Passover, and that the apostles proceeded to the determination of the
time when the Pentecost would be reached, according to the theory of the
Karaites. The first thing which would have been necessary was, the
weekly Sabbath, which immediately followed the crucifixion of Christ.
Having found it, they would have numbered seven Sabbaths, and have
decided that the day immediately following the last of these answered to
the feast. But unfortunately for them they would have discovered—had
they believed in the modern doctrine that the law of the Sabbath was
nailed to the cross, Col. 2:16(?)—that they were deprived of a starting
point; for the Sabbath institution is a thing of commandment. Take away
the commandment, and the institution is gone. Therefore, as the cross
had accomplished its work, and had been taken down on Friday, God had
removed the landmark from which they were commanded to measure the time
which should bring them to the Pentecost at the very period when they
needed it most. In reality, there was left them no Sabbath which
answered to the one in Leviticus.
Should it be replied, however, that the Sabbath, though gone in fact,
existed nevertheless in name, it might be responded that this would
indeed be an anomalous condition of things. Mark it: it is not the
incidental mention, by its proper name, of an institution which had
ceased to be, which we are considering; but it is the deliberate action
of that God who knows the end from the beginning, in compelling the
disciples to treat the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, in order
to the decision of an important fact; for eight weeks after, as is
claimed, it had lost its Sabbatic character.
Again; should it be urged, as a means of escape from the embarrassments
of the situation, that God did not actually require them to count the
seventh day as the Sabbath, since there was really no day of Pentecost
which they were obliged to keep on the year of our Lord’s crucifixion,
we answer, Very good. Then, of course, we shall hear nothing hereafter
from the argument for Sunday sanctity which is based upon the hypothesis
that the day of Pentecost fell on the first day of the week in the year
in question, since it will have been admitted that there was no
Pentecost that year, and consequently that it could not properly be said
to have fallen upon any day.
Once more; should it be insisted that though the Pentecostal feast was
not binding in the year of our Lord 30, or thereabout, but that the
antitype of the feast was the thing of importance, then, in reply, it
may be said that God rendered it necessary for them, in order to locate
that antitype according to the Karaite view, to count the Sabbath which
followed the crucifixion as the Sabbath of emotion, a thing which
certainly will be very difficult of explanation by those who can speak
as becomingly of the providence of God as did the gentleman in the
article which is passing under review.
Finally, we repeat, therefore, that, if indeed there were a legal
Pentecost this side of the death of our Lord, and if the Karaite system
for locating it were the right one, then the seventh day which followed
the death of Christ was distinguished by three very significant facts.
1. It was honored by the women (and therefore by the disciples) by their
resting upon it. 2. Luke, in speaking of it thirty years subsequent to
its occurrence, mentions it as the Sabbath, “according to the
commandment.” 3. God made it necessary that the whole Jewish nation
should keep the Pentecostal feast fifty days after the crucifixion of
the Lord; and, in doing so, that they should count the seventh day of
the week as still continuing to be the Sabbath.
In passing to the last branch of the subject, which will be treated in
this article, we invite the reader to note the following facts, as we
shall have occasion to employ them hereafter: 1. That the writer
proceeds with his reasoning upon the hypothesis that the months at the
time of the crucifixion were Jewish months, commencing with the new
moon. 2. That the days were Jewish days, commencing and ending with the
setting of the sun. These points we have previously urged, and are happy
to see that they are conceded as being correct.
In conclusion, we turn our attention to the remaining feature of the
communication in the _Statesman_, _i. e._, that portion of the article
which relates to the real matter in dispute, namely—granting, for the
sake of argument, that the first day of the week was the one on which
the Pentecost fell in the year under consideration—whether that fact
necessarily affected the character of that day so as to mark it out as
one which God had chosen as peculiarly his own. For, be it remembered,
that—though the whole argument which has been made respecting the
identity of those two days should be conceded—we should then simply be
prepared to decide whether the facts agreed upon would prove what is
claimed, or not.
