Review and Herald, Vol. 39, No. 8. (2/6/1879)

Review and Herald

Feb 6, 1879

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 6, 1879

Elder Preble’s New Light on the Change of the Sabbath.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

The readers of the Review will be interested in the following article on the subject of the Sabbath. Eld. Preble has further light to offer, which is greatly in advance of that which he presented in his book, entitled “The First-Day Sabbath.” In that work, only three changes of the Sabbath were argued. But this number is altogether too few. In fact, it is only a beginning. On examining the subject more carefully, he finds that there have been some three hundred or four hundred times as many changes of the Sabbath as he dared to claim when he published his book in 1867. Four years have wrought wonders in his mind on the question of the Sabbath. Now he declares that the Sabbath was changed annually during the entire period from Moses to Christ, with the exception of those years in which the passover fell on Friday, which could not have happened, on an average, oftener than once in seven years. After making the most liberal allowance for these years in which no change of the Sabbath occurred, we have even then more than one thousand changes of the Sabbath! This important discovery is given to the world in the Boston Herald of Nov. 10, 1871. Here is the article:

“SATURDAY NOT THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.

“Editor of the Herald: That Saturday is not the Christian Sabbath appears from several considerations. The only ground on which it is claimed that Saturday is the day on which the Sabbath should be holden is because, as it is said, the Lord rested on the last day of the week, or on ‘the seventh day,’ and therefore he designated that man should observe every successive seventh day, or every Saturday, as we call it, in regular cycles from the creation of the world, onward to the end of probationary time!

But such a claim is absolutely absurd, as will appear from the following considerations:—

1. The geographical condition of the earth forbids it; as all men, in all places, in different latitudes and longitudes, cannot observe the same specific portion of time; that is, the same period of twenty-four hours (as we now call a day) at the same time. This is impossible, whether we apply it to Saturday or Sunday.

2. But the Jews did not observe a regular succession or continued cycles of seventh-day Sabbaths only a year at a time, except when their ‘passover’ fell on what we now call Friday. Then in such years they would have two Sabbaths come together, or as some call it, ‘a double Sabbath.’ The reason was this: Ever after the Jews entered the land of Canaan, all their Sabbaths, six different kinds, and all their feasts, were regulated by the ‘moon’ and ‘a sheaf of the first fruits’ of their barley harvest. And the Jewish passover was always holden on the fourteenth day of the ‘moon,’ or on the fourteenth day of the ‘first month’ of their ecclesiastical or sacred year. And such sacred year must be regulated by the moon and barley harvest; for on the sixteenth day of this same first month, the Jews were obliged to obtain a sheaf of ripe barley to be waved by the priests before the Lord on that definite sixteenth day, or ‘on the morrow after the Sabbath,’ and on no other day or month. See Lev. 23. Thus we see that the beginning of the Jewish sacred year was irregular or indefinite as contrasted with our mode of computing time. For their barley harvest varied according as the seasons were early or late; consequently their passover varied in different years, so as sometimes to fall in the month we now call March, and sometimes in the month we call April. So much for the great irregularity for the beginning of the Jewish sacred year.

Now for the weekly Sabbath or their septenary rest.

To the Jews the first day of ‘the feast of unleavened bread,’ or ‘the fifteenth day of the same month,’ was to them their first weekly Sabbath in each sacred year. And as the passover must be holden ‘in the fourteenth day of the first month,’ the day following the passover was to the Jews their annual or first weekly Sabbath in that year, by which they were to be governed by cycles of sevens for the year then next following.

Therefore if their passover should fall on the day we now call Friday, the next day following the passover would be the Sabbath to them both as regarded the Sabbath which would fall on the next day, which we call Saturday, according as they had been observing it through the preceding year, and also, according to ‘the first day of the feast of unleavened bread,’ being to them their first weekly Sabbath in each year, as above stated. Consequently in such years, that is, when the passover fell on Friday, then two Sabbaths, or ‘a double Sabbath,’ would come together, as was really the case at the time of our Saviour’s crucifixion; for he being crucified on a passover day and on a Friday, the next day following his crucifixion was the Sabbath, and ‘that Sabbath day was a high day’ (John 19:31), because two Sabbaths came together in that year, as that was one of those peculiar years in which a double Sabbath occurred. But if their passover fell on what we now call Saturday, as was sometimes the case, then their first weekly Sabbath for that year would fall on what we call Sunday; and if their passover should fall on Sunday, then, in such a year, their first weekly Sabbath would fall on Monday; and so on through all the other days of the week.

