|
GOD’S
HOLY DAY
BY
M. L. ANDREASEN
THE FIRST day of the week is
mentioned eight times in the New Testament, but at no time is it called
the Sabbath. The eight texts are found in the following places:
Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2; Mark
16:9; Luke 24:1;
John 20:1; John
20:19; Acts 20:7;
1 Corinthians 16:2. THE
FIRST TEXT Acts 20:7 records the only religious meeting in the New Testament that was held on the first day of the week: “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 until midnight.” There are several questions that confront us in this account. First, When was the meeting held? The record shows that it was held in the evening, for there “were many lights in the upper chamber,” and Paul spoke till midnight, and then continued “till break of day.” (Acts 20:8, 11). The question is whether the meeting was held on Saturday or Sunday evening. As is known, the Bible reckons the day from sunset till sunset, while the common present reckoning is from midnight to midnight. When the Bible speaks of the first day of the week the time from sunset Saturday till sunset Sunday is meant. Ordinarily a meeting held in the evening of the first day of the week would mean that it was held Saturday night; but there are indications that it was not always so reckoned. In the particular case under consideration, commentators are nearly evenly divided, some holding that the meeting occurred Saturday night; others, Sunday night. We are willing to accept either view, as for our purpose it makes little difference. We leave this question for the reader to decide for himself according as he sees best. Was this a special meeting called because Paul was about to leave on a long journey, and this was the last opportunity he would have to meet with them before the boat sailed? The evidence seems to be in favor of this. It was unusual in those days to hold meetings at night, except in time of persecution, for it was dangerous to be abroad in the dark. Then, too, the gates of the city were closed at sunset, and no one who lived outside the city could conveniently attend such a meeting. We are therefore inclined to believe that this was an unusual meeting. It is to be noted that the account of the meeting says nothing about the Sabbath. It would have been easy for Luke to insert a word, stating that this meeting was held on the Sabbath. That he does not do this is significant. It seems clear that the reason for the meeting’s being recorded in the Bible is the fact that a miracle was performed. A dead man was brought back to life again, and Luke notes this unusual happening. It was not often that such an event took place, and Luke recorded it (Acts 20:9, 10). There are other questions that call for consideration. If the meeting was held Saturday night — which to many seems likely — then Paul had a long journey ahead of him for Sunday. Would Paul have undertaken such a journey on the new Sabbath? Luke, who is the author of the book of Acts, as well as of the third Gospel, in reporting the events of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, makes note of the fact that the women did not attempt to embalm the body on the Sabbath, but “rested the Sabbath day,” and that this resting was “according to the commandment.” The time of the writing of the book of Luke and that of Acts is not far apart. Is it conceivable that he would not faithfully make a record of such a drastic change as that from Saturday to Sunday, had such a change occurred? If this particular meeting took place on Saturday night, Paul started his journey of eighteen miles at daybreak to get to his boat. This would hardly be an auspicious introduction of the first-day Sabbath, either to the church there or to New Testament readers. If, on the other hand, this meeting was held Sunday night, then it was not held on the first day of the week at all, for the first day ended at sunset Sunday evening, and this meeting was held later than sunset. Should we even admit of midnight as the beginning of the new day according to our present reckoning, we would still be in difficulty, for the meeting lasted till Monday morning, and the bread was broken after midnight. From the record of the meeting we learn the following: The meeting was a special meeting, held because Paul was about to leave on a journey and wanted to break bread with the church once more before they parted. The meeting was reported by Luke because of the restoration of the young man who fell down and was killed. There was no great theological or other issue at stake, and Paul’s sermon has not been preserved for us, which it would have been had it been of unusual importance. This last consideration would rule out that the meeting or sermon had anything to do with the Sabbath question. Luke, who was a faithful historian and had a “perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” would be quick to detect any variation from the usual procedure (Luke 1:3). This night meeting, if it had had any relation whatever to the Sabbath question, would have presented an excellent opportunity for the historian, Luke, to record any new development in the teaching since the days of Christ. The fact that he records a meeting held on the first day of the week, coupled with the fact that he conspicuously omits any mention of it as a Sabbath meeting held in honor of Sunday, is conclusive proof that he did not consider it to have any relation to the Sabbath whatsoever. We believe that inspiration purposely recorded a meeting as being held on the first day of the week to give opportunity for the observant reader to note that God does not recognize the first day as the Sabbath.
As noted, this is the only text in the New Testament that records
any religious meeting held on the first day of the week.
We have found nothing that even remotely connects it with the
Sabbath. There is no
mention of it as a holy day or of any observance of it.
