EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH.
By John Nevins Andrews
THE TWENTIETH OF ACTS FATAL TO THE FIRST-DAY SABBATH.
In chapter nine, we had occasion to examine the entire book of Acts in our search after the new apostolic Sabbath. As space did not then admit an extended notice of Acts 20:7 in connection with Eld. P.'s remarks thereon, this was deferred until after we had examined his argument from Sabbaton. Having now attended to this duty, and having also attended to his argument from the margin of Acts 13:42, which seemed to come next in order, we now return to Acts 20:7. We quote Eld. P.'s argument on this text as follows:— “And when he was in Troas, we find Paul holding his meeting on the FIRST day of the WEEK ‘in an upper room,’ in the ‘third story,’ instead of a seventh-day, Jewish synagogue. Now let the reader remember that the meeting held at Troas was on the first day of the week (Sabbaton), and not on the seventh day of Sabbaton. It was not a night (Greek nux) meeting exclusively; as certain ones would have us believe, so as to make it appear that Paul ‘journeyed’ (?) on the first day of the week. But it was a day (heemeran) meeting, commenced on the first day of the week (Sabbaton), and not the first night. The meeting continued through the first day and through the second night; and thus Paul ‘journeyed’ on the second day of the week. But, says the objector, the word Sabbaton, rendered week, has nothing to do with this matter; and the word ‘day’ is not found in the original, where it is rendered ‘first day of the week’ in our common version.” pp. 105–107. To show that Sabbaton is here rightly rendered week, and that the construction of the original demands the word heemeran, day, to complete the sense, so that “first day of the week” is a correct translation of the original term, Eld. P. quotes an argument from the pen of Bro. U. Smith, found in Both Sides, pages 118, 119. As we fully accept the argument of Bro. Smith, and freely admit his conclusions, we have no occasion to quote this. Eld. P. then adds:— “So we have as plainly as language can say it, that Paul did hold his meeting at Troas the ‘first day of the week.’” p. 107. In the second part of his book, Eld. P. again argues “the first-day Sabbath” from this text. He attempts to prove that Paul did not simply hold an evening meeting at Troas, but that he preached during the daytime of the first day of the week and continued his speech till midnight of the second day. He freely admits that the days of the week begin at evening. He truthfully declares “there was ‘day’ as well as ‘night’ included in this period of twenty-four hours.” But we give his argument in his own words:— “Turning to the Old Testament, we find the Hebrew word for day is yohm—as in Gen. 1:5—‘God called the light day.’ This word occurs about two thousand times in the Old Testament, and is invariably used when the light part of the day of twenty-four hours is referred to. And the actions, or labors, of men are generally spoken of as being in the day (yohm) or light part of the twenty-four hours. A marked distinction was kept up between day and night. (See Joshua 2:5; Job 24:16; Isa. 5:20.) The Hebrew word for night is lah-yil, as in Gen. 1:5. If anything took place, or was done, in the night (lah-yil), it is so stated and called night, not day; as may be seen by examining about two hundred places where this word is found. (See Gen. 14:15; 31:39; 32:22; Ex. 10:13; Lev. 8:35; Num. 14:14; Judges 16:2, 3; 1 Sam. 19:10, 24; Jer. 33:20; 39:4; 52:7.) “In passing to the New Testament, we find the Greek word heemeran, rendered day, occurs about three hundred and seventy-five times; and if anything took place in the light part of the twenty-four hours, it is called day, heemeran, or heemeran. For night, the Greek word is nux, or nuktos; which is found about sixty-five times in the New Testament. And the reader can easily satisfy himself that if anything took place in the night (nux), the time was called night, and not day. (See Matt. 2:14; 12:40; Luke 5:5; 21:37; Acts 9:24, 25; 17:10; 27:27.) “The Greek word for midnight is mesonuktion, as in Acts 16:25; 20:7. This proves that the meeting in Acts 20:7 was a day (heemeran) meeting, and not a night (nux) meeting, although it continued until midnight. And we not only prove that it was a day meeting, but we prove that it was a meeting on the ‘FIRST DAY’—not second day, nor seventh day. ‘Prof. Hackett, Kitto, Prynne,’ etc., are not quite so good ‘standard authorities’ as the Holy Scriptures; and therefore we feel quite free to ‘deny’ that the meeting was