Objections to the Sabbath Answered by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 25, 1873

Objections to the Sabbath Answered.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

THIRD OBJECTION.

Christ broke the Sabbath.

Answer. If Christ did break the Sabbath, then he was a sinner, for all admit that the law was binding till his death. Thus, in their endeavors to destroy the Sabbath, men are driven to make even the Son of God a transgressor! It is a good proof of the blindness with which men fight against the truth. But what did Christ ever do that was a violation of the Sabbath law? Did he ever plow or sow or reap on that day? No. Did he perform any secular labor whatever? Not in the least. Did he ever instruct others to do so? No. Did he ever say the Sabbath was no longer a holy day or to be kept sacred? Not that either.

Why then this charge? Simply because he did not regard the foolish traditions which the Pharisees taught concerning the Sabbath, but used the day for merciful and benevolent purposes, as God originally designed it to be used. He went to the house of God, read the Scriptures, taught the people, healed the sick with a word, and affirmed that these things were “lawful” to be done upon the Sabbath day. Matt. 12:12. “Lawful” means “in accordance with the law;” that is, these things were in perfect harmony with the law of the Sabbath, and hence no violation of it.

But did he not justify his disciples in plucking the ears of corn and eating upon the Sabbath? Yes; but this was only a simple act of mercy in supplying the demands of nature, the same as it would be to pick and eat an apple or other fruit. The answer of Christ to his enemies on that occasion silenced them then, and it is a fitting answer to the enemies of the Sabbath now. See Matt. 12:1–12. He said, and proved too, that what his disciples did was lawful. If lawful, then it was not a violation of the law, and hence neither they nor he broke the Sabbath. Christ emphatically said that whoever broke one of the least of the commandments would be the least in the kingdom. Matt. 5:17–19. Then did he violate one of them himself? “No; for he says he kept them. John 15:10.”

FOURTH OBJECTION.

Christ, in teaching the young man what commandments to keep, in order to gain eternal life, does not mention the Sabbath, which shows that he did not regard it of any importance. Matt. 19:16–22.

Answer. This objection is based on the assumption that Christ names all the commandments which it is necessary to keep in the Christian dispensation. Now look and see what ones he does name. The fifth, to honor parents; the sixth, not to kill; the seventh, against adultery; the eighth, against stealing; the ninth, against lying; and then the sum of them all, to love your neighbor as yourself. These are all. The first commandment, against idolatry; the second, against images; the third, against profanity; and the fourth, the Sabbath, and the tenth, against coveting, are not mentioned at all!

Now, if because the Sabbath is not mentioned, we conclude that Christ meant to slight it and leave it out of the gospel, then we must also conclude the same concerning the first three commandments, because they are no more mentioned than that is. And hence, by the same reasoning, we must conclude that idolatry, image worship, profanity, and covetousness are not wrong under the gospel, because not here named by Christ!

No candid person can fail to see that a position which leads to such terrible conclusions as these must be false. The simple fact is this: The young man asked which commandments he should keep. Christ then quotes several of the ten commandments, enough to show which law he meant. This was all he wished to do. The young man was self-deceived. He thought that he was keeping all the law, the ten commandments. But when Christ told him to go and sell and give to the poor, he went away sorrowful. This showed that he was violating the tenth precept—Thou shalt not covet. This was one of the commandments which Christ did not directly name. From all which it is manifest that Christ, in his answer to the young man did not pretend to give all the commandments which must be kept now, as he only quoted five of the ten, but only enough to show which law he meant when he said, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” So vanishes this objection, and leaves behind it another proof of Christ’s regard for all the ten commandments.

FIFTH OBJECTION.

Christ, in answer to the lawyer’s question, “Which is the great commandment in the law,” names the two great commandments, but does not mention the Sabbath, which again shows that it is not now binding. Matt. 22:35–40.

Answer. This objection is founded on the same false assumption that the preceding one was, viz., that because the Sabbath is not definitely named here, it is not binding. Now try this on the other commandments also. What does he say about stealing? Nothing. Killing? Nothing. Profanity? Nothing. Coveting? Nothing. Indeed he does not mention any one of the ten commandments. Shall we therefore conclude that a man can disregard all those precepts now and be guiltless? None dare take this position. Then this objection is given up.

But let us read this passage and see what it does teach. “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying: Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt. 22:35–40.

Now it is argued that Christ gave these two commandments to supersede the old law, and that if a man will keep these it is all he need to do. The Sabbath is not mentioned, therefore it is excluded by this new law. But we have seen that according to this reasoning all the ten commandments are excluded as well as the Sabbath. That will hardly do. The fact is, Christ was not giving a new law, but quotes both these great commandments directly from Moses in the Old Testament. The first is found in Deut. 6:4, 5, and the second in Lev. 19:18. These were given by Moses, word for word, as Christ quotes them, about fifteen hundred years before Christ. If they do away the Sabbath, then it was done away in the days of Moses at the very time it was given; for this is the time when

these two great commandments were first given! Strange that men are so blind as to take positions which are so absurd. These two great commandments contain the sum of the ten commandments. Thus the first four are briefly contained in this one, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” If a man loves God with all his heart, he will not have other gods, nor worship idols, nor profane God’s name, nor break God’s Sabbath day. If he loves his neighbor as himself, he will not kill him, nor lie about him, nor steal from him, &c.