We now turn to the consideration of the second text. THE
SECOND TEXT This text is recorded in 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2. “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” Paul here exhorts the saints to lay by on the first day of the week a sum proportionate to the prospering hand of God. He had ordered the same to be done in the other churches in Galatia. Some have thought that this refers to a collection to be taken in the churches on Sunday, and that Paul was giving directions in regard to how it should be done. It is to be noted, however, that neither church nor meeting is mentioned. Each man was to lay “by him in store.” “By him” means “by himself,” or “at home,” as it is also translated. “In store” means that he should keep it until it was called for. Paul knew the value of systematic giving. He was making a collection for the poor saints, and he knew that unless the people laid by a little every week, there would not be much for him to collect when the time came. Those who use this advice of Paul’s as an argument for Sunday sacredness — a most curious use indeed — make several mistakes. They fail to note that this is not a public collection. They fail to note that this is not speaking of a church service. They fail to note that this money is not to be given in a collection to be taken then and there, but is to be kept “in store” until such time as it is called for. They fail to note that this setting aside of funds is to be done “by him,” that is by each person, at home, not in church, not in company, but by himself. They fail to note that the gift of each is to be proportionate to the prosperity with which God has blessed him, and that this calls for a weekly accounting, to determine the income, and a weekly laying aside according to the amount of income. This might in some cases involve considerable bookkeeping, which would be altogether inappropriate to do on the Sabbath, but which Paul considers to be good work on Sunday. A careful reading of Paul’s advice in the text before us results in the conviction that the text constitutes a sound argument for the sacredness of the seventh-day Sabbath, and a strong argument against Sunday sacredness. This text is found in Matthew 28:1: “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” The Revised Version reads, “Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” There are differences of opinion among translators in regard to the correct rendering of this text, but for our present purpose we are willing to accept either of the translations given above. The text mentions two days. The one is called the Sabbath; the other is called the first day of the week. The Sabbath is said to come before the first day, and is definitely distinguished from it. There is no intermingling or confusion of days, and no change of the Sabbath day is suggested. We are simply informed that in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the sepulcher.
It is interesting to note what this text says, and also what it
does not say. The Gospel of
Matthew was written about thirty years after the death of Christ.
By that time the Holy Spirit had ample time to impress upon the
hearts of the leading disciples that a new Sabbath had come into
existence, if that indeed were the case.
It would be most fitting if some reference to this supposed fact
had been made when Matthew mentions the resurrection.
It would have been easy to make some remark that would indicate
that the old Sabbath was superseded by the new.
It seems passing strange that thirty years after the resurrection
Matthew still calls the seventh day the Sabbath, and fails to improve
the opportunity of putting in a word for Sunday. THE
FOURTH AND FIFTH TEXTS The fourth text reads as follows: “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.” ( Mark 16:1, 2). To this we would add the fifth text found in the same chapter: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” (Mark 16:9). Verse 9 refers to the same first day mentioned in verse 2. It states that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene when He arose early the first day of the week. It does not state that the first day of the week is the Sabbath; it merely affirms that on that day Christ met Mary Magdalene. Verse 2 states that the women mentioned in verse 1 came to the sepulcher on the first day of the week as the sun was rising. We are told that they came to anoint the Saviour, and brought sweet spices with them for that purpose. The statement is also made that “the Sabbath was past” when they started on their errand. Here again we have the two days placed side by side, the Sabbath and the first day of the week. We are told that the Sabbath is the day that precedes the first day of the week, and that when the first day comes, the Sabbath is past. We again note that inspiration, speaking through Mark as it had through Matthew, thirty years after the resurrection, calls the seventh day the Sabbath, and that the only name given Sunday is the first day of the week. We would again suggest that it would have been easy for the inspired writer to put in a word for Sunday in this particular place. That he failed to do so is significant. We would further suggest that, if the inspired writer did not wish to exalt Sunday, he might have remained neutral or silent on the question. But he does not. He tells us that the day before Sunday, that is, the seventh day, is the Sabbath. That is putting in a good word for the Sabbath. But he does more than that. He tells us that the women did work on Sunday which they would not do on the Sabbath, important as that work was. This is more than neutrality. It favors Sabbath.
The text definitely contrasts Sabbath and Sunday.
It says in effect: “Do
not work on the Sabbath. Keep
that day holy. Do your work
on the other days. However
necessary it may seem to work on the Sabbath, do not do it.
The God who preserved the manna, so that it did not spoil, can
easily preserve a body from corruption.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” THE
SIXTH TEXT The sixth text is found in Luke 24:1. “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.” This is the same event which the other evangelists record, with some added information. The preceding verses read: “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.” (Luke 23:54-56). We learn from this that on the day of preparation, that is, Friday, Christ was crucified, and that He died as the Sabbath was drawing on. We learn also that the women that same Friday prepared spices for His anointing, and that on the following day, Saturday, they rested “according to the commandment.” If we take these verses in connection with Luke 24:1, we find that three days are under review, the day of preparation, the Sabbath, and the first day of the week. We are told that the women worked two of these days, but that on the Sabbath they rested.
There is nothing in these texts that says or suggests that Sunday
is the Sabbath. On the
contrary, the difference between Sunday and the Sabbath is made very
distinct and clear. The
women worked on the day of preparation, Friday.
On Saturday they did nor work; they rested, and this was
“according to the commandment.”
On Sunday they brought their material to anoint their Lord.
