The Old Waymarks by Editor

California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists · Oakland, Cal. · Mar 25, 1875

The Old Waymarks.

By Editor

THE discussion of the Sabbath question is fast driving those who reject the evidences of the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath of Jehovah, from the old waymarks. - When it is seen that the observance of first-day as the Christian Sabbath cannot be sustained by the Scriptures, it is not uncommon for religious teachers to go to such passages as Rom. 14:1-6; Col. 2:14-17, to prove that the Sabbath law is not in force. In this they are departing from old and well defined waymarks of the Christian church relative to the perpetuity of the Sabbath.

We give the following from Justin Edward's Sabbath Manual, pages 133--136, published by the American Tract Society, which maintains our views of Rom. 14:1--6; Col. 2:14--17. The book maintains that the Sabbath is perpetual from creation to the end of the Christian age. And although it was written in the service of first-day observance, on the ground that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, the writer urges the time-honored, well-tried, consistent, and only true view of Paul's statements in his epistles to the Romans and the Colossians. Mr. Edwards says :—

Under the Jewish dispensation were incorporated two kinds of laws. One was founded on obligations growing out of the nature of men, and their relations to God and one another; obligations binding before they were written, and which will continue to be binding upon all who shall know them, to the end of time. Such are the laws which were written by the finger of God on the tables of stone, and are called moral laws.

The other kind, called ceremonial laws, related to various outward observances; which were not obligatory till they were commanded, and then were binding only on the Jews till the death of Christ.

There were also two kinds of sabbaths, or days of rest. One was a day of weekly rest; and the command to keep it holy was placed by the Lawgiver in the midst of the moral laws. It was called, by way of eminence "THE SABBATH." The command to keep the other sabbaths was placed by the Law-giver among the ceremonial laws because it was like them, as the command to keep the weekly Sabbath was like the laws with which it was associated. One class were fundamental, permanent, universal moral laws; the other class were local, temporary ceremonial laws. One had their origin in the nature and relations of man; the other, in the peculiar circumstances in which, for a time, a peculiar people were placed. One would be binding in all ages, upon all who should know them; and the other would be binding only upon the Jews till the death of the Messiah.

The Jews at the coming of Christ, being in a state of great spiritual darkness and grievous apostasy from God, did not well understand the nature and objects of their laws. Often they overlooked the spirit, and were superstitiously devoted to the forms. Some, after they embraced the gospel, thought that the ceremonial as well as the moral laws were binding. Others, more enlightened, thought that they were not. This led to contention among them. Paul, in the fourteenth chapter of Romans, presented such considerations as were adapted to lead them, in this matter, to a right decision.

"One man," he says, "esteemeth one day above another. Another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it." Both mean to honor God, and he will accept them. But what day does he speak of? "The Sabbath" of the fourth commandment, associated by God inseparably with the moral laws? Read the connection. What is it? Is it; one man believeth he must worship Jehovah; another, who is weak, worshippeth idols? One believeth that he must not commit murder, adultery or theft, and another thinks he may? Were those the laws about which they were contending, and with which were connected the days that he speaks of? No. About those laws there was no dispute.

But, "One believeth that he may eat all things," (which are nourishing, whether allowed in the ceremonial law, which regulateth such things, or not;) "another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him." Those were the laws about which they were contending, and with regard to which the apostle was giving them instruction. It was not the moral, but the ceremonial laws; and the days spoken of were those which were connected, not with the former, but with the latter.

So, in the second chapter of Colossians, "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths." The sabbaths spoken of are not the Sabbath associated with, Thou shalt not commit murder, or adultery, or theft; but the sabbaths associated with meats and drinks, and new moons, which were indeed shadows of things to come. But to take what he said about those sabbaths which were associated by God with the ceremonial laws, and which the apostle himself, in this very discourse, associates with them, and apply it, as some have done, to "THE SABBATH" which God associated with moral laws, is wrong.

"Blotting out," he says, "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, nailing it to his cross." But the day of weekly rest from the business and cares of this world, for the purpose of worshiping God and promoting the salvation of souls, is never spoken of in the Bible as being against men, or contrary to them. No. It always was, and always will be, for them. That Sabbath was made for man, not against him.