The Sunday, the Sabbath, and the Change by William Henry Littlejohn

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 5, 1882

The Sunday, the Sabbath, and the Change.

By William Henry Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

It is almost universally agreed, that, practically speaking, the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. What is remarkable, however, is the fact that the only Sabbath law found in the Bible is specific in its requirement of the observance of the seventh day. Strange as it may appear, also, the binding obligation of that law, as originally embodied in the ten commandments, is admitted by nearly all orthodox Christians. Again it is universally conceded that from Sinai to the cross, the uniform practice of the Hebrew people was such as to show that they distinctly understood that it was the will and purpose of God, as expressed in the fourth commandment, that the seventh and last day of the week should be separated from the others of the hebdomadal cycle as the "rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." With these facts before us it is not a little startling to find the friends of the Sunday sabbath admitting, as they are compelled to, first, that God has once sanctified the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. Secondly, that he has never expressly declared that he has removed that sanctification. Thirdly, that he has nowhere said that the first day of the week is to take the place of the seventh, or, in fact, that it differed in any way from any other day of the week. Such concessions must, it would seem, lead to the inevitable conclusion, that the supposition of the change of day must be altogether unfounded. When we consider that God never omits to do anything on account of oversight; when we remember that the Sabbath commandment reads to-day the same as it did when given on Mount Sinai, and therefore, must, if binding, enforce the same day which it then enforced, it would be insulting to the wisdom of Jehovah to conclude that he would hold his creatures responsible for not observing a day which he had never commanded, and exonerate them from keeping a day which he still enforced by a statute which is clear in statement, and one whose import was rendered certain by the practice of Christ, as well as that of the good and great before him for 1500 years.

Do you inquire then, What authority is offered for the observance of the first day by the masses who are now united in its commemoration? I answer that, while frankly admitting that they have no "Thus saith the Lord" for the change of the Sabbath, they nevertheless claim that such a change is shadowed forth in the New Testament record. Do you again inquire whether there is really any force in the argument adducted? We reply frankly that to our mind there is none. In the first place, their conclusions are far-fetched and are not warranted by the facts. In the second place, it is not God's method to enforce positive duty by doubtful example. In the third place, the examples cited not only fail to prove what is desired, but they most emphatically disprove the same. To the thoughtful mind this will become apparent at a first glance. It will be admitted that when duty is to be inculcated by example in the absence of positive precept, the example must be clear and invariable. God, who knows the end from the beginning, had he designed that the authority for the first-day Sabbath should be drawn from the practice of the early church, would have at least made that practice uniform and unmistakable. Were this not the case, how could he ever punish men with any degree of propriety for failure to observe the day? What, then, we inquire, does the record say? Does it represent the early Christians as uniformly hallowing the first day of the week, during the period covered by the books of the New Testament? Let us see.

The Gospels and the book of Acts cover the first sixty-three years of this dispensation. Now it is not claimed that the first day of the week became hallowed time till Christ's resurrection. That day, say our friends, was rendered holy by that event, and has continued so ever since. Now let it be remembered that it is not urged that there is any positive declaration for the correctness of this theory, but simply that it is taught by the uniform practice of the early church. Well, let us consider this proposition for a moment. Did Christ and the apostles hallow the day on which Christ arose? The answer must be in the negative. In the early morning two of them started on foot for Emmaus, distant from Jerusalem seven and a half miles. On their way thither Christ united himself to them in the garb of a wayfaring man. At Emmaus he made himself known to them, having previously made, however, as though he would have gone farther. Luke 24 : 13-29. Immediately upon this revelation they returned post haste to Jerusalem.

Thus it is made to appear that they traveled fifteen miles on the first Christian Sabbath so-called, and that Christ, instead of upbraiding them therefor, virtually acquiesced in what they did by journeying with himself. A strange method this, of laying the foundation, for the new Sabbath or rest day.

That which is true of Christ and the two disciples mentioned, is substantially true of the twelve. With them the first Christian Sabbath, so styled, was anything but a day of rest. From morning till night it was characterized by the most feverish excitement, and the most constant activity. Reports were everywhere flying concerning the alleged resurrection of Christ, and from day-dawn till late at night there was hurrying to and fro, and confusion reigned everywhere. All that is said in regard to a religious assembly at the close of the day, in honor of the resurrection, is the merest twaddle. By a comparison of texts it is rendered certain that the gathering was not only not one of a religious character, but that it was merely a coming together to partake of the ordinary evening meal, in an upper chamber which was the common dwelling-place of the apostles. See John 20: 10; Acts 1: 12, 13; Mark 16: 14; Luke 24: 36-43. There they met, behind closed doors for fear of the Jews, not even believing, as yet, that Christ had arisen. Mark 16: 9-13. Thus much for the first so-called Sabbath of the new dispensation. So far as the example of Christ and his associates is concerned, it would lead us, were it to be followed implicitly, to devote the day to an activity so intense as to render its increase practically impossible; since with head, and heart, and limb, they passed its wheeling hours in a manner which would suggest anything but faith in its sanctification.

