 |  |
In John 20: 1 this was the fourth day after the crucifixion--`The Lord's Passover'
Cp. Ap. 156. This was by Divine ordering. But in A.D.57 it was twelve days after the
week of unleavened bread, and therefore more than a fortnight later than in A.D.29."
The reader may feel that there is a weak point in this argument, for there is no
evidence given for the "twelve days" that this view necessitates. Those who regard "the
first day of the week" as referring to Sunday, draw attention to the fact that if we assume
this day to be the Sabbath, then, as this day begins at sunset, by traveling at day-break
Paul would have been traveling on the Sabbath. This would not have been likely in view
of the Jews' bitter opposition to his teaching, and the Apostle's conciliatory attitude at
Jerusalem a few weeks later (Acts 21: 21-24). It is also a point worth considering that if
we translate Sabbaton and Sabbata as "Sabbath" and "Sabbath day", then there is no
word for "week" in the New Testament, which seems rather unlikely.
If we were not called under the dispensation of the Mystery, we should feel obliged to
devote considerable space and time to this subject, but as the question of the observance
of any particular day, be it a Sabbath, or the first day of the week, belongs only to those
of other callings, we feel that we can safely leave the matter without further investigation.
The same remark applies to the expression that meets us in Acts 20: 7: "to break bread."
We have already realized on other and fundamental grounds, that the observance of a
New Covenant memorial feast has no place in the dispensation of the Mystery, and we
are therefore not personally concerned with the question as to whether these believers at
Troas met to keep the Lord's supper, or whether, as in Acts 27: 33-35, the words
simply indicate an ordinary meal. We have already written fairly fully on this debatable
subject, and we trust, therefore, that we shall not be discharged with seeking to evade the
issue, if we say no more about it here.
The Apostle's speech referred to in verse 7 (Acts 20:) lasted until midnight, and we
read that a "certain young man named Eutychus . . . . . fell down from the third loft, and
was taken up dead". The fact that even such a speaker as the Apostle could have at least
one member of his congregation overcome with sleep sounds a very human note. The
wording of verse 9 reads like the record of an eye-witness. First, the young man sinks
into drowsiness ("being fallen into a deep sleep") and then, having been overpowered
("entirely relaxed by sleep"), he falls from the third loft where he had been sitting, and is
"taken up dead". The word translated "dead" is nekros, which is used 18 times in the
Acts and in every other instance without ambiguity. The Apostle immediately descends
to where the young man lies. He does not first reassure the mourning company that the
young man's "life is in him", but at once embraces him, as Elijah and Elisha had done
before him (I Kings 17: 21 and II Kings 4: 34). After "breaking bread" and
continuing his discourse until day break, the Apostle departs.
The structure here brings into correspondence the division of his company and the
waiting of some of them for Paul at Troas, and the division of his company and the
waiting of them all for Paul at Assos.
"And we went before to ship and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul:
for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot" (Acts 20: 13).