The Sabbath Law | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 8, 1882

The Sabbath Law.

LAW expresses obligation. It is not advice. Mere advice leaves it at our option whether to accept it or not. Law leaves no option, but peremptorily says, "Thou shalt."

If three points are made clear to our minds, there can be no further question concerning the advisability or necessity of obedience. 1. The authority; is it sufficient? 2. The reason; is it just and right? 3. The terms or methods of statement; are they plain and specific?

Now in regard to the fourth commandment every requisite is fully met:—

1. The authority is of Jehovah himself—the Creator of the heavens and the earth. He is the "one Lawgiver;" "Supreme Moral Governor;" "God over all." When he speaks "every mouth may be stopped." The authority is so complete—so entirely beyond questioning—that it would be sufficient to rest everything here, and stand in silent awe. But, as we said, every requirement is met in this law, as all may readily see.

2. The reason is sufficient, and remains to-day with all the force which it ever possessed. God made the world and all things therein in six days. This was, it is, and it will forever be true. He rested the seventh day. This is also an immutable and eternal truth. He blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; that is, set it apart from the other days, to be appropriated to sacred uses. This is true to-day; it can never cease to be true. All this is undeniable. In sanctifying it he reserved a special proprietorship in it as a sacred day, giving to man the other six days for his work. No one can deny his right to reserve one day to himself—to be used only as he shall direct. No one can dispute his "right of property" in the seventh day.

3. The law is given in plain terms; so plain that a child can understand them. Indeed, we have known children from five to eight years of age to be thoroughly converted from the observance of the heathen "day of the sun" to the keeping of "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," by simply reading the fourth commandment. The difficulty in perceiving the truth of the Sabbath is not with the understanding but with the will. No law could possibly be given in plainer terms.

This being the case, where is the chance for option or choice on the part of the subject—the creature? He who interposes his own will, when the will of the Creator is plainly expressed, does it at his peril. Such a procedure is the highest treason, the most unwarranted usurpation of which a feeble, dependent creature can be guilty. And yet this is being done continually, and (let the Heavens be astonished!) it is done by those who profess to regard the authority of the Lawgiver; who profess to reverence, to love, to adore him! Notwithstanding the plainness, the reasonableness, the completeness of authority, of the fourth commandment, every term in it is set aside, and something substituted for it, even by those who claim to "fear God, and keep his commandments."

To show the nature of the claim in behalf of the first day, we give another extract from our "Review of Baird":—

A most important part of Sabbath investigation is that which treats of the Sabbath as "a sign." A correct understanding of this subject will effectually correct Mr. Baird's errors in regard to "the ends" of the Sabbath institution. He treats it merely in the light of a beneficial institution, subservient to man's choice, not being holy except by our own action; and no one day belonging to God more than another except as we choose to devote it to him. But this is as far from the truth presented in the word of God as midnight is from noon. The Bible leaves no option with man in regard to the observance of the Sabbath. It represents it as a memorial—a sign of the creative power of Jehovah; his own chosen day; a day blessed by the Lord; by him separated and set apart from the other days. The very nature of a memorial or commemoratory institution forbids that Mr. Baird's conclusions should be true.

To illustrate, we will suppose, as a parallel, that the fourth of July has been set apart by our government, by an express law, as the day to commemorate the independence of the United States; and the law gives as the reason for such appointment, the signing of the Declaration of Rights. Now a party rises up and claims that the design of the law will be carried out by observing the eighth of January instead; that we are required to keep one day of the year, and not any particular day; that both the letter and the spirit of the law will be kept by observing the eighth of January; that on that day a very memorable event occurred, worthy of being commemorated; that history has made much mention of the victory of Gen. Jackson, on that day; and that as we are to keep the day, it must be optional with us which day we keep. Now, query: Would that law be kept by keeping the eighth day of January instead of the fourth of July? The law specifies the particular day—the fourth of July. It gives the reason—the signing of the Declaration of Independence on that day. It is not optional with us—the law carries with it the authority of the government. On the other hand, the eighth of January is not mentioned in the law; the victory at New Orleans is not the reason given for appointing the day; history is not law, so a historical fact cannot supersede a legal enactment; though the day is to be observed by us, it is not a matter of option, but must be kept in obedience to the law; the claim and authority of the government are honored only by the observance of that day which is set apart by law. He would be considered wildly foolish, who would contest the case in favor of the eighth of January, under such circumstances.

But such is the relative position of the parties in this Sabbath controversy. The law says the seventh day. Mr. Baird acknowledges the validity of the law, but says the first day will answer instead of the seventh. The law gives as the reason, that God rested on the seventh day. Mr. Baird says the better reason is that Christ arose on first day. The law says the seventh day is the Lord's day, the day of his choice, the day which he reserved to himself, and hallowed to sacred use. Mr. Baird says no one day belongs to the Lord, except as we give it to him, or is hallowed except as we make it so, and the first day will answer all the ends of the law. The fact that it is a law, that it is by authority, binds us to observe the day pointed out in the law. But Mr. Baird says a day not indicated by authority, not enforced by any law, will answer far better than the day mentioned in the law! Was ever folly and presumption more apparent?