THE STATESMAN ARTICLES

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 1, 1873

THE STATESMAN ARTICLES

ARTICLE THREE.

TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

IN a previous article it was seen that from the resurrection of Christ there is no instance recorded in Scripture of the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord by any assembly of Christians. On the contrary, it was seen that the Judaizing spirit which in some instances insisted on such observance by Christians, was rebuked by the inspired apostle. In connection with this was noted the fact, that in the case of Jews, converted to Christianity, yet inclined still to regard the seventh day with other Jewish celebrations, Christians were directed to bear with such observance as a weakness in their brethren. It was also seen that while the observance of the seventh day was not continued, another day of the week, the first, took its place as the stated day for religious assemblies and services. Let us now examine the testimony from the gospels for this day, reserving the balance of scriptural proof for another article.

The manner in which the first day of the week is pointed out in the gospels as the day of the Lord’s resurrection, is itself striking and significant. All four of the evangelists concur in making prominent the fact that it was on this day that Christ rose from the dead. This fact is stated by Matthew, 28:1–6; twice by Mark, 16:1–6, and again in verse 9; by Luke, 24:1–6; by John, 20:1, 2. This concurrent particular mention of the first day of the week as the day of the resurrection, in four independent historical accounts, the earliest of which was written probably about twenty years after that event, has a significance readily overlooked, but well worth noting.

To appreciate this fully we must distinguish between the words of the historians and the words of the persons whose sayings they record—a most important point in the study of any history. Observing this distinction, then, we note that the promise of Christ, as recorded by the historians, was that he would rise from the dead on the third day, dating from and including the day of his crucifixion and burial. The chief priests and Pharisees, asking Pilate to have the sepulcher guarded, the angels at the sepulcher the morning of the resurrection, the two disciples conversing with the risen Lord on the way to Emmaus, and the Lord himself, speak of it as the third day. In no other way does any one, whose language is recorded by the historians, refer to the day of the resurrection. Now, had the historians themselves, writing after an interval of from nearly twenty to over sixty years, simply desired to state the fact of the Lord’s resurrection, it would have been sufficient for them to say that, according to his promise, he rose on the third day. But instead of this, they all concur in pointing out particularly the first day of the week as the resurrection day. On the supposition that, when the historians wrote, the first day was regarded precisely like the second and third days of the week, as it was at the time of the resurrection, this change of statement is singular and inexplicable. On the other hand, on the supposition that the first day had become an honored and noted day among Christians, this mention of it by all the evangelists, and that, too, in a uniform and somewhat formal phrase, and the difference between the language of the historians and that of the persons of whom they write, are naturally and satisfactorily explained. In this change of language, then, on the part of the inspired historians, and in their concurrent and prominent mention of the first day, we have strong presumptive evidence in favor of the marked character of that day at the time when the gospel histories were written. Testimony of this kind, in the form of unstudied allusion or undesigned coincidence, though easily passed without notice, is acknowledged on all hands to be of great weight.

After showing himself probably four times to one or more of his disciples during the day of his resurrection, Christ appeared late in the evening to the disciples collectively, Thomas alone being absent. “Then the same day at evening [opsia, late evening, from opse, late], being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:19.) Let the facts be noted. 1. It was the evening of the first day of the week. 2. The disciples were met together, manifestly not to commemorate the resurrection, but for what purpose, or where, it does not matter. 3. The Lord came and blessed them, and as we learn from the following verses, imparted to them spiritual instruction, and breathed on them the Holy Ghost. These facts should be borne in mind as we proceed.

We come now to the record of the first day of the following week: “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:26.) This interval of eight days from, and including, the resurrection day, brings us, according to the common mode of reckoning, and as no one is disposed to dispute, to the first day of the next week. The preceding first day, the disciples were met collectively. Again this first day, they are met, and Thomas with them. It has been said that very probably the disciples met every day during the interval, and, therefore, they put no special honor upon the first day. But the question is not just here whether the disciples meant to honor the first day or not. Did the Lord himself single it out from the days of the week and honor it? This is the question at present. It may be admitted that the disciples met every day during the interval. This is exceedingly probable. The fact remains clear that the Lord did not meet with them. And this very passing by of these supposed meetings of the disciples by the Lord, during six days, the last of which was the seventh-day Sabbath, renders his actual meeting with them, as recorded, on the first day again, all the more significant. The disciples may not have designed to honor the day, but the Lord himself, passing by the seventh day along with the other five intervening, selects and honors the first day by once more meeting on it with his disciples.

