“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says, `Behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, `when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with 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 did not continue in my covenant and I disregarded them’ says the Lord” (Heb. 8:7-9).
But Not All Accept This Truth“The foundation of the Sabbatarian error, I believe, is the idea that `the law,’ in all the strictness of the old letter, is binding on Christians. Hence, their constant theme is the law, law, law. They preach it ten times as much as they preach Christ. Unfortunately, a false theory of the law taught by some other churches has led them into this sad error. For twenty-eight years I was held in that `bondage.’ Now that I have found my way out, if I can help others, I shall rejoice” (Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced, D. M. Canright, published by B. C. Goodpasture, Nashville, TN, 1889, p. 305).The God of Heaven has bestowed no greater blessing on mankind than to permit him to draw near Him in a covenant relationship. “What is man that thou art mindful of him” (Ps. 8:4; Heb. 2:6) has been answered to some degree by God’s willingness to engage man in covenants. Such covenants with Jehovah are revealed throughout Biblical history. In Genesis 6:18, God made the first stated covenant with Noah, though even Adam and Eve had a close relationship with God in Eden (not specifically named a covenant). Other covenants ensued, most of which were broken by man, though God always remained faithful.The nature of covenants with God are not always the same as covenants men make with equals. Jehovah poses and disposes covenants according to His will, acting as Creator as He rules over his creature (man). Covenants may be entered by mutual consent of all involved or they may be imposed by a superior to an inferior. Covenants may contain promises; they may take the form of law. In fact, the Law of Moses is clearly referenced as a covenant (which does not negate nor conflict with its forensic nature).
One thing is clear: men “draw near” to God through His covenantal grace. David implored God to “draw near to my soul” (Ps. 69:18) and declared that it was “good for me to draw near to God” (Ps. 73:28). Through the covenant made with Israel, God “established you today as a people for himself” (Deut. 29:12-13). The Hebrew writer spoke of the “new covenant” (Heb. 8:6-13) in Christ by which “we draw near to God” (Heb. 7:19).
But which covenant is it by which we today “draw near to God?” Clearly, we are not subject to all covenants ever made by God with mankind. Of the Mosaic covenant, God said, “The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.” Neither did the Mosaic covenant include the nations: “for when Gentiles, who do not have the law…” (Rom. 2:14). Which covenant, then, applies to us today? Herein lies the confusion.
No item of Bible study needs more attention than that of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments (covenants). Much of the chaos among believers can be pin-pointed to this confusion. Since the close of New Testament revelation (Jude 3; 1 Cor. 13:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:3 et al), many discussions, debates, books, articles and sermons have centered around the proper relationship of Christians to the Law of Moses. That both the Old and New Testaments are inspired of God is a matter of universal acceptance among Bible believers (Heb. 1:1-2; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Whether or not the Law of Moses, generally, and the Decalogue (Ten Commandments), specifically, is binding is yet another matter. Some have sought to bind the Old Testament and New Testament concurrently. Others have insisted that certain portions of the Old Testament remain in force (a supposed distinction between “ceremonial” and “moral” portions of The Law). Many accept the Decalogue alone. Questions arise as to the nature of the Law as a “covenant” and some propose that an “eternal covenant” remains today in addition to the New Testament of Christ. Conclusions reached by differing disciples are far-reaching in consequences. Not only does the observance of the Sabbath Day versus the Lord’s Day hang in the balance, but many other weighty matters need attention. The efficacy of the blood of Christ, His work as High priest in heaven today, the plan of salvation, the worship of the church, the work of the church, marriage relationships, what divorce is authorized, the relationship between law and grace and Jews and Christians, to name a few, await answers. While not claiming to be exhaustive, this month’s Watchman Magazine (as well as next month’s issue, to be edited by Stan Cox) addresses some of these questions.
Among churches of Christ, an appeal has generally been made to first-century authority for what is believed and practiced. “We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent” (paraphrasing 2 Jn. 9-11; 1 Pet. 4:11; etc.). While these churches have no earthly headquarters, creed books or brotherhood councils to tell individuals or congregations what to believe about such matters, unanimity has been constant on the authority of Christ over Moses. From the time of pioneer America members have spoken with one voice, with few exceptions, in teaching the binding force of the New Testament, recognizing that the Old Testament to be “nailed to the cross” and “taken out of the way” (Col. 2:14).
