PAUL A SABBATH-KEEPER by STEPHEN PIERCE

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 20, 1869

PAUL A SABBATH-KEEPER.

By STEPHEN PIERCE

Many have tried to satisfy their consciences with the idea that Paul was a Sunday-keeper; and of course were ready to establish their faith upon his example in this, as well as in other things. But if they would carefully read just three passages to which their attention will herein be directed, such as are humble seekers after truth must necessarily come to a very different conclusion.

The first of these is found in Acts xxiv, 14: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.”

The way which they called heresy, doubtless, meant the gospel. According to the gospel, so he worshiped the God of his fathers, believing all things written in the law and prophets.

If any think Paul’s practice did not agree with his belief, we would refer them to the 16th verse; “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.” How could he exercise himself so as to have always a conscience void of offense? Certainly in no other way than by practicing just what he believed. Then, of course, if he believed all things written in the law, he obeyed them all, the Sabbath commandment with the rest.

Another passage is found in chap. xxv, 8: “While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar have I offended anything at all.” If Paul had not offended against the law of the Jews, he certainly had not desecrated the seventh day—not that we call the Sabbath law a law of the Jews; it was not; it was the law of God. But all must know that in case of his breaking the holy Sabbath, the law of the Jews would have caused him to be stoned to death. Hence, the act would have been against the law of the Jews, as well as against the law of God. As Paul declares that he had not offended against the temple, it would seem that if he had transgressed one of the ten great rules of the temple worship, located within the most holy apartment of that building, that such an act must have been somewhat against the temple itself. Again, here is sufficient evidence that he kept the fourth, as well as all the other commandments of the decalogue.

But to conclude we will introduce Acts xxviii, 17: “And it came to pass, that after three days, Paul called the chief of the Jews together. And when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”

The point to be noticed here, is, that Paul had committed nothing against the people or customs of their fathers. Now if Paul desecrated the holy Sabbath from week to week, every one must know that he did commit something against the customs of their fathers; and that, too, considered by them a very serious offense, even worthy of death.

Further than this Paul says in the 18th verse: “Who when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.” Now if he had transgressed that holy law, there was a cause of death in him; “For the wages of sin is death.” And further than this, the Jewish law would have enforced the penalty of death also.

Now if we can possibly believe that in all the above scriptures quoted, Paul did utter perfect falsehoods, and that Luke also afterward penned them as inspiration, then we might believe that Paul did desecrate the holy Sabbath; otherwise we must believe that he kept it.

STEPHEN PIERCE.