HE FINDS NO CHANGE OF THE SABBATH BETWEEN THE RESURRECTION AND THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST.
We cannot have a Sabbath worthy to be observed unless we have a divine consecration of some day for that purpose. The ancient Sabbath was established upon a firm foundation; for God rested upon the seventh day, and then blessed the day and hallowed it. Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:11. We have carefully considered the effort of Eld. P. to establish the first-day Sabbath upon the original consecration of the seventh day. We have found that this can be done only by fraud. We have seen, at length, that Eld. P. is constrained to abandon the attempt, and that, discarding alike the seventh-day Sabbath, and the act of consecration which gave that Sabbath, existence, he declares Christ rested upon that first day on which he arose from the dead, and that because he rested on that day, he blessed the day and sanctified it. But a careful examination of the alleged testimony in support of this sanctification shows that no such facts are recorded in the Bible. We have also seen that in maintaining this position Eld. P. involves himself in absurdity and self-contradiction. It is therefore the misfortune of the Sunday Sabbath that it has no divine foundation. It cannot claim as its own the sanctification of the seventh day; and it can only claim that itself has been sanctified by asserting what is not to be found in the word of God.
But as we are interested to observe the process of erecting the first-day institution, let us for the present accept the foundation which Eld. P. claims has been laid in Heb. 4:10, and then let us see how he builds thereupon, or rather, this time let us observe the lines of defense which he erects before his first-day edifice. He asserts, on the authority of this text:
1. That Christ rested from the work of redemption on the first day of the week.
2. That he blessed that day because he had thus rested upon it.
3. That also he sanctified, that is, set apart, or appointed, it to a holy use, because that in it he had rested from all his work.
If Eld. P. is correct in all this, it follows that the Saviour did, by express appointment, command the observance of the first day of the week. This would certainly constitute an ample foundation were it actually the truth. But that he has no real faith in this divine appointment of Sunday by the express command of the Saviour is evident from the manner in which he states the argument for that day. We quote as follows:
“THE DAY CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY. Has the first day of the week been set apart by divine sanction, to be observed in place of the seventh day, as the Sabbath? Has God authorized this change? Great stress is laid here upon the production of some express precept; declaring in so many words that Christ made or directed this change, it is said, ‘Give us your text’—‘Give us your text’—‘To the law and to the testimony’ is the supposed unanswerable demand. Yet, notwithstanding this, ‘to the law and to the testimony’ we will go.’ In doing so, we will adduce three forms of the argument.” Pages 107, 108.
When men declare, that the law of God has been changed, as does our friend Eld. P., it is in the highest degree just that they should be required to produce an express statement of that fact. Otherwise, to follow their teaching is to forsake the commandments of God to keep the commandments of men. If Eld. P. regards Heb. 4:10 as a plain testimony that Christ has set apart the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, here is the time and place for him to manifest that fact by producing it; but he does nothing of the kind. He responds to the demand for “the law and the testimony” by proposing three forms of argument. The first form would be a fair answer were it actually grounded upon facts, and not merely established upon an “if.” The second form, if he could establish it as true, would even then fall far short of meeting the case. The third form is still more pitiable in its weakness than the second. The careless reader may suppose that Eld. P. intends to sustain his first-day Sabbath by maintaining all these lines of defense. Yet the first form is only stated for effect, and is abandoned as soon as stated. The second is only defended in part, and then virtually abandoned for the third, which last actually forms his real line of defense. Here is his first form of argument.
“1. If we find an express precept for such a change, then we have ‘the law.’ If we find in the history of Christ and his early disciples distinct traces of a corresponding position, then we have ‘the testimony’; and in the two united, we have the evidence of the ‘law and testimony.’” p. 108.
But as soon as he has stated his second and third forms of argument, he abandons this first form without attempting its maintenance. Thus he says:
“The patriarchs, for the first 2500 years of the world, had no express precept for keeping a Sabbath; and we do not pretend that we have any express precept, or passage, saying in so many words that the change in question was made by Christ, or the apostles; and hence we pass the first form of the argument.” pp. 108, 109.
