Your ShelfYour Projects

SABBATH DISCUSSION

5%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 16, 1868

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 31, No. 26.

Read the full edition

SABBATH DISCUSSION.

IN REVIEW No. 23, present volume, we gave an extract from a discussion on the Sabbath question, which has for some time been in progress in the Sabbath Recorder, between Wm. Armstrong, and N. V. Hull, Seventh-day Baptist. We herewith present Mr. Hull's closing article:
REV. WM. ARMSTRONG:
Dear Sir,—The question under discussion between you and me these many weeks, and which I suppose will close with this article, is this: Which day of the week does the Bible teach to be the Sabbath? (As I have but small space this week, in which to say much, I ask the reader, when I refer to a passage of Scripture, not copying it, to turn to it and read it.) My position is: "The seventh day of the week is the Sabbath." Yours is: "The Scriptures do not point out a 'specific' day, but a day of rest after six days of toil; nevertheless, Divine Providence and apostolic example teach the observance of the first day of the week under the gospel."
Your arguments have been: 1. The days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, were "vast periods," and not days of twenty-four hours. 2. The present first day of the week is the Edenic seventh day, the Jews having been put back one day in the wilderness, to separate them from the heathen, who, you say, continued to keep the true Edenic day. 3. Apostolic example shows that the New Testament church kept the first day. I reply: 1. Geologists agree that the world was many ages forming. 2. Geologists do not agree in the idea of the six periods, but many later geologists say that if there are any, there are from twenty-nine to thirty-four; but many say there are no periods, but a continuous development. This division among geologists destroys all idea of certainty concerning your theory; and as the later discoveries are against you, therefore the most that can be claimed for your theory is bare possibility! 3. The Bible teaches indispensably, that the days in Genesis i, were days of twenty-four hours, by describing them as beginning with an "evening," and ending with a "morning," and afterward in the whole book interpreting this to be a day of twenty-four hours. This settles the Bible meaning of the term day in Genesis i. Your geologic theory, then, is weak, and your exegesis false! Thus ends your first INFERENCE!
2. Your inference of a change of day in the wilderness, is without either Scriptural or historic warrant, and no man ever thought of it until Dr. Jennings, in the seventeenth century, resorted to it to support some arithmetical calculation of his; and the supposed historic fact that the early heathens kept the first day as a sacred day, turns out, upon more recent and thorough research, to be without foundation, as by first-day men themselves it has been shown, that in all probability there was never any weekly observance of Sunday, for any purpose whatever, until the second century of the Christian era. Thus ends your second INFERENCE!
3. You further support your argument for keeping the first day, by quoting four passages of Scripture, and giving them such an interpretation as will make them suit your purpose. But it is pertinent to remark, that the first-day idea is not found in the passages quoted, but in the interpretation! Nor did the earlier expounders of the word offer any interpretations of this kind, this being a recent invention to stay-lath the rocking, swaying argument for the Sunday Sabbath! But to the passages—the first being Ezekiel xliii, 27. There is not a word here about Sabbatizing, but this, that the time required for the cleansing of an altar was seven days, and then on the eighth day it should be fit for use, so that daily acceptable offering might be made for the people. It is assumed, that this eighth day was the first day of the week, but without a particle of authority. Who knows on what day of the week the cleansing commenced? But without this nobody can tell on what day it ended! So expires this INFERENCE also! Your next passage is Psalms cxviii, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26. Here again you assume that the first day is meant by the phrase, "This is the day the Lord hath made." But the Psalmist is not talking of the day of twenty-four hours, but a season, a period, and that day or period the time of Christ's appearance, and the triumph of his work. Hence the church is called upon to rejoice. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD SAID IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ABOUT REJOICING IN THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK! But Christ says, (John viii, 56,) "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad." Luke x, 23, 24, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see; for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see these things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them." Thus this INFERENCE fails you!
4. Here you begin in an ecstasy by saying, "Bless God, that in the Sabbath we may celebrate, not the finishing of redemption, but the gospel." I think, however, you had better withhold your rejoicing until you see the exact occasion for it. Does the Bible say anything about celebrating a "finished gospel" by keeping the first day of the week? Every man acquainted with the Bible knows that it does not. The gospel idea centers in the sufferings and death of Christ. THE CROSS! THE CROSS! THIS is its world's attraction. The counterpart of the death of Christ is his resurrection. Hence, to complete the thought, and symbolize both transactions, you have baptism and the Lord's supper. These tell the whole story. *
