History of the Sabbath by John Nevins Andrews

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 4, 1862

History of the Sabbath.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

THE SABBATH DURING THE LAST OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS.

In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son to be the Saviour of the world. He who fulfilled this mission of infinite benevolence was both the Son of God and the Son of man. He was with the Father before the world was, and by him God created all things. Gal. iv, 4, 5; John i, 1-10; xvii, 5, 24; Heb. i. The Sabbath being ordained at the close of that great work as a memorial to keep it in lasting remembrance, the Son of God by whom all things were created, could not be otherwise than a perfect judge of its true design, and of its proper observance. The sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy being accomplished, the Redeemer began to preach, saying, “The time is fulfilled.” Dan. ix, 25; Mark i, 14, 15. The ministry of the Saviour was at a time when the Sabbath of the Lord had become utterly perverted from its gracious design, by the teaching of Jewish doctors. As we have already seen, it was to the people no longer a source of refreshment and delight, but a cause of suffering and distress. It had been loaded down with traditions by the doctors of the law till its merciful and beneficent design was utterly hidden beneath the rubbish of men’s inventions. It being impracticable for Satan, after the Babylonish captivity, to cause the Jewish people, even by bloody edicts, to relinquish the Sabbath, and openly profane it as before that time, he turned their doctors so to pervert it, that its real character should be utterly changed and its observance entirely unlike that which would please God. We shall find that the Saviour never missed an opportunity to correct their false notions respecting the Sabbath; and that he selected with evident design the Sabbath as the day on which to perform many of his merciful works. It will be found that no small share of his teaching through his whole ministry was devoted to a determination of what was lawful on the Sabbath, a singular fact for those to explain who think that he designed its abrogation. At the opening of our Lord’s ministry we read thus:

“And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee; and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read.” Luke iv, 14-16.

Such was the manner of the Saviour relative to the Sabbath. It is evident that in this he designed to show his regard for that day; for it was not necessary thus to do in order to gain a congregation, as vast multitudes were ever ready to throng his steps. His testimony being rejected, our Lord left Nazareth for Capernaum. Thus the sacred historian says:

“But he passing through the midst of them, went his way, and came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath-days. And they were astonished at his doctrine; for his word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a man which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art: the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt him not. And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits and they come out. And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about. And he arose out of the synagogue and entered into Simon’s house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her. And he stood over her and rebuked the fever; and it left her; and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.” Luke iv, 30-39; Mark i, 21-31; Matt. viii, 5-15.

These miracles are the first which stand upon record as performed by the Saviour upon the Sabbath. But the strictness of Jewish views relative to the Sabbath, is seen in that they waited till sunset, that is, till the Sabbath was past, before they brought the sick to be healed. Thus it is added:

“And at even when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased and them that were possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.” Mark i, 32-34; Luke iv, 40.

The next mention of the Sabbath is of peculiar interest:

“At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath-day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath-day the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you that in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day.” Matt. xii, 1-9; Mark ii, 23-28; Luke vi, 1-5.

The parallel text in Mark has an important addition to the conclusion as stated by Matthew:

“And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark ii, 27, 28.

The following points should be noted in examining this text: 1. That the question at issue did not relate to the act of passing through the corn on the Sabbath; for the Pharisees themselves were in the company; and hence it may be concluded that the Saviour and those with him were either going to or returning from the synagogue. 2. That the question raised by the Pharisees was this: Whether the disciples in satisfying their hunger from the corn through which they were passing were not violating the law of the Sabbath. 3. That he to whom this question was proposed was in the highest degree competent to answer it; for he was with the Father when the Sabbath was made. Compare John i, 1-3; Gen. i, 1, 26; ii, 1-3. 4. That the Saviour was pleased to appeal to scriptural precedents for a decision of this question, rather than to assert his own independent judgment. 5. That the first case cited by the Saviour was peculiarly appropriate. David, fleeing for his life, entered into the house of God upon the Sabbath and ate the shew-bread to satisfy his hunger. 1 Sam. xxi, 4-6. The disciples, to relieve their hunger simply ate of the corn through which they were passing upon the Sabbath. If David did right, though eating in his necessity of that which belonged only to priests, how little of blame could be attached to the disciples who had not even violated a precept of the ceremonial law? Thus much for the disciples satisfying their hunger as they did upon the Sabbath. Our Lord’s next example is designed to show what labor upon the Sabbath is not a violation of its sacredness. 6. And hence the case of the priests is cited. The same God who had said in the fourth commandment, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work,” had

commanded that the priests upon the Sabbath should offer certain sacrifices in his temple. Num. xxviii, 9, 10. Herein was no contradiction; for the labor performed by the priests upon the Sabbath was simply the maintenance of the appointed worship of God in his temple, and that was not doing what the commandment calls “THY WORK.” Labor of this kind therefore, the Saviour being judge, was not, and never had been, a violation of the Sabbath.

7. But it is highly probable that the Saviour in this reference to the priests, had his mind not merely upon the sacrifices which they offered upon the Sabbath, but upon the fact that they were required to prepare new shew-bread every Sabbath; when the old was to be removed from the table before the Lord, and eaten by them. Lev. xxiv, 5-9; 1 Chron. ix, 32. This view of the matter would connect the case of the priests with that of David, and both would bear with wonderful distinctness upon the act of the disciples. Then our Lord’s argument could be appreciated when he adds, “But I say unto you that in this place is one greater than the temple.” So that if the shew-bread was to be prepared on each Sabbath for the use of those who ministered in the temple, and those who did this were guiltless, how free from guilt also must be the disciples who, in following Him who was greater than the temple, but who had not where to lay his head, had eaten of the standing corn upon the Sabbath to relieve their hunger?

