The Sabbath-School by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Aug 30, 1883

The Sabbath-School.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Lesson for Pacific Coast.—Sept. 8.

Acts 15: 1-32.

NOTES ON THE LESSON.

It is doubtful if there is any chapter in the Bible that has been the subject of more controversy, among a certain class, than the 15th chapter of Acts. By many it is considered as proving conclusively that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not binding on Christians. Some may ask in surprise what warrant this chapter gives for such a conclusion, since the subject of the Sabbath is not discussed, and is only mentioned incidentally. The reply is that four things were enjoined upon the new converts as "necessary," verse 28, and the Sabbath not being one of them, it is therefore not to be observed. We have stated the case fairly, that all may judge of its soundness when contrasted with the truth on the matter.

AND first, we ask, Who are they that bring this objection against the seventh-day Sabbath? Are they infidels, or those who do not believe that men should observe any day as a rest-day? Not as a rule. They are usually those who keep the first day of the week, a large part of whom claim Scripture authority for such a practice. Why, then, can they not see that if the seventh-day Sabbath is not binding, because of the silence of this council in regard to it, the Sunday is in an equally bad plight, for it is not hinted at as one of those "necessary things"? We have never been able to explain this inconsistency except on the ground that Sunday advocates seem to realize that consistency is incompatible with an active warfare against the Sabbath of the Lord. We conclude, therefore, that people do not really believe that this chapter affords any evidence against Sabbath-keeping. "Anything to beat" the "Saturday-Sabbath," is the idea; for having once put that out of sight, habit, early training, and public opinion, will lead people naturally enough to keep Sunday, in form, at least.

Another point may be noticed here, which will show the short-sightedness of those who urge the decision of this council as a reason for not keeping the Lord's Sabbath. The apostolic letter to the converts from among the Gentiles closes thus: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." It will be seen that no mention is here made of idolatry, of profanity, of disobedience to parents, of murder, nor of theft. Must we therefore conclude that these converts were granted license to commit all these sins? Is this the liberty of the gospel, to which they were admitted? However much any one despises the law of God, he cannot admit for a moment that the apostles would sanction the commission of any of the sins above enumerated. Then may we not also conclude that they would not sanction the violation of any part of the law, since it all is of equal authority? See Matt. 5:17-20; James 2:8-12.

Our readers have doubtless by this time concluded that the law of God—the ten commandments—could not have been the subject of discussion; and that is exactly the truth. From verses 1 and 5 we learn that certain Jews troubled the churches that had been raised up among the Gentiles, teaching the members that they must be circumcised and keep "the law of Moses," if they would be saved. It was to settle this matter that this council was called. Both Scott and Barnes plainly state that the "Jewish ceremonies," or the "ceremonial law" was the subject of controversy.

The speech of Peter proves that the perpetuity of the moral law was not called in question. He said that God "put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." Purifying their hearts from what? From sin, of course. And what is sin? "Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. But from what sins were they purified by this faith? Paul answers, in Rom. 3:23-25: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Christ's blood purifies from past sins, but does not grant indulgence for future sin. Peter, whose speech we are considering, spoke in another place on this wise: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." 1 Peter 1:22. The law of God is the truth, Ps. 119:142; Jno. 17:17. We learn, then, that having been purged from past sins by the blood of Christ, we are, by the aid of the Spirit, to keep ourselves pure for the future by obeying the law of God. This is the testimony of those apostles who took part in this famous council. And further, the very fact that we are purified by faith, proves the perpetuity of the law of God; as Paul says, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31. That is, the fact that we can get rid of sin in no other way but by the death of Christ, shows that the claims of the law of God cannot be abated in the least; for if it were possible to remit the claims of that law, that act would free mankind from sin, and make it unnecessary for Christ to die.

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Verse 10. What was this yoke? The ceremonial law. The testimony of learned men has much weight with some, so we quote two comments on this verse:—

"This did not relate merely to circumcision, but to the whole ceremonial law; which, though proper and useful for the time, required so many distinctions, burdensome purifications, expensive sacrifices, long journeys, and other things of a similar nature, that it was a very uneasy yoke, in every age, even to the inhabitants of the promised land, and still more to those Jews who resided in other countries."—Scott.

"This does not refer to the moral law; that was of eternal obligation; but to the ritual law, which, through the multitude of its sacrifices, ordinances, etc., was exceedingly burdensome to the Jewish people."—Clarke.

But we have the testimony of those apostles who took part in this discussion, that by this "yoke" they did not mean the moral law. Thus John says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous." 1 John 5:3. James says, "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." Jas. 1:25. See also chap. 2:8-12. A "law of liberty" is very different from a yoke of bondage. And Paul says, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Rom. 7:12, 22. These testimonies should be sufficient to settle this matter.

It is asked "Why was a positive sin, the violation of the seventh commandment, included among the prohibited things, and no other sin?" We reply that none of the things prohibited pertained to the ceremonial law. They were all "necessary things," but the ceremonial law was not necessary. The partaking of meats offered to idols, if not in itself an evil, had the appearance of evil, which is always to be avoided. It would be a cause of stumbling to many, and more than all would, on account of associations, be a stepping-stone to idolatry. The eating of blood was forbidden to Noah, for both physical and moral reasons, and is as much wrong now as it ever was. Dr. Clarke enters into an extended argument to prove this point, but we have not the space. The same argument would exclude things strangled. As to fornication, so far was it from being accounted wrong by the Gentiles that it formed a part of their heathen worship, and was considered a virtue rather than a crime. So common was it that the converts from the Gentiles would not be apt to think of it as a violation of the law of God; hence they needed special warning on this point. Abstinence from these things which were so common among the Gentiles would separate them in a great measure from their old associations, and prevent their lapsing into idolatry. The law of God, in general, they would keep as a matter of course, as a necessary part of their Christian profession.

"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day." Verse 21. This mention of the Sabbath by James, although incidental, is conclusive as showing which day was regarded by him as the true Sabbath. The day on which the Jews read the law in the synagogues is spoken of as the Sabbath. That day, as every one admits, was what is now called Saturday. But James further says that the law was read every Sabbath-day; and since the Jews had only one regular day—the seventh-day—for worship and the reading of the law, it necessarily follows that James knew of no other Sabbath than the seventh-day of the week. And this statement, let it be remembered, was made in a Christian assembly, composed of apostles and elders, twenty years after the ascension of Christ. If the first day of the week is the Sabbath of the Christian dispensation, is it not strange that none of this assembly had learned of it during those twenty years?

E. J. W.