Thus it clearly appears that the Jews never did keep continued cycles of ‘seventh-day Sabbaths,’ while they were governed by the moon or lunar months. Therefore, all holy days, new moons, and Sabbath days, were to the Jews ‘a shadow of things to come; but the body was of Christ.’ In this, then, the Christian has great advantage over the Jew in observing the Sabbath. For since the resurrection of Christ, the Christian has been governed by unvarying solar time instead of the Jewish varying lunar time. And so Christians have kept regular cycles of ‘seventh-day Sabbaths’ ever since the resurrection of our Saviour. This proves the advantage of the Christian over the Jew. For the Jews were compelled to grope their way through the glimmering light of the shadowy moon until the gospel dispensation. But Christians have enjoyed the clear light of the ‘sun’ instead of the ‘moon,’ having the advantage of solar time, instead of lunar.

The Lord wisely instituted the Sabbath at the creation of the world for the benefit of man. And our Saviour sanctioned it by saying: ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’ Not for the Jew only, as some would say, but ‘for man’—for all mankind. The reason was this: The Lord knew that man would sin, and, as a consequence, our race, and also the earth, would fall under the ‘curse,’ and thus remain for six thousand years. Then the ‘groaning creation’ would be made free from the curse, and the great Sabbath of rest would begin where the six thousand years of the ‘curse’ would end. Now, as the curse that was to fall upon man for his transgressions was to result in his tilling the ground—and in the sweat of his face he must gain his bread—the Lord graciously provided that man and beast should labor but ‘six days’ only, before resting ‘the seventh day’ following those six days of toil, pain, and death. And then the six days of toil, pain, and death are a type of the six thousand years of the curse; and the seventh day of ‘rest’ is a type of the seventh thousand years of rest; as it is said: ‘There remaineth a rest [or keeping of a Sabbath, margin] to the people of God.’ Heb. 4:9. And so it again appears that the Jews being obliged to submit to the great irregularities arising from their mode of computing time by lunar months, and consequently a change of their weekly Sabbath to different days of the week, in nearly every year of their history, they could not observe this type with such beautiful harmony as Christians can. For since the resurrection of Christ, Christians have observed, without the least interruption, regular cycles of seventh-day Sabbaths. Each week Christians are acting over the type of the six thousand years of toil and pain; and also of the ‘rest’ which is to follow. And those who observe Sunday for their ‘rest day,’ or Sabbath, are no more heathen for so doing than those who observe Saturday. Those who observe Sunday for the Sabbath are just as truly observing the definite seventh day for the Sabbath as those who keep Saturday, if we only look from the right standpoint. What are we called on to ‘remember’? Why, remember and do just as the Lord did. He labored ‘six days,’ and only six, in creating this world, and then rested the ‘seventh day’ which followed those six days of labor. And this is what is required by the fourth commandment of the decalogue—‘Six days shalt thou labor’—just as the Lord did, and the seventh day, the day following such six days of labor, is the Sabbath. And thus we see that Christians, who commence their six days of labor on Monday, and end them on Saturday, and then ‘rest,’ as the Lord commanded, on Sunday, the seventh day after they have labored six, are keeping just as definite a seventh-day Sabbath as those who commence their six days labor on Sunday and end them on Friday. And so we come to this conclusion, that the Jewish seventh day, which, according to their mode of computing time, might fall on any day of the week, has been ‘done away’ as a ‘shadow’ of the past! But the Christian seventh day, which falls on Sunday, is the true Christian Sabbath which is binding upon all those who would ‘keep the commandments of God.’” T. M. Preble.

In the same paper of Nov. 16, appeared the following reply:—

“THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.”

“Editor of the Herald: In the People’s Column of your issue of Friday, T. M. Preble undertakes to show that Saturday is not the Christian Sabbath, from two considerations, which, with your permission, I will briefly notice:—

1. ‘The geographical condition of the earth forbids it.’ Why this claim is urged in this connection, or in favor of Sunday over the seventh day, we cannot conceive. Is not the world as round on the first day of the week as on the seventh? If the shape of the earth militates against the observance of the seventh day, it operates equally against any day. But seriously, does it affect the question at all? The commandment enjoins the observance of ‘the seventh day,’ and do not the inhabitants of all this round world have a seventh day to each of their weeks? We are not required to keep the same definite twenty-four hours all at the same time, but the seventh day as it comes to us, and is marked off by God’s great time-keeper, the sun.

