Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
birth again until Christ be formed in you." Because of being a part of this mother, St. Paul, St. John and St. Peter call those to whom they minister the promises their children (1 Tim. 1: 2; Tit. 1: 4; 1 John 2: 1, etc.; 1 Pet. 5: 13). These proofs demonstrate the Biblicity of our three definitions.
We are now ready to present our general arguments against J.F.R.'s position that the New Covenant is a Gospel-Age arrangement made with Christ for the Church at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918 with J.F.R.'s remnant. Our first argument against his general position is that the claim that the New Covenant was made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918 is a self-contradiction; for to make a covenant and to inaugurate it (this latter is not a Scriptural term) as used in Truth literature are one and the same thing. At Calvary the merit was deposited (Luke 23: 46) that sureties the New Covenant (Heb. 7: 22). Surety is always given in view of the operation of a future thing. When St. Paul, therefore, in 63 or 64 A. D. wrote the epistle to the Hebrews the New Covenant was not yet made; for it was then merely suretied. Hence it was not made at Calvary. Again, what is spoken of as inaugurating the New Covenant, sprinkling the blood on the book and the people as well as on the Tabernacle and vessels (Heb. 9: 18-20), is the making of the New Covenant, or, to put it in another form, is the sealing of the New Covenant. The word egkekainistai (v. 18), for which J.F.R. prefers the translation, inaugurate, means initiate, and this certainly is its meaning here. The New Covenant will be begun to be initiated in the beginning of the Millennium by sprinkling the antitypical book, Divine justice (Heb. 9: 19-22), which act does not type, as J.F.R. contends, that the law was in force toward the remnant (Z '34, 134, 15), but satisfying justice, like sprinkling the mercy seat. Its initiation will proceed with sprinkling the antitypical people, tabernacle and
vessels during the entire Millennium. It thus takes the whole Millennium to initiate the New Covenant, which is the entire Millennial work of the Mediator in sealing or inaugurating or making it as a contract.
Hence we see that there is no difference between making and inaugurating the New Covenant; both mean its sealing, its initiation, making it enter into operation. Hence to say that the New Covenant was made at Calvary with Jesus, when He entered no covenant, J.F.R.'s proofless claim to the contrary not withstanding, and was inaugurated for J.F.R.'s remnant in 1918, is a contradiction in terms, separates the making from the inaugurating of it by nearly 1900 years (!), as well as places the operation of the New Covenant in a wrong dispensation. Notice, please, J.F.R.'s juggling in his alleged explanation of the New Covenant's inauguration. He claims that to inaugurate means to induct into an office, which is doubtless the meaning of the word when the inauguration of officials is referred to; then he goes on to explain that the inauguration of the New Covenant is the induction of his remnant into its office since 1918 as Jehovah's witnesses. What has he done by this explanation? He has not thereby explained the inauguration of the New Covenant at all; he has explained the inauguration of alleged officers of the New Covenant! This would be like saying that the U. S. was inaugurated at the inauguration of each president! This piece of juggling, changing the inauguration of the New Covenant into inauguration of its alleged officers, is illustrative of lawyer Rutherford's "methods of deceit."
The second argument that we make against his general position is that it is absurd to teach that Jesus is the Mediator between God and the Church (Z '34, 105, 27); because it implies that neither God nor the Church trust one another and will not deal directly with one another, but only through a go-between. This
will appear from the following: There are two classes among men: (1) the faith class (Gal. 3: 7-9, 14, 26-29); and (2) the unbelief class (2 Thes. 3: 2). God's unilateral covenants, as involved in His plan, imply that God trusts the subjects of these covenants, and that they trust Him as the Giver of them. Hence these do not need a mediator to guarantee them to one another, though they need a Priest to at-one them and an Advocate to satisfy justice (Heb. 2: 17; 1 John 2: 1, 2). We are God's sons who have, as seen in the priesthood figure, in the one Spirit as the World's High Priest direct access to God in our Covenant through our High Priest's intercession (Eph. 2: 18; Heb. 4: 14-16; 7: 24, 25), and who have as touching our humanity in the Court-of-law picture Jesus Christ, the Righteous, as our Advocate, for our righteousness (Rom. 10: 4; 1 Cor. 1: 30; 1 John 2: 1, 2). Under such circumstances it is most absurd to speak of our having a Mediator between our beloved and trusted Father and us, His beloved and trusted children. What kind of a family would that be in which the father would so distrust his children as not to deal with, and speak to them, and in which the children would so distrust their father as not to deal with, and speak to Him, but would use a guarantor as a go-between for them? This is implied in there being a Mediator between them.
