ELD. VOGEL’S SEVENTH NEGATIVE.
By Eld. Vogel
There still remain some points to be noticed in Eld. W.’s sixth affirmative. In trying to prove that Ex. 19, rather than 20, contains “the first covenant,” he says that “the first covenant was useless and void, because the people did not fulfill it; and this will apply to an agreement, but will not apply to a law.” (1) The facts, however, are that the first covenant expired by limitation (Gal. 3:19); and this puts a wholly different phase upon the matter. If non-fulfillment on the part of the people was to have been the cause of its termination, then there were frequent and much stronger reasons for its annulment long before Christ’s crucifixion, than at that time. (2) We may call the first covenant an agreement, if we will, yet it was also a law-covenant, for it was “enacted,” or “legislated.” This is by accommodation asserted of the new covenant, and so by implication of the “old.” Christ “is the mediator of the better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” “Was established” (Greek nemotheteetai, rendered “received the law,” in chap. 7:11), is translated by Conybeare, “is enacted,” and by Rotherham, “has been legislated.” Heb. 8:6. In this view of the first covenant, I have with me also the mature judgment of Conybeare, in his note on verse 9—“the covenant which I gave unto their fathers.” “It must be understood,” says he, “that the Greek word does not (like the English covenant) imply reciprocity. It properly means a legal disposition, and would perhaps be better translated dispensation, here. A covenant between two parties is expressed by a different term.” And thus are we irresistibly led to the decalogue as the first covenant. (3) It was owing to the “faultiness” of the first covenant that it was abolished; that is, though it was well adapted to the Jewish age, it was “faulty” for the Christian age. We have already seen that it failed of perfection, when fully kept (Matt. 19:21); and Paul says, “If the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Heb. 8:7. The “finding fault with them,” of the next verse, is altogether too slender a basis for so sweeping a conclusion as Bro. W. makes. He is certainly aware that the Greek construction is just as naturally expressed thus: “But finding fault, he saith unto them;” and this is Macknight’s version. Conybeare fully agrees with Macknight, and translates thus: “Whereas he findeth fault, and saith unto them.” He adds, in a note, “‘findeth fault’ refers to the preceding ‘faultless.’ The pronoun should be joined with ‘saith.’” The expression, “Because [Macknight, when] they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not,” is a brief allusion to the many defections of the Hebrews, and to the punishment from God which followed each estrangement, showing the necessity of having laws written upon the heart, and the “faultiness” of having them written on tables of stone and statute books. What Eld. W. says concerning “the better promises” of the new covenant, has no practical bearing on the question before us. What God, through Jeremiah, calls “my law,” he calls “my laws,” through Paul (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10). To hold that this refers to the ten commandments—no more and no less—is a bare assumption. We will not thus allow Eld. W. to transfer the Sabbath from the tables of stone into the hearts of Christians. I have no wish to deface the least iota of morality taught by the ten commandments; but I wish also to recognize the fact that God has a “law” which went “forth from Zion” (Isa. 2:3), which is “his” as well as that from Sinai. If the two were identical, standing because ordained of old, why was there a new “legislation”? Be it remembered, however, that the new law is one of “liberty.” And this law of liberty, when viewed as of God, may be called “the law of God.” My remarks on Rom. 3:31, concerning the establishment of the entire Mosaic law in its “moral or basic principles,” have been ridiculed because they were misunderstood. I used “basic principles,” not as equivalent to “constitution” but as referring to every moral principle of the Mosaic code, whether in the ten commandments, or in other portions of the law. This attempt at ridicule reminds me of another which I passed by as unworthy of notice, but, for the sake of some, ought perhaps to consider. I can see nothing “crude” in asserting that a man may be perfect and holy, as measured by a given law, whether the law itself be perfect or not. If the law is absolutely perfect, so will be the one obeying it; but if the law be defective, he is nevertheless perfect, as to that law, though imperfect, as measured by another and perfect law. But, says Bro. W., “if we have any means of determining that a law is imperfect, the same means will determine that a character must be imperfect that is conformed to that law.” True; but this is declaring a character imperfect by another law. And before God gave us the perfect standard of the gospel, men had no means of declaring either the Jews or their law imperfect or “faulty.” Eld. W. must pardon me for reiterating the “crude” statement that the Messiahship of Jesus is the constitution of the Christian church. Against the conclusion of all his reasonings and analogies between the priesthood and kingship of Christ, and those of Aaron and David, I place the single declaration, “Upon this rock will I build my church.” That upon which we build is fundamental, organic, constitutional. To argue the present obligation of the ten