We Need to Listen.

 What God says, this is what we are to listen to above all else.

It doesn't matter what I say. I could be the most eloquent speaker of all time, and it would mean absolutely nothing, unless I was using that gift to point to God's glory, to point to God's word, God's voice.

You could take many passages from the Bible out of context as a whole and use those passages to degrade all that God is. I've heard people do it. I've heard people say that God ordered the killing of children, and then they say something along the lines of what kind of God would do that?! Their words would effectively keep others from God, without ever giving them a chance to know any of the context with which that order was given. It wouldn't matter anyway, they'd say. There is no reason at all for such a horrific order, end of story. 

God's word tells us truth, and truthfully, no one was ever supposed to die, let alone die in horrible, horrible ways. We, not God, opened the door to our dying. And if you're about to say, well, God shouldn't have let us open that door, then you are saying God should have created robots, not human beings with free will to choose. 

God created all - giving the ability to choose.

Choosing evil, resulted in evil.

God did NOT have to create a plan of redemption.

God could have stopped at allowing us to live in an evil world without any hope whatsoever. Some would have us believe that is truly what happened. It's not, but it could have happened, and it would have happened if God were evil, He's not.

We can have hope if we choose.

We can take God's word -reading from beginning to end from the Holy Scriptures- scriptures HE allowed to come into being, the Holy Spirit guiding all who had a hand in their creation. We can read His word and if we are reading with a sincerity of heart to know truth, not support preconceived beliefs, then He will open our hearts to know Him, the reality of Him and of the truth. 

God help us to this end, to know truth and in knowing believe in Him, accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, now and forever!

All by His grace and mercy!

Amen.

(Excerpt)

'CHAPTER X. “THE CHANGE OF DAY.”

Under the title of “The Change of Day,” the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” devotes a chapter to the denial of the right of the seventh day to be considered the Sabbath; and he starts with the attempt to make a distinction between the Sabbath as an institution, and the Sabbath as the name of a day. He says:— 

“Let it be urged that the Sabbath as an institution, and the Sabbath as the name of a day, are entirely distinct.”—P. 201. 

This is a turn that is quite commonly taken by those who deny that the seventh day is the Sabbath, but we wish that some of those who think they see this distinction, would describe what they call the “institution.” We wish they would tell us what it is. We wish they would tell us how the “institution” was made, and how it can be observed distinct from the day. For says Mr. Elliott:— 

“The particular day is no essential part of the institution.”—P. 203. 

If, therefore, the day be no essential part of the institution, it follows that the institution can be observed without reference to the day; and so we say we should like for Mr. Elliott, or someone else who thinks the proposition correct, to tell us how that can be done. But Mr. Elliott does not believe the proposition, nor does anyone else whom we have ever known to state it. In his argument under this very proposition that, “The particular day is no essential part of the institution,” Mr. Elliott says:— 

“Without doubt, the spiritual intent of the Sabbath will fail of full realization except all men unite upon one day.”—Id. 

Then what his argument amounts to is just this: The particular day is no essential part of the institution, yet the institution will fail of proper realization unless all unite upon a particular day. In other words, the particular day is an essential part of the institution. And that is exactly where everyone lands who starts with this proposition. But it is not enough to say that the day is an essential part of the institution. The day is the institution, and the institution is the day. And if the particular day be taken away, the institution is destroyed. The commandment of God is not, Remember the Sabbath institution, to keep it holy. Nor is it merely, Remember the Sabbath, as though it were something indefinite. But it is plainly, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Exodus 20:8. The word of God is not that he blessed the Sabbath institution, and hallowed it. But the word is, “The Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 20:11. 

Nor is it left to men to select, and unite upon, some “one day” to be the Sabbath. The Lord not only commands men to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, but he also tells them, as plainly as language can tell, that “the seventh day is the Sabbath.” It is the seventh day that God blessed at creation. It is the seventh day that he then sanctified. It is the seventh day upon which he rested. Genesis 2:2, 3. It was the rest, the blessing, and the sanctification of the seventh day that made the institution of the Sabbath. And it is simply the record of a fact, when the Lord wrote on the table of stone, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Suppose the question should be asked, What is the Sabbath? As the word of God is true, the only true answer that can be given is, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Therefore it is as plain as words can make it, that apart from the seventh day there is no Sabbath; and that apart from the seventh day there is no Sabbath institution. 

Again, the word Sabbath means rest, and with this Mr. Elliott agrees; he says:— 

“The word ‘Sabbath’ is the one used in the fourth commandment; it means ‘rest,’ and it is the substantive form of the verb employed in Genesis 2:2, 3, also Exodus 31:17, to describe the divine resting after creation.”—P. 202. 

But God did not bless the rest, he blessed the rest day; he did not hallow the rest, he hallowed the rest day. That rest day was the seventh day, the last day of the week. “And he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Did God rest any day of the week but the seventh day? Assuredly not. Then is not the seventh day the rest day of God? Most certainly. Then whenever anybody calls any day the Sabbath but the seventh day—the last day of the week—he not only contradicts the plain word of God but he also contradicts the very language in which he himself speaks, because he gives the title of “rest” to that which by no possibility can truthfully bear it. The word of God is the truth, and it says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath [rest] of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” 

Yet in the face of his own reference to Genesis 2:2, 3, and Exodus 31:17, the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” has the assurance to write the following:— 

“As a human monument the particular day has value, but it has no bearing on that divine ordinance of rest and worship which comes to us out of eternity and blends again with it at the end of time.”—P. 203. 

“As a human monument?” How did the particular day—the seventh day—in Genesis 2:2, 3 become a human monument? What human being had anything to do with the erection of that monument? It was God who set up that monument, and when an institution established by the Lord himself, can be called a human monument, we should like to know how much further a five-hundred-dollar prize would not justify a man in going. 

And again, “The particular day has no bearing upon that divine ordinance which comes to us out of eternity.” This, too, when the particular day is that divine ordinance. If the particular day has no bearing upon that divine ordinance of rest and worship which comes to us out of eternity, then what is the ordinance, and how can it be observed? This brings him again to the important concession that, “all men must unite upon one day,” or else the Sabbath will fail of its proper realization. But we would ask, Did not the Lord know that when he made the Sabbath? Did he not know that it is necessary that all men should unite upon one day? We are certain that he did, and that he made ample provision for it. He himself selected the day which should be the Sabbath. He rested a certain definite day, he blessed that day, and he set it apart from the other days of the week, and he commanded man—the human race—to remember that day, and to do no work therein. That day is the last day of the week, the seventh day, and not the first day of the week. But the day which the Lord has chosen to be the Sabbath; the day which he has put honor upon; the day which he has by his own divine words and acts set apart from all other days; the day which he by his own voice from Heaven has commanded to be kept holy; that day which he has called his own—is to be set aside by men as not essential, and a heathen institution, by the authority of a heathen commandment, exalted to the place of the Lord’s day, and as all-essential. But it is wickedness. 

Like the majority of people who keep Sunday, the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” finds great difficulty in fixing the day, when the Sabbath of the Lord—the seventh day—is under discussion, but not the least difficulty when the first day of the week is to be pointed out. He inquires:— 

“When does the day commence and end? Shall we define, as in the first chapter of Genesis, that the ‘evening and morning’ make a day, and therefore reckon from sunset to sunset, as did the Puritans? or shall we keep the civil day, from midnight to midnight?”—P. 204. 

To those who regard the word of God as of any authority, we should think the day as defined in the first chapter of Genesis would be sufficient, and that therefore they would reckon the day as the Bible does, and as Mr. Elliott knows how to do, that is, “from sunset to sunset.” But those who choose a heathen institution—Sunday—instead of the institution of God—the Sabbath day—we should expect to find reckoning as the heathen did, that is, “from midnight to midnight.” And nothing more plainly marks the heathen origin of the Sunday institution, and the heathen authority for its observance, than does the fact that it is reckoned from midnight to midnight. If the religious observance of Sunday had been introduced by the apostles, or enjoined by any authority of God, it would have been observed and reckoned as the Bible gives the reckoning, from sunset to sunset. But instead of that, the Sunday institution bears Rome on its very face. Rome from her beginning reckoned the day from midnight to midnight. Sunday was the great heathen Roman day; and when by the working of the “mystery of iniquity,” and Constantine’s heathen edict, and his political, hypocritical conversion, this “wild solar holiday of all pagan times” was made the great papal Roman day, it was still essentially the same thing; and so it is yet. However much Protestants may dress it up, and call it the “Christian Sabbath,” and the “Lord’s day,” the fact still remains that the Lord never called it his day; that there is nothing about it either Sabbatic or Christian, for the Lord never rested on it, and Christ never gave any direction whatever in regard to it; and that it rests essentially upon human authority, and that of heathen origin. 

Now he says:— 

“As a concession to that human weakness which is troubled after eighteen centuries’ drill in spiritual religion, about the particular day of the week to be honored, the question will be fairly met.”—P. 205. 

Remember, he has promised that the question shall “be fairly met.” And the proposition with which he starts in fulfillment of that promise, is this:— 

“There is no possible means of fixing the day of the original Sabbath.”—Ib. 

Let us see. The Scripture says at the close of the six days employed in creation, that God “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made;” that he “blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested.” Genesis 2:2, 3. In the fourth commandment, God spoke and wrote with direct reference to the day upon which he rested from creation, and pointed out that day as the one upon which the people should rest, saying: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.... For [because] in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Therefore nothing can be plainer than that God, in the fourth commandment, pointed out distinctly “the day of the original Sabbath.” The word of God says also that the day the Saviour lay in the grave certain persons “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56. The Sabbath day according to the commandment, is the day of the original Sabbath. When those persons rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment, they rested the day of the original Sabbath. Therefore the day of the original Sabbath is fixed by the word of God to the day which followed the crucifixion of the Saviour. And that same word declares that the day which followed this day of the original Sabbath, was the first day of the week. Mr. Elliott finds no difficulty at all in fixing the first day of the week—the day of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the day of the original Sabbath is the day which immediately precedes the first day of the week. Therefore, as Mr. Elliott finds it not only possible but easy to fix the first day of the week, how can it be that he finds it impossible to fix the day of the original Sabbath, which immediately precedes the first day of the week? 

