Was the Sabbath a purely Jewish Institution?

II.

1. It has been argued by anti-Sabbatarians that as the Fourth Commandment is in the heart of the Mosaic system it must have been addressed to, and intended for the Jews only. This argument assumes that every command prescribed in the Mosaic system must have been new and established for the first time at Sinai. But the question faces us—”Did morality spring into being for the first time at Sinai and were all previous generations exempt from its requirements?” The Jews belonged to the race of mankind and they were not to be exempted from those laws “which are everlasting, and which no man, high or low, bond or free, Jew or Greek, dare violate.” That such laws should be incorporated in the Mosaic system is no proof that they were purely Jewish. At Sinai God spake the “Ten Words” and “He added no more.” The transitory and subordinate enactments were not so honoured. When we turn to the New Testament we find that our Lord and His Apostles quoted the Ten Commandments as binding on Christians because they were binding on men. No such honour was conferred on any carnal ordinance as possessed of everlasting obligation.

2. It has been further argued that the special prohibitions and penalties attached to the Fourth Commandment having reference to the Jews cannot be separated from the Commandment. This argument which has a certain plausibility is regarded by anti-Sabbatarians as one of the strong weapons in their armoury, but when examined it will be found to be so vulnerable that it does more injury to the cause it advocates than to that which it opposes. In the New Testament when the Commandments are quoted, not one of the prohibitions or punishments is mentioned as binding. “The illustration of this distinction,” says Dr Baxter, “is easy and varied. The command: “Thou shalt not steal,” is in the Decalogue, and is for “all the earth”; but the command, “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep” (Exod. xxii. 1); and the command: “If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double” (Exod. xxii. 7)—these are outside the Decalogue and are for Israel alone. The command: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, is in the Decalogue, and is for all the earth”; but the command that, if a man bring a false charge of unchastity against a damsel, “the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; and they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver” (Deut. xxii. 13-19)—this is outside the Decalogue, and is for Israel alone. The commands, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” and “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” are in the Decalogue, and are “for all the earth”; but the command, “Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of the Lord thy God” and “whosoever giveth any of his seed unto Molech, he shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones” (Lev. xviii. 21 xx. 2)—that punishment is outside the Decalogue, and is for Israel alone. “Honour thy father and thy mother” is in the Decalogue and is for all; but, “he that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death” (Exod. xxi. 17), and “if a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother . . . all the men of the city shall stone him with stones that he die; and all Israel shall hear and fear” (Deut. xxi. 18-21)—these are outside the Decalogue, and for Israel alone. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is in the Decalogue, and is for all; but, “if a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel” (Deut. xxii. 22)—that is outside the Decalogue, and is for Israel alone. We multiply these illustrations, because objectors are so ready to pretend that the other nine Commandments are all non-Judaic and general, and the Fourth Commandment is the only transient and inferior member of the company. Instead of that, the whole Ten are stamped with an absolute generality which fits them for all; and yet the whole Ten have adjuncts and accompaniments, throughout the subsequent legislation, which are fitted for Israel alone. “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy: in it thou shalt not do any work”—that is in the Decalogue and for “all the earth”; but the sacrificing of two extra lambs every Sabbath, the presentation of twelve fresh cakes of shew-bread every Sabbath, the command that “whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death,” . . . the prohibition of kindling a fire in the wilderness even for sanctuary construction—these and other matters are outside the Decalogue and were for Israel alone” (The Sabbath a Divine Institute, pp. 27-29). In stating the matter as above we are not to be understood as maintaining that there is no penalty attached to the breach of the Ten Commandments; all that is asserted is that the above penalties were peculiar to the Mosaic system.

3. It has also been asserted by the anti-Sabbatarians that the purely Jewish nature of the Sabbath law is evident from the fact that the Apostles have not formally and expressly declared it. Our answer is that if the Sabbatarian contention is true then there was no need of formal and express Apostolic revelation. “It was already well known: the institution of the week, as prescribed by moral law, was part of the immemorial revelation of God in His Truth; and had thus been made familiar to the Church as the air she breathed, become inwrought into her constitution by four thousand years of Sabbath observance” (Macgregor’s The Sabbath Question, p. 208).

