Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 38, No. 23.

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

Review and Herald

Nov 21, 1871

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 21, 1871

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

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

CHAPTER NINE.

NO TRACE OF THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH IN THE BOOK OF ACTS.

In the last chapter we examined Eld. P.'s three lines of defense for the maintenance of the Sunday Sabbath, or his three forms of argument to show that he has the evidence of both “law and testimony” to offer in support of that institution. These three lines are as follows:
1. If he could find an express precept commanding the change, then he had “the law;” and then the “traces” of first-day observance by Christ and his apostles, corresponding to this “law,” would constitute the testimony; “and in the two united,” he would “have the evidence of ‘the law and testimony.’”
2. If he could find an express precept affirming the right to make such change, then he had “the law;” and the aforesaid “traces” would constitute “the testimony;” and in the two united he would again have the evidence of the “law and testimony.”
3. But if he could find neither, then he could supply both “law and testimony” out of these “traces” of first-day observance in apostolic times, which, through a succession of witnesses, have come down to these times; these “traces” being dignified with the name of “testimony” in view of the existence of “the law” for the change; and the existence of that “law” being proved by these “traces” of Sunday observance, which were certainly acts of obedience to this “law.” Hence, in this way he again, in the end, obtains “the evidence of law and testimony both.”
On examination we found the first of these lines a mere sham, set up for appearance, but so utterly incapable of defense that Eld. P. does not even make the attempt. The first, in that it is attempted to be supported by false testimony concerning Christ, and by testimony concerning the apostles that is wholly irrelevant. And even this line is virtually abandoned for the third, as we have seen.
We found the third line to consist of two parts. 1. What Christ did by way of honoring and observing the first-day Sabbath. 2. What the apostles did in the same work. As to the acts of the Saviour, great things were promised concerning the first-day. Thus Eld. P. says:
“He especially honored and observed ‘the first day of the week’ (Sabbaton) as a day for meeting with his disciples.” p. 109.
But after considering the subject a little further, Eld. P. decides that there are no proofs of the change of the Sabbath in any acts of Christ. Thus he says:
“We therefore are to look for the first decisive indications of this change to the apostles and their history, rather than to the conduct and history of Christ himself.” p. 101.
And well he might, as he could point to only one first day of the week mentioned in the history of Christ, the day of his resurrection, and not to one word on that day, nor to one act, either directly or remotely alluding to the change of the Sabbath. The effort to find “law and testimony” in these supposed “traces” of Sunday-keeping is therefore abandoned so far as the acts of Christ are concerned. It remains that we look for these in the history of the apostles. At this very point where we closed our examination in chapter eight, we resume it in this.
Eld. P. makes amends for the failure of Christ to change the Sabbath during the forty days between his resurrection and his ascension, by showing that a change made by the apostles after the descent of the Holy Spirit is of greater authority than though made by them under the personal guidance of Christ. Thus he says:
“The Holy Spirit was to be to the apostles more than Christ himself, and was the one to lead them ‘into all truth’ and qualify them for the work to which Christ had commissioned them. The Spirit was to direct them in the exercise of their authority, to instruct, and to regulate the order, the institutions, and the worship, of the church. In all these respects, the Spirit was to be the same to them as a present Christ. Yea, more; for Christ had said, ‘I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away,’ etc. (John 16:7, 13), so that under the Spirit's guidance, the instructions to the disciples would be more correct, and the order, institutions, and worship, they should prescribe for the church, would be attended with greater authority than if they were under the immediate personal guidance of Christ himself.” p. 111.
On the whole, therefore, it is a fine thing that there are no “decisive indications” of the change of the Sabbath “in the conduct and history of Christ.” The change is of “greater authority” because made by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not made “under the immediate personal guidance of Christ himself.” We, therefore, eagerly seek for this authoritative apostolic change of the Sabbath. Eld. P. continues as follows:
“And so ‘when the day of Pentecost was fully come,’ the Holy Spirit taught them ‘to speak with other tongues’—this being their public anointing to the work which Christ had begun, and which now devolved on them to carry out and complete. And be it remembered, that this wonderful and important work transpired upon ‘the first day of the week’—‘THE LORD'S DAY.’ The immediate result of this anointing was, that the apostles, and especially Peter, preached with such power that ‘three thousand souls’ were added to them on that day. And thus was ‘the first day of the week’ again honored and blessed of Him who was the head of the church, and ‘Lord of the Sabbath day.’” pp. 111, 112.
