“A Dead Shot on Sabbatarians!”
A WRITER in the Bible Banner says that 1 Cor. 15:4—Christ was raised the third day—“is a dead shot on Sabbatarians, when viewed in all its bearings.” Probably our readers remember the selection which appeared in the Signs some weeks ago about “upsetting Moses.” It is difficult to tell how many times Moses has been upset, and yet the enemies of the Bible, especially of the Pentateuch and the history of creation, are still busy at their never-ending task—upsetting Moses! If Moses were like ordinary people, one thorough upsetting would answer the purpose. But no; it is both a constant and very laborious work to upset Moses. In like manner we have seen many “dead shots on Sabbatarians.” They have been shot dead, wiped out, killed, exterminated, more times than we are able to number. We have heard many a lusty antinomian Samson demolish the Sabbath and its adherents, base and fabric, with greater ease and effect than Samson of old slew his enemies. But when we came to hunt for the slain we were impressed with the fact that his weapon does not do as thorough execution against the Sabbath of Jehovah as it did of old when used against the Philistines. Now, reader, prepare to be greatly astonished, for this author of the “dead shot” in the Banner has received a flood of light on the subject which, he says, nearly made him shout aloud. The gist of the whole matter is found in the following extracts:— “The lamb, being always slain on the 14th day of the month, must, as to time, be the third day before ‘the morrow after the Sabbath,’ therefore the lamb must always be slain on the sixth day of the week, or the morrow before the Sabbath—Friday.” “This arrangement of God, as brought out in Leviticus, makes the 15th of Abib always a weekly sabbath, and it always was the first day of unleavened bread.” After a long, long argument to prove the above, and that the resurrection was on Sunday, he says:— “This is a vital point, and it is clearly established, proving that the 15th of Abib or Nisan was a yearly, weekly, Sabbath, thus clearly establishing the fact that the regular succession of Sabbaths were broken yearly.” The animus of the article is stated, to prove to a “Saturday Sabbatarian minister” that “the 14th day of the first month always came on Friday,” and that “the ‘morrow after the Sabbath’ of Lev. 23:10, always came on the 16th day of Abib.” The latter of the two propositions really needs no proof, and may be admitted. It has no possible bearing on the Sabbath question. That the fourteenth day of Nisan always fell on Friday is as easy to prove as it is to prove that the fourth of July always comes on Sunday! If it has not been so in the past, it will no doubt soon be so, for anything imaginable can be proved to help Sunday; and it would be a notable accession of glory to the “time-honored American Sunday” to have the fourth of July always come on that day. The writer requests that if any do not coincide with his views, they will write to him privately on the subject. As we have not the honor of his acquaintance, and do not know his address, we are compelled to take this method to say a few words concerning his argument. To say that the fourteenth day of the first month of the Hebrew calendar always came on Friday, and the fifteenth day always came on the weekly Sabbath, is one of the weakest assumptions any one ever put forth. The writer in the Banner refers to authors in such a way as to leave us to infer that they support the assumption when they do not. 1. The first month commenced with the first new moon after the vernal equinox. The “Union Bible Dictionary” says: “With the first new moon in April.” Kitto says it “began with the new moon in April.” Dr. Smith says: “The 14th of Abib was coincident with the full moon.” And Dr. Nevin, in “Biblical Antiquities” says: “The passover, it is plain, might begin on any day of the week, being regulated altogether by the moon.” This fact is so well known that to offer proof is quite needless. Indeed, in the Hebrew the words moon and month are the same, the phrase “first day of the month” being actually the “first day of the moon,” and so of the other days. The word month is mostly translated from the Hebrew word hho-desh, which Gesenius defines: “(1) the new moon, day of the new moon, the first day of the lunar month.” And “(2) a month, i. e., a lunar month, beginning with the new moon.” It is from the verbal root, hhah-dash, “to be new.” Now does the writer in the Banner really believe that the new moon always occurred on the seventh day of the week, and that the moon was always full on the sixth day—Friday? or that this was invariably so in the first month of the year? And is he so unsophisticated as to think he can make others believe this? We have learned that the majority will do almost anything to help on the Sunday cause, but we hardly think they will venture all this. If they will, then we feel sure they are ready to accept the fact that the fourth of July always comes on Sunday. 2. One would suppose, from his writing, that it is an accepted fact that the fifteenth of Abib always coincided with the weekly Sabbath—the seventh day of the week. That it did come on the Sabbath in the year of our Saviour’s crucifixion, we believe. That it was this coincidence of the weekly Sabbath and the passover sabbath which made it “a high day,” was stated in our tract entitled “The Truth Found,” written twenty-six years ago, notwithstanding his flourish over it as though it were his own discovery. The same idea may also be found in different authors. But let us examine his position. The “Cyclopedia” of McClintock and Strong mentions this position, assumed by some, that the paschal sabbath and weekly Sabbath always coincided, and calls it an “assumption” which “is utterly at variance with the unsettled state of the Jewish calendar, which was constantly regulated by the appearance of the disk of the new moon.” Hence it was an assumption which could not possibly