THEN AND NOW by Chas. B. Reynolds

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 15, 1877

THEN AND NOW.

By Chas. B. Reynolds

All Christians agree as to what constituted the sin of our first parents. God gave man all the trees in the garden of Eden except “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” That he never gave to man; that was sacredly reserved, set apart as God’s own; yet that was the tree coveted, and whose fruit was stolen. Adam and Eve used for their own purposes and gratification that which God reserved as sacred to himself. It was this which brought the curse upon the earth,—shame, misery, and death upon all mankind.

All trees were God’s, and in his love he gave all to man, save that particular one which he reserved, and forbade man to use. Just so, all time was God’s: he could have given man one day only, and reserved the other six, but he gave man all but one. The seventh day God never gave to man, but sanctified it, set it apart as holy to himself. God as solemnly set apart the seventh day as he did the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When we use for our own purposes or gratification that which God never gave to us, but set apart as holy to himself, are we not repeating the very sin of our first parents? If this called forth the curse then, how can it call forth a blessing now?

Had Adam and Eve been posted in modern theology, could they have saved themselves and their posterity, could they have averted the curse, by pleading that though they appropriated to their own use the particular tree expressly forbidden, yet there was a tree—the very next one to the tree God so particularly commanded them not to use—that one they had held sacred, had not used? God forbade that they should eat of one tree in the garden. Well, there was one tree in the garden of which they had not eaten! Or, so long as they loved and served God, and in all other respects endeavored to obey him, what mattered this one small variation? How could they suppose God would be so very particular about just that one identical, particular tree, over and above all others? Would it not be “uncharitable” to make using or not using the fruit of that particular tree which God had set apart a test, just as though God cared for any one tree so much more than for another? Was it reasonable to suppose God was so particular that he would visit with terrible punishment the eating of the fruit of that one tree, especially as they did abstain from using one other tree?

All admit that the above pleas would not have availed to save Adam and Eve. Such reasoning would have been vain as it is absurd then: how is it that it is so much used, so generally deemed satisfactory and valid, now? Should we not insist on the clearest evidence, the most ample Bible proof, the plain, positive “Thus saith the Lord,” ere we accept the teachings of modern theologians, and use for our own purposes the seventh day, the day God sanctified and blessed, and then pretend to obey him by sacredly regarding the next day? CHAS. B. REYNOLDS.