commandments, as given on Sinai, and hence of the Sabbath, from such passages as Rev. 11:19, and 15:5–8, surprises me. “And the temple of God was opened in Heaven,” would, by the same logic, prove the transfer of the Jewish temple from earth to Heaven, to say nothing of the fact that “the ark of his testament” contained the whole Mosaic code (Deut. 31:26), and so would prove nothing abolished! Then think of “lightnings,” “thunderings,” “great hail,” and of “earthquakes” in Heaven! Shall we next have a philosophy of the cause of these earthquakes? Respecting the antitype of the tabernacle, I must regard Eld. W. as in error, by construing “heavenly,” in Heb. 8:5, as referring to a place rather than descriptive of condition; or, if it must refer to a place, of taking it in too narrow a sense. For 1. The most holy place of both the tabernacle and the temple was, in the narrower sense of the word, a type of Heaven (Heb. 6:19, 20; 9:8, 24), into which our High Priest has entered, not is to enter, at some future time. 2. The holy place was a type of the Christian church. Acts 15:16, 17; 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Tim. 3:15. As the high priest officiates “within the vail,” so the priests officiate in the holy place (Heb. 9:6, 7). Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9), hence the church is the holy place. This might be still further shown from the antitype of the furniture of the holy place, but I forbear, with the remark that if the “candlestick,” or seven-armed lampstand, typifies the Holy Spirit rather than the word of God, he is found in the church. 1 Cor. 3:16. The stress Eld. W. lays on the plural of Heb. 9:24—“holy places”—with the purpose of proving both holy places to be in Heaven, results from insufficient attention to the subject. The Greeks often used the plural where, in English, only the singular is admissible. Thus the same word, and in the plural, too, is rendered sanctuary, in Heb. 8:2; 9:3; 13:11; and holy place, in chap. 9:12, 25. And just as the word “tabernacle” denotes sometimes both holy places, and at others, either one or the other of them (chap. 9:2, 3), so also does ta hagia—“the sanctuary,” or the holies. 3. The cleansing of “the sanctuary” (Dan. 8:14) has reference to affairs on earth, at the destruction of Mahometanism. For as the little horn of Dan. 7 is a symbol of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, so that of chap. 8 is of Mahometanism; this, their respective places of origin, and spheres of influence, prove. Everything in the tabernacle was a type, not excepting the ark and its contents; for as such, or as given on Sinai, the ten commandments were positive. Therefore we conclude again, that to argue from the passages adduced by Eld. W. from Revelation, that by the ark and its contents these things are literally meant, is not only to proceed most arbitrarily, but is also wholly out of character without taking “the temple,” “the smoke,” “the hail,” “the lightning,” “the thunder,” “the earthquake,” &c., &c., as equally literal. This will suffice to show the absurdity of my brother’s interpretation of those passages in Revelation, without taking time to give a true exposition. Besides, it is too near the close of this proposition to enter on such foreign matters. “The covenants and the giving of the law,” of Rom. 9:4, refer to the two or three covenants made with Abraham, “pertaining” to Israel, and to the “giving” to them of the law-covenant. The “us,” to whom the lively oracles (Acts 7:38) were given, were Jews, among whom the circumcised Stephen classifies himself. The oracles were “living,” when given; and if they now (in this dispensation) live, it is in their moral aspect and as “all Scripture is profitable.” The words, commanded to a “thousand generations,” are no stronger than “perpetual” or “everlasting,” predicated of the Aaronic priesthood (Ex. 40:12–15), the Passover and its feast (Ex. 12), circumcision (Gen. 17), the shew-bread (Lev. 24:5–9), and a number of other things; and it is just as credible that the former period has expired as that the latter have. If by “the commandments of God,” in Rev. 14:12, one chooses to understand all the morality God has commanded, I shall not oppose him; but if he means to intimate that the ten commandments are the only commandments of God, or are referred to as given on Sinai, I shall accuse him of begging the essential point. Christ gave commandments of his own. John 14:21; 15:10–14; 1 John 2:3, 4. Christ’s commandments are often called the commandments of God; John 12:49, 50; 14:31; 1 Tim. 1:1; hence, there are commandments of God which are not of the law; see also 1 John 3:21–24; Rom. 16:26; Titus 1:3; and other places. Nearly one half of Eld. W.’s last article is devoted to Hebrew criticisms. Much of what he has to say relates only to one argument of the second proposition, and could be yielded without detriment to the main point at issue between us. Were his “great plainness of speech” to be taken as argument, I should yield the point at once. For the sake of the common reader, I wish to point out such misstatements as he can be judge of, and by these he may know what value to place upon the rest. 1. I said nothing about “re-mention” in connection with the weekly Sabbath. 2. I did not “treat with raillery” his saying that Sabbath means rest, but used the word myself in that sense. 