Nor is it to be admitted that the disciples were destitute of all regard to the returning first day of the week as the day of the Lord’s resurrection. The very circumstances in which, by the ordering of the Master, they were placed, could not fail to teach them to look upon it with special regard. They had been assembled on the evening of the preceding first day. The Lord had met with them, and blessed them, and breathed on them the Holy Ghost. Earnestly longing to enjoy his comforting and cheering presence again, we may suppose they met on the second day. But the Lord does not come. More deeply feeling their need, they assembled again the third day. Still the desired presence is withheld. So on with ever-increasing desires they met day after day. How natural would it be for them to think of the seventh day, on which they had so often enjoyed sweet counsel with the Master, going to the house of God. “Surely,” their thought might well be, “He will meet with us in our assembly to-day.” But no. The time for the special manifestation of himself to his worshiping disciples in their collective gathering had not come. Would not the disciples then remember, if they had ever forgotten it, that it was on the first day of the week the Lord rose from the dead, and on that day he had stood in the midst of them and said, Peace be unto you? And remembering this, they would meet on the return of the first day with earnest expectation of the return of the Master. Nor are they disappointed. Once more he comes, and stands in the midst, and grants his benediction.

Here, then, are the facts concerning sacred time, as recorded in the gospel history, subsequent to the resurrection of Christ. The seventh day is not mentioned. If the disciples met on that day, as they probably did, the inspired penmen take no notice of the fact. There is no meeting of the risen Lord with his disciples. The seventh day is passed by. On the other hand, the first day is mentioned in a particular manner, in changed and special language, by all the evangelists, as a noted day would naturally be mentioned and marked out as the resurrection day. On it, the Lord repeatedly met with his disciples, blessed them, taught them important spiritual lessons, and breathed on them the Holy Ghost, the earnest of the abundant outpouring of the Spirit. How full of meaning these facts! On the last seventh day on which the disciples rested according to the commandment, the Lord himself is lying in the tomb. The glory of the seventh day dies out with the fading light of that day throughout the whole of which the grave claimed the body of the Redeemer. But the glory of the Sabbath of the Lord survives. It receives fresh luster from the added glories of the Lord of the Sabbath. “The stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner.” It is very early in the morning, the first day of the week. Again, God said, Let there be light, and there was light. The Sun of righteousness has risen with healing in his wings. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. The first day of the week has become the Lord’s day.—Christian Statesman, Dec. 21, 1872.

“TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.”

A REJOINDER.

Without prolonged preliminary remarks, we shall endeavor to consider the points of argument presented by our reviewer in the article entitled “Testimony from the Gospels for the first-day Sabbath.” In entering upon our task, we feel almost as if we were doing a work of supererogation, from the fact that what we are called upon to answer is so far from being a refutation of what we had said in our positive argument, that it appears to be little more than a restatement of positions which we believe we have once fairly met and conclusively answered. Nevertheless, we express our satisfaction at the concessions apparently made by the writer. The common plea that the disciples were assembled on the day of the resurrection in order to honor the resuscitation of the body of Christ, is seemingly ignored. The points now urged seem to be those of a disposition on the part of the Lord himself to honor the first day of the week, and of such a use of language on the part of the historians as it would be natural for them to make, provided it had become a settled thing with them to regard the Sunday as a day which Christ had set apart for holy uses.

So far as it regards the position assumed, that there is peculiar significance in the manner in which the first day is pointed out, with it we are ready most heartily to agree. But so far as the assertion is concerned, that, in the manner of the pointing out, there is found strong presumptive evidence that they designed to teach succeeding generations that they looked upon the first day of the week as holy time, we can by no means admit that it is correct. On the contrary, we believe that their language establishes, beyond controversy, the opposite position. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were blunt, straightforward, direct men in all that they said. They had nothing to disguise, nor could anything be gained by indirection in statement. Furthermore, every motive of esteem for Christ, as well as that which would actuate them in their desire to instruct subsequent generations in regard to the estimation in which they should hold the day of Christ’s resurrection, demanded that their language should be full and explicit, and that it should state, in so many words, that it was sacred to holy uses. But have they done this? No; the gentleman does not so much as urge that they have. All his emphasis is placed upon the fact that, in speaking of it, they call it the “first day of the week,” instead of the “third after his crucifixion.” He may well say that the distinction between these two forms of expression would be readily “passed over.” Has it come to this, then, that the Holy Spirit, in enforcing important duties upon Christians, is compelled to depart from the natural, clear and positive statement of facts, and to employ polemical niceties which we believe, if they have any force at all, can only be discerned by minds whose susceptibilities for refinement are infinitely superior to those of common men and women, and the poor and ignorant to whom the gospel was preached.

