Untitled article by M. Hull

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 17, 1860

REVIEW OF ELDER RUSSELL.—No. 4.

By M. Hull

ELDER R. next attempts to show that Jesus Christ has been crowned king, and quotes Zech. ix, 9: "Behold thy King cometh unto thee. He is just and having salvation; lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

If this proves that Christ has been crowned king, it proves too much for Mr. R.; for he says "Christ was not coronated until after his ascension." But if this text locates the time of his coronation at all, it would place it at the time Christ rode into Jerusalem. But Zechariah says nothing about the time when Christ should have been crowned; it only says "thy King cometh." If simply calling Christ king would place a crown upon his head, then verily Christ was crowned at his birth, for at that time the wise men say, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews." Matt. ii, 2.

It is an easy matter to prove that Christ was anointed, but it cannot be proved that he was crowned, at the time he ascended to heaven. It cannot be proved that he was seated on David's throne at that time. The elder needs to learn that there is a vast difference between the coronation and anointing of Jesus Christ. While we admit that there is a kingship connected with the priesthood of Jesus Christ, it is not the kingdom that he has the promise of when his foes are made his footstool; nor is it the kingdom which is given to him when he comes in the clouds of heaven. See Dan. vii, 14.

Mr. R.'s main object in his writing and preaching is to prove 1st, That the Israelites were God's chosen people or nation. 2d, That the ten commandments were exclusively Israelitish—that they belonged exclusively to the Jews. 3d, That that nation has been cut off and a new nation established. 4th, That the old law (the ten commandments) perished with the old nation; and 5th, That a new law has been introduced for the benefit of the new nation.

But if we weigh some of the above positions in the scale of truth, I apprehend that we shall find MENE MENE TEKEL inscribed in large letters upon them. Let us see.

1. While we admit that the Jews were God's chosen people, we do not believe that they kept the law because they were chosen as Mr. R. teaches. But they were God's people upon the condition that they kept the law. Proof. Ex. xix, 5, 6. "Now therefore 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, an holy nation."

2. Instead of the ten commandments' being exclusively the national law of the Jews, they are God's laws, and when any people adopt them as theirs, they place themselves under the government of God, and thus become God's peculiar nation or people. Otherwise God is a respecter of persons. Acts x, 34. Hence God's having rejected the Jews from being his peculiar people does not destroy the law by which they were (or could have been) governed, but shows they did not obey it. But if God's having rejected the Jews, destroys the law, would not his rejecting the Gentiles as a nation, destroy the gospel?

3. While we do not deny that the old nation has been rejected and a new one raised up, we must take the position that the old nation was rejected for violating God's laws, and the new nation are God's peculiar people upon the condition that they comply with rules by which the Jews refused to walk. In Matt. xxi, 43, after giving the parable of the wicked husbandmen, our Saviour says to the Jews, "Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

We learn from this (1.) That the Jews were rejected from being God's peculiar people. (2.) That another people take their place, and (3.) That this other nation are bringing forth fruits which the Jews refused to bring forth, and hence were overthrown. Now what are the conditions? We have already found that the Jews could be God's peculiar people or holy nation if they would keep his covenant of ten commandments.

Again, God commanded the Jews to be holy [Lev. xix, 2], and showed them that the ten commandments contained the principles of holiness by telling them that they would be a holy nation if they would keep them. Ex. xix, 5.

When Peter writes to the strangers scattered abroad, i. e., the Gentiles, he tells them [1 Pet. ii, 9], "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation." Here the new nation is an holy nation; just what the old one could have been if they had kept the law. Eld. R. will not dare to say that the principles of holiness have changed; that God is more lax in his government now than he was when the Jews were his peculiar people.

But we are not yet done with this. In 1 Pet. i, 14, there is a command to the strangers to be holy, based upon the law which Mr. R. says was exclusively Israelitish, and perished with the rejection of that nation. "Be ye holy in all manner of conversation, because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy." Is it possible that Peter is quoting an old obsolete, Jewish commandment, and urging Gentiles to obey it, a commandment which never was binding upon the Gentiles? and if it had been, was abolished several years before Peter wrote this epistle, and had never been re-enacted!! No, no. This commandment was written for all God's people, in all ages of the world; and when the Gentiles became God's people, it was as really binding upon them as it was upon the Jews before the kingdom was taken from them. But as I cannot protract the argument on this point, for positive evidence that the Jews were rejected for violating God's law, see Jer. viii, 13–16; xxvi, 4–6; xliv, 10, 11; Hosea iv, 6.

4. That the old law perished with the old nation, and a new law was given by which to detect sin in this dispensation, we do not believe for the following reasons:

First, It has been proved that the Jews were cut off for transgressing the law. But if the Law was so imperfect that God saw that it was not fit to live and maintain a jurisdiction over his creatures, and hence abolished it, why was it wrong for the Jews to transgress it? The Jews did not show any more disrespect for the law in transgressing than God did in abolishing it; hence God and the Jews were co-workers.

Second. If the law which the Jews transgressed could have been destroyed, the Jews by the destruction of that law would have been restored to the favor of God, and not have been cut off.

Third. Mr. R. said in his debate with the writer in Fairfield, Iowa, that "no man had a right to keep the law until he was circumcised." But on this matter there is a difference of opinion between Paul and Mr. R.; for Paul says [Rom. ii, 26], "Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?" Thus Paul understood that others beside the Jews had the privilege of keeping the law. Again, in Rom. iii, 19 we are informed that the whole world is guilty before God in consequence of having violated the law.

In Rom. viii, 4, Paul informs us that Christ died that "the righteousness (precepts, Whiting,) of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." This could not be the case if the law perished with the Jewish nation.

Fourth. But grant elder R. his position, and he has made sad havoc of every moral principle in the universe; for he says (p. 40), "The law (i. e., the new law) starts in these words: 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.'" Again, he says on the same page, "Laws were issued and subjects submitted thereto on the day of pentecost." This law takes the place of the ten commandments. Now we have got rid of the ten commandments, let us see what we have to take their place. The first commandment in the elder's new law (the one which takes the place of that one which says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me") is, "Repent." The second is, "be baptized," and the third (for there are only three) is, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation." I now ask you, dear reader, Are you willing to swop the decalogue for these three commandments, not one of which contains a moral principle?

In the above position Eld. R. has given birth to a new theological child. He says, "The laws were issued for the new nation—the citizens of the new kingdom to obey." Thus according to R., they are citizens of the new kingdom before they repent, are baptized, or save themselves from this untoward generation. I hope this child by the time it gets rid of its swaddling bands will teach its father (Mr. R.) that he has been doing wrong for the last thirty years when he has been baptizing flesh and blood into the kingdom of God. "Surely the legs of the lame are unequal."

Let me close this article by beseeching the elder to desert his sinking ship. O cease to drink of the muddy waters of such a theory. Flee to the ark of God, and thus prepare for an inheritance in the kingdom of God when it shall come.