The Fourth Commandment

[Dr. Walter]

Actually, as far as the Bible is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody being together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews.

I believe you are wrong in what you say above on several counts. John 20:19 and Acts 20:7 are not the only references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday. In addition to those quotations are John 20:29; Acts 2:1 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2.

You may explain the doors being locked is due to fear but you cannot say the day they chose to gather together was due to fear as that makes no sense, especially when Thomas chooses to assemble with them on the eighth day and their doors are still locked. A.T. Robertson says of the language in John 20:29:

After eight days (mey hmerav oktw). That is the next Sunday evening, on the eighth day in reality just like "after three days" and "on the third day."

Whatever reason you want to ascribe for gathering on the first day of the week in I Cor. 16:1-2 does not change the fact that the Church at Corinth gathered on that day. Unless I am mistaken, giving tithes and offerings has always been a part of public worship (Mal. 3:10) at the house of God.

In Revelation 1:10 John does not say "hamare tou Kurios" which is the familiar eschatalogical "the day of the Lord" but rather "hamare tou kuriakos" or the familiar phrase used by the Emperor of Rome that set apart Sunday to offer incense unto him as "Lord" or the "god/man." This designation is being ascribed to Christ by John just as the same word "kuriakos" in I Corinthians 11:20 is being ascribed to Christ by Paul instead of Ceasar. Early use by Christians concurrent with the writing of the New Testament and immediately after the apostolic period before Constantine demonstrate "the Lord's Day" was the universal designation for the first day of the week, the resurrection day, the eight day or Sunday as all of these designations are used to define "the Lord's Day" by early Christians continously up to 300 A.D.

Ignatius says about A.D. 70 – “Let every one who loves Christ, keep holy the Lord’s Day, the queen of days, the resurrection day, the highest of all days.”
Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp says, “On the Lord’s Day, every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath.”

Barnabas in about A.D. 120 says, “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead”

Justin Martyr in about A.D. 140 says, “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because Jesus Christ, our Savior, on the same day rose again from the dead.”

Theopolis in A.D. 167 says, “Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord’s Day, seeing it was that day, our Lord Jesus Christ, completed the resurrection from the dead.”

Dionysius in A.D. 170 says, “We passed this holy Lord’s Day in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition.”

Dynidions in A.D. 170 says, “We Celebrate only the Lord’s Day.”

Bardesanes in A.D. 180 says, “On one day, the first day of the week, we assemble ourselves together.”

Clement in A.D. 192 says that a Christian “According to the commandment of the gospel, observes the Lord’s Day, thereby glorifying the resurrection.”

Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 194, “He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord’s Day, glorifying the Lord’s resurrection in himself.”

Tertullian in A.D. 200 says, “We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradiction to those who call this day their Sabbath.”

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in A.D. 250 says, “The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, is the Lord’s Day.”

The Apostolical Constitution says in A.D. 250, “On the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently.”

Anatolius in about A.D. 270 says, “The solemn festival of the resurrection of the Lord can only be celebrated on the Lord’s Day.”

Anatolius Bishop of Laodicea in Asia Minor in A.D. 270 says, “Our regard for the Lord’s resurrection which took place on the Lord’s Day will lead us to celebrate it.”

Victorinus in A.D. 300 says, “On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously that on the Lord’s Day we may go forth to our brad with giving of thanks, lest we should appear to observe any other Sabbath with the Jewish, which Sabbath He in His body abolished.”

Peter, Bishop of Alexanderia in A.D. 306 says, “But the Lord’s Day we celebrate as a day of joy because on it he rose again.”

John the Beloved in A.D. 96 says, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day.” – Rev. 1:10

Luke in about A.D. 60 says, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” – Acts 20:7

Mosheim, in Volume one, page 45 says, “In the first century all Christians were unanimous in the setting apart the first day of the week on which the Savior arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship; and it was observed universally as appears from the united testimony of the most credible writers.”

All of the above quotations occur prior to the edict of Constantine concerning Sunday worship. Careful studies of the quotations above show that the “Lord’s Day” is used interchangeable with the “first day of the week” and “Sunday” and “eighth day” and “day of resurrection.”

I have the Ante-Nicene Library on my shelf and have personally verified the accuracy of all the above quotations on three different occasions.

 

[rstrats]

Dr. Walter,

re: "I believe you are wrong in what you say above on several counts. John 20:19 and Acts 20:7 are not the only references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday. In addition to those quotations are John 20:29; Acts 2:1 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2."

John 20:29 says nothing about anyone being together on the first day of the week.


As regards Acts 2:1, the verse is referring to the annual festival of Pentecost and not to a weekly first day gathering.
　
　

re: "After eight days (mey hmerav oktw). That is the next Sunday evening, on the eighth day in reality just like ‘after three days’ and ‘on the third day.’"

But eight days after what day? The scripture doesn’t say. But even if it were referring to eight days after the first day, eight days after would fall on the 2nd day of the week.