exclusively a night meeting; it began the ‘first day’ (heemeran), and continued until midnight of the second day, when Paul healed the young man who fell from the window; then he continued his speaking and breaking of bread until the morning, or daylight of the second day, or Monday, when he was ready to start on his journey, after having enjoyed a glorious Sabbath with the disciples. Their meeting continued through the ‘first day’ (heemeran) of the week, and also through the night of the second day of the week.” pp. 297–299. It would appear from these quotations, which present Eld. P.'s entire argument for the first-day Sabbath from Acts 20:7, that he supposes only one thing necessary in order to establish his favorite institution, and that is, to prove that Paul's meeting was held during the daytime of the first day of the week. Let us state the proposition, and then draw from it the conclusions which are supposed to follow. Proposition. Paul held one meeting with the church at Troas in the daytime of the first day of the week. Conclusions. 1. Therefore the church at Troas always met for worship on the first day of the week. 2. Therefore all the churches throughout the whole world met every week for worship on this day. 3. Therefore Paul must have commanded the observance of this day. 4. Therefore all the apostles must have commanded it also. 5. Therefore they did not observe the seventh-day Sabbath. 6. Therefore they did change the Sabbath to the first day of the week. 7. Therefore the primitive church labored on the seventh day of the week, and abstained from labor on the first day, as all mankind should now do. Such is the argument that is drawn from Acts 20:7, in behalf of the first-day Sabbath. It is a great pyramid of evidence for first-day sacredness. But there is one difficulty that mars the felicity of this occasion. The pyramid is upside down! It stands upon its point and not upon its base. Let us state what seems to be a reasonable demand for evidence in the case of this text, inasmuch as the entire argument for the first-day Sabbath in the book of Acts is narrowed down to this one verse. As this verse covers the entire ground of apostolic action, if it is to establish the new Sabbath, it should show,
1. That the disciples were accustomed to assemble weekly upon the first day of the week.
2. That they did this to commemorate the resurrection of Christ.
3. That they did it in obedience to divine or apostolic precept. In asking these three things we have asked that only which is absolutely indispensable if we are to govern ourselves by the authority of the Scriptures. Indeed, we should in strict justice demand a fourth; viz., that they should be required to rest from labor on that day in the place of thus resting upon the seventh. Had we these things in this text, we should be constrained to say that the divine warrant for Sunday observance, though long eluding our earnest search, has at last been found. Whether we have them or not, must be decided by an examination of the text. Here it is:— 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.” Let us now carefully determine how fully this text responds to the necessities of the first-day Sabbath. That it confers no sacred title upon the day is sufficiently manifest. Were his argument from Sabbaton worth anything, he might claim that Luke here calls this day “the first-day Sabbath.” But he waives such a claim, as we have seen, and we have shown in chapter ten that his argument from Sabbaton is absolutely worthless. We have, then, four questions to ask concerning this text, in fairly testing its capacity to meet the necessities of the first-day Sabbath:— 1. What does this text say respecting abstinence from labor on this day? The most ardent first-day man—say our friend, Eld. P., for instance—must confess, however reluctantly, that it does not even hint at such a thing. 2. What does it offer in the character of a divine or an apostolic precept commanding the disciples to assemble on this day? Alas! it offers nothing. 3. What does it say concerning a purpose on the part of the disciples to commemorate the resurrection of Christ? It does not even allude to such a purpose, but does expressly state their design to be, that they might break bread, an ordinance appointed solely for the object of showing the death of Christ by the breaking of his body upon the cross. 