Hallowed Time | AdventAI

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Feb 13, 1879

Hallowed Time.

THE idea prevails with many that "all time is alike," or "there is no difference in time," and therefore it does not make any difference which day is observed as the Sabbath. And it seems marvelous that this plea is put forth by those who strenuously insist that it is our duty to keep the first day of the week! That position was stated by "Rev. R.G. Baird" in his "Two Sermons" against Seventh-day Adventists, as follows:—

"The observance of the Sabbath is, in the abstract, a moral duty; but as no time is more holy than another, except as we make it such, or more God's time, except as we devote it more exclusively to his worship, the particular day on which the Sabbath is to be observed, is a matter that pertains wholly to the ceremonial."

No time holy, except as we make it such! Oh, the arrogance of rebellious man. How can we make time holy? The answer would probably be, "By resting on it from our works." But we learn from the Bible record that even the resting of God from the work of creation on the seventh day did not make that day holy. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work." Surely, if God resting on the seventh day did not make it holy, our resting on Sunday will not make it holy.

The assertion that no time is specially the Lord's time, or no day the Lord's day, except as we devote it to his service, is equally untrue and absurd.

We are to preserve those relations which God has established. The vainglorious act of sinful man cannot establish relations of this nature. That the day is sacred without regard to our use of it, is proved by all those scriptures which speak of the guilt of the people in profaning his holy day. Isa. 58: 13: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable," etc. Now, if it rested with us to make the day holy, as Mr. Baird affirmed, He would not be a holy day unless we rested upon it. How, then, could man profane a holy day, when the very act of profanation deprived the day of all holiness? Ex. 31: 15 says, "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord." Ex. 16: 23: "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." According to Mr. Baird's theory, that was not true; for it was not holy before the people rested on it, and was holy only because they rested on it! Every reader can see that his declaration is a plain contradiction of the Scriptures.

There is a prevailing looseness in regard to the claims of God and to the obligations of his law which cannot be too severely condemned. Why will men claim that obedience to law rests upon the will of the subject? No law is thus abused, and no government thus insulted, but the law and government of God. To illustrate the position of Mr. Baird, and of many other religionists, we will suppose that the fourth of July has been set apart by our government, by an express law, as the day to commemorate the independence of the United States; and the law gives as the reason for such appointment the signing of the Declaration of Rights. Now a party rises up and claims that the design of the law will be carried out by observing the eighth of January instead; that we are required to keep one day of the year, and not any particular day; that both the letter and the spirit of the law will be kept by observing the eighth of January; that on that day a very memorable event occurred, worthy of being commemorated; that history has made much mention of the victory of Gen. Jackson, on that day; and that as we are to keep the day it must be optional with us which day we keep. Now, query: Would that law be kept by keeping the eighth day of January instead of the fourth of July? The law specifies the particular day—the fourth of July. It gives the reason—the signing of the Declaration of Independence on that day. It is not optional with us—the law carries with it the authority of the government. On the other hand, the eighth of January is not mentioned in the law; the victory at New Orleans is not the reason given for appointing the day; history is not law, so a historical fact cannot supersede a legal enactment; though the day is to be observed by us, it is not a matter of option, but must be kept in obedience to the law; the claim and authority of the government is honored only by the observance of that day which it set apart by law. He would be considered wildly foolish who would contest the case in favor of the eighth of January, under such circumstances.

But such is the relative position of the parties in this Sabbath controversy. The law says the seventh day. Mr. Baird acknowledges the validity of the law, but says the first day will answer instead of the seventh. The law gives as the reason that God rested on the seventh day. Mr. Baird says the better reason is that Christ arose on first day. The law says the seventh day is the Lord's day, the day of his choice, the day which he reserved to himself, and hallowed to sacred use. Mr. Baird says no one day belongs to the Lord, except as we give it to him, or is hallowed, except as we make it so, and the first day will answer all the ends of the law. The fact that it is a law, that it is by authority, binds us to observe the day pointed out in the law. But Mr. Baird says a day not indicated by authority, not enforced by any law, will answer far better than the day mentioned in the law! Was ever folly and presumption more apparent?

We appeal to the reader,—Will you take a position which so manifestly contravenes the expressed will of Jehovah? Have "the law and the testimony" ceased to be the rule of life? Has it ceased to be the "duty of man" to "fear God and keep his commandments?" Had the authority of God been effectually set aside or superseded, we cannot imagine how men could recognize the fact in their lives more than by living just as they now do. And the saddest of all is the thought that these things stand justified by the theories of religious teachers and leaders. How long shall a just God suffer these things? "O Lord, revive thy work."