Earlier text: Letters to Cardinal McCloskyThe Day of the Sabbath.
By Editor
IN connection with the time of the Sabbath it is not out of place to make some remarks upon the day of the Sabbath. It is a subject so plain that no one who professes reverence for God's commandments ought to permit himself to entertain a doubt in regard to it. Yet their "name is legion" who make this an excuse for turning away from God's law as an instrument which they cannot understand. B. F. Roberts is one of the leaders of the "perfectionists" of this day. He is editor of the Earnest Christian. In regard to keeping the Sabbath he wrote thus:— "To keep the seventh day of the week in regular succession, I must know, wherever I am, when it comes. How am I to know? I have studied as much as Christians generally, but I should be very unwilling to have my salvation depend upon my knowing that the day of the week we call Saturday, is the seventh day in regular descent from creation or from the days of our Saviour. If this is a fact, I cannot prove it to be such. I do not know, I cannot know." It is not usual that we see a person who claims a large share of intelligence, culture, and piety, so nearly base his chance of salvation on his ignorance, nor rest so complacently in his ignorance. What has he studied so much that he yet does not know anything about it? He may have studied to evade the responsibility; but he has not studied much in regard to the facts in the case, if he can honestly say, "I cannot know." Let us examine his statement. He has divided his negation into two branches: (1) That he cannot know that the day now called Saturday is the seventh day in regular succession from creation. (2) That he cannot know it was known as the seventh day in the days of our Saviour. He may indeed be ignorant on both these, but if so it is an impeachment of his veracity when he says he has studied much on the subject. For one can possibly study much and be ignorant of the truth, so easily learned. He may possibly hide behind the vague expression—"I have studied as much as Christians generally." If so, "Christians generally" are not complimented by the expression. 1. That the day we call Saturday is the true seventh day from creation is easily drawn from the statements of the Scriptures and well-known facts relating thereto. Let us divide the history of the world into three periods: the first, from creation to Moses; the second, from Moses to Christ; the third, from Christ to the present time. The day was neither lost nor changed during the first great period, for the seventh day was well known at the very close of the period. In Ex. 16, we learn that the Jews were not permitted to gather manna on the seventh day, and in Ex. 20, where Jehovah spake to them with his own voice, this seventh day was shown to be the identical seventh day on which God rested when he made the worlds, and which he set apart at the time of creation to a holy use. And it was impossible that there should be any mistake in the day, as it was identified by constantly recurring miracles for the space of forty years. This point is settled positively. The second, from Moses to Christ, is settled in the same manner. In the days of our Saviour "the Sabbath" was well known—it had never been lost. And here again the day was identified. Luke records that it was the day of the commandment, referring to the fourth commandment which enjoins the observance of the Creator's rest day. And all the evangelists prove that it was the true seventh day,—the last day of the week,—because they place the first day of the week immediately after it, without any day intervening. This is equally positive. The third, from Christ to our day, has not the same kind of testimony in regard to it, because the Scriptures close their account early in this period. But we are not left to conjecture here. The Jews, to whom the day was committed in the moral code proclaimed to them, did not lose the day in all their dispersions during the centuries between Moses and Christ, nor have they lost it yet. Much of the time since the advent of the Saviour there have been three days, rivals to each other, the Mahomedan Friday, the Lord's Sabbath, and the Roman Sunday, acting as a check upon each other to guard against a change, were it necessary. But no check was ever necessary. It is beyond our power to conceive how the counting of the days of the week should be universally lost, and nobody know it. The order of the days changed universally, without universal consent, and yet after the change was made, all the nations and all the individuals of all the nations were found in perfect agreement, all unconscious that there had been a disarrangement of the days of the week! That is to suppose that the Jews lost the seventh day, and skipped over on to some other day, and did not know it. The Romans lost the venerable day of the sun, the first day of the week, and adopted some other day without any knowledge of the change; and, strange to say, their change agreed exactly with that made by the Jews. Millions of others, who were well acquainted with the order of the days of the week, but were not particularly interested in the observance of either these two days, also suffered the same loss, at the same time, and were also ignorant of the fact. The Mahomedans, or the people who afterward became followers of the prophet, as