De Moor II:17: The Abiding Canonicity of the Old Testament, Part 1

Marcion

As we have just given a proof that no Canonical Books have perished, so it is now to be proven that those surviving Books are also always to remain Canonical, even those of the Old Testament under the New Testament.  Which is to be held against several Heretics of the first ages after the birth of Christ, rejecting the Law of Moses and the Prophets, among whom especially are the Marcionites and Manichæans; see DANÆUS’ ad Augustinum de Hæresibus, chapter XXII, page 970b, chapter XXIII, page 943, chapter XXV, page 945b, chapter XLVI, page 970b:  and among the Heretics of more recent times, 1.  against the Socinians, who do indeed maintain the usefulness, but not the necessity, of the reading of the Old Testament under the New, and that not anything of that is to be received that does not agree with the New:  and, if one should now and then make use of the Old Testament in matters regarding doctrine, they say that that part of doctrine then is to be reckoned as nothing but history:  Those things that were delivered in the Old Testament, they do not even esteem as necessary to believe under the New; and that it is possible now for one to known and to believe to the extent that is sufficient for salvation, and yet to be ignorant and to disbelieve many things of the Old Testament:  and what things more, which manifestly enough abolish the Canonical and Normative use of the Old Testament under the New, see HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome I, book I, chapter IV, controversy IV, pages 57-59.  2.  Against the Anabaptists, who maintain that all Christians in matters of faith ought to admit the Gospel alone as normative; they deny that articles of the Christian faith can or ought to be proven out of the Old Testament; they admit only arguments sought out of the New Testament as valid, etc.:  as DORESLAER and AUSTRO-SYLVIUS, contra Anabaptistas,[1] chapter VIII, § I, pages 113-116, show these things with multiple, clear examples sought from their own writings:  add CLOPPENBURG’S Gangrænam Theologiæ Anabaptisticæ, Disputation XXXII, opera, tome 2, pages 199-202.  ZWINGLI, in his Elencho contra Catabaptistas, opera, part 2, folio 10b:  At length thou wert in this, that thou mightest deny the entire Old Testament.  —Among us of Groningen[2] they deny the entire Old Testament, which I myself have seen with these eyes, for they wrote to our Senate:  The Old Testament is antiquated, and the testimonies that are brought forth from it are vain, and so they avail nothing.  Again, folio 11b:  At Groningen ye deny the Old Testament.  —Therefore, since ye see that Infant Baptism is able to be defended from the Old Testament, now ye cast away the Old Testament.  —When ye reject the Old Testament principally for this reason, because what things are alleged out of it concerning the Baptism of Infants ye are not able to endure, ye evidently show that ye regard God, who is the God of both the Old and the New Testament, as nothing.  I hope that I am not regarded by thee as lacking in moderation, O excellent Reader; thou shalt see that all things are worse among them than our pen is able to describe in detail, etc.  Moreover, folio 18b:  With utmost frequency Circumcision was given to those that were able neither to confess nor to ask for it, but ye reject the entire Old Testament.  —Thus ye say:  It is not needful that I seek out Baptism in the Old Testament.  By which saying, ye despise the Old Testament:  while, nevertheless, Christ submitted both Himself and His doctrine to its judgment, and the Apostles made use of no other Scripture, indeed, they were not even able to make use of any other, since after the beginnings of their preaching there was as yet no Scripture than what might be sought from it.  Therefore, this is your error, whereby ye fail to consider the analogy of the Sacraments, which nevertheless the Apostle Paul does in 1 Corinthians 10 and Colossians 2, so that there is no good reason for us to neglect its example.  The Northern Anabaptists nevertheless proclaim that they do not completely abrogate the Old Testament; but that they only argue that in the New Testament a clearer revelation was made, and an emendation of certain precepts of the Mosaic Law:  the first of which is true; the other is to be taken up in Chapters XI and XII.  