Old Paths Advocate Volume 6 Number 3

G. C. Brewer’s Review of “The Cup of the Lord”

Answered by J. D. Phillips - Number 3

“4. How Did Our Lord Give the Fruit of the Vine to the Disciples? Did our Lord hand the literal vessel to each disciple and tell him to take a drink out of this vessel, or did he pour a portion of the contents of that vessel into each disciple's individual cup and tell him to drink? Of course, the “one-cup” brother just thinks he knows that Jesus passed the same literal cup to each disciple and told him to drink out of it. But he does not know any; such thing. The one-cup hobbyist just assumes that it was done that way and then affirms with all the assurance and vengeance of his capacity that we must do the same thing in the same way now! It is a pity to ruin his cock-sureness, but he has run out of bounds by making his assumption a law and by attempting to force all to obey it. He must be brought down.”
 
The Inspired Record says He gave them “poteerion, a cup, a drinking vessel,” and told them to drink out of it. The professor of Greek in De Paw University, located at Greencastle, Indiana, says Piete ek autou pantes, of Matthew 26:27, which reads “Drink ye all of it” in the King James Version, should read, “You must all drink out of it.” The Emphatic Diaglott reads, “Drink all of you out of it.”
 
He did not “pour a portion of the contents of that vessel into each disciple’s individual cup,” as Bro. Brewer suggests might have been the case. We know that one vessel was there and that it was a drinking vessel - “poteerion, a cup, a drinking vessel” (Thayer). The idea that more than one vessel was there is an assumption - nothing more. And those who use more than one cup have nothing but this assumption as a foundation, and thus they “become wise above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6) - a thing that is fearfully condemned. And when you make your “assumption a law” as the cups advocates have been doing, you certainly “run out of bounds with your assumption.” If I “must be brought down,” as you say; why do you not put up a little proof of your cups contention, and thus bring me “down”? Yes, why? Is it because you know there is no such proof? Yes. Like the Irishman’s flea: “When you go to ketch ’im he ain’t thar.”
 
“The New Testament does not say how this cup was distributed among the disciples. We know that they all drank of the contents of one cup, or vessel, but that they all drank out of this one vessel is an assumption that is baseless. The guests at my table drank water from the same pitcher and coffee from the same pot today. “Pitcher” and “pot” are both singular; There was one pitcher and one pot. Now, will the reader assume that each guest drank out of the same vessel? That would be just as logical, just as sane, as to assume that all the disciples drank out of the same literal vessel from which Christ gave them the fruit of the vine. Our hostess gave us each of the pitcher to drink. She poured some of the contents into a separate glass for each individual. There is not a man living who can prove that Christ did not do the same thing at the Passover and at the Lord’s Supper. There is more evidence that He did than that He did not.”
 
“The New Testament” does “say how this cup was distributed among the disciples,” your statement to the contrary notwithstanding. It says, “And they all drank of (Greek: ek, out of) it” (Mark 14:23). See The Emphatic Diaglott, by Wilson. See Thayer, articles pino and ek.
 
And when the Lord commanded them, saying, “You must all drink out of it” (Matthew 26:27), He told them how to “divide” the contents of “the cup.” Thayer says, “the cup” here is “the vessel out of which one drinks,” All the scholars quoted in the tract under review say it is used literally. Robert H. Pfeiffer, curator The Semitic Museum, Harvard University, says, “Ek means ‘out of.’ Matthew 26:27 has a literal meaning (drinking out of a cup).”
 
