Deceptive Statements

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 5, 1906

Deceptive Statements

PERHAPS good men do not mean to be deceptive when they write as the editor of one of our exchanges did concerning the late Sunday-school lesson, the topic of which was “Jesus and the Sabbath.” The writer showed in detail how Jesus kept the Sabbath, quoting here and there from the New Testament, and discussing what acts and duties constitute Sabbath observance. He used the words Sabbath, Sunday, and Lord’s day as equivalents, confounding them, and leading his readers to think of them as one and the same. Among other things he said: “We have not, however, any right to defer such work to the Lord’s day if it can be done during the week. In many instances works of charity are deferred until the Lord’s day because no time will then be lost out of the week day’s business or pleasure.” Continuing the discussion with the evident purpose of transferring the thought of Jewish observance of the Sabbath to the present observance of Sunday, the writer said: “This reference will make quite clear to all readers how the apostles kept the Sabbath. Acts 20:7, with other familiar references, will show how the first day took the place of the Jewish Sabbath.” Referring to Acts 20:7, and adding “other familiar references,” etc., the writer perverts truth. Acts 20:7 is the only place in the book of Acts in which the first day of the week is mentioned in any way. It is mentioned but once in all the epistles. When, therefore, this writer intimates that there are “other familiar texts” which “show how the first day took the place of the Jewish Sabbath,” he misleads the uninformed reader, thus perverting the real facts in the case. If he has studied the Bible, even in a slight degree, he knows that there are no other familiar references, and that the New Testament nowhere even suggests, much less states, that the first day of the week took the place of the Sabbath, in either the teachings or practises of Christ or his apostles. It is a matter of sorrow, and of condemnation, when good men thus lead their readers astray, and thereby weaken themselves and the cause of truth and righteousness. If there be good ground for the observance of Sunday rather than the Sabbath, let that ground be plainly set forth. To assume that there are “similar references” which one writing upon so important a question does not take time to quote, thus giving the general reader the impression that authority exists where it is not, comes close to handling the Word of God deceitfully. Such perversion of a record in a court of justice would subject a witness to punishment. Are not Christian writers morally under oath to tell “nothing but the truth”?—The Sabbath Recorder.