Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 39, No. 9.

EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLEY'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH

Review and Herald

Feb 13, 1872

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 13, 1872

EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLEY'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN.

THE LORD'S DAY NOT THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, BUT THE SEVENTH.

It is the misfortune of the first-day Sabbath that all the texts quoted in its support are embraced in one of these two classes: 1. Texts which plainly mention the first day of the week, but which do in no case connect any idea of sacredness there with; or, 2. Texts which contain references, more or less distinct, to the sacredness of some day or period, but which do in no instance designate the first day of the week as the day to which this sacredness pertains.
We have proved the first of these statements true by actual test, and we will now carefully examine the second. We quote from Eld. P. as follows:—
“THE LORD'S DAY THE TRUE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. About sixty-two years after the resurrection of Christ—or after the Christian Sabbath began—the beloved John, who was our brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, while he was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ, said, ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day,’ etc. Here shines the clear, blazing light of the Christian Sabbath, according to the gospel of THE LIVING JESUS; notwithstanding so many are trying, with a ‘vail upon their hearts,’ to throw a dark cloud over the whole thing by saying that the ‘Lord's day’ here spoken of ‘is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment’ as found in Ex. 20: 8–11. But how many, through ignorance, or something worse, ‘pervert the gospel of Christ.’
“The word here rendered ‘Lord's’ is in the Greek kuriakos, and it is found elsewhere in the New Testament but once; and it there refers to the Lord's (kuriakos) supper. 1 Cor. 11: 20. The question now arises, Whose ‘supper’ is here referred to? Is it the Lord Jehovah's supper? or is it the Lord Jesus Christ's supper? All must confess that it is the Lord Jesus Christ's supper. Then is the ‘Lord's (kuriakos) day’ (Rev. 1: 10) the Lord Jesus Christ's day? Thus we have the plain word of God to establish this long-disputed truth. Here, then, we have the proof that ‘the passover’ had, as its substitute, the ‘Lord's (kuriakos) supper;’ and as a substitute for ‘the seventh-day Sabbath,’ the ‘Lord's (kuriakos) day,’ as I have above stated: the passover to have its complete fulfillment in ‘the kingdom of God;’ (Luke 22: 16); and just so of the Sabbath. Heb. 4: 3; Rev. 20: 4.” pp. 39, 40.
The only point which Eld. P. attempts to prove in the present quotation is that the Lord, whose day is here mentioned, is the Son and not the Father. Even this point is not conclusively proved; for the adjective kuriakos (of, or pertaining to, the Lord) is derived from the noun kurios (Lord) which is applied to the Father as well as to the Son. There is, therefore, nothing in the nature of the word which causes it necessarily to pertain to the Son rather than to the Father. But Eld. P. supposes that if the Son be here intended, then the Lord's day of this text is certainly the first day of the week. Had he succeeded in proving that Christ ordained the first day of the week to be a day sacred to himself or to his Father, as a “substitute,” as he elsewhere terms it, for the Sabbath, then we should not hesitate to declare that the Lord's day of Rev. 1: 10 must necessarily be the first day of the week, whether the Lord to whom the day pertains be the Father or the Son. But having thoroughly sifted the subject by a careful examination of all the passages of Scripture in which the first day is mentioned, we are able to state in the most decisive terms that there is not upon record one particle of testimony that the first-day Sabbath was ever ordained in the sacred Scriptures. If, therefore, this text, which makes no mention of the first day of the week, be used to prove the existence of the so-called Christian Sabbath—which institution we have hitherto in vain sought to find—the argument will stand thus:—
1. The Lord's day here mentioned by John must be the first day of the week because Christ consecrated that day to the Christian Sabbath. 2. Though no such act of Christ is upon record, yet it must be true that he did thus consecrate the first day of the week because John here calls it the Lord's day.
So the first of these propositions is proved by the second, and then the second is proved by the first! And this is a fair specimen of the logic by which the first-day Sabbath is maintained.