As will be seen by this, the ten commandments are based upon or hang upon these two great commandments. Now the question is, Do all ten still hang there in the New Testament? or was one, the Sabbath, taken off by Christ? Hear him: after quoting these two great commandments, he says, “On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.” How much of the law hangs there? All of it. Remember, this is in the New Testament, and the words of Jesus as found in the very passage brought as an objection to the Sabbath! This witness, like the others, testifies in favor of the Sabbath and the law, not against them.

SIXTH OBJECTION.

“The law and the prophets were until John.” Luke 16:16.

Answer. This objection furnishes a good illustration of the blindness and unreasonableness of error. If this objection is sound, then the law was abolished in the days of John the Baptist. Well, then, was it abolished again at the death of Christ? So our opponents claim. It would seem that the law died hard indeed! If the old law was abolished in the days of John, and the new law did not come into force till after the death of Christ, then there was a period of some years in which there was no law at all, as the old was dead, and the new was not yet given! And, further; not only was the law abolished in the time of John, but the prophets too! For the text says, “The law and the prophets were until John.” If this proves that the law was abolished there, it proves the same of the prophets! A position so absurd can not be true.

But what, then, is the meaning of the text? I understand it to be this: The people were taught by the law and the prophets till John came; then they had the additional light of the gospel of the kingdom. Matthew renders it thus: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” Chap. 11:13. Luke gives it thus: “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Chap. 16:16. If the reader will look into his Bible, he will see that “were” is a supplied word, not in the original. The context must show what words are to be supplied. “Were preached” are manifestly the proper words to be supplied, as the last part of the verse shows. It would then read thus: “The law and the prophets were preached until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached.” Matthew also harmonizes with this, as will be seen. Then the simple meaning is, not that the law and the prophets all died at the coming of John, but that these were preached as the only light the people had till then; and after that, they had the additional light of the gospel.

SEVENTH OBJECTION.

The council of the apostles held at Jerusalem, Acts 15, decreed that the Gentiles need not keep the law, hence it is not now binding.

Answer. To this we readily agree, provided the ceremonial law is meant; but if it is claimed that this covers also the decalogue, then we cannot assent to it. It is easy to show that there were two kinds of laws in the Old Testament; one, the moral law, briefly contained in the ten commandments; the other, the ceremonial law, pertaining to the priesthood, the temple, the sacrifices, circumcision, &c. The first is of universal application to all nations and all ages; but the second was local and limited in its application, extending only to the death of Christ. Of course, when Christ died, this shadowy, typical law passed away. It was not necessary that the Gentiles who turned to God after that should keep this law.

It was this law that was under consideration at Jerusalem, as will be seen by reading Acts 15. Verse 1 says, “And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye can not be saved.” It was the law relating to circumcision which these men were trying to enforce. Verse 5 confirms this thus: “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” No reference, whatever, is made to the law of ten commandments.

After thoroughly discussing this question, the apostles wrote to the Gentiles thus: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment. . . . For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Verses 24–29.

Over this language our opponents become very confident. The apostles say they never commanded the Gentiles to keep “the law.” This, they say, must include all the old law, ten commandments and all, as no exception is made. Then the apostles proceed to name a few things in that old law which it is still necessary to keep. All that is not here named by them is not now binding. Not a word is said about keeping the Sabbath, hence it is not now binding.

Well, let us look a little further. How much of the old law did the apostles name as still to be kept? Only four things: 1, Abstain from meats offered to idols, 2, from blood, 3, from things strangled, 4, from fornication. What is said about the commandments against profanity, honoring parents, murder, lying, stealing, coveting, &c.? Not a word! Then according to the logic of our opponents none of these precepts are now binding any more than the Sabbath; for they are not mentioned any more than that is? What a blasphemous conclusion is this! Yet there is no avoiding it provided the decalogue is the law or a part of the law here under discussion. For the apostles say emphatically that they never required the Gentiles to keep the law and then name the only points in that law to which they need pay any attention. The rest of it they are at liberty to disregard entirely.

What do our opponents do with this dilemma? What do they say about it? Just nothing at all. They are speechless. And yet they will doggedly cling to their position and bring it up again and again with all these absurdities staring them in the face.

But notice how plain the truth is. The apostles were simply discussing the ceremonial law, that relating to circumcision and the like. This law they never required the Gentiles to keep. However, there were a few regulations in it which it would be well still to regard. These the apostles name, all of which will be found in the ceremonial law. So vanishes this objection also. D. M. CANRIGHT.