In Exodus 31:14 we read that Sabbath violators were to he stoned to death. Do you believe the same penalty should be enforced today? If you claim that the penalty for Sabbath-breaking is done away with, you have admitted that the Sabbath has been abolished, for a law is not really a law if there is no penalty for its violation.
God gave the Israelite theocracy a series of prohibitions on idolatry, disobedience to parents, adultery and incest that all prescribed the death penalty for violation. See, Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 21:18-21; 22:21-28; Leviticus 20. Indeed, someone has estimated that no less than nine of the Ten Commandments are specifically mentioned in connection with the penalty of death for their violation.
Now we would ask the objector: Do you believe that the idolater ought to be put to death, or the son who curses his father? According to your logic, if you believe that this penalty should not be enforced today, you evidently believe that it is no longer wrong to be an idolater or for a son to curse his father.
Such a conclusion would obviously be absurd, yet it would be no more unreasonable than the contention that because present-day Sabbath keepers do not believe Sabbath breakers should be put to death, therefore the Sabbath law is abolished. This kind of reasoning proves too much, and thus proves nothing.
We agree that if a law has no penalty, it has no force. But it does not follow that because we do not believe in stoning people, therefore we believe there will be no ultimate punishment for those who violate the Sabbath or any other part of the law of God.
The difference between the ancient Jewish order of things and ours today is the time, place and executor of the punishment. When Israel was a theocracy and God its direct ruler, He saw fit to legislate immediate punishment. Now the lawbreaker must look forward to that great day of judgment at the end of time. (See Heb. 10:26-29)
Therefore, let not the Sabbath breaker feel at case in his mind simply because God has not suddenly brought judgment upon him for his violation of the fourth precept of the Ten Commandments, which declares that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, Creator of heaven and earth.
The story is told of a certain godless man who found special delight in flaunting his disobedience of the Sabbath command. He lived in a locality where the other farmers near him were devout Sabbath keepers. When October came and he harvested his crop, he found that he had even more in his barn than his neighbors. Meeting the Sabbath keeping minister on the street one day, he gloatingly mentioned this fact. The minister's only reply was: “God does not always make a full settlement in October.”
No better answer could have been given.
The faithful Sabbath keeper awaits the day of final judgment to receive his full reward for obedience to God, the Creator of the whole earth. And likewise, the Sabbath violator must await that last great day of accounting in order to receive the final reward for his failure to obey the explicit command of God. The violation of the law of God is sin, the Scriptures inform us (1 John 3:4), and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Is that not sufficient penalty?
A variant of this objection is that Exodus 35:3 forbids starting fires on the Sabbath. If you believe the Sabbath law is still in force, why do you kindle fires on that day?
What of the command against kindling fires on the Sabbath? Exodus 35:3 reads, “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day.” Our answer, briefly, is this:
1. The prohibition against kindling a fire is not part of the Fourth Commandment of the Ten Commandments, and it is these that we consider binding on the Christian.
2. Many civil as well as ceremonial statutes were given to Israel that were of limited duration. For example, rules were given regarding how a Hebrew slave or indentured servant should be treated. (See Ex. 21:1-11) No one would argue, from civil laws wherein God was endeavoring to soften the institution of slavery, that we must therefore continue the institution of slavery today. Obviously, many of the statutes given to Israel through Moses reflect an adaptation of moral principles to the existing level and understanding of the Israelites, or to other local and temporal concerns.
Therein lies the basic distinction between the moral commands of the Decalogue given to Israel directly by God on Sinai, and the host of other statutes given through Moses.
Now if the Sabbath objector feels free to admit that the provisions on the care of slaves were for a different time and place, while at the same time holding that nine of the Ten Commandments are still in force, should we not feel equally free to hold that the prohibition on kindling fires on the Sabbath was for a different time and place while at the same time holding that all ten of the Ten Commandments are still in force?
3. It is not clear that the command to the Jews against kindling fires on Sabbath was intended to apply beyond their wilderness journeying. Some Jews believe it is still in force, many others do not see it as having a continuing application. It comes just prior to a series of commands concerning the erection of the tabernacle, which were valid only so long as the tabernacle was under construction.
In the wilderness, the climate was very warm (although in an extremely arid desert climate, it gets cold at night). The conditions the Israelite encampment were faced with were already moderated by a cloudy pillar to cool the day and a pillar of fire to warm the night (Ex. 13:20-21). The Israelites were instructed to bake and seethe oil the sixth day such of the manna as they desired to eat in that form on the Sabbath day. Hence there was no need to kindle a fire for cooking on that day.
Again, to “kindle” a fire in those times meant to engage in very real and extended labor. As the Pulpit Commentary observes of Exodus 35:3:
“The kindling of fire in early times involved considerable labor. It was ordinarily effected by rubbing two sticks together, or twisting one round rapidly between the two palms in a depression upon a board. Fire only came after a long time. Moreover, as in the warm climate of Arabia and Palestine artificial warmth was not needed, fire could only have been kindled there for cooking purposes, which involved further unnecessary work. . . . The Jews generally view the precept as having had only a temporary force.”
In the light of these facts, how could the prohibition against kindling fires raise any possible doubt as to the permanency of the fourth of the Ten Commandments?