p. 3 | Some “Hard Nuts” Cracked

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Oct 4, 1906

Some “Hard Nuts” Cracked

THERE is a little leaflet entitled “Hard Nuts for Seventh-day Adventists” which is being used to confuse the minds of those who are instructed in their duty to obey the Lord by observing the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Our attention has been called by different ones to the arguments (if such they can be called) which are made in this leaflet, and we have been requested to give them some attention.

There is nothing new in them. They are neither original nor convincing, and when candidly examined, they are found to be mere quibbles, or to grow out of a misapprehension of the true teaching of the Scriptures; but they may serve to disturb the minds of those who have never reached a settled conviction concerning the Sabbath question. We shall therefore give a little time to the easy task of cracking some of these “hard nuts.”

The first demand is for “the proof that any man ever kept the seventh day, except by special commandment, prior to the proclamation of the ten commandments at Mount Sinai.” In the first place let it be noted that it would make no difference in the case if no such proof could be adduced. We are living this side of Sinai, and there is no gainsaying the fact that the seventh day was plainly designated as the Sabbath in the ten commandments which were spoken by the Lord’s own voice and written with his own finger at that time. But the proof demanded is not lacking. The apostle Paul proves that the law of God was in existence before it was spoken at Sinai, from the admitted fact that sin was in the world before that time, since “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Rom. 5: 13. The Sabbath, which is included in the law rehearsed at Sinai, was instituted at creation. Gen. 2: 2, 3. Those, therefore, who, like Abraham (Gen. 26: 5), kept the Lord’s commandments, statutes, and laws, were observers of the seventh-day Sabbath. That the law of the Sabbath was well known previous to its proclamation at Sinai is further shown in that the Lord brought a test concerning this commandment upon his people in the wilderness of Sin to prove them, “whether they will walk in my law or no.” Ex. 16: 4, 5, 22-26.

A comparison of Ex. 16: 1 with Ex. 19: 1 will show how long this was before the children of Israel arrived at Sinai. It is thus perfectly clear that the Sabbath, instituted centuries before the existence of a Jew, was observed according to the commandment by the obedient children of God in the earliest times. To reject this evidence and to deny that the seventh day was observed from creation to Sinai on the ground that there is no specific instance of Sabbath observance recorded, is to set aside sound argument by a mere quibble. But there is no possible way of compelling a quibbler to acknowledge the force of any argument.

The second, third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of this leaflet are inquiries concerning the observance by present Sabbath-keepers of certain regulations enjoined under the theocracy, but not of general or permanent obligation. Every serious student of the Scriptures ought to know that there were civil and ceremonial laws given under special conditions and for special purposes, which were not moral in their nature, and which were not of universal application. Therefore the instruction to the children of Israel that they should not go out of their tents on the Sabbath to seek for manna, that they should observe the year of jubilee, and that they should not build a fire in their habitations on the Sabbath day, which is not found in the fourth commandment, is not in force in this day, and does not enter into the question of Sabbath observance in our time. We are not now living under the theocracy or under the ceremonial law, but the lapse of theocratic and ceremonial observances does not in any way affect the obligation to keep the fourth commandment in harmony with the interpretation which Jesus placed upon it. Furthermore, the question, “Is it the duty of Christians to put to death those who

desecrate the seventh day?” may be answered by asking, Is it the duty of Christians to put to death the one who smites his father or his mother (Ex. 21:15)? or, Is it the duty of Christians to provide cities of refuge “that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares” (Num. 35:10, 11)? And yet who will deny the obligation to honor father and mother, and to refrain from taking human life, as directed in the fifth and eighth commandments? An argument which does not have any force when applied to some other commandment than the fourth is not entitled to any serious consideration when it is urged against the obligation to keep the Sabbath.

In the sixth paragraph of this leaflet the question is asked, “If Christians are under obligations to observe the seventh day, why did Jesus declare that all the law and prophecy hang on love instead of the Sabbath?” This is certainly a remarkable bit of reasoning! We might supply a little more of the same kind and inquire, If Christians are under obligations not to bear false witness against their neighbors, why did Jesus declare that all law and prophecy hang on love instead of the ninth commandment? But the true answer is found in the following words: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected.” “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” “And this is love, that we walk after his commandments.” 1 John 2: 4, 5; 5: 2, 3; 2 John 6. Among the commandments, the keeping of which is the outworking of love in the heart, is the fourth commandment inculcating the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. Any other keeping of this day than that which is the outgrowth of love is mere ceremonialism—a mockery of Sabbath-keeping. And the same is true of all the other commandments. Therefore Jesus said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt. 22: 37-40. But this does not militate against the observance of the fourth or any other commandment.

This article is long enough, and a further consideration of these “hard nuts” must be deferred until some other time.

That Hope of the President

THE message which President Roosevelt recently sent to the pope conveying his “profound regards,” and expressing the hope that this republic will last for centuries, and that “there will be Catholic presidents as well as Protestant presidents,” has attracted attention outside of America. In the September issue of The Protestant Observer, published in London, we find the following comment on this message:—

Such a message only proves how ignorant President Roosevelt is of the true character of popery, its intolerance, and hatred of religious liberty. American Protestants could not well commit a greater act of folly than to place a Roman Catholic at the head of the republic, he being in all matters, civil and religious, a subject of a foreign sovereign called the pope of Rome.

It will be of interest in this connection to read a paragraph from an article lately published in the Independent (New York) written by one who has just abandoned the priesthood of the Catholic Church. Referring to the teaching of that church concerning the relation between church and state, he says:—

When Leo XIII’s encyclical on the Christian State appeared, I read it with great care. Like all American Catholics, I believed in a free church in a free state. But Leo XIII taught that the church is supreme, and the state her handmaid. My surprise was great. Later on I noticed that when our American prelates spoke of the church and state, they always explained, carefully, that the status here is the best for us. The only exception I can recall was the sermon of Archbishop Kain, of St. Louis, at the conferring of the red hat upon Cardinal Martinelli, in Baltimore Cathedral. He came out fairly and squarely for a free church in a free state, and whether he knew it or not, preached thereby heresy. From the Catholic standpoint the church is right. If she is the mother of all truth, she dare not brook a rival in the state any more than in the sects.

Those who would form a correct judgment concerning the real attitude of the papacy on any question must remember what has already been made known concerning “the double doctrine of the Catholic Church.” There is an esoteric Catholicism and an exoteric Catholicism—the inner teaching and practise and the outward teaching and practise. The American principles of the separation of church and state, of freedom of speech and of the press, are tolerated by Catholicism in this country because at present no other course is possible, but the record in Catholic countries shows what the Roman Catholic Church really holds on these questions, and what she would do in this country were she to come into power. And although Catholics in America may be more liberal and more tolerant in their views than are the Old World Catholics, yet the policy of the church is dominated from Rome, and can not be controlled by American Catholics. Furthermore, the avowed purpose of American Catholics is to build up a Catholic America, and they do not hesitate to use every influence available to accomplish this purpose. If a Catholic should ever occupy the president’s chair, there is no doubt that he would use his official position for the furtherance of the interests of the Catholic Church. If he did otherwise, he would not be true to the principles of genuine Catholicism.

Those who are looking for the fulfilment of the prophecy found in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation are watching with intense interest all these indications of union between Catholicism and an apostate Protestantism.