REVIEW OF STORR by A. Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 13, 1876

REVIEW OF STORR.

By A. Smith

The Sabbath Law and Sabbath Penalty.

Eld. STORR: “The Sabbath was to be a sign between God and the children of Israel forever; Ex. 31:17; that is, as long as they should exist as a nation, or have the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession; Gen. 17:8; or until Christ should come.”

Ans. The Israel of God is perpetuated in the Christian dispensation, as can be clearly proved from Eph. 2:11-22; Rom. 11:17, 24; 2:28, 29; Gal. 3:7-9, 29. The Sabbath, therefore, is still a sign between God and his people. God indeed promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed for an everlasting possession; Gen. 17:8; but Stephen, in his defense before the Sanhedrim, declared that he did not give him so much as to set his foot on; Acts 7:2-5; and Paul says that Isaac and Jacob were heirs with him of the same promise; that they dwelt in tabernacles; that they were strangers and pilgrims in the earth; and that they desired a better country, and sought a city whose builder and maker is God. With these also he includes the prophets and holy men of all former time, and concludes that without us (Christians) they will not be blessed; that is, they will not receive the promised inheritance. Heb. 11:9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 39. The earth is to be renewed, and given to the people of God, and then the promise to Abraham will be fulfilled. Dan. 7:27; Isa. 65:17-25; 2 Pet. 3:7, 13, 14; Luke 13:28, 29.

Eld. S.: “If the Sabbath law is binding now, why not enforce the penalty of its violation, which was death? See Num. 15:32-36; Ex. 31:15; 32:2, 3. If I believed in keeping the Jewish Sabbath, I should feel in duty bound to stone people for violating it if I could get a chance.”

Ans. Mr. S. is evidently unacquainted with the fact that the Jewish government was a theocracy, God himself being their king. 1 Sam. 12:2; 8:7. All penalties of his violated law could therefore be enforced. It is just as great a sin to violate the law now as it was then, but the execution of the penalty is deferred till the Judgment, when the second death will be the doom of every transgressor who has not availed himself of the benefits of the atonement. The case referred to in Num. 15:32-36, was doubtless an aggravated one. The people were traveling in an open, sandy, desert, in a warm country, and no necessity for kindling a fire existed.

Jesus justified David in taking hallowed bread from the tabernacle in the days of Abiathar, Matt. 12:3-7, and his disciples in plucking corn on the Sabbath; for the simple reason that necessity existed.

If it is required as an act of mercy, or if health demands it, it is doubtless right to kindle a fire on the Sabbath, or to do other necessary things; but where no necessity exists, it is just as grievous a sin now as it was in the days of Moses.

As to throwing stones, if Eld. S. really intends to carry out his principles, we advise profane people and undutiful children to beware when he is around; for the same penalty that is attached to a violation of the fourth commandment is also attached to that of the third and fifth, and he might feel in duty bound to execute it. See Lev. 24:15, 16; Ex. 21:17. A. SMITH.