Brief Comments by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Feb 1, 1883

Brief Comments.

By Editor

ACTS 20:7. "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."

This text is relied upon by many as evidence that the Lord commanded his disciples to break bread upon the first day of the week; in fact, upon every first day of the week. This is the only text in the Scriptures which is ever appealed to as proof on the point; yet the proof is not contained in the text or context.

The Scriptures do explicitly command the celebration of the Lord's supper, and as explicitly inform us how to celebrate it. But in regard to the time or the frequency of its celebration they are silent. Therefore they who endeavor to bind the church to particular or stated times for its celebration are usurping authority over the household of faith. It was instituted the evening of the Lord's betrayal, certainly as early as Thursday evening. Once it was celebrated, at Troas, on the evening of the first day of the week, on what is now called, in the Roman method of reckoning, Saturday evening. But there is not a word said in the New Testament as to either duty or custom to observe it on Sunday evening rather than on the evening of its institution. One instance does not make a custom; we must have either a number of instances or a declaration that it was done according to a custom. We have a case in point in Acts 17:2; "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." And in Luke 4:16; "And he [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to read."

Now in regard to the evidence of duty on this point we notice these things: 1. Jesus never commanded his disciples to break bread on the first day of the week. He commanded them to do it, but he said not one word about any time or times for its observance. 2. We have no agreement of occurrences to indicate that there was a custom of that kind. 3. There is no mention of any custom having existed to that effect. We think that no one who wishes to follow the word of the Lord, and is ready to be guided by the evidence in the case, can hesitate to decide against the claim put forth on this text by those who advocate the Sunday.

It is well understood that the desire to manufacture evidence on this text in favor of the weekly observance of the Lord's supper on the first day of the week, grows out of the desire to do honor to the Sunday, and to raise the inference that the disciples did put honor upon it in making it the day for stated religious observances. The object is to exalt it to the place of the Sabbath; to find a justification for calling it "the Christian Sabbath." But the text itself contains a refutation of the claim. It proves that they did not regard it as a Sabbath, or day of rest, as Paul took his journey from Troas on Sunday morning. This is admitted by those who plead for the first day. Thus Prof. McGarvey, of the denomination of Disciples, an earnest first-day man, says in his "Commentary on the Acts":—

"I conclude, therefore, that the brethren met on the night after the Jewish Sabbath, which was still observed as a day of rest by all of them who were Jews, or Jewish proselytes, and considering this the beginning of the first day of the week, spent it in the manner above described. On Sunday morning, Paul and his companions resumed their journey, being constrained, no doubt, by the movements of the ship, which had already been in the harbor of Troas seven days."

It is not Scriptural to call that "the Jewish Sabbath" which the Bible always calls "the Sabbath of Jehovah." On that day, God, the Creator, rested from his work. The quotation shows that he was in a position to do injustice to the seventh day, and in other places he makes unwarranted claims for the first day. And this makes all the more valuable his admission that Paul did not observe that Sunday as a day of rest. His supposition of the reason has no weight, as it is only a supposition. But this is the only text which is produced in favor of a precedent for Sunday keeping.