Leaving the region of the Cross, and descending the stream of time until we reach the next first day, which is specifically mentioned in the historic narrative of the doings of the early church, we find them assembled in an upper room lighted by burning lamps, and located in the city of Troas. Acts 20: 7-14. Paul is preaching to them and breaking bread. With the dawn of the morning he starts on a journey of seven hundred miles to Jerusalem. Between sun and on that day he travels on foot nineteen and one-half miles, from Troas to Assos. Remembering now that the Jewish day commenced at sunset, and ended at sunset, we readily perceive that the only portion of it in which lamps could be employed would be that portion which lay next to its commencement; i. e., between the going down of the sun on Saturday night and the rising of the same on Sunday morning. But such a conclusion would render it certain that Paul spent the Sunday there mentioned in performing the journey of nineteen and one-half miles spoken of above. A strange method, we suggest again, of laying the foundation for the Christian Sabbath. He, the great apostle to the Gentiles, surely would not have desecrated the Sunday by common travel had it been his special work to enforce it, by his own example, upon the Gentiles and Jews alike, as a day sacred to rest and holy meditation. Furthermore, how manifest it now becomes that the record was not designed to teach a custom at all. Twenty-eight years intervened between the resurrection of Christ and the next well authenticated religious service on the first day of the week, brought to view in the book of Acts. That is (granting our friends all they ask), they are able to point to but two first-days, of 1456, on which it is clearly stated that the disciples were actually assembled together for any purpose whatever. In other words, were we to admit that of Christ's resurrection and the day on which the disciples were unquestionably devoted to the purposes of religious worship, still our friends would only come as near to the establishment of a custom in this matter as the number two approximates in value to the whole number 1456. That is, their inability to show positively that more than two Sundays were observed out of the 1456 which intervened between the resurrection and the meeting at Troas renders it certain that the history which is left us of that period fails to establish the custom, if such an one did really exist. But such a finding would utterly demolish the theory of our friends, as they will hardly be reckless enough to substitute the first-day Sabbath in the place of the seventh day on the ground of apostolic custom, and then go outside of the Bible to establish that custom.

Should it be suggested that in 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2 there is a direct reference to first day gatherings for the purpose of worship, on the part of the Galatian and Corinthian churches, we reply that the proof must first be put into the text before it can be drawn therefrom. In the logic employed by our friends in this connection it is manifest that "the wish was father to the thought." There was a case to be made out, and, taking certain things for granted, it was seen that that text would make out the case in question. The things taken for granted were, first, that laying by in store was equivalent to depositing in the contribution box, in the church or place of meeting. Secondly, that such a deposit regularly on the first day of the week, presumed the regular convocation of the people on that day for worship. Now the naked fact is, that there is not only an entire lack of any reference in the passage under consideration to the contribution box and convocations of any nature whatever, but also that the phraseology employed is such as to forbid the notion that the contribution box was employed at all, or that the church was the place where the laying by in store was accomplished.

Through the learned labors of J. W. Morton upon this subject, it has been demonstrated beyond controversy that the expression, "lay by him in store," as used in the original, was equivalent to "laying by him in store at home;" i. e., that the idiom of the Greek was such as to indicate that the work in question was to be done by each individual at his own house. In support of this theory, Mr. M. has introduced eight versions, all of which recognize the fact that such is the case. (See "Vindication of the True Sabbath," by J. W. Morton.) Admitting, therefore, only that which the facts compel us to admit, our friends will be compelled to yield up 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2, as insufficient to prove the custom they desire to make out. Unfortunately for their cause, however, this text cannot be disposed of so easily on their part. It is true, that if the work under consideration was to be done at home, it would not be done at the church, and if not done at the church, that does not prove the practice of assembling regularly on the first day of the week for worship; nevertheless, it is also true that the laying by in store was actually accomplished each first day at home, in obedience to the apostolic injunction. Such a concession, however, is very damaging to the theory under discussion, since the labor in question involved the performance of work hardly compatible with the idea that the day on which it was performed was holy time. The collection to which the apostle here refers, could not have been that which was to be taken up on passing the contribution box through the congregation, as that would not have been objectionable from the moral stand-point of our friends, provided the money had been previously gathered. Neither could it have been objected to on the ground of delay, since it would have only required a few moments of time. The natural conclusion, therefore, is, that he meant to instruct them that upon each first day they should gather in, from various sources, and deposit in a safe place at home, an amount commensurate with their ability, to be given to him for the poor saints at Jerusalem, when he should arrive. Such a gathering in, however, would have been accomplished without the transaction of secular business, since it would have involved an examination of financial matters, and the collection of outstanding dues in some cases. But the transaction of secular business on the first day of the week could not be reconciled with the idea of its sacredness. The text, therefore, instead of making for the sanctity of the day, renders it quite certain that the apostle did not regard it as in any way holy, else he would not have made it a day of collections. The force of this argument is increased, provided we endorse the position taken by some commentators, which is that the contributions were not to consist merely of money, but also of such articles of food and clothing as the apostle could readily transport to Jerusalem. (To be Continued.)