The Sabbath Through the Ages
By Charles L. Taylor
XV. The First Day in the Scriptures
CARDINAL GIBBONS says, 'You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.' Is he correct? Many a good, sincere Protestant Christian, who observes the first day of the week, says, 'Why, the Bible is full of proof that we are to keep Sunday in honor of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.' Is the statement correct? Certainly one of the witnesses must be wrong. Either the Catholic is right and the Protestant wrong, or the Protestant is right and the Catholic wrong. Which is it? This is not a question of metaphysics, nor one of moral abstraction. It is a question of fact. Does the Bible give evidence, either direct or indirect, that Sunday was or is the holy day of the Christian church? If so, we may reasonably expect at least one plain statement to that effect, and one so plain that 'the wayfaring men, tho fools, shall not err therein.' If that one plain word of testimony is not to be found, then only one conclusion may be reached; namely, that God's Word does not authorize the sanctification of Sunday. BUT, further, if the Word of God is silent in regard to first-day observance, thus showing that Cardinal Gibbons's declaration is8correct, then, as true Protestants, we are specifically bound by our own profession of faith to disregard the claims of Sunday, and truly follow the actual teaching of the Word of God. For concerning the sanctity of Sunday, or any other matter which involves duty, it is of 'no account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant, HOW EARLY a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible.' He asks, 'Is it to be found in the inspired Word? Was it taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles?' See Dowling's "History of Romanism." It is a genuine surprise to many, when they come to make a thoro study of the question, to learn that the Scriptures are not 'full of proof' that Sunday is to be kept in honor of Jesus' resurrection, nor yet 'full of proof' that it is to be kept for any reason whatsoever. The fact is, the word 'Sunday' is not found in the Bible at all; and the expression, 'the first day of the week,' only eight times. Those eight references are: Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2. These are all, and not one of these contains even a hint that the day thus mentioned was in any wise a sanctified day. Rather, they teach that it was a common day of labor, like all the others except the Sabbath, which at that time was kept 'according to the commandment.' That these statements are absolutely correct may be ascertained by turning to the scriptures themselves and allowing them to speak. Matt. 28:1 reads, 'In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.' This is a statement of simple historical fact. Certain ones came to the tomb of Christ at a certain time; that time was the first day of the week. It does tell us, however, that the first day of the week came at the close of the Sabbath. 'But,' says one, 'I have heard that the Greek of Matt. 28:1 ought to be translated differently; that in order to be correct it should read, 'At the end of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the sabbaths.'' This question of the translation of Matt. 28:1 was recently referred to Dr. Walter Quincy Scott of the Bible Teachers' Training School, New York City; and this in part was his reply: 'Such a rendering is impossible . . . Mian sabbaton in Matt. 28:1 can not mean anything else than 'the first day of the week.' The Revised Version correctly translates the text.' And referring to the same matter, and the answer of Dr. Scott, another Greek scholar a little later said: 'The query . . . as to 'Sabbath or Sabbaths' seems to call for a further warning. The querist asks if Matt. 28:1, opse de sabbaton, te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton, may not be rendered, At the end of the [Jewish seventh-day] Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the [Christian first-day] sabbaths. The superb negative answer given should be heralded far and wide. People of excellent intention and deep piety, but with little knowledge, are making such an interpretation in fortifying themselves against Saturday keepers. . . . 'These good men had only a rusted smattering of classical Greek, and in their zeal without knowledge they stumbled upon this rendering, with a carelessness that few students of a month would make. 'A little learning is a dangerous thing.'' Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 are only a repetition of the statement made in Matt. 28:1. They simply record that the disciples, in the early morning of the first day of the week, came to the tomb of their Lord. Let the reader note, however, that both Mark and Luke take pains to mention the Sabbath that 'was past' (Mark 16:1), and that was kept 'according to the commandment.' Luke 23:56. 'But did not Jesus appear to the disciples upon the first day of the week, and say, 'Peace be unto you'? And does not this show that the disciples were met in a religious sense to celebrate the resurrection?' The answer to the query will be found in the other two Gospel references and their context. Mark 16:9-14 acquaints us with the following facts: 1. That upon the first day of the week, when Jesus was risen early, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene; 2. That Mary went and told them 'that had been with Him'—the apostles; 3. That 'they, when they had heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not;' 4. That later Jesus appeared to two other disciples, who also went and told the eleven; 5. That when those two told their story, it was not believed; 'neither believed they them;' 6. That after all this, Jesus Himself appeared to the eleven, 