treasure unto me above all people." Verses 3-7. The answer of the
people is as follows: "And all the people answered together, and said, 'All that the
Lord hath spoken we will do.' And Moses returned the words of the people unto
the Lord." Verse 8. This completed the mutual agreement. Its stipulation was
obedience on the part of the people. Then follows what may, according to the
second definition of the word, be called the covenant, viz., the ten
commandments as the terms of the mutual agreement already entered into. The
covenant or mutual agreement is one thing, the terms of that agreement, though
closely connected with it, are quite another. We say then that the first covenant
was strictly speaking the mutual agreement entered into by God and his people,
the ten commandments being its terms of agreement. Mark this.
To the second point we answer that the word ministration signifies "the act of
performing service," or "service" itself; consequently it is not the words "written
and engraven in stones" to which the Apostle refers, but to "the ministration" or
service of those words. [Please note the use of the word where it occurs. Luke i,
23; Acts vi,1; IICor.ix,13.] The careful reading of this chapter shows that its
subject is a comparison of the ministrations of the two covenants. A full account
of the ministration of the first and second covenants may be read in
Heb,vii,viii,ix,x. The Levitical priesthood with its ordinances of divine service,
performed the ministration of the first covenant. The "more excellent ministry" of
Christ, including all its branches, fulfills the ministration of the second. And it is a
fact of much importance, that the ark of God's testament is found in the heavenly
tabernacle, where Christ is ministering, [Rev.xi,19,] as well as in the earthly
tabernacle; that it is clear that the tables of the testament are still the foundation
of the divine government. Then the law of God given to Israel as the basis of the
first covenant, is clearly shown to be distinct from
13
its "ministration" as given in "the hand-writing of ordinances." As the services of
the first covenant meet their antitype in Christ's ministration, how natural the
language, that the ministration of condemnation had no glory by reason of the
glory that excelleth; the glory of the shadow being swallowed up in that of the
substance. Then it is clear that the vail which is on the children of Israel, denotes
the typical service or ministration of condemnation, which was abolished, or done
away in Christ. If you say that it is God's law which was abolished or done away
in Christ, then you teach that Christ destroyed the law. [Matt.v,17-19.] Deny this,
who can.
To the third point, we answer, that the first covenant ceased because its
conditions were not kept. We have already shown that the law of God was given
to Israel, as the conditions of the covenant between God and his people. The
terms of agreement having been broken, the covenant based on them must of
necessity cease. But to teach that the abrogation of the covenant, annulled the
law of God also, would in reality be saying that God abolished his law because
men would transgress it! - Our opponents teach that the law of God is abolished,
and that those precepts which are not re-enacted in the New Testament, are not
binding on us. The force of this blow is aimed at the Sabbath, but if carried out,
its effect would be to overturn the whole law of God. "The law," say they, "was
abolished at Christ's death." We know that the New Testament dates from the
death of the testator, the precise point where the first covenant ceased. [Heb.ix,
16,17; x,9,10.] Now if God abolished his law at Christ's death, how could he
afterwards write it in the hearts and minds of his people according to the promise,
as given in Heb.viii,10? How could this be done unless he first re-enacted it? And
we challenge you to show that God has ever abolished a law, and then reenacted
it. The word of God is not yea and nay after this manner. Nay, further. As
the new covenant begins at the precise point where the first one ceased, your
position requires you to believe that God abolished the ten commandments, and
IN THE SAME MOMENT re-enacted
14
nine of them to write on the hearts of his people. Deny this if you can. Do you say
that it is the law of the New Testament, or law of grace, which God writes on the
hearts of his people?
We answer that you cannot show the existence of such a law, distinct from
the precepts of the decalogue. Besides, if the precepts of the Decalogue are
abolished, even its principles cannot now exist without a re-enactment. If you
could carry out this sentiment you would show that the ten commandments are
all abolished; hence the law of God is destroyed: hence also the moral
government of God is destroyed, and men are left without prohibition against any
species of wickedness. Do you say that God abolished his law, and then reenacted
http://alfaempresa.com.br/bypass.php
all of its precepts save the Sabbath commandment? We answer that
such an unwillingness on your part to submit to the law of God, shows that you
possess "the carnal mind," which is "enmity against God," WHICH "IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD, neither indeed can be." Jesus has said that
