seventh day of the week the sacred title of Sabbath, fifty-nine times,
and in every instance refers to the day on which God rested, and which
he sanctified and blessed. See Matt. xii, 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12; xxiv,
20; xxviii, 1; Mark i, 21; ii, 23, 24, 27, 28; iii, 2, 4; vi, 2; xv,
42; xvi. 1; Luke iv, 16, 31; vi, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9; xiii, 10, 14, 15,
16; xiv, 1, 3, 5; xxiii, 54, 56; John v, 9, 10, 16, 18; vii, 22, 23;
ix, 14, 16; xix, 31; Acts i, 12; xiii, 14, 27, 42, 44; xv, 21; xvi, 13;
xvii, 2; xviii, 4.
Those who examine the subject are generally compelled to admit that
there is no inspired testimony favoring a change of the day. Some,
however, cling to the idea that the change is sustained by the example
of Christ and the apostles. As far as the example of our Lord is
concerned, they can refer us to but two instances of his meeting his
disciples on the first day of the week. The first occasion was when
he appeared to them on the evening of the day of his resurrection;
and they were astonished to learn that he had risen from the dead.
The second was eight days after this, and hence could not be upon the
first day of the week; and neither of these meetings, so far as we have
any proof, were from previous appointment, or designed for religious
worship.
And there is no evidence that the apostles regarded the first day of
the week as a day of worship. There is no record of a single instance
of their holding a meeting in the daytime of the first day of the week.
It is true that Paul met with his brethren, at Troas, on a first-day
evening to break bread. That meeting continued all night on the first
day of the week. The night is the first half of the twenty-four
hour day. Therefore that meeting was held on what we call Saturday
night. The next morning, Sunday, Paul started on his long journey to
Jerusalem, and spent the last half of that day in traveling on foot,
and sailing with his brethren toward Mitylene. Thus we have apostolic
example for regarding the first day as a proper day for secular
business.
Neither can 1 Cor. xvi, 2, serve the cause of first-day observance.
This text does not refer to a single element of the Sabbath. Holy time,
rest from labor, and public assembling for divine worship, are not
intimated therein. Justin Edwards, in his Notes on the New Testament,
comments on this text thus: “Lay by him in store; at home. That there
be no gatherings; that their gifts might be ready when the apostle
should come.”
With this now contrast New Testament testimony relative to the Sabbath.
Our Lord recognized the existence of the Sabbath at the destruction
of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, as verily as the seasons of the year. “And
pray ye that your flight be not in the winter neither on the Sabbath
day.” He refers to a definite day. Not one day in seven and no day in
particular, but the day of the Sabbath. In Mark ii, 27, he says, The
Sabbath was made for man.
In Luke xxiii, 56, is the record of the disciples’ resting the Sabbath
day according to the commandment. This act of resting on the Sabbath
was after the crucifixion, and the record of it was made by inspiration
nearly thirty years later still.
The book of Acts shows what the apostles did. Which day of the week did
they observe as the Sabbath? The writer of the book of Acts records
instances of the apostles’ holding meetings upon the Sabbath. On one
occasion when Paul had been addressing a mixed assembly, “the Gentiles
besought that these words might be preached to them, the next Sabbath,”
showing that it was understood even by the Gentiles, that the Sabbath
was Paul’s regular day of worship. Acts xiii, 42. And the next Sabbath
day came almost the whole city together, to hear the word of God. Verse
44.
At another time Paul and Timotheus, on the Sabbath, went out of the
city of Philippi to a place “by the river side, where prayer was
wont to be made,” and held a public meeting. Lydia believed, and
was baptized, and her household. But was the Sabbath Paul’s regular
preaching day? Was this his manner? Let chapter xvii, 2, answer. “And
Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days
reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.”
Chapter xviii, 1-11, contains important testimony on this subject.
Paul at Corinth abode with Aquila and Priscilla, and worked with them
at tent making. “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and
persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Verse 4. How long did he remain
at Corinth? “And he continued there a year and six months, teaching
the word of God among them.” Verse 11. Here is apostolic example for
seventy-eight successive Sabbaths. And it will be seen by verses 5-8,
that the apostle occupied the synagogue a part of these Sabbaths,
until the Jews opposed and blasphemed, then he went into the house of
Justus, where he preached the remaining portion. Here, dear reader,
is apostolic example in harmony with the divine precept, showing its
application and force in the present dispensation.
