p. 319 | How is it? by D. A. Robinson

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 20, 1882

"How is it?"

By D. A. Robinson

BY ELD. D. A. ROBINSON.

IN the following very summary manner a certain speaker disposed of that troublesome Sabbath, recently:—

"Is the old covenant abolished? Was the seventh-day Sabbath in that covenant? Are we under the new covenant? All must answer these questions in the affirmative. Is the seventh-day Sabbath still in force? Here we must just as surely give a negative answer, for as we have seen it was in the old covenant, that covenant is done away, therefore, the Sabbath is abolished, and we are under no obligations to keep it."

Without stopping to define what the old covenant was, we inquire, Is the old covenant abolished? Was "Thou shalt not steal" in it? Are we under the new covenant? All must answer "yes," according to this man's position. Is "Thou shalt not steal" still in force? Here our friend must give his negative answer, for as we have seen, this precept was in the old covenant; that is done away, therefore, the command against stealing is abolished, and we are under no obligations to keep it. If the first position is correct, the latter is also; and, hence, there is no crime in stealing, for "where no law is there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15. And this would apply to all the ten commandments if such reasoning as the above were correct. But we wish to raise the question "How is it?"

1. Was the old covenant abolished at the cross? All must answer in the affirmative, because Paul says, "For he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." Eph. 2:14-16. Again, in writing upon this point, the apostle adds, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." These statements show conclusively that the old covenant did end at the death of our Lord.

2. Was not the new covenant ratified at the same time the old was abolished? A few statements of inspiration emphatically show that it was. "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second." Heb. 10:9. Again, "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament [covenant] by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [covenant] there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [covenant] is of force after men are dead." Heb. 9:15-17. This shows that it was the Saviour's death that made of force the new covenant. It was sealed, confirmed, and ratified by his blood.

3. Was not the seventh-day Sabbath called the Sabbath by inspired writers this side of the cross? Let us see. "But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down." Acts 13:14. See also Acts 13:42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:3. These words were written by Luke, thirty years this side of the cross. He can mean no other than the seventh day, because it was the day when the Jews met in the synagogue, and yet while writing by inspiration he repeatedly calls it the Sabbath. In Acts 15:21 he informs us that Moses was read in the synagogue every Sabbath day. Now the seventh day was either the Sabbath or it was not. If it was not, then Luke was mistaken, and the Spirit of God had nothing to do with his writings, or at least, with this portion of them; but if it was the Sabbath, as this writer positively affirms, it must be the Sabbath now, as we shall presently see.

4. Was not this Sabbath observed by Christ's followers this side of the cross? The only correct answer that can be given is that the proof of this is clear, positive, and entirely free from any ambiguity. In Luke 23:56, we read, "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." The next verse says, "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Luke 24:1. These were written more than a score of years after the Lord was crucified, and he declares that they kept the Sabbath according to the commandment, and then, as if to place the matter beyond all cavil, he tells us that the day following this one which they so carefully observed was the first of the week. Here again these disciples kept the Sabbath or they did not. If they did not, then Luke's statement should be so revised as to read in harmony with the facts, but if they did keep it, as we believe, and as inspiration unequivocally declares, then it was not abolished at the cross. And if it did not there end, what event since that time has occurred to terminate its existence? The simple fact that it was observed "according to the commandment" this side of the cross, proves beyond all controversy that the death of our Saviour in no way affected this Edenic institution which was "made for man," and hence, the Sabbath holds its position under the new covenant.

We have already shown that whatever was abolished—the old covenant, commandments contained in ordinances, middle wall of partition, in short, the shadowy system—was abolished at the cross, and that at the same point of time the new covenant was confirmed by the death of our divine Lord. Did a first-day Sabbath exist as early as that? Nobody claims such a thing. Did the Sabbath commandment exist after this new covenant was confirmed? We know it did, and was in force after that, because we read that they "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." This they could not have done if the commandment had been abolished.

5. Since the first-day Sabbath did not exist when the new covenant was confirmed, and the seventh-day Sabbath did exist, has it been possible since that time to annul the latter and insert the former into the new covenant? We are well aware that a vital point is involved in the answer to this question. For an answer to it, we turn to the word of God: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." Gal. 3:15. We learn from this testimony that a covenant once confirmed can have nothing taken from or added to it. The important act of confirming the new covenant by our Lord was performed at too early a date for the first-day Sabbath to find a place in that covenant; and since the seventh-day Sabbath existed after that act was completed, we are forced to the conclusion that "THE SABBATH ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT" is still in force, and has a clear and undisputed title to a position in the new covenant, for "though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed no man disannulleth." And we are also compelled to conclude that the so-called first-day Sabbath is a usurper and an intruder when it tries to obtain a place in the new covenant after its confirmation; for Paul says "Though it be but a man's covenant . . . no man addeth thereto." The evident reasoning of the apostle here is, that if this is so of a covenant made by mortal man, it will be infinitely more true of a covenant between God and his people. In summing the matter up we are led to the following firm and undisputed conclusions:—

1. The old covenant was abolished at the death of our Lord.

2. The new covenant was confirmed at the same point of time.

3. When a covenant is once confirmed nothing can be taken from it, or added to it.

4. The first-day Sabbath had no existence when the new covenant was confirmed, and therefore, cannot be inserted into it at any subsequent time, for "no man addeth thereto."

5. "The Sabbath according to the commandment" did exist and was in full force this side of the confirmation of the new covenant, and must therefore be under it, and cannot be taken out, for "no man disannulleth or addeth thereto."

This attempt to insert the Sunday into the new covenant, reminds us of the last will and testament (or covenant) of the late poet Longfellow. It seems before his death, after his will had been made and witnessed, he desired to add another item involving several hundred dollars which should go to a member of his family. Mr. Longfellow being better versed in poetry and prose than in the technicalities of the law, thought to add this item by interlining it in the body of the will, which he did. After his death, when the law came to view the act, it would not recognize such proceedings. So with the Sunday institution; it can only be gotten into the new covenant by interlining, but Heaven will not recognize such an act. Reader, have you been brought into covenant relation with the Lord Jesus Christ? The new covenant is closely connected with the law of God, the ten commandments; the fourth of which enforces the keeping of Jehovah's rest day. Under the new covenant the Lord promises to write this law in the hearts of his people. Christian reader, what is it gives you pain when you hear God's name used irreverently? The reason is because that commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," is engraven upon your heart's tablet. And so with all these ten precepts so far as they have been written upon your heart, you can say with Paul, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Has the fourth commandment been written on your heart? If it has, then in the language of the prophet you can "call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable." Can you do this? How is it?