A WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE.
By W.
"After Eight Days," Pentecost, and Troas.
THE next "weighty utterance" that we find is the following:— "We have no account of their meeting again until a week later, after eight days according to the Jewish reckoning. No meeting is mentioned on the old Jewish seventh day; but on the first day of the next week, their second Lord's day, they met again and Thomas was with them, and again he said, 'Peace be unto you.'" We never before heard that Thomas said to the disciples, "Peace be unto you," and perhaps Dr. Bailey did not mean to say so; but if he had positively declared that it was Thomas instead of the Lord that said, "Peace be unto you," he would have been no further out of the way than he is in saying that the second time Jesus met with the disciples was on the first day of the week. The assurance with which he says, "We have no account of their meeting again until a week later," would lead a novice to suppose that John plainly states that it was just one week later, and that the "after eight days," which the Doctor repeats in an "aside," is simply his own explanation of the Bible term. What John really says is this: "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto you." John 20:26. Dr. Bailey tells us that "after eight days" is the Jewish expression for one week. It would have been more satisfactory to the inquiring reader if he had given a few examples of such use of the expression, in proof of his statement. Since he did not, we will quote a few instances of similar expressions, which will plainly show that "after eight days" does not mean just one week. In Hosea 6:2 we read: "After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." If "after eight days" means just seven days, then "after two days" ought to mean just one day, and the prophet should have said, To-morrow he will raise us up. But the prophet evidently said just what he meant, namely, that after two days is the third day. This is the Jewish as well as the common-sense mode of reckoning, and according to it "after eight days" would be the ninth day. Therefore if we begin our count with the day on which they first met, the earliest that we can place this second meeting would be the next Monday evening. But some one will say that the Jews were not always exact in their reckoning of time. Very true, and we will give an instance of this inexactness. In his account of the transfiguration, Mark says: "And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves." Mark 9:2. Luke, in relating the same event, says: "And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter88and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray." Luke 9:28. From these two accounts we find that "after six days" may mean "about an eight days after;" therefore if it is claimed that John did not mean to express the exact time, we must admit that "after eight days" means at least about ten days after, and this would bring the meeting to the middle of the next week. But by no possible conclusion can the meeting recorded in John 20:26 be placed earlier in the week than Monday evening. How, then, must we regard the statement which the Doctor makes immediately following, that this meeting is "specifically mentioned as on the first day of the week." We are unwilling to believe that he would willfully tell an untruth in order to deceive those who might be ignorant of the exact wording of the text, and we are therefore obliged to suppose that when he wrote his article he did not look at the Bible, but simply quoted from a too treacherous memory. Whichever way it is, it shows the desperate straits in which a man is placed when he attempts to maintain Sunday sacredness. Let us now look at the text itself a moment, and see how simple the narrative is. Remember that we have already shown that the disciples had one common dwelling-place at this time. On the evening of the resurrection, Jesus had come into the room while they were eating supper, to convince them that he had actually risen. For some cause not stated, Thomas was not in when Jesus came. Although they all lived at one place, it is not to be supposed that they never stirred from the house. But after eight days (whether nine or ten or more, there is no means of knowing) they were all "within." And then Jesus appeared to them again. Whether they were eating supper at this time or not is not stated. But knowing the facts as they are stated, how foolish seems the following question: "What higher sanction could Jesus give to this meeting for worship on the first day of the week, this change from the seventh day to the Lord's day?" The Doctor's method of argument seems to be something like this: Assume that certain things were done at a certain time; if this assumption happens to be contrary to the Scripture, then change the assumption into an emphatic declaration, so as to make people think it must be so, even though the Bible says it is not; and then from these erroneous assumptions and declarations draw a conclusion with such an air of confidence that people will think that it must be so. The next "argument" is the following:—
"We have no account of the disciples meeting for worship on any seventh-day Sabbath from the resurrection of Christ to the day of Pentecost, which was also on the first day of the week." Inasmuch as the day of the week on which Pentecost came that year is not-mentioned, it seems rather a lame thing from which to build an argument for Sunday sacredness. It is about equal to the argument on John 20:26. If the pouring out of the Spirit upon the disciples upon the day of Pentecost were intended as a sanction for Sunday observance, it certainly would not be too much to expect that something should have been said about Sunday. On the contrary, however, no hint is given as to the day of the week, and some of the ablest commentators do not pretend to know what day it was, one among whom is Dr. Hackett, a Baptist commentator; he holds that Pentecost came that year on the seventh day of the week, while there are some who hold that it fell on Monday. This shows that they are of the same opinion as Dr. Barnes, who says that it is a matter of no importance what day of the week it was. And that is exactly true. If there were any significance as to the day of the week, the day would certainly have been mentioned. We could easily show from the Scriptures that that Pentecost was on the seventh day of the week, but we shall not take the time, because it would not add a particle of strength to the Sabbath argument. Even if it were plainly stated that that wonderful outpouring of the Spirit was on the seventh day of the week, we should not think of quoting that as an argument in favor of the