4. It has been argued that the Sabbath law was purely Jewish as it is included among Jewish sacrificial eatings and drinkings, etc. (Col. ii. 16). As this is one of the stock arguments adduced by the anti-Sabbatarians of the abrogation of the Sabbath law it will require some attention. The passage reads as follows: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day (heortes, literally, portion of a feast), or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.” In explanation of this much disputed verse let it be noted (1) that one Christian is forbidden to judge and condemn another in the matters of “meat” and “drink”; the occasion when these come into view are on “a holy day,” “new moon” and “Sabbath days.” The “meat” and “drink” are the meat offerings and drink offerings prescribed in varying quantities. A Jew’s ordinary meals were no more a shadow of good things to come than our own, but it was different with the sacrificial meats and drinks. A study of Numbers xxviii and xxix. will throw light on Col. ii. 16. The sacrificial meats and drinks of the Jews are dealt with exhaustively in these chapters and the regular recurring periods are emphasised. In Numbers we have three periods: (1) week, (2) new moon, (3) feast. in Colossians we have these three periods reversed, viz.: (1) feast, (2) new moon, (3) week. The two chapters in Numbers specify these and none else, and they devote their whole 71 verses to filling up the “meats” and “drinks” that are appropriate to each. First there is the week or Sabbatic period and the meat offerings and drink offerings appropriate for each of its seven successive days are mentioned (Numbers xxviii. 1-10). (2) Then comes the new moon with its appropriate meat offerings and drink offerings (Numbers xxviii. 11-15). (3) Then come the feasts—pass-over (xxviii. 16-25), pentecost (xxviii. 26-31), blowing of trumpets (xxix. 1-6), day of atonement (xxix. 7-11), feast of tabernacles (xxix. 12-38); and the meat offerings and drink offerings, appropriate for every day throughout them all are most minutely detailed. After presenting the matter thus Dr Baxter already quoted asks: “Is it possible to resist the conclusion that this divinely delivered enumeration of all the seasons for Israel’s “meats” and “drinks” was what was filling the Apostle’s mind when he penned Col. ii. 16? The seasons are exhaustively spread out in Numbers, and they are most tersely and comprehensively summed up in Colossians; and there is absolute coincidence between the two.” A word of explanation is necessary in connection with the word (sabbaton) translated “Sabbath days” in Colossians. In the English version of the Scriptures the reader gets no clue to a striking usage of the New Testament in reference to the word translated Sabbath and Sabbath days. The word for Sabbath occurs both in the plural and singular forms (“sabbaton” and “sabbata” or with the article “to sabbaton” and “ta sabbata.”) The meanings, however, are distinct. Sometimes it means a single day, the seventh day weekly Sabbath; at other times it means seven days, a week, a complete Sabbatic period, including the six days of work and the one of rest. For instance, I. Cor. xvi. 2, “Upon the first day of the week (sabbaton, literally, Sabbaths) let every one of you lay by him in store.” In the parable (Luke xviii. 12) we have the words: “I fast twice in the week (tou sabbatou, the Sabbath). Take again Matt. xxviii. 1: “In the end of the Sabbath (sabbaton, Sabbaths), as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week (sabbaton, Sabbaths). The ordinary Greek word for “week” (hebdomas) never occurs in the New Testament; the week is always styled the Sabbatic period. Dr Baxter’s explanation may be right when he says that this usage is probably due to the fact that the Fourth Commandment covers the whole week and not only one day—six days of work as well as one day of rest. A careful examination of the passages in the New Testament where the word occurs and its meaning is undisputed leads Dr Baxter to conclude: “When the plural is used to denote the Sabbath day, it should have the article, and be “ta sabbata”; whereas, when the singular is used to denote a week, it should have the article, and be “to sabbaton.” If this contention be correct, and we believe it is, then the “sabbaton” of Col. ii. 16 cannot be the seventh day of the week but the Sabbatic period.

“We can thus urge,” says Dr Baxter, “that to claim the abolition of the Creation Sabbath from Col. ii. 16 is the vainest of imaginations. That Creation appointment is not dealt with at all: it is only the “meats” and “drinks” that were, in the post-Mosaic ages, associated with its observance, that have come to an end. New Testament analogy allows Sabbath in Col. ii. 16 to be translated either ‘Sabbaths,’ or ‘a week,’ as the context may require. If it were taken as ‘Sabbaths,’ it might refer to those additional and temporary seasons, which were called, by accommodation, ‘Sabbaths.’ But a much fuller and more satisfying reference is got, as we have shown, by translating it ‘a week.’ The one translation, that does not seem admissible, is to render it ‘the weekly Sabbath’; there is no instance, in all the New Testament where ‘Sabbaton,’ without the article, could be so translated” (The Sabbath a Divine Institute).

Where “Sabbaton” is marked with an asterisk above it is the Greek gen. plur. of “Sabbaton” (Sabbath). The “o” is long (omega) whereas it is short (omicron) where “Sabbaton” is not so marked. Some knowledge of Greek is necessary to follow this part of the argument.—Editor.