The Resurrection of Christ.
By James White
ONE of the most important events recorded in the Bible is the resurrection of Christ. And no fact of occurrence is more plainly revealed. With those who respect the Scriptures of truth there cannot be the shadow of a doubt on the subject. Many times the Bible says, in the most direct terms, that Christ was raised from the dead. As to its importance, it lies at the very foundation of our hope and our salvation. It is the assurance of our future and eternal life. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” 1 Thess. 4:14. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 1 Peter 1:3. “Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.” Rom. 4:25. There are many who affect to believe that the time of the resurrection of Christ is almost or quite as important as the event itself. But we cannot believe that the time is of any importance at all, because it is not revealed. If it were of importance it would doubtless be revealed. We notice the case of the Lord’s Supper. Many attach great importance to the time and frequency with which it should be celebrated, affirming that it should be celebrated weekly, and always on a certain day of the week. The revealed facts are these: 1. It is plainly commanded. 2. It is distinctly stated of what it shall consist—of bread and the fruit of the vine. 3. Its observance is to be continuous—“as oft as ye eat,” etc. But here the record ends. When, or how often was not told. Of course the time and frequency cannot be subjects of faith or matters of duty, for where the Scriptures are silent there is neither faith nor religious duty. And so of the resurrection of Christ. As a fact it is plainly revealed, it being many times affirmed in the Bible. As to its importance, it is constantly insisted upon by all the writers of the New Testament. But as to the time of its occurrence, there is no information given in the Scriptures. That is altogether a matter of opinion, or inference, or reasoning. And being such, we cannot expect that there should be uniformity of opinion respecting it. Where things are explicitly or distinctly revealed, there must be harmony with all who place implicit trust in the revelation. But where they are merely matters of inference or reasoning, we cannot expect uniformity of opinion, because men’s minds will not run in the same channel unless they are directly or authoritatively led. Nor is it necessary or desirable that there should be uniformity in respect to matters that are not revealed, because they are matters indifferent or of no importance. As before said, if they were important they would have been revealed; and, where the Scriptures are silent, there is neither faith nor religious duty. In regard to the resurrection of Christ there are various expressions in the Bible, and they are very differently construed. 1. Matthew makes a statement as to the time when the women went to the sepulcher, but says nothing concerning the time of the resurrection. That had taken place when the women went to the grave. 2. Mark, in the first verses of chap. 16, speaks precisely as Matthew does. From verse 9 it has been inferred that Jesus arose on the first day of the week. If the punctuation were changed, as we think is allowable, it would read: “Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,” etc. This is a statement of the truth, and exactly corresponds with Matt. 28:1, and Mark 16:1, 2. “Early the first day of the week,” evidently refers to the time of their going to the sepulcher, or of his being seen of them, and not to the time of his resurrection. 3. Luke 24:1-3 says they went to the sepulcher on the first day of the week, and Jesus was not there. How long he had been gone, the text does not say. 4. John 20:1, says exactly the same thing; they came to the sepulcher on the first day of the week, and found it empty. Besides this, John says nothing concerning the resurrection. Only Luke gives a reason why they went to the sepulcher on the first day of the week. It was because of their respect for the commandment of God, and for the Sabbath—the seventh day—the observance of which the commandment enjoins. They prepared spices and ointments to anoint the body of Jesus. They rested the Sabbath-day, and came to the sepulcher on the first day. Whether they knew of the order to carefully guard the grave until the third day, does not appear. 5. The Saviour said he should be crucified, and rise again “the third day.” 6. He also said he would rise “after three days.” 7. He also said that he would be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” These expressions are variously understood. Some take “the third day” literally, and explain all others to conform to this. Others take “after three days” as the decisive expression, and locate the crucifixion differently from the others. Still others rest everything on the “three days and three nights,” of which Jonah’s case was the example, and explain the other expressions to conform to this. These locate the crucifixion at a still earlier date. Some affirm that the resurrection of Jesus took place on the Sabbath, and that the grave was empty about twelve hours before the women visited it. These also mostly rest strongly on the expression “three days and three nights,” and throw the time of the crucifixion back to correspond. And some believe that the three days and three nights do not measure the time in which Christ was in the grave. They say he was not literally “in the heart of the earth” at all; and hence the words admit of an explanation. They take this expression to cover the entire time during which he was under the dominion of earthly powers,—from his arrest until his resurrection.745To these we may add— 8. Different sects of the Jews differ in their methods of computing the time of the passover. This has caused chronologers to adopt different dates for the occurrences of that week. 9. Chronologers and astronomers have professed to “demonstrate”—each to his own satisfaction—the time of the crucifixion, but they disagree in their conclusions. 