THE WORD COVENANT by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 18, 1875

THE WORD COVENANT

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—NO. 5.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

There is no part of Bible truth which is oftener or more strongly urged against the law of God than the doctrine of the two covenants. And yet there is no point which more certainly confirms the claims of the law than this when it is rightly considered.

THE WORD COVENANT.

In the Old Testament the word covenant is translated from the Hebrew word, berith (pronounced as the English word beneath), which is defined, “A covenant, league, compact,” or, “the terms of a covenant;” that is, the conditions of a league or contract. In the New Testament it is principally translated from the Greek word diatheekee, which, by Greenfield, is defined, “Any disposition, arrangement, institution, or dispensation; hence, a testament, will; a covenant, i. e. mutual promises on mutual conditions, or promises with conditions annexed; meton., a body of laws and precepts, specially to which certain promises are annexed.”

By the above definitions it will be seen that the word covenant is very comprehensive, and may refer to things quite unlike in their nature. The word itself designates no particular thing. The connection must determine its use in any instance. Hence, care must be exercised in its application, lest we be led astray by attaching a rigid and unvarying meaning to the word, and thus perverting the term where it is used.

We first find the word covenant used in Gen. 9:9. It here refers solely to the promise of God that he would not again destroy the world by water. In chap. 17 we have an account of the covenant which God made with Abraham. Next, we find a covenant made between Abraham and Abimelek. This was a compact, or agreement. Passing by some others, we come to the covenant which the Lord made with his people, recorded in Ex. 19:5–8. The words of this covenant are as follows: “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 a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. . . . And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.”

The position of those who oppose the law of God is this: They say the covenant made with Judah and Israel was the ten commandments; and as the old covenant has passed away, they conclude that the ten commandments are no longer binding. This opinion is drawn from the fact that the ten commandments are called a covenant. But their conclusion is not logically necessary; while it conflicts with the teachings of the Scripture.

TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT THE OLD COVENANT.

1. We have seen that the word covenant is not determinate; it may refer to the law or to something else.

2. The first or primary meaning of the word is not a law; therefore, we should not refer it to the law without a sufficient reason.

3. The ten commandments do not bear the characteristics of the covenant made with Israel, as we shall further see. That was a contract between the two parties, or, as Greenfield gives the definition of covenant, mutual promises with conditions.

Paul, in Heb. 8, says the new covenant was established on “better promises.” The promises of the old covenant in Ex. 19:5–8 were good enough so far as their object was concerned. The Lord promised therein that they should be to him a peculiar treasure and a holy people. No choicer blessings than these are promised in the Bible, in any dispensation. But these were promised only on condition of obedience, and the Israelites were a weak and sinful people. In that covenant there was no provision for non-fulfillment, and therefore the promises were not available to them. The “better promises” of the new covenant were, that he would “be merciful to their unrighteousness,” and “remember their sins no more.”

In carrying out this line of argument the apostle says it was not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins. But this was the only blood the priests under that covenant had to offer. But under the new covenant we have a mediator who offers his own blood, which cleanses from all unrighteousness; hence, that which was offered on the condition of obedience in the old, is offered on the condition of repentance and faith in the new. But still the promises of the new reach no object higher than did those of the old. An inspired writer of the New Testament said: “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” 1 Pet. 1:15, 16. Had they fulfilled the promise which they made to God, so that he could have fulfilled the promise he made to them, this injunction would have been fulfilled in them; they would have been a holy people; a peculiar treasure unto God above all people.

In this we learn a most important truth respecting the sufficiency of the ten commandments as a rule of life. The covenant made with Judah and Israel was respecting obedience to the voice of God, and to his covenant. Three days after this covenant was made with them, the Lord with his own voice spake his covenant in the hearing of all the people. Thus Moses said to them: “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.” Deut. 4:12, 13. If they had kept the ten commandments, which they had agreed to do, they would have been a holy people, the Lord’s own peculiar treasure. Thus the ten-commandment law is the rule of holiness; obedience to it forms a holy character.

