Sabbath or Lord's day? Which?

Chapter I. The Statement Of The Question

The question is one of importance, as it concerns a matter of obedience to God. If God has required us to keep one day out of every seven, and if blessings and penalties depend upon our obedience or disobedience, it well becomes us to know whether we are in the way of blessing or cursing. All through the Old Testament, after the giving the law from Sinai, the Sabbath is made binding upon the people of Israel. Not only so, but it was enforced by very severe penalties. Like other features of that law, men must observe it or die. Found guilty of violating this law, the rebel must surely be put to death. Even picking up sticks on that holy day was a capital offence. No one attempts to deny these facts.

Again, it is just as evident that the seventh day was the Sabbath day as that there was a Sabbath day required to be kept by any one. The commandment was not to keep one day out of seven, but to keep the seventh day. If the Israelite had kept the first day of the week, with all the solemnity of the law, but not the seventh, he would have been regarded as a violator of the law, and punished accordingly. Indeed, he might have observed all the other six, but if he had not remembered the seventh to keep it holy, he would have been regarded as a transgressor of the law. This also is acknowledged by every one who has read the Scriptures on the subject.

If the Sabbath is now binding, are the penalties then belonging to the institution, yet to be inflicted upon the violator of the law ? If not, when were these penalties removed, and by

4 SABBATH OB LOED S DAY '.'

whom? If those penalties have been removed, are there any others come to take their place ? And if there are other penalties, not found in the law of M ses, where can we find them ? If there are any changes in the severity of the penalties, or in the rigor of the law. how can we assure ourselves of the fa :

If this law of the Sabbath is still binding, and yet without penalties for its violation, or blessings for its faithful observance, then it may be a matter of small moment to many persons, whether they keep it or not. If the blessing pronounced upon faithfulness to this requirement is eternal life, and the curse to be visited on the disobedient eternal death, where can we ibid the statement which will warrant our fai:

Here is now a very earnest effort being made by Adventists and ^rventh-Day Baptists to bring about a return to Sab-

:li-keeping, according to the law. It I have understood them correctly their positions ar~ as follows :

1. The B Vbbath was given at the creation of the world.

2. It was given to all men. and was to be observed during all time.

It was to be observed on the seventh day of the week.

4. The law of which it was a part has never been done sway.

Now, beyond all question, if their theory is right, their practice ;n not be wrong. I understand the religious world generally to agree with their vie^vs concerning the giving of that law. as to form, time and extent Indeed, I am not aware that either of the four positions taken by Sabbatarians is dissented from by the average religious teacher of to-day. Still, the pra::i x is very iistmck The whole religious world, aside from the parties already named, keep the first day of the week instead of the seventh, which was required to be observed by

Here is a manifest inconsistency, and no man can deny it. If God required us to keep the seventh day of the w : keeping the first will not be obeying that command. And it ;dn to talk of keeping the spirit of a law when we deliberately violate its letter. It is impossible to be religiously rigb - iripturally wrong at the same time. If God com-

manded all men to keep the :h day of the week, and has never changed or removed that law, then we must either keep the seventh day or violate the commandment of God. This is so self-evident that to elaborate or repeat it would indicate a want of confidence in my readers.

Some have been heard to say, however, that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. But the Bible does not know anything of any such a change. No inspired man ever called the first day of the week the Sabbath. It was centuries after the last apostle was dead before men began to speak of keeping the Sabbath by observing the first day.

It will be said, however, that the Sabbath, as required of the Israelite, could not be observed in cold climates, and hence the rigor of the law must necessarily have been somewhat abated. But if any such necessity has existed, He who gave the law has surely known it quite as well as any of His creatures, and has therefore, somewhere in His word, removed the severities of the law, or, He has not intended it to be regarded in these cold climates. But if it was not intended for these northern countries then it was not meant to be universal. Hence all that may be legitimately argued from the fact of a needed change in the severities of the fourth command, is that it was not intended for persons living in cold climates. No one. can change a law in any feature, except He who gave it. And if God had made any such a change, such amending enactment could be found somewhere in the Bible. But as no such enactment can be found, the law remains as it was.

