Kitabı oku: «The Seventh Day Sabbath, a Perpetual Sign», sayfa 4

WAS THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH EVER CHANGED? IF SO
WHEN, AND FOR WHAT REASON?

Here we come to a question which has more or less engaged the attention of the whole christian world, and the greater portion of those who believe in a crucified Saviour say that this change took place, and is dated from his resurrection. Some say subsequently, while a minority insist upon it that there is no proof for the change. Now to obtain the truth and nothing but the truth on this important subject, I propose to present, or quote from standard authors on both sides of the question, and try the whole by the standard of divine truth. 1st. Buck's Theological Dictionary, to which no doubt thousands of ministers and laymen appeal to sustain their argument for the change, says: "Under the christian dispensation the Sabbath is altered from the seventh to the first day of the week." The arguments for the change are these: 1st. "The seventh day was observed by the Jewish church in memory of the rest of God; so the first day of the week has always been observed by the christian church in memory of Christ's resurrection. 2d. Christ made repeated visits to his disciples on that day. 3d. It is called the Lord's day. Rev. i: 10. – 4th. On this day the Apostles were assembled, when the Holy Ghost came down upon them to qualify them for the conversion of the world. 5th. On this day we find Paul at Troas when the disciples came together to break bread. 6th. The directions the Apostles gave to Christians plainly alludes to their assembling on that day. 7th. Pliny bears witness of the first day of the week being kept as a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ."

"Numerous have been the days appointed by man for religious services, but these are not binding because of human institution. Not so the Sabbath. It is of divine institution, so it is to be kept holy onto the Lord."

Doct. Dodridge, whose ability and piety have seldom or rarely been disputed, comments on some of the above articles thus: (Commentary p. 606.) "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." I Cor. xvi: 2. "Show that it was to be put into a common stock. The argument drawn from hence for the religious observance of the first day of the week in these primitive churches of Corinth and Galacia is too obvious to need any further illustration, and yet too important to be passed by in entire silence." Again, p. 904, "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day," &c. Rev. i: 10. "It is so very unnatural and contrary to the use of the word in all other authors to interpret this of the Jewish Sabbath, as Mr. Baxter justly argues at large, that I cannot but conclude with him and the generality of Christian writers on this subject, that this text strongly infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day of the week in the Apostle's time as a day solemnly consecrated to Christ in the memory of his resurrection from the dead." There is much more, but these are his strong arguments. I shall quote some more from the Commentaries by and by. I wish to place by the side of these arguments one from the British Quarterly Theological Review and Ecclesiastical Recorder, of Jan. 1830, which I extract from 'the Institution of the Sabbath day,' by Wm. Logan Fisher, of Philadelphia, a book in which there is much valuable information on this subject, though I disagree with the writer, because his whole labor is to abolish the Sabbath; yet he gives much light on this subject, from which I take the liberty to make some quotations. But to the Quarterly Review of 1830:

"It is said that the observance of the seventh day Sabbath is transferred in the Christian Church to the first day of the week. We ask by what authority, and are very much mistaken if an examination of all the texts of the New Testament, in which the first day of the week or Lord's day is mentioned, does not prove that there is no divine or Apostolic precept enjoining its observance, nor any certain evidence from scripture that it was, in fact, so observed in the times of the Apostles. Accordingly we search the scriptures in vain, either for an Apostolic precept, appointing the first day of the week to be observed in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, or for any unequivocal proof that the first christians so observed it – there are only three or, at most four passages of scripture, in which the first day of the week is mentioned. The next passage is Acts xx: 7. 'Upon the first day of the week when the disciples some together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.' All that St. Luke here tells us plainly is, that on a particular occasion the christians of Troas met together on the first day of the week to celebrate the Eucharist and to hear Paul preach. This is the only place in scripture in which the first day of the week is in any way connected with any acts of public worship, and he who would certainly infer from this solitary instance that the first day of every week was consecrated by the Apostles to religious purposes, must be far gone in the art of drawing universal conclusion from particular premises."