Up to this point we have had no “decisive indications of this change” of the Sabbath, even in the judgment of Eld. P. But now behold a miracle! The first day of the week has become the Lord's day! Yet it was not the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost that made that day the Lord's day; for it was the Lord's day on which this “important work transpired.” It had, therefore, acquired this title before the day of Pentecost. It could not have been given it by the authority of the apostles, for Eld. P. does not think that their authority to establish a new Sabbath was conferred on them till the Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost. It could not have acquired the title of Lord's day merely by Christ's act of rising upon it, without asserting any claim to it as his; for Eld. P. declares “the first decisive indication of the change is to be found in the history of the apostles; and we may well ask what pre-eminence the day of the resurrection had over that of the crucifixion, that it should assert its claim to the title of ‘Lord's day’ without one word to that effect being uttered by Christ? It did not acquire this title by any act of the Saviour in setting it apart to himself, for no such act is upon record, and Eld. P. declares that no decisive indication of the change is to be found in the history of Christ; and surely he would not deny that the express appointment of the Saviour, if it could be found, would be perfectly decisive in the establishment of the authority of this new day. It is manifest, therefore, that Eld. P., on his own showing, has no right to call the first day of the week the Lord's day as early as the day of Pentecost, nothing having transpired, up to that point, which gave it any claim to that title. Nor can Eld. P. assert that it was made such by the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, for he declares that it was such at the time the Spirit was thus poured out. But let us hear Eld. P. still further.
“Thus on ‘the first day of the week,’ we have seen that in the first instance we have an account of Christ's resurrection—the exposition of the Scriptures concerning himself—the evidence of the identity of his resurrected body—the commission to the disciples and their investment with apostolic authority; and in the second instance, that of Pentecost—the mission of the Holy Spirit, with all of the official recognition and endowment which it involved. All these occurrences on the first day of the week, are just what we should expect them to be on the supposition that Christ intended to honor the first day of the week above all other days—in the ‘dispensation of the Spirit’—as the day for religious worship. Why should all these events transpire on the first day, unless Christ, the great Head of the church, intended—as ‘Lord of the Sabbath’—to institute a new day as the Sabbath for his people, thenceforth to be distinguished from other days as ‘the Lord's day’?” pp. 112, 113.
Observe several particulars in the above:
1. Eld. P. claims barely one instance of first-day observance by Christ during the forty days which include his resurrection and his ascension; for the day of Pentecost which came ten days after his ascension, is set down by him as the second instance in which the first day of the week is honored.
2. That Eld. P. puts in no claim for first-day honors on the score that it comes again “after eight days” from Sunday evening. He is entitled to commendation for this unusual act of good sense in first-day writers.
3. As his second instance of first-day honors is the events of the day of Pentecost, it should be noticed that it is the feast of Pentecost which is to be honored by meeting its antitype, and not the first day of the week that is to be made into a sacred day. The day of Pentecost must come on some day of the week, and the best evidence we have, indicates that it comes on the first day of the week. But were this to be considered an act of consecration, the day consecrated can come only once in a year; for it is the day of Pentecost that is the subject of the consecration—and though that day comes on the first day of the week—it does not come weekly, but annually.
4. Observe what was done in each of the two instances in which Eld. P. thinks the first day honored during the first fifty days after Christ's resurrection. These acts should in each case be divided into two classes; 1st. What was done on the day; 2d. What was done to the day.
5. What then was done on the first of these two first-days? 1st. Christ arose from the dead. 2d. He expounded the Scriptures concerning himself. 3d. Showed that he was the very one who had been slain. 4th. Gave the apostles their commission and invested them with authority. This enumeration is that of Eld. P. given above. Did these acts make a Sabbath of the day? By no means. It is what was done to the day that made it into a Sabbath if it has been made such. Exactly so. And this part of Christ's first-day work is just what we want to examine.