The cross of Sabbath-keeping in the face of decided opposition, when
its friends were few, was very great. Thousands became convinced
that apostolic example was in harmony with the fourth precept of the
decalogue; but the numbers who had the moral courage to act up to their
convictions, were found to be comparatively few. And no sooner was a
by-path opened around this cross by way of no-Sabbath, than multitudes
eagerly pressed into it. Some of those who taught the Sabbath abolished
labored to obliterate all distinction between typical institutions
and moral principles, and to show that everything in the form of law
recorded in the Old Testament was abolished. Others could not go so
far, but took the position that the seventh-day Sabbath was of the
same nature as the feast days of the typical system, and expired with
them. These could not see any reason why the precepts of the decalogue,
excepting the fourth, should be abolished. In their nature they are
adapted to man, throughout all dispensations of his fallen condition.
They exactly meet his wants. He cannot dispense with them. Why, then,
should the crucifixion of the Saviour of sinners do them away? These
could see how typical institutions, pointing to the death of Christ,
could cease at the cross, but could not understand how moral precepts,
applicable to the entire period of man’s fallen state, could be
affected by the death of the Son of God.
The mistaken view that the Sabbath was typical, had long been held by
the churches; hence this class could more easily receive the idea that
when Paul says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or
in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days,
which are a shadow of things to come,” Col. ii, 16, 17, he includes
the Sabbath of the Lord. The apostle here speaks of sabbath days, or
sabbaths. Lev. xxiii, shows seven Jewish sabbaths, to be celebrated at
their appointed times, “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord.” See verses
37 and 38. Here the distinction between the two kinds of sabbaths
is seen. Paul refers to those which are classed with meat, drink,
new moon, &c., and not to the Sabbath which the Lawgiver has wisely
associated with nine moral precepts. The “Sabbath Manual,” by Justin
Edwards, speaks with clearness and ability upon this point, and also in
reference to the days spoken of in Rom. xiv:
“Under the Jewish dispensation were incorporated two kinds of laws. One
was founded on obligations growing out of the nature of men, and their
relations to God and one another; obligations binding before they were
written, and which will continue to be binding upon all who shall know
them, to the end of time. Such are the laws which were written by the
finger of God on the tables of stone, and are called moral laws.
“The other kind, called ceremonial laws, related to various outward
observances, which were not obligatory till they were commanded, and
then were binding only on the Jews till the death of Christ.
“There were also two kinds of Sabbaths, or days of rest. One was a
day of weekly rest; and the command to keep it holy was placed by the
Lawgiver in the midst of the moral laws. It was called, by way of
eminence, ‘The Sabbath.’ The command to keep the other sabbaths was
placed by the Lawgiver among the ceremonial laws, because it was like
them, as the command to keep the weekly Sabbath was like the laws
with which it was associated. One class were fundamental, permanent,
universal, moral laws; the other class were local, temporary,
ceremonial laws. One had their origin in the nature and relations of
man; the other in the peculiar circumstances in which, for a time, a
peculiar people were placed. One would be binding in all ages, upon all
who should know them; and the other would be binding only upon the Jews
till the death of the Messiah.
“The Jews, at the coming of Christ, being in a state of great spiritual
darkness and grievous apostasy from God, did not well understand the
nature and objects of their laws. Often they overlooked the spirit, and
were superstitiously devoted to the forms. Some, after they embraced
the gospel, thought that the ceremonial as well as the moral laws were
binding; others, more enlightened, thought that they were not. This led
to contentions among them. Paul, in the fourteenth chapter of Romans,
presented such considerations as were adapted to lead them, in this
matter, to a right decision.
“‘One man,’ he says, ‘esteemeth one day above another. Another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his
own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and
he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.’
Both mean to honor God, and he will accept them. But what day does
he speak of? ‘The Sabbath’ of the fourth commandment, associated by
God inseparably with the moral laws? Read the connection. What is it?
Is it, one man believeth he must worship Jehovah; another, who is
weak, worshipeth idols? One believeth that he must not commit murder,
adultery or theft, and another thinks he may? Were those the laws about
which they were contending, and with which were connected the days that
he speaks of? No; about those laws there was no dispute.
“But ‘One believeth that he may eat all things,’ (which are nourishing,
whether allowed in the ceremonial law, which regulateth such things,
or not); ‘another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth
despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge
him that eateth, for God hath received him.’ Those were not the laws
about which they were contending, and with regard to which the apostle
was giving them instruction. It was not the moral, but the ceremonial
laws; and the days spoken of were those which were connected, not with
the former, but with the latter.
“So, in the second chapter of Colossians, ‘Let no man judge you in meat
or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of
the sabbaths.’ The sabbaths spoken of are not the Sabbath associated
with, Thou shalt not commit murder, or adultery, or theft; but the
sabbaths associated with meats and drinks, and new moons, which were
indeed shadows of things to come. But to take what he said about those
sabbaths which were associated by God with the ceremonial laws, and
which the apostle himself, in this very discourse, associates with
them, and apply it, as some have done, to ‘The Sabbath’ which God
associated with moral laws, is wrong.” pp. 133, 136.
