Objections to the Sabbath, Answered by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 21, 1873

Objections to the Sabbath, Answered.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

However plain any truth may be there can always be objections brought against it which can be made to appear quite plausible. Atheists urge objections not easily answered against the existence of God. Infidels have a thousand objections to the Bible, and to the Christian religion, many of which are hard to answer. Pedobaptists are on hand with objections to immersion, and immaterialists have plenty of objections to the earth’s becoming the saints’ future inheritance.

Indeed, what doctrine has not been objected to? What truth not opposed? So with God’s Sabbath. Though it is one of the plainest and most reasonable doctrines in the Bible, yet men can devise objections against it. As long as there is the shadow of an argument in one of these, they are deaf and blind to the plainest and most direct proofs in favor of the Sabbath. What do they do with all the arguments, proofs, and texts, supporting the Sabbath? Generally, nothing. An objection or two fills their whole mind and they can see nothing else. But the arguments brought against the Sabbath are simply objections, nothing more, which we are sure can be fairly answered.

I propose, if the Lord will, to take up in order the objections raised in the New Testament against the seventh-day Sabbath and the ten-commandment law. I will be as short as possible, and still fairly answer each objection.

FIRST OBJECTION.

There is no direct commandment in the New Testament to keep the seventh day.

Answer. This is true; but is there any to keep the first day, or any other day? All know there is not; hence if this objection is good against the seventh day, it is also against any day, and so we have no Sabbath. Some are willing to accept even this conclusion to evade the Sabbath, but many are not. But the truth is: The seventh day Sabbath was made by God in Eden. Gen. 2:1–3; Ex. 20:11. It was a part of his law before Mt. Sinai. Ex. 16:4, 27, 28. It was made a part of the moral law spoken by God from Heaven, and engraved on stone. Ex. 20:1–17; Deut. 4:12, 13. When Christ came, the ceremonial law and shadowy ordinances were abolished. Eph. 2:13–15; Col. 2:14–18; Heb. 9:10. But the moral law of ten commandments remained unchanged, and as binding as before. Not one of the least commandments, not even a jot or a tittle, was set aside; but all were ratified by Christ. Matt. 5:17–19. The apostles taught that this law was confirmed and established by the gospel, Rom. 3:31; 7:12, and that every part of it must be kept. James 2:8–12.

Now the Sabbath was a part of this law; hence a new commandment was not needed; nor was it proper to re-enact the Sabbath law, since the original law had never been abolished. Why re-give or re-enact a law still binding? The demand is absurd. A law once given remains in force till abolished by as high authority as first gave it. Does a law enacted by Congress have to be re-enacted every time Congress meets?

The Sabbath was a sacred institution, revered and observed by the people of God from their earliest history. They were all carefully keeping it when the gospel was introduced. Without some express instruction to the contrary, no one would think of disregarding it. Therefore no new commandment on this point was needed. It was sufficient to let it rest on the law already given.

But if so prominent, important, and sacred an institution as the Sabbath, the weekly observance of one day in every seven, an institution closely intertwined with all the customs and thoughts of the people, if this was to be abolished or changed, how reasonable to expect that such a great change would be plainly taught by Christ? If he were simply silent concerning it, the only reasonable conclusion would be that he designed to leave the old institution unchanged, and therefore still binding. Hence to argue that the Sabbath is not now binding because that commandment is not repeated, or re-given in the New Testament, is manifestly not conclusive.

But notice how utterly this argument does demolish the first-day Sabbath. The original law for the Sabbath is no longer binding because not directly and explicitly repeated in the New Testament. So no Sabbath can any longer be built upon any law existing previous to Christ’s time. No new law or commandment either for the seventh, or first day, is anywhere given in the New Testament either by Christ or his apostles. Therefore there is no Sabbath day at all now, no rest day of any kind!

Notwithstanding the fact that the seventh day had been God’s Sabbath from the beginning, had been hallowed in Eden, observed by the patriarchs, put in the law spoken by God from Heaven, kept by the prophets, regarded by Christ during his whole life, ever referred to with respect by the apostles, nothing intimated about its being done away, the law of which it is a part declared to be in force while heaven and earth stand,—if notwithstanding all these facts, our opponents demand a direct commandment in the New Testament for the seventh day, with how much more reason may we demand one of them for a direct command for the first day. It was an entirely new institution, never heard of before. Neither law nor custom ever existed in its favor. Here a reasonable demand can be made for a direct command in the New Testament for this new institution; but no such command can be cited; for it is not. If it is argued that the observance of the first day may be inferred from certain examples in the New Testament, then it is admitted that it is not necessary to have a direct commandment in the New Testament for the observance of the Sabbath. And so this objection is abandoned after all?

The law for the seventh day Sabbath, then, is still binding; first, because it has never been repealed, and second, because it is declared both by Christ and his apostles to be still in force.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Otranto, Iowa.