But our author proceeds to argue the proposition, and this is how he begins:— 

“Who can tell on what day of the week the first man was created?”—Ib. 

Shall we grant Mr. Elliott’s implied meaning, and conclude that he does not know on what day of the week the first man was created? Not at all; for within eight lines of this question, he begins to tell us of the day on which man first existed. He says:— 

“For the sake, however, of any literalists who still believe that the work of creation began on Sunday eve, and ended Friday at sunset, it may be suggested that the seventh day of creation was the first day of man’s existence.” 

There, reader, you have it. He himself knows what day of the week the first man was created. For as “the seventh day of creation was man’s first day of existence,” it follows inevitably that man must have been created on the seventh day, unless indeed he supposes that man was created one day and did not exist till another! But who ever before heard of “the seventh day of creation”?! We cannot imagine where he ever learned of such a thing. Never from the Bible, certainly; for the Bible tells of only six days of creation. The first chapter of Genesis gives the record of the six days of creation; and in the fourth commandment God declares, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” The Bible tells plainly that man was created on the sixth day. But lo, Mr. Elliott finds seven days of creation, and that the seventh day of creation was the first day of man’s existence!! What a wonderful thing a five-hundred-dollar-prize essay is! It brings such large returns of nonsense for such a small investment of wisdom! 

Well, what is Mr. Elliott’s conclusion from this line of argument? Here it is:— 

“If he [man] began the calculation of the week from that time, and kept the same Sabbath with his Maker, then the first day of the week, and not the seventh, was the primitive and patriarchal Sabbath. If a crude, bald literalism is to be the rule of interpretation, let us follow it boldly, no matter where it takes us.”—P. 206. 

We should say that if crude, bald nonsense is to characterize the argument by which the Sunday-sabbath is supported, then the essay entitled “The Abiding Sabbath” is fully entitled to the five-hundred-dollar prize which it received. This is the only reply that we shall make to this argument, for he himself knows that it is worthless; and he feels the necessity of making an apology for it, which he does, saying:— 

“This suggestion is made, not for any valve which it possesses, in itself, but as a fair illustration of the difficulties attending any attempt to fix the day.”—Ib. 

But is it “a fair illustration”? We are certain that it is not. And we are equally certain that if an honest inquiry were made for the day which God has fixed as the day of the original and only Sabbath of the Lord, it would, in every case, be found with less than a hundredth part of the difficulty that has attended this self-contradictory prize, or any other effort, to show that Sunday is the Sabbath. 

But why talk about “the change of the Sabbath”? While creation stands, to change the Sabbath is impossible. And even though the present creation were swept away and a new one formed, even then it would be impossible to change the Sabbath to the first day of the week. Study this point a moment:—

Sabbath means rest. The Sabbath day is the rest day; and “God did rest the seventh day from all his works.” Hebrews 4:4. As, therefore, the seventh day is the day upon which God rested, that is the only day that can be the rest day. God rested no other day of the week, therefore no other day of the week can be the rest day. And so long as it remains the fact that “God did rest the seventh day from all his works,” so long it will be the truth that the seventh day is the Sabbath. This discovers the utter absurdity of the idea that is so prevalent, and which is so much talked, and printed, and spread abroad, that “the Sabbath has been changed.” To speak of a real change of the Sabbath, is but to say that the rest of God has been changed from the day upon which he rested to one upon which he did not rest. In other words, it is to say that the Lord rested upon a day upon which he did not rest. But that it is impossible for even the Lord to do, for to call that a rest day upon which he worked would not be the truth, and it is impossible for God to lie. 

The seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord, rests upon facts, and it is impossible to change facts. Fact is from factum—that which is done. When a thing has been done, it will remain a fact to all eternity. To all eternity it will remain the truth that it was done. It may be undone, yet the fact remains that it was done. No power in the universe can change a fact. It is a fact that in six days God created the heavens and the earth, and all things that are therein. This can never cease to be a fact. This earth might be relegated again to chaos, yet the fact would remain that in six days God did create it. It would likewise remain a fact that the Lord worked each of the six days. And as long as this world stands, which was created in these six days, so long will it remain impossible truthfully to call any one of these six days the Sabbath, that is, the rest day, because there stands the fact that the Lord worked, and, we repeat, he himself cannot call that a rest day in which he worked. It is likewise a fact that God did rest the seventh day. That can never cease to be the truth. Though the whole creation which God created should be blotted out, it would still remain the fact that God did rest the seventh day. And as long as the creation stands, so long the truth stands that the seventh day is the rest day, the Sabbath of the Creator; and that none other can be. Therefore it is the simple, plain, demonstrated truth that the seventh day of the week, and that day only of all in the week, is the Sabbath of the Lord; and that while creation stands it cannot be changed. 

There is, however, a way, and only one conceivable way, in which the Sabbath could be changed; that is, as expressed by Alexander Campbell, by creation being gone through with again. Let us take Mr. Campbell’s conception and suppose that creation is to be gone through with again for the purpose of changing the Sabbath; and suppose that the present creation is turned once more to chaos. In creating again, the Lord could of course employ as many, or as few, days as he pleased, according to the day which he designed to make the Sabbath. If he should employ nine days in the work of creation, and rest the tenth day, then the tenth day would be of course the Sabbath. Or, if he should employ eight days or seven days in creation and rest the ninth or the eighth, as the case might be, that day would be the Sabbath. Or he might employ five days in creation and rest the sixth, then the sixth day would be the Sabbath; or employ four days, and rest the fifth; or three days, and rest the fourth; or two days, and rest the third; or one day, and rest the second. Then the fifth, the fourth, the third, or the second day, as the case might be, would be the Sabbath. 

But suppose it should be designed to make the first day the Sabbath. Could it be done? Not possibly. For suppose all things were created in one day, the day on which creation was performed would necessarily, and of itself, be the first day: therefore the rest day, the Sabbath, could not possibly be earlier than the second day. The first day could not possibly be both a working day and a rest day. It matters not though only a portion of the day should be employed in the work, it would effectually destroy the possibility of its being a rest day. So upon the hypothesis of a new creation, and upon that hypothesis alone, it is conceivable that the Sabbath could be changed; but even upon that hypothesis, it would be literally impossible to change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. 

People will talk and write glibly about the change of the Sabbath, never pausing to consider what is involved in the idea; never considering that heaven and earth would have to be removed before such a thing could be done. Even as Christ said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” And, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law.” In the prophecy which foretold this attempt of “the man of sin” to change the Sabbath, the word is not that he should change the law, but that, “He shall think to change times and laws” of the Most High. This might be expected of the power that should oppose and exalt himself above God (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4); and it is perfectly in keeping with his character that in his thought to change the Sabbath of the Lord, he should select the very day—the first day—to which, above all others, it would be impossible for the Lord himself to change the Sabbath. 

We now take our leave of Mr. Elliott and his prize essay; to pursue the subject further would only be to multiply notices of nonsense. In closing, we would simply repeat the remarks already made, that, in consideration of the fact that the Committee of Award decided that this essay was worthy of a prize of five hundred dollars, we should very much like to see an essay on this subject which that committee would decide to be worth nothing. If this essay stands as one of the best arguments for the Sunday-sabbath (and this it certainly does by taking the aforesaid prize, and by its receiving the endorsement of the American Tract Society by a copyright) then the Sunday institution must be in a most sorry plight. And if we had no better reasons for calling the people to the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord—the seventh day—than those that are given in this prize essay for Sunday-keeping, we should actually be ashamed ever to urge anybody to keep it. 

As for us, we choose to obey the word of God rather than the word of men. We choose to rest the day in which he has commanded us to rest. We choose to hallow the day which he has hallowed. We choose to keep holy the day which he has made holy, and which he has commanded all men to keep holy. 

Reader, “God did rest the seventh day from all his works.” Hebrews 4:4. What are you going to do? God says, Remember the rest day, to keep it holy. Exodus 20:8. What are you going to do? God says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath [the rest] of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Exodus 20:10. What are you going to do? 1

The word of God is truth. All his commandments are truth. Psalm 119:151. When God has spoken, that word must be accepted as the truth, and all there is then to do is to obey the word as he has spoken it. “It shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he hath commanded us.” Nothing is obedience but to do what the Lord says, as he says it. He says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” To disregard the day which God has commanded to be kept, is disobedience. And the disobedience is not in the slightest relieved by the substitution of another day for the one which the Lord has fixed, even though that other day be styled “Christian.” The fact is that the seventh day is the Sabbath; and in the fast-hastening Judgment the question will be, Have you kept it? God is now calling out a people who will keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Nothing but that will answer. Neither commandment of God nor faith of Jesus ever enjoined the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week. Both commandment of God and faith of Jesus show the everlasting obligation to keep the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Will you obey God? Will you keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus?' (End Excerpt)

Revelation 14:12

 Rev 14:12  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 

We must make sure we are keeping the commandments of God and not man-made commandments disguised to appear as God's. No matter how clever the disguise, God will allow those who are His to see through Satan's greatest deceptions. God will also allow those who want to believe lies to believe them, He will allow the blind to remain blind. Not all who claim to want to see -say that in truth, but God knows all the truth, He knows our hearts. He will clean our hearts, this must be our desire.

