HAVING shown in previous articles the origin of the Sabbath at creation, and having examined every scripture in the New Testament in which the first day of the week is mentioned, and seen that there is no hint that the first day of the week had become the Sabbath in place of the seventh day, we will now proceed to examine the testimony of the Scriptures to ascertain whether the original Sabbath of the Lord continued to occupy the same position in the early church it always had. Profoundly convinced that there is not a particle of evidence that the great Jehovah changed his rest day to another day of the week, we now invite attention to the testimony of the Scriptures themselves upon this subject. In the preceding article, in noticing the instance in which the first day of the week is mentioned, upon which Christ arose from the dead, we found that the day preceding it was called the Sabbath just as it always had been. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 23:54-56. These texts positively prove that the crucifixion of Christ had not changed the seventh day of the week into a secular day, or caused it to cease to be the Sabbath of the Lord, else inspiration would not have continued to call it such.
Historical Proofs
In the “Acts of the Apostles,” we have an inspired record of the apostolic church. Immediately following the ascension of their crucified and risen Lord, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which was to fully qualify the ministers of Christ for their great work of preaching the gospel of salvation, it is universally admitted that there has never been an age when Christianity was so pure as it was during the period covered by the record of St. Luke, the writer of the “Acts.”
It was an age of inspiration when all the leading men of the church were under the direct influence of the spirit of truth. In succeeding ages, great apostasy and corruption came in. But in the “Acts of the Apostles,” we have a model church set before us. This history is supposed by the best commentators to have been written some thirty years after the resurrection of Christ, when if any change in the Sabbath was ever made by divine authority, it must have occurred. We cannot for a moment suppose that Luke, an inspired Christian historian, would call a day the Sabbath which was not the Sabbath, or mislead the people on such an important subject. We know every candid reader will gladly accept his testimony. It is the only reliable history of that most interesting and important period we have to which we must look back for the best examples of genuine Christianity.
We will now notice the references to the subject of the Sabbath. We first call attention to Acts 15:21.
“For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.”
The circumstances which called out these words were these: There had been a contention among the believers, not relative to the Sabbath question at all, but concerning circumcision ; and a council had been called to consider it and those questions which related to the ceremonial law. The council decided that the Gentile converts need not practise these things, and stated in this text that the requirements of Moses’ law were read in the Jewish synagogue “every Sabbath day.” St. James calls that day the Sabbath, A.D. 51, in which the Jews read the law of Moses in the synagogue, which everyone knows has always been on the seventh day of the week, and says this was done “every Sabbath.” We all know that it was not the custom of the Jews to read the law in their synagogue on the first day of the week. And as the law was read ” every ” Sabbath, therefore the first day of the week was not the Sabbath when St. Luke penned these lines A.D. 61. But the seventh day was the Sabbath with the Christians of the early church as well as with the Jews; for an inspired Christian historian called it such.
Paul’s Practice
We next notice Acts 13:16
“And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down and spake unto the women which resorted thither.”
This occurred in Phillippi, a Macedonian city where the gospel had never been preached before. St. Paul, summoned thither by the Holy Spirit, hunted up the worshipers of the true God by going to this place where it had been customary to meet for his worship. Those who thus met must have been Jews or Jewish proselytes; for Christianity had never been preached there until this time. This day in which these Jews met at a stated place for prayer and worship is called by the inspired historian the “Sabbath day” (margin, literal Greek). It could not have been the first day of the week; for this was not the day in which the Jews met for worship, and there were no disciples there except Paul and his companions. It was not a place where Christians had met; for there had been no Christians here until this time. Paul there participated in the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath. And as this was the “Sabbath day” the day following it could not have been such.
We next notice Acts 17: 1,2.
“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews; and Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.”
The fact that these meetings were held in the Jewish synagogue is plain proof that it occurred on the Sabbath day which that people had ever kept, the seventh day of the week. The inspired Christian historian, writing this book over sixty years after the birth of Christ, for the benefit of the church in all ages, declared that these three days were Sabbaths. The days, then, which the Jews kept as the Sabbath, and upon which they engaged in worship, must also have been the Sabbath day of the early church; the only historian we have of that church calls it the Sabbath. If another day had become the Sabbath, and the seventh day had ceased to be such, most certainly this historian would have been careful to notice the fact; for when new institutions take the place of those of long-standing, it is absolutely necessary to make such a matter prominent, or the older practice would continue. We may be sure, therefore, that as no mention is made of such a change, it must have occurred after this time. Yes, long after the time of Luke, in the days of apostasy.
