Sabbath Controversy by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Jul 31, 1879

Sabbath Controversy.

By Editor

THE Sabbath question, as a subject of controversy, has come to the front to stay; it "will not down." Only a few years ago we were blamed on every side for agitating it; then it was held as folly to make it prominent—to attach any importance to its investigation. But times are greatly changed. Now almost every religious paper engages in its discussion. The Christian Statesman has been established mainly to agitate it; and even the secular papers aid to "keep it before the people."

A striking fact in this discussion is the want of uniformity and consistency among the opposers of the seventh-day Sabbath, the advocates of the Sunday. If their success depended upon the perfect agreement of "two or three," we think that condition alone would insure their failure. And the same papers and persons are continually changing front. The Christian Statesman, which proved so conclusively to its own satisfaction that the commandment is moral and perpetual, and that the day has been changed, has lately published approvingly an article arguing that the obligation of the Sunday must be advocated on other grounds. In this it virtually admits that all its "strong proofs" from Scripture and from history, are a lamentable failure.

In contrast with this is the fact, equally striking, that there is complete harmony and consistency among those who teach and keep the seventh day—"the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Wherever found, they "all speak the same thing," just as the apostle commanded. They are well convinced that "God is not the author of confusion." Planted upon the plain and immutable word, the commandment of the Most High, they are all agreed in their reasons, and therefore never change one position for another. They draw nigh to God with "full assurance of faith," which is based upon the word of God, because they rest upon his word and his reasons, and not upon their own reasons or imaginings. As we write our heart rejoices that we need not be under the darkness of confusion; that God has so clearly revealed his holy will to the children of men, and assured us that we shall "delight ourselves in the Lord" if we follow it. Isa. 58:13, 14.

Messiah's Herald—late the Advent Herald—of Boston, recently published a communication from a Baptist minister in which he attempts to show that "the Seventh-day Sabbath is not identical with the Lord's Day." In the first paragraph he says:—

"There is much confusion of thought among many, even intelligent, honest Christians, as to the Jewish Sabbath; whether it is still in force, as a divine institution; has been fulfilled and repealed in the gospel, or not; or whether the time is changed and the institution thus modified is transferred and perpetuated; or whether in the Lord's day we have another and a new institution, in commemoration of that grand and sealing event of the gospel, the resurrection of our dear Redeemer."

Aside from the erroneous, unscriptural designation of "Jewish Sabbath," as applied to the seventh day, which is always and only spoken of in the Bible as "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," this statement is quite correct. But we insist that the confusion is needless and inexcusable. Is not the commandment, which is the only rule of Sabbath observance in the Bible, plain enough to shut out this confusion? It is. But the difficulty is, that there is a strong inclination to leave the commandment of God, and to set up something more congenial to the feelings of poor fallen man. But, as each one wants to have his own way, confusion is the necessary result.

This writer says he has related "facts and important considerations" which, he thinks, "will set this whole matter right." After so many failures of so many authors, this man must have achieved a wonder if he has at length satisfied the friends of the Sunday.

This writer couples together all the sabbaths given to Israel, yearly and weekly, and with one stroke sets them aside as positive, and not moral. But we have only his word for it, for he does not give a single reason; but he undermines his theory, saying that the moral law "is epitomized in the Decalogue." We have thought, and still think, the moral law is the Decalogue. However, we shall find, no fault with this. If the moral law is epitomized in the Decalogue, to mutilate the Decalogue, as he does, is to do violence to the rules of morality.

The following is only the reiteration of an error which has been so often exposed that we should think a man would be ashamed to utter it:—

"The Sabbath was moreover given to the Jews . . . as a sign to distinguish them from all other people, as we learn from Ezek. 20:12-20."

The verses referred to above read as follows:—

"Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, that they might be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." Eze. 20:12.

"And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God." Verse 20.

Thus it is seen that, instead of the Sabbath being a sign to distinguish the Jews from other nations, it is a sign to distinguish Jehovah from false gods—"the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth." Jer. 10:10-16. We marvel that Messiah's Herald will herald such a statement to the world. In the present state of the Sabbath controversy it can hardly be ignorant of the reading of these texts. God has always given the work of creation as proof of his Godhead. Acts 17:23, 24; Rev. 14:6, 7; Rom. 1:20. The Sabbath is a memorial of this work; hence it is the sign of the Creator.

Then follows a strange medley, more of error, however, than of truth. He says:—

"The Decalogue is only one out of several compends of the moral law and contains one positive law, interjected because, probably, of its great importance, and affinity to the moral precepts."

