Your ShelfYour Projects

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH

3%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 11, 1862

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 19, No. 15.

Read the full edition

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES.

Soon after writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul visited Troas. In the record of this visit occurs the last instance in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament:
"And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sank down with sleep and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afloat." Acts xx, 6–13.
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, synēgmenōn, "being assembled," and, tōn mathētōn "the disciples;" the sacred writer simply stating the gathering of the disciples on this occasion. Thus Prof. Whiting renders the phrase: "The disciples being assembled." And Sawyer has it: "We being assembled." 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. 1 Cor. xi, 23–26. 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, Matt. xxvi, 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 the celebration of this ordinance, and as the apostolic church at Jerusalem are recorded to have celebrated it daily, Acts ii, 42–46, 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 notice 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 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 Christian Sabbath, i. e., on Saturday evening, and consequently resumed his journey on Sunday morning. (Commentary on Acts, pp. 329, 330.) But he endeavors to shield the first-day Sabbath from this fatal admission by suggesting that Luke probably reckoned time according to the Pagan method, rather than by that which is ordained in the Scriptures!
Kitto, in noting the fact that this was an evening meeting, speaks thus: "It has from this last circumstance been inferred that the assembly commenced after sunset on the Sabbath, at which hour the first day of the week had commenced, according to the Jewish reckoning [John's Bib. Antig., sec. 398], which would hardly agree with the idea of a commemoration of the resurrection."—Cyc. of Bib. Lit., article, Lord's Day.
And Prynne, whose testimony relative to redemption as an argument for the change of the Sabbath has been already quoted, thus states this point: "Because the text saith there were many lights in the upper room where they were gathered together, and that Paul preached till midnight, . . . this meeting of the disciples at Troas began at evening. The sole doubt will be what evening this was. For my own part I conceive clearly that it was upon Saturday night, as we falsely call it, and not the coming Sunday night. . . . Because St. Luke records that it was upon the first day of the week when this meeting was, therefore it must needs be on the Saturday, not on our Sunday evening, since Sunday evening in St. Luke's and the Scripture account was no part of the first, but of the second day; the day ever beginning and ending at evening."
Prynne notices the objection drawn from the phrase, "ready to depart on the morrow," as indicating that his departure was not on the same day of the week with his night meeting. The substance of his answer is this: If the fact be kept in mind that the days of the week are reckoned from evening to evening, the following texts, in which in the night, the morning is spoken of as the morrow, will show at once that another day of the week is not necessarily intended by the phrase in question. 1 Sam. xix, 11; Esth. ii, 14; Zeph. iii, 3; Acts xxiii, 31, 32. Diss. on the Lord's Day Sab., pp. 36–41, 1632.
cording to the commandment. Luke xxiii, 56; xxiv, 1.
The same year that Paul visited Troas, he wrote as follows to the church at Rome:
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgeth another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Rom. xiv, 1–6.
These words have often been quoted to show that the observance of the fourth commandment is now a matter of indifference; each individual being at liberty to set his pleasure in the matter. So extraordinary a doctrine should be thoroughly tested before being adopted. For as it pleased God to ordain the Sabbath before the fall of man, and to give it a place in his code of ten commandments, thus making it a part of that law to which the great atonement relates; and as the Lord Jesus during his ministry spent much time in explaining its merciful design, and took care to provide against its desecration at the flight of his people from the land of Judea, which was ten years in the future when these words were written by Paul; and as the fourth commandment itself is expressly recognized after the crucifixion of Christ; if under these circumstances we could suppose it to be consistent with truth that the Most High should abrogate the Sabbath, we certainly should expect that abrogation to be stated in explicit language. Yet neither the Sabbath nor the fourth commandment are here named. That they are not referred to in this language of Paul, the following reasons will show:
