Was the First Day Gradually Sanctified by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ?
By John Nevins Andrews
[From Les Signes des Temps.] The first day not sanctified during the first twelve years after the resurrection of Christ. If the first day of the week is a day holy to the Lord, and one on which men ought not to labor, there was a time when it became holy, and some act or series of acts, which made it holy. The reason assigned by theologians why this day should be holy, is that Christ arose from the dead on that day. But it should be observed. (1) That no such reason is assigned in the Bible to establish the holiness of the day; (2) That the Bible does not even say that the day is holy; (3) That out of eight instances in which the day is mentioned, only one instance is found in which it is directly asserted that Christ arose that day. Mark 16:9. The Spirit of inspiration did not therefore attach any special importance to the fact that Christ arose on that day, though that fact would be of the highest importance if the people of God ought to observe the day in memory of that event. In our examination thus far, we have learned three important facts: 1. That there was no act of sanctifying the first day at the resurrection of Christ, as there was of sanctifying the seventh day when the Creator had rested upon it. Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:11. 2. That Christ did not gradually sanctify the first day, during the forty days preceding his ascension. 3. That the apostles, during the period recorded in the first twelve chapters of Acts, said not one word in favor of the sanctification of the first day, and performed not one act which would indicate that they observed the day as sacred to the Lord. Yet these chapters embrace the first twelve259years of the gospel dispensation, a period during which the apostles laid the foundation of the church of Christ, by preaching the gospel not to the Jews only, but also to the Gentiles. The first day had not been sanctified when Paul preached at Antioch, in Pisidia. In this article we continue the examination of the book of Acts. Our object is to find some act which instantaneously sanctified the first day; or if there be no one act of this kind on record, then to find some series of acts which gradually accomplished the sanctification of the day. If the apostles ever sanctified the first day, we shall find the fact attested by three things: 1. That they said something about the sacredness of the day. 2. That they treated the day as sacred; 3. That their words and acts in behalf of the first day occasioned controversy with the Jews. What then do we find on this subject in Acts 13? In this chapter we find Barnabas and Saul, or Paul, sent out on their first missionary tour. Verses 1-4. In every case they preached first to the Jews and afterward to the Gentiles. When they arrived at Antioch in Pisidia, Paul preached a sermon which Luke has recorded. There are three important facts connected with this discourse: 1. That Paul said to the Jews (verse 27) that the prophets were read by their nation every Sabbath day. But if the seventh day had ceased to be the Sabbath, and the first-day had become the Sabbath, or if there were two Sabbaths each week, the seventh day and the first day, the declaration of Paul that the Jews read the prophets every Sabbath day, cannot be true. The term every Sabbath in Acts 13:24, means every seventh day, and cannot include one first day. 2. Paul declared to them (verses 30-37), that God had raised Christ from the dead, and that Christ had been seen of his disciples many days after his resurrection. Here was an opportunity for Paul to say that the resurrection of Christ had caused God to sanctify the first day of the week; but he did not say it, not because there was no need to say it if it were true, but because it was not true. Here also was an opportunity for Paul to say that Christ gradually sanctified the first day of the week during the many days that he was seen by his disciples, by appearing to them uniformly, or generally, on that day. But he said nothing of the kind; and our examination of the history of the forty days in our number for March (SIGNS for April), shows that Paul could not say it because it was not true. He might also have said—if it had been true—that during the twelve years that had elapsed since the ascension of Christ, the apostles had consulted together, and had decided to sanctify the day either by one united act of authority, or by many minor acts; but he said nothing of the kind, not because this was not necessary to be told, if true, but because it was not true, as we have shown in our number for April. [SIGNS for April 13.] 3. But the most remarkable fact remains to be noticed. When Paul had finished his sermon, the Gentiles besought him to preach the same words to them the next Sabbath day. This time the circumstances are such that Paul must speak of the sanctification of the first day of the week, if the day had been sanctified. When asked to preach the next Sabbath, he could not do otherwise than to answer thus: "You ought not to wait to take the place of the seventh; I will preach to you to-morrow." The persons who requested him to preach were Gentiles, who would not be offended to hear of the sanctification of a new day, and who needed to hear of it if it were true. But Paul made no reference to the sanctification of the day, which is a conclusive proof that as late as the year forty-five, the first day of the week had not been sanctified. Luke informs us that the next Sabbath came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. This fact is worthy of notice because it shows an extensive regard for the Sabbath among the Gentiles in the city of Antioch. The first day had not been sanctified when the first missionary tour was finished. The council at Jerusalem distinguished between the moral law and the ceremonial. The fourteenth chapter of Acts finishes the history of the first missionary tour of Paul and Barnabas. They preached in the synagogues of the Jews wherever they found them. They could not have done this, if they had taught that the first day had been sanctified in the place of the seventh; nor could they have done it if they had ceased to celebrate the seventh day. The fourteenth chapter of Acts makes not the slightest allusion to the