Our third general argument against J.F.R.'s making the New Covenant operate in the Gospel Age is that a mediated covenant can operate only between mutually distrustful parties. Hence the New Covenant will operate between God and the world only, and therefore is Millennial. God and the unbelief class need a Mediator between them (Heb. 9: 13-23; 12: 18-20, 24-27). The following illustration will clarify the subject: Let us suppose that there is a person who desires to build a house of his own materials and according to his own plans, specifications and detailed drawings, and who does not desire to do the actual
building, but desires to have a building contractor do it. Let us further suppose that he does not fully trust the prospective contractor properly and efficiently to use his materials and to follow conscientiously and efficiently his plans, specifications and detail drawings, which things, if not done, will mean loss to him. What would he do? He would require of the contractor a bond, let us suppose, so large as would cover all possible losses, and as the contractor of himself could not furnish. And let us further suppose that the contractor does not fully trust the property holder to pay him the contract price, and would not in his distrust accept his word to pay it or his bond as sufficient. How could they be brought together into contractual relations as to building that house, since neither trusts the other enough to accept his personal word or bond? It could be done by a mediator as follows: Let us suppose that a bonding company or an individual trusted by both can furnish satisfactory bonds for each and thus guarantee each party of the contract to the other. Let us also suppose that this bonding company or individual negotiates with each for the other and satisfies each with the other on the basis of his bonds given to both, and thereby brings them into actual contractual relations with one another. That bonding company or individual by working back and forth between the two parties unto their accepting his guaranteeing both parties of the contract to one another has thereby mediated the contract, was its mediator.
A mediator is not, as popularly supposed, a reconciler of hostile parties with one another, which is a priest's function; but he is the maker and guarantor of a contract as between mutually distrustful parties, who otherwise would not enter the contract. Thus Moses as Mediator between God, who was distrustful of Israel, and Israel, who was distrustful of God, negotiated between them and guaranteed each to the other as to their promises in the Law Covenant
(Ex. 19: 6-9; 20: 18-21; 24: 2-8). The same is necessarily true of the persons involved in the New Covenant as the antitype of the Law Covenant. The New Covenant is for the unbelief class, who do not believe God's conditional promises in the Covenant, and for God, who does not believe the conditional promises of the unbelieving world. The antitypical Mediator, Head and Body, negotiates between them to make them conditionally willing to enter contract relations with one another. To overcome their yet remaining distrust He guarantees the world to God by giving Him the merit of His sacrifice in satisfaction of His justice (sprinkling the book) and by promising to stripe the disobedient unto reformation and to put the incorrigible to death. This guarantees the world to God. The Mediator then will proceed to guarantee God to the world. This he does gradually for 1000 years through imparting his human right to life and its accompanying life-rights to those who will obey him (sprinkling the blood upon the people), thereby raising them step by step out of their physical, mental, moral and religious imperfection into the same kinds of perfection.
Thus the Mediator will take 1000 years for mediating, i.e., making, sealing, inaugurating, initiating or making operative the New Covenant. Once so made the two parties will enter into direct contractual relations with one another, which will first set in during the Little Season. This shows that the Mediator's function is not to reconcile hostile parties, which is the Priest's work, but is to negotiate between mutually distrustful parties, as to a contract and to guarantee them to one another unto their entering contractual relations. These considerations demonstrate the absurdity of teaching that Jesus mediates the trusting Father and the trusting Church into the distrustful contractual relations implied in mediating the New Covenant! The Covenants operating between them are unilateral. On God's part they are the Sarah
features of the Oath-bound Covenant, which is mediated, sealed, inaugurated, made, initiated or made operative by His oath (Gen. 22: 16-18; Heb. 6: 13-18, the word emesiteusen, translated confirmed by the A. V. in v. 17, literally means mediated and is derived from the same root as mesites, mediator, Gal. 3: 19); and the one on the Church's part is the Covenant of sacrifice (Ps. 50: 5). Hence the New Covenant does not operate during the Gospel Age nor between God and the Church. It would be a misfit for them!
