THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN by William H. Littlejohn

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Tuesday, April 28, 1885

FromThe Review and Herald, Vol. 62, No. 17

THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN.

By William H. Littlejohn

ALL THE TEXTS IN THE BIBLE WHICH MENTION THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR BEARING UPON THE QUESTION OF THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH.

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

Mr. Biblist.—At our last interview, it was arranged that I should consider to-night all those cases in the Scriptures where the first day of the week is distinctly mentioned, with reference to the claims of that day to the honor of having become the Sabbath of the Lord. The point is this: it is admitted on all hands that the seventh day is the Sabbath according to the reading of the commandment. Now, therefore, if the first day of the week has by divine authority been substituted as the Sabbath in the place of the seventh day of the week, we shall find some reference to that fact in connection with the allusions to that day as found in the Bible. If we should fail to do so, it will be safe to conclude that the whole theory concerning the change of the Sabbath is without foundation; since God could not make such a change without indicating it somewhere in words, and since the mention of it would be found, if at all, in some allusion to the first day of the week. In the Old Testament we shall find but one reference to that day. Maud will please turn to the 1st chapter of Genesis, and read the 3d, 4th, and 5th verses.

Maud.—Yes, sir; I have it: “And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Mr. B.—I need not dwell upon this text for a single moment. No one will have the hardihood to urge for an instant that it furnishes any authority for first-day sabbatizing. If the text affects the question at all, it would seem rather to make against the idea that the first day of the week could ever become the Sabbath of the Lord. The term Sabbath day means rest day. But it is hardly credible that the Lord, if he ever intended to make the first day of the week his rest day, should commit the incongruity of first selecting it as the day on which to commence the stupendous labor of creating a world.

Passing now to the New Testament, the first mention of the first day of the week contained therein will be found in Matt. 28:1, which is as follows: “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.”

Please observe this text narrowly, Mr. Thoughtful, and you will see that it bears important testimony on the question as to which day was Sabbath in A. D. 31. Instead of awarding honor to the first day of the week, it accords it to the day which preceded the first day. Matthew’s expression is: “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. Language could not be more explicit. It was not until the Sabbath was passed and the first day of the week was reached that the two Marys ventured to come to the sepulcher. The Sabbath, therefore, according to Matthew, was the day that preceded the first day of the week.

The next text that I will read is found in Mark 16:1, 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.”

Once more we have the most positive evidence that the first day of the week was not the Sabbath when Mark wrote his Gospel. According to this writer, it was not until after the Sabbath was past and the first day of the week was entered upon that the women brought their sweet spices to anoint the body of Christ. But if the Sabbath was past before the first day of the week was entered upon, then it is manifest that the latter was not the Sabbath.

Another mention of the first day of the week is found in Mark 16:9: “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.”

This text has no important bearing in deciding which day was the Sabbath according to the New Testament. It simply speaks of the first day of the week as the one on which Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene. It will be observed, however, that it alludes to the first day of the week by use of the numeral which was generally employed to designate it, without so much as an intimation that it ever had any other title than plain first day of the week. What a splendid opportunity he had to style it the Christian Sabbath if, indeed, it were entitled to that epithet.

Following in the order of the Gospels, I turn to Luke 23:54 and 24:1, where we find mention of the first day of the week. Luke is speaking of the day of the crucifixion. I will read the 54th verse of the 23d chapter to the 1st of the 24th chapter inclusive: “And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.”

The scripture that I have just read, Mr. Thoughtful, is very significant. If the first day of the week was ever so far dignified as to be made a Sabbath day, Protestants will agree that the day of which Luke was talking was the first in the series of first days thus honored.

Mr. Thoughtful.—I do not understand yet.

Mr. B.—Let me explain more fully. It is claimed by Protestants generally that the first day of the week was made a Sabbath day because of the fact that Christ arose from the dead on that day, and completed the work of redemption. Without stopping to examine the logic upon which this proposition rests, suffice it to say that the first day about which Luke is talking is the very one on which the resurrection took place. It must therefore have been the first of the Christian Sabbaths, so called, if indeed it were a Sabbath at all; or what does Luke say about the matter? If the day about which he was talking did indeed change its character and become a Sabbath day, because of the fact that on it Christ arose from the dead, it was very important that succeeding generations

should be apprised of the facts. It would seem almost inexcusable for Luke to lose such a splendid opportunity to convey the information which above every thing else those who should come after him would be anxious to have.

