THE LAW AND THE SABBATH by John Norton Loughborough

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 20, 1881

THE LAW AND THE SABBATH.

By John Norton Loughborough

A LETTER TO A FRIEND IN SUSSEX.

BY J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, OF SOUTHAMPTON, ENG.

Dear Friend: According to promise, I must now give some attention to the questions and statements in your letter of November 29. Your first question reads, "Does not Col. 2:16, and Rom. 14:6, abolish the Sabbath for Christians?" I answer, no. First, because the law mentioned as "blotted out," is not the law of ten commandments; and, secondly, because the "days" spoken of in these two texts do not include the seventh-day Sabbath, but institutions of a different kind altogether.

That the law mentioned in Col. 2 as "blotted out," is not the moral law of ten commandments, is apparent from a careful examination of the language used, "blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances." According to Heb. 9:1, compared with margin, we find the ordinances were the "ceremonies." These laws relating to the ceremonies were written by Moses in the parchment books, and so could well be styled "the hand-writing," while the ten commandments were graven by the finger of God on tables of stone. It might be a correct use of figures to speak of "blotting out" that written with ink and pen on parchment rolls, but not so accurate in reference to that engraven on stones.

Of the nature of the hand-writing of ceremonies which is "blotted out," St. Paul says: "That was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way nailing it to his cross." This is so definitely stated that we may not be misled as to what was taken away by the death of Christ. It was not every requirement that previously existed, but, as we see by the former part of the chapter, those laws associated with, and requiring, circumcision and other ceremonies. As St. Paul says, it was such things as are "against us." It is not against us to have laws which forbid killing, stealing, adultery, covetousness, profanity, idolatry, or any of those duties enjoined in the law of ten commandments; but if the requirements of the law of ceremonies were still in force, commanding circumcision, the offering of the blood of beasts, and that three times in the year all the males should appear before the Lord in Jerusalem, it would most assuredly be "against us," and "contrary" to the plan of salvation through the blood of Christ, and also in the way of fulfilling that gospel commission which has as its field of operation the entire world.

Christ, whose blood only avails to cleanse from sins, died upon the cross, and by his death, being the object to which these bloody sacrifices with their ceremonies pointed, "blotted out" such ceremonies and offerings.

Understanding the text thus far, prepares us to read the further statement of the apostle, as the latter part of the text is a conclusion drawn from what he has already stated. His language is equivalent to saying a certain law has been taken away, "therefore," let no man judge you in relation to those things enforced by that law. If we examine carefully his conclusion, we will see whether we have made a correct decision relative to the laws blotted out. "Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat,"—the ten-commandment law made no distinction of meats, the law of ceremonies did,—"or in drink." The law of ceremonies did require drink-offerings on certain days of certain months. In Leviticus, chapter 23, we have seven different days thus singled out, and in verse thirty-seven we read, "These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt-offering, and a meat-offering, a sacrifice, and drink-offerings, everything upon his day."

St. Paul continues, "or in respect of an holy day." This holy day is not, neither does it include, the Lord's seventh-day Sabbath. The same Greek word which is here rendered holy day, is translated in the New Testament twenty-three times, "feast," and three times it is rendered "feast-day." The word is heorte, and relates to these very days, "feasts of the Lord," mentioned in Leviticus, chapter 23. As an illustration of its use in the New Testament, see John 6:4: "The passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." The "holy day" of the text being their feasts, it is not the day enforced in the law of ten commandments, but those days of the law of ceremonies.

St. Paul continues, "or of the new moon." The ten commandments made no mention of new moons, but the law of ceremonies required certain forms of worship at the beginning of every month, or new moon; and, in fact, their religious year with its different feasts was marked by the time of the first new moon after the spring equinox. Not so with the Lord's Sabbath, which was not connected with moons, but occurred at the expiration of each "six working days." One thing remains concerning which we are not to be judged; it is not the fourth commandment Sabbath. Let us see, "or of the sabbath-days which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." If St. Paul designed by this one statement to obliterate all sabbaths, why is he so particular to give the special character of the sabbaths that are abolished? If the sabbaths "blotted out" are simply those of the character here mentioned, and there is another of a different character, this would be proof that there is an exception in favor of the one of different character. Now for the facts: The days here specified had their "meat-offerings, and "drink-offerings," and were a "shadow" of Christ. This is true of the days we have just noticed, occurring on certain days of the month. In Lev. 23:38, it says of these that they were "besides the Sabbath of the Lord." The seventh-day Sabbath may well be excepted, for it is not a shadow of Christ, neither is it of the nature of those days selected especially as "feasts" typical of Christ, but it is a commemorative institution, pointing back to the power of God as the great Creator. The fourth commandment points to what God did in "sanctifying—making the day holy—at the close of the first week of time, as the reason we should keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Whatever offering may have been made upon it in carrying out their Jewish service, the day itself stands out independent of, and superior to, those days which were appointed on purpose to shadow forth Christ. Therefore, we claim that Col. 2:16 does not abolish the seventh-day Sabbath.

As to Rom. 14:6, we must look at the connection, and see of what St. Paul is speaking. He opens the subject thus: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own Master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand."

Does St. Paul mean that some in his time ate nothing at all, but observed a continual fast, and so were miracles indeed being sustained directly by God's power? Does he not rather mean that some, regarding the law of ceremonies, supposed they must still refrain from certain food on certain days, or rather that they must eat the "bitter herbs" and the paschal lamb when the day arrived? If I remember rightly, the only day on which they were required to eat the bitter herbs, was the passover. This requirement is found in Ex. 12:8, and Num. 9:11. Having made these statements relative to the eating, the apostle introduces the day, but in such a manner as to show us that the observance or non-observance of the day specified, is with reference to eating the herbs. He says, "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." It appears that this regarding "every day alike," or making a distinction of days, was with reference to their eating; and this is all plain, because those laws relating to feast-days are abolished.

But did the apostles regard all days alike in every sense? If so, what shall we make of the statement in Rev. 1:10, where St. John says, "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day?" Here we not only have one day singled out as differing from the others, but spoken of in such a manner as to show it is a day the Lord claims. The expression, "Lord's day," is equivalent to saying, the day the Lord claims as his own. If by the expression Lord's day, St. John meant the first day of the week, we should expect him to speak of the day by the same name, two years later at the close of A. D. 97, when writing his gospel. This would be so, if the claim of some is true that the Sabbath had been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, or even if the first day had been given as a new institution in place of the Sabbath. In his gospel he still speaks of the seventh day by the name it always had, "the Sabbath," but when speaking of the first day, he simply styles it "the first day of the week." We inquire, what is this "Lord's day"? The Greek word rendered "Lord's," in this case, implies possession the same as "Lord's supper." What day has the Lord claimed as his? On appealing to the Scriptures we shall find that God claimed the seventh day as his, to be kept by mankind as a reminder of his power as the Almighty Creator. In Isaiah 58:13, he speaks of it as "my holy day." So St. John recognized one day above others as the Lord's, and did not esteem all days alike in every sense.

If any one should say that this word Lord means Christ, and that the day mentioned here is a new institution, we would say that the Greek word Kurios, Lord, used in Rev. 1:10, is also used by St. John in Rev. 11:15, where he speaks of "The Lord and his Christ." The Scripture gives no account of a new day, but the beloved disciple speaks of the "Lord's day" in a familiar manner, as though all would understand it. For this reason we conclude it must refer to the day God had instituted, and that the apostle was in the spirit on God's holy Sabbath.

In future articles, we will take up other points in your letter.