the case may be, lost the sixth day in like manner, and at the same time, and adopted another day in its stead, neither did they know that any change had taken place. These several losses and changes must have been of the same amount of time, in the same direction, and at the same time; otherwise one party would have checked the error of the other. Furthermore, all navigators on the seas must at that time have lost their reckoning, and made a mistake in the keeping of their "logs," and all made the same mistake, and their mistake is found to agree perfectly with that made on land. And nobody knows how it was made, when it was made, or to what extent it was made. And "Rev. B. F. Roberts" has studied as much as Christians generally, and does not know, "and cannot know" but all this has actually taken place! Does anybody wonder that the "theology" of the day is looked upon with contempt by thousands of intelligent, thinking people, seeing that it leads men who are possessed by nature with fair reasoning powers to adopt such vagaries.115 2. But with the second branch of Mr. Roberts' negation of knowledge we have a still more certain test to apply. We say then, that if he does not know that we have the same order of the days of the week that was in use in the days of the Saviour, or if he honestly believes that he cannot know this, he is not only ready to adopt all the absurdities above supposed, but he is ignorant of some of the most commonly-known facts of science. We have on record accounts of certain eclipses which occurred on certain days of the week according to the order of the days in use before and at the time of the Saviour. Astronomers at the present time calculate those eclipses and find that they did take place exactly at the time recorded, according to the reckoning of the days of the week now in use. Thus it is demonstrated that the present reckoning is the same that was in use at the time when these eclipses occurred; and that what is now called Saturday—the seventh day of the current week—is identical with the Sabbath—the seventh day of the week—in the days of the Saviour. But "Rev. B. F. Roberts" does not know—he cannot know! We dare not deny his word in regard to his own lack or ability, but if we give him credit for telling the truth we must be allowed to draw our own conclusions in regard to the extent of his ability. And the wonder has not yet ceased. Mr. Roberts, and with him many advocates of the observance of "the venerable day of the sun," after adopting all the absurdities involved in the idea of a loss and change of the order of the days of the week, and confessing his entire ignorance of well-established facts, demonstrated by the science of astronomy, and knowing that he does not know which is the seventh day of the week, urges with a zeal well becoming the importance of the subject, that men ought to keep the Sunday because it is the identical day—the first day of the week—upon which Christ arose from the dead; that it has been kept in honor of that event without any interruption or cessation from the days of Christ till the present time, and therefore no change of that day was possible. Of this, in his mind, there is no room for doubt. He knows to a certainty which is the first day of the present week; but, alas and alas, he does not know—he cannot know—which is the seventh day of the same week! How much more easy it would be to identify the day in God's commandment if he had only commanded the first day instead of the seventh day! Read Rom. 8:7. We say of this subject as we said of the cavil in regard to "the same identical time." It would not be worth while to notice such puerilities if they were not advanced by men to whom people look for information, and who are credited with the necessary qualifications of religious teachers. God pity the blind who are led by such blind leaders. The Two Covenants.
By John Nevins Andrews
NEXT, the Lord proceeds to the final contract between himself and the people. In the preliminary contract, recorded in Ex. 19, the people had solemnly pledged themselves to obey the voice of God. In Ex. 20, they heard that voice in ten precepts. And now it is worthy of notice how careful was the Most High, in this work of entering into covenant with his people, to take no advantage of them. Before hearing his voice, they had pledged themselves to obey it. But the Lord did not treat the contract as closed yet. With an invitation to a large number of persons to come up to him, he sends Moses again to the people. Ex. 24:1, 2. They had heard the voice of God. Do they still stand to their solemn pledge that they would obey it? Lest they had forgotten something of that which God had spoken, and that they might be informed of all that God had communicated to him in the mount, it is next added:— "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments." Ex. 24:3. The people have the chance now to refuse to close this most solemn compact if they see cause for so doing. They might have said, "When we agreed to obey the voice of God, we had not heard it. Now that we have heard it, we cannot abide by our promise." And Moses, by repeating every word again, gave them the most perfect opportunity for so doing. But, observe the answer of the people:— "And all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said we will do." Ex. 24:3. We might suppose that this