The Sabbath-School by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 12, 1883

The Sabbath-School.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Lesson for the Pacific Coast—April 21.

ACTS 1 : 11-26; 2 : 1-21.

Pentecost.

THIS was one of the three feasts of the Jews, at which all the males were required to appear before the Lord, at the place of his sanctuary. Ex. 23 : 14, 17; Deut. 16 : 16. The name is the English form of the Greek word pentekostos, meaning fiftieth. The feast received this name because it was celebrated on the fiftieth day from the second day of the Passover. It was also called "the feast of weeks." Ex. 34 : 22; Deut. 16 : 10. The particulars in regard to the time and object of this feast, and the ceremonies connected with it, are given in Lev. 23 : 15-21; but in order to understand it thoroughly it must be studied in connection with the Passover, the time from which the fifty days are reckoned. And since some have a difficulty in tracing this connection, from a misunderstanding of the use of the word "Sabbath" in this chapter, we will refer to the points in regard to these two feasts.

1. The Passover commenced at the close of the fourteenth day of the first month. Lev. 23 : 5; at this time the paschal lamb was slain. Ex. 12 : 6.

2. The feast of unleavened bread commenced the next morning, the fifteenth day of the first month, and continued seven days. Lev. 23 : 6; Ex. 12 : 15, 18, 19.

3. This first day of unleavened bread was to be a holy convocation, in which no servile work could be done. Lev. 23 : 6, 7; Ex. 12 : 15, 16. It was a sabbath (a rest) because they did no work in it; but it was entirely distinct from the weekly "Sabbath of the Lord" (Lev. 23 : 38), for it came only once a year, and on a fixed day of the month, and consequently would not fall on the same day of the week for two years in succession. The people were also allowed to prepare food upon this annual sabbath, a thing which they were forbidden to do on the weekly Sabbath. Compare Ex. 12 : 16 with Ex. 16 : 23, etc.

4. On the second day of unleavened bread, the day following the "holy convocation," the priest waved a sheaf of the first-fruits of the harvest, before the Lord. Lev. 23 : 10, 11.

5. It was from this second day of the feast—"the morrow after the Sabbath"—that the fifty days were counted.

From these points it will be readily seen that the feast of Pentecost was a movable feast, being celebrated each year on a different day of the week from what it was the year before. It will also be seen that Pentecost fell on the same day of the week as the second day of unleavened bread, but fifty days later. So when the fourteenth day of the first month fell on Monday, the Passover sabbath would come on Tuesday, Wednesday would be the second day of the feast—"the morrow after the Sabbath"—and Pentecost would come on Wednesday, fifty days later. Thus, knowing what day of the week the Passover began in any given year, any one can tell on what day of the week Pentecost came that same year.

To avoid all confusion, it should be remembered that the word "sabbath," in Lev. 23 : 15, 16, is used with two different significations. In the first instance, where we read, "the morrow after the sabbath," the Passover sabbath is referred to—the first day of unleavened bread. In the second instance, where it says, "seven sabbaths shall be complete," the word means "week," viz., "seven weeks shall be complete." On this passage, Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, says: "Sometimes a sabbath is nearly equivalent to a week." Then he quotes verse 16, and says: "Here the seven complete sabbaths are parallel to the seven weeks of Deut. 16 : 9."

First-day writers give as one of their chief reasons for Sunday observance the supposed fact that the Pentecost of our lesson came on the first day of the week. Whether it did or not is a matter of no special importance, and we will not take space to discuss the question. There is, and doubtlessly always will be, a difference of opinion in regard to the time when the Passover commenced, because there is a disagreement as to the time when the Passover commenced that year. Some claim that the lamb was slain on Thursday night, thus making Friday the first day of the feast, in which case Pentecost would have occurred on Sabbath. Others claim that Friday was the fourteenth day of the month, the proper time for slaying the lamb, in which case Pentecost would have fallen on Sunday. If any one is curious to form an opinion for himself, let him decide from the Bible account, on what day the Passover began, and count forward. If it could be proved that it fell on Saturday, it would not add one whit to the sacredness of that day. The Sabbath depends on no such inference for its sacredness, but on the direct commandment of God. If it fell on Sunday, that day gains nothing by it, in the utter absence of any Scripture testimony for Sunday sacredness. After giving different opinions as to when this Pentecost came, Dr. Barnes says: "It is impossible to determine the truth on this subject. Nor is it of much importance." And this is the truth. Rev. C. H. Parkhurst, commenting on this point, artlessly says: "There is not an agreement of opinion as to whether the Pentecost of our chapter fell on Saturday or on Sunday. There is in the church an old tradition that it fell on Sunday. It certainly would be pleasant to suppose that such was the case." Before any argument for Sunday observance can be reasonably based on the Pentecost, it must first be proved beyond a doubt that the Pentecost fell on Sunday, and then it must be shown from the Bible that the descent of the Holy Ghost made the day on which it occurred a holy day. As neither of these can be shown, the sacredness of Sunday exists only in the imagination of its devotees.