6. What, then, did Christ do to the first day? Nothing! He did not even allude to it in one word which he uttered! Did this part of Christ's work make a Sabbath of the first day of the week? And if so, is it a Sabbath preferable to that one made by the three acts of the Almighty; viz., his rest, his blessing, and his solemn act of appointing it to a holy use?
7. But ten days after his ascension comes the second instance of first-day honors; that is, if the first day can claim as its own peculiar honor that which was done on the day of Pentecost, simply on the ground that the day of Pentecost must have come on the first day of the week; though the Spirit of God makes no reference to the day of the week, but only to the second Jewish feast, the Pentecost. Here, again, we divide the work into two parts. And we inquire of Eld. P. what was done on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was poured out upon those who had continued in prayer during the ten days that had succeeded Christ's ascension. Did this make a Sabbath of the day? If so, it is one that could come only once a year; for it was in its capacity as day of Pentecost, and not as constituting a certain day of the week, that it is mentioned.
8. But could the day become the Sabbath by virtue of the fact that the Spirit of God was poured out, not upon the day, but upon the disciples? Certainly not. It is not what Christ, or the Father, did on the day, but what they did to it, that must give it authority as a Sabbath. What then did they, or either of them, do to the first-day on the festival of the Pentecost? Simply and absolutely nothing. Would this make it a sacred day? If it did, then the Father used unnecessary effort to make the Sabbath at the beginning; as a better one was made by Christ out of the first day of the week, without doing one single act to the day, nor one single act on the day of a Sabbatical character, nor even taking up the day into his lips!
9. “All these occurrences,” says Eld. P., “on the first day of the week are just what we should expect them to be, on the supposition that Christ intended to honor the first day of the week above all other days.” No, my friend, they are not. If Christ is to render the first day of the week more honorable than the Father has rendered the seventh, he must do more to the first day than the Father did to that day which he calls “the holy of the Lord” and “honorable.” Isa. 58:13. Yet up to this time you confess that you can find no decisive indications of the change of the Sabbath, and I frankly confess that herein my opinion is the same as yours.
10. But Eld. P. asks, “Why should all these events transpire on the first day, unless Christ, the great Head of the church, intended—as ‘Lord of the Sabbath’—to institute a new day as the Sabbath for his people, thenceforth to be distinguished from other days as ‘the Lord's day’?” But he should rather explain why, if that was his intention, the following facts should have a conspicuous existence in the case. (1.) Why, if he cherished such intention, he did not express it. (2.) Why, if this was his purpose, not one of the acts wrought by him on this day was of a Sabbatical character. (3.) Why he did nothing to the day itself.(4.) Why he did not so much as take up the day into his lips.
But we are constrained for two reasons to conclude that Eld. P. does not hold that on either of these two occasions Christ instituted a new Sabbath with the title of ‘Lord's day.’
(1.) Because he declares that “the first decisive indications of this change” are to be looked for in the history of the apostles, and not in “the conduct and history of Christ himself.” p. 110.
(2.) Because he teaches, as we shall presently learn, that “in the exercise of the power conferred on the apostles,” they did “authorize a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week,” and that “the change is as binding as if made by Christ himself.” pp. 116, 117.
Neither of these statements is consistent with the idea that Christ instituted a new day as the Sabbath, and conferred on it the title of “Lord's day.” On the contrary, Eld. P.'s evidence from the events of the day of Christ's resurrection, and from those of the day of Pentecost, as summed up by himself, amounts only to a “supposition that Christ intended to honor the first day of the week above all other days in the dispensation of the Spirit,” but do not indicate that he did this himself, the apostles being the fittest persons to do that work, as we have already learned from him. But it is time for us to search the apostolic records for the acts whereby they changed the Sabbath. Let us hear Eld. P. again:
“Beyond all dispute, then, it is settled that the power to ‘bind’ and ‘loose,’ conferred by Christ upon the apostles, was the power to teach, and to order all of the affairs of the church ‘with all authority.’ And thus we repeat: Here, then, is ‘THE LAW.’” p. 116.
