Apostolic Example for Sunday-keeping.
By H. Barringer
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—In the reply to my four propositions, it is said that there is "no apostolic example for Sunday-keeping, and it is not for our opponents to assume these points and then build their inferences thereon. Let them first produce the command or example, and then will their deductions be entitled to our consideration." That is perfectly honest: if the first day has no divine example for its observance, it is not enjoined upon us. This then is the first point to be settled. Was the first day observed by the apostles? for if it was, then its observance is binding upon us; that is, if that day was thus observed by them to as late a time as when the epistles were written: otherwise I cannot see that it is; for the mere example of the apostles in the very beginning of the Christian dispensation is not a correct or permanent rule to follow respecting such questions; for Paul purified himself with the Jews and "entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be made for every one of them." And this he attended for seven days. Is that observance therefore binding upon us? Of course not. Why? Because Paul only attended to it as a matter of mere expediency. Paul circumcised Timothy for the same reason. Yet he says, at a later time, "I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Gal. v, 4. If they made circumcision a permanent rule or ordinance, they denied Christ, for he was the end of the law. We are to inquire then, Did Luke's calling the seventh day the Sabbath, make that day the permanent Sabbath, any more than did Paul's circumcision of Timothy, make circumcision a permanent rite in the church? Here again we are led to inquire—What saith the apostles on this subject at a later time?—what saith the epistles and Revelation concerning this day? All I can find in the epistles is this: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days." It should be observed that the term days, as here attached to Sabbath, is in italics, and therefore not in the original. We have however the testimony of 54 men eminent in learning and particularly well acquainted with the languages, that sabbath-days, instead of Sabbath, is the true signification of the original. The context also seems to sustain this conclusion. The above thoughts will also apply to the first day. This day is no where mentioned in the epistles or Rev. except in 1 Cor. xvi, 2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you, lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Here we find the first day permanently set apart for a church duty, shall we not say a congregational duty? so it seems to me. The foregoing arguments must decide, so far as the Acts and epistles are concerned, what day is meant by Lord's day in Rev. i, 10. I must conclude from the above reasons, that the first day is more clearly enjoined in the Acts of the apostles and epistles than the seventh day. I am however ready and desirous to have further light on the subject. Yours, for the truth, H. BARRINGER.