Too Much Assumed by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Feb 11, 1909

Too Much Assumed

By C. M. S.

A WRITER in The Standard (Baptist) of Chicago, at the close of an elaborate argument to prove the immortality of the soul, hangs some assumptions upon the fact of Christ’s resurrection that would be, to say the least, very difficult to prove. He says:—

Out of this faith [in Christ’s resurrection] grew a claim on a day; one day in seven was set apart for worship. On the first day of the week men met for worship, for prayer, for study of truth. It is easy to build monuments, hard to seize a day, to get men to surrender one seventh of the time. This shows the power of the risen Christ over men. An empty tomb, a full day, a living church. If the resurrection of Christ is not a fact, account for the tomb, the day, the organization. . . . If the disciples had stolen the body of Christ, he [Paul] would never have preached the resurrection of Christ, would never have kept the day, never have joined the organization.

There is so much assumed in the above, with no basis whatever in fact, that it is a tax on one’s credulity to be asked to believe that it was written by a minister of the gospel. It illustrates the result of the training given in many modern schools of theology in which so much is made of the criticism of the Bible, and so little attention is paid to what the Book really teaches. It is assumed, to begin with, that the setting apart of one day in seven for worship began at the

time of the crucifixion; that the observance of Sunday as a day of rest and worship was begun by the immediate followers of our Lord; that men hitherto had not been in the habit of surrendering “one seventh of the time;” that the power of Christ as head of the church is demonstrated by the Sunday sabbath. Now all these are pure assumptions, and not only that, but are in direct opposition to the plainest teachings of the Word. There was no thought of keeping Sunday in commemoration of Christ’s resurrection until at least two centuries this side the cross. The observance of a Sabbath, the setting apart of one day in seven for rest and worship, was not a new thing to the people of Christ’s time. The immediate followers of our Lord kept no other than the seventh day, and Paul also knew nothing of a first-day sabbath to commemorate the resurrection of his Lord, but definitely declares his observance of the seventh day. If the power of Christ were demonstrated by the establishment of the Sunday sabbath, it is difficult to understand why the demonstration should have been postponed until the half-pagan emperor Constantine, in 321 A. D., established and enforced it by statute of the state. “The day” can be accounted for without any resurrection of Christ, and so adds nothing to the proof of the resurrection. “The day” was the holiday of the pagans for many centuries; began to be called the “Lord’s day” at the end of the second century; was enforced upon pagans and Christians alike from the year 321 A. D.; and was strengthened by the Council of Laodicea in 364, when a power-loving and apostatizing church joined hands with the state for its own exaltation. If the charge that Christ’s body was stolen by the disciples is to be disproved by the fact that Paul kept Sunday, then the charge against the disciples must hold; for on Paul’s own testimony he was an observer of the seventh day, not of Sunday. Into such bogs of confusion are men driven who attempt to prove the sanctity of a day God never commanded as a Sabbath.

C. M. S.