1 Cor. 11:23–26. Luke's statement of the object of this meeting shows it to have been the commemoration of Christ's crucifixion. And Eld. P. lays down this rule which bears directly upon the case before us: “All who observe ‘the first day of the week’ for the Sabbath, believe that it was the resurrection, and not the crucifixion which is to be commemorated by the observance of the first-day Sabbath.” p. 289. It is certainly remarkable that Luke states with distinctness the purpose to celebrate the memorial of the crucifixion, but says nothing concerning a purpose to commemorate the resurrection. We come now to the final question. 4. What does this text say relative to the stated custom of the disciples to assemble on the first day of the week? The whole subject under consideration is narrowed down to this one question. It may be thus stated: Does this text represent the disciples at Troas as assembling upon the first day of the week in accordance with an established custom, or does it represent this meeting as something peculiar and unusual? We say that it was not a stated meeting, but something out of the ordinary course of things; our opponents claim that it was held in accordance with an established custom of meeting upon the first day of the week in place of the seventh. The first-day argument is in substance this:
1. That the New-Testament church, or rather that all mankind, are commanded to rest from labor on the first day of the week instead of the seventh, is proved by the fact that,
2. They are commanded to commemorate the resurrection of Christ by assembling for worship on that day, which must have been the case because that,
3. The entire apostolic church actually did commemorate that event in this manner, which we know to have been the case, because that,
4. The disciples at Troas were accustomed to assemble from week to week on that day to break bread! But this fourth statement itself is only an inference, which may not prove to be at all founded in fact. Instead of proving to be a stated meeting in commemoration of the resurrection, it may be found an unusual meeting, noted because of the extraordinary circumstances of the case, and actually held in the night season of the first day of the week. Indeed, Eld. P. devotes his entire argument from this text to the proving—so far as he is able—that this meeting at Troas was convened in the daytime of the first day of the week, and that it was not simply a meeting during the dark part of the first day. If he cannot establish this point, his failure is fatal, as the text will then become a positive proof that the first day of the week was not considered a Sabbath by the apostle Paul. But, on the other hand, if he succeeds in his effort to prove that this meeting was convened in the daytime, he has by no means proved that this was a stated custom even at Troas; and yet it is by a series of extraordinary inferences, already enumerated, that the obligation of all mankind to hallow the first day of the week as the Sabbath is deduced from this supposed custom at Troas. We will first ascertain whether this was a stated custom, or established usage, to assemble upon the first day of the week; and, second, whether the particular meeting in question was a day meeting running into the night, or a night meeting which ended in first-day labor. The examination of Eld. P.'s remarks upon this text are necessarily deferred till this last question arises, inasmuch as he has spoken on this point only. Were the disciples at Troas accustomed to assemble on the first day of the week? Luke does not intimate that they were. But had this been their custom, would he have been likely to intimate the fact? Certainly it was very important that he should, if the events at Troas were to constitute an argument for the change of the Sabbath. What was Luke's manner of writing? Was it to pass in silence the fact that certain things which he had occasion to name were instances of existing customs? If so, he might do thus in this case. Or was it his manner, whenever he mentioned any act which was an instance of an existing custom, to specially note that fact? If this were the case, then the fact that he failed to do it in the instance of the first day, becomes a most conclusive argument that such custom did not exist in the case of that day; and he freely mentions such customs in the case of long-established institutions, which need no such mention in order to give them currency, but maintains a total silence in that of the first-day Sabbath, though its very existence depended upon his making this statement. Now it is a remarkable fact that Luke does almost invariably state, in some form, that the days he names, or alludes to, are instances of existing customs when such is the case. In proof of this, we cite the following: 1. THE CUSTOM TO BURN INCENSE.