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER IX. THE FATHERS, ETC

As we have shown, the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” fills up, with the heathen edict of Constantine for the partial observance of Sunday, the blank left by “the complete silence of the New Testament” so far as any command or rules on that subject are concerned; yet his system is not complete without the sanction of the Fathers. So, as is the custom of the advocates of Sunday observance, he gives to the Fathers, the Councils, the popes, and the Catholic saints, a large place in his five-hundred-dollar-prize argument for Sunday keeping. We have before cited one of the rules laid down by the Rev. Levi Philetus Dobbs, D. D., for proving a thing when there is nothing with which to prove it, and have given an example from the “Abiding Sabbath” in illustration of the rule. We here present another of the Doctor’s rules, and in Mr. Elliott’s treatment of the Fathers, our readers can see its application. Says Dr. Dobbs:— 

“I regard, however, a judicious use of the Fathers as being, on the whole, the best reliance for anyone who is in the situation of my querist. The advantages of the Fathers are twofold: first, they carry a good deal of weight with the masses; and secondly, you can find whatever you want in the Fathers. I don’t believe that any opinion could be advanced so foolish, so manifestly absurd, but that you can find passages to sustain it, on the pages of these venerable stagers. And to the common mind, one of these is just as good as another. If it happens that the point you want to prove is one that never chanced to occur to the Fathers, why, you can easily show that they would have taken your side if they had only thought of the matter. And if, perchance, there is nothing bearing even remotely or constructively on the point, don’t be discouraged; get a good strong quotation and put the name of the Fathers to it, and utter it with an air of triumph; it will be all just as well; nine-tenths of the people don’t stop to ask whether a quotation bears on the matter in hand. Yes, my brother, the Fathers are your stronghold. They are Heaven’s best gift to the man who has a cause that can’t be sustained in any other way..” (See Appendix.)

The first of the Fathers to whom Mr. Elliott refers is Clement of Rome, who he says died about A. D. 100. From Clement he quotes a passage which says nothing about any particular day, much less does it say that Sunday is the Lord’s day, or the “abiding Sabbath,” and of it the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” says:— 

“This passage does not indeed refer by name to the Lord’s day, but it proves conclusively the existence at that time of prescribed seasons of worship, and asserts their appointment by the Saviour himself.”—P. 214. 

But for all it mentions no day, it is, says he, an “important link in the argument” that proves that Sunday is the Lord’s day and of “perpetual obligation.” An argument in which such a thing as that is counted “an important link,” must be sorely pushed to find a connection that will hold it up.

His next link is no better. This time he proposes a quotation from Ignatius, and of it says:— 

“The passage is obscure, and the text doubtless corrupt, but the trend of meaning is not indistinct.”—P. 215, note. 

It seems to us that an institution that has to be supported by an argument that is dependent upon a “trend of meaning,” drawn from an “obscure passage,” in a “corrupt text,” is certainly of most questionable authority. True, he says “the argument can do without it if necessary;” but it is particularly to be noticed that his argument does not do without it, and he deems it of sufficient importance to devote more than a page of his book to its consideration. We would remark, also, that we have never yet seen nor heard an extended argument for the Sunday institution that did do without it. 

His next quotation is from a writing of about equal value with this of Ignatius. He says:— 

“Here may be introduced a quotation from the so-called Epistle of Barnabas.... The external evidence of the authorship of this writing would be convincing but for the discredit which its internal characters casts upon it.”—Pp. 216, 217, note. 

That is to say, we might consider this epistle genuine if the writing itself did not show the contrary. And as if to make as strong as possible the doubt of its genuineness, he adds:— 

“There is a very close relationship between this writing and the ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.’” 

And to the “Teaching” he refers by the doubting phrase, “if genuine.” Well let us see what this “Teaching” is worth. We need not go outside of the document itself to successfully impeach its credit in the estimation of all people who have any regard for the rights of property. We here make the distinct charge that the document entitled “The Teaching of the Apostles,” plainly teaches that it is right to steal. Proof: in Chapter I we find these words: “If one that is in need taketh, he shall be guiltless.” And to show that it is theft that is meant, we have but to read right on: “But he that is not in need shall give account whereof he took and whereunto; and being in durance [imprisonment] shall be questioned touching what he did, and he shall not go out thence until he give back the last farthing.” 

According to this precious document then all that is requisite is to be “in need,” and then if he “taketh, he shall be guiltless.” A man is sorely in need of a suit of clothes; he “taketh” one and “shall be guiltless.” Another is in need of a horse; he “taketh,” and “shall be guiltless.” Another is in great need of bread; he “taketh” a sack of flour, and “shall be guiltless;” and so on to the end of the catalogue. How the socialists, the communists, the nihilists, and the anarchists generally, may be glad and shout for joy, and fling their ready caps in air at sight of “The Teaching of the Apostles,” this wondrous screed, this last, best gift to the rascals! 

Well may Mr. Elliott attach to this document the saving clause “if genuine.” But why should he want to receive and use it, as he does, even with that qualification? Does he not know that such is not the genuine teaching of the apostles? Oh, yes, of course he does, but in this precious document there is a phrase that can be made to do duty in support of Sunday as the Lord’s day, and that blessed consideration sanctifies all else, even to its tenets sanctioning theft. And between “the so-called Epistle of Barnabas” and this document “there is a very close relationship”! We do not doubt it in the least. But there is no relationship at all between either of these productions and the genuine teaching of the apostles. No, such is not the teaching of the apostles of Christ; but it shows how very degenerate the Christianity of the day has become, when it receives so gladly, and extols so highly, as the veritable teaching of the Spirit of God, a production that is a shame to man. 

Then after mention of Pliny’s letter to Trajan, Justin Martyr, Melito, the “Teaching,” and Irenaeus, he comes to Clement of Alexandria, of whom he speaks as follows:— 

“Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, in a mystical exposition of the fourth commandment, in the midst of fanciful speculations on the religious signification of numbers, comes down long enough from the loftier flights of his spiritual arithmetic to tell us that the seventh day of the law has given place to the eighth day of the gospel... Nobody, of course, can tell what far-fetched and unheard-of meanings may lie underneath the words of the good semi-Gnostic Father; but as far as his testimony goes, it helps to establish the fact that the first day of the week filled the same place in the minds of the church of that time, that the seventh day had occupied in the Jewish system.”—P. 223. 

Certainly. It matters not what “mystical expositions,” nor what “fanciful interpretations,” nor what “far-fetched and unheard-of meanings” there may be, they all “help to establish” the heathen institution of Sunday, in the place of the day made holy and commanded to be kept so, by the Creator of the heavens and the earth. 

With just one more witness he closes the second century. And it is most fittingly done, as follows:— 

“This century will be concluded with the mention of that most brilliant and erratic of all the ante-Nicene Christian writers, Tertullian, of Carthage...This vehement writer fitly closes this list of evidences of the honored place filled by the Lord’s day in the first two centuries of the Christian church.”—Pp. 223, 224. 

Fitly, indeed, does this “vehement writer,” and most erratic of all the ante-Nicene Fathers, close the list of the first two centuries. But what a list! He gives us a list of ten witnesses to prove that Sunday is the Lord’s day, and that it was observed as such in the first two centuries, and by his own words it is shown that the first one does not mention the day at all; the second is an obscure passage in a corrupt text; the third is doubtful; the fourth speaks only of a “stated day,” without giving it any title at all; the fifth “calls it by its heathen name;” the seventh is doubtful but teaches that men may steal if they are in need; the ninth is so mystical, so fanciful, that “nobody can tell what far-fetched and unheard-of meanings may lie underneath his words;” the tenth is the “most brilliant and erratic [having no certain course; roaming about without a fixed destination] of all,” and this “vehement [“furious; violent; impetuous; passionate; ardent; hot”] writer,”—we do not wonder that Dean Milman calls him “this fiery African”—this witness “fitly closes the list of evidences of the honored place filled by the Lord’s day in the first two centuries!” Well we should say so. But what is a point worth that is “proved” by such evidences? It is worth all that the Sunday-sabbath is, which is supported by it, and that is—nothing. Yet these are the only witnesses that can be called, and false, doubtful, and untrustworthy though they be, they must be used or the Sunday institution will fail. But whether the failure would be any greater without such proofs than with them, we leave the reader to decide. And that is part of the argument for the obligation of Sunday, that was accounted worth a prize of five hundred dollars! We should like very much to see an argument on that question which that committee of award would consider to be worth nothing. 

After this array of five-hundred-dollar-prize witnesses for Sunday, we hope our readers will justify us in declining to follow Mr. Elliott through a further list, composed of Origen, and Athanasius, Theodosius the Great, and Emperor Leo the Thracian, and a number of Catholic saints, such as Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, “Chrysostom the golden-mouthed,” and Jerome, “the foul-mouthed” (Mosheim, Cent. 4, part 2, chap. 2, last par. but one); through the Councils of Nice, Sardica, Gangra, Antioch, First of Toledo, Fourth of Carthage, and that of Laodicaea, and so on down to the Synod of Dort, and the Westminster Assembly. 

Yet his work on this division of his subject would be incomplete, and out of harmony with his method of argument throughout, if he should not turn about and upset it all. Accordingly, therefore, he at once destroys the edifice which he has thus so laboriously erected. Among the dangers which threaten the Sunday institution of to-day he declares that:— 

“Dangerous is the substitution of the dictum of the church for the warrant of Holy Scripture...To make the Lord’s day only an ecclesiastical contrivance, is to give no assurance to the moral reason, and to lay no obligation upon a free conscience. The church cannot maintain this institution by its own edict. Council, assembly, convocation, and synod can impose a law on the conscience only when they are able to back their decree with ‘Thus saith the Lord.’”—P. 263. 

The only dictum that the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” has shown for the Sunday-sabbath is the dictum of the church. 

The only means by which he has fixed the day to be observed is “by a religious consensus of the Christian church” (P. 203). 

The only edicts which he had presented are the heathen edicts of Constantine, additional laws by Constantine and Theodosius the Great, and the decree of Emperor Leo the Thracian.

 It is only in these, and the action of council, assembly, convocation, and synod that he obtains authority to impose the observance of Sunday as a law upon the conscience. 

He has given no “Thus saith the Lord” for the institution nor for its observance; but on the contrary has confessed the “complete silence of the New Testament,” in regard to any command or rules for either the institution or its observance. Therefore, by his own argument, the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath is of “no obligation upon a free conscience.” And that is the truth. (End Excerpt)

Commanded.