Confusion Among DenominationsDenominations have not been so uniform. Some sects have attempted to bind the Decalogue while rejecting other parts of the Old Testament. “Sabbatarians” continue to bind the seventh day in a strangely non-Jewish manner while condemning those who honor the “first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). It is not unusual to find many attempting to bind “tithing” while rejecting the Sabbath, adding to the confusion. Attempts to justify instrumental music in worship reach back into the time of David while omitting the animal sacrifices which he offered. Divorce advocates cite Deuteronomy 24 while performing a juggling act with Jesus’ instruction in the Gospels (Mt.5; 19). Especially confusing among the sects is the place of baptism in the Covenant of Grace as compared to the “law of works.” The poor thief on the cross of Luke 23:39-43, dying under the Law of Moses, is often used as an example of New Testament salvation, though the Great Commission had not yet been given (Mt. 28:18-20; Heb. 9:16-17).Is the Law of Moses binding? Or Not? Is a part of it yet in force, while other parts are of non-effect? Is the Law of Moses considered a covenant? If so, when was that covenant fulfilled, if ever? Is there an “eternal moral law” in addition to the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ that is equally binding on all mankind today? If so, where do we read of it and what are its limitations?Yes, people are confused about the covenants, but it is not due to a lack of clarity on God’s part. While admitting the binding force of the Law of Moses to those amenable to its precepts, we must recognize that the Holy Spirit has instructed us as to the binding force of Jesus’ last will and testament (Matt. 28:18-20). When we recognize that “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and that “the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed,” we will begin to understand the balance and relationship between God’s two written laws. Properly understood, the Law of Moses is a “tutor” or “schoolmaster” to bring us to faith in Jesus, which, having served its purpose, remains in its fulfilled state for “our admonition and learning” (Gal. 3:23-25; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11). Yet, we must beware lest we confuse the covenants, placing ourselves under a “yoke of bondage” that will result in a “fall from grace” (Gal. 5:1-4).
Sadly, the unanimity among members of the church of Christ in past generations concerning the Law and the Gospel is eroding. Voices are being raised for the first time in over a century that attempt to bind portions of the Law upon Christians. Though adamant denials are heard when the connection between this error and loose positions on adulterous marriages are made, no historical case can be made for any other reason. It is not in favor of Sabbath keeping among churches of Christ that some seek to bind Moses’ law! Rather, it is for multiple causes for divorce and remarriage that seek a home in Deuteronomy 24 as though this teaching is equal to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. We hear no special pleading for animal sacrifices, incense burning or instrumental music — yet! But since all error is progressive in nature (“evil men wax worse and worse,” 2 Tim. 3:13), it is not surprising to hear some advocates of easy divorce claim inability to condemn polygamy and concubinage. Now, folks, be realistic. If appeals can be made to the Old Testament for divorce and remarriage for every cause, why can’t we appeal to Psalms for instrumental music? To Exodus 20 for Sabbath observance? To Leviticus for our Aaronic high priest? If one can have wives like David, why not instruments like David? If one can find authority for easy divorce in Deuteronomy 24, why not concubines like Solomon? Logic and consistency will not permit these parallels to be dismissed without an honest answer. Those who are guilty of binding portions of the law upon their brethren must let us know why they are not guilty as well of making us a “debtor to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:1-4).
Like Paul, “I marvel,” or “stand amazed,” that some among brethren today, who have such a rich heritage of crystal clear preaching on this subject are “so soon removed” from the gospel of Christ to “a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you andwant to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-9).