1. Such a view would make the observance of one of the ten commandments a matter of indifference; whereas James shows that to violate one of them is to transgress the whole. James ii, 8–12. 2. It directly contradicts what Paul had previously written in this epistle; for in treating of the law of ten commandments, he styles it holy, spiritual, just and good; and states that sin—the transgression of the law—by the commandment becomes "EXCEEDING SINFUL." Rom. vii, 12, 13; 1 John iii, 4, 5. 3. Because that Paul in the same epistle affirms the perpetuity of that law which caused our Lord to lay down his life for sinful men; Rom. iii; which we have seen before was the ten commandments. 4. Because that Paul in this case not only did not name the Sabbath and the fourth commandment, but certainly was not treating of the moral law. 5. Because that the topic under consideration which leads him to speak as he does of the days in question was that of eating all kinds of food, or of refraining from certain things. 6. Because that the fourth commandment did not stand associated with precepts of such a kind, but with moral laws exclusively. Ex. xx. 7. Because that in the ceremonial law associated with the precepts concerning meats, was a large number of festivals, entirely distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord. 8. Because that the church of Rome, which began probably with those Jews that were present from Rome on the day of pentecost, had many Jewish members in its communion, as may be gathered from the epistle itself; Acts ii, 1–11; Rom. ii, 17; iv, 1; vii, 1; and would therefore be deeply interested in the decision of this question relative to the ceremonial law; the Jewish members feeling conscientious in observing the distinctions, the Gentile members feeling no such scruples. Hence the admirable counsel of Paul exactly meeting the case of both classes. 9. Nor can the expression, "every day," be claimed as decisive proof that the Sabbath of the Lord is included. At the very time when the Sabbath was formally committed to the Hebrews, just such expressions were used, although only the six working days were intended. Thus it was said: "The people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day;" and the narrative says "they gathered it every morning." Yet when some of them went out to gather on the Sabbath, God says, "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" The Sabbath being a great truth, plainly stated and many times repeated, it is manifest that Paul in the expression, "every day," speaks of the six working days among which a distinction had existed precisely co-eval with that respecting meats; and that he manifestly excepts that day which from the beginning God had reserved unto himself. Just as when Paul quotes and applies to Jesus the words of David, "All things are put under him," he adds: "It is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him." 1 Cor. xv, 27; Ps. viii. 10. And lastly, in the words of John, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," Rev. i, 10; written many years after this epistle of Paul, we have an absolute proof that in the gospel dispensation one day is still claimed by the Most High as his own.
About ten years after this epistle was written, occurred the memorable flight of the people of God that were in the land of Judea. It was not in the winter; for it occurred just after the feast of tabernacles, sometime in October. And it was not upon the Sabbath; for Josephus, who speaks of the sudden withdrawal of the Roman army after it had, by encompassing the city, given the very signal for flight which our Lord promised his people, tells us that the Jews rushed out of the city in pursuit of the retreating Romans, which was at the very time when our Lord's injunction of instant flight became imperative upon the disciples. The historian does not intimate that the Jews thus pursued the Romans upon the Sabbath, although he carefully notes the fact that a few days previous to this event they did, in their rage, utterly forget the Sabbath, and rush out to fight the Romans upon that day. These providential circumstances in the flight of the disciples being made dependent upon their asking such interposition at the hand of God, it is evident that the disciples did not forget the prayer which the Saviour taught them relative to this event; and that as a consequence the Sabbath of the Lord was not forgotten by them. And it was the Lord Jesus in his tender care for his people, and in his watchful care for the Sabbath, showed that he was alike the Lord of his people and the Lord of the Sabbath.
Twenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem the book of Revelation was committed to the beloved disciple. It bears the following deeply interesting date as to place and time:
"I John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called PATMOS, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on THE LORD'S DAY, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and, What thou seest, write in a book." Rev. i, 9–11.
This book is dated in the isle of Patmos, and upon the Lord's day. The place, the day and the individual have each a real existence, and not merely a symbolical or mystical one. Thus John almost at the close of the first century, and long after those texts were written which are now adduced to prove that no distinction in days exists, shows that the Lord's day has as real an existence, as has the isle of Patmos, or as had the beloved disciple himself.
What day then is intended by this designation? Several answers have been returned to this question. 1. It is the gospel dispensation. 2. It is the day of judgment. 3. It is the first day of the week. 4. It is the Sabbath of the Lord. The first answer cannot be the true one; for it not only renders the day a mystical term, but it involves the absurdity of representing John as writing to Christians sixty-five years after the death of Christ that the vision which he had just had, was seen by him in the gospel dispensation: as though it were possible for them to be ignorant of the fact that if he had a vision at all he must have had it in the existing dispensation.
