Is the Sabbath Law Abolished? by John Norton Loughborough

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Nov 25, 1852

Is the Sabbath Law Abolished?

By John Norton Loughborough

From Bro. Loughborough.

DEAR BRO. WHITE:—Some of those with whom I have formerly been associated, seem to express surprise that I should take the position which I have, when (as they say) the light is so clear that the Sabbath law is abolished. A brother writing a few days since, makes this statement: Well, brother, why was it abolished? Was it because of any imperfection in it? Did it not accomplish what God designed it for? Or shall we say it was against man, and thus throw imperfection on the Creator, when Christ says it was "made for man?"

It is said by some, that it was a part of the ceremonial law, and that law was imperfect. Who says the ceremonial law was imperfect? The Apostle, I admit, teaches that it did not make the comers thereunto perfect, yet it was perfectly adapted to point to Christ. But the Sabbath did not depend upon the gospel, or did not point to it for its light; but points back to Creation. Therefore the Sabbath cannot be classed with this law by Paul's argument, for he teaches that there has been a fulfillment of the ceremonies of the law of Moses which is perfect, which is the ministration in the heavenly Sanctuary; and according to their position, the Sabbath has had no such fulfillment.

But you urge that the law is abolished. Where is the proof? Why, say you, Col. ii. 14. "Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances," &c. This, you say, has reference to the ten commandments. Now let us illustrate: I am walking through a cemetery with a brother who is a believer in the sleep of the dead.—We read the inscriptions on the stones with earnestness. By and by we come to one like this: "'Tis but the voice that Jesus sends to call them to his arms." I have a bottle of ink in my hand, and I say, brother, that is against the truth, I am going to blot it out. Why, says he, that you cannot do. Neither can you use the figure of blotting out what God wrote with his own finger upon tables of stone. Neither would it be a correct figure to speak of nailing it to a tree or cross.

Those who wish to take the ground that the commandments are abolished, wish, also, to have us understand that nine of them were incorporated into the new covenant, or re-instituted by Christ, before the ten were abolished. Then, surely, at that time there should have been the greatest harmony prevailing among men, when they had their duty made plain, and urged upon them by two Law-givers. I admit, Christ quoted the commandments; but never stated that he was re-instituting them. He merely showed that the law of God was still in force, and that we might have a standard to raise when the enemy comes in like a flood with his no-Sabbath delusion. It seems that he is forced to take this ground, for he sees that men will not admit that the world have come to a mutual agreement since the days of Christ, and moves all dates forward one day, so as to bring the seventh-day Sabbath on the first day of the week, according to our present reckoning. So if he can make men think that God has done away his Sabbath, of course they will not keep it.

But our Saviour recognized a Sabbath that would exist thirty years or more after his death. He says, [Matt. xxiv, 20,] speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, "Pray ye, that your flight be not in the Winter, neither on the Sabbath day."

Says O. R. L. Crozier: "In directing his disciples to pray that their flight from Jerusalem at the time of its destruction, thirty seven years this side of the cross, might not be on 'the Sabbath day.' He speaks of the Sabbath as though it would then exist of course, as much so as 'Winter.' Matt. xxiv, 20. Whatever reason they had for praying thus, does not effect the case in hand. The Sabbath then existed, and here received the sanction of our blessed Lord."—Day-Dawn, Dec. 1846.

And I might add, John who wrote the Revelation which Christ made to him twenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem, says: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." We see that he did esteem one day above all others, and called it "the Lord's day," notwithstanding our friends frequently state that Paul esteemed every day alike, applying it to the Sabbath. But John then recognized one day as the Lord's.—The day that the Son of man is "Lord of," of course, is "the Lord's day."

Christ also says: [Rev. xxii, 14:] "Blessed are they that do his [the Father's] commandments," &c., not excepting the fourth. These, with many other reasons which might be produced, are what has changed the channel of my thoughts in relation to the Sabbath question. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH. Rochester, N. Y. Nov. 13th, 1852.