This paragraph was fully answered in chapter eight. We here remark:
1. That the power given to the apostles did neither directly, nor by implication, authorize them to change the law of God.
2. But Eld. P. asserts that it did; and this alleged power to change the law of God, is that by virtue of which Christ authorized the apostles to change the Sabbath; and that they might do this work rightly, he qualified them for it on the day of Pentecost by giving them the Holy Spirit.
3. The change of the Sabbath, according to Eld. P., cannot, therefore, have been made before the day of Pentecost.
In continuation of the last quotation, let us hear Eld. P. respecting this apostolic change of the Sabbath:
“CHANGE OF DAYS FOR THE SABBATH. Now to the question. What is ‘the testimony’? In the exercise of the power conferred upon the apostles, did they authorize a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week? If they did, then the change is as binding as if made by Christ himself. The testimony is of two kinds; that of the Scripture record, and that of authentic ecclesiastical history. What, then, is the Scripture record?” pp. 116, 117.
This quotation clearly commits Eld. P. to the doctrine that the change of the Sabbath was not made by Christ, but was made at a later time by the apostles. He does not say that Christ changed the Sabbath and that the apostles simply attested the fact as witnesses. But he teaches:
1. The apostles had power to change the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.
2. Two kinds of testimony prove that they exercised it; viz., that of the Scriptures, and that of ecclesiastical history.
3. The change is as valid as if made by Christ himself.
But had Christ changed the Sabbath, it could not have been changed by the apostles, unless they had believed that a change made by themselves would be of “greater authority” than if made “under the immediate personal guidance of Christ himself.” p. 111. The work of changing the Sabbath does, therefore, according to Eld. P., fall to the apostles; and the day of Pentecost, as we have seen, is the time fixed by him when they were qualified to enter upon their work. At this point of time, let us therefore commence our search for apostolic acts of changing the Sabbath.
In words already quoted, Eld. P. says of the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost:
“The immediate result of this anointing was, that the apostles, and especially Peter, preached with such power that ‘three thousand souls’ were added to them on that day. And thus was the ‘first day of the week’ again honored and blessed of Him who was the head of the church and ‘Lord of the Sabbath day.’” p. 112.
Now that the apostles have received power to change the Sabbath, and the time has come that they should exercise it, we may reasonably ask what they did on this memorable occasion by way of changing the day. The descent of the Holy Spirit did not change the Sabbath, for the apostles had this work to do, and the Holy Spirit was that which qualified them for that work. The preaching of the apostles on this occasion converted three thousand persons. What did they say at this time concerning the change of the Sabbath? Not one word. They did not even indirectly allude to it. Here, then, were some three thousand seventh-day Christians; for the day had not yet been changed, and there was no intimation given on this occasion that it ever was to be changed. Up to this point, the apostles themselves were seventh-day Christians; for Christ had not changed the Sabbath, and the Spirit of God had not yet led them to make the change. And observe, they could not change the Sabbath without making proclamation of that fact, and this for two reasons:
1. That the first day should be set apart to a holy use, there must be a public appointment of the day for that purpose; and without this there is no distinction in the use of this day from the other days.
2. Could they change the Sabbath without making known the fact, they would be guilty of a serious wrong, in that they would involve men in the violation of the new Sabbath by withholding from them the knowledge of its existence.
When we come to the change of the Sabbath, we shall, therefore, have a public announcement of the fact. Until that time, truth demands that we recognize the apostles as seventh-day men, and the early church as a body of seventh-day Christians. It was not changed on the day of Pentecost; for the descent of the Holy Spirit did not do it, else it could not have been the work of the apostles to make the change as our friend Eld. P. teaches that it was. And though he declares that they had this work to do, it is certain that they did not commence it that day.
