X SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISM REVIEWED

Those of you who were present last Lord’s day remember that I spoke on the topic “The Sabbath.” Since that time I have received several letters from people who were not able to be present, but who requested that I send them a copy of the lesson presented. I’m glad to announce that the sermon was recorded by dictaphone and will be ready for free distribution soon. I have also received many requests that I continue today along the same line that was begun last Lord’s day. To these requests I am conceding. It would be more pleasant to preach without naming the mistakes of others but, when the souls of men and women are involved, we cannot afford to shirk our duty.

I Review

The main points in the lesson last Lord’s day were as follows:

1. Bible history is divided into three periods: the Patriarchal Dispensation; the Mosaic Dispensation; and the Christian Dispensation.

2. There was no sabbath during the first period which lasted from Adam to Moses.

162

3. The sabbath commandment never applied to the Gentiles—not even during the Mosaic dispensation.

4. The sabbath commandment was confined to the law of Moses which was abolished when Christ died on the cross.

5. Christians are not required to rest on Saturday.

6. Christians are taught to worship on the first day of the week.

In the correspondence received since last Lord’s day there is no word of criticism or objection. I take the silence to mean that those who were present were convinced that what was said was based on Bible authority. I am determined that the same shall be true of what I say today. It is my prayerful purpose to preach nothing but what is plainly revealed in the Bible.

The ushers have given you a mimeographed copy of some of the main points to be discussed in today’s lesson. You may use these papers to make further notes, especially to take note of the Bible references used, that you may go home and read them for yourselves and see that what we say is true. The noble people of Berea searched the Scriptures daily to see whether they had heard the truth. If all people would do that, it would not be so easy for error to gain acceptance.

163

II “The Two Laws”

In my hand I hold a copy of one of the so-called Bible lessons distributed by the Seventh Day Adventists. The title of this pamphlet is “The Two Laws.” That title implies that God has never given but two laws. That is a mistake. God has given different laws to different people at different times, as the occasion and his eternal purpose required. His law to Adam before the fall was different from his law to Adam after the fall. His law to Cain was not the same as his law to Noah. His law to Abram was not identical with his law to the Jews. His law since Christ died on the cross is quite different from any law he gave before that time.

God does not change (Mal. 3:6) but he changes his laws according to his wisdom. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12). God has never had two different laws applying to the same people at the same time. “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second” (Heb. 10:9). The law given the Jews at Sinai was a unit. It was one law, not two laws.

In the lesson last Lord’s day such Scriptures as Romans 7:6; Hebrews 6:8-13; Hebrews 10:9; Colossians 2:13-16; and Galatians 3:17, 24, 25 were quoted to show that the law which God gave to the Jews through Moses at Mt. Sinai was fulfilled and taken out of the way when Christ died. The Seventh Day 164 Adventists admit that all of this law was taken out of the way except Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. They are thus committed to the fact that God sometimes changes his laws. When they teach that God abolished part of that law they admit that he could have abolished all of it; and that is exactly what he did. I want you to read those Scriptures and note that they speak of “the law,” not a “part of the law.” For instance, “But now we are delivered from the law (not ‘part of the law’) ...” (Rom. 7:6). “Wherefore the law (not ‘part of the law’) was our schoolmaster ... but that after faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal. 3:24-25).

Where is the Scripture that says that a part of that law was abolished? Every text which teaches that a part of it was taken away teaches that all of it was taken away and a new law, the law of Christ, was given, not to the Jews only but to the whole world.

III “Ceremonial” and “Moral” Laws

At this point I want to read to you the leading sentence in this Adventist pamphlet we are reviewing:

“The New Testament Scriptures clearly present two different divisions of the Old Testament laws: the moral law as summed up in the Ten Commandments, which is binding on Christians as a rule of life and conduct; the ceremonial law of typical ordinances, which was abolished at the cross and from which Christians are entirely free.”

