Untitled article by W. H. Littlejohn

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, August 27, 1867

THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

(Continued.)

We turn now to look at what is generally regarded as the strong defense for Sunday-keeping. It is found in the fact that Christ met with his apostles on the first day of the week at sundry times between his resurrection and ascension. It is not an unusual thing, for those appealing to this line of argument, to refer to these meetings in a manner which would seem to indicate that they were so numerous, and occurred with such regularity as to establish the existence of a custom. Should we lose sight of the fact that had he met with them on every first-day which occurred between the events spoken of above, it could have been but six times in all, we would naturally infer from the use which they make of the word “habit,” that this practice was of much longer duration than the facts will admit of, even though it had been kept up during the whole forty days. How great then should be the surprise of every one who looks into this matter, when he learns that should we grant them all that they ask, it will be impossible for them to show that the Lord met with his apostles on such occasions more than twice after his resurrection. The question then is narrowed down to this:

Is there anything in the circumstances attending these two meetings as narrated in the gospels, which goes to show that the first day of the week was then, and therefore ought now, to be regarded as holy time?

Such an interrogatory, we unhesitatingly answer in the negative, and offer as a justification, the following reasons:

1. Because there is not a word nor syllable, which can be construed to teach, even by implication, either that the apostles so understood it, or that Christ designed that they should. An omission which can never be satisfactorily explained, by those who believe in first-day sanctity. For it is perfectly incredible that God should have set apart a new day for rest and worship, and attach to its neglect a penalty whose consequences should be eternal in duration, without leaving a line or a letter by which his friends might be instructed, or his enemies condemned. Such a thing if it were true, would not only furnish an instance of an abrupt departure from the course which he has ever pursued, even in matters of minor importance, but it would be difficult to reconcile it either with the principles of justice or mercy.

2. Because these meetings were too few in number precept.

3. Because there is nothing in the mere fact that the Saviour showed himself to his apostles after he rose from the dead, which is in itself calculated to inspire the conviction that in so doing he changed the character of the day on which it occurred, from profane to sacred. For if there is, then are there two days, instead of one, which have been thus transformed, and which consistency would demand should be treated

with equal honor. Since John informs us that the third occasion on which the Lord appeared to his apostles, was that of a day upon which they were fishing in the sea of Tiberias. As this was after the time when it is claimed by our opponents that the sacredness of the first day was established, they will either be compelled to admit that this third appearance was on some other day than this, or else they will overturn their whole theory by claiming that the apostles were devoting it to secular pursuits. Nor is this all. The Saviour himself, as if for the express purpose of removing from their minds any apprehension that his presence in his resurrected body in any way affected the nature of the day on which he had presented himself to them, deliberately instructs them to proceed in their labors by casting in their net on the other side of the ship. This done, their efforts were rewarded in such a manner that nothing but miraculous power enabled them to get safely to land the multitude of fishes which they had taken at this draught. Afterward, at his bidding, they unite in making a meal from fish which they themselves had seen in process of cooking upon the embers. But as the Lord never erred in judgment, and never by word, or deed, either directly or indirectly authorized any man to do a wrong, and as the apostles under his direction were engaged in employment which would have been wholly inadmissible on holy time, it follows that the day on which these transactions occurred, was not such an one. We have, therefore, one well-authenticated instance in which the Saviour in person, between the time of his death and ascension, met with, ate with, and reasoned with his followers, without in any way altering the character of the day on which these things were done. As it was true in this case, it would be in every other. And though our antagonists could point to a hundred meetings of like nature, instead of but two, the time on which they occurred, would in no wise lose its secular properties on their account. For if the transformation in question be predicated upon the quality of the events, then the number is immaterial. And if, the conditions being all complied with, they have failed once, to produce the results claimed, they would continue to do so though repeated indefinitely; simply because the effect looked for never was, and never can be, the legitimate sequence of the cause assigned.

4. Because, if it had been the intention of Christ to signify to his disciples by these meetings that the day on which they occurred was to be looked upon as holy, then the second and not the first, was the one which they must have understood him as dignifying in this manner. For it will be remembered that by the Jewish system of marking time, the day began and ended with the setting of the sun, instead of midnight, as with us, who have adopted the Roman method. A good illustration of this fact is afforded by one of the Evangelists in the statement which he makes that the women kept the Sabbath (i. e. the seventh day,) which followed the crucifixion, according to the commandment. The context showing that they commenced it with the setting of the sun on the day which we denominate Friday. It terminated therefore at the same time on the day which we now call Saturday. For they kept the Sabbath from evening to evening. At its close commenced the first day, which continued till sundown on what we would now designate Sunday. Then began the second day. Bearing in mind now, that the first sunset which followed the resurrection marked the beginning of the second day, let us attempt to trace the events which immediately preceded it. Read for this purpose the twenty-fourth chapter of Luke, wherein is given a detailed account of the wonderful journey of Cleopas and his comrade, from Jerusalem to Emmaus. Having reached their destination, they invite a third party, who has joined them on the way, and whose words have caused their hearts to burn, to tarry with them. Assigning as a reason, “that it was toward evening, and the day was far spent.” He complies. The delay incident upon the preparation of a meal follows. They then sit down together to meat. The stranger reveals himself as their risen Lord, and vanishes. With hearts overjoyed at what they have beheld, their first impulse is to bear the good news to those who had been their partners in distress, and who might be still ignorant that Jesus, whose death had occasioned their grief, was again alive. But this resolution was more easily formed than executed. For at least seven weary miles were to be retraced by feet already weakened by protracted effort. Ordinarily two full hours would have been consumed before they would have again found themselves within the walls of the great city. But as they were the bearers of tidings more grave than any which were ever before committed to mortals, they doubtless traversed this distance in less time than this. Yet there are limits, beyond which the powers of endurance will not pass, let the pressure be never so great. The body cannot keep pace with the thoughts. It bounds forward like the deer, it rushes on for a time with almost superhuman energy, but the heaving lung, the palpitating heart, the aching side, and the rushing blood, soon compels the conviction, that though birds may cleave the air with apparently tireless wing and incalculable velocity, man is chained to the earth by an inexorable law which renders it necessary that his transit from point to point, should be comparatively slow and tedious, be the emergency what it may. Since, then, the disciples were but men, it is to be presumed that while they were making ready for, and partaking in full or in part of a meal, deciding upon a course to be pursued, traversing seven miles, finding their friends, listening to an account of the circumstances under which Simon had seen the Lord, and proceeding with a narration of what had befallen them, that day would have expired which was so nearly ended to begin with, that the shortness of time for which it could last could be legitimately used as a valid reason why a fellow traveler should put up with them for the night. If we are right in this, then the first had unquestionably terminated and they had fairly entered upon the second before Christ became one of the number which constituted that assembly, which it is claimed were met together, and by such meeting dedicated the day on which it occurred to the purposes of religion.

