p. 317 | Review and Herald, Vol. 31, No. 20. (4/28/1868)

A QUESTION.

By J. H. W.

BRO. WAGGONER: Will you please show the harmony between the following-named scriptures, which speak of the covenants: Heb. viii, 7–12; Jer. xxxi, 31–34, compared with Deut. v, 2, 3; 1 Kings viii, 21, and Deut. iv, 13? In these scriptures different facts are stated, as follows: Deut. iv, 13, says that the ten commandments are God's covenant; Deut. v, 2, 3, says that God made not this covenant with the patriarchal fathers; 1 Kings viii, 21, declares that the ten commandments is the covenant that God made with his people when he brought them out of Egypt; and Heb. viii, 7–12, resting on the prophecy of Jer. xxxi, 31–34, says that a new covenant is to be made. Do not all of these texts speak of the ten-commandment covenant; and is not the idea of there being a covenant in Ex. xix, and of its being referred to afterward in the Scriptures, rather fanciful and far-fetched?

E. N. N.

REPLY.

That your difficulty lies in a misapprehension of some of the above texts is very evident from your remarks. Let us first notice that, and then see if there is any want of harmony. And I must here say that I think most of the misapprehension that exists on this subject arises from the practice of taking the word “covenant,” in a certain text, and then applying indiscriminately what is said any or everywhere about a covenant, to that text. That there are intricacies in this subject, as well as in most others, I freely admit, but much apparent difficulty will be removed if we discriminate between the different covenants, and exercise due care in the application of facts.

1. It is true that the ten commandments are called God's covenant, but they are not the only covenant mentioned in these texts. And we sometimes find two different covenants brought together in the context or even in the same verse, as in 2 Kings xxiii, 3: “And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and with all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant,” i. e., which he made with them. Hilkiah, the priest, had found the book in the house of the Lord, and Huldah, the prophetess, had told them of all the evil the Lord would bring upon the people and the land because they had departed from the words of the book that had been deposited in the temple, and so long neglected. Therefore the king made a covenant (agreement) which the people stood to, to perform the words of the covenant written in the book (condition or obligation). Now we find similar facts and the same relations brought to view in Ex. xix, 5–8. Then a covenant (agreement) was entered into by the people, to keep the covenant (commandments) which the Lord soon afterward uttered with his voice, and wrote on the tables of stone. And again both of these covenants, namely, that of agreement, Ex. xix, 5–8, and that of obligation, Ex. xx, 3–17, are brought to view in Deut. v. The covenant of commandments is substantially repeated in verses 7–21, and this is referred to in verse 4: “The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.” In verse 5, a parenthetical remark is thrown in which explains the meaning of the speaker in regard to something previously spoken. Let it be noticed that there are two classes of facts presented in Deut. v, 2–5, and these are so well identified by other scriptures that with a little care we can hardly err in their application. We will take first the fact stated in verse 4. “The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.” This will not apply to the covenant or agreement made in Ex. xix, 5–8, for such was not the fact then; but it will apply to the covenant spoken of in Deut. iv, 12, 13, found in Ex. xx, 3–17, for the Lord did speak directly to them when that covenant was given.

Now we take another fact stated in verse 5. “I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount.” This, to the contrary, will not apply to the covenant of Deut. iv, 12, 13; Ex. xx, 3–17, for that was spoken to the people directly, “face to face” (verse 4), and they all heard his voice. But it does exactly apply to the covenant of Ex. xix, 5–8, for Moses did stand between the Lord and the people when that covenant was made; compare verses 3, 7, 8; and also between them in all matters pertaining to that covenant, its rites, offerings, &c., after the ten commandments were spoken. See Ex. xx, 18 and onward. From this it is evident that Deut. v, 5, parenthetical and explanatory of the previous remarks, clearly distinguishes between the covenants of verses 2, 3, and of verse 4; as it applies directly to verses 2, 3, but cannot be applied to verse 4. I cannot see how the above arrangement of facts can possibly be denied; and if not, there remains no difficulty in Ex. xix, and Deut. v.

