The Signs of the Times, vol. 9

March 22, 1883

“The Complete Evidence for Sunday-keeping” The Signs of the Times, 9, 12.

E. J. Waggoner

It is often the case when our ministers present the truth of the Sabbath question in a place where it has not before been preached, that they are met with this rejoinder from those who cannot but admit that their argument is sound, “That is your side of the question; now we want to hear our ministers present their side, and perhaps your position will not appear so strong; we want to hear both sides of the question.” The desire to hear both sides of any subject is commendable, and our ministers usually gratify this desire by giving all the Sunday arguments themselves. But this often does not satisfy. The people want to hear the Sunday case presented by its own friends, so that they can feel assured that it is done in the best possible manner. SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.1

We have in our hands that which will certainly satisfy these anxious ones. It is nothing less than “the fullest authority” for Sunday-keeping. This means both that it is all the authority there is, and all that is needed. We advise all who have to meet the objection stated above, to carry this summary of the Sunday case with them, as it will be of value. Then they can give “the other side” as stated by one of its strongest supporters. The statement is found in the “Dictionary of the Bible,” by Philip Schaff, D. D., LL. D., Professor in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, and one of the members of the International Revision Committee. So it is no novice whose testimony we are giving, but one eminently qualified to present the case fairly. Here it is:- SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.2

“The Christian Church keeps the first day of the week, which celebrates the close of the spirituals creation just as the last day celebrated the close of the physical creation. We have the fullest warrant for this change. Upon the first day of the week Christ arose from the dead. We find the disciples, before the ascension, assembled on that day, and Jesus appeared to them. John 20:26. According to tradition, which is confirmed by every probability, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost was on Sunday. Paul preached at Troas on the first day of the week-evidently, among those Christians, the day of religious service. Acts 20:7. Paul tells the Corinthians every one is to lay by him in store upon the first day of the week as he is prospered. 1 Corinthians 16:2. It was upon the Lord’s day-and by this name he calls it-that John on Patmos saw through the opened door into Heaven. Revelation 1:10.” SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.3

We agree with the author that this is “the fullest warrant” for the change, in as much as it is all that can be produced; but we think even many observers of the Sunday, when they think seriously of the matter, will decide that the “warrant” is not full enough to warrant any one in putting confidence in it as the command of God. “Warrant” is defined by Webster as follows: “That which warrants or authorizes; a commission giving authority, or justify the doing of anything; an act, instrument, or obligation, by which one person authorizes another to do something which he has not otherwise a right to do.” But it would puzzle the most acute lawyer to discover in the above simple statements anything having the nature of a commission, or act authorizing anybody to keep Sunday. If we may venture to criticize so great a man, we will examine the items of his statement one by one. SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.4

First. “Upon the first day of the week Christ arose from the dead.” True, and we may also add that he was crucified on Friday. Both are interesting items of information, and that is all. His resurrection on first-day no more makes it the Sabbath than his crucifixion on sixth-day makes that they one. To make it a “warrant” for Sunday-keeping, a statement, or commandment to that effect is needed, from one having authority to issue commands. The changed commandment would necessarily read something like this: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, having first rested on the first day, for the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.... For Christ rose from the dead on the first day; wherefore the Lord blessed the first day and hallowed it.” It would not do to say, as the commandment does, that he blessed the Sabbath day, for since the first day had never been rested upon, it was not a Sabbath. But, no such commandment exists; not even a reference to it. And by the way, is it not singular that none of the apostles refer to the day of Christ’s resurrection? They speak of his resurrection, and of the hope that we have through it; but they had not learned that the time of the event was of any significance whatever. That was reserved for men of more modern times. SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.5

Second, “We find the disciples, before his ascension, assembled on that day, and Jesus appeared to them.” Admitted; but where is the “warrant”? We may add that they were also assembled on Thursday, the day of his ascension, and Jesus met with them and blessed them. Did that make the fifth day the Sabbath? It does, if all that was required to make a Sabbath was for Jesus to meet with his disciples. There is precisely as much warrant in the Bible for keeping first day as there is for keeping Sunday. SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.6

