Your ShelfYour Projects

THE SABBATH

5%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Tuesday, March 17, 1885

FromThe Review and Herald, Vol. 62, No. 11

Read the full edition

THE SABBATH.

By J. O. Corliss

A REVIEW.

BY ELD. J. O. CORLISS.
A TRACT of twelve pages has been forwarded me from Fairfax Court House, Va., with the request that I reply to its points in the REVIEW HERALD. The subject matter contained in the tract was published in the Fairfax Herald in the summer of 1883, while I was there with it, and was reviewed in the tent before a large audience. By request we notice the points again, because they are new to the readers of the REVIEW, but to give the friends of the cause an opportunity to defend the truth as widely as this tract against it has been circulated.
The objections urged against the Sabbath, we cannot call them arguments—are those met with, more or less, in every community where truth is preached; viz., the abolition of the law. It is very evident, too, that all who use this common weapon against the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, either labor under a serious misapprehension of the Scriptures, or are purposely blind when dealing with this subject. We wish, then, to let the mantle of charity have its place while dealing with our Fairfax friend, and will say that through his misapprehension of Bible terms with which he deals, he is unable to rightly divide the word of truth.
He classes ceremonial types and the moral law together, then, because he finds something done away, in one grand sweep he abolishes the Sabbath of the ten commandments, of which it is a part, with the ceremonial ordinances buries them in dark oblivion. Notice how this is done as we proceed to quote from the tract:—
Paul, speaking of Christ and the blessed operation of his power under the gospel dispensation, brings into view the abrogation of the types and shadows of the law by the coming of the spiritual realities to which they pointed, in the following striking language: “Blotting 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. . . . 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, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. . . . Wherefore if ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances (handle not, taste, nor touch all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men?” Col. 2:14–20.—Revised Version.
Notice that our friend acknowledges the above to refer to types and shadows alone. But because he finds “sabbath days” there, he concludes that it must sweep the weekly Sabbath entirely away. But let us carefully examine the statement he maintains. The apostle speaks of sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come. Those days, then, looked forward to things to come. The body of Christ cast that shadow back into the Jewish age, and all the ceremonies of that time were types looking forward to Christ; the same as the shadow of a monument, if followed from point of base, will lead directly to the monument itself, the object that casts the shadow. The law of reflection would also cause the shadow to cease at the base of the monument, and not to be seen on the sides of the substance casting the shadow. Exactly the same way do all the shadowy ceremonies cease that pointed, or led forward, to Christ. When Christ, the body that cast these shadows, appeared, and died on the cross, the shadows must cease,—must expire by limitation. If the weekly Sabbath was instituted to shadow forth the work of Christ, it too must cease at the cross, as a Jewish ceremonial. But it was not given for that purpose, it does not belong to that category, and is therefore exempt from the fate of those shadowy “days.”
We are now prepared to inquire why the weekly Sabbath was instituted. The quickest way to get an answer to the question is to turn to the commandment itself. We therefore read: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” Ex. 20:8–11.
It is very obvious from the commandment itself, that the reason for the institution of the weekly Sabbath was not because Christ was coming to die, but because of the facts of creation. Then the weekly Sabbath is not a shadow of things to come, but a memorial of things in the past. It was, moreover, instituted at the close of creation week before man fell, consequently before man needed a Saviour, and did not therefore possibly look forward to Christ. It does not therefore belong to that hand-writing of ordinances that was blotted out; for those, the apostle said, were shadows of things to come. But were there any days in the old dispensation of the nature indicated by the apostle—shadowy sabbaths—whose obligation ceased with the death of Christ? Certainly. Please turn to Lev. 23, and there we have enumerated at least seven such days that occurred, not on a particular time of the week, but on certain days of the month, regardless of the days of the week. Verse 4 says: “These are the feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their season.” They are then enumerated: “In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord’s passover.” After speaking of three of these days, verse 24 adds: “In the seventh month, in the first day of the month shall ye have a sabbath.”
In verse 27 another one is mentioned: “Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be a holy convocation unto you.” This was not only a day of holy convocation,—a day of coming together, but it is also called a sabbath: “It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest.” Verse 32.
It will be noticed that these sabbaths fell on certain days of the month, regardless of the time of the week. Sometimes they would fall on one day of the week, sometimes on another; but in no two years in succession on the same day of the week. Now in verse 37 the Lord continues his instruction. He says: “These [referring to the days just mentioned, with others spoken of in the chapter] are the feasts of the Lord which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offering, everything upon his day; beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.”
All can easily see by this that the Sabbaths of the Lord are carefully excluded from the list of ceremonial sabbaths. He says these annual sabbaths were to be kept besides the Lord’s Sabbath, and that on these yearly sabbaths they should offer gifts of meat and drink, which the apostle says belonged to the hand-writing of ordinances, and were blotted out by Christ. We are certain that the scripture under consideration does not in any way allude to the weekly Sabbath. The following scripture next quoted by our friend in support of his position, we will proceed to examine:—