The unilateral Covenant—the one sided promises—that operates from God toward the Church are the Sarah features of the Oath-bound Covenant, i.e., those features of Gen. 22: 16-18 that develop the Christ class (Acts 3: 25; Rom. 9: 8, 9; Gal. 3: 14-29; 4: 21-31; Heb. 6: 12-20). This is our fourth general argument against J.F.R.'s view on the New Covenant as made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918. J.F.R. denies that the Oath-bound Covenant is the mother of the Church, claiming that it is the mother of the Head alone, that the sonship of the Church is by adoption alone, and not by a covenant as a mother. He claims that there is no Sarah Covenant, but Sarah represents what he calls God's organization. Every one of the above-cited passages disproves his view. In contradiction to his pertinent view let us see what God says about it. Acts 3: 25 directly quotes the third feature of the Oath-bound Covenant to consecrated Jewish believers in Christ and says that the faithful consecrated are the children of it as a Covenant and of the prophets. Since God is their Father, this Covenant and the servants who applied it, here the prophets, must be the mother, which proves that not Jesus alone as J.F.R. dogmatically affirms, but also the Church are children of the Oath-bound Covenant; nor are they, as J.F.R. as dogmatically affirms (Z '34, 201, 39), adopted children of God as contrasted with God's generated children. They are by Him of His own seed begotten
(John 1: 12, 13; 3: 3-8; Jas. 1: 18; 1 Pet. 1: 23; 2 Pet. 1: 4; 1 John 3: 1, 2, 9; etc.). The Greek word hyiothesia should not be rendered by "adoption" or "adoption of sons," as in the A. V. In every case, as all its occurrences prove (Rom. 8: 15, 23; 9: 4; Gal. 4: 5; Eph. 1: 5), it should be translated sonship, as the Diaglott properly gives it.
Gal. 4: 22-31, more particularly 24-28, and most particularly 24, prove that Sarah types The Christ-developing features of the Oath-bound Covenant. Against the plainest kind of language J.F.R. denies this, claiming that Sarah types no covenant at all, but types J.F.R.'s so-called Jehovah's organization (Z '34, 201, 40, 41). He denies that St. Paul explains a type here, affirming that it is an allegory as distinct from a type! Our reply is that all types are allegories, though some allegories are not types; but here the allegory is a type. The word translated in part in v. 24 by the A. V. by the noun, allegory, is not a noun, but is a verb, which the Diaglott properly renders by "being adapted to another meaning," which is exactly what is done with a type when it is interpreted antitypically. Not only so, but the word of v. 24 autai translated these is the feminine demonstrative pronoun, whose antecedents are the bondwoman and the free woman of vs. 22, 23. Hence the translation should be, these women are [type] two Covenants, which J.F.R. impiously dares to say is untrue, claiming that Hagar is an allegory for fleshly Israel and Sarah for Jehovah's organization (Z '34, 167, 20, 21). Here it is expressly stated that Sarah types one of two Covenants. One of these Covenants is described as from Mt. Sinai, i.e., the Mosaic Law Covenant typed by Hagar v. 24, 25, who is by J.F.R. denied as a type of the Law Covenant, but is by him claimed to type the nation of Israel. This same covenant is, as antitypical Hagar, also described as the present Jerusalem, both of which are used here as meaning the Law Covenant. That Hagar
does not type the Israelitish nation is evident from the fact that her child types such (v. 25). Then in v. 26 the Sarah Covenant typed by the free woman, Sarah, is called the high or exalted Jerusalem. Ano we render by the adjective high (the Diaglott renders it exalted), just as in Phil. 3: 14 it is rendered by the adjective high in the expression high calling. The Diaglott properly says that the high or exalted Jerusalem is the [antitypical] free woman, antitypical Sarah, which, v. 24, Paul says is one of two Covenants. These facts demonstrate that Sarah types a Covenant that has children, not only one child, unless they, as in the type, are considered a composite child. What kind of a Covenant? One of a unilateral promise, as vs. 23, 28 and Rom. 9: 8, 9 prove. What kind of promise? Spiritual, as a combination of vs. 23, 28 and 29 proves. What is the promise? Acts 3: 25, quoting from Gen. 22: 18, proves that it is the Oath-bound promise. Of what feature of that promise? The Christ-developing feature of it, as Gal. 3: 1429; 4: 22-31 and Heb. 6: 17-20 prove. Of what is this feature of the Oath-bound Covenant-promise the mother? Not only of the Head, whom J.F.R. affirms decidedly with capitals "ALONE" to be the Seed; but also the Body, as vs. 26-28, 30, 31; Acts. 3: 25; Gal. 3: 16, 29 and Heb. 6: 17-20 prove. When does this Covenant produce its children? Exclusively in the Gospel Age, beginning at Jordan, as the passages cited two sentences above prove. What do these considerations do with J.F.R.'s views that Sarah does not represent a covenant, that there is no Sarah Covenant, that the only Seed of the Oath-bound Covenant is our Lord, that the Church is under the New Covenant and that the New Covenant is exclusively the Gospel-Age Covenant? As our fourth general argument they do with J.F.R.'s pertinent errors exactly what exploding TNT would do with a soap bubble!