The Waterlandi,[3] in their Old Confession, Article XXIX, have:  “Doctrine (as far as it is necessary for us for salvation) is comprehended in the Books of the New Testament, to which we join all that which is found in the Canonical Books of the Old Testament consonant with the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles, and agreeable to the administration of His spiritual kingdom:”  see HERMAN SCHIJN’S Historiam Mennonitarum,[4] chapter VII, article XXIX, page 206, in comparison with the Præfatione ***2, versa, 3, Confessionem Waterlandorum, article XXIX, pages 22, 23; ENGEL ARENTSOON VAN DOOREGEEST’S[5] Brief aan Fridericus Spenhemius, pages 33-45.  This matter was treated at length at the Frankenthal Colloquium,[6] article I, acts I-V, in which the Anabaptists repeatedly concede that they admit the Old Testament and proofs drawn from it in matters of faith, in the Protocol and page 43, etc.; but in the teaching of manners and the practice of things to be done they say that they admit whatever is able to be proven out of the Old Testament, that is not contrary to the doctrine of Christ, page 12; they maintain that the Old Testament is not everywhere equal to the New, but only where it is like unto the Gospel of Christ and Apostolic doctrine, page 37; they assert that they do not believe that the Scripture of the Old Testament is of the same authority as the New, for proving and confirming all articles of the faith and heads of doctrine, page 40; likewise that the fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith in things to be believed and to be done is able and ought to be proven out of the Old Testament, but only as far as the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles allows this; neither is the Old Testament opposed to the Scripture of the New Testament, since they do not accommodate Christ to Moses, but rather Moses to Christ, pages 41, 49, 55.  Time and again in the Protocol of this Colloquium Objections also occur, which are to be resolved in order by our AUTHOR, pages 9-11, 14, 16, 17, in which latter place they signify that in Matthew 5 they recognize an Opposition between the doctrine of Moses and of Christ; that such is indicated only between the glosses of the Pharisees and the divine Law rightly understood, between the ἀρχαίους/ancients and the Law of God expounded by Christ, not between Moses and the Prophets on the one hand and Christ on the other, is taught, pages 29-31.  They object similar things, pages 33, 34, 36, 64, 71, 72, 84.  DOUWE FEDDRIKS VAN MOLQUEREN,[7] in his tract called Mennonitisch Onderzoek, etc., blames Galenus Abrahamsz,[8] that in his book called korte Grondstellingen, etc., articles 33-37, he relates, that a new and more perfect doctrine was prescribed by the Lord Jesus in the New Covenant, summarily set forth in Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6; that new and more perfect commandments were given by Christ as Lawgiver, than were formerly obtaining under the Law:  against which Douwe Feddriks rightly disputes, and with us upholds the Perfection of the Moral Law of Moses, and approaches far more closely than others to us, blaming Galenus that he converts the new Covenant into a new Law of Works, præfatione *4 versa, 5, and in his Mennonitisch Onderzoek, etc., pages 1, 2, 12, 16, 116-156; excepting only in the Lord’s sermon of Matthew 5, as of another sort, and not so much regarding the Moral Law as Forensic Law, those things which the Lord relates concerning the Old doctrine of the Oath and of Vengeance; but concerning which see below in their places.  Therefore, as the Mennonites feel differently on this matter, they more or less truly complain, as if it were wrongly imputed to them, that according to their opinion the doctrine of the Old Testament is opposed to the doctrine of the New, and that the Books of the Old Testament do not pertain to us, for confirming thence the heads of the Christian faith and the precepts of life and manners:  see DE STOPPELAAR’S Van Stapfers wederleggende Godtgeleerdheid, introduction to chapter XVIII, § 41, pages 56, 57, and in notis ad Stapferi, chapter XVIII, § 31, pages 88-90; KULENKAMP’S Aanmerkingen op zekeren Brief, etc., in Boekzaal, October 1740,[9] pages 435-465.

The πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, of the Socinians and Anabaptists is that a Substantial Distinction is allowed between the Covenants, between doctrine and religion under the Old Testament and under the New:  that, at that time the observance of the Law with the promise of good things, chiefly earthly, was proclaimed; but now the righteousness of Faith with the promise of eternal salvation.

Against these we prove that the Books of the Old Testament, even under the New, abide as the Canon of faith and manners:

1.  From the perpetual Duration of the Old Law, which Christ did not destroy or abrogate; but He fulfilled, explained, and, with respect to the Law of the Ten Commandments, impressed upon His disciples that it is to be observed; not at all opposing His Precepts as Better than the Mosaic Precepts, but to the παρερμηνείαις, false glosses, of the Pharisees, Matthew 5:17-19 and following through the whole Chapter.

2.  From the continual Commendation of all the Scripture, and especially of the Old, of the Law and the Prophets, in and under the New Testament; thus, in Luke 16:29, a universal precept is read as given to those that desire to forestall the final judgment; now, that precept is to hear Moses and the Prophets.  In John 5:39, Christ sends the Jews to search the Scriptures, since from these they supposed that life was able to be had, which opinion He approves.  In Romans 15:4, we read that the old Scriptures were written from our use also, for the establishment and confirmation of hope.  If the Canon of the Old Testament has a sufficiency both for faith and for manners:  if the old writings are able σοφίσαι, to make a man wise, unto salvation through faith in Christ, and at the same time are able to render a man furnished for every good work:  what is the reason given why we might not any longer hold the same as Canon? but this is asserted in 2 Timothy 3:15-17.  This normative use of the Old Testament is commended by Peter, who wishes the truth of Apostolic doctrine to be settled by a comparison of the same with the Old Testament, 2 Peter 1:19, in which by the day dawning is not understood the time of the New Testament in general, which had already dawned; but if that be signified, it would have been necessary to say that ἕως οὗ, until, and ἄχρις οὗ, until, are not so positive of the past that they are exclusive of the future, by comparison with Matthew 28:20[10] and 1 Corinthians 15:25:[11]  but either the day of glory is to be understood, by comparison with 2 Peter 3:18, or also the day of grace through the rising of the Day Star, shining in the heart of the faithful.  This light had already begun to appear to the faithful, unto whom the Apostle writes; and notwithstanding Peter is able to speak to them concerning the day beginning to dawn in the future, by comparison with Ephesians 1:17, 18.  Indeed, the light of Grace in this life is always after the likeness of the dawn and time of the morning, while the meridian time of full light is expected in Glory.  Now, that ἕως οὗ does not exactly mean until, but while and to what time, by comparison with Matthew 14:22;[12] 13:33.[13]  Peter does not so much determine the time, during which attention was to be given to the prophetic Speech, as he indicates the end and scope, that they ought to establish for themselves in the reading of the prophetic Word, and which by the grace of God they might also obtain through painstaking attention to the prophetic speech; that is, a greater degree unto the day of illumination, which degree gradually tends toward perfection, by comparison with Proverbs 4:18; since perfection is at length to be expected in the next life, here attention is always to be given to the prophetic Speech:  see Commentarium meum ad 2 Peter 1.  What Peter commends, the practice of the same Luke praises in the Bereans, Acts 17:11.  And, that the word of the Apostles was able best to be examined according to the writings of the Old Testament, is evident from the perfect agreement of the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, which Paul professes, Acts 26:22, who, when he had announced the whole counsel of God concerning salvation, testifies that he had spoken nothing beyond those things that had been said by Moses and the Prophets.  I will not add anything concerning the great number of citations of Old Testament passages in the New for the confirmation of doctrine.  Therefore, when the New Testament confirms, so often and so expressly, the authority and normative use of the Old Testament, it does not belong to us to abrogate the same.

3.  What furnishes the Foundation for building up the Church of the New Testament, its normative use under the New Testament is not to be repudiated.  But the writings of the Prophets walk in even step with Apostolic doctrine in constituting the foundation of the Church of the New Testament, Ephesians 2:20:  see what things I have observed in § 12, so that I might demonstrate that by Prophets here, conjoined with the Apostles, are understood the Old Prophets, the doctrine of whom, being especially renowned, was extant, written for the use of the whole church, not the new Prophets, concerning whom that was not at all true.

4.  If diverse Articles of Religion either are known far more clearly out of the Old Testament than out of the New, or are hardly able solidly to be proven without collation of the Old Testament; certainly the use of the Scripture of the Old Testament is especially necessary, and Canonical power is not able to be removed from it.  So the situation truly stands, that, if you consider the Faith to rendered to the Creation, Fall, Restoration, and Christ Himself as the true Messiah, and the Obedience likewise to be rendered to the Law, they especially rest on these Books:  compare Luke 24:26, 27, etc.

But in vain do They Object against us,

1.  Diverse Passages of Sacred Scripture; for example,

              α.  Luke 16:16.  Christ does not set the doctrine of the Old Testament against the doctrine of the New as diverse in substance; but there was a diversity of mode, Prophetic and Evangelical, under each economy of revelation, of which the former was promising that Messiah was to be revealed, the latter announces that He is now revealed.  And, if you compare Matthew 11:13, you will see that Christ does not abrogate the authority of Moses and prophetic doctrine; but signifies that prophecy concerning the Christ to come through the Gospel of promise only endured until John; while those prophetic promises now fulfilled ought no longer to be announced as to be fulfilled again in the future.