2. I think you are quite mistaken when you say 1 Kings viii, 21, “declares that the ten commandments is the covenant that God made with his people when he brought them out of Egypt.” You infer that, but no such statement is there made. The verse is as follows: “And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.”

You seem to think that the expression, “wherein is the covenant,” &c., refers to “the ark.” I think it refers to the “place for the ark.” And I think you must be mistaken for the following very good reason: the covenant made with them when the Lord brought them out of Egypt was put “in the place”—the most holy—where the ark was put; but it was not put in the ark. The distinction between “the covenant made with them” and the “covenant commanded” to them, is too clearly defined to be mistaken; but verse 8 says there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone—the ten commandments. The covenant made with them was put in the “place” appointed or “set” for the ark, and not in the ark itself, as the language of Scripture proves. Thus it was said to Moses, “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” Deut. xxxi, 26. This book was written by Moses, see verse 24, and contained all the matter which the Lord had spoken to them through Moses.

Dr. Clarke says it was put “beside” the ark—not in the ark as might be inferred from the expression—“in the side of the ark.” Bernard's Bible says “by the side,” and so also Matthew Henry. By the aid of the Concordance to the Hebrew, we learn that the word tzad, here rendered “in the side,” is used in the following texts: Josh. iii, 16: “from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan;” chap. xii, 9: “Ai, which is beside Bethel;” Ruth ii, 14: “And she sat beside the reapers;” 1 Sam. vi, 8: “In a coffer by the side thereof;” Chap. xx, 25: “And Abner sat by Saul's side,” &c. All this shows that it was put beside the ark—in the place set for the ark—and Deut. xxxi, 26, would have been correctly so rendered.

A few words in regard to the contents of “the book” may not be out of place. The Lord made a specific agreement with the children of Israel, Ex. xix, 5–8, by the mediation of Moses. After the ten commandments were spoken, instruction through Moses was resumed, and all the special duties pertaining to that covenant were so given. By Deut. xxix, 1, we learn that certain things were given to them in the land of Moab, “beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.” All these things were written in the book, together with the ten commandments, which were copied from the tables of stone. The expression, “tables of the covenant,” has reference to the commandments, for the tables contained nothing else. But “the book of the covenant” has reference to the covenant made with them, in distinction from that on tables of stone. True, the book contained a copy of that on the tables, and has so much in common with them; but it contained also all the words given through Moses, which the tables did not. Therefore “the book” might with propriety be taken to represent that which

was peculiar to itself, to wit, the covenant made with them.

It only remains now to be seen to which of the covenants brought to view in the scriptures already noticed, Jer. xxxi, 31–34, and Heb. viii, 6–12, refers. It is evident that we learn nothing at all from the mere word “covenant,” for there are many covenants spoken of in the Scriptures; they must be identified by their characteristics, or the facts presented in reference to them. Paul says the Lord found “fault with them” for not continuing in the covenant; for that reason it became a nullity, and another became necessary. The contrast which the apostle draws may be readily seen by the following:

Ex. xix. If ye will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant. —Then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto me. Heb. viii. They continued not in my covenant. —I regarded them not saith the Lord.

Also that the new covenant was to be established on “better promises,” see as follows:

Ex. If ye will keep my covenant, (i. e. if ye will not sin.) Heb. Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Now a covenant or agreement is nullified by the failure of one party. But a “law” is not affected in its nature or validity by any failure to comply with its requirements. Nor do we need a law to be changed or abolished because it is broken; the requirement of justice is that it be vindicated and enforced. And this is done in the case of the law of God: it is honored and vindicated in Christ through whose death, for the violation of the law, God can be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. All this shows that the contrast in Jeremiah and Hebrews is with the covenant made in Ex. xix, 5–8, and not with that spoken in Ex. xx.