The next great occasion is recorded in Acts three and four. The particular day of the week, or month, or year, is not noted; but whereas three thousand were converted on the day of Pentecost, about five thousand were converted on this unknown day. Acts 4:4. If the conversion of three thousand changed the Sabbath, the conversion of five thousand on a subsequent day might be quite sufficient to change it again. But the Sabbath does not change so easily as this. Yet this was an excellent opportunity for the apostles to make the change, inasmuch as they preached to the people Jesus and the resurrection, and the change is said to be in honor of the resurrection. Acts 3:13; 4:2, 10. And this was not all. Peter had occasion to quote from Psalm 118. Now Eld. P. declares that the twenty-fourth verse is a prophecy of the change of the Sabbath—which assertion we shall hereafter consider—and Peter having occasion to quote and comment on verse twenty-two, which is closely connected with this supposed prophecy of the change of the Sabbath, had now, at length, the very opportunity which he had so long waited for, which was to change the Sabbath in fulfillment of this prophecy. Acts 4:10, 11; Ps. 118:22–24.
The auspicious moment has now arrived; the most honored of the twelve apostles is the speaker; the theme is Jesus, his crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation; and the apostle quotes and comments on a verse which stands within one of that verse which is said to predict the change of the Sabbath. And now what does Peter utter on this important theme, the establishment of the new and better Sabbath?
Alas for the new apostolic Sabbath! Not one word comes from the lips of Peter touching this new day! We still wait impatiently the coming of this more excellent Sabbath. But why should Peter be so tardy in calling it into existence? Was he afraid that he should offend the Jews? He did not indicate much of this feeling in his sermon, for he declared that his audience had denied the Holy One and the Just, and had killed the Prince of Life. Acts 3:14, 15. It was not therefore the fear of offending that prevented Peter from declaring the new day for the Sabbath. A very different reason hindered that announcement. And this was it: up to this point no change of the Sabbath had taken place. And so at this time we have twelve seventh-day apostles and not less than eight thousand seventh-day Christians. We must look still further in order to find the change of the Sabbath.
We have failed to find the change of the Sabbath in the fourth chapter of Acts, notwithstanding there was such an excellent opportunity for the apostles to make the change on the occasion there recorded. But in the next chapter we may be certain that we shall find it, provided it had been made by the apostles as early as the events therein recorded. In this chapter we have, 1. The case of Ananias and Sapphira; 2. An account of the wonderful miracles wrought by the apostles; 3. Their imprisonment by the high priest and the sect of the Sadducees.
But that night, in the prison, the angel of God gave them a commission which would absolutely constrain them, at this very point, to call into existence the much needed apostolic Lord's day. For the angel opened the prison door and said: “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people ALL the words of this life.” Verse 20. If the new Sabbath, which is said to commemorate redemption as finished at the resurrection of Christ, had yet been made, this commission made it absolutely necessary that the apostles should state the fact in the temple at this time. Or if not hitherto made, and the time had now arrived to make the new Sabbath, then this commission would absolutely forbid their making it in a corner. They must in either case, this time, make known this great truth, if indeed there be any such truth. And the theme of discourse is still Jesus and his death, resurrection, and ascension. Verses 30, 31.
But what about the new Sabbath? Absolutely nothing! Then this so-called Christian Sabbath had not yet come into existence, or if it had, it was not one of “the words of this life”! That is to say, men could have eternal life though they should pay no regard to it! But was not Peter afraid to speak of the new Sabbath lest he should offend the Jews? He was not afraid to charge them with the murder of the Son of God! Verses 30–33. And besides, the time had now come when they were bidden by the angel of God to “speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” It is therefore certain that the apostles, so late as the events of Acts 5, had not exercised their authority in changing the Sabbath of the Lord. And the ten thousand disciples—for this chapter records large additions (verse 14)—were still a body of seventh-day Christians “of one heart and of one soul,” and at their head were the twelve apostles who had not yet put down the Sabbath of the Lord, and set up in its stead the new apostolic Sabbath.
The sixth and seventh chapters of Acts record the case of Stephen. Seven deacons having been appointed—which as it involved the creation of the office was a proper example of the exercise of apostolic authority—one of them, Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Ghost, in the exercise of his calling, wrought great wonders and miracles among the people. He was arrested on charge of blasphemy against the temple and the law. His answer did plainly imply that the temple was to be destroyed; but did not imply that the ten commandments were to be abolished or changed; for he speaks of them as “the lively oracles” which were received by Moses at Mount Sinai to give unto us. Acts 7:38. He proclaimed Jesus to them, and declared that they were his “betrayers and murderers;” but he said not one word concerning the new Sabbath, a plain proof that he had not been arrested on charge of teaching such an institution.