be true. The same, also says: “The principal day for sacrificing the chagigah was the 15th of Nisan, the first day of holy convocation, unless it happened to be the weekly Sabbath.” And in regard to the passover at which Jesus was crucified, this authority speaks thus: “the day of holy convocation at the beginning of the paschal week, which in that year403happened to coincide with the weekly Sabbath of the seventh day.” Dr. Barnes speaks of the time of our Saviour’s crucifixion thus, on John 19:31: “It was called a high day because that year the feast of the passover commenced on the Sabbath.” The “Union Bible Dictionary” says: “At the time of our Saviour’s passion, it so happened that the fifteenth of the month, or the first day of the festival, was also the proper Sabbath.” The “Bible Commentary” says on John 19:31, that the first day of unleavened bread “coincided on this occasion with the weekly Sabbath.” All these expressions are based on the well-known fact that they did not always coincide. Again we say that proof on such a point is needless. The assumption cannot be true from the very nature of the Hebrew calendar. But the last statement which we quoted from our writer in the Banner is worthy of special notice. He says:— “This is a vital point, and it is clearly established, proving that the 15th of Abib or Nisan was a yearly, weekly, Sabbath, thus clearly establishing the fact that the regular succession of Sabbaths were broken yearly.” We have tried to fathom this remarkable passage, but confess our inability to do so. Perhaps the influence of the “dead shot” is so overcoming that our powers fail as we read. Let us try to analyze it. 1. It is clearly established “that the 15th of Nisan is a yearly, weekly, Sabbath.” Does this mean that the 15th of Nisan came both yearly and weekly? That is the actual meaning of the expression. Perhaps we have not anticipated enough. If this expression be true, if the 15th of Nisan was a weekly Sabbath, then we shall not only have the fourth of July come always on Sunday, but it will also come every Sunday! Surely we can have a weekly fourth of July as well as we can have a weekly fifteenth of Nisan. 2. That this is “clearly established” depends altogether on the proof that the moon always fulled on Friday. We must suppose it did, for the writer says so, and the power of his “dead shot” depends upon its being so. Of course chronologers and astronomers will never believe it. But that is immaterial; he is not writing for chronologers and astronomers, but for the benefit of “Saturday Sabbatarians.” Willing or unwilling, they must hear it. 3. It is also proved “that the regular succession of Sabbaths were broken yearly.” Does this mean that the “Sabbaths were broken yearly”? That is not in proof. Or is he as faulty in his grammar as in his theology, and does he mean that “the succession were broken yearly”? If so, that involves other contradictions in his theory. All will readily understand that the succession of weekly Sabbaths could be broken only by changing the Sabbath from the seventh day to some other day. But that is impossible; for if it fell on some other day it would not be the Sabbath of the commandment, for that said the seventh day. If the passover sabbath, Nisan 15, fell on some other day than the seventh, that would not break the succession, for the seventh day would still be “the Sabbath of the Lord,” and the 15th of Nisan another sabbath, but not a weekly sabbath. And such was the case. This yearly Sabbath, being governed by the moon, was movable, and sometimes fell on the weekly Sabbath; but whether it did or not, it had no manner of effect on the weekly Sabbath; either as to its sacredness or succession. But now notice the effect of such a break in the succession of the weekly Sabbath. 1. As the Sabbath was moved either forward or backward, to break the succession, the weeks on either side of that Sabbath so moved would be of different lengths. Will our venturesome author assume that such was the case? And if it were the case, is it not very singular that they who lived through all the centuries when this law was observed, never found out that such a change had constantly taken place? 2. If the succession of weekly Sabbaths was broken, so that the weekly Sabbath, that is, the 15th of Nisan, did not always fall on the seventh day, our Saturday, how was it that the 14th always fell on Friday, as he says it did? Was the “succession” so broken that the seventh day did not always immediately succeed the sixth day? Was the 14th of Nisan always Friday, but the 15th not always the day following? We would like to know how great the break could be in the succession—how many days could be brought in between the sixth day and the seventh day in those marvelously strange times. With these queries we leave him for the present. If that “Saturday Sabbatarian minister” is not convinced we think he must be incorrigible. The reader may wonder at our noticing such wild vagaries. If we did not notice them, we should fail to give our readers a fair understanding of the state of the controversy over the Sabbath. Without this they could not appreciate the methods to which men resort to put down the plain truth of God’s word. Beside, the Bible Banner is a reputable paper, and a correspondence of such length in it is worthy of notice. And yet further, the writer says he has been requested by some whose reputation is almost world-wide to give his light on this subject to the world. What will not men do to oppose the Sabbath of Jehovah? We believe it is the test truth for the time—the burden of the Third Angel’s Message of Rev. 14. It is the special subject of reform for the last generation. A special truth—present truth—always has met with special opposition. Thus the great enemy of the truth directly opposes the work of God. And in nothing else is “the carnal mind” so manifest as in opposition to the fourth precept of the law of God. See Rom. 8:7. Lord, open their eyes that they may see.