“Illustration: In Luke 22:17-18 we read: “And he received a cup (poteerion, a cup, a drinking vessel), and when He had given thanks, He said, Take this (this cup, poteerion, drinking vessel), and divide it among yourselves.” This was the Passover cup, to be sure; but the point is: How was the cup divided among them? Did they divide the literal vessel by cutting it into fragments or by grinding it into powder as Moses did the golden calf? Of course, no one, not even J. D. Phillips, will contend that they divided the material cup. But they did divide the cup (poteerion) in some way. They divided the contents, of course. But how did they do this unless each disciple had a cup or glass into which his portion was poured? How did each get his portion when it was divided? They were still at the same table with the same vessels and the same loaf and same fruit of the vine when the sacred supper was instituted. If the content of the Passover cup was given to them in their individual cups, how do we know that the content of the Lord’s Supper cup was not given to them in the same way? We do not know.
 
Thayer says, “Pino ek with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks, ek (out of) tou (the) poteeriou (cup)” (Lexicon, p. 510), citing 1 Corinthians 11:28, “Let him drink out of the cup,” as an example.
 
All the scholars quoted in my tract uphold the idea that each disciple present was commanded to drink out of the same cup (Matthew 26:27) and that each did drink out of the same cup (Mark 14:23). Each drank out of the one cup, as commanded; and this is how they “divided” the cup “among themselves.” The Living Oracles N. T. and the Twentieth Century N. T. read: “share it among you.” The lexicons uphold this rendering, the Greek word for “divide” being diamerisate, “share you.”
 
In the time of our Lord it was the custom of the Jews in any religious gathering to all drink out of the same cup. This can be learned from any Jewish literature of that age that deals with Jewish customs. The Jews, in observing the Passover, used four, and sometimes five, cups, at intervals; but each guest drank from each cup. Our Lord used one cup in the communion, at its institution, and all were commanded to drink out of it, and all drank out of it.
 
Your whole contention that individual cups, or even two or more cups, may have been used in the institution of the communion, rests on an “if.” We know one cup was used. You do not know that more than one cup was used. And since “We do not know,” as you admit, why do you not accept the way that everyone knows is safe, and thus do your part to heal the wound caused in our Lord’s body, the church, by the introduction of cups? I had rather be the man that pierced Christ’s side, while He was on the Cross, than the one who tears asunder His spiritual body, the church, by his humanisms.
 
It is not true that 1000 persons drink coffee, or soup, out of the same drinking vessel, and that is what we have agreed that poteerion means.
 
Yes, they drank “water from the same pitcher, and coffee from the same pot.” But your guests never - not one of them - drank out of the pitcher, nor did any drink out of the pot. “Must one put his lips to a cup to drink out of it?” This was put to the Lexicographer of The New Standard Dictionary. He answered: “Certainly, one must put one’s lips to a cup to drink out of a cup.”
 
The New Testament does “say how they divided the contents the cup,” as I have shown. The “fruit of the vine” was in a cup when He told them to drink it. And He said, “You must all drink of it” (Matthew 26:27). “Of” here is a translation of ek, which means “out of,” and Thayer says, “ek with a genitive of the vessel out of the cup” (Matthew 26:27, Mark 14:23, and 1 Corinthians 11:28), as an example.
 
(In next month’s Old Paths Advocate the preposition, ek, and its grammatical usage will be thoroughly discussed.)

J. D. Phillips
​(Continued)

---

Special Interest

---

Getting the Record Straight

A Reply to Homer A. Gay's "Keeping the Record Straight"

​Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 7

Well Homer you will have to get the record straight before you can keep it straight, and at present you are a long ways off.

When Brother Gay promised an account of the debate, I, knowing that he does not tell the truth, suggested that Phillips and Hayhurst give their own arguments. I felt that this was fair to all parties and would insure a correct report of the debate. However, both Gay and Phillips refused this but agreed that they would be glad to publish my report. So here it comes. We shall see how eager they are to publish it.

Before beginning the report proper I must notice Gay’s misrepresentations of it.

Gay says that after the first session some of Hayhurst’s brethren showed an ugly spirit, etc. Yes Homer, they were my brethren, but they were on your side of the question! One of them came threatening to expose me. Had his representative done a satisfactory job of exposing me, this little episode had not occurred. Again, one of my brethren got up and harangued me before the crowd, and when I offered to shake hands with him he refused before the audience. This is but a sample of what happened there, but it is enough to indicate the cup of which they had been drinking. And too, it shows who manifested an ugly spirit, and who tried to help their man.

