Onus Probandi

(Richard Bacon, 12 Oct 2000)

Dear Ted,

We likely agree at a fundamental level that the burden of proof that the Sabbath Day is now to be observed on a day different from that of the old covenant falls to those who make the assertion. That is a general rule of proof -- the person making the assertion carries the burden. The person defending against an assertion is not required to prove a negative (and it is questionable whether proving a negative is possible given the rules of logic and the contingency of inductive method).

Having said that and acceded to the point that the burden of proof falls to the proponent of the Christian Sabbath, it must also be admitted that there is such a thing as prima facie evidence and there is such a thing as a logical proof. We do not look for a single verse in which we learn that God has existed from all eternity as three distinct persons and yet as one God. Rather we learn this from the prima facie evidence of the whole of Christendom confessing it and from the logical proof of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Similarly, we shall present evidence at a future point in our presentation of the Sabbath doctrine that the Sabbath was changed during the lifetime of the Apostles from the seventh day (in order) to the first day (in order) of the week. For now, it is important to proceed in the correct analysis of what the OT leads us to expect regarding the Sabbath and not to get too far ahead of ourselves.

THE ESSENCE OF GOD'S MORAL LAW

The nature or character of God's covenant with Adam was the same for its substance with the covenant that God the father had with the second Adam, Jesus Christ. It was the same covenant in a creaturely way for Adam because it was precisely for the purpose of sharing his eternal covenant life with man that Adam was first created and for which Christ prayed (John 17). In fact, it might be stated that this is what it is to know God. Thus while it is sometimes stated that "God made a covenant with Adam," it might be more accurate for us to understand that God created Adam in covenant with himself.

The blessings of the covenant are nothing less than blessings that God gratuitously bestows upon believers by virtue of Christ's cross-work. So then as in Adam all (who are covenantally fallen with him) die, so in Christ are all (who are covenantally raised with him) made alive. Because Christ saves man by his (Christ's) obedience to the moral law, such popularly misunderstood texts as "not under law, but under grace," and "free from the law," etc. require careful qualification, lest they lead us to antinomianism. The close juxtaposition between these may best be illustrated by giving to the question "What is the gospel of grace?" the answer, "that Jesus Christ has kept the commandments fully in the believer's stead."

BUT this can only mean that the weekly Sabbath must apply as much in the gospel dispensation as it applied in Eden. Another way of saying this is that there is something eternal, permanent, and moral in the institution of the weekly Sabbath. Since the law remains, even under the covenant of grace, the role and significance of the Sabbath and the *rest* that it signifies in the covenant and the means whereby it comes to us must be determined. We cannot assume that the first covenant, which was not faultless, is a sure guide (Hebrews 8:7, 13). Reference should now be made to the table that I included in a previous post, demonstrating that the commandments *for their essence* have always been the same, though the administration of them may have varied at particular redemptive points in history.

Many of the commandments taken in a strictly wooden sense might appear to be almost unnecessary in a Christian country. But when it is seen that the moral substance of the commandment must be obeyed and not merely the wooden or historical circumstances, then we realize (for example) that the second commandment not only prohibits the making and worshipping of literal idols, but also the framing of such idols in our minds. So, too, idols of the heart (Ezek. 14:3ff) such as money, pleasure, security, etc. are prohibited by the second commandment as they become objects of worship (Luke 12:17-21).

Similarly, the tenth commandment may not make much sense to us today if we limit its prohibitions to coveting the farm animals of those who don't today own such animals. But we should understand that God's moral law not only prohibits coveting oxen and asses, but also Cadillacs and Feraris. Thus we see that the law is spiritual and not to be understood as limited only to those literal instances (most of which refer to the grossest violations of a particular commandment) given at Sinai. In a word, we must be careful to distinguish the eternally valid moral substance of each commandment from its historically bound and contemporaneous external wording.

This understanding is not inimical to Seventh day Adventist interpretation. Thus Yost ("Doctrine", p. 7) and E.G. White ("Patriarchs and Prophets", pp. 305-9) seem to agree that even though the ten commandments actually consist of two commandments and eight prohibitions that those eight prohibitions can also rightly be stated in positive terms. Thus Yost's table of "the law of God in positive terms," which he rightly considers to be the *essence* of the eternal moral law of God and which he lists as: "1) Worship God exclusively; 2) Worship God spiritually; 3) Worship God sincerely; 4) Worship God as he will be worshipped; 5) Respect authority; 6) Respect the life and rights of others; 7) Be pure and loyal; 8) Be honest; 9) Be truthful; 10) Be happy and Content."

I *agree* with Mr. Yost that this is a fair (though abbreviated and summarized) reflection of the eternal moral law of God. But even the Seventh day Adventist must admit, then, that the moral law as it is eternal is not *identical* to the moral law as it was expressed by the finger of God at Sinai. Yost correctly stated, in partially quoting E. G. White, "After the fall of man, the 'principles' of the law were worded to meet the case of fallen intelligences." Precisely! The ten commandments (or rather the two commandments and eight prohibitions to be more accurate) are unquestionably the most precise summary of the eternal moral law anywhere in Scripture except for Matthew 22:37-40.

In my next post I hope to apply this principle somewhat to the fourth commandment.

Richard Bacon, Ph.D.
First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett