THE SABBATH OF THE LORD by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Nov 16, 1876

THE SABBATH OF THE LORD.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

“The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27.

It has often been remarked that the term “man” in this text is used generically, that is, it refers to man or mankind as a race, and is not to be restricted to a part of the race. Some, to evade the obligation of the Sabbath, have denied this. But, beside the grammatical rule in its favor, evidence appears to lie in the context. Thus, “the Son of man,” in verse 28, is a phrase which expresses the Saviour’s relation to humanity—to all mankind. From the close relation of the two expressions it would appear that the term “man” in one sentence cannot be limited without limiting it in the other also, which is certainly not admissible.

When we inquire how and when the Sabbath was made, the question for whom it was made is easily settled.

The word Sabbath means rest. The Sabbath day, is the rest day. Thus when it is said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” it is as if it read, The seventh day is the rest of the Lord thy God. Remember the Sabbath day means Remember the rest day, or day of the rest.

It has long been assumed and confidently asserted, even by learned men, that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews. Rest supposes a work performed, as it is cessation from work. And therefore the rest belongs to the one who performed the work.

To what work does the seventh day rest stand related? The answer to this settles the proprietorship of the weekly rest or Sabbath. And the answer to this leaves no uncertainty. “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Ex. 20:11.

The assertion that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews cannot be true, for the Jews did not create the heavens and earth; they did not rest from that work to which the Sabbath is related and on which the institution was erected. A moment’s reflection on the meaning of the terms used in the fourth commandment should satisfy any one that that idea, though often advanced, is not only unscriptural but also absurd. The proprietorship of the weekly rest is in the Lord alone. “Verily, my Sabbaths ye shall keep,” says Jehovah. “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord,” etc. It is “the Lord’s day,” and could not possibly belong to any other.

By this it is seen that the seventh-day Sabbath has for its sole basis the work of creation. How was the Sabbath made? By the Creator resting from all his work. This alone constituted it the rest day—his rest day—or Sabbath day. And this also settles the question when the Sabbath was made. We are sometimes referred to Ex. 16 for the origin of the Sabbath. But Ex. 16 does not give any reason why the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord; why that title was given to that day instead of to another. There is therein a truth stated, viz., the seventh day is the Sabbath. There is also a duty enjoined in view of that truth, viz., to abstain from secular labor on that day. Therefore Ex. 16 does prove that the seventh-day Sabbath existed before it was proclaimed on Sinai; and it proves that the obligation to keep it holy existed before its proclamation on Sinai. But it does not show why the seventh day was called the Sabbath; it does not state either when or by what act it was made a Sabbath. It was recognized but not instituted at that time, and it was enforced on the recognition.

Now as the Sabbath is based only on the facts of creation, and owes its origin solely to God’s resting from the work of creation, it is, of course, as old as creation itself—it was “made” at creation. Of course it was not and is not “Jewish” in any particular, having been made, blessed, and sanctified or set apart from creation, and because of creation.

Against this we are referred to Deut. 5. But this fails to help the opposers to the Sabbath just as Ex. 16 fails of the same end. Deut. 5 does not tell how nor when, nor for what reason the seventh day was made the Sabbath and sanctified for man’s observance. It says he commanded the children of Israel to keep the Sabbath because he brought them out of Egypt, and in that book it also says they should do justice and live righteously for the same reason. But none of these obligations had its origin in their being brought out of Egypt. The seventh day was not the Lord’s rest day because he brought Israel out of Egypt. He did not bless and sanctify the seventh day because he brought Israel out of Egypt.

But it is said “a consideration” is there presented for observing the Sabbath. Admitted; and what then? Still another “consideration” is presented in Isa. 58:13, 14, and another in Jer. 17:21–27, and yet another in Eze. 20:19, 20. But what have any or all of these to do with the origin or institution of the Sabbath? Just nothing at all. When the origin or institution of the Sabbath is spoken of the reason is given in direct terms. “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” And this is a “consideration” also for keeping the Sabbath—the first and the greatest that was ever given. When the duty was proclaimed in commandment on Mount Sinai the Lord said—“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day [literally, the day of the rest] and hallowed it.”

Adam, the head and representative of the human race, was the only “man” who was present—the only man who existed—when the Sabbath was made, when it was sanctified or set apart for observance. He, for several years, was the only man to whom that setting apart could have any relation. And it never could be referred, as to its obligation, to one part of his posterity more than to another. Local or temporary reasons may exist why a people may be under a special obligation to perform even a moral duty, but the obligation or duty can never originate in a local or temporary reason. The Creator’s Sabbath “was made for” all who dwell upon the earth which he created; all have an equal interest in the work and in its memorial.

We are often referred to Col. 2:16 as evidence that the Sabbath was a type or shadow, and that it passed away with the types at the time of the crucifixion of the Lord. We know that there were a number of sabbaths connected with the typical laws, but they were all yearly and each of them invariably fell on a certain day of a certain month, which a weekly Sabbath cannot do.

These yearly sabbaths were never called the Sabbaths of the Lord, as the seventh day was called, because the Lord never rested from his work on any of them. They might properly be called Sabbaths of the Jews, for they were the rest days for them, having no antecedent rest of the Lord as their basis. This distinction is recognized in the Scriptures, as in Lev. 23. The yearly sabbaths are enumerated and enforced, “beside the Sabbaths of the Lord,” verse 38. As all the other sabbaths were local and contingent, limited to that dispensation to Israel, it was said in prophecy, “I will cause all her sabbaths to cease.” Hos. 2:11.