 Commands.

I command you ….. And immediately your defenses spring into action. I have no authority to command you, right?  How about a father or mother talking to their children - no matter the age- saying, "I command you to…" Should a child instantly obey? Are you debating the 'age' stipulation? Let's lower that a bit and say, a child that is not an adult, should they obey a command from their parents? Now you're thinking about what kind of command, saying it would depend up what they're being commanded to do. 

The thing is, the word command has such authority that we don't readily want to give into an authority that has such power. 

A part of any military service training has to do with the soldiers learning to submit to authority, not all are capable of doing that and they wash out of the military for that reason, among others. There are certain jobs that aren't military that call for people to obey commands instantly- police, surgeons, firemen…  those working in these fields comprehend the need for their being able to obey commands without controversy, without debate. People in what I'll deem regular- non-life threatening- for them or others, jobs also have to learn the order of the hierarchy they are working for. Supervisors, Managers, Presidents, CEO (chief executive officers), Owners… you know what I'm talking about. You might work at an organization and never meet its CEO, its president, or its owner, why? Because they could be considered the big bosses, the ones who give commands and have those commands followed down through the chain… of… command.  As an employee you have to follow the commands of your superiors or you'll find yourself out of a job. 

Do you like the idea of having to follow commands? No, but you do it because it's expected of you. After working you certainly don't want to go home and have to be commanded by anyone else, why? You have this natural bent that tells you that you need to be in charge of yourself. That you don't have to listen to anyone, or do anything you don't absolutely want to do and if others don't like it, who cares. 

You can choose to please someone else by doing what they want, but it's on your terms so it's acceptable. But should that person try to command you to do something, that's a whole different story.  A wife asks a husband to go to a dinner and a show with her. The husband agrees because he desires to do something that will make his wife happy, even if he doesn't particularly want to go to that show after dinner. The wife commands her husband to go to dinner and a show with her, the husband outright refuses. Why? Because he doesn't want to be commanded by anyone. Of course it could be vice versa as well- no stereotypes here. Wives don't like to be commanded any more than husbands do. 

Commands.

We can follow commands of others- every military, police force, firehouse, hospital, work place in general is proof of this as being factual. If you've ever had a job where you were not the owner, you have followed commands of others. Even going to school, we were taught to follow the commands of our teachers. Those who didn't follow those commands felt the punishment of those in authority through failing grades etc. 

We follow commands of those who do not love us at all, and we often do it without any resentment, because we know that's how it must be. 

Why do we find it hard to follow commands of Someone who loves us? Because we doubt His love. 

People follow the commands of those that actually outright hate them at times and they do it because the situation dictates they must. They do it, even when their lives are not at stake in any way. But their eternal lives are at stake when they do not obey God's commands. Again, they doubt His love, they doubt eternal life. They doubt it all.

We must live by faith. We must keep the commandments of God and that means obeying those commands.

Rev_14:12  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

God help us! All through the love, the mercy, the grace and peace, with all thanksgiving to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ now and forever. Amen.

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER VIII. THE COMMANDMENT FOR SUNDAY-KEEPING

Although the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” finds complete silence in the New Testament in regard to any commands or rules for observance of the first day of the week, yet he insists that the Sunday-sabbath “is established as an apostolic institution;” and that “the religious use of Sunday” has “the high sanction of apostolic authority;” not only by the example of the apostles, but by their plain commands—in fact by commands so plain that they cannot be misunderstood. Thus he says:—

“Preachers of the gospel of the resurrection and founders of the church of the resurrection, they [the apostles] gave a new, sacred character to the day of the resurrection by their own example and by their explicit injunctions.”—P. 198.

Now an “injunction” is, “That which is enjoined; an order; a command; a precept.” Enjoin, is “to lay upon, as an order or command; to give a command to; to direct with authority;” “this word has the force of pressing admonition. It has also the sense of command.” “‘Explicit’ denotes something which is set forth in the plainest language, so that it cannot be misunderstood.”—Webster. “Explicit injunctions,” then, are commands that are set forth in language so plain that they cannot be misunderstood. Therefore Mr. Elliott’s unqualified declaration is that, by commands so plain that they cannot be misunderstood, the apostles have given a sacred character to Sunday. But everybody who ever read the New Testament knows that that is not true. And so does Mr. Elliott; for as already quoted, on page 184 he plainly confesses “the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned.” And that by the word “Sabbath” in this place he means the Sunday is undoubted, because he immediately begins an argument to account for this “complete silence,” and to justify it. But knowing and confessing as he does, “the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command” for the observance of the first day of the week is concerned, it is impossible to conceive by what mental process consistent with honesty, he could bring himself, in less than fifteen pages from these very words, to say that the apostles gave a “sacred character to the day of the resurrection by their own example and by their explicit injunctions.” Compare pages 184 and 198. 

And it is by such proofs as this that Sunday is shown to be the Lord’s day and the Christian Sabbath! It is such stuff as this that Professor William Thompson, D. D., Professor Llewellyn Pratt, D. D., and Rev. George M. Stone, D. D., all of Hartford, Conn., “after a careful(?) and thorough(? !) examination” accounted worthy of a prize of five hundred dollars; and to which, by a copyright, the American Tract Society has set its seal of orthodoxy; and which the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union names as one of the books on the Sabbath question which “at least” “should be put into every district, Sunday-school, and other public library.” 

But although he finds this “complete silence,” he finds no difficulty in accounting for it; and here is how he does it:— 

“It is not difficult to account for the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned.... The conditions under which the early Christian church existed were not favorable for their announcement.... The early church, a struggling minority composed of the poorest people, could not have instituted the Christian Sabbath in its full force of meaning. The ruling influences of government and society were against them.—P. 184. 

Therefore, according to this five-hundred-dollar-prize Christianity, commandments for the observance of Christian duties can be announced only when the conditions under which the church exists are favorable to their announcement; that is, when the ruling influences of government and society are in favor of it. And the one great distinguishing institution of Christianity is dependent upon “the ruling influences of government and society,” for “its full force and meaning”! Christians can wear the badge of their profession only when the majority favor it! We confess that that is in fact the true doctrine of the Sunday-sabbath. We have heard it preached often. And we know that is the doctrine upon which it was based in the origin of its claim to Christian recognition. But is that the kind of religion that Christ instituted in the world? Is that the manner of “Christian walk and conversation” to which he referred when he said: “Enter ye in [strive to enter in] at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it”? Was it to incite his disciples to faithfulness under the favor of “the ruling influences of government and society” that Christ said, “The brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child; the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved”? Was it to induce the “early Christian church” to wait for the sanction of the majority, and the favor of “the ruling influences of government and society,” that Christ gave the command, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”? The fact is that Mr. Elliott’s reason for the “complete silence” of the New Testament in regard to a command for the observance of the Sunday, as well as the doctrine of the Sunday-sabbath itself, is contrary to every principle of the doctrine of Christ. 

But according to Mr. Elliott’s scheme of Christian duty and faithfulness, when was the “Christian Sabbath” really instituted “in its full force of meaning”? He tells us plainly. Hear him:— 

“For the perfect establishment of the Christian Sabbath, as has already been observed, there was needed a social revolution in the Roman Empire. The infant church, in its struggles through persecution and martyrdom, had not the power even to keep the Lord’s day perfectly itself, much less could the sanctity of the day be guarded from desecration by unbelievers. We should expect therefore to find the institution making a deepening groove on society and in history, and becoming a well-defined ordinance the very moment that Christianity became a dominant power. That such was the case the facts fully confirm. From the records of the early church and the works of the Christian Fathers we can clearly see the growth of the institution culminating in the famous edict of Constantine, when Christianity became the established religion of the empire.”—P. 213, 

Now as there was no command for the observance of the Sunday institution, and as it was not, and could not be, kept by the “struggling minority” that formed the early Christian church, the “deepening groove on society and in history” that was made by “the institution,” could have been made only by influences from beyond the struggling minority, i. e., from the majority. And that is the fact. The majority were heathen. 

The worship of the sun was the chief worship of all the heathen. And as ambitious bishops, in their lust of power, of numbers, and “of the ruling influences of government and society,” opened the way for the heathen to come into the church, bringing with them their heathen practices and customs, the day of the sun, being the chief of these, thus gained a place under the name of Christianity, and so went on making its “deepening groove on society and in history,” until it culminated in “the famous edict of Constantine,” in honor of “the venerable day of the sun,” and commanding its partial observance. Of this famous edict, we shall let the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” himself tell:— 

“The Emperor Constantine was converted, and Christianity became, practically, the religion of the empire. It was now possible to enforce the Christian Sabbath and make its observance universal. In the year 321, consequently, was issued the famous edict of Constantine commanding abstinence from servile labor on Sunday. The following is the full text:—

“‘THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE TO HELPIDIUS

“‘On the venerable day of the sun, let the magistrates and people living in towns rest, and let all workshops be closed. Nevertheless, in the country, those engaged in the cultivation of land may freely and lawfully work, because it often happens that another day is not so well fitted for sowing grain and planting vines; lest by neglect of the best time, the bounty provided by Heaven should be lost. Given the seventh day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, both for the second time.’”—P. 228. 