On page 178, Mr. Fisher says:

"I have examined several different translations of the scriptures, both from the Hebrew and Septuagint, with notes and annotations more extensive than the texts; have traced as far as my leisure would permit, various ecclesiastical histories, some of them voluminous and of ancient date; have paid considerable attention to the writings of the earliest authors in the Christian era, and to rare works, old and of difficult access, which treat upon this subject; I have read with care many of the publications of sectarians to sustain the institution; I have omitted nothing within my reach, and I have found not one shred of argument, or authority of any kind, that may not be deemed of partial and sectarian character, to support the institution of the first day of the week, as a day of peculiar holiness. But, in place of argument, I have found opinions without number – volumes filled with idle words that have no truth in them. In the want of texts of Scripture, I have found perversions; in the want of truth, false statements. I have seen it stated that Justin Marter in his Apology speaks of Sunday as a holy day; that Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who lived in the fourth century, establishes the fact of the transfer of the seventh to the first day, by Christ himself. These things are not true. These authors say no such thing. I have seen other early authors referred to as establishing the same point, but they are equally false."

Here then is the testimony of four authors, two for the change and two against it, from the old and new world. No truth seeking, unbiassed mind can hesitate for a moment on which side to decide, after comparing them with the inspired word.

Doctor Jenks of Boston, author of the Comprehensive Commentary, (purporting to comprehend all other commentators on the bible,) after quoting author after author on this subject, ventures forth with his unsupported opinion in these words: "Here is a Christian Sabbath observed by the disciples and owned by our Lord. The visit Christ made to his disciples was on the first day of the week, and the first day of the week is the only day of the week or month or year ever mentioned by numbers in all the New Testament, and that is several times spoken of as a day religiously observed." Where? Echo answers, where!

Heman Humphrey, President of Amherst College, from whose book I have already made some quotations, after devoting some thirty-four pages to the establishment and perpetuation of the seventh day Sabbath, comes to his fourth question, viz: "Has the day been changed?" Singular as this question may appear by the side of what he had already written to establish and perpetuate the seventh day Sabbath from the seventh day of creation down to the resurrection of the just, but as every man feels that it is his privilege to justify and explain, when precept and practice do not agree – so is it with President Humphrey, he can now shape the scriptures to suit every one that has followed in the wake of Pope Gregory for 1225 years. He says, "The fourth commandment is so expressed as to admit of a change in the day," – thus striking vitally every argument he had before presented. Hear him – he says the seventh day is the Sabbath; "it was so at that time (in the beginning) and for many ages after, but it is not said that it always shall be– it is the Sabbath day which we are to remember; and so at the close, it was the Sabbath which was hallowed and blessed and not the seventh day. The Sabbath then, the holy rest itself, is one thing. The day on which we are to rest is another." I ask, in the name of common sense, how we should know how or when to keep the Sabbath, if it did not matter which day. If the President could not see the sanctification of the seventh day in the decalogue, what did he mean by quoting Gen. ii: 3, so often, where it says "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it."