I have heard a peculiar argument against the Sabbath to the effect that all men cannot observe the Sabbath at the same time ; that when it is daylight on one side of the globe, it is night on the other. Hence, while one half of the world are keeping the Sabbath, the other part will be busily at work. They illustrate by starting two men around the world from the same place, but in opposite directions. With one the days get shorter, and with the other, they grow longer, so that the man going east has gained a day on his neighbor, at their next meeting ; hence one will be keeping one day for Sabbath and the other will be keeping the next. And some ingenious person has made a reckoning, showing clearly enough, to himself, that we are really now

6 SABBATH OR LORD'S DAT?

keeping the seventh, and not the first day. All this seems to me very much like surrendering the question. These men say — without intending it — that the Sabbath keepers are right in their demands, and that it is necessary for us to find some way of excusing ourselves. "Whatever difficulties there may be found in keeping the Sabbath in other countries or under other circumstances than could be found in Palestine, at the time it was intended for the Israelites, may show that it was not given to other peoples, but can have no effect to prove that the law has in any sense changed.

Again it is argued that Jesus taught the superiority, not only of man. but also of the beast, to the strict demands of the Sabbath. It is claimed that Jesus violated this law when occasion required, and justified himself in doing so on the ground that human want was of more importance than the letter of the law. But no man has yet been able to find a single instance in which Jesus violated any declaration of the law given by Moses. He could not do so after the statement we find in Matt. 5 : 17-19 :

" Think not that I am come to destroy the law. or the prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no vise pass from the law. till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so. he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

ZSTo one could be the author of that language and then violate that law himself without gross inconsistency, such as would unfit him for a public teacher.

Christ neither violated the law nor winked at such conduct on the part of any one else. No case has yet been reported, and no such teaching can be found as coming from Him.

Sabbatarians are claiming, and with some show of reason, that a large majority of the Protestant clergy believe just as they do respecting the sanctity of the Sabbath, and that, if their popularity and salaries were not endangered, would advocate the keeping of the seventh day just as they do. They conclude this from their admissions, as before stated, which legitimately bind them to the law of the Sabbath. They further claim, too that the devotion of the Christian world to the first day of the week, is a superstition, which has no higher origin than the edict of a heathen king.

Now to my mind, the question resolves itself into this : Are we now under the law of which the Sabbath was a part, or is the Sabbath now binding on Christians ? For certain it is, if we are to keep the Sabbath, then we are bound to observe the seventh day of the week.

No matter how the law was changed, unless Jehovah changed it, if it is yet binding, it is our place to keep it to the end of life, unless sooner released from its obligations by Him who gave it.

CHAPTEE II.

REASONS FOR KEEPING THE SABBATH EXAMINED UPON THE HYPOTHESIS OF A PRE-MOSAIC REQUIREMENT.

I. The first reason usually assigned for keeping the Sabbath is that it was given at creation, to all men and for all time.

This position is called in question. If we can have no law respecting the Sabbath without the use of that word, then there was no command from Jehovah to any man to observe the Sabbath for at least 2,500 years after the world was framed. In Exodus 16 : 23 is the first occurrence of the word in the English Scriptures. Nor is there any text which would contain that word if properly translated. Just how a law was in existence requiring men to observe the seventh day of the week, and yet no mention made of the fact in the Bible, will never be solved in the minds of those who are disposed to think for themselves.

But some one answers, We find Cain and Abel offering sacrifice, and yet no mention made of the fact that God had required such service at their hands. Not only so, but Paul says that Abel offered by faith. And, as we know that faith is the belief of testimony, it therefore follows that commands

8 SABRATH OR LORD*? DAY ?

are sometimes enacted when there is no notice given of the fact.

This, however, is a long ways from the case in hand. Here we find sacrifice. Though we have no mention made of the original command, we do have mention made of the practice. t But there is no mention made of command or practice respecting the Sabbath for twenty-five centuries.