But we reply, The patriarchs did have an express precept for keeping the Sabbath. For though Gen. 2:3, which was written 2500 years after creation, does not give that precept, it does show that such precept was given to the head and representative of the human family, inasmuch as it testifies that God sanctified the seventh day, which is the same as saying he appointed the seventh day to a holy use. Were it true that Heb. 4:10, testifies that Christ sanctified the first day as God sanctified the seventh, then it would be the fact that Christ did give an express precept for the observance of the first day of the week. It does not appear that Eld. P. had very strong faith in his own interpretation of Heb. 4:10 when he wrote these words. He says at
the close of the above quotation, “Hence we pass the first form of the argument.” But what a sham is it to adduce a form of argument for which he could not offer a single word of evidence. Now he falls back upon his second form of argument:
2. “If we find the express precept affirming the right of such a change, we have ‘the law.’ If we find, then, actual traces of such a change in the practice of those who had this right, we again have ‘the testimony’; and in these two united, we again have the evidence of ‘the law and testimony.’” p. 108.
Eld. P. makes the following attempt to sustain this second form of argument:
“But (2) that Christ had a right to change the Sabbath, appears in the fact that ‘the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath day,’ and we therefore introduce him as our first witness. If he claimed the right to regulate the Sabbath generally, and thus free it from the traditions of men, and also a right to change the days on which the Sabbath should be held, we here, then, have the law.” p. 109.
Observe, we are now following out what Eld. P. has to say concerning “the law” for the change. In the first form of argument, he brought in what he calls “the testimony,” which, as he expresses it, is “traces” of the first-day observance by “Christ and his early disciples.” When he abandons his first form of argument to prove that he has the authority of “law” for the change, and falls back upon his second method of proving that he has the law, he renews his statement respecting these “traces” and again calls this the “testimony.” We defer an examination of this “testimony,” till we have considered his second attempt to show that he is sustained by “law.” We shall find, in the end, that he is obliged to fall back wholly upon this so-called “testimony,” and though he was able to dignify his “traces” with the title of “testimony” because considered as acts of obedience to that “law,” or acts authorized by it, he has at last to argue the existence of “the law” from this pretended testimony. It is making a little go a good ways when the assumed existence of “the law” for the change is made to dignify certain supposed traces of regard for Sunday as “testimony”; and then, to cap the climax, this “testimony,” thus clothed with authority of law, is made the sole ground of argument to prove that such law must exist. In due time we shall examine this “testimony.”
Eld. P. having stated his first form of argument, viz., that of express precept furnishing “the law” for this change of the Sabbath, makes no effort to maintain it, but falls back upon the second, which we have now under consideration. Observe what this form calls for; viz., an “express precept affirming the right of such a change.” And how does he produce it? By quoting this sentence: “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath-day.” He does not, however, tell where the words are to be found, nor does he quote them quite right, showing that he gives them from memory, which may be some excuse for what he asserts respecting them. For he makes one assertion mainly true, but couples with it another which—were it not evident that he had not even taken the pains to turn to the text and read it, we should say—he must have known to be absolutely false. Thus he says: “If he claimed the right to regulate the Sabbath generally, and thus free it from the traditions of men, and also a right to change the days on which the Sabbath should be held,” we here, then, have “the law.” That Christ, on the occasion of speaking these words, did exercise the right to free the Sabbath from the traditions of men, is an undoubted truth. See Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5. But that he claimed “also a right to change the days on which the Sabbath should be held,” is an assertion so palpably false that no excuse can be found for it save this, that Eld. P. was quoting from memory, and in his comments was simply repeating the words of a blind guide.
The Saviour states the ground of his lordship of the Sabbath in these words:
“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; THEREFORE, the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark. 2:27, 28. As the Pharisees had exactly reversed the relative position of men and the Sabbath, Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath, simply restored both to the places designed for them by the Creator in the beginning. This is all that he did. Not one word did Christ say, either directly or indirectly, respecting his right to change the Sabbath. The case of the Sabbath may be illustrated by that of marriage. It is said, “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” 1 Cor. 11:9. Also, the husband is rightfully acknowledged as the lord of the wife. Gen. 18:12; 1 Pet. 3:6. Now does this imply that the husband has a right to change his wife at pleasure? Does it not rather imply that he is bound to cherish, protect, and defend her? And should it appear that Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath, sustains this very relation to the Sabbath, in what light will Eld. P. appear who so lately asserts that Christ claimed the “right to change the days on which the Sabbath should be held,” and that he actually did put away the seventh day of the week and choose the first in its stead? Did Eld. P. ever read these words of the fourth commandment, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God?” Ex. 20:10. If so, does he think that he can observe the Sabbath while he tramples under foot the seventh day? It is true that he can devise a way to make the first day into the seventh; but the same process will do the like for each and every day of the week.
