00B.40 Chapter 33. The Lord's Day

XXXIV. When Does the Lord’s Day Begin? Should We Have theLord’s Supper on Sunday Night? WHEN DOES THE LORD’S DAY BEGIN AND CLOSE? In our former studies we have seen that the first day of the week is the Lord’s day, and that the early disciples under the guidance of the Holy Spirit met to worship God and to honor Christ upon this day. Now, since it has become the custom with some congregations to have the Lord’s Supper— a second setting of the supper—at night for the benefit of those who could not, consistently with their own business or pleasure, attend the regular forenoon service, the ques­tion of what time the Lord’s day begins and closes is an important one. It is frequently discussed, and some people are perplexed on this point. A brief study of the issue here, it is hoped, will not be amiss.

1. What Is a Day? In the Bible, as well as in our com­mon use, the word "day" is used in several different senses. First, it is used to denote a twenty-four-hour period of time. This period is fixed by the time it takes the earth to make one revolution upon its axis; the interval of time that elapses between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun. In this sense it is called a natural, solar, o r astronomical day. So far as the definition is con­cerned, it would make no difference when we begin the day. It would not matter what meridian we choose to mark the revolution. The nations have differed, and still do, in their reckoning of the beginning of the day. The nautical or astronomical day is now reckoned from neon to noon. The Babylonians reckoned the day from sunrise to sunrise; the Umbrians, from noon to noon; the Athenians and Hebrews, from sunset to sunset; and the Romans, from midnight to midnight. The United States, the British Empire, and most of the countries of Europe use the Roman method and reckon the day from midnight to midnight. The Hebrew count was, of course, the Bible count. "The evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5) Here the twenty-four-hour period is called a day, and so of each of the days of creation week. But it is worthy of notice here that the evening preceded the morning in reckoning the days. Later, when the law concerning the Sabbath was given, the Hebrews were strictly commanded to observe the day from "even unto even." (Leviticus 23:32) So even until this day the Jews observe their Sabbath from sunset Friday till sunset Saturday. Throughout the Bible—both the Old and the New Testament—so far as we are able to judge, the day was reckoned from "even unto even." The second and perhaps most prevalent use of the word "day," both in the Bible and in everyday language, is that period of time during which the sun is above the horizon on a given portion of the earth’s surface; the period between the rising and the setting of the sun; the interval of light in contradistinction to that of darkness. Hence night and day. This is an equal division—so considered, though its length varies—of the astronomical day, and this division is called by astronomers the artificial day. The Bible uses this term just as we do today. "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night." (Genesis 1:5) "And always, night and day, he was in the mountains." (Mark 5:5) "A night and a day I have been in the deep." (2 Corinthians 11:25.) "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40) "Arc there not twelve hours in the day?" (John 11:9) The Jews divided this twelve-hour-day—this artificial day—into four divisions of three hours each—from six to nine, from nine to twelve, from twelve to three, and from three to six. It is beyond question that the New Testament writers recognized and used this Jewish division of time. Peter speaks of the "third hour of the day" (Acts 2:15), and Matthew, Mark, and Luke use the expression, "from the sixth hour . . . unto the ninth hour" (Matthew 27:45; Matthew 15:33; Luke 23:44). In writing Acts, Luke recognized this way of counting time also, for he speaks of the ninth hour, or hour of prayer in the Jewish temple. (Acts 3:1) There seems to be no reason for supposing that the New Testament ever recognized the Roman manner of counting time. When the writers speak of the first day of the week as dawning or use the expression, "upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning" (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), we must remember that they are talking of the artificial day. the daylight part of the twenty- four-hour day, and not the astronomical day itself. The expression, "in the end of the sabbath," in Matthew, should be translated "after the sabbath." On this the scholars are pretty well agreed, and that is just what Mark says. It would have been "after the sabbath" even if Matthew had reckoned the day according to the Roman count, and closed it at midnight.

2. What Time Was the Troas Meeting? In the twentieth chapter of Acts we are told that the disciples at Troas came together upon the first day of the week to break bread. It is plainly shown that this was a night meeting, yet it was the "first day of the week." Now, if Luke, the writer, reckoned time according to the Jewish count, this was on Saturday night as we count time. The Sabbath closed and the Lord’s day began at sunset. Is there anything at all in the circum­stances that would indicate that Luke did not use the Jewish count? Nothing at all; rather the reverse. Some suppose that what is said about departing "on the morrow" would indicate the Roman hour of beginning the day. They met on the "first day," and Paul was to depart on the second day, not on the same day—the daylight part of the first day. This is true, if "the morrow" means the second day. But it does not mean the morrow after the astronomical day —the day after the first day. It obviously means the day following this night. All we need to do in order to understand this is to keep in mind the second definition of the word "day." Remember the twelve-hour day—the distinction between day and night. With this expression understood, there is no reason at all to suppose that Luke used the Roman method of counting time here—which he never did anywhere else. On the other hand, if we do understand this passage to be reckoned on the Roman method and think of this as Sunday night, we will have the disciples partaking of the Lord’s Supper on Monday morning, for it was long after midnight when they broke bread. (Verse 11.) In order to escape this difficulty, those who think this was Sunday night say that this verse refers to a common meal and not the Lord’s Supper. But if we put the article before the word "bread" as it is in the Greek, we are forced to conclude that this was the Lord’s Supper. In verse 7 we are told that they came together to break bread, and in verse 11 we are told that after the interruption they came to the upper chamber again and broke the bread—ton arton. This being the Lord’s Supper, we have no choice but to say that the meeting was held on Saturday night and that they had the Supper early on Sun­day morning, or that the meeting was held on Sunday night and that they ate the Supper early on Monday morning. We will hardly take this last-mentioned choice. Then this Troas meeting was held on Saturday night, the first day of the week having begun at sunset. This is the position taken by nearly all the commentators. See Conybeare and Howson, McGarvey, B. W. Johnson, etc.