There is no reason in this specific instance to conclude that the phrases "after eight days" and "on the eighth day" are synonymous. The reason to conclude that "after three days" and "on the third day" are synonymous is to make them agree with the notion of a 6th day crucifixion/1st day resurrection.
　

　
re: "Whatever reason you want to ascribe for gathering on the first day of the week in I Cor. 16:1-2 does not change the fact that the Church at Corinth gathered on that day."
　
Corinthians 16:1-2 doesn’t say that. The text merely says that everyone should "lay by him in store" on the first day of the week. The Darby Translation reads: "On the first of the week let each of you put by at home, laying up in whatever degree he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come.". The New Swedish and Norwegian Bibles read: "At home by himself." The Lamsa Translation reads: "Let each of you put aside and keep in his house". The Wemouth reads: "Let each of you put on one side and store up at his home". Ballantine’s Translation reads: "Let each of you lay up at home". The Syriac, on this passage reads: "Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home". And the New Catholic Edition of the Bible reads: ".......let each one of you put aside at home and lay up whatever he has a mind to". This verse says nothing about going to church on the first day or even assembling together on the first day.


The rest of your comments are not applicable to my post because I was only referring to actual agreed upon scripture and not to extra-biblical literature.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sorry, it was John 20:26 not John 20:29 and note the word "again" and the same group in the same place with the doors locked again and "eight days" begins with the day in John 20:19 as A.T. Roberston points out. Most commentators disagree with you.

John 20:26 ¶ And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

Acts 2:1 is recognized by most commentators to fall on Sunday, the first day of the week, and there is an established pattern John 20:19, 26; Acts 2:1.

In I Cor. 16:1-2 the word "store" is the same Greek term used in the Septuigent in Malichi 3:10 for "store" house refers to the house of God not someone's personal "house."

¶ Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
2 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.

Furthermore this command is given to "the churches" concerning a particular day of the week - the first day which would explain why the church at Troas met on this day for worship (Acts 20:7) as it was the regular worship day for all the churches.

Revelation 1:10 is applicable as the "hemera tou Kuriakos" was well known to be Sunday and the same term is used for the "Lord's" supper in I Cor. 11:20.

The historical evidence is overwhelming support for the use of "the Lord's Day" in Rev. 1:10.

However, you have to have objective mind or no amount of evidence will convince you or as the old addage says, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Dr. Walter,

re: "I believe you are wrong in what you say above on several counts. John 20:19 and Acts 20:7 are not the only references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday. In addition to those quotations are John 20:29; Acts 2:1 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2."

John 20:29 says nothing about anyone being together on the first day of the week.


As regards Acts 2:1, the verse is referring to the annual festival of Pentecost and not to a weekly first day gathering.
　
　

re: "After eight days (mey hmerav oktw). That is the next Sunday evening, on the eighth day in reality just like ‘after three days’ and ‘on the third day.’"

But eight days after what day? The scripture doesn’t say. But even if it were referring to eight days after the first day, eight days after would fall on the 2nd day of the week.

There is no reason in this specific instance to conclude that the phrases "after eight days" and "on the eighth day" are synonymous. The reason to conclude that "after three days" and "on the third day" are synonymous is to make them agree with the notion of a 6th day crucifixion/1st day resurrection.
　

　
re: "Whatever reason you want to ascribe for gathering on the first day of the week in I Cor. 16:1-2 does not change the fact that the Church at Corinth gathered on that day."
　
Corinthians 16:1-2 doesn’t say that. The text merely says that everyone should "lay by him in store" on the first day of the week. The Darby Translation reads: "On the first of the week let each of you put by at home, laying up in whatever degree he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come.". The New Swedish and Norwegian Bibles read: "At home by himself." The Lamsa Translation reads: "Let each of you put aside and keep in his house". The Wemouth reads: "Let each of you put on one side and store up at his home". Ballantine’s Translation reads: "Let each of you lay up at home". The Syriac, on this passage reads: "Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home". And the New Catholic Edition of the Bible reads: ".......let each one of you put aside at home and lay up whatever he has a mind to". This verse says nothing about going to church on the first day or even assembling together on the first day.
The rest of your comments are not applicable to my post because I was only referring to actual agreed upon scripture and not to extra-biblical literature.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe you are wrong in what you say above on several counts. John 20:19 and Acts 20:7 are not the only references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday. In addition to those quotations are John 20:29; Acts 2:1 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2.

In John 20:19 "the doors were shut for fear of the Jews". They were hiding and were likely hiding since Friday. "Hiding" for 3 days is not the sign that one of them is now to be celebrated weekly.

You may explain the doors being locked is due to fear but you cannot say the day they chose to gather together was due to fear as that makes no sense, especially when Thomas chooses to assemble with them on the eighth day and their doors are still locked. A.T. Robertson says of the language in John 20:29:

After eight days (mey hmerav oktw). That is the next Sunday evening, on the eighth day in reality just like "after three days" and "on the third day."

1. I did not find any reference at all to "Week day one" in vs 29.

2. Going back to vs 19 - it was "evening". The days were celebrated from "evening to evening" which means that the events described after vs 19 are more likely to be "week day two" - but given that all events following in "that evening" are still "week day one" for the benefit of the doubt, at no point is this intent to meet related to something of a weekly cycle.

Indeed - they had yet to get all the details of the resurrection.

3. in 1Cor 16:1-2 there is no meeting at all mentioned as taking place on "week day one". However 1Cor 16 is important since it is the only text in all of the NT that indicates that some weekly-cycle based action was done repeatedly on "week day one" and that action was - setting aside savings - each individual by himself in anticipation of a future meeting with Paul.

Still even there - the day gets no higher honorary mention than "week day one".

Whatever reason you want to ascribe for gathering on the first day of the week in I Cor. 16:1-2 does not change the fact that the Church at Corinth gathered on that day.

Again - you assume the salient point of your statement "the church gathered on that day" rather than proving it.

Unless I am mistaken, giving tithes and offerings has always been a part of public worship (Mal. 3:10) at the house of God.