2. If we correctly understand his second proposition, he makes an effort to prove that the Sabbath in the Jewish age was not a regularly consecutive weekly institution, but was shifted from one day of the week to another each year, because ‘governed by the moon.’

The presentation of such a claim as this, in the face of all reason and history, we are not sufficiently ‘governed by the moon’ to indorse. Indeed, it would seem that little less than lunacy would dictate such a proposition. This claim is based on the irregularity of the Jewish year, and of the annual Sabbaths. But the reader will please not confound the annual or ceremonial Sabbaths with the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment. The feasts of the Jews were moveable so far as the days of the week were concerned, while the Sabbath of the Lord was fixed, always occurring on the seventh day of the week, and not in the least affected by the ceremonial institutions. Nor should it be classed with them; for, as your correspondent truly remarks, they were ‘a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.’ All the shadows that pointed to Christ were abolished at his death; and if the weekly institution was one of them, then it also was swept away (not changed to another day); and if so the fourth commandment must have been abolished by the death of our Saviour, a conclusion which none but Antinomians are ready to accept.

If the seventh day is in any sense a shadow or type, it must be, as your correspondent asserts, as typical of the seventh thousand years of rest, after six thousand years of toil and the existence of the curse. But who ever heard of a type’s ceasing before it reaches its antitype—of a shadow’s stopping short of the substance which casts the shadow? If, therefore, the seventh day be a shadow of the seventh millennium, it must continue, at least, until that period commences. But the Sabbath is not a shadow. It is a memorial, instituted to memorialize the great Creator’s work in forming the heavens and the earth, and hence must be kept as he has commanded. We cannot celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence by observing the twenty-fifth of December; nor can we celebrate the Creator’s rest day on any other day than the one on which he rested. ‘The seventh day is the Sabbath [or rest] of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work,’ &c. It is not any seventh day after six days of labor, but the seventh day, on which God rested. Hence, if it has been ‘done away,’ the commandment enjoining it must have also been abolished; for it could not enjoin the definite seventh day in the Jewish age, under a death penalty, and then, with no verbal change, enjoin another day in this dispensation. If the seventh day was abolished at the cross, we now have no Sabbath at all, and our Saviour, instead of saying, ‘The Sabbath was made for man,’ should have said, ‘The Sabbath was made for the Jews.’

If the first day of the week is now the Sabbath, will some one please point to the law which condemns me for laboring on that day? ‘Where there is no law there is no transgression;’ and in the absence of a divine commandment for its observance, we must cling to the original day for which there is a definite, unqualified commandment, which we will do well to heed instead of ‘taking for doctrine the traditions of men.’ W. C. G.”

THE SABBATH CHANGED ONE THOUSAND TIMES

A copy of the Herald, containing Eld. P.’s argument, reached me on the 14th of Nov. I responded in the following article, which, coming after the above reply and also after an answer from an Anti-sabbatarian had both been given, was not inserted in that paper. My reply is confined to the one point which he brings forward as his ground of argument for the annual change of the Sabbath, and is as follows:—

THE SABBATH CHANGED ONE THOUSAND TIMES.

Editor of the Herald: Your paper of the 10th inst. contains an article entitled, “Saturday not the Christian Sabbath,” in which some things are said that should be corrected. According to this article, the Sabbath has been changed not less than one thousand times! In other words, it was changed each year from the time of Moses to that of Christ, except about one year in every seven when the passover fell on Friday, in which case the weekly cycle continued unchanged for two years at a time. It is, therefore, a very moderate estimate that the Sabbath was changed, in the period of nearly fifteen hundred years, at least one thousand times!

But what authority has this writer for asserting these annual changes of the Sabbath? Every thoughtful reader of the Herald, whether in favor of, or opposed to, the observance of the weekly Sabbath, cannot but be interested to know on what evidence such a statement was made. Look at this new Sabbatic theory:

1. “The Jews did not observe a regular succession or continued cycles of seventh-day Sabbaths only a year at a time, except when their passover fell on what we now call Friday.”

2. “As the passover must be holden ‘in the fourteenth day of the first month,’ the day following the passover was to the Jews their annual, or first weekly Sabbath in that year, by which they were to be governed by cycles of sevens for the year then next following.”

