02.08. The Lord's Day: The Source of Knowledge
CHAPTER I
THE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE
We have now seen that the New Testament gives no authority for the observance of the seventh day of the week as a day of rest, any more than it warrants us in keeping any other day. Hence, to observe it as a day of rest, will be simply as keeping any other form of tradition or of the commandments of men, and in the second chapter of Colossians it is so ranked by the Apostle Paul. But the question now before us is, shall we observe any day? If so, which one of the seven? and how shall we be able to determine?
We have two ways of knowing the will of the Lord: first, God has stated directly many things he would have us do; and second, he has presented before us in the lives of his inspired servants, examples for us to copy In all ages of the church the best minds have ever agreed that to live, as did the early churches, under the eye and sanction of the apostles, will be pleasing and acceptable to God. From which of these sources must we expect intelligence concerning the day we are to keep? The Sabbatarian, regarding himself as under the Law of Moses, has trained himself only to expect intelligence in a direct command, and to regard nothing as sacred which does not come in that way.
God has taught the world as we teach our children, always regarding the age and condition of those to be instructed. When, we instruct our children, we proceed as God did in the patriarchal times, and in the Law of Moses; we state duties without assigning the reasons for them, simply because those we are instructing are incompetent to lay hold of the principles that are to guide them in their conduct. But these were primary institutions, serving as man’s teachers, preparing for Christ, the great teacher, under whose instructions we may graduate for the heavens. The manner of teaching, therefore, that was proper during the days of Moses, cannot be expected to be continued in the new Institution. When we have reached our majority in Christ, in the new covenant, we are treated as though we were competent to learn truth, not only by direct statement, but by example become acquainted not only with facts, but with principles that shall guide us in the service of the Lord. For these higher lessons, God was preparing the world during the ages. Ills provisions and revelations were upon the basis of man’s necessities. God revealed his will, his love, and his power in those systems of relief and blessing which were temporal in themselves, but which, in their typology, looked to him who is the perfect Law-giver.
Man’s first want was that of knowledge, and to supply that want, God sent a prophet, or a line of prophets, all of whom were anointed or christed. These were the agents through whom the divine will was made known, and this want of man supplied. Man’s second want was pardon. He knew himself to be guilty and, therefore, suffered from a consciousness of sins and fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. To relieve man of this weakness, provision was made for pardon in an atoning sacrifice offered by a priest, year by year, but this priest, or these priests, must be anointed or christed before they could serve.
Man’s third want was a guide, a governor, a protector. When the people of Israel asked God to give them a king, the demand was a purely human one, and was made from that felt necessity of someone to control them and protect them from their enemies. But before a king could serve them, he must be anointed or christed. So, while God supplied their then present wants, he was furnishing instructions concerning the coming One who should, in himself, answer all human necessities, being the prophet, the priest and king, teaching, governing and saving the world.
We learn Christ’s will not only by what he said, but by what he did and the things which he approved. Had he never said anything relative to marriage, his presence at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, and remaining during the feast, would show his approval of that relation. After teaching his apostles for more than three years, there were many things that had not been told them; many things which they could not understand; and when he went away, he gave them the promise of another Comforter, another Helper, who should guide them into all truth; who should receive of him and deliver to them, and should bring to their knowledge all things whatsoever he had said to them. So that in their teaching and in their living they might mistake in no respect. What, therefore, these men taught and what they did, both directly and indirectly, become to us a guide in our Christian service.
Many things which the Savior taught the apostles were not reported in the gospels. Many years after the Lord had ascended into the heavens, we hear Paul mention a saying of the Master, which was commonly understood by all disciples at that time: “It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts 20:35. This was not only a teaching of the Lord, but it was one of those common sayings of his of which everyone had heard. And yet no report of it had come down to them by means of the writings of the evangelists. Not only many things were said by the Lord during his earthly ministry that found no place in the four gospels, but he did many things which were never reported by these writers. John supposes that if they had given an itemized account of all that he did, that the world would not contain the books.
Hence, it is evident to anyone who wishes to learn of God’s will concerning us, that we must necessarily wait upon the apostles in order that we may know the Lord’s will concerning the conduct of his disciples.