There is no mention of "giving" on week day one in 1Cor 16:1-2.

There is no mention of "tithes" given on week day one in 1Cor 16:1-2.

And the money is not called an "offering" in 1 Cor 16:1-2 until Paul arrives - so it is more correctly "savings". "Let each one of you PUT ASIDE and SAVE" on "week day one" (NASB).

In Revelation 1:10 John does not say "hamare tou Kurios" which is the familiar eschatalogical "the day of the Lord" but rather "hamare tou kuriakos" or the familiar phrase used by the Emperor of Rome
that set apart Sunday to offer incense unto him as "Lord" or the "god/man."

While the pagan origin for Sunday worship adopted by Christians in Constantine's command "Holy day of the sun" - in John's context the key for "Lord's Day" has to be found in the Words of Christ or scripture.

Mark 2:27 "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" and in Isaiah 58 "the Holy Day of the Lord".

The idea that the pagan emperor would have been a more compelling source for John in determining both a day of honor and a title is admitting more about the argument for "Week day one" than you might have at first imagined.

This designation is being ascribed to Christ by John just as the same word "kuriakos" in I Corinthians 11:20 is being ascribed to Christ by Paul instead of Ceasar.

You have gone from a phrase - down to a single word and in that case have shown a text where there is no ambiguity in the assignment.

1Cor 11:20 speaks of "The Lord's Supper" and in vs 23 - 26 we see the explicit description of it - so that we need not imagine "Lord's Supper" appies to "some other event" or even a pagan holiday.

But in Rev 1 there is "week day one is the Lord's Day". All of those details have to be eisegeted into the text.

Early use by Christians concurrent with the writing of the New Testament and immediately after the apostolic period before Constantine demonstrate "the Lord's Day" was the universal designation for the first day of the week

1. your "concurrent with the writing of the New Testament" combined with "after the Apostolic period" - shows a certain contradiction that does not escape the reader.

2. As for the tradtion element that replaces the 4th commandment with "week day one" there is much agreement on your point there.


------------------------------------------------------------
The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that

changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".
[/quote]

page 243

"nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243.))

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

-------------------------------

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” Rev. Peter Geiermann C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50 (1946).

"But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. The observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non Catholic sects broke away??like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a locket of her hair." The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, by Rev. John O’ Brien, Ph.D., p. 473.

JOSEPHUS
"There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the Barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come!" M'Clatchie, "Notes and Queries on China and Japan" Vol 4, Nos 7, 8, p.100.


PHILO
Declares the seventh day to be a festival, not of this or of that city, but of the universe. M'Clatchie, "Notes and Queries," Vol. 4, 99

"Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." "The Anti-Nicene Fathers," Vol 7,p. 413. From "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," a document of the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

AFRICA (ALEXANDRIA) ORIGEN
"After the festival of the unceasing sacrifice (the crucifixion) is put the second festival of the Sabbath, and it is fitting for whoever is righteous among the saints to keep also the festival of the Sabbath. There remaineth therefore a sabbatismus, that is, a keeping of the Sabbath, to the people of God (Hebrews 4:9)." "Homily on Numbers 23," par.4, in Migne, "Patrologia Graeca," Vol. 12,cols. 749, 750.

"The seventh-day Sabbath was...solemnised by Christ, the Apostles, and primitive Christians, till the Laodicean Council did in manner quite abolish the observations of it." "Dissertation on the Lord's Day," pp. 33, 34

 

[Dr. Walter]

You cannot make the assumption "most likely" and then turn it into a fact to build your case upon! Since eleven days later (beginning from Friday assumption) they were still in that room with doors shut (v. 26) are we to assume they continued 11 days locked in room as that is what the basis of your assumption would naturally lead to??? Let us stay with what the text says not with assumptions.

I made a typing error in saying "v. 29" when I meant "v.26." I gave A.T. Robertsons quotation where he showed the way they counted days, the three days from crucifixion to the first day of the week using the same langauge as in John 20:26 but it included the the day of crucifixion as well as the first day of the week. Likewise, following that precedent "eight days" would include the first day of the week in verse 19 and terminate on the first day of the week in verse 26.

Your argument about "evening" in John 20:19 is repudiated by the text itself:

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week,


I Corinthian 16:1-2 not merely gives a command to the church at Corinth but had been given to all the churches in Galatia. If Saturday was the Christian Sabbath on which the churches met, it would be absurdly rediculous to command them to lay it in "store" on the first day of the week because the purpose is stated to be that it would be more convenient for Paul when he came by to pick it up ("that there be no gatherings when I come.- v. 2).
If the church met on Saturday it would be more convenient for the members to not only give the money but for Paul to pick it up as that would be the day they all were together so he could pick it up. This is a strong argument for Sunday Sabbath observance as Paul would come on the day of worship in order to be able to get the money from the members as on other days they would be scattered in their homes and jobs. The same word "store" in the Greek is the same Greek term used in the Septuigent translation of Malichi 3:10 for bringing tithes and offerings to the house of God on the day of worship. It is called an "offering" in 2 Corinthians 8-9 where the exact same thing is mentioned to the exact same church.

Bob, you need to go back and reread what I said, I said the phrase "the Lord's day" is used in the apostolic period as well as the post-apostolic period for the resurrection day, first day of the week, Sunday and I gave the historical evidence to prove it BEFORE Constantine gave his edict.

In John 20:19 "the doors were shut for fear of the Jews". They were hiding and were likely hiding since Friday. "Hiding" for 3 days is not the sign that one of them is now to be celebrated weekly.



