"Decisive on the Sabbath Question."
By Editor
The following article is from the pen of Prof. N. N. Whiting, of Williamsburg, N. Y., and was published in the Voice of the Prophets, for September, 1863. It claims to be decisive on the Sabbath question, and is consequently just such an article as the readers of the Review will be pleased to examine. If anything is said against the Sabbath, we prefer something which is, or is supposed to be, decisive, reserving the right, of course, to judge for ourselves, whether or not such is its character. The Hebrew word "Sabbath," has been transferred by the translators of the Septuagint and by the New Testament writers. You are aware that it signifies "a rest," "a lying by from labor." In the Greek it appears in two forms, one is "Sabbaton," a neuter noun of the second declension, with a plural, "Sabbata." The dative plural of this word is "Sabbasi," found in the third declension, as if from a nominative, "Sabbat," or "Sabbas." The genitive plural is "Sabbaton," (long o, as in our word tone.) An English reader when he sees the nominative "Sabbaton," (short o, as in not,) would be likely to confound it with the genitive plural, or vice versa. So much for the form of the word. Now for the use. 1. "Sabbaton" signifies "a rest," "a Sabbath,"—especially, the seventh day of the week. By a metonymy it is also used for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath, that is, a week. So in Luke xviii, 12: "dis tou Sabbatou," twice in a week. In other instances, this word is used after numerals, as "first," and in Matt. xxviii, 1, after "mian" "one," by Hebrewism for "first." So Mark xvi, 9, "Early the first day of the week," "Proi prote Sabbatou." So Luke xxiv, 1; John xx, 1. 2. The plural form, "Sabbata," is used often with the singular signification. This may be regarded as a Hebrew idiom. In these cases it is in the genitive or dative case, plural, as "Sabbaton," or "Sabbasi." For examples of genitive plural, see Matt. xxviii, 1; Luke iv, 16; Matt. xii, 1; Acts xiii, 15, and xvi, 13. For dative plural, Mark ii, 23, 24; Luke iv, 31; vi, 2, xiii, 10. I believe that there are only two instances in which "Sabbata" (in nominative plural) is properly translated Sabbaths, viz.: Acts xvii, 2, and Col. ii, 16. In the Septuagint, "Sabbata," (nominative plural) is used as a singular, Exodus xvi, 23, 26. Now, as to the passages to which you refer, viz.: Mark xvi, 9, "prote tou Sabbatou," is "the first day of the week." Mark xvi, 1, "diagenomenou tou Sabbatou," is "the Sabbath being passed." Mark xvi, 2, "tes mias Sabbatou," (plural,) "of the first day of the week." John xx, 1, "te mia ton Sabbatou," is "the first day of the week." 1 Cor. xvi, 2, "kata mian Sabbatou," is "on the first day of the week;"; and Acts xx, 7 is exactly the same, i. e., "mia Sabbatou." Now, then, I regard Col. ii, 16, as decisive on the Sabbath question. "We are to let no man judge (i. e., have authority) over us in respect to the distinctions of meats or drinks, as clean or unclean, and in respect to holy days, or new moons, or Sabbaths." It is in vain to say, that other days besides Saturday were "days of rest," or Sabbaths. The plural (genitive), "Sabbaton," will include all days of rest. Its most general rest, as we all know, is the most frequent (Sabbath) day of rest. Let me recommend to your notice, Paley's Moral Philosophy, article "Sabbath," for a clear and concise view of this subject. It will be seen that all but the concluding paragraph of the foregoing article, is simply a criticism upon the word Sabbath, on which there is no controversy. The last paragraph alone involves a position, and sets forth the views of the writer. He considers Col. ii, 16, as decisive on the Sabbath question. "We are to let no man judge us," &c., "in respect to Sabbaths." Why not? What is the reason for this? How have we come by this freedom in respect to sabbaths? This article does not tell us; but Paul does; and to his language we must therefore appeal: Col. ii, 16: "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." This language is a conclusion from some preceding statement; something has been done so affecting sabbaths that no man is to judge us in respect to them. What is this? We find it in verse 14, where it is stated that Christ blotted out "the hand-writing of ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." This is all that was done. The "hand-writing of ordinances" was blotted out. Now it will be evident to all that no conclusion can be drawn from this fact showing a release from anything not contained in the hand-writing of ordinances; otherwise, we should have a conclusion broader than the premises, which would be inadmissible. But Paul does deduce from this that we are released from meats, drinks, feast-days, new moons and sabbaths. These things therefore are embraced in the hand-writing of ordinances. To say, then, that the weekly Sabbath is here referred to by the term sabbaths, involves us at once in the hideous conclusion that the weekly Sabbath, the Sabbath of the Lord our God, "the holy of the Lord and honorable," a part of that law which is a delight to the Christian, which is "spiritual," and "holy, just, and good," is but a part of the hand-writing of ordinances! Can we adopt such a conclusion? If we do, we must also accept the unsightly train that follows: 1. If the Sabbath is a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, then is the whole law of ten commandments such also; for the Sabbath is imbosomed in the very midst of those commandments, and was, like them, spoken with the voice of God from the summit of Sinai, and written with his own finger on tables of stone. Whatever argument affects the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, affects in the same direction, and to the very same extent, the whole ten of the commandments. 