Our fifth argument disproving the view that the
New Covenant was made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918 is the following: The two sin-offerings seal the New Covenant and are thus shown to be involved in the Mediator picture; hence the Mediator is the Head and Body; and therefore the New Covenant cannot be made or inaugurated until the humanity of the entire Mediator is dead, which disproves J.F.R.'s view under examination, and proves our Pastor's view. This is especially taught in Heb. 9: 13-23. The Mediator of the New Covenant is not a single individual, Jesus, as J.F.R. so gratuitously assumes, but a company, Jesus, the Head, and as such the dominating part of the Mediator, and the Church, the Body. Many Scriptures give us this thought, more particularly Heb. 9: 13-23. Its Diaglott rendering is much better than that of the A. V., for which reason we will base our comments largely on it. In v. 13 we meet the expression, "bulls and goats," corresponding to the bullock and goat of Israel's atonement day service, and typing severally the same things—the bulls, the humanity of Jesus, the goats, that of the Church, laid down in sacrifice (Heb. 7: 26, 27; 13: 10-16; 10: 1-10, 19, etc.). It will be noticed that the peace offerings of Ex. 24: 5 are mentioned as oxen (bullocks). It is not there said what were the burnt offerings, which imply the sin offerings, since they were God's manifested acceptance of the sin offerings. This fact doubtless made St. Paul in v. 13 mention bulls and goats in the type, since the burnt offerings typing perfect humans were bullocks and those typing people in their humanity conditioned somewhat like the Church were of lambs or kids (Lev. 1: 3, 10). The reason why a number of bulls and goats were used at the sealing, making, of the Law Covenant was that all the people had to be sprinkled, and the blood of one bull and goat would not have sufficed to sprinkle about 2,000,000 people (v. 19). Had the blood of one bull and one goat been enough for the purpose at hand, only one of each
would have been used. In v. 14 the antitypes of Moses, who through the young men (plural) slew the bulls and goats, is shown to be the Christ, the slayer of the better sacrifices (plural, v. 23). The plurality of the young men sacrificing the bulls and goats proves a plurality in the antitypical sacrificers. The blood of the (emphatic) Christ does the antitypical cleansing. He is actually spotless in the Head and reckonedly so in the Body; and by the Holy Spirit of sonship made the offering at Jordan in the Head and at Pentecost in the Body members, who represented the whole Body throughout the Age in that one act of offering. The blood of the Christ's Head cleanses our consciences from the condemnation of sin; and the blood of the Christ's Body (since we, like our Lord, are perfected by suffering, Heb. 2: 10; 1 Pet. 5: 10) in the case of each one of us cleanses his own conscience from the power of sin, so that we are meet for God's service. In v. 15 St. Paul points out what the death [blood] of the Christ, who is Head and Body, makes Him be—the Mediator of the New Covenant. This demonstrates that the Mediator is a multitudinous one, consisting of the mystery class, with Jesus the dominant, and therefore the representative member of it; for which reason He, as the representative of the whole Mediator (the dominant part thus standing for the whole), is sometimes spoken of as the Mediator of the Covenant (Heb. 12: 24; 1 Tim. 2: 6). This Mediator—the Head and Body—is such, as His death (the merit being that of Jesus alone) cancels the sins committed under the first Covenant, i.e., those of the Jews, that these Jews, having had the unchangeable call to the earthly favor (Rom. 11: 29), might receive the promise given them—the land of Canaan as an eternal inheritance. This disproves J.F.R.'s thought that the Church is meant by the expression, "They that have been called" (Z '34, 104, 23).