Luke 1:9: “According to the custom of202the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of God.” 2. THE CUSTOM TO PRESENT THE FIRST-BORN. Luke 2:27, 28: “And he came by the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, then took he him up in his arms and blessed God,” etc. 3. THE CUSTOM TO KEEP THE PASSOVER. Luke 2:41, 42: “Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.” 4. CHRIST'S CUSTOM ON THE SABBATH. Luke 4:16: “And he 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.” 5. THE CUSTOM OF PRAYER AT THE RIVER-SIDE. Acts 16:13: “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down and spake unto the women which resorted thither.” 6. THE CUSTOM OF PAUL ON THE SABBATH. Acts 17:2: “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” 7. PAUL'S CUSTOM ON THE WORKING DAYS AND ON THE SABBATH. Acts 18:3, 4: “And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought; for by their occupation they were tent-makers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” It is evident, therefore, that, whenever Luke had occasion to mention any incident which was an instance of an existing custom, it was a peculiarity of his to note the fact that this act was something customary. Thus, Anna's entrance into the temple when Christ was there presented, is made the occasion of saying that she served God in the temple night and day. Luke 2:37, 38. And, when he mentioned the worship in the temple, and the breaking of bread by the church at Jerusalem, it is said to have been daily. Acts 2:46. So, also, is it said of the preaching and teaching of the disciples. Acts 5:42. When the piety of Cornelius is noted, it is said that he prayed to God alway. Acts 10:2. And of Paul's two years' labor at Ephesus, it is said that he disputed daily in the school of one Tyrannus. Acts 19:9. There was, therefore, nothing more natural than that Luke should note the custom of first-day worship when he had occasion to mention a single meeting on that day, provided such custom actually existed. Nay, more. Though he gives us useful and instructive information in the several customs which he notes, no such urgent necessity existed in the cases which he mentions, as in that of the so-called first-day Sabbath. In the case of the seventh-day Sabbath, an institution which was then some four thousand years old, and which had, for its support, the highest authority in the universe, God's moral law, he notes the custom of the Saviour, and that of the devout women at Philippi, and that of Paul at Thessalonica and at Corinth. It is, indeed, important, in the case of the ancient Sabbath, that we should know the custom of our Lord and of the apostle to the Gentiles, and that of the good people of Philippi, but in a certain sense we may say that this was not a matter of necessity; for this divine institution lacks no authority in the things which are of highest consequence in the Bible. But it is not so in the case of the first-day Sabbath. Its very existence depends upon the ability of its friends to prove that there was, at this time, an established custom of first-day observance. It rests its principal claim for observance on the alleged fact that the church at Troas did regularly meet for worship on this day. One sentence, even one clause, nay, a single word, as “weekly,” or “statedly,” from this inspired penman, will decide the case. He delighted in noting such facts. In the case of the seventh day he did this again and again. But, though the very life of the first-day Sabbath was suspended upon his decision, he carefully abstains from one word of this. He could have said,
“ And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples, as they were wont, came together to break bread,” etc., or,
“When the disciples, as their manner was,” etc., or,
“When the disciples, as their custom was,” etc., or,
“When the disciples, who met every first day of the week,” etc. But, though he used all these forms in the case of the seventh day, though its authority did, by no means, depend upon the use of all, or even of any of them, he omitted them all in the case of the first day of the week, though its existence as a sacred day, depended upon the use of at least one of them. If Luke could note the custom of Anna, the widow, and of Cornelius, the centurion; if he could even give the custom of naming children after their relatives (Luke 1:61); if he could find space to mention the place where Mary delighted to sit and listen to Christ (Luke 10:39); if he could name the custom of the governor in releasing a prisoner at each passover (Luke 23:17); if he could note the daily custom of the apostolic church (Acts 2:46); and that of the apostles in general (Acts 5:42); and that of Paul in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9); and even the daily custom in the case of the lame man (Acts 3:2); could not Luke take the pains to give us the weekly custom in the case of the first-day Sabbath, had there been such a custom, or rather had there been such a Sabbath? His natural inclination would have prompted him to do it; necessity would have demanded it, that this institution might have a recognized existence in the Scriptures; and, beyond all doubt, the Spirit of God, no less than his natural turn, would have constrained him to this act. But he did nothing of the