If our brethren think they have to work on the Lord’s day, but still want to try to partake of the Lord’s Supper, they should arrange a meeting on Saturday night and thus worship on the firs t day o f the week instead of meeting on Sunday night and thus worshiping upon the second day of the week. But the way to be infallibly safe is to worship at some hour between midnight Saturday night—the Roman hour of beginning the day—and sunset Sunday night—the Bible hour of closing the day. Any hour within that period is the first day of the week, according to both counts. If brethren have to work, let them arrange an early-morning service on the Lord’s day—before their work hour. THE BEGINNING OF THE LORD’S DAY—A LETTER Mr. G. C. Brewer, Memphis, Tennessee.—Dear Brother: In the Gospel Advocate, November 17, 1932, page 1226, you say: "Throughout the Bible—both the Old and the New Testament— so far as we are able to judge, the day was reckoned from ’even unto even.’ " The quotation you give for the strict command to observe the day from even until even (Leviticus 23:32) is for the day of atonement, which may or may not be the seventh-day Sabbath. In Exodus 12:5-18 Israel is commanded to kill and eat the passover on the even of the fourteenth, which they did; at midnight the Lord smote the first-born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29); Pharaoh ordered them to leave Egypt that night (Exodus 12:31); and they left that night (Exodus 12:42; Deuteronomy 16:1). Numbers 33:3 says that they left on the fifteenth. Before midnight it was the fourteenth; after midnight it was the fifteenth. Had the count from even until even been strictly observed, it would have been the fourteenth from the killing of the passover until the even of the next day. It was at this season that Christ was crucified. He rested in the grave the Sabbath day, and his followers prepared spices beforehand for embalming his body and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. (Luke 23:56)

"In the end of the sabbath" (Matthew 28:1)—"Opse Sabbaton, late in the sabbath—that is, after or at the end of the sabbath" (Greenfield’s Greek Lexicon)—as it was dawning into the first day of the week, the women who had prepared the spices and had rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment started to the sepulcher. "In the end of the sabbath," "after the sabbath," "at the end of the sabbath" mean the same thing. The Sabbath ended at the dawn of the first day and the dawn was the beginning of the day, which, when fully come, was the first day of the week. Christ rose early on the first day of the week, before sunrise. (Matthew 16:1, Matthew 16:9) Luke 24:1-53 and John 20:1-31 record the events of this first day and the evening following. John 20:19 calls the evening following the first day the evening of the first day of the week. Not Saturday night, but Sunday night, is God’s recorded count. So, Matthew 28:1 and John 20:19 contain God’s count of what constitutes Christianity’s sacred day. God charges us to preach the word. (2 Timothy 4:1-2) And with this plain word before me, I could preach nothing else than dawn marks the end of the Sabbath and the beginning of the first day of the week, and the night following is the night of the first day of the week. This accords with the account of the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:1) When the day was "fully come," they were assembled at one place, and (Acts 2:15) after the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the assembling of the multitude and hearing them speak in all the tongues of the earth, Peter says, "It is but the third hour of the day," showing that Pentecost began with the light of that day. It is in accord with Acts 20:7-11. They met on the first day of the week to break bread, and, in the absence of any statement to the con­trary, we conclude that they did what they met to do. Paul preached and the meeting continued until midnight Sunday night. At mid­night Eutychus fell out of a window and killed himself. Paul brought him to life. And while the excitement was quieting down, he broke bread, and as he alone is named, we conclude that he alone ate, and having refreshed himself, he continued his speaking till daybreak, the beginning of Monday. Every other passage in the New Testament harmonizes with the obvious teaching of these passages. To have them meeting Saturday night conflicts with all the passages I have quoted from the New Testament about the first day, and it also has Paul traveling all day Sunday. (Revelation 1:10) At South Solon, Ohio, this summer the disciples met in an upper room on the first day of the week to break bread and they broke bread as they met to do. I spoke till dinnertime. They had brought food for all who should come, and we ate dinner. Then I spoke in the afternoon. Five confessed Christ. We went to a creek and had service there and baptized them. We returned to the hall and had supper, and I spoke until nine o’clock Sunday night. Had I been the apostle Paul, am satisfied the audience would have gladly remained till daybreak Monday. But I would have wanted to break bread by midnight to give me strength to continue speaking till daybreak.