The question whether Christ and the apostles had the right to change the Sabbath is not exactly the point in dispute. If the act of changing one of God's institutions is a right act, then we may presume that these were proper persons to do that thing. But to assume that they did this deed and never told of it, leaving it to be inferred from certain acts which do not necessarily bear any such interpretation, is to charge them with being very unsuitable teachers. And to mend the matter by asserting that Christ gave an “express precept affirming the right of such change” is simply to utter a falsehood. And as we leave this point, we cannot do less than to call attention to the fact that when Eld. P. represents Christ as asserting that he had the “right to change the days on which the Sabbath should be held,” he was guilty of handling the word of God deceitfully.
So much for his proof that Christ claimed the right to change the Sabbath. But he undertakes also to prove that this right pertained to the apostles as well as to Christ; and between the two he is very sure that he makes out as a “law” the assertion of this right to change the Sabbath. Thus he says:
“Second, we now introduce the apostles as witnesses. What is ‘the law and the testimony’ in their case, and that of the primitive church? ‘WHAT WAS THE LAW?’ Answer.—TO THE APOSTLES CHRIST GAVE EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE FAITH, THE INSTITUTION, THE ORDER AND THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH, DECLARING TO THEM THAT WHATEVER THEY SHOULD TEACH, OR ORDER, SHOULD BE BINDING. PROOF, MATT. 16:18, 19; Matt. 18:18; John 20:21, 22. Here, then, we have ‘the law.’ Hence under the Spirit’s guidance, the apostles could go forth to the work to which Christ had assigned them; and thus order all the affairs of the church, prescribe her institutions, direct her order and her worship.” pp. 113, 114.
The emphasis is that of Eld. P. Then follows nearly three pages, 114–116, giving instances of the authoritative teaching of the apostles, and of their manner of exercising discipline in the church, though giving not one in which they exercise or even claim any authority over the Sabbath or the moral law. Then he says:
“Beyond all dispute, then, it is settled that the power to ‘bind’ and ‘loose,’ conferred by Christ upon the apostles, was the power to teach and to order all the affairs of the church ‘with all authority.’ And thus we repeat: Here, then, is ‘THE LAW.’” p. 116.170
Now if Eld. P.’s words above quoted, omitting his conclusions, are taken in any just sense, we may freely admit their general scope, for we hold the authority of the apostles to be precisely what these texts indicate. They fail to help Eld. P., however, simply because they have no bearing upon the case. He says, indeed, “Here, then, we have ‘the law,’” “here, then, is ‘the law,’” i. e., for the changing of the Sabbath. But the authority of the apostles in the institutions, ordinances, and discipline, of the church, does not even touch the business undertaken by Eld. P. One capital error here wholly misleads him. He thinks the Sabbath an institution or ordinance of the church. Were this true, it might be binding in one dispensation and not binding in another. Indeed, the church ordinances of the two dispensations are in no instance the same. Were it a church ordinance, it would be as much the subject of apostolic action as baptism and the Lord’s supper; and even in these the action of the apostles was limited; but as a church ordinance, it would not be binding in the present dispensation inasmuch as it was binding in the past one. And even were it binding, it would, like other ordinances of the church, be binding only upon Christians.
But such is not the case. The Sabbath was made for all mankind, and is binding upon all men, whether they are saints or sinners. Even Eld. P. makes himself responsible for this very sentiment by quoting and endorsing the language of S. Bliss, who says on page 143:
“‘The Sabbath,’ said the Saviour (Mark 2:27), ‘was made for man.’ This declaration clearly refers to its original institution as a universal law. It was made for man: not as he may be a Jew or a Christian, but as a man, a creature on trial for eternity, and under obligation to love, worship, and obey, his Creator.”
The emphasis is that of Eld. P. The Sabbath, then, upon his own showing, is neither an “institution,” nor even an “affair of the church.” It is a part of the moral law, and is no more capable of being changed than is any other precept of that law. There is not even the remotest hint in one of the texts quoted by Eld. P. that the apostles had authority given them to change the law of God. When, therefore, Eld. P. declares, “Here, then, is ‘THE LAW,’” i. e., for the change of the Sabbath, he makes a declaration for which he has not offered one particle of evidence.
