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 homes 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 slivering presence again, we may suppose they met on the
second day. But the Lord does not come. More deeply feeling their need,
they assemble again the third day. Still the desired presence is
withheld. So on, with ever-increasing desires, they meet, 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 fell 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 head-stone 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.
A REJOINDER.
“TESTIMONY FROM THE GOSPELS FOR THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.”
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 re-statement 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 design to teach succeeding
generation 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 it 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 days 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, have furnished us with 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 the “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 convictions 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. H.
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 momentary 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 hights 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
perceive, 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 posseses 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 test 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 his
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.