1. I did not find any reference at all to "Week day one" in vs 29.

2. Going back to vs 19 - it was "evening". The days were celebrated from "evening to evening" which means that the events described after vs 19 are more likely to be "week day two" - but given that all events following in "that evening" are still "week day one" for the benefit of the doubt, at no point is this intent to meet related to something of a weekly cycle.

Indeed - they had yet to get all the details of the resurrection.

3. in 1Cor 16:1-2 there is no meeting at all mentioned as taking place on "week day one". However 1Cor 16 is important since it is the only text in all of the NT that indicates that some weekly-cycle based action was done repeatedly on "week day one" and that action was - setting aside savings - each individual by himself in anticipation of a future meeting with Paul.

Still even there - the day gets no higher honorary mention than "week day one".



Again - you assume the salient point of your statement "the church gathered on that day" rather than proving it.



There is no mention of "giving" on week day one in 1Cor 16:1-2.

There is no mention of "tithes" given on week day one in 1Cor 16:1-2.

And the money is not called an "offering" in 1 Cor 16:1-2 until Paul arrives - so it is more correctly "savings". "Let each one of you PUT ASIDE and SAVE" on "week day one" (NASB).



While the pagan origin for Sunday worship adopted by Christians in Constantine's command "Holy day of the sun" - in John's context the key for "Lord's Day" has to be found in the Words of Christ or scripture.

Mark 2:27 "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" and in Isaiah 58 "the Holy Day of the Lord".

The idea that the pagan emperor would have been a more compelling source for John in determining both a day of honor and a title is admitting more about the argument for "Week day one" than you might have at first imagined.



You have gone from a phrase - down to a single word and in that case have shown a text where there is no ambiguity in the assignment.

1Cor 11:20 speaks of "The Lord's Supper" and in vs 23 - 26 we see the explicit description of it - so that we need not imagine "Lord's Supper" appies to "some other event" or even a pagan holiday.

But in Rev 1 there is "week day one is the Lord's Day". All of those details have to be eisegeted into the text.



1. your "concurrent with the writing of the New Testament" combined with "after the Apostolic period" - shows a certain contradiction that does not escape the reader.

2. As for the tradtion element that replaces the 4th commandment with "week day one" there is much agreement on your point there.


------------------------------------------------------------
The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that

changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

page 243

"nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243.))

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

-------------------------------

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You cannot make the assumption "most likely" and then turn it into a fact to build your case upon! Since eleven days later (beginning from Friday assumption) they were still in that room with doors shut (v. 26) are we to assume they continued 11 days locked in room as that is what the basis of your assumption would naturally lead to???

The text says they were gathered for fear - fear of the Jews in John 20:19. Whatever you may think is the reason for meeting eight days later in 20:26 (which is either a Monday or a Tueday given that this is eight days after the evening termination of week-day-one according to vs 19) -- it is not a "week day one" meeting that you find in vs 26.

And even at that - would still not establish a new Monday or Tuesday weekly cycle terminus.

I made a typing error in saying "v. 29" when I meant "v.26." I gave A.T. Robertsons quotation where he showed the way they counted days, the three days from crucifixion to the first day of the week using the same langauge as in John 20:26 but it included the the day of crucifixion as well as the first day of the week. Likewise, following that precedent "eight days" would include the first day of the week in verse 19 and terminate on the first day of the week in verse 26.

Whether you take that as Sunday, Monday or Tuesday - the fact that no "day number at all" is mentioned in vs 26 is devastating evidence against this being the announcement for a new weekly cycle scheme.

By contrast in Acts 13 when we see "Sabbath after Sabbath" and in Acts 17 "Three Sabbaths" - the day is mentioned with the nme of honor still given and not merely as "and after 8 days".

Your argument about "evening" in John 20:19 is repudiated by the text itself:

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week,

What exactly do you think is being repudiated -- a Sunday resurrection or that the John 20:19 meeting was at the far edge of Sunday such that what follows is more likely to be a Monday meeting by those who count their days "from evening to evening" - (Lev 23).

I Corinthian 16:1-2 not merely gives a command to the church at Corinth but had been given to all the churches in Galatia. If Saturday was the Christian Sabbath on which the churches met, it would be absurdly rediculous to command them to lay it in "store" on the first day of the week because the purpose is stated to be that it would be more convenient for Paul when he came by to pick it up ("that there be no gatherings when I come.- v. 2).

Having each person lay instore - by themselves some savings in anticipatoin of a future offering - is still done to this very day and in case where the person is paid weekly - they set aside those savings weekly -- without calling a church meeting to do so.

Now what is facinating is that you have no church meeting at all mentioned in 1Cor 16:1-2, nor anything like a weekly offering mentioned, nor "week-day-one is our Lord's Day" nor anything close to it.

Yet this is the tiny thread for hanging the hat "we think the Law of God was changed"???

If the church met on Saturday it would be more convenient for the members to not only give the money but for Paul to pick it up as that would be the day they all were together so he could pick it up.

Paul is speaking of savings. What you speak to is a world where money of any size and amount simply appears because believers happen to be meeint on a Saturday. Paul apparently did not share your view of the means by which that money would be guaranteed to be available.

This is a strong argument for Sunday Sabbath observance as Paul would come on the day of worship in order to be able to get the money from the members as on other days they would be scattered in their homes and jobs. The same word "store" in the Greek is the same Greek term used in the Septuigent translation of Malichi 3:10 for bringing tithes and offerings to the house of God on the day of worship. It is called an "offering" in 2 Corinthians 8-9 where the exact same thing is mentioned to the exact same church.

