p. 154 | ELD. J. H. WAGGONER'S THIRD NEGATIVE

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 29, 1872

ELD. J. H. WAGGONER'S THIRD NEGATIVE.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

The reader will bear in mind that a discussion is different from an essay or an independent argument; it is not to be expected that every point involved in the subject should be noticed, but those contested. The identity of days and the bearing of the word sanctify are often matters of earnest dispute; but they are not with us. Eld. Vogel and myself agree on these. Also, where time is so limited, it is impossible to notice everything which might in strict justice demand attention.

1. Eld. Vogel says the section I quoted from Crosby was put “in small type to show that it figures but little in the case.” It is explanatory, and necessary to an understanding of the subject. Its being put in small type does not indicate that it is not truth! Nor does he speak of “impassioned prose”—“even in prose” are his words; and they will stand.

I did not maintain silence concerning the Hebrew. I said the exceptions were numerous in both Testaments. Gesenius says of the article, its use is “nearly the same as in Greek and German.” He also makes the same exception that Crosby does in regard to poetry, though Green does not; and this shows that Green's not noticing the exceptions, is not evidence that no exceptions exist. Let us notice a few of them.

a. Eld. V. says the Sabbath was so well known on that morning when the manna was first withheld, that the article was demanded. Yet when they had kept the Sabbath about five months longer, having witnessed the constantly recurring miracles which pointed it out, and made its observance a necessity; having heard the voice of Jehovah, in his terrible majesty, defining and enforcing it on Mt. Sinai; and Moses had received two copies written by the finger of God; after this lapse of time, with all this evidence of its being well known, the same form is used in Ex. 35:2, that was used in Ex. 16:23; the article is wanting. And this is “legal information” also; not poetry nor “impassioned prose.”

b. Lev. 23:3 was spoken a number of months later, yet the article is omitted. Surely, it was not then lacking in “general notoriety,” “emphatic distinction,” or in anything that would insure the presence of the article, if there were no exceptions to the rules.

c. A striking instance is found in Ex. 20:10, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” It cannot be said that this is indefinite, for the article is inserted in verses 8 and 11, on either side of this. Did the translators turn commentators on this text? No; nor did they on Ex. 16:23. Facts of history and usage of the language justify their course.

d. Gen. 1:1: “In a beginning.”—Heb. Who can find fault with the translators for here inserting the article? It is a faithful translation, i. e., gives the true idea of the text.

e. Ps. 21:1: “A king shall joy in thy strength,” &c. Read the connection, and see if the translators have not done justice to the text by inserting the article. I am at a loss to comprehend Eld. Vogel's remark, “The Hebrew . . . has no such exceptions as he would force on the Greek text.” If he means that the Grammar which he uses does not notice exceptions, it does not meet the case; for others do; and his expression is unfortunate, liable to mislead. But if he means that the Hebrew of the Old Testament has no such exceptions, then his “mine” is easily exploded. I did not use the phrase, “no scholar,” in an invidious sense, as his italicising the last word infers; but I now think perhaps he was right in his emphasis.

f. I repeat, that his reference to the expression, “a holy convocation,” is “an element of weakness in his argument.” It is invariably without the article. It is as if he should attempt to show that a certain man might be distinguished from certain others because his name is John, when John is the name of every one of them! Compare on the passover, Ex. 12:16, with Lev. 23:7, though a year intervened between their mentions.

But Bro. Vogel is confessedly ingenious and fruitful of expedients. When the fallacy of his argument on this point is shown, he answers: “Nearly every mention by Moses was either a first mention, or a re-mention, for the purpose of additional legislation, which is nearly an equivalent.” “A kind of equivalent,” and “nearly an equivalent,” are “a kind of” cushion which he prepares on which to fall easily when compelled to fall from his assumed position; and in case of necessity, as on Neh. 9, he can hide behind their ambiguity. The prefix “re” signifies again. A “re-mention” is simply a mentioning again. Does he mean that these “re-mentions” are additional instances of the first mention? And may there be a second, third, or fourth occurrence, at long intervals, of the first mention? If not, what does he mean? I would like to know how many months or years must intervene to distinguish between a first and second mention, or between the second mention and merely a “re-mention”? Or if it is only “nearly equivalent,” what proportion belongs to the first mention; and how much of it shall we pass over to the second? If this is not bending language to help a failing theory I never knew an instance.

Yet again, he says the yearly sabbaths might be mentioned indefinitely because the weekly Sabbath had taken the article by “emphatic distinction.” If so, why is it that the weekly Sabbath wants the article so long after its mention in Ex. 16? And how can it take the article by “emphatic distinction,” if there is not a “vestige of difference” between it and the others, and if it belongs to “the same category,” as he has said?

Gesenius, as quoted by Eld. Vogel, was evidently referring to the term Sabbath, without regard to its being definite or indefinite, for, in the next article, he renders the text cited, “a Sabbath of sabbatism.” But inasmuch as Eld. V. offers it in proof, he indorses the giving of the article to Sabbath, Lev. 23:32, and thus he furnishes another exception to the rule which he says has no exceptions!