This makes a definite contrast between the two days, and makes
emphatic that the day which comes between Friday and Sunday is “the
sabbath day according to the commandment.”
This, then, makes Saturday the Sabbath of the Lord.
Nothing is said of Sunday sacredness.
The only mention is that on Sunday the women came carrying the
material, ready to go to work. THE
SEVENTH AND EIGHTH TEXTS These two texts are found in John 20:1, 19: “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.” “ 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.” The first of these texts repeats what the other evangelists have said, and appears to add nothing new or different. The first day is mentioned, but nothing is said of its being the Sabbath. It merely records that Mary Magdalene came early the first day of the week to the grave, which same statement is made by the other evangelists. The second text mentions that the disciples were assembled that “same day at evening, being the first day of the week,” that is, Sunday evening. We are not told the purpose of their assembly. The doors were shut, bolted, “for fear of the Jews.” At this time the disciples were in ignorance of the resurrection of Jesus. Because of this ignorance we know that they were not assembled to celebrate the resurrection. Though they knew that Christ was not in the tomb, they simply could not believe that He was risen from the dead. We also know that they were not assembled to celebrate a new Sabbath in commemoration of the resurrection, for the reason just stated, that they did not believe that Christ had risen. All we know is that they were together, and that they were afraid of the Jews and had bolted the doors.
It is not easy to understand how any can see in this account an
argument for Sunday sacredness. But
inspiration knew that the time would come when men would grasp at any
straw to support them in their contention for a first-day Sabbath.
As a matter of historical accuracy, it was necessary to make a
report of the meeting, for it was an important one, and inspiration must
report the truth. But in
this case inspiration took special precaution that there be no
misunderstanding. God knew
that the statement that the disciples were assembled Sunday night would
be interpreted by some to mean that it was a religious meeting to
celebrate the resurrection, or Sunday, or something.
So inspiration makes it plain that the disciples were not meeting
to celebrate the resurrection, or to celebrate Sunday.
They were gathered for fear of the Jews, and not for the
celebration of anything. SUMMARY We have now considered every text in the New Testament that mentions the first day of the week. Instead of finding them favorable to the first day of the week as the Sabbath, we find in them strong proof for the seventh-day Sabbath. We sum up the reaching of inspiration as follows: When inspiration finds it necessary to mention the first day, it takes pains to contrast that day with the Sabbath. Inspiration could have used these opportunities to tell us that the first day henceforth was to be the Sabbath. It does not do so. Inspiration could have mentioned the first day of the week without bringing it into contrast with the Sabbath. But it purposely makes the contrast prominent. Inspiration could have referred to the seventh day without calling it the Sabbath. It might have called it the day preceding the first day of the week, thus avoiding calling it the Sabbath and at the same time making Sunday prominent. But it does nothing of the kind. Inspiration could have avoided stating that the day that comes between Friday and Sunday is the Sabbath according to the commandment, but it does not try to avoid it. It makes that point very prominent. Inspiration could have recorded the meeting Sunday night without mentioning that the disciples had bolted the doors for fear of the Jews. Had that been omitted, the impression might have been left that it was some kind of celebration meeting. As it is now, we are told that they did not have any faith in the resurrection, and that, of course, spoils any idea of using this text in favor of Sunday sacredness. I hold, therefore, that the references to the first day of the week in the New Testament have been put there by God Himself for the specific purpose of affirming that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the new dispensation, and the first day is not. ----------------------------------------- There is one more text that perhaps could be considered in this connection, though it does not speak of the first day. It is the statement found in Revelation 1:10: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” Some believe that this has reference to Sunday. It may be confidently stated that nowhere in the Bible, in either the Old or the New Testament, is the first day of the week ever called the Lord’s day; nor is it in any way connected with it. There is only one Lord’s day, and that is the day which God calls “my holy day,” or the Sabbath of the fourth commandment (Isaiah 58:13; Exodus 20:8-11). John was “in the isle . . . called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:9). As a prisoner he might have been put to work in the copper mines of the island, of which there were many and which were worked by slave and prison labor. Probably, though, because of his age, he was not required to work at all. In any event, on the Lord’s day, the blessed day that he so often had enjoyed with the Master, the seventh day of the week, God revealed Himself to John, and gave him those visions that have been the study of God’s children ever since.
As stated, there is no Biblical ground whatever for calling
Sunday the Lord’s day. Such
a contention rests on extra-Biblical grounds that no true Protestant can
accept. I rest the case
there. HAS
THE LAW BEEN ABROGATED? THE QUESTION as to whether the law has been abrogated has already been partially answered elsewhere. Is there any statement from the mouth of Christ Himself that answers the question? This is important, for it must be clear to all that if the law has been abrogated or changed, then we are entirely out of order in making any argument based on an annulled law. If, on the other hand, the law has not been changed, not even in the smallest particular, then we have every reason to emphasize the Ten Commandments and consider them binding. We therefore ask Christ: Has the law of Ten commandments been abrogated or changed? The answer comes right back: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] 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.” (Matthew 5:17-19). These are familiar words. They are understandable. Christ here tells us that not one jot or tittle, not the least word or letter, has been changed. Words could not make this plainer. To this the apostles agree. We quote from Paul, John, and James; “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.’ (Romans 3:31). “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” ( 1 John 2:2, 3). ‘By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.’ (1 John 5:2, 3). “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (James 1:25). ‘If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” (James 2:8-12).
