UNDER THE LAW by M. E. Kellogg

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Michigan · Jul 23, 1901

UNDER THE LAW.

By M. E. Kellogg

M. E. KELLOGG.

It is not uncommon for the religious press to throw out expressions deprecating the study of the day of the Sabbath as something long ago settled, and therefore not worth discussing. But every little while articles upon this subject appear in the same papers, which show that, in spite of all efforts to the contrary, the question of the day of the Sabbath will not down, and the editors are fain frequently to publish something to sustain the practice of worshiping upon the “venerable day of the sun” of Constantine’s decree. Two long articles appeared some time ago in the Christian Advocate in support of Dr. Aker’s theory that Sunday is the original seventh day from creation. It will probably only be a question of time before some other writer will in the same paper prove (?) that we cannot tell when the seventh day, or any other day comes, as is very commonly taught in many pulpits and papers.

Recently a lady writer appeared in the Advocate as a defender of the observance of the first day of the week. The following are the first two paragraphs of her article:—

“About fourteen years ago a little tract was put into my hands, entitled ‘One Hundred Reasons Why Christians Should Keep the Seventh Day.’ It contained one hundred Scripture passages on the Sabbath, and not a word besides. It confused me, hurt me, stunned me. Holding it in my hand, I prayed that if the Adventists were right, God would open the way for me to worship on Saturday. Then I laid it aside and forgot all about it. Afterward, when the truth had been made clear to me, I found the tract and put it in the fire.”

“Recently my heart has been pained by the knowledge that some of God’s dear people are in sorrowful darkness because of erroneous teaching on this line. A long, pitiful letter received recently has stirred me to prepare this article. The writer, after telling of her struggles and beseeching help, says, ‘I went to my pastor for advice, but he could give me no satisfactory proof—in fact, seemed very uneasy.’”

The reader will notice that there was nothing in the tract which she received except Scripture texts, yet the writer confesses to having been “confused,” “hurt,” and “stunned” by them!

Why should the reading of plain Scripture texts with no word of comment have such an extraordinary effect upon a Christian? We can think of no reason except that the texts cited presented evidence that the reader was not living in accordance with their teaching. Afterward, when she had convinced herself that Sunday was the Sabbath after all, she committed to the flames those references to the Scripture, and so, in her own mind, destroyed the evidences that had so confused her! She evidently thought that references to Scripture texts were very dangerous things to have around. An ancient king of Israel once pursued a similar course to ease his conscience. See Jer. 36: 20-23.

We will now consider some points in this article: The very title of it is a confession: “Which? Sabbath or Sunday? Seventh Day or First Day?” Here is an admission that Sunday is not the Sabbath, that the first day is not the seventh day. In the article we read, “Our first day is not the Sabbath day changed, but a new day.”

By this must be meant a new institution. Of course this new Sunday institution cannot depend for its authority upon the bases of the Sabbath. The sanctification of the seventh day at creation and the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue furnish no support to it. Contrary to all Methodist doctrines upon this point as set forth by the standard authors of that denomination and taught in the “Discipline,” this writer abolishes the law to get rid of the Sabbath which it ordains! Here is a specimen of the argument:—

“We are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” Rom. 6: 14, 15. Because we are not obliged to keep the seventh day, which pertained to the old creation, to Sinai and to law, shall we be careless about the first day, which pertains to the new creation, to the Church, and to grace?”

Was there ever before such an argument, and such a conclusion following it, as the foregoing? Paul’s grand appeal to the Christians not to abuse the free pardon offered them through Christ by again relapsing into sin, or transgressing the law again, is dwindled down into, Being no longer obligated to keep the Sabbath, shall we be careless about Sunday! Why, bless the good sister; Paul was not writing nor thinking about Sunday at all. He was as innocent of the whole Sunday muddle as an unborn babe.

Let us look at this point again: The law of Ten Commandments is supposed to be abolished; it has passed away. Now we will try this new logic on some other one of the obsolete Ten Commandments and see how it will sound: Because we are not obligated to honor our parents any longer, which obligation pertained to the old creation, to Sinai and to law, shall we be careless about honoring the parents of other people? This is a very good parallel. One is no more absurd than the other.

Again we quote: “If we were under the law, the Seventh-day Adventists would be right, and we must keep the Sabbath, the seventh day, or disobey God.” The writer evidently holds that the expression “under the law” means under

obligation to keep it. Not under it, then, must mean not under obligation to keep it. No obligation to keep it means permission to ignore and disregard it,—not one commandment only, but every one. Apply this theory of interpretation to the law, and what do we have?—Freedom to break the law—freedom to do just what it forbids—actually freedom to sin!

There is a better, a more sensible and reasonable explanation of the meaning of the words “under the law,” and that is that they mean under its condemnation. Through Christ we who believe are pardoned of all our sins, and are no longer under the condemnation of the law. We are no longer under law, but under grace, or favor. But should we sin,—and the transgression of that same law is sin,—we are no longer under grace, but under the law. By our own transgressions of the law we have put ourselves back there under condemnation again. And those who have not repented, and obtained grace, are not out from under the law; the law still holds them under its condemnation.

These quotations will give to the reader some idea of the quality of the matter that the leading Methodist Episcopal paper in the United States is placing before its readers upon the subject of the Sabbath and the law. In its treatment of the law as a whole, it contradicts the historic writers of the denomination. But this is not so bad as it is to contradict the Bible.