would close the contract between the parties. But not so. Further acts of ratification were to take place. The whole thing must be put in writing. And thus we read:— "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord." And now the solemnity of a sacrifice to God must take place. So it is added that Moses "rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord." Verses 4, 5. The sacrifice of these victims having been thus made to God by the people, the blood itself is carefully secured for an important purpose. And so the record adds:— "And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar." Verse 6. One half of the blood was offered upon the altar, a direct offering to God. The other half was reserved for another and most expressive solemnity. We learn from verse 4 that Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. Now verse 7 tells us what he did with what was written. What Moses now reads is called the book of the covenant. For it contained the covenant between God and the people as far as, at that point, it had been consummated. And observe again the care of the Almighty that the people should understand every word of that to which they agree. Moses reads every word of the whole transaction in the audience of the people. Thus verse 7 states the case:— "And he took the BOOK OF THE COVENANT; and read in the audience of the people." Here is yet another opportunity for them to say that they could not abide by their first promise. But instead of speaking thus, they give their final and unreserved assent to this solemn compact. And thus the verse continues: "And they said, All that the Lord hath said we will do, and be obedient." This closed the contract on the part of the people. But there yet remained a most expressive act on the part of Moses, and a final, solemn announcement to be made by him, which not only proclaimed the accomplishment of the work, but gave a definite idea of what had been done. And so we next read:— "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people." Or, as Paul states the case, he "sprinkled both the book and all the people." Verse 8; Heb. 9:19. One-half of the blood had been already offered to God upon the altar, the remaining half is that which Moses thus uses. And how solemn and expressive is this act! It is what Paul calls the dedication of the covenant. Heb. 9:18. He sprinkles both the book and all the people. And thus they enter, in the most solemn manner, into the bond of the covenant. And thus the solemn espousal of the people by the Lord of hosts having been consummated, Moses announces the result in words which define the contract with remarkable precision. Having sprinkled the book, and the people, Moses said to them:— "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you CONCERNING ALL THESE WORDS." We have now the first covenant, complete and entire. And certainly it is possible for us to determine what constitutes it. We say that the first covenant, this solemn contract, or agreement, between God and the people of Israel concerning the law of God. Our opponents, on the contrary, affirm that the first covenant was simply the law itself. According to the first view, the first covenant was the contract made at Sinai between God and Israel concerning the law of God, or ten commandments, obedience to that law constituting the condition of the covenant. According to the second view, the first covenant was simply the ten commandments. The first view is the more comprehensive, as it presents the two leading definitions of the word covenant, and answers to them both. 1. It presents as the covenant the contract between the parties. 2. It presents the condition to the contract. But the second view presents as the first covenant that which answers to the definition of covenant only in its secondary sense; viz., the condition on which the contract rests. Undoubtedly the word covenant is thus used in the Bible. And for that reason many persons suppose that the ten commandments answer to, and constitute, the first covenant of which Jeremiah and Paul speak. That view of this subject which is really the truth will give to every part of the testimony its proper place, and will then show a divine harmony of the whole. But error must of necessity suppress, or pervert, the truth. Here are the more important passages quoted to prove that the ten commandments constitute the first covenant:— Ex. 34:28: "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."
Deut. 4:13: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."
Deut. 9:9-11: "When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water; and the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant."
1 Kings 8:21: "And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt."
2 Chron. 6:11: "And in it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, that he made with the children of Israel." These are the texts relied upon by our opponents to disprove our views of the first covenant and to establish their own. We freely admit that the word covenant is applied to the ten commandments; and further, we also admit, or, to speak more properly, we maintain that the ten commandments do sustain a very important relation to the first covenant. But all parties must agree,
1. That the ten commandments are not a covenant in the sense of being a contract or agreement, as they contain no such thing.