Again, he says, "Redemption is a greater work than creation, hence the change." Fifthly, God early consecrated the Christian Sabbath by a most remarkable outpouring of his spirit at the day of Pentecost. And that Jesus has left us his own example by not saying a syllable after his resurrection about keeping the Jewish Sabbath. He also quotes the four passages about Jesus and his disciples keeping the first day of the week. Here, he says, the inference to our mind is irresistible– for keeping the first day of the week instead of the seventh. And further says, it might be proved by innumerable quotations from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, &c. All this may be very true in itself, but it all falls to the ground for the want of one single precept from the bible. If Redemption, because it was greater than Creation, and the remarkable display of God's power at the Pentecost, and Christ never saying any thing about the Jewish Sabbath after his resurrection are such strong proofs that the perpetual seventh day Sabbath was changed to the first day at that time, and must be believed because learned men say so, what shall we do with the sixth day, on which our blessed Saviour expired on the cross; darkness for three hours had covered the earth, and the vail of the Temple was rent from top to bottom, and there was such an earthquake throughout vast creation that we have only to open our eyes and look at the rent rocks for a clear and perfect demonstration that this whole globe was shaken from centre to circumference, and the graves of the dead were opened. Matt xxvii: 50, 53. You may answer me that Popery has honored that day by calling it good Friday, and the next first day following Easter Sunday, &c., but after all nothing short of bible argument will satisfy the earnest inquirer after truth. – The President had already shown that the Jewish Sabbath was abolished at Christ's death. What reason, then had he to believe that the Saviour would speak of it afterwards. – So also the Pentecost had been a type from the giving the law at Sinai to be kept annually for about 1500 years, consequently it would be solemnized on every day of the week at each revolving year, as is the case with the 4th of July: three years ago it was on the fourth day and now it comes on the seventh day of the week. Further, see Peter standing amidst the amazed multitude, giving the scripture reason for this miraculous display of God's power. He does not give the most distant hint that this was, or was to be, the day of the week for worship, or the true Sabbath, neither do any of the Apostles, then, or afterwards, for when they kept this day the next year, it must have been the second day of the week. We must have better evidence than what has been adduced, to believe this was the Sabbath, for according to the type, seven Sabbaths were to be complete, (and there was no other way given them to come to the right day,) from the day they kept the first or from the resurrection. Here then is proof positive that the Sabbath in this year was the day before the Pentecost. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. If President H. is right, then was there two Sabbaths to be kept in succession in one week. Where is the precept? No where! Well, says the inquirer, I want to see the bible proof for this "Christian Sabbath observed by the disciples, and owned by our Lord." W. Jenks. Here it will be necessary for us to understand, first how God has computed time. In Gen. i. we read, "And God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years." 14 v. 16 v. says "the greater light to rule the day," – from sunrise to sunset. Now there are many modes invented for computing time. We say our day begins at 12 o'clock at night; seamen begin theirs twelve hours sooner, at noon; the Jews commence their days at 6 o'clock in the evening, between the two extremes. Are we all right? No! Who shall settle this question? God! Very well: He called the light day and the darkness he called night, and the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen. i: 5. Then the twenty-four hour day commenced at 6 o'clock in the evening. How is that, says one? Because you cannot regulate the day and night to have what the Saviour calls twelve hours in a day, without establishing the time from the centre of the earth, the equator, where, at the beginning of the sacred year, the sun rises and sets at 6 o'clock. At this time, while the sun is at the summer solstice, the inhabitants at the north pole have no night, while at this same time at the south it is about all night, therefore the inhabitants of the earth have no other right time to commence their twenty-four hour day, than beginning at 6 o'clock in the evening. God said to Moses "from even to even, shall you celebrate your Sabbath." Then of course the next day must begin where the Sabbath ended. History shows that the Jews obeyed and commenced their days at 6 o'clock in the evening. Now then we will try to investigate the main argument by which these authors, and thousands of others say the Sabbath was changed. The first is in John xx: 19, "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews (mark it) came Jesus and stood in their midst, and said peace be unto you." Here we understand this to be the same day of the resurrection. On that day he travelled with the two disciples to Emans, sixty furlongs (7½ miles,) and they constrained him to abide with them, for it was towards evening and the day was far spent. Luke xxiv: 29. After this the disciples travelled 7½ miles back to Jerusalem, and soon after they found the disciples, the Saviour, as above stated, was in their midst. Now it cannot be disputed but what this was the evening after the resurrection, for Jesus rose in the morning, some ten or eleven hours after the first day had commenced. Then the evening of the first day was passing away, and therefore the evening brought to view in the text was the close of the first day or the commencing of the second. McKnight's translation says, "in the evening of that day." Purver's translation says, "the evening of that day on the first after the Sabbath." Further, wherever the phrase first day of the week, occurs in the New Testament, the word day is in italics, showing that it is not the original, but supplied by translators. Again, it is asserted that Jesus met with his disciples the next first day. See 26 v: "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them, then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said peace be unto you." Dr. Adam Clark in referring to this 26v, says: "It seems likely that this was precisely on that day se'night on which Christ had appeared to them before; and from this we may learn that this was the weekly meeting of the Apostles." Now it appears to me that a little child, with the simple rules of addition and subtraction, could have refuted this man. I feel astonished that men who profess to be ambassadors for God do not expose such downright perversions of scripture, but it may look clear to those who want to have it so. Not many months since, in conversation with the Second Advent lecturer in New Bedford, I brought up this subject. He told me I did not understand it. See here, says he, I can make it plain, counting his fingers thus: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday – does'nt that make eight days after? and because I would not concede, he parted from me as one that was obstinate and self-willed. Afterwards musing on the subject, I said, this must be the way then to understand it: Count Sunday Twice. If any of them were to be paid for eight days labor, they would detect the error in a moment if their employer should attempt to put the first and last days together, and offer them pay but for seven. Eight days after the evening of the first day would stand thus: The second day of the week would certainly be the first of the eight. Then to count eight days of twenty-four hours after, we must begin at the close of the evening of the first, and count to the close of the evening of the second day; to where the Jews (by God's command) commenced their third day. But suppose we calculate it by our mode of keeping time. Our Lord appears to his disciples the first time at the close of Sunday evening. Now count eight days after, (with your fingers or anything else,) and it will bring you to Monday evening. Now I ask if this looks like Sunday, the first day of the week?