sanctification of the first day, neither in what it says that the apostles taught nor in what it records of any accusation made by the Jews. The fifteenth chapter tells us that after Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch in Syria, that city was visited by certain persons from Jerusalem, who were scandalized to find that the Gentile converts were not circumcised. Verses 1, 5. If they had found the Gentile converts breaking the Sabbath, they would have been still more vehement in denouncing them. But they made no complaint in this respect, which shows that they had none to make. But to set at rest the question whether the Gentiles ought to be circumcised and to observe the law of Moses, Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles. The law of Moses must signify the ceremonial law, for Peter called it a yoke which neither the apostles nor their fathers were able to bear. Verse 10. And the decision made by the apostles, shows that the moral law could not have been the subject of discussion in the council, unless we believe that the apostles broke down eight of the ten prohibitions against immortality, and even left in force only a part of each of the other two; that is to say, left in force a part of the second commandment and a part of the seventh. The apostles were unanimous in the decision that the Gentiles should not observe circumcision nor the ceremonial law. Verses 1, 5, 24. If it be said that the apostles set aside, not the ceremonial law only, but the moral law also, then we ask why they should prohibit fornication if they had abolished the law which forbids adultery? And why also should they forbid the eating of things offered to idols, if they abolished the commandment which forbids idolatry? If they permitted in each case the greater sin, how could they with any reason forbid the less? Let those answer who think that the apostles set aside the moral law with the ceremonial. The apostles took care that the Gentiles should not think any part of the moral law was set aside with the ceremonial. There can be no greater absurdity than to represent the apostles as forbidding fornication, but permitting adultery; and, as forbidding the eating of meats offered to idols, but permitting the worship of idols. Yet this is precisely what they did, if they abrogated the moral law with its prohibition of idolatry, blasphemy, murder, and adultery, and only maintained the prohibition of meats offered to idols, and the prohibition of fornication. But they did nothing of the kind. The moral law was not in dispute, and the apostles did not grant permission to transgress one of its precepts. But they did set aside the ceremonial law, and this made it necessary that they should speak on three points which the Gentiles in their blindness might suppose to be set aside with the ceremonial law. These were: (1) The sin of fornication which properly signifies the transgression of the seventh commandment, when both the parties are unmarried The false education of the Gentiles, led them to think that this sin was not a violation of the commandment that forbids adultery. (2) The eating of meats offered to idols. The Gentiles were in danger of thinking that this would not be a violation of the commandment which forbids idolatry. (3) The eating of things strangled, and of blood; that is the eating of flesh with the blood, and the eating of blood by itself. The Gentiles were in danger of regarding the prohibition of blood as a part of the ceremonial law which was not to be observed by them. Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 17:10-14. But the reason on which the prohibition of blood was founded, that the blood was used in making atonement for the souls of men (compare Lev. 16:15, 18; 17:11), and the honor of the law of God which man has transgressed, forbids that man should taste blood. The change of the fourth commandment was not recognized by the apostles, because unknown to them. The first day had not been sanctified when Paul preached at Philippi. We have thus learned a fact of great importance. It is that when the apostles declared circumcision, and the ceremonial law, or law of Moses, not to be obligatory upon the Gentiles, they took care to define all the questions on which the Gentiles, through ignorance or false education, were in danger of transgressing the moral law. It was therefore in the highest degree necessary that the apostles on this occasion should speak of the change of the fourth commandment if the first day had been sanctified to take the place of the seventh. Or if it had not yet been sanctified, the time had come when they must sanctify it if they were ever to do it, for the apostles were assembled at Jerusalem for the last time. What did they say to indicate that the first day had already been sanctified? Not one word. What did they say by way of then establishing the sanctification of the day? Nothing! Yet in this council the Sabbath of the Lord was expressly recognized. When James, as president of the council, briefly announced the judgment of the apostles, he assigned as a reason for the brevity of the letter which was proposed to be written to the Gentiles, the fact that in every city the books of Moses were read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. Acts 15:19-21. This shows: (1) That the only weekly Sabbath known to the apostles at the time of this council, A. D. 52, was the seventh day. (2) That the converted Gentiles were accustomed to hear the reading of the books of Moses in the synagogue on the Sabbath. (3) That the sanctification of the first day was unknown to the apostles in A. D. 52, and when this council was dissolved, the last opportunity for the apostles to sanctify the day by one united act, was gone forever, for they were never all assembled afterward. We have a remarkable reference to the Sabbath in Acts 16. When Paul arrived at Philippi he found that a certain number of devout Gentiles were accustomed to meet for prayer on the Sabbath at the side of the river. Verse 13. He united with them in worship, and from this commencement arose the church of Philippi. If they were not keeping the right day it was the duty of Paul to tell them that the first day had been sanctified in the place of the seventh; but he certainly told them nothing of the kind, and the reason is evident: he could not do it and speak the truth.