Untitled article by W. C. G.

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, October 8, 1867

THE OLD ARGUMENT AGAIN.

By W. C. G.

Our attention is constantly being called to the effort made by Sunday-keepers to defend their darling theory through the columns of the religious press. Seldom is any new argument attempted, but the old positions are presented again and again with but little variation. The October issue of the Christian Press, the organ of the Western Tract and Book Society, contains an effort of this character, which we have been requested to notice through the columns of the Review. Probably most of our readers are familiar with the line of argument which it presents, but for the sake of those who are not we give it entire, to show the weakness of a position which cannot be supported by a single text of Scripture.

We give the article in sections convenient for reply.

THE SABBATH.

“Should any particular day be observed?”

“Under the old economy not the third, fourth, or fifth, but the seventh day was the day which the people of God were bound to observe in his worship, not that the morality of the law extended to the particular day, but because it was the will of God that the seventh day should be observed. The same thing is true as respects the observance of the first day under the New Testament economy. That is the day which Christians are now bound to observe and not the second, third, or fourth day of the week, because the day has been changed by the authority of Christ, and the first day

of the week is now the Lord’s day instead of the seventh day. The following is the argument proving the change of the day, as we have used it elsewhere:

“The seventh day was the Sabbath originally appointed. Had any one power to change it to the first day? That it was changed no one denies—that Christians have observed the first day as the Sabbath instead of the seventh, from the resurrection of Christ, is admitted by all. Who changed the day? To this we reply: It was done by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. True, this is not asserted in so many words by the Scriptures, but the evidence is nevertheless quite conclusive.”

The above contains quite a number of assertions, which ought to be backed by the authority of Scripture before being received by those who take the Bible for their guide. It will be noticed that not a single text is presented in proof of what is asserted.

“It was the will of God that the seventh day should be observed” under the old economy, and “the same thing is true as respects the observance of the first day under the New Testament economy.” How do we know it is the will of God? His will is made known to us by his Word. If it is his will for us to observe the first day of the week he has so commanded us. But where in all the Word of God is such a commandment recorded? The will of God that “not the third, fourth, or fifth, but the seventh day,” should be observed in the former dispensation, was made known by the fourth commandment. If that commandment taught the observance of only the seventh day then, it must teach the same now, and cannot be made to enjoin the first day of the week, nor any other day but the seventh. A change of day must involve a change of the commandment, and until that is proved all inferences in regard to such a change are entirely groundless.

Our Sunday advocate then asserts that “Christians have observed the first day as the Sabbath instead of the seventh, from the resurrection of Christ,” and claims that this “is admitted by all.” He should have known before making so broad a statement that none of the advocates of the true Sabbath admit it, nor does any one else who is conversant with the history of the matter. We are not disposed to admit such an assumption as that without good evidence, and as it is a link in his chain of argument it devolves upon him to prove it instead of simply asserting it.

The day was changed, he says, by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then gives his reasons:

“1. The Saviour claimed complete control over the Sabbath.

“His own declaration is: ‘The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.’ His disciples heard this declaration from his own lips. Is it at all conceivable that they would have presumed to interfere with this day, over which their Master claimed special control? And is it conceivable that, among a people so attached to old usages as the Jews were, they would have succeeded in their effort? Besides this, without the authority of Christ would they have considered it wise policy to have attempted such a change? They were called troublers and turners of the world upside down. Would they, in such a matter, excite prejudice only for the directions of Christ? The supposition is absurd, and therefore, they must have had the authority of Christ for the change.”

His first proposition is based upon the assumption that the apostles made the change, and until this is proved the arguments in favor of this proposition are worthless. He asks if they could have effected such a change among the Jews who were attached to old usages, without the authority of Christ. No; nor could they with his authority, for nothing would so conduce to lessen their respect for the Son than to hear him quoted as authority for the violation of his Father’s law; for until they could be made to see that the fourth commandment was changed or abolished it would be a violation of it to observe any other day than the one it enjoined. The fact that the disciples did not thus “excite prejudice” is conclusive evidence that they did not attempt such a change, for among all the accusations which the Jews brought against them we do not find them charged with making or trying to make such a change, and certainly if they had attempted it “among a people so attached to old usages as the Jews were,” they would have been arraigned for it at once.

But does the fact that “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath-day,” prove that he intended to change or abolish it? By no means, but rather to protect it, to honor it, and to strip it of those burdensome rites and traditions which the Pharisees had heaped upon it.

But we pass to notice his second proposition.

“2. The Saviour countenanced the change.