After some general remarks in vs. 15 and 16 on the
validating of God's blood-mediated Covenants, St. Paul proceeds to explain, type and antitype, the sealing of these blood-mediated Covenants, of which there are two and only two in God's plan. The sprinkling of the book of the Law by the blood of bulls and goats (v. 19) types the satisfaction of Divine justice by the death of the antitypical Bullock and Goat, corresponding to the atonement day's sprinkling of the bullock's and goat's blood on the mercy seat. That book is thus a copy, type (v. 23), of that thing in the Kingdom of Heaven which is Divine Justice. That sprinkling will be done instantly, and will instantly seal, make, the Covenant Godward. The sprinkling of the people (v. 19) is a copy of the sealing, making, of the New Covenant manward in the earthly phase of the Kingdom of Heaven, and it will take 1,000 years to complete it, i.e., it will take the 1,000 years of the Millennium to give the people—Israel primarily and the Gentiles who join Israel under the New Covenant, a privilege that will then be open to all the non-elect, dead and living—the right to life and its life-rights, Jesus and the Church's legacy to Israel and the Gentiles under the New Covenant. The tabernacle in its court feature was sprinkled, typing that the Ancient and Youthful Worthies would in the Kingdom be cleansed by the same Mediator's blood in the sealed New Covenant. The cleansing of the vessels types the ridding of any error from any doctrinal, corrective, refutative and ethical teaching that may by the Ancient and Youthful Worthies be in any way mistaught during the Kingdom. Note, please, how the Apostle, after speaking of the cleansing of the copies, the types, i.e., the people, the tabernacle and vessels, tells us that their antitypes, Millennial Israel and the Gentiles joining themselves to Israel, the Ancient and Youthful Worthies and their teachings, will be cleansed by better sacrifices (plural) than bulls and goats. Jesus' personal sacrifice was but one, and the Church's sacrifice is but one; but together
they are two, and therefore their separate sacrifices are here (v. 23) designated by the plural term, sacrifices. Therefore, Heb. 9: 13-23 proves (1) that the Mediator of the New Covenant is a multitudinous one—Jesus, the Head and the Church, His Body, of which we will treat under our next argument more particularly and (2) that there are two sacrifices, not one only, that seal, make, the New Covenant operative. This fact destroys the theory under review, because the Covenant is thus shown in its Mediator to involve the Body, a thing that the theory under review necessarily denies. Hence the New Covenant operates after the completion of the Church's sacrifice.
We now offer a sixth argument overthrowing the view that the New Covenant was made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918—the multitudinousness of its Mediator. Deut. 18: 15-18 shows the Prophet like unto Moses—the Mediator—to be a multitudinous one, "a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren" [a Prophet who would consist of brethren, i.e., a composite one]. A comparison of Is. 49: 7, 8 with 2 Cor. 6: 1, 2 proves the same thing; for the one (Head and Body) who in Is. 49: 7, 8 it is said will be given for (in the interests of, i.e., to seal) a Covenant of the people, is in 2 Cor. 6: 1, 2 by Divine inspiration shown to include the Church called in this the time accepted for sacrifice unto the great salvation (Heb. 2: 3). The messenger of the Covenant (Mal. 3: 1) likewise is the Head and Body, who in their Second Advent will come to seal the Covenant. This passage also applies to Christ— the Head and Body—coming to mankind in His First Advent to work on the seal and to make it available for His Second Advent uses, and that because He thus types the coming of this larger Mediator in the Second Advent, even as John the Baptist typed the Church in the flesh in the end of this Age, preparing the way for the larger Christ. 2 Cor. 3: 6 calls us servants of the New Covenant; for we are its servants,
because we further it. We serve, advance, this Covenant in four ways now: (1) by laying down our lives for its seal; (2) by developing characters that will fit us to administer its provisions when they will operate; (3) by helping our brethren to do the same two things; and (4) by reproving the world for sin, righteousness and the coming judgment, whereby the world is some what prepared to receive this Covenant. Hence this passage implies the multitudinous membership of the Mediator, as Head and Body. Our sharing with our Lord in drinking the cup of death makes it by His merit the seal of the New Covenant (Luke 22: 20). Jesus is the surety of a better covenant (Heb. 7: 22) than the Old Law Covenant, because His merit makes the death of His Body the seal of that Covenant. Hence His suretying it proves our participation in its Mediator. To surety something implies that it will be made later on—in the future, and not now. The allusion (Heb. 8: 3) to the High Priest who offers gifts and sacrifices proves that from v. 3 on the Head and Body are meant. Hence v. 6 refers to the Mediator as Head and Body, not simply to the Head. The New Covenant is legalized—not established—because of better promises. What are they? The Oath-bound promises to the Christ, Head and Body (Gen. 22: 17, 18; Gal. 3: 16, 29); for these promises arouse them to such sacrificing zeal as enables them as new creatures to law down their humanity unto death as the seal of the New Covenant. This seal legalizes the New Covenant; for through the Gospel-Age sacrifices that seal is made and made available for the sealing of the New Covenant, which will be done during the Millennium, as shown above. Thus our examination of the Mediator figure proves that the Church is a part of the World's Mediator and as such lays down a sin-offering under Her Head. The Head and Body figure in the Mediator is here set forth and destroys the distinction necessary to the theory under examination—that the