This instance, with the one previously mentioned, gives us four occasions in which St. Paul used the seventh-day Sabbath as the day in which he instructed the people in the gospel of Christ. It was his day of religious worship. Mark the expression “as his manner was.” In this particular, he followed the example of Christ. It was his ” custom ” also to use the Sabbath as a day of religious instruction. Luke 4:16. “manner” and “custom” imply their common practice. In using the seventh day of the week, then, as the day of weekly Christian worship, seventh-day keepers have the example of Christ and St. Paul. Surely we can ask no better.
Not a hint can be found in the Scriptures that it was the “manner” or “custom” of either of them, or any of the early church, to use the first day of the week for any such purpose. There is only one instance given in the New Testament when that day was employed in a religious meeting (Acts 20), and that was a night meeting, while the light part of the day was used by St. Paul and his friends in traveling on foot nearly twenty miles. But we see the seventh day was still called the Sabbath, as it always had been for 4,000 years, and was the day employed as the day of religious instruction.
Seventy-Eight Sabbaths
In the 18th chapter of Acts, we have an account of St. Paul’s visit to Corinth, and how he labored there. Verse 4 states that “he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Verse 11 states that he continued to labor in Corinth “a year and six months.” As he continued to thus labor “every Sabbath” for a year and six months, he must have spent seventy-eight Sabbaths in the city of Corinth in bestowing religious instruction upon Jews and Greeks. With the four previously mentioned, we have eighty-two Sabbaths thus employed. Surely it is no wonder that the historian tells us that it was St. Paul’s “manner” to employ the seventh day in this way. We know this was the seventh day of the week; for it was the day the Jews met in their synagogues. Here, again, this day is called “the Sabbath” by the historian of the Christian church.
There is sometimes a very weak objection presented by opposers of the true Sabbath to avoid the force of the apostle’s example in teaching on that day. They say it was only because he could reach the Jews on the seventh day. How do they know this 2 No such statement is made in the record. But Luke says “he persuaded the Greeks” as well as the Jews. Could he not reach the Gentile Greeks on other days? Did they have the same preference for the seventh day that the Jews did? St. Paul employed the seventh day to teach them as well as to teach the Jews.
The Gentiles
In Acts 18, we have two other instances of apostolic example in the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, making eighty-four instances in the book of Acts alone. Verse 14 reads as follows: “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down.” Paul was asked to speak, and he gave them a lengthy gospel discourse. The Jews were not all pleased with what he said. They became envious, and spoke against Paul, and blasphemed. Verse 42 states that “when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.” Verse 44: ” And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” It was on the seventh-day Sabbath that both these meetings occurred; for the first one was held in the synagogue.
The first of these meetings was one in which both Jews and Gentiles participated. The last one was almost wholly a Gentile meeting, yet it was held on the Sabbath. Had the Sabbath been changed, then, as some would have us believe, how natural it would have been for the apostle, when asked by the Gentiles to speak these words to them on the next seventh day, to have said: “Tomorrow is the Christian Sabbath. Do not wait for a whole week to pass by, but come out on Sunday, and I will speak to you the truths of the gospel.” But not a word or a hint was even given by him that there was any other weekly Sabbath than the one always known as such. This day Paul devoted to teaching the truths of the gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews. It is evident that these two meetings were just one week apart. At the first one, the Gentiles requested that these good words should be spoken to them the “next Sabbath.” ” And the next Sabbath day,” one week later, the whole city came together. It is therefore positively shown that the first day of the week is not the Sabbath; for the “next” one came a week later than that Sabbath in which they first met in the synagogue.
