The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

THIRTIETH SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Affirmative.—It is with some reluctance that I commence summing up, for it is the wish of all my friends that the discussion shall continue. I wish that we might have some reference to future time, and I think the question before us will not be fully discussed without it, but I presume I could not get my opponent to consent to a continuance of the debate longer than has been before stated. It, therefore, devolves, upon me to sum up my opponents argument as well as my own, and leave the people to draw their own inferences. The question is: “Resolved, that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment,” etc. I proposed that it should be written during the present age, but they of the affirmative opposed that term, and, therefore, by the conditions of the question it might go on to all eternity. This, of course, my opponent has not argued nor proved. PSDS 111.3

In his first speech he declared that the reason why God sanctified the seventh day, was because He rested on it from the creation of Heaven and Earth. In his second lecture, he took the position that the persons, for whom the Sabbaths of the fourth commandment was instituted, was man. And I affirmed that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was instituted by the giving of the fourth commandment; therefore, the conclusion to which we must come, is that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was not observed nor enjoined before the giving of the fourth commandment, at the wilderness of sin. This, therefore, disposes, or should dispose of the first part of our propositions. But my opponent has occupied the whole of the first day and a good part of to-day, in going back to creation and down to Romans. PSDS 111.4

As to his manner of reasoning, I must say that I consider it very peculiar. I will give you an example of it. The Sabbath of the Lord was made at creation; the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the Sabbath of the Lord; therefore, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was made at creation. The Sabbath was made for man: therefore, the Sabbath was made for man at creation. Twice in the course of his remarks, he has admitted that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was not the identical day on which God rested, and of course, it could not have been the Rest Day; strictly speaking of the Lord, for the Lord certainly rested on the seventh day of the creation week. PSDS 112.1

Now, the question is, when did the Lord appoint the seventh day or Sabbath of the fourth commandment, for man’s observance? God could not be the God of Abram until there was an Abram. Just so the Sabbath of the fourth commandment could not be, until there was a fourth commandment. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment could not exist before the time of the promulgation of that commandment. The true issue between us is this: When did God, by the fourth commandment, require the observance of the seventh day as a Sabbath? I showed you that the Lord enjoined the seventh day at the wilderness of sin, and that was the first place at which the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was recognized. Therefore, during the 2500 years of the world’s history, preceding the giving of the manna at the wilderness of sin. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was never transgressed or broken, because it was not in existence. In all the history of mankind previous to that time, we have no instance of Sabbath-breaking recorded. We have no indication that any Sabbath was known or observed, and yet, they of the affirmative think they can see that because God rested on the seventh day after creation: therefore, man observed it for 2500 years afterwards, or till the giving of the commandments at Mt. Sinai. PSDS 112.2

I showed that Matthew used the adverb even, instead of also. “The son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Matthew 12:8. My opponent has not shown that the original in Mark 2:28, might not be thus rendered. But we must interpret Matt. by Mark; but why not interpret Mark by Matthew? Does the adverb also change the meaning of the sentence? It certainly does not destroy the force of the statement. “Wherefore, the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,” as a conclusion from the promise that “the Sabbath was made for the man” PSDS 113.1

I can show a number of places where the indefinite word, man, is applied to the children of Israel, but it is the man in the original. And I have been told that in the Greek language, all nouns are preceded by an article. I am not a Greek scholar, however, and will not attempt to say whether my informant is correct or not. PSDS 113.2

I affirm that the reason why God selected the seventh day, was because He rested on that day from the work of creation. But the reason why He commanded man to Sabbatize on that day, was because He had delivered them from Egyptian bondage. God does not give as a reason why man shall rest on the seventh day, because He rested on the seventh. Deuteronomy 5:15. Here we have the reason for the observance of the fourth commandment’s Sabbath. Why was it enjoined? Because the children of Israel had been delivered from Egyptian bondage. My opponent has continually overlooked this definite reason for the observance of the fourth commandment, altogether, and, hence his argument on this point have been irrelevant from first to last. The question was on the fourth commandment’s Sabbath. Was it instituted at creation? But he has failed to show that there was any fourth commandment at all, till after the children of Israel were delivered from Egyptian bondage, hence there could not have been a fourth commandment’s Sabbath till after that time. PSDS 113.3