'as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen.' Turning to John 20:19 we learn that the meeting which Jesus attended, when He reproved them for their unbelief, was held upon 'the same day [the day of His resurrection] at evening, being the first day of the week.' We find, further, that 'the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews.' And by reading Luke's record of that meeting, we find that after Jesus had said, 'Peace be unto you,' the apostles were still 'terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit;' and that the Saviour, to quiet their fears and give them assurance, asked, 'Have ye here any meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.' Luke 24:36-42. The simple facts, summed up, are these: The apostles, not knowing and refusing to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, were met in their own home or place of abode (which was barred for fear of the Jews) for their evening meal. That He might give them the evidence of sight, as well as of faith, Jesus appeared to them and reproved them for their unbelief and hardness of heart; and when they could not otherwise be fully persuaded that He was risen from the dead, He asked them for a portion of food, and ate before them. The whole account, even to its minutest detail, is an unanswerable argument against the supposition that the disciples were met to celebrate the resurrection, or that they regarded the day as in any wise sacred. Acts 20:7 and its context is a brief but interesting account of a meeting held by the apostle Paul while out on one of his missionary journeys. The place was Troas; the time, the first day of the week. The verse reads, '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.' The reader's attention is here called to a few specific facts. First, it was a night meeting, for 'there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together;' and Paul 'continued his speech until midnight.' Verses 7, 8. Second, according to the Bible, the dark part of each day is the first part of each day. Gen. 1:5, 8, 13; Lev. 23:32. This, being the dark part of the first day of the week, was therefore what we term Saturday night. Third, the breaking of bread may have been only the eating of a common meal, because Paul evidently ate his ordinary supper in connection with the gathering. Acts 20:11. Fourth, the breaking of bread on any particular day was not to do honor to the day; for, in earlier times, they broke bread every day (Acts 2:46), and certainly they did not keep all days of the week. Fifth, Paul was 'ready to depart on the morrow,' that is, on Sunday morning, for Assos, a place nineteen miles distant, there to meet the rest of his company. Acts 20:7, 13. And in the morning he did depart on the trip he had planned. Now what do these facts show?—Simply this: The meeting spoken of was an emergency meeting, called on the night after the Sabbath, because it was the last opportunity they would ever have of meeting with their spiritual father in the truth. The meeting ended, the apostle walked nearly all day Sunday to another point, where he took ship for home. All the circumstances show conclusively that the gathering in no wise indicates reverence for the first day of the week, but rather the opposite; for Paul, on the Sabbath, would not have walked the long distance. His custom was to rest on Sabbath, and attend to his work of preaching. See Acts 13:14; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4. Acts 20:7 contains no hint of Sunday sacredness. Sunday was not regarded as sacred for a long period after this. One text only remains,—1 Cor. 16:2. This word to the Corinthians is, 'Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.' Only a word is necessary to show that this text, like all the others, in no wise teaches that the first day of the week is holy time. The expression, 'lay by him in store,' shows conclusively that instead of its being a command to go to church, and there place an offering in the general collection, the thought is that the offering is to be made at home. In fact, many excellent authorities so translate it. Greenfield, in his lexicon, gives it 'with one's self, i. e., at home.' And Justin Edwards, D.D., himself an ardent first-day writer, in his 'Notes on the New Testament,' says, 'lay by him in store; AT HOME.' And mark this: When one should 'lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him,' he certainly would need to go over his finances to learn to what extent prosperity had attended him,—a purely secular act, and one not fitted for Sabbath rest. The instruction to the Corinthian church shows that the great apostle regarded the first day of the week as only a secular day, one of the six working-days. The new Testament is silent regarding a Sunday rest day. It speaks, but always for the Sabbath of Jehovah. Fifty-nine times it brings to view the Sabbath of the commandment, and always makes it plain that it is God's holy day. But so far as the first day is concerned, it is mentioned, as we have seen, only eight times, and in each instance it is spoken of as being only what it truly was, a common working-day. The Christian at Work, a Presbyterian paper, has well said, 'We hear less than we used to about the apostolic origin of the present Sunday observance, and for the reason that while the Sabbath and Sabbath rest are woven into the warp and woof of the Scripture, it is now seen, as it is admitted, that we must go to later than apostolic times for the establishment of Sunday observance.' Cardinal Gibbons, then, was right. Sunday is not sanctified by the Bible. Neither Christ nor His apostles ever instituted a change. The seventh-day Sabbath of God's immutable Word still remains; and blessed is he who, as a true Protestant, takes his stand on that Word, and faithfully remembers 'the Sabbath day to keep it holy.'