ON what day of the week was Christ crucified? and on what day did he arise from the dead? These are questions which have been the occasion of no little discussion. There are substantially two views held in reference to them. The first is, that Christ was crucified on Wednesday, was laid in the tomb near the close of that day, and rose from the dead a corresponding hour on the Sabbath, or Saturday, having lain in the grave exactly seventy-two hours; this being the three days and three nights during which the Son of man was to be in the heart of the earth, as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly. The second view, and the one most generally entertained is, that Christ was crucified on Friday, and rose early on the morning of the first day of the week. There are others who place the crucifixion upon Thursday instead of Friday, thinking this necessary to make harmony between all the statements of the evangelists concerning that event. This view however, does not obviate the difficulty which the first view is designed to meet; namely, the apparent failure of the words of Christ that the Son of man should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, if a period of time less than seventy-two hours elapsed while he lay in the tomb. The main question lies between the first and second views here stated.
As already intimated, the first view rests wholly upon the testimony respecting Jonah. No other reason, at least of which we are aware, exists for placing the crucifixion so early in the week as Wednesday, except the statement of Christ that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the body of the fish, the Son of man should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Assuming that the phrase "heart of the earth," means the grave, which may perhaps be questioned, all rests upon the meaning of this phrase, "three days and three nights." What do these words signify? Must they be taken absolutely as they would be understood if used at the present day? or, was there in that age a usus loquendi, in accordance with which they could be taken in an accommodated sense? There is nothing in the record in Jonah to throw any additional light upon the expression; that is, there is no other testimony there, and no other events recorded, which show us that a period of time, absolutely seventy-two hours in length, is meant by the term "three days and three nights." We do have, however, in the evangelists, records of predictions and narrations of events, from which we can determine something respecting the time during which Christ lay in the tomb. Now, instead of taking the bare expression, "three days and three nights," assuming that the meaning attached to it when it was used, was the same as we would give at the present day, and then using that as proof that Christ was for seventy-two consecutive hours in the grave, and trying to make all other testimony harmonize with this view, it seems to us it would be fully as legitimate a mode of reasoning to try to ascertain from the evangelists how long Christ was actually in the tomb, and use that as a key for the interpretation of the expression, "three days and three nights."
The words placed at the head of this article give us, if we mistake not, a good clue to the solution of this question. They are the words used by the disciples to Christ when on their way to Emmaus. The time when they were used is beyond dispute. It was in the latter part of the first day of the week. And they said, "To-day is the third day since these things were done." From this, then, as a starting-point, let us count back and see how early in the week it is possible to place the crucifixion. If the first day of the week was the third day, the day before the first day, or the Sabbath, was the second day, and the day before that, or Friday, the first day, since the events of which they were speaking took place; and this would forbid our placing the events themselves farther back than the preceding day, or Thursday. Reasoning from this statement of the disciples, we see not how the trial and crucifixion of Christ can possibly be placed earlier in the week than Thursday.
How, then, do those who place this event on Wednesday, meet this testimony? We have never heard any one try; but we have heard that some do attempt to get around it (for we can call it nothing less) by saying that the word since means from the first day; that is, the third day from the first day of the occurrence of these things. But it looks to us that this is not even respectable sophistry. If we are to reckon from55some point subsequent to the occurrence of the events, then we are cut loose from all moorings, and might just as well say that that was the third day since Jonah was put into the whale's belly.
The original is very definite: "Triteen tauteen heemeran agei seemeron, aph' ou tauta egeneto (This day is the third day from the time when these things took place.) Suppose, now, that the crucifixion took place on Wednesday. He was laid in the tomb that day. All was accomplished before Thursday began. Would not Thursday, then, be the first day following those events? Would not Friday, be the second, and Sabbath the third, even stretching the time all that is possible to stretch it? The expression, since these things occurred, cannot exclude Thursday; for Thursday was not the day of the occurrence of these things, but the day following their occurrence; and the disciples did not say, To-day is the third day from the day following the occurrence of these things; but the third day from the time when they occurred. This is a nail in a sure place; for in view of this testimony, we cannot go back more than two days from the first day of the week for the crucifixion, making it occur on Thursday, the third day, according to the most liberal reckoning, from that point. We do not say it did occur then, but only that we cannot go back farther than that day.
The seventy-two-hour theory thus falls to the ground; and we are held to the conclusion that the expression, "three days and three nights," cannot be taken to mean absolutely that length of time. The way is, therefore, now all open to adjust these events in such a manner as a harmonious interpretation of all the testimony shall demand.
And first, we call the attention of the reader to those passages which declare that Christ would rise on the third day from the time of his trial and crucifixion. There are eight of them, as follows: Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7; and two passages state that he did rise on the third day: Luke 24:46; 1 Cor. 15:4. Take these texts with the declaration of the disciples, "To-day is the third day since these things were done," and, as it seems to us, the day of the resurrection is clearly identified. Christ was to rise on the third day after certain events, and the disciples, naming those very events, and speaking on the first day of the week, say, "To-day is the third day since these things were done." The day on which the disciples uttered these words, if they were correct in their reckoning, was the very day on which Christ was to rise, according to his own predictions. Did his predictions fail? If not, his resurrection is immovably fixed upon the first day of the week.