From this it is clear that the apostles had no idea of any change
of the law; they stand just where Christ stood. THE
RIGHT TO CHANGE THE SABBATH Here is the second question we have to consider: Did God know that a power should arise that would claim the right to change the commandments of God? If so, should not God have forewarned His people; should not God have said something about it in the Bible, so that we might know that He was not taken by surprise but knew what was coming and had provided for it? To this the answer is that God knows the future, and that hence He knew about the claims which the Papacy would make to change the law of God. A further answer is that God revealed this audacious plan in the Bible long before Christ came to this world. First, perhaps we should settle the question of whether the Roman Catholic Church makes the claim that it has power to change the law of God, and in particular, the right to change the Sabbath day. This, of course, is a tremendous claim, even a blasphemous claim. We have noted before that Christ says He is Lord of the Sabbath, indicating clearly thereby that He denies the right of anyone to tamper with the Sabbath. He knew that there would arise men who would claim the power to change the ordinances of God. In saying that He is Lord of the Sabbath, He deprives any man of the right to touch it in any way. There is probably no more convincing testimony regarding the guilt of a person than the confession of the person involved. In obtaining such a confession, there must, of course, be no compulsion; it must be a free act, not brought about through - or under duress. If a person who has the use of his faculties is accused of a crime, and of his own free will confesses his part in the transgression, there is every reason to accept the testimony as true. We shall therefore ask the accused, the Roman Catholic Church, some very definite questions, or rather and better, we shall let the church ask its own questions and answer them. THE
CLAIMS OF THE PAPACY
“Q. — Which is the Sabbath day? “A. — Saturday is the Sabbath. “Q. — Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? “A. — We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church [in the Council of Laodicea A. D. 336] transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” — REV. PETER GEIERMANN, C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1946), p. 50. “Question. — Has the [Catholic] church power to make any alterations in the commandments of God? “Answer. — . . . Instead of the seventh day, and other festivals appointed by the old law, the church has prescribed the Sundays and holy days to be set apart for God’s worship; and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.” — RT. REV. DR. CHALLONER, Catholic Christian Instructed, p. 211. “We Catholics, then, have precisely the same authority for keeping Sunday holy, instead of Saturday, as we have for every other article of our creed; namely, the authority of ‘the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’ ( 1 Timothy 3:15); whereas, you who are Protestants have really no authority for it whatever; for there is no authority for it in the Bible, and you will not allow that there can be authority for it anywhere else. Both you and we do, in fact, follow tradition in this matter; but we follow it, believing it to be part of God’s word, and the church to be its divinely appointed guardian and interpreter; you follow it denouncing it all the time as a fallible and treacherous guide, which often ‘makes the commandment of God of none affect.’ “ — “A Question for All Bible Christians,” Clifton Tracts, vol. 4, page 15. “Question. — Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? “Answer. — Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her, — she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” — REV. STEPHEN KEENAN, A Doctrinal Catechism (1851), page 174. “Question. — By whom was it [the Sabbath] changed? “Answer.— By the governors of the church, the apostles, who also kept it; for St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day (which was Sunday). Apoc. 1:10. “Ques.— How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days? “Ans. — By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church. “Ques. — How prove you that? “Ans. — Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest [of the feasts] by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.” — REV. HENRY TUBERVILLE, D.D. ( R. C.), An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833), page 58. How will a Protestant answer this challenge? “You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God had spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. “You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you the authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.” — Library of Christian Doctrine: Why don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day? (R.C.), pages 3, 4.
