"A WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE."
By w.
DR. BAILEY closes up his Sunday argument thus:— "I present but one additional argument; and this I address to those who read the Greek language. If we translate literally the Greek Testament in all four of the evangelists, when speaking of the resurrection of Christ, it would show that a new order of Sabbaths began at that time. In Matt. 28:1 it reads literally, 'In the end of Sabbaths as it began to dawn towards the first of Sabbaths, came Mary Magdalene.' The word Sabbath is sabbaton, genitive plural, with no article preceding; so it is in end of Sabbaths; and the word translated week is also sabbaton, genitive plural with no article. It reads eis mian sabbaton, towards the first of Sabbaths, as if the old order of Sabbaths had passed away, and a new order of Sabbaths had begun. In Mark 16:1 it reads literally, 'And when the Sabbath (singular number) was past, Mary Magdalene,' etc. Verse 2, 'Now upon the first of Sabbaths they came to the sepulcher.' The same transition is here marked from the old to the new Sabbaths. In Luke 24:1 it reads: 'Now upon the first of Sabbaths, very early in the morning they came unto the sepulcher.' Luke uses the article, the first of the Sabbaths, but his language, like that of Matthew and Mark, indicates a new order of things. John 20:1 reads, literally: 'The first of the Sabbaths cometh Mary Magdalene while it was yet dark unto the sepulcher.'" The only mistake in the above, from the Sunday point of view, is in addressing the "argument" to those who read the Greek language. The writer evidently gave it for the effect it would have on those who know nothing of the Greek, for no one who has even a little knowledge of that language would be deceived by statements so palpably absurd. The translation of the passages to which he refers is literally exact in the Authorized Version, and no one having a reputation as a scholar to maintain, would dare attempt to translate them differently. We dislike to refer to the Greek, when writing for the general reader, because those who do not read that language have not the power to verify what we say. But we must notice this perversion of the Scripture, and will try to do it in such a way as to be understood by all. It is true that in Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1, the word rendered "week" is sabbaton. On this word Dr. Robinson, who by the way was a Baptist, in his Lexicon of the New Testament says:— "Meton., a sabbath, put for the interval 'from Sabbath to Sabbath;' hence a se'nnight, week; so especially Luke 18:12, nesteuo dis tou sabbatou. Elsewhere only after numerals marking the days of the week; Mark 16:9, prote (hemera) sabbaton. Plur., Matt. 28:1, eis mian sabbaton. Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2.—So Heb. shabbathoth, Sept., hebdomadas, Lev. 23:15. Comp. Deut. 16:9; also the Syriac version Luke 18:12. In the Talmudists the days of the week are written, chadh beshabbath, sheni besh', shelishi besh', i. e., the first, second, third day in the Sabbath (week). See Lightfoot Hor. Heb. in Matt. 28:1." The reader will notice that Dr. Robinson refers to several other texts where the same word occurs, and where it is properly rendered "week." Let us try Mr. Bailey's translation on these passages. Take Luke 18:12: "I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all I possess." The word rendered "week" is sabbaton. Dr. Bailey would translate the passage "I fast twice in the Sabbath," and would explain it that the Pharisee was priding himself because he fasted twice every Sunday! Mr. Bailey claims that in the texts to which he refers, the word sabbaton should be rendered "Sabbath," so as to read, "the first of Sabbaths," thus indicating, he says, that "the old order of Sabbaths had passed away and a new order of Sabbaths had begun." But in Acts 20:7 we have the same expression again, in the narration of an event which took place thirty years after the crucifixion. Was this the first of a new order of Sabbaths? If so, what order was it? Mr. Bailey's rendering would make a new order of Sabbaths to begin at the resurrection, and another order thirty years after, when Paul was at Troas. Still further, the same expression occurs in 1 Cor. 16:2, where Paul directs the brethren to lay aside money "on the first day of the week." Mr. Bailey's rendering of the passage would make Paul direct the churches to lay by them in store on the first of every new order of Sabbaths! Unless a new order of Sabbaths was instituted frequently, their liberality would not be greatly taxed. It might be noted further that Mr. Bailey in his rendering of the expression entirely ignores the word hemera (day), which occurs in the text. But it is unnecessary to carry this point further, for anyone can see from the texts cited the absurdity of his so-called argument. Mr. Bailey himself seems to have enough knowledge of the Greek to have some sense of the absurdity of his own position, for he concludes:— "Thus there is wonderful agreement of the four evangelists in using this singular expression. It seems to me to convey the idea of a grand change from one order of Sabbaths on the seventh day of the week, to another and new order of Sabbaths on the first day of the week. That such a change then and there actually occurred, I have abundantly shown from various other proofs, even if these passages be not literally translated as suggested above." Said the Irish barrister: "May it please the Court, if I am wrong on this point I have another that is equally conclusive." In all Sunday argument the idea seems to be that a good many weak points will make one strong one; that although a dozen statements may be individually fallacious, they will when combined make a true one. That is on the principle that if you add enough ciphers together you will get something of value. The three lines of argument which Mr. Bailey gives from Scripture, from history, and from the Fathers, remind us of the plea in the famous kettle suit. The man who was charged with breaking his neighbor's kettle, made his defense under three heads, thus: "First, the kettle was cracked when I borrowed it. Second, it was whole when I carried it back. Third, I never borrowed it." If one of these points was disproved, he had two others to fall back on. It made no difference if they did contradict each other, it was proof. We have now followed Mr. Bailey through all the windings of his "weighty and timely utterance" in behalf of Sunday. We have done it not with any desire to depreciate Mr. Bailey, but in order to show the inherent weakness of the Sunday cause. We have no doubt that he did the best he could, and that his utterances are just as weighty as any that could be made. In contrast with the vain attempts to put the first day in the place of the seventh as the Sabbath, we present the simple argument for the true Sabbath in the following words:—183"And God spake all these words," saying, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex. 20:1, 8–11. "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." Ps. 111:7, 8. "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17. w.