The man who can see in the life of Constantine any evidences of conversion, possesses a degree of penetration truly wonderful; equal, indeed to that which can discern “transient elements” where it demonstrates that there are none. The one act of Constantine which is most nearly consistent with the idea of conversion, was performed in March, A. D. 313, eight years before the earliest date we have ever heard claimed for his conversion. That act was the edict of Milan, “the great act of toleration,” which “confirmed to each individual of the Roman world the privilege of choosing and professing his own religion,” and stopped the persecution of Christians. But even this one act that was consistent with conversion, was undone by his “conversion,” for soon after his “conversion” the edict of Milan was revoked. We shall name here some of his principal acts after his “conversion:” March 7, A. D. 321, he issued an edict in honor of the venerable day of the sun. The very next day, March 8, 321, he issued an edict commanding the consultation of the soothsayers. In 323 Licinius was murdered by his orders, in violation of a solemn oath given to his own sister, Constantia. In 325 he convoked, and presided at, the Council of Nice. In 326 he was guilty of the murder of his own son, Crispus, his nephew, Licinius, and his wife, Fausta, to say nothing of others. In 328 he laid the foundation of Constantinople according to “the ancient ritual of Roman Paganism,” and in 330 the city was dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Afterward he set up in the same city the images of the deities of Paganism—Minerva, Cybele, Amphitrite, Pan, and the Delphic Tripod of the oracle of Apollo—“and of all the statues which were introduced from different quarters none were received with greater honor than those of Apollo.” But above all, as though he would give to the whole world the most abiding proof of his Paganism, he erected a pillar, over a hundred and twenty feet high, and on the top of it he placed an image in which he “dared to mingle together the attributes of the Sun of Christ, and of himself.”—Milman, History of Christianity, book 3, chap. 3, par. 7 

To the end of his life he continued to imprint the image of Apollo on one side of his imperial coins, and the name of Christ on the other. In view of these things it may be safely and sincerely doubted whether he was ever converted at all. And we most decidedly call in question the Christian principle that could dwell consistently with a life so largely made up of heathen practices, and stained with so much blood. 

But to say nothing further on the subject of the “conversion” of Constantine, it is evident from Mr. Elliott’s argument that the “influences of government and society which were essential to the complete sanctity of the “Christian Sabbath,” and for which it was compelled to wait nearly three hundred years, were embodied in an imperial edict of such a man, in honor—not of the Lord’s day, nor of the Christian Sabbath, nor of Christ, but—of the venerable day of the sun; that the legislation which was to enforce the “Christian Sabbath,” and make its observance universal, was a piece of legislation that enforced the “venerable day of the sun,” and made its observance partial, that is, obligatory upon only the people who lived in towns, and such as worked at trades; while country people might “freely and lawfully work.” However, on the nature of this legislation, we need ourselves to make no further comment. The author of “The Abiding Sabbath” exposes it so completely that we can better let him do it here. He says:— 

“To fully understand the provisions of this legislation, the peculiar position of Constantine must be taken into consideration. He was not himself free from all remains of heathen superstition. It seems certain that before his conversion he had been particularly devoted to the worship of Apollo, the sun-god.... The problem before him was to legislate for the new faith in such a manner as not to seem entirely inconsistent with his old practices, and not to come in conflict with the prejudices of his pagan subjects. These facts serve to explain the peculiarities of this decree. He names the holy day, not the Lord’s day, but the ‘day of the sun,’ the heathen designation, and thus at once seems to identify it with his former Apollo-worship; he excepts the country from the operation of the law, and thus avoids collision with his heathen subjects.”—P. 229. 

Now as he had been particularly devoted to the worship of Apollo, the sun-god; as he shaped this edict so as not to be inconsistent with his old practices, and not to conflict with the prejudices of this pagan subjects; as he gives the day its heathen designation, and thus identifies it with his former Apollo-worship; and as in it he avoids collision with his heathen subjects; then we should like to know where in the edict there comes in any legislation for his Christian subjects. In other words, if he had intended to legislate solely and entirely for his heathen subjects, and to enjoin a heathen practice, could he have framed an edict that would more clearly show it than does the one before us? Impossible. Therefore, by Mr. Elliott’s own comments, it is demonstrated that the famous edict of Constantine was given wholly in favor of the heathen, enjoining the observance of a heathen institution, Sunday, in honor of the great heathen god, the sun. And if that was to favor Christianity, then so much the worse for the Christianity(?) which it favored. At the very best it could only be heathenism under the name of Christianity. And in fact that is all it was. 

Such is the command, and such its source, that it is seriously proposed shall be observed instead of the holy commandment of the living God, spoken with a voice that shook the earth, and twice written with his own blazing finger upon the enduring stone. Such is the day, and such its sanctions, that it is proposed shall wholly supplant the day to which have been given “the highest and strongest sanctions possible even to Deity,”—the day upon which God rested, which he blessed, which he sanctified, and which he has distinctly commanded us to keep, saying, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” The observance of the seventh day is that which we, by the word of God, urge upon the conscience of every man. But if we had no better reasons for it than are given in this five-hundred-dollar-prize essay, or than we have ever seen given, for the observance of Sunday, we should actually be ashamed ever to put our pen to paper to advocate it. " (End Excerpt)

Christ Our Example- First and Foremost.

 

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER VII. “APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE,” OR CHRIST’S EXAMPLE?

ACTS 20:7

In continuing his search for the origin of the first day of the week as the Lord’s day, the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” comes to Acts 20:7. As this text mentions a meeting of disciples on the first day of the week, at which an apostle preached, it is really made the foundation upon which to lay the claim of the custom of the primitive church, and the example of the apostles in sanctioning the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath. But although there was a meeting held on the first day of the week, and although an apostle was at the meeting, as a matter of fact, there is in it neither custom nor example in favor of keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. Here is what Mr. Elliott makes of the passage:—

“The most distinct reference to the Christian use of the first day of the week is that found in Acts 20:7: ‘And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.’ ...The language clearly implies that the apostle availed himself of the occasion brought about by the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week to preach to the people.... Here, then, is a plain record of the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week, less than thirty years after the resurrection. The language is just what would be used in such a case.”—Pp. 194, 195. 

It is hard to see how he can find “a plain record of the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week,” when the record says nothing at all about any such custom. In all the narrative of which this verse forms a part there is no mention whatever of anything that was there done being done according to custom, nor to introduce what should become a custom, nor that it was to be an example to be followed by Christians throughout all coming time. So the fact is that Mr. Elliott’s “plain record” of a custom lacks the essential thing which would show a custom. 

Nor is his statement that “the language is just what would be used in such a case,” any more in accordance with the fact; for when Luke, who wrote this record, had occasion to speak of that which was a custom he did so plainly. For example: “And he [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke 4:16. Again: “And Paul, as his manner [custom] was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts 17:2. In these two passages, the words, “as his custom was,” and “as his manner was,” as Luke wrote them, are identical—Kata to eiothos—and in both instances mean precisely as his custom was; and that “language is just what” Inspiration has used in such cases as a plain record of a custom. Therefore we submit that the total absence of any such language from the passage under consideration, is valid argument that it is not a record of any such thing as the custom of the assemblage of Christians on the first day of the week. 

If the record really said that it was then a custom to assemble on the first day of the week; if it said: Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together, as their custom was, as the same writer says that it was the custom of Christ and of Paul to go to the Sabbath assemblies; if it said: Upon the first day of the week Paul preached to the disciples as his custom was; then no man could deny that such was indeed the custom: but as in the word of God there is neither statement nor hint to that effect, no man can rightly affirm that such was a custom, without going beyond the word of God; and that is prohibited by the word itself—“Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32. More than this, reading into that passage the “custom” of assemblage on the first day of the week, is not only to go beyond that which is written; it is to do violence to the very language in which it is written. The meaning of the word “custom” is, “A frequent repetition of the same act.” A single act is not custom. An act repeated once or twice is not custom. The frequent repetition of an act, that is custom. Now as Acts 20:7 is the only case on record that a religious meeting was ever held, either by the disciples or the apostles, on the first day of the week, as there is no record of a single repetition of that act, much less of a “frequent repetition” of it, it follows inevitably that there is no shadow of justice nor of right in the claim that the custom of the apostles and of the primitive church sanctions the observance of that day as the day of rest and worship—the Sabbath. There was no such custom. 

We have a few words more to say on this passage, and that we may discuss it with the best advantage to the reader we copy the whole connection:— 

“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. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Verses 7-11. 

Upon the face of this whole narrative it is evident that this meeting was at night. Let us put together several of the statements: (1) “Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together ...there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.” (2) “Paul preached unto them ...and continued his speech until midnight.” (3) At midnight Eutychus fell out of the window, and Paul went down and brought him up, and then he broke the bread and ate, therefore we may read, “The disciples came together to break bread,” and after midnight the bread was broken. (4) After that Paul “talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Therefore we may read, (5) Upon the first day of the week, the disciples came together, and there were many lights where they were gathered together. They came together to break bread, and after midnight the bread was broken. Paul preached unto them until midnight, and even till break of day. When the disciples came together, Paul was ready to depart on the morrow, and when he had talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. There can be no room for any reasonable doubt that the meeting referred to in Acts 20:7 was wholly a night meeting, and not only that but that it was an all-night meeting. 

This meeting being therefore in the night of the first day of the week, the question properly arises, According to the Bible, what part of the complete day does the night form? Is the night the first or the last part of the complete day? The Bible plainly shows that the night is the first part of the day. There was darkness on the earth before there was light. When God created the world, darkness was upon the face of the deep. Then “God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” Then “God called the light day, and the darkness he called night.” As the darkness was called night, as the darkness was upon the earth before the light, and as it takes both the night and the day—the darkness and the light—to make the complete day, it follows that in the true count of days by the revolution of the earth, the night precedes the day. This is confirmed by the Scripture: “The evening [the darkness, the night] and the morning [the light, the day] were the first day.” 

This is the order which God established in the beginning of the world; it is the order that is laid down in the beginning of the book of God; and it is the order that is followed throughout the book of God. In Leviticus 23:27-32, giving directions about the day of atonement, God said that it should be “the tenth day of the seventh month,” and that that was from the ninth day of the month at even; “from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.” Thus the tenth day of the month began in the evening of the ninth day of the month. And so according to Bible time every day begins in the evening, and evening is at the going down of the sun. Deuteronomy 16:6. Therefore as the meeting mentioned in Acts 20:7-11 was in the night of the first day of the week, and as in the word and the order of God the night is the first part of the day, it follows that the meeting was on what is now called Saturday night. For if it had been on what is now called Sunday night it would have been on the second day of the week and not on the first. So Conybeare and Howson, in “Life and Epistles of Paul,” say: “It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath.” And that is now called Saturday night. 

