p. 146 | THE SABBATH; IS THE LAW DEAD, OR AM I?

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, March 4, 1880

FromThe Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 10

“THE SABBATH; IS THE LAW DEAD, OR AM I?”

By Wm. Penniman

BY WM. PENNIMAN.

(Concluded.)

To show how much the ingenuity of our author is taxed, we will quote a little more on the law. The language is further proof that, although he persists in saying that he “will not abate one jot or tittle” of the law, yet as it is so exceedingly difficult to prove that one is dead to it, he would like after all to abolish it.

“You might say it is abrogated as a covenant of works, but not as a rule of life, though the Scripture does not say so—it is a mere human invention.” This is certainly the best admission we have seen yet in favor of the law.

Hear him again: “Law is a ministration of death as well as of condemnation.” If the reader will turn to 2 Cor. 3:7, 8, he will see that there is a comparison between the ministration of the law under the former dispensation, and its ministration under the gospel; one was glorious, the other “rather glorious.” There seems to be no better explanation of 2 Cor. 3:7 than the following texts: “Because the law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no transgression.” Rom. 4:15. “And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.” Rom. 7:10. As the commandment was ordained to life, can we not as truthfully say that law is a ministration of life to those who obey it, seeking justification through the gospel, as well as a ministration of death to those who disobey it?

Galatians 3:24, 25 is quoted as further proof that we are not under the law. “Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master.” The words “being justified by faith” plainly teach the object of faith, or the gospel. If justification could come by the law, then there would be no need of the gospel. The comments of Mr. Barnes upon Rom. 6:14, will fully explain the text quoted from Galatians. But before giving his comments, we will quote a little more from our author: “The reasoning of the apostle in the end of the 6th chapter of Romans, is fatal to the use of law as a rule of life.” He comes to this conclusion, since the apostle says, in the 14th verse, “Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Mr. Barnes says, in his notes upon this passage: “The apostle does not affirm that Christians are not bound to obey the moral law. The whole scope of his reasoning shows that he maintains that they are. The whole structure of Christianity supposes the same thing. Compare Matt. 5:17–19. The apostle means to say that Christians are not under the law as legalists, or as attempting to be justified by it.”

The arrows are next turned toward the Sabbath. In fact, that is what they are flying at all the time; for if one can only kill the law, of course the Sabbath dies with it. “The very thing we have heard of in Christianity is, that man never did keep the Sabbath, never could, nor never can be subject to it, nor have rest on that footing. It may be a mercy to his body (I believe it is, his body is a part of the old creation), but I speak of relationship with God.”

We find nothing of the kind in Christianity. We find that our Saviour kept it. John 15:10. And he declares that it was “made for man.” The disciples kept it; for we read that “they rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” Luke 24:56.

The apostles kept it. Acts 16:13; 17:2; 18:4. The only reason that is assigned for the position that man never did nor could keep the Sabbath, is found in Heb. 4: “If Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” The context plainly shows that Paul is speaking of the earthly rest of the land of Canaan, and of the heavenly simply by comparison. Joshua, or Jesus, did not give them permanent rest; therefore “there

remaineth a rest to the people of God.” In the 4th verse he makes an allusion to the seventh day, in connection with the eternal rest spoken of in verses 5 and 6.

“It cannot be kept.” Suppose the legislators of Illinois should enact certain laws which it would be impossible for the people to keep; would they not be considered very unjust and unwise? Would not God be also unjust and unwise to command obedience to a law which cannot be kept? But we find abundance of proof that God has commanded man to keep the Sabbath. He says, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Ex. 20:8. “Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep.” Ex. 31:13. “Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12.

It is not only a “mercy to his body,” but also a mercy to the whole man, mental, moral, and physical. It was so in the old dispensation, and it is just as much so now, and will continue to be forever. Isa. 66:23.

