Your ShelfYour Projects

FALSE TEACHING EXPOSED

3%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 5, 1878

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 52, No. 11.

Read the full edition

FALSE TEACHING EXPOSED.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER.
A FRIEND has favored me with a copy of the World’s Crisis of March 27, 1878, in which Miles Grant publishes a part of the “summing up” of E. C. Barnes, in a discussion held in Massachusetts. It contains six paragraphs.
The first requires no notice, as it only reiterates the assertion which has so often been disproved, that the ten commandments were the old covenant.
The last three need but little notice, just enough to show the contradictions which they contain. In the fifth he affirms with great positiveness that the Gentiles were never under any obligation to keep the Sabbath. But in the fourth he applies Col. 2: 13-17 to the Gentiles, and says:—“A law which was ‘against them’ had been ‘blotted out,’ and ‘taken out of the way.’ This cannot be the ‘ceremonial law,’ for Gentiles were never under it. The law was against them as transgressors. From its obligation and curse Christ redeemed them, and they belonged to him.”
His declaration that it was not the “ceremonial law” was made to show that it was the law which enjoined the Sabbath; but that law, he says, was the “old covenant,” and the Gentiles were no more under the old covenant than they were under the ceremonial law, which Mr. Barnes would also strenuously argue. How, then, could Christ redeem them from the obligation of that law which enjoined the Sabbath, if Mr. Barnes’ argument is correct, that they never were under obligation to it? How could they be condemned “as transgressors” of a law which never had jurisdiction over them? Perhaps Eld. Barnes or Eld. Grant can explain. An explanation is much needed.
But Col. 2: 16, 17 does show that it was the ceremonial law; a law of shadows typical of the work of Christ, which the law of ten commandments never was. Paul to the Ephesians calls it the “middle wall of partition” which stood between them and the privileges and blessings of “the commonwealth of Israel,” and was therefore against them.
Paragraphs two and three are well worthy of notice; not because of any strength of argument which they contain, but because they show in what a bold manner men who are esteemed as wise will put forth the most absurd statements to maintain their theories. They do injustice to the authors to whom they refer, as well as to the Scriptures. They say:—“That moadeem, translated ‘solemn feasts’ in Hos. 2: 11, and feasts in Lev. 23: 2, included all the commemorative days of the Mosaic dispensation, including the seventh-day Sabbath, is proved upon the authority of Lange’s commentary, Dr. Adam Clarke, the critical commentary of Drs. Jameson, Fausset, Brown, and Fairbairn on the Typology of the Scriptures.”
The word mo-ad signifies an appointed time, and may properly be applied to any appointed time, of any nature whatever. Giving the names of these authorities adds nothing to the strength of his statement. It is exactly as if he should say the word sabbaths applies to all seasons of rest, and prove it by a list of eminent names. Nobody denies it. But that the term actually refers to all seasons of rest in a given passage is matter for proof. Clarke makes a distinction, clear and just, between the seventh-day Sabbath and the other sabbaths in his comments on Lev. 23. And so also do all the Scriptures make a distinction between “the Sabbath of Jehovah,” and the annual or Jewish sabbaths. The weekly Sabbath, the Lord’s rest-day from creation, is not referred to in Hos. 2: 11, as it is not in Col. 2: 16, 17. The rest-day of the Lord was sanctified at the time of creation, long before the Jews existed, and even before sin entered into the world.
The other sabbaths and feast days were all typical of the work of Christ, as Paul says in Col. 2: 17,—“Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.” This explanatory text positively shuts out the weekly Sabbath of creation from Col. 2. Paul defines the sabbaths to which he there refers, and “the rest-day of the Lord thy God” does not come under the definition.
And so also in Lev. 23. In verse 3 it is said of the seventh day, “It is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.” No other sabbath than the seventh day was ever honored with this title, for that was not their character. The Lord never rested upon any of them from any work which he did. Upon the seventh day he rested from the greatest work which is ever presented to the mind of man in the word of God. It is a memorial of the exercise of creative power. It belongs to Jehovah alone.
But the other sabbaths were purely Israelitish. They were never specified as days upon which the Lord had rested from his work. They were appointed for Israel to rest upon, without having any rest of the Lord back of the appointment, as the seventh day had. They were truly the sabbaths of Israel—her sabbaths, as in Hos. 2: 11. And not only in Lev. 23: 3, but in verse 38 the same distinction is made. Pointing out the feasts which they were to keep, it says, “Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Neither Eld. Barnes nor Eld. Grant can refer this sentence to anything but the seventh-day Sabbath. Or, if they say it does not refer to the weekly or seventh-day Sabbath, will they please tell us to what it does refer? Consider it—“Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” We hope they will not fail to notice this request. If they neglect this, we shall take it as confessed by them that it does refer to the seventh day in its weekly recurrence.
But if it does refer to the seventh-day Sabbath, why is this distinction made, and what does it mean? To this also we call their attention. They virtually deny the distinction, in trying to make all sabbaths—seventh-day, or weekly, as well as yearly—alike the sabbaths of Israel. But the Lord, many times and very clearly, makes this distinction. Why is this? Will they undertake to give a reason? or will they suffer their case to go by default?
