A Truth Well Stated by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Feb 20, 1879

A Truth Well Stated.

By Editor

The editor of the Sabbath Recorder, in reviewing an article in the Baptist Banner, says:—

“The Banner says: ‘Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. See Mark 16:9.’ In a discussion on the Sabbath, we never deny that Christ rose from the dead on the first day, and the reason is, it has nothing to do with the question. It has no more to do with it than has the day of his birth, or the day of his death. We ask, Do the Scriptures say anything of this? Not a word; it is pure human invention! The passage, however, quoted to prove that Christ rose on the first day of the week only does this by putting a comma in the wrong place. Correct this, and then we get its true sense, for it does not attempt to tell when Christ rose from the dead, but when he appeared to his disciples. Let us see: ‘And having risen, early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.’ This gives the true sense and makes Mark’s testimony agree with the other evangelists, showing that after Christ’s resurrection, the exact time of which no man knows, he appeared early on the first day of the week to certain of his followers.”

Several years ago a friend in New England appealed to us to join in an effort to prove to the people that Christ did not rise on the first day of the week. We refused, because we had no interest in the question. He said by so doing we could remove the last prop of Sunday keepers. We deny that it is any prop at all, because the resurrection has no relation to Sabbath observance. They who labor so hard to prove that Christ did not rise on the first day attach an undue importance to the question. They give this much advantage to their opponents, by virtually admitting that it is important in the Sabbath controversy to determine the day of the resurrection of the Lord.

We have no idea that any considerable number of people will ever become convinced by the argument on the resurrection so as to renounce Sunday keeping. The law of God is the only true basis of Sabbath observance. That law is based on certain events, but the resurrection is not among them. While we spend our time to argue with them concerning the time of the resurrection, we are only diverting their minds from the true issue. We say with Dr. Hull, the day of the resurrection of Christ has no more relation to the Sabbath “than has the day of his birth or the day of his death.”

And no Baptist can be consistent and try to urge the observance of the Sabbath on the ground of the resurrection of the Lord. The Baptists professedly deny tradition and inference concerning matters of institution; yet they know there is nothing bearing any resemblance to a precept for observing the first day of the week. A few quotations where the first day is mentioned, without any statement of its sabbatic character, or of a duty to observe it, no more determines a duty in that respect, than a few mentions of the baptism of households proves the duty to baptize unconscious babes.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable . . . that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” No one is “thoroughly furnished” to Sunday-keeping by the Scriptures; it is not a “good work”—it is not a duty in the revealed will of God. No one can draw nigh to God with a “full assurance of faith” on the strength of Sunday observance, for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The word of God does not require the keeping of Sunday; therefore it is no part of Christian faith to accept it. Baptism regards the resurrection, as the Sabbath does creation. To substitute one for the other in the divine institutions is to pervert those institutions, to destroy their significance, and introduce confusion into the house of God, where all should be harmony. We shall best please God if we let his truth remain as he gives it to us. It needs no amendments,—it admits of no addition or diminution.

And Yet Another!

To get rid of the Sabbath, and to enforce Sunday, a correspondent of the Herald of Life says:—

“A requisition of any kind presupposes arbitrary and positive law, which would be compatible with the Old Testament, but not with the New Testament. Commands pertain to a covenant of works. We are not under such a covenant. . . . An obedient child never waits for a command.”

We are left to infer that this writer stands opposed to baptism and the Lord’s supper, and many other revealed duties, because they are commanded! and “commands pertain to a covenant of works.” Probably, also, it will vex his soul sorely when the Lord Jesus shall reward every man according to his works. Perhaps we might say that, instead of being vexed, he will be sadly disappointed.

“A requisition of any kind, incompatible with the New Testament!” It is amazing to behold the lengths to which people will go to evade the truth of God when it crosses their selfish or carnal propensities. We cannot imagine that a man who can write for a paper, can be ignorant of our Saviour’s words: “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you;” John 15:14, and many others of like import.

John says, “Whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” “For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments.” 1 John 3:22; 5:3. And in the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to his servants through John, with a blessing pronounced upon them that keep the things written therein, he says: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. And, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14.

“An obedient child never waits for a command!” Richard Baxter asked this forcible question,—“Can that be obedience for which there is no command?” Can this writer tell us how the child obeys when there is no requisition or precept to be obeyed? Alexander Campbell never wrote a more truthful paragraph than the following:—

“All will-worship is a disparagement of the worship appointed of God; it is, consequently, a reflection upon his wisdom, and obnoxious to his displeasure. It is as contrary to his revealed will as the presenting of ‘strange fire’ upon his altar was in the days of Nadab and Abihu. And, indeed, every religious practice which was not founded upon an explicit revelation of the will of Heaven, is will-worship.”

Without a requisition or commandment to guide us in our obedience, every one would offer to God the promptings of his own feelings, and what confusion would exist in the service of God! As “God is not the author of confusion,” he might well inquire, “Who hath required this at your hands?”

The Lord, by the prophet Ezekiel, said, “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!” Eze. 13:2, 3. And again, “But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” Isa. 66:2,—not to the man that follows the devisings of his own heart, or follows his own spirit, and has seen nothing from the Lord.

The very angels in Heaven are commended in this manner:—

“Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.” Ps. 103:20.

It is the truly obedient child that waits for the word of the Lord; the loving heart that keeps his commandments. “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments,” for obedience is the only test of love. “The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God.” Rom. 8:7.

With those things which God hath not revealed—which are not requisitions or commandments—we have nothing to do. The Papist has long talked of “works of supererogation,” that is, more than are required by the divine law. But this is an evil age—a perverse generation. Men would rather be judges of the law than doers of the law. See James 4:11; so they glide into the ways of the great apostasy.

“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Deut. 29:29.

“Every word of God is pure; he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Prov. 30:5, 6.

“Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks; walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” Isa. 50:11.

How can men with Bibles in their hands, in which such things as these are written, advocate a theory of such lawless and demoralizing tendencies? Their own course shows the lengths to which men go when they throw off the wholesome restraints of the divine requirements, and proves our need of Jehovah’s precepts to guide our hearts and lives in the way of right.

We thought we had come to the end of devices framed to evade the word of the Lord in respect to the holy Sabbath, but this is the climax of all we have yet seen. With aching hearts for the people who are perishing for lack of knowledge, we cry out, “Lord, how long?” How long shall the people set aside the way of God and follow vanity? How zealous should be the lovers of God’s word of truth to enlighten the world in regard to our duty in these last days of peril.