2Cor 9:5 speaks of a gift that was promised - but neither 8 or 9 speaks of any specific day of the week for Paul to receive the gift.

Bob, you need to go back and reread what I said, I said the phrase "the Lord's day" is used in the apostolic period as well as the post-apostolic period for the resurrection day, first day of the week, Sunday and I gave the historical evidence to prove it BEFORE Constantine gave his edict.

There were no references to the Apostolic period in your list - that showed anyone claiming that the term "Lord's Day" at the time that John was writing was applied to "week day one", either by John or even as a Christian tradition in common usage at the time of John's writing.

For my part - in my references I show that the term "Sabbath" as still being used for the seventh-day of the week in the 3rd century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

"for fear of the Jews" can modify "the doors being shut" rather than "assembling." The worst thing a group can do is assemble together in one place if they fear being dragged off to jail.

I gave you the New Testment way of counting days and you simply dismiss it. In counting the three days they counted the day of crucifixion as day one, day in between, and the next day is day three. Likewise. the text clearly demands it is the first day of the week - day one, monday day two, tuesday day three, wednesday day four, thursday day five, friday day six, saturday day seven, sunday day eight.

John makes it as clear as language can make it that this assembling was on the first day of the week not the second day of the week. With this over emphasis of language to prove it is the first day of the week, "even" only means late afternoon not the second day of the week.

Paul went to the synogue on the Jewish Sabbath because his modus operandi was to the Jew first and then to the gentiles. In the synoguoge they gave visiting rabbi's the floor. This does not mean that the church met on the Jewish Sabbath as there is no record of the church ever meeting on the Jewish Sabbath.

Your arguments concerning I Cor. 16:1-2 are extremely weak. If your position was correct he should have designated the sixth day of the week to lay in "store" where they could be ready to bring it on the seventh day of the week. As I said the Greek term "store" is the same Greek term used in the Septuigent for bring offerings to the house of God in Malichi 3:10. As I said, Paul would come to the church service where he could easily collect the offering all at once or else he would be going house to house. Finally, if the Seventh day of the week was the day of worship it makes no sense for designating the day afterwards in regard to Paul collecting it as he would be forced to go house to house.

I don't believe you have any objectivity in dealing with these texts. Your interpretations are strained whereas the first day of the week application fits natural and normal with the wording and context of these texts.

The text says they were gathered for fear - fear of the Jews in John 20:19. Whatever you may think is the reason for meeting eight days later in 20:26 (which is either a Monday or a Tueday given that this is eight days after the evening termination of week-day-one according to vs 19) -- it is not a "week day one" meeting that you find in vs 26.

And even at that - would still not establish a new Monday or Tuesday weekly cycle terminus.



Whether you take that as Sunday, Monday or Tuesday - the fact that no "day number at all" is mentioned in vs 26 is devastating evidence against this being the announcement for a new weekly cycle scheme.

By contrast in Acts 13 when we see "Sabbath after Sabbath" and in Acts 17 "Three Sabbaths" - the day is mentioned with the nme of honor still given and not merely as "and after 8 days".



What exactly do you think is being repudiated -- a Sunday resurrection or that the John 20:19 meeting was at the far edge of Sunday such that what follows is more likely to be a Monday meeting by those who count their days "from evening to evening" - (Lev 23).




Having each person lay instore - by themselves some savings in anticipatoin of a future offering - is still done to this very day and in case where the person is paid weekly - they set aside those savings weekly -- without calling a church meeting to do so.

Now what is facinating is that you have no church meeting at all mentioned in 1Cor 16:1-2, nor anything like a weekly offering mentioned, nor "week-day-one is our Lord's Day" nor anything close to it.

Yet this is the tiny thread for hanging the hat "we think the Law of God was changed"???



Paul is speaking of savings. What you speak to is a world where money of any size and amount simply appears because believers happen to be meeint on a Saturday. Paul apparently did not share your view of the means by which that money would be guaranteed to be available.




2Cor 9:5 speaks of a gift that was promised - but neither 8 or 9 speaks of any specific day of the week for Paul to receive the gift.



There were no references to the Apostolic period in your list - that showed anyone claiming that the term "Lord's Day" at the time that John was writing was applied to "week day one", either by John or even as a Christian tradition in common usage at the time of John's writing.

For my part - in my references I show that the term "Sabbath" as still being used for the seventh-day of the week in the 3rd century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I believe you are wrong in what you say above on several counts. John 20:19 and Acts 20:7 are not the only references to the church meeting on the Lord's Day - Sunday. In addition to those quotations are John 20:29; Acts 2:1 and 1 Cor. 16:1-2.

GE:
"...the Lord's Day - Sunday" --- Not only 'wrong', but FALSE!

"...the church meeting on .... Sunday" Please SHOW in
John 20:29;
Acts 2:1 or,
1 Cor. 16:1-2

'Dr', please QUOTE!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.... John makes it as clear as language can make it that this assembling was on the first day of the week not the second day of the week. With this over emphasis of language to prove it is the first day of the week, "even" only means late afternoon not the second day of the week.

GE:

Which 'over emphasis of language'?

Quote where "John makes it clear .... "even" only means late afternoon"?

Quote where "John makes it clear .... "it is the first day of the week .... not the second day of the week"?