kind, and his silence, under the circumstances of the case, becomes a mighty testimony to the fact that the meeting at Troas was not a stated meeting, but one out of the usual order of things in view of the extraordinary circumstances of that occasion. Nor can it be said that even though Luke says nothing respecting the custom of first-day meetings, yet he mentions the first day so often in his apostolic record that he fully establishes the existence of such custom. Here again we have a remarkable fact. He does distinctly refer to the Sabbath not less than eight times in this book. And twice he mentions the custom of the Jews every Sabbath (Acts 13:27; 15:21); once, that of pious Gentiles on that day (Acts 16:13); once, Paul's manner concerning it (Acts 17:2); and once, what Paul did every Sabbath (Acts 18:4). But he mentions the first day of the week just once; and gives not even a distant hint that such meetings were the custom of that time. Is it possible that there were first-day meetings during the entire period of the book of Acts, and that they were never mentioned but once, though the ancient Sabbath was many times brought to view in its record? And is it not inexplicable that the historian in recording this single instance out of an immense number—if the common idea is correct—should neglect to state the fact that this was an established custom, whereas he notes the customs concerning the seventh-day Sabbath in a considerable number of cases? And is it not most remarkable if a new Sabbath was really established and observed by the apostles that the following things can be said of it in truth:—
1. That no act on their part of establishing it is upon record. 2. That no instance of its observance—its own friends being judges—is upon record during the entire period in which the apostles, as a body, are upon the stage of action in the sacred Scriptures. 3. That the first day of the week itself is not even mentioned in the book of Acts until eight years after the apostles, as a body, are dropped from its record. 4. That in the single instance in which the first day is mentioned, no hint is given that its observance as a day for meetings was a customary act. 5. That no word of dispute, remonstrance, complaint, or inquiry, was ever uttered by those who retained the ancient Sabbath when they saw it being supplanted by this new Sabbath. 6. That Luke, in the solitary instance in which he mentions the day, should give it no sacred title, but confine himself to a plain name, “first day of the week,” when, according to Eld. P., the day was rightfully entitled to four sacred appellations, viz.: (1.) The Lord's day; (2.) The first-day Sabbath; (3.) The Christian Sabbath; (4.) The Sabbath. 7. Finally, that in no instance have any of the sacred writers given one of these titles to this day. Should any assert that the use of the word “when,” in Acts 20:7, may be construed to mean customary action, it is proper to observe that no adverb of time is here used in the original. The text, literally translated, reads, “The disciples being assembled.” The case is the same with the word “when” in verse 11, “when he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread,” etc., which is literally, “And having ascended, and broken bread,” etc. The forms of expression are analogous, neither of them implying customary action. The evidence is already entirely decisive that no stated custom of weekly first-day meetings could have existed during the period covered by the book of Acts. But still further evidence will appear on examining the final question relative to the time of day at which this meeting was convened. It is remarkable that Eld. P. confines his entire argument to an attempt at proving that the meeting convened in the day-time of the first day of the week, and that he makes no effort to show that such meetings were an established weekly custom. Now if the meeting at Troas actually commenced on the morning of the first day of the week, it will not prove that this was the stated day for worship, for reasons already given. But if the meeting convened on the evening with which the first day commenced, then this incident at Troas becomes fatal to the first-day Sabbath as we shall see. Eld. P.'s argument from Acts 20:7–11 amounts only to an effort to show that this passage is not fatal to the so-called Christian Sabbath, but does not even attempt to offer one reason why this day should be considered the stated day for worship and for rest. We have, then, this question for consideration: Did the disciples at Troas convene upon the morning of the first day of the week, and continue that meeting until midnight of the second day, when it was temporarily suspended by the death of Eutychus but immediately resumed upon his recovery, and continued till morning? Or, did they convene in the evening with which the first day of the week commences, and at day-break of the first day conclude their assembly that Paul might start on his long journey toward Jerusalem? Eld. P.'s remarks on Acts 20:7 are principally made up of an extended argument to show that the Hebrew word yohm, and the Greek word heemeran, each answering to the English word day, mean simply the twelve hours of light as distinguished from the twelve hours of darkness. The word heemeran does not indeed occur in