These statements from recognized Catholic sources are sufficient
to prove the point made, that the Roman Catholic Church not only claims
to have changed the law of God as regards the Sabbath commandment, but
is proud of the fact, and claims that it has done so by divine
authority. The church
chides Protestants for keeping the first day of the week, for which
there is no scriptural authority but only the edict of the Catholic
Church, while the Protestants claim to accept the Bible and the Bible
only. WHAT
PROTESTANTS SAY It might at this point be interesting to hear what Protestant denominations have to say on this question. Do they recognize the situation as presented by the Roman Catholic Church? Do they know of the claims made, and do they acknowledge them? As long ago as the Protestant Reformation, this was incorporated in the Augsburg Confession: “They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord’s day, contrary to the decalogue, as it appears; neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, they say, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the ten commandments.” — Augsburg Confession, Art. 28. We shall now append quotations from writers who belong to different denominations. They all present the same testimony. “It is quite clear that, however rigidly or devoutly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath. . . . The Sabbath was founded on a specific, divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday. . . . There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday.” — R. W. DALE, M. A. (Congregationalist), The Ten Commandments (1871), pp. 106, 107. “There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday. . . . Into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters. . . . The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands on exactly the same footing as the observance of Sunday.” — CANON EYTON (Church of England), The Ten Commandments (1894), pp. 62, 63, 65. “And where are we told in Scripture that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day. . . . The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church has enjoined it.” — REV. ISAAC WILLIAMS, B. D. (Church of England), Plain Sermons on the Catechism (1882), vol. 1, pp. 334-336. “It is impossible to extort such a sense from the words of the commandment; seeing that the reason for which the commandment itself was originally given, namely, as a memorial of God’s having rested from the creation of the world, cannot be transferred from the seventh day to the first; nor can any new motive be substituted in its place, whether the resurrection of our Lord or any other, without the sanction of a divine commandment.” — The Christian Doctrine, book 2, chap. 7, in Prose Works of John Milton (1853), vol. 5, page 70. “For if we under the gospel are to regulate the time of our public worship by the prescriptions of the decalogue, it will surely be far safer to observe the seventh day, according to the express commandment of God, than on the authority of mere human conjecture to adopt the first.” — JOHN MILTON, A Treatise on Christian Doctrine; cited in ROBERT COX, The Literature of the Sabbath Question (1865), vol. 2, page 54. “I conceive the celebration of this feast [Easter] was instituted by the same authority which changed the Jewish Sabbath into the Lord’s day or Sunday, for it will not be found in Scripture where Saturday is discharged to be kept, or turned into the Sunday; wherefore it must be the church’s authority that changed the one and instituted the other; therefore my opinion is, that those who will not keep this feast [Easter] may as well return to the observation of Saturday, and refuse the weekly Sunday.” — Extract from the Query to the Parliament Commissioners by King Charles II, April 23, 1647; cited in ROBERT COX, Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties (1853), page 333.
These testimonies all agree that there is no scriptural authority
for any change of the Sabbath. They
agree also with the Bible on this point; so we accept their testimony as
conclusive. THE
SABBATH A SIGN OF SANCTIFICATION THE SABBATH is not merely a memorial that points back to creation. It is also a sign of the vital power of present accomplishment — a sign of God’s power in the transformation of lives, a sign of holiness, of sanctification. Says God: “Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.” (Ezekiel 20:12). “And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.” (verse 20). “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.” (Exodus 31:13). These texts definitely connect the Sabbath and sanctification. The one is a sign of the other. Some may wonder what connection there can be between the Sabbath and the Holy Spirit, between sanctification and the keeping of a day. How can the Sabbath be a sign that the Lord “doth sanctify you?” Let us consider this. Sanctification is the power of God in the individual life so applied that the entire being becomes dedicated to God and His service. It is a Spirit-directed life under the absolute control of God, perfectly yielded and consecrated. It embraces an intense desire for communion with God, a thirsting after the courts of the Lord, a hungering after the divine word that is all-consuming. Christ expressed it in these words: “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (John 2:17). Such a life is not an accident, nor is it brought about by the effort or desire of man. It is all of God, who works in us both to will and to do according to His good pleasure. When God has finished His work in us, when He has reproduced His own image in the soul, He puts His seal of approval upon the consecrated life. “He which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” (2 Corinthians 1:21, 22). Those who are thus sealed, are “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,” “sealed unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). The Sabbath is the sign of this sanctification. “It is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.” (Exodus 31:13). It is God’s stamp of approval, impressed upon the heart by the Spirit of God. For the Sabbath to be a sign of sanctification, it must of course include more than the mere abstinence from labor on a certain day. It is in a very vital sense true, that no unregenerate man can keep the Sabbath holy. He may cease from his common duties, he may even attend divine service, but this does not ensure his entering into the rest of God. Only a Christian can do this. Only “we which have believed do enter into rest” (Hebrews 4:3). Hence only he who is himself holy can keep the Sabbath holy. True Sabbathkeeping is a spiritual service that can be rendered only by a Spirit-filled person. God takes cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart as well as the outward appearance. As baptism presupposes a spiritual preparation and condition, lest it become merely the washing away of the filth of the flesh, so true Sabbathkeeping presupposes a spiritual preparation and condition, lest the Sabbath become merely a day of indolence and useless inactivity. Let it ever be kept clearly in mind that Sabbath observance is not primarily bodily rest. On the contrary, in many cases it demands greater physical