8. But our Lord next lays down a principle worthy of the most serious attention. Thus he adds: “But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” The Most High had ordained certain labor to be performed upon the Sabbath, in order that sacrifices might be offered to himself. But Christ affirms upon the authority of the Scriptures [Hosea vi, 6], that there is something far more acceptable to God than sacrifices, and that this is acts of mercy. If God held those guiltless who offered sacrifices upon the Sabbath, how much less would he condemn those who extended mercy and relief to the distressed and suffering upon that day.

9. Nor does the Saviour even leave the subject here; for he adds: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” If the Sabbath was made, certain acts were necessary in order to give existence to it. What were those acts? (1.) God rested upon the seventh day. This made the seventh day the rest-day or Sabbath of the Lord. (2.) He blessed the day; thus it became his holy day. (3.) He sanctified it, or set it apart to a holy use; thus its observance became a part of man’s duty toward God. There must be a time when these acts were performed. And on this point there is really no room for controversy. They were not performed at Sinai, nor in the wilderness of Sin, but in Paradise. And this is strikingly confirmed by the language here used by the Saviour: “The Sabbath was made for THE man, not THE man for the Sabbath;” thus citing our minds to the man Adam that was made of the dust of the ground, and affirming that the Sabbath was made for him; a conclusive testimony that the Sabbath originated in Paradise. This fact is happily illustrated by a statement of the apostle Paul: “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” I Cor. xi, 9. It will not be denied that this language has direct reference to the creation of Adam and Eve. If then we turn back to the beginning, we shall find Adam made of the dust of the ground, Eve taken from his side, and the Sabbath made of the seventh day. Gen. ii, 1-3, 7, 21-23. Thus the Saviour to complete the solution of the question raised by the Pharisees, traces the Sabbath back to the beginning, as he does the institution of marriage when the same class proposed for his decision the lawfulness of divorce. Matt. xix, 3-9. His careful statement of the design of the Sabbath and of marriage, tracing each to the beginning, in the one case striking down their perversion of the Sabbath, in the other that of marriage, is the most powerful testimony in behalf of the sacredness of each institution. The argument in the one case stands thus: In the beginning God created one man and one woman, designing that they two should be one flesh. The marriage relation therefore was designed to unite simply two persons, and this union should be sacred and indissoluble. Such was the bearing of his argument upon the question of divorce. In relation to the Sabbath his argument is this: God made the Sabbath for the man that he made of the dust of the ground; and being thus made for an unfallen race, it can only be a merciful and beneficent institution. He who made the Sabbath for man before the fall, saw what man needed, and knew how to supply that want. It was given to him for rest, refreshment, and delight; a character that it sustained after the fall [Ex. xvi, 22; xxiii, 12; Isa. lviii, 13, 14], but which the Jews had wholly lost sight of. Thus our Lord lays open his whole heart concerning the Sabbath. He carefully determines what works are not a violation of the Sabbath; and this he does by Old-Testament examples, that it may be evident that he is introducing no change in the institution; he sets aside their rigorous and burdensome traditions concerning the Sabbath, by tracing it back to its merciful origin in Paradise; and having thus disencumbered the Sabbath of Pharisaic rigor, he leaves it upon its Paradisiac foundation, enforced by all the authority and sacredness of that law which he came not to destroy, but to magnify and make honorable. Matt. v, 17-19; Isa. xlii, 21.

10. Having thus divested the Sabbath of all Pharisaic additions, our Lord concludes with this remarkable declaration: “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” (1.) It was not a disparagement to the Sabbath, but an honor, that God’s only Son should claim to be its Lord. (2.) Nor was it derogatory to the character of the Redeemer to be the Lord of the Sabbath; with all the high honors pertaining to his Messiahship, he is ALSO Lord of the Sabbath. Or if we take the expression in Matthew, he is “Lord EVEN of the Sabbath-day,” it implies that it is not a small honor to possess such a title. (3.) This title implies that the Messiah should be the protector, and not the destroyer, of the Sabbath. And hence that he was the rightful being to decide the proper nature of Sabbatic observance. With these memorable words ends our Lord’s first discourse concerning the Sabbath.

From this time the Pharisees watched the Saviour to find accusation against him of violating the Sabbath. The next example will show the malignity of their hearts, their utter perversion of the Sabbath, the urgent need of an authoritative correction of their false teachings respecting it, and the Saviour’s unanswerable defense:

“And when he was departed thence he went into their synagogue; and behold there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it and lift out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days. Then said he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out and held council against him, how they might destroy him.” Matt. xii, 9-14; Mark iii, 1-6; Luke vi, 6-11.

What was the act that caused this madness of the Pharisees? On the part of the Saviour it was a word; on the part of the man it was the act of stretching out his arm. Did the law of the Sabbath forbid either of these things? No one can affirm such a thing. But the Saviour had publicly transgressed that tradition of the Pharisees that forbade the doing of anything whatever toward the healing of the sick upon the Sabbath. And how necessary that such a wicked tradition should be swept away, if the Sabbath itself was to be preserved for man. But the Pharisees were filled with such madness that they went out of the synagogue and consulted how they might destroy the Saviour. Yet Jesus only acted in behalf of the Sabbath in setting aside those traditions by which they had perverted it.

J. N. A.

(To be Continued.)