Confusion in Apostolic TimesPerhaps we should not be too surprised at the different views about Moses’ Law. Early Christians had much dissension among them as to the nature of the gospel of Christ as it pertained to Moses’ law. Peter was so hypocritical about his treatment of Gentile Christians that he misled “even Barnabas” and was publicly rebuked by Paul for his sin (Gal. 2:11ff). Perfectly willing to accept Jesus if they could retain the Law as well, some Judaizing teachers disturbed churches, making inclusion of the Law a test of fellowship and of salvation (Acts 15:1). Paul, led by the Holy Spirit, disputed with these false brethren and showed that the “Law/Gospel” was “a different gospel” and a “perversion of the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-9). All the apostles (including Peter) accepted this truth and wrote letters to the disturbed churches, urging them to reject this Judaizing heresy. Much of the New Testament was written to give a proper understanding of the gospel of Christ: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, etc.There might be mitigating circumstances for some misunderstanding of first century Christians in the weighty relationship between grace and law, but, at this late date, with so much teaching on it through the centuries, we are without excuse. Those who are presently disturbing brethren with their concocted, inconsistent, illogical and prejudicial arguments in favor of binding the Old Testament because they wish to find a loophole for unscriptural divorces and remarriages are opening doors which they will never be able to shut. It would be interesting indeed for one who appeals to Deuteronomy 24 for authority for divorce today to debate a Sabbatarian. Another debate proposition that would prove interesting for them is the question of instrumental music, or tithing, or incense burning, or animal sacrifice, etc., etc. In fact, I offer space in this magazine for any advocate of continued Sabbath observance today to debate with some of those who misuse Deuteronomy 24 to defend adulterous marriages. You see, in order to use Deuteronomy 24 to authorize a modern practice, they give up the right to deny anyone else the use of another Old Testament passage to authorize another modern practice. How can one use Deuteronomy 24 to authorize adulterous marriages while denying another the right to use Exodus 20 to authorize Sabbath keeping?
Watchman Writers Explain CovenantsIn this issue, faithful gospel preachers set forth in clear terms the Biblical usage of God’s covenants with mankind. We are indebted to much diligent study and clarity of writing as different aspects of this subject are explored.Steven Deaton, in “Voices From the Past,” has brought to us a sermon from as far back as 1816 (first set in print in 1849), being the address by Alexander Campbell in Cross Creek, VA. As Campbell began his long and arduous study out of denominational error, one of the major milestones of his progress was the personal insight that the Law of Moses was no longer binding. Going against the weight of the Baptist clergy (where he then held membership), Campbell found himself tried for heresy. But the fruit of his study has helped thousands understand the truth about the Law and Gospel. It is a shame that some among us are returning to the very error from whence Campbell fled.Maurice Barnett brings his considerable talent in word studies (both Greek and Hebrew) to our search for Biblical truth on Covenants (People of the Covenants). No greater benefit can we derive from our studies than accurate and complete definitions of words as they are used by the Holy Spirit. When we find “covenant,” “testament,” and “law” in scripture, we must be sure that we understand what the Spirit meant. Maurice, of Phoenix, AZ, lays a proper foundation for the serious student by his thorough and scholarly research.
Thomas G. O’Neal of Bessemer, AL granted us permission to reprint his article on “A New and Better Covenant” taken from his quarterly paper, Walking In Truth. Not only does he supply us with a good Bible study about covenants, but he also cites public examples of error among members of the church of Christ. No, we are not immune to error, and we must constantly “search the scriptures” (Acts 17:11) to insure that we do not “drift away” (Heb. 2:1).
Robert Archer of Lewisville, TX (father to Jeff Archer), addresses the fact that the Law of Moses is no longer binding on Christians today (Is The Old Covenant Still Binding?). In brief fashion, Robert cuts to the heart of the controversy, proving that God intended for the Law of Moses to be taken out of the way when its purpose was fulfilled.
Jeff Archer, from Cary, NC, examines a specific scripture that is affected in interpretation by a misapplication of the Law of Moses. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, the cornerstone of “preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Mt. 4:23) is forced, by Judaizing teachers today, back into the mold of Mosaic Law, making nonsense of Jesus’ authority as Lawgiver. Jeff addresses Jesus’ teaching on Marriage in Matthew 5:32 (in the context of the Sermon on the Mount). In our regular feature “Solid Food,” you will find a careful study of Jesus’ confrontation with the scribes and Pharisees who seem to have had as much trouble with adulterous marriages as modern America.
