IS THE SABBATH LAW OBLIGATORY NOW?
By N. V. Hull
From the "Sabbath Recorder." "IS THE SABBATH LAW OBLIGATORY NOW?"
Eld. N. V. Hull to Eld. Wm. H. Rogers: DEAR BROTHER—You have been pleased to address me three several inquiries upon the Sabbath Question in the Recorder of April 29th, and ask an answer through the same medium. Knowing my want of Biblical knowledge, and imperfect style of composition, had I not confidence in you as a sincere inquirer after truth rather than one seeking an advantage through the weakness of your respondent, I certainly should not venture a reply. Your knowledge of the question is sufficient to suggest to you that in order to do anything like justice to it, I must occupy considerable space. Before proceeding to direct investigation and analysis, it may be proper to call your attention to a few plain and necessary truths. Man is a moral and religious being, and for this element of his nature his Maker is bound to provide. Also as a creature of time, he must have time necessities, and for these necessities provision must be made. Any system of religion, then, that does not fully meet these necessities, must be imperfect, and therefore not of God. Let me ask you then, dear brother, is the Sabbath a necessity of our moral and social state? In other words, do our highest necessities demand the provisions of the Sabbath? If you answer yes, then I ask, may we not expect to find this provision in the word of the Lord, not for those of one race or age, but for those of all races and ages upon whom the necessities lie? With these thoughts let us proceed to your first question, "What are the arguments by which you are convinced that the Sabbath Law was obligatory upon and kept by any of the human family during the first 2500 years, i. e. from the beginning of the world till the giving of the manna."—(Ex. xvi.) Argument 1.—"And on the seventh-day God ended his work which he had made and he rested the seventh day from all his works which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Gen. ii. 2, 3.) This passage is so introduced as to show that the "seventh day" mentioned, immediately succeeded the "sixth day" in the previous chapter so that it was the seventh day in order from the first. This day then, was the last of a cycle of seven—the first week of time. Observe (1) God rested on this day. Did he rest himself because he needed rest? No. What else then than an example was it? If an example, to whom if not to man? If to man, then was it not to Adam? (2) God blessed the seventh day "because in it he had rested." It was blessed then because it was a day of rest. What other sense can be given to his "blessing it?" There was certainly no positive good conferred upon the day by his blessing it, for it was incapable of receiving any. Is there any other meaning then, to this, than that he blessed it as a day of rest? But as a day of rest to whom but to man? Who else? (3) But God did more than to rest on the seventh day and bless it—he sanctified it. According to Webster, the word sanctify has eight different meanings. The first and the general sense is to cleanse, to purify. But this certainly cannot be the meaning in this place for the reason that it is incapable of being "cleansed, purified." Nor will any other of the definitions given but the second suit the case any better. The second is "to separate, set apart or appoint to a holy, sacred or religious use," and as an instance of its use in this sense, quotes this very text. If then, this be its sense in this place, and as I have said it can have no other, what do we find? why that God besides resting on the seventh day and blessing it, he set it apart. But set it apart from what and to what?—for surely something like this is involved in the idea. I ask again how set apart? And to these questions, the pertinence of which you will not deny, can any other answer in reason be given than that it was set apart in its use from the secular character of the other days and so appropriated to a religious use? Mark, it is not merely a day of rest, but a day of religious rest, so that it referred to man not merely as an animal, but as a moral being. Please keep this in mind. If then God at this time separated the seventh day in its use from the other six and they were to be employed as days of labor, which none deny, how much short of a command is it for man to sanctify it as a day of rest? But as the word sanctify possesses such weight in this controversy as employed in this text, a more extended examination of it may be required. Cruden in his Concordance says: "Sanctify, when referred to God, signifies to separate and appoint any thing to an holy and religious use. God sanctified the seventh day. (Gen. ii. 3.) The first born were sanctified. (Ex. xiii. 6.) And thus the tabernacle, the temple, the priests, the altars, the sacrifices, etc., were sanctified under the law." Wood, in his Bible Dictionary says under the word sanctify: (1) To prepare or set apart persons or things to a holy use."—(Ex. xix. 23.) God sanctifies the Sabbath by setting it apart for a holy and religious use.—(Gen. ii. 3.) The Jewish tabernacle, temple, vessels, priests and Levites were sanctified, when set apart to the service of God and ceremonially prepared for it by sprinkling of blood or oil, or by washing with water.—(Ex. xxx. 29; and xxviii. 41; Lev. viii. 12,) etc. The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article sanctification says, "sanctify often signifies to set apart." I trust, dear brother, that the above is sufficient to justify in your mind the statement that the word "sanctify" in Gen. ii. 3, is to set apart. Should this be conceded, then has it not the force of a command? If not, what sense has it? Argument 2.—In Ex. xvi. 23, as a part of the account of the giving of the manna Moses says: "This is that the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Now the question arises where is this of which Moses says, "The Lord hath said." Is it not the text we have had under consideration in Gen. ii. 3? It has indeed been conjectured that God might have said this to Moses separately. But is there any necessity for this "conjecture?" All sound rules of interpretation forbid that we should enter the field of conjecture, unless compelled to do so by some overruling necessity arising out of the fact that the author has left nothing on record as a fair guide to his meaning. But no such necessity exists here, for the text in (Gen. ii. 3.) furnishes precisely the idea we want, and this is a most happy circumstance, as it affords an inspired exposition of Moses' words, Gen. ii. 3, i. e. it was the rest of the Sabbath unto the Lord. Now, if Moses so understood this, did he not see in it the force of a command? Indeed was it not for this very purpose he quoted it? Argument 3.