REVERSING THINGS by M. E. K.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jul 22, 1897

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 23, No. 28.

REVERSING THINGS.

By M. E. K.

TO GET “the cart before the horse” is a proverbial English idiomatic expression, denoting that an effect has been taken for a cause, or that in some way the true order of things has been reversed. An illustration of this reversing process may be seen in a statement made in the Christian Statesman of June 12. The author of the Sunday-school lesson notes, commenting on Rom. 14:21, and indirectly referring to verses 5 and 6, says:—

The holy days of the old dispensation were likewise in dispute. No doubt all agreed that the Sabbath was a permanent institution. The observance of the first day of the week was universal, but there were some who, in addition to this, still observed the seventh day. The dispute was not whether there was still a Sabbath, but whether there were now two sabbaths.

According to this statement, all Christians kept the first day of the week, or Sunday, but some “added” Sabbath-keeping to Sunday-keeping. But there is not a particle of evidence to prove that Sunday was kept at all, or regarded as a sabbath in the days of the apostles. Furthermore, the universal testimony of all church history proves, not that Sabbath-keeping was added to Sunday-keeping, as Sabbath-keeping was first, but that Sunday-keeping was added to Sabbath-keeping; that it was done at a much later time than the apostolic age; and that it never, in the earliest ages or its very slight observance, was regarded as the Sabbath, or was considered as deriving any sanctity whatever from the fourth commandment. To make Sunday out to be the universal Sabbath, when it never had any Sabbatic character, and to have the Sabbath of thousands of years’ standing, and which is everywhere called the Sabbath in all the sacred writings, but a secondary and added Sabbath, is surely getting things wofully misplaced. A cart before a horse would but illustrate the incongruity of it.

Again, there was no discussion as to whether there were two sabbaths or not. No hint of such a discussion can be found in the New Testament. If this were the question at issue, Paul gave a very remarkable answer. Said he, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” And that would make every man’s mind a criterion of judgment as to whether there was one or two sabbaths a week. Further, among the things permissible to believe is that all days are alike. Verse 5. This would make every day a sabbath, or no day the Sabbath. Can any one in his sober senses believe that the apostle Paul would give an answer in relation to the Sabbath as incoherent, unsatisfactory, and contradictory as the answer of a heathen oracle?—No, indeed.

There is just one way to straighten this thing out, and get things into their proper places. The days of celebration referred to by Paul in Rom. 14:5, 6 do not include the weekly Sabbath. In fact, the weekly Sabbath is not once named in the whole letter.

One statement of the Statesman is true: “The dispute was not whether there was still a Sabbath, or whether the first day of the week was the Sabbath.” Sure enough. There was a sabbath. The fourth commandment is proof of it; and since, at that time, and for centuries later, no one thought of calling the first day of the week the Sabbath, there could therefore have been no dispute in reference to it. An observation of these facts would save some people a great deal of trouble and prevent them from making statements involving themselves in endless absurdities and contradictions.

M. E. K.