This meeting, then, being on what is now called Saturday night, as Paul preached till midnight, and after the breaking of bread talked till break of day and departed, it follows that at break of day on the first day of the week, at break of day on Sunday, Paul started afoot from Troas to Assos, a distance of twenty miles, with the intention of going on board a ship at Assos and continuing his journey, which he did. For says the record: “We [Paul’s companions in travel, Acts 20:4] went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene.” Verses 13, 14. Paul not only walked from Troas to Assos on Sunday, but he appointed that his companions should sail to that place—about forty miles by water—and be there by the time he came so that he could go on without delay. And when he reached Assos he went at once aboard the ship and sailed away to Mitylene, which was nearly forty miles further. That is to say, on the first day of the week Paul walked twenty miles and then sailed nearly forty more, making nearly sixty miles that he traveled; and he appointed that his companions—Luke, Timothy, Tychicus, Trophimus, Gaius, Aristarchus, and Secundus—should sail forty miles and then take him aboard, and all sail nearly forty miles more, making nearly eighty miles travel for them, all on Sunday. And this is exactly how these Christians kept that first day of the week of which mention is made in Acts 20. 

But nowadays men try to make it appear that it is an awful sin to travel on Sunday. Yes, some people now seem to think that if a ship should sail on Sunday, the sin would be so great that nothing but a perfect miracle of grace would keep it from sinking. Paul neither taught nor acted any such thing, for says the record: “We went before to ship, and sailed; ...for so had he appointed.” Paul and his companions regarded Sunday in nowise different from the other common working days of the week. For, mark, the first day of the week they sailed from Troas to Mitylene, “the next day” they sailed from Mitylene to Chios, “the next day” from Chios to Samos and Trogyllium, and “the next day” to Miletus. Here are “the first day of the week,” “the next day,” “the next day,” and “the next day,” and Paul and his companions did the same things on one of these days that they did on another. They considered one of them no more sacred than another. They considered the first day of the week to be no more of a sabbath than the next day, or the next day, or the next day. True, Paul preached all night, before he started on the first day of the week; but on the fifth or sixth day of the week he preached also at Miletus, to the elders of the church of Ephesus. 

Instead, therefore, of the Sunday deriving any sacredness from the word of God, or resting for its observance upon the authority of that word, or upon that which is just and right, or upon the example of the apostles, or the custom of the primitive church, it is contrary to all these. It is essentially an interloper, and rests for its so-called sacredness and for its authority upon nothing but “the commandments of men.” 

Of all the arguments that are made in support of the first day of the week as the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, the one which above all is the most thoroughly sophistical and deceptive is this that proposes to rest its obligation upon “the example of the apostles,” or of the “primitive Christians.” We want to look into this thing a little and see what the claim is worth, upon its own merits. “The example of the apostles.” What is it? If the phrase means anything at all, it means that the example of the apostles is the standard of human duty in moral things. But if that be so, their example must be the standard in every other duty as well as in the supposed duty of keeping the first day of the week. But nobody ever thinks of appealing to the example of the apostles in any question of morals, except in the (supposed moral) matter of the observance of the first day of the week as a sacred day. By this, therefore, even those who make the claim of apostolic example do, in effect, deny the very claim which they themselves set up. 

Who ever thinks of resting upon the example of the apostles, the obligation to obey any one of the ten commandments? Take the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Who ever thinks of appealing to the example of the apostles in impressing upon men the obligation to obey this? And what should be thought of a person anyhow who would do it? That commandment is the will of God, and the basis of its obligation is as much higher than the example of the apostles as Heaven is higher than earth, or as God is higher than man. And the obligation to obey that commandment rested just as strongly upon the apostles as it ever did, or as it ever will, upon anybody else. 

It is so with every commandment of the decalogue, and with every form of duty under any one of the commandments. Who would think of impressing upon children the duty to honor their parents by citing them to the example of the apostles? The duty to honor parents possesses higher sanctions than the example of the apostles, even the sanctions of the will of God. And to inculcate upon the minds of children this duty, upon the basis of the example of the apostles, would only be to turn them away from God, and would destroy all the force of this duty upon the conscience. It is so in relation to every moral precept. The apostles were subjects and not masters of moral obligation. Moral duties spring from the will of God, and not from the example of men; and a knowledge of moral duties is derivable alone from the commands of God, and not from the actions of men; all of which goes to show that in point of morals there is no such thing as apostolic example. This is shown by other considerations as well. In fact every consideration only the more fully demonstrates it. 

The law of God—the ten commandments—is the supreme standard of morals for the universe, and so expresses the whole duty of man. That law is perfect, and demands perfection in every subject of it. Therefore, whoever would be an example to men in the things pertaining to the law of God, that is, in any moral duty, must be perfect. Whoever would be an example to men in moral duties must not only be perfect, but he must have always been perfect. He must always have met to the full every requirement of the law of God. But this no man whom the world ever saw has done. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” “They are all gone out of the way.” The perfection of the law of God has never been met in any man whom the world ever saw. Therefore, no man whom the world ever saw can ever be an example to men in moral duties. Consequently there is not, and there never can be, any such thing as apostolic example in moral things. To many this may appear to be stating the case too strongly, because the apostles were inspired men. We abate not one jot from the divine inspiration of the apostles, nor from the respect justly due them as inspired men; but we say without the slightest hesitation that, although the apostles were indeed inspired, they are not examples to men in moral duties. 

Because, first, no degree of inspiration can ever put a man above the law of God; and because, secondly, although we know that the doctrine and the writings of the apostles are inspired, yet we know also that all their actions were not inspired. This we know because the inspired record tells us so. Here is the inspired record of one instance in point: “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all,” etc. Galatians 2:11-14. 

Peter “was to be blamed.” He “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Then what kind of “apostolic example” was that to follow? and where were those led who followed it? They were being carried away with dissimulation—two-facedness, hypocrisy; they were being led away from “the truth of the gospel.” But they could claim apostolic example for it, and that too with the very apostles—Peter and Barnabas—present, whom they might claim as their examples. But God did not leave them there; he rebuked their sin, and corrected their fault, and brought them back from their blameworthiness to uprightness once more according to the truth of the gospel. And in the record of it God has shown all men that there is no such thing as “apostolic example” for anybody to follow, but that the truth of the gospel and the word of God is that according to which all men must walk. 

Another instance, and in this even Paul himself was involved: “Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other.” Acts 15:36-39. 

“The contention was so sharp between them.” Is that “apostolic example” which is to be followed by all men? Everybody will at once say, No. But why is it not? Because it is not right. But when we say that that is not right, in that very saying we at once declare that there is a standard by which the apostles themselves must be tried, and by which their example must be measured. And that is to acknowledge at once that there is no such thing as “apostolic example.”

We do not cite these things to reproach the apostles, nor to charge them with not being Christians. They were men of like passions with all the rest of us; and were subject to failings as well as all the rest of us. They had weaknesses in themselves to strengthen by exercise in divine grace, and defects of moral character to overcome by the help of God. They had to fight the good fight of faith as well as all the rest of us. And they fought the good fight and became at last “more than conquerors through Him that hath loved” them as well as us, and hath washed us all “from our sins in his own blood.” Far be it that we should cite these things to reproach the apostles; we simply bring forth the record which God has given of the apostles, to show to men that if they will be perfect they must have a higher aim than “the example of the apostles.” By these things from the word of God we would show to men that, in working out the problem of human destiny under the perfect law of God, that problem must be worked by an example that never fails. We write these things not that we love the apostles less, but Christ more. And this is only what the apostles themselves have shown. Ask the apostles whether we shall follow them as examples. Peter, shall we follow your example? Answer: “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” 1 Peter 2:21, 22. Paul, shall we not follow your example? Answer: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1. John, “that disciple whom Jesus loved,” shall we not follow your example? Shall we not walk in your ways? answer: “He that saith he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked.” 1 John 2:6. Wherefore, as the apostles themselves repudiate the claim of apostolic example, it follows that there is no such thing as “the example of the apostles.” 

Jesus Christ is the one only example for men to follow. To every man he commands absolutely, “Follow me.” “Take my yoke upon you and learn of me.” “I am the door.” “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way [by the “other way” of apostolic example, for instance], the same is a thief and a robber.” “By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.” The Lord Jesus is the one only person whom this world ever saw who met perfectly every requirement of the perfect law of God. He was made flesh, and he, in the flesh, and form, and nature of man, stood in every place and met every temptation that any man can ever meet, and in every place and in everything he met all the demands of the perfect law of God. He did it from infancy to the prime of manhood, and never failed. “He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” Therefore, as he is the only person whom this world ever saw who ever met to the full all the perfect requirements of the law of God, it follows that he is the only person whom the world ever saw, or ever shall see, who can be an example for men, or whose example is worthy to be followed by men. 

Therefore, when preachers and leaders of theological thought anywhere present before men any other example, even though it be the example of the apostles, and seek to induce men to follow any other example, even though it be proposed as apostolic example, such conduct is sin against God, and treason against our Lord Jesus Christ. And that there are men in this day, Protestants too, who are doing that very thing only shows how far from Christ the religious teachers of the day have gone. It is time that they and all men should be told that the law of God is the one perfect rule of human duty; that the Lord Jesus Christ is the one perfect example that has been worked out in this world under that rule; and that all men who will correctly solve the problem of human destiny must solve it by the terms of that rule as exemplified in, and according to, that example. Whoever attempts to solve the problem by any other rule or according to any other example will utterly fail of a correct solution; and whoever teaches men to attempt to solve it by any other rule or according to any other example, even though it be by “the example of the apostles,” he both acts and teaches treason against the Lord Jesus Christ. 

