Test 28: Answering Common Objections — Part 2

Introduction

This test continues addressing common objections to Sabbath observance, focusing on practical, logical, and historical objections.

• Objection 9: "The Sabbath was changed by the apostles"

The claim: The apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. This apostolic authority is sufficient. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Evidence Requirement:

Claims require evidence; the burden is on the party making the claim.

Response:

No Apostolic Statement of Change

No apostle ever:

• Declared the Sabbath changed
• Commanded Sunday observance
• Explained a reason for changing the day
• Claimed authority to alter the Decalogue

The Apostles Kept the Sabbath

Acts 17:2 — "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them."

Acts 18:4 — "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath."

If the apostles changed the day, why did they continue observing it?

The Catholic Admission

The Catholic Church does not claim apostolic change. It claims Church authority:

The Convert's Catechism: "The Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

If apostles had changed it, the Catholic Church would cite them. Instead, they claim later church authority.

Conclusion: No evidence supports apostolic change. The apostles consistently observed the Sabbath.

• Objection 10: "The calendar has been changed, so we can't know which day is the seventh"

The claim: Calendar changes (such as the Gregorian reform in 1582) make it impossible to identify the true seventh day. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Historical Verification:

Historical facts can be verified through documentary evidence.

Response:

The Gregorian Calendar Reform

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII reformed the calendar. Thursday, October 4, was followed by Friday, October 15.

Critically: The weekly cycle was not affected. Only the date numbering changed:

Before	After
Thursday, October 4	—
—	Friday, October 15
—	Saturday, October 16
—	Sunday, October 17

The sequence Thursday-Friday-Saturday-Sunday continued unbroken.

Jewish Testimony

The Jewish people have observed the seventh-day Sabbath continuously for over 3,000 years. They have never lost track of the weekly cycle. Saturday today is the same day of the week as the Sabbath in Jesus's time.

Astronomical Confirmation

The weekly cycle is independent of astronomical events (unlike months and years). It has continued unbroken throughout recorded history.

Conclusion: The weekly cycle has never been disrupted. Saturday is verifiably the seventh day of the week.

• Objection 11: "Sabbath-keeping is legalism"

The claim: Trying to keep the Sabbath is legalistic works-righteousness. Christians are saved by grace, not by law-keeping. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Distinguishing Different Concepts:

Different concepts must not be conflated.

Response:

Defining Legalism

Legalism is:

• Attempting to earn salvation through works
• Adding human requirements to divine commands
• Trusting in one's own righteousness

Legalism is not:

• Obeying God's commands out of love
• Keeping the commandments as fruit of salvation
• Doing what God says because He said it

The Biblical Balance

Ephesians 2:8-10 — "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

We are saved by grace → unto good works.

James 2:17-18 — "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead... I will shew thee my faith by my works."

Obedience Is Not Legalism

John 14:15 — "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

1 John 5:3 — "This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."

Keeping commandments because we love God is not legalism — it is love expressed in obedience.

Conclusion: Sabbath-keeping from love for God is obedience, not legalism. Legalism is trusting in works for salvation.

• Objection 12: "Every day is alike to me — I worship God every day"

The claim: Every day is holy to the Christian. Setting apart one day is unnecessary when we worship God continuously. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Specific Commands Override General Principles:

A specific command cannot be dismissed by appeal to a general principle.

Response:

God Specifically Set Apart the Seventh Day

Genesis 2:3 — "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it."

Exodus 20:8 — "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."

God did not bless and sanctify "every day." He blessed and sanctified the seventh day. We cannot claim what God did for one day applies equally to all days.

The Principle of Specific Holiness

If "every day alike" dismisses the Sabbath, the same logic would dismiss:

• Tithing (all money is God's — why give 10%?)
• Marriage (all love is good — why be faithful to one?)
• Baptism (all water is water — why that specific act?)

God designates specific things as holy. Our response is obedience, not redefinition.

What "Every Day" Worship Means

Yes, we should worship God every day. But:

• There is still a special day set apart
• Daily worship does not negate weekly Sabbath
• The principle is "seven days of worship, one day of rest" — not "seven days alike"

Conclusion: Worshipping every day does not nullify God's specific command to observe the seventh day.

• Objection 13: "The Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross"

The claim: Colossians 2:14 says the law was "nailed to the cross." Therefore, the Ten Commandments are abolished. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Technical Terms:

Technical terms must be given their technical meaning.

Response:

What Was Nailed to the Cross?

Colossians 2:14 — "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (cheirographon tois dogmasin) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."

Cheirographon (χειρόγραφον) is a technical legal/commercial term meaning:

• A certificate of debt
• An IOU
• A written record of what one owes

The Debt Certificate, Not the Law

Paul does not say "the law" was nailed. He says the certificate of debt — the record of our transgressions — was nailed.