even one of the eight instances in which the phrase “first day of the week” is found in the New Testament, the word day in italics indicating its absence from the original. But as the grammatical construction requires this word to complete the sense, we shall treat the subject as though heemeran were used, which is what Eld. P. would have us do. His argument is given in full in the first part of this article, and is designed to prove that the meeting at Troas must have been convened in the daytime as distinguished from the night season, because the first day [heemeran] of the week is confined to the twelve hours of light as distinguished from those of darkness. We reply: 1. That the very first text quoted by him is fatal to his argument. He quotes that part indeed which seems to favor his view, and omits the remainder which would, if quoted, show the fallacy of his conclusions. Here is the verse: Gen. 1:5: “And God called the light Day [Hebrew yohm, Greek of the Septuagint, hemera], and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Hebrew yohm, Greek hemera. It is evident, (1.) That the light as distinguished from the darkness is here called yohm, hemera, or day. And this is what Eld. P. claims as its exclusive meaning. (2.) That the darkness and the light together are also called yohm, hemera, or day, which is what we assert constitutes the first day of the week in Acts 20:7, and indeed in every other place. 2. We have then a square issue. We say that hemera, day, in the phrase “first day of the week,” must cover the entire period of twenty-four hours. Eld. P. limits it to the twelve hours (more or less) of light. Two facts are absolutely decisive. (1.) That Gen. 1:5 actually defines the first day of the week by telling us that the evening and the morning, or the darkness and the light, were the first hemera or day. And all other days of the week must correspond to this. At all events, we have an inspired definition of the first day of the week, which is the very thing in controversy. (2.) That we have in Gen. 1, not only the statement that “the first day,” or hemera, was composed of the two divisions, darkness and light, or in other words, that it was twenty-four hours long, but we have the word hemera applied to each of the other five working days, and in each case it is defined precisely as it is in the case of the first day. That is to say, it is in each case made to cover the darkness and the light, or the entire period of twenty-four hours. Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31. 3. When six of these days had been employed by the Creator, his work was accomplished. The seventh day, on which he rested, finished the first cycle of seven days, and must therefore have been such a day as were the preceding six. Standing at the end of the first complete period of days—his six days of labor, and his seventh day on which he rested and was refreshed—he established weeks by sanctifying, that is, by appointing to a holy use, this day of his rest, when it should return to close each cycle of seven days. Gen. 2:1–3; Ex. 20:8–11; 31:17. The seventh day from that point at which God finished his rest, would therefore bring the Sabbath to mankind, and close another week, and so on in perpetual succession. Whence it follows, that the establishment of the week, and the institution of the Sabbath, were by one act. And the succession of weeks, commencing where the first week ended, and being established by the divine appointment of the Creator's rest-day to a holy use, as it should return at the end of each period, such as God had employed in his work, is necessarily made up of sevens of days, such as were those seven at the beginning. 4. We have, therefore, indubitable evidence that the Greek word hemera is used precisely like our English word day, (1.) for the period of light as distinguished from that of darkness; (2.) for the period of twenty-four hours, embracing both the darkness and the light. 5. We have, then, but one question to raise. In what sense—whether of twelve hours or of twenty-four—is the word hemera used when it denotes one of the days of the week? This question admits of an answer that leaves no chance for doubt. We have proved from the original establishment of weeks two facts which are absolutely decisive: (1.) That all the days of the week are called by this name, hemera, and that they are twenty-four hours long. (2.) That the first day of the week in particular, which is the very day in dispute, is itself distinctly defined to be a hemera, or day, composed of the two natural divisions of darkness and of light, and is therefore proved to be certainly a period of twenty-four hours' duration. 