Extent of the Sabbath Commandment.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
ALTHOUGH there is no limitation either in the Sabbath commandment as spoken from Mt. Sinai, or as recorded in Gen. 2 : 1-3, the fact that many claim that it was limited in its application, makes it necessary for us to consider the question, For whom was the Sabbath sanctified? or, in other words, who were commanded to keep the Sabbath holy? When we consider that the day was sanctified, i. e. appointed or commanded, in Eden, there can be but one answer: The commandment was given to those then living. It is not possible that it could have been otherwise; that the account here is anticipative, and that the Sabbath was then sanctified for the use of some future generation. For to every command there must be two parties: the one commanding and the one commanded. A command cannot be made unless some one is present to receive it. In this case God issued the command, and Adam and Eve were the ones to whom it was directed. But they represented all who should afterward live upon the earth. See Gen. 3:20. It follows, then, that the Sabbath commandment embraces the whole world; all who have descended from Adam and Eve. In harmony with this conclusion we have the words of our Saviour, in Mark 2:27 : "The Sabbath was made for man," this can mean nothing less than the whole human race, for the word "man," when used without any limiting word, means "mankind; the totality of men." When the word is limited it means man to the exclusion of women; and no one will claim that women are not under obligation to keep the Sabbath, to whatever race or class of people the commandment is directed. No one will be found bold enough to claim that the word "man" has a different meaning from what it has in Gen. 1:27; 2:7. This being the case, it is manifestly improper to speak of the Sabbath as the "Jewish Sabbath," for it belongs to no special class of men. It belongs to no man at all, but is the property of God; he claims it as his own. See commandment, also Isa. 58:13, etc. If men, regardless of the commandment, choose to rest on some other day, they may call it their Sabbath, or give it any name they please; but the Bible speaks of only one Sabbath, and that is the one that the Lord claims as his own; to apply to that day any other term than that which the Lord gave it, is sacrilege. We see that the commandment as given at creation and renewed on Sinai furnishes no warrant whatever to the idea that the Sabbath was to be local, or was given simply to the Jews. Not only this, but even in the Old Testament it is expressly stated that the Sabbath was not designed for the Jews alone. Thus we read: "Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. . . . Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar, for my house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:2, 6, 7. The position of the commandment in the law of God is also enough of itself to convince any one that it is binding upon all men. Even profane persons will admit that it is wrong to take God's name in vain; and none claim that there is any privileged class who may swear with impunity. The fifth commandment is almost universally disregarded, yet no one thinks of asserting that its obligation does not extend to all mankind. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth are admitted to be of universal obligation, yet they are no more emphatic than the fourth, and the penalty for disregarding the Sabbath commandment is no more severe than that for violating the Sabbath commandment. It is true that the Sabbath rests solely on the commandment. This is urged by some as an objection. They say that it was always wrong to kill or to steal, but was not always wrong to break the Sabbath, since the Sabbath did not always exist. Hence they claim that the Sabbath is not moral. To this we reply (1) That the Sabbath has existed ever since day and night existed; (2) That God has always been the Supreme Being, and it has always been wrong to disobey him. Therefore whenever he issues a command it is man's moral duty to obey. (3) The Lord claims the Sabbath as his own; he calls it "my holy day;" he has set bounds about it, and forbidden man to trespass upon it; he warns us not to venture to take it for our own use. Now if we violate this commandment, we take that which is not our own, and are guilty of theft, a thing which is admitted by all to be immoral. Many other proofs might be adduced to show the morality of the fourth commandment. There are some who, to get rid of the Sabbath, make the bold claim that none of the law is binding; that it is all done away, and that Christians are under no obligation to law. With such we have nothing to do at present. Yet they bear witness to the fact that the fourth commandment is of as much importance as any of the ten, because they plainly see that in order to get rid of it they have to throw all away. The fact that the law is a unit; that it stands complete as a whole, and cannot be divided, will be noticed hereafter. But although "the Sabbath was made for man," it does not thereby become his property, to do with as he pleases. It was made for his use, not for his abuse. Paul, in 1 Cor. 11:9, says that the woman was made for the man. He does not mean that she was made to be the slave of man, who could be taken or put away at his pleasure, as in heathen lands, but that she was made a help, a blessing to man. So the Sabbath was made for man, i. e., not against him; but it was designed to aid him both spiritually and physically. A farmer who has hired servants may, in order to lighten their labor, buy certain tools for them. But one would suppose that the servants would have any right to sell those tools which their employer had thus purchased. All would understand that he bought them for the servants to use, and to use in his service only. On this subject the "Speaker's Commentary" uses the following forcible language:— "On what principle of legislation can it be maintained that, because laws are imposed by the ruler for the benefit of the subject, therefore they may be dispensed with by the subject at his own convenience? This is utterly untenable as regards the laws of man; still more as regards the laws of God."