Excerpt
Continued….
If it be yet claimed that the law of God is
abolished, we would say, there can be but two reasons urged why it should be
abolished.
1. Because
it was faulty in itself, and not worthy of being perpetuated. But this is a
grave reflection on the wisdom of the Lawgiver; for if that law were not
perfect, then he gave only a faulty law, not worthy of the respect of his
creatures. This is, in effect, the position which some take. But we wonder they
are not shocked at their own irreverence. And this reason also contradicts all
the scriptures which have been quoted which speak of the law as holy, just,
good, perfect,
- 59 - J.
H. Waggoner
spiritual,
and containing the whole duty of man.
2. It may
be urged that the circumstances of the transgressors made it necessary. On this
we refer to the remarks before, made on the conditions of pardon. It is
certainly not consistent with good government, with justice, to abolish a
perfect, holy law because rebellious men have violated it. Nor can even that
necessity be urged, since a system of pardon has been instituted which is
sufficient to fully meet the wants of the transgressor. But in harmony with
every principle of justice and right, it avails only for those who penitently
turn away from their transgressions.
As this
law is holy, just, good, and perfect, it must be so in all its parts. No one
part of a holy law can be impure, or, of a perfect law be imperfect. But the
man of sin, the papal power, despite its professions, has sought to corrupt and
pervert or change the holy covenant. Dan. 7:25, To establish the worship of
images, it has decided that the second commandment is ceremonial, and therefore
not proper to be associated with moral laws. To introduce a festival day, the
Roman Sun-day, it has decided that the fourth commandment is ceremonial, so far
as it relates to the observance of a particular day, notwithstanding God
blessed and sanctified the particular day on which he rested, to wit: the
seventh day.
3 None can
deny that the Sabbath was instituted or made at creation; for then God rested
on the seventh day. This day was not, therefore, a Jewish Sabbath, as it is so
much claimed, but the Sabbath (rest) of the Lord, as the Bible always
represents it to be. Space will not here admit of an argument on this point of
the law, but we will notice two prominent objections urged against it, namely,
that its observance was not required from the date of its institution; and that
it is not moral as the other parts of the decalogue.
The
Atonement - 60
((FOOTNOTE
INTERJECTION HERE)) 3. Alexander Campbell, in his debate with Bishop Purcell,
charges upon the Catholic Church, that it has made a change in the ten
commandments, which, he says, are “a synopsis of all religion and morality.”
This declaration, warranted by the Scriptures, places those who teach the
abolition of the ten commandments, or any one of them, in a very unenviable
position. ((END FOOTNOTE))
In regard
to the first, the Saviour says it “was made for man;” and we well know in what
period of man’s history it was made. The following remarks seem decisive on
this point:— “The Hebrew verb kadash, here rendered sanctified, and in the
fourth commandment rendered hallowed, is defined by Gesenius, ‘to pronounce
holy, to sanctify; to institute an holy thing, to appoint.’ It is repeatedly
used in the Old Testament for a public appointment or proclamation. Thus when
the cities of refuge were set apart in Israel, it is written: ‘They appointed
[margin, Heb. sanctified] Kadesh in Galilee in Mount Naphtali, and Shechem in
Mount Ephraim,’ etc. This sanctification or appointment of the cities of
refuge, was by a public announcement to Israel that these cities were set apart
for that purpose. This verb is also used for the appointment of a public fast,
and for the gathering of a solemn assembly. Thus it is written: ‘Sanctify [i.
e., appoint] ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants
of the land into the house of the Lord your God.’ ‘Blow ye the trumpet in Zion,
sanctify [i. e., appoint] a fast, call a solemn assembly.’ ‘And Jehu said,
Proclaim [margin, Heb. sanctify] a solemn assembly for Baal.’ Josh. 20:7; Joel
1:14; 2:15; 2 Kings 10:20, 21; Zeph. 1:7, margin. This appointment for Baal was
so public that all the worshipers of Baal in all Israel were gathered together.
These fasts and solemn assemblies were sanctified or set apart by a public
appointment or proclamation of the fact. When, therefore, God set apart the
seventh day to a holy use, it was necessary he should state that fact to those
who had the days of the week to use. Without such announcement, the day could
not be set apart from the others. “But the most striking illustration of the
meaning of this word may be found in the record of the sanctification of Mount
Sinai. Ex. 19:12, 23. When God was about to speak the ten commandments in the
hearing of all Israel, he sent Moses down from the top of Mount Sinai to
restrain the people from touching the mount. ‘And Moses said unto the Lord, The
people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds
about the mount and sanctify it.’ Turning back to the verse where God gave this
charge to Moses, we read: ‘And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round
about,
- 61 - J.
H. Waggoner
saying,
Take heed to yourselves that ye go not up into the mount or touch the border of
it.’ Hence, to sanctify the mount was to command the people not to touch even
the border of it, for God was about to descend in majesty upon it. In other
words, to sanctify or set apart to a holy use Mount Sinai, was to tell the
people that God would have them treat the mountain as sacred to himself; and
thus also to sanctify the rest-day of the Lord was to tell Adam that he should
treat the day as holy to the Lord.
“The
declaration, ‘God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,’ is not indeed a
commandment for the observance of that day; but it is the record that such a
precept was given to Adam. For how could the Creator ‘set apart to a holy use’
the day of his rest, when those who were to use the day know nothing of his
will in the case?
Let those
answer who are able.”—J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath, pp. 16-18.
In regard
to the morality of this commandment, we may compare it with any of the others,
assured that it will be sustained by any argument that will prove their
morality. Take the eighth for example. No one can be proved guilty by merely
proving that he took and used a certain piece of property; beyond this it must
be proved that the property was another’s, to which he had no right. Thus this
commandment rests upon the right of property; and if this were not recognized,
it would be a nullity. But surely no one can prove a clearer right, or put
forth a more positive claim to any property, than has the Lord to the seventh
day. Many times in his immutable word has he told us it is his; that he has
hallowed it; and he warns us against desecrating it, or appropriating it to our
own use. If it be an immorality to take without license what our neighbor
claims as his, how much more so to take against God’s positive prohibition what
he claims as his own. A little reflection or examination will be sufficient to
convince every one that the position here taken in reference to the maintenance
and perpetuity of the law of God is in strict harmony with the immutable
principles of justice and good government. While every argument presented in
favor of its abolition, is contrary to those principles, and subversive of
government. No one who has
The
Atonement - 62
regard for
the honor of God and for the integrity of his Government, should hesitate for a
moment to decide where the truth lies on this important subject.
(To be
continued)
(Excerpt
from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:
THE
ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE
(1884)
BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER
No comments:
Post a Comment