Oath-bound Covenant excludes the Body and belongs only to the Head, a thought thoroughly refuted by St. Paul's statement that, antitypical of Isaac, the brethren are children of the Oath-bound promise (Gal. 4: 28).
We now present a seventh argument that proves that not only was the New Covenant not made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918; but that it must come after the Gospel Age: The Lord's Supper proves that not only Jesus' blood, but also that by His blood the blood of the Church is the seal of the New Covenant, which therefore cannot be made, inaugurated, sealed, or initiated, i.e., made operative, until the blood of the entire Church is shed. That additional to the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Jesus they represent the body and blood of the Church is taught by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17, where he says that the cup represents the partnership of the Church in the Christ's death, shedding of the Christ's blood, and that the bread represents the partnership of the Church in the laying down of The Christ's humanity; and where as proof for the latter proposition he says in v. 17, "We, the many are one loaf, one body; for all we partake of the one bread." Matt. 26: 28 and Mark 14: 24, as their wording shows, give us the faith justification picture as symbolizing the reckoning to us all of the blessings that the New Covenant will actually give the world in the Millennium and in its Little Season. Hence in these two passages Jesus refers to the wine as symbolizing His blood of the New Covenant.
If the New Covenant's blood were really sprinkled upon us our justification would be actual not reckoned; but our justification being reckoned, Jesus' blood apart from the New Covenant, is only reckonedly sprinkled upon us (1 Pet. 1: 2; Rom. 3: 24-28; Phil. 3: 9), which refutes J.F.R.'s view. But Luke 22: 20 and 1 Cor. 11: 24, altering the language from, "This is my blood of the New Covenant" into, "This
cup is the New Covenant, etc.," give us the Church-consecration picture as the following exact translation with bracketed comments proves: This cup, that which is being poured out for you [to drink], by My blood is [represents] the New Covenant [since it symbolizes its seal]. The A. V. wording makes the word "poured out" modify the word blood, which construction Greek grammar forbids; for the Greek participle "poured out" is in the nominative case, neuter gender, to agree in case and gender with the word poterion, cup, in apposition to, and in definition of which it stands, whereas if it modified the word blood, it would have to be in the dative case to agree with the dative case of the word blood. Hence the phrase "by my blood" must not be connected with the participle, as though it were modified by the participle, but as we have translated it, it must first be connected with the words, "this cup" and then, because of their appositional and defining relation, to the words, "that which is being poured out for you [to drink]," as adding Jesus' merit to the thing symbolized by the cup as defined by the words, that which is being poured out for you [to drink]. The thought is this: By Jesus' merit, blood, the cup is made to represent the seal of the New Covenant, which cup is then by the expression, "that which is being poured out for you" [to drink], defined as the suffering of the Church unto death, since in Biblical symbols a cup represents, among other things, the Sin-offering sufferings (Ps. 23: 5; 116: 13; Mark 10: 38, 39; John 18: 11). St. Paul's language is the same, except that he omits the words, "that which is being poured out for you." Hence Luke's and Paul's wording as to the cup and the bread gives us the Church's consecration significance of the bread and cup, which proves that the Church, by Jesus' merit, blood, participates in preparing the seal of the New Covenant, the blood of the New Covenant, hence they prove that not only can the Church not be under the New Covenant,
but that the latter cannot be made, inaugurated, initiated, or sealed, i.e., made operative, until the last member of the Church has completed his sacrifice in death; and therefore this proves that the New Covenant cannot be made until during the Millennium, hence was not made at Calvary, though there all the merit for that Covenant's seal was laid down; and hence it was not inaugurated in 1918, which overthrows J.F.R.'s view of the New Covenant as being over the Church and as operating during the Gospel Age, beginning at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918.