We ask, therefore, the candid attention of all to the use which has been
made of the elaborate argument which we have been carefully considering,
point by point. We would naturally have expected—if the gentleman felt
that he had proved what he desired to, namely, that the Pentecost fell
upon the first day of the week—that the real sinews of a masterly logic
would have been discovered in an effort to show that it followed of
necessity that it must therefore have been holy time. But has he done
this? Or, in other words, if he has, in what manner has he brought it
about? Has it been by fair logical deduction? We believe that there are
very few who will insist that he has attempted such a deduction, with
any measure of success, at the very point where it should have been
expected most.
What he has said in the connection is very _pretty_. Yes, pretty is the
word which precisely expresses it. How handsomely he alludes to the
analogy between the natural harvest and the in-gathering of souls. But
who does not know that such analogies are cheap things, and that one
gifted with a prolific fancy can multiply them indefinitely? What was
expected, and what we had a right to demand, was something which partook
of the nature of certainty. How great was our disappointment at learning
that the writer did not even _pretend to have any authority from the
Lord_, so far as written statements are concerned. The whole thing he
thought was fairly _deducible_ from the coincidence of days, since
nothing ever merely “happens” to occur in the providence of God.
What has been gained, then? Manifestly, simply the point that God had
some object in view in having the Pentecost fall on the first day of the
week in the year of our Lord 30, or thereabout. The next question to be
decided is, What was that object? Right here is where we _need help_.
_God could have given_ it to us, had he _seen fit_ so to do. He has not
done so, therefore it is safe to conclude that it was not important that
we should know what his purpose was.
But if any gentleman can be found who is _wise above what is written_,
and who is able to decide with unerring certainty as to the motives of
God at all times, and under all circumstances, we should like to
propound a few questions to him. First, what did God mean when, in his
providence, he allowed the Pentecost to fall upon Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday? It is said that God _had a
purpose_ in it; but can any one tell us _what_ that purpose was? When he
has answered this, then we have a list of similar interrogatories, to
the solution of which his wisdom will be invited. In the meantime, we
shall adopt the suggestions of men in regard to plans of Deity with
great caution, for, if it should fall out in the day of Judgment that we
had followed their fallacious inferences, to the disregard of a
positive, written law of God, we know not what defense could be made for
our course of conduct, since we had been previously informed that “his
judgments are _unsearchable_,” “and his ways _past finding out_.”
Now let us look at the proposition concerning the outpouring of the
Spirit. It is agreed on all hands that the manifestation occurred as
written. It is inferred by the writer in question that it was done with
reference especially to the honoring as sacred of the day of the
resurrection. Here, again, is the assumption of knowledge which has
never been imparted by divine authority. God has never _said_ that he
meant any such thing. Not only so, but it cannot even be fairly inferred
that such was his purpose. First. Because he does not so much as
mention, in the record, the first day of the week by name, an omission
which can never be explained satisfactorily by those who insist that the
events which occurred on the day of Pentecost transpired with especial
reference to the honoring above all others, on the part of Jehovah, of
the first day of the week. Secondly. Because, were we to judge at all in
the matter, as he passed over six first-days, waiting for the arrival of
the Pentecost, we must conclude that there was something in connection
with that feast which induced him to act when he did, and as he did.
Thirdly. Because the Pentecost furnished an opportunity for the display
of the power of the ascended Christ before thousands of Jews and
proselytes from all parts of the habitable globe, more advantageously
than could be done at any other time; thus rendering it unnecessary that
any other reason should be sought in explanation of its selection from
among the other days of the year for the great outpouring of the Spirit.
Fourthly. Because, in apostolic times, it was not an uncommon thing for
the Holy Ghost to fall upon men on all days of the week; thus proving
that God is not restricted in the outpouring of his Spirit to holy times
and places, and that it is not safe to conclude that any display of his
power in this direction was made at any one time because of a special
regard for the particular hours on which it took place.
