By Patrick Fairbairn
Published by Smith & English, 1854
BOOK THIRD.
CHAPTER II, SECTION II.
It is necessary to pause here for a little, and enter into some examination of the objections which have been raised out of the ten commandments themselves, against the character of perfection and completeness which we have sought to establish for them. For if any doubt should remain on this point, it will most materially interfere with and mar the line of argument we mean afterwards to pursue, and the views we have to propound in connection with this revelation of law to Israel.
By a certain class of writers, we are met at the very threshold with a species of objection, which they seem to regard as perfectly conclusive against its general completeness and universal obligation. For it contains special and distinct references to the Israelites as a people. The whole is prefaced with the declaration, "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt," while the fifth commandment embodies in it the promise of the land of Canaan as their peculiar inheritance. And this, we are told, makes it clear as noon-day; that the decalogue was not given as a revelation of God's will to mankind at large, but was simply and exclusively intended for the Israelites--binding indeed, on them, so long as the peculiar polity lasted, under which they were placed, but also ceasing as an obligatory rule of conduct when that was abolished. [1] But, on this ground, the Gospel itself will be found scarcely less imperfect, and we might almost at every step question the fitness or obligation of its precepts in respect to men in general. For it carries throughout a reference to existing circumstances, and by much the fullest developement of its principles and duties, that contained in the Epistles, was given directly and avowedly to particular persons and churches, with the primary design of instructing them in the will of God. So that if the specialties found in the law of the two tables were sufficient to exempt men now from its obligation, or to deprive it at any time of an oecumenical value, most of the revelations of the Gospel might, for the same reason, be shorn of their virtue, and in both alike, men would be entitled to pick and choose for themselves, what they were to regard as of universal moment and perpetual obligation.
But what egregious trifling is this? The objection overlooks one of the most distinctive features, and, indeed, one of the greatest excellencies of God's revelation, which at no period was given in the form of abstract delineations of truth and duty, but has ever developed itself in immediate connection with the circumstances of individuals and the leadings of Providence. From first to last it comes forth entwined with the characters and events of history. Not a little of it is written in the transactions themselves of past time, which are expressly declared to have been "written for our learning." And it is equally true of the law and the Gospel, that the historical lines, with which they are interwoven, while serving to increase their interest and enhance their instructive value, by no means detract from their general bearing, or interfere with their binding obligation. The ground of this lies in the unchangeableness of God's character, which may be said to generalize all that is particular in his revelation, and impart a lasting efficacy to what was but occasional in its origin. Without variableness or shadow of turning in himself, he cannot have a word for one, and a different word for another. And unless the things spoken and required were so manifestly peculiar as to be applicable only to the individuals to whom they were first addressed, or from their very nature possessed a merely temporary significance, we must hold them to be the revelation of God's mind and will for all persons and all times.
That the Lord uttered this law to Israel in the character of their Redeemer, and imposed it on them as the heirs of his inheritance, made no alteration in its own inherent nature; neither contracted nor enlarged the range of its obligation; only established its claim on their observance, by considerations peculiarly fitted to move and influence their minds. Christ's enforcing upon his disciples the lesson of humility, by his own condescension in stooping to wash their feet, or St Paul's entreating his Gentile converts to walk worthy of their vocation, by the thought of his being, for their sakes, the prisoner of the Lord, are not materially different. The special considerations, coupled in either case alike with the precept enjoined, leave perfectly untouched the ground of the obligation or the rule of duty. Their proper and legitimate effect was only to win obedience, or, failing that, to aggravate transgression. And when the things required are such as those enjoined in the ten commandments--things growing out of the settled relations in which men stand to God and to each other, the obligation to obey is universal and permanent, whether or not there be any considerations of the kind in question tending to render obedience more imperative, or transgression more heinous.
