p. 138 | THEREFORE by C. W. Stone

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 31, 1878

THEREFORE

By C. W. Stone

That is to say, for this reason. For what reason? For, or in consequence of, something previously stated. A speech, or letter, or any address, can never begin with the word therefore; for whenever that word is used there must be a statement of some fact, a premise, before it. And there is always a logical connection between the premise before the therefore and the conclusion after it, otherwise the statement involves an absurdity.

For example: The State prohibitory liquor laws are repealed, therefore we may sell or use intoxicating liquors without fear of judgment. Here we have a premise before a therefore, and the conclusion that follows it is perfectly natural and logical.

Now take one of the other kind: The State law prohibiting trout fishing between October and May is abolished, therefore we may sell and drink all the liquor we please without fear of being fined. This is an absurdity; for the premise has no relation to the conclusion.

In speaking on the law of God not long ago, at Springfield, Ohio, I was very forcibly struck with the power of the word therefore in Col. 2:16. Here is the premise that precedes it: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” This, say the opponents of God's law, was the ten commandments; they were abolished at the cross.

Not stopping to question this assertion, we look at the conclusion that follows the therefore, which is this: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.”

Now I inquire, Is there any logical connection between the premise and the conclusion? The no-law advocate says, The ten commandments are abolished, therefore let no man judge you in meat or in drink. But pray tell us which one of the ten says anything about meat or drink. Here is the first: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” That is abolished, says our no-law teacher, therefore let no man judge you in meat or in drink. Supposing it is abolished, how does that affect any ceremony relating to meat or drink?

Here is the third commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” That is abolished; therefore let no man judge you in meat or in drink. Here is the sixth: “Thou shalt not kill.” That is abolished; therefore let no man judge you in meat or in drink. “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Oh! that was abolished at the cross; let no man therefore, because that precept is abolished, judge you in meat or in drink. Again I ask, What connection is there between the premise and the conclusion? What relation has the law of ten commandments to meats and drinks? None whatever. Try any of the ten, and you will find the result the same. Therefore, unless Paul put language into a form which conveys no meaning, and is illogical, nonsensical, and absurd, he had no reference to the ten commandments.

But you ask me to try the fourth commandment and to quote the latter part of Paul's conclusion. I will do so. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . . The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” You say, “That precept is abolished, therefore let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.” Is there not a logical connection between the reason and the conclusion? No. You state as a reason, or premise, that the law for the seventh-day Sabbath of the Lord, the memorial of creation, is abolished; and ask me to accept as Paul's conclusion this: that no man shall judge us in respect of the sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Now what has the Sabbath of the Lord to do with these sabbaths? It is just as foreign from them as the Fourth of July is from Washington's birthday. The Sabbath of the Lord points back to creation; but there were numerous

annual sabbaths connected with meats and drinks which pointed forward to Christ. It is to these that Paul refers.

A list of them is found in Lev. 23. In the first and second verses the Lord proposes to enumerate the feasts to be observed by Israel. In the third verse he pauses to put them in remembrance of his holy, weekly Sabbath. Then in the fourth he commences anew, or proposes anew, to enumerate the feast days, and he mentions the passover, the waving of the firstfruits, the memorial of blowing of trumpets (verse 24), which was the first day of the seventh month, the atonement sabbath ten days after (verses 27–32), and the feast of tabernacles five days after that. Verse 34. These were all annual sabbaths,—holy days coming on a different day of the week every year,—and they were connected with meats and drinks. “These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon his day.” Verse 37. And to what did these offerings point? To Christ. These annual sabbaths were indeed shadows, the body of which is Christ. And when Christ came, the shadows of course ceased. These sabbaths are clearly distinguished from the weekly Sabbath in the very next verse which continues thus: “Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” These annual feast days, called sabbaths, were to be observed beside the Sabbath of the Lord, with which they had no connection. Hence the law of the weekly Sabbath of the Lord, instituted at creation, before sin, has no relation whatever to the sabbaths instituted centuries after on account of the existence of sin, and connected with meats and drinks pointing to the cross of the Redeemer; and Paul's therefore is entirely out of place if by the “handwriting of ordinances” he means the ten commandments. It would be like using it thus: The laws of our land relating to Sunday are all abolished; therefore let no man judge you in respect to the observance of thanksgiving day.

The great apostle does not use language in that way. There is no difficulty in understanding Paul's conclusion, and now let us look for a logical explanation of his reason. It is now very evident that “the handwriting of ordinances” does not include a single precept of the decalogue. To say that it does, makes utter nonsense of Paul's words. To what does it refer? Look again at the conclusion, and you will see that it must refer to a law enforcing the observance of meats and drinks, and of shadowy sabbaths connected with them; for because it is abolished, Paul says these things need not be observed. Was there such a law? Yes. Every offering had its law. “This is the law of the burnt offering.” Lev. 6:9. “This is the law of the sin offering.” Verse 25. “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings.” Lev. 7:37. Where were these offerings made? At the sanctuary, where the altar was, and where the priests ministered. In what did the services of that sanctuary consist? Paul says it “stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances [ceremonies, margin].” Heb. 9:10. Then the law governing those ceremonies was a ceremonial law, and it was “imposed on them until the time of reformation,” the same verse says; that is, till Christ came. Then it ended. This is what Paul says also in Eph. 2:15: “Abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

Now let us try the therefore. The handwriting of ordinances, the ceremonial law, which Moses wrote, that law which commanded the observance of several annual sabbaths, and of meat offerings and drink offerings, was abolished at the cross; therefore, for that reason, let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of the sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. That is sensible, logical, truthful. I pity that person whose intellect is too small to grasp the force of this argument; and I have little respect for the honesty of an intelligent man who will try to evade it, or will not see it. C. W. Stone.