A constant repetition of the assertion that the Sabbath is a positive institution, and that the fourth commandment is a positive law, does not make it so. If it is a positive law, on what ground is it of "great importance" above other positive laws? And may it not be that that ground, which was sufficient to place it in the moral law, apart from all positive laws, was sufficient to keep it among moral laws, and apart from positive laws when the latter were abolished? But it has also a great "affinity to moral precepts." Why has it, if it is itself positive? We see no great or necessary affinity of positive law to moral law. But we do see a striking affinity of the precept of that Sabbath, which God sanctified to his own glory; which he set apart from secular days; which he reserved to himself as his own day, to that moral law which says, Thou shalt not steal. It is the Sabbath of the Lord God; he calls it "my holy day," and "the holy of the Lord." As we have no moral right to appropriate to our own use that which belongs to our neighbor, so we have no moral right to appropriate to our own use that which God calls his own, and which he has peremptorily forbidden us to use in that manner. We invite all to read a pamphlet on the subject of the "Morality of the Sabbath," published at this office.

Again we wonder that individuals, in this age of Sabbath controversy, will quote Col. 2:16, 17, and apply it to the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Will some one read the fourth commandment and point out the "things to come" to which it refers? Its foundations were laid far back of types. It points, not to the work of Christ in redemption, but to the work of creation, and to that alone. We have often called attention to the following distinction, and wish our opponents would show that it is just and necessary, or else recognize it. All moral law has its origin in the action or will of God alone. All positive law is made necessary by the action or condition of man. And thus we find that all the types of the Saviour—the positive laws of the Old Testament—grew out of the fact that man has sinned; they represent a system of recovery from a terrible loss on account of transgression. But God made the Sabbath when he created the heavens and the earth; before man sinned, and therefore before types could have had any significance.

It would be better, also, to give a reason for applying Gal. 4:8-10 to the Sabbath, even to the Levitical yearly sabbaths, than to rest it simply on an assertion. It certainly needs proof. Did they who "knew not God," observe the seventh-day Sabbath, or even the yearly sabbaths of the Mosaic law, in doing "service to them which by nature are no gods"? Did not the God of Israel establish all these observances? Such references, given as this minister gives them, may confirm prejudices, but they will never lead to a correct understanding of the word of God.

The following is offered as a very decisive point. The italics are those of the writer:—

"Another fact, not to be forgotten, is, that the seventh-day Sabbath is never spoken of, or referred to by Christ or any of his apostles after the resurrection of Christ, as a day binding on Christians."

Suppose we give another fact which is still more striking, which ought not to be forgotten, yet seems to be, quite too often. It is this:—

Sunday, or the first day of the week, was never spoken of, or referred to by Christ, or by any of his apostles, or by any body else, after the resurrection, nor at any other time, as a day binding on Christians, or on any others. No mention was ever made of it, in any dispensation, as a day sanctified, blessed, commanded, or even hinted at as a day of observance. Of course we are speaking of Scripture authority. We know it was honored by that magnificent worldling and criminal, Constantine, lauded as "the first Christian emperor." It was commanded under severe penalties by the "man of sin." It grew strong under the fostering care of "the holy Inquisition." Custom, prejudice, and human laws still uphold it. But the word of the Most High honors the seventh-day,—the day blessed by Jehovah. If it is so good an argument against the seventh day that the fourth commandment was not repeated at a certain time, why not be candid enough to admit that it is a decisive argument against the first day that a commandment for its observance was never given at all. Inspiration steadily refuses to afford any sanction to this Sunday innovation.

That would be a terrible life in which no good were blended, and that must be a sorry writing which contains no truth. Our author, in his endeavors to establish safe ground for his innovation, writes as follows:—

"The common ground taken by theologians, that the seventh-day Sabbath was transferred to Christianity, but changed to the first day of the week, is without authority, and based on mere assumption. The law designates the identical day of the week, as well as its design, and expressly says: 'The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, thy God,' not that one-seventh part of time is Sabbath, but the seventh day of the week."

Here he has found unalloyed truth, for it is the word of God. And seeing that "the law designates" the seventh day, will this writer, or anybody in his behalf, please to point out any other law, which designates any other day, prior to that of Constantine? All references to human authority are idle words with us. We do not fear "the judgment of the great day" because of what man has spoken. It is enough for us to "Fear God and keep his commandments."

This writer, with great self-complacency, thinks he has pointed out a remedy for the confusion. We think he has only added one to the great list of the confused and confusers.