WHY NOT FOLLOW JESUS IN SABBATH OBSERVANCE?
By G.
IN DR. PARKHURST’S “Notes of Travel” in Europe, as published in the Christian Work, he notes, as one of the lessons of a prolonged stay on the continent, “an appreciation of the beauty and ‘helpfulness of the American Sabbath.” Then, speaking of very serious departures even in our own country from old ways of observing Sunday, he says: “Out of our anxiety to discriminate between the ‘Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s day, we are certainly ‘moving in the direction of converting a holy day ‘into a holiday.” The idea of discriminating between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s day is not new. The Lord Jesus Christ was anxious on that point. But His anxiety was not for a change of the day; it was for a change from the formal traditional observance of the day to a really spiritual observance, as was indicated in the commandment. The Jews habitually transgressed the commandment of God, and thus the Lord’s day was to them a veritable Jewish Sabbath. But when Christ came He had the law of God in His heart, and ignored the traditions of the Jews. From His example we learn the true idea of Sabbath-keeping. He did not keep another day in order to get away from the Jewish Sabbath, but He kept the same day in the true spiritual manner. We learn from His example that mere inactivity is not Sabbath-keeping. He went about doing good on that day, honoring His Father in that which He did. The commandment says that “the seventh day is ‘the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,’ and it says that ‘the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.’” In the very beginning “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” Therefore it is especially the Lord’s day, and He calls it “My holy day.” Therefore when Jesus was keeping the Sabbath, on the seventh day, He was truly discriminating between the Jewish Sabbath and the true observance of the Lord’s day. In after years, however, when the learned and influential heathen came into the church in great numbers, they still held their old prejudices against the Jews and everything “Jewish.” But, unlike Jesus, in their anxiety to discriminate between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s day, they showed their hostility to the Lord’s day itself. The passing of the typical ceremonies peculiar to the Aaronic priesthood was construed to include the passing of the Sabbath day instituted in Eden, when there were no typical services of any kind. In order to emphasize their hostility to “Judaism,” they adopted a popular heathen festival and called it the Lord’s day, using as a pretext the fact that Christ had risen from the dead on that day. The change, however, was without any divine authority; and its continued observance is without authority excepting that of tradition. It seems strange that a purpose which leads to the converting of a holy day into a holiday should be so persistently pursued. There is something wrong somewhere. Dr. Parkhurst admits that the popular method of discriminating between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s day leads to a profanation of a holy day. And we agree that such is the fact. But it is the seventh day, blessed and sanctified by the Lord Himself, that is thus profaned by making it a common working day, and endeavoring to substitute for it a day which He never recognized as His. Then why not follow Jesus in the matter of discriminating between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s day? Why not simply ignore the Jewish traditions, and observe the day in the proper manner, instead of trying to establish another human tradition in the form of a rival day? Jesus disregarded the traditions of the Jews concerning the observance of the day, but He did not disregard the day. He was “Lord also of the Sabbath day,” and He honored the Sabbath day. He will no more recognize the traditional day which men have substituted for His day than He would recognize the traditional observance of the day which He commanded to be kept holy. Speaking further of Sunday observance, Dr. Parkhurst says: “Being deprived of the day for a time ‘affords a very complete exposition of the day’s real ‘nature and import.’” And he never wrote more truthfully. The admission that the day (as a Sabbath, of course) is one of which he could be deprived against his will, is a virtual concession that it is of traditional, or human, origin. No man who adheres to “the commandments of God and the faith of ‘Jesus’” can be deprived of the Lord’s day against his will. If he is a follower of Jesus, the law of God is written in his heart; and no matter where he may be in the land of the living, he can not be deprived of his Sabbath day’s blessing. Men having received the Sunday institution from men, of course they can be deprived of its supposed benefits by the influence of men. Not so with the Lord’s day, “the Sabbath ‘of the Lord thy God,’ or with any other gift or blessing that comes from God. “The Word of the ‘Lord endureth forever.”