His second attempt to furnish “the law” for the change has now been examined. It has consisted of two parts. First he undertook to show that Christ claimed the “right to change the days on which the Sabbath should be held,” which we found to be a false statement. Second, that the power conferred upon the apostles enabled them to authorize the change of the Sabbath. But to support this assertion he could not offer one particle of testimony that has any bearing upon the case. If Christ sanctified the first day of the week, i. e., appointed it to a holy use, then the apostles could not also authorize a change of the Sabbath unless the right was given them to change it again if they saw fit. But if he did not appoint the day of his resurrection to a holy use, then all Eld. P.’s argument from Heb. 4:10, examined in our last, is simply error. Eld. P. asserts in that argument that Christ appointed the first day of the week to a holy use in memory of having rested that day from the work of redemption. Had he any faith in this assertion himself, he would not offer several pages of irrelevant matter to establish the right of the apostles to change the Sabbath, unless he means to teach that Christ gave them the right to change again what he had already changed. If Eld. P. should say that the apostles had simply the right to announce what Christ had done, we answer, This is wholly another thing. Any minister of Christ may do so much. If Christ changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, then the apostles could not do it. And to spend time to establish their “right” to do it, is simply an absurdity. But if Christ did not establish the first-day Sabbath, then the assertion that he made a Sabbath of it by rising from the dead, and the assertion that he made a Sabbath of it also by resting upon it and then setting it apart to a holy use—only one of which can be true anyway—are both false. It is the great misfortune of the Sunday-Sabbath, as also of the no-Sabbath, arguments, that their testimony does not agree together.
We have examined Eld. P.’s first and second forms of argument, or lines of defense. His first was this: “If we find an express precept for such a change then we have ‘the law.’” But on actual trial he does not even pretend that he finds such precept. Does he thereupon acknowledge that he has no “law” for this change of the Sabbath? By no means. He withdraws to his second line. This is thus framed: “If we find the express precept affirming the right of such a change, we have ‘the law’!” But though he makes a great effort to show that Christ claimed the right to change the Sabbath, and also to prove that he conferred the same right upon the apostles, and then cries out: “Here, then, we have ‘the law,’” and “we repeat, Here then is ‘THE LAW,’”—yet a faithful examination of the texts he quoted, shows that not one of them has the slightest bearing upon this alleged right to change the law of God. But while he makes this great show of defending his second line, he actually falls back to his third, and undertakes to make both “the law and the testimony” out of what he terms “traces” of first-day observance. Here is his third line:
“3. If we cannot find any express precept of either kind, yet if we can trace the fact of the actual change, through witness after witness, from the apostles and early Christians to the present time, then again we have the ‘testimony’; and in the practice of the apostles and primitive disciples of Christ, we have the indisputable proof that such a change was never made by them without the authority or sanction of their divine Master. Hence, in this way, we again, in the end, obtain the evidence of ‘law and testimony’ both. Our appeal, then, is ‘to the law and to the testimony.’” p. 108.
We have, now, Eld. P.’s third form of argument, or third line of defense. This time he is able to produce both law and testimony. But observe how he succeeds in the attempt. The existence of the law for the change, is inferred from the supposed traces of the change in the practice of Christ and the apostles. And these “traces” of the change are entitled to be called “testimony” in view of the fact that they were acts of obedience to that “law” whose existence is proved in the manner just indicated. So that the existence of “the testimony,” is proved by the fact that these traces of change were simply acts of obedience to that law which ordained the change. And the existence of that law is proved by the discovery of these supposed traces of the change. The existence of the law is proved by that of the testimony; and the existence of the testimony, is proved by that of the law. And thus “the law” authorizing the change, and “the testimony” that the change has been wrought, are neither more nor less than these so-called “traces” of the alleged change. When, therefore, Eld. P. says, “Our appeal, then, is ‘to the law and to the testimony,’” he has simply to call our attention to these several “traces.” Thus he commences their recital:
“Christ’s example, or actual conduct, will give us his ‘testimony.’ What, then, was his example? Before his death and resurrection he carefully observed the seventh-day Sabbath, according to the true spirit of that institution. After this period, we never find him observing the seventh day; but he especially honored and observed ‘THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK’ (Sabbaton) as a day for meeting with his disciples.” p. 109.
