The Signs of the Times, vol. 15

December 30, 1889

“Sunday Laws and Church and State” The Signs of the Times, 15, 50.

E. J. Waggoner

A gentleman in Iowa Falls, Iowa, sends us the following kind and candid letter, to which we take pleasure in replying. The question upon which it touches is a live one at the present time, and the SIGNS OF THE TIMES designs to give the different phases of it quite full discussion in future numbers:- SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.83

“EDITOR SIGNS OF THE TIMES-Dear Sir and Brother: Some kind friend has mailed to me several copies of your excellent paper, and I have carefully perused every number. I am much pleased with its vigorous and brainy articles, which flash at me from its columns, and, being an old editor, I admire the make-up and press-work of the paper. SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.84

“I notice that you are especially antagonistic to the proposed ‘Sunday laws,’ and that you fear a union of Church and State is foreshadowed by the passage of such laws. I had not thought much about this feature of the matter, and while I am in the ‘formative’ state of mind regarding it, I wish to be enlightened on a few points, if you deem them to be of sufficient force to need replies. SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.85

“In the first place, are not all human laws based on the divine law? Second, does not every law passed by men seek to enforce a law that has been proclaimed by God to man; for instance- SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.86

“We have on our statute-book a law against larceny, being a reflection of the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ We have a law against perjury, which is a reflection of the law, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness,’ etc. We have a law against the violation of marriage vows, being a reflection of the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ We have laws compelling children to obey and to provide for if necessary; their parents, being a reflection of the commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,’ etc. We might go on and illustrate further, showing that God’s laws as given to us in the Book are but the patterns from which we copy our human laws for the government of man. Now is there any commandment that is above this. ‘Thou shalt keep the Sabbath-day holy,’ so far as its effect on man’s physical, mental, and moral being is concerned? Is it not absolutely certain that Sabbath desecration means decay of men, families, communities, and nations? Is not the observance of the Sabbath a necessity, vitally so, of man’s moral life? SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.87

“If this is true, then would it be any more a step towards the union of Church and State to copy this commandment of God into our human statutes and enforce it, than it is to copy other commandments and enforce them? SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.88

“Here is where I want light. I am with you entirely on the question of a union of Church and State in America, but I am intensely in favor of a union of God and State. I am not for creeds, but I am for the Bible, and I hold that this government owes all its grandeur to the God of the Bible, and that our human laws should aim to produce in the citizens of this country obedience to the laws of God.” SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.89

Inasmuch as we can scarcely make a beginning to canvass the whole field in this article, we will confine our reply solely to the points noted in the letter. Fortunately, these touch the very heart of the matter. SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.90

In the first place, to the question, “Are not all human laws based on the divine law?” we must answer, No. And why not?-Because the divine law is entirely beyond the scope of human laws. The idea that human laws are based upon, and are an enforcement of, the divine law, is an outgrowth of a misconception of the true nature of the moral law. SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.91

We take it for granted that our brother accepts the statement that the moral law is summarily contained in the ten commandments. The Decalogue comprehends all human duty, being an expression of the will of God, a transcript of his character. These propositions may be clearly proved by Scripture, but it is probably not necessary to take the space to do it here. SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.92

Now the inspired apostle, speaking of this same Decalogue, says, “The law is spiritual.” Romans 7:14. Comparatively few give enough thought to the law of God to consider the full force of this. It means that nothing that is not spiritual is obedience to the divine law. it means that mere outward physical conformity to the precepts of the Decalogue, has really nothing to do with the law. This is shown by our Saviour in his sermon on the mount. In that he said: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” Matthew 5:21, 22. Through the apostle John he also said, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” 1 John 3:15. What do we learn from this? Is it that Christ has given us rules of life that are higher than the ten commandments?-Not at all. We learn that the sixth commandment means more than that a man should not take his neighbor’s life with knife or pistol. We learn that when from the fire and smoke of Sinai God thundered the words, “Thou shalt not kill,” he meant that we should not indulge a thought that if allowed to fully develop would result in murder. The sixth commandment reaches to the thoughts and emotions of the soul. That which does not go as deep as this is not obedience. SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.93

