THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF LAW
By A. G. D.
Can the Spirit Be at Variance with the Letter? — Should They Harmonize in One Age and Make Discord in Another? — The Correct Position Enforced by Three Miracles a Week for Forty Years
THE fourth commandment of God's law declares that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, and prohibits secular labor on that day. But the great majority of professed Christians work on the seventh day and rest on the first. This is not according to the letter of the law; for that specifies the seventh, not the first day. To many conscientious people, this does not seem to be consistent; and during the last half century, thousands have, after careful study, changed to the observance of the seventh day in obedience to the letter of the law. Naturally they have felt it their duty to call the attention of their fellow men to the claims of the law, and urge them to observe the day that the commandment enjoins. In doing so they are sometimes told, by professed Christians, that we are not to be governed by the letter of the law, but by its spirit. This is a tacit acknowledgment that the letter of the law does, at the present time, enjoin the observance of the seventh, not the first day. It is also an attempt to justify the observance of the first day by appealing to the spirit of the law. That is to say that the letter of the law specifies the seventh day, but the spirit of the law means the first day. And that is to say that the letter and spirit of God's law do not agree, that they conflict, that the letter does not express what God means. Surely those who argue thus do not fully appreciate the relation of the letter and the spirit of law. Law is "a rule of order or conduct established by authority; an edict of a ruler or a government; a fixed regulation; an expressed command." From this definition it is plain that law is the will of the lawgiver. But how is the will of the lawgiver to be known? How are his subjects to understand it? — Only by expressed commands. It must be conveyed to them by language either oral or written. Thus we have the spirit and letter of the law. The spirit is the will, the intent, the real meaning; and the letter is the command, the verbal expression, the literal statement. It is evident, then, that there must be perfect agreement between105the letter and the spirit of the law. If there is not, the letter is not a true expression of the intent of the lawgiver. And if the letter does not express the will of the lawgiver, that letter is faulty, and the will of the lawgiver can neither be known nor performed by the subjects. CAN NOT GOD MAKE HIS MEANING PLAIN?
It sometimes occurs that human legislators fail to express clearly and accurately their intended or real meaning. The wording of their laws is ambiguous. In such a case, the letter and the spirit would not perhaps agree. It would then be necessary to ascertain, if possible, the intent of the law, and perform that instead of the strict letter. Such a condition of things is faulty and objectionable. It is a manifestation of weakness on the part of those who frame the laws. But God, who is infinitely wise, must not be charged with such folly. He certainly knew His own will, and knew how to express it. This important matter was not committed to any man. God Himself came from heaven, and with His own voice proclaimed, in the hearing of His people, His law of Ten Commandments. Then with His own finger He engraved it on the two tables of stone. Who would presume to say that these commandments do not express clearly and accurately the spirit, the intent, the real meaning, of the Lawgiver? Who shall dare to argue that the wording is so ambiguous that man may violate the letter and at the same time keep the spirit? If, then, the law as written by Jehovah is a true expression of His will, any violation of its letter is a violation of its spirit also. And obedience to its spirit is certainly a strict compliance with its letter. Therefore those who do secular labor on the seventh day, violate both the letter and the spirit of the fourth commandment; and that is sin, "for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. No amount of first-day observance can be considered obedience to the spirit of the law, for the law says not one word about the first day. By no well-established rules that govern civil courts in the construction of laws can it be made to appear that the observance of the first day of the week fulfils either the letter or the spirit of God's law. The truthfulness of this statement will readily be made to appear by applying to the fourth commandment some of the rules by which human courts are governed. MUST DECLARE THE LAW AS WRITTEN
1. "What a court is to do, is to declare the law as written." This is a simple yet important rule. If the law is not declared as written, disastrous results will follow. Applied to God's law, it directs all religious teachers to declare it as it is written. The fourth commandment, as written, says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." To declare that commandment as written is to teach men to observe the seventh day of the week; but when men are taught to observe the first day, the law is not declared as it is written. Thus men are taught to break the commandment. Jesus says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:19. INTENT OF LAWGIVER MUST BE ENFORCED
2. "In the case of all law, it is the intent of the lawgiver that it is to be enforced." The application of this rule to the fourth commandment is thus clearly stated by another: "What, then, was the intent of the Lawgiver when the fourth commandment was given? Did the Lawgiver declare or show in any way His intention? — He did. When the Lord gave that law at Sinai, He did not leave the people to interpret it to suit themselves, nor to interpret it at all. By three special acts every week, kept up continuously for nearly forty years, He showed His intent in the law. The people were fed by manna in their forty years' wanderings. But on the seventh day of the week no manna fell. On the sixth day of the week there was a double portion, and that which was gathered on that day would keep over the seventh, which it could not be made to do at any other period, or over any other day in the week. "By this means the Lawgiver signified His intent upon the subject of observing the day mentioned in that law, and, keeping it up continuously for so long a time, made it utterly impossible that His intent should be mistaken." All this emphasizes the fact that the letter and spirit of law must agree. The letter specifies the particular day; and the giving of the manna, as related above, shows that the letter is a clear and accurate expression of the spirit, or intent. NOT ONE THING TO-DAY, ANOTHER TO-MORROW
3. "A constitution or statute is not to be made one thing at one time, and another thing at some subsequent time, when the circumstances have so changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. . . . The meaning of the constitution or statute is fixed when it is adopted; and it is not different at any subsequent time, when the court has occasion to pass upon it." The gist of this proposition is this: The meaning of a statute does not change. Whatever its meaning is when adopted, this must always be its meaning. The reasonableness of this must be apparent to all; and when applied to the fourth commandment, it becomes a strong argument for the perpetuity of the seventh-day Sabbath. When the law was given, the fourth commandment enjoined the observance of the seventh day. The reason for this, as given in the commandment, was because God wrought six days and rested the seventh. Then to place the matter beyond the possibility of a doubt, the Lord gave the manna as shown above, thus explaining the precise meaning of the law. NEVER REPEALED NOR ALTERED
Now this law has never been repealed nor altered. It reads the same to-day as it did when given, hence it must mean the same. How is it possible for a law to mean one thing for four thousand years, and then at a subsequent time, without the slightest change in its reading, mean something else quite different? The rules regulating civil courts would not permit such reasoning. "Shall mortal man be more just than God?" Any judge or court that would thus tamper with human laws "would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty." But is it not more serious to change the meaning of that law by which the whole human family shall one day be judged? "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James 2:12.