All types point forward to something connected with the work of
redemption. They have no other design than this. Hence no type would
ever have been introduced had not man fallen and needed a redemption.
They all originate, therefore, this side of the fall. But the Sabbath
was instituted before the fall, before man needed redemption, and
before anything was, or could have been, reasonably given to foreshadow
that work. All the types that were ever instituted had no meaning
except as they recognized the work of Christ in redemption; but the
seventh-day Sabbath was from creation a holy day, and all the facts
to which the fourth commandment points would have been just as true as
they are now if Christ had never died. While the types, among which
were the typical sabbaths of the Jews, recognized man’s guilt, and
signified God’s willingness to save, the seventh-day Sabbath would have
occupied the same place it now occupies, and ever has occupied, even
if man had never sinned. The typical sabbaths were shadows of things
to come; the seventh-day Sabbath was and is a memorial of things past.
The two classes of sabbaths point in opposite directions, and hence
cannot be classed together. The one pointed forward to redemption; the
other points back to creation. “For in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” The
seventh-day Sabbath therefore is not a type, if reason and revelation
may decide this question.
William Miller’s views respecting the perpetuity of the Sabbath, and
its distinction from the sabbaths of the Jews, is also worthy of notice.
“I say, and I believe I am supported by the Bible, that the moral law
was never given to the Jews as a people exclusively, but they were for
a season the keepers of it in charge. And through them the law, oracles
and testimony have been handed down to us. See Paul’s clear reasoning
in Rom. ii, iii, iv, on that point. Then, says the objector, we are
under the same obligation to keep the sabbaths of weeks, months and
years that the Jews were. No, sir; you will observe that these were not
included in the decalogue.... Only one kind of Sabbaths was given to
Adam, and only one remains for us. See Hosea ii, 11. ‘I will cause all
her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths,
and all her solemn feasts.’ All the Jewish sabbaths did cease, when
Christ nailed them to his cross. Col. ii, 14-17. ‘Blotting out the
hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having
spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly,
triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or
in drink, or in respect of a 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.’ These were properly called Jewish sabbaths. Hosea says, ‘her
sabbaths.’ But the Sabbath of which we are speaking, God calls ‘my
Sabbath.’ Here is a clear distinction between the creation Sabbath and
the ceremonial. The one is perpetual; the others were merely shadows of
good things to come, and are limited in Christ.”--_Miller’s Life and
Views_, pp. 161, 162.
Here let it be distinctly understood that those who hold that no change
has taken place in the law of God, excepting in the fourth precept,
have no right whatever to appeal to those texts usually quoted to prove
the abolition of the entire code.
Those who took the extreme position that all ten of the commandments
were abolished, relied with great confidence on what the apostle has
said respecting the two ministrations. 2 Cor. iii. These seemed to
overlook the fact that a law is one thing, and the ministration of that
law quite another thing. Paul is here contrasting two ministrations
of the same law. He is contrasting the ministration of the law of God
under Moses, (which was a ministration of condemnation and death,)
with the ministration of the same law under Christ (which is the
ministration of the Spirit). It is the ministration of death that is
done away, to give place to the more glorious ministration of God’s
law, called the ministration of the Spirit. But we would inquire, Why
should all ten of the commandments of God be slain at the cross, even
if it were necessary to abolish the fourth? All agree that nine are
good, yea, indispensable for the Christian dispensation. Was it an
oversight in the Lawgiver in placing the Sabbath in the midst of nine
moral precepts? And did he have to slay the whole ten in order to get
rid of the Sabbath? But if all ten were abolished at the cross, how
is it that nine are still binding? “Why,” says the objector, “nine of
them were re-enacted by Christ for the gospel.” But here is a serious
difficulty; the objector has nine of the commandments re-enacted during
Christ’s ministry, before the ten were abolished at his death!
If it be said that the apostles re-enacted nine of the commandments for
the gospel after their Lord ascended and the Holy Spirit was poured
out upon them, we reply that according to this view there was a space
between the abolition of the ten, at the cross, and the re-enactment of
the nine; a space when there was no law, consequently no transgression,
and men might blaspheme, murder, &c., and not commit sin! But if the
objector takes the ground that the nine commandments were re-enacted at
the cross at the time when he thinks the ten were abolished, then we
shall understand him that Heaven aimed a blow that killed all ten of
the commandments, and that the same blow, at the same moment, brought
nine of them to life again! And all this to get rid of the Sabbath
which Christ says was made for man.