The inspired historian declares that the day the Jews met in the synagogue was the Sabbath in the time of the early church, and if the first day of the week had also become a Sabbath, it would follow that the Bible recognizes two weekly Sabbaths, which would be a great absurdity. But the Bible gives not the slightest hint that the first day of the week was ever regarded as a rest day in the early church. These instances, as recorded in the “Acts of the Apostles,” are of great interest, and they clearly show that the early church still regarded the seventh day as the weekly Sabbath, and as the day set apart for special religious instruction.
Siege of Jerusalem
Another interesting scripture, bearing upon this subject, is Matt. 24:20.
“But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.”
This chapter is a prophetic discourse of our Saviour, containing a summary of important events till the end of the age. In the connection of the above text, he speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, and tells them in what way to fly therefrom when it should be surrounded with armies. They were to know then that its desolation was near. They were to flee in great haste from it, and history shows that they did this, escaping to Pella, some sixty miles away, so that none of the disciples perished in that terrible siege. The words of Christ in this chapter were the means of saving from the fearful fate of the Jews the whole of the church at Jerusalem. He tells them to pray beforehand that their “flight be not in the winter,” because it would occasion great hardship in that season of the year for men, women and children to flee in great haste so far.
But they were also to pray that their flight should not occur on the “Sabbath day.” This language was spoken at a time when all admit that the seventh day was the only weekly Sabbath. It was before the crucifixion of Christ, or forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred A.D. 70. The Saviour shows his great regard for the Sabbath by instructing his disciples to pray that they might not be compelled to save their lives by fleeing on that day. The time when Jerusalem might be “compassed by armies” (Luke 21: 20) was uncertain, and the disciples could not make calculations so as to provide for it. Therefore they were to pray that God would help them by his providence, so that they might not have to flee on the Sabbath day. This shows in a beautiful light the care that Christ had for the Sabbath. He had before said he was the Lord of it (Mark 2:28), that is, its protector or guardian. Here he shows his care for it and for the disciples whom he desired should not be seemingly forced to break it in order to save their lives by fleeing away from Jerusalem on that day. No other good reason can be given for this direction which Jesus gave to his disciples.
Objectors have sometimes said that the reason Christ gave this charge was because the Jews would harm them if they fled on that day. But to show the groundlessness of this objection it is only necessary to refer to the actual circumstances as given by Josephus, when Cestius, the general who first led the Roman army against Jerusalem, surrounded that city. Josephus states that, for some ” unaccountable reason,” Cestius suddenly withdrew his army. The Jewish forces, thinking he was afraid, furiously followed him; a battle ensued, and so desperate were they that they continued the struggle and carried on their operations even on the Sabbath day. He also states that as soon as Cestius had withdrawn his forces from the city, many of the better class of citizens “withdrew from Jerusalem as from a sinking ship.” This was the time when the disciples left Jerusalem; for we have no account of a single disciple perishing in its siege. Vespasian and Titus in a short time renewed the siege, and then the Jews suffered more terribly than in any other on record, so that even mothers ate their own children. By heeding the injunction of Christ, his disciples escaped all these calamities.
It is evident, then, that at this time the Jews had no wonderful regard for the Sabbath; for they went out to battle on that day. And such were the circumstances that there was nothing to hinder the disciples from leaving Jerusalem on the Sabbath. Therefore, that objection loses all its force, if it ever had any. We claim that here is strong evidence of Christ’s regard for the Sabbath, and the text shows positively that he recognized it as an existing institution in the year A.D. 70, long after some claim it had ceased to exist. He speaks of the Sabbath day being just as much a reality as the season of winter, and the disciples were to pray just as much that they might not be forced to break it as that they might be preserved from the distress of fleeing for their lives in that unfavorable season. And this was the Sabbath day then in existence when the Saviour spoke, the seventh day of the week. Thus we have the plainest evidence from the New Testament that the ancient Sabbath of the Lord continued to be observed as such by the early church.
