"They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word." Eze. 13:6.
BOTH agree precisely in the alleged change of the Sabbath at the time of the exodus of Israel. That is, they assert that it was then changed from Sunday, the day of God's rest, to Saturday, the day of their departure from Egypt. According to Mr. Fuller, the first six days of Gen. 1 were not counted in the reckoning of the first week. So that Adam and his posterity constructed the week by joining the last day of one of the Creator's weeks to the first six days of another of his weeks, thus making a week which began with God's seventh day, and ended with his sixth. And this same week continued in use after God gave Israel a new Sabbath. For from that time they observed the day with which their week closed, instead of the day on which it began. We do not say they observed the seventh day of their week instead of the first day of it, lest these terms should mislead the reader; for their week, according to Mr. Fuller, began with the real seventh day, and ended with the true sixth day. Such is the kind of week which we now have, if indeed Sunday is the true seventh day from creation.
It is worthy of notice that that week which witnessed the alleged change of the Sabbath in Egypt did, according to the theory of Mr. F., have two Sabbaths in it! That is, it began with God's seventh day, which they were still under obligation to observe, and ended with his sixth that very day became their Sabbath. And ever after this point, the sixth day, or Saturday, was kept by Israel as the seventh day; and Sunday, the true seventh day of the week, was called the first day of the week. And so when the Jewish Sabbath, i. e., Saturday, ceased to be obligatory, and the original Sabbath, i. e., Sunday, alone remained in force, that day had thoroughly acquired the title of first day of the week, being called thus by all men from Adam to Christ.
But according to Dr. Akers, it seems that Adam reckoned the first week of time from the first day of creation; so that his weeks began and ended just as did those of the Creator. But when the exodus from Egypt took place, God gave Israel a new Sabbath by setting the institution back from Sunday, the day of rest, to Saturday, the day of their departure from Egypt. And as he thus gave them a new Sabbath, so did he also give them a new week to fit this new Sabbath. For Dr. A. asserts that God gave the Hebrews at this time just such a week as Mr. F. asserts he gave to Adam; viz., a week made up of the last or seventh day of one week, and the first six days of another week.
Mr. Fuller's theory has this advantage over that of Dr. Akers, that he sets out at the commencement of Adam's history with a kind of week to which he is able to adhere even to the end of time; while Dr. A. sets out with weeks the first of which allows the reckoning of all the days of the creation week, but he has to change at the exodus to such as Mr. F. started with; and having once changed the kind of weeks in order to bring in what he terms the Jewish Sabbath, he is obliged to adhere to this kind of week after his so-called Jewish Sabbath has, as he teaches, been nailed to the cross.
But, whereas Mr. Fuller has a week at the exodus with two Sabbaths in it, Dr. Akers makes the same week to consist of only six days! There is an ugly crook in each of these theories, and the reader can decide for himself which to choose, as they are equally true.
But Dr. Akers, having cut off the seventh day from the first week of this new order, that he may make the sixth day of that week into what he calls the Jewish Sabbath, next takes the seventh day, thus severed from the mutilated week, and joins it to the first six days of the following week. He is obliged to continue this work of mutilation ever afterward; for his succession of weeks is thenceforward maintained by joining the seventh day of the true week to the first six days of the next one; and he has also to change the numbering of the days; so that he makes the true seventh day into the first day of the Jewish week, and makes a seventh day out of the sixth day of that week. He does not indeed stop to explain how in that first Jewish week which had but six days they could keep any sort of a seventh day for their Sabbath. And yet he affirms that the Sabbath must be preceded by six days of labor.
Certainly that form which Mr. F. has given to this theory has one decided advantage over the form given it by Dr. A. For Mr. F. sets out to show that the day of God's rest is rightly called first day of the week even from Adam's time, and so he comes down to New-Testament times, and, as he thinks, identifies the day with the first day of the week, there mentioned some eight times. But Dr. A. maintains that God's rest-day was the seventh day of the week, as reckoned by Adam, yet makes it his grand object to identify this day as the New-Testament first-day of the week. So that what began in Paradise as the seventh day of the original week, appears in the New Testament as first day of the week!