2. That they are a covenant in the sense of being the conditions of the agreement which God made with Israel. It does not seem that either of these two propositions can be denied by any candid man, as they are, manifestly, the exact truth. Both parties to this controversy must here come together upon common ground. And if they each act with a pure conscience, it will be difficult for them to disagree respecting the following proposition:— THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE COVENANT OF EX. 24:8. The text reads thus: "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you CONCERNING ALL THESE WORDS." Two palpable reasons sustain, the foregoing proposition: 1. The covenant made with Israel "concerning all these words," was the agreement which the people entered into with the Almighty, as recorded in Ex. 19 and 24, that they would keep the words spoken by him. 2. The ten commandments were the words concerning which this covenant or agreement was made. These reasons are not likely to be disputed. They establish the fact, therefore, that the covenant which was ratified or dedicated with blood by Moses was not the ten commandments. On the contrary, it is a covenant in a more extensive sense than they can be. It is an agreement between God and Israel concerning his law, and that law is elsewhere called the covenant, not because there is in it a contract between God and his people, but simply because it is the grand condition of the contract, or covenant, which Moses here dedicates with blood. It is remarkable that the people entered into formal and solemn contract to obey the voice of God before they heard it, and that having heard his voice they ratified that contract in the most solemn manner; and that to conclude all, Moses, having written the whole thing in a book, sprinkled both it and all the people, saying, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." Ex. 24:8. Both parties to the controversy respecting the first covenant will here again certainly unite in saying that Moses uses the word covenant in this remarkable text, not as signifying the ten commandments, but the agreement made respecting them. Here we stand on solid ground, and our opponents will not attempt to drive us hence. And now that we are so happily agreed in this fact, let us advance to the important truth which lies directly before us. Here it is:— The contract made in Ex. 19 and 24, relative to the ten commandments, which Moses (Ex. 24:8) calls "the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words," is the identical first covenant concerning which we are involved in controversy. This proposition, our opponents stoutly deny. But so certainly as they are honest men (and we are ready to award this noble quality to every one of them who has not given palpable proof that he does not possess it), they will be constrained to agree with us here also. Providentially, we have the testimony of the New Testament in so explicit and distinct an utterance as to leave no chance for dispute on this point. Paul quotes this very record in Ex. 24:8, respecting the dedication of the covenant concerning the law of God, and makes the explicit statement that this covenant thus dedicated was the first covenant. Here are his words:—
"Whereupon neither the FIRST TESTAMENT [covenant] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the116 law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament [covenant] which God hath enjoined unto you." Heb. 9:18-20. Here, also, we have a right to ask our opponents to agree with us. In fact, the testimony is so explicit that there is no chance for them to do otherwise. Paul settles this point in dispute, and shows that the first covenant is not the law of God, but the solemn contract between God and Israel respecting that law. And that which makes Paul's testimony in this case very valuable is, that he writes as a commentator upon those words of Jeremiah which constitute the theme of this discourse. Thoughts on the Twelfth Chapter of Hebrews.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied, and faint in your minds." The apostle has given an exhortation based upon the trials and victories of the men of old, and now he directs us to Him who is our pattern. This is the same as in the preceding verse, where we are exhorted to look steadfastly on Jesus. From these two verses we learn that we are to ever keep in mind Christ's sufferings, the "contradiction of sinners." No one else ever suffered as he did; all the trials of the ancient worthies cannot compare with the sufferings of our Lord. But how will it benefit us to consider these things? In many ways. First, we must remember that it was as a man that Christ endured the temptations of Satan, and the mockings and persecutions of his enemies. He took upon himself "the form of a servant;" in all things he was "made like unto his brethren." He came to show that it is possible for man to resist temptation, and to overcome. In his own strength? No; Christ was in constant communion with the Father, and was given strength from Heaven. But he exercised no greater privilege than we are permitted to enjoy. We may have constant communion with Heaven. The reason why Christ was made like us was that he might sympathize with us in our temptations; "that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest." "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." Heb. 2:18. Here we have the assurance that he understands our case, and knows how to give the needed help. "All power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth." Matt. 28:18. By this we know that he is abundantly able to help those who are in trouble; the same help which he himself received when he was subject to temptation, he is able to give to feeble mortals. See also Heb. 7:25, etc. "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matt. 11:28. Here he invites us to come and get the benefit of that strength which he has received on our account. The burden from which he wishes to relieve us is the burden of sin; it is the "weight" which Paul exhorts us to lay aside in order that we may successfully run the race. Besides the assurance that Christ's example gives us that we may overcome, a contemplation of what he endured, of the sacrifice that he made for us, will tend to make us more content with our lot. Compared with his sufferings, all that we may be called upon to undergo is nothing. When we complain of the hardness of the way, and murmur at trials and crosses, is it not because we have not been thinking upon "Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself"? "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." The commonly accepted idea of this is, that those to whom the apostle is speaking have not endured such persecutions for their faith as did the martyrs; but it seems that there is a deeper meaning than this; that the apostle refers to Christ himself. I can do no better on this point than to quote the following from Barnes:— "I find in none of the commentators what seems to me to be the true sense of this passage, and what gives an exquisite beauty to it—the allusion to the sufferings of the Saviour in the garden. The reasons which lead me to believe that there is such an allusion are briefly these: 1. The connection. The apostle is appealing to the example of the Saviour, and urging Christians to persevere amidst their trials by looking to him. Nothing would be more natural, in this connection, than to refer to that dark night when in the severest conflict with temptation which he ever encountered, he so signally showed his own firmness of purpose, and the effect of resistance on his own bleeding body, and his signal victory, in the garden of Gethsemane. 