If the Sunday had become the “Christian Sabbath,” why not say so? If indeed it was on the “Lord’s day” that Jesus arose, why was not this asserted? Or, if the first day of the week was regarded as the Christian Sabbath, why such a studied avoidance of the application of this term to that day? Will the gentleman insist that if the evangelists had stated, in so many words, that the Lord appeared among them after his resurrection on the first “Lord’s day,” or the first “Christian Sabbath,” that that would not have been just what the facts would have warranted, if his theory be correct, and that thereby all dispute, as to which day is the Lord’s day, or Christian Sabbath, would have been forever terminated? Then why endeavor to impress the reader with the thought that there is really any peculiar significance in the form of expression employed, or that it furnishes a strong presumptive argument in favor of first-day sanctity?

The language of the historians is just that which men would use when speaking of a secular day, and not that which they

would naturally employ when alluding to a consecrated one. The expression, “first day of the week,” was not only the briefer—as compared to the other, that is, the “third day after the crucifixion”—but was definite in every particular. Once more, therefore, we insist that the fact that the inspired evangelists persisted, twenty years after the occurrence of the events recorded, in calling the Sunday “the first day of the week”—as they have done in the six times in which they have mentioned it—if guided at all in the selection of this term by the usage and opinions of the times in which they wrote, has furnished us a commentary which, if it proves anything at all, proves that the day now regarded as holy, was not so esteemed at that time by the disciples generally, else those among them who as historians would have been glad to have conferred upon it this honor, would have referred to it in the use of its sacred title, “Sabbath,” or “Lord’s day.”

As it regards the design of Christ, we take issue with our friend, and offer the following reasons for our confident assertion that he is wrong: 1. His conclusion is not one which is either necessary or obvious. God has shown us his method of making a holy day. That method he has set forth in clear and positive statement, and the observance of such a day he has enforced by explicit command. This being the case, we must infer that he chose that manner because it was the best. Hence we should naturally conclude that when he wished to change the day of his choice, once enforced by a law still binding, he would make known his mind in a manner so clear and impressive that there could be no room for doubt. This, however, in the action of Christ alluded to, is far from being the case, because the meeting of the Lord with the apostles did not necessarily affect the nature of the time on which it occurred. Instance the fact heretofore cited, that he met with them on a fishing day (John chap. 21), and again on Thursday, the day of the ascension, without in any way changing the character of those days, as all will admit. Now, if this could be true of those two days, might it not also be true of the first day of the week? 2. Because, as we have seen, there is not the slightest evidence that the apostles inferred that it was the intention of Christ to produce the impression claimed. For had this been the case, their conviction must have found expression for our benefit. 3. Because, manifestly, the conversation of Christ is given, so far as it inculcated any duty not elsewhere expressed; and in his words there is no allusion to any design on his part to teach them that the time on which they were assembled was holy. 4. Because there is a sufficient reason found for the meeting of Christ with the apostles on these two occasions, in his desire to establish them in the conviction of his resurrection, and to instruct them in regard to future action.

Before passing from this branch of the subject, we must be allowed to express our surprise that, in the anxiety of our friend to make out his case, he has made a declaration which we think he would not have done, had he been more deliberate in his selection of facts. He says, in speaking of John 20:26—the second and only additional instance in which, after the first, he claims that Christ met with the apostles on the first day of the week—as follows: “This interval of eight days, from and including the resurrection day, brings us, according to the common mode of reckoning, and as no one is disposed to dispute, to the first day of the next week.” To this we reply that, if he means to be understood by this statement, that there is no dispute as to whether the second gathering under consideration did occur just one week after the first, he mistakes greatly. It is by no means true that this is a matter about which there is no difference of opinion. In order to show the reader that we are right in this, we quote the following from many testimonies which might be introduced: “‘After eight days’ from this meeting, if made to signify only one week, necessarily carries us to the second day of the week. But a different expression is used by the Spirit of inspiration when simply one week is intended. ‘After seven days,’ is the chosen term of the Holy Spirit when designating just one week. ‘After eight days,’ most naturally implies the ninth or tenth day; but allowing it to mean the eighth day, it fails to prove that this appearance of the Saviour was upon the first day of the week.” In a note on the above remarks the same author says: “Those who were to come before God from Sabbath to Sabbath to minister in his temple, were said to come ‘after seven days.’ 1 Chron. 9:25; 2 Kings 11:5.”—Hist. of Sabbath, by J. N. Andrews, p. 148.

