A Check on Adventism by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Dec 13, 1883

"A Check on Adventism."

By Editor

THE teachings of the Saviour in the sermon on the mount, in regard to the law, ought to be noticed a little further. As we said, Wesley wrote that Matt. 5: 17–19 referred to the decalogue, and only those basely interested to make a point, even though they pervert the words of Christ, could say otherwise. Jesus spake "as one having authority," and it was fitting that he should announce his position, as a reformer, in reference to the recognized constitution of the divine Government. He said he came to fulfill—keep—it, and not to subvert or destroy it. And to give assurance, he pronounced a woe upon the person who should break one of the least of the commandments in the law, and promised blessings in the coming kingdom of Heaven to those who do and teach them; and that not even a jot or tittle should pass from the law, till heaven and earth pass away. If Mr. Woodward, or any other, can complacently fight against these commandments, or any one of them, we would refer him to chapter 7 : 21–23, where "many" who profess great faith in him are told to depart as workers of iniquity; literally, lawless or law-breakers.

Again, in giving the "golden rule," he teaches to do unto others in all things as we would that others should do unto us, and adds: "For this is the law and the prophets." That is, the law which restrains others from infringing on our rights as to life, chastity, property, and reputation, also forbids our infringing on the rights of others in the same respect. The law is based upon love to God, and to man, and the golden rule is the outgrowth of the law in its relations to our fellowmen. No part of the law is excepted in this sermon, but every commandment enforced, as it is in other places. As to the idea presented by Mr. Woodward that Christ set aside the fourth commandment, we are willing to leave him to the mercies of John Wesley and Bishop Haven.

We have so often exposed the sophistry of those who try to turn the testimony of Paul to the Galatians and the Colossians against the Sabbath of the Lord God, that to many readers it may seem a weariness to hear the evidence repeated. But we must briefly notice his efforts on these letters. He writes:—

"In Gal. 4: 9–11 we read: 'But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.' This is a rebuke for going back to the observance of certain days by which they will again fall into bondage. There was no day in the Jewish economy that was so heavy laden with rites and ceremonies as their Sabbath. It was a load too heavy for them to carry and remain free."

Several points may be briefly noticed in this:—

1. The apostle is here speaking to those who formerly "did service to them which by nature are no gods." To this service they were inclined to turn back.

2. In confirmation of this view we learn in Deut. 18: 9–12 that observing times was a heathen practice, forbidden as an abomination to the Lord.

3. This may refer to the Sunday, that being a heathen festival, as all authorities attest; but it cannot refer to any days which were ever commanded by the true God.

4. Mr. Woodward's position is that the seventh-day Sabbath was classed with these heathen abominations; one of the days or times kept in obedience to them which by nature are no gods!

5. The Lord told his people Israel that if they called the Sabbath a delight, and honored God in its observance, then they should delight themselves in the Lord. Isa. 58: 13, 14. This does not well agree with Mr. Woodward's estimate of it. If he had in any instance showed any respect for the word of God, we should expect he would be ashamed of his scandalous comment on Gal. 4. And on Col. 2 he does no better.

Four things are specified in Col. 2: 16, namely (1) Meats and drinks; (2) Feast days, called here holy days; heorte has no other meaning than feasts. (3) New moons; (4) Sabbaths. Some say, and Mr. Woodward is one, that the annual sabbaths were included under the head of "a holy day," that is, the feast days, and that "the sabbaths" mean the weekly Sabbath. The fallacy of this is easily shown.

There were three annual festivals in the Levitical law: the passover, pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles; and each new moon throughout the year was likewise a feast day. Each day of these feasts, as the seven days of the passover, was a feast day; two of them were sabbaths. Therefore there were many more feast days in the law than there were sabbaths. Hence the apostle's specification. And Col. 2: 17 shows positively that these feasts and sabbaths were among the Levitical types, and that the apostle does not include therein "the Sabbath of Jehovah thy God." Now we will examine Mr. Woodward's comments:—

"The word days, as has been stated, does not appear in the original, hence, 'sabbath' stands alone, and is in the genitive plural, 'sabbaton,' 'of the sabbaths,' and hence must have, in order to complete the grammatical construction, as well as the sense, a governing word. This word must be 'hemeran,' day; supplying this governing word, the passage reads, Let no man judge as respects the day of the Sabbaths."

Neither the grammatical construction nor the sense demands the insertion of the word "day" before sabbaths. Where sabbaton has the meaning of week, and has a numeral prefixed to it, then the construction demands the insertion of hemeran, day; it could not convey the idea of the original without it. And hence, in the Greek Testament, in every instance of that kind, there is placed in the margin, "hemeran understood." But this is not a case of that kind, and there is no such marginal reading. The addition of the word "days" in the Authorized Version was evidently euphonic, as the pronunciation is easier, and more easily understood by the hearer if we say "sabbath days," than "sabbaths." Here is one misrepresentation of the Greek of this text by Mr. Woodward. Again he says:—

"This clause is translated in the revised version of the New Testament, 'of a sabbath day.' The revisers saw the mistake of supplying 'days,' as this is the Greek form of expression for the Sabbath day; so they give us the correct translation, but place the article 'a' before 'sabbath day.'"