Of course you cannot. Because John and Luke make it clear as common language can that 'it' --- the disciples "having been thronged together still" --- while it must have been after sunset and "IT BEING" - by now - AFTER, "VESPERS" Lk24:29 and no longer "afternoon" or "towards 'vespers'"; and day had had "declined"-'kekliken' fully already and was not 'declining' any longer and "BEING EVENING" ('ousehes opsias') Jn20:19 AFTER sunset and 'day'-'hehmera' HAD HAD begun its next cycle;

that then: as John says "THEN ('OUN') having been ('ousehs') on _THAT_ 'EKEINEHI miai (hehmerai)' --- which RELATIVE PRONOUN REFERS TO: _THAT_ PAST, and "First Day of the week" (Sunday). It does not say 'BEING on the First Day'; it says "being EVENING" REFERRING TO: "the EVENING" RELATIVE to "THAT day" the First Day of the week.

Just like to this very day we would speak in ordinary, plain English and anyone with an IQ of 75 or more would know we refer BACK FROM the "evening" to the PAST and no longer current, day.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. - John 10:19

Your interpretation would have to read "Then ANOTHER day at evening being AFTER the first day of the week"

Quite a difference don't you think, IF you are going to simply follow plain old English by anyone with an IQ of 75 or better????

GE:

Which 'over emphasis of language'?

Quote where "John makes it clear .... "even" only means late afternoon"?

Quote where "John makes it clear .... "it is the first day of the week .... not the second day of the week"?

Of course you cannot. Because John and Luke make it clear as common language can that 'it' --- the disciples "having been thronged together still" --- while it must have been after sunset and "IT BEING" - by now - AFTER, "VESPERS" Lk24:29 and no longer "afternoon" or "towards 'vespers'"; and day had had "declined"-'kekliken' fully already and was not 'declining' any longer and "BEING EVENING" ('ousehes opsias') Jn20:19 AFTER sunset and 'day'-'hehmera' HAD HAD begun its next cycle;

that then: as John says "THEN ('OUN') having been ('ousehs') on _THAT_ 'EKEINEHI miai (hehmerai)' --- which RELATIVE PRONOUN REFERS TO: _THAT_ PAST, and "First Day of the week" (Sunday). It does not say 'BEING on the First Day'; it says "being EVENING" REFERRING TO: "the EVENING" RELATIVE to "THAT day" the First Day of the week.

Just like to this very day we would speak in ordinary, plain English and anyone with an IQ of 75 or more would know we refer BACK FROM the "evening" to the PAST and no longer current, day.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. - John 10:19

Your 'interpretation' would have to read "Then ANOTHER day at evening being AFTER the first day of the week"

Quite a difference don't you think, IF you are going to simply follow plain old English by anyone with an IQ of 75 or better????

GE:
My dear Dr Walter, YOURS, is an "interpretation".
John reads:
"ousehs oun opsias" - "then being evening";
"on THAT DAY" - 'tehi hehmerai EKEINEHI';
"WITH REFERENCE TO the First Day of the week" - 'tehi miai sabbatohn': Dative of Reference. In other words, the NORMAL Dative!

YOUR 'interpretation', Dr. (NOT mine!), needs an ACCUSATIVE in order to make possible the concept of "at evening being AFTER the first day of the week..." which is inexplicable NONSENSE.

I am talking about 'Sunday evening'; not about 'Saturday evening'. So does John. But 'evening on the First Day' would have been the beginning-part of "the First Day of the week", which would have been 'Saturday evening' --- which would in any case have meant the Resurrection was on the Sabbath. So, whichever way YOU 'interpret' John, you are left in the lurch by YOURSELF concerning Sunday-sacredness.

Therefore by now we have TWO factors that demand ‘it’ –-- the disciples’ “having been thronged together STILL” --- continued on the First Day while it had had begun at an indeterminate time BEFORE, except that the context demands that it was BEFORE “it being evening on _THAT_ day”: The two factors of:
1) The Relative Pronoun ‘ekeinehi’; and
2) The Dative of Reference.

Now I have not looked at A.T. Robertson whom you referred to but whom you did not quote but told us what you say he said. I want to bet he did NOT say what you said he said. (Yes, I gamble; and still reckon myself a Christian; because I gamble on things like this when I am certain.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.....Acts 2:1 is recognized by most commentators to fall on Sunday, the first day of the week, and there is an established pattern John 20:19, 26; Acts 2:1.......

GE:
What pattern? There is NO 'pattern'. A 'pattern' in John 20:19, 26; Acts 2:1 is the dream of Sundaydarians. It turned out to be a nightmare.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.....As regards Acts 2:1, the verse is referring to the annual festival of Pentecost and not to a weekly first day gathering....

Refer:

http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book%203,%201,%202,%203.Pentecost.pdf

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Church traditionally holds to “Palm Sunday” as the fifth day before the Feast of Passover, John 12 which makes the day “before Passover”, Thursday – the day on which, according to all the Gospels, Jesus was crucified. That in turn makes Jesus’ resurrection “the third day”, on the Sabbath. Tradition – Palm Sunday, contradicts tradition – Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection.
The same kind of enigmatic tradition is displayed in the tradition of Pentecost. The Church at large teaches that God’s promise of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled on the “Fiftieth Day” according to Acts 2:1. The Church teaches that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. The Church teaches that that Friday was the 15th Nisan of the Jewish calendar. NAT 1979 Word-list The Church teaches that the 16th Nisan, the day after the Passover “sabbath”, was the first day of the fifty counted days. The Church teaches that the fiftieth of the fifty counted days was a Sunday. Now let us see how that is calculated.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Last Week

“ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES”[1] ... “THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH”[2]


The First Month for You
"Observe the Month of Abib!"[3] Christ our Passover sacrificed[4]; Lamb of God[5]; A Lamb stood on the mount; they sang a new song before the Throne[6]



Friday
"The eighth day of Abib, they came"[7], He came to Bethany.[8]



Saturday (Abib 9)
Six days before the Passover Feast; where Lazarus stayed; lunch.[9]



‘Palm Sunday’ (5 days before Feast)
The next day[10], "tenth day of Abib”[11], Jerusalem; branches of palm trees.[12] Late; to Bethany.[13]



Monday (Abib 11; 4 days before Feast)
The next day[14] From Bethany; fig tree; in temple; when late out of city; to Bethany.[15]

[1] 1Cor15:3-4
[2] Mt12:40
[3] Dt16:1-3, 2Chr29:15a
[4] 1Cor5:7
[5] Jh1:29,36
[6] Rv14:1,3, 15:3; Ps40:2-3, 138; Ex15:1-3, 6-7, 16-18; Eph1:17-23; Ro6:4; Col2:12b, 15
[7] 2Chr29:15b
[8] Jn11:56, 12:1a
[9] Jn12:1b
[10] Jn12:12a
[11] Ex12:3,6
[12] Jh12:12b-13
[13] Mk11:11
[14] Mk11:12-13, Mt21:18-19
[15] Mk11:19, Mt21:17

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Tuesday (Abib 12; 3 days before Feast)
The next day[1]; returned to city; saw fig tree; in temple; out of temple; mount of Olives.[2] = “When Jesus had
finished these sayings, he said to his disciples, You know that after two days is the Passover when the Son of Man is to be crucified (Abib 14).”[3]


Wednesday (Abib 13; 2 days before Feast)
In the night (Tuesday-night) He abode in the mount.[4] Early in the morning; all the people came to the temple[5]; The Feast Day when they began to eat Unleavened Bread drew nigh[6]; After two days was the Feast Day[7] of the Passover of Unleavened Bread; The priests sought how they might take Him; not on the Feast![8]

And He being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper ... Judas went to the priests to betray Him unto them without tumult.”[9]

[1] Mk11:20, Mt21:18,23, Lk20:1
[2] Mk13:1,3
[3] Mt26:2, Jesus’ own words to his disciples; “two days” to Nisan 14, but 3 days to Nisan 15.
[4] Lk21:37
[5] Lk21:38
[6] Lk22:1
[7] Mk14:1, Abib 15; Mark’s words to the readers.
[8] Mk14:2, Mt26:5, Nisan 13 – “Not on the Feast Day”, Nisan 15, yet!
[9] Mk14:3,10, Mt26:6,15, Lk22:3


Thursday (Abib 14; 1 day before Feast)

"The fourteenth day"[1] Before the Feast[2]; the first[3] day Leaven had[4] to be Removed; began[5]; the night in which He was betrayed[6]; the Preparation of the Passover[7]; when always[8] the Passover must[9] be killed; My time is at hand.[10] In the evening[11] when the hour was come[12] He sat down with the disciples. His hour was come.[13] It was night.[14] This day in this night[15]; this hour[16]; Enough, the hour had come[17]; Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed!

[1] Lv23:5
[2] Jn13:1
[3] Mt26:17a
[4] Ex12:19
[5] Lk22:7a
[6] 1Cor11:23
[7] Jn19:14
[8]Mk14:12a/17, Mt26:17a/20, Lk22:7a/14, Jn13:1
[9] Lk22:7b
[10] Mt26:18b
[11] Mk14:17, Mt26:20
[12] Lk22:14
[13] Jn13:1
[14] Jn13:30b
[15] Mk14:30
[16] Mk14:35, Mt26:39a
[17] Mk14:41b Mt26:45b
[18] Jn18:28
[19] Jn19:14
[20] Mk15:25
[21] Mk15:33
[22] Mt27:50
[23] Lk23:48

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover.[1]
It was the Preparation of Passover six o’clock am ... Behold, your King![2] It was the third hour when they crucified Him.[3] When the sixth hour was come, there was darkness until the ninth hour.[4] Jesus then after, yielded up the ghost.[5]

And all the people that came to that sight, when having seen the things which were done, went away and returned.[6]

[1] Jn18:28
[2] Jn19:14
[3] Mk15:25
[4] Mk15:33
[5] Mt27:50
[6] Lk23:48


Friday The Feast

After this because it was the Preparation, Joseph of Arimathea, secretly for fear of the Jews, went[1] in[2] boldly unto Pilate[3], (and) besought (him) that he might take away the body of Jesus.[4] And Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore and took down[5] the body of Jesus (and) away[6]. Having bought linen[7], Joseph wrapped[8] the body. There came also Nicodemus who the first time came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh about an hundred pound. Then prepared[9] they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen with the spices as the manner of the Jews is to bury.[10]
[1] Mt27:58
[2] Mk15:43 – cf. Jn18:28
[3] Lk23:52
[4] Jn19:38 ‘arehi’
[5] Mk15:46a, Lk23:53a ‘kathelohn’
[6] Jn19:38c ‘ehren’
[7] Mk15:46
[8] Lk23:53 ‘kathelohn – enetulicsen’
[9] Jn19:40a, ‘elabon – edehsan’; Mt27:59a ‘labohn – enetulicsen’
[10] Jn19:39-40