2. The expression, ‘striving against sin,’ seems to demand the same interpretation. On the common interpretation, the allusion would be merely to their resisting persecution; but here the allusion is to some struggle in their minds against committing sin. The apostle exhorts them to strive manfully and perseveringly against sin in every form, and especially against the sin of apostasy. To encourage them, he refers to the highest instance on record where there was a ‘striving against sin’—the struggle of the Redeemer in the garden with the great enemy, who there made his most violent assault, and where the resistance of the Redeemer was so great as to force the blood through his pores." Compared with this mighty struggle of our Saviour, how feeble are our efforts to resist the temptations that beset us. And it is evident that we are expected not to give up without making such a struggle, if it be necessary in order to gain the victory. If it were not so, the case would not have been brought forward as an example. Who, then, has any business to be discouraged? "But," you say, "I am too great a sinner; I have tried and failed so many times." That is not to the point. Christ died to save sinners. The Bible was written for the benefit of sinners; and all the promises which it contains are for the encouragement of sinners. All that is asked of you is to strive to sin no more, implicitly accepting the strength which Christ is able and anxious to bestow. Cannot overcome! The path too narrow! The temptations and natural inclinations too strong! How do you know this? You have not yet "resisted unto blood, striving against sin." You have not fully tested the matter. You have no right to say that you cannot overcome until you have put forth as great efforts as did the Saviour; and if you thus resist you cannot fail, for "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." "And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." The comment of Barnes on this text is excellent, and I quote it:— "The word here rendered ‘chastening’—παιδεία—and in verses 6, 7, 8, and the word which occurs in verse 9, and rendered ‘corrected’—παιδευτάς—does not refer to affliction in general, but to that kind of affliction which is designed to correct us for our faults, or which is of the nature of discipline. The verb properly relates to the training of a child—including instruction, counsel, discipline, and correction (see the use of the verb in Acts 7:22; 2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 2:12), and then especially discipline or correction for faults—to correct, chastize, chasten. 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; Rev. 3:19. This is the meaning here; and the idea is not that God will afflict his people in general, but that if they wander away he will correct them for their faults. He will bring calamity upon them as a punishment for their offenses, and in order to bring them back to himself. He will not suffer them to wander away unrebuked and unchecked, but will mercifully reclaim them, though by great sufferings. Afflictions have many objects, and produce many happy effects. That referred to here is, that they are means of reclaiming the wandering and erring children of God, and are proofs of his paternal care and love." It should be borne in mind, however, that God uses human instruments to perform his work. Men are employed to preach the everlasting gospel, and to direct affairs connected with the church of God. If God chooses men to do his work, then he speaks through them, and these persons stand, as it were, in the place of God; they are his representatives. To rebel against their counsel or reproof, is to rebel against God. We see this illustrated in the case of Moses and the children of Israel. But there are many who do not look at the matter in this light. If they are reproved, they make it a personal matter, and regard the reproof as persecution. Too many regard the church as a place of enjoyment simply, and the service of God as a continual holiday. They mistake self-enjoyment for the enjoyment of religion, and think that they are enjoying much of the Spirit of God, because nothing happens to mar their complacency. As soon as something occurs, of a nature to rouse them to a sense of responsibility, they are sure that something is wrong, and equally sure the fault is not with themselves. An instance of this spirit came under our observation some time ago. A member of the United Brethren Church was questioned rather closely by his pastor, as to his faithfulness in the performance of certain duties. The implied rebuke was not exactly well-timed, but it was well-deserved. But the self-righteous brother did not take it kindly. In conversation with a friend soon afterwards, he expressed his determination to leave the church to which he belonged, and join the Methodists. Said he, "I want to go where I can feel at home and enjoy myself. I have not had real enjoyment since I belonged to this church." We thought that his estimate of the Methodist Church was anything but complimentary. If a person's sole object is to enjoy himself, why not leave the church altogether? If this state of feeling constitutes religion, then the unthinking devotees of fashion and vice are truly pious. The devil does not trouble his servants; he is pleased to have them enjoy themselves. Not so the Lord. "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth." If we have wandered from the narrow path (and who is not in danger of stumbling?), we should rejoice that God does not leave us alone. It is an evidence that he loves us; that he has not cast us off as worthless branches. Is it wise to spurn the very proofs which God gives us of his love? No; rather let the language of Paul be ours: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us."
E. J. W.