"IS THE SEVENTH DAY OF THE JEWISH WEEK THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH?"
By R. P. C.
This is the title of an article in Review No. 19, by one Williams of Wisconsin. And lest the writer, or others, should think that the article is unanswerable, and therefore contains the truth, and so be strengthened in error, I make a few remarks upon it. He says, "The only reliable source of evidence in determining this question, is the sacred Scriptures of divine truth." To this we respond, Amen. But after opening thus, the writer takes a course wider from the Scriptures than is the Grand Trunk from the Panama Rail-road, or higher above them (?) than any balloonist has floated above the earth the past season, and then in conclusion he requests that if any one choose to review his article, he will confine himself to the Scriptures. This is a task that I shall not undertake to perform; because I view it an utter impossibility. If I were to confine myself to the Scriptures on the question, I should speak only of what they say concerning the Sabbath. But if I were to review his article, I should be obliged to follow along the track which he has there laid down. I cannot review the track of the Panama, and, at the same time, confine myself exclusively to the Grand Trunk. What, then, shall I do? I will show that his whole theory is mere conjecture, and, as I have already stated, foreign to the Scriptures of truth. 1. Where is the text of Scripture that "fully authorizes us to claim that the original Sabbath commenced in the morning and not in the evening"? The Bible informs us, that in the beginning, the evening and the morning constituted the day. It also teaches, "From even unto even shall ye celebrate your sabbath." These scriptures harmonize to prove that the day begins, and from the creation did begin, at evening. But, instead of harmony, the writer fancies that he sees discord in these scriptures, and feels himself warranted in saying that "God himself did authorize a change to the extent of half a day at least." The word of God is not yea and nay. It does not contradict itself, and thus warrant us in saying that God has made a change in the commencement of the day, and neglected to reveal the fact to us, otherwise than through a discrepancy in his own testimony. 2. Where is the text that tells us whether God commenced his work, in the creation, in the evening or in the morning; or whether he labored twenty-four hours in a day, or twelve, or five minutes? We are simply told what he did upon each day, and that the evening and the morning were the day. Where is the text that says that "At whatever hour he commenced his work, at that very hour he ended it"? It is found in our friend's article, but not in the Bible. 3. Where is the text that informs us in what part of its orbit the moon was placed on the fourth day of the creation week? The passover was instituted on the fourteenth of the month, but where is the text that tells what day of the week it was? Or what day of the week the Israelites crossed the Red sea? We want no probabilities to change the Sabbath of the Lord. Is this manner of treating a subject, confining himself "exclusively" to the Scriptures? 4. Where is the text that informs us that the Jews had "got wrong in their reckoning," or that "their Sabbath at the crucifixion fell on the sixteenth" day of the month? When Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath, he never told them that they were wrong in their reckoning. 5. Where is the text that tells us that "Our Saviour, on the Sabbath day, plucked the ears of corn and gave them to his disciples"? There are three texts that inform us that the disciples plucked the ears of corn and ate; and a very good reason is given, that is, they were hungry. We are also expressly told that this took place on the Sabbath day. And, whether the Jews were right or wrong in their reckoning, they complained of it as a breach of the Sabbath law. Now, where is the text that informs us that Jesus did something that he did not do, "manifestly to show that he had abolished the Jewish priesthood, and transferred it [the Jewish priesthood] to his own disciples"? Christ himself was not a priest while on earth. (Heb. viii, 1-4.) and if he gave his disciples a priesthood, it must have been a Jewish priesthood, and consequently expired at the cross. Where is the text that fixes the change of priesthood any where else? And where is the text that says The priesthood being changed, there must of necessity be a change of the Sabbath law? 6. Where is the text that proves that "every" special manifestation of Jesus to his disciples, subsequent to his resurrection, was on the first day? He was seen of them forty days. These were not all Sundays, and who can tell on which of these days was the most special manifestation?173If those only are special which are recorded singly, we reply that there is no recorded instance of his meeting with his disciples on any first day, except the one on which it was first known that he had arisen from the dead. Another special, recorded instance was when the disciples were fishing; and another, in which he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, the day of the week not mentioned at all. Where is the proof then that every special manifestation was on the first day? These are the points in this triumphant argument, and not one of them has a single text of Scripture on which to rest. Yet the writer claims to have confined himself exclusively to the Scriptures of truth! But supposing it could be proved that, in the first month of time, the Sabbath came on the seventeenth, and, at the crucifixion, on the sixteenth, or some other day, what of it? Was the year ever reckoned so as to contain a certain number of weeks, so that the first day of the first month would invariably come upon the same day of the week? Now this is the main point in the argument. Admitting the premises entire, the conclusion would not follow. One singular feature in this writer's theory is that although the Sabbath commanded to the Jews was the original seventh day, yet it was necessary, on the change of the priesthood, that the Jewish Sabbath should be abolished. And the Jews being, wrong in their reckoning, the Sabbath law was changed (?) so as to require the observance of the same day that it ever had from the creation! Now I suppose that the necessity of a change, of which Paul speaks, would have existed, had the Jews retained the original reckoning of the week. But what would have been done for a change, in that case? Nothing but to abolish the Sabbath and re-institute it upon the same day! How fortunate for this theory that the Jews "got wrong in their reckoning!" This is only a specimen of the many inventions by which men are striving to set aside the law of the Most High. It is so very weak and perfectly foolish that I could hardly consider it worth reviewing. But then, said I, it is as good as the best on that side of the question, and why not spend a little time upon it, and thus treat them all alike. "Better 'twould be, ye fighters of the law,
If your own weakness, verily, ye saw;
If ye would hear the teachings of God's word,
And live obedient to all ye heard,
Better 'twould be t'obey God's holy will,
And own the Sabbath precept binding still,
Before ye make, in all ye do and say,
Such wretched work to have it done away."
[Word for Sab. Would to God that men would choose the path of obedience! But since they will not, we wait for the next grand discovery of some infallible remedy for the goadings of a guilty conscience. A medicine that gives apparent relief to one, utterly fails in every other case. The grand Panacea has not yet been discovered. And my advice is, that those that have found a remedy in their own case, should try it upon two or three others before they advertise.