APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 15, 1887

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 13, No. 36.

APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE.

Of all the arguments that are made in support of the first day of the week as the Sabbath or Lord's day, the one which above all is the most thoroughly sophistical and deceptive is the argument that proposes to rest its obligation upon "the example of the apostles." We want to look into this thing a little and see what the claim is worth.

First we will examine the claim of apostolic example upon its own merits. "The example of the apostles." What is it? and where shall it be found? The phrase must refer to the actions of the apostles, and what these actions were must be gathered from the New Testament, of course, because that is the only record there is of the apostles or their actions. Very well, then, to the record let us turn. How many apostles were there? Fourteen, at least. Well then, have we fourteen examples? Is each one of them an exemplar to be followed by all? and do the actions of each one form an example for all to copy? Or does it take all fourteen of them to make up the one "example of the apostles" which is to be obligatory upon all men? In either case it is essential of course that we know what the apostles did, and what is the example which they set. What example, then, did the apostles set in the matter of keeping the first day of the week?

The day the Saviour arose from the dead there were eleven apostles. That day was past before they believed he was risen from the dead. For,—

1. The first person to whom he appeared was Mary Magdalene, "And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not." Mark 16:9-11.

2. "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country" (Mark 16:12), and even they did not believe he was risen until they had reached Emmaus and were sitting at supper with him, the day being "far spent." Then and there "he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him." Luke 24:10, 11, 13, 28-31.

3. "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and" "the same day at evening" "found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them," "as they sat at meat," "saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread," "neither believed they them." "And as they thus spake," "when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he" "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed them which had seen him after he was risen," and "said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet," "and his side. Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord." "And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." Luke 24:33-43; Mark 16:13, 14; John 20:19, 20.

It is certain, therefore, that so far as that day is concerned there is no apostolic example for keeping the first day of the week, because it was in the very last moments of the day before they believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. Even though apostolic example were claimed upon the actions of the apostles on that day, the claim would be defective for a further reason, and that is, because Thomas was not there, when Jesus came, and even refused to believe upon the testimony of all of them. And so, any way the thing may be fixed, there is neither truth nor justice in claiming apostolic example for the observance of the first day of the week, based upon the actions of the disciples on the day of the resurrection of the Saviour.

After that night when Jesus made himself and his resurrection known to the disciples, there is no record in all the New Testament that the eleven or the twelve or the fourteen apostles, were ever together again on the first day of the week. Therefore we must follow them individually if we would know what was their example after that. After Jesus had ascended to Heaven, Matthias was chosen by lot in the place of Judas Iscariot, "and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Acts 1:23-26. Then the twelve apostles were these: Peter and James, and John; Andrew, Philip, and Thomas; Bartholomew, and Matthew; James the son of Alphæus, Simon Zelotes, Thaddæus, and Matthias. Afterward Barnabas and Paul were called, thus making the fourteen apostles.

Now as Thaddæus and Simon Zelotes, James the son of Alphæus, and Matthew, Bartholomew, and Thomas, and Andrew, and Philip, and Matthias, are not mentioned again in all the New Testament, not one of them even being named, and as the only mention that is made of James the brother of John is that Herod killed him with the sword (Acts 12:2), all these must be dropped bodily and forever from all calculations upon "the example of the apostles" either in regard to the first day of the week or anything else. Therefore, whatever apostolic example there may be, will have to be such without the example of these ten.

Barnabas is first mentioned in Acts 4:36. He sold his land and laid the money at the apostles' feet. And when Paul came from Damascus to Jerusalem, and all the disciples were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple, Barnabas "took him and brought him to the apostles," and persuaded them to receive him (Acts 9:27). When tidings came to Jerusalem that the Gentiles at Antioch had received the gospel, the church sent forth Barnabas to Antioch. From Antioch he went "to Tarsus, for to seek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch," and there they taught, "a whole year." Then, as they, with others, "ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." "So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost," traveled together a long while and to many places, till at last they fell into that dispute about whether John Mark should go with them or not, "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other," and so far as the record goes, we know not whether they ever saw one another again (Acts 15:36-41). And that closes the record about Barnabas; and in all that is said of him, there is not one word nor a hint about the first day of the week; so Barnabas, too, must be left out of the calculations in regard to "the example of the apostles" for keeping Sunday. Therefore if there be any apostolic example for it it must be such without the example of eleven of the apostles.

John was with Peter at the beautiful gate of the temple when the lame man was healed, and was imprisoned with Peter and was released with him. He and Peter were sent by the apostles to Samaria together, when they heard of the work of Philip there, and they "preached in many villages of the Samaritans." And that is all that is said about John in the book of Acts; Paul mentions him in Galatians 2:9; but in all that is said about him there is nothing about the first day of the week. Besides the gospel, whose statements we have already noticed, John wrote three epistles and the book of Revelation, and in not one of them is there a word said about the first day of the week, much less is anything said about the example of the apostles in favor of keeping it. He did say, however, "He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked." 1 John 2:6. So John, too, must be left out of all calculations upon "the example of the apostles" for Sunday keeping, and if there be any such example it must be such without the example of twelve of the apostles.

