GEO. B. THOMPSON by George B. Thompson

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 26, 1911

GEO. B. THOMPSON

By George B. Thompson

“Hard Nuts for Seventh Dayists”—No. 2

GEO. B. THOMPSON

“5. Is it the duty of Christians to put to death those who desecrate the seventh day? Num. 15:32–36. If yes, who will be the public executioner? If no, what will you do with the law? Ex. 35:2. If you say that the penalties are abolished, I answer, The same passages that you use to establish this, prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the law, too, is abolished. If you admit that the penalties are still in force,—and the proof that they are is unanswerable and invincible if the law is in force,—there is not an Adventist on top of the green earth who can escape the vengeance of the broken law.”

We answer, No. That the case cited was one of special guilt is plain from the fact that although Israel frequently violated the Sabbath, no such penalty was visited upon them. Even in this instance they had no law which seemed to cover the case, so the man was put “in ward” until the matter could be settled. The verses which immediately precede this text (Num. 15:30, 31) explain the matter. “But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously,” etc. Evidently the sin of presumption was the sin against which the terrible penalty was directed, rather than that of the violation of the Sabbath. To show his disregard for what God had said, he went out and openly worked on the Sabbath, contrary to the instruction of the Lord. And it should not be forgotten that while the letter of the law is not administered now as then, this signal punishment must ever stand as expressing God’s attitude against the sin of presumption; and those who presumptuously break God’s Sabbath, or wilfully violate any other requirement, must meet it in the day of God.

But this brings us once more to the question, Where is the instruction concerning how Sunday should be kept? While seeking to prove that the seventh day can not be kept, will those who observe the first day point to the passage in the Bible where the instruction is given as to its observance? We are waiting for this.

“6. If Christians are under obligations to observe the seventh day, why did Jesus declare that all law and prophecy hang on love, instead of the Sabbath, seeing the command to keep it is the one on which you hang your everlasting all? Matt. 22:34–40; Rom. 13:8–10.”

It is quite true that all the law does hang on love—love to God and love to man. Without love to God no form, however correct, or however sincere the person may be, can avail anything. But notice the words of Jesus in replying to the lawyer’s question, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt. 22:40. On love to God and love to man hangs “all the law.” Then if “all the law” is hanging on these two great precepts, the fourth commandment is hanging there with the rest, and should be kept. Then why does not the author of these questions keep the Sabbath? This precept hangs there with the other nine. It looks to the reviewer as if the author of these “hard nuts” had nearly hanged himself with his own theory.

“7. Why did Jesus not require the young ruler to keep the Sabbath when enumerating the commandments? Matt. 19:16–20; Mark 10:17–22; Luke 18:18–24.”

This question more properly belongs to Jesus than to those who keep the Bible Sabbath. It is hardly fair to ask us, why Jesus did as he did. Ask him. The writer feels loath to attempt to explain the acts and words of Jesus, lest he appear in the light of his apologist. Evidently the intention of the one who asks this question is to endeavor to show that the Sabbath is not binding because Jesus did not mention it in replying to the rich ruler’s inquiry. Very well. Neither did he mention the precept for-bidding the worshiping of other gods, the making of images, or the taking of the name of God in vain.

Are we to conclude that the author of these questions believes that these commandments are not now binding, and that idolatry and blasphemy are not now prohibited by the Lord? If the fact that the Saviour did not mention the fourth commandment at this time proves that it is not binding, the same logic proves that the other precepts not mentioned are likewise not binding. It would seem that a person must be in desperate straits for material out of which to manufacture so-called “hard nuts” thus to ’entangle himself in such an inextricable dilemma. Either he must admit that there is now no command against swearing, or that his argument is not correct. Upon which horn of this dilemma will he decide to empale himself?

The Saviour, in answer to the question of the young man as to which law, quoted enough to define what law he meant, and doubtless named the precepts which the young ruler was especially transgressing.

“8. If Christians are to keep the law of Moses,—the Sabbath,—why did the apostles and elders who met at Jerusalem leave it out of their address to the churches? Acts 15:1–29. This case finds, in some respects, a parallel in your theorizing. Judaizing teachers had gone forth declaring to the brethren that unless they would submit to circumcision and keep the law of Moses, they could not be saved. The apostles said, ‘We gave no such commandment.’”

The decision of the council at Jerusalem was, “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” Acts 15:29. Using the same language, allow us to submit a “nut” for our questioner to hammer on: If Christians are to keep from idolatry, dishonoring parents, taking God’s name in vain, and from stealing, why did the apostles and elders who met at Jerusalem leave those things out of their letters to the churches? Only one precept of the decalogue is mentioned. The author of “Hard Nuts for Seventh Dayists” intimates that the fourth, or Sabbath, commandment is not binding because not mentioned here. Well, what about the other eight? They are not mentioned either. To escape the binding claims of the Bible Sabbath, some arguments are put forth which lead to most shocking conclusions, and the above is one of them. It is difficult to believe that those who publish such cheap quibbles are so blind that they do not see the inevitable conclusion to which their position leads. “Where no law is, there is no transgression.” Rom. 4:15.

Washington, D. C.