DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION
BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE. “Do the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is to be sacredly observed by Christians?” ELD. VOGEL affirms; ELD. WAGGONER denies. The former propositions related to the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week; this concerns the first. I have shown, at least to my own satisfaction, that the Sabbath is abolished, and am now to prove that the first day has claims upon us, in a religious way, different from, and high above, that of other days. This simple matter of fact is to be determined by Biblical evidence. I do not claim that the first day is to be sacredly kept, in virtue of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, nor that there is a “change” of the seventh into the first, but that we have a new day, and for a new reason. Nor am I to occupy myself with inquiries whether the first day of the week is binding upon worldlings, but simply whether Christians—those who accept Christ in a practical way, as by faith and obedience—are to keep this day. Here I wish to adopt my brother’s language: “It will be well to consider what is the nature of the evidence required to sustain the proposition. For as all have, to some extent, already formed opinions on the subject, some may be satisfied with less proof than ought by right to be given; while others may ask more, and of a different kind, than the circumstances justly demand.” In my first paper on this discussion, I have given “five different ways of ascertaining Bible teachings,” and have shown that any one of these, excepting an “inference less than probable,” is of sufficient force to form a basis for faith and action. If, therefore, I could only produce a “probable inference,” the present proposition would be affirmatively answered. And if I should rise higher in the scale of proof—as I confidently expect to do—my position will be overwhelmingly strong. The weight of proof to be given will be greatly enhanced, when we consider what “the circumstances justly demand.” No dispensations could differ more widely than do the Mosaic and the Christian. They are contrasted by such terms as “law” and “grace” (Rom. 6:14), “letter” and “spirit” (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6), “bondage” and “liberty” (Gal. 5:1). The old dispensation is called “letter,” because every requirement and prohibition was written out in letters, i. e., fully expressed; the new is called “spirit,” because the spirit or principles which might be framed into express laws, are, as much as possible, given to us without an encasing letter. In other words, God has disclosed to us certain general principles to which we are to refer our actions, to know whether they will be approved or disapproved. I should like to develop this subject, at length, but on account of limited space, will content myself with the brief unfoldings already made in former propositions. I must, however, assure my brother that this is not “inner-lightism,” which he rightfully abhors, but Heaven-ordained New-Testamentism. Such being the nature of the Christian dispensation, we rightfully expect that even such cases as cannot be reached by general principles, but where more specific legislation is needed—as in positive institutions—there is as little of the legislative style as possible. Take, for example, the Lord’s supper. So far as the existence of the institution is concerned, we have express statements; but so far as the frequency of its observance is concerned, we are wholly left to inference—to approved precedent. Yet not only has the church for centuries confidently interpreted these precedents to be of weekly obligation, but I hazard nothing in saying that nearly all the most eminent Bible students are a unit on this question. Let me quote a few of them:— “At least every Lord’s day.”—Wm. King, Archbishop of Dublin. “Constantly administered every Lord’s day.”—Dr. Scott. “The Lord’s supper was observed by the first Christians, every Lord’s day, nor will this be denied by any man who has candidly investigated the subject. Weekly communion did not die with the apostles and their contemporaries.”—Dr. Mason. “It is well known that the primitive Christians administered the Eucharist every Lord’s day.”—Doddridge. “In primitive times, it was the custom of many churches to receive the Lord’s supper every Lord’s day.”—Matthew Henry. “It is well known [that the Lord’s supper] was observed by the primitive churches every Lord’s day.”—Dr. J. M. Cramp, Pres. Arcadia College. “Every first day of the week.”—Alexander Carson. I might swell this list by such names as Adam Clarke, John Wesley, and John Calvin. The interested reader may see this subject fully discussed, and these quotations at length, in The Christian System, by A. Campbell, published by Bosworth, Chase, & Hall, of Cincinnati, O. As with the Lord’s supper, so with the Lord’s day. As an institution, it has express recognition; but as to the frequency of observing it—whether annually, monthly, or weekly, and on what day of the week—we have inference and approved precedent. There is another reason besides that of the genius of the Christian dispensation for finding the frequency of observing these institutions left to precedent and inference, rather than to precept. That portion of the New Testament—Acts and the Epistles—which appertains more especially to the new dispensation, is of such a cast as to make this course normal. Thus, Acts is rather a history of what the people did, under apostolic guidance, than a digest of what they were to do, and the epistles more a correction of errors and abuses, than books of precepts. With these preliminaries, I proceed more directly to the work before me. I shall attempt to prove, I. That prophecy predicts a sacred day for this dispensation. II. That the New-Testament scriptures speak of and recognize such a day, as actually existing. III. That this day is a new institution, peculiar to the Christian