But what if some of the considerations employed to enforce the observance of the duties enjoined, involve views of the divine character and government partial and defective, at variance with the principles of the Gospel, and repulsive even to enlightened reason? Can that really have been meant to be of standing force and efficacy as a revelation of duty, which embodies in it such elements of imperfection? Such is the form the objection takes in the hands of another large class of objectors, who think they find matter of the kind referred to in the declarations attached to the second commandment. The view there given of God as a jealous being, and of the manner in which his jealousy was to appear, has by some been represented as so peculiarly Jewish, by others as so flagrantly obnoxious to right principle, that they denounce the very thought of the decalogue being considered, as a perfect revelation of the mind and will of God. The subject has long afforded a favourite ground of railing accusation to avowed infidels and rationalist divines; and Spinosa could not think of any thing in Scripture more clearly and manifestly repugnant to reason, than that the attribute of jealousy was ascribed to God in the decalogue itself.
The treatment which this article in the decalogue has met with, is a good specimen of the shallow and superficial character of infidelity. It proceeds on the supposition, that jealousy, when ascribed to God, must carry precisely the same meaning, and be understood to indicate the same affections, as when spoken of men. Considered as a disposition in man, it is commonly indicative of something sickly and distempered. But as every affection of the human mind must, when referred to God, be understood with such limitations as the infinite disparity between the divine and human natures renders necessary, it might be no difficult matter to modify the common notion of jealousy, so far as to render it perfectly compatible with the other representations given of God as perfect in holiness. But even this is scarcely necessary; for every scholar knows, that the word in the original is by no means restricted to what is distinctively meant by jealousy, and that the radical and proper idea, unless otherwise determined by the context, has respect merely to the zeal or ardour with which any one is disposed to vindicate his own rights. Applied to God, it simply presents him to our view as the one supreme Jehovah, who as such claims--cannot indeed but claim--he were not the One, Eternal God, but an idol, if he did not claim--the undivided love and homage of his creatures, and who, consequently, must resist with holy zeal and indignation every attempt to deprive him of what is so peculiarly his own. It is only to give vividness to this idea, by investing it with the properties of an earthly relation, that the divine affection is so often presented under the special form of jealousy. It arises, as Calvin has remarked, from God's condescending to assume toward his people the character of a husband, in which respect he cannot bear a partner. "As he performs to us all the offices of a true and faithful husband, so he stipulates for love and conjugal chastity from us. Hence, when he rebukes the Jews for their apostacy, he complains that they have cast off chastity, and polluted themselves with adultery. Therefore, as the purer and chaster the husband is, the more grievously he is offended when he sees his wife inclining to a rival; so the Lord, who has betrothed us to himself in truth, declares that he burns with the hottest jealousy-- whenever, neglecting the purity of his holy marriage, we defile ourselves with abominable lusts; and especially when the worship of his Deity, which ought to have been most carefully kept unimpaired, is transferred to another, or adulterated with some superstition; since, in this way, we not only violate our plighted troth, but defile the nuptial couch, by giving access to adulterers." [2]
Allowing, however, that the notion of jealousy, when thus explained, is a righteous and necessary attribute of Jehovah, does not the objection hold, at least in regard to the particular form of its manifestation mentioned in the second commandment? If it becomes God to be jealous, yet is it not to make his jealousy interfere with his justice, when he declares his purpose to visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation? So one might judge, if looking, not merely to the attacks of infidels, but to the feeble and unsatisfactory attempts which have too often been made to explain the declaration by Christian divines. Grotius, for example, resolves it simply into the absolute sovereignty of God, who has a right to do what he will with his own. [3] Warburton represents it as a temporary expedient to supply the lack of a future state of reward and punishment under the law; and in his usual way, contends that no otherwise could the principle be vindicated, and the several scriptures referring to it harmonised. [4] Michaelis, [5] Paley, [6] and a host besides, while they also regard it as to a great extent a temporary arrangement, rest their defence of it mainly on the ground of its having to do only with temporal evils, and in no respect reaching to men's spiritual and eternal interests. It is fatal to all these attempts at explanation, that none of them fairly grapples with the visitation of evil threatened, as a punishment. For, viewed in this light, which is unquestionably the scriptural one, such attempts are manifestly nothing more than mere shifts and evasions of the point at issue. When resolved into the sovereignty of God, it still remains to be asked, whether such an exercise of his sovereignty is consistent with those ideas of immutable justice, which are implanted in the human breast. When viewed as a temporary expedient to supply a want, which, to say the least, might, if real, have admitted of a very simple remedy, the question still waits for solution, whether the expedient itself was in proper accordance with the righteous principles which should regulate every government, whether human or divine. And when it is affirmed, that the penalties denounced in the threatening were only temporal, the reply surely is competent, why might not God do in eternity what he does in time? Or, if the principle on which the punishment proceeds, be not in all respects justifiable, how could it be acted on by God temporarily, any more than eternally? Is it consistent with the notion of a God of infinite rectitude, that he should do on a small scale what he could not be conceived to do on a large one?
