Old and New Testament Saints.
By J. H. W.
“The Old Testament saints, as a general statement, would be New Testament sinners. Some of them, as David, sinned grossly, even in the light of their own dispensation. In that light it was declared by the Lord that the sword should never pass from David’s house; and because he was a “man of blood,” he was not permitted to build the house of the Lord. The effort to justify Old Testament character by the light of the gospel, has a baneful effect, in some cases, both upon minister and hearer.” The above is clipped from the Crisis, a religious paper professing to make a specialty of the gospel, and in its blind zeal for the New Testament often repudiating the Old. We say “often,” repudiating the Old, but not always, for when it finds a text in the Old Testament which it can use to enforce its own views or to strengthen its own theories, it will quote it as readily as anybody; but when it finds therein passages which conflict with its own teachings, it immediately sets them aside because they are in the Old Testament! Convenient, very! The same course is pursued by spiritualists, with the whole Bible. We cannot imagine what can have a more “baneful effect” than such teaching as the above. It is false both in statement and conclusion. Look at the reasoning, “Some of them, as David, sinned grossly, even in the light of their own dispensation.” Well, then they were sinners in the light of their own dispensation, and the light of that dispensation condemned the sin as clearly as does the light of this dispensation. Where is the chance, then, for the conclusion drawn by that paper? Why cannot the editor and his correspondents take another step, and plant themselves with the spiritualists, and repudiate the gospel of eighteen hundred years ago as unworthy of acceptance in this age? Let us use their own argument, as follows:— “The early gospel saints, as a general statement, would be latter-day sinners. Some of them, as Peter, who denied his Lord with cursing, sinned grossly even in the light of their own age.” Follow this up with a glance at the church of Corinth, and draw the conclusion that it has a baneful effect to preach the gospel as taught by Peter and others whose lives were sometimes not above reproach. We know that nobody who has any regard for the Bible, will justify some in Corinth in their fornication, nor Peter in denying his Lord with cursing, nor David in adultery. The question is not, Did they in all things do exactly right? for we know that none have done so in any age, but, 1. Did the truth taught in their age condemn their wrongs? It did; then of course if they had lived up to the light of that age they would not have done the wrong. And 2. Did they repent of the wrong when reproved? They did; take the instance given by the Crisis, David, and we find no other person in all the Scriptures giving such evidence of penitence as he. If deep, heart-felt repentance, and firm abiding faith in God are commendable traits, then we affirm that David stands justly eminent among all the saints of the Bible in both Testaments. Now the truth of that age is vindicated in that it condemned sin; and the character of the individuals are vindicated because they repented of their sins. And what more can be said of the gospel, or of gospel saints? But let us look at the New Testament itself on this subject. In that we are told that Abraham is our father in the faith, provided that we “walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham.” Rom. 4:1, 11, 12. His character was not only commended of God in the Old Testament, but in the New also. No character stands higher in the Bible than that of Moses, much as he is derided by conceited religionists, who have never communed with God, as Moses did. But two of all who ever lived “walked with God” so as to be translated without tasting death, and they were both “Old Testament saints.” Paul who was “not a whit behind the chiefest of the apostles,” and who set forth the gospel doctrine of justification by faith more fully than any other writer, gives us a list of notable examples of faithful ones, all in the Old Testament, “of whom the world was not worthy.” Peter, speaking of the Old Testament prophecies said they were written by “holy men of God [who] spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Pet. 1:21. Not a very large class in this day of gospel light would bear this commendation. And James in his exhortation to those who were looking for the Lord in “the last days,” points them to the prophets as examples. And these indicate the tenor of the New Testament in its expressions respecting the Old Testament and its saints. All will readily understand that the moral law under which they lived is the real point of attack by the Crisis, though David, who was indorsed by Christ and his apostles, called that law “perfect.” Moses would never have been so great an object of contempt if the Lord had not given the Sabbath law from Sinai! The consistency of such opposition to certain “holy men of God” because of opposition to the “perfect” law under which they developed their characters, may not be apparent, but it is such a course as we might expect the “carnal mind” to take to show that “it is not subject to the law of God.” We would suggest to the writers in the Crisis, that if they do indeed believe that “the Judge standeth at the door,” as James says and they profess to believe, they might better prepare to meet the coming Judge if they would heed the exhortation of James, and take these holy men of God as their examples, instead of casting odium on their characters.