Sabbath. At the close of creation God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, and no subsequent act could add to the sacredness there put upon it. And here we will say that even if the statements which Dr. Bailey has made concerning meetings for worship on the first day of the week were true, they lack the essential element to make them of any force in favor of the Sunday; namely, a Bible statement that any sacredness was ever imparted to Sunday. If the mere being together on a certain day were proof of the sacredness of that day, then we would have, according to John 20:26, either Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday as a sacred day, for it was on one of these days, we do not know which, that Jesus met with his disciples the week after the resurrection. The day of the ascension of Christ, forty days after his resurrection (see Acts 1:3), was on Thursday, and on that day the disciples all met together with Jesus, and he blessed them, and they worshiped him. See Luke 24:50-52. If Dr. Bailey has any confidence in his method of argument, he ought to keep Thursday. The fact that he does not keep Thursday as sacred, even though Jesus met with and blessed his disciples on that day, shows that he does not really believe that Christ's meeting with and blessing his disciples on the evening of the resurrection imparted any sacredness to that day. Yet that is all the argument he has in favor of Sunday. So far as the Bible is concerned, there is just as much authority for keeping Thursday as there is for keeping Sunday. The Doctor continues:— "Was this new order of sabbaths or meetings on the first day of the week kept up by the apostles and by the churches which they established under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? They bade the churches 'not to forsake the assembling of themselves together.' On what day did they meet to break bread, and worship? When Paul was at Troas, where a Christian church had been previously formed, we are told in Acts 20:7: 'And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, and continued his speech until midnight.' Here again is specifically recorded their customs of assembling on the first day of the week, led by an inspired apostle. Were they right or wrong in this?" Notice how adroitly everything is turned in behalf of the Sunday. The apostle says to the Hebrews: "Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together;" and behold, it is quoted as an argument for Sunday! Because he tells the disciples to meet together for exhortation, it is taken for granted that he must mean for them to meet on Sunday. We are a little surprised that the Doctor did not say that we are here specifically commanded to meet on the first day of the week. We have heard Hebrews 10:25 quoted thus: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together on the first day of the week." Dr. Bailey here neglected a rare opportunity to make another "weighty utterance" in behalf of Sunday. But now what about this meeting at Troas? The apostle and his companions had been with the church there an entire week. Acts 20:6. If anyone thinks that Paul spent seven days with the church in Troas, and did not hold a meeting until just before he started away, he has read the life of Paul to little purpose. If Paul did not hold a meeting every day he was there, he did differently from his ordinary custom. See Acts 19:8-10. We have, however, the record of only one meeting with the church at Troas, and when did that take place? The record says, "On the first day of the week." But on what part of the first day of the week was it? It was in the night, because they had "many lights," and it is plainly stated that the meeting lasted all night. But according to Scripture reckoning, the day begins and ends at sunset. See John 1:5, 8, 13, etc.; Deut. 16:6; Lev. 23:32. The first day of the week, then, begins at sunset Saturday evening, and ends at sunset of the following evening. Therefore a night meeting on the first day of the week must be held on Saturday evening, and that is just when the meeting was held which is recorded in Acts 20:7-11. Then having held this meeting in the night of the first day of the week, what did Paul do in the day-time? Luke tells that he departed when it was light, and traveled on foot to Assos. That this is the view that must necessarily be taken even by Sunday-keepers, when they are not specially set to uphold that institution at all hazards, will be seen by the following extract from Conybeare and Howson's "Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul.":— "The labors of the early days of the week that was spent at Troas are not related to us, but concerning the last day we have a narrative which enters into details with all the minuteness of one of the gospel histories. It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath. On Sunday morning the vessel was about to sail. The Christians of Troas were gathered together at this solemn time to celebrate that feast of love which the last commandment of Christ has enjoined on all his followers."—Chap. 20, par. 9. After describing the meeting, the departure of the ship with Paul's companions, and Paul's departure on foot, the same writers say:— "Strength and peace were surely sought and obtained by the apostle from the Redeemer as he pursued his lonely road that Sunday afternoon in spring among the oak woods and the streams of Ida."—Par. 11. So much for Paul's sanction for Sunday worship. Perhaps, however, some may insist that the meeting was held in the night following Sunday, and that Paul's journey was on Monday; then according to their assumption that Paul tarried there a week in order to be with them at their regular time of meeting, they must necessarily claim that he passed over the whole of the first day of the week without having any meeting, and did not meet with them until the setting of the sun and the gathering darkness showed that the first day had passed. Whichever way they fix it, the record of this meeting gives no aid or comfort to the advocates of Sunday observance. Now one word about apostolic example, for that is the stronghold of Sunday advocates. If apostolic example has to be followed at all, it must be followed closely. It will not do to discriminate and say that we must follow certain apostolic practices, but may neglect others. Therefore our friends who are such sticklers for apostolic example, must hold their meetings in the dark part of the first day of the week, and never in the day-time on Sunday, for the entire Bible contains no account of a religious meeting on Sunday in the day-time. And the meeting at Troas is the only recorded instance of a meeting on the first day of the week, even in the night. W.