I want you to carefully note what that quotation 165 says. It says that the New Testament Scriptures clearly present two laws in the Old Testament—the “moral law” and the “ceremonial law.” Now I want to ask you a simple question. How in this world could the New Testament Scriptures clearly present something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the Bible? Friends, think of it! “Moral” law and “ceremonial” law are not mentioned in your Bible. That is not Bible language. In order to prove the sabbath theory by the Bible it will be necessary to find each of these four texts:

1. The text which says that the “ceremonial” law was abolished.

2. The text which says that the “moral” law is still binding.

3. The text which says that Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 are the “moral law.”

4. The text which says that the rest of the law given through Moses is the “ceremonial” law.

How can such texts be found when you may search your Bible from the first word in Genesis to the last word in Revelation and you will find neither the word “moral” nor the word “ceremonial”? Those words are not in the Bible. I challenge the Sabbatarians to find either of them.

Even if the first two texts named above could be found, the Adventist theory would not be established unless the last two could also be found. In fact, it would be destroyed, for in the very nature of the case the sabbath commandment is a ceremonial one. 166 There is nothing moral about it. According to Webster (the Bible doesn’t mention the word) a moral commandment is one that’s based on common sense and on our natural knowledge of what rules should guide us in our relationships one to another. The sabbath commandment does not come in this class. There’s nothing moral about one day in the week any more than another. Nothing could distinguish one day from another, except a positive decree from God Almighty. In that case it would be ceremonial. If you were to sleep for an indefinite period, upon awaking you wouldn’t know the day of the week. You couldn’t tell Saturday from any other day to save your life. As far as our natural senses go, one day is just like another. There is no authority, Biblical or otherwise, for calling Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 the “moral law” and the rest of the Mosaic code the “ceremonial law.”

IV The Sinaitic Law a Unit

The Bible speaks of the law which God gave to the Jews in the wilderness in the singular, as one law, not two laws. Such expressions as “the book of the law of Moses,” “the law,” “the book of the law,” and “the law of God” are used interchangeably in the Bible to designate all of the Jewish law (See Nehemiah 8:1, 2, 3, 8). They are never used to distinguish one part of it from another part. “The law of Moses” and “the law of the Lord” are used interchangeably 167 in Luke 2:21-24. All of it is called “the law of God” because God was the author of all of it. It is called “the law of Moses” because it was all given through Moses as a mediator (Gal. 3:19; John 1:17; Deut. 5:5). It was all written by Moses (Exod. 31:24-27). Exodus 20:2-17 was originally written by the finger of God on tables of stone but those tables were destroyed (Exod. 32:19) and it was written the second time by Moses himself (Exod. 34:27, 28). The only thing we know about that law today is what Moses wrote in the first five books of the Bible. It was all given at the same time, through the same mediator, to the same people, by the same authority, for the same purpose, and was all taken “out of the way” at the cross (Col. 2:14-16).

In an effort to make it appear that God gave two laws (one “ceremonial,” the other “moral,” one eternal and the other temporal) to the Jews at Sinai, this pamphlet has arranged, in parallel columns. Scriptures that apparently do not apply to the same law. This is well designed to confuse or mislead the untaught; but, in fact, it proves absolutely nothing. The Bible speaks of many other laws in addition to the one God gave to the Jews in the wilderness. For instance, “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2); “the law of the Medes and Persians” (Dan. 6:8); “the law of my mind” and “the law of sin” (Rom. 7:23); “the law of works”; “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27); “the law of liberty” (Jas. 2:12); “the royal law” (Jas. 2:8); etc., etc. In addition to all this, there are the laws or commandments that God gave to Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, et al.