Nor can the second answer be admitted as the truth. For while it is true that John might have a vision concerning the day of judgment, it is impossible that he should have a vision on that day when it was yet future. If it be no more than an absurdity to represent John as dating his vision in the isle of Patmos, on the gospel dispensation, it becomes a positive untruth, if he is made to say that he was in vision at Patmos on the day of judgment.
The third answer, that the Lord's day is the first day of the week, is now almost universally received as the truth. The text under examination is brought forward with an air of triumph as completing the temple of first-day sacredness, and proving beyond all doubt that that day is indeed the Christian Sabbath. Yet as we have examined this temple with peculiar carefulness, we have discovered that the foundation on which it rests is a thing of the imagination only; and that the pillars by which it is supported exist only in the minds of those who worship at its shrine. It remains to be seen whether the dome which is supposed to be furnished by this text is more real than the pillars on which it rests.
That the first day of the week has no claim to the title of Lord's day, the following facts will show: 1. That as this text does not define the term Lord's day, we must look elsewhere in the Bible for the evidence that shows the first day to be entitled to such a designation. 2. That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, the other sacred writers who mention the day, use no other designation for it than first day of the week, a name to which it was entitled as one of the six working days. Yet three of these writers mention it at the very time when it is said to have become the Lord's day; and two of them mention it also some thirty years after that event. 3. That while it is claimed that the Spirit of inspiration, by simply leaving John to use the term Lord's day, though he did in no wise connect the first day of the week therewith, did design to fix this as the proper title of the first day of the week, it is a remarkable fact that after John returned from the isle of Patmos he wrote his gospel; and in that gospel he twice mentioned the first day of the week; yet in each of these instances where it is certain that first-day is intended, no other designation is used than plain first day of the week. This is a most convincing proof that John did not regard the first day of the week as entitled to this name, or any other, expressive of sacredness. 4. What still further decides the point against the first day of the week, is the fact that neither the Father nor the Son have ever claimed the first day in any higher sense than they have each of the six days given to man for labor. 5. And what completes the chain of evidence against the claim of first-day to this title, is the fact that the testimony adduced by first-day advocates to prove that it has been adopted by the Most High in place of that day which he once claimed as his, having been examined, is found to have no such meaning or intent. In setting aside the third answer also, as not being in accordance with truth, the first day of the week may be properly dismissed with it, as having no claim to our regard as a scriptural institution.
That the Lord's day is the Bible Sabbath admits of clear and certain proof. The argument stands thus: When God gave to man six days of the week for labor, he did expressly reserve unto himself the seventh, on which he placed his blessing in memory of his own act of resting upon that day, and thenceward through the Bible has ever claimed it as his holy day. As he has never put away this sacred day and chosen another, the Sabbath of the Lord is still his holy day. These facts may be traced in the following Scriptures. At the close of the Creator's rest it is said:
"And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Gen. ii, 3.
After the children of Israel had reached the wilderness of Sin, Moses said to them on the sixth day:
“To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Ex. xvi, 23.
In giving the ten commandments the Law-giver thus stated his claim to this day:
“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. . . . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it.” Ex. xx, 8–11.
He gives to man the six days on which himself had labored; he reserves as his own that day upon which he had rested from all his work. About eight hundred years after this, God spoke by Isaiah as follows:
“If thou turn away thy foot from THE SABBATH from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, . . . then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth.” Isa. lviii, 13, 14.
This testimony is perfectly explicit; the Lord's day is the ancient Sabbath of the Bible. The Lord Jesus puts forth the following claim:
“The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark ii, 27, 28.
Thus whether it be the Father or the Son whose title is involved, the only day that can be called “the Lord's day” is the Sabbath of the great Creator. And here at the close of the Bible history of the Sabbath, two facts of deep interest are presented: 1. That John expressly recognizes the existence of the Lord's day at the very close of the first century. 2. That it pleased the Lord of the Sabbath to place a signal honor upon his own day in that he selected it as the one on which to give that revelation to John, which himself alone had been worthy to receive from the Father.
J. N. A.
(To be Continued.)