S A B B A T O N : AN EXPOSITION OF MATT. 28: 1, AND PARALLEL PASSAGES. (Continued.)
By Uriah Smith
Now it is evident that the word sabbaton must here be taken in other than its ordinary sense; for “the first day of the Sabbath,” the Sabbath itself being only one day, would be a meaningless expression. Turning again to Robinson, we find under the word sabbaton the second definition given as follows: “Meton. [that is, by metonymy, a figure of speech in which one word is put for another], a Sabbath, put for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath; hence a se'nnight, week.” “Only after numerals marking the days of the week.” Then he refers, for examples, to all those passages in which the phrase, “first day of the week,” occurs in the New Testament. And he adds, “In the Talmuds, the days of the week are written; the first, second, third, day in the Sabbath (week); see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. in Matt. 28: 1.” In the light of the foregoing facts, presented in a manner so plain that we trust all can understand them, it is not difficult for any one to see that a correct translation of the passage would be: “After the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week. One question more may arise: How is it to be known when sabbatone or sabbaton is to be rendered week, instead of Sabbath? Answer. It is to be rendered week whenever it is preceded by a numeral. It is so preceded in every case where the expression, first day of the week occurs, and also in Luke 18: 12, where the Pharisee fasted twice in the (sabbatou, genitive singular) week. Hence we translate the word sabbatone, as it first occurs in Matt. 28: 1, by the word Sabbath, because it has no numeral before it; and in the second instance of its occurrence, we translate it week, because it is preceded by the numeral mian. U. S. LUTHER LEE, in his “Theology,” p. 375, presents the following criticism on Col. 2: 16. The text reads thus: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.” On which Mr. Lee says: “To what Sabbath does the apostle refer? He uses the Greek word sabbaton, which is everywhere used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath, without giving any notice that he means anything else; and while, by a holy day and the new moon, he includes all other feasts and rests which might be called sabbaths, he leaves nothing but the seventh-day Sabbath to be meant by the sabbath days.” The arguments which Mr. Lee presents to show that Paul refers to the seventh-day Sabbath in Col. 2: 16, and that, consequently, that Sabbath is not binding on Christians, are these: First, the apostle uses the word sabbaton, which everywhere denotes the seventh-day Sabbath; and, secondly, the other terms used in the text cover all other kinds of sabbaths, so that this word must refer here to the seventh-day Sabbath. He evidently designed to convey to the mind of the reader the idea that the term sabbaton, always and in every place, means the seventh-day Sabbath; and we can see the object of this; for unless it does always have this meaning, his argument on the use of the term here is null and void. But it will be noticed that he does not directly assert this; nor do we think he would be willing to so far risk his reputation as a scholar as to make such a declaration. He says the term sabbaton “is everywhere used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath;” which is true so far as the fact is concerned that whenever the seventh-day Sabbath is spoken of, the term sabbaton or its synonym, sabbata, is used. But it is quite another thing to say that the word sabbaton never means anything else, as he evidently designed to have the reader understand. It may be used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath in every instance where Sabbath is brought to view; and yet it may have a much wider signification, and be applied, in many places, to other objects. The question to be decided is, Does the term sabbaton ever refer to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews? If it does, then the apostle may have used it in that sense in Col. 2: 16; and the argument of Mr. Lee so far falls to the ground. We therefore refer the reader to Lev. 16: 31; 23: 32; and 25: 2, 4, 6, as found in the Septuagint, where he will see that the term Sabbath is used in reference to the day of atonement, one of the yearly sabbaths of the Jews, and is even applied to the seventh year in which the land should rest. This is conclusive on this point. But there is in the New Testament evidence enough that the term sabbaton does not always mean the seventh-day Sabbath. Every lexicon tells us that it sometimes means the whole week, the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath; and Luke 18: 12, furnishes an instance where it must have this signification. So much for this argument on Sabbaton. Let us now look for a moment at his other statement, that the remaining terms in Col. 2: 16, namely, the “holy day” and “new moon” include all other feasts and rests which might be called sabbaths, so that the term sabbaton is necessarily restricted to the seventh-day Sabbath. The term translated “holy day,” is heorte, which is defined by Greenfield, a “solemn feast, public festival, holy day; specially spoken of the passover,” Robinson adds, “Specially a) The passover, and the festival of unleavened bread connected with it, the ‘paschal festival.’ b) The feast of tabernacles.” The passover festival occupied seven days, and the feast of tabernacles, eight. The first and last days of these feasts were special days. In them the people were to have a holy convocation, and perform no servile work. They were sabbaths. The other days of the feast were simply holidays, and were designated by this term, heorte; while the solemnity and cessation from labor that pertained to the first and last days called for another title, and they were termed sabbaths. So Kitto says, respecting the feast of tabernacles, “It began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, and continued eight days, the first and last being sabbaths.” The new moon, noumenia, was another kind of festival, and did not include any which could properly be called a sabbath; that is, no day was a sabbath, or day of rest, on account of its being the festival of the new moon. Thus we see that the terms, “holy day” and “new moon” are not sufficient, as Mr. Lee asserts, to cover all the subjects which the apostle wished to introduce; namely, the ordinary feast days of the Jews, the new moons, and the sabbaths connected with their feasts; and these latter he designates by the word sabbatone, just as they were designated by the Greek version of the Old Testament then in use. But there are other considerations which should have been sufficient to save Mr. Lee from so false a criticism upon this text:— 1. The sabbaths here mentioned are those associated with meats, drinks, new moons, and festivals. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was so associated. 2. The sabbaths here spoken of were, like the new moons and feasts with which they were connected, shadows of things to come. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was a shadow; it was instituted before the fall, when, from the very nature of the case, a type could not have existed: This language of the apostle, therefore, in the most emphatic manner, excludes the weekly Sabbath from the days of which he speaks. 3. All that is mentioned in verse 16 is included in the handwriting of ordinances of verse 14, which was against us, and was blotted out and nailed to the cross. But the seventh-day Sabbath never was a part of these ordinances, as such. It owed its existence to enactments entirely distinct, not being written by the hand of Moses, but being proclaimed by the voice of God from the summit of Sinai, and engraved with his finger upon the tables of stone. And to speak of blotting out such a document would be to say that a person could, with pen and ink, erase the chiseled inscription of the marble monument. If Mr. Lee is correct, Paul did not write by inspiration of God; for that never thus bungles in the use of language. The word sabbatone is in the plural, and should here be so rendered. If it were in the singular number, it might with propriety be claimed that it referred to the weekly Sabbath. The context, showing that it must refer to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews, demands that the plural rendering be here given. So if the word days, which our translators have supplied, be omitted, it should be rendered sabbaths. In this manner God speaks of the sabbaths of the Jewish church, when by the prophet Hosea (2: 11) he calls them “her sabbaths,” and predicts that they should cease, as Paul here declares that they had ceased. Robinson says sabbatone, in Col. 2: 16, has a plural signification. Mr. Lee's criticism thus fails in every particular; for, 1. The terms holy day (or feast day) and new moon do not cover the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews. 2. The term sabbaton is applied to those sabbaths, and is needed in this text to denote them. 3. The sabbaths of this text are associated with ceremonies. 4. They are shadows, or types. 5. They are blotted out. 6. The word is plural. All which considerations prove that the text has no reference whatever to the Sabbath of the moral law; and hence contains no evidence that we are not morally bound to observe it. U. S. Extracts from Both Sides, pp. 114–119.
