BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
Preble.—"DID THE LORD JESUS KEEP THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH? He evidently did, as he was made under the law (Gal. iv, 4,) and was circumcised; he no doubt observed the Sabbath, as it ought to be observed at that time; although his manner of keeping it, however, was such that the old Pharisees accused him of breaking it, because he did not observe their traditions which they had connected with the observance of that day. "There is no doubt but what the women mentioned in Luke xxiii, 55, after they had prepared spices and ointments for the body of Jesus, returned and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment; yea the fourth commandment. Good, says the Sabbatarian. And I too say, Good; because I have no doubt but what it is true." REPLY.—This is admission enough. If the women rested according to the fourth commandment, that commandment was still in force to require and regulate such rest. But this was the day following the crucifixion. Hence the fourth commandment was binding this side of the cross. And if it was in force one minute after the crucifixion, it is in force still; for there is no other point where the abolition can be claimed. Notice carefully this point. It is irrefragable evidence of the perpetuity of the Sabbath in this dispensation. Here the Sabbath stands, this side of the cross, observed by the personal and intimate disciples of Jesus, and that, too, according to the fourth commandment! All this Eld. P. admits. Here truth mightily entrenches itself. Let the opponent dislodge it if he can. But if he cannot, let him be careful to see to it, that he, too, rests on the Sabbath day "according to the commandment." Preble.—"But when this matter shall be critically examined, I think all candid minds will acknowledge that this was "THE LAST SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH EVER KEPT ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT, as I believe the following facts will abundantly prove. The original Greek words for Sabbath, as found in the New Testament, in their singular and plural form, are Sabbaton, and Sabbata. The number of times these words occur in the N. T. is sixty-eight. They are found in different books as follows: in Matt., eleven times; in Mark, twelve times; in Luke, twenty times; in John thirteen times; in Acts, ten times; in 1 Cor., once; and in Col., once. These words are transposed (not translated) into our English version, in all, fifty-nine times; and thus called Sabbath, or Sabbath days, etc. But for some cause unknown to me, the translators saw fit to render the word Sabbaton, by the word 'week' in nine cases out of the whole number sixty-eight! and these nine cases are found in the following places; in Matt. xxviii, 1; Mark xvi, 2, 9; Luke xviii, 12; xxiv, 1; John xx, 1, 19; Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 2. In Matthew it reads,—'In the end of the Sabbath (Sabbaton) as it began to dawn toward the first day, is a word supplied by the translators of the week (Sabbaton), came Mary,' etc. In Mark: 'And very early in the morning, the first of the week (Sabbaton), they came,' etc. 'Now when Jesus was risen early the first of the week (Sabbaton), he appeared,' etc. In Luke: 'I fast twice in the week (Sabbaton), I give tithes,' etc. 'Now upon the first of the week (Sabbaton), very early in the morning,' etc. In John: 'The first of the week (Sabbaton), cometh Mary Magdalene early,' etc. 'Then the same day, at evening, being the first of the week (Sabbaton), when the doors were shut,' etc. In Acts: 'And upon the first of the week (Sabbaton), when the disciples came together to break bread,' etc. In 1 Cor.: 'Upon the first of the week (Sabbaton) let every one of you lay by him in store,' etc. "Now let us turn back to Matt. xxviii, 1, and see if we can ascertain the true import of this word 'week,' as it has been thus found in the cases above referred to. It appears that the word Sabbaton, as found in this verse, occurs twice and in both instances it is in the plural form; and this being the case, the true rendering5of the passage requires us to read it in substance, like this:—At the end of Sabbaths, in the beginning of the first of Sabbaths, etc. Or as Mark has it:—And very early in the first of Sabbaths (lit. of one of Sabbaths), etc. But Luke and John appear to have it still stronger:—And in the first of the Sabbaths, etc; the definite article the being placed before the name Sabbaton. Now it is evident that if the translators had just transposed the word Sabbaton, in these nine cases just examined, as they did in the other fifty-nine instances already above referred to, then we should have had clear, blazing light shining on this glorious subject; and we should see that, at the end of the seventh-day Sabbaths—(or at the end of the Lord Jehovah's Sabbaths—which he gave to the 'children of Israel,' to be a 'sign' unto them 'throughout their generations') THERE would be the beginning of the Lord Jesus Christ's Sabbaths. Or, in other words, where one series of Sabbaths ended, there another series of Sabbaths began. And this change of Sabbaths was marked by the most important events that ever transpired in the history of man. 'The veil of the temple was rent in twain'—'the middle wall of partition' between Jews and Gentiles was 'broken down,' and thus they were 'made both one.' 'Our Saviour Jesus Christ' had 'abolished death,' and had brought life and immortality to light through the gospel—the saints were begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead—the living Jesus was victor over 'death' and the 'grave'—old things had passed away, behold, all things had become new." REPLY.