“The Sabbath is the rest of man in the flesh. Religiously, there is no rest for man in the flesh, as there is no recovery for man in the flesh. The law tried it, and set up the Sabbath as a sign consequently of the covenant.” We will try to analyze this; the sense may lie so deep that we cannot bring it to the surface. It may be a part of the “new creation being born again.” It is admitted that man needs a Sabbath or rest in the flesh; but that he has no need of it in Christ, or in the “new creation.” We cannot see why there is religiously no rest for man in the flesh. The wise man says that to “fear God and keep his commandments, . . . is the whole duty of man.” Eccl. 12:13. David says, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Ps. 19:7. If keeping the law of God is a moral duty, then keeping the Sabbath, whether in the flesh or in the spirit, is a moral and religious duty.

“The law tried it.” Tried what? The idea seems to be that the law tried to give man religious rest in the flesh, and failed, and set up the Sabbath as a sign (not consequently of the covenant) that he could not keep it. Certainly this would be a pretty good sign that man could not keep the law, as so many fail to keep this part of it.

“God has no Sabbath really in this world of sin and misery.” Wonderful assertion! Strange way of getting rid of the Sabbath. To say that God has none in this, sinful and miserable world. Then certainly he has no law. If there is no Sabbath, why all this ado to prove that one is dead to it? Just prove that there is no Sabbath, never was, nor ever will be, and the case is gained. But assertions are not arguments.

“I do not enter into the detail of Scripture ground for the distinction of this day (Sunday, or, as it is termed, Lord’s day), which I published many years ago in reply to the taunt of priests, who used it to prove the authority of the church which had changed the day.” Notwithstanding he says there is no Sabbath, yet he seems to have some use for Sunday after all. The reason he does not now use the old threadbare so-called Scripture arguments for change of day is because the priests hurl them against him. This taunt of the priests must be endured, notwithstanding all the replies that may be made to them. The priests can not only taunt the Protestants for keeping a day which has been set up by the authority of their church, but also for practising infant sprinkling, believing in the immortality of the soul, endless suffering, etc.

“It is certain the early Christians never confounded the Lord’s day and the Sabbath. Those who are Jews knew both as distinct, and those around them did too.” It is indeed strange that so many persist in calling the first day of the week the Lord’s day, when there is not one particle of authority for it in the Bible. Rev. 1:10, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” is quoted as proof. The seventh day, or Sabbath, is repeatedly called the Lord’s day, Isa. 58:13, but the first day of the week, never. Eld. J. N. Andrews, in preface to “Complete Testimony of the Fathers,” says: “The first day Sabbath was absolutely unknown before the time of Constantine. Nearly one hundred years had elapsed after John was in vision on Patmos before the term Lord’s day was applied to the first day. During this time it was called ‘the day of the sun,’ ‘the first day of the week,’ and ‘the eighth day.’ The first writers who gave it the name of ‘Lord’s day’ state the remarkable fact that in their judgment the true Lord’s day consists of every day of a Christian’s life, a very convincing proof that they did not give this title to Sunday because John had so named it on Patmos.” It is true that there is no confounding of the first day with the Sabbath. They have ever been distinct since the counterfeit day was set up.

A quotation is given from the fathers, which proves too much. “Justin Martyr, in a well-known passage of the dialogue with Trypho, who reproaches him with giving up the Sabbath, says: ‘How can we keep the Sabbath, who rest from sin all the days of the week?’” This proves that Justin had once kept the true Sabbath, but had apostatized, and that he did not then believe in any one day of rest. “Testimony of the Fathers,” page 34, alluding to Justin Martyr, says: “The idea of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week is never found in his writings; . . . yet Justin Martyr is prominently and constantly cited in behalf of the so-called Christian Sabbath.”

Another arrow which does not hit: “A council of Orleans in the sixth century, or beginning of the seventh, reproaches Christians with keeping the Sabbath and not carting home their corn, or traveling, and asks them if they have turned Jews. But we must not suppose that this meant Sunday, or the Lord’s day.” We are glad to know that the Sabbath was kept in the sixth century, and the fact that Christians were then reproached for keeping the Sabbath, and were called Jews, is convincing proof that there is “nothing new under the sun.”

My prayer is that man-made institutions may go down, and that God’s word may gain the victory.