The Change of the Sabbath not Taught in the Old Testament.
By John Nevins Andrews
THE argument for the change of the Sabbath is so meager and unsatisfactory in the New Testament that those who are determined to maintain the doctrine go to the Old Testament to find additional evidence. But the kind of evidence obtained from thence is far from helping the case. One of these proofs for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week is found in the fact that the law prescribed that the first-fruits of barley harvest should be offered on the morrow after the Sabbath. Lev. 23:10, 11. But there was not one word said in the law relative to this morrow after the Sabbath, having itself a Sabbatic character; and moreover it was not a weekly but an annual celebration. Whatever sacredness was to be accorded to Sunday on the strength of this type would relate to one Sunday in the year and no more: a very poor foundation for the weekly celebration of that day. It appears to have typified the fact that Christ, the first-fruits of them that slept, was to arise from the dead on the day after the Sabbath; but there is nothing indicating that this day was itself to become the Sabbath in the place of the day which preceded it, and which God called by that name. It came only once in the year, and not like the Sabbath once each week. The second proof is like the first. Fifty days after the offering of the first-fruits of barley harvest, the first-fruits of wheat harvest were to be offered. This also was on "the morrow after the Sabbath." In this case, the law did prescribe that the day on which this offering was to be made should not be a day of servile labor. Lev. 23:15-21. But this also was done in the case of the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the first month and of the first, tenth, fifteenth, and twenty-second days of the seventh month. Lev. 23:6-8, 24, 25, 27-32, 34-36. Here are six annual Sabbaths, which would come sometimes on one day of the week and sometimes on another. They occur in the same chapter with the ones under consideration. If the day after the Sabbath, on which no servile work was to be done, was, for that reason, to be the Sabbath of the new dispensation in the place of the ancient seventh-day Sabbath, then here are six more just such Sabbaths which come sometimes on one day of the week and sometimes on another, being regulated by the day of the month. But these all were only ceremonial Sabbaths, and were in no way connected with the ancient Sabbath of the seventh day. Besides this, no one of them came weekly, but each of them came once each year, and no more. If the argument proves anything, it proves that in place of the ancient Sabbath we have seven new sabbaths for the gospel dispensation. But as these are not weekly but annual, the gospel dispensation has seven sabbaths a year instead of fifty-two. Such is the result of this kind of proof of the change of the Sabbath. But in Ps. 118:24, it is said: "This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." Of course this text is produced to prove the change of the Sabbath, although there is not in it any mention of any such change. In verse 22 it is said, "The stone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the corner." This stone is no doubt the Saviour. It is claimed that he became the head of the corner by rising from the dead. But no text teaches this. He did not become the head of the corner till his ascension; for he was to be made the chief corner-stone in Sion. Thus it is said by Peter:— "Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious." 1 Pet. 2:6; Isa. 28:16. The Sion where this stone was laid is thus mentioned by Paul: "But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem . . . . and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant." Heb 12:22, 24. He did not become the head-stone of the corner till he had been made High Priest and mediator, and head of the church. Paul tells us when this was by saying that the Father exalted Christ "according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, . . . and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church." Eph. 1:19-22. He did not therefore become the head-stone of the corner till he was constituted such by the act of the Father after his ascension to the heavenly Sion. The conclusion that the day on which Christ arose from the dead ought to be kept in the place of the day ordained in the commandment is therefore without the slightest authority in this text. If a literal day were intended, it must be the day of the ascension. And even then, no man could say that this new day superseded the ancient Sabbath, and released us from the obligation of the fourth commandment. But Ps. 118 is quoted in the New Testament both before and after the resurrection of Christ, under such circumstances as to call out the mention of the change of the Sabbath if such change were taught in the New Testament. Thus the Saviour, a few days before his death, quoted the words respecting the stone which the builders refused being made the head of the corner. Matt. 21:42. He spoke of the Gentiles being chosen in the place of the Jews, and had an excellent opportunity to speak of the first day being chosen in the place of the seventh, had this psalm in this place taught such a doctrine. But a short time after Christ had arisen, Peter preached from those words to the Jews. Acts 4:11. If Christ's resurrection had changed the Sabbath, and if this psalm taught that change, Peter had not only an excellent opportunity to set forth that change, but he was under obligation to do it, for the new day must now be kept in the place of the old seventh day. But he was silent respecting such change, and so were the enemies of the apostles throughout the book of Acts, a sure proof that the apostles never made such change either by precept or example. "The day which the Lord hath made" is not therefore a new Sabbath to take the place of the day ordained in the commandment, but it is such a day as that mentioned by Christ in John 8:56: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." It is the whole period of the gospel dispensation in which we are to "rejoice evermore." 1 Thess. 5:16. The sacred writers who lived at the time when this change is said to have taken place are totally silent respecting it, though they mention the Sabbath itself and the day to which it is said to have been changed, and this too in recording the very event which is said to have changed it. 1. The evangelists did not lack opportunity for recording the change of the Sabbath, were there one to record, for they had the most suitable one which it was possible to have. 2. They did not want for reasons for making this record, if this change were a matter of fact, because man's duty toward God is directly involved in it. 3. They could not be ignorant of the change if it were actually made, for the gospels were not written till some years after the resurrection, some of them being written about a quarter of a century after that event, and one of them upwards of sixty years after it. And, moreover, the evangelists were inspired of the Holy Spirit. 4. But they preserved an absolute silence respecting this alleged change; and this silence under the conditions above stated proves beyond all dispute that the change in question never was made by divine authority. How much better it would be to keep the fourth commandment than to change it for reasons which will not stand the inspection of the Judgment. J. N. A.