—In commenting upon the term "Lord's day" in Rev. i, 10, Eld. P. exclaimed, "Here shines the clear, blazing light of the Christian Sabbath." But Eld. P. seems to be somewhat in the condition of Cicero in relation to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Cicero acknowledged that he was persuaded of the truth of his position only while arguing in its favor. So Eld. P., having left the argument on Lord's day, the "blazing light" of that position seems to have faded even from his own mind; for we find him now exclaiming that "if the translators had just transposed" (does he not mean transferred?) "the word Sabbaton," in the nine cases where it is rendered week in the New Testament, "then we should have had clear, blazing light shining on this glorious subject." So, then, the "clear, blazing light" on the Sunday Sabbath lies in the fact that the word sabbaton is incorrectly translated week, nine times in the New Testament! And Eld. P. takes it upon himself to correct the translation, and bring out the blazing light! We are glad the controversy is narrowed down to this point. If left here it would soon be disposed of; for it will not take long to sweep this objection back into the depths of night from whence it sprung. But as we see Eld. P. so entangled in the Greek, we cannot help inquiring where he has been the past fifteen years, during which the Sabbath question has been especially agitated, and the point here brought up, been under frequent discussion. Could none of his brethren help him here? We might refer him to J. Litch, present editor of the Advent Herald, whose experience has been such as to at least qualify him to give to those who think of arraying the Greek on the Sunday side of this question, just the information that they need; also to what the late S. Bliss, former editor of the Herald, has written upon it; and to an article from Prof. N. N. Whiting, of Williamsburg, N. Y., published in the Voice of the Prophets, as late as September, 1863. It is a fact that the word sabbaton is rendered week, in the nine instances Eld. P. has referred to. Is this rendering correct? "For some cause unknown to me," says he, "the translators saw fit to render the word sabbaton by the word week in nine cases out of the whole number sixty-eight." The translators certainly had a reason for translating it as they have done; and we can tell Eld. P. how he might have "known" what it was. It is to be presumed that he possesses a copy of the common edition of Greenfield's Greek Testament. If he will look in the lexicon attached to that Testament, under the word sabbaton, he will find the third definition reading like this: "A period of seven days, a week." If this word in certain relations means week, it is certainly proper so to translate it. And one of the instances to which Eld. P. has referred, renders it necessary to good sense to give it this meaning: Luke xviii, 12. "I fast twice in the week" (sabbaton). Now if the word here means the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, and not the whole week, we have the singular spectacle of the old Pharisee claiming to fast twice in a day of twenty-four hours, which would be, of course, between meals! Bloomfield, in his note on this place, says that this fast was on the second and fifth days of the week, according to Epiphanius and the Rabbins. Robinson, under the word sabbaton, says, "2. Meton, a sabbath, put for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath, hence a se'snight, week." As we have referred to the testimony of the late S. Bliss, we will give a paragraph from his pen on this point. In the Advent Herald of July 16, 1851, almost thirteen years ago, J. Litch wrote a short article on the Sabbath, using the Greek exactly as Eld. P. has used it in the article before us. S. Bliss, then editor of the Herald, and also a zealous first-day Adventist, appended a few remarks to Litch's article, completely exposing the fallacy of his criticism upon the Greek. Considering his views and position, this must be taken as a fair and honest comment upon the meaning of the Greek as touching the first day of the week, and should be authority with all first-day Adventists. After Eld. Litch had offered his criticism, stating that the phrase, first day of the week, should be rendered 'one of Sabbaths,' &c., Bliss appended to his article the following paragraph: "REMARKS. Lest any should gather from the above that the word Sabbath is represented by the phrase, 'first day of the week,' we add that Sabbath is simply translated week in those texts—other words indicating the day of the week. The word Sabbath is originally a Hebrew word, and signifies rest; but occurring at regular intervals, by a metonymy it became significant of the period separated by these rests. So that we have the seventh day of the rest, and the first day of the rest, week, or Sabbath." From the foregoing it is evident that the word sabbaton sometimes means the whole week. How, then, shall we determine when it has this meaning? Easily enough. Robinson says that it has this meaning "after numerals denoting the days of the week." We now inquire, Does the word sabbaton, in those places where the expression, 'first day of the week' occurs in the New Testament, follow a numeral adjective denoting the day of the week? We answer, Yes, in every instance. Then no one can deny, without discarding all authority, that in these instances sabbaton means week, and the translation of our common version is correct. The numeral adjective used in Matt. xxviii, 1; Mark xvi, 2; Luke xxiv, 1; John xx, 1, 19; Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 2, is mia or mias; in Mark xvi, 3, prote. One instance will suffice for the whole, and we will take the first one, Matt. xxviii, 1. The words are, mia sabbatou (pronounced with long o, as in tone). Mia is the numeral adjective meaning one, or according to a Hebrewism, "first." It agrees with day, understood. Sabbatou is in the genitive plural, literally answering to the English words, "of the week." So we have, as plainly as language can say it, "first day of the week." Eld. P. argues, however, that here the Lord Jehovah's Sabbaths ceased, and the Lord Jesus Christ's Sabbaths were introduced, or one series of Sabbaths there ended, and another series of Sabbaths there began. But this little shift in favor of Sunday, involves a fatal violation of grammar which he has apparently overlooked. If his rendering is correct, and first day of the week should be rendered, "one of Sabbaths," meaning one of a new series of Sabbaths then introduced, then the