In the eighth chapter, the Samaritans are instructed, and so is the Ethiopian eunuch; but though each needed the new Sabbath, if it had yet been made, no hint of its existence was given.
The ninth chapter records the conversion of Saul, and in particular relates his baptism, which we know from his own words was, for one thing, to express his faith in Christ's resurrection (Rom. 6:1–5), but does not record his observance of a new Sabbath for that purpose.
But we come now to the very place to look for the new Sabbath. For the tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts record the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles by the mission of Peter to Cornelius. It was no use to attempt to change the Sabbath among the Jews, for even apostolic authority would have failed to move the Jewish disciples to renounce the seventh day. So they wisely refrained from the attempt, and waited till the work should go to the Gentiles. To set up a new Sabbath with the Gentiles, few of whom regarded the seventh day, would be a light matter compared with the like act among the Jews. And now the time has come for this wonderful exercise of apostolic authority, for which we have waited so very long. The chief apostle of the twelve is commissioned, by a voice from Heaven, to enter upon the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles need the faith of Jesus, and with it the Christian Sabbath. The opening of the gospel to them is, therefore, the very latest point to which the work of changing the Sabbath should be deferred.
And now open your Bibles and read Acts ten and eleven. Look sharply for the new Sabbath day. Peter speaks of the death and the resurrection of the Saviour. He even alludes to the day of the resurrection: “Him God raised up the third day.” Acts 10:40. How easy for him to say, “Which being the first day of the week the apostles ordain as the Christian Sabbath.” But he had no such thought in his mind, and uttered no such word with his lips. Like Paul, whose testimony has been cited (Rom. 6:1–5), Peter believed in baptism as the divine commemoration of Christ's resurrection. 1 Peter 3:21. And so, while he had not one word to say concerning the first-day Sabbath as a memorial of Christ's resurrection, he did take care that the Gentiles who had heard him, should commemorate that event in the rightful manner. “Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Acts 10:46–48.
It is, therefore, certain that up to the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles, the apostles had neglected to change the Sabbath, and that they did not do it on that occasion. The twelfth chapter of Acts records the martyrdom of James and the deliverance of Peter. But it has not one word to say concerning the new Sabbath.
The thirteenth chapter records the ordination of Saul and Barnabas, and the opening of their labors in Seleucia. In the fourteenth verse we are told that “they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down.” No one will dispute that this was the ancient Sabbath. But had there been a new Sabbath instituted by the apostles before, or at, this time, then some qualifying word would here have been used, as “the old Sabbath,” or “the former Sabbath.” But the original Sabbath being here recognized as “the Sabbath” is a direct and powerful testimony that the apostles had not yet set up a new day.
But in verse 27 Paul bears a testimony still more emphatic on this point. He says that the prophets “are read every Sabbath day” in the services at Jerusalem. Here Paul recognizes as the Sabbath the day celebrated by the Jews at this time, and he excludes every other day from that title. Then we declare, on this high authority, that up to this time the apostles had not changed the day of the Sabbath.
In verse 42 “the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.” The margin reads, “in the week between, or in the Sabbath between.” Eld. P. catches at this as a reference to the first-day Sabbath. The absurdity of this was ably shown in an article by Bro. U. Smith in the Review of Aug. 8, and hereafter we shall offer something further on this point, which, for lack of space, we cannot present in this number. But 1. Up to this point there had been no act of making a new Sabbath by the apostles, so that no new or other kind of Sabbath then existed. 2. It is evident that the day concerning which they made request was one which many of themselves observed, else they would have no preference for the Sabbath day for the preaching of Paul, rather than any other day. 3. But while it is doubtless true that many of the Gentiles who had long enjoyed the light of truth from the Jews (see Acts 15:21), did observe the ancient Sabbath, no man in his sober senses will for one moment believe that these Gentiles, who now for the first time heard a sermon concerning Christ, were actually observers of the so-called Christian Sabbath, and that, too, before there is one “trace” of its observance, or even existence, among Christians themselves! If any unusual sense is to be given to the word Sabbaton in this text, the margin indicates the only sense which can be given it; viz., as relating to that part of the week which comes between two Sabbaths, which is the period of the six working days.