Again, when the covenant of Ex. xix was made, it was based on a condition, to wit.: the law which the Lord should speak with his voice—the covenant of ten commandments. It was a covenant based on another covenant; presenting exactly the same relation we find in 2 Kings xxiii, 3. And all the rites and offerings given to them through Moses, belonging to that covenant, depended upon the law for their basis—their use or necessity arising out of the relation the people sustained to the law. So also the new covenant was to have “law” as its condition, this to be written on the heart. Some are so blind or prejudiced—I must refer it to one of these—as to say this was a better law than that of the first covenant. The apostle says it is established on “better promises;” but does not even hint about a better law. Indeed, when the Scriptures inform us that that was holy, perfect, and contained the whole duty of man, we cannot imagine why a better was required, or how it could be given. But “better promises” were needed, because the promises of the first did not embrace forgiveness of sin; they were for obedience only. Jeremiah himself, by whom this promise was made 600 years before the new covenant was introduced, had clearly shown the difference between the law of God and those things pertaining to the old covenant made with Israel; and the relation they sustained to each other, in that a rejection of the law rendered worthless all their worship and offerings. See Jer. vi, 19, 20; vii, 22, 23.

This argument might be strengthened, if necessary, by examining those texts which speak of the law and prove its perpetuity, because as its perpetuity is shown, all inferences that it was the first covenant which passed away, are at once seen to be worthless. But as these remarks were designed to answer your questions directly, and on that point only, I close by expressing my firm belief that the “idea of there being a covenant in Ex. xix,” is neither “fanciful” nor “far-fetched,” but a legitimate and unavoidable conclusion from facts plainly set forth in the Scriptures. That there was an “agreement” made there, none will deny. But that is one of the meanings of the word covenant; therefore that a covenant is given in Ex. xix, is beyond the possibility of denial. J. H. W.

ASCENSION ROBES.

By J. H. W.

Bro. White's remarks on the falsehoods circulated on the above subject remind me of an incident that transpired some years since in Wisconsin. A Mr. H., an M. E. preacher, deriding the Adventists, said: “It is a fact that they prepared and put on ascension robes in 1844.” At the close of his remarks I stated that I was very anxious to learn about the facts on that subject, and asked him to give particulars, as to where, by whom, &c. He said that it was not always convenient to give the evidence on matters which had transpired years in the past, and he could not then comply with the request. I turned to the congregation and said:—

“He has said it is a fact. Now if he does not know it to be a fact, he has made a false statement. If he knows it to be a fact, he can procure the evidence of the fact. As he has an appointment here four weeks from to-day, I give notice that I will be here at that time to get his statement, as that will give him time to get the information. If it occurred anywhere it will be easy to prove it in that locality. I hope the people will all be here to get the facts he may present.”

Being thus pressed to make good his assertion, and having the expectation of the people raised on it, he saw the necessity of doing something, and promptly confessed that he knew nothing about it, but had heard such a report!

The way the report ran was well illustrated by the following case. A Bro. T., who had lived and labored in Buffalo, and attended the Advent meetings there, was working in Erie in the fall of 1844. After the set day passed, the report spread in Erie that the Adventists in Buffalo put on ascension robes. He was so grieved over their folly, and troubled in his mind, that he determined to visit his friends in Buffalo and talk with them about it. Landing at Buffalo, he met an acquaintance, also an Adventist, who did not know where he came from. He asked if any of the Adventists in Buffalo had put on ascension robes. “No,” said his friend, “but they all did in Erie!” A smile by Bro. T. led to an explanation. And so it was everywhere. Everybody knew it was so—the place where it occurred could not be found.

J. H. W.

The Apparition at St. Anthony, Minn.