2. At first, he said the rulers were “surprised,” yet now he says they knew of the order for gathering a double rate of manna. But they came and told Moses before he spoke to them of the Sabbath, as in verse 23. Yet again he says it is “absurd” to suppose they went to let Moses know the order was obeyed. Well, why did they go? Can he give another reason? Is their “surprise” a matter of “conjecture,” or of revelation? One thing is beyond conjecture—Eld. V. is befogged over Ex. 16.

3. He says the passover commemorated only “one thing,” namely, the passing over of the death-angel, in Egypt. Why did he make this assertion so contrary to the express reading of Ex. 12:15–17? I leave it to the reader if some of his assumed “facts” are not “imaginary.” All that I said in regard to the passover and the Sabbath is fully confirmed by the Scriptures.

4. He does not notice the proof I gave that Deut. 5 has not the original copy of the Decalogue. “These words,” in Deut. 5:22, is the equivalent of these commandments. Compare Ex. 34:28, where Moses says the Lord wrote “the ten words” (Heb.) on the tables of stone. Eld. V. might with equal propriety assert that there were only ten words on the tables of stone. “Words,” in these texts, has a technical or special significance. His remark concerning the rest of Deut. 12:9, &c., is without point. I did not disregard the distinction between the command and the promise. I distinguished, also, between the rest of Deut. 12, and the Sabbath of Deut. 5. His words convey an erroneous impression. I said, and I repeat, that the rest which was promised to them in contrast with their bondage in Egypt, was not the Sabbath, but the inheritance of Canaan. The Lord's words to Paul will far more aptly refer to himself.

5. His remarks on “make known” do not better his case; his quotations are irrelevant. To quote Ps. 9:16, to show that “make known” is used in its “primary sense,” is truly strange, for the words are not there! “Make known,” and “is known,” are not synonymous. Nor does Eze. 39:7 speak of making known his “new name,” as Ex. 6:3–7, quoted by Eld. Vogel. I shall not try to account for his passing off such random statements for arguments on the case; I have given him credit for sufficient discrimination to perceive their irrelevancy.

6. On John 7. (1) He says the authors I quoted “all held the Sabbath to be a moral institution,” and translated according to their prepossessions. I do not wish to arouse his “righteous indignation” a second time over this passage, but I am compelled in justice to say his statement is not correct. (2) Who are those “best N. T. lexicographers” who devote a page or more to the discussion of the Greek word, hina? It is true, they give a variety of combinations in which it is used; but what lexicographer gives a different rendering of hina mee from that I gave from Parkhurst, Robinson, Liddell and Scott, Greenfield, Groves, and Donnegan? That is confirmed by the renderings I quoted from the Diaglott, and from Olshausen; and I notice also by the grammars of McClintock and Crooks, and Crosby. (3) I must repeat, and every reader can see, that “Tholuck's paraphrase” of John 7:23 does not agree with the marginal reading, notwithstanding the effort of Bro. V. to harmonize them. If “Ye transgress the law,” and “Without breaking the law,” are synonymous in his vocabulary, I have but to say they are not in mine. There is plausibility in Bro. Vogel's softening of the terms, to wit, it was “no transgression at all;” but Tholuck does not say that! but the very opposite. Why, then, did he quote Tholuck, seeing there is a contradiction between them? After accusing me at the very outset of the discussion, and without any reason, of “begging the question,” and afterward, of “perverting facts,” he is now very indignant because I can assign no other reason for his use of Tholuck than “for effect.” He asks if I saw his heart, and refers to Matt. 7:1, 2. I answer, No; but I saw what proceeded from it, and refer him to verse 20 of the same chapter. Had he acted up to Matt. 6:12, from the first, his complainings would come with better grace. But the evidences are before the readers, and they can judge between us. (4) His quotation from Dr. Campbell's preface does not favor his view. It simply says the reader has a “choice of different translations,” but not on which side that choice should fall. I never saw a man catch at smaller straws than does Eld. V. The marginal reading in this case is inadmissible, and his argument on it a non sequitur.

7. My view of the record of the spoiling of Jericho he thinks would enable him to show that I cannot prove what day of true time the Jews observed as a Sabbath. Let him try it and see. He cannot show by Ex. 16 that it was the seventh day after six days' falling of the manna; nor can he prove that it was the day of their deliverance from Egypt. But I can abundantly show that it was the day on which God rested when he made heaven and earth; the seventh day from “the beginning,” and of course the true seventh day of the week. This truth cannot be hid by any means.

8. “Ex. 31:17, when fairly construed,” says Eld. V., “simply refers to the facts of creation for the frequency of the Sabbath.” This is certainly assuming much, considering that the idea is so foreign to every statement concerning the blessing and sanctification of the day. Let the reader turn to my last article, and see my paraphrase of the fourth commandment. The definitions of terms there given cannot be disputed, and they sustain all that I claim, or have claimed, for the seventh day as the creation Sabbath. Creation is referred to, not merely to point out relation or frequency, which could be done without it, but to show that it is the Lord's rest day; a day of holiness; a sign that Jehovah is the true God—the Creator of all things.

