p. 40 | The Day of the Sabbath

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 17, 1884

The Day of the Sabbath.

DR. TOMBES' ARTICLE.

ACCORDING to his promise made sometime since, Dr. Tombes has published in the Herald of Truth, the Baptist paper of California, an article entitled "The Old Testament Sabbath." He begins it as follows:—

"Sabbatarians are making such special efforts, at the present time, to gain adherents, it is, perhaps, advisable to give the subject of the Old Testament Sabbath a careful consideration."

We are rather pleased than otherwise that our efforts are calling the attention of all classes to the subject of the Old Testament Sabbath. And we should still be more highly pleased if all classes would give the subject a careful consideration in the light of the facts and truths of the Scriptures, rather than as guided by theories and prepossessions.

We have before expressed the high esteem in which we hold Dr. Tombes. He is a man of years, and his lines of theology have doubtless become somewhat fixed, as is natural. But we cannot believe he has long held to the theory which he here sets forth. These are our reasons: 1. He says: "I am quite disposed to the belief that Christ restored the patriarchal Sabbath, by its change to the first day." These are not the words of one who is rooted and grounded in an established point of faith. 2. His position is a new one in the Baptist Church. We do not think that any Baptist author, at least of any note, has ever advanced it. 3. His method of reasoning on the subject, and his statements, give most decisive evidence that his views are not matured; that he has not taken time to carefully review the ground of his professed belief. Indeed, some of his statements are made with an unusual lack of caution; so much so that we are surprised that they should be made by a writer who could produce such a criticism as he furnished of Dr. Young. We believe that our readers will see that we are fully justified in coming to this conclusion when we have examined the several points in his argument.

1. He says: "The seventh-day Sabbath was declared by Moses (Deut. 5:15) to have been instituted on account of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage."

This statement, which is often made, we fully noticed last week. We will only recapitulate the points then shown.

(1) Moses did not give a literal version of the fourth commandment in Deut. 5. See verse 12.

(2) Moses frequently enforced universal obligations with local reasons. See Lev. 19:35-37; Deut. 24:17-22. This is often done by religious teachers.

(3) Moses did not, in Deut. 5, give any reason whatever for the institution of the seventh-day Sabbath. He said not one word about any reason why the seventh day was made the Sabbath, rather than any other day. He did not even refer to any ground for its being blest and sanctified.

(4) But, as opposed to the above declaration of Dr. T., we learn in the words of Jehovah himself, in the fourth commandment, Ex. 20, why the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted, namely, because God made the world in six days, and rested the seventh day. For this reason, and no other, he blessed and hallowed it. And this is exactly the reason given in Gen. 2:3, for sanctifying the seventh day. The two passages are parallel; they describe the same actions, and give the same reason. See also Ex. 31:15-17.

2. He says, of the weeks and "set days" of the patriarchal age:—

"We may consider that set day a Sabbath day; but it could not be the same as the subsequent Mosaic seventh day, as that was a positive arrangement under a different dispensation; as it also indicated a special historic circumstance."

This reasoning is not good. It would just as well prove that circumcision commanded to Israel through Moses was not the same institution given to Abraham. But it was. One might also affirm as well, on the ground of the differences of dispensations, that the seventh precept of the decalogue did not guard the same marriage institution that was given to Adam! Gen. 2. But, directly against his statement, the fourth commandment, Ex. 20, says that the seventh-day Sabbath commanded to Israel in the Mosaic dispensation was the same seventh-day Sabbath which God sanctified at the close of the week of creation. We wish that Dr. Tombes would compare Ex. 20, and Gen. 2, and point out the difference of the seventh day there spoken of, if any exists.

3. He says: "The moral law was in existence when Adam was created, but not the decalogue." This of course is aimed solely at the Sabbath, as he queries thus: "Where is the consistency, therefore of speaking of the fourth precept as a moral law?"

We earnestly wish that we knew what Dr. T. regards as moral law. Is the seventh commandment moral law? There was no woman, and no marriage institution "when Adam was created." Is the tenth precept moral law? "When Adam was created" he had no neighbor whose goods he could covet. Was the sixth or the eighth precepts moral law? "When Adam was created" there was no one in existence whom he could kill or from whom he could steal. What shall we regard as moral law according to the above distinction? The term "sanctify" means, to appoint, or to set apart to a sacred use. Therefore, according to Gen. 2:3, and Ex. 20:8-11, one of the very earliest relations which imposed duty on man was that embraced in the seventh-day Sabbath institution. And if the eighth precept is moral, because it guards man's right to the property which God has given to him, much more is the fourth precept moral, which guards the Creator's right to that which he never gave to man for common or secular use, but reserved it to himself as his own sanctified rest day, "the holy of the Lord." We repeat, the reasoning of Dr. Tombes on this subject of moral law is defective.

4. He denies that the ten commandments are a moral law, because (he says) "that was a covenant, says Moses, made with us in Horeb." It is on this proposition that he bases his assertion that the fourth precept is not moral. But every one can see that, if the reasoning is good, then it follows that not one of the ten commandments is moral law. This is the inevitable conclusion from his premise, for his expression applies to every one as well as to the fourth. And if an exception is claimed for any one, we offer to take the reason given for the claim and show that it will apply to the fourth. Here is seen the justification of the statement which we have often made, and which can never be refuted, namely, that any reason which may be given for denying that the fourth precept of the decalogue is moral, may be used to prove that no part of it is moral.