dispensation. IV. That this day recurs weekly, and upon the first day of the week. V. That the first day of the week is peculiarly appropriate, and the fittest of the seven, for this purpose. I will at once proceed to show, I. That prophecy predicts a sacred day in this dispensation. Under the second proposition, I have shown Isa. 56:1–8, to be applicable to, and spoken of, the new dispensation. It speaks of a “Sabbath” in this dispensation, for the keeping of which there shall be a blessing upon the people: “For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.” Verses 4–7. We have seen that the Sabbath is abolished, hence we know that this prophecy is not to be construed in its most literal sense, and yet, of course, as nearly literal as possible. Were it not for the fact that we know, from other scriptures, that there are now no more “burnt-offerings,” “sacrifices,” and “altars,” we would confidently expect them from this prediction. Clearly, then, by “burnt-offerings,” “sacrifices,” and “altars,” the prophet meant to describe that in the new dispensation, which sustains to it a similar relation that these things did to the old. The resemblance between the thing named and the thing meant, is somewhat like the likeness in our Saviour’s parables. It is an illustrative use of words—the unknown being introduced and described by means of the known. In many instances, this is a necessary license; for if this course had not been permissible, many things concerning the new dispensation, the prophets could not have foretold without giving a full exposition of it. So vivid and impressive is such a figure of speech, that we use it in common intercourse. On visiting a foreign nation, for example, and seeing them celebrate their national anniversary, it would be quite within the bounds of propriety to write to our friends at home, “To-day is this nation’s Fourth of July.” Their anniversary and ours may differ in as many respects as the first day and the Sabbath, yet this will not forbid the use of the figure which clothes the one in the drapery of the other. Indeed, without a difference, a figure would be impossible. So in prose it is a pregnant metaphor to call the “Lord’s day,” Sabbath, as when Christ called Herod a fox; and in poetry, it is the beautiful language of passion. II. The New-Testament scriptures recognize the existence of a sacred day in this dispensation.
1. That there is a day set apart for religious exercises, seems at least a probable inference from Heb. 10:25, where Paul insists on “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.” This recognizes a set day for gathering together in order to worship; for without such a day, one member could not know when the others meet; nor could he be accused of neglect for not meeting with them. But whether this day is divinely appointed, or only of human selection, is not so clear; yet the probability seems to me to greatly preponderate in favor of divine appointment, since without instruction on this point, man’s proneness to neglect stated public worship would often work to his spiritual detriment; especially would this be the case with “babes” in Christ. Nor would neglect be deserving of such severe rebukes, were the appointment merely human. 2. The two following passages are more decisive: (1.) “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow.” Acts 20:7. (2.) “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” 1 Cor. 16:2. Under another head, I shall look more narrowly into the teachings of these passages. For the present, I would only call attention to the fact that here are two stated acts of worship performed on a given day, making the day sacred to these acts. 3. The fact that there is a sacred day in this dispensation, is placed beyond all reasonable controversy by the apostle John. He says, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.” Rev. 1:10. Clear as this passage is in asserting that a day in this dispensation belongs to the Lord, in an especial sense, there are those who would force other constructions upon it; namely, that the Lord’s day denotes (1) the gospel dispensation, or (2) the day of Judgment. But neither of these positions can be true. The first would make John seriously tell his contemporaries that the vision which he had on Patmos took place in the Christian dispensation, when every one knew that it could not possibly have been at any other time. Equally incongruous would be the second, for it would date the seven epistles in the day of Judgment, and on the isle of Patmos. Besides, the particular expression here used in the Greek (the kuriakee heemera, the Lordic day) is not only never applied to the Judgment day, but is also wholly inappropriate for such a use. This the reader will see when we come to look more narrowly into the expression. Moreover, the phrase, “in the Spirit” (en Pneumati), denotes being inspired, or under the Spirit, as His influence. Comp. Matt. 22:43. John says, in effect, “I was inspired, or under the influence of the Spirit, on the Lord’s day,” making “on the Lord’s day,” designative of fixed and mutually known time when. Unquestionably, then, the word, “day,” is here used literally, and John declares that there is a day, in this dispensation, pre-eminently the Lord’s. Or, more strictly speaking, he dates his epistles to the seven churches on a day recognized by all Christians as especially the Lord’s. Over this fact, Eld. W. and I will have no dispute, for he has already admitted all that I here claim. I have written for the benefit of another class, to whom I also wish to carry conviction. The fact that this day is declared to be the Lord’s, proclaims also its nature with reference to man’s relation to his divine Head. In other words, it does not mean that the Lord does not possess the other days, from which this one stands apart—for all days are the Lord’s, in that sense—but that man is to regard the day as holy to the Lord. It is a sacred institution. III. The “Lord’s day” is a new institution, peculiar to the present dispensation.