But it is said that God not only rested on the seventh day. but he sanctified it in commemoration of that fact. Hence it was set apart to a holy or a sacred use, and as this was at the beginning, the law was known from that time and observed by all who feared the Lord.

Two things are taken for granted here which are not granted. First, it is presumed that ''sanctified,'' when said of the seventh day. means, necessarily, set apart to be observed by men as a day of worship; and second, that it was thus set apart at the creation of the world. But neither of these is by any means certain. ''Sanctified" might refer to a holy joy in the mind of God: or it might indicate that God would mark the time, and in the ages to come require his people to abstain from labor on that day. Hence the language cannot mean anything absolutely which will be of any service to the cause for which it is used.

Xor is this all. The deductions from the supposed existence of the law of the Sabbath are by no means legitimate. For instance, if the law had been given at the creation it would not follow that all men were expected to obey it for all time. ^Ve are sure, from the reference to sacrifice, that an offering for sin was required, and that it was a sacrifice of blood, but these services are not therefore required of all men and for all time. When the seventh day was sanctified is not indicated in the language referred to. I will quote Gen. 2 : 2, 3:

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh day from all the work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it : because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created and made."

£Tow it was not the first seventh day in which the sanctification took place, for he sanctified the day because that in it he had rested. The day was not wholly given to silence and inactivity ; that is not the meaning. The thought is that he discontinued the creative or formative work on that day.

The following sensible treatment of the subject is found in Smith's Bible Dictionary, Am. Ed.-, Vol. iv., page 2763 :

" We have hitherto viewed the Sabbath merely as a Mosaic ordinance. It remains to ask whether there be indications of its having been previously known and observed ; and, secondly, whether it have an universal scope and authority over all men.

" The former of these questions is usually approached with a feeling of its being connected with the latter, and, perhaps, therefore, with a bias in favor of the view which the questioner thinks will support his opinion of the latter. It seems, however, to us, that we may dismiss any anxiety as to the results we may arrive at concerning it. No doubt, if we see strong reason for thinking that the Sabbath had a pre-Mosaic existence, we see something in it that has more than a Mosaic character and scope. But it might have had such without an universal authority, unless we are prepared to ascribe that to the prohibition of eating blood or things strangled. And again, it might have originated in the law of Moses, and yet possess an universal scope, and an authority over all men, and through* all time. Whichever way, therefore, the* second of our questions is to be determined, we may easily approach the first without anxiety.

" The first and chief argument of those who maintain that the Sabbath was known before Moses, is the reference to it in Gen. 2 : 2, 3. This is considered to represent it as coeval with man, being instituted at the creation, or, at least, as Lightfoot views the matter, immediately upon the fall. This latter opinion is so entirely without rational ground of any kind that we may dismiss it at once. We have no materials for ascertaining or even conjecturing, which was put forth first, the record of the creation, or the Fourth Commandment. If the latter, then the reference to the Sabbath in the former, is abundantly natural. Had, indeed, the Hebrew tongue, the variety of preterite tenses of the Greek, the words in Genesis might require careful consideration in that regard ; but as the case is, no light can be had from grammar ; and on the supposition of these being written after the Fourth Commandment, their absence, or that of any equivalent to them, would be really marvelous."

Nearly all able critics are of the opinion that the whole of Genesis was written after the law had been given at Sinai. Hence, as Moses had learned that the Fourth Commandmer.t was to keep in memory the creation of the world, the most natural thing would be for him to mention the sanctification of that day in connection with the account of the creation. This has been the manner of historians and biographists in all time. It is in this way that we speak of General Washington when he was a boy. And yet no man would understand us to say that he was a general at that tender age. As our learned author has indicated, there are no rules of grammar which require us to regard the time of that sanctification as having occurred previous to the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, and as it is most in accord with all the facts known to us, to regard it as never having been mentioned before that event, it is safer to say that Moses referred to the sanctification of the Sabbath, as having taken place when the law was given at Sinai. This will account for the fact that no mention is made of any law of that nature during all these centuries. x

In appropriating this text the friends of the Sabbath have to assume every essential feature of the argument :

1. They assume that Gen. 2: 2, 3, describes an event which took place at the foundation of the world.

2. They assume in the second place, that " blessed and sanctified" require that man should observe that day as a day of rest, without any mention being made of the fact.

