Part II—An
Examination of the Sabbatarian Arguments (con’t)
THE ARGUMENT
FROM SILENCE
The
Sabbatarian Position—
The New
Testament is silent about the Sabbath and this silence proves that
they observed it. We do not need a command, example or precept in the
New Testament to prove that the Sabbath is to be kept.
They go on
to argue that:
• Since
God had already commanded people to observe the Sabbath as a
creation ordinance and as a moral law in the Old Testament, it is
obviously still in force in the New Covenant age. Anything commanded
in the Old Testament and not explicitly abrogated in the New is
still in effect.
• The
early church was Jewish and they kept the Sabbath, even though they
changed it to the first day after the Sabbath. No one contested this
practice or the change from the seventh to the first day. Thus it
was never an issue of controversy to be mentioned in the New
Testament.
• There
were also "pastoral concerns" for not mentioning the Sabbath in the
New Testament. Why would the New Testament writers bring up
something which was already assumed? To be silent on the Sabbath
would not cause controversy, but to discuss it would do so.
Examination
of the Argument—
Many
Sabbatarians readily admit that the New Testament neither repeats the
Fourth Commandment nor applies it to Christians. Virtually all sides
agree that there is a conspicuous silence in the New Testament about
any present obligation of the Christian to observe the Sabbath. No
rules or regulations are ever set forth for keeping the Sabbath. No
examples of Christians keeping the Sabbath can be found. No one is
ever disciplined for breaking the Sabbath. The only perceptual
passages seem to abrogate the Sabbath (Col. 2:16-17). Why is the New
Testament silent?
It is
interesting to note that Baptists upbraid the Presbyterians for their
use of the argument from silence to justify infant baptism and yet
these same Baptists will often employ this same argument to defend
sabbatarianism! The following comments refute the argument from
silence.
1. The
silence of the New Testament is crucial in this controversy. The fact
that the other nine commandments are reinstated in the New Covenant as
binding upon believers and only the Fourth Commandment is missing,
cannot be brushed aside lightly. If this argument from silence is
valid, why were the other nine reinstated and the Sabbath specifically
stated to be a "shadow" (Col. 2:17)?
2. If
"commanded in the Old and never abrogated in the New" means that an
Old Testament law is still in effect today, it proves too much.
a. We do
not have explicit verses in the New Testament where the ceremonial
laws are abrogated one by one. If the Sabbatarian argument is true,
then all the ceremonial laws never mentioned in the New Testament
are still in effect! This puts us in impossible difficulties by
binding believers’ consciences to many of the rules found in the
Levitical Holiness code (cf. Lev. 11-12; 15:19-24).
b. Why
are the Sabbath commands about all debts liquidated every seventh
year and all land returning to the original owners every seventy
years not observed by Sabbatarians? They are never specifically
abrogated in the New Testament.
3. The plain
truth is that the New Covenant is not to be like the Old Covenant
according to Jeremiah 31:31-32. Notice especially these words: "I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers."
4. We should
approach the New Testament with the assumption that whatever is not
re-introduced and re-instated in the New Covenant is no longer in
effect. Everything in the Old Testament has been abrogated in
principle by Christ. Whatever the New Testament sets forth is what the
New Testament believer is responsible to observe.
5. The
argument from silence can be valid when it is used to demonstrate that
in principle all ceremonial laws have been abrogated and if something
is not reinstated, it is no longer binding. This is using silence in a
Scriptural manner.
6. That the
argument from silence can be used against the Sabbath can be seen from
an exegesis of Hebrews 7:14. Here the author builds his argument for
the unique priesthood of Christ on the silence of the Old Testament.
7. The early
church was not made up exclusively of Jews or Jewish proselytes. The
missionary labors of Paul and others brought in pagan converts. These
Gentiles had no Jewish background and were never instructed to keep a
Sabbath after becoming Christians.
8. The
history of the early church clearly shows that they did not observe
the Lord’s Day as a Sabbath or refer to the Fourth Commandment as
binding on Christians. They taught that the Sabbath command was a
ceremonial law fulfilled by Christ.
9. That the
early Christian Jews could change the Sabbath from the seventh to the
first day and not get involved in a controversy with the Jews or
Judaizers is so foolish as to be self-refuting.
10. There
were no "pastoral reasons" for the silence of the New Testament. The
pastoral concerns of the apostle Paul led him to state clearly that
the Sabbath was a "shadow" ordinance (Col. 2:17).
No one,
therefore, can condemn you for not observing dietary laws, feast days
or the weekly Sabbath (Col. 2:16). It is clear that Paul is dealing
with the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath—and not the so-called "Christian
Sabbath"—because he also speaks of dietary laws and "new moons." The
New Testament, therefore, is not silent on the matter, but
specifically indicates its passing away with the coming of Christ.
Conclusion
While the
New Testament never re-institutes the Sabbath, it positively abrogates
its significance as a day to be observed. The Sabbath found its
fulfillment in Christ who is the Lord of the Sabbath. Thus Paul
declared it "nailed to the cross." Christ alone in His Word can bind
the conscience of the child of God.
The
practical fruits of sabbatarianism have historically led to many evils
such as:
•
Legalism: Church leaders making up arbitrary rules and regulations
to govern the Sabbath.
• Anarchy:
Each Sabbatarian sets forth his own rules of what can be and cannot
be done on Sunday.
• Party
spirit: It breeds pride and an air of superiority.
• It
fosters a critical and judgmental spirit.
• It kills
the joy of the Christian’s worship day by fostering a gloomy, morbid
and even fearful attitude.
• It hurts
families by forbidding laughter, play and, historically, even sexual
relations between husband and wife.
• It has
divided churches and split communities.
• It has
brought about a state of bondage by taking away Christian liberty
and imposing the "beggarly elements" from the Old Covenant upon the
Christian’s conscience.
(to be
continued)