The fundamental error in the false explanations referred to, lies in the supposition of the children, who are to suffer, being in a different state morally from that of their parents--innocent children bearing the chastisement due to the transgressions of their wicked parents. But the words of the threatening purposely guard against such an idea, by describing the third and fourth generation, on whom the visitation of evil was to fall, as of those that hate God; just as, on the other hand, the mercy which was pledged to thousands, was promised as the dowry of those that love him. Such children alone are here concerned, who, in the language of Calvin, "imitate the impiety of their progenitors." Indeed, Augustine has substantially expressed the right principle of interpretation on the subject, though he has sometimes failed in making the proper application of it, as when he says: "But the carnal generation also of the people of God belonging to the Old Testament, binds the sons to the sins of their parents; but the spiritual generation, as it has changed the inheritance, so also the threatenings of punishment, and the promises of reward." [7] And still more distinctly in his commentary on Ps. cix. 14, where he explains the visiting of the "iniquities of the fathers upon them that hate me," by saying, "that is, as their parents hated me; so that, just as the imitation of the good secures that even one's own sins are blotted out, so the imitation of the bad renders one obnoxious to the deserved punishment, not only of one's own sins, but also of the sins of those whose ways have been followed." In short, the Lord contemplates the existence among his professing worshippers of two entirely different kinds of generations--the one haters of God, and manifesting their hatred by depraving his worship, and pursuing courses of transgression---the other lovers of God, and manifesting their love by stedfastly adhering in all dutiful obedience to the way of his holy commandments. To these last, though they should extend to thousands of generations, he would shew his mercy, causing it to flow on from age to age in a perennial stream of blessing. But as he is the righteous God, to whom vengeance as well as mercy belongs, the free outpouring of his beneficence upon these, could not prevent or prejudice the execution of his justice upon that other class, who were entirely of a different spirit, and merited quite opposite treatment. It is an unwelcome subject, indeed; the merciful and gracious God has no delight in anticipating the clay of evil, even for his most erring and wayward children. He shrinks, as it were, from contemplating the possibility of thousands being in this condition, and will not suffer himself to make mention of more than a third or a fourth generation rendering themselves the objects of his just displeasure. But still the wholesome truth must be declared, and the seasonable warning uttered. If men were determined to rebel against his authority, he could not leave himself without a witness, not even in regard to the first race of transgressors, that he hated their iniquities, and must take vengeance of their inventions. But if, notwithstanding, the children embraced the sinfulness of their parents, with the manifest seal of Heaven's displeasure on it, as their iniquity would be more aggravated, so its punishment should become more severe; the descending and entailed curse would deepen as it flowed on, increasing with every increase of depravity and corruption, till the measure of iniquity being filled up, the wrath should fall on them to the uttermost,
That this is the aspect of the divine character and government which the declaration in the second commandment was meant to exhibit, is evident alone from the glowing delineations of mercy and goodness, with which the visitation of evil upon the children of disobedient parents is here and in other places coupled. [8] But it is confirmed beyond all doubt by two distinct lines of reflection, and, first, by the facts of Israelitish history. These fully confirm the principle of God's government as now expounded, but give no countenance to the idea of a punishment being inflicted on the innocent for the guilty. However sinful one individual, or one generation might be, yet if the next in descent heartily turned to the Lord, they were sure of being received to pardon and blessing. We are furnished with a striking instance