The Sin of Sabbath-Breaking Condemned Under the Gospel.
By D. T. Bourdeau
It is thought by some that because the sin of Sabbath-breaking is not directly mentioned or reproved in the New Testament, the obligation to keep the Sabbath does not exist in this dispensation. But this mode of reasoning is certainly defective. It overlooks those scriptures in the New Testament which show that the Sabbath law is binding in the gospel age. Matt. 5:17-19; 12:10, etc.; that Christ took special pains to show what is lawful on the Sabbath day, Matt. 12; Mark 2; Luke 13, etc.; that Christ and the primitive Christians kept the Sabbath, Luke, 4:16; 23:54-56; Acts 13:42, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4, 11; and that there is a day in this dispensation which belongs to the Lord. Rev. 1:10; Ex. 20:10; Isa. 58:13. These scriptures are sufficient to show us our duty in regard to the Sabbath, and to prove that the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith and practice on the Sabbath question. The fallacy of the above reasoning may be illustrated by a son, who, knowing the rules of the family of which he is a member, would wait until his parents should reprove some member of the family for breaking them, before deciding to obey their requirements. It would be wiser to obey before reproof is administered. But if the law of the Sabbath remains in force, it as strongly reproves sin as it did when Jehovah proclaimed it from Sinai; the example of the Saviour and primitive Christians in keeping the Sabbath is a standing rebuke to those who knowingly break the Sabbath; and we should learn from the threatenings of the Lord against Sabbath-breaking under the old dispensation, as though they were uttered against the violations of the Sabbath under the new. The fact that no special mention is made in the New Testament of the sin of Sabbath-breaking in the times in which it was written, is good evidence that those preaching and writing in those times were not under the painful necessity of saying as much upon this subject as we are called upon to say. In other words, the Sabbath was observed by the Christians of those times. And how could it be otherwise? The Hebrew Christians in Palestine and elsewhere kept the Sabbath; and the Hebrew Christians who were dispersed among the Gentiles generally formed the foundation of the churches which were established in the countries of the Gentiles. These pious Jews had already exerted a salutary influence in favor of the Sabbath. And as the practice of Christians was uniform on the subject of the Sabbath; as they kept one and the same Sabbath, the Gentiles who received the gospel would also receive the Sabbath without contestation. Hence we see them at Antioch inviting Paul to preach to them on the next Sabbath day. This request was made on the seventh day Sabbath with reference to the next seventh-day Sabbath, showing that there was no first-day Sabbath between. We also see the Gentiles in the populous city of Corinth, joining themselves to Paul and other Jews in the worship of God “every Sabbath.” Acts 18:4, etc. We are sometimes asked why the apostles said nothing about the Sabbath on the day of Pentecost and on other occasions. We answer, that the Jews were commanded to repent of having killed Jesus. This was their great sin at that time. But all this vast multitude assembled from sixteen different countries, and composed of Jews and proselytes, or Gentiles converted to Judaism, kept the seventh-day Sabbath. Acts 2. What a mighty influence they must have exerted in favor of the Sabbath! and how providential it was that the Jews should thus be scattered in about every nation under heaven! Take also as an illustration the eunuch of Ethiopia, of which it had been written by an inspired penman: “Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.” Ps. 68:31. He came to Jerusalem to worship, Acts 8, and returned converted to Christianity, and keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. Doubtless some of the apostles were soon sent to help him. Is it therefore strange that we should find the churches of Ethiopia keeping the ancient Sabbath? So of the numerous churches of Central Asia; and, in short, so of all the churches in early times, who received the pure gospel and did not come under pagan and papal influence. It is unreasonable to select an isolated scripture that does not mention the Sabbath, and conclude therefrom that the Sabbath is not binding. By this mode of reasoning men can disprove all the doctrines of the Bible. The book of Esther does not mention the name of God. Must we hence conclude that there is no God? We may if the reasoning of some on the Sabbath question is correct. But it is a remarkable fact that when we come to prophecies relating to our times, we not only see the Sabbath enforced as the seal, sign, or mark, of the living God, and a Sabbath reform pointed out, Rev. 7:2; Ex. 31:17, etc.; Eze. 20:12, 20; Isa. 56:12; 58:12, 13; but we also have a solemn warning against deliberately receiving the mark of the beast, papacy, as opposed to the commandments of God and the true Sabbath. Rev. 14:9-12; 7:1, 2. Here we see the sin of knowingly profaning the Sabbath, reproved. In conclusion we would call your attention to Acts 13:38, 39: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” All the things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses, or typical law, which prefigured the true means of justification in Christ, embraced not less than the transgression of all the commandments, not less than all the sins against the moral law of which the Jews had been guilty. Therefore the necessity of obtaining remission of, or justification from, the profanation of the Sabbath exists under this dispensation. D. T. BOURDEAU.