Although there is no indication either in the Sabbath commandment as spoken from Mount Sinai, or as recorded in Genesis 2:1-3, the fact that many claim that it was limited in its application, makes it necessary for us to consider the question. For whom was the Sabbath sanctified? or, in other words, who were commanded to keep the Sabbath holy? When we consider that the day was sanctified, i.e., appointed or commanded, in Eden, there can be but one answer: The commandment was given to those then living. It is not possible that it could have been otherwise; that the account here is anticipative, and that the Sabbath was then sanctified for the use of some future generation. For to every command there must be two parties: the one commanding and the one commanded. A command cannot be made unless some one is present to receive it. In this case God issued the command, and Adam and Eve were the ones to whom it was directed. But they represent all who should afterward live upon the earth. See Genesis 3:20. It follows, then, that the Sabbath commandment embraces the whole world; all who have descended from Adam and Eve.SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.1

In harmony with this conclusion we have the words of our Saviour, in Mark 2:27: “The Sabbath was made for man,” this can be nothing less than the whole human race, for the word “man,” when used without any limiting word, means “mankind; the totality of men.” When the word is limited it means man to the exclusion of women; and no one will claim that women are not under obligation to keep the Sabbath, to whatever race or class of people the commandment is directed. No one will be found old enough to claim that the word “man” has a different meaning from what it has in Genesis 1:27; 2:7.SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.2

This being the case, it is manifestly improper to speak of the Sabbath as the “Jewish Sabbath,” for it belongs to no special class of men. It belongs to no man at all, but is the property of God; he claims it as his own. See commandment, also Isaiah 58:13, etc. If men, regardless of the commandment, choose to rest on some other day, they may call it their Sabbath, or give it the name they please; but the Bible speaks of only one Sabbath, and that is the one that the Lord claims as his own; to apply to that day any other term than that which the Lord gave it, is sacrilege.SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.3

We see that the commandment as given at creation and renewed on Sinai furnishes no warrant whatever to the idea that the Sabbath was to be local, or was given simply to the Jews. Not only this, but even in the Old Testament it is expressly stated that the Sabbath was not designed for the Jews alone. Thus we read: “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.... Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.” Isaiah 56:2, 6, 7.SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.4

The position of the commandment in the law of God is also enough of itself to convince any one that it is binding upon all men. Even profane persons will admit that it is wrong to take God’s name in vain; and then claim that there is any privileged class who may swear with impunity. The fifth commandment is almost universally disregarded, yet no one thinks of asserting that its obligation does not extend to all mankind. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth are admitted to be of universal obligation, yet they are no more emphatic than the fourth, and the penalty for disregarding them is no more severe than that for violating the Sabbath commandment.SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.5

It is true that the Sabbath rests solely on the commandment. This is urged by some as an objection. They say that it was always wrong to kill or to steal, but was not always wrong to break the Sabbath, since the Sabbath did not always exist. As they claim that the Sabbath is not moral. To this we reply (1) That the Sabbath has existed ever since day and night existed; (2) That God has always been the Supreme Being, and it has always been wrong to disobey him. Therefore whenever he issues a command it is man’s moral duty to obey. (3) The Lord claims the Sabbath as his own; he calls it “my holy day;” he has set bounds about it, and forbidden man to trespass upon it, he warns us not to venture to take it for our own use. Now if we violate this commandment, we take that which is not our own, and are guilty of that, a thing which is admitted by all to be immoral. Many other proofs might be adduced to show the morality of the fourth commandment.SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.6

There are some who, to get rid of the Sabbath, make the bold claim that none of the law is binding; that it is all done way, and that Christians are under no obligation to law. With such we have nothing to do at present. Even they bear witness to the fact that the fourth commandment is of as much importance as any of the ten, because they plainly see that in order to get rid of it they have to throw all away. The fact that law is a unit, that it stands complete as a whole, and cannot be divided, will be noticed hereafter.SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.7

