"Bible Doctrine on the Old and New Covenant."
By Moses Hull
Such is the title of a tract which is being handed to some of our brethren in the East, for the purpose of getting them to "forsake the law" and "praise the wicked." Prov. xxviii, 4. I do not know of a single instance of the tract having the desired effect, yet a few words concerning it may not be amiss. It would be a waste of time and ammunition to go into a general review of the book, but the cause of truth may be served by quoting and commenting upon a few paragraphs. Those that I shall exhibit are fair specimens of the whole book. On page 8 the writer says: "Of necessity there must be a change in the law also, and another era and economy to commence; a better system given, which, having an embodiment of principles of life and perfection, would be able to impart the same to those who obey and live them out. No one can fail to see that such a system would elevate a person in purity and holiness, or morally, higher than a law not having such principles embraced in it." 1. "There must be a change in the law." Our friend leaves his readers to infer from this that it is necessary to change the ten commandments. But the text reads as follows: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Heb. vii, 12. Does our friend know what the change of the priesthood, here spoken of, is? If he does not, let him read a few of the preceding and following verses, and he will learn that it is changed from the tribe of Levi to the tribe of Judah. Now I would ask, Which one of the ten commandments is it necessary to change in order to accomplish this change in the priesthood? Not one of them mention the priesthood; but in Num. iii, 10, I read, "And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." Aaron and his sons belonged to the tribe of Levi. "But it is evident that our Lord (who is now High Priest) sprung out of Judah." Heb. vii, 14. Hence the necessity of changing the law confining the priesthood to the tribe of Levi. 2. What is there in the New Testament that would "elevate a person in purity and holiness, or morally, higher than the Old? I have searched the New Testament carefully, and fail to find in it a single new moral obligation. The highest, and in fact all, the moral principles recommended in the New Testament, are borrowed from the Old. Perhaps there is no higher moral principle in the world than the "golden rule": "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." But why does the Saviour enjoin this?—He answers, "For this is the law and the prophets." Matt. vii, 12. Would our author have us to understand that there was nothing in the Old Testament calculated to lead to perfect holiness? Then indeed the command, "Be ye holy, for I am holy," Lev. xi, 44; xix, 2, could not be obeyed, and as he has said of Christ, so will I say of his Father, he "has not given a command, but with the command has given a possibility to obey." But God has in the command to be holy, given a law which in Old-Testament times it was impossible to obey, or our author is wrong. That perfect obedience to the ten commandments would make a people holy, I will now prove. I deny that the ten commandments are any part of the old or new covenant; but that they are God's covenant, commanded to a thousand generations, will be made apparent by reading the following scriptures: Ex. xxiv, 28; Deut. iv, 13; ix, 9-11; 1 Cor. xvi, 16; Ps. cv, 8. Now if the reader will turn to Ex. xix, 4-6, he will find that the keeping of that covenant would make them a holy people. The text reads as follows: "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. 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, and an holy nation." Then it was possible for Israel to be a "holy nation" in the old dispensation. How much higher can we get in this? Is it not strange that the New Testament should "elevate a person in purity and holiness" above the Old, when there is not a command in it to be holy, except what is borrowed from the Old, and the reason given is, "Because it is written?" 1 Pet. i, 16. 3. Does the writer of the document under review wish his readers to understand by the new law "having the embodiment of the principles of life," that there was no means of attaining to life in the former dispensation? This is certainly his meaning, for in another place, in giving a summary of faults of the old covenant he says: "5th. No promise of immortality or of anything beyond this life, the principle of perfection and life not being embodied in it." p. 11. I cannot read the above declaration without being reminded that there is a slight difference of opinion between its author and some of the Bible writers. Moses thought the Lord commissioned him to write—"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them" Lev. xviii, 5. Ezekiel wrote that the word of the Lord came unto him saying, "And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them. But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness; they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do he shall even live in them; and my Sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness to consume them." Chap. xx, 11-13. Paul, who, according to our friend, was under a "higher law," said of the old one that it was "ordained to life." Rom. vii, 10. Our author in his "summary" of what I call objections to the old covenant, says, "1st. This covenant is made with the Jews as a nation, and they receive the promises as a nation." It is easy to object to any theory, and if I were disposed to object to the new covenant, I might put in as my first objection that "This covenant was made with the Jews as a nation, and they as a nation receive its promises." No one disputed that the old covenant was made