of this in the 14th chapter of Numbers, where we find Moses pleading for the pardon of Israel's transgressions on the very ground of that revelation of the divine name or character in Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7, which precisely, as in the second commandment, combines the most touching representation of the divine mercy with the threat to visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. It never occurred to Moses that this threat stood at all in the way of their obtaining a complete forgiveness. He found, indeed, that the Lord had determined to visit upon that generation their iniquities, so far as to exclude them from the land of Canaan, but without in the least marring the better prospects of their children, who had learned to hate the deeds of their fathers. And when, indeed, was it otherwise? Is it not one of the most striking features in the whole history of ancient Israel, that, so far from suffering for the sins of former generations, they did not suffer even for their own when they truly repented, but were immediately visited with favour and blessing? And, on the other hand, how constantly do we find the divine judgments increasing in severity when successive generations hardened themselves in their evil courses? Nor did it rarely happen that the series of retributions reached their last issues by the third or fourth generation. It was so in particular with those who were put upon a course of special dealing--such as the house of Jeroboam, of Jehu, of Eli, &c.
Another source of confirmation to the view exhibited above, we
find in the explanations given concerning it in the prophecies of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel. These prophets lived at the time when the
descending curse had utterly failed, so far as it had gone, to turn the
children from the sinful courses of their fathers, and was fast running
to a fatal termination. But the infatuated people being not less
distinguished for self-righteous pride than for their obstinate
perseverance in wickedness, they were constantly complaining, as stroke
after stroke fell upon them, that they were made unjustly to bear the
sins of their fathers. Anticipating our modern infidels, they charged
God with injustice and inequality in his ways of dealing, instead of
turning their eye inward, as they should have done, upon their own
unrighteousness, and forsaking it for the way of peace. The 18th
chapter of Ezekiel contains a lengthened expostulation with these
stout-hearted offenders, in the course of which he utterly disclaims
the interpretation they put upon the word and providence of God; and
assures them, that if they would only turn from their evil doings, they
would not have to suffer either for their own or their fathers' guilt.
And Jeremiah, in his 31st chapter, speaking of the new covenant, and of
the blessed renovation it would accomplish on those who should be
partakers of its grace, foretells, that there would be an end of such
foolish and wicked charges upon God for the inequality of his ways of
dealing--for such an increased measure of the Spirit would be given,
such an inward conformity to his laws would be produced, that his
dealing with transgressors would in a manner cease--his ways would be
all acquiesced in as holy, just, and good.
1. Bialloblotzky, de Legis Mos. abrogatione, p. 131; Archb. Whately also repeats the same objection, in his Essay on the abolition of the law, p. 186 (Second Series of Essays). The view of both these authors, which is radically the same, regarding the abolition of the law under the Christian economy, we shall have occasion to notice afterwards. The affirmation of the Archbishop, at p. 191, that "the Gospel requires a morality in many respects higher and more perfect in itself than the law, and places morality on higher grounds," has already been met in the preceding section. We admit, of course, that the Gospel contains far higher exhibitions of the morality enjoined in the law, than is to be found in the Old Testament, and presents far higher motives for exercising it; but that is a different thing from maintaining that this morality itself is higher or essentially more perfect.
2. Inst. B. ii. c. 8, § 18.
3. De Jure Belli et Pacis, ii. p. 593.
4. Divine Legation, B. v. sec. 5.
5. Laws of Moses.
6. Sermons.
7. Contra Julianum Pelagianum, Lib. vi. § 82.
8. Compare besides Ex. xxxiv. 5, 6; Numb. xiv. 18; Ps. ciii. 8, 9.