Father Miller also gives his reasons for the change, in his lecture on the great Sabbath: "One is Christ's resurrection and his often meeting with his disciples afterwards on that day. This, with the example of the Apostles, is strong evidence that the proper creation Sabbath to man, came on the first day of the week." His proof is this: "Adam must have rested on the first day of his life, and thus you will see that to Adam it was the first day of the week, for it would not be reasonable to suppose that Adam began to reckon time before he was created." He certainly could not be able to work six days before the first Sabbath. And thus with the second Adam; the first day of the week he arose and lived. And we find by the bible and by history, that the first day of the week "was ever afterwards observed as a day of worship." Now I say there is no more truth in these assertions, than there is in those I have already quoted. There is not one passage in the bible to show that Christ met with his disciples on the first day of the week after the day of his resurrection, nor that the first day of the week was ever afterwards observed as a day of worship; save only in one instance, and that shall be noticed in its place. And it seems to me if Adam could not reckon time only from his creation then by the same rule no other man could reckon time before his birth, and by this showing Christ could not reckon his time until after his resurrection. It is painful to me to expose the errors of one whom I have so long venerated, and still love for the flood of light he has given the world in respect to the Second Advent of our Saviour; but God's word must be vindicated if we have to cut off a right arm, "there is nothing true but truth!" I pray God to forgive him in joining the great multitude of Advent believers, to sound the retreat back beyond the tarrying time, just when the virgins had gained a glorious victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil! Go back from this to the slumbering quarters now; nothing but treachery to our Master's cause ever dictated such a course! I never can be made to believe that our glorious Commander designed that we should leave our sacrifices smoking on the altar of God, in the midst of the enemies' land, but rather that we should be pushing onward from victory to victory, until we are established in the Capital of His kingdom. Would it have been expedient or a mark of courage in General Taylor, after he had conquered the Mexican army on the 9th May last, to have retreated back to the capital of the U. States, to place himself and army on the broad platform of liberty, and commence to travel the ground over again for the purposes of pursuing and overcoming his vanquished foe? No! Every person of common sense knows that such a course would have overwhelmed him and all his followers with unutterable disgrace, no matter how unrighteous the contest. Not so with this, for our cause is one of the most glorious, tho it be the most trying that the sun ever shown upon since God placed it in the heavens. Onward and victory, then, are our watchwords, and no retreating back to, or beyond the cry at Midnight! But to the subject. Did our Saviour ever meet with his disciples on the first day of the week after the evening of the day of his resurrection? The xxi. ch. John says "they went a fishing, and while there Jesus appeared unto them." In the 14th v. he says, "This is now the third time that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after that he was risen from the dead." Now turn to 1 Cor. xv: 4-7: Paul's testimony is, "that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, after that of above five hundred brethren at once, and then of James, then of all the Apostles." These are all that are specified, up to his going into heaven. Now pray tell me if you can, where these men got their information respecting the frequent meetings on the first day of the week. The bible says no such thing. But let us pursue the subject and look at the third text, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Now please turn back to Dr. Dodridge's authority, he says the argument is too obvious to need illustration, that the money was put into common stock, and that this was the religious observance of the first day of the week. Now whoever will read the first six verses of this chapter, and compare them with Rom. xv: 26-33, will see that Paul's design was to collect some money for the poor saints at Jerusalem, and their laying it by them in store until he came that way; for it plainly implies that they were at home, for no one could understand that you had money lying by you in store, if it was in common stock or in other hands. Again, see Acts xviii: 4, 11. Paul preaching every Sabbath day, at this very time, for eighteen months, to these very same Corinthians, bids them farewell, to go up to the feast at Jerusalem. 21 v. By reading to xxi. ch. 17 v. you have his history until he arrives there. Now I ask, if Dr. Dodridge's clear illustration can or will be relied on, when Luke clearly teaches that Paul's manner was, and that he did always preach to them on the Sabbath, which, of course, was the Seventh day, and not the first day of the week. Fourth text, John says: I was in the spirit on the Lord's day. Here Dr. D. concludes with the generality of christian writers on this subject that this strongly infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day of the week, as solemnly consecrated in Christ, &c. If the scripture any where called this the Lord's day, there might be some reason to believe their statements, but the seventh day Sabbath is called the Lord's day. See Exod. xx: 10.

