THE SABBATH by J. M. Aldrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 25, 1861

THE SABBATH.

By J. M. Aldrich

[This article, with one on the same subject which will appear next week, was sent to the World's Crisis, Boston, Mass., but the articles being refused a place in that paper, they are sent to this Office. The writer did not then keep the Sabbath, but we are happy to say that he now observes it.—Ed.]

BRO. GRANT: I notice lately there is some interest manifested through the Crisis on the question of the Sabbath; and as I deem it a question of importance I would esteem it a privilege to say a word on the subject, hoping that I may be able to shed some light thereon; and believing that you are not hostile to the discussion of Bible questions, I trust you will excuse my impertinence—if such it may be—if I take liberty to differ with you in regard to the Sabbath. In the last No. of the Crisis T. M. Preble asks you the following questions: "Is the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath enjoined upon Christians by the teachings of the New Testament? If not why should they keep the seventh day as mentioned in the Old Testament?" In answer to the first question you say in substance that you have not been able to find any passage in the New Testament that enjoins the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath; and therefore as answer to the second question, you know of no reason why we should keep the seventh day. To bolster up this conclusion you then attempt to prove from the Scriptures that the Sabbath of the Old Testament has been abolished; and had you succeeded in this undertaking to my satisfaction, I should agree with you in your conclusion as above stated; for certainly such conclusions would be inevitable if the Sabbath of the decalogue had been abolished. But I differ with you widely in regard to the abolition of the decalogue, and also in regard to the "teachings of the New Testament," concerning the fourth precept thereof.

Though the teachings of the New Testament in regard to the fourth, as well as other precepts of the decalogue are not of an imperative character, yet we find that Christ and the apostles did recognize the Sabbath as an existing institution; that it was according to their "manner" and "custom" to observe it religiously, by assembling together on that day in the synagogue and elsewhere for the purpose of prayer, preaching and reading the Scriptures; that certain things claimed by the Pharisees to be unlawful (i. e., against the Sabbath law) were declared by Christ to be lawful (i. e., according to the Sabbath law); also Christ must have recognized the perpetuity of the Sabbath when he foretold the destruction of Jerusalem [Matt. xxiv, 20]; for he directed his disciples to pray with respect to that event, that their flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day." Jerusalem was destroyed about forty years after the event was foretold. Why then should he tell his disciples to pray that their flight be not on the Sabbath day if the Sabbath was to be abolished and not in existence when the event should take place? Evidently Christ was of the same mind then, as when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. v, 18.

Christ also says that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27. Man is here used in a general sense, and means not simply the Jews, but all men.

But we have no right to claim the non-observance of the fourth commandment on the ground that the teachings of the New Testament are not imperative on the subject unless it be clearly established that the same has been abolished; for indeed it would not be necessary that Christ or the apostles should give any command in regard to it until that original command of the Almighty which was engraved with his own finger on tables of stone, and proclaimed with his own voice amid terrific grandeur from Sinai's burning mount, had ceased to be obligatory. Deeming the original command in full force, I must therefore dissent from the conclusion that you draw from the absence of New Testament commands.

But now let us look at your arguments in favor of the abolition of the Sabbath. You quote Paul: "For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second." Heb. viii, 7. You assume that Paul, by "that first covenant" means the ten commandments, which, being faulty, were improved in the second covenant. Do you not reflect upon the wisdom and intelligence of the Almighty by assuming that the ten commandments need to be "improved?" Was not God just as capable of making a perfect moral code when he uttered his law from mount Sinai as at any subsequent period? David says, "The law of the Lord is perfect." Ps. xix, 7. "All his commandments are sure, they stand fast forever and ever and are done in truth and uprightness. . . . He hath commanded his covenant forever." Ps. cxi, 7-9. The primary meaning of covenant is a mutual contract, or agreement between two or more persons to do, or not do some act or thing. The ten commandments are called a covenant—God's covenant—which has not this primary signification; for it is composed wholly of commandments issued by God alone, and hence contains no mutual promises. In discussing the question of covenants, we are obliged to make this distinction. By "that first covenant" Paul refers to what is termed the Horeb covenant, or that mutual agreement made between God, on the one part, and Israel on the other part, as recorded in Ex. xix, 5, 8. Here God promises on his part to make Israel a peculiar treasure unto him above all people, a kingdom of priests, an holy nation, &c., on condition that Israel should obey his voice, and keep his covenant (i. e., the ten commandments); Israel, on their part, promised the obedience requisite to complete the covenant, saying, "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." Here, then, is the covenant to which Paul alludes. It was a mutual agreement, the conditions of which were the keeping of God's covenant, or the ten commandments. Israel did not perform faithfully their part of the agreement; they did not obey God's voice; they broke his covenant; hence "a better covenant" became necessary. "That first covenant" having become faulty through disobedience, we have therefore the "second" or "better covenant" which is "established upon better promises," having Christ as its mediator. Heb. viii, 6. "That first covenant" was written by Moses in a book which was called the "book of the covenant," and by him was dedicated with blood [Ex. xxiv, 4-8; Heb. ix, 18-20]; but God's covenant was written on tables of stone, and no blood was sprinkled thereon; the one was

