p. 425 | The Sabbath in Eden by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 16, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 27.

The Sabbath in Eden.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

IT has been our constant aim to avoid controversy as far as was possible. Believing that the coming of the Lord is near, and that the strict observance of the ten commandments (with divine assistance) is necessary to a complete preparation for that event, we design to get these truths before the people in the most direct manner possible. While, therefore, we deprecate debate, we dare not lower the standard of truth because it is opposed. Whenever we make strictures upon those who teach differently, we do so, not because they have assailed "our position," but because they oppose what we firmly believe to be Bible truth. We do not consider ourselves as standing in opposition to anybody, but as simply lifting up the truth, which is being trodden down.

Quite frequently newspaper articles and reports of sermons in opposition to the Sabbath, are sent to us, with the request that we reply to them. Of course these articles contain no argument or objection that has not been met and answered hundreds of times, and our first impulse is usually to throw them aside as unworthy of further notice. But we recollect that the old objection which to us seems so flimsy, is to many a new one, and a real stumbling-block. Therefore we feel constrained to give them notice. If that notice be often extended, it is not because we fear that truth itself will suffer by the opposition, but that honest minds that have not been accustomed to think upon Bible themes, may not be entangled in error. It is for this reason that we begin to briefly notice a series of articles on the Sabbath question, by C. E. W. Dobbs, D. D., recently published in the Indiana Baptist.

The writer takes the position throughout, that Sunday (invariably called by him the "Lord's day") is not the Sabbath, and that its observance, although obligatory upon Christians, derives no force from the fourth commandment; that it is purely a "gospel institution, and that the fourth commandment, enjoining the observance of Saturday, has, with the rest of the decalogue, entirely passed away.

One word concerning the idea that the Sunday-sabbath is a gospel institution. If this were so, then it must stand upon the same plane as other gospel ordinances,—baptism and the Lord's Supper. No Christian, of whatever denomination, thinks of allowing unbelievers to participate in these ordinances. If the Sunday-sabbath be a gospel institution, then no unbeliever must be allowed, much less compelled, to observe it. But Dr. Dobbs does not believe this theory any more than do his Baptist brethren. This is proved by their own actions. A Baptist father would not invite his unconverted children to partake of the Lord's Supper, nor would he allow them, while still unconverted, to be baptized, yet he would require them, while they were subject to his authority, to observe Sunday. Notwithstanding what men may say, their actions show that they do not really believe that Sunday is a Christian ordinance.

We most heartily agree with the Doctor in his claims that Sunday observance finds no authority in the fourth commandment. But, knowing that there is no Bible authority outside of the fourth commandment for the observance of any day as sacred, we conclude that the Doctor's admission rules Sunday out of the question. By the side of that admission, we wish to place a few others. In its issue of March 1, 1882, the California Christian Advocate said:—

"When we plead for a law for it [Sunday] as a day of rest, we can justify that only on the ground that it is according to the law of nature, and necessary to man. . . . We cannot sustain it before the people, if we claim its sanctity as a religious institution."

Very true, only it would be difficult for the Advocate to show how rest on Sunday meets the wants of man's nature, any more than rest on Saturday. The Christian at Work, in its issue of April 19, 1883, said:—

"Some plant the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] squarely on the fourth commandment, which was an explicit injunction to observe Saturday, and no other day, as a holy day unto the Lord. . . . The truth is, so soon as we appeal to the litera scripta [i. e., the plain reading] of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the argument."

Again, in its issue of January 8, 1885, the Christian at Work says:—

"We rest the designation of Sunday on the church having 'set it apart of its own authority.' The seventh-day rest was commanded in the fourth commandment, as it is written in every tissue and trembling fiber of the human frame. The selection of Sunday, thus changing the particular day designated in the fourth commandment, was brought about by the gradual concurrence of the early Christian church, and on this basis and none other does the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week, rightly rest."