168

With the Bible speaking of so many different laws, it is not surprising that you can find references that apparently do not apply to the same law. It would be surprising if you couldn’t. In order to harmonize such texts it certainly is not necessary to apply them to two imaginary laws that are not even named in the word of God. The law of faith was established at the cross; the law God gave to the Jews was abolished at the cross (Eph. 2:10-22). The law of Christ is written on the hearts of Christians; the law of Moses was written, in part, on tablets of stone (Heb. 8:8-11). The author of the pamphlet places three references from Romans, chapter 7, in his “moral” column. Even if he were correct in doing this, his theory would still be ruined, for verse 6 of that same chapter says, “But now we have been discharged from the law ...” (ARV).

Some of the references placed in opposing columns by the author really apply to the same law, and present no conflict whatsoever. For instance, the law which God gave the Jews at Sinai was both established and abolished. It was first established and then abolished. It could not have been abolished if it had not first been established. It was established by the life of Christ; it was abolished by the death of Christ. Christ came not to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill (Matt. 5:17, 18). Jesus said “... all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled every prophecy concerning the Messiah in the law and 169 obeyed every commandment in the law. In that sense he established the law, and after having done so, he abolished it when he died upon the cross. Salvation through faith and obedience to Christ is in fulfillment of the prophecies found in the law of Moses. In that sense the law of faith establishes the law given to the Jews at Sinai and abolished by Christ when he was crucified (Col. 2:14-16).

Not a single text listed by the author in his parallel columns serves to establish the distinction for which he contends. If this is the best he can do in that respect, it only serves to advertise the weakness of his contention. Every text he cites refers either to the law God gave the Jews at Sinai and abolished at the cross, or to the law God gave to the world through Christ and which went into force when he died at Calvary. When this is so clearly the case, isn’t it strange that a preacher would try to make it appear that these Scriptures apply to two imaginary laws that are not even named in these texts or at any other place in the Bible?

Since the law given at Sinai was a unit, every Scripture which teaches that it was taken away at the cross, indeed teaches that it was taken away as a whole, in its entirety. Please listen again then to Ephesians 2:11-18: “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh ... ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel ... but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both 170 [Jew and Gentile] one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain [Jew and Gentile] one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby ... for through him we both [Jew and Gentile] have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”

The entire law of Moses, and especially the sabbath commandment (Ex. 31:16, 17), was the middle wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles. The Holy Spirit says in the text just quoted that it was broken down, abolished, at the cross. This text is a sample of the many additional texts that could be cited to show that the entire Sinaitic law was taken out of the way at the cross, but even one is enough to convince all who love the truth. In Colossians 3:13-16 the Holy Spirit clearly teaches that this law has been taken out of the way, and that, therefore, the Jews themselves are no longer required to keep the sabbaths of the Old Testament. Since the middle wall of partition has been broken down, there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ, but all are one—Christian.

V The Law of Christ

The fact that the law of Moses in its entirety, including even the Ten Commandments, has been 171 taken out of the way does not mean that Christians are without restraint, guidance and law. God hath “spoken unto us by his son” (Heb. 1:1-2). This word that God hath spoken unto us through Christ is called “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2) or the testament of Christ (Heb. 9:13-17). It is the law of love (Rom. 13:8-10). The law of Christ, which has been applicable to all the world since his death, contains several commandments that were never included in any other law given to man. For instance, the commandment to be baptized for remission of sins (Acts 2:38); the commandment to lay by in store on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1, 2); and the commandment to eat the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26; Acts 20:7).

The law of Moses forbade murder; the law of Christ forbids not only murder but even needless anger (Matt. 5:21-22). The law of Moses forbade adultery; the law of Christ forbids looking upon a woman to lust after her (Matt. 5:27, 28). The law of Moses forbade false swearing; the law of Christ forbids all swearing (Matt. 5:33-37). It was wrong for the Jews to work on Saturday, for the law of Moses forbade it (Deut. 5:12-15; Exod. 20:8-11). It is not wrong for a Christian to work on Saturday, for the law of Christ does not forbid it (Col. 2:16). The law of Moses did not require the Jews to engage in special worship on the first day of the week; the law of Christ does require Christians to do so (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 11:17-30; Acts 20:7; Heb. 10:24, 25). It is wrong for Christians to steal, kill, covet, etc., not 172 because Moses said so, but because the law of Christ says so (Rom. 3:8-10).

