10 Questions The Anti-Sabbatarians Seem Incapable of Answering
Those who adopt certain semi-antinomian/dispensationalist theories—an interpretive current among Evangelical Christians that emerged by the end of the 19thcentury, bringing only confusion to the due interpretation of the Scriptures—don’t seem capable of answering certain questions that have been repeatedly addressed them and which are really important. They also came up with unfounded speculations in the field of eschatology regarding the rapture of the church, anticipating it for 1988, in which they certainly proved being in error. But in error they also are regarding the theme of God’s law and the Sabbath. Let’s see 10 questions that prove it:
1) Since we are in the “dispensation of grace”, and the “dispensation of law” is past, how were the children of God saved at the time of the Old Testament?
Note: That is a dilemma for dispensationalists in general, for if they say that they were saved by grace, how could that be, when the “dispensation of grace” hadn’t been inaugurated? If they allege that they were saved by fulfilling the law (as many do), how could anyone ever have reached ontological perfection to achieve that, since God’s law is “perfect” (Psa. 19:7)?
2) Christ said that he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He recommended the most faithful obedience to all the commandments, not admitting that the least of them were disrespected (Mat. 5:19). Even considering that He referred to the entire Torah, how come some say that Jesus didn’t care much about the faithful observance of the Sabbath commandment and even defended His disciples’ violation of it? If He did that, He would inevitably be contradicting Himself and would have to be considered “the least in the kingdom of God”, according to His own words.
Note: The anti-Sabbatarians never seem willing to give a solution to this evident dilemma of their own arguments, just insisting that He really wanted to diminish the importance of the Sabbath commandment, considering it “inferior to the circumcision”, twisting Christ’s words and showing that they don’t understand the meaning of His debates with the Jewish leaders. These discussions didn’t have to do with IF they should keep the Sabbath, WHEN they should keep the Sabbath, but HOW to observe it, in the correct spirit.
3) Insisting that Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20 refers to the entire law (Torah), which includes the ceremonies, totaling 613 rules, the anti-Sabbatarians don’t realize that in the immediate context Christ also addresses His audience calling them “salt of the Earth”, “light of the world”, later teaching them to pray the Lord’s prayer. Then, we ask: Are those who TODAY consider themselves “salt of the Earth”, “light of the world”, and pray the Lord’s Prayer, also required to fulfill the 613 legal rules of Judaism?
Note: The allegation that Christ referred to the complete Torah and recommended its faithful obedience (actually He even included the ceremonial offerings in Mat. 5:23, 24) DOESN’T SOLVE the problem that He recommends the faithful obedience of ALL the law, which includes, and not excludes, the Sabbath commandment. But why, then, don’t we observe the ceremonies today? Anyone who knows his Bible can answer that. . .
4) Besides not knowing how to answer the question in the previous topic, the anti-sabbatarians cannot justify the fact that in Matthew 5:17-19 the Sabbath is included, while the ceremonial part of the law has ceased—which was indicated by the rendering of the Temple’s veil from top to bottom. Since the Sabbath is NOT a ceremonial precept, why shouldn’t we obey it?
Note: Although some allege that the Sabbath was a ceremonial precept which ended at the cross, actually there is no way to prove this point. The ceremonies were instituted AFTER man’s fall, while the Sabbath was established before sin (Gen. 2:2, 3; cf. Exo. 20:8-11 and Heb. 4:4). Also, the ceremonies point to the future—Christ’s atoning sacrifice, inasmuch as the Sabbath points to the past—is the memorial of Creation.
5) Christ declared that the Sabbath was made “because of man” (Mar. 2:27), correcting the true meaning of the commandment. How the first part of this statement is to be understood? After all, was the Sabbath made for the Jewish man only? The word in the text for “man”—anthropós—denotes the universal man, as it is also used in Matthew 19:5.
Note: Those who deny the divine Sabbath commandment don’t know what to do with this text. Some attempt to prove that Christ had in mind only the Jewish man. But that doesn’t work in view of Gen. 2:2, 3; Isa. 56:3-7 and Mat. 19:5. Also it wouldn’t make sense to interpret the second part in the suggested sense: “and not the Jewish man [was created] because of the Sabbath”. There was no creation of “Jewish man”, but of the universal man. After that there appeared “Jew”, “Babylonian”, “Roman”, “Greek” men as time went by.
6) Christ in Matthew 24:20 anticipates that two things would continue to exist after His ascension: a) winter; b) Sabbath observance by His followers. Referring to the future destruction of Jerusalem He recommended to His followers: “Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day”. Why didn’t Jesus say that they prayed that they hadn’t to flee on a Sunday, since that would be the new day of observance according to the theses of some anti-Sabbatarians (not all, because the majority opted to adhere to the more user-friendly nodayism/anydayism/everydayism).