The 17th verse of Col. 2 shuts out the weekly Sabbath from the apostle’s enumeration of sabbaths and holy days in that chapter. The yearly sabbaths were typical, “a shadow of good things to come, but the body is of Christ.” The weekly Sabbath is not of that nature. It is a memorial of creation; in the reason of its institution it always looks backward, never forward.

Had man never sinned, it would then have been forever true, as it is to-day, that God made the world in six days. Had no system of redemption been devised or needed, it would still have been eternal truth that God rested the seventh day, and that he blessed and sanctified his rest day.

But, on the other hand, had not man sinned; had no system of redemption been promised; had no types of the Redeemer’s work been ordained, then none of the typical or yearly sabbaths would have been instituted. Had man not sinned, the whole train of circumstances by which those sabbaths were called into being, would not have existed. They all stand related to man’s action as a sinner; and to Christ’s work as Redeemer. And as they point to, and have their fulfillment in, his work, they are appropriately denominated, “A shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.” But the Lord’s Sabbath, as has been shown, is of an entirely different nature. It is not so related to man’s action as a sinner, or to the work of redemption. It was not based upon any contingency, or upon any future work. But it had for its foundation a work all glorious and complete “when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy;” a work in which Jehovah himself delighted, and which he pronounced “very good.”

It will be here noticed that the seventh-day Sabbath grew out of the independent action of the great Creator, and was the outgrowth of his own divine will. No typical institution, or duty of a merely positive nature, ever sprang from the original relations which rest solely upon the work of creation.

Types look to man’s redemption, and to the work of the Redeemer, and therefore no types were given before the fall of man,—no types grow out of the work of creation. This is so manifestly true and reasonable that it seems surprising that it should ever be questioned, or that a position should ever be taken by any one leading to a contrary conclusion. We cannot avoid the conviction that prejudice has much to do in leading to a denial of so plain Scripture facts and reasons as we have here presented.

Sabbath-keeping stands related to God’s work, because he consecrated or sanctified that day which commemorates his work. We must work six days because in six days God created the heavens and the earth. We must rest the seventh because God rested the seventh day from all his work. If it be said that the ground of our obligation to rest is not found in God’s resting that day but in the sanctification or appointment of the day, we reply, that God “sanctified it because that in it he had rested.” The resting is the reason of the sanctification, or, in other words, the resting is the reason of its appointment for observance. Hence the commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day,” that is, Remember the rest day, or perhaps more literally, Remember the day of the rest. The seventh day is the day of the rest of the Lord God. The Lord blessed the day of the rest and hallowed it.

It is true that we do not find our obligation in reasons without law, but in this case both the law and its reasons are given, and we shall lose part of God’s truth and word if we neglect either. No matter how many reasons may be thought to exist, if there be no law there is no obligation, because, when God reveals to man his “whole duty,” and gives an inspired revelation which thoroughly furnishes us “unto all good works,” if there are reasons why we should act the duty based on those reasons will be revealed. To deny this is to deny the plainest declarations of Scripture. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” God in his wisdom knew better than to leave obligation on the uncertain basis of human reasoning, but himself revealed all duty,—all good works. To reject his law is rebellion; to pretend to find duty outside of his law is supererogation or will-worship. Both these are odious in his sight. “Whatsoever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Deut. 12:32. “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6.

We therefore conclude, and necessarily too, that to keep the Lord’s Sabbath we must follow him in his act of resting on the seventh day. This only is the day of his rest—his Sabbath. This day only was blessed and sanctified. Wherefore the Lord blessed the day of the rest and hallowed it. And this day he commanded us to keep holy. Neither the rest, the blessing, the sanctification, nor the commandment, pertain to any other than the seventh day.

But there are many who think there are reasons why the first day of the week should be kept. They seem to forget, however, that there ought to be sufficient reasons to set aside the plain revelation of duty in respect to God’s rest day—the seventh day. It is still truth that God made the world in six days; and that God rested upon the seventh day; that he blessed the seventh day; that he sanctified the seventh day; and that he commanded man to keep the seventh day holy. Do such reasons as this exist for keeping the Sunday? They do not. Does any evidence exist that God removed these marks and sanctions from the seventh day? It does not. Historical facts are not law, and are no basis of obligation except when law is plainly based upon them. Some facts of occurrence, as the resurrection of Christ, are claimed as having transpired on the first day of the week. But there is no hint of the blessing of the day; no appointment or sanctification; no commandment, or any hint of obligation to observe it. If it is observed it is only in deference to human reasoning, not at all in respect to any divine precept.

We do not by any means assent to all the assumed facts which are claimed for the first day of the week. We deny that it is ever, in the Scriptures, called the Lord’s day. We deny that there was any appointment of meetings and church collections on that day; we deny that there was any custom either expressed or implied, to break bread on the first day of the week. But we insist that were such facts written they would not amount to a law, or furnish any ground of obligation or observance.

Richard Baxter, the Reformer, well said, “For my part I will not fear that God will be angry with me for doing no more than he has commanded me, and for sticking close to the rule of his word in matters of worship; but I should tremble to add or diminish.” True reverence for the authority of God can take no position but this.