There was a time to hear Moses but that time has passed. On the mountain of transfiguration, a cloud overshadowed Moses and the voice of God said concerning Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; HEAR YE HIM” (Matt. 17:5). Christians should obey Christ, not Moses. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11, 12).

Friends, would you believe me if I were to tell you that the Seventh Day Adventists deny the existence of the word spoken through Christ? Well, just let me read it to you from the last section of the pamphlet under review.

“The abolition of the Ten Commandments would nullify the gospel of Christ, and render both grace and the atonement void. ‘Sin is not imputed when there is no law’ (Romans 5:13). Since ‘where no law is, there is no transgression’ (Romans 4:15), it follows that if the law [meaning the ten commandments] were abolished, there would be no transgression, and hence no need of a Saviour.”

I can’t believe the author meant to say that, but he said it. According to that, the “ten commandments” are the only commandments now in force. That quotation plainly says that if the “ten commandments” are not now in force there are no commandments 173 to disobey, no chance to sin, and no need of a Saviour. The author has flatly denied every commandment in the gospel. According to him, Christ gave no commandments and it is folly to talk about obeying the gospel (See 2 Thess. 1:8). If the author was aware of what he was saying, he has deliberately denied the word of Christ. If he said it inadvertently, it simply illustrates the absurdities and inconsistencies into which one falls when he undertakes to teach error.

VI Summary

Summarizing what was said last Lord’s day and what has been said today, I am earnestly requesting the Seventh Day Adventists to furnish the following Bible texts which are essential to the support of their theory:

1. The text that commanded any one to keep the sabbath during the period from Adam to Moses.

2. The text that commanded the Gentile nations to observe Saturday as a day of rest, even during the Mosaic dispensation.

3. The text in the new covenant, or will of Christ, that commands Christians to rest on Saturday.

4. The text which says that any one ever ate the Lord’s Supper on Saturday.

5. The text that even mentions either “moral law” or “ceremonial law.”

In the papers furnished you by the ushers you have a copy of this request for Scriptures. Just to show 174 you how earnest I am about this matter, I’m offering a reward of $100 to the finder of either of these texts. This offer is backed by my personal integrity and sufficient resources. I’m not making it to be dramatic, but to impress you with the fact that no such Scriptures are in the Bible. And yet, friends, these Scriptures are absolutely essential to the support of the sabbath theory. Without these texts, that theory has absolutely not one leg on which to stand. The absence of these Scriptures leaves that theory without any support whatsoever.

As further evidence of my sincerity, I want to make you a proposition. If there is anybody in this audience who believes he knows now where to find one of these texts, I’m giving you a chance to let it be known. I’ll turn to the reference you give, read the text you cite, and see whether it meets the demand. We will not have you arrested for disturbing public worship, or undertake to embarrass you in any way. If you will just raise your hand and let me know where you are, I’ll give you a chance to stand up and cite your Scripture. If any one here even thinks he knows where to find one of these texts, we are giving you permission to speak up now. (Pause. No response.) Well, even if you can’t find it now, maybe you believe you can when you get home. If so, just write to me. My address is on the paper you have. You may write to me in care of the Chapel Avenue Church of Christ, Nashville 6, Tenn. If you want to collect $500, just let me know where those five texts are. I’m simply saying this, friends, to 175 emphasize that the very texts essential to the sabbath theory are not in the Bible. Until the Lord gives us a new Bible, there is no danger of my having to put out any money on this offer.

Beloved, in closing I beseech you to hear Christ and obey his gospel. On the condition that you believe, repent, and be baptized, he promises you pardon. On the condition that you remain faithful to the end, he promises you everlasting life. His gospel has facts to be believed, commandments to be obeyed and promises to be enjoyed. While we stand and sing, we are urging you to come to him and let him save you.

176