Untitled article by W. C. G.

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · September 17, 1867

“THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH—IS ITS OBSERVANCE BINDING?”

By W. C. G.

(Continued.)

As if conscious that he has a task to dispose of the Sabbath in the new earth, Mr. B. makes still another effort to abolish the succession of day and night, as follows:

“But if there is day and night in the new earth, or if it is eternal, then we will present our friends a dilemma, and let them take which horn they please. John says of the worshipers of the beast, ‘And the smoke of their torment ascended up forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night,’ &c. So we find their unrest continues as long as day and night last; so they must either give up the Sabbath with the ending of day and night; or hold to the continuance of day and night with the Sabbath and endless torment, in the world to come.”

Perhaps his construction of this text may prove as incorrect as some others we have had occasion to notice. It does not declare that the worshipers of the beast have no rest as long as day and night last, as Mr. B. asserts, nor is this its evident meaning, but that their unrest continues, day and night, as long as they themselves last, as they are destructible, but day and night are not.

But, reasoning from his stand-point, we will present Mr. B. a dilemma. The text says, “they have no rest day nor night,” not day and night, hence their unrest must continue as long as either day or night continues, and, according to Mr. B., day will continue to all eternity, and therefore the wicked will so continue. We thus see the fallacy of the reasoning which would make day and night the subject of continuance instead of the wicked themselves.

A powerful argument for the perpetuity of the Sabbath, is found in Luke xxiii, 56, where it is stated that the holy women returned from the sepulchre, “and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment.” Realizing in some degree the force of this circumstance, Mr. B. endeavors to meet it as follows:

“In Luke xxiii, 56, we find a prominent text used in support of the idea that the seventh day was observed this side of the cross. If it can be proved that this day was the seventh-day Sabbath, then its advocates have gained something. ‘And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment.’ Christ is said to be ‘our passover.’ Hence he must have fulfilled the law relating to the passover in his death. That this Sabbath was the next day, we learn from v. 54. ‘And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.’ Hence this was the day that they kept ‘according to the commandment.’”

He then goes on to prove that Christ was crucified on Thursday, that Friday was a ceremonial Sabbath, and the one on which the women rested, &c., &c. Admitting, for the sake of argument all that he claims; what has he gained? He would have us believe that the women strictly observed the ceremonial law, which all will admit was nailed to the cross, and which he himself declares the Jews almost totally disregarded on this occasion, and yet did not observe the weekly Sabbath, which all were taught to regard with the utmost rigor. If they rested on Friday, as he asserts, why did they not immediately proceed on the next day to embalm the body of their Lord, instead of waiting until the first-day of the week, or until the weekly Sabbath was past?

Is it not more reasonable to suppose, even upon the hypothesis that the sixth-day was a ceremonial Sabbath, that on this day the women prepared the spices and ointments, which in itself involved no small amount of labor, and then rested on the seventh day “according to the commandment,” rather than violate the sacredness of the holy day, even by embalming the body of their Lord and Master?

Passing over some points which are too puerile to notice or dignify by the name of arguments, we next notice his attempt to disprove the immutability of the law:

“The law of the ten commandments is said to be an immutable and eternal law. It is said to reach from Paradise lost to Paradise restored. We have followed it into the latter and found it could not be located there, for the reason that there was no day and night there, or ‘evening-mornings:’ hence no seventh evening-morning could be found. [?]

“Let us now trace it back to the former, and see if it can be applied there. God would not command anything unreasonable or foolish; and if we find one or two links wanting or weak, the chain is spoiled. Let us suppose God talking with Adam, and giving him the law of ten commandments while yet in Eden, before sin entered. If it was given to him it must be for him as an individual, and he must be capable of obeying it. ‘And God spoke all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee [Adam] out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ How could he honor his father and mother when he had none? It is a self-evident fact that the command locates itself this side of the promise of the land, being even to those who were alive that day, and not 2,000 years before. ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ That were impossible. ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.’ Another impossibility—for he had no neighbor’s wife to covet. All the law Adam ever did have in Eden for his government while there, is recorded in Genesis ii, 16, 17.”

The foregoing contains three false assumptions which will claim our attention.

1. That the words, “I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt,” &c., were a part of the ten commandments.

2. That a law, in order to be binding on any individual, must be applicable to him in all its particulars.

3. That all the law Adam ever had while in Eden was the prohibition to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Perhaps the falsity of these assumptions may be apparent to most of our readers without any argument, but as these positions may at first sight have a show of plausibility, we deem them worthy of a brief notice.

1. It is not claimed that the exact wording of the ten commandments as given to Moses, was also given to Adam, but that the principles which they contain are moral and immutable, and hence binding on all mankind. All the sins which are forbidden by them were sins from the foundation of the world, and as “sin is not imputed where there is no law,” as declared by the apostle, those sins must have been forbidden by law. Sabbath-breaking, murder, theft, and adultery, were sins from Adam to Moses, by virtue of a law which forbade those crimes.

Nor were the words quoted by Mr. B., a part of the ten commandments, being only a prelude to them, as a reason why they should be observed by the children of Israel.

2. The assumption that the law could not have been for Adam because it did not have a direct application to him in all its particulars, is the merest sophistry, as will be apparent upon a moment’s consideration. When a law is framed for individuals or communities, it is intended to apply to them just as soon as they are placed by circumstances in a position to obey or violate that law. Now although Adam was not in a position to have each of the commandments apply to him as an individual, yet his immediate descendants would be placed where they must obey all of them.

His argument stated in brief is that none of the commandments were binding on Adam because each and every one of them was not. Let us carry out this principle and see how it will apply in other cases. Suppose that during the period when all admit the ten commandments were binding, there had been a man who was an orphan. He could not possibly have obeyed the fifth commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother;” hence the law could not have been binding upon him! Or suppose that a man was dumb. He could not possibly take the name of God in vain, nor bear false witness against his neighbor. Now, as

he never could violate the third and ninth commandments, of course the law could not be binding upon him! The fallacy of such reasoning will be seen at once without further argument.

3. That Adam had no other law to govern him while in Eden but the prohibition contained in Gen. ii, 17, is a proposition absurd in the extreme. It admits that Adam had a right to worship idols, take God’s name in vain, violate the Sabbath, make graven images, &c., for ‘where there is no law there is no transgression,’ and these would not have been sin had there been no law forbidding them.

Should it be argued that Adam had no disposition to commit these sins, we might reply, neither have the angels, yet it is recorded of them that they “do his commandments.” Ps. ciii, 20. We are therefore bound to believe that Adam had some other law for his government besides this simple prohibition.

It should be remembered, also, that Adam did not long remain in Eden. What governed him after the fall? The reasoning of Mr. B. would make it appear that the whole human family, from Adam to Moses, were without law, but when we find that every sin forbidden in the decalogue is recorded as sin before the giving of the law on Sinai, we are compelled to the conclusion that the law, as a whole, must have been binding.

W. C. G.

(Concluded next week.)