admission that, in the historic territory over which he has been
passing, it has been uniformly true that both Luke and Paul have ever,
when speaking of the seventh day, called it “the Sabbath.” Now let the
reader remember that this confession is full and sweeping in its
character. Then let him ask himself whether it is natural to suppose
that men, having repudiated an old Sabbath, and zealous for the
establishment of a new one, would be likely to make up the record in
question in such a form that the old Sabbath, whenever spoken of, should
always be styled “the Sabbath,” and the new one be mentioned merely as
the “first day of the week?” In order to impress the fallacy of such an
idea, we have but to call attention to the fact that men, at the present
time, possessing the same natures and dispositions as formerly, would
avoid such a course with the most scrupulous care. Instance the fact
that seventh-day observers never allude to the Sunday as _the Sabbath_,
but avoid such a reference under all circumstances; while the devotees
of the Sunday, when speaking of the last day of the week, almost
uniformly speak of it as the _Jewish Sabbath_, if Sabbath they will
allow themselves to call it at all.
But again. We are told, very candidly, that by the word Sabbath, in Acts
13:44, where it is said that the “next Sabbath day came almost the whole
city together” to hear the word of God, is meant the next seventh day
succeeding the first seventh day on which Paul addressed the Jews at
Antioch. This being true, it is settled beyond dispute that, in the mind
of Luke, there was no Sabbath day occurring between the one on which
Paul spoke to the people, and the seventh day of the next week when he
addressed them the second time; for, if there had been, then it would
not have been proper to call the last Sabbath mentioned the “_next_”
one, since another Sabbath would have intervened between the two in
question. In other words, according to the view of our friend, the
Sunday, which was the next day after the first discourse of Paul, was
really the next Sabbath which followed it; whereas, the inspired penman
ignores it altogether, and, passing over it with silence, calls the last
day of that same week “the Sabbath.”
Again, it is stated in Acts 15:21, that the “Scriptures are read in the
synagogues _every_ Sabbath day.” Here, again, it is conceded that the
reference is to the seventh day of the week. If this be true, however,
then James, as well as Luke, had, in his lexicon of terms, the “Sabbath
day” as the one which answered to the seventh day and not to the first;
for no one will insist that the Scriptures were read in the synagogues
of the Jews regularly on the first day of the week; but James says that
they were read there _every_ Sabbath day; therefore, in his mind—as we
have already remarked—the first day was not the Sabbath.
Once more: It is stated of Paul that he reasoned in the synagogues
_every_ Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Here also it is
urged—admitting that the reference is to the seventh day—that Paul went
into the synagogue in order to get a hearing. But this he could not do
on the first day, since he would have found the synagogue closed, and no
audience. Nevertheless, the statement stands unqualified that Paul
preached “_every Sabbath_.” Now if this be true, and the first as well
as the seventh day might, according to the view of the historian, be
called a Sabbath, then we have him stating that Paul preached in the
place in question on both the first and seventh days. On the other hand,
if he regarded the first day as alone the Sabbath, then he meant to
teach that Paul preached in the synagogue on that day, and that day
only. But my opponent will not insist upon either of these positions.
The only conclusion that is left us, therefore, is that the Holy Ghost,
who inspired Luke in the selection of terms, employed the appellation of
Sabbath as applying only to the day which had been sanctified in Eden,
and had always been known by that title.
Now let us give our attention for a moment to the objection so strongly
urged that in the book of the Acts, and in the epistles, there is no
well-authenticated instance in which the apostles held meetings, with
Christians exclusively, on the seventh day. The point of the proposition
might be thus stated: If the early Christians did hold meetings on the
seventh day, the record would have shown it: this it fails to do;
therefore, the presumption is that they did not regard it as holy.
This is a sword that cuts _both_ ways, if it cuts at all. We do not
wonder that, when our friend laid hold of its hilt, he said,
tremblingly, This is a _negative weapon_; so that, when we should
attempt to borrow it of him, we might find the edge, which was designed
for his _own neck, dulled by his own concession_.