In conclusion, as the fabric of Sunday sanctity, in so far as it is
based upon the transactions of the day of Pentecost, is seen to rest,
purely upon the opinions of men, and since those who observe the day are
divided in sentiment as to whether the Pentecost did indeed really fall
upon it at all, we close this article, as we did the last, by stating
that we have a _positive commandment_ which is admitted to be binding,
and which, as given in the Bible, says that the “seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Also,
that our advice to those who are weary with threading the interminable
labyrinth of conjecture and hypothesis is, Place your feet upon the rock
of the written word; there, and there only, you are safe. Should any one
seek to lure you from this position by the assertion that the law upon
which you have planted yourself has been amended, it will be safe to
follow them only when they are able to tell you when and where the
commandment, as given in Exodus, was changed, and exactly how it reads
since the change has occurred.
STATESMAN’S REPLY.
ARTICLE FIVE.
THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH AT TROAS.
The day on which the Saviour rose from the dead, the day which the risen
Saviour singled out and blessed repeatedly with his presence, the day on
which the Holy Ghost was given to the church,—this honored day certainly
could not pass without stated observance by the disciples of the risen
and ascended Lord. It is but reasonable to expect that the day which
Christ and the Holy Spirit honored would be honored by the early church.
Passing on in the sacred narrative, we come to the account of first-day
Sabbath observance some twenty-six or twenty-eight years after the
Pentecostal gift of the Spirit. In just such a matter-of-course way as
that in which a well known and established custom would be noted, is the
observance of the first day at Troas mentioned in Acts 20:6, 7: “We
sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came
... to Troas in five days, where we abode seven days. And upon the first
day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul
preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his
speech until midnight.” Several important points should here be noted:—
1. Paul and his companions remained at Troas seven days—from the third
day of one week until the second day of the next week.
2. At this time, there was at Troas a company or church of Christian
disciples, who would, of course, hold regular religious services.
3. Besides the Trojan Christians, there were at Troas, during these
“seven days,” at least nine others, including Paul and Luke (see verse
4), who would not let a week pass without observing a stated day of
worship. And yet,
4. Neither the disciples resident at Troas, nor Paul and his companions,
pay any regard to the seventh day. The whole narrative plainly intimates
that Paul held himself in readiness to depart waiting only for the
stated weekly day of public service. And the seventh day has no more
sacredness assigned to it than the fifth or sixth. Had it been the
customary day of meeting, the disciples would have assembled on it, and
Paul would have been ready to depart _on the morrow_, the first day of
the week. On the other hand,
5. The first day of the week was observed as the stated, customary
weekly day of divine service by the Christians at Troas. The word,
rendered “came together,” indicates this. It is most intimately related
to the word in Hebrews 10:25, rendered “assembling together.” The latter
is the noun, with an added preposition from the former word, the verb.
These two terms, and another kindred word, are the common terms for
regular church meetings in the New Testament. (See Hebrews 10:25; 1 Cor.
11:17, 18; 14:23, 26.) Again, it will be noticed that the meeting of the
disciples on this first day was for regular public services of the
Christian church. They came together to “break bread,” or observe the
Lord’s supper, and to hear the preaching of the gospel. Besides, let it
be noticed, it is not said that Paul summoned the disciples together;
but it is said that they “came together.” Or, if we follow the reading
of the oldest manuscripts, the customary character of this Christian
first-day assemblage will be made even more manifest. This reading is as
follows: “And upon the first day of the week, when _we_ came together.”
Whether this is the correct reading or not, it expresses undoubtedly the
fact. Paul, Luke, and their companions, as well as the Trojan
Christians, met for divine service, according to the usual practice of
Christians generally, on the first day of the week.
It remains for us to consider the mode of reckoning time which would fix
Paul’s departure from Troas on the morning of the first day of the week.
