p. 403 | RESPONSE TO A TEACHER by John Nevins Andrews

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 9, 1880

RESPONSE TO A TEACHER.

By John Nevins Andrews

[Translated from "Les Signes des Temps."]

A CORRESPONDENT, a teacher by profession, having received some numbers of our journal, writes to express his thanks for what he has received, and at the same time to state his objections to the views which we entertain concerning the Sabbath and concerning the man of sin. His first statement concerning the Sabbath is as follows: "If we should hallow a day, because God sanctified the seventh day, then we should certainly hallow Saturday, for Sunday is not in any way able to take its place." But our friend ought to understand that the sanctification of the seventh day is the only reason assigned in the Bible for the observance of any weekly Sabbath. But he says that God did not command the Sabbath at the commencement, and that possibly such men as Noah and Abraham did not even know that God had sanctified the seventh day, since the book of Genesis was only revealed to Moses, and it is therefore only the children of Israel that were commanded to keep the Sabbath.

Our friend is mistaken when he says that God did not command the observance of the seventh day at the commencement. Three things are stated in Gen. 2:2, 3. 1. God rested on the seventh day from all his work; 2. He placed his blessing upon the seventh day because he had rested upon it. 3. He sanctified the seventh day, which signifies that he set it apart to a holy use. Now the setting apart of the seventh day to a holy use, can mean but just one thing. God could not set apart the seventh day to a holy use without giving commandment to Adam, the head of the human family, that this day should be used only for sacred purposes. The six days on which God had labored might be employed by man in the ordinary duties of this life; but the seventh day on which God rested must be consecrated to a holy use in memory of that rest. Here was a commandment given in behalf of the seventh day at the close of the first week of time.

But our friend thinks that Noah and Abraham were ignorant of this command which God gave to Adam. The entire period from creation to the flood was 1656 years. Adam lived 930 years, and Noah was 600 years old when the flood came. The period therefore of 126 years, intervened between the death of Adam and the birth of Noah. But the fifth chapter of Genesis shows that Noah had the most ample means of knowing whatever truths and duties God had revealed to Adam. Noah had the privilege of conversing during a long period with six of his ancestors, each of whom during many years conversed with Adam. Thus Enos lived with his grandfather Adam 695 years and when Enos died Noah was 84 years old. Cainan the son of Enos was 605 years old when Adam died, and at his own death Noah was 179 years old. Mahalaleel was born 535 years before the death of Adam and he lived till Noah was 235 years old. Jared his son was 470 years of age at the death of Adam and he lived till Noah was 366 years old. Methuselah the grandson of Jared was 243 years old at the death of Adam and he lived till Noah was 600 years of age. Lamech was 56 years old at the death of Adam, and he lived till the 595th year of Noah's life.

Our friend who is no doubt good at figures will find the fifth chapter of Genesis a very profitable study; and he will see that Noah had the privilege of conversing with six generations of his ancestors each of whom had conversed with Adam during a long period of time. Noah therefore could not have been ignorant of the fact that God commanded Adam to honor the seventh day in memory of the creation of the heavens and the earth.

Now let us consider the case of Abraham. Only one link was necessary to connect Noah with Adam, and two links suffice to connect Abraham with Adam. Thus Noah could converse with Methuselah who had conversed with Adam, and Abraham could converse with Shem who had conversed with Methuselah. For Methuselah was 243 years old at the death of Adam; and Shem who was 98 years old at the death of Methuselah, lived till Abraham was 150 years old, and till Isaac was 50 years old. Thus while Noah could converse with several generations, each of which during many years had conversed with Adam, Abraham could converse with Shem the son of Noah, who had lived during nearly one century with Methuselah who had himself conversed with Adam 243 years.

Our correspondent says that the Israelites were the only ones commanded to observe the Sabbath. But we have shown that God made the Sabbath at creation, and commanded Adam the head of the human family to observe it; and we have shown that the patriarchs could not have been ignorant of this commandment. Christ says that the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27), and we have shown that it was made at creation more than 2000 years before the existence of the Hebrew people.

Our friend thinks also that if Christians ought to observe the fourth commandment, the apostles would have made a decision to that effect in the council at Jerusalem. Acts 15. But the question under consideration was not concerning the moral law in general, nor concerning the fourth commandment in particular. It related to the ceremonial law and to the subject of circumcision. Certain persons visiting the churches which Paul had established among the Gentiles, found that these Gentile Christians were uncircumcised, and they immediately made accusation against Paul because of this. This difficulty that gave occasion for the council at Jerusalem. If they had found the Gentile Christians violating the Sabbath, it certainly would have occasioned greater complaint than the neglect of circumcision. But no such complaint was uttered which shows that no occasion for it existed. The council decided that circumcision and the ceremonial law of which it is a part were not obligatory upon the Gentiles.

The moral law is called by James (2:8-12) the royal law or the law of liberty. But the law which the council considered was termed by Peter a yoke which neither they nor their fathers could bear. Acts 15:10

The apostles had no occasion to establish the authority of the moral law, for that law is as firm as the throne of Heaven, and they themselves were subject to it. The things which the council forbade to the Gentiles were: 1. Sacrifices to idols; 2. To eat blood; 3. To eat things strangled; 4. To commit fornication.

The first and last prohibitions are included in the second and seventh commandments, but neither the one nor the other embraces all the things forbidden in these commandments. Those who teach that we are to follow the ten commandments no farther than in the things specified by this council must affirm that the apostle set aside, not only the fourth commandment, but eight of the ten commandments, and even the most important part of the other two. The objection urged against the Sabbath is equally valid against the whole law of God, and we hope our correspondent is not prepared to abrogate all the commandments of God in order to get rid of the fourth.

He cites Col. 2:14-17 as authority for rejecting the fourth commandment. But, if this passage refers to the seventh day, then the ten commandments were nailed to the cross of Christ, and taken out of the way. And, if they were taken out of the way, we have not only the right to break the fourth commandment, but to transgress all the commandments of God. But, if our friend will read this chapter with care, he will see that the apostle does not speak of the moral law, but of the ceremonial, for he calls it a law consisting of ordinances that were against us and that was only a shadow of things to come. This law related to sacrifices and offerings, to meats and drinks, to new moons, feast days, and annual sabbaths, of which there were seven. In the original the apostle speaks of sabbaths in the plural, and there are seven of these sabbaths mentioned in Leviticus 23. They came upon certain specified days of the month without regard to the day of the week. None of these things are contained in the ten commandments.

If Paul had wished to tell us that the ten commandments were abolished he would have said, Let no man judge you with respect to idolatry, blasphemy, the profanation of the Sabbath of the Lord, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and covetousness. He names none of these things, but speaks only of the things contained in that law which was a shadow of good things to come. Cannot our friend understand this?

Our correspondent has no sympathy with those persons who apply to the first day of the week those passages which speak of the sacredness of the Sabbath of the Lord, for he sees the injustice of such application. But he thinks it necessary to observe the first day of the week as a day of rest in order that he may have time for the worship of God, and that he may not give offense to those who believe in the sacredness of the day. But if a day ought to be observed in abstinence from labor and in special devotion to the worship of God, why did God abolish the day which he had sanctified for this purpose before the fall of man? Is a day set apart by human authority better than one established by divine commandment? But how does our friend know that God has abrogated the fourth commandment? He has given no proof on this point that will bear examination.

It is the work of the gospel not to abolish the law of God, but to write that law upon the heart of every converted man. When men have the law of God written upon their hearts, they will never speak against it with their lips; for, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." In our next number we will consider what our friend says relative to the man of sin.

J. N. A.