More “Hard Nuts” Cracked

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 11, 1906

More “Hard Nuts” Cracked

LAST week we gave some attention to the contents of a leaflet entitled “Hard Nuts for Seventh-day Adventists.” In this article we shall continue the examination of some of the questions and pretended arguments in this remarkable effort in behalf of the Sunday sabbath.

The seventh question propounded is this: “Why did Jesus not require the young ruler to keep the Sabbath when enumerating the commandments?” It is difficult to escape the conviction that the writer of this question is guilty of wilfully attempting to confuse and mislead his readers. If there is any force at all in this inquiry, it must rest upon the implied fact that Jesus mentioned the other nine commandments in his enumeration, omitting only the fourth from the list. But it is only necessary to read the record as found in Matt. 19: 16-22 to find that Jesus made no direct reference to the first, second, third, fourth, or tenth commandments. Does this prove that in his teaching Jesus intended to convey to the people the idea that it was unnecessary for them to refrain from idolatry or from taking the name of the Lord in vain? Any sane person would repudiate such a conclusion. But this reasoning is just as sound as that which leads to the conclusion that Jesus did not regard it necessary for the young man to keep the Sabbath. A little study of this case will show that Jesus exposed the formalism of the religion of this young man by showing that the love which is the very essence of commandment-keeping was lacking in his relation to those about him. This would determine his real attitude toward God, “for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” There is not the least shadow of an argument here against the obligation to observe the seventh-day Sabbath.

The inquiry is next made, “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?” Here is another case of the same kind of reasoning as that with which we have just dealt. In the first place it is the law of the Lord, and not the law of Moses, in which the Sabbath commandment is found; but passing by this effort to belittle God’s law, we call attention to the fact that this address to the churches does not contain an enumeration of all the duties of Christians. An attempt was made by “certain men which came down from Judea” to enforce circumcision as a necessary condition of salvation. They said: “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye can not be saved.” “The Holy Ghost saw good not to impose the ceremonial law on the Gentile converts; and the apostles and elders saw the matter in the same light, and their mind was as the mind of the Spirit of God.” “The Gentiles, however, were to take no course which would materially conflict with the views of their Jewish brethren, or which would create prejudice in their minds against them. The apostles and elders therefore agreed to instruct the Gentiles by letter to abstain from meats offered to idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood. They were required to keep the commandments, and to lead holy lives.” We ask those who urge the omission of the fourth commandment from this address to the churches as an argument against the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, If Christians are to refrain from idolatry, from profane swearing, from murder, from stealing, from lying, and from coveting, why were these prohibitions left out of this address? This is a plain case of an argument which proves too much, and therefore proves nothing.

The ninth question in this series is this: “If Christians are required to keep the Sabbath, how are we to account for the open violation of the law by Jesus Christ, who is our example, unless by saying that the power that made the law can take it away, and that he did?” In his anxiety to escape the obligation to observe the Sabbath of the Lord, this writer seems to hesitate at nothing. He even charges Jesus with openly violating God’s law, in order that he may make an argument against the observance of the law in our time. But let Jesus speak for himself: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy,

but to fulfil.” Matt. 5:17. “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” John 15:10. Jesus challenged the Jews to cite any instance in his life where he had transgressed the law of God (John 8:46), and we pass on the challenge to the writer of this leaflet. It is quite true that Jesus refused to be bound by the traditions and man-made regulations which were taught in his day, and if Christians would do the same now, they would repudiate the Sunday sabbath just as he repudiated what the Pharisees had added to the Sabbath commandment in his day, but to charge him with open violation of the law of God is to make a false accusation against him. It is a terrible thing for transgressors of God’s law in this day to attempt to hide behind the baseless claim that in so doing they are following the example of Jesus. We entertain a more exalted idea of the character of our Saviour than to declare that he was a violator of the law of God, his Father. Jesus kept the law of God in his own flesh that he might keep it in our flesh, as we exercise faith in him as the very life of our life. “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” 1 John 2:6. Christ kept the seventh-day Sabbath, and his followers should do the same.

The next question runs as follows: “If you keep the Sabbath because, as you think, it was kept before the law of Moses, why do you not practise circumcision, seeing it is plainly commanded in these ages?” We keep the Sabbath because it is one of the precepts of the eternal, unchangeable, moral law of God, that law which the apostle Paul declares to be “holy;” but we do not practise circumcision, because it was one of the precepts of the ceremonial law, which was nailed to the cross. “Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” 1 Cor. 7: 18, 19.

Again this writer asks: “When did patriarch, prophet, or apostle, or anybody else, command any Gentile to keep the law of Moses?” We are here reminded of the following anecdote: A man once waited upon a clergyman and offered to prove to him that the law of God was not binding in this age of the world. The clergyman called his servant and said, “Show this man out and watch him until he gets off the permises. He does not believe that the ten commandments are binding upon him.” There are few who are willing to risk their own reputation by openly declaring that they do not regard the ten commandments as governing the moral conduct of all men. The principles of God’s law are eternal in their nature. This law, as applied to the conduct of men, was given to mankind centuries before there was such a people as the Jews. By this law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7), and sin was in the world before the law was rehearsed at Sinai and given to Moses. Rom. 5:13, 14. Furthermore the apostle Paul says: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom. 3:19. The expression “under the law” in this verse might be properly rendered “in the law,” as it is translated by Young, Rotherham, and Davidson, meaning “within the sphere of the law.” All are within the sphere of the law, and therefore all the world becomes guilty before God, because all have transgressed that law. In harmony with this reasoning it is stated in verse 23 that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” What clearer proof could be given that the law of God is of force among all nations and peoples? No man is “guilty” unless the law applies to his case. Furthermore, all men are to be judged by the law which forbids murder and adultery (James 2:10-12), but men are not judged by a law which they are under no obligation to obey. Who will dare to assert in the judgment that he was outside the sphere of God’s law? “As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law.”

Our space will not permit us to crack all these “hard nuts” in this article, and so we will defer others until another time.