Among those whom I was told argued their side were Homer Gay and Ira Grantham, and Gay is still at it putting things in his paper that never happened!

In one article, short article, I find misrepresentations. His first statement that H. O. Freeman started the church at Eola is more false than true, for Perry Johnson had as much to do with it as did Freeman, and other members had a hand. His last statement (to date) that Phillips made about two arguments to Hayhurst’s one is as false as any ever made in Eden or out.
 
Gay’s report of the preachers is, untrue. He gives as one of the preachers present W. H. Gill. Is brother Gill a preacher? Ask the people of Eola. But F. R. Keele is a preacher of considerable note, one who has held meetings with such men as D. D. Rose, one of the most outstanding brethren of this part of the country, and he was at the debate but Gay leaves his name off of the list. Does somebody say he overlooked brother Keele? Well, if he cannot see a fact as big as a man, how can he be expected to see an argument?
 
Gay tells his readers that Hayhurst said it would take a loaf 20 feet square to wait on 3000 people. This is one of Gay’s big windys; Hayhurst said nothing of the Kind. And that Barrel of wine is one of Gay’s inventions trying to help Phillips out. Neither did Hayhurst leave Jerusalem. The first time I meet Homer on this subject (Homer doesn’t meet us in debate; he is a “Gouger” working on the side) I shall meet him in Jerusalem. And he will have to admit that the Jerusalem congregation had a plurality of drinking cups, or he will have them drinking out of that barrel that, he has told you about. If he admits a plurality of cups for the Jerusalem church, he has admitted a plurality for all other large churches, and lost his plea for the unity of the one cup.
 
Since Homer is making a test of fellowship of this matter, we are forced to debate it, and if he ever gets up courage enough to meet us, any of us, he will find us camped in Jerusalem, and with the Bible as proof.

​L. W. Hayhurst

Reply to L. W. Hayhurst

It is against the policy of this paper to publish such harsh, ugly statements as brother Hayhurst’s article contains; but, that the readers of the O. P. A. may see the spirit upon which the cups advocates thrive, we have published Bro. Hayhurst’s article just as it came from his hand and heart.
 
Hayhurst “knows that Gay does not tell the truth.” I am sure our readers appreciate that information from Hayhurst. Bro. Hayhurst CAN tell the truth, for in his entire article I manage to find ONE true statement, and I shall not overlook that one.
 
He did not realize what a blotch he was making out of the debate until he began to see it in print, and you can see by his article that he is suffering.
 
Bro. Hayhurst. and everyone who were present knows that he did NOT suggest that he and Phillips. should report their arguments. But Hayhurst. would have it that Phillips and I would not allow Phillips to report but would be glad for Hayhurst to report - you were “seeing things” weren’t you, Ikey? The truth of the matter is Phillips challenged you to repeat the debate with him in writing, but you laid down under his challenge, and you know it, and that challenge is still hanging over your head.
 
Among those who manifested a bad spirit just after the first session were two of Ikey’s main standbys and I can name them. I know nothing of any one “threatening to expose Ikey,” however there is plenty of “exposing” that could be done besides on the cup question. Yes, one of my brethren “harangued” you after you had slander­ously accused a good brother of being withdrawn from, and then tried to keep him from making his defense, and that brother of mine tried to borrow your Bible, and you would not let him have it. Then you offered to shake hands with him but would not say on what you wished to shake.
 
“I was told that Gay and Grantham argued the Cup question” - You KNEW that we argued the question without being told. We have both argued it for years.
 
“I was told” seems to be a star witness with Ikey. “I was told” that Bro. Hayhurst looked like a country kid in the second grade as compared to Phillips. “I was told” by W. S. Boyett, (a Sunday School and cups preacher), and a number of others that the debate was too one-sided to be interesting; that Phillips made any way two arguments to Hayhurst’s one.
 