What are the facts? The evangelist, with the mysterious silence in regard to the transitory Sabbath which characterizes the writings of Matthew and Mark, simply styles the day of the resurrection the first day of the week. For all, he distinctly announces that it was that which followed the Sabbath. The women rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment; but early in the morning of the first day of the week, they came to the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared for the purpose of embalming the body of Christ. They thought that it would be wrong to embalm on the Sabbath, and so those pious women rested throughout the sacred hours of the Sabbath; when they were passed, and the first day of the week was reached, they no longer hesitated to engage in the secular work of anointing the body of the dead Christ.

The facts furnish a striking commentary on the question before us. Certain it is that the women who went to embalm the body of Christ dreamed not that the day on which Christ arose from the dead differed in its nature from any other of the six working days of the week. Certain it is that if Luke had believed in the doctrine that the day of Christ’s resurrection was made a holy day in commemoration of that event, he would have been compelled to place it on the record as the day following the Sabbath, without adding some explanatory clause setting forth its character. As it is, he leaves it to be inferred by his readers that to him the first day of the week was purely secular in its character, being the day that followed the Sabbath of the commandment, and one which could properly be devoted to worldly affairs.

Enough for Luke. We pass now to the Gospel of John. I will read the 1st verse of the 20th chapter: “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.”

Here again we have a verse which is more significant for what it does not say than for what it does. John’s attention is called directly to the day which is said was the first in the list of Christian Sabbaths. If it were such, John knew it to be the first; and assuredly he could not have had a better opportunity to call our attention to the facts than that afforded by his allusion to Mary Magdalene and her visit to the sepulcher. Not a word falls from his lips, however, which gives the least inkling that he ever dreamed for a moment that the day on which Christ arose from the dead differed in any way from the other five working days. How explain this silence, if our friends are right in their theories? Judging from their standpoint, it would seem as though Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had conspired to withhold from posterity every thing which above all others they desired to know; i. e., the facts respecting the change of the Sabbath. A single word from John, and the question would have been settled for all time to come. That word, however, he did not pen. Do you ask why? I answer that the only explanation which can be given must be found in the conclusion that he knew nothing about the change of the Sabbath of which our friends eighteen hundred years later talk so flippantly.

I pass down to the 19th verse of the same chapter, and there I find another mention of the first day of the week in Christ’s resurrection: “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.”

This is the last direct mention of the first day of the week found in the Gospel according to St. John. You will observe that the allusion in the 1st verse and that in the 19th verse of the 20th chapter of that Gospel are to one and the same day of the week, viz., the day on which Christ came forth from the grave. The reference in the first verse is to an event that transpired in the morning of the day, while that in the 19th verse is to one that took place as the day was closing. We have already seen that the 1st verse, mentioning, as it does, the first day of the week by its ordinary secular title, favors the conviction that John, when he penned it, had no conception that the resurrection of Christ had in any way changed its character. The same is true of the 19th verse. There is in it not one syllable which would indicate that John supposed that he was recording events that were enacted on a day which had been rendered holy by the transactions of which he spoke. He simply records the fact that at the close of the day on which Christ arose from the dead, he appeared to his disciples, who were hid away in an upper room behind bolted doors for fear that the exasperated Jews might wreak their vengeance upon them, as they had upon their Lord whom they had crucified.

What a splendid opportunity this record furnished for John to throw in the all-important statement that the day about which he was writing was the first in the series of the first-day Sabbaths; having been made such by the ever memorable rising of our Lord from the dead. How strange—if the theory of our friends be correct—that he did not do so. How much more strange still that our blessed Lord—who never omitted any thing through inadvertence or forgetfulness—should also have failed to impart to the disciples, on that memorable occasion, the very necessary knowledge that the day on which they were convened had been transformed into a Sabbath day in commemoration of his resurrection. This he did not do, however. Do you ask why? I answer, Because such a statement would not have been in harmony with the facts. No other theory can satisfactorily explain the silence of our Lord and his chosen evangelists on this all-important subject.

No man can assign any good reason why the Lord Jesus Christ should have withheld from his disciples—if it were true—the knowledge of the fact that from and after his resurrection, the first day of the week was to take the place of the seventh-day Sabbath. Indeed, every consideration of prudence and wisdom would have dictated that he should impart to them that knowledge to the fullest extent, at the very earliest date possible. The evening of the day on which he arose from the dead furnished a fitting opportunity for him to do so. That opportunity he did not embrace. How shall we account for his neglect to do so? I repeat what I have already said, that it can be accounted for only upon the ground that this modern theory that the first day of the week became a Sabbath by virtue of Christ’s resurrection upon it, was entirely unknown to our Lord and his disciples.

We have now passed through all the Gospels in our search for evidence that the first day of the week has become the Christian Sabbath. We have failed, however, to find a scintilla of proof that such is the case. The sacred writers, when they mention it at all, speak of it as an ordinary secular day of the week, which followed in order the Sabbath of the commandment.