—In the commandment, (Ex. xx. 11,) the Sabbath is made a memorial of the creation in these words: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." That the Sabbath is referred to as a memorial of creation, cannot be doubted. But why the Jews alone memorialize a work in which as creatures, they had no more interest than the heathen around them? If it be replied that they were called upon to celebrate the work of creation, because they were God's select people, I answer that their obligations could be no stronger than Adam's before the fall, or those who after the fall, made covenants with God by sacrifice as the token of a true faith in the coming Redeemer. If there were special reasons why the Jews should observe the Sabbath they were found in the fact that they were chosen of God to witness for him and his truth before the apostate and heathen world that surrounded them. The fact then that they were witnesses for him as the creator was the very ground and reason of his giving them this memorial—the only institution heaven appointed, given to any people of any age for this purpose. And here34let me throw in an inquiry. Suppose the various nations of the earth had remained true to their creator—would the necessity for calling out the Jews have existed? But does not the supposition of their continued faithfulness suppose the continued observance of the creation festival? And further, does not their abandonment of this festival suppose their abandonment of faith in him [God] as the creator? How then does the giving of the Sabbath to Jews as God's select people militate against the idea that all good men also in previous times celebrated the festival of creation? But to return: there is one expression in this eleventh verse which needs further attention. It is said of the seventh day, God "hallowed" it, i. e., he made it sacred—appointed it as a sacred use. Not for himself, for the appointing act took place after he had rested on it and blessed it. For whose use then did he hallow it? Surely was it not for the use of man? (See Mark ii. 27.) "The Sabbath was made for man." One thought further: if this word hallowed in Ex. xx. 11, is used with the same signification as "sanctified" (in Gen. ii. 3.) then have I not proved beyond a doubt that the seventh day was made a Sabbath day at creation? Argument 4.—My fourth and last argument which I propose to offer upon this first question is drawn from the early division of time into weeks or periods of seven days, and the sacredness of the seventh day. I begin, however, with a text which I do not claim as positive in its testimony, but only as having a strong leaning in that direction, (Gen. iv. 3.) "And in process of time, (or end of days) that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." The points which I make upon this text, are: 1. The transaction referred to happened at the end or cutting off of days—some particular period of time. 2. It was a time of worship. It seems unnatural to suppose this to have been the change of the moon or any natural division of time, as these could scarcely have been called the "end" or "cutting off" of days. There is more of violence or arbitrariness indicated by the words than attaches to a natural division. But the division of time into weeks is arbitrary, and also according to the theory advocated, the closing period is a sacred and religious one. The context also shows it to have been a season of public religious worship, in which the family of Adam participated. Upon the supposition that the Sabbath was instituted already, would not the most natural thought be that the end of days referred to was the seventh or closing day of the week? So it seems to me. But in Gen. xxix. 27, 28, taken with Judges xiv. 12, we have proof positive of the early division of time into weeks or periods of seven days. In the first mentioned instance which refers to the marriage of Jacob with Leah, daughter of Laban, it is said by Laban to Jacob, "fulfill her week," and in the latter we learn that the marriage festival continued "seven days." From this, then, we have the best authority for believing in the division of time into weeks of seven days. We think this strongly favors our interpretation of Gen. ii. 3. Perhaps you will not object to the introduction in this connection of some historic statements corroborative of the above view. In the Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, by Ritter, article "Sabbath," it is said, "it is powerfully urged by the believers in a primitive Sabbath, that we find from time immemorial the knowledge of a week of seven days among all nations—Egyptians, Arabians, Indians—in a word, all the nations of the East have in all ages, made use of this week of seven days for which it is difficult to account, without admitting that this knowledge was derived from the common ancestors of the human race." The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says: "Week, a period of seven days. Under the usual name of a week, shabah is mentioned as far back as the time of the deluge, (Gen. vii. 4, 10; viii. 10, 12; xxix. 27, 28.) It must therefore be considered a very ancient division of time, especially as the various nations among whom it has been noticed, for instance, the Nigri in Africa, appear to have received it from the sons of Noah." From the American Edition of the London Encyclopedia, I quote the following: "The Septenary division of time has been from the earliest ages, observed over all the Eastern world. The Israelites, Assyrians, Indians, Arabians, and Persians, have always made use of a week consisting of seven days. Many vain attempts have been made to account for this uniformity, but a practice so general and prevalent could never have taken place, had not the septenary distribution of time been instituted from the beginning and handed down by tradition?" From the same source also, must the ancient heathen derive their notions of the sacredness of the seventh day. That they had such notions of it is evident from several passages of the Greek poets quoted by Aristobulus, a learned Jew, by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. The seventh, the sacred day—Hesiod. Afterwards came the seventh, the sacred day.—Homer. Again on the seventh day all things were complete. In the face of the above testimony, which is the most rational, dear brother, to believe in, the early institution of the Sabbath; or to disbelieve in it? Answer to your other questions in a future paper.
N. V. Hull.
Alfred Centre, May 4, 1858.