You could have saved those “nine misrepresentations” if you had just had the “courage” to meet Doug in a written debate. It is much easier to say some things than it is to prove them. Why didn’t you give some proof?
 
Everybody around Eola (except the members of the church of Christ who are withdrawn from) will tell you that H. O. Freeman started the church in Eola.
 
And, now, here is his ONE true statement: “F. R. Keele is a preacher, and I left out his name when I named the preachers present.” By some means I or the printer left out Bro. Keele and also Van Bonneau. But Bro. Keele is A one cup man and told me at the close of the debate that he was well pleased with the defense Phillips. had made.
 
As to Bro. Gill being a preacher I am willing for the people of Eola or anywhere Bro. Gill has lived for the past 40 years to say whether he is a preacher. Although Ikey hates Bro. Gill worse than he does a rattle snake; yet he does not hate him half as bad as he DREADS him.
 
Now notice his statement - “Gay tells his readers that Hayhurst said it would take a loaf 20 feet square to wait on three thousand people.” This is a fair sample of Hayhurst’s truthfulness and correctness (?). Phillips showed that Hayhurst’s Jerusalem crowd was too big for him. They had 3000, then 5000 more; and that history states there were at one time 30,000 Christians in Jerusalem. And Hayhurst. contended they all met together to “break bread.” Now get your November issue of the O.P.A. and look with me on page 6. “Phillips showed that the Bible says they “broke bread from house to house’” (Acts 2:46) - He further showed that Hayhurst’s Jerusalem assembly would have to have a 30 gallon cup to contain the wine while thanks are given and a loaf about ten feet square.”
 
“Does somebody say he over-looked this?” Well, if he cannot see the difference between a loaf “ten feet square” and a loaf “twenty feet square,” “how can he be expected to see an argument.” Now talk about somebody’s “big windy,” will you? Everybody knows they had a big crowd at Jerusalem, but did they ever all meet in one body to “break bread?” And if they did, did they use more than one cup? Give us the Bible before you ask us to believe it. The Bible says they “broke bread from house to house,” (Acts 2:46).
 
He has much to say about “Homer doesn’t meet us in debate,” and “if I ever get to meet Homer,” etc., etc. Now, that comes with bad grace from a man who admitted publicly at Eola that he had been running from Doug Phillips for two years.
 
Bro. Hayhurst, Dad used to tell me there was no use to feed old Grey as long as she had plenty of corn in her trough. Now, you still have “plenty of corn” with Phillips’ challenge hanging over your head. Take care of Phillips and then ask for someone else. But, if you are willing to admit that Phillips is just too much for you and you want somebody nearer your size, I’m your buddy, and you will not have to chase me to Jerusalem to catch me either. You will find me camped at Eola, Concho Co. Tex. U.S.A., and the Bible will still read, “they broke bread from house to house,” and “they all drank of it.”
 
Now, Bro. Hayhurst, we have given space for your “big windy” article, and if you want the folks to have some more of your “twenty feet square’s” etc., just open up the columns of the Apostolic Way or the Church Messenger, and the O.P.A. guarantees you equal space.
 
This is but a sample of what happened at the debate, but it is enough to indicate the cup of which Hayhurst has been drinking.

​Yours for the whole truth,
Homer A. Gay

A Written Discussion

In the April issue of this paper we expect to publish a discussion on the wine question by Brethren H. C. Harper and A. J. Trail. All or about all of one issue will be given to the discussion. These good brethren have agreed to pay for this that you may get it all together, and too, it will get it out of the way for other important matters. We have much copy in the office for publication, and we ask all the writers to be patient, leaving it to us to select the time to use your articles.

​H. L. K.

---

Articles

---

The Name “Christian

In the “Leader” of October 8, 1929, appears the following from the pen of Bro. F. L. Rowe.
 
