p. 552 | Whom Shall We Obey? by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 10, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 35.

Whom Shall We Obey?

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

WE have received the following from a subscriber in Ohio:—

"I have been a reader of your paper since last spring, and am much interested in the reading of it. I am of your belief in regard to the Sabbath, but am at a loss to know what to do. The commandment says Sabbath, and our civil law is very strict on Sunday observance. Paul says, 'Servants, obey your masters,' 'Obey those that have the rule over you,' 'Obey the magistrates,' and many other passages teach us the same thing. If we disobey the law, we disobey the Testament; if we do that, we disobey God. Give me light."

This we can easily do. Once Peter and John were brought before the magistrates, and were commanded with threatenings not to speak any more in the name of Jesus. Without the least hesitation they replied: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts 4:19, 20. This refusal to obey the command of the magistrates was no idle boast, for when the two apostles were liberated, they went to preaching the same as before. Then the whole company of apostles were arrested and thrown into jail. When they were brought before the rulers, and reminded of the prohibition that had been laid on them, Peter, and all the other apostles answered boldly, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29.

It is the duty of every man to live a quiet, peaceable life. We are to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake (1 Pet. 2:13), and to be subject for conscience sake (Rom. 13:5). But it would be impossible for a man to break the law of God for the Lord's sake, or to disobey God for conscience sake. Therefore the sacred writers evidently mean that we are to obey men when civil laws do not interfere with the law of God. We are to be subject to the "higher powers," but there is no earthly power equal to God. He is the Most High. We say emphatically, that when human laws directly conflict with the law of God, those human laws must be broken. And the man who thus breaks human law, in order that he may keep God's law, will have a conscience void of offense both toward God and toward man.

This is one of the first principles of human law. Blackstone in his commentary says that if a law of man is in direct opposition to the law of God, we are in duty bound to break that law. Earthly rulers derive their power from God, therefore they have no power to contravene his will.

The three Hebrew children in the court of King Nebuchadnezzar, refused to obey the monarch's unqualified demand for every one to bow before the image which he had set up. Dan. 3. The fact that their refusal would subject them to serious "inconvenience," did not affect them in the least. They boldly told the king that they would not disobey God in order to please him, took the consequences, and by their sturdy faithfulness gained a place in the inspired roll of honor (Heb. 11) as those who through faith "quenched the violence of fire." They did not know, however, that they would be thus delivered, but that made no difference.

Daniel, also, the only man of whom it is recorded that the Lord sent him a message telling him that he was "greatly beloved," had a similar experience. He was a faithful servant of the king, leaving no duty unperformed, yet when a decree was issued interfering with his duty to God, he paid no attention to it. In his forced disregard of the edict, he honored the king with all the respect possible, but much as he honored the king, he honored God more. Who does not know that these faithful men, who dared to obey God in spite of the laws and threats of kings, were more faithful in the service of the rulers than were any of the troop of time-serving politicians who professed great respect for the laws of men, while they despised the authority of God?

It is more difficult for people to reason correctly in regard to the Sabbath than about almost anything else. Christians who applaud Daniel and his companions for their course, are afraid to keep the Sabbath of the Lord, lest they should offend man. Suppose the Government should pass a law making it obligatory on men to blaspheme the name of God; would the brother feel that he is in duty bound to swear? Suppose a law should be passed commanding men to steal, would the brother's conscience compel him to steal? If adultery were made legal, and severe penalties were pronounced against those who should refuse to engage in it, would he feel it to be his plain duty to violate the seventh commandment? Of course he would not. Well, the third, seventh, and eighth commandments are on the same foundation as the fourth. God says: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." No man, nor set of men, nor entire nation, has any right to pass a law conflicting with that. They have no right to say that any individual shall not keep that day, or to attempt to compel him to refrain from working on any other day; for the commandment which sets apart the seventh day for rest, also sets apart the other six days for work. If the civil law says, You must keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, it is not only my privilege, but it is my duty to break that law. Under whatever circumstances we are placed, we must remember that "we ought to obey God rather than men." That sentence settles the whole matter.

So far as this special case is concerned, we would say that we have many hundred brethren in Ohio, and none of them have as yet found any serious difficulty in keeping the Sabbath. Should they be brought to the issue where they must decide between God's law and a conflicting civil law, we trust that they would have no hesitancy in deciding what to do.

E. J. W.