A wonderful manifestation of Spiritualism seems to have taken place at St. Anthony, Minn., published accounts of which have been sent us by several correspondents. On receipt of the first, we took measures to ascertain the correctness of the report, by writing to one of the parties concerned in it, who is not a believer in Spiritualism, from whom we have received assurance over his own signature that the statements are correct. We are therefore so far satisfied that the story is not an imposition upon the credulity of the public, as to decide to lay it before the reader. This we will do next week, as we have not space in the present number.

REPORT FROM BRO. CANRIGHT.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

Friday, April 10, Bro. Barker took me up to New Vineyard. We went with a sleigh; and it was so cold that I froze one of my ears! This is rather cool for the middle of April. At New Vineyard, we found that the enemy had been doing their best to oppose the truth, but without success. We found there one Eld. Fletcher, claiming to be a Methodist, who had come to fill their regular appointments, which had not been done for months. But everything seemed to show that he had only come for controversy. He boasted very much of his ability, how he had confounded the Adventists many times, that they could not stand before him a moment, &c. He sent us a proposition for a discussion, but one which no one would undertake to discuss. So, with a committee of the principal men of the village with me, I called on him. No arrangements could be made. I must come to his terms, discuss his proposition, according to his rules, or not at all. The committee all said that I should not do it; so we had no discussion.

Sabbath evening, there was a goodly company out to hear the word of God. Also, on the Sabbath, all our old friends were there, and we found that none had lost their interest, or given up the truth. Saturday evening, a large company was out, which shows that the interest here is not abating. Sunday, Eld. F. insisted on occupying the house, though it was my appointment. We felt that he had no right to do so, but gave way. He spoke on the Sabbath question, trying to show—I could not tell what, nor could any one else, so far as I know. His strongest arguments were, 1. It is very inconvenient and crossing to keep the seventh day. 2. An attempt to show that the fathers kept Sunday. In this he manifested great ignorance of historical facts; thus, he said that Mosheim was a Roman Catholic, that the Council of Nice was held in A. D. 225, &c. He came within 100 years of the truth! About as near as all his statements were. At the close of his discourse, I asked a chance to review him, especially since he was speaking on my time. The people demanded that I should have it; but he would allow me no chance, so I gave out to reply at the close of his afternoon meeting. He accused us of disturbing his holy Sabbath by controversy. Said he should leave, and entreated all his friends to do so; said that all who would stay to hear me, were so far gone that I could not hurt them. As soon as he had dismissed the meeting, the choir began to sing, as much as to say that they were not going away. More than three-fourths of the people staid, and showed by their attention that they could see and appreciate the difference between error and truth, between boasting and proving.

We left this place much encouraged. We have numerous warm friends here, those who believe the truth and love to hear it, but yet only a few of them have taken up the cross. I cannot think but that many more will yet do so. We hope to see the work carried on there yet this season. May God bless and encourage them.

We had a very encouraging time at Norridgewock, April 4 and 5. We celebrated the ordinances and it seemed a sweet and solemn season. There is still an interest among those without, to hear. In our business meeting we had to disfellowship one member, for the first time. Another one has of late embraced the truth who will soon take her place in the church. A very good state of feeling now seems to exist among the brethren and sisters here. The Sabbath School is kept up well, and the evening prayer-meetings are well attended, which is always a good index. The health and dress reforms and the testimonies are steadily gaining ground. This indicates an encouraging state of things. There is, however, one sad lack in this church, and that is in visiting the sick and lonely, also in visiting one another. They are all faithful “keepers at home.” I would remind the brethren and sisters who cannot often meet with us, that it is expected of all the members of the church that they will give a report of themselves every three months at our Quarterly Meetings. The next one will be the first Sabbath and Sunday in July. Let none fail to remember this duty. This church thus far has had no part nor sympathy with the faultfinding, jealous spirit which has been manifested in a few in some other sections. I hope that they never will. It soon kills any church. I pray that the blessing of God may attend this church till Jesus comes.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Treasures in Heaven

The Gloucester Telegraph suggests that the reason why so many persons hesitate about laying up treasures in Heaven is, that they are in doubt about getting there themselves.