If these two propositions are true, several conclusions follow: 1. That the week observed

by the Jews was changeable; one kind of week lasting one year, and then giving place to another kind which was to serve for the next year. 2. That though the weekly Sabbath of the Jews was the last day of each of their weeks, yet in consequence of the fact that the week was changed each year, the Sabbath was not the same day from year to year. 3. That it is incorrect to represent the Jews as observers of Saturday, rather than Sunday; for, according to this writer, they honored each day of the week as the Sabbath, by giving it that place for one year, and then adopting in its stead another day. 4. The Sabbath could not therefore have been changed from Saturday to Sunday at the resurrection of Christ, inasmuch as Saturday was not the Sabbath of the old dispensation, but all the days were such by turns; and therefore the change could only be from this peculiar arrangement to that of hallowing one definite day for the present dispensation. 5. As this writer informs us that the fifteenth day of the first month was to the Jews “the first weekly Sabbath” in each year, it follows that there were at the commencement of each year fourteen days without a Sabbath! And as the old year might end from one to six days after the last Sabbath of that year, there would be this number of days at the close of the old year to add to the fourteen days at the commencement of the new, in which the Jews had no weekly Sabbath! 6. But should this writer retract his statement that the fifteenth day of the first month was the “first weekly Sabbath in that year,” and assert that the first and eighth days of that month were weekly Sabbaths also, he would still have, generally, year by year, a space varying from one to five days between the last Sabbath of the old year and the first one of the new, though sometimes the two Sabbaths would have no day between!

But how does this writer know that the Sabbath was changed annually? Is there such a statement in the Bible? Not one. How does he then prove this doctrine? He refers to Lev. 23: 9–11, to show that the Jews must offer the sheaf of the first-fruits of barley harvest on the morrow after the Sabbath; and he asserts that this Sabbath was the fifteenth day of the first month.

But here are the words from which this doctrine is deduced: “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest; and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you; on the morrow after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.”

It is from this text the thousand changes of the weekly Sabbath are proved! The fifteenth day of the first month being the next day after the passover, was to be a day in which no servile work should be done. Lev. 23: 5, 6. And after five days’ time came another of these annual Sabbaths. Verses 7, 8. These were not weekly Sabbaths, being only five days apart, and coming without regard to the day of the week.

And now observe his argument. He teaches that the Sabbath referred to in Lev. 23: 9–11, after which the first-fruits were to be offered, was this fifteenth of the first month mentioned in verses 5, 6; and hence asserts that this annual Sabbath was identical with the regular weekly Sabbath; and from this, reasons that the weekly Sabbath was governed by the lunar arrangement of the months; and, assuming that this was so, concludes that the order of the weeks was changed every year, and thence asserts that the Sabbath must have been changed annually! And so we have not less than one thousand changes of the Sabbath proved from a text that has no well ascertained reference to the fifteenth day of the first month, and that can only be identified with that day by first proving that the Sabbath of this text is not a weekly Sabbath, and when this is done it leaves this new doctrine without even the shadow of support.

ADVENT

By Churchman

Hark! the rumbling chariot wheels! 'Tis the coming of the Lord, it draweth nigh; Over mountains, over vales, Over ages rolls the startling prophet cry: “Watch for the coming of the Lord!”

Mighty nations have their day; All the kingdoms of the earth are growing old; Crowns are won, and crowns decay; But the voice is ever sounding, loud and bold, “Watch for the coming of the Lord!”

The church has waited centuries— Still is waiting—listening for the mighty cry; Tuned to loftiest harmonies— “On a cloud of glory, lo! he draweth nigh! Behold the coming of the Lord!”

Watchers! on yon mountain high, Eager for the coming glory and the roll Of trumpet voices, with the might Of angels in them, when will cease this warning call, “Watch for the coming of the Lord”?

“Speed, ye loitering steeds of flame!” Myriads, all impatient for deliverance, pray, Groaning travailing in pain, “Hasten on the promised, long-expected day, Day of the coming of the Lord!”

Out of burning, into ashes Falls the great earth, with the crashing of the sky; And the awful lightning flashes Gleam above the fearful wreck, as sounds the cry: “Lo! lo! the presence of the Lord!”

Now, beneath a brighter light, Golden glory falling o'er a new creation, Day eternal without night— Holy voices rise in lofty exultation: “Praise for the coming of the Lord!”

—Churchman.

Continue reading: Gratuities and Wills