But let us proceed. Is it true, so far as the ancient Sabbath of the
Lord is concerned, that, unless we can find historic accounts of its
observance in the New Testament, we must therefore conclude that it was
not regarded? We answer, No; simply because its observance is not alone
taught by precedent. It rests upon a positive command of God,
incorporated in a law which was brought over into this dispensation, as
we have seen, and made obligatory upon Christians. It was not,
therefore, necessary that a detailed account of its observance should be
placed upon the record, in order to prove that it was regarded by the
early church; since the very fact that they acknowledged the law of God,
is in itself proof that they sanctified the Sabbath which it ordained.
Until, therefore, the gentleman can shake the pillars of that law—as we
shall show he has not yet succeeded in doing—it is of itself a guarantee
that every seventh day was regarded with solemnity by those who were
endeavoring to keep its precepts.
In proof of this, we have but to mention the fact that from Moses to
David—a space covering five hundred years—the term Sabbath is not
employed once in the sacred history, and yet the gentleman will agree
with me that the good men of those ages hallowed it, simply because he
agrees with me that they had a precept requiring them to do so.
But, again, we must be allowed to insist that the very silence of which
the gentleman complains does indirectly prove, independent of the
commandment, that the first generation of Christians were Sabbatarians.
What we mean to be understood as saying is, that they at least did not
violate the regulations concerning the strict observance of the Sabbath,
as enforced among the Jews; for had they done so, a record of thirty
years could not have failed to bring to light numerous collisions, which
would have been inevitable between Jews and Christians, the one class
despising and trampling down the Sabbath of the law, and the other
following them with that vulture glance of inquisition, by which—as in
the case of our Lord—they were in the habit of watching their
antagonists, with a view to condemning them before the law. And,
besides, with what show of consistency could Paul have stood up before
them, announcing himself as one who had never violated the customs of
the fathers (Acts 28:17), if he had been seen weekly transgressing the
law of one of the dearest institutions handed down to them from the
remotest antiquity?
Thus much for one side of the logic of our opponent. Now let us apply it
to the Sunday. As we do so, it will be recollected that there has been
no effort made, as yet, to place it upon a positive precept. Its
existence, therefore, if such it has at all, must be attributable to
precedent. Thus far, such precedent has not been cited, except by way of
anticipation. When it comes up, we will consider it in order. In the
meantime, let it be remembered that our friend has voluntarily taken a
position which will compel him to admit that, unless he can find at
least one clear and unquestionable case in which the Sunday was from
beginning to end devoutly celebrated, his cause is a hopeless one. Nay,
more, to make out his point, every candid mind will demand that, in the
absence of positive command, he shall be able to show numerous instances
in which the day, whose claims he seeks to vindicate, was intelligently
honored; for, be it remembered, that, according to his own declaration,
the apostle was traveling from point to point, writing and preaching,
and Luke was keeping a diary of his labors, for the purpose of
instructing that generation of Christians, as well as this, concerning
duty and doctrine. If, therefore, Sunday sanctity came under the head of
those doctrines, it was important, overwhelmingly so, that such a fact
should be set forth clearly, since an habitual disregard on the part of
any, of the new Sabbath, would bring upon them the condemnation of
Heaven. Furthermore, the line of demarkation, which the new day would
have drawn between the disciples and the Hebrews, would have been so
broad, and the discussions upon those points would have been so numerous
and so full, while the transition was taking place, that its existence
could not have failed to become discernible in the writings of that
period.
Here we must change our line of argument, and turn to the consideration
of Col. 2:14-17, and of Rom. 14:5. Our opponent intimates that
Sabbatarians are in the habit of evading these texts. In this remark, he
does us great injustice. The statement is so far from being true that I
make no doubt that, within the last twenty years, Seventh-day Adventist
preachers alone have, by voice and pen, commented upon them at least a
thousand times. But the best method of showing the charge to be untrue
will be found in an examination of the texts themselves. The first is as
follows: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
his cross; ... Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Col.