Steven Deaton performed double duty this month. He is our regular feature editor of “Voices From the Past” and we are indebted to him for producing Alexander Campbell’s famous “Sermon on the Law” as this issue’s historic voice. In addition, Steven has provided a broader view of the same subject in his article, “Sermon on the Mount: Clarifying The Law of Moses or The Constitution of Christianity?“ You will note the different approach made by Steven than by Jeff Archer in analyzing the statement “it has been said by them of old time.” Whether this made reference to actual statements of Moses’ law or to perverted traditions of the Pharisees, both men reach the only conclusion possible about the Sermon on the Mount: it is the foundation of the kingdom of Christ and not a continuation of a previous covenant.
Frank Jamerson gets us “Back to Basics” in a two part article that examines “Christ and the Covenants” and “Christ and the Law.” Does God continue to bind a “moral” code from the Law of Moses while discontinuing a “ceremonial” code? What view does the scripture teach about the Law of Moses and its continuation today? The answer is exceedingly clear. Frank, of Lakeland, FL, will also have two articles in the March issue as he addresses the Law of Moses and the “Kingdom” and “Hermeneutics.” If you want to build a library of information about the law of Christ as distinct from the law of Moses, you will want this material.
The prolific pen of Larry Ray Hafley of Baytown, TX opens, for our consideration, the subject of “The Blood of the Everlasting Covenant.” There are weighty implications to be drawn from the fact that Jesus Christ shed his blood which is “better” than that of animals. Writing in the Queries and Explications feature, Larry brings an excellent study from the book of Hebrews. In addition, he continues his series regarding “Free Will.” The editors and writers of Watchman Magazine are dedicated to bringing you scriptural studies that are “meat” articles (Heb. 5:12-14), solid food!
Jim McDonald, of Lufkin, TX, has traveled and preached extensively in the Philippine Islands where considerable error has been promulgated concerning Covenants. Additionally, he has preached in the northwest part of the United States where advocates of adulterous marriages find comfort in perverted teachings on the Law of Moses supposedly being the same as the Law of Christ. His first-hand experience in combating this error is revealed in the article, “Jeremiah 31 and the One Covenant Controversy.” Men who have enjoyed a past reputation of soundness have now departed into error and are disturbing brethren here and abroad by their new-found-but-old denominational doctrine. They actively seek support from churches of Christ around the U.S. and travel far and near to spread their confusion on the covenants. Faithful brethren must wake up to the fact that they may be having financial fellowship with men who no longer occupy the “old paths” they once did. Jim helps to identify the error into which good men have departed.
Debbie Rowen of Fort Worth, TX speaks from the Christian woman’s view in the regular feature of “The Distaff.” Without debating the Law of Christ’s relation to the Law of Moses, Debbie approaches marriage as a true covenant and encourages women to understand their responsibilities toward their husbands and toward God. Society in America is much the worse because of the abdication of so many women from their God-given roles of wives and mothers in the home. This article brings us back to an understanding of what God wants from “the distaff.”
Rounding out this month’s webzine are articles by Stephen Houchen with his “Prosiguiendo a la meta“ for Spanish brethren here, south of the border and around the world; Jim Robson with “Evidences of Faith,” so vital to meeting the onslaughts of infidelity; Steve Wallace with news from Europe (“White Unto Harvest“) featuring the work of Thomas Bunting in Norway; “The Simple Gospel,” which this month is entitled The Conditions of Salvation, and is written by Bob Waldron; and editorials by Larry Fain, associate editor from Athens, AL, (The “Gift and the “Promise”) and Stan Cox, editor from Fort Worth, TX (“I Have Found the Book of the Law“)who brings us this month’s editorial while preparing copy for next month’s continuation of our study on “Covenants.”
Altogether, the editors of Watchman Magazine have compiled a prodigious amount of scriptural studies which would be impossible for one man to accomplish. It will take considerable reading time for each of you to digest what has been written this month, much less what will be continued next month. However, we know that every writer has dedicated himself/herself to a complete harmony with God’s word in what has been written. It is sent to you with the prayer that you will have the same sentiment of the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11: “…they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily, to find out whether these things were so.”
