Those “Hard Nuts” Again

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 18, 1906

Those “Hard Nuts” Again

We conclude this week the consideration of the “hard nuts” which have been given to Seventh-day Adventists to crack.

The writer of the leaflet under review submits the following as his next proposition: “Paul says the ministration of death written and engraven in stone was done away. When, where, and by whom was it brought back into force?” That we may know just what “was done away” let us have the exact words of the text. We quote from the American Standard Version as follows: “But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory?” 2 Cor. 3:7, 8. Now compare this with the statement made in the leaflet: “Paul says the ministration of death written and engraven in stone was done away.” Of course this opposer of the Sabbath means to quote the apostle Paul as authority for the position that the ten commandments written upon stone have been done away, although this same apostle writes to the Romans that this same law is “holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.” But by reading the text we find that the apostle does not say what is attributed to him. He is comparing the glory of the ministration of death with the glory of the ministration of the spirit, and declares that the former glory “was passing away,” or “was to be done away.” The context shows that the contrast is not between the law in force and the law done away, but between the law on stone and the law in the heart. Inasmuch as this question is based upon a perversion of the text, it does not require any further answer.

The next question is this: “If the early Christians kept the Sabbath day, why did they break bread on the first day of the week?” The supposed force of this inquiry must lie in the assumption that to break bread on the first day of the week was sufficient to show that the Sabbath had been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. But this

is pure assumption. There is no Scriptural basis for such a claim. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Scriptures to show that the celebration of the Lord’s supper was confined to any particular day, while, on the contrary, there are plain intimations that at the first this ordinance may have been observed every day. Acts 2:42, 46. The incidental mention of the fact that on this particular occasion the disciples broke bread on the first day of the week has no bearing whatever upon the Sabbath question.

Again the writer of this leaflet inquires: ‘If Christians are to keep the Sabbath day, how do you account for the fact that the apostles preached the gospel in Jerusalem, Samaria, to Cornelius the Gentile, and to many others, without commanding a single individual to keep it?’ This question ought to run like this: If Christians are not to keep the Sabbath day, how do you account for the fact that the apostles preached the gospel in Jerusalem without being accused by the Jews with being Sabbath-breakers? The silence of the Jews on this point is very convincing when we remember that after Jesus had healed the blind man on the Sabbath, the Jews said, ‘This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath.’ The most candid, and the best informed observers of the first day of the week freely admit that the early disciples observed the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and taught their converts to do the same. To argue otherwise is to refuse to believe the plain facts of history.

The next question is the most remarkable of them all. It reads thus: ‘Is it not a fact, according to the book of Acts, that the thing done was of more importance than the day?’ We suppose that the originator of this inquiry had some thought in his own mind when he propounded this question, but this is certainly an illustration of the statement that language is sometimes used to conceal thought rather than to convey it. We further suppose that this question was designed to have some relation to the question of Sabbath observance, but we freely confess that we are unable to comprehend its meaning, or to see the least connection between it and the matter at issue. It is not worth the while to waste time and strength in cracking a nut which contains no meat. We are willing to leave empty shells for others.

The next question is too long to print in full, but the substance of it is contained in these words: ‘Can you demonstrate that the day you keep is really the seventh day or Sabbath coming down in regular succession from the day on which God rested? . . . Will you affirm that it is possible for all men to keep the same day? . . . Do you not see that it is a geographical impossibility for all men to keep the same day, and that the law was only intended for one people, one country, and one age?’

The proof of an unbroken succession of Sabbath days is very simple. By a series of weekly miracles covering a period of forty years the particular day of the Sabbath was pointed out by God himself. That this was the day set apart at creation is shown by the commandment as given at Sinai during the time of these miracles. This very day was observed by the Jews during all their history until the first advent of our Lord, and he himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, recognized the day which they kept as the true Sabbath. Since the beginning of the Christian era all history testifies that there has been no break in the succession of weeks. We do affirm that it is possible for all men to keep the same day, but not at the same time. The Sabbath travels around the earth, just as any other day does, and the inhabitants of the different portions of the earth observe it as it comes to them. We do not recognize any ‘geographical impossibility’ as an excuse for refusing to obey the law of God. We have ourselves traveled around the world, going in a westerly direction all the time, and when we returned to our starting-point, we found that we were observing the same day for the Sabbath as our seventh-day brethren who had remained at home all the time. Those who find difficulty concerning the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath on a round world are those who live in the same place and theorize about it. Those who travel meet with no such difficulty. When God created man, he said, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,’ and God’s law was given to a people who were to fill the earth. What an absurdity it is to conjure up ‘a geographical impossibility’ as an excuse for disobedience to the law of the God of the whole earth. Such an excuse is foolish, and it will sound foolish to those who make it in the day of judgment. Shall the thief in America plead ‘a geographical impossibility’ as a sufficient reason for breaking the eighth commandment? Shall the idolaters in the islands of the Pacific be released from the obligation to worship only the one true God because of ‘a geographical impossibility’? There is just as much reason for answering these questions in the affirmative as to claim that the Sabbath commandment was intended for the people of Palestine only, and that it is ‘a geographical impossibility’ to observe the same day as the Sabbath on a round world. The law of God was intended for every people, in every country, and in every age. ‘Sin is not imputed when there is no law.’ ‘Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.’

We now come to the final question: ‘Do you keep the Sabbath day? No dodging, do you? Do you rest, or put in the day promulgating your doctrines?’ In the time of Jesus the self-constituted censors and directors of religious observances complained bitterly because the Saviour did not keep the Sabbath according to their views, and in reply to their accusations he laid down this principle: ‘It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.’ We hold to this principle, and sincerely endeavor to keep the seventh-day Sabbath according to the interpretation of the commandment as given in the example and teaching of the Lord of the Sabbath. In the service of the sanctuary the priests were required to perform extra duties on the Sabbath, and yet Jesus taught that in so doing they were ‘blameless.’ We regard the teaching of the truth of God as entirely in harmony with Scriptural Sabbath-keeping, and we are certain that only carping critics can seriously take any other view of the matter.

We have now considered all the ‘hard nuts’ found in this leaflet. Not one of these questions contains, or even suggests, any valid argument against the observance of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It further seems to us that not one of them grows out of a sincere inquiry after the truth, but that, on the contrary, they indicate a settled determination to avoid any candid study of the subject, and a purpose to cast odium upon those who are willing to make a sacrifice in order that they may ‘keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.’ We have a sincere respect for those who are honestly seeking to know the truth, although they may differ with us, but the captious objector and the unprincipled caviler constitute a class by themselves. Like the scribes and Pharisees of old, they shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for they neither go in themselves, neither do they suffer them that are entering to go in. We can not hope that our replies to these questions will convince such persons, but we hope they may have some weight with those who desire to know the truth as it is in Jesus. ‘If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching.’