But let us examine this part of Deut. 5. Two distinct things are spoken of by Moses in the first part of this chapter. (1) The covenant which he made with them, and (2) The law which he commanded to them, but did not make with them. Verse 4 says: "The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire." Now the remark in verse 5, in parentheses, does not refer to verse 4, but to the preceding verses; for Moses did not stand between them and the Lord, to show them the word of the Lord, when the Lord spoke the ten commandments in their hearing. But, turning to Ex. 19:5-8, we find an agreement, a covenant, which the Lord made with the children of Israel, and Moses was the spokesman between the two parties. The Lord told Moses to speak to the people, and tell them the blessings he promised to confer on them if they would obey him. Moses told the words to the people, and they replied that they would obey; and Moses returned into the mount unto the Lord and reported their agreement to the conditions stated. In this agreement, or covenant (the word covenant has various significations), Moses acted as mediator between the Lord and the people. But when Jehovah gave the moral law, the ten commandments, he spoke directly to the people; Moses did not then stand between them to show them the word of the Lord. Every one who compares these texts must see that we are correct on this point. It is a great error to call the Law of God, "the ten words," a Jewish covenant. The expression, "made with us," implies that they had something to do with the making of the covenant. And so they had; that was the case with the covenant made in Ex. 19, and ratified in Ex. 24:3-8, after they had heard the voice of the Lord. But it was not the case in the proclamation of the ten commandments. The people had nothing to do with making that law, or giving it effect. It came from Supreme Authority; it rested upon, and for its force depended upon, nobody's will and action but those of the "one Lawgiver."

5. But again he says:—

"I wish now to refer to the fact that the eighth day, the period immediately succeeding the seventh day, in the circular week, was, as a religious day, to be observed with as much solemnity and consecration to God as was the seventh day. The Feast of Tabernacles continued eight days. On the eighth day was to be a 'solemn assemblage.' Moreover, this day was a 'sabbath day.'"

We think that every reader must participate in our surprise at this statement, and at what we shall further quote to the same intent.

(1) There is no eighth day "in the circular week." We have never known such a thing, and our memory takes in something over two thousand five hundred weeks. If ever there was a week known with an eighth day in it, we should be pleased to learn somewhat of its history.

(2) It is true that the feast of tabernacles continued eight days; and the "eighth day" of the text was the eighth day of the feast. It was not and could not be the eighth day of the week! The feast commenced on the fifteenth day of the month; "the eighth day" was the twenty-second day of the seventh month. And as the month commenced with the new moon, the twenty-second was not related to any one day of the week, as the Doctor intimates, unless the moon could be made to always change on Sunday.

(3) But the sheer folly of trying to perpetuate the eighth day of the feast of tabernacles and attach it to the first day of the week, is clearly seen in the fact that the feast came but once a year. They who find in this festival day an argument for Sunday would make the twenty-second day of the seventh month come fifty-two times a year, and always fall on Sunday! The unparalleled absurdity of the position ought to compel every one to pause and reflect on the weakness of the cause which has to depend on such props to bolster it up. But again he says:—

6. "God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision; but by a positive ordinance it was to be performed on the eighth day."

True; but the eighth day of what? Was it the "eighth day in a circular week" also? Let us see. The ordinance was given in Gen. 17, and verse 12 says: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you." Accordingly, when Isaac

was born, we read in Gen. 21:4, "And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God had commanded him." And this was the order respecting all the children who were circumcised. Luke 2:21. We are ready to admit that this ordinance stood related to Sunday, just as soon as it is proved that all Jewish male children were born on Sunday! But in all seriousness we say to our Baptist brethren, If you can draw a Sunday argument from the ordinance of circumcision, never again wonder at your neighbors for their drawing an argument from the same ordinance in favor of infant baptism. Their inference is a thousand-fold more plausible than yours.

Now we will briefly compare the honor which God attached to the Sabbath of the commandment, the seventh day, to that which was given to the eighth day of this feast, to which Dr. Tombes says "there was a peculiar sacredness attached." We will give them their numbers, 7 and 8.

Came every week in the year.
Came once a year.
On this no manna fell.
Nothing of this nature marked it.
It was distinguished from the festival days in Lev. 23. These were to be observed, "beside the Sabbaths of the Lord."
Such a title was never given to this day. It was not elevated above any other festival sabbath, of which there were seven.
In the fourth precept, Ex. 20:11, God himself said he rested on this day from all his work of making the heavens and the earth.
This day was not so honored.
The Lord blessed this day.
No special blessing was given to this day.
God sanctified this as his own rest (Sabbath) day.
Not so with this day.
When God spoke his law in the hearing of all the people, with a voice that shook the earth, he said: "The seventh day is the Sabbath [rest] of the Lord thy God."
God did not so proclaim this day, but gave it through Moses, with all other ceremonial, or purely Jewish laws.
God himself wrote on the stone: "The seventh day is the Sabbath."
This day was not placed there at all. Of it God never so wrote.
As part of Jehovah's law the precept for this day was put in the ark, and kept in the most holy place.
This was not placed there.
Over the precept for this day the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sin offering on the day of atonement.
Nothing of the kind for this day.

We have not exhausted the contrasts; but we leave it with the reader as to which of the two days had peculiar sacredness attached to it; which stands related to the work of creation; and which the Lord would most likely perpetuate. And the New Testament gives us emphatic testimony in its favor as does the Old.

Reader, which day will you honor? Please read Isa. 58:13, 14.