Objection 25: The fourth commandment is not inherently a moral precept, but the other nine are self-evidently moral commands. All moral principles are discoverable by the light of nature or reason. For example, all men naturally know that it is wrong to steal, kill, and commit adultery, but no one would naturally know that a particular day had been set apart as holy. Hence the Sabbath command is simply ceremonial, and hence was nailed to the cross.
The most direct reply may be presented in terms of answers to the following questions:
First Question:
Do all men naturally know that it is wrong to steal, commit adultery, worship idols, or violate any other of the nine commands that the objector certainly agrees are moral?
This question obviously challenges the very foundation on which the objection before us rests. Fortunately, a clear and sure answer can be given. Let us start with the first commandment. This command not only forbids polytheism but also requires that we worship one certain God, the true God. Do all men naturally know that it is wrong to worship more than one god? Or do they naturally know who the true God is? The answer to both questions is no.
Although most men of all nations and in all ages have felt that they should worship some god or gods, they have disagreed as to which god or gods should be worshiped. Says Paul, “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” 1 Cor. 1:21 (emphasis added). Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill is an example of such preaching. And how did Paul know all the idols on Mars Hill were false gods, and that the “unknown god” must therefore represent the one true God? Because of the revelation given to him, and by his study of that revelation called the Scriptures.
The one true God is pure and holy and, though just, is merciful. The various pagan gods have been anything but holy, and their mercy at best has been capricious. Now, the first commandment calls on us to worship the one true God. Hence we must know His nature and holy requirements if we are truly to obey that command. But only revelation can provide that knowledge.
Let us take the second commandment. Do men know by reason or nature that it is wrong to make a likeness of God or of any creature and use it as an object of religious worship?
No. The history of almost all mankind is a history of idolatry. The temples of the Greeks and Romans—and, indeed, almost all other pagan nations—were full of statuary intended to be worshiped. The papacy carried these same statues into its own churches; Roman Catholics have long proceeded as though there is nothing sinful or wrong in venerating them. The Orthodox churches are full of painted Icons. How do we, as Protestants, seek to show the evil of idols and Icons? Do we rest our case on reason and nature? Not at all. We rest our case on revelation.
Take the third commandment. The reason why we see force and meaning in the prohibition against taking God's name in vain is that revelation presents to us a picture of a most pure and holy God to whom we owe all and to whom we must someday give an account. But the heathen, even the most enlightened Greeks, who possessed no revelation, thought of their gods as altogether like themselves, lustful, depraved, vindictive, even murderous. Would it have seemed reasonable to a Greek to believe that there was anything wrong in taking lightly the name of any of his gods?
Let us turn to a commandment that deals with man's relation to his fellow man and see whether reason and nature prove sufficient here. We who are Christians are shocked at the thought of adultery in any of its evil manifestations. And when we send missionaries to far lands we seek to turn men from this evil, along with all other evils. But these missionaries do not make their appeal on the basis of reason and nature. They would be ridiculed if they did. That is the testimony of many who have preached to non-Christian peoples. Instead, they preach morality and chastity in terms of a revelation from God and a command of God.
But why lengthen the survey of the nine commands that the objector admits are moral? We believe that reason and nature play some part in giving us a knowledge of right and wrong, of God and the judgment, so that men are without excuse. But how limited a part they play is sadly revealed in the long, sinful history of man.
We believe that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had enough knowledge of God and right and wrong to be morally accountable and justly entitled to the fiery destruction that descended upon them. But our Lord declared that it would be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for those cities that refused to receive the message that His disciples would bring to them.
Why? Because the disciples brought a revelation from God, received through Jesus Christ. Said Christ, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin.” John 15:22.
How clear it is that a divine revelation is needed, not simply in regard to the fourth commandment, but in regard to the others also! Thus the very foundation on which this impressive objection has been reared, disappears.
Strictly speaking, this cuts the foundation from under this objection, such that it is unnecessary to labor with it further. But let us briefly review why Seventh-day Adventists insist that the Sabbath commandment is not merely “ceremonial.”
Second Question:
What are the proofs that Seventh-day Adventists can offer to support their claim that the fourth commandment is moral rather than ceremonial, and thus eternally binding like the other nine?
We Seventh-day Adventists answer:
1. God placed the Sabbath Commandment among the other nine commandments, which are generally acknowledged to be universally applicable precepts. The very fact that God placed the Sabbath command in the heart of the Ten Commandments, accepted by all Christians as moral law, is in itself the most convincing proof that that the Sabbath command is moral law of universal applicability, not merely “ceremonial.” How absurd to believe that, with weighty and eternally moral precepts on both sides of it, God should insert in their midst a ceremonial statute that was to expire at Christ's first advent!
2. The last six commandments are the “horizontal” commandments, meaning that they govern a person’s ethical or moral duty to other people. The first four commandments are “vertical” in the sense that they govern how we are to worship and relate to God. But the fact that these first four commands govern our relationship with God does not render them “ceremonial.” Yes, the first four commandments have to do with “religion,” but are not tied only to the religion of the Jews. Having no other gods before God is for everyone, certainly all monotheists, including Christians, Jews, and Muslims; not worshiping idols applies to all Christians and, again, all monotheists; not taking the Lord’s name lightly is a warning for every believer.
3. The universality of the Sabbath commandment is proved by the fact that it is a memorial to the creation in six literal days and God’s resting on the Seventh Day. (Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:11)
“but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Ex. 20:10-11.
How, could language make more clear that a particular day is involved in the Sabbath command? Or how could language make more clear that the sanctifying of this particular day springs from the fact that this specific historical event occurred on that day, the seventh day? The “therefore” in the Sabbath command refers back to this incident and to the particular day God blessed. Remove the “therefore,” and the reason for the Sabbath command disappears.
But that is exactly what Sunday advocates do when they invoke the Sabbath command in favor of one day's rest in seven, but argue that it could be any of the seven. When they contend that the weekly rest-day is moral, but the seventh-day is merely ceremonial, and hence of relatively minor importance, they are in the curious position of asserting that a great moral principle enunciated in the Ten Commandments rests upon a ceremonial, and relatively minor, act of God.
4. Marriage was instituted at the same time as the Sabbath—at the creation—and is universally regarded among Christians as not only “moral” but indeed “holy.” Marriage is based upon the fact that God created mankind as men and women, male and female, on the sixth day of creation (Mat. 19:4-5) The Sabbath is based upon the fact that God created in six days and rested on the seventh. To whatever extent we regard marriage to be moral and holy, the Sabbath is moral and holy for the same reason and to the same extent. Only those who are ready to contend that marriage rests on a ceremonial law may contend that the Sabbath is “ceremonial.”
5. The various ceremonial laws were all given after man sinned; they were made necessary in some way or other by man's fallen, sinful condition and usually illustrate some aspect of the plan of salvation. That is not true of the Sabbath (nor of marriage); the Sabbath was given to sinless Adam and Eve in Eden, and the Sabbath will be kept by the redeemed in Eden restored. (Isa. 66:23)
All this surely adds up to the conclusion that the real controversy is not really about whether the Sabbath is rightly part of the moral law or Ten Commandment law, but which day of the week ought we to observe, the seventh or the first?