3. They assume in the third place, that if the law had been given at that time, it would therefore be binding upon all men for all time.

These are the very essentials, in the whole matter, and yet they are assumed ; not one of them can be sustained.

It has sometimes been argued that Gen. 4 : 3, presents the idea of a pre-Mosaic Sabbath : "And in process of time " they render, "And in the end of days," which, they tell us, shows that they had knowledge of some artificial measurement of time, most likely the Sabbath.

This comes from too fruitful an imagination. The language does not indicate any artificial measurement of time, nor any division of time whatever. It is equal to saying that it occurred in the history of this family, etc. And if there was any division of time in the language, it would be more easily interpreted of the new moon, or of some measurement of time which we know to have been before the people. But the seizure of this and many similar passages of Scripture, only to force them into some sort of support of their theory, contrary to all probability and even possibility of meaning, only shows how far mere speculators will go in search of support for a favorite dogma.

Again we are told that this arbitrary division of time is to be seen in the seven days of Noah, and also in the week which Jacob fulfilled for Kachel (Gen. 29 : 27). While these things would accord well with the idea of a pre-Mosaic Sabbath, yet the existence of such an institution is not a necessary inference therefrom. If they could be accounted for in no other way, then we would give them a prominent place in the consideration of the subject. But such is not the case. Seven days is a natural division of the moon, by which we know that the ancients measured the year. And yet, for all that, the third day is of more frequent occurrence in Genesis than the seventh. It is not a natural division of time, nor does any one claim it to be sacred. And yet, the word week, in Gen. 29 : 27, has most probable reference to seven years, during which Jacob should continue his toils with Laban. It must be conceded that the word week everywhere else in the Old Testament has the meaning of seven years. Hence, when we come to look at this argument, there seems to be nothing in it.

The Sabbath must be found in some way, hence the ancient cities are put under tribute to the cause. Mr. Smith finds in Nineveh, (1869) the fifth of the Assyrian tablets, and also a religious calendar, in that ancient city. Here are evidences that the people knew of the Sabbath, and probably kept it. This, too, is supposed to have been written before the law of Moses was given on Mt. Sinai. Hence that people had carried down with them this religious requirement. But when we find the name of Merodach in this, we are quite sure of the later origin of this production. Certain, it is, that Solomon largely inilnenced the nations of the east long before these tablets were probably written. And still further, it will be seen in these, that the service of the New Moons, and the feast days of the Jews stand in the same relation to time that the Sabbath does :

"Every month without fail he made holy assembly days." And the whole of this tablet shows the common Jewish origin, with the after glosses of heathenism.

I have no need to say to any one who reads history that all reckoning upon dates, which claim to have been given, among the heathen nations before the seventh century, B. C, is exceedingly doubtful as to its correctness. Hence, since we know that these writings give certain evidence of their Jewish origin, nothing more need to be said of them.

A very strange argument, and yet a very common one, is that the form of the law of the Sabbath in the Decalogue is proof that it was an old institution. They say that as it there occurs, it has all the form of a requirement already known. But who does not know that the Sabbath was given a month before that? In Exodus 16 : 23, the word occurs for the first time in the Bible. But this was a month before the law was given at Mt. Sinai. If it could be said that the requirement to keep the Sabbath as it is found in Ex. 16 : 23 indicates that it was an old institution and well understood by the people, then there would be some argument in it. Even then, however, it would only be suggestive.

Ex. 16 : 22, 23 : "And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord ; bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe ; and that which remaineth over lay Up for you to be kept until the morning."

1. They are not reminded to renew their faithfulness in keeping an ordinance which they had previously known, but had, on some account, neglected.

