TRADITION VS. THE SABBATH.
By W. N. G.
WHEN people persist in "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," they invariably get into the quicksand and begin to flounder about in quest of a foothold. But in no respect is this rule more conspicuous than in attempts to destroy the Sabbath day, which God "blessed" and "sanctified" as a memorial of His creative power in the beginning (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:8-11), and later as a memorial of redemption also (Deut. 5:15). In order to destroy the plain letter of this command (which is of the essence of every command, human or divine), there must needs be a substitution of some other "letter." As the Lord has not given any substitute, some other authority, or assumed authority, must furnish one. A substitution or change of a command without the sanction of the author is fraudulent. A certain journal which advocates the observance of Sunday instead of the Sabbath of the commandment, admits that our papers and preachers "truthfully claim constant victory" when confuting the argument of a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. But it claims that "under the new covenant no day is commanded to be kept." This is a most unscriptural position, as is easily shown. It is a grave error into which all fall who set the new covenant over against the law of God. In order to do so they have to assume that the law of God is the "old covenant," which was done away. The "old covenant" was an agreement on the part of the people to keep the law of God, while on His part He agreed to make them a peculiar people. Ex. 19:3-8. But by failing to keep the law they broke the covenant. Now the proof that a day is commanded in the new covenant is brief and comprehensive. A day is commanded in the law of God, and that day is the seventh day. The Israelites broke the old covenant by breaking the law. But God did not break His part of the covenant; therefore it remained intact until it expired by limitation, when the new covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ. Neither was the law done away when the children of Israel broke it; if it had been, why should Christ give His life to pay the penalty of a law that was annulled? The law did not expire by limitation, as is shown by the fact that under the new covenant, which is also made with the house of Israel, the law (not a new law) is written on the hearts of those who enter into it. Jer. 31:31-33. God is dealing with the house of Israel all the time; He never made a covenant with Gentiles. And the Sabbath day—the Sabbath day of the law, for God never spoke of any other weekly Sabbath—is given as a sign between God and Israel, that they may know that He is the Lord, their God. Eze. 20:12, 20. Jesus Christ is "the mediator of the new covenant," and of His coming to earth He said, "Lo, I come; in the volume of the Book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God; yea, Thy law is within My heart." Ps. 40:7, 8. In addition to this, Christ said to the Jews: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:17, 18. But the purpose was not only that Christ might fulfil the law Himself, but "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." See Rom. 8:3, 4. Now, if these things be true; if the law, without the loss of a jot or tittle, is written in the hearts of the people of the house of Israel under the new covenant, how can any one truthfully say that "under the new covenant no day is commanded to be kept"? But who are the house of Israel under the new covenant? Let Paul answer: "We are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." Phil. 3:3. This advocate of the "no-day" theory, in further attempts to ignore the plain obligation to follow Christ in Sabbath-keeping as well as in other respects, gives a rather novel excuse for disobedience, namely, that Sunday observance "is purely a free-will offering to the Lord." God has shown in various ways that offerings made to Him at the expense of that which is ordained are not acceptable. The offering of Cain was one of this class; so was the proposed offering of King Saul on returning from the battle with the Amalekites without carrying out the word of the Lord. Samuel, when he met him, administered this pointed rebuke: "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 1 Sam. 15:22. Again, all the "traditions of the elders" were based upon the plea of gratuitous service, and all these the Lord emphatically condemned. "And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9. Christ Himself never resorted to any works of supererogation; the plain commandments were written in His heart; consequently there could be no room for anything else. "I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love." John 15:10. This was His practice on earth, and several years after His departure to heaven He sent back this encouraging word to His church, through His servant John: "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. 22:14.