5. But you proceed to say, "That the Pentecost was that year on the first day of the week, you will not deny." Reply: The feast of Pentecost came yearly, and therefore might that year fall on the first day of the week. But did it? The weight of testimony is, that it fell on the seventh day. Hackett, a recent and discriminating commentator, says: According to the best opinion, "(mark that,) 'our Lord celebrated his last Passover on the evening which began the fifteenth of Nisan (Numbers xxxiii, 3), and hence he was sacrificed on the next day, which was our Friday; the fiftieth day, or Pentecost (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the Passover), would occur on the Jewish Sabbath." Olshausen says: "The fiftieth day fell, therefore, on Saturday." These evidences, then, are against you. But upon whatever day of the week it may have fallen, it is only mentioned as a Jewish feast, and therefore the Holy Spirit only so represented it. So goes another of your INFERENCES! *
7. But you introduce one more text, from which you infer something. I quote: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. i, 2.
Remarks on the text: (1.) This collection was in a large number of churches. (2.) Lay by him cannot mean lay by privately, for it was to be laid by in store, that is, in the church collection. Pardon me, brother, if I had not ceased to be surprised by anything you could say, certainly you would surprise me now. You seem to rely upon bold assumption, if not on reckless assertions. You here assume, in the face of the language of the text, that this was a public collection. The only ground upon which you can possibly be excused, is ignorance of the Greek from which this is translated. But the English is sufficiently clear to forbid the assumption. The sense of the text is fairly expressed thus: "On each first day of the week, let each one of you lay by himself in store, that there may be no gathering when I come." So clear is this, that all the early translations into English, until you come to the authorized version in 1611, so far as I have seen, fully express it. Wickliff, 1380, says: "Eche of you kepe at himself, hepynge that that plecith to hym." Tyndale, 1524, reads: "Let every one of you put aside at home." The version made at Rheims, 1582, reads: "Let every one of you put apart with himself." That this is the true reading, there is no doubt. Hence there is nothing about keeping the first day of the week here, the duty ordered being to lay by themselves at home, as God had prospered them, that they might have their gifts in readiness when Paul came to take them to the poor saints at Jerusalem. Thus perishes your last INFERENCE! And now, brother, permit me to say, that every argument you have employed in this long and windy debate in favor of the first-day Sabbath, has been founded in assumption! ASSUMPTION! ASSUMPTION! Your Sunday is found outside the Bible, not in it. If at any time it seems to be there, it is only seemingly so. What a SHAM this whole Sunday-Sabbath argument is!
8. But this debate nears its close; and having shown that your teachings are at variance with the Scriptures, let us now hear their testimony on this interesting question.
1. There is a cycle of seven days, known in Scripture, not as a week, but as the week—the first seven days of time described in Gen. i, with the first three verses of chapter ii, the last of which is the divine sacred day. The Bible is the most ancient of books in the world, and opens with the dawn of present time, interweaving with the narrative of the world's birth, the birth also of the week, and so incorporating them into one as to bind them in a common destiny, like husband and wife. "What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder!" But if the week is the divinely-appointed order of historic time, so is the Sabbath-day essential to the week, as without it you have no week. It must be a Sabbath-day, as the Sabbath idea is essential to complete the thought of a finished work. Let us, then, look into the sacred volume, and see how this matter stands there. In Gen. ii, 2, 3, you have the first account of the Sabbath-day. 1. God rested on the seventh day. 2. He blessed it—spoke good of it; i. e., spoke well of it as a day of rest. 3. He then sanctified it; i. e., set it apart to be a day of rest for man. See Mark ii, 2. "The Sabbath was made for man." You next hear of it directly in Ex. xvi. The Israelites here have put upon them a large experience on this subject: 1. In the bestowment of manna, as a double quantity fell on the sixth day. 2. None fell on the seventh day, because it was the Sabbath day. 3. That which was preserved for use on the Sabbath kept in good condition, although, if an attempt were made to keep it over for use on any other day, it would spoil. Of this Sabbath, Moses says it was the one of which the Lord had said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath. This comples it with Eden. Nehemiah also bears testimony to this when he says, "And madest known unto them thy holy Sabbaths." Itnext appears in Ex. xx, 8-11. When God speaks from Sinai—1. He bid them solemnly to remember and keep the Sabbath-day. 2. He next tells them that the seventh day is the Sabbath-day. 3. He explains how this came to be. God was six days creating the world, and on the seventh day he rested. 4. Wherefore he blessed the Sabbath-day and sanctified it. From this time on through all the Bible history of the Jews, the Sabbath-day is often referred to as one of their most important institutions, its observance being commanded, and its violation vehemently condemned and fearfully punished. The Sabbath was evidently regarded by God as one of their most important laws, always having given it a special moral character, seeming to make it represent the whole of religion.
