Atonement, No. 7: The Holy Law of God
By J. H. Waggoner
When God gave his law, the ten commandments, to Israel, he said if they would keep it they would be “an holy nation.” This proves that it is a holy law, for a law less than holy could not develop a holy character. Nor can there be two laws of that nature, for as God commands us to be holy because he is holy it is evident that the holiness required is pure and changeless. And it is not possible that there should be two diverse rules of holiness more than that the will or attributes of Deity should be contrary to each other. To this law David refers when he says: “The law of the Lord is perfect.” And Solomon when he says, “Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man.” As this law is holy, just, good, and perfect, it must be so in all its parts. No one part of a holy law can be impure, or, of a perfect law be imperfect. But the man of sin, the papal power, despite its professions, has sought to corrupt and pervert or change the holy covenant. Dan. 7:25. To establish the worship of images, it has decided that the second commandment is ceremonial, and therefore not proper to be associated with moral laws. To introduce a festival day, the Roman Sunday, it has decided that the fourth commandment is ceremonial, so far as it relates to the observance of a particular day, notwithstanding God blessed and sanctified the particular day on which he rested, to wit: the seventh day. Alexander Campbell, in his debate with Bishop Purcell, charges upon the Catholic church, that it has made a change in the ten commandments, which, he says, are “a synopsis of all religion and morality.” This declaration, warranted by the Scriptures, places those who teach the abolition of the ten commandments, or any one of them, in a very untenable position. There is no chance to deny that the Sabbath was made at creation, for then God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified it because he had rested on it. This is plainly stated in the second chapter of Genesis, and when the Lord gave his law to his people Israel, he gave the act of resting at creation as the reason of his blessing and hallowing the seventh day. This shows that it is, like marriage, a primary institution. Being made before the fall of man, it does not belong to any particular race or class of men. The objection that we find no commandment to keep the Sabbath in the book of Genesis is of no weight, for the book of Genesis is a book of history, not of law, and we find better evidence that the Sabbath law was given to man in the beginning than that some other moral duties were made known at that time. In all of Genesis there is no hint that profanity was sinful; nor is there any commandment relating to any duty enjoined in the decalogue excepting, perhaps, the sixth commandment, in the words of the Lord to Cain. But no one argues thence that such duties were not obligatory in that age. Why, then, do they discriminate against the Sabbath, and urge as an objection against it that which is not accepted as an objection against other duties, though it applies to them with equal force? Doubtless prejudice has much to do in establishing this objection in the minds of the people. But it becomes us to examine without prejudice all questions concerning God’s revelation to us, our duty to him, and our eternal welfare. That the Sabbath was “set apart” or given to man by precept in the beginning, we quote the following remarks as decisive:— “The Hebrew verb kadash, here rendered sanctified, and in the fourth commandment rendered hallowed, is defined by Gesenius, ‘to pronounce holy, to sanctify; to institute an holy thing, to appoint.’” (Heb. Lex., p. 914, ed. 1854.) It is repeatedly used in the Old Testament for a public appointment or proclamation. Thus when the cities of refuge were set apart in Israel, it is written: “They appointed [margin, Heb., sanctified] Kadesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim,” &c. This sanctification or appointment of the cities of refuge, was by a public announcement to Israel that these cities were set apart for that purpose. This verb is also used for the appointment of a public fast, and for the gathering of a solemn assembly. Thus it is written: “Sanctify [i. e., appoint] ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God.” “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion; sanctify [i. e., appoint] a fast, call a solemn assembly.” And Jehu said, Proclaim [margin, Heb., sanctify] a solemn assembly for Baal. (Josh. 20:7; Joel 1:14; 2:15; 2 Kings 10:20, 21; Zeph. 1:7, margin.) This appointment for Baal was so public that all the worshipers of Baal in all Israel were gathered together. These fasts and solemn assemblies were sanctified or set apart by a public appointment or proclamation of the fact. When, therefore, God set apart the seventh day to a holy use, it was necessary he should state that fact to those who had the days of the week to use. Without such announcement, the day could not be set apart from the others. “But the most striking illustration of the meaning of this word may be found in the record of the sanctification of mount Sinai. Ex. 19:12, 23. When God was about to speak the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel, he sent Moses down from the top of mount Sinai to restrain the people from touching the mount. ‘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.’ Turning back to the verse where God gave this charge to Moses, we read: ‘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.’ Hence, to sanctify the mount was to command the people not to touch even the border of it, for God was about to descend in majesty upon it. In other words, to sanctify or set apart to a holy use mount Sinai, was to tell the people, that God would have them treat the mountain as sacred to himself; and thus also to sanctify the rest-day of the Lord was to tell Adam that he should treat the day as holy to the Lord. “The declaration, ‘God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,’ is not indeed a commandment for the observance of that day; but it is the record that such a precept was given to Adam. For how could the Creator ‘set apart to a holy use’ the day of his rest, when those who were to use the day knew nothing of his will in the case? Let those answer who are able.”—History of the Sabbath, by J. N. Andrews. It is objected also that the fourth commandment is not moral as the other precepts of the decalogue. But we may compare it with any of them and we shall find that it will be sustained by any argument that will prove their morality. Take the eighth, for example. No one can be proved guilty by merely proving that he took and used a certain piece of property: beyond this it must be proved that the property was another’s, to which he had no right. Thus this commandment rests upon the right of property; and if this were not recognized it would be a nullity. But surely, no one can prove a clearer right, or put forth a more positive claim to any property, than has the Lord, to the seventh day. Many times in his immutable word has he told us it is his; that he has hallowed it; and he warns us against desecrating it, or appropriating it to our own use. If it be an immorality to take without license what our neighbor claims as his, how much more so to take against God’s positive prohibition what he claims as his own. Two positions are taken against the Sabbath of the Lord on the New Testament. One, that it was changed to the first day of the week. But the evidence against this is clear and decisive. 1. There is no reason given in the Scriptures for a change. 2. There is no record that such a change was made. 3. There is no precept enjoining the change, or recognizing it. 4. The fourth commandment in its facts and reasons forbids the idea of a change. a. Sabbath means rest; the Lord’s Sabbath means the Lord’s rest-day. But the Lord rested on the seventh day, and on no other. It never can be true that the Lord rested on any day but the seventh; therefore no day but the seventh can become the Lord’s Sabbath or rest-day. b. The reasons for the institution of the Sabbath are connected with the work of creation and creation week, and with no other events or time. God sanctified the day because he rested on it from his work of creation, and he never sanctified any other day. c. The commandment embraces these and no other facts or reasons. This is so clearly true that if you read any other day into the fourth commandment of the decalogue you not only destroy the sense, but make it say what is not true. This being so, it is not possible to make that commandment enforce any other than the seventh day. Let it here be borne in mind that all denominations use the fourth commandment, and they admit that there is no other precept in the Bible enforcing a weekly Sabbath. It must therefore be our duty to observe that day which is enjoined in that commandment, and no other. The other objection is, that because there is no precept in the New Testament for the Sabbath, therefore no duty exists to observe it. But we have seen that such a reason is not valid when applied to the book of Genesis. Nor will it hold good in the New Testament. The Sabbath was not typical; it was made before the fall; it is commemorative, and refers only to the work of God. Dispensations have no influence over it. It is the rest-day of Jehovah, the Creator, not that of man, or of any race of men. And other precepts of the decalogue stand or fall with this; for others are not directly commanded in the New Testament. But the whole law is enforced in the New Testament, in the plainest and most express terms. The New Testament enforces all moral obligation, but originates none. The gospel is not an independent system of itself, but is founded on the necessities of man, these arising from his own violation of the moral law of God. The law is primary, and was binding before the fall, and would have remained binding if man had not fallen. But the gospel is secondary, instituted because man fell, and could not have existed if man had not fallen. Therefore, while the perpetuity of the law is necessary to the existence of the gospel, the existence of the law is not at all affected by the absence, nor by the introduction, of the gospel. We repeat the words of Mr. Fuller:— “Atonement has respect to justice, and justice to the law, or the revealed will of the sovereign, which has been violated, and its very design is to repair its honor.” With this agree the words of the Scripture: “He will magnify the law and make it honorable.” “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” To those who wish to investigate fully this important subject, we would recommend the reading of the “History of the Sabbath,” the “Ten Commandments not Abolished,” “Vindication of the True Sabbath,” “Truth Found,” and other works, published at the Office of the REVIEW AND HERALD, Battle Creek, Michigan. The limit of a series of articles like these will not permit a more lengthy examination of the subject of the law and the Sabbath, but those who wish to understand the extent and relations of the atonement will find themselves well repaid in reading even to any length, whatever will remove the errors which have obtained against the law of God; that law which is the basis, not only of the atonement, but of God’s government, and of all his dealings with man, and the rule of the future judgment.