Peter preached the Pentecostal sermon, and again when the lame man was healed, got into prison several times, preached in Samaria, was sent for by the angel to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his house, and was put into prison by Herod and was brought out by an angel. That is the last that is said of him in Acts, but in all that is said about Peter and his work there is not one word about the first day of the week; much less is there named any example of the apostles for keeping it. Paul merely mentions him in first and second Corinthians, and in Galatians 2 he says of him, "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed;" he dissembled, "and the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; inasmuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." And "I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." Peter wrote two epistles, but in neither of them does he say a word about the first day of the week, nor about any apostolic example for keeping it. But he does say that Christ left "us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Pet. 2:21); not the example of the apostles. Therefore Peter also must be left out of all calculations based upon "the example of the apostles" for keeping the first day of the week.

This makes now thirteen of the fourteen apostles who have to be dropped and left entirely out of the count in looking for "the example of the apostles" for keeping the first day of the week. So far as these thirteen are concerned there is not a word in all the New Testament that gives any room whatever upon which to base any kind of apostolic example for keeping the first day of the week. And as there remains but one more apostle to be noticed, it is bound to be that if there is any such thing at all, instead of it being the example of the apostles, it will have to be the example of the apostle.

Paul alone, then, is the one person in whom must be summed up the whole subject of "the example of

the apostles" for keeping the first day of the week. If there is any such thing at all it will have to be found in him and in him alone. And here at last we find a meeting on the first day of the week mentioned in connection with the name of an apostle, the only instance in all the book, after they believed the Saviour was risen from the dead. The record in which is found this "example of the apostle" is as follows:—

"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. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene." Acts 20:7-14.

There is the complete inspired record of the events of the only first day of the week upon which there is any shadow of a chance to base any "example of the apostle" in favor of its observance. What example then, is here set by the apostle?

There was a meeting on the first day of the week.
The meeting was at night, because, "When the disciples came together . . . there were many lights in the upper chamber where they were gathered together."
"Paul preached unto them."
He preached all night, because, "he continued his speech until midnight. . . . And talked a long while, even till break of day."
Therefore this was an all-night meeting.
At break of day "he departed" "afoot" for Assos, about twenty miles, and his companions "went before to ship and sailed unto Assos, for so had he appointed." And when he met them at Assos he went aboard and sailed on to Mitylene.

Such is the "example" of the only apostle, on the only first day of the week, that can by any right enter into the question. But of all those who profess to keep the first day of the week, how many follow the example? Not one. How many of them even attempt to follow it? Not one. Notice, the example was a meeting at night on the first day of the week; they profess to follow the example by meeting in the daytime. The example was a meeting all night; they profess to follow it by having a meeting of perhaps two hours in the daytime. In the example the bread was broken shortly after midnight; those who profess to follow the example do it by breaking the bread about midday. "The example of the apostle" is that he preached in the night "until midnight" and then, shortly after, talked "a long while, even till break of day;" they profess to follow the example by preaching in the daytime from a half an hour to an hour. The example of the apostle is, that in the daytime on this exemplary first day of the week, "he appointed" the sailing of a ship, and he himself "departed" "afoot," on a long journey; they propose to follow "the example of the apostle" by refusing, themselves, to journey, and prohibiting by law all others from journeying at all on that day. In short, they propose to follow the example by going directly contrary to it. But if a rule is not to be followed according to its terms, then what is the use of a rule at all? If a problem is not to be solved according to the example, then what is the use of the example? Now, on the part of those who keep Sunday, "the example of the apostle" is their own chosen rule, in fact it is at once both their rule and their example, and yet in solving the problem of Christian duty as they themselves have chosen it, they go directly contrary to the terms of the rule which they themselves have chosen. Then what is the use of their rule? By what right do they claim the authority of the example of the apostle for their practice, and then in their practice go directly contrary to the record in the only instance there is in existence upon which to base their claim?

If this rule of apostolic example be binding in any one of its terms, it must be equally binding in every one of its terms. If not, why not? If it binds men to meet on the first day of the week, it certainly must be equally binding upon them to meet in the night of the first day of the week, for that is according to the example. If this example binds the minister to preach on the first day of the week any more than at any other time, then it certainly must be that it binds him to preach in the night, and all night too, of the first day of the week, for that is according to the example of the apostle. In fact there is no shadow of anything upon which to base a claim of apostolic example for holding meeting at all in the daytime on the first day of the week, for in all the apostolic record there is no instance of a meeting in the daytime on the first day of the week, after they believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. Therefore, when in pretense Sunday is kept on the authority of "the example of the apostles," and that of only one apostle, and then in practice it is kept in a manner directly contrary to the example which they claim as authority, that is but practically to deny the authority which they in pretense claim. It is only to say that there is no such thing as apostolic example for their practice. And that is the truth in the case. As a matter of fact, the sum of it all is that the claim of "the example of the apostles" for Sunday-keeping is nothing but a pretense by which those who make the claim seek to justify themselves in their transgression of the commandment of God in refusing to keep the Sabbath of the Lord.

Next week, if the Lord will, we shall show that in matters of moral obligation there is no such thing as apostolic example. J.