Our friend, Eld. P., finds in the Lord's day of Rev. 1: 10 “the clear blazing light of the Christian Sabbath, according to the gospel of the living Jesus,” p. 39. Yet this text does not in any way intimate that the first day of the week is entitled to the sacred name of “Lord's day.” The text proves the existence of the Lord's day in A. D. 96, but other passages must define the day intended by this term. Undoubtedly the Spirit of God, by the use of this appellation as well as by the selection of this day for giving the book of Revelation to John, designed to honor the day; and this very fact evinces that the day itself may be clearly identified. The several views taken of the term “Lord's day” may be classified under two general heads:
1. The Lord's day is a mystical, figurative, or symbolical day. 2. The Lord's day is one of the seven days of the week.
Those who adopt the first of these views are not agreed in the selection of a mystical day to which this term Lord's day should be applied. Some say that it is the gospel dispensation—which is Christ's day that Abraham saw in vision (John 8: 56)—that John here calls the Lord's day. Others confidently affirm that by the Lord's day is intended the great day of Judgment, which in many passages is called the day of the Lord. 1 Thess. 5: 2; 2 Pet. 3: 10; and many other texts.
Yet to apply Rev. 1: 10 to the first of these mystical or figurative days is a manifest absurdity; and to apply it to the second of them is to make John utter a falsehood. For he wrote the book of Revelation near the close of the first century of the Christian era; and it would reflect little credit upon the inspired apostle to represent him as gravely informing the churches of Christ, to whom he wrote, that this vision was given to him in the gospel dispensation, when every individual addressed could not but know perfectly that if he had a vision at all, it must of necessity be given him in the existing dispensation.
The application of this term Lord's day to the gospel dispensation is therefore unworthy of our acceptance. But, when we apply these words of John to the day of Judgment, we involve the apostle in falsehood. John could indeed have a vision concerning the day of Judgment; but that he should have a vision on that day, when it was nearly two thousand years in the future, is as impossible as it is that God should lie. It is certain, therefore, that the Lord's day of Rev. 1: 10 does not signify some mystical day, whether that day be the gospel dispensation, or the day of Judgment.
The Lord's day is mentioned by John in his record of the time and place of his great vision: “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.” Rev. 1: 9, 10. Three things concerning this vision are here distinctly noted:—
1. The person who saw it: “John.” 2. The place where it was seen: “The isle that is called Patmos.” 3. The time when it was seen: “The Lord's day.”
We cannot, therefore, doubt that the day on which this vision was revealed to John was as literal and definite as is the isle where it was given, or, as was the person to whom the vision was shown. But, though it is manifest that one of the seven literal days of the week is here intended by the term Lord's day, the question still remains for serious consideration, Which of the seven is entitled to this honorable and sacred name? Our friend, Eld. P., thinks he has established the claim of the first day of the week to the name of “Lord's day” by simply adducing a doubtful inference in proof that not the Father, but the Son, is the Lord here intended. This seems to be sufficient to raise his mind to an ecstatic condition. But there must be more solid ground for our faith than such uncertain inferences; for our duty toward God is directly involved. We may use six of the days as our own in the proper performance of our secular labor. But we cannot thus employ that day which is claimed by the Lord as his. If one of the seven days belongs to God or to Christ, we must know which it is. We may lawfully use for secular purposes the days which are given us for that intent; but the Lord has called one day his own, and we must render to him the things that are his.
Between this day which he has honored as his peculiar treasure, and the six days which he has given to man, there is an inherent and essential difference. If we treat the Lord's day as we do the six working days, we commit a trespass in holy things. Now it is not a light matter to disregard those distinctions which are made by the Spirit of God in the Holy Scriptures. If we appropriate the Lord's day to our worldly business, we are guilty of sacrilege in that we rob God of that which he has claimed as his own. And we cannot mend this matter by observing in its stead one of the six days which he has given to us. Our offering to God is then precisely like that of Nadab and Abihu; for we present to God strange fire, instead of that which he has kindled. Nor does it better the case that, in so doing, we follow the custom of the religious world; for we are not at liberty to make void the commandments of God to keep the traditions of the elders.