“But now after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.” Gal. 4:9–11.
It does seem strange that one should quote this text from Paul, and apply it to the Sabbath. What a peculiar tact some people have for ferreting out such texts, and yet fail to see others that are fully as prominent in the same blessed Book. By reading the verse previous to those quoted above, it will be noticed that the apostle addresses a class of people who, before they came into the Galatian church, did not know God; yet he says they did service unto them which by nature are no gods. Here were people who served gods that were not so naturally; in other words, they were heathen, and had served gods of their own making. He then asks if they desire to turn again to the same condition. Why any one should feel warranted in saying that the days in the above text mean the weekly Sabbath days, no more, no less, we have no way of knowing; yet no one would think of quoting this and applying it to the first day of the week, the day so many profess to observe. But why not? Their practice certainly obliges them to observe just as many days each year as those do who observe the seventh day. And even the author of the tract now under consideration admits that the members of his denomination “concur in setting apart the first day of the week as a day of rest and relaxation, to be devoted to public worship and religious improvement.” Paul did not say they considered the days they set apart as holy, only they observed them, it may be by some kind of games. It cannot be found where he ever condemned the proper observance of the Sabbath; for he himself observed that to the day of his death. See Acts 13:14–44; 16:12, 13; 17:2; 18:1–11; 28:17.
To be certain that Paul did refer to heathen customs, and not to the Sabbath of the Lord, when speaking of the days, months, times, and years, which they were desirous of observing, we call attention to Lev. 19:26: “Ye shall not eat anything with the blood; neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.” But still he adds in verse 30: “Ye shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary; I am the Lord.” How plain that while God forbade the children of Israel to observe times like the nations around them, yet he required them to observe the Sabbath!
The concluding quotation of our would-be theologian upon this point is as follows:—
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it to the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” Rom. 14:5, 6.
Whoever will carefully read the fourteenth chapter of Romans from the first to the sixth verse, cannot fail to see that the apostle does not treat of the Sabbath-day at all. He is there speaking of days on which certain kinds of food were not to be eaten. In other words, these are the days before referred to in Leviticus, on which certain meats and drinks were used in their festivals. The organization of the church in Rome being largely from Jewish converts (see Rom. 2:17; 4:1, 7:1), these, being conscientious, tried to impose upon others the festival days of the Jews, which they themselves had not yet seen were done away in Christ. Thus Paul tells them, as he does in writing to the Colossians, not to judge others on this point. He conveyed the idea that it made no difference which way they did, evidently believing that the temporary observance of those ceremonies in eating on certain days could not harm those who indulged, as they would doubtless soon be led to see the real design of those things in pointing them to Christ. Knowing full well their typical nature, he would not have the observance of them enforced upon others, and therefore cautioned the church on that point.
Evidently not being satisfied that the texts quoted would sustain his position that the Sabbath was shadowy, our author next takes another turn to bolster up the theory. If assertions would prove him correct he has made out a very fair case. He denies that there is any morality in the fourth commandment; because, he says, it was a “statute law just like the rest of the ceremonial.” How does he know this? He determines that it is so by simply saying that lawyers make a difference between “statute laws” and “common laws.” Profound reasoning, to be sure! Does our friend mean to determine the force of God’s laws by the technical terms of lawyers? It is possible that God’s laws antedate all these. “What is moral law?” asks our reviewer. He then answers by saying, “It is one which does not depend for its force upon any special enactment. It is in force whenever and wherever human beings, endowed with reason, exist.” Now we are not disposed to grant all this. Had man always continued perfect, he might perhaps have known better than now the true signification of moral law. But man is fallen, and must needs have even a moral law revealed to his understanding, since the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. 1 Cor. 2:14. This being true, the lower man falls, the more necessary it becomes to make plain in detail even moral law. Otherwise, it could be of no value to any other than its originator. In “Chitty’s Blackstone,” Vol. 1, p. 31, the author says: “A bare resolution, confined in the breast of the legislator, without manifesting itself by some external sign, can never be properly a law. It is requisite that this resolution be notified to the people who are to obey it.” This is very plain. Now as all law must have some source of origin, the moral law must also come through some source. Being given for the express purpose of regulating the morals of mankind, it must have originated with Him who has the good and only the good of the race in view. Who, then, but the Creator of man could fully understand the wants of man and thus provide for his needs? Yet, as we have already seen, though God did originate principles to regulate the morals of mankind, they could never be properly a law until manifested to those whose they were designed to benefit.
But after the resolutions of a legislator become a law, as they only can by proclamation, it carries no force without a penalty. Upon this point we quote from “Blackstone,” p. 37: “It is but lost labor to say, ‘Do this, or avoid that,’ unless we also declare, ‘This shall be the consequence of your non-compliance.’ We must therefore observe, that the main strength and force of a law consists in the penalty annexed to it.” Taking our friend, therefore, on his own ground, it is shown that his idea of the force of moral law has no foundation in fact.
(Concluded next week.)