Your ShelfYour Projects

THE SABBATH

5%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 2, 1861

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 18, No. 6.

Read the full edition

THE SABBATH

By J. M. Aldrich

For the Crisis.

THE SABBATH.

BY J. M. ALDRICH.
BRO. GRANT: With your permission I will again intrude upon the columns of the Crisis with a few comments on your second article in answer to the questions of T. M. Preble on the Sabbath. Though it would afford me pleasure to extend my remarks on the subject, I will endeavor to be brief. You base your remarks in your second article on your former assumption that the ten commandments constituted the "first covenant," which is now "done away" and "abolished" because it was not "faultless," &c. I think I succeeded in showing clearly in my former article that the ten commandments were not "that first covenant," but rather the conditions thereof, as they are also the conditions of the second or new covenant. But what is the second covenant? Paul says [Heb. viii, 6] that it is a "better covenant," "established on better promises," clearly implying that the first covenant also contained promises; but the ten commandments contained no promises. But the prophet Jeremiah [Jer. xxxi, 31-34] informs us concerning the second covenant; and Paul [Heb. viii, 8-12; x, 16, 17] repeats it, saying, "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least to the greatest; for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Here then, on the authority of Paul and Jeremiah, we have the second covenant, and also the "better promises" upon which it is "established." But you claim something else as the second covenant, viz., the ten commandments minus the fourth or Sabbath commandment; and that you have found it elsewhere in the New Testament. Query. What is there about the Sabbath commandment so obnoxious that it may be said of the nine commandments that they are a "better covenant" than the ten, and "established on better promises?" What about the Sabbath so faulty that it should be needful to introduce a new covenant? Do you find one day in seven any too much for needful rest, and for religious duties? No one claims it. Does it "gender to bondage?" Then why do you continue to observe one day in every seven? The fourth commandment requires us to observe no more!
But I will notice directly your promiscuous quotations, which you term the second covenant, but which I must say are not thus termed by either Christ, prophet, or apostle. You say, "As we are now under the second, of course nothing that was in the old is binding upon Christians unless it is incorporated into the new." Also, "If a State or nation adopts a new constitution, there is nothing in the old one that is binding excepting what is associated with the new;" and "when the new one is ratified and adopted, the old one has no more authority." I admit that the foregoing is good logic, but where will it lead you? Your proposition of course implies an act of incorporation, an act adopting the "new constitution," an act of ratification, &c. But where shall we find such act? When the ten commandments were spoken from mount Sinai, there was indeed an act suitable to the occasion. There were the assembled hosts of Israel. The Lord Almighty came down upon the mount. There God spoke with his own voice; and there too were the tables of stone with his matchless law engraven thereon with his own finger. And how grand, yet terrific, the scenery!—the quaking mount—the thunder and lightnings—the thick cloud—the fire and the smoke—the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud, &c. Such was the occasion of the enactment of the ten commandments. Now if they were to be abolished, and the nine reenacted as a new code, might we not reasonably expect the Bible to contain a record of such reenactment, with attending circumstances worthy the magnitude thereof? Such indeed is implied in your proposition as above stated; but you failed and must fail to produce any such record. It is true you have found interspersed through the New Testament the precepts contained in the nine commandments, but where is anything said about their being "incorporated into the new" covenant? Where and by whom were they "ratified" and "adopted" as "a new constitution" or covenant? Because you find Christ and the apostles at different times and places in the course of their ministry and in pursuance thereof, to have spoken authoritatively the precepts of the nine commandments, do you therefore claim that they were at those different times and places thus "ratified" and "adopted" as a new law or "constitution?" and yet still more, as the new or second covenant? Why could you not include the fourth precept? I think Christ and the apostles have authorized its observance by implication if not expressly; and were I to undertake to re-adjust God's law (which I hope I may never do), I certainly should include the precept of the fourth commandment as well as of the other nine.
But now let us look a moment at what you term the new covenant. In your article you have it placed in contrast with the ten commandments as the "old covenant." You quote each commandment of the decalogue as recorded in Ex. 20, and against each of them you place the same precepts as found at different places in the New Testament until you have thus matched them all except the fourth, against which you mark "wanting." For the first precept of the "new covenant" you quote [Matt. xxii, 37, 38] the words of Jesus, spoken in the latter part of his ministry in answer to the question of the lawyer: "Which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." Allow me to quote the two following verses: "And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." In these two commandments Christ sums up the contents of the two tables of stone, embracing in the first our duty to God, and in the second our duty to man; and if all the law hangs on them, most assuredly the fourth commandment hangs there with the rest. But, query: Did not Christ put forth this first precept of your new covenant before the old covenant was abolished? If so, how do you reconcile therewith your statement, saying, "We cannot be living under two covenants at the same time?" You have not said, however, in your article when the ten commandments were abolished. I assume therefore, some definite period—perhaps the death of Christ. Be this as it may, the discrepancy is quite as apparent in regard to the other precepts. Your second precept was uttered by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. x, 14. Query again: Does not this precept come in altogether too late? Paul was not converted till after the death of Christ, and this precept was not put forth by him till over twenty years afterwards. It cannot be that idolatry was admissible during all that intervening time! Third precept. Matt. v, 34, which is a portion of Christ's sermon on the mount—the same sermon in which he says, "I came not to destroy the law," &c. Query again: This third commandment of your new covenant was spoken by Jesus some two or three years before he tells the lawyer what he says is "the first and great commandment." How do you reconcile this arrangement? Fourth precept: "Wanting." Will you allow me to supply? "The Sabbath was made for man." This statement of Christ clearly implies that "man" is required to observe it "according to the commandment;" otherwise the Sabbath must have been made in vain. Fifth precept: Eph. vi, 2,and the remaining sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth precepts you quote from Rom. xiii, 9. Query again: Were Christians under no obligations to observe the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments during all the time intervening between the abolition of the old covenant and the writing of these precepts by Paul some twenty-five years or over thereafter, or after his conversion and the death of Christ? Such is your logic; for you say "that nothing that was in the old covenant is binding upon Christians unless it is incorporated into the new;" and as you have given the order of their incorporation into what you are pleased to call "the new covenant," you will be forced to admit that during all this intervening time such obligation did not exist.