Of “Sabbaton” so often brought into Eld. P.’s book, we shall say something in due time. That Christ did carefully observe the seventh-day Sabbath through the whole period of his life and ministry, we have the clearest proof from the New Testament, and even Eld. P. confesses so much with distinctness. And so anxious is he to have the commandments abolished at the resurrection of Christ instead of having it done at his cross—for reasons that will appear hereafter—that he even implies in his language that Christ kept the Sabbath while he slept in death. He does not simply say “before his death he carefully observed,” etc., but “before his death and resurrection,” etc. If, then, Eld. P. desires to use Heb. 4:10, as relating to Christ and to his public labor on earth, why not say that he “ceased from his own works as God did from his,” on the sixth day of the week, inasmuch as he bears testimony on that very day that his public labors were finished (John 17:4); and still later in the day, when his anguish was complete, he cried out “It is finished”? And why not say that he thereupon entered his rest upon the seventh day of the week as God also did at the beginning? We have shown that Heb. 4:10
does not relate to Christ. But we suggest if it is to be applied to him, this is a better application than that of Eld. P. already considered. But he goes on to say: “After this period [his resurrection] we never find him observing the seventh day,” etc. But question: Has he the slightest evidence that Christ violated this day in any act of his during that forty days, or that by any word he indicated that he lightly esteemed it? He has not. His argument is a merely negative one. It is simply this; the seventh day is not mentioned in the history of that forty days. Very true. But it had been established at the beginning by the example and the precept of the Creator; through the whole life of Christ it had been sacredly hallowed, and at that very time it was clothed with all the majesty of the law of God. It was not likely “to vanish away” even if no record were made concerning it in the history of the forty days.
But Eld. P. says “he especially honored and observed ‘the first day of the week’ (Sabbaton) as a day for meeting with his disciples.” We shall very soon come to the place where Eld. P. specifies the several instances in which Christ thus “honored and observed the first day of the week.” He shall have opportunity to give them all to his heart’s content. Meantime let us follow him along from our last quotation:
“Luke informs us (Acts 1:3), that after his resurrection he appeared to his disciples at different times for the space of ‘forty days (and) speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.’ At some of these interviews during this forty days, among other things ‘pertaining to the kingdom of God,’ Christ either authorized a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, or he did not. If he did not, the reason is found in these words—‘I have many things to say, but ye cannot bear them now.’ John 16:12, 13. If, therefore, Christ himself did not make the change during this period of forty days, it must be because it was reserved to be done by the apostles, when the ‘Spirit of truth’ should come: for Christ had said, ‘He will guide you into all truth.’ The apostles knew what ‘seemed good to the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 15:28), and also to them; and hence said to the disciples, we shall ‘lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things,’ etc. We therefore are to look for the first decisive indications of this change to the apostles and their history, rather than to the conduct and history of Christ himself.” pp. 109, 110.
This is a remarkable paragraph. In it Eld. P. virtually confesses that he has no evidence that Christ either changed the Sabbath, or authorized a change of it, during the forty days between his resurrection and his ascension. But what then becomes of his famous argument [pages 131, 303, 304] already considered, in which he claims to prove positively from Heb. 4:10 that as God, the Father, rested upon the seventh day, and blessed and sanctified it, so Christ, the Son, also rested on the first day of the week, and blessed that day and sanctified it. If this were true, it is certain that Christ did appoint the first day to a holy use, yet the present quotation shows that Eld. P. has no faith at all that Christ made such an appointment.
But observe how he accounts for the Saviour’s failure to change the Sabbath. He does not say “If Christ did not change the Sabbath it is fair to conclude that it did not need to be changed,” but instead of this, as though the change were an established fact, and not a doubtful deduction, he coolly says: “It must be because it was reserved to be done by the apostles.”
In the quotation preceding this, Eld. P. said of Christ during the forty days, that “he especially honored and observed ‘the first day of the week (Sabbaton)’ as a day for meeting with his disciples.” We have not reached his statement of the several instances in which the Saviour thus honored and observed the first day, but we have in the present quotation a square contradiction of this declaration concerning the Saviour, for he says: “We therefore are to look for the first decisive indications of this change to the apostles and their history rather than to the conduct and history of Christ himself.” One of two things must be true:
1. Either Christ did not especially honor and observe the first day of the week as a day for meeting with his disciples, or
2. Such especial honor and observance of the first day by Christ was no “decisive indication of this change” of the Sabbath.
Eld. P. must take his choice between these two statements. But let him take which he will—and he is obliged to take one or the other because his book compels him thereto—he does in each case acknowledge that there is no argument for the change of the
Sabbath in anything which Christ said or did during the forty days between his resurrection and his ascension. And this proves positively, so far as Eld. P.’s book is concerned, that the foundations of the Sunday Sabbath were not laid either at the resurrection of Christ or at any time before his ascension. Let us now continue our quotation from that given last:
“But suppose Christ did authorize this change of days, in those interviews during the forty days; still it must be made known to the world through the apostles, for Christ never appeared publicly to the world after his resurrection. And what he said to his apostles during this forty days we know but little about. In Luke 24:27, it is said: ‘And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.’ And in Acts 1:3, we find he was speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. After Christ’s resurrection, the old ‘dispensation of death’ was virtually at an end, and the ‘dispensation of the spirit’ was fully introduced; and therefore we never find Christ in the synagogues, or meeting with his disciples on the seventh day after this. But for religious purposes, for worship, he did meet them on ‘the first day of the week.’ See Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:18–49; John 20:13–23. At the close of this last interview, Christ said, ‘As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit, whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’” pp. 110, 111.