2. But the institution is given in the form in which a new commandment is presented.

3. There is no account in their history that they had ever kept it or known anything about it.

4. Every ruler seemed perfectly surprised that two portions of manna was given on the sixth day, and could not imagine why it should be so. If they had ever known anything about the Sabbath day before this, their ignorance and astonishment is perfectly unaccountable.

If we had found that the law of the Sabbath was given at the creation, it would not follow that all peoples are to observe it, for all time. Hence, in every way, the argument for a pre- Mosaic Sabbath, must be regarded as a complete failure.

Chapter III. To Whom Was The Daw Of The Sabbath Given" ?

It is maintained that the Sabbath was given to all men, and was, therefore, intended to be a universal law. Of course the purpose of this argument is to find that the removal of the law given at Mt. Sinai can have nothing to do with the cessation of the Sabbath.

1. The first proof of the correctness of this position usually relied upon, is the numerical argument. A careful gleaning of the whole of the Scriptures is made and the number of times which the Sabbath is commanded, in one way or another, is stated. This is done to show the importance of the institution in the mind of the Author.

Surely this is a work of gratuity. If we could so far forget our logic as to imagine the possibility of maintaining any proposition in this way, we could easily find that almost every requirement of the Old Testament was intended for all men. Sacrifices, circumcision, new moons, sabbatical years, and almost the entire law has been required with equal emphasis. Xo one doubts that the Sabbath was binding on the people to whom it was given, and that it was to continue in force till it should be taken out of the way by the same authority which gave it.

2. But the great argument is derived from the statement of the Master: ''The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2 : 27. They repeat this very frequently, with very telling effect, at least on themselves.

And yet everything that was said of the Sabbath in this respect could have been said with equal propriety concerning every other Old Testament requirement. Every decree that God ever gave to the race, or any portion of it, was given to man, or made for man. But there is nothing in it to show that it was intended for all men. This is a rule in hermeneutics, agreed to by all who have really studied that science : Nothing should ever be applied to any subject not before the mind of the author at the time of writing or speaking. Indeed, the first thing that the exegete has to do in beginning his work, is to determine the purpose of the author, so that in the work of interpretation he may never go beyond that purpose in his exegesis.

3STow with that rule before us, let us turn and see if Jesus was intending to say anything respecting the extensiveness of that institution. The question was, had his disciples violated that commandment ? If we know the law in the matter, we know they had not. And as for their traditions, Jesus cared nothing. But while he and his disciples were free from transgressions of the law, they were not. They had violated that commandment, and excused others in doing the same. They had done so, too, when they had regarded it necessary to sustain life, or even to remove suffering. And yet upon such a basis as that, no law should be violated. One who was the Lord of the Sabbath might do so, for he would be unerring in his opinion of the necessity of the case. Hence he adds : " The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." The argument, then, of Jesus stands : (1) My disciples have violated no law. See Matt. 12 : 7. (2) You agree that human life is more than keeping the Sabbath, and if there is therefore ever a conflict between the two, the Sabbath will have to give way ; and (3) I am the Lord of the Sabbath, and can therefore dispose of it as I please. Hence it will appear to every careful reader that in making Mark 2 : 27 testify [on the subject of the extent of the Sabbath, they have done violence to one of the most fundamental rules of interpretation ; that they have insisted on a meaning that was not in any way before the mind of the Lord when the language was employed.

It now seems proper that I should state some reasons for denying the proposition. This I must do very briefly :

1. The Scriptures directly state that they were only given to ancient Israel. If this be true, the question ought to end. For if He who gave the Sabbath says it was only intended for the descendants of Jacob, no true believer will dare affirm the proposition which we now oppose.

Exodus 34 :27 : "And the Lord said unto Moses, write thou these words : for after the tenor of these words I have commanded a covenant with thee and with Israel."

No man, not even Adventists, deny that this covenant commanded, contained the Sabbath. Hence this law was given to Moses and the people of Israel. If this law belonged to others, what emphasis could have been placed on its being the property of Moses and that people ?

Exodus 31 : 13, 16, 17 : " Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep : for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations ; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." * * * * " Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever : for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."