We now come to our eighth general argument against J.F.R.'s view that the New Covenant was made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918. The mediatorial activity of making the seal of the New Covenant being a work for the entire Gospel Age, the mediatorial activity in applying the seal of the New Covenant being a work for the entire Millennial Age, and the New Covenant as a Covenant coming into operation between God and man at the end of the Millennium, after the Mediator's work is finished, and hence for the eternal operation between God and all who obey its provision, all the disobedient being destroyed without remedy under the post-Millennial trial, in the Little Season, J.F.R.'s view must be a delusion, since it teaches that the New Covenant was sealed at Calvary, by Jesus' blood alone (Z '34, 115, 4), inaugurated in 1918 and ceases to operate with the Church's leaving the world before the Millennium. We will proceed to prove our propositions from the Scriptures and with the proof of each will apply these proven propositions against J.F.R.'s view. We have above proved that Jesus and the Church are the Mediator of the New Covenant, and that during the entire Gospel Age they have been working on its seal, Jesus actually providing the whole merit of it by the sacrifice unto death of His perfect body, life, right to life and its attendant life-rights, which, embargoed on behalf of the
Church to fit her for sacrificing acceptably to God (1 Pet. 2: 5; Heb. 13: 15, 16), cannot be freed from this embargo to seal the New Covenant until the Church has completed its sacrifice.
This is St. Paul's argument in Heb. 9: 16, 17, which is well translated in the Diaglott as follows: "For where a covenant exists, the death of that which has ratified it is necessary to be produced; because a covenant is firm over dead victims [plural victims, not singular, victim], since it is never valid [and thus incapable of sealing or inauguration] when that which ratifies it is alive." In this passage the Apostle is laying down the general principle that prevails for the ratification and the consequent valid operation of blood-sealed Covenants in God's plan, of which there are two and only two. What precedes the ratification of a blood-sealed covenant is the death of the ratifier. Before the ratifier's death a blood-sealed covenant, the Apostle argues, is never valid, and becomes valid only after the ratifier's death. We have already proven that the ratifier—Mediator—of the New Covenant is the Christ, Head and Body. Therefore as long as any member of the Christ is alive the New Covenant cannot operate; for the Ratifier is thus not entirely dead. Hence, the Christ class not yet being entirely dead, the New Covenant does not yet operate. Notice that this passage speaks of blood-sealed covenants only. It does not describe a word-sealed covenant, like the one the Lord made with Noah, never again to destroy society by a flood (Gen. 9: 8-17, Is. 54: 9), and like the one God made with Abraham (Gen. 12: 2, 3), nor a word-and-oath-sealed covenant, like the Sarah Covenant (Gen. 22: 16-18; Heb. 6: 16-20); but it speaks of God's blood-sealed covenants and says that they are firm, validly operative, over dead victims (plural, not a dead victim, singular). Hence in God's order blood-sealed covenants are ratified by a plurality of sacrifices. There are only two blood-sealed covenants
between God and human beings: the Old Covenant between God and Israel, mediated by Moses through the blood of bulls and goats, a plurality of sacrifices, which represent Moses himself as dead in a sense, even as the atonement day bullock and goat stood for Aaron, and in a sense represented him as dead, and the New Covenant, ratified by the death of the Christ, Head and Body, its Mediator. Since God's blood-sealed covenants are ratified, made valid, firm, over dead victims, the New Covenant must be ratified, made valid, firm, over dead victims. These victims are Jesus as a human being and the Church as human beings. The Apostle from vs. 18 to 22 proceeds to prove that the Old Covenant was ratified, and all its adjuncts were made valid for operating purposes by the blood of a plurality of sacrifices, bulls and goats: and then in v. 23 he proves that the things in the kingdom of heaven, here called heaven: its Covenant, its justice, its people, its tabernacle, its doctrinal, refutative, corrective and ethical teachings, are all made validly operative by the death of "better sacrifices," plural—the humanity of the Head and the humanity of the Body being these better sacrifices—for covenant purposes. Therefore Heb. 9: 13-23 overwhelmingly proves that the New Covenant has not yet begun to operate, because its full Mediator is not yet dead.