9. All that he says about a “naturalized stranger” has no force. According to his

view, he cannot prove that the Gentile, as such, had any law at all. So evidently is this the outgrowth of his theory, that I have known prominent men of his denomination to openly take the position that they had none. The blessings of the gospel are also only for “naturalized strangers,” for Gentiles as such are not partakers of the promises to Israel in the new covenant. Compare Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:1–5; Heb. 8:6–10; Eph. 2:11–19. His theory of abstract law, and “moral law on a positive basis,” is fanciful and dangerous, as will be fully shown in due time. According to his explanations, there is no difference between the “concrete or tangible form, i. e., as a positive command,” and revealed law. Outside of this positive moral law, or tangible, there could be no express or “tangible” rules of obligation! Of course, man's only rule of action was his own “intuitions,” as spiritualists now have it. And when the “concrete,” the “tangible,” or the “direct enforcement,” was abolished, the whole world was turned back to the blessedness of heathenism; restored to those “general principles” which had so completely failed as a guide in the past, leaving each one to supply the “tangible,” or the “direct,” according to his prepossessions, feelings, intuitions, or what-not; but no more to be guided by the direct, the specific, the tangible, or in other words, the revealed! If this does not set aside the word of God as a rule of life, and open the door for “liberty” large enough to suit the “carnal mind” (see Rom. 8:7), I cannot imagine how that might be done. May the Lord save us from the legitimate results of such a theory.

I will briefly notice a few points, passed hitherto for want of space. I am willing to leave it with the reader if a duty cannot be “directly enforced” at different times. To deny it is preposterous. A contrast may exist between the direct and indirect, but it was not implied in my language, and he knew I did not have any such contrast in view. To my reference to Cornelius, he replies: “The enforcement at the house of Cornelius has no direct reference to baptism, but to Cornelius.” What was enforced there? Baptism, and nothing else. Therefore the enforcement of baptism has no direct reference to baptism! The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, that he might tell him what he ought to do. To this, his mission had “direct reference,” and he “commanded them to be baptized.” Was this a direct or indirect, “tangible” or intangible enforcement of baptism? He drew a contrast between the direct and indirect enforcement of the Sabbath. Well, if to Cornelius there was but an indirect enforcement of baptism, we are satisfied with just such an indirect enforcement of the Sabbath! But what, then, does he gain by his hypercriticism?

I deny that I perverted facts in my remarks on Genesis. Not a text that he quoted in the Old Testament presents an instance of anachronism. His position, as I now understand it, is as absurd as the one I examined, to wit, that Adam did not name his wife until long after he received her—until after her children were born. Very many names in the Old Testament were given by prophetic foresight, as every reader knows, and the naming of Eve is one of the most evident instances of this kind. The tense, emphasized by him, argues nothing in the case. The Lord said to Abraham, “A father of many nations have I made thee,” while the son of promise was not yet born.

Eld. Vogel said the reader would inquire whether the word “constitute” as used by him, was not borrowed as a quotation from me, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of showing up the fallacy of my reasoning. I can answer the inquiry; it was not in a quotation, either directly or indirectly, but in his own direct argument that he used it. These are his words, “It is at least possible for God to rest without making it thereby a sacred rest; and while his resting on any day would constitute that day a rest day (Sabbath) i. e., day in which he had rested, it would not constitute it a sacred rest day.” If, as he claimed, “constitute” can be only properly used in the sense of “appoint,” what is the force of his argument? His pretended explanation is not fair; it does not present the matter in its true light. And his assertion, that I confess that there is force in his strictures by my saying that he has made the same distinction, is only frivolous. His remarks and quotations, to show that God is still working in upholding, &c., are irrelevant, and being so, would require no notice were they not calculated to mislead. The Sabbath institution has no reference whatever to the work of upholding or preserving, but only to the work of creating. This has been so often placed before the reader, that it might seem unnecessary to repeat it. But it is truth, that in a discussion the prejudices of many are easily excited, and it is justifiable to meet whatever tends to divert the readers from the truth in issue. Were their minds always directed to those truths of revelation at issue, and never diverted from them, discussions might be more pleasant and profitable than is generally the case.

Having now passed through the first two propositions, I submit the subject to the reader, confident that it has been established that,

1. The Sabbath is a memorial of creation; it was blessed and set apart by Jehovah at the conclusion of his work; the Lord himself gave the facts of creation as its basis, and the only reason of its being blessed and sanctified; and when its sanctification is spoken of, it is never connected with any other events.

2. A great and manifest difference is shown between the seventh day, or weekly Sabbath, and the yearly sabbaths, in that it was based on the facts of creation; it was the rest day of the Almighty; God spoke it with his own voice; he wrote it in the tables of stone; it was deposited in the ark with only moral precepts, over which atonement was made before God. Not one of these facts can be applied to the yearly sabbaths, which were parts of a system growing, not out of the acts of the Creator, but out of the necessities of man arising from his own rebellion.

3. There is neither express statement, nor necessary inference, to invalidate any of these truths.

And, again, I pray that God may, by his Spirit, guide us into all truth; that through faith in his Son, who died “to put away sin,” we may so “keep his commandments, which is the whole duty of man,” that we may be able to stand in that day when “God shall bring every work into Judgment.”