word one, mian, must agree with sabbaton understood. But sabbaton is neuter, and mian is feminine. Grammar will not submit to any such treatment as this. The word mian being in the feminine gender shows that the noun understood, with which it agrees, is a feminine noun. And there is no word which can be introduced to supply the ellipsis, except the word which the translators of our Bible have supplied, namely, hemeran, day, which renders the sense complete, and being a feminine noun, answers to the feminine adjective, mian, and makes the construction harmonious and perfect. We accordingly find in the margin of the Greek Testament, a reference from the word mian, saying, "Hemeran understood." And we are forced to the conclusion that Greenfield, Robinson, and Liddell and Scott, in their lexicons, and the forty-seven learned men of England who made our version of the New Testament, are correct in their translation, and Eld. P. is wrong. Another conclusion is no less apparent, namely, that this great "blaze" of "light," with which Eld. P. hoped to dazzle us from the Greek, has proved but another ignis fatuus, which, after leading its victim into inextricable bogs, has—gone out! And to conclude his extraordinary argument here, Eld. P. makes an application of 2 Cor. v, 17, "All things are become new." The apostle is careful to qualify his language thus: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away; behold all things are become new." But how if a man is not in Christ? He certainly is not a new creature; to him old things are not passed away, neither have all things become new. So according to Eld. P. this new Sabbath is only for those who are in Christ, or who have been converted! and he who is not converted is still under the old dispensation; for there is nothing new to him, according to Paul. Our opponents will certainly add nothing to their cause, by applying to the change of dispensations, language which was spoken exclusively of conversion! Preble.—"One confirmation of this truth, that the seventh-day Sabbath was to cease at the resurrection of our Lord from the dead, is the fact, that out of the whole number of times the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament, it is never spoken of by either Christ or any of the apostles as a precept, or command; but it is only spoken of as an historical fact. And it is thus worthy of special attention that, whenever the seventh-day Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament, it is always to be found in the five historical books; and never once found in the epistles of any of the apostles. And hence, as I have before stated, so I again repeat, that in no instance is the Sabbath spoken of by either Christ or his apostles as a command or precept. I know that our Saviour said that he was 'Lord of the Sabbath day'; and this shows that he had the power to change it whenever he pleased." REPLY.—"The seventh-day Sabbath," says Eld. P., "was to cease at the resurrection of our Lord from the dead." Where is his proof for this? Nothing ceased at the resurrection. Nothing was to cease there. Everything that was to cease ceased at the cross. Eld. P. now has three places where the Sabbath has been abolished: first, in the time of John. The "old schoolmaster then and there deceased," he has told us. 2. With Christ. Christ is the end of the law, and 3. He now places the cessation of the Sabbath at the resurrection. Were it not merely to gratify curiosity, we would like to inquire which of these points be considered best established. But it is not difficult to divine why Eld. P. wishes to place the dividing point on the Sabbath question at the resurrection. He knows, and has admitted, that the holy women, this side of the cross, kept the Sabbath, and that, too, according to the fourth commandment. But Eld. P. endeavors to find an objection against the Sabbath in the assertion that it is never spoken of by Christ or his apostles as a precept or command. We wonder if they ever spoke of Sunday-keeping as a precept or command, or even in any other manner whatever. Eld. P. will do well to be careful lest in his endeavors to overthrow our theory he demolishes his own. But again. The Sabbath, says Eld. P., "is only spoken of as a historical fact." Can as much even as this be said of Sunday? We answer, No. Not an instance can be found of a meeting in the day-time of the first day of the week, nor any evidence that any of the disciples attached any sort of sacredness to that day whatever. The Lord of the Sabbath never once took that day into his lips, and it is only once mentioned in the epistles, and then as a day for secular business! But what are the historical facts relative to the Sabbath? We have the fact that the disciples kept the Sabbath this side of the cross according to the commandment; that the law containing the Sabbath has been brought over into this dispensation as a whole; that Christ in the strongest terms enjoined obedience to it; that it was the "custom" and "manner" of Christ, and Paul, at least, to observe the Sabbath; and that throughout the book of Acts, which was written thirty years this side of the resurrection, the seventh day is uniformly called the Sabbath, and no other day is so named, thus recognizing the existence of that institution in this dispensation in the clearest manner. Suppose, then, that the Sabbath is mentioned only historically, such historical facts as these cannot be ignored, and they settle the whole question, they cover the whole ground, and are all that the most fervent lover of the Sabbath could desire. But Eld. P. continues, that Christ's being Lord of the Sabbath shows that he had power to change it whenever he pleased. We deny that the language teaches, or was designed to teach, any such thing. But suppose it does teach that? What of it? Suppose five hundred testimonies could be produced showing that Christ had power to change the Sabbath, what would be proved by it? We ask our opponents to just put their finger on the testimony which says that he has done it. And until they can do this, all their inferences that he has power to do it, prove nothing, and amount to nothing.