One part of our duty toward God must, therefore, certainly consist in the proper observance of the Lord's day: 1. It will not do to rob God by using the Lord's day in our own business. 2. It will not do to offer strange fire by hallowing a day of our own choice, instead of honoring that day which the Lord has hallowed. 3. Moreover, the Lord's day cannot be simply one day in seven, but must be a definite day which man ought religiously to honor.
This text recognizes the existence of the Lord's day, but says not one word by way of defining the day. But, as this passage stands near the very close of the Holy Scriptures, there is a manifest reason why no explanatory statement was made as to the day intended; and also why no precept was here given to govern our conduct concerning it. It was not because these things were of no consequence, but because they had already been given in the Scriptures. The Lord's day must be understandingly and rightfully honored by man. And, that man may do this, three things must be found in the Bible:—
1. What day the Lord claims as his. 2. The ground of that claim. 3. The proper method of observing the day.
A knowledge of these facts is absolutely essential to the proper maintenance of divine worship; for it must be one part of our duty to honor that day which the Lord claims as his, and the Scriptures must define the nature and ground of that obligation, and must specify the day which is the holy of the Lord and honorable. These statements are reasonable and just. And now in their light how stands the first day of the week?
1. Christ never claimed the day as his. 2. He never observed the day as a Sabbath or as a sacred day. 3. He never conferred on it any title of sacredness. 4. He never gave any precept concerning the day. 5. He never did anything to the day. 6. He never—so far as recorded—even mentioned the day so much as once.
A very remarkable record indeed in the case of a day which asserts an exclusive title to the name of Lord's day! But though these six things are certainly true, does not the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week prove that day to be the Lord's day? The Scriptures do not say any such thing. But may we not be certain that it is the Lord's day, though the Bible says nothing of the kind? It seems that many think thus. But is it not a day so prominent in our Lord's history as to justify men in taking the responsibility of giving it this title? The multitude indeed have done it; but the fact that the Lord has never done this leaves the day with no valid claim to this sacred honor. And this is not all. The day of Christ's resurrection has not so undoubted a pre-eminence over all the other days of his history as to constitute, even so far as they are concerned, a decisive probability in its favor. Let us name some of the eventful days of his life.
1. The day of his birth, honored by the proclamation of a mighty angel announcing that event, and by the revelation of a multitude of the heavenly host ascribing “glory to God in the highest.” Luke 2: 7–17.
2. The day of his baptism, when the sixty-nine weeks terminated with his anointing and his manifestation to Israel; and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in bodily shape as a dove; and the Father addressed him with an audible voice from Heaven. Matt. 3: 13–17; Mark 1: 9–15; Dan. 9: 25.
3. The day of his transfiguration, when his glory and majesty shone forth as they will at his second advent; and Moses and Elias came and conversed with him; and God the Father again spoke to him from Heaven. Matt. 17: 1–5; 2 Pet. 1: 16–18.
4. The day of his crucifixion, embracing the institution of the Lord's supper; the betrayal of Christ, his agony in the garden, his apprehension; his trial before the chief priests and elders; his condemnation by Pilate; his mocking, scourging, and crucifixion; his dying anguish, with the Father's face turned from him, and the curse of the law having its course upon him, while the sun was veiled in darkness, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent. Matt. 26: 20–75; 27: 1–66; Gal. 3: 13.
5. The day of his resurrection, when there was a great earthquake, and the angel of the Lord rolled away the stone from the sepulcher, and our Lord arose from the dead, and many saints also came out of their graves and appeared to many; and our Lord showed himself to the Marys, to those on the way to Emmaus, and then to the eleven, Thomas excepted. Matt. 28: 1–10; Luke 24: 1–40.
6. The day of his ascension, when he led his disciples to the mount of Olives, to the very spot on which he shall hereafter stand (Zech. 14: 3, 4), and in the act of blessing his disciples he was parted from them, and, accompanied by the “many brethren” who were raised with him, he ascended to his Father in the same manner that he shall descend at his second advent. Luke 24: 50, 51; Acts 1; Rom. 8: 29; Eph. 4: 8, margin.