exertion than is required on other days. To keep the Sabbath day holy means to enter into rest, God’s rest. “He that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” (Hebrews 4:10). God did not rest because He was weary. “The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary” (Isaiah 40:28). “God did rest the seventh day from all His works,” but the rest was first of all a spiritual rest (Hebrews 4:4). Even when Adam rested with God that first Sabbath, his rest was not demanded by physical exhaustion. It was primarily a rest with God, a spiritual experience, a day of communion and instruction. These considerations make it clear that true Sabbathkeeping involves complete dedication to God. The Sabbath is a bit of heaven transferred to this earth. It is a small sample of what heaven will be. The man who keeps it as God would have it kept, must be at peace with God. Not only or merely must be his body rest. Rather, his whole soul, body, and spirit must for that day be used in God’s service, and everything worldly shut out. The mind is probably the last thing of which we will gain complete control. Most Christians can control — some to a greater, some to a lesser, degree — their body and its lusts. Some can control their tongue and their temper, though many fail in this. Few there are, if any, who have reached the standard set by the apostle Paul, who considers the power of God sufficient “to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5). It is no light thing to bring our thoughts into captivity. Who has not caught himself in church thinking of things utterly unconnected with worship? It is possible for a person to attend divine service on the Sabbath, but his real self, his heart, his mind, his thoughts be far away. It takes tremendous control, greater than is possible for a human being in any strength he may have of himself, to control his mind. Yet Sabbathkeeping that does not include heart and mind is not Sabbathkeeping in the highest sense. In perplexity we may all ask, How can this form of Sabbathkeeping be brought about? Is this not an impossible standard? To this it may be answered that we have probably been satisfied with too low a standard of Sabbath observance. Some think that it is sufficient for them to go to church Sabbath morning, and when they have done this, they feel free to do as they please the rest of the day. Others are more conscientious. They would not desecrate the day either by unnecessary traveling and sight-seeing, or by sleeping the precious hours away. Despite this, they find that their minds wander, and that there is little Sabbath in the soul. At times their minds run wild and must be called back again, but even with the best of intentions, they are unable to bring their thoughts into captivity to Christ. Sabbathkeeping in its highest sense includes a mind stayed upon God, a mind keeps the Sabbath as well as the body. To exercise the mind so that it will be stayed upon God is one purpose of the Sabbath. It is a day that should be used in the exercise of godliness, in communion with God, in practising the presence of God. The man who succeeds in this, who really keeps the Sabbath with all there is of him, has reached the goal God has set for him. He is sanctified, he has reached God’s standard. God can put His seal of approval upon him, place His name in his forehead, and exhibit him to the world as a finished product of what Christianity can do for a man. Such a man has used the Sabbath for its intended purpose; it has accomplished for him what God had in mind; it has become the sign and seal of sanctification, and God owns him as His. “I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.” (Ezekiel 20:12). As men on the Sabbath are instructed in righteousness as they attend worship; as God graciously comes near on that day as on no other; as sins are revealed to them, that they might renounce them; as holiness is held up before them as possible of accomplishment; as the conviction comes to them that Sabbathkeeping must include heart, mind, and soul as well as body; as it suddenly dawns on them that every thought must be brought into captivity to Christ; as the standard is constantly lifted and they cry out unto God for help, men begin to realize the tremendous influence that Sabbathkeeping has upon Christianity. Soon they realize how closely sanctification is bound up with the Sabbath, and how the Sabbath can be a sign that they might know that the Lord is their sanctifier. To them Sabbathkeeping and sanctification become synonymous, for they realize that only the man who is completely sanctified can keep the Sabbath as God would have it kept.
While we have stressed the spiritual aspect of the Sabbath, and
that it is a sign between God and His people, from another viewpoint the
Sabbath is a sign to the world. Between
God and His people the Sabbath is a sign of sanctification; between
God’s people and the world the Sabbath is a sign of separation, a mark
of distinction between those who obey God, who have come out of the
world to enter the heavenly rest, and those who are careless and
disobedient. As verily as
God in olden times used the Sabbath to “prove them, whether they will
walk in My law, or no,” so God uses the Sabbath now (Exodus 16:4). This becomes evident from a study of the last church as it is
characterized in the book of Revelation. THE
LAST CHURCH The fourteenth chapter of Revelation brings to view a people who stand with the Lamb upon Mount Zion. They are without guile, they are without fault, they are wholly dedicated to God, they follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth (verses 1-4). These same people are mentioned in chapter seven as having been sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads, and in chapter fourteen they are seen with the Father’s name written there (Revelation 7:1-4). Evidently there is a close connection between the Father’s name and the seal. The Holy Spirit is closely connected with the seal of God. “Ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1:13). “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30). It should be noted that while these passages do not state that the Holy Spirit Himself is the seal, they do assert that the Spirit is the means that God uses to impress the seal. We are sealed with and by the Spirit of God. The Greek noun translated “seal” and its verb have in their root meaning the idea of “fencing in,” “enclosing,” with the purpose of protecting from misappropriation, to keep secure, to preserve. Thus, when a seal is attached to any document, it serves to protect that document from falsification; it fences it in, as it were; attests to its genuineness; and makes fraud hazardous if not impossible. A seal is also a sign of approval, an attestation of truth and genuineness, a mark of authority and ownership. “Him hath God the Father sealed” (John 6:27). Christ is here speaking of Himself. He declares that He has been sealed by the Father. We understand this to mean that Christ had the approval of the Father, that whatever the Son did satisfied the Father and pleased Him, and that He endorsed Christ’s work.
In like manner we understand that the 144,000 mentioned in
Revelation have the endorsement of the Father.