5. But that verse 42 rightly reads, “next Sabbath,” is fully attested by verse 44 which no one claims is doubtfully translated, and which reads: “the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” It is therefore certain that no trace of an apostolic change of the Sabbath is to be found in Acts 13.The 14th chapter of Acts says nothing which in the remotest degree sustains the change of the Sabbath.
When we come to the fifteenth chapter we reach the latest point in the book of Acts at which it is possible to find the united action of the apostles as a body; for after this the historian drops them all from his record, with the exception of Paul whose history he thenceforth closely follows; and of James, to whom he makes a brief reference in chapter 21. It is certain, therefore, that if the Sabbath was changed at all by the apostles, it must have been done in the events recorded in Acts 15. For there is no trace of this change in the first fourteen chapters of Acts, and there was no opportunity for concerted action by them after the fifteenth.
Moreover, the fifteenth chapter is devoted to the history of an apostolic assembly which met to determine an important doctrinal question, the obligation of circumcision, and the law of Moses. This was a meeting of exactly the right character to put in exercise the highest apostolic authority; and moreover, there was to be none of the kind afterward. It is, therefore, now or never with Eld. P.'s apostolic Sabbath. What, then, did our highest and final court of judicature do concerning the new Sabbath? Again we are constrained to return answer, Nothing, absolutely nothing at all. The question did not even come before them. The Gentiles did not observe circumcision and the ceremonial law; and it was concerning this that the trouble arose. But not one word of dispute arose concerning the Sabbath. That the ancient Sabbath could be set aside and a new one established, without one word of dispute, or a single hint respecting the time, place, and manner of the change appearing in the book of Acts, is absolutely impossible.
Yet in this assembly the ancient Sabbath was recognized. James says of Moses that he is “read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” Acts 15:21. Now by the term Sabbath day is certainly intended the very day which the people of God had observed for four thousand years. And this word “every” confines the term to the day which the Hebrew people hallowed, and does positively exclude the supposed new apostolic Sabbath. How unsuitable the language of James, were it true, as Eld. P. supposes, that the ancient Sabbath had been superseded by a new one.
The Sabbath had not been changed before this assembly; it was not changed by this assembly; and after this, no other time or place can be found in the book of Acts for this change.
In Acts 16 we find at Philippi pious Gentiles in the habit of assembling on the Sabbath for worship. And Paul here laid the foundation of the Philippian church. But not one hint is given that he introduced a new Sabbath.
In Acts 17 we find Paul in the Jewish synagogue at Thessalonica on three Sabbath days. Here he laid the foundation of the Thessalonian church. But he said nothing concerning a new day for the Sabbath.
In Acts 18 we find him for a space of time in the synagogue at Corinth every Sabbath. This was the beginning of the Corinthian church. And here also is no word on record respecting a new day. In Acts 19 is no hint of the new Sabbath we have so long sought to find.
But in the twentieth chapter of Acts we find the first and only mention of the first day of the week in this book. In the remaining eight chapters of the book there is not to be found even the remotest hint which can be construed to teach the existence of an apostolic first-day Sabbath. In the whole book of Acts, therefore, is found barely one mention of the first day of the week. This single verse (Acts 20:7) does, therefore, constitute the “trace” of first-day observance, which becomes a “testimony” to the change of the Sabbath because it was an act of obedience to “the law” which prescribed this change; and the existence of this “law” is proved by this “trace” of first-day observance. So out of this verse we “obtain the evidence of ‘law and testimony’ both,” to the change of the Sabbath. See Eld. P.'s third form of argument (p. 108), heretofore noticed. Here is the verse in question:
Acts 20:7: “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 till midnight.”
