WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH?
By J. D. Rice
MANY affirm that the Sabbath was changed by Christ or his apostles, at his resurrection. When pressed for their authority from the Scriptures, they acknowledge they have none to give. And why? Because there is none to be found. No prophet has foretold any such change; no New Testament writer has recorded any such. Yet ministers of the gospel (?) will stand before their congregations, and say it has been thus changed, and tell people they need not keep "the Sabbath day according to the commandment," but that it is their duty to keep the first day of the week instead, when there is no command for it from Genesis to Revelation. Is this doing and teaching every jot and tittle of the law? Matt. 5:17-19. But, say they, the law has been changed, and therefore they must have changed it. What a conclusion! and yet it is actually urged. Do they think Satan has been asleep all this time? Do they forget that that "mystery of iniquity" (lawlessness) already worked in Paul's day? that he says, "also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them?" 2 Thess. 2:7; Acts 20:28-31; 2 Pet. 2:1-3. Perhaps through these influences the change has been made. It was prophesied of Christ that he should "magnify the law and make it honorable." Isa. 42:21. Is it honored and magnified by being cast aside as a despised object, or changed as though it were imperfect? Does it really change an object in the least to magnify it? Does it not simply show up the different parts more clearly? David desired that the law should be magnified when he prayed, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." Ps. 119:18. Speaking of himself, through the psalmist, Christ says, "I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10:4-7. He taught that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Matt. 12:34, 35. And he practiced what he preached. For, from his heart in which was the Father's law, proceeded those memorable words of his sermon upon the mount, when he declared that he came not to destroy the law, and that not one jot or tittle should pass from it till Heaven and earth should pass; not the smallest fragment perish, or the least item be changed, through any work of his. Matt. 5:17-19. Who in the face of this will continue to say that he did change it, or authorized his disciples to do so, which would virtually be the same thing? Modesty suggests that we contend not with the Saviour, but believe his words. "Hear ye him," is the command of the Father. Matt. 17:5. But there is a power noted in prophecy just Heaven-daring enough to think to make this change in the law of the Most High. See Dan. 7:25. All the specifications of the prophecy require, and Protestant commentators are generally agreed, that this power represents the Papacy. He is to think to change certain "times and laws." They are the laws of Him against whom he was to speak his "great words and blasphemies," and to whom the saints, that he was to "wear out," belong. All human laws he has been able to change at pleasure, but they can only think or presume to change God's law; for as long as God lives and reigns, so long will his authority stand supreme. And though the "man of sin" may set up a different code, thinking to change the laws of Heaven, and get many to accept the change, and follow him in his rebellion, as the devil did in his, yet when the "Judge of all the earth" shall sit to judge us "by the law according to the gospel," Rom. 2:12-16; James 2:12; Eccl. 12:13, 14, it will be by the law of Heaven, and not by that law as changed by rebellious creatures. Now Catholics acknowledge that they are guilty of changing the law of God, as predicted by the prophet. They boast of having changed the Sabbath, and set it forth as a mark or sign of their authority to legislate instead of God—to command feasts, and holy days, under sin. See their "Decretalia," and "Abridgement of Christian Doctrine."423 Speaking of this change, in their "Doctrinal Catechism," pp. 101, 174, they say it is "a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." In "Catholic Christian Instructed," p. 200, we read:— "Ques. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?
"Ans. We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and Apostolic tradition." We might present much more evidence from them, if it were necessary, and space permitted, but they boastingly acknowledge that they have made the change, and claim that they have the right to do so. Well authenticated history comes forward and bears an additional testimony to the guilt of this law changing power, and shows the prophecy to be true. It shows how the pagan festival of Sunday, after a struggle for a few centuries finally usurped the place of God's holy Sabbath day. Let it not be forgotten that this was during the time of that "falling away," spoken of by Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3, 7, caused by the working of that "mystery of iniquity," which was to speak those "perverse things" to draw away disciples. Acts 20:28-31. It was when those pagans were swarming into the church, and it sought for popularity and the favor of the civil rulers, and it is not much to be wondered at that the pagans should bring their Sunday festival along with them into the church, especially as they were so opposed to the Jews, who, with the true Christian converts, strictly adhered to the Lord's holy day. Dr. Neander, the great church historian, bears the following testimony upon this point: "Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday, very early indeed, into the place of the Sabbath. . . . The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect—far from them and the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century, a false application of this kind begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday a sin." Church Hist., p. 168. See also Hist. of the Sabbath, by J. N. Andrews. But we need not go to history to prove that Sunday keeping is one of the innovations of God's truth, and is one of the "perverse things" taught, for God has given us the rule by which all doctrine is to be tested and corrected. Says the prophet: "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20. That is very plain, and needs no comment. Again, in 2 Tim. 3:16, 17, we read, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Thus we see that all doctrine should be brought to the test of the Scriptures. "The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." They are "tried words." "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Ps. 12:6; 18:30; Prov. 30:5, 6. Where in the word of the Lord does it say that we should keep Sunday, and transgress his law, which says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy;" "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," etc. Ex. 20:8-11. It is not contained therein; but it is a commandment of men, handed down by tradition. Beware how you "transgress the commandment of God by your tradition," and teach "for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:3-9), and accuse the Son of God as having made the change, which has been made through the working of that "mystery of iniquity," by that blasphemous power, the Papacy. J. D. RICE.