The Berean

or of eternity. Moreover they are objects which, when pursued in a spirit of ultraism, such as abounds among modern reformers, lead naturally and almost necessarily to irritating; collisions with the Bible, resulting in gradual abandonment of it, and finally in enmity against it. The infidelity or semiinfidelity of modern reformers, as we have shown in the preceding article, is the result of lustful benevolence, the love of liberty as the summum bonum, and lack of veneration,-not of the mere lack of evidence.'

§4. THE HARMONY OF MOSES AND CHRIST.

THE most plausible of all the usual allegations against the Bible, is, that the New Testament contradicts the Old. The ultra-benevolent semi-infidels are fond of arraying the principles of Christ against those of Moses. We will examine one of the worst of the stumbling blocks thus laid in the way of Bible-believers, as a specimen of the whole.

Moses said--" If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her; and yet no mischief follow; he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.' Exodus 21: 22-25.

Christ said--" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, tura to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Matt. 5: 38-40.

The scorner says that in one of these passages Jesus Christ forbade what Moses commanded in the other, and thereby proved his infidelity to a portion of the Bible and showed conclusively that he did not consider it the word of God. Let us see if this is true.

1. The mere language which Christ uses in substituting his rule for Moses' in this case, indicates no condemnation or disrespect of Moses' rule. For in the context immediately preceding he uses the same form of speech in regard to several precepts of the decalogue: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill,' &c. Ver. 21. 'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery,' &c. Ver. 27. No one will argue against the righteousness or the divinity of the Mosaic precepts against murder and adultery, because Christ deemed them insufficient for the purposes of his spiritual kingdom, and substituted other rules in their place. He supplanted them, not because they were evil in themselves, but because the nature of his dispensation called for larger principles. The same may be said of his dealing with Exodus 21: 24, for aught that appears in his language to the contrary.

2. Christ constantly taught that God's ultimate reckoning with men will proceed according to Moses' rule-An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' Let us glance at some of his instructions on this point. "The Son

of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works.' Matt. 16: 27. What is here meant by rewarding every man according to his works,' may be seen by consulting such passages as Matt. 13: 41-43, 25: 31-46. The rule of judgment according to these passages, is that they who work evil shall be rewarded with destruction; and that is equivalent to the rule of Moses. In the parable of the cruel creditor, (Matt. 18: 23-35,) the circumstances stated are these: A king, on the entreaty of his servant, forgave him his debt. The servant, having an account against a fellow servant in similar circumstances, would not forgive him, but cast him into prison. The king, being informed of the fact, called the oppressor to account, and delivered him to the tormentors. Thereupon Christ says, 'So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses;' which is as much as to say, they that show no mercy shall have no mercy, but shall be dealt with according to the rule'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Even in the sermon on the mount-the very discourse in which the Mosaic rule of retribution is displaced,-Christ points his disciples forward to a time when that rule shall be enforced. With what judgment ye judge,' he says, 'ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.' Matt. 7: 2. This is as strong as if he had said in so many words 'God will reckon with you at last by Moses' rule, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." It appears therefore that if there is any inherent wrong in the principle of exact retribution, Christ is as deeply implicated in the guilt of approving and promulgating it as Moses, and is moreover guilty of fastening the wrong upon God. We have then, not merely Christ pitted against Moses, but Christ against Christ. We need not go out of the book of Matthew-not even out of the sermon on the mount-to convict the Bible of self-antagonism, if there is any real antagonism between Matthew 5: 38-40 and Exodus 21: 22-25. This is carrying the matter too far.

3. The simple truth about the matter is, that the relation between Moses' rule and Christ's, is just the relation between justice and mercy, and both are good and worthy of God, though they are appropriate to different times and different circumstances. The rule-'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'-is the rule of exact justice. Common sense approves of it. It is the counterpart of the golden rule-Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them.' The selfish passions of individuals ought not to be trusted with the administration of such a rule; and accordingly it should be borne in mind that Moses enacted it, not as a principle of private action, but as the law to be administered in courts of justice, 'as the judges shall determine;' and the same rule, in different forms, governs courts of justice in all civilized lands. It is by no means certain that Christ, if he had been legislating as Moses was, for the affairs of a visible kingdom, would not have made the essence of Moses' rule the basis of the administration of justice between man and man. Rather it is certain that he would have done so, since, as we have seen, he declared that rule to be the ultimate measure of awards in God's eternal kingdom. But he gave his disciples another rule,

or of eternity. Moreover they are objects which, when pursued in a spirit of ultraism, such as abounds among modern reformers, lead naturally and almost necessarily to irritating collisions with the Bible, resulting in gradual abandonment of it, and finally in enmity against it. The infidelity or semiinfidelity of modern reformers, as we have shown in the preceding article, is the result of lustful benevolence, the love of liberty as the summum bonum, and lack of veneration,-not of the mere lack of evidence.'

§ 4. THE HARMONY OF MOSES AND CHRIST.

Moses said-" If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her; and yet no mischief follow; he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.' Exodus 21: 22-25.

Christ said--" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, tura to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Matt. 5: 38-40.

it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery,' &c. Ver. 27. No one will argue against the righteousness or the divinity of the Mosaic precepts against murder and adultery, because Christ deemed them insufficient for the purposes of his spiritual kingdom, and substituted other rules in their place. He supplanted them, not because they were evil in themselves, but because the nature of his dispensation called for larger principles. The same may be said of his dealing with Exodus 21: 24, for aught that appears in his language to the contrary.