2:14, 16, 17. Now be it remembered that he affirms that these scriptures
teach the abolition of the creation Sabbath; also, that, while we
concede the point that there are here mentioned sabbaths which were
abolished at the crucifixion of Christ, we deny that the seventh-day
Sabbath was among them, and insist that they were simply the ceremonial
sabbaths of the Jews to which reference is made.
In proof of our position, we offer the following considerations: 1. That
which was repealed is represented as having been “blotted out.” Now the
Scriptures are remarkable for the force and propriety of the
illustrations which they employ. But who will say that the terms
“blotting out” could properly be applied to writing engraved in stone,
as was the Sabbath law in its original copy? 2. That which was blotted
out was the “handwriting of ordinances;” but the commandments were the
finger-writing of God. 3. That which was blotted out was found among
ordinances that were “_against_ us, and _contrary_ to us.” But Jesus
says, “The Sabbath was made _for_ man.” Mark 2:27, 28. 4. That which was
blotted out and taken out of the way “was nailed to his cross.” But it
is inconceivable that such language could be spoken of the tables of
stone, since they are not of a nature such that the work spoken of could
be readily accomplished, and therefore the figure will not apply to them
except when forced. 5. It must be admitted that these things concerning
which we are not to allow men to judge us were either all of them
shadows of Christ, or that if the _others_ were not, the _sabbath days_
were. If they were all shadows, then the sabbaths undeniably were such;
for the expression, “which were a shadow of things to come,” stands
immediately connected with the term “sabbath days.”
But this decides the point in controversy; for our friend has already
voluntarily declared that the seventh-day Sabbath originated in Eden.
This being true, it cannot be regarded as a “shadow” or type of Christ,
since it was in being before man had ever fallen, and, consequently,
before a Saviour was either needed or promised. It is commemorative in
its character, and was calculated to carry the mind back to the
creation, to the rest of Jehovah, rather than forward to the crucifixion
of his Son. Do you inquire, then, what sabbaths the apostle had in view?
We answer: He locates them among “commandments written in ordinances.”
In other words, in the Mosaic ceremonies. Now take your Bible and turn
to the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, and you will find that the
Jews had three annual feasts—the passover, the Pentecost, and the feast
of tabernacles—besides the new moons, and the seven annual sabbaths. The
sabbaths were as follows, to wit: 1. The first day of unleavened bread.
2. The seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of Pentecost. 4. The first
day of the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The
fifteenth day of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. These
are the ones, beyond all question, to which reference is here made.[3]
1. Because they were in the handwriting of Moses, and could be blotted
out. 2. Because they were found in handwriting of ordinances. 3. They
were among ceremonies that were against us, and contrary to us (Acts
15:10). 4. The law in which they originated might have been nailed to
the cross. 5. That law was also one which shadowed forth Christ (Heb,
10:1).
To the second text we shall give but little space. In the presentation
of it, our friend attempts to be _facetious_. Nor are we disposed to
find fault with him for this. It is sometimes admissible, even in the
discussion of the _gravest_ questions, to indulge in _harmless_ humor.
That the effort in question partakes of _this character_, _i. e._, that
it is _harmless_, we shall not dispute. At all events, when we read it,
it amused rather than offended us. A second thought, however, suggests
the possibility that if _we_ were not damaged by the sally, it might
have been _pernicious_, nevertheless, since it is possible for it to
_react upon its author_. Certain it is, that it will damage either him
or Paul, because he represents the great apostle as making a special
effort, in his general labors, to teach men that they must under _all_
circumstances keep _one_ day holy, and that under _some_ they might be
allowed to regard a _second_ also in the same light. But, unfortunately,
if this exegesis is correct, and if the language of Rom. 14:5, applies
to the weekly Sabbath at all, Paul blundered egregiously in
communicating his intentions; since he virtually told them whom he was
addressing that, of the days of which _he was speaking_, they _need not_
keep them at all, or they _might_, at will. Here follows the text “One
man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Now we have heard men Who believed in no Sabbath employ this text again
and again to prove that there is now no holy time; we have also heard
conscientious first-day observers argue forcibly and conclusively that
this text proved no such thing, simply because it referred to days that
were connected with meats and drinks, and not to the weekly Sabbath at
all. But we confess that the position of our friend is somewhat novel.
