Untitled article by W. H. Littlejohn

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, August 6, 1867

THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

(Continued.)

AGAIN: We might further strengthen our position by showing that the masses of the people were united in believing that the seventh day of the week was the Sabbath, because it was by this conviction that they were impelled to meet regularly on this day, in their synagogues, for the purpose of hearing the Scriptures expounded. And that on such occasions it was the habit of the Saviour to meet with them. But we forego the privilege, since our space is so limited that we can indulge ourselves in but one more quotation before we pass to look at this matter from another standpoint. It will be found in Matthew xxiv, 20. "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath-day." Such were the words of our Lord to his disciples who had been listening to his narration of the terrible judgment which was to be poured out upon Jerusalem. The motive which prompted them was a desire to save those whom he loved from the vengeance which the sword, the pestilence, and the famine should execute upon those his enemies, who were, in their wickedness and blindness, about to put him to death. History has shown that the events to which he was looking forward occurred about A. D. '67. So that the early Christians in obedience to this injunction must have continued for thirty-four years to offer up the prayer that their "flight might not be in the winter neither on the Sabbath-day."

The advocates of a change of day, perceiving that it would ruin their cause should they admit that the disciples were directed to pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath because of its being holy time, have shown their dexterity in debate by furnishing another reason, of a physical rather than a moral nature, why this petition was continually offered up. It was, say they, because the Jews were so rigid in their observance of the Sabbath that the difficulties of escaping on this day would have been tenfold greater than on any other. Without stopping here to show the fallacy of their deductions from the premises, we shall admit for the present that the premise itself is correct, and then see how far this concession of theirs will go toward establishing our view of the point at issue between us. Taking it for granted that they will not repudiate the explanation they themselves have furnished, we find that the very corner-stone upon which that explanation rests, is the fact that the Jews, as a people, did set apart and observe with most scrupulous exactness, a particular day as the Sabbath, even during a time of siege as late as A. D. '67. But that the day which they then kept, was the seventh, is too well-established to require proof.

Nor was this the first instance when that people have furnished, under similar circumstances, the most undeniable evidence of their conviction that these oracles which were committed to their fathers in trust, were explicit in reference to the day to be observed. Their history affords many cases in which their enemies, aware of their conscientious scruples against even those labors which were necessary for self-defense on the Sabbath, have waited patiently for its periodic return, and then, making them an easy prey, have put them to death without mercy. And yet it never seems to have occurred to them that they had the remedy in their own hands. That is, that by a change of day altogether, or by allowing one part to observe one, and the other part to observe another, they could frequently, with the aid of a little strategy, deceive and defeat their enemies, save themselves, their wives, their children, and their property, and still answer the demands of the law. We believe that their record will bear us out in the statement, that they never ventured or even dreamed that it was possible for them to make this substitution. Also, that while, as in the cases above mentioned, by too great rigor they made the Sabbatic institution a means of death and misfortune instead of prolonged life and increased happiness, and that in others, by too much laxity they defeated it altogether, and were censured for both of these, still there is not to be found a single utterance of the Lord's which can be construed, even by implication, into a condemnation of the unyielding tenacity with which they ever insisted upon an observance of the seventh day, to the exclusion of all others. Silence under such circumstances means approval. Such an approval gives force and authority to the line of testimony under examination, because it stamps the conviction of a race with the sanction of the Infinite.

But look again at this text, in another light. These are not the words of one habituated to the use of language with a careless inaccuracy. It was not designed that they should perish with the hearing. They were to be treasured up, and during the years which should intervene between the prophecy and the fulfillment, their import was to be studied, and they were to be embodied in the petitions of every Christian who desired to escape the destruction which was coming upon that doomed city and its wicked populace. Had they fallen from the lips of one, who, owing to his imperfect knowledge of his mother tongue, would have found it difficult to express exactly the sentiment which he desired to convey, the case would be different. But as they emanated from one, who, when a child confounded the wisdom of the doctors, and in after years extorted from those whom his enemies had sent to take him the confession that "never man spake as he spake," we have a right to presume that he said what he meant and meant what he said. This being so, he used the expression Sabbath-day intelligently: and because it was the one which would exactly convey the idea which he wished to impart. It follows therefore,

1. That there was a Sabbath-day as late as A. D. '67. For if this be not so, then was the Saviour for some inexplicable cause engaged in framing for his disciples a form of prayer which pre-supposed its existence at the time of their flight, and that it was possible that this might occur on it, whereas it had in reality ceased to be, thirty odd years before it was necessary to escape.