“Mr. Edison married a devout Methodist girl. Her father was the leader in the big Methodist Church in Akron, Ohio. She was a member of my class in high school in good old Akron. She was graduated a year ahead so that she could marry Mr. Edison, who was twenty years or more her senior. She was a very excellent Christian girl.”
 
If I understand the teaching of the Book, the name “Christian,” is a name that belongs exclusively to the members of Christ, who are the “Children of God.” The name “Christian” is derived from Christ, and expresses kinship to Christ. Since no one is a child of God until they have been “adopted” into the family of God, it follows that only the children of God can establish their claim to kinship to Christ. Hence there is only one class of people on Earth who have a Scriptural right to wear the name “Christian.”
 
“Even unto them, will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. - Isaiah 56:5.
 
“And thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.” - Isaiah 62:2.
 
These passages teach us that God proposed to call his followers by a “new name”; one by which they had never been called; one “better than of sons and of daughters” and an “everlasting name.”
 
“And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” - Acts 11:26.
 
The name “Christian” appears but three times in the entire Scriptures. The above passage contains the first mention of this name, and beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is the “New Name,” by which the children of God were to be called. Regardless of all claims to the contrary, none but the children of God have a legitimate right to the name “Christian”; and none but the true followers of God have a divine right to apply this name to themselves.
 
The next mention of this name is found in Acts 26:28. “Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Paul replied: “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am except these bonds.”
 
Who was Paul? An apostle, a preacher of Christ. What was he? A Christian. What was he doing? Though bound with chains, and being on trial for his life, he was evidently trying to persuade King Agrippa and others who were present, to become Christians.
 
“Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”
 
Who is a Christian? A Christian is one who knows Christ, and who loves him, and obeys him, who loves what he loves, and hates what he hates, who follows in his steps, who is related to him by adoption into the family of God, who wears his name, who loves his Church, supports his cause, and denies himself and follows on, day and night - through joys and sorrows, - hopes and fears, - smiles and tears.
 
Agrippa did not take the step that would have made him a Christian.
 
He rejected the only “way” in which any one can become a Christian.
 
No one, not even a King can be a Christian until they have been “adopted” into the family of God. And no one can become a member of God’s family until they “repent,” “confess,” and are “baptized for the remission of sins.” “Buried with Christ by baptism into his death, and raised to walk in newness of life.” Then, and not till then is one a Christian. Then, and not till then does one have a divine right to wear the “New Name.”
 
The third and last place the name “Christian” is mentioned is in 1 Peter 4:16.
 
“But if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this .name.” Look! Who is that man standing before King Agrippa? “Paul the aged.” Look again. He is bound with chains. Look closer. He shows evidence of hardship, toil, trouble and persecutions. What is he doing? Glorifying God as a Christian. Fearlessly he stands before the great King Agrippa and his courtiers. Though bound, he was not ashamed. Humiliated though he was, he boldly stood before them all and preached the gospel of Christ; with such eloquence and power, that Agrippa said, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”
 
Sooner or later both those who are Christians and those who are not, will have to face the Great Judge.
 
What will you do my friends, when you stand in the presence of the Almighty God, with the guilty knowledge that you have never complied with the gospel requirements that would entitle you to wear the “New Name.”
 
Hear the Lord of Heaven: “Him that overecometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon Him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of Heaven from my God: And I will write upon him my new name.” - Revelation 3:12.
 
Dear friends, you are here today; tomorrow you may be in “torment.” Today your eyes behold the beauties of the natural world; tomorrow you may open them on the awful mysteries of Eternity. Today you hear the voices of this world; tomorrow you may hear the despairing cries of the damned. Today your heart is alive to the joys and sorrows of this life; tomorrow it may be in the icy grip of death.

“Almost persuaded, Jesus is near,
Almost persuaded, Sinner do you hear?
Almost persuaded, Harvest is past,
Almost persuaded, Doom comes at last!”