What, then, is the example of Christ in regard to keeping the first day of the week? There is no example about it at all. He never kept it. No one ever can—in fact no one ever does—claim any example of Christ for keeping the first day of the week. But where there is no example of Christ there can be no example of the apostles. Therefore there is not, and cannot be, any such thing as the example of the apostles for keeping the first day of the week. 

What, then, is the example of Christ in regard to keeping the seventh day? He kept the first seventh day the world ever saw, when he had finished his great work of creation. When he came into the world, everybody knows that he kept it as long as he lived in the world. And “he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk even as he walked.” Therefore those who walk as he walked will have to keep the seventh day. His steps led him to the place of worship on the seventh day, for thus “his custom was” (Luke 4:16), and he taught the people how to keep the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord (Matthew 12:1-12). And he has left “us an example that ye should follow his steps.” And all who follow his steps will be led by those steps to keep the seventh day, and to turn away their feet from the Sabbath, for such is his example. 

Paul said, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Now was Paul a follower of Christ in the matter of the seventh day? Let us see: “And he [Christ] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke 4:16. And of Paul it is said, by the same writer, “They came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews, and Paul, as his manner [custom] was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts 17:1, 2. Paul did follow Christ in his “custom” of keeping the Sabbath day—the seventh day—therefore if any man will obey the word of God by Paul, and will be a follower of Paul as he followed Christ, it will have to be his “custom” to go to the house of God, and to worship God, on the seventh day. 

For the keeping of the seventh day we have the commandment of God, the example of the living God (Exodus 20:8-11; Genesis 2:3), and the example of the Lord Jesus Christ both in Heaven and on earth, both as Creator and Redeemer. And there is neither command nor example for the keeping of any other day. Will you obey the commandment of God, and follow the divine example in divine things? or will you instead obey a human command and follow human examples in human things, and expect the divine reward for it? Answer yourself now as you expect to answer God in the Judgment. 

1 Corinthians 16:2. 

The next reference noticed by Mr. Elliott is 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, of which he writes— 

“Another incidental allusion to the religious use of the day—an allusion none the less valuable because incidental—is the direction of Paul 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.’ ...The Corinthians were on that day to deposit their alms in a common treasury.”—Pp. 195, 196. 

Paul’s direction is, “Let every one of you lay by him in store;” Mr. Elliott says they were “to deposit their alms in a common treasury.” Now can a man lay by him in store, and deposit in a common treasury, the same money at the same time? If there are any, especially of those who keep Sunday, who think that it can be done, let them try it. Next Sunday, before you go to meeting find out how God has prospered you, and set apart accordingly that sum of money which you will lay by you in store by depositing it in the common treasury of the church. Then as you go to church, take the money along, and when the collection box is passed, put in it that which you are going to lay by you in store; and the work is done! According to Mr. Elliott’s idea, you have obeyed this scripture. That is you have obeyed it by putting away from you the money which the Scripture directs you to lay by you. You have put into the hands of others that which is to be laid by you. You have carried away and placed entirely beyond your control, and where you will never see it again, that which is to be laid by you in store. In other words you have obeyed the Scripture by directly disobeying it. 

True, that is a novel kind of obedience; but no one need be surprised at it in this connection; for that is the only kind of obedience to the Scripture that can ever be shown by keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. The commandment of God says “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.... The seventh day is the Sabbath.” And people propose to obey that commandment by remembering the first day instead of the seventh. The word of God says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work;” and people who keep Sunday propose to obey that word by working all day on the day in which God says they shall do no work. And so it is in perfect accord with the principles of the Sunday-sabbath that Mr. Elliott should convey the idea that 1 Corinthians 16:2 was obeyed by doing directly the opposite of what the text says. 

But he seeks to justify his theory by the following remark:— 

“That this laying in store did not mean a simple hoarding of gifts by each one in his own house, is emphatically shown by the reason alleged for the injunction, ‘that there be no gatherings’ (i. e. “collections,” the same word used in the first verse) ‘when I come.’ ...If the gifts had had to be collected from house to house, the very object of the apostle’s direction would have failed to be secured.” 

This reasoning might be well enough if it were true. But it is not true. This we know because Paul himself has told us just what he meant, and has shown us just what the Corinthians understood him to mean; and Mr. Elliott’s theory is the reverse of Paul’s record of facts. A year after writing the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote the second letter; and in the second letter he makes explicit mention of this very “collection for the saints,” about which he had given these directions in the first letter. In the second letter (chap. 9:1-5), Paul writes:— 

“For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you; for I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready; lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up before-hand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness.” 

Now if Mr. Elliott’s theory be correct, that the Corinthians were to deposit their alms in a common treasury each first day of the week, and if that was what Paul meant that they should do, then why should Paul think it “necessary” to send brethren before himself “to make up” this bounty, so “that it might be ready” when he came? If Mr. Elliott’s theory be correct, what possible danger could there have been of these brethren finding the Corinthians “unprepared”? and why should Paul be afraid that they were unprepared? No; Mr. Elliott’s theory and argument are contrary to the facts. In the first letter to the Corinthians (16:2), Paul meant just what he said, that on the first day of the week every one should “lay by him in store;” and the Corinthian Christians so understood it, and so likewise would everyone else understand it, were it not that its perversion is so sorely essential in bolstering up the baseless fabric of the Sunday Lord’s day. But the Corinthians, having no such thing to cripple or pervert their ability to understand plain language, understood it as it was written, and as Paul meant that it should be understood. Each one laid by him as directed; then when the time came for Paul to go by them and take their alms to Jerusalem, he sent brethren before to make up the bounty which had been laid by in store, so that it might be ready when he came. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 16:2 gives no sanction whatever to the idea of meetings on the first day of the week. 

And now after all his peregrinations in search of the origin of the first day of the week as the Lord’s day, Mr. Elliott arrives at the following intensely logical deduction:— 

“The selection of the Lord’s day by the apostles as the one festival day of the new society seems so obviously natural, and even necessary, that when we join to these considerations the fact that it was so employed, we can no longer deny to the religious use of Sunday the high sanction of apostolic authority.”—P. 198. 

All that we shall say to that is, that it is the best illustration that we have ever seen of the following rule, by “Rev. Levi Philetus Dobbs, D.D.,”—Dr. Wayland, editor of the National Baptist—for proving something when there is nothing with which to prove it. In fact we hardly expected ever to find in “real life” an illustration of the rule; but Mr. Elliott’s five-hundred-dollar-prize logic has furnished a perfect illustration of it. The rule is:— 

“Prove the premise by the conclusion, and then prove the conclusion by the premise; proving A by B and then proving B by A. And if the people believe the conclusion already (or think they do, which amounts to the same thing), and if you bring in now and then the favorite words and phrases that the people all want to hear, and that they have associated with orthodoxy, ‘tis wonderful what a reputation you will get as a logician.” 

If “Dr. Dobbs” had offered a five-hundred-dollar prize for the best real example that should be worked out under that rule, we should give a unanimous, rising, rousing vote in favor of Rev. George Elliott and his “Abiding Sabbath” as the most deserving of the prize. 

Yet with all this he finds “complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the [Sunday] Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned.” What! A New Testament institution, and yet in the New Testament there is neither command nor rules for its observance!! Then how can it be possible that there can ever rest upon anybody any obligation whatever to observe it? How would it be possible anyhow to observe it without any rules for its observance? We shall now notice how he accounts for such an anomaly. 

(End Excerpt)

Don't Be Afraid... For Long.

 

Traditions or Commandments.

 Truth.

We accept traditions as truth and refuse to listen to sound reason, logical reason. We refuse facts all in order to support our cherished traditions. Why? Because of that word- cherished. When we cherish something that means we hold it dear to us. We favor that something, we esteem it and hold it in great worth to us- even if in actual monetary value it is worth nothing. How often do you do this, hold something dear, that means nothing to others? All the time? From a childhood toy, to an item passed down from family member to member, to a little trinket a loved one gifted you with, from a child's kindergarten painting, to a great grandparent's old teacup. The cherished things are mostly irreplaceable. You hold something dear and you do not want to give it up easily. It's the same with traditions we hold. I could tell you right now there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for us celebrating Christ's birth every December 25th, and even if you agree that doesn't mean you'll suddenly stop celebrating Christmas. It's a tradition. It's a cherished tradition. 

At what price do we hold fast to traditions though? Do we keep traditions and not commandments? 

If you find out that one of your cherish traditions goes against one of God's commandments would you be willing to give it up, or would you begin to defend your tradition, even going so far as to make up outright lies (which you're prefer to call white lies- stating they hurt no one)? People turn a blind eye to many truths in order to keep their traditions intact. 

Many people are going to tell Jesus Himself that they did all kinds of good things in His name. 

Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 

Did you read that… MANY will say they prophesized in HIS name. they cast out devils in HIS name, they did MANY WONDERFUL works in HIS name. 

People are believing they are living their lives in Jesus' name. The truth however is the opposite. They are doing it all in their own name, they are doing it all under the guidance of Satan without even knowing it. They have refused truth in favor of traditions, traditions that are cherished in the name of the Lord, but the Lord will not recognize these traditions, only His truth. 

Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 

Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 

FEW will hold to the truth. FEW will keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, FEW as opposed to the many. 

Please, Lord, let us be among the FEW! Let us keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus! Please. Help us to recognize and to give up any cherished traditions that go against your commandments and your faith. 

Excerpt -

(Continued from yesterday) 

'But our author continues:—

“After the several appearances of the Saviour on the day of his resurrection, there is no recorded appearance until a week later, when the first day is again honored by the Master. John 20:26. The exact mention of the time, which is not usual even with John’s exactness, very evidently implies that there was already attached a special significance to the ‘first day of the week’ at the time when this gospel was written.”—P. 190. 3

From Mr. Elliott’s assertion of “the exact mention of the time, which is not usual even with John’s exactness,” it would naturally be supposed that John 20:26 makes exact mention of the first day of the week; we might expect to open the book and read there some such word as, “the next first day of the week,” etc. Now let us read the passage referred to, and see how much exactness of expression there is about the first day of the week. The record says: “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.” John 20:26. 