2. That it was a particular day that he was speaking of, and not an institution which any individual could observe on such days as would best suit his convenience or interests. First: because it is preceded by the definite article the; whereas if there was to be more than one day which the people were to look upon as holy time, the indefinite article a would have been employed. Second; because if there had been a division of sentiment on this point, confusion must have followed. Since one would have been imploring that their departure might not occur on his rest-day, another, equally earnest, that it might not on his, and so on, till perhaps the whole week was covered by their prayers; and thus it would become necessary either that the prophecy should go unfulfilled, or that the Lord should be compelled to deny some of them the very thing for which his Son had instructed them to ask. For when they left the city, it was required that they should all do so at one and the same time. And that time was to be indicated by a given sign. When this should appear, all were to flee in the greatest haste, without stopping even to enter the house for any article which they might desire to carry with them, or to return from the field to take their clothes. So that no discrimination could be made whereby one could be allowed to leave at one time, and another at another.

Now that we have learned that the Lord spake of the Sabbath in a manner which shows that he looked upon it as being both a particular day, and one the time of the occurrence of which was so well understood by those to whom he was talking that it was only necessary to speak of it by the use of its proper name, and all would perceive the one to which he alluded. If we can by any means determine the application which they made of his words, we shall be possessed of a reliable explanation of their import. To obtain this you have but to turn to your Testament, part of which was written before and a part after the destruction of Jerusalem, and you will find that the Sabbath-day is everywhere spoken of as the seventh day of the week, the same as that which was kept by the Jews, and that there is not a single instance in which this term is used in reference to any other.

There is another test which may be applied to these conflicting views of interpretation. It is always allowable, when there is a division of opinion respecting the meaning which should be given to a statute, to introduce any well-authenticated fact, or act of the parties concerned in the making of the same to show what was its original design. This being done, those views which accord with the intention of the law-giver thus ascertained are admitted to be correct. The principle upon which this usage rests is so manifestly just that it requires no vindication at our hands. If it shall appear that the Lord has caused to be recorded any words or deeds of his which clearly indicate that he intended to single out the seventh day of the week from all the others in order that by a proper observance of it we might suitably celebrate his rest after the creation of the world, we shall submit our case in the confident belief that every Christian heart will unhesitatingly pronounce those views sound which have so firm a foundation. In looking for this evidence, one would naturally go back to a time which should exactly or nearly synchronize with the giving of the commandment. Nor will he be disappointed when he approaches this period. That God, who has upon all other subjects, given us “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little,” has not been unmindful of our interests in this matter. Knowing that error is never barren, and that when she once finds lodgment in the mind, she soon becomes the prolific mother of evil, he has never allowed her to enter upon her work of destruction without first clothing her in the shades of night, and truth in the robes of light; thus making the contrast so striking that no one can be deceived as to which is the favorite of Heaven.