Again you say: "But if we put the article before the word ’bread,’ as it is in the Greek, we are forced to conclude that this was the Lord’s Supper." I have two differently edited Greek Testa­ments, and neither of them has the article before "bread." Acts 20:7, "klasas arton"; 11 , "klasas arton." Luke 24:35 has "en ta klasai tou artou" in the breaking of the bread. According to your exegesis, we are forced to conclude that this was the Lord’s Supper, which could not be so, for Jesus said in instituting the supper (Matthew 26:9; Matthew 14:25; Luke 22:18) that he would not drink of it again till the kingdom come, and the kingdom had not come yet. So it could not refer to the Lord’s Supper, but to a common meal, yet it has the article before "bread." It is the context and not the article that determines whether it is a common meal or the Lord’s Supper, according to these passages. In Acts 20:7 the context shows that the whole church met to break bread as a religious act; Acts 20:11 says nothing about any but Paul breaking bread, which makes it a common meal.

Brother, this is the position the Bible takes on the beginning and ending of the Lord’s day, and I consider it more valuable in settling questions than all that sectarian and "progressive" commentators may say on the subject. May I hope that you will let the readers of the Gospel Advocate see this. Thanking you in advance, I am, Yours sincerely, J. MADISON WRIGHT.

2 8 1 6 Osceola Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, November 2 8 , 1 9 3 2.

REPLY TO BROTHER WRIGHT In last week’s issue Brother J. Madison Wright takes us to task in approved manner for saying that in Bible usage the day was reckoned to begin at sunset.

Now, as to the beginning of the day, Brother Wright is the only man we ever heard of who disputed the fact that the Jews reckoned the day "from even unto even." We have consulted more than a dozen encyclopedias, Bible dic­tionaries and commentaries, including the Jewish Encyclo­pedia, and they all without exception say that the day was reckoned from even until even. Moreover, the Jews now keep up the custom and begin their Sabbath at sunset Friday and observe it until sunset Saturday. Likewise the Seventh- Day Adventists begin and close the Sabbath. But the Bible itself leaves no room for doubt on this point, and the law concerning the Passover fixes the time, if there were no other proof. Our brother cites the fact that they killed the lamb on the fourteenth at evening; they were to eat it that night, leaving nothing until morning; at mid­night the first-born were slain; Pharaoh thrust the people out and they left before daylight—at night (Deuteronomy 16:1)— yet they left Egypt on thefifteent h (Numbers 33:3). This proves beyond question that the day began before dawn or daylight. Our brother recognizes this and said the new day began at midnight; but where did he learn that? Why not say the new day began at nightfall? This is the exact truth. Let those who wish to know the certainty consider this: They were to kill the lamb at even, or "between the two evenings" (margin, Exodus 12:6), on the fourteenth day of the first month. "Between the two evenings" means between sunset and darkness. That is when the lamb was slain; but the feast proper began on the fifteenth at even—that is, just at the close of the fourteenth day. Read this: "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses." (Exodus 12:18-19) Now it must be perfectly obvious to all that the fourteenth day was not counted in these seven days at all, for that would make eight days. Moreover, the fifteenth day is repeatedly called the first day of the feast. (Exodus 12:15-17) Then the firs t day began at even—at the close of the fourteenth—and the seventh day closed at even of the twenty-first day. Thus we see that the days were reckoned "from even unto even." Seven full days were kept, beginning at nightfall on the fourteenth, which was the beginning of the fifteenth day of the month— the first day of the feast—and closing at nightfall on the twenty-first.

Luke shows us when the Sabbath began. He says that Christ died about the ninth hour, which was three o’clock, and they buried him before the day was done. However, it was running near the close of the day. Notice: "And it was the day of the Preparation, and the sabbath drew on" —or, margin, "began to dawn." (Luke 23:54) The word for "began to dawn" here is exactly the same word that is used in Matthew 28:1. It means "to light up." In Matthew it means, of course, that the day was breaking, or that the daylight part of the day was beginning. In our former article the contrast between day and night was illustrated and the twelve hours of the day (John 11:9), shown to begin at six o’clock in the morning, and Peter’s "third hour of the day" cited. All this Brother Wright ignores. But what was it that was "lighting up" or "dawning" at the close of the day, according to Luke? On this Adam Clarke says: "The Sabbath was lighting up—that is with the candles which the Jews light just before six in the evening, when the Sabbath commences." He quotes Wakefield and Lightfoot to the same effect. However you construe the word, the fact remains that Luke says the Sabbath was dawning or beginning as they placed the body of our Lord in the tomb.

The brother cites some passages where the article is used before the word "bread" and says that that bread is certainly not the Lord’s Supper! Shades of logic! Could he possibly think that anyone would contend that the article itself determines the bread referred to? The point was that since bread was mentioned in the context (Acts 20:7), and this, as all admit, was the Lord’s Supper, and no other bread was contemplated in the passage, then "the bread" in Acts 20:11 would naturally refer to the bread just previously mentioned. If we allow the context to explain what bread is intended, we can have no doubt about its being the Lord’s Supper.