When the apostle says that “the law is spiritual,” he cannot mean anything less. The statement is true of the whole law. It is spiritual, and only spiritual. It is not worth while to spend time showing that this does not mean that outward conformity is non-essential if the spirit of the law is kept; for as the greater includes the less, it is manifest that spiritual obedience-the obedience of the heart-involves conformity to the letter of the law. A man who never harbors an evil thought will not lay violent hands on his neighbor. But let it be understood that if a man does cherish anger, hatred, and envy in the heart, he does not keep the sixth commandment in any sense whatever. So the man whose mind indulges in lustful thoughts does not in any sense keep the seventh commandment, although so far as any human being knows, he may be a very respectable man. A man may dishonor his parents while supporting them in the finest style. SITI December 30, 1889, page 632.94

The idea seems to obtain quite generally that there are two parts to each commandment-an outer and an inner-and that if a man “keeps the commandment outwardly,” he does very well; that such “obedience” will be set down to is credit in the books on high. This comes from confounding respectability with morality. It is assumed that that which gives a man favor with man will likewise give him favor with God. But we think that what we have already written is sufficient to enable the reader to understand that “the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7. Seeing is not being. The shadow is not the substance. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.1

We might dwell at great length on the nature of the moral law; but what has been said is sufficient to show that “the commandment is exceeding broad.” And so it will be seen that the law on our statute-books against larceny is in no respect a repetition of the divine commandment. “Thou shalt not steal.” The law against violation of the marriage vows is in no sense a repetition of the precept, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” The civil law against murder is not an enforcement of any part of the divine precept which says, “Thou shalt not kill.” The reason is, as already shown, that those commandments are spiritual, and nothing but spiritual life meets in any degree their requirements, while civil government is not spiritual, and is satisfied if men refrain from overt trespass against their fellows. It can require nothing more, and the basis of their requirement is not the moral law, but the natural desire of men for protection. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.2

The State is not charged with the duty of making Christians. It was not to civil magistrates that our Saviour gave the commission to preach the gospel to every creature. The apostles went out taking nothing and asking nothing from the Gentiles. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.3

Having shown that the laws which are already enacted against murder, theft, etc., are not reflections of the divine law, but are simply the expression of the natural desire of man for self-preservation, and that because the commandment is spiritual the State cannot deal with it, the fourth commandment may quickly be disposed of. That commandment is spiritual, as are the others. It is not mere physical rest that the divine law requires. The Sabbath must be kept holy. He who does not keep the day holy, does not keep the Sabbath, no matter how much he abstains from labor. In fact, the keeping of the Sabbath according to God’s appointment is the mark of the highest spiritual attainment. Hear what the Lord says: “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isaiah 58:13, 14. This is true Sabbath-keeping. It is divine worship and spiritual attainment so high that the majority have no conception of it. Much less can the State enforce it. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.4

The matter seems to us so plain that we cannot but think that our brother now sees it as we do; yet we know that there are many phases that we have not touched, and we shall be most happy to consider any further questions that may be asked. We can in this article no more than call attention to the fact that for the State to attempt to enforce the moral law would be a union of Church and State. As a matter of fact, no civil government has ever yet made laws requiring obedience to anything which God has commanded. When the State has legislated concerning something different from the Scripture precept. But the union of Church and State consists in the State enforcing what it or its advisers conceive to be the divine requirements. This is all that was done during the ages of papal supremacy, which furnishes the most perfect example of Church and State union. A State law designed to enforce the fourth commandment, or anybody’s conception of the fourth commandment, is to that extent a union of Church and State. Dr. Schaff (“Progress of Religious Freedom,” p. 82) says, “Some features of a union of Church and State remain in some States even to this day.” If the law is a dead letter, the union is only nominal, but the fact remains the same. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.5

This is a subject of vast and growing importance, and we hope to hear from our brother again. E. J. W. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.6

“Letter to the Hebrews. Chapter 8:6-13” The Signs of the Times, 15, 50.

