THE TWO LAWS, AND TWO COVENANTS.
By Moses Hull
As a thorough investigation of the book of Hebrews is necessary to a correct understanding of the two laws and two covenants, we will now consider it. The book of Hebrews is a comment on the same law as that of Galatians, and on the Levitical and Melchisedec priesthoods—the old and new covenants—the offerings and ceremonies of the former dispensation, and those of the present. The word “law” is of frequent occurrence in this book, and always refers to the ceremonial law, except when Paul quotes from Jeremiah: “I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.” Heb. x, 16; viii, 10. To convince the reader that I am correct in this, I will quote the places where the word LAW occurs. 1. Heb. vii, 5. “They that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law.” But it is impossible to take tithes of the people according to the ten commandments; for they do not regulate the taking of tithes. The ceremonial law does command the sons of Levi to take tithes. See Num. xviii, 21–26. 2. Heb. vii, 11. “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Query. 1. Which of the ten commandments did the people receive under the Levitical priesthood? 2. Which one of the ten commandments must be changed in order to change the priesthood from the tribe of Levi to the tribe of Judah? 3. Heb. vii, 15, 16. “And it is yet far more evident for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest who is made not after the law of carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” The ten commandments never made a priest; hence they cannot be the law referred to in this passage. 4. Heb. vii, 19. “The law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh to God.” That the law here spoken of is the one that had “shadows of good things to come,” and offered sacrifices “year by year,” is evident from Heb. x, 1. 5. Heb. vii, 28. “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son who is consecrated forevermore.” Query. Did the ten commandments ever make a high priest? 6. Heb. viii, 4. “For if he were on earth he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.” But no priests offered gifts according to the ten commandments, for the reason that they did not regulate the offering of gifts. 7. Heb. ix, 19. “For when Moses had spoken every precept [of the first covenant] to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people.” Again, verse 22. “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” Here I will propose two more queries: 1. Is it possible to speak the precepts of the first covenant according to the ten commandments, when they know no such precept? 2. By which one of the ten commandments are things purged with blood? 8. Heb. x, 1. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.” The ten commandments offered no sacrifices, hence they do not constitute the law of which Paul is speaking. 9. Verse 8. “Above, when he said sacrifices and offerings thou wouldst not, neither had pleasure therein; which are offered by the law.” No one doubts that this is the ceremonial law, as the ten commandments offered no sacrifices. 10. Verse 28. “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses.” The ceremonial law is sometimes called the law of God, but the ten commandments are never called “Moses’ law.” From the above evidence we think all must conclude that the ceremonial law is the subject of comment in the book of Hebrews. That the two covenants spoken of in the book of Hebrews are the same as those spoken of in Gal. iv, I think no one will deny. We have before stated our conviction that not one of the ten commandments was embraced in either the old or new covenants. We know that the ten commandments are a covenant; but they may be a covenant, and not be either the first or second, old or new. They are God’s covenant, not made “with the house of Israel and Judah,” but commanded to a thousand generations. We have before stated that old and new are relative terms; so are first and second. A thousand covenants may be made or commanded, and only two of these have the relation of old and new. A and B may make a hundred bargains, and neither of these sustain the relation of old and new, first and second. But let them make two bargains concerning one thing, and the first of the two can with propriety be called the first, or old, bargain, and the other the second, or new, bargain, though there may have been numerous bargains made before the first, between the first and second, and after the second, on other matters. So it is with the covenants. When trying to show the perpetuity of God’s covenant, or law of ten commandments, I have often been met with an objection something like the following: “The old covenant of ten commandments belonged to the Jews, but it has given place to the new, or gospel covenant. Not only so, but as we are Gentiles, even though the old covenant was not done away, it could have no claims upon us: we are under the new, or gospel, covenant, which was made for the Gentiles.” In the above, the objector errs (1) in making the ten commandments the old covenant, and (2) in making the old covenant belong to the Jews, and the new one to the Gentiles. No covenant was ever made with, or for, the Gentiles, as such. The Gentiles are recognized only as dogs, in the Scriptures of truth, until they are engrafted into the Abrahamic stock. Matt. xv, 26, 27; Rom. xi, 17–24. Then they become Israel, and hence covenantees in all the covenants which may be binding at that time. In Rom. ix, 3, 4, Paul says, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants [plural] and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.” Here we learn that not only the old covenant belonged to the Israelites—Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh—but to them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, i. e., both old and new, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the PROMISES. Certainly this statement deprives the Gentiles, as such, of not only the covenants, but of the privilege of serving God, and of every promise in his word. If we were disposed to make an argument on this as our opponents do on the Sabbath, they claiming that it is a Jewish institution because given to the Jews, we certainly should deprive the Gentiles of even the privilege of approaching God in prayer, or hoping to enjoy anything that he has promised in his word. The above is not an isolated case, but the Bible everywhere contains the same sentiment. In Eph. ii, 11, 12, Paul says, “Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision, by that which is called circumcision in the flesh, made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” Here Paul deprives the Gentiles of the blessings of the gospel, of Christ, of hope, and of God in the world, as emphatically as any text in the Old or New Testaments deprives them of the old covenant. We have found that to the Israelites belong the covenants. Lest some one should think the new is not embraced in the word covenants, we will quote a prophecy which proves that it is. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the days that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Jer. xxxi, 31–33. This prophecy never can be fulfilled by making a covenant with the Gentiles; “for it is a covenant made with you, not according to the covenant made with your fathers [i. e., the fathers of the Jews] in the wilderness.” Had it been the Canaanites, the Amorites, or some other Gentile nation with whom the old covenant was made, then the making of a new one with the Gentiles might have fulfilled the prophecy; but as it is, it cannot. Will the reader mark well this point. We are now prepared to investigate the old and new covenants as presented in the book of Hebrews. We have before remarked that this book is a commentary on the ceremonial law, on the Levitical and Melchisedec priesthoods, on the ceremonies of the old dispensation, and those of the present, and on the old and new covenants. As we have found the book of Hebrews agreeing so perfectly with that of Galatians on the law, we may expect to find an agreement on the covenants. In Heb. vii, 22, Paul gives us to understand that Christ is the mediator of a better testament, than were the priests of the Levitical order. But the Jewish priests were mediators of the old covenant, which our opponents inform us is the ten commandments. It follows then if the old covenant is embraced in the ten commandments, that we have a better covenant in this dispensation than God’s perfect law which embraced the whole duty of man. Ps. xix, 7; Eccl. xii, 13, 14. This cannot be; hence we must look elsewhere for the old covenant. Heb. viii, 6, 12. “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises, for if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second; 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 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; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” Here we are again informed that he is a mediator of a better covenant; but it is not better because of better commandments in it, but because it is established upon “better promises.” See verse 6. Am I asked what these better promises are? I answer, the old covenant could not take away sin. Heb. ix, 9; x, 4. It could only stay the judgment upon their sins [transgression of the law] for one year, Heb. x, 3, and point them to the antitypical sacrifice—to the blood of the new covenant as their only hope. Heb. x, 11. Whereas under the new covenant, God promises to remember their sins no more. Heb. viii, 12; ix, 17; Rom. xi, 27. The fact that in the new covenant God promises to “be merciful to their unrighteousness,” shows that it is made up of secondary principles; that unrighteousness antedates its existence. This being true, there must be something to tell us what sin is, besides this new covenant. How was it with the old? We answer, It was not designed to tell the people what sin was. It could only bring sin to remembrance again every year. Hence sin was the transgression of some law which existed before that covenant.