ELD. T. M. PREBLE says: “Now it is evident that the traslators had just transposed the word sabbaton, in these nine cases just examined, as they did in the other fifty-nine instances already above referred to, then we should have had clear, blazing light shining on this glorious subject; and we should see that, at the END of the seventh-day Sabbaths—(or at the end of the LORD JEHOVAH'S Sabbaths—which he gave to the ‘children of Israel to be a ‘sign’ unto them ‘throughout their generation’) THERE would be the BEGINNING of the LORD JESUS CHRIST'S SABBATHS. Or, in other words, where one series of Sabbaths ended, there another series of Sabbaths began.” “If the translators had just ‘transposed’ [transferred?] the word sabbaton, in nine cases where it is rendered week in the New Testament, ‘then we should have had clear, blazing light shining on this glorious subject.’” So, then, the “clear blazing light” on the Sunday Sabbath lies in the fact that the word sabbaton is incorrectly translated week nine times in the New Testament! And Eld. P. takes it upon himself to correct the translation, and bring out the blazing light! We are glad the controversy is narrowed down to this point. If left here, it would soon be disposed of; for it will not take long to sweep this objection back into the depth of night from whence it sprung. It is a fact that the word sabbaton is rendered week in the nine instances Eld. P. has referred to. Is this rendering correct? “For some cause unknown to me,” says he, “the translators saw fit to render the word sabbaton by the word week in nine cases out of the whole number sixty-eight.” The translators certainly had a reason for translating it as they have done; and we can tell Elder P. how he might have “known” what it was. It is to be presumed that he possesses a copy of the common edition of Greenfield's Greek Testament. If he will look in the lexicon attached to that Testament, under the word sabbaton, he will find the third definition reading like this: “A period of seven days; a week.” If this word in certain relations means week, it is certainly proper so to translate it. And one of the instances to which Elder P. has referred, renders it necessary to good sense to give it this meaning: Luke 18: 12: “I fast twice in the week” (sabbatou). Now if the word here means the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, and not the whole week, we have the singular spectacle of the old Pharisee claiming to fast twice in a day of twenty-four hours, which would be, of course, between meals! Bloomfield, in his note on this place, says that this fast was on the second and fifth days of the week, according to Epiphanius and the Rabbins. Robinson, under the word sabbaton, says, “2. Meton., a sabbath, put for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath, hence a se'nnight, week.” From the foregoing it is evident that the word sabbaton sometimes means the whole week. How, then; shall we determine when it has this meaning? Easily enough. Robinson says that it has this meaning “after numerals denoting the days of the week.” We now inquire, Does the word sabbaton, in those places where the expression, “first day of the week,” occurs in the New Testament, follow a numeral adjective denoting the day of the week? We answer, Yes, in every instance. Then no one can deny, without discarding all authority, that in these instances sabbaton means week, and the translation of our common version is correct. The numeral adjective used in Matt. 28: 1; Mark 16: 2; Luke 24: 1; John 20: 1, 19; Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 16: 2, is mia or mian; in Mark 16: 9, protee. One instance will suffice for the whole, and we will take the first one, Matt. 28: 1. The words are mian sabbaton (pronounced with long o, as in tone). Mian is the numeral adjective meaning one, or according to Hebraism, “first.” It agrees with day, understood. Sabbaton is in the genitive plural, literally answering to the English words, “of the week.” So we have, as plainly as language can say it, “first day of the week.” Pld. P. argues, however, that here the Lord Jehovah's Sabbaths ceased, and the Lord Jesus Christ's Sabbaths were introduced, or one series of Sabbaths there ended, and another series of Sabbaths there began. But this little shift in favor of Sunday, involves a fatal violation of grammar which he has apparently overlooked. If his rendering is correct, and first day of the week should be rendered, “one of sabbaths,” meaning one of the new series of Sabbaths then introduced, then the word one, mian, must agree with sabbaton understood. But sabbaton is neuter, and mian is feminine. Grammar will not submit to any such treatment as this. The word mian, being in the feminine gender, shows that the noun understood, with which it agrees, is a feminine noun. And there is no word which can be introduced to supply the ellipsis, except the word which the translators of our Bible have supplied, namely heemeran, day, which renders the sense complete, and being a feminine answer to the feminine adjective, mian, and makes the construction harmonious and perfect. We accordingly find in the margin of the Greek Testament a reference from the word mian, saying, “Heemeran understood.” And we are forced to the conclusion that Greenfield, Robinson, and Liddell and Scott, in their lexicons, and the forty-seven learned men of England who made our version of the New Testament, are correct in their translation, and Eld. P. is wrong. Another conclusion is no less apparent, namely, that this great “blaze” of “light,” with which Eld. P. hoped to dazzle us from the Greek, has proved but another ignis fatuus, which, after leading its victim into inextricable bogs, has—gone out! U. S.