So much for the first. The second can be disposed of with greater brevity. In fact, it has been disposed of already. For as all are agreed that the phrase “after eight days,” means either one week or more, it is manifest that, take whichever horn of the dilemma they please, those with whom we contend will find their theory untenable. Insomuch as by adopting the view that the time which elapsed between these two gatherings was just equal to one week, they would thereby bring the latter exactly this length of time later than the former; i. e. on the commencement of that day known among the Hebrews as the second, and commencing at sundown on our Sunday.

On the other hand, should they proceed on the hypothesis that the period measured by the expression quoted above was greater than one week, they would be carried beyond one first day, and landed short of another. Thereby overturning with their own hands the mighty structure which they themselves had reared upon the dogma that these meetings occurred upon consecutive first days.

There is left them, therefore, but the alternative either of abandoning altogether as incorrect the idea that these assemblies sanctified the day on which they occurred, or else they must observe the only hours which under any circumstances could with any show of reason claim to have been thus hallowed; viz., those which begin with the setting of the sun on Sunday, and end at the same time on Monday.

5. Because the disciples themselves, in the presence of the Lord, did things, without being rebuked, which would have constituted them the first offenders against the newly-appointed rest day. Take for instance the journey to Emmaus, referred to above. It was unquestionably begun under the impression that the day on which it was made was but a common one. It is fairly inferable from the account given, that the village of their destination was also that of their home. And that it was a desire to reach this, that they are endeavoring to gratify. This wish, however laudable in itself, was we think, such an one as, owing to the distance which it would be necessary to travel before it could be accomplished, every Israelite would have considered impracticable on the Sabbath. Are you ready to say that they would have been wrong in this? Are you prepared to admit that what you call the Christian Sabbath, is of a nature that would grant you larger liberty in this respect? Think you that individuals at the present time, actuated by no higher motive than that of reaching their homesteads, would be justified in making a distance of seven miles on Sunday? If not, please explain how it was that Cleopas and his friend thus desecrated the first Sunday under the new order of things, before Jesus, without being made aware of their sin, or being condemned therefor.

But, say you, how do you know that Christ did not announce to them that they were trespassing upon holy time, and upbraid them for so doing?

We answer: The last act which he performed was that of revealing himself in his true character. Up to this point, he had been regarded by them as a wayfarer, whom fortuitous circumstances had thrown in their society. It is true that, beginning with Moses and the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning Christ, showing therefrom that he ought to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory. But he did this, not as the person to which the Scriptures he had cited referred, but simply as one who had faith enough to believe, and wisdom to understand and correctly apply the language he had quoted. How then, without bringing himself under condemnation with those whom he was seeking to admonish, could he, while looked upon by them as but a man like themselves, censure them for violating the sanctity of that day upon which Christ had risen, while he, himself, was a partner in their crime. Had he ventured on such a course, the same hearts which had burned with admiration for that wisdom which qualified him to instruct, would have been filled with indignation at that impiety which had rendered him capable of deliberately committing the very sin against which, while standing in the clear light of duty, he had so solemnly warned others. Especially would this have been true when, upon reaching the destination of the two, he expressed his determination to go still further. Instead of extending to him the hospitalities of a quiet home, the dictates of an ordinary prudence would have suggested that it were safer to rid themselves of the presence of one who had shown himself incapable of moral restraint, in at least one marked case, which had come under their own observation.

Again, we think they would have deliberated long, before retracing their steps from the city, after their guest had revealed himself as the risen Son of God, if he had previously, though unrecognized by them at the time, indicated, that in taking them they were desecrating through ignorance, hours which had been hallowed by the events of that morning.

Thus much for a class of testimony which, though it constitutes the larger portion of that foundation upon which rests the mightiest innovation upon God’s law which man ever attempted, not only refuses to furnish the desired authority, but when tested, is found to yield the most satisfactory reasons for believing that both Christ and his apostles acted in a manner which at once forbids the idea that they looked upon the first day of the week in the light in which it is now regarded.

(To be continued.)