 |  |
acceptance of verbal inspiration, for it seems that God had some difficulty in finding
suitable words in which to convey His truth; "There was no name which would so
clearly express what He meant"; and yet "what He meant" is not what He said so
clearly.
This attitude of mind we expect from a modernist, but our critic is a believer in verbal
inspiration! Moreover, if our critic be right, we must set aside one of our most valued
helps to the study of the Greek Testament, namely, the Greek Concordance, for that
Concordance brings together Matt. 26: 28; Luke 22: 20; I Cor. 11: 25; II Cor. 3: 6
and Heb. 8: 8. This is a grave state of affairs and one that makes some protest
imperative. Neither The Berean Expositor nor its Editor are mentioned in the article we
have before us, but the truth for which we stand is one, whoever the human instrument
may be through whom it is distributed and made known.
The version of the N.T. published by the writer whose criticism we have been
considering contains the following notes to the passages where the words "New
Covenant" occur.
"Matt. 26: 28. See Ex. 24: 8; Lev. 17: 11; Jer. 31: 31-34. Mark 14: 24.
The new covenant is with the nation of Israel (Jer. 31: 32; Ezek. 36: 24-30;
Heb. 8: 7-12; 10: 15-17) even as the old one was. The first was dedicated with the
blood of calves and he-goats (Ex. 24: 8), but the new with the precious blood of Christ
(Heb. 9: 15-27). The first was conditional on their obedience, the second on His.
Luke 22: 19, 20. Compare Matt. 26: 26-28; Mark 14: 22-24; I Cor. 11: 23-26;
I Cor. 11: 25. At this time the believers among the nations were still subordinate to
Israel. They were still partakers of their spiritual things, hence they were considered as
coming under the blessings of the new covenant. The later revelations, contained in the
Perfection Epistles, gave them an independent standing outside the new covenant which
Jehovah made with Israel.
II Cor. 3: 6. No comment relevant to our discussion.
Heb. 8: 8 . . . . . To speak of the Greek scriptures as `The New Testament' is most
misleading, because, as a matter of fact, the new covenant is found in the `Old
Testament'. Jeremiah gives it in full (Jer. 31: 31-34). It has never been in force yet,
and `New Testament times' will not come until after the time of affliction when Jehovah
calls Israel and Judah back to himself . . . . .
Heb. 9: 15. This new covenant is for Israel and Judah only. The nations have no part
in it at all . . . . ."
With all that is here quoted, most of our readers will be in complete harmony, but it
seems impossible to retain these comments, and at the same time to explain away the
literality of the New Covenant, when it conflicts with one's own views of the Lord's
Supper, without involving something deeper than mere inconsistency.
We cannot do better than quote from the closing paragraph of the article referred to
where, speaking of other matters, the writer says:--
"The grave feature of this method of handling God's Word is this: It definitely denies
(quite unconsciously, no doubt), what God has said, and then actually reasons away vital