RESTITUTION AND COVENANT.
By J. H. Waggoner
I can but express surprise that the Restitution tries to make out that my views of the law and the covenant have changed, since the publication of my pamphlet on the law over twenty years ago, or that I disagree with any brother who has written on this subject. In that book were the following words:— “The Lord sent a message to the children of Israel by Moses 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 an holy nation.’ The people sent back an answer, saying, ‘All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.’ But as yet they had not heard his voice, neither had he declared his covenant unto them: only they had seen what he did for them, how he bare them on eagles’ wings and brought them unto himself. Verse 4. But the agreement was entered into, the arrangement made, and every thing in readiness for a declaration of God’s holy covenant, the condition of the covenant made, or agreement entered into, with them. All should bear in mind the fact that the term covenant is used in reference to different things in the Bible: as a promise; [Gen. 9:8-17;] agreement, [Ex. 19:5-8; Heb. 8:9,] or law: [1 Chron. 16:15-17; Deut. 4:12, 13;] so that as in the chapter in consideration, a covenant or law may be given as the condition of a covenant or agreement made; and the significance of the word is sufficiently comprehensive to warrant such a use of it in the sacred writings: being, according to Greenfield, ‘Any disposition, arrangement, institution or dispensation.’” In my articles published last summer (No. 5) are the following words:— “The word itself (covenant) designates no particular thing. The connection must determine its use in any instance.” “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. The opinion is drawn from the fact that the ten commandments are called a covenant. But their conclusion is not necessary; it conflicts with the teaching of the Scriptures.” THE 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 promise with conditions,” &c. How any one can find a difference of sentiment or belief in these is truly a marvel. If the editor of the Restitution would leave his speculations about the future age, and come to consider the duties which pertain to the present time, he would have no difficulty about our unity of faith. I would recommend him to try to harmonize the views of any two writers advocating the “Age to Come.” If he faithfully undertakes that task he will find little spare time to criticize his neighbors.