyed the law of God, which he might, and ought to have done, no death would have entered, nor curse blighted, the fair creation of God, which he had pronounced ‘very good.’ Then we, his posterity, in pursuance of that law, would have gained the promised dominion.”

Here is justification, life, and salvation, by the law, as plainly and positively as we have ever stated it. And so we find, that when they refer to the plain, undeniable facts of the sacred record, they take common ground with us; but when they try to evolve their theory, then they deny the facts and contradict all they have before said. Then we find ourselves in conflict with them.

But they may say they do not teach justification by the law now; they only say that man would have been justified by the law if he had never transgressed it. Well, that is exactly our position; we have never taken any other. And that is all we ask to vindicate all that we teach in regard to the law as a rule of moral obligation, containing in itself the principles of justification

and salvation. To carry out these sacred principles, and to save man from further transgression, and free him from the condemnation and death which he had brought upon himself by transgressing the law of God, the Son of God came into the world. His object was, according to one of his inspired followers, “to put away sin.” Not his own, for he had none; he never transgressed the law of his Father. But no one’s sin is “put away” who continues to sin, or transgresses the law. This places before us the true object of the gospel, of which Messrs. Wellcome and Goud have no more than a faint glimpse in their book.

On the subject of the covenants I find the following strange application of Scripture. Referring to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, they say:

“Again he says, ‘For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate [Sarah] hath many more children than she [Hagar] which hath an husband, [Abram]; for Hagar had become Abram’s wife. Gen. 16: 3.’ Page 55.

Their application would be correct if it were a fact that Sarah ceased to be a wife when Abram took Hagar; but such was not the case. Sarah had a husband as well as Hagar. See Gen. 17: 15. “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.” Sarah was the real wife, instead of Hagar, and Abraham was her husband, instead of Hagar’s. And Paul, after using these persons as an allegory, to represent the two covenants, with their corresponding Jerusalems, applies the words of Isaiah to the two Jerusalems; but he does not apply the prophecy to Sarah and Hagar, for it will not apply to them. “Jerusalem which now is,” had been owned and blessed of God; her children were called his children. There is a time, according to the New Testament, when the New Jerusalem is to be taken as “the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” Rev. 21: 9, 10; Matt. 25: 1–3. But before the marriage the Lamb is gathering out from the nations children to present to the New Jerusalem when they are called to the “marriage supper.” Compare Rev. 19: 9; Luke 12: 35–37. In this sense believers in Christ are the children of the New Jerusalem. Then, and thus only, can we make an application of the words of Isaiah.

But who are the children of the free woman? They who are themselves free; for the free woman could not have bond children, more than the bond woman could have free children. But what is the freedom of the gospel? They teach that it is freedom to transgress the law. I think it is freedom from sin. See Rom. 6: 6, 7. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.” The bondage, they say, is obligation to keep God’s commandments; I think it is a state of sin, which is transgression of the law. On page 358 they say that Paul calls it “a law of bondage;” but Paul never says any such thing; it is “false witness” against the inspired writer. Paul said it would justify man if he had kept it, and Messrs. Wellcome and Goud have said the same thing. Paul said it was spiritual, and was ordained to life, and the carnal mind is not subject to it. Does this sound like calling it “a law of bondage?” Why do they not quote the text where he says so? It does not exist.

But Paul does speak in Gal. 4 of bondage, verse 9. What does he mean? Let us see. 1. When they were in bondage they knew not God. Verse 8. Did they keep his law? 2. They “did service unto them which by nature are no gods.” Did they therefore keep the commandments of the true God? 3. They observed “times.” This, according to Deut. 18: 9–12, and other texts, was a heathen custom, “an abomination to the Lord.” Does this indicate their obedience to the law of God, which is holy, just, and good? of which he told his people if they kept it they would be a “holy nation?” Ex. 19: 5, 6. 4. When released from bondage, they were redeemed from the curse of the law.” Gal. 3: 13. If they had kept the law they would never have been under its curse; and if the law were abolished they would not be redeemed from the curse of the law, for no such thing would then exist from which to redeem them. And 5. They had to be redeemed from the curse of the law that the blessing of Abraham might come on them, (Gentiles). This shows that transgression of the law, which alone brings the curse, shuts us out from the blessing of Abraham. Does this indicate that it is a law of bondage? does it not rather show that bondage is by sin or transgression? They are the seed of the bond woman who persist in transgression, who chose to remain under its condemnation, rather than to have the carnal mind removed by Jesus Christ in order that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in them. Rom. 7 and 8. It is humiliating to see professed teachers of the gospel of Christ who draw their conclusions with no more discrimination than the ox draws his load. It is heart-sickening to see multitudes hang upon their words as if they were the words of life, notwithstanding they destroy the force of God’s law which is holy, just, and good, and spiritual, by which every work will be judged. They put evil for good, and darkness for light, teaching that obedience to God’s commandments is bondage, and transgression of law, which is sin, is the only way of gospel liberty! May God save the people from such an awful delusion, and deliver them from the hands of blind leaders.

(To be continued.)