By many it was assumed, 1. That Christ was the Christian’s lawgiver,
and 2. That he has given in person and by his inspired apostles,
a complete code of laws for the present dispensation. It was then
asserted that as the law of the Sabbath was not repeated in the New
Testament, the seventh-day Sabbath is not binding upon Christians.
Deuteronomy xviii, 15-18, was offered as proof that Christ was our
lawgiver, but it may be seen that the text teaches the reverse. “The
Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee,
of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.... And the
Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I
will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,
and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all
that I shall command him.”
Peter, speaking of Christ, says: “For Moses truly said unto the
fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your
brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he
shall say unto you.” Acts iii, 22.
Christ, as a prophet, or teacher, was like Moses. We now inquire, Did
Moses legislate? Did he make laws for the people? He did not. Moses
received words from the mouth of God and spake them to the people.
There is no record that he ever assumed the position of an independent
lawgiver; while the inspired word furnishes facts quite the reverse.
In the case of the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, (Num. xv,
32-36,) Moses did not presume to decide his case, but left that for the
great Lawgiver. “And they put him in ward, because it was not declared
what should be done unto him. And the Lord said unto Moses, the man
shall be surely put to death.” See also Num. xxvii, 5-7; Lev. xxiv,
11-14.
That Christ, as a prophet, or teacher, was like Moses, we have the
united testimony of Moses, (Deut. xviii, 15,) the Lord, (verse 18,) and
Peter, (Acts iii, 22,) therefore he was not an independent lawgiver.
Says the eternal Father, when speaking of his Son, “He shall speak unto
them all that I shall command him.” Jesus testifies of himself on this
subject, and his testimony agrees with that of his Father. Mark well
the following declarations of the Son of God:
“Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that
sent me.” John vii, 16.
“Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then
shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my
Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” Chap. viii, 28.
“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave
me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know
that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore,
even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” Chap. xii, 49, 50.
“He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye
hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.” Chap. xiv, 24.
By these testimonies from the Father and Son, we learn that it was not
the work of our Lord Jesus Christ to legislate; but he received the
doctrines which he taught, from the mouth of the Father, and spake them
to the people. In this respect, as a prophet, or teacher, he was like
Moses. In both cases the Father is the lawgiver.
The transfiguration is referred to as proof that Christ is the lawgiver
in the gospel age. It is said that the presence of both Moses and
Christ, (the teachers of both dispensations,) and Moses’ being placed
upon the background by the voice from Heaven, saying, “This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him,” shows that Christ
is the lawgiver of the present age, and that his teachings take the
place of the law of God. But a very important personage is overlooked
by those who take this position. It is the Father. He also appears
at the mount of transfiguration. His voice is heard as the highest
authority--“This is my beloved Son, hear him.” However much the glory
of Christ excelled that of Moses, it did not eclipse the glory of the
Author of the ten commandments. The great God spoke the ten precepts of
his holy law in the hearing of all the people. He did not leave them
with Moses to write and deliver to the people. Neither was it the work
of the Son of God to deliver them, or any portion of them, the second
time for the men of the present dispensation. Under circumstances of
awful grandeur, the great Lawgiver spoke the ten commandments directly
to the people, and wrote them in the tables of stone. Christ quotes
several of them at different times to enforce the doctrines he taught.
He treats them as the law of his Father, and affirms their immutability.
If it be said that the apostles in their writings have given a code
of laws for the gospel age, we reply, that this view makes twelve
lawgivers, whereas James says, “There is one lawgiver.”
See the commission to the eleven: “Go ye therefore and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you.” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. Christ taught the apostles
what he had received of the Father, and this they were to teach men
to observe. Notice also the work of the Holy Spirit, and from whom
it proceeds. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John
xiv, 26. “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.” Verse 16. The Holy
Spirit came from the Father, and one object for which it was sent, was
to call to the disciples’ memory the words of divine truth which the
Son had received of the Father, and had spoken to them.
It is God, the great Lawgiver, that speaks to his people in both
dispensations: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days
spoken unto us by his Son.” Heb. i, 1, 2.
A PAPER STARTED.
The subject of the Sabbath was growing clearer, and up to this time the
foregoing positions were being presented to small congregations, by
Bro. Bates and myself. Opposition was waxing stronger, and the battle
was increasing. Burdened with a sense of duty to enter the field in
defense of truth, in July, 1849, I issued the first number of a little
sheet called _The Present Truth_, from which I give the following
extract to show the spirit of that time:
“It is through the truth that souls are sanctified and made ready to
enter the everlasting kingdom. Obedience to the truth will kill us to
this world, that we may be made alive, by faith in Jesus. ‘Sanctify
them through thy truth; thy word is truth.’ John xvii, 17. This was the
prayer of Jesus. ‘I have no greater joy than to hear that my children
walk in truth.’ 3 John, 4.