Hence J.F.R. is mistaken when he teaches that the New Covenant was ratified at Calvary. Its surety was there completed (He b. 7: 22), for Jesus' death guarantees the New Covenant as coming; but it awaits the death of its entire Ratifier before it can be sealed, since it is sealed by the death of its Ratifier, Mediator, Head and Body (Heb. 9: 16, 17). The fact that Jesus is in Heb. 7: 22 called the surety of the better than the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, as before pointed out, proves that it does not yet operate; for surety is furnished and made to prevail until some future thing sets in, which is guaranteed by the surety as coming
by and by. Therefore Heb. 7: 22 proves that at the time of the writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 63 or 64 A. D., after St. Paul's release from his first Roman imprisonment, the New Covenant was not yet in existence, but at that time was a future thing; for incontrovertibly surety is given not for a past or present, but for a future thing. Hence the New Covenant was not ratified at Calvary. On the contrary, the Body of the ratifying Mediator of the New Covenant began at Pentecost to be offered up, and this Body's offering up has ever since been continuing, having now progressed so far as to include the feet of the Christ (Is. 52: 7), whose totality is on the altar.
Having given eight general proofs that the New Covenant was not made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918, we next offer the ninth general proof on this point as given in Jer. 31: 31-34, clarified by St. Paul's quotation of it in Heb. 8: 8-12, to the effect that the New Covenant will in no sense begin to operate until after the Gospel Age is finished; for this passage gives twelve points proving that the New Covenant will not be made until after the Gospel Age is over. J.F.R., to evade the force of Jer. 31: 31-34 and Heb. 8: 8-12 as proving that the New Covenant is exclusively Millennial and post-Millennial in its operation, claims that not fleshly but spiritual Israelites are there meant, Judah meaning the Little Flock and Israel the Great Company. He does great and arbitrary violence to this passage and its context to force upon it his thought. As we expound the text we will expose his violences against it, but will first from the context show that fleshly Judah and Israel are in this section meant. Indeed a larger context (Jer. 30-34) than we will use discusses fleshly Israel. We will confine our contextual proofs to Jer. 31: 22-40. The new thing (v. 22) that God will create, a woman compassing, surrounding, a man, is the Church as a part of the new Creation, whose rest is Christ. She compasses Him
in the sense that she is associated with Him as wife in their combined office work as the Deliverer of outcast Israel, the back-sliding daughter of v. 22. These will be the habitation of justice and kingdom of holiness for Israel restored to and building up Palestine (vs. 23, 24), by which Israel will be rescued from its weariness and sorrow endured during its dispersion (v. 25). This prospect would gladden the Church awakened from its second sleep (1 Kings 19: 5-9; Matt. 25: 5), from about 1846–1874 which prospect would make it not only happy thereafter, but would make even that sleep a sweet thing for the Church (v. 26). V. 25 treats of Israel's hope as centering in the Christ.
Vs. 27-30 are even stronger as applying to fleshly Israel and Judah. The man of v. 27 is the Christ as new creatures in glory—the one new and perfect man of Eph. 2: 15; 4: 13; the beast of v. 27 is their sacrificed humanity considered as the bullock from the standpoint of the consecration picture of Lev. 8: 2. Their seed is the Word of God (Luke 8: 1115), that of man in its expositions of the Christ as new creatures in their characters, teachings, office and works and that of beast in its expositions of the Christ as humans sacrificed for the salvation of the world. Israel and Judah will be a symbolic field sown with this symbolic seed (v. 27). As a result of this sowing, though during the Gospel Age, due to God's regarding them with disfavor (I have watched over them), plucked up, broken down, thrown down, destroyed (as a nation and God's people) and afflicted, they will by God's regarding them with favor (I will watch over them) be built and planted (developed and made fruitful physically, mentally, morally and religiously). Vs. 29 and 30 demonstrate that what is here discussed cannot, as J.F.R. contends, be the Church's present but is Israel's Millennial experience; for then only no more will people suffer for ancestral sins but only