Objections Answered | 4

4. The Essence of Morality in the Old and New Testaments Is the Same

Objection.

The nature of religion and morality under the ancient dispensation was the same as under the new:

Love to God and man was the substance of the law and the prophets, and though truth under the former was inculcated more by types and ceremonies, yet the essence of religion was the same under that as under the present dispensation.

Since war was not inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion then, it cannot be inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion now, under like circumstances.

Answer.

It is readily admitted that the essence of religion is the same under the present as under the former dispensation, both requiring at all times and in all actions holy exercises of heart in cordial obedience to divine command;

yet the laws for external conduct under the two dispensations differ widely, and the practice of war involves much of the external conduct of men.

It was never right for men to indulge unholy feelings in the act of war, but the external act was required as a means of executing the divine vengeance;

the gospel does not command, but seems plainly to forbid, the external act of war.

But to suppose that saints under the gospel can ever be placed in circumstances like those of the ancient church

is to suppose that they may be put under the same typical economy which has vanished away, given place to the substance, and ceased to be binding even on the natural Israelites.

To be in like circumstances they must also be made the executors of God’s wrath to inflict vengeance, by his particular command, on idolatrous and rebellious nations.

The Israelites had the same high authority to exterminate the Canaanites and subdue the idolatrous nations about Palestine that the holy angels had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is perfectly plain that if God should positively command Christians to take the weapons of war and not only repel invasion but actually exterminate nations, it would be their duty to obey, and a refusal would be open rebellion against God.

The Old Testament saints received such commands, but Christians have no such authority, which makes a material difference in circumstances.

Some general observations relative to the different dispensations of the church of God may illustrate this topic more fully:

The Old Testament economy has sometimes, perhaps without reason, been divided into the Adamic, Patriarchal, and Mosaic dispensations of the church;

but as the latter was more full and complete, and as the distinction between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations is common,

I shall confine my remarks chiefly to that distinction, though I consider the great distinction to be between the Old and New Testament economies.

The Old Testament economy, in general, was typical of the New:

Under the former dispensation literal and temporal things typified spiritual and everlasting things under the latter.

The nation of Israel, chosen and separated from all other nations, typified the true Israel of God, who are chosen out of every nation, sanctified, and set apart as a holy nation and peculiar people to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God.

The land of Canaan was a type of the heavenly Canaan. Jerusalem was a type of the New Jerusalem from above. Mount Zion and the royal throne of Israel, which were in Jerusalem, typified the heavenly Zion and the throne of the true David who now reigns in glory.

The sacrifices were types of spiritual offerings.

The Israelites had enemies within and foes without, literal weapons of war and literal warfare, which were types of spiritual foes, spiritual armour, and spiritual warfare.

Their kings were seated on the throne of the Lord (see 1 Chronicles 29:23):

At the command of God they judged, made war, and conquered their enemies, and thus typified the Son of God who is now on the throne of his Father David, and who in righteousness judges, makes war, and rides forth conquering and to conquer.

The ancient promises and threats were mostly temporal, but typical of spiritual and everlasting promises and threats.

Doubtless the gospel was preached by types and figures under the Old Testament economy, and the saints of old looked upon those temporal things merely as shadows representing a more enduring substance.

When they looked upon Canaan, the land of promise, they viewed it as a type of the heavenly Canaan, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth seeking a better country.

When they looked on the bleeding lamb, they beheld, by the eye of faith, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Thus we may see that almost the whole of the Old Testament economy was typical and temporary, and not intended to be perfect and everlasting.

But under the gospel dispensation we have a new covenant and better promises, which are intended to be perfect and everlasting.

It is therefore more proper for those who live under this new and perfect dispensation to look at the substance than at the shadow for a rule of duty.

Errors are often and easily propagated by reasoning from analogy and introducing it as proof of sentiments instead of illustration. This is frequently done in relation to the Old Testament economy and common political government.

It is not uncommon to hear ministers, in their political sermons, reason and infer just as if there were a perfect parallel between the Jewish theocracy and political governments, when at the head of one was the Lord of hosts and at the head of the others are but men; when one was the church of the living God, and the others are but human institutions.

They frequently speak of God’s driving out the heathen before his American Israel and planting them in a goodly land,

as though there were a perfect parallel between the Americans driving the Indians from their native soil and taking possession of it themselves, without divine commission, and the Israelites going at the express command of God and taking possession of Canaan.

Thus they endeavour to keep up a parallel between God’s ancient church and civil governments.

The economy of God’s ancient covenant people was by no means a political institution in the popular sense,

but it was a dispensation of the church of God, and in its rites, ceremonies, and government it was typical of the kingdom of the Messiah under his mediatory reign, and differed widely in its nature, origin, and design from mere political governments.

Therefore, all reasoning drawn from a supposed analogy between them is specious and false. The Israelites had no authority to enact laws or to alter God’s laws one iota; their duty was to obey them implicitly.

But if Christians take their authority for going to war from the practice of the Old Testament saints, their example will prove too much; it will not only allow war, but offensive war in its most dreadful forms.