"And they Rested on the Sabbath day According to the Commandment."
By D. W. Hull
PARTICULAR attention should here be paid to the phraseology of this sentence, "according to the commandment." What commandment? Was it one that Christ had reënacted? or was it the same that had been uttered amidst the thunderings of Sinai? It was some commandment that was known and understood at that age. If Christ had abolished the law by his death, is it not strange that his most intimate friends knew nothing of it? Is it not exceedingly strange that those with whom he was conversant should observe the Sabbath, if he taught its abolition? And further, is it not strange that another person recording the fact should say, "they rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment," when that commandment had been abolished and was no longer in force? In every instance we hear the apostles speaking of the law as a living letter, and this fact alone is sufficient to convince us that they believed, at least as late as the time of Christ's crucifixion, that the law of God was in full force. Suppose Mr. A. were to tell me that he had "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment," how would I understand him? Evidently that he believed that there was a commandment to rest one day out of every given number, and that that commandment was in full force yet. What would you think of a court in one of the New England States, having persons arrested on charge of witchcraft in accordance with the "old blue laws" of those countries? You would evidently think that they were assuming too much. "But," says the court, "upon conviction they shall be hung according to law." Now that court would not act more inconsistent than did the person who rested "according to the commandment," when there was no commandment existing. Why did they rest on the Sabbath? Because they were commanded to. It was in obedience to, in accordance with, or according to the commandment. Who commanded them to rest on the Sabbath day? Was it God, his Son, or the apostles? We are gravely told that the ten commandments written by the finger of God, are, some how or other (our opponents do not agree as to the manner) done away! that the whole code was abolished, and that another decalogue was given embracing all that was necessary. Whatever this code may be, or may have been (for out of several quotations from the decalogue we find no two embracing the same part of that body of moral principles) it enjoined the observance of the Sabbath day, if we have got the quotation at the head of this article right. But we are told that they rested the Sabbath day because the Jews did. Why does it not say so then? Why does it say "they rested according to the commandment" when it was for fear of, or out of respect to, the Jews? We find if we follow the same writer to Acts xvi, 3, that Paul had Timotheus circumcised, (not because of the ancient Jewish law, but) "because of the Jews which were in those quarters;" and if the resting on the Sabbath was for the same reason, consistency demanded that the writer should have said so. But the way the quotation comes to us we have a virtual admission that there was at this time a commandment in full force embracing the Sabbath! We might again ask, Why was it called the Sabbath or Rest day, if that was abolished? If such was the case there was no Sabbath, and to talk about resting upon the Sabbath when there was none would be worse than nonsense. Russierville, Ind., April 19th, 1859.