3. My statement about his “holding on” had no reference to his definition of Sabbath, but to his persistency in Hebrew criticisms, dragging the second proposition into the third, in the face of his profession of not thrusting his scholarship before the reader. And I might have added, in the face of his challenge to discuss the use of the Greek article before the word “law.” 4. He pronounced it egotism in me to accuse him of not understanding the Hebrew, when the fact is that I only paid him back in his own coin, as any one can see by reading his second affirmative. I wonder whether his style would have anything to do with making “Goliath die of envy”? 5. The criticisms on Ex. 24:12, I dispose of briefly by simply re-asserting my position, and an appeal to the learned reader for its justness. With but a few remarks bearing more directly on his criticisms, I submit the case. 1. We need no array of instances where Sabbath is used without the article. I have before said that I was aware of such occurrences. His statement, that the predicate does not take the article, I disproved by good authority; and I might have adduced such examples as Ex. 9:27, “the righteous (party),” and 16:16, “the thing.” It matters not how often Sabbath occurs in the predicate without the article; the essential point is, Why is the article absent in Ex. 16:23? Had the Sabbath been a forgotten institution and there again insisted on, the article would be necessary; and its absence agrees with the universal custom of introducing a new institution in an indefinite way. “In the language of living intercourse, it is utterly impossible that the article should be omitted where it is decidedly necessary.”—Winer, Gram. p. 115. I will further add, that if the Sabbath had been an existing institution during the Egyptian bondage, when the majority of the Hebrews served the Lord, the silence of the Scriptures would be wholly inexplicable, since nothing else would their task-service have so much interfered, and complaint on this point would have been severe and specific. 2. Seeing the necessity, on his supposition, of having the Sabbatic institution definitely named in Ex. 16:23, Eld. W. says, “The reader will remember that I claimed it definite under this rule,” i. e., that the predicate does not take the article. This is another instance of drawing the very opposite conclusion yielded by the facts in the case. “A substantive with an article may be the predicate as well as the subject of a proposition, since even the predicate may be conceived of as a definite individual.”—Winer, p. 114. That is, if the predicate has not the article, it is not definite. 3. Having signally failed in showing Ex. 16:23, parallel with Ex. 20:10, in the use of lamed, Eld. W. tries to draw chap. 16:25, into service. Unfortunately for him, however, that construction is often resorted to in place of the regular construct when “the first noun is indefinite and the second definite.” Green, §257, 2. Should he reply that this may be the case in Ex. 20:10, I answer, yes; but taken in its contextual connection, the case is altered. This, no doubt, determined the king’s translators to render the first passage indefinitely and the second definitely. But if Eld. W. should insist on treating both alike, making each indefinite, be it so; my point stands sure. 4. All that Eld. W. says in his paragraph marked 4 is made pointless by the fact that when lamed is used “in its possessive sense,” it “may be substituted for the construct relation.”—Green, §257. 5. The criticisms on Ex. 24:12, I dispose of briefly by simply re-asserting my position, and an appeal to the learned reader for its justness. I. Turning again to negative arguments, I insist upon it that the Sabbath is a positive institution. (1) It is described by the same term, Sabbath, which describes other positive institutions. (2) It is moreover admitted that Sabbath often takes the article, when denoting the weekly institution, by way of pre-eminence over or emphatic distinction from the annual sabbaths. A moral and a positive institution are never distinguished in this way. And being positive, the Sabbath passed away with the other positive institutions of the old economy. II. The Sabbath is specially named as abrogated in Col. 2:16, 17. III. The Sabbath is here also declared to be a type, finding its antitype in the Christian dispensation. And, as Paul says, when the substance comes, the shadow ceases. IV. Gentile Christians were not required to keep the Sabbath. (1) It was nowhere enjoined upon them. (2) They were specially exempted from keeping the positive institutions of the law (Acts 15:23–29; 21:20–25). (3) They were particularly forbidden to observe Jewish days. “Ye observe days [weekly Sabbaths], and months [new moons], and times [the Jewish festivals, which included the annual sabbaths, Lev. 23.], and years [Sabbatic years]. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.” Gal. 4:10, 11. V. The Sabbath was “against us” and “contrary to us.” This we have seen to be true of the entire decalogue, in that positive aspect in which it was given to the Jews, but it is particularly true of the Sabbath. 1. The Sabbath had a relentless death-penalty attached to it (Ex. 31:14, 15; 35:2); and in this, it was “contrary to” the genius of a dispensation of grace. 2. No fire was to be kindled on the Sabbath. Ex. 35:1, 2. This marks the Sabbath as not intended for universal observance, owing to the coldness of some of the countries in which Christians often live. It is “against us.” 3. The Sabbath was a sign between God and the Jews (Eze. 20:12; Ex. 31:12–18), and so was part of the middle wall of partition which is broken down. Eph. 2:14.