Ira B. Kile

Purity of Life

“Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man can see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). All who have put on Christ, and have tried to live a Christian life really understand what a task it is, but if we serve God, we must “lay aside every weight and the sin that doth so easily beset us” (Hebrews 12:1).
 
I know that we are living in a time of much evil, and there are many temptations to allure the minds of both old and young, hence we must follow closely our Guide lest we go astray. Brethren, I now wish to state some plain facts. Our trouble is in the main with the older members of the church. When fathers and mothers will visit places that are questionable or unbecoming for Christians, conducted by worldly people, they are leading the younger ones into sin. Shame! We even hear members of the church talk about being at such places with their children, and then contend that it is all right just because they were there, thereby adding sin to sin. Just because members of the church attend such places, or engage in some things, does not make such right. Instead of that making the thing right, it only causes the church member to become “spotted,” and God will take vengeance on all such. Hear James, “And to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). It must be admitted that we cannot keep ourselves “unspotted” from the world while we indulge in the things of the world, or live like the world. If the church would follow the things of the Spirit, the cause would grow.
 
Son or daughter may be invited to the wrong places, and what shall we do about it? “Oh, just take them along,” says one. Yes, and then all will do wrong. Better read, 1 John 2:15-17, Galatians 5:19-21, and Galatians 6:7-8; and then explain what the “world,” as here mentioned, is.
 
The proper thing to do, if we should get lonesome and want to go somewhere, is to visit in some Christian home where we may sing and study the Bible, or talk of spiritual things. In this way we may keep ourselves pure. The Christian life is a life of activity and service, and remember that Paul says, “It is appointed unto man once to die, and after death the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). May we let our lights shine.

E. H. Cavin

Clippings and Comments

A few who are standing for “the Faith of the Gospel” have not yet “passed on.” And to read the following from the pen of Brother C. M. Pullias in the Gospel Advocate of January 12, 1933, under the title “The Spirit of Christ,” makes one think of the spirit of the early preachers of the “Restoration,” when preachers “shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God.” There is very little of “the spirit of Christ” in the pulpit or in the pew today. As one says, “The pastor, who is apparently in perfectly good humor with the devil, and the devil with him, virtually advises the young people to ‘put the love of God in your heart and sin all you want to’.” Again: “The church has just raised the white flag and surrendered to the devil, that’s all.”

“The Spirit of Christ”

“The Spirit of Christ is the most talked of and the least understood of almost any Bible subject. It is usually understood to mean to compromise with error and contend for nothing - either to agree with everybody and everything or be quiet and take no issue.
 
“Christ was the greatest controversialist that ever lived. He never allowed an error to pass unchallenged if it had anything to do with human life and destiny. He never waited to be challenged; He challenged. And yet there are those who think a man is not Christlike who would, challenge anybody in error today. But those who have the Spirit of Christ are never too timid to oppose error and condemn those who teach it. The Spirit of Christ will tolerate no innovation and wink at no sin. The Spirit of Christ clings tenaciously to things that are written. When Christ was tempted of the devil in the wilderness, He met every temptation with “It is written.”
 
“To do anything in religion without Bible authority is not the Spirit of Christ. People are led by the Spirit only as they mind the things of the Spirit, and the things of the Spirit are those things the Spirit reveals in the Bible. To do anything the Spirit, does not teach is, not being led by the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ is manifestly lacking in any case where the work, and worship of the church is not according to the things written in the New Testament. It is not “progression” to deviate from the work and worship of the church, as revealed in the New Testament.”

