Right or Wrong? Information Wanted.
By Editor
"Christ's day in the tomb was the end of the Jewish Sabbath. After that the Lord's day gradually took its place as the Christian representative of the Sabbath, and a memorial of our Lord's resurrection."—Independent. And in this case we think more wrong than right. In the first place, the "Jewish Sabbath" is not the Jewish Sabbath at all, but "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," "the holy of the Lord." In the second place, the first day of the week is not the Lord's day, since that honor belongs alone to the seventh-day Sabbath. See Ex. 20:8–11; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28; Rev. 1:10. The first day is "the venerable day of the sun," which did indeed "gradually" take the place of the Sabbath of the Lord. And now, O Independent (or any one in whom the spirit of wisdom is found), deign to enlighten us on these few points:— 1. Are laws ever gradually enacted? Is a law placed on the statute books gradually, by the custom of the people, or is it by a single act of the law-making power? If the latter, is there any law for the observance of Sunday? At what time did laboring on Sunday become sin? 2. When did this custom commence? We know it was not immediately, for the following reasons: (1) The Sunday gradually took the place of the original Sabbath; this you admit. That means that first a few persons kept the day, then a few more, until gradually the custom became general. (2) But "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul;" this the Bible says. Then if one of the early disciples had kept Sunday, all would have done so; but in that case it would not have been gradually introduced. Therefore the beginning of Sunday observance was at a later period than the time of the apostles. We know, then, that the early disciples and apostles did not introduce Sunday observance. The question we ask is, Who did? 3. Since, as you say, the Sabbath ended at the death of Christ, what filled the interval between that event and the time when the Sunday had, by a gradual process, usurped its place? There was a day that was recognized as the Sabbath, for the writer of the book of Acts frequently speaks of services held on that day. Acts 13:27, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4. What day was this? If we are to follow apostolic example, it seems absolutely necessary that we know. 4. We know that the seventh-day Sabbath was a part of the moral law. Ex. 20:8–11. Now since you affirm with such confidence that a part of the moral law ended at the death of Christ, are you certain that it was not all abolished at that time? We don't read anything about any part of the law being done away; indeed, we distinctly remember having read a positive statement of Christ that he did not come to do away the law, and that heaven and earth should pass before one jot or one tittle should pass from the law; but you doubtless have means of information of which we know nothing. Please refer us to the records, that we may read for ourselves. We do not believe that any part of the law was done away; but if one part did slip away so easily, there is not much use trying to hold on to the rest. And if the law really passed away then, were there any sinners after that time? "By the law is the knowledge of sin," and "where no law is there is no transgression." And does this state of things exist to-day? We really think that this is a vital question. 5. And lastly, of what use was the ordinance of baptism after the Sunday had finally come to be quite generally observed? Paul teaches that baptism is the memorial of Christ's death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3–6; Col. 2:12), but you say that the Sunday occupies that position. Paul, we remember, lived and died before Sunday observance was introduced into the church, so of course he could not be expected to know what office it would hold, or what would become of the ordinance of baptism; but, since he had the gift of prophecy, it is strange that a matter of so great importance was not revealed to him. Tell us where the information may be found. And we would add just one more question to the above. We are under the impression that while the Sunday was being gradually introduced to serve as a memorial of Christ's resurrection, the ordinance of baptism was gradually being changed from immersion—a fitting representation of Christ's burial and resurrection—to sprinkling, which has no significance whatever, and that thus the way was prepared for Sunday to take its place. There was a necessity for some memorial of our Lord's resurrection, and, since the divinely appointed memorial had been lost sight of, men seemed to be under the necessity of making one. Thus apostasy grows; negligence to perform one duty correctly leads to a neglect of other duties. Are we correct in our supposition? If not, may we be informed on this point also? And now we have done for the present. We confess to being inquisitive, and shall not resent the charge of ignorance. If our questions are satisfactorily answered, we may not be so ignorant as we are now. These questions are not confined to the Independent. That journal will probably not have time to answer them, but we are willing to receive information, from whatever source it comes. We have read the Bible carefully, and think we understand its teachings on these subjects; but if anybody has any later and better source of knowledge, we want to know it. Meanwhile we shall continue to read our Bible with just as much confidence as though Christ and Paul were accepted on all sides as good authority on religious matters. We shall not loose from our present moorings till we have found a better anchorage.