p. 47 | S E L E C T I O N S by N. V. Hull

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 24, 1858

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 12, No. 6.

Read the full edition

S E L E C T I O N S.

By N. V. Hull

From the Sabbath Recorder.

"IS THE SABBATH LAW OBLIGATORY NOW?"

[CONTINUED.]

To W. H. Rogers :

Dear Brother :—Your third question, "Since Jesus has been appointed the Mediator of the new covenant, and the all-suffering Teacher, how with your views of the Sabbath law do you account for the fact that he and his Apostles never once enjoined Sabbath keeping, nor reproved Sabbath breaking?"

Answer.—Jesus as Mediator of the new covenant never enacted any laws but such as were peculiar to it—baptism and the Lord's Supper. Other institutions and laws pre-existed, and were by him recognized not re-enacted. But they were recognized not as a part of the plan of redemption and forgiveness, but in his character as servant. The re-enacting scheme I think a fallacy. It is manifest that in order to re-enact you must first destroy or repeal. But Christ in the very outset said that he came not to destroy but to fulfill. Indeed no law of God was ever repealed. Laws expire by their own limitation in the government of God and are therefore incapable of being re-enacted having served their purpose. Those laws that have not served their purpose must remain until their end is accomplished. Let it be remembered also that Christ in his divine nature was our Creator, and the author of all pre-existing laws. He was also the author of both covenants. It must not be supposed then that God so administers his government as to contradict himself. Nor must we suppose that Christ in his character as Mediator contradicts his administration as "Lord of all." What we are to expect is harmony.

Again, Christ could only reprove violations of law where they existed. That he did not reprove the Jews for neglecting the Sabbath, I admit, nor is there any proof of such neglect. But he did correct the Jews as to the nature of the Sabbath, and its proper observance. They had so interpreted the institution as to pervert its design, making man its servant rather than making it the servant of man. To correct this error Jesus took advantage of certain circumstances that happened in the course of his ministry, beautifully adapted to his purpose. See Luke xiii, 10–16; Mark ii, 23–28. The doctrine taught is that the Sabbath was made for man, hence it was not a violation of it to rub ears of grain and eat, thus satisfying their hunger. In correcting the opinions of the Jews as to the nature and right use of the Sabbath, Christ did not teach its abrogation. If I have hit upon the idea of the Saviour, i. e., that the good of man is involved in the right use of the Sabbath, and that this is the end sought by the institution, what more do we want? When Jesus teaches how to observe an institution, pointing out existing errors in the public mind, in regard to it saying it is for our good, how much is it short of reproving its violations and misconstructions, and enjoining its right observance, especially when we ourselves confess its proper observance promotive of man's highest earthly well being?

As to the course of the Apostles in this matter, perhaps the best light we can get is the history of their doings written by Luke some sixty or more years after Christ's ascension. From this we learn first that the Jews were scattered through all the surrounding nations. It seems also from Josephus that their religion and especially their Sabbath sentiments were universally known. Add to the fact of the presence of the Jews in every country, this also, that wherever the Apostles went, they met them, and also that all of the churches formed by them were in part at least composed of them and that these Jews were exceeding jealous of any infractions of their religion, controverting every point of Christianity, yielding only where they must, watching with earnest care the movements of the "new sect," and raising opposition wherever they could, that I say under these circumstances, they never charged the Apostles with perverting the Sabbath, is proof most conclusive that they (the Apostles) were invulnerable on this point. Besides you have, in chapter xxviii, 18, the statement of Paul that he had committed nothing against the people or the "customs of the fathers," which he could not have said had he abandoned the Sabbath. But again, through the whole, Sabbath is often mentioned, and always in the present tense, as an institution then in being. And yet again, so well was this institution understood by the Gentiles, that when those of Antioch (chap. xiii, 42,) wished a meeting for their own special benefit and convenience, they asked that it might be on the Sabbath. Accordingly the "next Sabbath, came almost the whole city together" to hear the word.

Take the facts together then, 1. Jesus was a Jew and kept the Sabbath himself. 2. He taught the Jews the true intent of the Sabbath, and through this its proper observance. 3. The Apostles were Jews and kept the Sabbath. 4. In all the countries where they went and established churches, Jews were found keeping the Sabbath, and of these in part the first churches were formed. 5. The Gentiles where they went, conformed to this rule, asking instruction upon that day, and what more do we want?

Alfred Centre, June 2, 1858.