On this we say, (1) If the revisers have given us the correct translation, then Mr. Woodward must confess that his construction is wrong. Every one can see that "a sabbath day," as the revisers have it, is not the equivalent of "the day of the sabbaths," as Mr. W. has it. As it stands in his book he would make both of them right! but they are not the same, and do not convey the same idea. (2) He says "the revisers saw the mistake of supplying 'days,' as this is the Greek form of expression for the Sabbath day." If that were so we should find this form invariably in the Greek where "the Sabbath day" is mentioned, but we do not. But again he says:—

"The expression that St. Paul uses here, 'the day of the Sabbaths,'—hemeran sabbaton—is the exact Greek expression in the Septuagint, found in the Decalogue, and is translated 'the Sabbath day.'"

The above is simply an untruth, and every one who has ever read the texts knows it to be so. We will place side by side the expression of Paul and that of the decalogue, and the reader may judge for himself. The decalogue says: "Teen hemeran ton sabbaton." This is an exact rendering of the Hebrew. But Paul has only, "E ton sabbaton," that is, "or the sabbaths." Teen hemeran is in the Septuagint, and not in Col. 2: 16. It is not a pleasant task to expose such willful misrepresentations of the originals of the sacred records as we have to do when reviewing those who fight against the Sabbath of Jehovah. Mr. Woodward has perverted and falsified the Greek of Col. 2 as badly as Mr. Armstrong did the Hebrew of Ex. 16.

On this text Dr. Barnes says:—

"But the use of the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial or typical law, and not on the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as 'a shadow of good things to come.' These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation."

And Dr. Clarke on the same text says:—

"There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation, and can never be superseded but by the final termination of time."

The italics above are Dr. Clarke's own, and seem to have been placed there for Mr. Woodward's special benefit. Both Dr. Barnes and Dr. Clarke, and every writer "of sound judgment," as Dr. Haven has it, affirm that the fourth commandment is not typical. Mr. Woodward says it is, and affects to find it in verse 17, in the words, "which are a shadow of things to come." Against his bare assertion we produce the testimony of Jehovah himself. The Sabbath and the fourth commandment are based upon certain facts. Are they typical, and, when ordained or established, did they point forward to Christ? The Lord God gave the reason, the foundation of the Sabbath in the commandment. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." And when the Lord declared that the Sabbath was a sign, he gave the reason and the nature of the sign thus: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

The Sabbath is a memorial only, and a memorial of creation. (Bear in mind, this is the Sabbath given to the Jews in the fourth commandment, of which Jehovah speaks thus). It was made, blessed, and sanctified before sin came into the world. If man had never sinned these facts would have forever stood the same, and the Sabbath would have been, as it is now and ever will be, a memorial of these eternal facts. Such is the truth against which puny man dares to raise his arm. We do not envy him in the prospect that, by his commandments God will bring every work into judgment. Eccl. 12: 13, 14.

On John 21 he is peculiarly happy. Hear him:—

"But the Seventh-day Adventists, anxious to throw aspersion on the Christian Sabbath, call this day Sunday, and that it is a good fishing day, and that the disciples all went fishing, hence, had no respect for it. In the first place, it was not a good fishing day, for they toiled all night, and caught nothing—a rebuke for their wrong-doing. Jesus, in the morning, full of compassion for his erring, hungry children, appears on the shore, and calls to them, saying: 'Children, have ye any meat?' And they answered him, No. And he said unto them, 'Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find; and they did, and were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes,' John 21: 4–6. And after they had dined, Jesus rebuked Peter severely for leading the others astray. Had it been an ordinary day, there seems no reason why they should not catch something to eat. They were not yet fully commissioned to preach, and were not until after the baptism of the Holy Ghost; hence, it seems that during the week, on any day except the Christian Sabbath, they would be allowed, to fish without bringing upon them the rebuke of the Saviour."

Reader, where do you think this information was obtained that the Saviour rebuked the disciples for fishing on Sunday? It can be found only in the New Gospel according to Woodward. We make no comments; they are unnecessary, and we cannot do justice to the subject. A man who will thus falsify and willfully misrepresent the gospel, and yet have the effrontery to put "Rev." to his name, well deserves the scorn of every person who has any regard for truth and honesty.

With a few quotations in regard to the first day of the week, we dismiss Mr. Woodward. We shall copy without comment:—

"Any reference to the first day of the week as the day on which the early church met and worshiped should have great weight." Page 55.

"The sub-apostolic Fathers . . . all admit that the first day of the week was universally observed by all Christians as the Sabbath." Page 92.

"Who keeps the first day of the week? Nobody. Who has got the mark of the beast? No one. Did anybody ever keep the first day of the week? No." Page 89.

"If they say that the change of the Sabbath is not the mark of the beast, then none of us poor mortals that keep the first day of the week bear it." Page 88.

"We have shown that the mark of the beast is not the keeping of the first day of the week as Sabbath by the fact that, according to the Seventh-day Advent figures and statements, the first day of the week was observed 217 years before the beast (the Roman Catholic Church) had an existence, and also by the fact that no people under the sun ever kept the first day of the week." Page 92.

And so the final summary of his argument is this. 1. All Christians have kept the first day of the week. 2. The mark of the beast is not the first day of the

week. 3. Nobody ever did or does keep the first day of the week! Therefore nobody has or can have the mark of the beast. And so Adventism is checked!

We repeat our statement, that for weak sophistry, for contradictions of the Bible, for contradictions of their own church standards, and for self-contradictions, we have never seen the equal of this work of Mr. Woodward.