All true; but if the observance of Sunday was brought about by the "gradual concurrence" of the church, then of course it was not instituted by Christ; and if it was not instituted by Christ, then it is obviously not a Christian institution; and therefore, although "the church" did gradually effect this change, it was to that extent at least unchristian. But now for the argument against the Sabbath. We quote:—

"Some find evidence of the Edenic institution of the Sabbath in Gen. 2:3: 'God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work.' This is supposed to be the enactment of the Sabbath law for the race. But it is an exceedingly frail support for such an institution. The language is only the historian's statement that the Sabbath, instituted two thousand years afterwards, had a commemorative relation to creation. It is merely mentioned by him proleptically, as giving the divine determination to sanctify the seventh day, and to constitute it a religious rest day in the future ceremonial law."

How does the Doctor or any one else find so much in Gen. 2:3? Those who say that Gen. 2:3 records what the Lord designed to do two thousand years in the future, seem to be wise above that which is written, for there is not the slightest intimation of such a thing in the text. Just as reasonably might we affirm that "there was no marriage institution until two thousand years after the creation, the statement in Gen. 2:24, that a man "shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh," being only the historian's statement that the marriage relation, instituted two thousand years afterward, had a commemorative relation to the union of the first pair. It is merely mentioned by him proleptically, as giving the divine determination to sanctify the marriage relation, and to constitute it a sacred ordinance in the decalogue," which, by the way, is in no sense a ceremonial law. But no sane man would accept such an interpretation, or rather, perversion, of the Scriptures in regard to marriage; and no unprejudiced person can for a moment regard such reasoning as just when applied to the Sabbath.

What, then, may we learn from Gen. 2:3? The text is plain: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." This immediately follows the statement that God

"rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Now we submit it to any candid person, that in Gen. 2:1-3 events are mentioned in historical order. From the reading of the text, no one would imagine that the third verse refers to something two thousand years after the event mentioned in the second; and there is nowhere in the Bible any intimation that such is the case. It is a fact, then, that the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day immediately followed God's resting upon it, after the six days of creation were ended. To deny this is simply to make an assertion contrary to a plain declaration. Now we will find out what was comprehended in that act of sanctifying, and then we shall see upon what foundation the Edenic Sabbath rests.

To sanctify means "to set apart for a sacred or religious use; to make holy."—Webster. Its use, as applied to inanimate objects, may be learned from the following instances: When the Lord was about to come down on Mount Sinai, he said to Moses, "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it." Ex. 19:12. In verse 23 we read, "And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai, for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it." The mountain was sanctified, or set apart for a sacred use, and a barrier was built around it, so that none need be in doubt as to how far they might go.

Again, in Joshua 20 we find that the Lord told Joshua to appoint six cities to which men who had accidentally slain a man might flee for refuge. "And they appointed [margin, sanctified] Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali," &c. Josh. 20:7. Here the same word is used as in Gen. 2:3. In what did the sanctification of these cities consist? In setting them apart for the use for which they were designed, by letting everybody know which cities were the cities of refuge. Without thus informing the people, the sanctification would have been a farce. Indeed, that is just what the sanctification was,—a public setting apart.

So with the Sabbath. First, God rested on the seventh day; then he blessed it, or spoke well of it; and lastly, he sanctified it, that is, he appointed that it should be preserved sacred. Just as Moses set bounds around the mount, so the Lord placed around the Sabbath the sanctions of his law. Now as we have seen that the sanctification immediately followed the resting and the blessing, we know to whom the Lord made the statement that the day was to be kept holy;—it was to all who were then living—Adam and Eve. But this pair represented all the inhabitants of the earth, for they had been commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." We find, then, that Gen. 2:3 teaches, in the most unmistakable language, that the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted at creation, and that it was designed for and given to all mankind. We may add, however, that in Gen. 2:3 we do not find the enactment of the Sabbath law for the race, but the statement, as a fact of history, that such a law was made at creation. This point, borne in mind, removes the next objection, which shall be noticed next week.

E. J. W.