The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

TWENTY-SECOND SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—The verse to which I called the attention of my opponent he has entirely overlooked. But I can easily forgive him for it, as well as for the frequent wrong construction he put upon my remarks and arguments. Now, I will read the verse following after, that you may all know what it is. This point is not new; it has been under investigation ever since the discussion of the sabbatic institution commenced. PSDS 83.3

My opponent says the negative here is between or in the places in which it was written, and not between that which was written. 2 Corinthians 3:3. He says the contrast is not between what is written here, but as to the place it was written. Hence we have the whole ten contrasted with what was written in the heart. Let us read it and see. [Reads.] Now, let me read the context following after. [Reads.] Now, we will read verse 9. Is the condemnation that is here referred to the condemnation of Moses’ countenance? Would that condemn a man? Is not the contrast between the two ministrations? PSDS 83.4

I would ask if the ten commandments may not be ministered as well as any of the other commandments. It was the ministration that was written upon stones, and the ministration was done away. Moses’ countenance and the ministration were not the same? If this is not a mere play upon words, I have never seen anything of the kind. Let me read on a little farther. Verses 9-11. I submit this to every intelligent grammarian here. Does the word that point out Moses’ face? What honest man will, for a single moment, contend that that refers to anything but the ministration of condemnation mentioned in v. 9? What is declared of that ministration? It is done away. PSDS 84.1

How long did Moses’ countenance continue to be veiled? Any longer than he? It is either a literal veiling of Moses’ countenance or it is a symbol of what was written on his hand when his face shone with such brilliancy. Exodus 34:29. Moses has been slumbering for 4000 years. Now, does this mean a veil that had dimmed or obscured the vision of the schoolmaster whose office was to lead them to Christ? No need of evasion here. We are answered, No. But the ministration written upon the stones he had in his hand when his face thus shone. Well, then, there are three laws. There is the law of faith. I don’t know but my opponent has three without that. The law written in the fleshly tables of the heart, and the law written on tables of stone. But what was written on the stones? Not death, but the ministration of death, was written on stones, and here it is declared to be done away. Look at Romans 7:1-4. Jesus Christ is here said in effect to supercede Moses. Deuteronomy 18:18. Moses was a lawgiver by Divine appointment. If a king appoints me to speak for him, I am his agent. Moses and Christ were the divinely appointed heads and lawgivers for the two dispensations. Verses 17, 18: “And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in His mouth, and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him.” Christ was God’s agent to speak the words that God commanded Him, and He spoke them in plain, explicit terms not easily misunderstood, so that all men might be held responsible. Matthew 3:17: “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son; in whom I am well pleased.” My friend will say amen to this, no doubt. But hear the voice of the Father once more. Matthew 17:5. “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him.” The Son being about to ascend to heaven, all power in heaven and earth is given to him. Certainly no more power would be necessary. Matthew 28:19, 20. “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Jesus taught them commandments that they were to proclaim to the world, after the old commandments had fulfilled their mission and been done away. Obedience to Christ’s commandments are presented as the highest development of Christian character. John 14:15, 21: “Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you. But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not Him that sent me.” In the first quotation, obedience to the commandments of Christ is the evidence of our loving Him. In the second, such obedience will secure the love of the Father and the Son. Surely, nothing less than perfect obedience will secure such glorious privileges. Verse 23: “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me and keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him.” The Father and Son will love and dwell with all who obey the words of Christ. By obedience to Christ’s commandments we evidence our fidelity to Him, as He does to the Father by obedience to His. And are recognized as His friends. John 15:10, 14. PSDS 84.2

I wish also to show you Jesus Christ as having supreme power and position in the church. Ephesians 1:22-24. From this you see that it is God’s plan to have but one head upon one body. Jesus Christ is to be the head of the church in all things. Next notice Ephesians 5:22-32. Now, I ask, do not these testimonies give Christ the supreme position in the church? Now turn to Romans. My opponent seems to think that sin cannot exist but by virtue of the violation of the ten commandments. All unbelief is sin, (John 16:9,) being a violation of the law of faith. Romans 3:27. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23. Is it not sin to violate the law of Christ—of faith—“the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus”—the commandments to believe the Gospel, to repent, to be baptised, to pray, etc.? But he has at last admitted that there are three laws. I wonder if he won’t next admit that it is sin to violate each of them? But has he proved the ten commandments to be one of these three laws? Until he does this, Paul’s letter to Romans will be of no use to his cause. But since my opponent is so fond of reading in the ten commandments, I will accommodate him. Now, if Paul is speaking of the ten commandments when he refers to the law, it will not change his meaning to read in ten commandments instead of law. Try chapter 3:21, 22: “But now the righteousness of God without the ten commandments is manifested,” etc. In this quotation, “the law” is neither the standard of righteous nor justification, but faith in Jesus Christ. But we are “no law folks.” Let us see. Where is boasting then? (My opponent would answer by the law of the ten commandments.) It is excluded. By what law? of work? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds (i.e. doing) (the ten commandments) of the law. Their faith supersedes the law. Paul evidently refers to the same law. Chap. 8:2. “For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law (i.e., ten commandments) of sin and death.” Also, Galatians 6:2: “Bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ.” Hence we are not dependent upon the ten commandments for a law, notwithstanding we have in the law of Christ nine of them and the two first and great precepts which no man can keep and wrong God or his neighbor. We have other moral precepts also far superior to anything contained in the ten commandments. Here is one which I would cite you. Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12. Not a single duty, or moral principle, growing out of our relations to our fellow man, in the law or prophets, in which this great unit precept does not make known our whole duty. But my opponent’s appeal to Romans can avail his sinking cause nothing. By reference to Romans 7:2, 3, it will be seen that the husband is the lawgiver, and that with him his (the law of which Paul speaks) dies. “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. * * * But if the husband be dead, she is free from that (i.e., the law of her husband) law.” Moses, the first husband, had legally died, as the head of the Jewish Church, (Hebrews 3:2,) and with him had died the obligation of his law, so that the church was no adulteress, though it had married Him who was raised from the dead. Verse 4th. “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead”—that is, Christ. That Christ superseded Moses, and is the husband, head and lawgiver for the Church, his bride, will be seen by reference to Ephesians 1:21, 22, v. 22, 23, 32: “Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come: and hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head overall things to the church.” “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” That the law of which Paul speaks in Romans died, will be seen by reference to 7:6: “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” PSDS 85.1