The Two Covenants

THERE are two views prevailing as to what constitutes the first covenant. One was noticed last week, namely, that the old covenant was the agreement entered into between God and the children of Israel, a record of which is found in Ex. 19:5-8. Proof was given from the Scriptures that this is the truth on this important subject. According to the second view, the first covenant was simply the ten commandments. The first view is the more comprehensive, as it presents the two leading definitions of the word covenant, and answers to them both. 1. It presents as the covenant the contract between the parties. 2. It presents the condition to the contract.

But the second view presents as the first covenant that which answers to the definition of covenant only in its secondary sense; viz., the condition on which the contract rests. Undoubtedly the word covenant is thus used in the Bible. And for that reason many persons suppose that the ten commandments answer to, and constitute, the first covenant of which Jeremiah and Paul speak. That view of this subject which is really the truth will give to every part of the testimony its proper place, and will then show a divine harmony of the whole. But error must of necessity suppress, or pervert the truth. Here are the more important passages quoted to prove that the ten commandments constitute the first covenant:—

Ex. 34:28: "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

Deut. 4:13: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

Deut. 9:9-11: "When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water; and the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant."

1 Kings 8:21: "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."

2 Chron. 6:11: "And in it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, that he made with the children of Israel."

These are the texts relied upon by our opponents to disprove our views of the first covenant and to establish their own. We freely admit that the word covenant is applied to the ten commandments; and further, we also admit, or to speak more properly, we maintain, that the ten commandments do sustain a very important relation to the first covenant. But all parties must agree.

1. That the ten commandments are not a covenant in the sense of being a contract or agreement, as they contain no such thing.

2. That they are a covenant in the sense of being the conditions of the agreement which God made with Israel.

It does not seem that either of these two propositions can be denied by any candid man, as they are, manifestly, the exact truth. Both parties to this controversy must here come together upon common ground. And if they each act with a pure conscience, it will be difficult for them to disagree respecting the following proposition:—

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE COVENANT OF EX. 24:8.

That text reads thus: "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." Two palpable reasons sustain the foregoing proposition: 1. The covenant made with Israel "concerning all these words," was the agreement which the people entered into with the Almighty, as recorded in Ex. 19 and 24, that they would keep the words spoken by him. 2. The ten commandments were the words concerning which this covenant or agreement was made. These reasons are not likely to be disputed. They establish the fact, therefore, that the covenant which was ratified or dedicated with blood by Moses was not the ten commandments. On the contrary, it is a covenant in a more extensive sense than they can be. It is an agreement between God and Israel concerning his law, and that law is elsewhere called a covenant, not because there is in it a contract between God and his people, but simply because it is the grand condition of the contract, or covenant, which Moses here dedicates with blood. It is remarkable that the people entered into formal and solemn contract to obey the voice of God before they heard it, and that having heard his voice, they ratified that contract in the most solemn manner; and that to conclude all, Moses, having written the whole thing in a book, sprinkled both it and all the people, saying, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." Ex. 24:8.

Both parties to the controversy respecting the first covenant will here again certainly unite in saying that Moses uses the word covenant in this remarkable text, not as signifying the ten commandments, but the agreement made respecting them. Here we stand on solid ground, and our opponents will not attempt to drive us hence. And now that we are so happily agreed in this fact let us advance to the important truth which lies directly before us. Here it is:—

The contract made in Ex. 19 and 24, relative to the ten commandments, which Moses (Ex. 24:8) calls "the covenent which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words," is the identical first covenant concerning which we are involved in controversy.

This proposition our opponents stoutly deny. But so certainly as they are honest men (and we are ready to award this noble quality to every one of them who has not given palpable proof that he does not possess it), they will be constrained to agree with us here also. Providentially, we have the testimony of the New Testament in so explicit and distinct an utterance as to leave no chance for dispute on this point. Paul quotes this very record in Ex. 24:8, respecting the dedication of the covenant concerning the law of God, and makes the explicit statement that this covenant thus dedicated was the first covenant. Here are his words:—

"Whereupon neither the FIRST TESTAMENT [covenant] was dedicated without blood. For, when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying. This is the blood of the testament [covenant] which God hath enjoined unto you." Heb. 9:18-20.

Here, also, we have a right to ask our opponents to agree with us. In fact the testimony is so explicit that there is no chance for them to do otherwise. Paul settles this point in dispute, and shows that the fist covenant is not the law of God, but the solemn contract between God and Israel respecting that law. And that which makes Paul's testimony in this case very valuable is, that he writes as a commentator upon those words of Jeremiah which constitute the theme of this discourse.