with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah." But with whom is the new covenant made? The promise is, "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with [the Gentiles] no; but with] the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." Jer. xxxi, 31; Heb. viii, 8. Had our friend carefully read his Bible on this point, he would have learned that the covenants all pertained to Israel, likewise the service of God and the promises. See Rom. ix, 1-4; Eph. ii, 11, 12. The only chance for a Gentile to be saved, even in this dispensation, is to be engrafted into the Abrahamic stock. Rom. xi, 17-20. Our friend next comes out under the heading of, "Christ the Revisor of the Old Law." After quoting several texts which have about as much bearing upon it as 1 Chron. i, 1, which reads as follows, "Adam, Sheth, Enosh," he says: "Many other scriptures might be presented demonstrating conclusively that God empowered Christ, or delegated him with authority to speak and give a new code of laws for the government of his church, and revise the old." p. 12. The above paragraph is indeed a wonderful production! But I have given it verbatim. It contains the startling announcement that Christ not only "gave a new law," but "revised the old!" The author does not tell us whether the "new" and "revised old law" are both binding, or whether the revised "old law" takes the place of the "new;" or whether they have shared the fate of the "old law." I conclude, however, that they are both abolished, for I am certain that the theory abolishes the words of James, who said, "There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy." James iv, 12. Our author says the old law is not binding; but if either of the other two are, he is a sinner against Christ, for he has broken his law. Now I ask, Who will be his mediator? I fear he will be compelled to accept the pope, or go without one! Seriously, I am astonished that any one can advocate a theory which is not only destitute of all scriptural authority, but of common sense. I can but conclude that common sense is a gift of God, and that he withdraws his gifts from those who fight against him. But to the proof that Christ "revised the law:" "We hear him on mount Olivet quoting from the decalogue and saying, It was written by them of old time so and so; but now I say unto you it shall be so and so. Why did Jesus talk in this manner if he was not the reviser of the old statute 'which gendereth to bondage,' and had power to make null and void such as he had a mind to? The text to which we refer is in Matt. v, 27 and 28 verses. Why this change of one of the ten commandments which God declared was his covenant, if Christ was not delegated with the authority before mentioned?"—pp. 12, 13. The above paragraph is a specimen of recklessness, such as is seldom seen in print. 1. I would be pleased to see the proof that the sermon of which our friend speaks, was delivered on mount Olivet. 2. Where does our Saviour say in the above mentioned discourse, "It is written so and so?" I read, "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time," &c., but how our friend is going to make these old sayings, a part of which never were recorded in the Bible, a part of the decalogue, he does not inform us. 3. "Why does Jesus talk in this manner if he was not the reviser of the old statute 'which gendereth to bondage,' and had power to make null and void such as he had a mind to?" I answer, Our friend, in his reference to Matt. v, 27, 28, has referred to but one of the commandments, and that is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Does he think that one "genders to bondage," so that it was necessary to make it "null and void?" If so, the liberty for which he pants is that for which the carnal heart has ever longed. If this is one of the results of the "better covenant," let us hear no more of the higher "system of purity and holiness" of which our friend speaks. 4. The text to which the readers of the tract are referred for the change of one of the ten commandments, reads as follows: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." I must acknowledge that this is a new way of proving the law abolished. If quoting from, and explaining a law, proves it abolished, or abolishes it, then verily we are without law indeed, for lawyers make it their continual business to quote and explain law. Isaiah prophesied of Christ that he should "magnify the law and make it honorable." Isa. xlii, 21. I verily thought that this was what the Saviour was doing on this occasion, by showing that the seventh commandment not only governed the "overt actions," but that a person who looked on a woman with an evil eye had violated it. After hearing what we have, we are prepared to have our friend say that "truth is progressive in its development." This I believe, I love progress, but I would have it forward, and not backward. While I believe that truth is progressive, I am sure that no truth that we can learn in future, will contradict the truths that we have learned in the past. Our friend's position contradicts what he acknowledges was once true, therefore I must reject it. Our friend next asserts that "the Psalmist evidently has reference to the law of the new covenant, when he said, 'The law of the Lord is perfect.'" This he proves by his own ipse dixit, as he proves the most of his propositions. I am informed that the author of the tract from which the above quotations are taken, when preaching upon "life and death," and some other questions, is by his friends considered a Samson. But when I read the tract I am reminded that Samson was shorn of his strength. May his eyes yet be opened to see the folly of making "war upon the remnant which keep the commandments of God."