Not Sabbath-breakers
Another fact proves this beyond all question. We nowhere find among the many charges brought by the Jews against the apostolic church that of Sabbath-breaking. This would be utterly unaccountable, were it a fact that they had ceased to observe the seventh day. This would have been the best charge to have brought against them. They did accuse Christ of Sabbath-breaking, because he neglected to follow some of their traditions. But he plainly showed them that what he did was “lawful,” that is, according to the law of the Sabbath. He says that he kept his Father’s commandments (John 15:10), of which the Sabbath was one. But this charge is nowhere intimated against the disciples. When we see how quickly they were complained of when they did not practice some of the requirements of the ceremonial law, such as circumcision, divers washings, fasts, etc., we can imagine what an outcry would have been raised had the early church ceased to observe the Sabbath. That no such charge was made proves decisively that they kept the original seventh-day Sabbath.
St. Paul’s language to the Jews in the last chapter in Acts places this beyond question. He had been taken to Rome as a prisoner. When he reached that city, he called the leading Jews together, and told them of his course of life and of the work in which he was engaged. He states positively (verse 17) that he had “committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers.” Would this have been true, if he had for twenty-seven years not been keeping the Sabbath day, but had been observing another day of the week in its stead? Was not the keeping of the seventh day a custom of the Jews for ages? If Paul had not been observing the Sabbath during /the period from his conversion to the time these words were spoken, this statement of his would be utterly untrue. And these Jews themselves, though they had heard the Christians everywhere “spoken against,” had never heard anything against Paul in the line of Sabbath-breaking. Verse 21: “We neither received letters out of Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.” We therefore conclude that the early church and Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, still kept the Sabbath.
Not Reasonable
There could be no more preposterous idea presented than to suppose that the early church should change the observance of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and that nothing should be said about it in the teachings of Christ, or of the apostles, or in the history of the church in Acts, or in the charges which the Jews made against them. Such an idea is the veriest assumption, unworthy of the slightest credence. The least reflection should satisfy any person – that this could not be so. The early disciples were themselves Jews, and had always been trained to observe the Sabbath. Christ himself, their great Teacher, had done so. Their sacred writings taught it. It was an age when their nation was universally strict in keeping it, more so than at any previous period of their history, so that Christ had disregarded some of their traditions which they added to the Sabbath law. Christ had given no instruction to change the Sabbath, neither had the apostles. Not a hint of such a thing can be found in the record.
Now to suppose these early disciples should turn about, and set aside all their past experience, their early teaching, the customs of their fathers, the law of God, with no command for it, or a hint that it was their duty so to do, is a conclusion too absurd to be entertained one moment. We have an excellent opportunity to see this point illustrated. Seventh-day Adventists are trying to bring people back to the observance of the Bible Sabbath. Overwhelming evidences are given in its favor. Is it easy to get the people to change their practice from keeping Sunday to keep the Sabbath of the Lord? Ah, no. It is the most difficult thing almost in the world to persuade people to do. Why? Because the customs of society, habits of business, and early education are against it. Were not these just as much against a change in the time of the early church? Most certainly. Why should we think then it was so easy for them to change their practice and so hard now?
But the circumstances were afterward very much changed when the gospel was preached among the heathen. They held in reverence and showed respect as a holiday to the “venerable day of the sun,” as the Emperor Constantine calls the first day of the week. Then all the tendencies were toward a change, and after centuries of apostasy, it was consummated. But this was not so in Judea where the apostolic church was located. Seventh-day Adventists make a great stir when they call for a change of the Sabbath to the day of God’s appointment, and this very fact makes them noted everywhere. So it would have been noted in the early church had they turned from the seventh day to keep another day.
The Sabbath Forever
We give one more scripture.
“For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isa. 66: 22, 23.
The time to which this scripture refers is located in the new creation,, after the coming of Christ. Here we learn that all of God’s people will keep the creation Sabbath from week to week. This shows the design of the Sabbath as a universal institution from paradise lost to paradise restored. It spans the history of our earth. It is the memorial of the great Creator which he made for man, In view of such a fact as this, how utterly absurd it is to suppose that after the original Sabbath had been kept for 4,000 years, and is to be kept in the new earth state, another day should be inserted for a brief period by divine authority between these great points without a single command from Scripture, or the example of the church in apostolic times, or any evidence that the apostolic church ever kept this new day. Seeing then we have no evidence from Scripture for such a change in the early church, we are certain it never occurred then; but that the change was made in after ages when men followed heathen practices more than the word of God.
[copied from an old Bible magazine called “The Present Truth.”]