Eld. P. has nothing stronger to offer in behalf of the change of the Sabbath during the forty days than mere supposition. But he may be sure of this one thing concerning the Saviour, that he did not secretly change a plain, positive commandment of his Father’s written word, and then leave us to guess that he had done this from some things in the after lives of those then with him, which things do not necessarily indicate any such change. That Christ never met with the Jews in the synagogues on the seventh day, or on any other day after his resurrection, is very true, “for,” as Eld. P. says, “Christ never appeared publicly to the world after his resurrection.” And Peter says that he was manifested, not to all the people, but only to “witnesses chosen before of God.” Acts 10:40, 41. He certainly did nothing inconsistent with the commandment which says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20:10. We are not able to identify but two of the forty days on which he was seen of his disciples by determining the days of the week on which he actually appeared to them. These are, 1. The first day of the week on which he arose from the dead, which was the first of the forty days; and, 2. The fifth day of the week on which he ascended into Heaven, which day was the last of the forty. But no intimation of a change of the Sabbath to either of these days is given, though many are certain that it was changed at the resurrection of Christ, and yet the day of the ascension was not one whit behind that of the resurrection in thrilling interest to the disciples of Christ.
But we have come at last to what Eld. P. terms “Christ’s example, or actual conduct [which] will give us his testimony.” Now we shall see that “he especially honored and observed the first day of the week (Sabbaton) as a day for meeting with his disciples.” And here is his own statement of this “example” as already given in the present quotation:
“But for religious purposes, for worship, he did meet them on ‘the first day of the week.’ See Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:18–49; John 20:13–23. At the close of this last interview, Christ said, ‘As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them,’ etc. p. 111.”
The first of these citations reads thus: “And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him.” The second, which is too lengthy to quote, is the record of Christ’s interview with those who went to Emmaus, and also of their return to Jerusalem, and of Christ’s interview with the entire company of the disciples that night. The third gives Christ’s discovery of himself to Mary Magdalene on the morning of the day of his resurrection, and his act of meeting with his disciples that evening, already referred to in the account of Luke here cited.
What did Christ in all this that even remotely indicates a purpose, or even a thought, to change the Sabbath? Is it said, “He honored the first day of the week by rising on that day from the dead?” But did he not honor the sixth day of the week by tasting death on that day by the grace of God for every man? And again, did he not honor the fifth day of the week by ascending into heaven on that day?
171It is asked, “Were not the disciples assembled that evening to commemorate the resurrection of Christ? and did he not meet with and approbate them in so doing?” We answer, No, the disciples were assembled in their common abode (Acts 1:13), and were eating their evening meal when the Saviour entered, not to commend their celebration of his resurrection, but to upbraid them for their unbelief respecting it. Mark 16:12–14.
But on how many first-days did Christ thus meet with his disciples? Just barely this one and no more. Even Eld. P., as we shall see hereafter, claims no more than this. But when Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on his disciples, did he not say, “As my Father sanctified the seventh-day, so now do I sanctify the first?” No, not a word of this. But he certainly must have said something concerning the first-day; for this was the very time and place that he should establish the new Sabbath. Very true; if he was ever to do it. And yet, wonderful to relate, the Saviour did not even take up the mention of the first day upon his lips! And so thoroughly convinced is Eld. P. himself that no word or act of Christ can be cited to indicate a change of the Sabbath, that, though he elsewhere (pages 131, 303, 304) positively declares that Christ sanctified, that is, appointed the first-day to a holy use, even as the Father once appointed the seventh; and, though in this immediate connection he declares that Christ “especially honored and observed the first day of the week” (page 109), yet he frankly acknowledges:
“We, therefore, are to look for the first decisive indication of this change to the apostles and their history, rather than to the conduct and history of Christ himself. p. 110.”
So far, therefore, as the example of our Lord is concerned, Eld. P. abandons even his third line of argument, or defense. We shall in due time see how well he defends it in the case of the example of the apostles. Meanwhile, we close with the important acknowledgment of Eld. P., that there are no decisive indications of the change of the Sabbath in the history of Christ, that is to say, there are none between his resurrection and his ascension.