              β.  John 1:17.  Responses:  1.  The opposition is not absolute, but κατὰ τὶ, relative, as is often the case.  2.  If by the Law you understand the Moral Law, we have already seen that this was not abrogated by Christ:  but He perfectly fulfilled the same for His own, and merited grace, whereby the transgressions of the elect are pardoned, and they themselves are made able to keep the Law.  3.  If you have regard to the Ceremonial Law, one may indeed discern the body and truth of the shadows in Christ;[14] but in this very thing Christ answers to those things that were predicted by Moses concerning Himself:  and although the observation of shadows ceases with the body being present, nevertheless the true doctrine and profitable instruction of the same remain.

              γ.  Romans 6:14.  Response:  The opposition here is not so much between the Old economy and the New, as between the natural state of man and the state of grace.  By nature subjection to the instruction of the Law is incumbent upon man, and, if any be disobedient, the Law condemns; but the Law does not promise or grant grace for its fulfillment:  hence sin reigns over fallen man, indeed, by the Law it is even increased, since perverted man struggles against the prohibition, Romans 7:5, 8-11.  But believers crossed over to the dominion of Grace, in which they are certainly not freed from the necessary observance of the Law; but, having been freed from the dominion of sin, they are made slaves freely and willingly to fulfill the righteousness which is according to the norm of the Law, comparing Romans 6:15-18, where the Apostle sets forth the homonymy of the phrase ὑπὸ νόμον, under the Law, and shows that believers have indeed been set free only from subjection under Law prescribing, and cursing, condemning; but that, nevertheless, the same have not been set free from the direction of the Law.  Although believers are not ὑπὸ νόμον, under the Law, yet they are not ἄνομοι Θεῷ ἀλλ᾽ ἔννομοι Χριστῷ, without law to God, but under law to Christ, comparing 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21; and this believers of the Old and New Testaments truly have in common with each other.

δ.  Romans 10:4.  Responses:  1.  Christ is the τέλος/ telos/end, that is, not the terminus/limit, but the scope/goal, unto which the Law directs itself, and the pursuit of which is the true and saving use of the Law for fallen man.  2.  Christ is the end, not of the abrogation of the Moral Law, not even of the Ceremonial Law with respect to its saving instruction; but rather the end of τελειώσεως/fulfillment of both, so that thus righteousness might be able to abound to those believing upon Christ.  3.  In which manner, since Christ fulfilled at one and the same time the Moral and Ceremonial Law, at the same time an end was to be imposed upon the rigid legal Economy.  And so believers were obliged ἀτενίσαι εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου, to look to the end of that which is abolished, 2 Corinthians 3:13.

ε.  2 Corinthians 3:3-7, where the Apostle rejects the writing of the Law on tables of stone; he calls the Law a killing letter, of which the Ministers of the New Testament are not Ministers; he calls its ministry a ministry of death and condemnation, the glory of which was to be brought to nothing.  Responses:  1.  Paul’s allegorical speech in verse 3 is no more a total repudiation of the Law written on tables of stone, than of the books of the New Testament, which were written with ink, which sort are also mentioned in that very place.  2.  Paul does not speak of an abrogation of the doctrine and Canonical Books of the Old Testament; but of the abrogation of the rigid legal Economy, with which continuing the Letter of the Law is everywhere inculcated, with a grievous threat added, as obliging to fulfillment; only those that were adhering to it, willing to be justified by the works of the Law rendered in their own strength, were being killed:  to which rigid Legal ministry of death the more gracious ministry of the Gospel would now succeed, formerly administered more sparingly, by which the elect would be thoroughly taught by the Spirit, that is, the spiritual use and scope/end of the preached and administered Law, and, having been convinced of their wretched state by the Law, would learn in addition to flee by faith to Christ, as the Spirit of the Letter of the Law, for their justification:  which also was granted to believers formerly, but this way of righteousness through faith in Christ was not so clearly set forth at that time; at that time believers were obliged ἀτενίσαι εἰς τὸ τέλος, to look to the end, through the letter of the Law and the κάλυμμα/veil[15] of shadows.