Note: The anti-Sabbatarians don’t know what to do about this clear prophecy of Christ as to the Sabbath being still observed by His followers after the cross. Then, one of them attempted a clear way-out smokescreen asking teasingly: “Do Sabbath keepers observe the winter?” But that was all he said regarding the text, with no explanation to Christ’s prediction! And the tentative argument that the doors of the cities were locked on the Sabbaths, thus nobody could get out of a city on that day (which would explain His words) is not valid because they could leave the city on a Sabbath too, through smaller doors, as the episode of Christ’s disciples on a Sabbath day exploring a plantation for food to eat at the scene (Mat. 12:1) proves. Also Jesus’ words were not limited to the urban environment, for He said: “. . . them which be in Judea flee into the mountains” (vs. 16), also referring to those who were “in the field” (vs. 18).
7) In the council gathered in Jerusalem to face the challenge of the judaizers (Acts 15), some instructions were given on things that the Gentile Christians should abstain from, and among these the Sabbath commandment IS NOT LISTED. Isn’t it a clear proof that there was no doubt among those believers as to the validity of the commandment, obeyed by all, especially for the fact that the first Christians were ethnically Jews and “zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20)?
Note: The way to explain out this important evidence in favor of the Sabbath commandment being still in force among the early Christians is to allege that the judaizers pointed to the “law of Moses” as having to be fulfilled (vs. 5). But in this way they discriminate illegitimately against the Sabbath commandment, forgetting that the “law of Moses” didn’t have only that precept, but also “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not commit adultery”, “honor thy father and thy mother”. . . Were the Gentile Christians under no obligation to respect these principles?
8) Paul clearly states in Rom. 3:31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law”. It’s obvious that as a pattern of conduct the law couldn’t having been abolished, for in the same epistle to the Romans Paul stresses that it is holy, just, good, spiritual, pleasurable and says: “. . . with the mind I myself serve the law of God” (Rom. 7:12, 14, 22, 25). In Rom. 13:8-10 he shows that the obedience to the law’s commandments has love as its foundation. He quotes part of the law, but implying he refers to the entire Decalogue without having to quote commandment by commandment (see vs. 9, “. . . if there be any other commandment. . .”). What Paul condemned was the illegitimate use of the law (1 Tim. 1:8). Why did he speak in such positive terms about the law, if he intended to teach that it was no more normative for Christians?
Note: The anti-Sabbatarians engage themselves in exegetical gymnastics attempting to demonstrate that Paul wouldn’t refer to the Ten Commandments, which had been “abolished”, since any division of God’s law as “moral”, “ceremonial”, “civil” is denied by them. The error regarding how to consider the law, according to Paul, was in looking for justice through it’s obedience, which is an impossibility because the function of God’s law is not to save (see Rom. 9:30-32). As a mirror only points to the stain but has no means to clean it up, the law points to sin (Rom. 7:7), but has no way to eliminate it, nor has any means to transmit sanctity. However, it’s significant that Paul says that he served God’s law (Rom. 7:25), which is the one having the commandment, “ye shall not covet” (vs. 7, 8).
9) Another of the anti-Sabbatarian arguments is that as He declared Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” Christ would be saying that He had the right to do whatever He wanted with the Sabbath, including to violate it, or even, as a certain Evangelical apologist alleged, to set the “degrees of violation to the Sabbath”, certainly a revolutionary concept! If that was true, where exactly are these “degrees” for Sabbath violation defined? Imagining that the Sabbath is indeed ceremonial (which, obviously has no foundation), were there violability degrees to any other ceremony? If not, why not?
Note: What happens is that some people try to transfer to Christ their anti-Sabbath presuppositions and prejudices, which, certainly He who declared Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” wouldn’t harbor. Christ declared Himself “Lord of the Sabbath”, not to campaign against the Sabbath (as some anti-Sabbatarians imply), rather to demonstrate His authority to correct the distorted vision regarding its legitimate obedience. The Jewish leaders also distorted the meaning of the 5th. Commandment (Mar. 7:9ff), and the tithing principle (Mat. 23:23). They often asked him, “by what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority”? (Mat. 21:23) Thus, He was “Lord of the Sabbath” because He had authority to correct them regarding the form of observing the commandment, pointing them their deviations on the question of HOW to observe the Lord’s day in the correct spirit.
10) The adherents of the theological dispensationalist semi-antinomian current hush entirely regarding the undisputed proofs that what constitutes the Evangelical orthodoxy on the Sabbath theme for centuries is the current validity of the Decalogue as Christian conduct pattern, the division of the law as having “moral, “ceremonial”, “civil” precepts, and the understanding that the 4th. commandment is not only a moral, but also a universal commandment that stemmed from Eden.
Note: Many anti-Sabbatarians simply pretend that there aren’t proofs and more proofs that centuries before the Seventh-day Adventists appeared in the religious scene, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans and other Christians already taught the same thing about the current validity of the entire Decalogue and about the “division” of the law. There was a certain Evangelical “apologist” that even assured the Evangelical community he addressed that the notion of existing this division of “moral”, “ceremonial”, “civil” law is an “artifice” created by the Adventists to advocate the keeping of the Sabbath, which is simply not true.