p. 50 | THE LAW AND THE SABBATH by John Norton Loughborough

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Feb 3, 1881

THE LAW AND THE SABBATH.

By John Norton Loughborough

CONCLUSION OF A LETTER TO A FRIEND IN SUSSEX.

BY J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, OF SOUTHAMPTON, ENG.

Your next question reads, "How could the Christian slaves keep the Sabbath?" I do not understand that the early Christians were all slaves, and if they were under Jewish task-masters there would be no difficulty about the Sabbath; for according to their own usages their servants would be required to rest, as well as themselves. I suppose your question relates to those slaves who had heathen masters. I do not know that even in such a case we are to decide what is duty by circumstances. The words of both Christ and the apostles show that those accepting the gospel truth must be willing even to lose their lives for the sake of the truth. Had the rule of deciding duty by simply submitting to circumstances been applied, we should have no record of the deliverance of Daniel from the lions' den, or of the Hebrew children from the fiery furnace. According to the rule of convenience, Daniel would cease to pray, and the three worthies bow to the image.

Perhaps your difficulty grows out of a statement made in British prints about one year since, that St. Paul told servants to obey their masters in all things, and as their heathen masters regarded only the "day of the sun"—the first day of the week—they would not be allowed to keep the Sabbath, and it was supposed that St. Paul's teaching sanctioned their breaking the Sabbath.

There is no direct evidence that these slaves at Ephesus and Colosse had heathen masters; but quite the contrary, for St. Paul addresses the masters as well as the slaves. This he surely would not do, in the manner he did, if they were heathen. If we claimed that these were heathen masters, and that the expression "obey in all things" is to be understood in its broadest sense, what would be the result? Suppose such a master told his slave (as he would be likely to do) that he must not assemble with the Christians, nor accept the Christian religion, but instead engage with him in the worship of idols, must he, the slave, do so because St. Paul had said to the Christian servants obey your masters?

Should you be permitted, as I have been, to witness the idol worship of the heathen Chinese in their temples in California even, you would see that the servants of idolaters have quite a conspicuous part to act in that worship, especially when it comes to spreading the meats before their idols.

In the instructions of St. Paul to the Ephesians (chap. 6) and to the Colossians (chap. 3) respecting husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, we see he is proceeding on the principle of mutual obligation, each respecting the right of the other. While he teaches the child obedience to parents he admonishes the parent to deal tenderly with the child, and while he exhorts the servant to obey the master, the master is told to give the servant that which is just and equal. It does not seem to be the design of the apostle in any of these cases to place the control of the conscience in the hands of either husband, parent, or master. In the case of obedience and submission on the part of the child and wife, he qualifies by saying, "In the Lord." God has never given to any man, whether in the capacity of husband, father, or master, the right to rule another man's conscience. St. Paul himself is good authority on this point when he says, "For why is my liberty judged of (or by) another man's conscience." 1 Cor. 10: 29.

Instead, then, of the apostle violating his own teaching and putting the control of the conscience of slaves into the hands of their masters, we find the instructions to servants to relate to temporal service, as "Not with eye service, as men pleasers," "not answering again; not purloining, but showing all good fidelity." Titus 2: 9, 10.

The question of the Sabbath, like all moral questions, should not be decided by what one class could do or could not do, but by the word of God. What slaves could do or could not do does not decide our duty. The historians do show us, however, that when the gospel made advancement among the heathen, and when this difficulty came up, and servants were not allowed to keep the Sabbath, the people suggested the idea of allowing these heathen converts to have their assemblies on the "Sun's day" the same day as the holiday of their masters. This was not done, however, by Christ, nor the apostles, but was more than one century this side the time St. Paul wrote his epistles.

The North British Review, Vol. 18, page 409, says of the introduction of Sunday among these converts from paganism, "that every day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and respective countrymen; and patriotism gladly united with expediency in making it at once their Lord's day and their Sabbath."

Chafie, a clergyman of the English church, in a work published in 1652, pages 61, 62, seeks to justify this proceeding, thus, "Most Christians then were either servants or the poorer sort of people; and the Gentiles, most probably, would not give their servants liberty to cease from working on any other set day constantly, except their Sunday."

Authentic history will show what men did in departing from the word of God, while duty must be decided by the Scriptures themselves. Jeroboam had his excuse for setting up the golden calves in Bethel and Dan, and by so doing opened the way for all Israel to depart from the worship of the true God, and go into idolatry.

You again ask, "Where is there any proof that the Sabbath was ever given to Gentiles after the fall of man?" I judge from your manner of stating this question that you admit the Sabbath was given before the fall of man. The fourth commandment (Ex. 20: 10, 11.) gives the reason why the seventh day is the Sabbath. It is because God sanctified the day at creation, "In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, . . . for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Keep the day holy because God made it holy at the close of creation week, seems to be the sentiment of that commandment. This is not a reason that is peculiar to Adam or the Jews. The Lord is the creator of all men. He demands worship and obedience of all. The Sabbath is the sign of God's authority and power as creator. Our Saviour said, "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark 2: 27. Not the Jew-man, but for man—for the whole race. I suppose by your question you wish some scripture text that refers to the Gentiles in connection with the subject of the Sabbath. That we will have presently. You state that "God does not give commands to his enemies." If he does not give commands to his enemies, he may call upon them to turn from their transgression of the laws he has given his friends. So we see some of the Jews broken off by disobedience and wicked works, grafted in by true repentance and faith in Christ.

We do not read in the Scriptures that God ever made any covenant with the Gentiles. If you note carefully Jer. 31: 31, 33; Heb. 8: 8-10, you will see that both the old and the new covenants are made with Israel. Gentiles are grafted in and become partakers of the root and fatness of the live tree—the blessings of God through Christ.

If God makes no commands to his enemies, he makes some for them. St. Paul says, that the law was made for "the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons." 1 Tim. 1: 9, 10. It comes to such to give them that they may truly repent, be born again, and thus become of the household of faith, yielding from the heart acceptable service to God.

Now we will notice a text where the "sons of strangers"—Gentiles—are called upon to keep the Sabbath, not because God has made a covenant directly with them, nor because they have decided to become Jews, but because they have "joined themselves to the Lord" to serve him. It is a prophecy of the work of the Lord in this dispensation which is found in Isa. 56: 6, 7: "Also the sons of the stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant, even them will I bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer." The sons of strangers were Gentiles, so here is a promise to Gentile Sabbath-keepers.

There is another statement in your letter of which I do not see the force, and must, therefore, ask you to state more fully. You say, "The church is part of the new creation, and so is not obliged to keep the Sabbath." If you mean by this new creation, that by being born again we become new creatures in Christ, and that "Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new," 2 Cor. 5: 17, I would say the new things relate to the changed demeanor of the individual whose sins are washed away and his affections and habits of life point in an entirely new direction. In stating the same thing to the Ephesians, St. Paul says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Eph. 2: 10. This is made plain by the words already quoted in this letter from his epistle to the Romans, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." Rom. 8: 4. So you see that being made new creatures in Christ, does not release us from the obedience to the law that God has before ordained.

Excuse such a lengthy epistle. I could not satisfy my own mind by saying less. Truth and not victory is my desire in what I have been saying.