Right here, also, is the proper place to give attention to the elaborate argument which is made to produce upon the mind of the reader the impression that the presence of Christ, in the two instances mentioned, was expressly designed for the purpose of distinguishing the two first days (?) upon which he manifested himself to his disciples. We should not do justice to our opponent should we refuse to grant him credit for making a doubtful circumstance go as far in his favor as it were possible for any man to do. What he has said is both poetic and pathetic. Poetic, because it is purely a figment of his own imagination. Pathetic, because the spectacle here brought to view is one which appeals most forcibly to the sympathies of the generous reader. Who would not commiserate the condition of men who for six weary days sat in public assembly, waiting the momentarily expected advent of their Lord? Who would not rejoice when finally he appeared in their midst, even if it were on the first day of the week? How natural, too, it would be for the reader, having his sympathies thus aroused, to follow him who has shown an art, at least dramatic, in playing upon their feelings, to the conclusion to which he springs—not by the route of logical deduction—but by that of a more fascinating sentimentalism.

But before he does this, let us descend for a moment from the heights of fancy to the lower grounds of prosaic fact. It strikes us that the gentleman will discover that he has paid too high a price for what he has obtained. Where did he learn that they assembled on the six days in question? Assuredly not from the record, for that is silent upon this point. Nay, more; he does not himself claim that he has any written authority for it, but simply says that he “believes” so and so, and then proceeds to his deductions. Well, with this understanding of the matter, and knowing that it is merely an inference of the writer, let us follow his conclusions to their legitimate consequences. Having done this, we can see, 1. That at last we have reached a whole week, every day of which was one of religious meetings, and yet not one word recorded in regard to the gatherings which occurred on six out of the seven days of the week. This being true by his own concession, what has become of that argument in which he indulged so largely in his effort to prove that because there was no account of a meeting of Christians on the Sabbath, they were consequently not in the habit of meeting on that day? Does it not fall to the ground, utterly emptied of all its force, if it ever had any? 2. Where now is his oft-repeated declaration that there is no account of the meeting of any of the apostles with a Christian church on the Sabbath, and the conclusion therefrom, that they therefore held none? Here is the admission of the writer himself, that the apostles and the church at Jerusalem did meet on at least one seventh day, after the resurrection of Christ. 3. What has become of the instructive lesson which Christ imparted to his followers on the evening of the day of his resurrection? Has it not been insisted that that visit was made for the especial purpose of teaching them, by example and by meeting with them, that the day on which it occurred was holy time? If we have rightly apprehended the logic of our opponent, this was the precise moral which our Lord designed to convey by his manifestation on that occasion. How clear it is that such a conviction has rested upon the mind of the writer, and how often he has repeated it. But how was it with the apostles? Now certainly they were not more obtuse than we are. Assuredly, they knew as much about the will and purpose of Christ in meeting with them the first time, as we do now. Did they then infer that Christ met with them expressly for the purpose, not of honoring by positive precept, but by the fact of his assembling with them, the day on which that assembly occurred? If so, why should they, according to the view we are considering, have gathered themselves together every day for the whole subsequent week, expecting his presence? Would they not have discovered that such presence, under such circumstances, would have utterly nullified the moral lesson of the first visit, since it would not afterwards be true that the first day of the week was the only one which he had thus distinguished, thereby marking it out from the rest of the week?

So much for the consequences which would necessarily follow, had that occurred, which the writer says he “believes” took place. But, fortunately, or unfortunately for him, the whole thing is a myth from beginning to end. The only force which it possesses lies in the assumed fact that it brings together eight meetings on consecutive days, on two of which, and two only, the Lord met with his followers, those two being first days of the weeks to which they belonged. Therefore, before the statement can possess any argumentative power, we must first grant him the privilege of assuming that six of these meetings occurred when there is not a scintilla of evidence in the sacred narrative to favor his view.

That must be a desperate cause indeed which compels its advocates to such a resort to make out their case. Nevertheless, if the conception has accomplished nothing more, it has furnished us a key by which we have been able to unlock the secret conviction of the writer, and by that means, we learn that he does not himself believe either that Christ told his disciples on the day of the resurrection that that was holy time; or that they had decided in their own minds that his visit necessarily pointed out this fact; or that the meeting of a Christian church on a secular day proves that they regarded that day as sacred; or that it is necessary to suppose that any church disregarded the Sabbath, simply because there is no historic mention of their observance of it. This being true, we hope from this time forward that we shall see a line of argument pursued which will be consistent with the admissions inadvertently made above.