Frankness and justice require us to state that even so authoritative a
writer as Mr. Howson, in that able and scholarly work, “The Life and
Epistles of St. Paul,” adopts this mode of reckoning, and, in accordance
with it, pictures out Paul’s solitary journey from Troas to Assos on the
hallowed hours of the Christian Sabbath.
No one will dispute for a moment that, according to the Jewish mode of
reckoning, the day would begin at sundown, and in this way the evening
of the meeting at Troas would be the evening succeeding the seventh day,
and Paul’s journey of nearly twenty miles would be on the first day of
the week. But it is perfectly clear from the Scriptures that the Roman
method of reckoning the commencement of the day had already, to some
extent, supplanted the Jewish mode. Nor is it any wonder that the method
of the Romans, who were at the time in authority in Palestine, should
have obtained some recognition, even among the Jews.
John, in a passage quoted in a former article, uses the following
language: “The same day at evening, being the first day of the week.”
(John 20:19) The meeting at Troas, in the evening of the first day, may
not have been without reference to the meeting of the Lord with his
disciples late in the evening of the same day he arose from the dead.
But whether there is any reference in the meeting at Troas to the
meeting recorded by John or not, the passage above quoted clearly proves
that the late evening succeeding the first day of the week was reckoned
a part of the first day, and not a part of the day following—“The _same_
day at evening [_opsia_, late evening, after dark, it would appear],
being the first day of the week.”
Matthew, writing particularly for Jewish Christians, adopts the Roman
method in chap. 28:1, in the expression: “In the end of the Sabbath
[literally, late of the Sabbath, _opse_, late, away on after dark], as
it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” Here, manifestly,
the seventh day is reckoned as continuing during a number of hours,
which, according to the Jewish mode, belonged to the following day. If
Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, employs the Roman mode of
reckoning, is it not altogether probable that Luke, writing especially
for Gentiles, would adopt the same mode?
But we need only look carefully at Luke’s own language to settle this
point. His statement is that Paul preached, “ready to depart _on the
morrow_.” It is agreed on all hands that the Christian disciples at
Troas came together on the first day of the week, and that Paul preached
to them on that day. Now, if the time of meeting was the evening
succeeding the seventh day, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning,
could it be said that Paul, taking his leave at a later hour that same
day, departed _on the morrow_? The original term, _epaurion_, is an
adverb, literally signifying “upon the morrow.” But connected with it is
the feminine article, agreeing with the word, “day,” understood. This
makes the expression, if possible, still more explicit—“the day which is
the morrow,” the next day. Can there remain the slightest doubt as to
Luke’s meaning? The Christian congregation at Troas met on one day of
the week. Paul preached to them on that day. It was the first day. _On
the morrow_, not the same day, but another, the following, the second
day of the week, Paul departed, as he had held himself for some days in
readiness to do, on his way to Assos. Thus, as we have a right to
expect, there is no violation by the apostle and his fellow-Christians
of the law of the Sabbath.
We have not dwelt upon this question of different modes of reckoning
because of any importance which may be claimed for it in connection with
the main inquiry before us. It is entirely immaterial to the point at
issue in this discussion whether Luke employs the Jewish or the Roman
mode. Even if it could be made to appear that he makes use of the
former, there could be found nothing in his narrative in favor of the
seventh-day Sabbath. The argument for the first-day Sabbath would still
remain in its integrity, leaving for consideration simply the question
as to the consistency of certain acts, in a certain case, with the law
of a holy day of rest and worship. For the sake of giving a pretty full
exposition of a passage important in itself, and because a wrong
interpretation has been given by high authority in countenance of a
mischievous theory of the Sabbath, we have occupied much of our space
for this issue in showing that the evening or night of the first day of
the week was the end of the Christian Sabbath, and that Paul and his
companions, like good, Sabbath-keeping Christians, waited, though ready
to depart, until Monday morning, before starting on their journey to
Assos.
We propose to conclude the argument from Scripture in our next number.