Mr. Fisher, in speaking of the late Harrisburg convention of 1844-45, says, "The most spirited debate that occurred at the assembly was to fix a proper name for the first day of the week, whether it should be called Sabbath, the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day. The reason for this dispute was, that there was no authority for calling the first day of the week by either one of these names. To pretend that that command was fixed and unchangeable, and yet to alter it to please the fancy of man, is in itself ridiculous. It is hardly possible in the nature of man, that a class of society should be receiving pay for their services and not be influenced thereby; – in the nature of things they will avoid such doctrines as are repugnant to them that give them bread."

Now we come to the fifth and last, and only one spoken of in all the New Testament, for a meeting on the first day of the week. Luke says, "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." Acts xx: 7. Now by following the scripture mode of computing time, from 6 o'clock in the evening to 6 o'clock in the morning, as has been shown, Paul to commence on the beginning of the first day would begin on what we call Saturday evening at 6 o'clock, and preach till midnight. After that he restores to life the young man, then breaks bread and talked till the break of day, which would be Sunday morning. Then he commenced his journey for Jerusalem and travelled and sailed all day Sunday, the first day of the week, and two other days in succession. xx: 11-15. Now it seems to me, if Paul did teach or keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath or a holy day he violated the sanctity of it to all intents and purposes, without giving one single reason for it; all the proof presented here is a night meeting. Please see the quotation from the British Quarterly Review. But let us look at it the way in which we compute time: I think it will be fair to premise, that about midnight was the middle of Paul's meeting; at any rate there is but one midnight to a twenty-four hour day. We say that Sunday, the first day of the week, does not commence until 12 o'clock Saturday night. Then it is very clear, if he is preaching on the first day till midnight, according to our reckoning it must be on Sunday night, and his celebrating the Lord's supper after midnight would make it that he broke bread on Monday, the second day, and that the day time on Sunday is not included, unless he had continued his speech through the day till midnight. Now the text says that on the first day of the week they came together to break bread. To prove that they did break bread on that day, we must take the mode in which the Jews computed time, and allow the first day of the week to begin at 6 o'clock on Saturday evening, and to follow Paul's example, pay no regard to the first day, after daylight, but to travel, &c. If our mode of time is taken, they broke bread on the second day, and that would destroy the meaning of the text. Here then, in this text, is the only argument that can be adduced in the scriptures of divine truth, for a change of the perpetual seventh day Sabbath of the Lord our God to the first day of the week.

Now I'll venture the assertion, that there is no law or commandment recorded in the bible, that God has held so sacred among men, as the keeping of his Sabbath. Where then, I ask, is the living man that dare stand before God and declare that here is the change for the church of God to keep the first instead of the seventh day of the week for the Sabbath. If it could be proved that Paul preached here all of the first day, the only inference that could be drawn, would be, to break bread on that day!

There is one more point worthy of our attention, that is, the teaching and example of Jesus. I have been told by one that is looked up to as a strong believer in the second coming of the Lord this fall, that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Jesus says, I have kept my Father's commandments. It is said that he "broke the Sabbath," because he allowed his disciples to pluck the corn and eat it on that day, and the Pharisees condemned them. He says, "If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." Then they were not guilty. See Deut. xxiii: 25. He immediately cites them to David and his men, shewing that it was lawful and right when hungry, even to eat the shoe bread that belonged only to the priests, and told them that he was Lord of the Sabbath day. Here he shows too, that he was with his disciples passing to the synagogue to teach; they ask him if it is lawful to teach on the Sabbath day. He asks them if they had a sheep fall into the ditch on the Sabbath, if they would not haul him out? How much better then is a man than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days; and immediately healed the man with the withered hand. Matt. xii: 1-13. On another Sabbath day, while he was teaching, he healed a woman that had been bound of satan eighteen years; and when the ruler of the synagogue began to find fault, he called him a hypocrite, and said "doth not each one of you on the Sabbath day loose his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering; and all his adversaries were ashamed." Luke xiii: 10-17. The xiv. chapter of Luke is quoted to prove that he broke the Sabbath because he went into the Pharisee's house with many others on the Sabbath day to eat bread. Here he saw a man with the dropsy and he asked them if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. 'And they held their peace, and he took him and healed him,' and asked them 'which of them having an ox or an ass fall into the pit, would not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day; and they could not answer him again.' 1-6 v. And 'he continued to teach them, by showing them when they made a feast to call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and then they should be blessed.' Read the chapter, and you will readily see that he took this occasion, as the most befitting, to teach them by parables, what their duty was at weddings and feasts, in the same manner as he taught them in their synagogues.