Having stated the theories of Dr. Akers and Mr. Fuller, it will be proper now to state that of Dr. Jennings, with such arguments in its support as are not made use of by Dr. Akers. For Mr. Fuller's theory is really a modification of Dr. Akers'; while the latter is but a modification of that of Dr. Jennings.
The theory of Dr. Jennings recognizes the institution of the Sabbath at the close of creation; but like those already stated, it asserts that the Sabbath observed by the Hebrew people was not the same as the Sabbath of the Lord ordained in Paradise. But Dr. J. places the origin of the so-called Jewish Sabbath, not at the exodus from Egypt, as does Dr. A., but at the fall of the manna, one month subsequent to that event. Dr. J. thinks it very probable that the patriarchal Sabbath was the day after the Sabbath observed by the Hebrews. Such is the theory of Dr. J. He is very modest in its statement. Those arguments which Dr. A. has borrowed from Dr. J. will be answered in considering the theory of Dr. A. But that one peculiar to Dr. J.'s position will be considered in this place.
His argument that the Lord gave to Israel a new Sabbath, rests principally on the following statement:—
That the manna fell for six days; that the following day was the Sabbath, ever afterward observed by Israel; in other words, that it was Saturday; and that the day before the six-days' fall of the manna, which was simply one week before the first Jewish Sabbath, was spent by them in marching, so that it could not have been a Sabbath until set apart as such by God at the fall of the manna.
Now it is very remarkable that, while Dr. Jennings, writing one hundred years since, evidently furnished Dr. Akers the idea that Sunday, and not Saturday, is the true seventh day, Dr. Akers should first deny the alleged fact on which Dr. J. rested his whole argument; and should even deny the particular point which Dr. J. tried to prove, viz., that the Sabbath was changed at the fall of the manna, yet should take up the change of Sunday to Saturday, as asserted by Dr. J., and place it one month earlier, resting the reason of it upon a different basis.
Thus, Dr. J. asserts that the Sabbath was changed at the fall of the manna, and proves it by the statement that the children of Israel marched from Elim to Sin one week before the Sabbath rest of Ex. 16. But Dr. Akers denies this march of Israel on Saturday, and asserts that it was on Monday that they made this journey, and, as we have seen, places the change of the Sabbath itself one month earlier, at the exodus from Egypt.
One word more should be spoken relative to the march from Elim to Sin. Ex. 16:1. Drs. J. and A. contradict each other on this point, though each is using his best endeavors to prove Sunday the seventh day. Dr. J. endeavors to prove the journey upon Saturday, by reckoning back from the Sabbath celebrated in this chapter. But this kind of reckoning leaves the thing in uncertainty; as, first, it cannot be definitely proved that one or more days did not elapse after the arrival at Sin before the fall of the manna; and second, it is not a certainty that the manna fell six days before the Sabbath mentioned in this chapter; as the sixth day here brought to view was certainly the sixth day of the week, and therefore not necessarily the sixth day of the fall of the manna. It was not necessary that the first fall of the manna should be upon the first day of the week. And therefore, even if Dr. A. could positively prove (which he cannot) that the fifteenth day of the second month was Monday, he has even then determined nothing certain as to the beginning of the fall of the manna.
And, in like manner, Dr. J. has no clear, well-ascertained fact on which to base the inference that constitutes the substance of his theory.
It is remarkable that these two doctors each deny the ground of the other's position, though each one endeavors to prove Sunday the true seventh day. But, whereas Dr. J. attempts to establish this change at the fall of the manna, Dr. A. denies the very foundation on which it rests, and places this change one month earlier. But Dr. Jennings, who has evidently studied the book of Exodus very intently, to find some place for the change of the Sabbath, deliberately passes over the point selected by Dr. A., in Ex. 12, and sets it one month later. Thus he says: "As to the institution of the Jewish Sabbath, the first account we have of it is in Ex. 16."—Jewish Antiquities, p. 320. And the only reference that he makes to the exodus from Egypt is that it is possible that this Sabbath day was the day of the week on which Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea.—Id. p. 321.