ϛ.  Ephesians 2:15.  Christ is said τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι καταργήσας, to bring to naught the law of commandments in ordinances, with respect to its necessary observance for the future, not with respect to its useful, certain, and normative instruction.

2.  It no more straitens that They Object that the Doctrine of the Old and New Testaments is in Opposition.  Accordingly our AUTHOR offers the best Response:  1.  Indeed, an Opposition partially obtains in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, which, nevertheless, does not remove the use of the Covenant of Works to those that are under the Covenant of Grace:  but, 2.  an Opposition of the Doctrine comprehended in the Old and New Testaments is denied, whether in things to be believed or in things to be done; only a distinction of the mode of communication obtains, inasmuch as the doctrine of Grace is contained in the Old Testament more obscurely, in the New Testament more clearly.

3.  Finally, the Sufficiency of the New Testament, adduced by our Adversaries, does not much vex us, as if this were such that we would not need the Old Testament.  For, α.  we do not concede this without the comparison of, 1.  the Prophecies of the Old Testament, to which we saw appeal so frequently made in the New Testament itself, both in other articles, and especially in proving that most weighty article concerning Jesus the true Messiah, for the greater ἀσφάλειαν/certainty of faith:[16]  2.  the Precepts of the Old Testament, since there those things that belong to the Law are wont most copiously to be related and explained.  β.  It does not remove the grace of God, by which He provides for us beyond necessity; and against which man would act unjustly, if the abundance, which God willed to grant beyond Sufficiency, he should impudently reject:  no less than if one should wish to deprive himself of his second eye, because he believed one to be sufficient for vision.

Concerning the Use of the Scripture of the Old Testament in the Christian Church, see the Elder SPANHEIM’S Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, Disputationum theologicarum, part II, Disputations II-V.

[1] Petrus Jakobus Austro-Sylvius (died 1647) was a Reformed Pastor in North Holland.  He was commissioned by the synod of North Holland to prepare a refutation of the errors of the Mennonites.  Progress on the work was slow until Abraham à Doreslaer (died 1655), a learned Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian, was appointed to help (1627).  The result is a massive eight hundred and fifty-six pages of careful comparison between the doctrines of the Reformed and of the Mennonites.

[2] Groningen is a province in the north-eastern reaches of the Netherlands.  The Anabaptist movement took root here very early.

[3] Waterland is in North Holland, just north of Amsterdam.

[4] Herman Schiyn (1662-1727) was a leader among the Zonist (conservative) Mennonites.  He spent most of his adult life as an elder in the Zonist congregation in Amsterdam, but his enduring legacy is to be found in his historical works, setting forth the historical origins and doctrinal commitments of the Mennonites.  When the Zonist congregation of Rotterdam merged with the Walterland congregation, resolving to admit all professing Christians, not just Mennonites, to communion, Schiyn set himself in opposition, writing Aenmerkingen op het formulier van benodiging.

[5] Engel Arendszoon van Dooregeest (1645-1706) was a Mennonite minister and apologist.

[6] Held with the Anabaptists in 1571.

[7] Douwe Feddriks van Molqueren (flourished 1700) was a Dutch Mennonite minister.

[8] Galenus Abrahamsz de Haan (1622-1706) practiced medicine and preached in Amsterdam.

[9] Gerardus Kulenkamp (1700-1775) was a Dutch Reformed minister, serving in Amsterdam.  He wrote polemical treatises against the Moravians and the Mennonites.  In this paper, published in the periodical De Boekzaal, he accuses Joannes Deknatel, a Mennonite minister in Amsterdam, of declension from Mennonite doctrine unto Socinianism.

[10] Matthew 28:20:  “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:  and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto (ἕως) the end of the world.  Amen.”

[11] 1 Corinthians 15:25:  “For he must reign, till (ἄχρις οὗ) he hath put all enemies under his feet.”

[12] Matthew 14:22:  “And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while (ἕως οὗ) he sent the multitudes away.”

[13] Matthew 13:33b:  “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till (ἕως οὗ) the whole was leavened.”

[14] See Colossians 2:16, 17.

[15] 2 Corinthians 3:13.

[16] Luke 1:3, 4:  “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty (τὴν ἀσφάλειαν) of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”