AMONG the multitude that assembled on the day of Pentecost there were two classes of hearers placed in strong contrast. First, there were "devout men;" men who were not merely pious, but were thoughtful, cautious, and circumspect. They were full of reverence toward God, and desirous of serving him; yet they would not jump at conclusions. When they served the Lord they did it understandingly. So when they saw the wonderful manifestation of the Holy Spirit, they inquired, "What meaneth this?" There was in this question nothing of ridicule or of obstinate doubt; but there was a spirit of earnest seeking for the truth. There can be no question but that they were, among the three thousand converts, for the Saviour said, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine."

But "others mocking said, these men are full of new wine." These persons are fitly represented by the seed sown by the wayside. Matt. 13 : 4, 19. Satan caught away the seed almost before it fell on the hard ground of their hearts. They were unthinking persons, whose strongest argument was a coarse jest. Their representatives are very numerous to-day. They oftener frequent bar-rooms than churches. Sometimes, like Ingersoll, they are found in high positions, but they rarely lose the characteristic of their class. They have little influence over sober, thoughtful, intelligent people; they are active agents for Satan, for there is a large class who are, deceived by them, thinking that their light, flippant way of treating things is a mark of superior wisdom. They themselves imagine that they have logical minds, too great to stoop to entertain for a moment so foolish a thing as religion.

To carefully and candidly weigh a matter is a mark of a truly great mind. When a man stoops to ridicule and cast slurs upon that which he does not understand, he stamps himself at once as a man of feeble intellect.

THERE are some points in the portion of the prophecy of Joel quoted by Peter, that are worthy of note. It proves conclusively that we are living in the last days; for if in the last days when Peter was preaching, how much more applicable must the term be now? The "last days" may include many days before the last day; that we are now in the very last days may be learned from other scriptures.

It proves also that the gifts of the Spirit will be manifested, to a greater or less degree, even until the end of time; for the "last days" must include the last day. If it is true, as some claim, these peculiar manifestations of the Spirit ceased at the death of the apostles, then the Scripture has failed; but "the Scripture cannot be broken," we may still look for the out-pouring of the Spirit.

We must then expect prophesying and visions even until the end; and this is just what Paul brings to view in Eph. 4 : 8-13. It is not said that every one shall prophesy, or see visions, or dream dreams, but the Spirit will operate this way upon some, "till we all come into the unity of the faith." There will always be many, as there were then, who will jeer and ridicule; but the "devout," candid persons will search to know what these things mean.

OTHERS mocking said, "These men are full of new wine." There is a difference of opinion among authorities as to whether or not this "new wine" was intoxicating. Those who claim that it was, seem to derive their argument from Peter's defense—that they were not drunk. If it were true that the wine mentioned was of an intoxicating nature, the charge of drunkenness was most successfully refuted by Peter; for (1) it was not customary to be drunk in the daytime. See 1 Thess. 5 : 7; and (2) it was a regular practice with the Jews not to eat or drink anything until after the third hour of the day, on the Sabbath, and on all festival occasions. Sometimes they abstained from food and drink even till noon. So then it was impossible that they were drunk.

But the weight of evidence favors the idea that the wine of which they spoke was the unfermented juice of the grape. See article on page 177.

But if the "new wine" was not intoxicating, wherein lay the force of the charge? Bear in mind that no formal charge of drunkenness was made against the disciples. "Others mocking said," etc. The original word occurs but in one other place in the New Testament, Acts 17 : 32. It means, to jest, to joke, to jeer, to ridicule, to laugh at. In this case the ridicule consisted, as Prof. Isaac Hall says, in the implication that the new wine would be too much for the weak heads that were turned with the new doctrine. The Syriac version favors this view, rendering the passage thus: "Others however ridiculed them, saying: They have drunken new wine, and are intoxicated." This would indeed be ridicule; but if we understand that they really charged the disciples with being drunk, then it ceases to be ridicule, and becomes a serious matter, especially as this was a solemn feast-day. But there is no reason to suppose that these persons meant to make any charge against the disciples; they were merely light-headed fellows who were unable to resist the temptation to a joke, in order that they might laugh at their own cheap wit.

Why, then, did Peter proceed to gravely refute the implied charge? Why did he not pass it by, or treat it as a joke? Because he was "filled with the Holy Ghost," and it did not become him to answer a fool according to his folly. The time was too solemn for jesting. Besides, the merest jest is often taken in earnest, and repeated as a fact. Their words might reach some who were not present, and seriously prejudice them against the apostles' work. So with becoming dignity, Peter settles the matter beyond dispute, and then goes on with his discourse. Preachers in modern times, who are handling sacred themes, may safely follow Peter's example on this occasion.