10. It is a disputed point whether the Saviour ate the passover with the disciples out of its proper season, and whether he was or was not crucified at the time of slaying the paschal lamb. However strongly it may be claimed from Matt. 26:17-20, Luke 22:7, etc., that it is settled, we have to set it down as a disputed point. One thing needs no argument to prove, namely, that all opinions can never be harmonized where there are so many points of difference, and no means of securing an authoritative exposition or solution of them. We have not given any opinion concerning these differences, as to the correctness of either, but we believe that the resurrection of Christ was on the first day of the week. True, it is not so declared, but circumstances seem to indicate it. For instance, it appears by Matt. 28:11 that the Roman guard went into the city to show these things to the chief priests, at the same time that the women went away from the sepulcher. If the resurrection took place on the Sabbath, before the setting of the sun, we should certainly suppose that the guard would go to the priests that evening, and not wait till after the rising of the sun the next morning. But this is only reasoning; and no mere supposition can approach to a certainty on such a question at a time of such excitement as then existed. Certainly it forms no foundation for faith or duty. Luke 24:21 seems more decisive. Jesus said that he should be crucified and rise again the third day. The disciples who walked with him to Emmaus, speaking of his crucifixion, said, “To-day is the third day since these things were done.” This was on the first day of the week, and seems to refer to it as the third day upon which he should rise. But there is no hint of any importance being attached to the time of the resurrection. Under the circumstances we must express surprise at two things:— 1. That people, in the absence of any direct proof of the fact, so confidently affirm that Christ was raised from the dead on the first day of the week, and even make it an article of Christian belief, and the ground of the weekly observance of that day. 2. That others, who deny both the fact and the conclusion, spend their time in disproving the fact, as the sure way to destroy the foundation of Sunday-keeping. In our experience of many years in advocating the Sabbath of the Lord, and in exposing the fallacies of the Sunday arguments, we have never spent a moment in arguing the subject of the resurrection of the Lord. Some have zealously, but unwisely, made this point a hobby. A small body of this class for a time almost flooded the land with their little publications, from Providence, R. I. One of them entreated us in the most earnest manner to unite with them in the effort to prove that the resurrection of Christ took place on the Sabbath, “For,” said he, “when this is done, the foundation of Sunday keeping is taken away.” But we were not moved, because we were not convinced of the utility of the scheme. Our reply was to this effect, that the scheme will never succeed; the evidence that the Saviour rose from the dead on the Sabbath is either wanting or obscure, and therefore the people will never become convinced. And again, as they do not wish to be convinced, but would rather retain their present opinion, it will take very plain and decisive proof to convince them. This being so, it is unreasonable to expect to turn the world on this subject by any argument which can be presented. But our principal objection to the scheme is this: The argument, as they present it, is virtually an acknowledgment that, if the resurrection of Christ did take place on the first day of the week, that would afford a foundation or ground for the observance of that day; and then, as most people will continue to believe that the resurrection of the Lord was on the first day, they will have the consent of this argument that their claim is just, and that there is ground for keeping Sunday. This we deny. The resurrection of Christ has no connection whatever with the duty to observe any day. If we could prove that the resurrection of Christ was on the Sabbath, we should not offer that as a reason for keeping the Sabbath. The duty to observe the Sabbath rests altogether on other grounds. The Lord never spoke of the resurrection as a reason why we should observe a day, and we have no right to manufacture reasons to uphold institutions not found in the Bible, and then, on the strength of our own reasons, claim a divine sanction for those institutions. They who coin the reasons ought to honestly confess that the institutions proved by such means are their own, and not the Lord’s. We frequently see questions asked and articles written on this subject, carrying the idea that it is important that we should have the truth concerning the time of the resurrection of Christ. We emphatically deny that there is any importance attached to it. We do not care a jot when it occurred, for the reason that the Lord has not cared that we shall know. This we know because he did not see fit to reveal the time; or, if he did reveal it, it was only by incidental references from which we can barely infer a conclusion. This is not the manner of revealing important facts upon which hang sacred duties. Of the death of our Lord, we have a memorial in the supper; of his burial and resurrection we have a commemorative ordinance in baptism. Many effect to believe that the first day of the week is a memorial day in the gospel system, but not a sentence of Scripture can be offered to prove it. It is plainly declared that, in the supper, we “show forth the Lord’s death.” Equally plainly it is said that we are “buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him.” “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” These are New Testament memorials of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. The Sabbath, as a memorial, commemorates the work and rest of the Creator. The institution refers to nothing else; no reason for it is given except the Creator’s work and rest. The New Testament is entirely silent concerning any new Sabbath, as well as any new reasons for observing the Sabbath. It is only by perversions of, or human additions to, the word of God that another Sabbath, or other reasons for observing the Sabbath, are foisted upon the church.
J. H. W.