SUNDAY MEETING AT TROAS.
By William Covert
BECAUSE Paul held one meeting at Troas upon the first day of the week and there broke bread with the disciples, it is claimed that the day must have been the Sabbath day for Christians at that time, or at least it must have been their regular day for holding weekly meetings. But the chief difficulty with the whole scope of Sunday argument is that it is made up of assumption instead of being based on reason or Scripture. The evidence is quite clear that one meeting was held upon the first day of the week, and that Paul preached unto them, being ready to depart on the morrow. See Acts 20: 7. If there had been a divine appointment setting apart that particular day for that purpose and also an abrogation of the Sabbath commandment which enjoined the observance of the seventh day, all clearly stated in the word of God, then it might at first seem that the church at Troas were living according to these appointments. But as these facts do not exist, we must seek another explanation for the text. The instruction given for breaking bread is "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. 11: 23-26. The truth is that the resurrection of Christ is not shown in the communion at all, but it is his death that is shown. If therefore any should urge any particular time in the week above another as being more significant of the point of faith that is shown in the rite of communion, then undoubtedly the crucifixion day would have the preference. Christ, the great Head of the church, instituted the ordinance on the evening of his betrayal. This would again place it on the crucifixion day. Must not this day then be the Christian Sabbath, especially since we have redemption through his blood? The church at Jerusalem did at one period of her history break bread every day. Acts 2: 46. Was not every day therefore the Sabbath? According to the reasoning of those who try to defend the Sunday, every day was observed as the Sabbath and that by apostolic example. The position that example is equal to a precept must therefore be surrendered, because it proves too much. We wish the reader to notice particularly that this act of breaking bread took place between midnight and daybreak. It is stated in verses 7-11 (Acts 20) that Paul continued his speech until midnight, and that there were many lights in the upper chamber where the meeting was held, that in a window a young man was seated who was overcome with sleep because of the long discourse, and that he fell down from the third loft and was thought to be dead. This accident arrested the discourse, and Paul went down, and the young man was restored. After this break in the meeting, the bread was broken. Then Paul continued his meeting till break of day, and departed. Now we wish to ask, Did Paul hold this long service during parts of two days? or was the entire meeting held on the first day of the week? According to the way time is reckoned at the present, the first day of the week terminated at midnight, and the breaking of bread occurred after midnight, which brought it upon Monday. Shall we therefore observe Monday as the Christian Sabbath? But if the Bible method of reckoning the day was then adhered to by Luke, who reported this occurrence, the time employed in the breaking of bread, as well as the time of the entire service, and as well as all the day following till sundown, constituted the first day of the week. This is so because the Bible manner of reckoning days was from sunset to sunset. See Gen. 1: 5. The evening came before the morning. "From even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths." Lev. 23: 32. "At even when the sun did set." Mark 1: 32. The setting of the sun brought in a new day. The first day of the week would therefore begin with the setting of the sun on Sabbath evening, and end with the setting of the sun Sunday evening. At Troas the church desired to hold a farewell meeting with Paul before he left for Jerusalem. The Sabbath was past and Luke and his companion started around the cape with the vessel, while Paul remained through the night with the church, the arrangement being that early Sunday morning Paul would start on foot to meet the brethren with the vessel at Assos. The distance for Paul to walk was about nineteen and one-half miles, while the route by water was more than twice as far. But when they met at Assos, they tarried not, even though it was Sunday, but sailed for Mitylene, a city on the island of Lesbro, situated perhaps fifty miles further on toward the end of their journey. Thus it turns out that the scripture that is most of all relied on to prove Sunday observance proves positively that it was not so observed. This is the only instance of a religious meeting being held upon the first day of the week recorded in the entire word of God, and this one shows positively that Paul's companions in labor spent the entire twenty-four hours of that day in travel, and Paul himself spent all the light part of the same day in the same business. But some have asked, "If it was not designed to teach that the first day should be religiously observed, why then was it mentioned in this connection?" We can see one purpose, at least, that is met by this record, and that is it proves positively that Sunday was not sacredly observed by the apostles and their colaborers. Everyone who loves the Sabbath of the Lord, and is acquainted with the teachings of the Bible, is glad of the proof given in Acts 20: 7-14 that Sunday was not kept.