The first three of these days, memorable as they are in our Lord's history, are for wise reasons concealed from our knowledge, so that we cannot identify them. But not so with the last three. The Saviour was crucified the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15: 42, 43); and he was raised the day after it (Mark 16: 1–6); and he ascended on the fortieth day from his resurrection. Acts 1: 3. The day of our Lord's ascension is scarcely less memorable than that of his resurrection, and it is in some respects even more glorious than that day; but the day on which the Son of God tasted death for sinful man witnessed events incomparably more memorable than any other in all the history of our Lord.
We do not teach that either of these days should be observed; for there is no such direction in the Bible. The crucifixion and the resurrection have each their appropriate memorials. 1 Cor. 11: 23–26; Rom. 6: 3–5; Col. 2: 12. But the days on which they occurred were not set apart for sacred purposes. The Scriptures give the title of Lord's day to neither of these days. Were we to confer this on either of them as indicative of our love for Christ, certainly that day should have the preference on which, above all other days, he showed his love for us.
Christ's great act for man was not his resurrection, but his death. Matt. 20: 28; Rom. 5: 6–8; 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15. His great humiliation was in his death; his exaltation was not at his resurrection, but at his ascension; his resurrection being treated as an act necessary to his glorification, but not that glorification itself, which could only come by his ascending to the throne of his Father. Compare Phil. 2: 6–11; Eph. 1: 7, 20–23; Ps. 24: 7–10. Should we therefore give the title of Lord's day to that day which witnessed our Lord's glorification, it will be conferred upon the day of his ascension, and not upon that of his resurrection; but should it be conferred upon that day in which infinitely above all other days he showed his love for man, that day will be the one in which he poured out his soul unto death, being made a curse for us. Isa. 53: 10–12; Gal. 3: 13.
But is not the first day of the week eight times mentioned in the New Testament? And does not this indicate that it should be called the Lord's day? It is true that the first day of the week is mentioned six times in the records of Christ's resurrection, and twice afterward. But if it is entitled to this sacred name, why was it not called Lord's day in even one of these eight instances? If the Spirit of God mentioned the day eight times, and did not in a single case give it a sacred title of any kind, is it not a strong proof that it has no right to the name of Lord's day, and indeed that it is not by divine right a sacred day? Suppose that after the crucifixion of Christ—where the anti-Sabbatarians assert that the Sabbath was abrogated—we should find in the New Testament eight instances in which that day is mentioned, and that in each case it is simply called “the seventh day,” but no sacred title is given to it, would they not urge this as a powerful argument that it had ceased to be a sacred day? And would it not be just that they should so use it?
If in every instance in which the ancient Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament after the death of Christ, it were called simply “the seventh day,” that fact would be urged as conclusive proof that it ceased to be the Sabbath at the crucifixion; and the greater the number of instances in which it should be mentioned, the stronger the argument against the sacredness of the seventh day. But what shall be said in the case of the first day of the week, which never had a sacred title in the Old Testament, and which, being eight times mentioned in the New, never once gets such a title therein? But is this all? The ancient Sabbath retains its honorable and sacred name after the time of its alleged abolition or change; whereas that day which is supposed to have taken its place by divine authority, though eight times mentioned in the New Testament, is called by no higher title than plain “first day of the week.” Do such facts constitute a valid title to the name of Lord's day for the first day of the week? Rather are they not absolutely fatal to its pretensions?
But was it not the day which the apostles devoted to religious assemblies? And ought it not to be awarded this title for this reason? Many persons so assert. And yet the day itself is not even alluded to in the book of Acts till eight years after the apostles as a body are dismissed from its record; and then a single instance is all that occurs, and this was an all-night meeting, held on the night following the Sabbath, because Paul was to leave on first-day morning on his journey to Jerusalem. Surely we have not yet discovered a valid title to the name of Lord's day for the first day of the week.
But did not Paul give a precept in 1 Cor. 16: 2 respecting the first day of the week? And does not this show that the Lord has claimed this day as his, and that he has given instruction concerning its proper observance? And have we not here discovered the title of Sunday to the name of Lord's day? Unfortunately this argument will not bear examination.