6. We have many instances in the New Testament of the use of hemera for a day of twenty-four hours. Thus (1.) all those cases in which the term “Sabbath-day” is found, for the Sabbath-day is one entire day of the week. Luke 4:16; 13:14, 16; 14:5; John 5:9; 19:31; Acts 13:14. (2.) All those texts in which the days of the Jewish feasts are mentioned, for these also were days composed of night and day, and commencing with sunset. For they were specified days, either of weeks or of months, and these all commence thus. Lev. 23:32; Gen. 1:5. Thus we cite: Mark 14:12; Luke 2:43; 22:7; 23:54; Acts 2:1; 12:3; 20:6, 16. (3.) All those texts in which periods of days are specified, or in which a succession of days is mentioned, or alluded to, where the word day stands for the entire twenty-four hours, as Matt. 2:1; 3:1; 9:15; 11:12; 15:32; 16:21; 17:1, 23; 20:19; 23:30; 24:19, 22, 29, 37, 38; 26:2, 61; 27:40, 63, 64; Mark 1:9, 13; 2:1, 20; 8:1, 31; 9:2, 31; 10:34; 13:17, 19, 20, 24; 14:1, 58; 15:29; Luke 1:5, 23, 24, 25, 39, 59, 75; 2:1, 6, 21, 22; 4:2, 25; 5:35; 6:12; 9:22, 28, 36; 13:14; 15:13; 17:22, 26, 28; 18:33; 19:43; 21:6, 22; 23:29; 24:7, 18, 21, 46; John 2:1, 12, 19, 20; 4:40, 43; 11:6, 17; 12:1; 20:26; Acts 1:3, 5, 15; 2:17, 18, 19; 3:24; 5:36, 37; 6:1; 7:8, 41, 45; 9:9, 19, 23, 37, 43; 10:30, 40, 48; 11:27; 13:31, 41; 15:36; 16:12; 20:6; 21:4, 5, 10, 15, 26, 27, 38; 24:1, 11, 24; 25:1, 6, 13, 14; 27:7, 20; 28:7, 12, 14, 17; Rom. 14:5, 6; 1 Cor. 15:4; Gal. 1:18; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 5:7; 7:3; 8:8, 10; 10:16, 32; 11:30; 12:10; James 5:3; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:3. (4.) In particular we note the seventh day, or hemera, of Heb. 4:4, which is certainly a period of twenty-four hours. (5.) We also note the Lord's day, or hemera, of Rev. 1:10, which even Eld. P. will acknowledge to be twenty-four hours long. (6.) We also note those many days (pleionas hemeras), in which203neither sun nor stars appeared (Acts 27:20), as days, or heemerai, which included the night. 8. The Hebrew word yohm, the equivalent of the Greek word hemera, day, is used in several marked instances to cover the night season. Thus, the children of Israel were delivered out of bondage at midnight. And “the self-same day” of their deliverance is said to be a “night to be much observed unto the Lord.” Ex. 12:29–31, 41, 42. Again, David and Abishai came into Saul's camp “by night,” and Abishai said to David: “God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day.” 1 Sam. 26:7, 8. And the instances in which this word yohm, like hemera, is used for the entire period of twenty-four hours, are so numerous as to forbid citation. 9. The word semeron is, according to Liddell and Scott, the equivalent of hemera except that the “s” prefixed gives to it the sense of “this day.” Indeed the orthography of the two words is almost identical, this prefix excepted. That it is used, so far as duration is concerned, as the equivalent of hemera is shown by these texts: Luke 24:21: “To-day [semeron] is the third day [hemera] since these things were done.” Acts 27:33: “This day [semeron] is the fourteenth day” (hemera), etc. Now it is remarkable that the word semeron, which is simply hemera with a prefix signifying “this,” is expressly used with reference to the night season. Mark 14:30: “And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day [semeron], even in this night,” etc. To the shepherds watching their flocks by night, the angel of God said, “Unto you is born this day [semeron] a Saviour,” etc. Luke 2:8–11. See also Matt. 27:19 and Acts 27:33. 10. The eight texts in which the “first day of the week” is named in the New Testament, though the word hemera be understood, are so many references to periods of twenty-four hours; for it has been fully proved that the days of the week do actually embrace both the darkness and the light, as indeed it is not possible that it should be otherwise in their case. 11. The words of John's gospel are very striking: “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark,” etc. John 20:1. Our Lord's resurrection upon the first day of the week was still earlier than this. So that it is certain that the term “first day of the week” does in the New Testament cover the darkness of the night as well as the light of the day. 12. According to Eld. P., the first day of the week is the Lord's day and the Christian Sabbath. Now if he limits the first day of the week to the second division of the twenty-four-hour day, then his Christian Sabbath, or Lord's day, begins at sunrise on Sunday and ends that day at sunset; even “the seventh portion of man's time,” which Eld. P. says that God claims, p. 138, is not secured by such a Sabbath as this. But we have Eld. P. himself for our authority in asserting that the first day of the week commences at the very point where the seventh day ends, which we have fully proved is at sunset of Saturday night. (See his 46th page quoted at length in chapter ten.) We have, therefore, proved by indubitable testimony that the days of the week include the entire period of twenty-four hours, and that they begin and end at sunset. The first day of the week does therefore commence on Saturday night, and not on Sunday morning. The question now properly arises, Did Paul commence his meeting on Sunday morning and preach till midnight, a period of about fourteen hours? Or did he commence on the evening with which the first day of the week commences, soon after the close of the Sabbath, and from that point preach till midnight, a period of about five hours? Which is most reasonable? But did they not, perhaps, have other services during the daytime, and then an adjournment, and then, in the evening of the second day, Paul commence to preach? No; this could not be, for the language plainly implies that their services commenced with Paul's sermon. Thus it reads: “When the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them;” or