To show the strength of this position, we notice that every one of Israel’s sabbaths was based entirely on something in the experience of Israel. This was not the case with the seventh-day Sabbath. Only one reason is given in the Bible for its sanctification. The fourth commandment points to the same fact for its origin that is found in Gen. 2: 3. But Eld. Barnes says it is one of Israel’s sabbaths, a Jewish sabbath, and denies the distinction of Lev. 23. If so, let us have a version of the commandment to suit his views. Remembering that the rest from creation is the only reason for its institution, we read:—“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews: in it thou shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Jews made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Jews blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
This reading exactly corresponds to his statement. If his statement is correct, the reading must be allowed. The seventh-day rest stands related to a certain work, and the rest (Sabbath) is certainly his who did the work. If the Jews did that work—created heaven and earth—then the seventh day is clearly a Jewish Sabbath; but if Jehovah did the work, then it is correctly named the Sabbath, or rest, of the Lord. To no other Sabbath will this apply. Hence the distinction between “the Sabbath of the Lord” and other sabbaths. It takes not very much mental acumen to see this distinction, and the force of it, provided there is freedom from prejudice and moral honesty to recognize it or to acknowledge the right.
We repeat, there is no more weight in the declaration that the term moadeem (plural) may cover all sabbaths, than that the word sabbaths may cover all seasons of rest, of every kind. It proves nothing as to the nature and perpetuity of certain sabbaths further than it is proved to refer to those sabbaths in a given text. And that proof is entirely outside of the meaning of the word. The pretended argument on this word is only the most miserable sophistry. It may deceive the unthinking or the willingly ignorant; and if Elds. B. and G. are sincerely satisfied that the argument is just, then we are compelled to place them in one of these classes.
But the most extravagant position of all is the following. We cannot do it justice in any abridgment, so we copy:—“The seventh-day Sabbath cannot now be observed, because it has no annual starting-point. The passover commenced on the 14th of the month after the Sabbath; the 16th a sheaf of barley was to be waved by the priest, as a first-fruits of the harvest. From this time seven complete Sabbaths were to be reckoned, and on the day succeeding the seventh Sabbath the feast of Pentecost was to take place. These intervening Sabbaths were weekly Sabbaths, and of course were reckoned from the passover; but as that feast never occurred upon precisely the same day of the week two successive years, but always upon the 14th of the first month, it follows that the sabbaths reckoned from that festival would not occur upon the same day of the week through two successive years. Therefore, the theory which makes any definite seventh day, year in and year out, the Sabbath day, is contrary to the ancient mode of reckoning it.”
A greater medley of inconsistencies and false issues than this we have never seen. It is fortunate for Mr. Barnes that he is comparatively an obscure man, for if he had a reputation as a scholar at stake it could never stand the pressure of such a paragraph as the above. But Eld. Miles Grant stands sponsor for it, and he is not altogether an obscure man; what can be said for him? Only this: His reputation as a theologian and controversialist can stand anything. It has often been tested, and found to be equal to any emergency. Let us notice some of the points:—
1. The seventh-day Sabbath must have an annual starting-point! That was never true. It was true of the passover sabbath, of which Mr. Barnes really speaks, for that came but once a year; was not a weekly sabbath, and was never called the seventh-day Sabbath in any case. And so also of the Pentecost. If Eld. Barnes and Eld. Grant are not aware of this truth, they present a noticeable instance of the “Innocents Abroad.” Why do they mix up things in this manner if they really have a desire to develop the truth? The whole statement, from beginning to end, is a sheer deception.
2. He exposes the fallacy of his own position in this declaration:—“As that feast never occurred upon precisely the same day of the week two successive years, it follows that the sabbaths reckoned from that festival would not occur upon the same day of the week through two successive years.”
Which is proof most positive that the seventh-day Sabbath could not occur on the seventh day!
Now in all soberness we ask, Is it possible that Mr. B. believes that the recurrence or observance of that sabbath which was inseparably connected with the passover was kept up weekly through any “two successive years,” or through any one year? We cannot believe it; for in saying that that sabbath, counting from the 14th of the first month, would not fall at all times on the seventh day of the week, he admits that that sabbath is not the weekly or seventh-day Sabbath. And that is just what everybody knows. If he does not know it, his ignorance of Scripture is most lamentable. But if he does know it, how can he, with a profession of Christian integrity, make such statements as he has made? It is no excuse that prepossession of opinion and prejudice blind the mind, for no Christian minister is excusable in letting prejudice so blind his mind that he will dare to pervert the counsels of the Most High.
3. The only reckoning forward from the passover was to find the Pentecost. When this was reached the reckoning was carried no further. Both the passover and Pentecost were entirely separate from any particular day of the week, inasmuch as they occurred only yearly, and were to be found by counting from the 14th day of the first month, which of course would not fall on any particular day of the week.