But although “the Sabbath was made for man,” it to does not thereby become his property, to do with as he pleases. It was made for his use, not for his abuse. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:9, says that the woman was made for the man. He does not mean that she was made to be the slave of man, who could be taken or put away at his pleasure, as in heathen lands, but that she was made as a help, a blessing to man. So the Sabbath was made for man, i.e., not against him; it was designed to aid him both spiritually and physically. A farmer who has hired servants may, in order to lighten their labor, buy certain tools for them. But no one would suppose that the servants would have any right to sell those tools which their employer had thus purchased. All would understand that he bought them for the servants to use, and to use in his service only. On this subject the “Speakers Commentary” uses the following forcible language:-SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.8

“On what principle of legislation can be maintained that, because laws are imposed by the ruler for the benefit of the subject, therefore they may be dispensed with by the subject at his own convenience? This is utterly untenable as regards all laws of man; still more as regards the laws of God.” E. J. W.SITI April 19, 1883, page 187.9

“Faith and Presumption” The Signs of the Times, 9, 16.

E. J. Waggoner

A religious journal thinks that the following by a Sunday-school boy is the best definition of faith that it ever saw:-SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.1

“As near as I can make out, it is feeling perfectly sure of a thing when you have nothing to back it up.”SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.2

But that is not a definition of faith at all. It is more nearly a definition of presumption; in fact, it is an exact definition of presumption. We have known persons to whom the truth of the Sabbath question had been presented, and who had tried in vain to find even an excuse in the Bible for Sunday-keeping, to settle down complacently into their old habits, expressing their firm faith that God would not punish them, because they had so much love for him. Now their condition is exactly expressed by the above definition; they felt perfectly sure of a thing when they had nothing to back to give up. They were positive that Sunday is the Sabbath, although they could not bring a scrap of evidence to support their belief. They had strong faith that God would not punish them for violating his law, although he has plainly declared to the contrary. They had no faith at all; they were simply presumptuous.SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.3

No doubt the man whose case is recorded in the sixteenth chapter of Numbers felt “fully assured” that he was all right. He did not believe that God was going to punish a man for so small a thing as picking up a few sticks on the Sabbath-day. He had too much faith in God and his goodness to think he would do such a thing. And yet his case is left on record as a typical case of presumption.SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.4

But “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” That is the inspired definition of faith. It cannot be that our contemporary ever read the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. There can be no faith without evidence. The Christian religion requires the exercise of less credulity than any other system of religion known. There are no men on earth who are so “perfectly sure” of a thing when they have “nothing to back it up” as modern infidels. They are always positive in their opinions, while at the same time they have literally “nothing” upon which to base them. According to the definition given, infidels would be men of the greatest faith; but they are simply terribly presumptuous.SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.5

We repeat, there can be no faith without evidence. The Christian may have the “full assurance of faith,” and he has no lack of matter with which to “back up” his belief. We believe that there is a God, all nature declares the fact. “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” The “invisible things” of God, i.e., “his eternal power and Godhead,” are clearly seen from the things that he has made.SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.6

We believe the Bible to be the true word of God, because the prophecies bear, beyond all cavil, the mark of inspiration, and their fulfillment cannot be denied. But the Bible is so harmonious, and all its parts are so closely interwoven that it all stands or falls together. Nothing within the range of human reason is so easily demonstrated, as that the Bible is what it purports to be,-one inspired word of God.SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.7

We can then rely on the testimony of the Bible as on first principles. So when it assures us that the Lord will come the second time, and that his coming is near, we know it; and we can point to the evidence. And when we are told that in order to enter into life we must keep the commandments, we dare not presume upon God’s mercy by walking in a way which he has declared leads to death. We must confess to having so little faith that we cannot feel perfectly sure of a thing when there is nothing to back it up.SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.8

It is true that the Christian often seems, to the outside observer, to be walking blindly; to be accepting things as true, without having any evidence. But this is only seeming. It seems so because the skeptic looks at things from a different standpoint. A picture will often present a vastly different appearance when viewed in one position, from what it does to a person standing somewhere else. So there are things connected with God and his truth which worldlings can never understand. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Many things that appear perfectly reasonable to the Christian, and for which a perfectly logical reason can be given, are foolishness to the skeptic. It is as true now as ever, that “if any man will to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” There is no guess-work about the religion of the Bible. E. J. W.SITI April 19, 1883, page 188.9

April 12, 1883

April 26, 1883