Third, “According to tradition, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost was on Sunday.” And so our “warrant” depends on tradition after all. This would hardly be accepted as evidence in court. Moreover the tradition is not unquestioned, for many eminent commentators claim that Pentecost came that year on Monday; others claim that it was Sabbath. And most of all, it is of no earthly consequence on what day it came, since the day is not mentioned, and no intimation is given that it was henceforth to be a Sabbath. In order to furnish even a inferential evidence that it was to be a Sabbath, our friends must prove (1) that the day was Sunday; (2) that the Holy Ghost always was manifest upon Sunday; (3) that it never came upon any other day; and (4) that the outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon a company of people sanctifies the day on which it occurs. But none of these things can be proven, and if they could, the important thing-a commandment-would be lacking. SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.7

Fourth, “Paul preached at Troas on the first day of the week.” True; and we also find that the inspired apostles, fresh from the baptism of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, continued “daily with one accord in the temple,” and that the Lord added souls to the church “daily.” What an array of sabbaths there are for which we have “the fullest warrant.” SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.8

But the Doctor says that this day was “evidently among those Christians the day of religious service.” That means that the fact that the church at Troas kept Sunday is evident, easily to be seen, plainly manifest, obvious, clear to the understanding, notorious. But such is not the case, since there is no evidence that they had ever met together on the first day before, or ever did again. Nevertheless, Paul preached on a Sunday once, and if that doesn’t make it the Sabbath, what would? Sure enough. Since Paul’s action is to decide the case, let us examine it further. In Acts 13 we are told that Paul preached at Antioch on the Sabbath day; that he also preached on “the next Sabbath day.” We also read in Acts 17:2 that at Thessalonica “Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Also that at Corinth “he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath day, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Acts 18:4. Is it not singular that our friends forget to mention these instances when they cite Paul’s single sermon on the first day of the week as authority for the sanctification of that day? But we pass on, for we find no “warrant” here. SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.9

Fifth, “Paul tells the Corinthians that every one is to lay by him in store upon the first day of the week, as he is prospered.” This laying by in store, was to be done at home, i.e., each individual was to look over his accounts and deposit, in a drawer set apart for that purpose, a portion of the earnings of the preceding week. See Barnes, Scott, and others. So it seems that even business transactions make the day sacred. Or, perhaps the day is sacred to the transaction of business. At any rate we look in vain at this simple statement for any command to keep Sunday. SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.10

6. “It was upon the Lord’s day that John on Patmos saw through the open door into Heaven.” Well, and what day of the week was that? “Oh, we have decided that it was Sunday. To be sure it was never before called the Lord’s day, and the seventh day was so called; but that makes the difference. We are bound to keep Sunday, and want some warrant for it, so we call it the Lord’s day. What! you want proof that John applied the title Lord’s day to Sunday? Don’’ we do it? What further proof do you want?” Such, in substance, is the Sunday argument from Revelation 1:10. SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.11

We have analyzed our learned author’s statement, and find no “warrant” at all. In the whole of it there is nothing which can be construed into a commission, or an act giving authority. If it had been previously declared to be wrong to keep Sunday as a Sabbath (as it really is in the fourth commandment), no one could gather from this summary anything that would justify him in so doing; but that, according to Webster, is what is required in order to constitute a “warrrant.” Such is the foundation on which the Sunday rests. Our only apology for taking up so much space with this matter is that it is confessedly all the argument which our Sunday friends have, according to the best authority in the United States. As we pause, it seems like a waste of time to review such “arguments,” yet they are gravely put forth by a man who is doubtless not excelled in learning by any man in the country, and they are firmly relied on by thousands of intelligent and well-meaning persons. What is it that has so blinded the minds of the people? Dr. Schaff concludes his summary of evidence thus:- SITI March 22, 1883, page 139.12

“The first day of the week is there for the Christian Sabbath, the day of rest and worship.” So he rests his case fully upon the evidence presented. He continues, “And God has further confirmed the change by giving it his blessing, as he blessed the sabbath of creation week.” Where did he learn this? Where is it stated of the first day, as it is of the seventh, that God blessed it and hallowed it? Nowhere. Elihu, the friend of Job, said, “Great men are not always wise;” and we are reluctantly forced to add the statement that great men are not always honest. We do not take pleasure in speaking of the weakness or fault of any one, but we do take pleasure in being able to show that the Sunday Sabbath rests on simple assertions, and that the only one of these assertions which would in any way affect the nature of the day, is wholly false. It is in this way that the commandment of God has been made of none effect. We refer our readers to Ezekiel 22:26-31, quoting only verse 26, and leave them to make the application for themselves: “And her prophets have daubed with on tempered mortar, seen vanity, and devining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.” May the Lord give the people a willingness to look for themselves, and see what the Lord really has spoken. E. J. W. SITI March 22, 1883, page 140.1