1. The precept relates to the day as a secular, and not as a sacred, day. The Corinthians were to examine the previous week's earnings, or income, and to lay aside such portions for charity as they could afford. 2. They were to do this not in the house of God, but at their own homes. 3. The precept did not cover the entire day, but only a few minutes' time. 4. The precept was given only for a limited period, viz., till the arrival of Paul at Corinth, and for a transient purpose only, viz., the relief of the poor saints at Jerusalem.
We have stated the kind of evidence necessary to determine what day is the Lord's day. But our search for testimony to establish the claim of Sunday to this sacred title, has failed to bring out one fact of that kind, so that as yet we have nothing to prove it the Lord's day except the unsupported assertion of those who “love to have it so.”
One of two things must be true. 1. By the term Lord's day, John designated a divinely established institution which needed not to be identified, there being only one such institution in existence, and no more; or, 2. By the term Lord's day he designated a new day which up to this point had never borne this sacred name.
But the first day of the week cannot come under the first of these two heads; for it is certain that prior to John's vision on Patmos no sacred writer had given to the first day the name of Lord's day or any other name implying sacredness in the day; and we have searched in vain for any fact that can justly establish the claim of the first day to this high honor. Besides the apostle John, there are four inspired men who mention the first day of the week; and none of them give it a sacred name. Yet three of them mention it at the very time when it is said to have become the Lord's day; and they record the very event which is claimed to have made it such. Matt. 28: 1; Mark 16: 1, 2, 9; Luke 24: 1–3. And if it be said that they could not abruptly give the day a name so sacred, because up to that point another day had been honored by the Lord as his, we reply that two of these four writers mention the day some thirty years after the time when it is said to have become Lord's day, and they still call it plain first day of the week. Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 16: 2. It is therefore certain that if by the term Lord's day John meant to designate an existing divinely-established institution, he could not mean the first day of the week; for it certainly was not such when John had his vision.
The first day can therefore be intended only in case John took it up as a new day, or as a new institution which up to that point (A. D. 96) had never been entitled to that sacred name. But if John took it up thus, he must specify which one of the six days he intended to honor, for besides the ancient day, which from the beginning the Lord had claimed as his, there were six days which man for all rightful secular purposes could call his own. Now it is possible to bring this matter to a decisive test. The Spirit of God has not trifled with us in this thing. If the ancient day is intended, there is no need of defining or identifying it. But if one of the six secular or working days is meant, it is necessary to state that fact, and to say which one of them is henceforward to be the sacred day.
But John did nothing of this kind. If the Spirit of God designed through him to confer a sacred title upon one of the six days which from the beginning of the world had been secular days, was it not necessary that he should name the day? And was he not capable of doing it? If he was commissioned of God to establish first-day sacredness by giving that day the title of Lord's day, he certainly did not go very far toward executing that commission, inasmuch as he in nowise connected the sacred title with what had been till then a secular day.
But we have now an important fact to notice which brings this matter to a decisive test. If John was not commissioned to confer this sacred title upon the first day of the week, then it has no case at all. But if he was thus commissioned, he failed to execute it while in Patmos. But two years after his return from Patmos he wrote his gospel. (For proof of this fact beside the testimonies cited in the History of the Sabbath, pages 189, 190, see Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae, vol. 1, pages 31–46.) Now notice two things:
1. His commission—if he ever had one—to give to Sunday the title of Lord's day was not executed in Patmos. 2. But in writing his gospel he must mention the day, and that in connection with the very event which is said to have given it a right to this sacred name; and his unexecuted commission to confer the name of Lord's day upon it could leave him no option.
Now, then, we shall be able to learn the truth with absolute certainty. If John was chosen by the Spirit of God to do a work which Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul, who were each led by that Spirit to mention the day, were not worthy to do, viz., to confer upon it the honorable and sacred title of Lord's day, his work was unfinished—not to say untouched—and now he must do it. The first day of the week is twice mentioned by him (John 20: 1, 19) after he wrote Rev. 1: 10. If he here applies the term Lord's day to it, then we shall know that this was the day intended in Rev. 1: 10. If he does not give it this name, then we shall be certain that the Spirit of God did not undertake to give it that name in Rev. 1: 10. Here are the words of John's gospel, and the peculiar circumstances of the case make them absolutely decisive:
John 20: 1: “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.”
