Getting Rid of the Sabbath by P. M. W.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 21, 1915

Getting Rid of the Sabbath

By P. M. W.

The Sabbath controversy at the present time presents some striking anomalies. It is amusing if not ludicrous to read some of the arguments put forth in support of first-day observance. These writers will argue with logic and emphasis that the law of the ten commandments is of perpetual obligation, that the principle of Sabbath observance has never been set aside; and yet, after all, they deny the conclusion to which their logic inevitably drives them; namely, that if the law of ten commandments is of perpetual obligation, and if the Sabbath institution exists today as in the old dispensation, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” now as then, and should be so observed by Christians.

The New York Weekly Witness for Sept. 9, 1914, contains a reply by the editor to a correspondent with reference to the teachings of Seventh-day Adventists. Crediting Seventh-day Adventists with being “a very sincere and earnest people,” and denying that they make light of the atonement, he takes occasion to argue wherein their teaching with reference to the Sabbath leads them to minimize other important Bible doctrines. In doing this he falls into the error suggested at the outset of this article.

The ten commandments embody the fundamental principles of personal and communal morality, and these principles are as sound today as they were when the commandments were proclaimed from Horeb, but the commandments as commandments were not addressed to us.

In all his teaching about the Sabbath, Jesus condemned the strict interpretation of the Sabbath law which the Jews had adopted. The law itself was in full force during his lifetime, of course, but he taught that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” In other words, the purpose of the Sabbath law was to give man a rest and an opportunity to turn aside from the things of this life and seek communion with God.

But even that is not all. There were disputes about the Sabbath as early as the time of Paul, and he, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, carefully refrained from laying down any law on the subject, but said, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” “One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike.” “Let no man therefore judge you . . . in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day.” Rom. 14: 5; Col. 2: 16.

Sabbath keeping as a divine thought for man is a perpetual obligation. The Sabbath was given to man at the creation, and is one of God’s best gifts to man. The Sabbath was made for man’s benefit, and no man can afford to neglect or to misuse the opportunity. But the day of the week is a matter of no consequence whatever except that it is a great help to keep the same day that

others are keeping, and love to Christ naturally inspires a desire to keep the day on which he rose from the tomb, the day which has been commemorated by Christians ever since his resurrection.

Does the editor of the Witness insist upon the literal interpretation of the first commandment, of the sixth, of the seventh, of the eighth? Undoubtedly. Did the great Lawgiver mean literally what he said when he declared that human life should not be taken, and that the property and chastity of our neighbor should be regarded? Assuredly he meant this, and the principle involved even more than the outward act, for our Saviour declares that hatred of our brother is murder, and that the lustful desire is a violation of the seventh commandment. Matt. 5: 21, 22, 27, 28. If these precepts should be understood literally as they read, by what law of logic should the fourth commandment be made to teach what it does not say?

It is true that the Jews in the time of Christ failed to appreciate the true spirit of Sabbath observance. To them the outward form wholly appealed. By their traditions they made the Sabbath institution a burden grievous to be borne, instead of the joy and benefit which God designed it to be to all mankind. Mark 2: 27, 28.

The attitude of Christ toward the Sabbath as related both to his teaching and to his practice was to reveal the true spirit of the institution, and to bring man back to its proper observance. While we find no direct command on the part of either Christ or his apostles for the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, in the teaching and practice of these Christian teachers the Sabbath institution was recognized as an existing institution, and the incidental reference to it in this way affords the strongest possible evidence of the manner in which it was regarded not alone by the Jewish people, but by the Christian church in the first century. And both Christ and Paul emphatically declare that the claims of the gospel do not abrogate the claims of the law. Matt. 5: 17-19; Rom. 3: 31.

There were many things which were done away in Christ. In him type met antitype; the shadow met the substance. There were certain holy days on which feasts were held and sacrifices made which were clearly typical of the coming Christ. In the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus these holy days are enumerated, but in this enumeration a plain distinction is made between them and the Sabbath of the Lord. Says the divine record: —

“These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, . . . beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Lev. 23: 37, 38.

The prophet of the Lord declares that there should come a time when these feast days and sabbath days would cease because the great Sacrifice to which they pointed forward would come and their significance would be lost.

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” Hosea 2: 11.

Some there were in the early Christian church who still held to these ordinances, and they criticized those who refused to observe them. Of these the apostle Paul speaks in Col. 2: 16, 17: —

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not ceremonial. It did not point forward to Christ. Rather it pointed back to creation, and was given by the Creator as a memorial of his great creative act. He rested on it himself, thus making it his own rest day, and then gave it to the human family as a Sabbath because it had been his Sabbath. Gen. 2: 2, 3. While the apostle Paul taught that the ceremonial celebrations pointing forward to Christ were abolished at the cross, he recognized in his own practice, as distinct from these, the rest day of Jehovah. Acts 17: 1-3; 18: 4, 11.

In the new covenant relationship in Christ Jesus the apostle Paul declares that the law of God will be put into the minds of the believers and written in their hearts. And to the extent that the divine principles of the ten commandments are brought into the heart will they be expressed through the power of the indwelling Christ in the lives of the believers. Love for Christ will lead to the careful observance of the law of Christ. 1 John 5: 1-3.

If it really makes no difference after all, as the editor of the Witness declares, which day is observed, and if the question is one of convenience rather than of Bible instruction, why should issue be taken with Seventh-day Adventists because they prefer to believe literally what God declares with reference to the day to be observed? Surely if the Word of God does enjoin the observance of the seventh day, as our Sunday friends admit, and if there is no positive command in the sacred record for the observance of the first day, as they must also admit, why should Seventh-day Adventists be charged with being literalists and legalists because they choose to believe that God said what he meant and meant what he said with respect to the day which he set apart as his holy rest day?

It is begging the question to argue that the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath in the literal observance of that day should not kindle a fire in their habitations, and that they should refrain absolutely from the performance of “any” labor. Christ, by example, taught the true spirit of Sabbath observance in performing deeds of mercy for the relief of the sick and suffering. Matt. 12: 1-12. And this principle would not preclude the building of fires on the Sabbath day if these were necessary for comfort. In the warm climate through which Israel passed, and protected as they were by the covering of God for forty years, with their food rained directly from heaven, the building of fires was evidently not necessary to their comfort. This local national restriction imposed upon that people for a particular time and occasion need not be read into the requirements of the command designed for all ages and for all nations.

It is strange to what lengths men will go in order to avoid the claims of the fourth commandment. They will abolish in their arguments the whole law of ten commandments, and then rehabilitate it with the exception of the Sabbath commandment. This sort of juggling with the truth the prophet likens to the building of a wall and daubing it with untempered mortar. The wall, he declares, shall fall, and they who seek protection under its shadow shall fall with it. Eze. 13: 10-15. “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” “He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.”

P. M. W.