Again: You present the same argument in another form. You ask (on the assumption that you have proved the law to be "dead"), "But how shall a man be condemned for covetousness if the law is dead which says, 'Thou shalt not covet?'" And you answer, "He could not be, unless this part of the old covenant be incorporated into the new; but in the new we read, 'Thou shalt not covet.'" But according to your order of incorporation, it does not read thus till some twenty-five years or more after the law is "dead" as you affirm; hence, from your own reasoning, during that time a man could not be condemned for covetousness; and so in regard to the other precepts!
Again: You make a vital mistake by confounding "the law of Moses" or the ceremonial law with the moral law. You refer to the apostolic conference that "was held at Jerusalem to decide whether the Gentiles who had become the disciples of Christ should keep the law of Moses" [Acts xv], and then in connection say, "In Paul's letter to the Romans he shows most conclusively that 'the law of Moses' is dead," quoting at length Rom. vii, 1-7. You then undertake to identify what you then term "the law of Moses," which you say Paul "shows most conclusively" to be dead, with the moral law, by incorporating it with verse 7, which says, "Thou shalt not covet," &c. It is very clear that that law which says, "Thou shalt not covet" is the moral law; and I also affirm that Paul in Rom. vii, 1-7 was speaking of the moral law, but I deny that he said there anything about "the law of Moses." But in Acts xv the writer was unmistakably speaking of "the law of Moses," or the ceremonial law, as any one can see by reading the chapter, for the dispute among the disciples was on the subject of circumcision; hence you err in confounding the two laws. Had you simply argued that "the law of Moses" is "dead," I should of course offer no objections; but when you seek to identify that law with the moral law, and claim that you have proved it to be "dead," or "abolished," I demur.
The apostle in Rom. vii, 1-7 does not say that "the law is dead," but says "ye are become dead to the law," which is quite a different thing. But you think that you have the proof in verse 6: "That being dead wherein we were held;" but the marginal reading is, "Being dead to that wherein we were held," which harmonizes with the former quotation. But what is the drift of the Apostle's argument? He is simply showing the relation the Christian ("ye brethren") sustains to the law, in contrast with his former position as a sinner, when "under the law," i. e., under its condemnation. If a man commit crime against the law of the State—if he steal, for instance—he is then "under the law," i. e., under its condemnation, and is "held" by it, perhaps paying its penalty in the State prison. Should the governor of the State, however, pardon him, he is no longer under its condemnation; he is "delivered from the law;" but because he is thus pardoned and delivered, is the law dead? Would the man then have license to steal? Certainly not. Should he steal again he would again be under its condemnation. So of the Christian. He has renounced sin, ceases to transgress God's law, has received pardon, and is no longer "under the law,
but under grace," i. e., the favor of God; as Paul says, "But now are we delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held."
But if the Apostle's argument on the law should seem to be couched in obscure language, and difficult to be understood, we need have no difficulty if we will only allow him to draw his own conclusions; we certainly should be content therewith. Let us look at some of his conclusions: Verse 7: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law." How could a "dead" or "abolished" law have convinced Paul of sin?
Again: After showing some of the effects of the law upon himself, he says [verse 12] "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good." Why, I ask, need such a law be abolished?
Again: Chap. iii, 31. "Do we then make void (i. e., abolish) the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law." What can be more emphatic? Surely if Paul by his reasoning establishes the law, he does not by the same process abolish it.
But you say, "The Sabbath was expressly for Israel as may be seen from the following: 'And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.' Deut. v, 15. You say that 'this reason could not apply to any people but Israel, because no other nation were then delivered from Egypt.' To show the fallacy of this argument, we will only apply the same to another similar text: 'I am the Lord your God which brought you out of the land of Egypt; therefore shall ye observe all my statutes and all my judgments and do them.' Lev. xix, 36, 37. Shall we apply your 'reason' to this text? If so we are not bound to observe the statutes of God, because we were not delivered from Egypt!"
You say, "The Sabbath was a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel to commemorate their great deliverance," and quote a part of Ex. xxxi, 17, as proof thereof. But the whole verse shows that it was a "sign" to commemorate God's work of creation. Let us see. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Does not, therefore, the keeping of God's rest day very significantly commemorate his work of creation? But there was a sign to commemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. It was the institution of the Passover, Ex. xii, 14; xiii, 9. So Israel were not under the necessity of keeping the Sabbath to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt; for they had a much more appropriate memorial.
You close your article by making a slight apology for Sunday keeping, "as commemorative of the deliverance of the Saviour from the power of death." As I have already extended my article to such length, I will not now attempt to answer this part of the question, but will close by propounding to you again the questions of T. M. Preble, though slightly altered, viz., Is the keeping of the first-day Sabbath (?) enjoined upon Christians by the teachings of the New Testament? If not, why should they keep the first day?
Yours for the truth.
Somerset, N. Y., Feb. 18, 1861.