Seventh Part of Time, or One Day in Seven

DR. JUSTIN EDWARDS, in the "Sabbath Manual," says the idea of the words six and seven, as used in the fourth commandment, is that of proportion; and this is the position of Mr. Preble and of all who claim that the Sabbath is merely the seventh part of time, and not the seventh day. But the word "seven" is not in the commandment, nor in any other passage of Scripture which speaks of the Sabbath. "Seventh" is always used, and this is an ordinal and not a proportional term. The words "sixth day" and "seventh day", are both used in Ex. 16; and if the assertion of Dr. Edwards will hold good in relation to "the seventh day" of Ex. 20, it will also in relation to the "the sixth day" of Ex. 16. Indeed, his statement embraces both terms, and he asserts that they are both proportional.

There is a short method of testing the accuracy of the Dr.'s statement, as follows: If the seventh day means the seventh part of time or one day in seven merely, and not the order of its occurrence in the week, then the sixth day means the sixth part of time or one day in six, but does not indicate its position in the week. This is certainly true, if that theory is right, for it makes them both proportional.

We will now suppose we are in the wilderness. This is the sixth day. Moses says, To-morrow is the Sabbath of the Lord, or the seventh day. See verse 29. We take the first week of the falling of manna for our starting point, when, according to the statement of this chapter, the sixth day and the seventh stood together; the latter immediately following the former. Now let us follow out this "proportional" system. As each day has a cycle of its own, we must count the cycle of each from each. Of course the cycle of the sixth day commences this sixth day, while the cycle of the seventh day commences to-morrow. Then the second sixth part of time would come in six days from this, while the next seventh part of time would come in seven days from to-morrow, with one full day between them. On that intervening day the manna which they had gathered the day before would corrupt, because it was not the seventh day; neither could they gather a double portion on that day, for that was to be done only on the sixth day. Of course on that Sabbath they could have no food. The third sixth day would be followed by an interval of two days between that and the Sabbath; the fourth day, by an interval of three days, and so on to the sixth sixth day or sixth part of time, which would fall on the fifth seventh part of time. As this would be both sixth and seventh day, the cycles meeting here, one commandment would require them to gather a double portion of manna on that day, while the other would forbid their so doing! Nor could they have gathered any on the previous day for this anomalous sixth-seventh part of time, for that previous day was not a day on which they were permitted to do so.

The result would be the same in one more round, if the cycles were started on the same day. This surely traces this "proportional" idea to an absurd conclusion. But this is the legitimate conclusion of this seventh-part-of-time theory.

But there is another and still shorter method of showing the absurdity of this statement of Dr. Edwards, which is now followed by so many in their efforts to evade the truth on the Sabbath question.

If the terms sixth day and seventh day only mark proportions, then, also, the terms fifth day, fourth day, etc., only mark proportions. Who can deny this? Hence, as the seventh days means, not the seventh in order in the week, but the seventh part of time without regard to its place in the week, so the sixth day means the sixth part of time without regard to its position in the week. And, of course, the fifth day means simply the fifth part of time, coming regularly in five days; the fourth day means the fourth part of time; the third day, the third part of time; the second day is the second part of time, or every other day! while the first day is every day!!

With this argument from their premises, no fault can be found, and the conclusion is just and unavoidable. But, answers our learned Dr., or whoever he may be that takes that position, this is a perversion; it destroys the week entirely, and subverts every calculation of time. Certainly that is all very true; and you knew it when you started out on your false theory of proportional days.