9. This brings us to Christ, the author of the Sabbath; and, 1. He tells us, at the outset of his ministry, that he came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. He says that heaven and earth should sooner pass away than that one jot or tittle of the law should fail. This was spoken of that law of which the Sabbath commandment formed one-tenth, which surely was one tittle of the law. If, then, the Sabbath-day has passed from the commandment, has not the law in so far failed, and so Christ's words also failed? Then he is not the Son of God! But Jesus further says, that all the law hangs on love to God and love to man. Then the Sabbath-day is a part of the law of love to God. Christ further says, that he is Lord of the Sabbath-day. But if the Sabbath-day is put away, how can Christ be Lord of it? Jesus indeed labored much to instruct the Jews into the true nature and proper use of the Sabbath-day. He also took special pains, and employed peculiar means, to free the disciples from the false constructions the Jews had put upon this day. At the time of his crucifixion, it is said that certain of his disciples kept the Sabbath according to the commandment. It is also said, that this Sabbath-day was the day before the first day of the week. Matt. xxvii, 1: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week."
10. This brings us to the "Acts of the Apostles." This book was written by St. Luke, and gives an account of those labors of the several apostles which resulted in the organization of what are known as the "Apostolical Churches," covering the space of some thirty years, commencing with the day of Pentecost. Besides, it is the only authentic account of these transactions in the world, and is left as a precious legacy to the church. It is maintained by first-day keepers, that the seventh-day Sabbath was abolished at the death of Christ, and the first day instituted in its stead. To this book, then, should we look for the account of this transaction. Let us notice, first, the style of the book. And here we observe this strange fact, upon the supposition that the day has been changed, that the seventh day is still called the Sabbath-day, and the first day the "first day." Why is this, if the seventh day has ceased to be the Sabbath, and the first day has been put in its place? If the seventh day had become a secular day, why not give it a secular name; and if the first day had become a sacred day, why not give it a sacred name? 2. Let us now study the habits of the apostles and early believers on this subject. That the church at Jerusalem observed the Sabbath, I believe all admit; and yet she was the "mother church." What, then, must be her example on this subject? Can it be supposed, by any reflecting mind, that if the other churches had abandoned the Sabbath, there would have been no noise made about it, and no council called to consider it? VERILY NOT! But let us look into the history of this matter a little. In chapter xiii, we have an account of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas going into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and teaching the people, both Jews and Gentiles. In verse 42, it says, the Gentiles requested that the same words might be preached to them the next Sabbath-day; and at the 44th verse, it says that the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word. In the 16th chapter, it says, at verse 13, that at Philippi they went out on the Sabbath by the river side, and preached to the religious-minded that resorted there, and that Lydia, a merchant woman, was converted and baptized. This was the foundation of the church at Philippi. At the 3d verse of the 17th chapter, it says that Paul, according to his custom, preached on three successive Sabbaths. In the 18th chapter, it says he preached every Sabbath for a year and six months at Corinth, working at tent-making through the week, and of course working on the first day, as there is no account of meetings on that day, any more than any other secular days. Now, upon the supposition that we have traced this history correctly for twenty-five years, you have an account of the keeping of some thirteen hundred and fifty Sabbaths, AND NOT ONE FIRST DAY! What, then, becomes of your much-vaunted, first-day Sabbath? Where is your "Apostolic" example for keeping the first day of the week instead of the seventh?
11. In the 28th chapter, Paul, in his defense before the chief men of the Jews, at Rome, avers that he had done nothing against (or contrary to) the custom of the fathers. Now, had he abandoned, or taught the abandonment of, the seventh-day Sabbath and the keeping of the first day, would it not have been contrary to the customs of the fathers? And would not his enemies have seized upon this and raised a cry against him? I take it, then, as settled beyond controversy, that Paul, the other apostles, and these early churches, observed the seventh-day Sabbath.
12. I now say, in the presence of my Judge, that, in this debate, I have not striven for the mastery, but to defend the truth of God's holy word, and lead men to its observance. I know that numbers, and a multitude of voices, are against me; but I also feel that the Lord is on my side, and that if his word teaches anything plainly, it is that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God!
13. I have not the blindness not to know, that imperfections of manner have more or less attended my work, and for this I ask forgiveness.
14. And now, dear reader, I ask you one question, and put you upon your conscience in its answer: Is there not, deep down in your heart, a conviction that the BIBLE teaches that the SEVENTH DAY OF THE WEEK is the SABBATH, and that it is your duty to observe it?
Ever yours, N. V. HULL.
Alfred Center, Dec. 12, 1867.