Verse 19: “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut, where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.”
Here then is the case: When John speaks of the Lord's day he gives us no reason to believe that he means by it the first day of the week; while there are decisive reasons for believing that he does not. And when, some two years afterward, he speaks twice of the first day of the week and that too in describing the very thing which is said to have made the day worthy of the name, he absolutely omits even the most distant reference to the honorable and sacred name of Lord's day. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that John did not use the term Lord's day concerning the first day of the week; but did use it concerning a divinely-established institution which needed not to be identified, there being one such in existence, and no more.
It is certain therefore that there is in the gospel dispensation one day which the Lord claims as his own. And this day must be one which in one of the latest books of the Bible needed no identification, because on the authority of the entire Scriptures, to it alone belongs the entire field. Moreover, for reasons already given, it must be a day which can bear the following decisive tests:
1. To be the Lord's day, there must be in its history some act of the Lord whereby it was set apart for him. 2. There must be, for the intelligent action of man, a plain and sufficient reason assigned for its institution.
3. There must be divine authority for its name. 4. There must be a divine precept stating man's duty respecting the day which belongs to the Lord. 5. The day must be one which is claimed both by the Son and the Father.
Certainly the standard here set up is reasonable, and scriptural, and just. If any object to the tests proposed, let them show cause for so doing. Now it is a remarkable fact that not one of these things is true in the case of the first day of the week. And it is no less remarkable that every one of them is true to the letter in the case of the seventh day. As this can be said of no other day, we say to our first-day friends, Come, see a day which bears every mark of being the one we seek; is not this indeed the Lord's day?
1. Here is the act of the Creator by which the day was set apart: “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. 2: 3.
2. Here is a definite statement of his reason for hallowing it, i. e., for appointing it to a holy use: “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. 20: 11.
3. Here is divine authority for calling it the Lord's day: “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord,” etc. Isa. 58: 13, 14.
4. Here is the divine precept defining man's duty respecting the Lord's holy day: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Ex. 20: 8.
5. The Father and the Son both claim the day as theirs. The Father's claim: “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20: 10. The Son's claim: “For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Matt. 12: 8; Mark 2: 28; Luke 6: 5.
Nor is this all that should be said concerning the title of our Lord Jesus Christ to that day which was set apart in the beginning when the other six were given to man. The following texts establish the Saviour's claim to this day, even by virtue of its original institution.
Gen. 1: 1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Gen. 2: 2. “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.”
John 1: 1–3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.
Verse 10: “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”
Eph. 3: 9: “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”
Col. 1: 15, 16: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created,” etc.
Heb. 1: 2: “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.”
These texts clearly establish the fact that the Son was associated with the Father in the work of creation. And they also teach that whereas the Father was the original source of creative power, he exercised that power through his Son. It is certain, therefore, that the Son wrought directly in the work of creation, and that the Father wrought through him. Now the seventh day was first the rest day of the Creator; and second, it was by his appointment set apart to the Lord from all secular purposes to be his holy day in memory of his rest from that creative work. We do not exclude the Father from participation in the acts by which the Sabbath was made in Eden; but we do maintain that the Son must have been directly concerned in the performance of those acts. For it would be absurd to teach that the Son was the one by whom
the Father wrought the work of creation, and then to assert that the rest from that work was by the Father himself without the participation of the Son; and that the Sabbath as a memorial commemorated the part taken in creation by the Father, but not that part which was taken therein by the Son.
But there is no rivalry between the Father and the Son; for they are one in interest and one in heart and work. John 10: 30. “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore, said I, that he shall take of mine and shall show it unto you.” John 16: 15. And it is certain that as the Son of God, by virtue of his share in the creative work, he has an original and inherent right to claim the Sabbath as his own holy day.