In fact, the commandment begins with the words “remember the Sabbath-day,” which would seem to indicate that it was designed to ordain the observance of that which had been made familiar to their minds by something that had transpired before. It would not be difficult to show that the race had never altogether lost sight of the fact that the Sabbath was established in Eden, or that they had entirely neglected it. But the plan of this article will not admit of the use of as much space as this would require. We shall content ourselves with a brief examination of two or three transactions which occurred during the exode. The first of these is registered in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, and transpired about one month previous to the giving of the law on Sinai. It will be observed that in this chapter the expressions sixth-day and seventh-day are so used as to leave no doubt that the days of the week were numbered from one to seven; and consequently that each one, when indicated by its numeral, was as unmistakably pointed out as it could be done at the present time by the use of those names which have since been applied. In fact the Jewish method was the more determinate of the two. For the names being used arbitrarily with us we must first learn them and then the exact order in which they occur, before, one being given, we can tell which of the others should follow or precede it. Whereas they, knowing that there were but seven in all, having ascertained the number of any one could easily find the balance and give to each its proper number with mathematical certainty. To illustrate; in the fifth verse of the chapter mentioned above the Lord uses these words. “And it shall come to pass that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.” In the twenty-second verse is recorded the understanding which the people had of this, in the following language: “And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.” So that it is evident that the term sixth-day was as fixed in its application with them as that of Friday is with us. Since the whole congregation seem, without exception, to have hit upon exactly the same as the one on which, in obedience to the injunction above given, they were to gather a double portion of manna.

Again; Moses says, in the twenty-sixth verse: “Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.” But if the term seventh day was not limited in its application to a particular twenty-four hours, then this could not be true, for on every other one the manna did fall. In other words, if it was equivalent to one-seventh part of time, or if it was movable so that any individual could commence to number his days from any except the one generally admitted to be the first, and thereby bring his Sabbath upon any twenty-four hours differing from those commonly observed, then would the host have been compelled to go without food on that day. And should the number who refused to follow the examples of the majority increase to six, each observing a different day from the other, then would starvation have been the inevitable consequence. For Moses solemnly declares that the Sabbath and the seventh day are identical. If therefore the habit of observing a particular one as a rest-day really made it the seventh in the sense in which he used those phrases, then the falling of manna on such an occasion would have broken his words, for, mark you, his declaration is unqualified. He does not say that it shall not fall for the individual thus engaged, but he says, 'there shall be none.'

Once more; additional light will be thrown upon this subject, by noticing the fact that in this chapter the sixth day is followed in consecutive order by the seventh, thus rendering it certain that these were applications given to days of the week and not used indiscriminately in reference to any fraction of it, provided only that it comprehended one-seventh part of the whole. See verse twenty-third. Moses there says, “to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Read the context and you will find that the day on which he was speaking was the sixth. But we have already quoted to show that the seventh day and the Sabbath were the same, so that the day after the sixth was the seventh, since Moses plainly said that it should be the Sabbath.

Again; as the terms sixth-day and seventh are kindred in their nature, the same rule which would make the latter signify one seventh-part of time, would also demand that the former should be taken to mean one-sixth part of the same period, and that if the latter signifies one day in seven, the former, one in six. A careful reading of verse twenty-nine will disclose the absurdity of such a view. It reads as follows: “See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” Thus it is shown that on the sixth-day the Lord gave the bread of two days, so that on the Sabbath which followed, the wants of the people might be provided for. The sixth day was always marked, therefore, by this miracle, and no other upon which this did not occur, could claim its title. Let us grant for the sake of argument that our opponents are right in supposing that it meant one day in six or one sixth part of the time. It would then follow that on one day in every six the Lord would allow the people a double portion of bread. But as the Sabbath occurred only one day in seven, in seven weeks or forty-nine days there would have been eight days of double rations and only seven Sabbaths. Thereby, through a miscalculation, or for some unaccountable reason, Jehovah would be represented as working one miracle in every two months when the case did not demand it.

And so we might go on through the Scriptures finding in almost every chapter something to establish the definitive nature of the days of the week, when alluded to by the use of their proper numbers. The account of creation which was written by the same person who penned the book of the law and the chapter before us, and therefore related in the same language, and within a few years at most of the time at which the decalogue was given, might be appealed to in this controversy. Since in it each day is shown to have been bounded by the evening and the morning; each to have followed the other in the same order as do the figures from one to seven; and each to have been distinguished from the balance by the character of the work performed on it, or as in the case of the seventh by the fact that it was a day of rest and not of labor. Facts which are perfectly irreconcilable with any other understanding of this matter than that which we have already expressed and endeavored to defend.

(To be continued.)