How many years had elapsed between the resurrection of Christ and this meeting at Troas? More than one-fourth of a century. How many times had the first day of the week been mentioned during this long period in which the very foundations of the apostolic church were laid? Not even once. Is there really no case in which the apostles as a body ever took action upon the change of the Sabbath? None whatever. Did they say nothing concerning it when Peter preached on Ps. 118, which Psalm Eld. P. thinks a prophecy of the new Sabbath? Not one word. When all the apostles were delivered from the prison and bidden to stand in the temple and speak to the people “all the words of this life,” what did they say concerning the first-day Sabbath? They did not even allude to it. When the gospel was sent to the Gentiles, what did Peter say concerning this new institution, as he opened the gospel to them? Not one word. And in that only general council ever held under the direction of the Spirit of God, at which time the subjects of circumcision and the ceremonial law were considered, what did the apostles by way of changing the Sabbath? Nothing at all. They did not allude to such a thing. But is there no later place than this where the apostles might have put down the former Sabbath and set up the new one? There is not; for from this point Luke drops them from his history. We have learned from Eld. P. that “the first decisive indication of this change” of the Sabbath is to be found in the history of the apostles; we have come to where they as a body are dropped from the record of the book of Acts. Have we found such indication? Far from it; we have not even found a hint of this thing in all their collective history.
But what does Luke term the day on which the disciples broke bread at Troas? Neither Lord's day nor Christian Sabbath; he calls it plain “first day of the week.” How often does he say that they thus came together? He does not intimate that they did this but once. But does not the word “when” which he uses, imply a stated custom? Whether it does or not, there is nothing in the original answering to the word “when” as a definite word. The original simply implies “the disciples being assembled.” Does Luke say that this was a custom of the churches generally? He makes no allusion to any church but that of Troas, and says nothing of a custom even there. When things were customs, did Luke particularly note them as such? He did. Luke 4:16; Acts 16:13; 17:2; 18:4. Why did he not say, “This was their custom,” if, as Eld. P. supposes, he wrote this verse to show that this was the case? Did not this new, and hitherto unheard of, custom, if it was one, need to be noted for the good of those who were to follow it, quite as much as the old and well-established Sabbath which, by the way, Eld. P. thinks was to be no longer followed? But what does Luke say that they came together on that occasion to do? He says it was to break bread. Does not this show that they met to commemorate Christ's resurrection? That depends upon what is commemorated by the breaking of bread. What does Paul say is commemorated by eating of the bread and drinking of the cup? “The Lord's death.” 1 Cor. 11:26. Were the disciples commemorating the resurrection of Christ? They were not. The record plainly shows that they met to commemorate his death. Were they then celebrating the first-day Sabbath? Not if Eld. P. is correct. He says: “All who observe ‘the first day of the week’ for the Sabbath, believe it was the resurrection, and not the crucifixion, which is to be commemorated by the observance of the first-day Sabbath.” p. 289. Does Luke then intimate that they were met to keep the first day in honor of Christ's resurrection? He certainly does not. Does he give any incidental reason for the celebration of the supper at this particular time? He does. Paul was going away in the morning, and they were never to see him again.
Eld. P. speaks something on this passage which we shall be pleased to notice in connection with his comments upon the word Sabbaton, with which it is necessarily associated as he treats it. We conclude by saying, 1. There are, according to Eld. P., no decisive indications of the change of the Sabbath in the history of Christ. p. 110. 2. The descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost did not change the Sabbath; for Eld. P. plainly teaches that the apostles did this work, and professes his ability to prove it from Scripture and history. p. 117. 3. No trace of this change is so much as hinted at on any of the crises or memorable epochs in their history; and, moreover, the day is not so much as mentioned in the book of Acts till the apostles as a body are dropped from its records. 4. In the single instance in which the first day is mentioned, the church at Troas met to commemorate the death of Christ and not his resurrection; and Eld. P. says, “All who observe the first day of the week for the Sabbath, believe it was the resurrection, and not the ‘crucifixion’ which is to be commemorated by the observance of the first-day Sabbath.” p. 289. We are therefore warranted in saying, on the authority of all the facts in the case, supported by the testimony of Eld. P. himself, that no trace of the first-day Sabbath appears in the book of Acts.
Continue reading: AWAKE!