2. If the Sabbath is a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, then is the Sabbath, and all the ten commandments, abolished and done away; for the hand-writing of ordinances has been blotted out and nailed to the cross; and no man is to judge us in respect to any of these things! 3. If the Sabbath is a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, then was it a shadow of things to come; verse 17; but the Sabbath was instituted before the fall; which at once renders the claim of its being at all shadowy or typical, wholly inadmissible. 4. If the Sabbath is a part of the hand-writing of ordinances, then it is "against" man and "contrary to" him; it is one of the carnal ordinances of Heb. ix, 10, and a part of the yoke of bondage of Acts xv, 10, which Peter told the disciples neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. But on the other hand, the Sabbath is declared to be made "for man," not against him; we are instructed to call it "a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable;" fearful judgments come upon Israel for neglecting it, and the greatest blessings are appended to its observance, even in prophecies which apply to this dispensation; our Lord devoted a great portion of his ministry to ridding it of its Pharisaic traditions, and placing it upon its true basis, the law of his Father; it is recognized in the New Testament as an existing institution, for this side of the cross, where the hand-writing of ordinances perished; John, in the Revelation, speaks of the Lord's day, showing that the Lord claims one day in this dispensation as his own; and the prophet Isaiah carries us forward into the new earth, and brings to view the Sabbath in that glorious and eternal state. Do all these declarations refer to the same thing? Then farewell forever to the idea that this is harmonious and consistent with itself! If declarations so palpably contradictory, are all spoken in reference to the same subject, let Christianity retire from the field, and skepticism and infidelity stand forth unimpeached in their audacious claims! But no: they do not all refer to the same thing. One is spoken of the Sabbath of the Lord; the other of the annual sabbaths of the Hebrews. This people had a class of such sabbaths, as distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord, as the fourth of July is from the Sunday of this land; and to confound the two, is to ignore every feature by which any two objects can be rendered distinct. These annual sabbaths of the Hebrews are associated throughout with their other ordinances of meats, drinks, new-moons &c. The Sabbath of the Lord is never thus associated. These are the sabbaths referred to in Col. ii, 16. The Sabbath of the Lord is not referred to at all in that scripture. But an attempt is made to override this distinction in the declaration: "It is in vain to say that other days besides Saturday were 'days of rest' or Sabbaths. The plural (genitive), 'Sabbaton' will include all days of rest." To this we have already partly replied by showing that no sabbaths could be included in that expression but such as were included in the hand-writing of ordinances, which is here the subject of Paul's discourse. Because Paul says, as the result of the blotting out of the hand-writing of ordinances, that no man is to judge us in meats, drinks, sabbaths, &c., to play upon the word sabbaths and claim that it comprehends more than Paul has introduced as the subject of his reasoning, is too glaring a fallacy to need refutation. This would be sufficient on this point; but we reply further, that the assertion that the plural of Sabbaton includes all days of rest cannot be correct, as we have instances where it is applied to the sabbaths of the Jews, and to them exclusively. See Hos. ii, 11: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." This is addressed to the Jewish church under the figure of a lewd woman. The Lord by the prophet speaks of a class of sabbaths which he calls her sabbaths. This must refer to the local and ceremonial sabbaths of that people, and to them only; for the Lord never speaks of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment as her sabbath, but always as "the Sabbath of the Lord," "my holy day," &c.; and in this so far as we can learn all commentators are agreed. But here we find the word, sabbaths, according to the Septuagint, from the plural of Sabbaton, just as in Col. ii. The conclusion is therefore not only legitimate but necessary, that Sabbaton either singular or plural is governed by the connection in which it stands, both as to the kind and number of sabbaths to which it refers. The connection in Col. ii, 16, will not allow us to include therein the rest-day of the fourth commandment; and hence that text, instead of being decisive, as is claimed, on the question of the weekly Sabbath, does not even refer to that institution!