Objections to the Sabbath Answered by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 1, 1873

Objections to the Sabbath Answered.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ELEVENTH OBJECTION.

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom. 10:4.

Answer. We agree that this means the decalogue, but we do not agree that it means that Christ has put an end to that law. End does not always mean termination. It is very frequently used as meaning the object of a thing, as James 5:11. “Ye have heard of the patience of Job and have seen the end of the Lord.” This certainly does not mean that the Lord died in the days of Job. James means to say, “Ye have seen the object of the Lord in the afflictions he brought on Job.” The word end is used in that sense in the text. Christ is the object of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. That is, those who believe in Christ receive grace from him which enables them to carry out and accomplish the object of the law—that is to obey the law and be righteous men. 1 Tim. 1:5, is another illustration of the use of the word end, “Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.”

Would any one claim that by the term, end of the commandment, Paul meant that the commandment had died? Every one knows better. That is not Paul’s meaning. The simple meaning is this: The object of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart. Precisely the same is the meaning of the text in Rom. 10:4. But take our opponents’ view of it a moment. They say that this text means that Christ put an end to the law. Very well; to whom did he end it? Paul says, “To every one that believeth.” Then it is ended only to the believer; but to the unbeliever it is not ended, and hence is still binding on him. According to this, a man should keep the law of God till he is converted, and then should not obey it any longer! What an absurd conclusion. We think this objection is not worthy of a more extended notice.

TWELFTH OBJECTION.

Every day is alike. Rom. 14:5. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Answer. This text is often quoted by those who claim that any one-seventh part of time devoted to God is all that is required, men who claim that we must keep one day in the week, no matter which, provided we are conscientious about it. We will answer them first:—

Paul says, “One man esteemeth one day above another.” I esteem the seventh day above other days; you esteem the first day above other days. Of us both, Paul says, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Now if I am fully persuaded that the seventh day is right and you are persuaded that the first is right, why, we are neither one to be condemned. One is as good as the other. “That will do very well; but read a little farther: ‘Another esteemeth every day alike.’ Here is a third man who regards neither the seventh day, nor any other day. He esteems every day alike, working seven days in the week. What does Paul say about him? Precisely what he says about the other two—let him 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 is just as near right as either of us. Now if this has any reference to the Sabbath whatever, it does most certainly demolish all Sabbaths;—the first day, the seventh day, or any other Sabbath day, because it clearly teaches that the man who regards no day is just as acceptable to God as the one who does regard some day. Are our first-day keepers willing to accept this position? We know that they are not; hence they are the last men who ought to quote this text against the seventh-day Sabbath, for it is a sword that cuts both ways, and slays their Sunday Sabbath as well as God’s Sabbath. We think this is a sufficient answer to them.

But there is another class who can make a more plausible use of this text; viz., that there is now no holy time—no day to be kept sacred. Does this text when fairly understood teach that doctrine? We think not for several reasons.

1. In this very epistle to the Romans, Paul does most emphatically teach that the law of God, of which the Sabbath is a part, was not abolished by Christ, but is still holy and binding. Thus in chapter three he says: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Verse 31. And in chapter seven, verse 12, he says of the same law, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Christ says that every jot and tittle of the law shall stand till heaven and earth pass. Matt. 5:17–19.

James says, referring to the ten commandments, that whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments is guilty of all. James 2:8–12. We know that the Sabbath was a part of that law. Hence all these texts do teach that the Sabbath is still binding. 2. There is no record that Paul ever disregarded the Sabbath himself; but, on the contrary, so far as we have any record, it shows that he ever kept it, called it the Sabbath, attended meetings upon it, preached, held prayer meetings, and read the Scriptures that day. See Acts 13:14, 15, 27, 42–44; 16:13; 17:1–3; 18:1–4.

3. John, on the isle of Patmos, A. D. 96, was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, which shows beyond controversy that there is a day in the Christian dispensation which belongs to the Lord, which is distinguished above the other days of the week as the Lord’s day.

4. It is not reasonable that the Lord should abolish all sacred time, and leave no rest-day to his church. Both men and animals need a day of rest from physical labor as often as one day in seven. The Christian church needs a day for meeting and devotional services. Without this, the church would soon lose its power over men. The very men who advocate the no-Sabbath theory, never practice what they preach. They find it necessary to keep a Sabbath day as well as other people. Their works show that they do not believe their own doctrine.

5. Paul in this chapter has no reference whatever to the Sabbath day. It is not the subject he has under consideration. Manifestly he refers to feast days and fast days—days similar to our New Years, Christmas, Thanksgiving day, &c., which were observed by the Jews. Thus he begins the chapter: “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.” Verses 1, 2. It is the days connected with the eating of herbs and the like, of which a complete list may be found in Leviticus 23. But the objector insists that Paul says, “another man esteemeth every day alike”—every day must include the Sabbath day; hence Paul does include that day. We think that this does not follow. I make a bargain with a man to work every day through harvest. Will anybody interpret that to mean that he was to work for me seven days in the week? Certainly not. If we should put it in writing in that very form, no court would interpret that to apply to any more than the regular six working days of the week. So Paul uses it in this place. The Sabbath was a holy, sacred day, ever recognized by the people of God from the creation, and definitely guarded by one of the ten commandments, which law he everywhere honors as still holy and good.

I will now show that the phrase, “every day,” when referring to things not lawful to be done on the Sabbath does not include the Sabbath day. Ex. 16:4. “Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or no.” Here the Lord distinctly says the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day. This is the very term that Paul uses in Rom. 14:5, which our opponents urge must include the Sabbath. But read a little farther. “And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” Verses 27–29. How is this? Did not God say that they should go out and gather a certain portion every day? Certainly he did; and yet when some of the people interpreted that language as these moderns do, observe what a rebuke they received from God. They not only found no manna to gather on the Sabbath, but God sharply reproves them for going out to seek for it. Why was that? Simply because the Sabbath was a holy day, in which it was not proper to do such work; and when God said they should gather a certain rate every day, they ought to have known that he did not include the Sabbath day. These modern Sabbath-breakers deserve the same rebuke that those received there; and we fear that they will be as greatly disappointed in the day of Judgment, as those were at that time.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Alden, Minn.