more literally, “The disciples being assembled to break bread, Paul preached to them.” This language clearly indicates that Paul's sermon was the first thing in order; but verses 10 and 11 are perfectly decisive, and place the breaking of bread after the sermon was closed, at midnight. The meeting did therefore begin with Paul's sermon. And what is more, it does not say merely that the meeting continued till midnight, but it says that Paul continued his speech till then; which shows that he did not cease after the commencement of the services till the fall of Eutychus at midnight. But may it not actually be true that Paul preached, say from 10 A. M. of the first day of the week, till the close of that day at sunset, and thence on to the midnight of the second day of the week? Neither speaker nor hearers could endure such fatigue as that; for there was no cessation to Paul's sermon after it commenced till the death of Eutychus at midnight. But the idea is not merely incredible, it even reflects some discredit on the so-called first-day Sabbath. If the entire daytime of the first day of the week had been spent in listening to a sermon from Paul, how does it happen that Luke, who seems for once to have undertaken to describe a first-day meeting, actually slips over it, and records only those incidents which came upon the second day of the week? Shall we conclude that not one first-day meeting was worthy of a particular description in the entire New Testament? How does it happen that the second day of the week was able to secure nearly everything worthy of mention on this occasion. But if this meeting began in the morning of the first day of the week, what did they want of the many lights? Is it said that they held their principal meeting in the daytime of the first day, and that when it grew dark, they lighted up for the evening services on the second day of the week? The language plainly implies that the room was lighted when their services commenced, and that the entire meeting had the benefit of these lamps. Thus we read: “And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where we were gathered together.” Verse 8. The evidence is, therefore, most conclusive that this entire service was held in the evening. Luke says that it was upon the first day of the week. We have proved that this day begins Saturday night at sunset, and that it ends at sunset on Sunday. This meeting was therefore held on Saturday evening. Whence it follows, 1. That Paul did not regard the first day of the week as the Sabbath, inasmuch as he started on his journey next morning. 2. That he did regard the fourth commandment, inasmuch as he waited till the Sabbath was past and set forth on his journey on first-day morning. 3. That this meeting at Troas was not a stated meeting in the daytime, but an unusual and extraordinary one in the night season; the disciples coming together after the close of the Sabbath to celebrate the love of their dying Lord as their fitting farewell meeting with the apostle. It may be asked, “If this meeting was on the evening with which the first day commenced, how could Paul's departure be upon the first-day morning, whereas it is said that he was ‘ready to depart on the morrow’?” We answer, the Greek word, epaurion (morrow), does not necessarily bring to view another day of the week. Thus, the soldiers took Paul by night to Antipatris, and on the morrow (epaurion), returned. It here simply represents the next period of daylight, but all the things named took place on the same day of the week. See Acts 23:23, 31, 32. To prove that this was not a meeting on first-day evening—for if it was, then Acts 20:7–13 is fatal to the first-day Sabbath—Eld. P. does not attempt to reason from the circumstances recorded, for they are all against him; but simply endeavors to show that the idea of a night meeting is inconsistent with the meaning of the term “first day of the week.” We have shown that herein he is entirely at fault, and have proved the meeting at Troas to be a farewell meeting held on the evening with which the first day of the week commences. That many first-day commentators hold that this meeting was on Saturday evening, see the History of the Sabbath, pp. 180, 181. We quote the following from a work of high repute. It speaks thus of the evening meeting at Troas:— “It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath. On the Sunday morning the vessel was about to sail.” Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul. Vol. 2, p. 212, London, 1854. Of the journey to Assos these authors speak thus:— “It was arranged, however, that the apostle himself should join the vessel at Assos, which was only about twenty miles distant by the direct road, while the voyage round Cape Lectum was nearly twice as far.” pp. 213, 214. The action of St. Paul on this occasion is entirely consistent with a sacred regard for the ancient Sabbath, but it is absolutely fatal to the idea that he regarded the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath. In both these particulars, however, it is in exact harmony with his own statement, and that of James, and of Luke (Acts 13:27; 15:21; 18:4), wherein they plainly acknowledge the existing weekly Sabbath, and exclude from that honorable appellation the first day of the week.