BRIEF COMMENTS | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 24, 1881

BRIEF COMMENTS.

A FRIEND in a distant State, who has just commenced to keep the Sabbath of the Lord, asks us to make some comments on a number of passages of Scripture to meet the wants of an inquirer for more light. We do this most cheerfully, as he represents a class of persons of those who are constantly embracing the truth and wish for help on particular texts. The texts cited are Matt. 19:16–21; 22:35–41; Rom. 13:8–11; 14:5, 6. To these we will add a few others in the course of our remarks.

In studying any passage of Scripture we should consider the intention of the speaker or writer, as learned from the context, or from the text itself. With Matt. 19:16–21, verse 22 must be considered, as this gives the solution to the whole question. The man asked for information concerning his duty, expressing a desire to gain eternal life. He evidently considered himself sincere in his expression. The Saviour tested him upon his duty to his neighbor, by referring him to those commandments which hang upon the great precept, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” He said he had always kept these; and, no doubt, he thought he had. But the Saviour applied the principle upon which they are based, and the man entirely failed to stand the test. He had “great possessions,” while the needy were on every hand. If he had possessed the spirit of the law he could not have retained so great possessions—much more than he needed—and have seen his brethren suffer for the necessaries of life. See James 2:14–17. He turned away from the Saviour, to whom he came with such earnest inquiry—he turned away, “sorrowful.” He did not like the conditions. How could he be a follower of Jesus, who left even the glory of Heaven itself to do good to fallen man? “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The simple truth is, that the man, as thousands in his position at the present day, was self-deceived, and the Saviour exposed the deception.

But what bearing has this upon the Sabbath question? None at all. Why did not the Saviour tell him he must keep the Sabbath, if that was a duty to remain in force? And we ask, Why did he not refer to any of the commandments on the first table? Why did he not forbid the worship of idols, or blasphemy, if these precepts were to be continued in force? He did not refer to any of these; and if the fourth commandment is not binding, because not there mentioned, the first, second, and third, are not binding, for the same reason. It will not do to reason thus. The Saviour tested him where his deception was probably the greatest; at least where it could be made evident to all. Other duties and other precepts of the law were not to be disregarded merely because they were not then mentioned.

The same remarks, substantially, will apply to Rom. 13:8–11. Commencing our reading at verse 9 of chapter 12, we find the whole lesson relates to our duties to our fellow-men. But a consideration of these duties, however extended it may be, cannot destroy or render null our obligation to God.

Again, Acts 15 has been subjected to the same process, by opposers of the Sabbath, to make it give negative testimony on that question. It has been asked: If the apostles and elders intended that the gentiles should keep the Sabbath, why did they not mention it in their letter? And we ask further: If it was intended that the gentiles should abstain from blasphemy, why did they not say so? They who raise the objection do not seem to have much if any idea of the scope of this scripture. The controversy was concerning “circumcision and the law of Moses.” From this there was a clear and emphatic release. And added to this release were a few cautions upon points wherein those gentiles were especially in danger. But the law of God—the sole and complete rule of moral obligation—was not in dispute, was not considered in the council, and was not included in the letter. Other passages will be considered next week.