02.02. The Sabbath: The Hypothesis of a Pre-Mosaic Requirement

CHAPTER II
REASONS FOR KEEPING THE SABBATH EXAMINED UPON THE
HYPOTHESIS OF A PRE-MOSAIC REQUIREMENT

I. The first reason usually assigned for keeping the Sab­bath is that it was given at creation, to all men and for all time. This position is called in question. If we can have no law respecting the Sabbath without the use of that word, then there was no command from Jehovah to any man to observe THE Sabbath for at least 2, 500 years after the world was framed. In Exo 16:23 is the first occurrence of the word in the English Scriptures. Nor is there any text which would con­tain that word if properly translated. Just how a law was in existence, requiring men to observe the seventh day of the week, and yet no mention made of the fact in the Bible, will never be solved in the minds of those who are disposed to think for themselves. But someone answers, We find Cain and Abel offering sac­rifice, and yet no mention made of the fact that God had required such service at their hands. Not only so, but Paul says that Abel offered by faith. And, as we know that faith is the belief of testimony, it therefore follows that commands are sometimes enacted when there is no notice given of the fact.

This, however, is a long ways from the case in hand. Here we find sacrifice. Though we have no mention made of the original command, we do have mention made of the practice. But there is no mention made of command or practice respect­ing the Sabbath for twenty-five centuries. But it is said that God not only rested on the seventh day, but he sanctified it in commemoration of that fact. Hence it was set apart to a holy or a sacred use, and as this was at the beginning, the law was known from that time and observed by all who feared the Lord.

Two things are taken for granted here which are not granted. First, it is presumed that "sanctified," when said of the seventh day, means, necessarily, set apart to be observed by men as a day of worship; and second, that it was thus set apart at the creation of the world. But neither of these is by any means certain. "Sanctified “might refer to a holy joy in the mind of God; or it might indicate that God would mark the time, and in the ages to come require his people to abstain from labor on that day. Hence the language cannot mean anything absolutely which will be of any service to the cause for which it is used. Nor is this all. The deductions from the supposed existence of the law of the Sabbath are by no means legitimate. For instance, if the law had been given at the creation it would not follow that all men were expected to obey it for all time. We are sure, from the reference to sacrifice, that an offering for sin was required, and that it was a sacrifice of blood, but these services are not therefore required of all men and for all time. When the seventh day was sanctified is not indicated in the language referred to. I will quote Gen 2:2-3 :

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all the 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 he had created and made."

Now it was not the first seventh day in which the sanctifica­tion took place, for he sanctified the day because that in it he had rested. The day was not wholly given to silence and inactivity; that is not the meaning. The thought is that he discontinued the creative or formative work on that day. The following sensible treatment of the subject is found in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Am. Ed.; Vol. 4:, page 2763:

"We have hitherto viewed the Sabbath merely as a Mosaic ordinance. It remains to ask whether there be indications of its having been previously known and observed; and, secondly, whether it have an universal scope and authority over all men.

"The former of these questions is usually approached with a feeling of its being connected with the latter, and, perhaps, therefore, with a bias in favor of the view which the questioner thinks will support his opinion of the latter. It seems, how­ever, to us, that we may dismiss any anxiety as to the results we may arrive at concerning it. No doubt, if we see strong reason for thinking that the Sabbath had a pre-Mosaic exist­ence, we see something in it that has more than a Mosaic character and scope. But it might have had such without a universal authority, unless we are prepared to ascribe that to the prohibition of eating blood or things strangled. And again, it might have originated in the Law of Moses, and yet possess ail universal scope, and an authority over all men, and through all time. Whichever way, therefore, the second of our ques­tions is to be determined, we may easily approach the first without anxiety.

“The first and chief argument of those who maintain that the Sabbath was known before Moses, is the reference to it in Gen 2:2-3. This is considered to represent it as coeval with man, being instituted at the creation, or, at least, as Lightfoot views the matter, immediately upon the fall. This latter opinion is so entirely without rational ground of any kind that we may dismiss it at once. We have no materials for ascertain­ing or even conjecturing, which was put forth first, the record of the creation, or the Fourth Commandment. If the latter, then the reference to the Sabbath in the former, is abundantly natural. Had, indeed, the Hebrew tongue, the variety of preterite tenses of the Greek, the words in Genesis might require careful consideration in that regard; but as the case is, no light can be had from grammar; and on the supposition of these being written after the Fourth Commandment, their
absence, or that of any equivalent to them, would be really marvelous."

