Objections to the Sabbath Answered by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 29, 1873

Objections to the Sabbath Answered.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

SEVENTEENTH OBJECTION.

The Sabbath has been nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14–17.

Answer. We will quote the entire passage: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

I believe it can be clearly shown that there is not one reference in all this to the decalogue, or the seventh-day Sabbath. On this, Dr. Adam Clarke says, “By the handwriting of ordinances, the apostle most evidently means the ceremonial law.” Com. on verse 14. Look at the figures used. “Blotting out.” That which was written on parchment in books, as was the ceremonial law, could be blotted out with a wet sponge. See Num. 5:23. But it would be improper and absurd to talk of blotting out what was engraved in stones, as was the decalogue. “Handwriting.” The ceremonial law was the handwriting of Moses, but the decalogue was written by the finger of God. Ex. 31:18. “Of ordinances.” Here is further proof that it is the law of ceremonial ordinances which is meant. Compare Heb. 9:10: “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” Then there was a law which stood only in these carnal ordinances of meats, drinks, &c., the very things of which the apostle speaks in Colossians. Mark that these were imposed on them as a burden. So in Eph. 2:15: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

Here, too, we have the law of ordinances, the enmity, abolished. “That was against us, which was contrary to us.” The ceremonial law, with all its innumerable rites and ordinances, which must be carefully regarded in the smallest affairs of every-day life, was indeed a burden, a yoke, and against them, imposed upon them to keep them a separate people till Christ came. But which of the ten commandments is against us? Look them over. Is it against us, 1. To have no other gods? 2. Not to make or worship an image? 3. Not to swear? 5. To honor our parents? 6. Not to kill? 7. Nor commit adultery? 8. Nor steal? 9. Nor lie? 10. Nor covet? Are not these commandments good, and for our best interest? But perhaps the fourth precept, the Sabbath, is against us? No, indeed; for Christ himself said, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27. That which is for man cannot be against him.

“Nailing it to his cross.” It would be proper to speak of nailing to the cross a parchment, or laws written on paper, but entirely improper if the reference is to the tables of stone. They could not be nailed up. Notice now the items which the apostle mentions, not one of which is in the decalogue, but all of which are in the ceremonial law. “Let no man therefore judge you in meat.” Any thing in the ten commandments about meat? Not a word. “Or in drink.” Any thing there about drink? Nothing. “Or in respect of an holy day.” The original word here rendered holy day, is heortes, which means a feast day. Thus Greenfield defines it: “A solemn feast, public festival, holy day.” It occurs twenty-seven times in the New Testament, and is, except in this place, every time rendered “feast,” or “feast day.” The Diaglott renders it thus: “Let no one, therefore, rule you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a festival.” There were many festival (heortes) days in the ceremonial law, but not one in the decalogue. See the yearly festivals enumerated in Lev. 23:2, 4, 6, 34, 37, 39, 41, &c., where the original word rendered festival is heortes every time. And this is the word which Paul uses in Col. 2:16, thus carefully pointing out those old yearly festivals of the ceremonial law. No such festival is mentioned in the ten commandments; hence he has no reference to them.

“Or of the new moon.” Any thing about new moons in the ten commandments? Not a thing. Hence this can be no reference to that law. Was there a law touching the celebration of new moons? Yes; the ceremonial law. See Num. 10:10; 28:11; Ps. 81:3, 4. Thus far we have not found the slightest reference to the ten commandments, but every item mentioned is found in the ceremonial law outside of the decalogue.

“Or of the sabbath days.” Here our opponents are in high glee thinking that the seventh-day Sabbath is surely meant by this; but we are as confident that it is not, and will give our reasons for it. Many of the ablest commentators agree with us in this. Dr. Clarke on this says, “The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the handwriting of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean, and what unclean, according to the law: and the necessity of observing certain holidays or festivals, such as the new moons, and particular sabbaths. . . . There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere, that remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation.”

The American Tract Society comments thus on this passage: “A holy day—sabbath days; in the original, a festival—sabbaths. The days referred to are those required to be observed in the ceremonial law; days associated by God with meats, drinks, and new moons. The passage does not refer to the Sabbath of the moral law associated with the commands forbidding murder, theft, and adultery.”

The following are some of the reasons why this does not apply to the weekly Sabbath:—

1. If it does, then it leaves us no weekly Sabbath day at all; for no exception is made. It sets aside the first-day Sabbath, as well as the seventh day—“Let no man judge you in respect to the sabbath days.” If one man is not to be judged for disregarding one day, then another is not to be judged for disregarding another day, and so we need keep no day.

2. This interpretation contradicts the many plain and direct texts which assert that the law, which includes the Sabbath, is still in force and must be kept, even to the smallest point. Rom. 3:31; Matt. 5:17–19; Jas. 2:8–12, &c.

3. If this proves the Sabbath nailed to the cross, then the other commandments went with it, and so the law against murder, adultery, theft, &c., has been abolished.

4. Not a single expression in the whole passage, unless it be this one touching the Sabbath days,

is applicable to the law of God engraven in stones, as we have seen.

5. Every item in the context, enumerated by the apostle, viz., meats, drinks, festivals, and new moons, is found, not in the decalogue, but in the ceremonial law. This is a strong indication that he is simply talking of the institutions of that ceremonial law, and has no reference to the moral law.

6. But were there any sabbath days in the ceremonial law? Yes; several yearly sabbaths besides the Lord’s Sabbath, and the two had no connection. They are described at length in Lev. 23. We will notice a few of them:—

Verse 24: “In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein.” This sabbath was on the first day of the seventh month, which could only come once a year, as all can see.

Verses 27–32: “Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement. . . . It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls; in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.” The Greek word here rendered sabbath is sabbaton, the same that is used by Paul in Col. 2:16. This sabbath was on the tenth day of the seventh month and so could come only once a year. The first and tenth days of the month were sabbaths, which shows that they are not weekly Sabbaths; for they are ten days apart—rather a long week!

Verse 39: “Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days; on the first day [of the feast, hence the fifteenth of the month] shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.” Here we have two more yearly sabbaths. That these are not weekly Sabbaths is further proved by the fact that the tenth and the fifteenth days of the month were sabbaths—a week only five days long! Further, the Lord says these are to be kept beside his Sabbath.

Verses 37, 38: “These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon his day; beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” &c.

Thus we have the fact plainly before us that there were several yearly sabbaths connected with meats, drinks, new moons, feasts, &c., besides God’s Sabbath. And this is the very list which Paul names in Col. 2 as nailed to the cross and blotted out. 7. The sabbath days mentioned by Paul he says were a shadow of Christ. Verse 17. This was true of the ceremonial sabbaths, but not of the seventh-day Sabbath. It pointed back to creation, not forward to the cross; hence it is not what the apostle meant.

But, says one, days is a supplied word in Col. 2:16. So the original would read, “Or of the Sabbath,” singular number, hence the Sabbath, the seventh day, and not the sabbath days, the yearly sabbaths, plural. I answer, It is true that “days” is not in the original; but sabbaton is in the plural; hence if we do not render it sabbath days, we must render it sabbaths, plural, which is the same in substance. So our opponents have not even a single hook upon which to hang their theory in this passage.

D. M. CANRIGHT.