Here we discover the mistake of the opponents of the law. They make no distinction between the covenant and the condition of the covenant, between the contract, and the law which they contracted to obey. In a secondary sense, according to Greenfield, the conditions of a covenant may also be called a covenant. An instance of this use of the term is found in 2 Kings 23:3: “And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.” The book wherein the covenant of the Lord was written had just been found, and they made a covenant to perform it. The covenant which they made was a promise or agreement to keep the commandments of God which were written in the book. That which was written in the book was the condition of the agreement or covenant which they made. Now if any one should contend that the covenant which the king and the people made was the law which was written in the book which had been found in the house of the Lord, all would be ready to marvel that he would argue for such an absurdity. Yet that is exactly the position of those who contend that the ten commandments are the covenant which God made with the children of Israel.

Paul, in Heb. 9:18–20, says the first covenant was dedicated with blood, and quotes the words of dedication found in Ex. 24:7, 8: “And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.”

The people reiterated their promise to obey, which they had made in the covenant; Ex. 19:8. And Moses said the covenant was made concerning certain words. By reference to Ex. 19:5–8, we find that the words which they agreed to do, were the words which God spake with his voice, and which he called his covenant. See again Deut. 4:12, 13. These words were the ten commandments. This law was the condition or covenant which they covenanted to do or keep.

A very decisive reason that the law is not the first covenant made with Israel is this: That covenant was made void, and the necessity for a new one created, by their violation, or failure to keep it. This is a valid reason respecting a contract, but not respecting a law. A contract or agreement is made void by non-fulfillment, but a law is not made void by transgression. “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; . . . because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” Heb. 8:8, 9. Had they been faithful to the agreement on their part, the Lord surely would have performed all he promised; he would have “regarded them,” and there would have been no necessity for another covenant. How would he have regarded them? The very terms of the covenant answer this. Ex. 19:5–8. He would have regarded them as a peculiar treasure unto himself, and a holy nation. The very object expressed in the old covenant is now accomplished in the new.

The great distinction between the two covenants, as given by Paul, lies in the “better promises” of the new. Not that they should be more holy in this dispensation than in that, though this is sometimes affirmed by men, for the holiness of God himself is the standard in both dispensations. “As he who hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation [anastrophe, mode of life, conduct]; because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.” The apostle Peter enforces this injunction by what is written in Lev. 11:44. They who affect to find a higher standard of holiness in the New Testament than that given in the Old Testament, are guilty of great presumption. And, according to the words of Jehovah himself, this holiness would be reached by them in obeying the holy law of the commandments.

NEW COVENANT NOT A NEW LAW.

The “better promises” which the new covenant contains are, as has been noticed, the forgiveness of sin. But some have perverted this testimony of the apostle, and construed it as if it read—a better law. But it does not so read, nor can it be so intended. A better law cannot exist, as we shall show more fully hereafter. Nor does it mean the law of Jesus, the mediator, in distinction from the law of the Father. For the idea is not consistent with reason nor Scripture that a person should mediate in behalf of his own law. Mediator, says Webster, is “one that interposes between parties at variance, for the purpose of reconciling them.” A person could not stand between himself and an offender; that would be impossible. Says the Scripture: “A mediator is not a mediator of one;” and, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5.

Again, the new covenant was made by the same person or being who made the first covenant. Opposers often talk as if the new covenant was made by the Son, while the old was made by the Father. But the Scripture reads thus: “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; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” Of the first, Aaron and his sons were appointed mediators; of the second, the Son of God alone is mediator; while the Father is the author of both. And when the same being says in the promise of the new covenant: “I will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts,” we can be at no loss to understand whose law is referred to. If the Son of God has a law in distinction from that of his Father, that is not the law referred to in this scripture. In the first covenant, God’s law was put in the ark; in the second, his law is put in the heart. And thus, whichever way we look, we find the claims of God’s law clearly confirmed.