Questions on the Sabbath.
By E. J. Whitney
EDITORS VOICE OF TRUTH, GENTLEMEN:— HAVING perused the above-named paper since its first issue, I have been somewhat interested in the various articles regarding the Sabbath. Would it be asking too much to request you to answer and explain, as far as space will admit, for my benefit, as well as that of many who may read the Voice, the following questions, which I cannot solve, so that they will harmonize with your ideas already advanced? 1. Why was Ignatius, the reputed friend and associate of some of the apostles, sanctioned by them and placed in so responsible a position, as regards church matters, when he wrote the following: “Let us no more Sabbatize but let us keep the Lord’s day on which our Life arose?” 2. Why was the honor of the Pentecostal blessing conferred on the first day of the week, and not on the seventh? 3. Why did the apostles observe the breaking of bread (or the sacrament) and the assembling of themselves together for worship, at which time Paul preached to them on the first day of the week, and not on the seventh? Yours in Christian fellowship,
E. J. WHITNEY.
Parma Center., N. Y. In response to the forgoing queries we present replies numbered according to the respective paragraphs:— 1. The History of the Sabbath, while examining the first witnesses for Sunday, speaks as follows of Ignatius:— “Ignatius, the first of these witnesses, it is said, must have known Sunday to be the Lord’s day, for he calls it such, and he had conversed with the apostle John. But in the entire writings of this father the term Lord’s day does not once occur, nor is there in them all a single mention of the first day of the week! The reader will find a critical examination of the epistles of Ignatius in chapter fourteen of this history.”—Hist. Sabbath, p. 211.. In chapter 14 of the History here referred to it is shown that the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, from which the Sunday quotation purports to be taken, is a forgery; and, secondly, that that forged epistle says nothing of the Lord’s day, that being a still further corruption. 2. “The text which next enters into the fabric of first-day sacredness is the following:— “‘And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.’ “This text is supposed to contribute an important pillar for the first-day temple. On this wise it is furnished: The disciples were convened on this occasion to celebrate the first-day Sabbath, and the Holy Spirit was poured out at that time in honor of that day. To this deduction there are, however, the most serious objections: 1. That there is no evidence that a first-day Sabbath was then in existence. 2. That there is no intimation that the disciples came together on this occasion for its celebration. 3. Nor that the Holy Spirit was then poured out in honor of the first-day of the week. 4. That from the ascension of Jesus until the day of the Spirit’s outpouring, the disciples had continued in prayer and supplication, so that their being convened on this day was nothing materially different from what had been the case for the past ten or more days. 5. That had the sacred writer designed to show that a certain day of the week was honored by the events narrated, he would doubtless have stated that fact, and named that day. 6. That Luke was so far from naming the day of the week that it is even now a disputed point; eminent first-day authors even asserting that the day of Pentecost that year came upon the seventh day. 7. That the one great event which the Holy Spirit designed to mark was the antitype of the feast of Pentecost; the day of the week on which that should occur being wholly immaterial. How widely, therefore, do those err who reverse this order, making the day of the week, which the Holy Spirit has not even named, but which they assume to be the first day, the thing of chief importance, and passing in silence over that fact which the Holy Spirit has so carefully noted, that this event took place upon the day of Pentecost. The conclusion to which these facts lead is inevitable; viz., that the pillar furnished from this text for the first-day temple is like the foundation of that edifice, simply a thing of the imagination, and quite worthy of a place beside the pillar furnished from the record of our Lord’s second appearance to his disciples.”—Hist. Sabbath, pp. 149, 150.. 3. We suppose this third question has reference to the record in Acts 20: 6-13. In reference to this, the History of the Sabbath says:— This scripture is supposed to furnish a sixth pillar for the first-day temple. The argument may be concisely stated thus: This testimony shows that the first day of the week was appropriated by the apostolic church to meetings for the breaking of bread in honor of Christ’s resurrection upon that day; from which it is reasonable to conclude that this day had become the Christian Sabbath. “If this proposition could be established as an undoubted truth, the change of the Sabbath would not follow as a necessary conclusion; it would even then amount only to a plausible conjecture. The following facts will aid us in judging of the truthfulness of this argument for the change of the Sabbath: 1. That this is the only instance of a religious meeting upon the first day of the week recorded in the New Testament. 2. That no stress can be laid upon the expression ‘when the disciples came together,’ as proving that meetings for the purpose of breaking bread were held on each first day of the week; for there is nothing in the original answering to the word ‘when;’ the whole phrase being translated from three words, the perfect passive participle sunegmenon ‘being assembled,’ and ton matheion ‘the disciples;’ the sacred writer simply stating the gathering of the disciples on this occasion. 3. That the ordinance of breaking bread was not appointed to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, but to keep in memory his death upon the cross. The act of breaking bread therefore upon the first day of the week, is not a commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. 4. That as the breaking of bread commemorates our Lord’s crucifixion, and was instituted on the evening with which the crucifixion day began, on which occasion Jesus himself and all the apostles were present, it is evident that the day of the crucifixion presents greater claims to the celebration of this ordinance than does the day of the resurrection. 5. But as our Lord designated no day for this ordinance, and as the apostolic church at Jerusalem are recorded to have celebrated it daily, it is evidently presumption to argue the change of the Sabbath from a single instance of its celebration upon the first day of the week. 6. That this instance of breaking bread upon first-day, was with evident reference to the immediate and final departure of Paul. 7. For it is a remarkable fact that this, the only instance of a religious meeting on the first day recorded in the New Testament, was a night meeting. This is proved by the fact that many lights were burning in that assembly, and that Paul preached till midnight. 8. And from this fact follows the important consequence that this first-day meeting was upon Saturday night. For the days of the week being reckoned from evening to evening, and evening being at sunset, it is seen that the first day of the week begins Saturday night at sunset, and ends at sunset on Sunday. A night meeting, therefore, upon the first day of the week could be only upon Saturday night. 9. Paul, therefore, preached until midnight of Saturday night—for the disciples held a night meeting at the close of the Sabbath, because he was to leave in the morning—then being interrupted by the fall of the young man, he went down and healed him, then went up and attended to the breaking of bread; and at break of day on Sunday morning he departed. 10. Thus are we furnished with conclusive evidence that Paul and his companions resumed their journey toward Jerusalem on the morning of the first day of the week; they taking ship to Assos, and he being pleased to go on foot. This fact is an incidental proof of Paul’s regard for the Sabbath, in that he waited till it was past before resuming his journey; and it is a positive proof that he knew nothing of what in modern times is called the Christian Sabbath. 11. This narrative was written by Luke at least thirty years after the alleged change of the Sabbath. It is worthy of note that Luke omits all titles of sacredness, simply designating the day in question as the first day of the week. This is in admirable keeping with the fact that in his gospel, when recording the very event which is said to have have changed the Sabbath, he not only omits the slightest hint of that fact, but designates the day itself by its secular title of first day of the week, and at the same time designates the previous day as the Sabbath according to the commandment. Luke 23: 56; 24: 1.”—Hist. Sabbath, pp. 179-182. In reply to the questions of our correspondent we have thus simply quoted from the History of the Sabbath published at this office, in which will be found a thorough examination of hundreds of other points relative to the Sabbath question. To this work we would earnestly recommend every one who is investigating this subject.