Finally—as we have the concession of the writer, that the mention of the term, “first day of the week,” in the texts under consideration, accorded with the use of language as employed twenty years after the crucifixion—let us glance at his proof-texts for ourselves. In doing so, the reader will bear in mind that these texts furnish all the gospel testimony in reference to the supposed repudiation of God’s ancient Sabbath, and the substitution of a new one in its place, and also that the terms employed, as stated above, were used with reference to their meaning at the time they were penned.

The first is found in Matt. 28:1–6. In Matt. 28:1, the apostle says: “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 sepulcher.” Now which day, in the parlance of the disciples of our Lord, twenty years after his death, was styled the Sabbath? Which was mentioned by the use of a secular title, whereas, custom, reason, and religion, all warranted and would have seemed to demand the application to it of a religious title, such as Sabbath, or Lord’s day? We leave the reader to answer.

The next Scripture is found in Mark 16:1, 2. Here, again, the same distinction is preserved between the holy and the profane. “When the Sabbath was past,” the women who had bought sweet spices, came to the sepulcher very early in the morning, the first day of the week. The next passage is in verse 9 of the same chapter, where it is barely stated that Jesus, having risen on the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalene. Did the historian Mark ruthlessly wound the feelings of his Christian brethren, by neglecting two splendid opportunities for settling the matter of a change of days for all future generations, or did he not believe in such a change? Which view is the more consistent, under the circumstances, with the manner in which he speaks?

The next text in order, with the context, will be found in Luke 23:54–56, and 24:1. Let the reader turn to these passages in his Bible and examine them carefully. In Luke 23:56, it is stated that “the women rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment;” and in the first verse of the following chapter, it is said that “upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher.” Here again Luke—than whom there is no sacred writer who uses terms more frequently with reference to their technical meaning—furnishes us a comment in perfect harmony with that of the others. Mark him, he is very specific. He says “the women rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.” Observe, it is not the “old commandment,” but “the commandment.” But again, what day was it upon which they rested? It was the Sabbath day. How did it stand related in the order of the week to the first day? It was the day before it. Did the women, according to his statement, observe the first day? No; for they came to do that upon it which they would not do on the Sabbath, i. e., to embalm the body of Christ. But were they deceived, and was the day on which they came to the tomb, after all, sacred to the Lord, because of the resurrection of Christ, which had occurred early in the morning? Was this indeed the Lord’s day, the Christian Sabbath? And had the old Sabbath expired at the cross (Col. 2:16) before the deluded women rested upon it? Then we inquire again, Why should an inspired apostle pass by unimproved this magnificent opportunity for recognizing the new order of things by dropping that plain, unpretending “first day of the week,” and stating for the benefit of posterity that the day on which they repaired to the sepulcher was the Sabbath of the commandment, as changed by the authority of Christ?

The remaining passages are those of John 20:1, 19. Here once more it is stated that “the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early to the sepulcher;” and also in the 19th verse, that Jesus met with the disciples in the evening of the first day of the week. In these words, John, the beloved disciple, like all before him, alludes to the day as though it were a common one.

Thus we have seen that the four gospel historians all unite in ignoring the sacred title of Sunday, if it had any, and merely designate it by its proper numeral; while three of them call the seventh day the Sabbath, and locate it in the week as the day which precedes the first.

Now we appeal to the candid reader in view of these facts, and ask him to decide which day of the week was looked upon as peculiarly sacred at the time the gospels were written, provided the gentleman is right in supposing that the historians used language with reference to its acceptance when they wrote, instead of what it meant when the events, which they record, transpired. We believe the verdict will not be long delayed. They called the seventh day “the Sabbath of the commandment.” That commandment, it is conceded, is still binding. If it reads the same now that it did then, the day which was the Sabbath at that time, according to that commandment, is still the Sabbath, according to the same commandment. But if that commandment has been changed, we once more challenge the religious world to furnish us a copy of it as it now reads. Until they do so, we shall continue to observe the Sabbath upon which the devout women rested; on which our Lord himself rested in the tomb from his labors; and which four inspired men, twenty years later, more or less, still persisted in calling “the Sabbath.” W. H. LITTLEJOHN.