that which was made at Horeb and which Moses says was not made "with our fathers, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day" [Deut. v, 2, 3]: the other was that which God commanded three days after the ratification of the former [Ex. xix, 11, 16], and which "our fathers" were careful to observe during the patriarchal age. Gen. xxvi, 5. Hence, God's covenant of ten commandments, and the Horeb covenant, or "that first covenant" of which Paul speaks are not identical. God's law or covenant remains the same, unchanged and unabolished, the transgression of which Paul says is sin, and "the wages of sin, death."

What you say therefore in regard to the allegory of the bond woman will not apply to God's covenant or law of ten commandments, but rather to "that first covenant" which is Agar, and which "gendereth to bondage." But James in chap. i, 25; ii, 12, in speaking of God's law, the ten commandments, calls it "the law of liberty," and "the perfect law of liberty;" and David speaking with reference to the same law, says, "I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts." Ps. cxix, 45. Hence the ten commandments cannot be the one of the "two covenants" which gendereth to bondage.

We will now pass to notice what you offer as "further and positive evidence" that the covenant of ten commandments is "done away." You quote Ex. xxxiv, 27–33, which relates the account of Moses' bringing the "tables of testimony" down from the mount, &c., and also Paul's comment thereon [2 Cor. iii, 7–13], saying, "But if the ministration of death written and engraven in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious." You assume that that which was "written and engraven on stones" was that which was "to be done away;" but I think your assumption cannot be sustained. It was the ministration that "was glorious," and it was this "glory" that was to be done away." The ministration of a law, and the law itself are quite different things. Ministration signifies service performed by a minister; hence we may clearly understand what "was to be done away." The "ministration of death written and engraven in stones," must, of course, mean the ministration of the ten commandments, for they only were "written and engraven in stones;" but the ministration of the ten commandments cannot mean the ten commandments themselves any more than the ministration of the Spirit can mean the Spirit itself. It may be asked, Why was the term "death" substituted for the ten commandments? Perhaps it may be sufficient to say such was the effect of the Mosaic ministry: death being the penalty for violation of God's law; and the ministration thereof being contrasted with Christ's ministry, or the ministration of the Spirit, which (verse 6) giveth life. The term "death" may with much propriety be thus used.

You quote verse 11: "For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious," and conclude therefrom that "some part of what was written and engraven in stones is done away and a portion remaineth." I suppose you mean that the fourth commandment "is done away," and that the other nine remain. I cannot imagine, however, what kind of reasoning you will pursue to sustain such a proposition; you promise, however, to give more light on this part of the subject in your next article.

Again: We may determine clearly what was abolished by looking carefully at verse 13: "And not as Moses which put a vail over his face that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." Now that which was hid by the vail was that which was abolished. But what was hid by the vail? Certainly not the ten commandments; for Moses had them in his hand. Ex. xxxiv, 29. But the vail was over his face. Why? Because the "skin of his face shone," or because of the "glory of his countenance," for which reason his ministration was styled "glorious." It was, then, this "glorious" ministration which the Apostle calls the "ministration of death," that was hid by the vail, and "which glory" he says "was to be done away."

Somerset N. Y. Feb. 10, 1861.