E. J. Waggoner

1. In the Mosaic dispensation, did God have a dwelling place among his people? SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.7

2. Where was it made? and by whom? SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.8

3. What were its two rooms called? SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.9

4. Who were permitted to go into the sanctuary? Numbers 18:1-7. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.10

5. How often did the priests go into the holy place? Hebrews 9:6. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.11

6. Who was permitted to go into the most holy? Verse 7. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.12

7. In what does our priest minister? Hebrews 8:2. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.13

8. Where is the sanctuary in which he ministers? Verses 1, 2. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.14

9. Who made that sanctuary? Verse 2. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.15

10. Where was the blood of the sin-offerings presented before the Lord? Leviticus 4:7; 16:14, 15. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.16

11. Could Christ have any priesthood on earth? Nehemiah 8:4. See note. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.17

12. Who were the priests that served according to the law?-Ib. Exodus 28:1. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.18

13. What was the nature of their service? Hebrews 8:5. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.19

14. What is meant by the example and shadow? Ans.-They were typical. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.20

15. How was the pattern or example obtained? Same verse, last part. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.21

16. Of what is Christ the mediator? Verse 6. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.22

17. How does this compare with the old covenant?-Ib. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.23

18. What was the old covenant? See Exodus 19:5-8; 24:3-8. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.24

19. What is a covenant? See note. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.25

20. Upon what was the better covenant established? Hebrews 8:6. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.26

21. What was the condition of the covenant in Exodus 19:5-8?-It was that which the Lord called his covenant. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.27

22. What was his covenant which he required them to keep? Deuteronomy 4:12, 13. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.28

NOTES

At first glance it might seem that the reasoning is not good, which decides that Christ could have no priesthood on earth; for, if the law which confined the priesthood to the family of Aaron were abolished, what would hinder one serving though he were of another tribe? But it must be remembered that the priesthood and the law ordaining the priesthood stood and fell together. The only law for an earthly priesthood was that law which gave the office exclusively to the family of Aaron, and if any would act as priest on earth he must conform to the law of the earthly priesthood. It was impossible for one of another tribe to act as priest on earth. Further, it must be borne in mind that the service in the temple was still kept up by the Jews at the time when this letter was written, so that the words in this verse were conformable to the facts as they existed, as well as to the facts concerning the change of dispensations. For no one could possibly have then officiated as priest unless he were of the family of Aaron. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.29

Webster gives two principal definitions to the word “covenant.” The first is, “A mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, in writing and under seal, to do or to refrain from some act or thing.” The second is, “A writing containing the terms of agreement between parties. But neither of these definitions is extensive enough to cover all the uses of the word in the Bible. For instance, in Genesis 9:9-16 the word “covenant” is used with reference to a promise of God, given without any condition expressed or implies. The common idea of a covenant more nearly fits the transaction recorded in Exodus 19:5-8; yet even here we shall find that the thing called a covenant, which God made with the people, does not in every particular correspond to a contract made between two men. It is only another instance of the impossibility of a perfect comparison between divine and human things. In other places in the Bible the word “testament” or “will” is used with reference to the same transaction, although a contract and a will are greatly different. The transaction between God and Israel partakes of the nature of both. But it is of little consequence that a human covenant does not perfectly represent the affair, or that the Bible uses the word “covenant” in so widely varying senses. The main point is to understand just what is meant in each instance, and this the Scriptures themselves enable us readily to do. SITI December 30, 1889, page 791.30

Still another sense in which the word “covenant” is used in the Bible, is found in the text under consideration. Exodus 19:5-8. The condition of the covenant which the Lord made with Israel, was that they should keep his covenant. Here was something already existing, which God calls “my covenant,” concerning which he was about to make a covenant with the people. What God’s covenant is, may be found from Deuteronomy 4:12, 13. It is the ten commandments. God’s law-called his covenant-was the basis of the covenant between him and Israel. The matter is so plain that there is no necessity for confusion. It makes no difference that the same term is applied to both; it is sufficient to know that God’s covenant-the ten commandments-antedated and is entirely distinct from the transaction at Horeb-also called a covenant. That to which the apostle refers as the first covenant, was, therefore, simply this: A promise on the part of the people to keep his holy law, and a statement on the part of God, of the result to them if they should obey him. SITI December 30, 1889, page 9.1