MEETING AT ROCHESTER, N. Y.

By R. F. Cottrill

This meeting, held on the second Sabbath and first-day in April, was one of deep interest; and its effects will tell upon the eternal destiny of some that were present. Personal labor was taken up for several young persons, and appeals were made to them that will, it is hoped, prove a savor of life unto life unto them. If not, they will certainly prove a savor of condemnation and death in the last day. These young persons, about six or seven in number, some backsliders and some beginners, each resolved to seek the Lord in earnest, and desired the prayers of the people of God. Brethren, pray for them. And may God help them each to fulfill their vows by giving their hearts to the Lord without reserve, diligently striving to obey God and gain eternal life. Life or death depends on how you act, my dear friends, in respect to the resolutions you there recorded, under those fervent appeals indited by the Spirit of God. If you are faithful to your vows, you will have cause of eternal gratitude to God, and to his dear servants, who labored so zealously to pull you out of the fire. Oh, be faithful and be saved! Come to the next meeting dead to sin, and thus ready to be buried in the likeness of Christ's death and to rise to walk in newness of life.

R. F. COTTRILL.

MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD.

On and after Monday, Dec 30, 1867, Passenger Trains will run on this road as follows:

GOING WEST.

LEAVE.	MAIL.	DAY EXP.	EVE. EXP.	NIGHT EX.
Detroit,.......	7:10 A.M.	11:00 A.M.	5:35 P.M.	10:30 P.M.
Battle Creek,	1:35 P.M.	3:48 P.M.	11:15 P.M.	3:40 A.M.
Chicago, Arrive,	9:00 P.M.	10:00 P.M.	6:30 A.M.	11:00 A.M.

GOING EAST.

	MAIL.	DAY EXP.	EVE. EXP.	NIGHT EX.
Chicago,.......	4:30 A.M.	7:00 A.M.	4:15 P.M.	9:40 P.M.
Battle Creek,	11:45 A.M.	1:05 P.M.	10:38 P.M.	4:50 A.M.
Detroit, Arrive,	5:45 P.M.	6:10 P.M.	2:45 A.M.	10:00 A.M.

THESE trains all run by Chicago time, which is fifteen minutes slower than Detroit time.

News and Miscellany.

Can ye not discern the Signs of the Times? Matt. xvi, 3.

—A lady asked a minister whether a person might not be fond of dress and ornaments, and not be proud. “Madame,” said the minister, “when you see a fox’s tail peeping out of the hole, you may be sure the fox is within.”

The Oldest Relic of Humanity.—The oldest relic of humanity extant is the skeleton of one of the earlier Pharaohs, incased in its original burial robes, and wonderfully perfect, considering its age, which was deposited about eighteen or twenty months ago in the British Museum, and is justly considered the most valuable of its archæological treasures. The lid of the coffin which contained the royal mummy, was inscribed with the name of its occupant, Pharaoh Mykerimus, who succeeded the heir of the builder of the great pyramid, about ten centuries before Christ. Only think of it! the monarch whose crumbling bones and leathery integuments are now exciting the wonder of numerous gazers in London, reigned in Egypt before Solomon was born, and only about eleven centuries or so after Mizraim, the grandson of old father Noah, and the first of the Pharaohs, had been gathered to his fathers! Why, the tide-mark of the deluge would scarcely have been obliterated, or the gopher-wood knee timbers of the ark have rotted on Mount Ararat, when this man of the early world lived, moved and had his being! His flesh and blood were contemporary with the progenitors of the great patriarch! His bones and shriveled skin are contemporary with the nineteenth century, and the date of the crucifixion is only about midway between his era and ours.

To store our memories with a sense of injuries, is to fill that chest with rusty iron which was made for refined gold.

BELOVED, this rough-hewing of reproof is but to square us for the celestial building.

Continue reading: Publication Department