There is the “exact mention” which attaches significance to the first day of the week! That is, an expression in which the first day of the week is not mentioned; an expression, indeed, in which there is no exactness at all, but which is wholly indefinite. “After eight days” is exactly the phrase which John wrote. Will Mr. Elliott tell us exactly how long after? Granting that it was the very next day after eight days, then we would ask the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” if the first day of the week comes every ninth day? If this is to be considered an exact mention of time, unusual even with John’s exactness, then we should like to see a form of words which Mr. Elliott would consider inexact. 

Perhaps some one may ask what day we think it was. We make no pretensions to wisdom above that which is written. And as the word of God says it was “after eight days,” without telling us anything about how long after, we know nothing more definitely about what day it was than what the word tells us, that it was “after eight days.” We know of a similar expression in Matthew 17:1: “And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart;” and we know that Luke’s record of the same scene says: “And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter, and John, and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.” Luke 9:28. Therefore we know that Inspiration shows that “after six days” is “about eight days,” and by the same rule “after eight days” is about ten days. But even then it is as indefinite as it was before, and Inspiration alone knows what day it was. 

But, though we know nothing at all about what day it was, we do know what day it was not. We know that the meeting previous to the one under consideration was on the first day of the week, John 20:19. We know that the next first day of the week would come exactly a week from that time. We know that a week consists of exactly seven days. And as the word of God says plainly that this meeting was “after eight days,” we therefore know by the word of God that this meeting was not on the next first day of the week. 

What saith the Scripture about the first day of the week? And what was the purpose of the Saviour’s repeated appearances on the day of his resurrection? Let us see. 

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 sepulcher.” Matthew 28:1. Here all that is said is, that two women went to the sepulcher on the first day of the week. Well, what reason for keeping the first day of the week lies in that fact? None whatever. 

2. “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 sepulcher at the rising of the sun.” Mark 16:1, 2. Can anybody tell what there is about this text that shows that the first day of the week is the Sabbath? How can the first day of the week be the Sabbath, and yet the Sabbath be past before the first day of the week begins? 

3. “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they [the women who came from Galilee] came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.” Luke 24:1 

4. “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.” John 20:1. 

Notice that these four statements—one by each of the Gospel writers—are not four records of four distinct things, but four distinct records of the same thing, and the same time, even the same hour. Each one tells what occurred in the morning of a certain first day of the week, and the only fact stated in all four of the records, about the first day of the week, is that certain women came to the sepulcher very early in the morning. Then what is there in all this upon which to base any reason for keeping the first day of the week? Nothing. 

In the Gospels there is mention made of the first day of the week only twice more. These are in Mark and John. And the record in John and the close of the record in Mark speak of the same time precisely, only it is in the evening, whereas, the other was in the morning of that same first day of the week. 

5. Here is Mark’s record: “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. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them [Luke 24:13-48], as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.” Mark 16:9-14. 

6. Of this same time John says: “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. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.” John 20:19, 20. 

Here, then, are all the instances in which the term “first day of the week” is used in the Gospels, and the manifest story is simply this: When the Sabbath was past, the women came to the sepulcher very early in the morning on the first day of the week, and found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher, and Jesus risen. Then Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, and she went and told the disciples that Jesus was risen and they “believed not.” Then Jesus appeared to two of the disciples themselves as they went into the country, and they went and told it to the others, who yet believed not. Then Jesus appeared to all the company together and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed them which had seen him after he was risen, then showed them his hands, and his feet, and his side, and said: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see.... Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” Luke 24:39-43. 

Now take this whole narrative from beginning to end and where is there a word in it that conveys any idea that anybody ever kept the first day of the week, or that it ever should be kept as the Sabbath or for any other sacred or religious purpose whatever? Just nowhere at all. The Scriptures throughout show that the purpose of the repeated appearances of Jesus was not to institute a new Sabbath, for there is not one word said about it, but to convince his disciples that he really was risen, and was alive again, that they might be witnesses to the fact. The words above quoted show this, but Thomas was not there with the others, and he still did not believe, and so at another time, “after eight days,” Thomas was with them, and Jesus came again for the express purpose of convincing him, for he simply said to the company, “Peace be unto you,” and then spoke directly to Thomas, saying: “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.” John 20:24-27. ASLD 63.2

This is made positive by the words of Peter: “Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.” Acts 10:40, 41. “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.” Acts 2:32. And that evening of the day of his resurrection, when he said to the eleven to handle him and see that it was he, and when he ate the piece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb, he said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; ...and ye are witnesses of these things.” Luke 24:46-48. 

Once more, Peter said, Ye “killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” Acts 3:15.

They were witnesses that Christ was risen from the dead because a living Saviour, and faith in a living Saviour, alone could be preached. How did they become such witnesses? Christ showed himself to them, and “did eat and drink with them after he rose from the dead.” Then what was the purpose of his appearances on this first day of the week mentioned in the four Gospels, and his appearance to Thomas afterward? To give them “infallible proofs” that he was “alive after his passion.” Acts 1:3. Then where does the first-day-of-the-week Sabbath come in? Nowhere. In these texts, in the four Gospels, which speak of the first day of the week, where is there conveyed any idea that that day shall be kept as the Sabbath? Nowhere. 

Then says Mr. Elliott:— 

“These repeated appearances of Jesus upon the first day doubtless furnished the first suggestion of the practice which very quickly sprang up in the church of employing that day for religious assembly and worship.... This impression must have been strongly intensified by the miraculous occurrences of Pentecost, if that festival fell, as we think probable, on the first day of the week—a view maintained by the early tradition of the church and by many eminent scholars.”—Pp. 190, 191. 

Yes, “doubtless” it “must have been,” “if” it was as he thinks “probable.” But against the “early tradition of the church,” and the “many eminent scholars,” we will place just as many and as eminent scholars, and the word of God. It is true that the day of the week on which that Pentecost came is not of the least importance in itself either for or against any sacredness that was put upon it by that occurrence. It is “the day of Pentecost” that is named by the word of God. It was the feast of Pentecost with its types, that was to meet the grand object—the reality—to which its services had ever pointed. And everybody knows that the Pentecost came on each day of the week in succession as the years passed by; the same as does Christmas, or the Fourth of July, or any other yearly celebration. Therefore whatever were its occurrences, they could have no purpose in giving to the day of the week on which it fell any particular significance. 

Yet though this be true, there is so much made of it by those who will have the first day of the week to be the Sabbath, by claiming always that Pentecost was on the first day of the week, that we feel disposed to refer to the Scriptures, which show that this claim is not founded on fact. 

The word Pentecost signifies “the fiftieth day,” and was always counted, beginning with the sixteenth day of the first month. It is also called “the feast of weeks,” because it was seven complete weeks from the day of the offering of the first-fruits, which was the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, the sixteenth day of the first month. On the fourteenth day of the first month, all leaven was to be put away from all the houses. 

They were to kill the passover lamb in the evening of the fourteenth, and with it, at the beginning of the fifteenth day of the month, they were to begin to eat the unleavened bread, and the feast of unleavened bread was to continue until the twenty-second day of the month. The first day of the feast, that is, the fifteenth of the month, was to be a sabbath, no servile work was to be done in that day. Exodus 12:6-8, 15-19: Leviticus 23:5-7. Because of the putting away of the leaven on the fourteenth day, and the beginning to eat the unleavened bread on the evening of that day, it is sometimes referred to as the first day of unleavened bread; but the fifteenth day was really the first, and was the one on which no servile work was to be done. 

On “the morrow” after this fifteenth day of the month—this sabbath—the wave-sheaf of the first-fruits was to be offered before the Lord, and with that day—the sixteenth day of the month—they were to begin to count fifty days, and when they reached the fiftieth day that was Pentecost. Leviticus 23:10, 11, 15, 16; Deuteronomy 16:8, 9. Now if we can learn on what day of the week the passover fell at the time of the crucifixion, we can tell on what day of the week the Pentecost came that year. We know that the Saviour was crucified “the day before the Sabbath.” Mark 15:42. We know that the Sabbath was “the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:54-56), and that was the seventh day—Saturday—and therefore “the day before,” was the sixth day—Friday. It is plain, then, that Jesus was crucified on  Friday; this in itself, requires no proof, but it is important to distinctly mention it here, because the day before he was crucified, “the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.” Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-15. And that was the evening of Thursday, the fourteenth day of the month; because “the fourteenth day of the month at even is the Lord’s passover.” Leviticus 23:5; Exodus 12:6. 

From the passover supper Jesus went direct to Gethsemane, whence he was taken by the mob which Judas had brought, and after his shameful treatment by the priests and Pharisees and soldiers, was crucified in the afternoon of the same day. That was the fifteenth day of the month, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread; and the morrow after that day was the first of the fifty days which reached to Pentecost. Therefore, as the day of the crucifixion was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, and was Friday, the fifteenth day of the month; and as the next day, the sixteenth of the month, was the Sabbath according to the commandment, and was the first of the fifty days; anyone who will count the fifty days will find for himself that “the fiftieth day,” Pentecost, fell that year on “the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” and that is the seventh day. 

So then the day which the advocates of Sunday sacredness claim has received such sacred sanctions by the occurrences of the day of Pentecost, was not the first day of the week at all; but it was the seventh day, the very day which they so unsparingly condemn. (See Geikie’s “Life of Christ,” Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” and the opinions of such men as Neander, Olshausen, Dean Alford, Lightfoot, Jennings, Professor Hackett, Albert Barnes, etc.) Let us say again that we make no use of this fact in the way of claiming any sacredness for the seventh day because of it; that day, in the beginning, was given “the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity,” and nothing was ever needed afterward to add to its sacredness. We simply state it as the truth according to the Scriptures; and being, as it is, the truth, it shows that the claims for Sunday sacredness based upon the occurrences of Pentecost are entirely unfounded.

(End Excerpt)