Comments

Brethren (and this includes preachers) who prate about “the spirit of Christ” as a refuge to keep from meeting the errors of their “innovations” on the “work and worship of the church as revealed in the New Testament,” or who are led by the influence of such innovators to talk “the spirit of Christ” to keep those who are standing for “the Faith of the Gospel” from bombarding the strongholds of Satan held by such innovators are, in fact, “enemies” to the cause they profess to champion. They make “peace” a refuge of lies and a boost for the devil. Satan will rage when his armor is pierced or his strongholds demolished, and we may expect him to resort to every means attainable to have the darts of truth and “the sword of the Spirit” parried or stopped; and he succeeds quite well in getting some “loyal” brother to let the brethren know that brother so-and-so has the truth and he does not fail to tell it—but—well—but—“He just hain’t got the spirit of Christ, and we better get Brother Blarney or Brother Compromise or Brother Sweetspirit to preach.
 
When we started the Apostolic Way twenty years ago, we realized, as Brother Trott expressed it, that we had “a Herculean task of cleaning the Augean Stables.” But soon Brother Sweetspirit and Brother Compromise and Brother. Hypocrite —yes, and Brother “Spirit-of-Christ,” turned the filth right back into the stables while others were turning it out.

H. C. Harper

The Time of the Lord’s Day

Four counts of time may be found in the Bible, from noon to noon, from midnight to midnight, from evening to evening, from daybreak to daybreak. Only with the last one are we concerned. In changing from the Sabbath to the Lord’s day we have this explanation in the gospel: Christ crucified rested, the last Sabbath day kept by the command of God, in the grave, and His followers prepared spices and ointments 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), “When the Sabbath was past” (Mark 16:1); the Revised Version has “late” and “after,” which two versions are harmonized thus in Greenfield’s Greek Lexicon, “Opse Sabbaton,” late in the Sabbath, i.e. “after or at the end of the Sabbath,” making it clear that it must be after the Sabbath before the first day can begin else two days the seventh and first would be going on at the same time, hence the harmonized Version read, “At the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn into the first day of the week” the women started for the sepulchre (Matthew 28:1), when it was yet dark (John 20:1), and arrived there at the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2), the word “came” in the original including both the starting and the arriving. Sometime between dawn into the day, daybreak, and the rising of the sun, the angel descended from heaven, rolled the stone away, and Jesus arose early the first day of the week (Mark 16:9). It was not the first day till it dawned into the day, and the grave was empty at sunrise, and it is definitely stated that Jesus arose early on the first day of the week. So, all the Scriptures harmonize in making the Sabbath end 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. Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20 record the events of this day and the evening following. John 20:19 calls the, evening following the first day the evening of the first day of the week. This makes Sunday and Sunday night, the first day and the night following, from dawn till dawn Monday, the Lord’s day. 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 evening of the first day of the week.
 
This accords with the account of the day of Pentecost (which was the first day of the week, Leviticus 23:15-16 - counting from the day following the weekly Sabbath of the Passover seven Sabbath days, 49 days, the day following is the first day of the week, the fiftieth day, Pentecost, the Greek word fiftieth). When the day “was fully come” they were assembled at one place, and after the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the assembling of the multitude and hearing them speak in all the tongues of earth, Peter says it is but the third hour of the day, showing that Pentecost began with the light of that day. (Acts 2:1-15).
 
It is in accord with Acts 20:7-11. They met on the first day of the week to break bread, which could not have been before dawn and be on the first day of the week, and, in the absence of any statement to the contrary we conclude they did what they met to do. Paul preached, and the meeting continued till 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.
 
At South Solon, Ohio, this Summer, the disciple 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 dinner time. 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 till 9 o’clock that night - the night of the first day of the week - Sunday night. Had I been the apostle Paul, and they knew they would see my face no more, I am satisfied the audience would have gladly remained till daybreak, Monday. But I would have wished to break bread by midnight to give me strength to continue speaking till daybreak. This is almost a duplicate of Acts 20:7-11. The whole church met to break bread as a religious act, hence to eat the Lord’s Supper. Verse 11 says nothing about any but Paul breaking bread, which makes it a common meal. The above is the position the gospel takes on the time of the Lord’s day.

J. Madison Wright