1. It cannot be otherwise, for we have seen that the Sabbath, together with all other Jewish days, is abolished. 2. This will further appear from the fact, to be hereafter proved, that the Lord’s day falls on the first day of the week. It was an essential part of the Sabbath that it be kept on the seventh day of the week, and from evening to evening. Ex. 20:10; Lev. 23:32. Had it been even transferred from the seventh to the first day, that very transfer would have made it a new institution; it would have been183eliminating an old element, and substituting a new one. 3. The Greek expression, rendered “Lord’s day,” is not composed of two nouns, but of an adjective and a noun, and would be more accurately expressed by Lordean or Lordic day. The adjective, kuriakee, (Lordic or Lordean), was “formed by the apostles themselves.” (Winer, N. T. Gram., p. 236.) To the same effect testify Liddell and Scott. Of the mode of dealing with words in their Lexicon, they say: “We have always sought to give the earliest authority for its use, first. Then, if no change was introduced by later writers, we have left it with that early authority alone.” (Pref. p. xx.) When we turn to the word, kuriakos, they give as their “first” citation, and, therefore, as its “earliest authority,” the New Testament. The question now arises, Why form a new word to express a sacred institution, if the institution itself be not new? Winer says, “Entirely new words and phrases were constructed, mainly by composition, and, for the most part, to meet some sensible want.” (Gram., p. 25.) What conceivable “sensible want,” respecting the Sabbath, did the Old Testament leave unexpressed? Clearly, this new “want” arose with a new institution. This position receives additional strength from the fact that the only other New-Testament use of kuriakos, is found in 1 Cor. 11:20, designating “the Lord’s supper,” which is certainly a new institution. 4. The meaning of kuriakos, whether the word itself be new or old, leads us to the same conclusion, provided it refers to Jesus as the Lord. And that Jesus is referred to, I shall presently show. Crosby says, Gram., § 315, note b, that the meaning of adjectives terminating in kos is, “relating to” that which is denoted by the stem, which, in the case in hand, is Kurios, Lord. If kurios refers to the personal appellation bestowed upon Jesus (Acts 2:36), then kuriakos signifies pertaining to Jesus as Lord, hence to his Lordship as having originated it. With this agree the Lexicons: “Kuriakos, of or pertaining to the Lord, i. e., the Messiah, the Lord’s. 1 Cor. 11:20; Rev. 1:10”—Greenfield. “Kuriakos, pertaining to the Lord, to the Lord Jesus Christ; e. g. kuriakon deipnon, the Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. 11:20; kuriakee heemera, the Lord’s day, Rev. 1:10.—Art. Thom. § 31. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7:10.”—Robinson. “Kuriakos, of, belonging to, concerning a lord or master; esp. belonging to the Lord (Christ): hence hee kuriakee, sub. heemera, the Lord’s day, dies dominica, N. T.: to kuriakon, the Lord’s house, Eccl., whence our kyrke, church.”—Liddell and Scott. These authors are quoted in full, and such testimony might be easily multiplied. There is no higher authority than Liddell and Scott. They declare the Lord’s day to be a day “concerning” or having respect to the Lord, “belonging to” him, and being “of” him. They leave us in no doubt as to the origin of the day. It is not a day transferred from one Lord to another, but, as Greenfield and Liddell and Scott unite in testifying, “of,” the Lord referred to in the passages where it occurs.