Old Testament Ethics Vindicated.
By Editor
IN our paper of Oct. 2 we made some extracts from, and comments upon, Elder Jarrell's book of the above title. We then promised to notice it further, and now fulfill our promise. Other duties have prevented our doing this sooner. One of the most important statements of the whole book is found in the following paragraph, which we re-produce from our former article:— "The divine will must be what the divine nature is. That the will must be what the nature is, is one of the fundamental truths of all true moral philosophy. . . . While the law is not the nature of God, it is the effect and likeness of that nature; it is the perfect reflection of his infinite holiness and wisdom. It must, therefore, be as unchangeable as the infinite holiness of the divine nature. Law is the positive enactment of this nature; it is the expression of God's will." Parallel to these words are those which we use in our work on the Atonement, page 58. We there say: "To understand the attributes of God is to understand the nature or character of his law, as the latter necessarily springs from the former. This is too plainly evident to require proof, for his law is but the expression of his will, and his will must surely correspond to his attributes." Now to prove, as opponents of the law assert, that God's commandments are temporary, changeable, or merely suited to a carnal people in a sinful state, the above statements must be disproved. But who will undertake the task of disproving them? It were easier to move heaven and earth than to disprove these positions, for to invalidate them would invalidate the law, and the Saviour says that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail." Again Elder Jarrell says:— Law, then, being the expression of the holiness of the immutable, divine nature, it can never be relaxed or changed. As God's nature must forever will only moral right, his law can never be other than the expression of moral right. As Hooker expresses it: 'Of law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is in the bosom of God; her voice, the harmony of the world; all things in heaven and earth do her homage—the very least feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempt from her power; both angels, and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy.' These are weighty words; on these ideas we have dwelt much, but have not time to speak of them here. The following is a valuable comment on Matt. 5:38, 39:— "Some interpret our Saviour's words,—'Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil,'—to teach that the Old Testament taught private revenge. They also so interpret, 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.' Matt. 5:43, 44.
"But, first, this makes the Saviour contradict himself: 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments [i. e., of Old Testament morals], and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' Matt. 5:17-19. . . . Such an interpretation makes Jesus say that he would not destroy a shadow of the Old Testament; and then, in a few words after that, destroy its teachings on a great moral point. If the law was not perfect in righteousness, he could not have fulfilled it all; if he destroyed any part of it, that part could not have been perfectly holy.
"Second. It makes the great Lawgiver contradict his ethics in the Old Testament by a new ethics of the New Testament.
"Third. There is no such law in the Old Testament as hatred to enemies and private revenge. The correction of our Saviour is not a correction of the Old Testament, but a correction of the traditions and perversions of the Old Testament by the Pharisees and scribes.
"The 'eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth' law was,' says Tholuck, 'given to the magistrates in the courts of justice. . . . This command of Moses is based on the jus talionis which lies at the foundation of the oldest code of law. This law of civil courts was not, however, a rule to guide the conduct of individuals. They, on the contrary, are forbidden to seek for compensation in so far as passion or revenge is their motive (Lev. 19:18; Prov. 29:29; Lam. 3:27, 30). 'Say not, I will do to him as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work.' 'It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth; that he sit alone, and keep silence, because he hath laid it upon him; . . . that he give his cheek to him that smiteth him; he is filled full with reproach.' So says the Old Testament. The bad sense in which the command had been applied by the scribes, is to be learned from the contrast in the following passage. It seems that what is there spoken of is private intercourse. The majority of commentators have accordingly explained the false exposition of the scribes as consisting in this, that they applied in private intercourse a law which was given only for the administration of courts of justice; thus, Luther, Bucer, Piscator, Calov, Tirinus, Bengel, B. Crusius, and others.' Among the others are Maldonatus, Este, a Lapide, Grotius, Episcopius, G. W. Clarke, Adam Clarke, Comp. Commentary, Barnes, Stier, Ernesti, Meyer, De Witte—in fact, I know of no commentator who otherwise comments. Here are both infidel and Christian commentators agreed in interpreting our Saviour's words to be only a correction of a perversion of the law which made it apply to private conduct." All the civil laws and institutions of the Hebrews were based upon the moral; hence, the importance of the above exposition. In addition to that which we previously quoted from this book on the superiority of the ten commandments, we quote the following:— "The ten commandments sustain the relation to the statutes and regulations of Israel that the constitution of a State or of the United States sustains to its statutes and regulations. In other words, the ten commandments were the moral constitution of Israel; the other laws and regulations were the statutes. The reader will, from this fact, readily see that none of the laws and regulations of Israel can conflict with the ten commandments; and that their interpretation and ethics must be according to the ethics of this constitution." This is a just statement; the most rigid antinomians have, on consideration of the facts and statements of the Bible, been constrained to admit the same thing. Thus, a man who sometime stood quite high in the Disciple denomination, who argued that all law in the Old Testament was of the same nature, and all was alike abolished, when asked why God wrote only the ten commandments on the tables of stone, replied:— "I can easily account for God's writing only the ten commandments. They were the Jewish constitution, and constitutions are usually better cared for than other laws." "The decalogue is the constitution of the Mosaic laws, i. e., it sustains the same relation to the laws that the Constitution of the United States sustains to our laws." But our laws are frequently abolished without affecting the validity of the Constitution. And that was the highest law or constitution given by the Supreme Moral Governor to moral agents. And the relations of these agents—moral agents—to the Governor never change. Their local circumstances and conditions may change, but never their moral relations. How idle, then, to talk of the abolition of the rule of morality which God, "the Governor among the nations," "the Judge of all," has given for the formation of the character of moral agents. But in nothing is shown the value, the extent or universality, and the holiness of the law more than in the atonement made for man by the Son of God. And this is noticed to good effect by Elder Jarrell. Thus he speaks:— "The atonement is also the expression of the holiness of God, of the holiness of the law, and of the heinousness of sin.
"The atonement measures the holiness of the law by what is requisite for its satisfaction. Only the infinite value of 'the blood of Jesus Christ' was sufficient to meet the requirement of violated, insulted holiness. In the infinite value of the satisfaction, we, therefore, have the measure of the requirement of the infinite holiness of the law.
"The moral blackness, depth, and guilt of sin is measured by the atonement. Had sin been but an imperfection, or the infidel 'fall upward,' or the infidel 'justifying of everything,' man could not have been subject to the holy law of which he is the subject. . . .
"In the atonement appears the blessings of obedience to the moral law. The blessing of obedience must correspond to the extent of the curse of disobedience. In the extent of the curse of sin, measured by the atonement, we have the measure of the blessing of righteousness. . . .
"The atonement teaches that the moral law is universal. In the atonement [sacrifice] being for all mankind, we see the reign of the moral law over white and black—of every color, every kindred, tribe, nation, and tongue; of all ages and all lands." In view of these considerations—and in truth "the half has not been told," for who can measure the holiness of God, or the demerit of an insult to his majesty?—and in view of the fact thus stated in this book: "The Sabbath an essential part of Old Testament ethics," do we make too much of the Sabbath? Do we err in trying to rescue it from the degradation in which it is placed by the words and actions of gainsayers? We repeat the recommendation we made before: The book under consideration is worthy of a careful perusal by all, and ought to be in the library of all our ministers, because of its clear vindication of the law of God, and its valuable quotations from many eminent authorities. It is highly recommended by representative men in all parts of the land, and, with its testimonials, is a strong weapon against antinomianism, into which so many are now running to evade the force of the arguments being presented in favor of the Sabbath of the Lord God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.