2. Christ constantly taught that God's ultimate reckoning with men will proceed according to Moses' rule-'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." Let us glance at some of his instructions on this point.

• The Son

of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works.' Matt. 16: 27. What is here meant by rewarding every man according to his works,' may be seen by consulting such passages as Matt. 13: 41-43, 25: 31-46. The rule of judgment according to these passages, is that they who work evil shall be rewarded with destruction; and that is equivalent to the rule of Moses. In the parable of the cruel creditor, (Matt. 18: 23-35,) the circumstances stated are these: A king, on the entreaty of his servant, forgave him his debt. The servant, having an account against a fellow servant in similar eircumstances, would not forgive him, but cast him into prison. The king, being informed of the fact, called the oppressor to account, and delivered him to the tormentors. Thereupon Christ says, 'So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses;' which is as much as to say, they that show no mercy shall have no mercy, but shall be dealt with according to the rule'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Even in the sermon on the mount-the very discourse in which the Mosaic rule of retribution is displaced, Christ points his disciples forward to a time when that rule shall be enforced. With what judgment ye judge,' he says, 'ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.' Matt. 7: 2. This is as strong as if he had said in so many words-God will reckon with you at last by Moses' rule, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' It appears therefore that if there is any inherent wrong in the principle of exact retribution, Christ is as deeply implicated in the guilt of approving and promulgating it as Moses, and is moreover guilty of fastening the wrong upon God. We have then, not merely Christ pitted against Moses, but Christ against Christ. We need not go out of the book of Matthew-not even out of the sermon on the mount-to convict the Bible of self-antagonism, if there is any real antagonism between Matthew 5: 38-40 and Exodus 21: 22-25. This is carrying the matter too far.

3. The simple truth about the matter is, that the relation between Moses' rule and Christ's, is just the relation between justice and mercy, and both are good and worthy of God, though they are appropriate to different times and different circumstances. The rule-An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'-is the rule of exact justice. Common sense approves of it. It is the counterpart of the golden rule- Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, ye even so to them.' The selfish passions of individuals ought not to be trusted with the administration of such a rule; and accordingly it should be borne in mind that Moses enacted it, not as a principle of private action, but as the law to be administered in courts of justice, as the judges shall determine,' and the same rule, in different forms, governs courts of justice in all civilized lands. It is by no means certain that Christ, if he had been legislating as Moses was, for the affairs of a visible kingdom, would not have made the essence of Moses' rule the basis of the administration of justice between man and man. Rather it is certain that he would have done so, since, as we have seen, he declared that rule to be the ultimate measure of awards in God's eternal kingdom. But he gave his disciples another rule,

men.

for reasons which grew out of the nature of his mission as an agent not of justice but of mercy. Previous to judgment God interposes a dispensation of forbearance and forgiveness. The rule of justice is suspended; God waves his rights, and returns good for evil, so long as there is hope of saving Christ appeared in the world as the agent of this intermediate dispensation, and called on his followers to co-operate with him, by enlarging their hearts beyond the rule of justice, to the fulness of the measure of God's mercy, who for the present maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.' In all this there was no condemnation of the rule of justice. It was perfectly consistent with Christ's position to affirm (as he virtually did affirm by his endorsement of the law and the prophets in Matt. 5: 17) that Moses gave that rule by divine authority, for he expressly declared it to be a rule which God would even yet enforce in its proper time. He only taught his disciples that the rule of mercy was better for the time then present-i. e., more appropriate to his and their mission of love. Both rules were good. The same God might use both. Suppose A owes B a just debt, which he is able to pay. B may exact the payment of that debt in perfect righteousness. In that case he acts by the rule of justice. On the other hand he may in perfect righteousness forgive the debt. In that case he acts by the rule of mercy. Under certain circumstances it might be best that he should exact payment, and under others that he should forgive; and his acting by a different rule in different cases would be no infraction of his consistency or uprightness. Indeed in the parable of the cruel debtor we have a complete illustration of God's administration of both rules. The king first forgives the servant his debt, according to the rule of mercy. Afterward, on finding him to be unforgiving toward his fellow servant, he delivers him to the tormentors till he should pay all that was due unto him.' Thus he enforces the rule of justice. So likewise,' says Christ, shall my heavenly Father do unto you.' There is no inconsistency between the different proceedings in this case; and there is no more inconsistency between the rule of Moses and that of Christ. God commissioned Moses to institute a municipal law, which contained the elements, and was a miniature, of the rule of eternal judgment. He sent Christ into the world to administer the fulness of his intermediate mercy. The precepts of both, in their appropriate times and circumstances, were entirely consistent with each other. The allegation of Christ's opposition to Moses in this case, and indeed most of the plausibilities of Universalism, Nonresistance, and semi-infidelities in general, emanate from that shallowness and confusion of mind, which disallows altogether the principle of divine justice, and raises an entire and immutable theory of morality for God and man on the sole foundation of divine mercy.

« Anterior Continuar »

Libros

The Berean: A Manual for the Help of Those who Seek the Faith of the ...