Analogy: When a debt is paid, the creditor cancels the debt certificate. The cancellation doesn't abolish the law that created the debt — it satisfies the debt.

Christ paid our debt. The record against us was cancelled. The law that defined our transgressions remains.

Paul's View of the Law

In the same letter:

Colossians 3:5-9 — Lists sins (fornication, covetousness, lying) that violate the Ten Commandments.

If the Ten Commandments were abolished, why does Paul condemn their violation?

Conclusion: The "handwriting of ordinances" nailed to the cross was our debt certificate, not the moral law.

• Objection 14: "We don't sacrifice animals — why keep the Sabbath?"

The claim: If we don't keep the ceremonial laws (sacrifices, circumcision), why should we keep the Sabbath? It's inconsistent. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Distinguishing Categories:

Different categories require different treatment.

Response:

The Two Laws Distinction

Scripture distinguishes moral law from ceremonial law:

Moral Law (Ten Commandments)	Ceremonial Law
Spoken by God (Deut 4:12-13)	Given through Moses (Lev 1:1-2)
Written by God on stone (Ex 31:18)	Written by Moses in a book (Deut 31:24)
Placed inside the Ark (Deut 10:5)	Placed beside the Ark (Deut 31:26)
Defines sin (Rom 7:7)	Provides temporary remedy
Eternal character of God	"Till the seed should come" (Gal 3:19)

Why Ceremonial Laws Ended

The ceremonial laws were shadows pointing to Christ (Colossians 2:17). When Christ came, the shadows were fulfilled:

• Sacrifices → Christ's once-for-all sacrifice
• Priesthood → Christ's heavenly priesthood
• Circumcision → Circumcision of the heart

Why the Moral Law Continues

The moral law reflects God's eternal character:

• God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6)
• Murder, adultery, theft are always wrong
• The Sabbath commemorates creation — an eternal fact

The Sabbath is not a shadow pointing to Christ. It points backward to creation.

Conclusion: The Sabbath is part of the eternal moral law, not the temporary ceremonial system.

• Objection 15: "It doesn't matter which day as long as we rest one day in seven"

The claim: The principle of one day in seven is what matters, not the specific day. Any day of rest fulfils the command. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Specific Commands:

When a command specifies particulars, those particulars are binding.

Response:

God Specified the Day

Exodus 20:10 — "The seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God."

Not "a seventh" (one in seven) but "the seventh" (a specific day).

God did not say:

• "Rest one day in seven"
• "Choose your own rest day"
• "Any day will do"

He said: "The seventh day is the sabbath."

Why the Specific Day Matters

1. It commemorates creation — God rested on THE seventh day (Genesis 2:2-3)
2. It is God's sign — The Sabbath identifies the true God (Exodus 31:13, 17)
3. It is a test of obedience — Will we obey what God specified, or substitute our preference?

Analogies

• Would "any day" work for a wedding anniversary? Or does the specific day matter?
• Would "any flag" represent a nation? Or does the specific design matter?

God specified the seventh day. Our role is to obey, not to decide that "any day" suffices. Conclusion: God commanded the seventh day, not merely one day in seven. The specificity is part of the command.

• Objection 16: "Sabbath-keeping causes division"

The claim: Insisting on Sabbath observance causes division among Christians. Unity is more important than a specific day. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Truth vs. Unity:

Unity must be based on truth, not purchased by abandoning truth.

Response:

Jesus Anticipated Division

Matthew 10:34-35 — "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father..."

Luke 12:51 — "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division."

Truth inherently divides — between those who accept it and those who reject it.

The Real Question

The question is not "Does this cause division?" but "Is it true?"

If Sabbath observance is biblical (as we have demonstrated), then the division is not caused by those who obey but by the truth itself.

Unity on What Basis?

Amos 3:3 — "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

Unity requires agreement on truth. False unity that compromises truth is not biblical unity.

Conclusion: Division may result from proclaiming truth, but truth cannot be sacrificed for false unity.

• Summary Table

Objection	Key Response
"Apostles changed it"	No evidence; apostles kept Sabbath; Catholic Church claims later authority
"Calendar changed"	Weekly cycle unaffected; Jews never lost count
"It's legalism"	Obedience from love is not legalism; we're saved unto good works
"Every day alike"	God specifically blessed the seventh day
"Nailed to cross"	Cheirographon = debt certificate, not moral law
"We don't sacrifice"	Moral law (Sabbath) distinct from ceremonial law
"Any day in seven"	God specified the seventh day
"Causes division"	Truth divides; unity must be based on truth

---