Nevertheless, we feel sure that the reputation of the great apostle for
perspicuity will not suffer by this attempt, and we think that, so far
as he is concerned himself, reflection will prevent him from ever
seriously urging it. In conclusion on this point, we append a brief
comment from the pen of Adam Clarke, whose reputation, and the fact that
he was an observer of Sunday, will give him no little authority with our
opponent. He says: “Reference is here made to the _Jewish_ institutions,
and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast
of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, &c. The converted _Jew_ still
thought these of moral obligation; the _Gentile_ Christian, not having
been bred up in this way, had no such prejudices.”—_Com. in loco._
The only remaining text cited is that of Gal. 4:10. After what has been
said, no further comment from us will be required. The reader, desirous
of satisfying himself that this text also has no reference to the weekly
Sabbath, and of necessity refers either to heathen festivals or Jewish
ceremonial days, can read the context, and consult standard authorities,
such as Clarke or Barnes.[4]
Let us now survey the ground over which we have passed. So far as we
have gone, what has been done toward proving a practice of first-day
observance on the part of the early church? We answer, Nothing,
absolutely nothing. The only texts which have been cited for this
purpose are 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10, and Acts 20:7. So far as they are
concerned, we have previously shown that the first of them does not in
any way affect the question of Sunday observance; that the second
relates to the seventh day of the week and not to the first; and that
the third proves that Paul traveled nineteen and one-half miles on the
Sunday. When our reviewer shall attempt to stir a single stone in the
structure of argument which we reared in our former articles on these
points, we shall be by his side, to see that he does it fairly. Until
then, the intelligent reader need not be told that it is vain for him to
try to make capital by quoting them as above.
Thus much for the first day. We inquire next, What has been conceded or
proved, which is favorable to the seventh-day Sabbath? 1. That it
originated in Eden. 2. That it was enforced by the fourth commandment.
3. That that commandment is still binding. 4. That the effort to show a
change in its phraseology from Col. 2:16, Rom. 14:5, and Gal. 4:10, was
a complete failure; and therefore that it reads as it did formerly, that
“the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” 5. That there is a Sabbath
in this dispensation. 6. That, being enforced by positive command, it
stands in need of no precedent. 7. That, while the apostles did many
times preach on that day, there is not one instance in which they
violated it. 8. That had they desecrated it, the conflicts which would
have been thus created, must have found a place in the history of those
times. 9. That in the book of Acts it is always called “the Sabbath.”
10. That it was the only Sabbath known to the apostles, since they speak
of it not only as “_the_ Sabbath,” but as “the _next_ Sabbath,” and
“_every_ Sabbath.”
In concluding, we suggest that we leave our reviewer in a situation
which, to a man of his clearness of perception, must be a very
unsatisfactory one. Having insisted upon the perpetuity of the fourth
commandment, he is compelled to take one of two positions. Either, 1.
That it reads the same as it did when it enforced the seventh day; or,
2. That its phraseology has been changed. We confess that we have been
unable to decide which of these positions he prefers. Nor is it material
here. If he adopts the first, the thoughtful reader will agree with me
that it is simply absurd to argue that a statute, while reading the
same, means differently from what it did formerly. On the other hand,
should he adopt the latter, then we inquire why he has not given it to
us as it reads since it has been changed, and thus ended the controversy
by gratifying our most reasonable request.
Footnote 3:
“It is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the _Sabbath_ in
this place [Col. 2:16], whether Jewish or Christian; his σαββατων, _of
sabbaths, or weeks_, most probably refers to their feasts of
weeks.”—_A. Clarke, in loco._
Footnote 4:
“The days here referred to are doubtless the days of the Jewish
festivals.... It is not a fair interpretation of this to suppose that
the apostle refers to the _Sabbath_, properly so called, for this was
a part of the decalogue, and was observed by the Saviour himself, and
by the apostles also. It _is_ a fair interpretation to apply it to all
those days which are not commanded to be kept holy in the
Scriptures.”—_A. Barnes, in loco._
STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE THREE.
TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.
In a previous article it was seen that from the resurrection of Christ
there is no instance recorded in Scripture of the observance of the
seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by any assembly of Christians. On
the contrary, it was seen that the Judaizing spirit, which in some
instances insisted on such observance by Christians, was rebuked by the
inspired apostle. In connection with this was noted the fact that in the
case of Jews converted to Christianity, yet inclined still to regard the
seventh day with other Jewish celebrations, Christians were directed to
bear with such observance as a weakness in their brethren. It was also
seen that while the observance of the seventh day was not continued,
another day of the week, the first, took its place as the stated day for
religious assemblies and services. Let us now examine the testimony from
the Gospels for this day, reserving the remainder of scriptural proof
for another article.
The manner in which the first day of the week is pointed out in the
Gospels as the day of the Lord’s resurrection, is itself striking and
significant. All four of the evangelists concur in making prominent the
fact that it was on this day that Christ rose from the dead. This fact
is stated by Matthew, 28:1-6; twice by Mark, 16:1-6, and again in verse
9; by Luke, 24:1-6; by John, 20:1, 2. This concurrent, particular
mention of the first day of the week as the day of the resurrection, in
four independent historical accounts, the earliest of which was written
probably about twenty years after that event, has a significance readily
overlooked, but well worth noting.
To appreciate this fully, we must distinguish between the words of the
historians and the words of the persons whose sayings they record—a most
important point in the study of any history. Observing this distinction,
then, we note that the promise of Christ, as recorded by the historians,
was, that he would rise from the dead on the third day, dating from and
including the day of his crucifixion and burial. The chief priests and
Pharisees, asking Pilate to have the sepulcher guarded; the angels at
the sepulcher the morning of the resurrection; the two disciples,
conversing with the risen Lord on the way to Emmaus, and the Lord
himself, speak of it as the _third_ day. In no other way does any one
whose language is recorded by the historians refer to the day of the
resurrection. Now, had the historians themselves, writing after an
interval of from nearly twenty to over sixty years, simply desired to
state the fact of the Lord’s resurrection, it would have been sufficient
for them to say that, according to His promise, he rose on the _third_
day. But instead of this, they all concur in pointing out particularly
the _first_ day of the week as the resurrection day. On the supposition
that, when the historians wrote, the first day was regarded precisely
like the second and third days of the week, as it was at the time of the
resurrection, this change of statement is singular and inexplicable. On
the other hand, on the supposition that the first day had become an
honored and noted day among Christians, this mention of it by all the
evangelists, and that, too, in a uniform and somewhat formal phrase, and
the difference between the language of the historians and that of the
persons of whom they write, are naturally and satisfactorily explained.
In this change of language, then, on the part of the inspired
historians, and in their concurrent and prominent mention of the first
day, we have strong presumptive evidence in favor of the marked
character of that day at the time when the Gospel histories were
written. Testimony of this kind, in the form of unstudied allusion or
undesigned coincidence, though easily passed without notice, is
acknowledged on all hands to be of great weight.
After showing himself probably four times to one or more of his
disciples during the day of his resurrection, Christ appeared late in
the evening to the disciples collectively, Thomas alone being absent.
“Then the same day at evening (_opsia_, _late evening_, from _opse_,
_late_), being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where
the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood
in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:19.) Let
the facts be noted. 1. It was the evening of the first day of the week.
2. The disciples were met together, manifestly, _not_ to commemorate the
resurrection, but for what purpose, or where, it does not matter. 3. The
Lord came and blessed them, and, as we learn from the following verses,
imparted to them spiritual instruction, and breathed on them the Holy
Ghost. These facts should be borne in mind as we proceed.