There are but two other instances in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament. The first, in order of chronology, is found in 1 Cor. 16:2. Twenty-eight years intervened between the resurrection of Christ and the writing of this text. I will read it: “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.” You will observe that, although more than a quarter of a century had elapsed between the point of time when it is claimed that Sunday had become the Christian Sabbath, and the writing of this text, still the apostle Paul does not venture to apply to it any sacred title; but simply gives to it its old and well-known secular one, “first day of the week.” This would indeed be a strange oversight if it had really become the Sabbath of the Christians; since men conscientiously follow the practice of applying sacred titles to sacred days and institutions.

A word about the passage itself will be sufficient. Though it speaks of the first day of the week, it bears no direct testimony to the estimation in which it was held by the early Christians. In it Paul exhorts his Corinthian brethren to lay by on the first day of the week their contributions for the poor saints at Jerusalem, that there might be no gatherings when he should come to labor among them. That is, he wished them to pursue this course uniformly, that he might not be delayed when he should reach their church, in order to give them an opportunity to collect in what they wished to donate.

An effort has been made to press this text into Sunday service, by claiming that it proves that the Corinthians held regular services on the first day of the week. Such a theory, however, finds no support from the language in question. Mr. J. W. Morton, in a labored article, has proved from the Scriptures as translated into eight different languages, that the Greek words παρ’ ἑαυτῷ, rendered “by him” in our version, when rightly understood convey the impression that the laying by in question was not to be in the contribution box at the church, but in some secure place in the house of the private individual. Again, as the collections to be made on the first day of the week were such as individuals would make when they were seeking to collect from others the money due them for services rendered, it follows that the apostle did not regard the first day of the week as holy time; since otherwise he would not have instructed his brethren to perform a work of collection on its hours, which would have been incompatible with its sacred nature. The collection of outstanding accounts on a Sabbath day would be utterly indefensible.

The second and last text outside of the Gospels which we are to consider, is found in Acts 20:7, and reads as follows: “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.” This text also covers an event which transpired just twenty-eight years after the resurrection of Christ. I need not dwell at length upon its teaching. You see readily, Mr. Thoughtful, that it can have no important bearing upon the subject. It simply states that on a certain first-day evening the apostle Paul, who expected to leave the brethren in the morning and take a journey to a distance, partook with them of the Lord’s supper, as a fitting act to express their mutual affection and hope as they were about to be separated from each other. Such an event proves nothing respecting the character of the day on which it occurs. We partake of the Lord’s supper on any or all days of the week. It was first instituted on Thursday evening; yet no one insists that this fact furnishes any proof that our Lord regarded Thursday as a holy day. We all know that the reverse was true. As already suggested, Paul’s intended departure on the morrow furnished abundant reason for celebrating the Lord’s supper on Sunday evening. Let me, however, again call attention to the fact that Luke, instead of calling the first day in question the Sabbath, as he certainly would have done if it were such, like the rest of the inspired writers, persists in calling it by its secular name, first day of the week.

Here I must close the labor of the evening. I undertook to examine all the texts in the Bible which mention the first day of the week, with a view to deciding whether it has become the Christian Sabbath. You see, Mr. Thoughtful, that there is not one of them which furnishes a particle of evidence to favor the idea of first-day sanctity. On the contrary, every one of them affords either direct or indirect proof that it was regarded as nothing more or less than a common secular day of the week. I have examined eight texts in which Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul have had occasion to allude to the first day of the week under circumstances which would seem to have rendered it necessary for them to recognize its sacred character, if indeed it had any; but with singular unanimity they have avoided doing this on every occasion. These facts can never be explained in a manner to harmonize them with the theory of Sunday sanctity. On the other hand, admit that this theory has no foundation in fact, and the course pursued by the inspired penmen in their references to the first day of the week are just what we might expect them to be.

Mr. T.—Do you mean to say, Mr. Biblist, that you have read to me all the texts in the Bible which mention the first day of the week?

Mr. B.—Certainly, sir; that is just what I have done.

Mr. T.—Why, sir, I cannot express my astonishment. Do I understand you that our theologians rest all their evidence for a change of the Sabbath on such texts as those which you have read to me?

Mr. B.—Yes, sir; with the exception of one or two more which do not directly mention the first day of the week, from which they undertake to draw evidence which is purely inferential in its character.

Mr. T.—I confess that I am all afloat on the Sabbath question. I have never investigated the matter for myself, but had always supposed that the authority for the change of the Sabbath was straightforward and conclusive. In view of the situation, I have but one more favor to ask; and that is that at our next interview you will give me the Scripture proofs for the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath of the Lord.

Mr. B.—That, sir, I will do with the greatest pleasure.