They are sealed with the seal of the living God; they have the
Father’s name in their foreheads; they are approved of Him.
They are without fault; they keep the commandments of God
(Revelation 14:12). THE
COMMANDMENTS OF GOD This last expression is taken from the book of Revelation, and describes exactly what is needed today. The whole text reads, “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12). In this the complete gospel is revealed. Let us examine the statement. “Here is the patience of the saints.” The word saints is the same word that is in other places translated “holy,” the Greek hagios. It is used in such expressions as “Holy Father,” “holy child Jesus,” “temple of God is holy,” “holy and without blemish,” “present you holy and unblameable,” “He which hath called you is holy,” “holy men of God spake,” “holy is his name.” (John 17:11; Acts 4:27; 1 Corinthians 3:17; Ephesians 5:27; Colossians 1:22; 1 Peter 1:15; 2 Peter 1:21; Luke 1:49). We are therefore safe in believing that the ones here spoken of are saints in the truest sense, that they are sanctified and holy, without spot and blameless. The saints that are thus spoken of keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. To some this may seem like a strange statement, because popular theology does not combine the keeping of the commandments with holiness. Rather, many who claim holiness repudiate utterly the commandments of God, and seem to hold themselves aloof from anything that savors of law. But not so God. When He wishes to define those who are truly holy, when He wishes to point out those who are really holy in the sight of Heaven, He says that they keep the commandments of God. True sanctification and the commandments belong together. The chapter from which we quote the text under consideration begins by giving a description of the Lamb of God standing on Mount Zion, “and with him an hundred an forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads” (Revelation 14:1). They are spoken of as “they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God” (verses 4, 5). They are the same as those “that keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus” (verse 12). They are doubtless also the same as those that are mentioned in Revelation 12:17 as “the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus.” This remnant is generally considered to be the last of God’s people on earth, those who live just before the appearing of the Son of God in the clouds of heaven. The word remnant would seem to indicate this, though we are not dependent upon that expression alone for this view. The whole context gives the same impression. The messages of the three angels mentioned in Revelation 14 are the last messages sent to the earth before the coming of the Lord. Immediately following their proclamation, John says, “I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. . . . And He that sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped” (verses 14-16). It is clear that the remnant of God’s people, those who live just before the coming of the Son of man, the last generation on earth, will have attained unto holiness of life, and they will keep God’s commandments. We believe that we are living near the time when we may expect to see the Son of man come in the clouds of heaven. It is at such a time that the distinguishing mark of those who are sanctified is that they keep the commandments. It is therefore evident that the law must have come into its own again. Before a people can be produced who keep the commandments, there must be a preaching of the commandments, there must be an awakening on the part of the people to the binding claims of God’s law. We may therefore rightly look for a revival of the study of the law before the coming of the Lord, and this revival will be so widespread as to take in all nations and peoples, out of which the remnant will be taken. We might expect more than this. As the people study the law, they will naturally have their attention called to the fact that they are not keeping holy the day which the commandment demands. This will lead them to a thorough search for truth, and this search will lead them to other truths which have been hidden for ages and generations. As the truth of the seventh-day Sabbath dawns upon them, they will naturally be led to consider the question of creation, which is closely bound up with it. Being believers in the Bible, they will take their stand upon the account given in Genesis in regard to creation, which is diametrically opposed to any doctrine that is evolutionary in origin or in tendency.
Thus a people will be developed who are Bible Christians. MARTIN
LUTHER More than four hundred years ago a young monk decided to take his stand on the Word of God, whatever the cost. Tradition had been his guide, but henceforth the Word of God, and the Word of God only, would be his lodestar. Whether he ever said the words attributed to him or not, the sentiment is surely his, and that of a large body of Christians today: “Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me.” “Here I stand,” he said, placing his hand on the Bible. And “the Bible, and the Bible only,” has from that time been the rallying cry of true Protestants. Will the work so nobly begun a few hundred years ago come to nought? We believe not. God was in that movement. Its fault was that it was not continued beyond the lifetime of its founders. No man knows all truth. God’s revelation is not communicated all at once. It is here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept. A steady walking in the light would have brought newer and greater revelations, and saved some from the pitfalls into which they fell.
God has not left this world, nor is He satisfied with half
measures. If the church fails in an hour such as this, God has means at
hand that will restore the old faith.
There are those who will build the old waste places, raise up the
foundations of many generations, repair the breach, and restore the
paths to dwell in. God does
not leave Himself without a witness.
Men may depart from the law, they may hew themselves cisterns
that will hold no water, they may consider themselves wise above what is
written, but God’s arm is not shortened.