They try to find fault with this, sometimes, and urge that a covenant must all have been put to record before the covenant-sealing act, and that after the sacrifice by which it is sanctified, has been made, nothing can be added thereto. In this calculation they commit several blunders. I will name them in the order in which they occur to me:
They take for granted that everything in connection with the sacrifice of Christ must be in the precise order in which they have found covenants and sacrifices at all other times. And yet the very first feature of this service is irregular. The passover, which had always been regarded as a type of the offering of Christ for us, required, first, the slaying of the lamb, and after that the covenant meal. This had been the manner of ratifying covenants in all the ages, or of renewing them. But Jesus ate the passover before he was crucified, indeed, before the time for the eating of the passover had come. And in the conclusion of that solemn service, he took bread and blessed and brake and gave unto them, telling them, “This is my body," and then he took the cup, and said, “This is my blood of the New Covenant, shed for many, for the remission of sins." And yet, at that time, his body had not been bruised, nor had his blood been shed. Of course, this is out of the order of all covenant making. But when we have the facts recorded, and know that this was the order of that New Institution, it is better for us to accept it than to reject it because of something which we have denominated an irregularity.
They take it for granted that all the teaching and requirements of a covenant must first be made known before it could be ratified by sacrifice or meal. This is a great mistake. The covenant of Exodus was ratified by sacrifice and meal when the people knew but little of the terms upon which they were to have their liberty. They were not aware of the route over which they were to travel, of the hunger and thirst which were to follow, nor of the law under which they were to live in order to inherit the Promised Land. These features of the covenant were to follow. Nor was the Levitical law given when it was ratified in covenant. When Moses took the book and sprinkled it, as well as the people, in the solemnization of the covenant which God then made with that people, it contained nothing but the merest epitome of the law under which they were to live and to which they then bound themselves. This covenant was forty years in its completion. And yet it was as binding on them as if it had been given in one day.
They urge that everything which Jesus had intended his disciples to do, had been taught before his death. And yet he told them that there were many things which he could not teach them then because they could not comprehend them. Hence, just as it was in giving the Old Covenant to the Children of Israel, they received the instruction as they became competent to understand it. The truth, in both cases, was that they bound themselves to whatever God required them to do. And yet they did not know all that would be imposed upon them. At the time that Christ made and sealed his Covenant there was nothing written. It was many years after this when the gospels made their appearance. And yet to deny that he made a Covenant with his people is to deny the plain statement of the word of God.
And yet, for all we can know to the contrary, every feature of the New Institution had been given to the apostles before Christ suffered on the cross. Still they might need the further instruction of the Holy Spirit, to enable them to comprehend it and to teach it infallibly to others.
Hence, when they object to anything as belonging to the Covenant of Christ, except those things which had been clearly stated as having been given before, they do so without any scriptural reasons whatever. This leaves us not only to the direct statements found in the gospels, but to the teachings found in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistolary communications of these inspired men. But much of the teaching found in the Acts of the Apostles is in action. I do not mean by this that these men made no mistakes in their conduct. I do not justify Peter in dissembling at Antioch, nor do I suppose that Paul and Barnabas were both right in their opinions concerning the propriety of taking with them John Mark on their proposed second missionary tour. What we mean is this, the action of these men, and of the churches under their teaching, having the silent approval of themselves and co-laborers, is a guide to us, as much as what they commanded With those who are something more than mere quibblers, who have a hobby to be sustained by mere technicalities, the question is, what would God have me to do? And understanding what inspired men regarded as their duty and the duty of the church at that time, we feel that, if we do the same things now, we shall be doing the will of God. We may put this in the form of a syllogism, thus.
Those men did the will of God.
That will has not been changed from that time to this.
Therefore, if we do the same things now, we will be doing the will of God.
With this rule before us, we will try to find just what they did and taught that we may know just what God would have us to do now. If the church under the teaching of the apostles kept the Sabbath, that will be sufficient reason why we should keep it. If they did not keep it as a sacred day, and if they told us that we are free from the law of which it was a part, and, therefore, that no man has any right to judge us in any matter of this kind, we feel at liberty to follow that teaching. We have seen this already. But we are now to see if they regarded any day as sacred, and if so, which of the seven.
It will not be necessary for us to find them saying that the first day of the week is a sacred day; if they so devoted the day it is enough.