Daylight Procession

The women also, who came with Him from Galilee (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary), followed the procession.[1]

There was a garden in the place where He was crucified, and in the garden a new sepulchre, hewn out of rock[2], wherein was never man yet laid.[3] There laid they[4] Jesus because of the Jews’ preparations.[5]

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre[6] beheld where[7] (and) how his body was laid.[8]

(Joseph) rolled a great[9] stone unto the door of the sepulchre[10], and departed.[11]

(The women) returned home also, and prepared spices and ointments.[12]

The day was The Preparation, afternoon while the Sabbath drew on.[13]

[1] Lk23:55
[2] Mk15:46c, Mt 27:60b
[3] Jn19:41
[4] Jn19:38a, 39a, Joseph and Nicodemus
[5] Jn19:42
[6] Mt27:61
[7] Mk15:47
[8] Lk23:55b
[9] Mt27:60c
[10] Mk15:46d
[11] Mt27:60d
[12] Lk23:56a
[13] Lk23:54

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Saturday (Abib 16)

“First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD; on the day after the sabbath (of the Passover, Abib 15).”[1]

The women began[2] to rest the Sabbath Day according to the (Fourth) Commandment.[3]

The morning sunrise, all their precautions despite, the chief priests and Pharisees had a meeting with Pilate, and protested, But Sir, we remember this deceiver said while he was yet alive, After[4] three days I will rise again! Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day has passed; lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say, he is risen.[5] So they secured the tomb by sealing the stone and setting a watch.[6]

[1] Lv23:10,15-16
[2] Ingressive Aorist. Cf. Lv23:32, Dt24:15
[3] Lk23:56b
[4] “After” is used idiomatically for Matthew’s usual “the third day”, 12:40, 16:21,23, 20:19. “After tree days” – not ‘after the third day’! It does not mean on a fourth day after three days. Cf. 26:2, “after two days the Feast”, inclusive of first and last days.
[5] Mt27:62-64
[6] Mt27:66

In the slow hours[1] of the Sabbath’s[2] after noon[3], towards the First Day of the week – explained the angel[4]:– When suddenly there was a great earthquake, (and) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary set out[5] to go[6] have a look at the grave[7], Behold! For the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and hurled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the keepers did shake and became as dead.[8]

[1] Dionysius
[2] ‘Sabbath’s-time’
[3] ‘Being (day)light tending’
[4] Mt28:5a
[5] Wenham
[6] Infinitive of intention
[7] Mt28:1
[8] Mt28:2-4


Sunday (Abib 17)

And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices that when[1] they come, they might anoint Him.[2]

Early darkness still the First Day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes[3] to the sepulchre and sees the stone taken away from it! Then she runs and comes to Peter.[4]

On the First Day of the week, deep dark morning[5], they[6] and certain other with them, went[7] to the grave bringing their spices which they had prepared. And they found[8] the stone rolled away from the grave.[9]

[1] They did not then, immediately, go to the tomb, but first waited.
[2] Mk16:1a Salome did not know of events.
[3] Notice the Present!
[4] Jn20:1 futher
[5] Lk24:1 ‘órthrou bathéohs’
[6] The two Marys and Salome. A variant has “three women”.
[7] Notice the Past!
[8] Just as Mary must have told them!
[9] Lk24:1 further

Very early before sunrise on the First Day of the week, they[1], came[2] to the tomb. Talking among themselves, they wondered: Who could have rolled the stone away for us (for it was exceedingly big!)?[3] So on re-investigation[4] they found that the stone was thrown back uphill![5] ... They fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed. They told nobody anything, because they were afraid.[6] ... But Mary had had stood after[7] in front of the tomb. Weeping, she bent over and looked inside the sepulchre. ... She turned herself around, and saw Jesus ... supposing Him to be the gardener ...[8] Risen (Jesus), very early daylight on the First Day of the week, first appeared to Mary Magdalene.[9]

[1] Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome, but probably ‘others with them’ again.
[2] ‘erchontai’, Present of past meaning; they first ‘come’ = ‘came’, KJV, then ‘talked’.
[3] Mk16:4c, They were familiar with the situation already; it was not their first visit to the tomb!
[4] Mk16:4a, ‘anablepsasai’
[5] Mk16:4b, ‘anakekúlistai’
[6] Mk16:8
[7] Jn20:11a, “heistehkehi”, Pluperfect
[8] Jn20:15b
[9] Mk16:9 The other women must have returned to the grave after Jesus had appeared to Mary, when “The angel explained to them”, and they believed, and Jesus appeared to them while they went to tell the others. Refer to Mt28:5 further.

 

[rstrats]

Dr. Walter,

re: "...you have to have objective mind..."

Agreed. An objective mind would take or not take scripture for what it does or doesn’t say. It wouldn’t make assumptions - as a subjective mind would - in an effort to help validate one’s already seated positions with regard to doctrinal issues.
　
　
re: "Sorry, it was John 20:26 not John 20:29 and note the word ‘again’ and the same group in the same place with the doors locked again and ‘eight days’ begins with the day in John 20:19..."

Your subjective mind is assuming that the "after eight days" comment is in relationship to the first day mentioned in verse 19. You are assuming that it was still the first day when Thomas was told about the appearing of the Messiah in verse 25. But even if the "after eight days" comment was referring to eight days after the "first day" in verse 19, you would end up at the second day of the week at the earliest. What if verse 26 had said; "And after one day, His disciples were again inside..."? To what day would that be referring?