Nor is this all. As the Son of Man he has also an interest in this day which dates from the beginning. Observe what he has said concerning this: “The Sabbath was made for man [Greek, ‘the man,’ i. e., Adam] and not man [Greek ‘the man’] for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of Man [Greek, the ‘son of the man’] is Lord also of the Sabbath day.” Mark 2: 27, 28. The term “the Son of Man” is in every case in the Greek Testament but four—where the reason for the exception is obvious—the son of the man. This is in marked distinction from the similar term so often used in the case of Ezekiel. See the Septuagint. Now, Mark 2: 27, 28 gives us the key to this. The original creation of man, and the original institution of the Sabbath are mentioned in verse 27. These two acts were in close connection at the beginning. Gen. 1: 26–31; 2: 1–3. In the case of man the Father and the Son consulted together.
Now we can readily understand why the Saviour said the Sabbath was made for “the man.” He pointed to Adam the head and representative of the human family. And we can also understand why he uses the peculiar term concerning himself—“the son of the man.” It is in direct reference to the fact that he is the son of Adam. Indeed he seems here to claim the Sabbath as Adam's heir—for be it remembered though Adam lost Eden he did not lose the Sabbath. “The man” for whom “the Sabbath was made” was Adam. “The son of the man,” is the second man Adam, and it is as “this son of man” that he claims to be “Lord also of the Sabbath.”
But it is objected that “Lord's day” is a new term, and that a new day must be intended thereby. To which we answer. 1. The name is not properly speaking a new one inasmuch as it is the same in substance with that used in Isa. 58: 13: “My Holy day.” 2. If the term relates to a day never before bearing a sacred title, and never elsewhere claimed by the Lord as his, that new day must be specified in this text; but it is not: a positive proof that such day cannot be intended. 3. The term as we have seen is exactly adapted to that institution which was set up by the Father and the Son at the beginning. 4. As there was one day holy to the Lord from the beginning, there cannot be a new Lord's day unless either the Lord have put away his holy day and chosen another, or else there are now two days claimed by him. But as he has never divorced his holy day and chosen another, and has never taken a second in addition to the first, the day sacred alike to the Father and the Son is the very one hallowed in Eden. 5. A new Lord's day implies the annulling of that act which set apart the seventh day for God, before any of the days of the week had been given to man for secular purposes; and it also implies the selection in its stead of a day which God at the beginning gave to man for the affairs of this life, and which for 4000 years man thus used. No such change is to be found in the Holy Scriptures.
But may not John recognize as the Lord's day the first day of the week, though it be but a mere human institution? Hereafter we shall see what can be said in its behalf as such out of the traditions of the elders. But we here only remark that John would not tell a lie by calling a certain day the Lord's day when it had no right to that sacred name, and by denying the title to that day which has been claimed both by the Father and the Son.
Adam, the second, will restore Paradise, and will establish his kingdom under the whole heaven. Dan. 7: 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 27; 2 Pet. 3; Rev. 21 and 22. And as a final and decisive proof that the day which belongs to “the Lord from Heaven” is the Sabbath and not the first day of the week, we mention the fact that when his kingdom shall fill the whole earth, the redeemed shall assemble on each successive Sabbath to worship before him, while not one word is thus spoken concerning the first day of the week. Isa. 66: 22, 23.
We submit that the evidence is decisive that by the Lord's day of Rev. 1: 10 is meant not the first day of the week, but the seventh. And so it is seen 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 counted worthy to receive from the Father.

ADVENT HYMN

Lo! THE Advent cry is sounding, Christians, rouse ye from your sleep! Cast away the works of darkness, O'er your sins and follies weep. Gird ye with your Christian armor, In this time of mortal life; Wake! to do your Master's service, He will aid you in the strife.
Sleep no longer! Life is passing, Soon the warfare will be done; Work! while yet the day is lasting, Night is coming quickly on. Watch and pray! the Bridegroom cometh! Trim your lamps! be ready all; Go ye out, prepared to meet him, When ye hear the midnight call.
Stir us up, Lord, we beseech thee, Give us grace thy work to do, So that, bearing fruit in plenty, Thou shalt thus reward us too. Then, on that great day of Judgment, When in majesty he come, We shall rise to life immortal In our glorious, heavenly home. —Sel.
Continue reading: New Lights