INSTRUCTING THE LORD

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 20, 1877

INSTRUCTING THE LORD.

(Concluded.)

Mr. H. further says:—

“The example and teachings of Jesus relative to the Sabbath, were such as to clear the institution at once of Jewish corruptions, of popular misconceptions, of all superstitious regard for any particular day, and clearly to indicate the day of the week henceforth to be honored as the holy Sabbath.”

The example and teaching of Christ showed at once that there was a Sabbath law enjoining the day they were observing, and that his object was to bring them back to that law. He vindicated himself by saying, “It is lawful.” And he taught that the law of which the Sabbath was a part, could no more be abolished, nor changed in the least particular than the heavens and the earth could pass away. It was immutable and eternal. Matt. 5:17–20.

But what does Mr. H. mean by the last clause of the above quotation? He evidently designs to be understood that Christ, by his example and teaching, indicated the keeping of Sunday in the future. If it does not mean this, it is against his own position. But we ask, How did Christ indicate this? He never took the first day into his lips at all, so far as the record shows, and never, by any recorded act, made the remotest allusion to that day whatever. How long shall we be treated to such baseless assumptions? and how long will the religious world be satisfied with them?

He says further: “The Sabbath day is no better than any other day, aside from its moral uses.” “The Christian Sabbath is holier than other days only as it is associated with such important and impressive religious events as are best suited to aid devotion.” And then not willing to leave it on this foundation of circumstances wholly, he adds: “And as it has the practical sanction as the Sabbath, of those duly authorized to speak concerning it—Jesus, the apostles, and the church.”

What a confession of weakness is this! It ignores the very foundation of the Sabbath. Has God ever said that days are made holy by being associated with great events? The very fact that our opponents are reduced to such a beggarly resort for argument, ought to be enough to open any one’s eyes. We had supposed that God’s appointment and law had something to do with it; that God, by sanctifying it, had made it holy in the only sense in which time can be holy, that is, by being devoted to holy uses; for that is what the word sanctify means; and now we are to keep it holy; for so the commandment reads.

But with every flounder he goes deeper into the mire. Witness his reference to “Jesus, the apostles and the church,” as those authorized to “speak concerning it.” Yes; but what have they said? Jesus, as already remarked, never took the day into his lips. Five only of the apostles speak of it. They mention it but eight times in all. Six of these refer to the day of Christ’s resurrection; and it is simply brought in, in the course of the narrative, as the day on which that event occurred. The other two times, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2, it is spoken of in a way to show that it was devoted to secular uses. But in every case, it is called simply “first day of the week.” There is no record of any religious day meeting on that day in all the New Testament; the apostles never call it a day of rest, a day of worship, a holy or a sacred day; they never use it in such a manner, and they speak of no law or instruction for its observance. Is this the “practical sanction” our friend claims?

But “the church”! Indeed! When was “the church” “duly authorized” to speak on this subject? and who gave that authority? Are we listening to a Protestant or a full-fledged Roman Catholic? Are Protestants willing to follow this lead of the “mother of harlots” and lean upon “the church” without the Bible? And what has the church spoken? Not a word in behalf of Sunday as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment till the great controversy between the Presbyterians and Episcopalians on this subject in the latter part of the 16th century. We have not space to enter into church history, but will only say that Sunday, as a sacred institution, cannot be sustained by such history.

He further says:—

“The resurrection of our Lord from the dead was confessedly the occasion—was at once the indication and the cause—of the transference of the Sabbatic day from the end to the beginning of the week.”

More assertion. The cross was the dividing point between the two dispensations. There the shadow touched the substance, and the type the antitype. Whatever change took place, it took place there. If the Sabbath was transferred, that was the “occasion,” not the resurrection. But it was not there transferred; for, at least one day after that, the holy women rested the Sabbath day “according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56. The commandment survived, and the seventh-day Sabbath survived, the cross. And there has been no change since, except that introduced by the great apostasy. And, further, what was there to “indicate” the transference of the Sabbath in the resurrection? Nothing; but just the opposite. Work was resumed which had been suspended during the Sabbath, “according to the commandment,” and all was then stir and activity.

He asks why it was not so ordered that Jesus should have risen on the seventh day of the week. We answer, Because that has nothing to do with the Sabbath whatever. If there was a prophecy that the day upon which Christ should arise would be the Sabbath thenceforth, there would be some pertinence to his question.

The usual statement is made that Christ was “accustomed” to meet with his disciples on the first day after his resurrection; that that was “the favored day for meeting the disciples for religious purposes;” and that “in several instances the first day is expressly mentioned as the set time, while the old day of the Sabbath is never said to be selected for such assemblies.” We confess we are becoming weary of these oft-repeated, but groundless assertions. Where is the proof? A custom denotes a repeated act; but where is the record that he met with them at all on the first day for religious purposes? or that he met them more than once on that day in any manner, the day being specified? “In several instances,” says Mr. H., “the first day is expressly mentioned.” Where are they? Several means not less than three. But we ask him or any one else to name one after the first. He says Christ “said unto them, Peace be unto you.” Why does he not tell the whole story, which is, “and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.” See Mark 16:14. This was the same meeting mentioned in John 20:19. And it was not a religious meeting; for they sat at meat, or at their evening meal. “After eight days” carries it inevitably beyond the next Sunday; and we do not think our friends would like to admit that the third meeting was on Sunday, when the disciples were fishing on the sea of Tiberias. John 21:1–14.

One more expression to show how men can see where they want to, and be blind to that which they do not want to see. It surpasses anything we ever remember to have met in this line. Speaking of the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin, he says:—

“If in the wilderness of Sin, Israel so readily took the hint of a Sabbath there given, may we not suppose that the abundant light reflected from the glorious resurrection of the Saviour clearly indicated to His disciples the day which should henceforward by all means be devoted by them to sacred rest and sacred service?”

What was there in the wilderness? The most explicit declaration that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord, and they should gather no manna on that day. Yet some went out to gather it, and were sharply rebuked of God for not keeping his commandments and laws. Yet this, in Mr. H.’s eyes, was only “the hint of a Sabbath”!

And what was there about the Sunday as a day of rest connected with the resurrection of Christ? Not a syllable, not an act, not a circumstance. Yet here is to him “abundant light”! a day “clearly indicated”! to be kept “by all means”!

It is no wonder after this that we find him, in his second article, firing off Rom. 14:5, and Col. 2:16, with all vim, at the seventh day, amusingly oblivious to the fact that if these passages refer to a weekly Sabbath at all, they demolish his pet Sunday, just as much as they do the seventh day.

We will not pursue his weary wanderings further. People sometimes ask us why it has not been found out before, if the seventh day is still the Sabbath. This is answered by another question: Why do otherwise apparently sensible people, even to-day, wade through such driveling weakness in behalf of Sunday, as is set before us in the article under review, and call it sound logic and clear argument? When they will explain this, they will find in that explanation all the answer to the first question that need be given.