He has in reserve instruments whom men may despise, but who
nevertheless will cause God’s name to be known to the ends of the
earth. God knows what He is
doing. ONE
FOLD, ONE SHEPHERD We believe that the time has come for a new Protestant movement, one that will rally Bible believers in all churches and societies, and unite them in one body for the defense of the faith. Men have made void the law of God. It is time for Him to work. From one end of the earth to the other the call must sound. Protestantism has deserted its standards. A new Protestantism must arise. Christ’s word, “There shall be one fold, and one shepherd,” will yet be fulfilled before the end (John 10:16). There are now many folds, and honest believers in all of them. This shall not always thus continue. The call will sound: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4). God will gather His own into one fold, and when the final struggle comes, there will be no doubt in regard to where each stands. The people thus called out will keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Revelation 14:12). The question may be asked whether it is possible to unite all the true saints of God in one body. Which creed would be accepted? What unifying factor is there to be to bind them together? With the many different denominations now in existence, is it not too much to believe that there could ever be a call sounded that would be strong enough to draw these diverse elements into one body? Says Christ, “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (John 10:16). Note: “They shall hear My voice.” As the Good Shepherd, Christ goes before the sheep. They follow Him. In these few words Christianity is summed up. “He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him: for they know Huis voice” (verse 4). Christianity is just that simple. To follow Christ is all the theology anyone needs for salvation. On that platform all Christians can unite. And as one follows Christ, and another follows Him, the two will walk together. And as all follow Him, there will be one fold and one Shepherd. Will this ever come to fruition in this earth? I believe so. As the nominal churches depart more and more from the faith of the living God, there will be those in every communion who are longing for a consolation in Israel. They see hundreds of churches with thousands of believers, each church different in faith from the others, and yet with people in it who are truly trying to serve God. They will be perplexed, and will wonder what they are to do and what they are to believe. One great man of the church will say one thing, and another equally great will say something different. In his perplexity the true child of God will turn to the Word, and it will suddenly dawn upon him, as though it were a new revelation, that Christ is the way, the truth, and the light, and that all he needs to do is follow Him, and every religious problem will be solved. Breaking with every earthly tie, men will set out to follow the Lamb whithersoever He leadeth, and to their astonishment will find that others are pursuing the same course. On the simple program and creed of following the Lamb, they will unite in divine fellowship, and God will set His seal of approval upon them. They follow the Lamb; they have the Father’s name written upon their foreheads; the Lord owns them as His; they are sealed for eternity. When men follow this simple program there will be developed a people who will keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Jesus states definitely, “I have kept my Father’s commandments” (John 15:10). Those who follow Jesus will keep the commandments. If any do not, it shows that they do not follow Him. We are therefore safe in believing that there will be a return to primitive faith and godliness before the coming of the Son of man. Men will begin to follow the Master again, trustfully doing what He did. With apostolic faith will come apostolic power. The whole world will be arraigned in two camps: those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and those who do not. There will be no mistaking the saints. They will have the seal of the living God in their foreheads. Believing in the simple story of creation as recorded in the first chapters of Genesis, they naturally accept the account of the Sabbath. The two go together. Believing in Christ, they follow Him as the way, the truth, and the life. Accepting Christ as their Lord, they accept Him also as the Lord of the Sabbath. As He rested, so they rest. They follow Him whithersoever He goeth. It is against this company that the wrath of Satan will be directed. It is against them that he will make war. And the struggle will be fierce in its intensity. The decree will at last be issued that whoever will not worship according to the command of the “beast” shall be killed (Revelation 13:15). Then comes the time of Jacob’s trouble. Satan is determined to test the people of God to the utmost, and if possible, to make them sin. If he succeeds, he has gained an important point, for God has determined to show His power in this very people. In and through them He intends to give a demonstration to the world of what the gospel can do for humanity. The last generation of men carry all the sins and the weaknesses of their forefathers. If any are weak, they are. If any have inherited or cultivated tendencies to evil, they have. If it is possible for them to live through the struggles of the last days without sinning, it has always been possible to live sinlessly. And this is the very thing that God intends to demonstrate. This demonstration will also settle the question whether it is possible for men to keep the law. If these people can do so, it is conclusively proved that man can keep the law, and that God is not unjust in requiring obedience. The last generation of God’s people, therefore, constitutes a special company. Satan is given permission to try them to the utmost. He makes war against them. He threatens them. They are under death sentence. But all these things do not move them. “Here is the patience of the saints.” They endure, they continue steadfast, they are immovable. Threats and flatteries fall on deaf ears. All that Satan can do is without effect. They, as did Christ, go through Gethsemane. And as He came out victorious, so do these. When the struggle is over, they are seen standing on Mount Zion, with the Father’s name written in their foreheads. They are without fault before the throne of God. (Revelation 14:1, 5). In these 144,000 God stands justified. He has proved by them that the law can be kept under the most adverse circumstances. He has disproved Satan’s assertion that God is unjust in demanding that men kept the law. God is vindicated. Satan is defeated. The controversy is ended. All that remains is the balancing of accounts. And then — after the judgment is ended — comes the reign of God, unending, glorious. God speed that day! With this ends our short discussion of the true Sabbath. The question is greater than that of this or that day. It is a question of following the Master, of doing His will. May God grant the reader divine enlightenment and faith and courage to do His will. CONCLUDED
|
