The Signs of the Times, vol. 11

March 12, 1885

“‘The Teaching of the Apostles’” The Signs of the Times 11, 11, pp. 169, 170.

WE do not here refer to what the apostles really taught, but to the document found about a year ago, written by—no one knows whom, at a time when no one knows, which purports to be a summary of what was taught by the apostles, and which, therefore, is entitled “The Teaching of the Apostles.” SITI March 12, 1885, page 169.1

Since its discovery this document has been made a great deal of, in fact a great deal more prominence has been given it than it can possibly deserve. For no one claims that any of the apostles ever saw it, or ever heard of it; the best authorities placing its origin in the first half of the second century, or, in figures, about A.D. 140. SITI March 12, 1885, page 169.2

In the new Sunday book of W. F. Crafts this precious (?) find is again pushed to the front in the following manner:— SITI March 12, 1885, page 169.3

“The recent discovery and publication of ‘The Teaching of the Apostles’ shortens and simplifies the argument for the change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week.” SITI March 12, 1885, page 169.4

But as the “Teaching” says nothing about either the Sabbath or the first day of the week, it is difficult to see how it “simplifies the argument for the change,” unless, indeed, it be by furnishing a new and good opportunity to commit a fraud. At any rate, that is just what has been done to utilize it in the argument for the change. And if they propose to abandon all attempts to sustain the change by the Scriptures and rest it wholly—where it rightly belongs—upon fraud, pure and simple, then we cheerfully confess that the argument (?) for the change has been greatly simplified by the publication in English of the “Teaching of the Apostles.” SITI March 12, 1885, page 169.5

However, some may ask, Even though the “Teaching” does not speak directly of the Sabbath nor the first day of the week, does it not mention the Lord’s day? We answer, No, decidedly. There is no such phrase in all the book. And in the place where the translation reads “Lord’s day,” Dr. Crafts himself admits that the word “day” is not in the Greek. Then what right have they to put it in? If the writer of the “Teaching” meant “day,” could he not have written it? When the Revelator wanted to say Lord’s day he wrote in Greek Kuriake hemera, “Lord’s day.” And also, when the writer of the “Teaching” meant day he said day. In chapter 4 we have nuktos kai hemerus, “night and day;” in chapter 8, tris test hemeras, “thrice a day;” in chapter 11, hemeran mian, “one day;” in chapter 12, duo he treis hemeras, “two or three days;” in chapter 16, eschatai hemerais, “last days;” but in chapter 14, in which he is made to say “day” there is no such word as hemera, “day,” now anything that demands its insertion; so it is sheer invention to make it read Lord’s day. SITI March 12, 1885, page 169.6

But even if the “Teaching” contained the plain Greek phrase Kuriake hemera, Lord’s day, it would still devolve upon the Sunday advocates to show that it meant the first day of the week, because the same term is used in the Scriptures and by no means does it refer to the first day of the week. Again, even though it should plainly speak of the first day of the week, and plainly command that it should be kept, it would not relieve them in the least, for it would still be incumbent on them to prove that it comes from proper authority. And we need not go outside of the document itself to successfully impeach its credit in the estimation of all people who have any regard for the rights of property. We here make the distinct charge that the document entitled “The Teaching of the Apostles,” plainly teaches that it is right to steal. In chapter one we find these words: “If one that is in need taketh, he shall be guiltless.” And to show that it is theft that is meant, we have but to read right on: “But he that is not in need shall give account whereof he took and whereunto; and being in durance [imprisonment] shall be questioned touching what he did, and he shall not go out thence until he give back the last farthing.” SITI March 12, 1885, page 169.7

According to this precious document then, all that is requisite is to be “in need,” and then if he “taketh, he shall be guiltless.” A man is sorely in need of a suit of clothes; he “taketh” one and “shall be guiltless.” Another is in need of a horse; he “taketh,” and “shall be guiltless.” Another is in great need of bread; he “taketh” a sack of flour, and “shall be guiltless;” and so on to the end of the catalogue. How the socialists, the communists, the nihilists, and the anarchists generally, may be glad and shout for joy, and fling their ready caps in air at sight of “The Teaching of the Apostles,” this wondrous screed, this last, best gift to the rascals! How aptly they can apply Dr. Crafts’ words: “The recent discovery and publication of ‘The Teaching of the Apostles’ shortens and simplifies the argument” that one man has no right to have more than another, and that those who have must divide with those who have not and are too lazy to work! And, too, it “shortens and simplifies the argument” for the man who has read the command “Thou shalt not steal;” all he has to do is to convince himself that he “is in need,” and lo! he “taketh” and “is guiltless.” Oh, yes, that fellow did a great thing when he got off all this as the teaching of the twelve apostles! It is a pity he did not leave his name along with it, so that Dr. Crafts and his Sunday law associates might have canonized him. SITI March 12, 1885, page 170.1

About A.D. 140, then, we are to suppose that this copy of “The Teaching of the Apostles” was first given to the world, and in it some one says that the apostles taught thus and so. But we have on our table a copy of The Teaching of the Apostles, which is certainly of earlier date than that. It bears unmistakable evidence of having been written in the first century, even in the very days of the apostles themselves. We would willingly submit it to the closest scrutiny of the most critical scholars of the present day, feeling assured that they would pronounce it a production of the first century. Yet in this copy we find that, even in that day, some one said that the apostles taught: 1. That it is right to do evil that good may come. 2. That it is not right to marry. 3. That there is no resurrection. 4. That Christ was not divine. 5. That the Lord’s supper could be celebrated by selfishness, drunkenness, and gluttony. 6. That all things are lawful, even to lasciviousness. 7. That Paul was not an apostle. 8. That the resurrection was then past. 9. That it was not lawful to eat with Gentiles unless they were circumcised. 10. That in their meetings all should speak at once. 11. That the gospel that Paul preached was not the true gospel at all. 12. That the second coming of Christ was then actually impending, so near indeed that Christians need do no work at all. All this, and much more of like tenor is there set forth by somebody as the teaching of the apostles. But in re tation of all these and of the other of which we have spoken, we simply turn to the New Testament, the true teaching of the apostles, and we find that these are all false as false can be. Paul describes it a slanderous report to say that he said, “Let us do evil that good may come,” and if he had ever heard of the report that the apostles taught that, “If one that is in need taketh, he shall be guiltless,” we may imagine how swiftly and witheringly he would have rebuked the slanderous tongue or person that published it. SITI March 12, 1885, page 170.2

No, such is not the teaching of the apostles of Christ; but it shows how very degenerate Christianity has become, when it receives so gladly, and extols so highly, as the veritable teaching of the Spirit of God, a production that is a shame to man. It shows, too, to what lengths this degenerate Christianity will go whenever occasion allows, and it emphasizes the already urgent necessity of holding fast the word of God. Surely the time has come when they will not endure sound doctrine; and in view of all these things Paul’s charge is now all-important: “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word.” SITI March 12, 1885, page 170.3

A. T. JONES.