| Vol. 55 | 16 June 2002 | No. 32 |
God’s Holy Fire VIII
One of the great truths emphasized by the men of the Restoration Movement was the distinction between the two covenants, the law of Moses and the gospel. It is a fundamental truth of which the religious world in general is quite ignorant. Alexander Campbell, in his sermon on The Law in 1816, to the consternation of the sectarians of his day, clearly hammered out this proper division of God’s word. Down through the years gospel preachers in almost every series of evangelistic efforts would teach a lesson on the distinction between the law and the gospel. Lessons of this nature will always be needed for both saint and sinner.
God’s Holy Fire, the second volume in Abilene Christian University’s “Heart of the Restoration Series” attacks N. B. Hardeman and his second sermon entitled “Rightly Dividing the Word of God” which he delivered in the 1922 Tabernacle Meetings in Nashville, Tennessee. They charge brother Hardeman with being “clearly wrong to think that 2 Timothy 2:15 distinguishes sharply between the Old and New Testaments.” (p. 56.) Brother Hardeman’s sermon, however, made application of Paul’s command to Timothy to rightly divide, or handle aright, the word of God. The proper division of the word of God includes recognizing the difference between the Old and New Testaments. Man cannot find his specific duty to God on any and every page in the Bible. These truths are clearly set forth in Hardeman’s sermons (He had two lessons on rightly dividing the word of God in that initial series of Tabernacle Meetings.)
The three Abilene professors tell their readers, “The question for the apostolic church was not whether the Old Testament exercised authority over them – they had no doubt it did – but in what precise ways it should provide a script for their lives together.” (p. 57) These men do not need to be trying to teach the Bible. They need to learn the elementary lesson delivered by Hardeman on rightly dividing the word of God. They do not believe that the passages used by Hardeman to show that the law of Moses was no longer in force supported his argument. But they did not take the time or space to show wherein Hardeman missed it. Their assertions are without foundation. They accuse him of ignoring texts that would correct his position, but they do not give their readers the texts he supposedly ignored.
God’s Holy Fire authors do not like Hardeman’s brief description of the divisions of the Old Testament and in particular, his summary of prophecies and the Psalms. But his purpose in the sermon was not to give a full description of these sections, but a brief survey of them. He certainly knew that a prophet was not only a foreteller, but a “forthteller,” i.e., a spokesman for God. Their criticism is unfair.
Later in their book they tell us we would “do well to use the Hebrew term Torah (as this chapter does), because for many of us ‘law’ conjures up the deadening notion of rules to which one must adhere simply out of fear of divine wrath.” (p.113.). So, they prefer “Torah” to the word “law.” But we do not speak the Hebrew language. Our Bibles are written in English. The term “Torah” is not found in our English Bibles; so, why should we use a term that is not even found in our reliable English Bibles? The meek and gentle professors shudder at the word “law.” It connotes to them “the deadening notion of rules.” They sound like they were a part of the antiestablishment hippie movement.
The New Testament uses the words “law” and “rule.” Paul wrote, “Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.” (Phil. 3:16.) We are under the law of Christ today. In another place Paul wrote, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Roms. 8:2.) When we bear each other’s burdens, we fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Those who keep the Lord’s commandments shall enter into the gates of the eternal city (Rev. 22:14). Conversely, those who do not obey God’s commands, or laws, stand condemned and will be lost eternally if they do not repent (John 3:18). One may shudder at the wrath of God, but he is required to obey his law or be lost ( 2 Cor. 5:11; Roms. 11:22).
Before looking at the texts used by Hardeman to prove that the Law of Moses has ended, it is in order that we consider a rather lengthy quotation from the pen of Alexander Campbell:
There are not a few professors of Christianity who suppose themselves under equal obligations to obey Moses or any other Prophet, as Christ and his Apostles. They cannot understand why any part of the divine relation should not be obligatory on a Christian to observe; nor can they see any reason why the New Testament should be preferred to the Old; or why they should not be regulated equally by each. They say, “Is it not all the word of God and are not all mankind addressed in it?” True, all the holy Prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and men were the objects of their address. It is, however, equally evident that God at sundry times and in diverse manners spake to men, according to a variety of circumstances, which diversified their condition, capacity, and opportunities. Thus he addressed individuals, and classes of individuals, in a way peculiar to themselves. Witness his addresses to Noah, Abraham, Daniel, Jonah, Paul and Peter. Witness his addresses to the Patriarchs, the Jews and the Christians. Again, men are addressed as magistrates, fathers, masters, husbands, teachers, with their correlates. Now to apply to one individual what is said to all individuals and classes of individuals, would, methinks, appear egregious folly. And would it not be absurd to say, that every man is obliged to practice every duty and religious precept enjoined in the Bible. Might we not as reasonably say, that every man must be at once a Patriarch, a Jew, and a Christian; a magistrate, a subject, a father, a child, a master, a servant, etc., etc. And, certainly, it is as inconsistent to say that Christians should equally regard and obey the Old and New Testament. All Scripture given by divine inspiration, is profitable for various purposes in the perfection of saints, when rightly divided, and not handled deceitfully. But where the above considerations are disregarded, the word of God must inevitably be perverted. Hence it is that many preachers deceive themselves and their hearers by selecting and applying to themselves and their hearers such portions of sacred truth as belong not to them nor their hearers. Even the Apostles could not apply the words of Christ to themselves or their hearers until they were able to answer a previous question – “Lord, sayest thou this unto us or unto all?” Nor could the eunuch understand the Prophet until he knew whether he spoke of himself or of some other man. Yet many preachers and hearers trouble not themselves about such inquiries. If their text is in the Bible, it is no matter where; and if their hearers be men and women, it is no matter whether Jews or Christians, believers or unbelievers. Often have I seen a preacher and his hearers undergo three or four metamorphoses in an hour. First he is a moral philosopher, inculcating heathen morality; next a Jewish Rabbi, expounding the law; then a teacher of some Christian precept; and lastly, an ambassador of Christ, negotiating between God and man. The congregation undergo the correlate revolutions; first, they are heathens; next, Jews; anon Christians; and lastly, treating with the ambassadors for salvation, on what is called the terms of the gospel. Thus, Proteus-like, [Proteus was in Greek mythology a sea god who could change his shape at will] they are all things in an hour.
(Millennial Harbinger,
1846, pp. 507-508.)