4. When God created the heavens and the earth, he rested on the seventh day. Not the seventh day of the month, for no month then existed. And the seventh day of the week thus became the Sabbath of the Lord—of the Creator. Will Mr. Barnes or Mr. Grant frankly answer this question, namely, Was the seventh day of Gen. 2: 3, upon which God rested from his work of creation, which was blessed and sanctified as the rest of Jehovah, counted from the feast of the passover? They say there was no other way to find the seventh-day Sabbath but to count from the passover. But which first existed, the Lord’s rest-day from creation, or the passover? The fourth commandment points to creation, precisely as Gen. 2: 3, for the origin and sanctification of the seventh-day Sabbath. They must now prove that it was then and there so counted; or, in other words, they must prove that the passover existed at the time of creation, or admit that the seventh-day rest, the Sabbath of the Lord, was not at all dependent on the passover; and so confess that they have been guilty of uttering folly, of “darkening counsel by words without knowledge.”
4. When God rested on the seventh day from his work of creation, when he blessed and hallowed it, from which alone the weekly or seventh-day Sabbath had its origin, there was no 14th day of the first month; no passover; no Jews; no sin; no types of Christ’s work for sinners; no “shadows of things to come.” It was, then, the hallowed rest-day of Jehovah, the Creator,—“the Sabbath of the Lord.” In all this it was distinguished from the typical sabbaths of Israel. Will Mr. Barnes say in sincerity that he cannot see or understand this distinction? If he will say so, we will then acquit him of any intention to mislead his hearers. But then, for the same reason, we will extend our heartfelt sympathy to the unfortunate people who accept him as a teacher.
5. Eld. Barnes has a most singular vision. He cannot see a distinction which is founded on evident reasons and made plain by Scripture; but he can easily discover a distinction where none exists. He rests complacently on a supposed distinctionbetween the seventh-day Sabbath and the seventh day of the week. But it does not exist. This is shown—
1. By the facts to which we have referred, that when the Sabbath originated it was the seventh day of the week. No longer period of time yet existed.
2. By the necessity of referring to the week in Ex. 16. The same Sabbath which was enjoined in Ex. 16 was enforced on Mount Sinai, and it was plainly declared to be the rest-day from creation. There is no more reason to say that the seventh day was not the seventh day of the week, than there is to say that the sixth day of the same chapter was not the sixth day of the week. If the seventh day means the last day of a cycle of seven, without regard to the days of the week, then we say with equal reason the sixth day means the last day of a cycle of six, without any regard to the day of the week. On the last day of the cycle of six they were to gather a double portion of manna, for Sabbath use. But according to that reckoning it would answer that purpose the first time only; for between the last day of the second cycle or period of six, and the last day of the second cycle of seven, there would be a whole day. And in forty-two days the requirements to gather a double portion, and to gather none at all, would fall on the same day! The only way to avoid this dilemma is to admit that they were the sixth and seventh days of the week.
3. This conclusion is proved to be true by the New Testament. In Luke 23: 56 and chap. 24: 1 we learn that they kept “the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” and this was immediately followed by the first day of the week. This is proof positive that the Sabbath of the commandment is the last day of the week; truly the seventh day of the week.
4. And this is corroborated by the uniform practice of the Jews, who have preserved the Sabbath from their earliest history, and they always observe the seventh day of the week. Among them the idea of finding the seventh-day Sabbath by counting from the passover was never heard of. We do not hesitate to say that it originated in the mind of cavillers. And thus it is abundantly proved that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the seventh-day Sabbath, is the seventh day of the week, and has no necessary connection with a day of the month or year.
We will pursue the subject no further. Such positions are not really worth the time we spend upon them. We suppose Eld. Grant selected these paragraphs for publication because they contain the strength of Eld. B.’s argument. If these are the best parts of his summing up, we are led to wonder what the rest can be. And our surprise is all the greater when we consider that those who call themselves “Adventists” are in the forefront of opposition to the message of Rev. 14: 9-12, which connects the keeping of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This chapter closes the chain of prophetic events brought down from the book of Daniel, and ending with the coming of the Lord to reap the harvest of the earth. It seems surprising indeed that professed Adventists not only ignore the last message given just before the advent, but oppose in the most unreasonable manner the commandments of God which are taught therein.
They who are unacquainted with the work in which we are engaged in vindicating the commandments of God, who do not understand the nature of the opposition which the Sabbath of the Lord has had to bear, may think we express ourselves too strongly and speak of our opponents too sharply. We think otherwise. When men rack their brains from year to year to invent plausible pretexts for evading the testimony of Jehovah himself, and seek to cover up by sophistry old cavils which have been exploded scores of times, we believe it is our duty to very plainly point out the evil of their course, and, if necessary, to “rebuke them sharply.” Not that we have any feelings of ill-will toward the individuals so acting, but that we may fulfil the duty which this message lays upon us, to preserve others from following their pernicious ways, and, as far as possible, rescue souls from error and from ruin.