A Mixed Case by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 6, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 42.

A Mixed Case.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

At the last Methodist Conference in California a "Sabbath Committee" was appointed, whose report appeared in full in the Advocate. It is but just to state that the report as given was not adopted, but what the objections were is not stated. If they were against the first paragraph, which we quote below, we shall be happy to make them known if we are informed of them. Here it is:—

"Sabbath is made binding upon the human conscience by the law of God. Some statuary provisions, intended to impress the world with its holiness, passed away with the exigence to which they were made specially to apply; but the fourth commandment is yet as binding as the first or the sixth. The decalogue is fundamental law. It is the constitution of the moral world, and the full force of its fourth section passed over to the first day of the Jewish week by the change which the Holy Spirit distinctly announced and the apostolic church adopted immediately after the resurrection."

It is doubtful if so great a medley of truth and error could be found in one paragraph on any subject except the Sabbath. The first half is straight enough. The law of God contains our rule for Sabbath observance. The statutory provisions, that were local and temporary, formed no part of the fourth commandment, as is admitted above. Consequently their existence or non-existence in no wise affected the force or meaning of the fourth commandment. That, as the committee truthfully said, "is yet as binding as the first or the sixth." This being the case, it necessarily follows that all our knowledge concerning the Sabbath must be derived from the fourth commandment.

Thus far we agree. But now, after stating that the decalogue is the constitution of the moral world, they add, "and the full force of its fourth section passed over to the first day of the Jewish week." If that be so, then we must find some statement to that effect in the fourth commandment, or else must find it in an amendment to the constitution. Read the commandment: "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 Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." This commandment, the committee say, is as binding as the first or the sixth. By what legerdemain do they make it uphold first-day observance when it mentions only the seventh day, and that explicitly? We would like to have that committee explain their words.

We will ask another question: What did the commandment mean when it was given? What day did it specify as the day of rest? All will admit that it was not the first but the seventh day of the week. The committee admitted this, when they said that the force of the fourth commandment "passed over" to the first day of the week. If any are in doubt as to just what day the Lord did point out by the commandment, let them read the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, and remember that the order of things therein stated continued forty years. For forty years the seventh day was marked by the regular occurrence of miracles. Now, then, another query: Since the wording of the commandment has not been changed, and it clearly designated the seventh day when it was given, how is it possible for it to mean the first day now? Can the same commandment teach one thing at one time, and another thing at another time? If it can, why could it not teach both things at the same time? And if it did that, would it really teach anything?

Let us try this mode of reasoning on the first commandment. That says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." There is no mistaking who is meant by this commandment, for it is prefaced with, "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." The living God is the one who thus claims supreme honor, and so it was and is understood. But we find that in after years the Jews, as an entire nation, forsook the Lord, and served Baal. For this cause God visited them with punishments. What a pity they did not have the wisdom of modern theologians, for then they could have said: "The decalogue is the constitution of the moral world, and the full force of its first section has passed over to Baal." We are not sure that this argument would have been of any advantage to them, for they doubtless had an abundance of excuses with which to quiet their consciences, and we very much doubt if they could have brought the Lord over to their way of thinking by any such reasoning. But why should not the Lord be satisfied with that kind of obedience to the first commandment as well as to the fourth? We are certain that neither the Advocate nor the "Sabbath Committee," would be willing to allow that the first commandment justifies the Chinaman in his worship of Joss. And why not? Because it particularly specifies the God who is to receive our adoration. Very good. But the committee admit that the fourth commandment is as binding as the first; why then do they keep the first day when it enjoins the seventh? Can they give a satisfactory answer?

"But we have already given our authority," perhaps they will say. Let us look at it. They say concerning the decalogue that "the full force of its fourth section passed over to the first day of the Jewish week by the change which the Holy Spirit distinctly announced, and the apostolic church adopted immediately after the resurrection." We can only say that we have read the New Testament through more than once, and we never came across any such distinct announcement; and we have never seen any one that did. If that committee have some revelation from the Holy Spirit that other men have not, we think it is their duty to make it known. One thing is certain: Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, nor James, ever made that "distinct announcement" known.

We think all candid persons will agree that the committee have not established their case. It must stand with the Scotch verdict of "not proven." To all who are inclined to accept their conclusions without proof, we would say, Be cautious how you proceed. God himself declares that he is a jealous God, and we are very sure that in the Judgment they will not be able to convince him that when he said one thing he meant something directly opposite. E. J. W.