“We have the following record in the gospel of John xx, 19: ‘Then the same day, at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.’ . . . ‘And after eight days again (i. e. the first day of the week again) his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.’ Thus the Saviour sanctioned their assembling for worship the first instead of the seventh day of the week. Would he have done so if it had not been his purpose that this day should continue to be the Sabbath of the Christian? Is not this sanction sufficient authority to observe this day instead of the other, even if no special direction had been given in reference to it?”

The foregoing attempt to prove the occurrence of two consecutive weekly meetings on the first day of the week is, about as far-fetched as anything we have occasion to notice in the Sunday argument, and will not bear the slightest examination. Let us look now at the first of these meetings. The disciples were assembled on the evening of the first day of the week, immediately after the resurrection of Christ, to celebrating his resurrection, if the foregoing claim is correct; that is, after keeping the previous day, as some of Christ’s followers certainly did, “according to the commandment,” they made a change in their Sabbath observance, and went to keeping the first day of the week without any commandment! But let us see how they were observing it. The account of the resurrection as given by Mark, informs us that notwithstanding Christ appeared to several witnesses, who testified that he had risen, the apostles still refused to believe it, and on the occasion cited above he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they would not believe those who had seen him after he was risen. This certainly does not look much like celebrating his resurrection, or keeping a Sabbath in memory of that event.

But, says the inquirer, perhaps the second meeting may prove to have been a commemorative occasion, and thus justify the conclusion that the practice of meeting on the first-day was thereby established. The first point to be decided is the time of the meeting. Having appeared to his disciples on the evening of the first day of the week, and one of the twelve being absent, our Saviour takes occasion to appear to them again when the unbelieving Thomas was present, which was “after eight days.” How long after eight days the record does not state, but the arithmetic which would make it just a week could be used equally well to prove that two and two equal six, and it certainly is astonishing that men of intelligence and judgment in other matters should make such a use of a term as is made of this. It simply shows a want of better argument. The sophistry of this reasoning, however, is greatly excelled by the barefaced assumption contained in the third and last proposition, which we herewith append:

“3. The first-day is called by the Holy Spirit, ‘the Lord’s Day.’

“But how could this be done unless he had taken this day for his own instead of the seventh day? unless it be that he now claims as his, two days out of the seven, and allows man the other five. But this is not claimed by any one, and there is no hint of it either in precept or in the practice of the early Christians. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the day was changed by him who is ‘Lord of the Sabbath,’ and who only had authority to change it. We are, therefore, as Christians, under obligation to keep, not the seventh, but the first day of the week, and to keep it by refraining from worldly employments and recreation, and by observing the ordinances of divine worship.”

“The first day is called by the Holy Spirit, ‘the Lord’s day.’” Indeed! We would be pleased to have the chapter and verse pointed out in which this remarkable statement is made. The term “Lord’s day” occurs but once in all the Bible, and that in Rev. i, 10. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day;” and there is not the slightest intimation in the context that it was the first day of the week. We are therefore left to determine the signification of the term by other scriptures. If we search the Bible through we can find but one day which the Lord has ever called his own. The language of the fourth commandment explicitly designates that day: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” See also Isa. lviii, 13, where the Lord calls the Sabbath “my holy day,” “the holy of the Lord,” &c. Until we find some other expression equally as strong relative to some other day, we must conclude that the seventh day of the week is, the Lord’s day; and to assume that it means the first day when the Scriptures do not even intimate such a thing, is unworthy of those who profess to take the Bible for their guide.

But perhaps it may be claimed that the term refers to the Son and not the Father. Even if this be true, there is no proof that it refers to the first day of the week, for our Saviour himself declares: “The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath day.” While it is his Father’s rest-day, and one which he claims as his own, yet the Son also has an interest in and a love for it, and he devoted no inconsiderable portion of his ministry to the work of divesting it of the burdensome traditions which the Pharisees had heaped upon it, holding it up before the people as a merciful institution, “made for man.” Surely we may conclude that such a day, thus honored both by the God of Heaven and by his only-begotten Son, may emphatically be termed “THE LORD’S DAY.”

Thus every argument which is not founded upon the immutable word of God, falls to the ground, and this effort in behalf of Sunday shows the weakness of a chain of argument of which every link is based entirely upon inference. Reader, do you not prefer the plain teachings of Scripture to all the inferences that ingenious men can devise? If so, let me entreat of you to obey the commandments of God rather than the “traditions of men,” by remembering that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and by faithfully observing all his commandments, that you may “have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. xxii, 14.

W. C. G.