On What Day of the Week Did Christ Arise from the Dead?
We proceed, then, to inquire, aside from the mere matter of getting the facts in the case, which we shall examine by and by, what occasion there is for differing from the view usually entertained on this subject. We are told that the view that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, is the main proof for Sunday-keeping; and hence it is important to show that he did not rise on that day to destroy that proof. This is the only reason urged for endeavoring to show that the resurrection occurred on any other than the first day of the week. But could anything be weaker? Such an argument is no more needed against Sunday-keeping, than we need a formal argument to show that the sun shines, or that the laws of the land forbid murder. Whoever spends his breath in that direction, spends it in vain, and all his efforts are but a beating of the air. And then, is it not easy to be seen, that by acknowledging the necessity of showing that the resurrection did not take place on the first day of the week, we concede infinitely more than we gain? By doing this we virtually acknowledge that if Christ did rise on the first day of the week, it is a valid argument in favor of Sunday as the Sabbath; and it is a tenfold harder task to prove to any Sunday-keeper that Christ did not rise on the first day of the week, than to show him out and out, by other arguments, that Sunday-keeping is a child of popery, and without foundation in the word of God. And so, making this issue, the Sunday-keeper, sustaining his position that Christ did rise on the first day of the week, or at least failing to be convinced that he did not, comes off triumphant from the field. It is like our leaving our breastworks, and going forth into the open field to attack the enemy in one of his strongholds. And in such encounters, ten times out of every ten, the Sunday-keeper will maintain his ground and gain the day. How much better, so far as the argument is concerned, to admit the premises of our opponents, and then show that there is not a shadow of Sunday-keeping in them, than it is to attempt an argument which we cannot sustain, and then put forth all our other efforts, under the stinging necessities of defeat. But if this argument, so pompously put forth of late, against Sunday-keeping, is so all-potent as it is claimed to be, where are its fruits? It ought to have some effect. It should be able to show some converts. But who has been turned by it from the false practice of first-day observance? We have yet to learn of the first one. We have intimated that the popular view on this subject could not easily be disproved. We shall now show that the word of God positively sustains it. In opening the Bible record upon this point, two great facts stand out before us at first sight: 1. The resurrection of Christ is not spoken of in connection with any day, as then present, but the first day of the week. 2. On whatever day his resurrection occurred, it was not till the first day that it became known to the disciples or any one else. These facts will be apparent from a glance at what the evangelists have written. The first writer, Matthew, makes this statement: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." xxviii, 1. This gives the time of the first visit to the sepulchre, after the Lord was laid therein, and states it to be after the Sabbath was past; for that is the meaning of the expression, "In the end of the Sabbath." The original, ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, is thus defined by Robinson: "At the end of the Sabbath, i. e., after the Sabbath, the Sabbath being now ended. Some have had the presumption to declare that he here speaks as a theologian, not as a scholar; but he vindicates this definition by ample citations from classical authorities. And then to make the matter doubly sure, the evangelist states, "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." The verb, to dawn, means the breaking of the day after the darkness of the night. The only definition of the word (φαύσκω) given by Liddell and Scott is "to grow toward daylight;" the same, they say, as epiphausko (ἐπιφαύσκω) which they define, "to shine out," as of the sun or moon. Being thus used to denote the commencement of daylight, it is once used in the New Testament in a tropical sense to denote the commencement of the day. Luke xxiii, 54. It is thus decided by this testimony, that very early on the morning of the first day of the week, as it began to grow toward daylight, the women came to the sepulchre. With this agrees the testimony of the other evangelists. Mark recording the same event, the first visit of the Marys to the sepulchre, says plainly (xvi, 1), "And when the Sabbath was past, . . . very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." That the visit recorded by Matthew was the same as this, and not one which took place previously, before the close of the Sabbath, as some contend, is evident; for, first, Luke says the women rested the entire hours of the Sabbath; and, second, if they had visited the sepulchre near the close of the Sabbath, and there learned that the Saviour had risen, as they did learn it at the visit recorded by Matthew, they would not have gone to the sepulchre, the next morning, in order to embalm him, as Mark records. Luke and John, also, both testify that it was early on the morning of the first day of the week, when the women first visited the sepulchre. This point, then, is definitely settled: That the first visit to the sepulchre was on the morning of the first day of the week, and it was then ascertained that the Lord had risen. How long before this had the resurrection taken place? May we infer that it was but a short time before? or was it so long before that it occurred on the previous day, the seventh day of the week? This is the question now to be decided, and we think the remainder of Matt. xxviii throws such light on it that we cannot mistake. A fact or two we will now notice. 1. When the angel of God descended and rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchre, and Christ came forth in triumph from the grave, fear fell upon the keepers who were set to watch the sepulchre, and they became as dead men. They understood perfectly well when the resurrection took place. 2. In immediate connection with this, seems to have been the arrival of the women at the sepulchre; for the angel was still there; and the evangelist, after recording the fear of the keepers, enters as his next sentence, that the angel addressed the women as they came up, and said, "Fear not ye." The wicked keepers are fallen as dead through fright; but fear not ye. 3. As soon as the keepers recovered from their fright, they would of course hasten to make known to the authorities the things that had happened. 4. The women, as the angel directed, departed quickly from the sepulchre, with fear and great joy, and went to make known to the disciples the resurrection of their Lord. 5. While they were going, which, as we have seen, was early upon the first day of the week, some of the keepers, or the watch, came into the city to make known to the chief priests the things that were done. Matt. xxviii, 11. So it was not till the morning of the first day that the watch came into the city to make known the event. 6. The chief priests, as the best way to get along with the matter, hired the soldiers to say that while they slept, his disciples came and stole him away. With these facts in view, let us now imagine for a moment that the resurrection of Christ took place the day before the first day of the week, or near the close of the Sabbath, as is claimed, and see what work it will make with the record. 1. In this case the angel must have descended, the earthquake taken place, the Saviour have arisen, and the keepers have fallen through fear; all in broad daylight, before the setting of the sun. 2. The keepers must then have lain there all night; for they did not depart from the sepulchre till about the time the women came and left, Sunday morning; inasmuch as the record states that while the women were going to tell his disciples, the watch were going to tell the chief priests. 3. The watch would have remembered that Christ arose in the daytime of the previous day, and when the chief priests told them to say that his disciples stole him away while they slept, they would have answered, That story won't go; for people will not believe that men, especially those on guard, would be asleep in the daytime. Thus we see that the effort to put the resurrection of Christ upon the seventh day, makes of Matthew's narrative a sort of nonsense of which any Bible believer should blush to be guilty. Let the reader keep in view the point that these thoughts are designed to prove. It is that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. This does not involve an explanation of Matt. xii, 40, nor of the day of the crucifixion. A person may prove, if he can, that Christ was crucified on the second or third day of the week, for aught we care, so far as our present argument is concerned. Place the death and burial of Christ where you will, the Bible plainly shows that his resurrection was upon the first day of the week. We have said that the only reason assigned for differing from the common view on this subject was to destroy the main prop of Sunday-keeping. Perhaps we should correct this; for some, in the intensity of their hatred against Spiritual Gifts, fondly hope that they can hereby disprove its statement on this question, found in Vol. i, p. 95. But in either case, and for either purpose, their argument is an utter failure.