After this, we shall give the testimony of the standard authorities of
the first three centuries of the Christian era. And then, with the facts
concerning sacred time before us, we shall inquire what theory of the
Sabbath harmonizes all the authenticated facts into one consistent
whole.
A REJOINDER.
“THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH AT TROAS.”
In entering upon an examination of the propositions laid down in the
article entitled, “The First-day Sabbath at Troas,” it will be well for
us first to inquire into the object which the writer had in view in
presenting them for our consideration. In doing so, we shall find that
he does not claim that the test or context of Acts 20:7, furnishes any
positive precept for Sunday observance. His effort is merely to
establish a custom. Suppose, therefore, that we should grant all that he
asks, so far as the church of Troas is concerned, would that prove that
Christians universally are under obligation to follow a like custom? We
think not, unless it can be shown that God has adopted this mode of
inculcating religious duty. But this he has never done. If the writer
had first established a positive law, then he might, with some show of
reason, appeal to custom to show that that law was interpreted as he
understands it; but when he reverses the order, and endeavors to prove
the law by the custom, then he has reversed God’s great plan, which is
that of teaching by explicit statute.
Furthermore, even should a custom be established, the writer must be
able to show that such a custom was kept up, not as a matter of
convenience or taste, but because of a conviction of religious duty. In
other words, it is possible, to say the least, that the church at Troas
were in the habit of meeting on the first day of the week, not because
they looked upon it as holy time, but for certain utilitarian purposes,
best known to themselves. Let us furnish an illustration precisely in
point:—
Should some person, eighteen hundred years hence—provided time should
last so long—write a history of the present period, as he cast his eye
over the literature of our day, he would find that, in all parts of this
country, Christians were in the habit of assembling on Wednesday
evening, for the purposes of worship. Would he, therefore, be justified
in concluding that Wednesday is regarded by us as peculiarly sacred to
the Lord? You answer, No, and most properly, for you know that our
motives are entirely different from what he would understand them to be.
So, too, with Troas. Granted, for the sake of the argument, that, as the
writer claims, they were in the habit of assembling on the late Sunday
evening; it by no means follows that they did so because they regarded
it as devoted to the Lord. Does he say that they partook of the
sacrament on that day? Grant that, for the sake of the argument. But
does not every student of the Bible know, and is it not the conviction
of the world to-day, that the Lord’s supper can be partaken of with as
much propriety at one time as at another? Is it not a fact that the time
of its institution did not coincide with Sunday? Is it not true that
originally they partook of it on all days of the week? (Acts 2:42, 46.)
If so, it would manifestly be unsafe to attach any special significance
to the fact that, at this time, it was celebrated on the Sunday, So much
for the hypothesis of the _custom_, in question.
Now that we have said what we have with reference to a custom made out,
it will be well to inquire in the next place, Has the writer established
the usage which he sought to prove? If so, we have failed to discover
the process by which it has been done. Has he found an explicit
statement that the church at Troas was in the habit of meeting on the
first day of the week? Very far from it. Having traced the sacred
narrative for twenty-six years—mark it, reader, over one-fourth of a
century—he has found a solitary assembly of Christians convened on the
first day of the week. But what were the facts in the case? Was this an
ordinary occasion? Were they by themselves alone? No; it was a time of
unusual interest. The great apostle to the Gentiles was there, paying
them a flying visit. He was about to depart on the morrow. It was
perhaps the last time they would ever see him. They wanted to partake of
the emblems of the Lord’s body from his venerated hand. They wanted to
shake that hand in a final farewell, and to plant the kiss of love upon
his careworn face. The circumstances, then, were unusual. The same
combination of facts might never exist again. There is, therefore, so
far as the general view is concerned, nothing which would justify the
decision that they had ever convened for like reasons, previously, at
the same time of the week, or that they ever would thereafter. The
writer evidently felt this, and, with an acuteness of intellectual
perception which to the common mind is almost incredible, he has
discovered overwhelming support for his theory, where the ordinary
reader would have discerned none.