Nearly all able critics are of the opinion that the whole of Genesis was written after the law had been given at Sinai. Hence, as Moses had learned that the Fourth Commandment was to keep in memory the creation of the world, the most natural thing would be for him to mention the sanctification of that day in connection with the account of the creation. This has been the manner of historians and biographists in all time. It is in this way that we speak of General Washington when he was a boy. And yet no man would understand us to say that he was a general at that tender age. As our learned author has indicated, there are no rules of grammar which require us to regard the time of that sanctification as having occurred previous to the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, and as it is most in accord with all the facts known to us, to regard it as never having been mentioned before that event, it is safer to say that Moses referred to the sanctification of the Sabbath, as having taken place when the law was given at Sinai. This will account for the fact that no mention is made of any law of that nature during all these centuries. In appropriating this text the friends of the Sabbath have to assume every essential feature of the argument:

These are the very essentials, in the whole matter, and yet they are assumed; not one of them can be sustained.

It has sometimes been argued that Gen 4:3, presents the idea of a pre-Mosaic Sabbath: "And in process of time" they render, "And in the end of days," which, they tell us, shows that they had knowledge of some artificial measurement of time, most likely the Sabbath. This comes from too fruitful an imagination. [The language does not indicate any artificial measurement of time, nor any division of time whatever. It is equal to saying that it occurred i n the history of this family, etc. And if there was any division of time in the language, it would be more easily interpreted of the new moon, or of some measurement of time which we know to have been before the people. But the seizure of this and many similar passages of Scripture, only to force them into some sort of support of their theory, contrary to all probability and even possibility of meaning, only shows how far mere speculators will go in search of support for a favorite dogma.

Again we are told that this arbitrary division of time is to be seen in the seven days of Noah, and also in the week which Jacob fulfilled for Rachel (Gen 29:27). While these things would accord well with the idea of a pre-Mosaic Sabbath, yet the existence of such an institution is not a necessary inference therefrom. If they could be accounted for in no other way, I lien we would give them a prominent place in the consideration if the subject. But such is not the case. Seven days is a natural division of the moon, by which we know that the ancients measured the year. And yet, for all that, the third day is of more frequent occurrence in Genesis than the seventh. It is not a natural division of time, nor does anyone claim it to be sacred. And yet, the word week, in Gen 29:27, has most probable reference to seven years, during which Jacob should continue his toils with Laban. It must be conceded that the word week everywhere else in the Old Testament has the mean­ing of seven years. Hence, when we come to look at this argument, there seems to be nothing in it. The Sabbath must be found in some way, hence the ancient cities are put under tribute to the cause. Mr. Smith finds in Nineveh, (1869) the fifth of the Assyrian tablets, and also a religious calendar, in that ancient city. Here are evidences that the people knew of the Sabbath, and probably kept it. This, too, is supposed to have been written before the Law of Moses was given on Mt. Sinai. Hence that people had carried down with them this religious requirement. But when we find the name of Merodach in this, we are quite sure of the later origin of this production. Certain, it is, that Solomon largely influenced the nations of the east long before these tablets were probably written. And still further, it will be seen in these, that the service of the New Moons, and the feast days of the Jews stand in the same relation to time that the Sabbath does:

"Every month without fail he made holy assembly days." And the whole of this tablet shows the common Jewish origin, with the after glosses of heathenism.

I have no need to say to anyone who reads history that all reckoning upon dates, which claim to have been given, among the heathen nations before the seventh century, B. C., is ex­ceedingly doubtful as to its correctness. Hence, since we know that these writings give certain evidence of their Jewish origin, nothing more need to be said of them. A very strange argument, and yet a very common one, is that the form of the law of the Sabbath in the Decalogue is proof that it was an old institution. They say that as it there occurs, it has all the form of a requirement already known. But who does not know that the Sabbath was given a month before that? In Exo 16:23, the word occurs for the first time in the Bible. But this was a month before the law was given at Mt. Sinai. If it could be said that the requirement to keep the Sabbath as it is found in Exo 16:23 indicates that it was an old institution and well understood by the people, then there would be some argument in it. Even then, however, it would only be sug­gestive.

Exo 16:22-23 :

"And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning."

If we had found that the law of the Sabbath was given at the creation, it would not follow that all peoples are to observe it, for all time. Hence, in every way, the argument for a pre-Mosaic Sabbath, must be regarded as a complete failure.