Exodus 34:13, etc. I call upon my opponent to show that any Sabbath typified Jesus Christ. If he will do so, I will show that the seventh day typified Christ in the same way. PSDS 113.4

But now I come to the last part of our proposition: “the precept to observe it” (the Sabbath of the fourth commandment,) “extends through the present age.” He has failed to show one single precept to observe any Sabbath at all, “through the present age.” In the entire New Testament, he cannot show one such a precept. We do not find in the whole New Testament, one single precept or commandment to observe the Sabbath, and in fact, the teachings of the Apostles are directly the reverse of this. Paul, the great Apostle to the Gentiles, never once called upon them to observe a Sabbath at all, but placed all days upon a perfect equality. How did he show the perpetuity of the ten commandments? He went to Romans and there he found a law spoken of in connection with sin: therefore, it was the ten commandments. I showed that man was justified by faith in Jesus Christ. Make Christ the great Head of the church: make the church His body: make the church His bride, and is there anything to hinder His being a great law-giver also? I showed that the ten commandments are not enjoined by Christ, but that the commandments of Christ are our law. I proved that the ten commandments were a covenant with the children of Israel, and that this covenant has been done away; that the death of the law of Romans 7, releases the church from its obligation to Moses. I showed the law; of which Paul speaks in Galatians, was added 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant, and was only to continue till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. PSDS 113.5

Now, about 2 Corinthians 3. It was the ministration that was glorious: this my opponent admits. I now call upon him to read the 8th, 9th and 10th verses consecutively. I affirm that it was the ministration that was done away. Even if I should acknowledge that death was not the ministration, how is it that my opponent should overlook the plain reading of the 27th verse? Let him or any one of his friends rise up in this tent and say that it is death instead of ministration that was written in stones. It was the ministration of condemnation written in stones that was done away. Here is one text to show conclusively to any unprejudiced mind, that the ten commandments were abolished. It is declared that what was written on the tables of stone was the ministration and that the ministration “was done away—abolished;” therefore, the commandments which were all that were written upon stones were done away; were abolished. Is not this positive testimony? PSDS 114.1

Matthew 5. But mark, here, that my opponent did not deny that the ten commandments were included in the old Jewish law. The ten commandments were not the law, but only a part of it. Now, that was the smallest commandment to which Jesus referred. He quoted the sixth and seventh, but I would think they were both great ones. Why argue that a part of the law is perpetuated and not the rest?—That some of the commandments constituting the law are to be observed and not others? The reasoning of my opponent, if it proves what he claims for it would not only show the perpetuity of the ten commandments, but of all others. I hope and believe my opponent will not misrepresent me in his last speech, as I cannot reply. I affirm that not one of the ten commandments teaches that man should do unto others as he would have them do unto him, therefore, they are not a perfect moral code. PSDS 114.2

My friends take the Bible for your guide. If my opponent has produced Bible evidence in favor of the affirmative of this question. Believe it. But be not deluded by all his similar and statements from Webster. Take them all and put them into one scale and then place the arguments and Scripture that I have advanced, into the other. Then see which will go up and which will go down. I am still and always hope to be open to conviction, but I cannot see that he has introduced a single Bible passage to show the truth of the affirmative of our proposition. Where has he referred you to one single text showing the perpetuity of the obligation to observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment? If it is in the notes of any friends, either on the right hand or the left, I hope you will show it to me before I leave, that I may not misrepresent this discussion. Has he ever given a successful inference or implication in favor of the affirmative? I denied that the ten commandments are a law. He has come to the conclusion that the ten commandments are a covenant, and the law is a covenant; therefore, the ten commandments are a law. We deny the force of this inference. I can point you back to the day when the fourth commandment’s Sabbath was instituted. I can also show you the limitation that was attached to it. It was given to the children of Israel and was to continue “throughout their generations” or till the seed should come. And you will find by reference to 2nd Chron. that all the Sabbaths of the old dispensation, and there were several, were called Sabbaths of the Lord. Are we, therefore, to conclude that they were all made at creation? PSDS 115.1