There is a passage in Mark which we consider a direct declaration that Christ did rise on the first day of the week, Mark 16:9: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." Greek: "Anastas de proi protee sabbaton, ephanee proton Maria tee Magdaleenee," etc. Literally, "And having arisen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene," etc. The only question here is, whether the words, "early the first day of the week," are an adjunct of the participle, having risen, or of the verb, appeared. We think they qualify the participle: for, first, the verb has a qualifying word, in the word first, which seems to be all that the evangelist wished to assert respecting his appearing. There would be no propriety in saying that he appeared first to certain ones on the first day of the week, unless it is told to whom he appeared first upon some other day. Secondly, it would appear more important that the time of his resurrection should be named than the time when he appeared to his disciples. But if it is said that this is the important point, then we reply that this certainly took place on the first day of the week, and hence Sunday-keepers retain all the force of their argument for first-day, based on the resurrection of Christ, even though the resurrection itself be removed to another day.
This brings us to another difficulty involved in the view that Christ lay in the tomb seventy-two hours, from near the close of Wednesday to near the close of the Sabbath; namely, it makes the resurrection of Christ occur on the Sabbath. Is there any testimony to show that Christ arose on the Sabbath? Matt. 28:1, is claimed for this purpose. It is held by some that this language means, "Late in the Sabbath [the day ending at sunset] as the first day of the week was drawing on;" that is, before sunset on the Sabbath, came the two Marys to the sepulcher. Previous to their coming, there had been [margin] a great earthquake, the stone was rolled away, and an angel, assuring them that the Lord was not there, but had arisen, bade them go quickly and tell the disciples that he was risen, and would go before them into Galilee where they would see him. This, it is claimed, is the record of a previous visit, which none of the other evangelists mention, they all speaking of a visit on the following morning, after the Sabbath was past.
The language of Matt. 28:1, is clearly susceptible of the translation given it in our common version, and means, after the Sabbath. Let us inquire whether this idea of a previous visit, in this passage, is consistent with the record of the other evangelists.
1. According to the view under notice, this visit was made on the Sabbath. But Luke says (23:56) that the disciples rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. It is hardly probable that they would thus clip the end of the Sabbath by a journey to the sepulcher, work from which they had so scrupulously abstained at its commencement; nor could such a course easily be reconciled with the testimony of Luke, above referred to.
2. The same Marys, according to Mark (16:1, 2), came to the sepulcher very early in the morning of the first day of the week; and they brought the spices they had prepared to anoint the Lord, Luke 24:2, and wondered who would roll away the stone for them. But how can it be supposed that they would come for this purpose on first-day morning, if they had been to the sepulcher the night before and found the stone rolled away, and been assured by an angel that the Lord was not there, but had risen? Were they so forgetful, or so thoughtless?
3. While the women were returning to tell the disciples, as the angel had bidden them, according to the record in Matthew 28, the guard went into the city, and between them and the chief priests the story was fabricated that the body of Jesus was stolen while they slept. Now, the supposition that Jesus rose in the daytime before the close of the Sabbath, involves the absurdity of supposing that the guard would acknowledge that they were asleep in the daytime! and that the body was taken in broad daylight! To avoid this, it is said that only the first eight verses of Matthew 28 refer to the Sabbath visit, the language of verse 9, and onward, referring to the morning visit which is noticed by the other evangelists. But this is a most forced and unnatural interpretation; for there is nothing in the language to denote a jump of a whole night between verses 8 and 9, and not an intimation that the record from verse 9 applies to an occasion different from that introduced in the preceding verses. But this view involves an absurdity equal in magnitude to the other; for it follows that the guard, after being struck down as dead men by the glorious manifestations attending the resurrection of Christ on Sabbath afternoon, waited a whole night, till first-day morning, before they went into the city to acquaint the chief priests with the wonderful events which had taken place.
Having now found that Christ's resurrection took place on the first day of the week, the only importance attached to fixing the day of the crucifixion is to show a fulfillment of Christ's words, and make all the statements of the evangelists harmonize. It has already been shown that we cannot go back farther than Thursday for the date of that event. The question here, then, lies between Thursday and Friday where it is generally placed; and it is only material to take that day which is required by the testimony in the case.
Let us suppose it to have occurred on Friday. The betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and entombment, of Christ, then, occupied almost that entire day. Could this be taken as the first day in the computation? If so, then Sunday would be the third day, as the disciples said. In Luke 13:32, we read that Jesus sent this word to Herod: "Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." The to-day in which Christ speaks is here made the first in the order of reckoning.
In Acts 27, we have an account of some of Paul's perils by sea. In verse 17, he speaks of a certain day of their distress. The next day, he continues, they lightened the ship; and the third day, cast overboard the tackling. Verse 19. Here it is evident that the day mentioned in verse 17 is called the first.
In Esther 6, we have an account of a feast given by the queen to Haman and the king. The next day she gave another; and that next day is called the second. Esth. 7:2.
So in reckoning backward, the day on which the person spoke was the first day, and the day but one before that, was called the third. See the marginal reading of Ex. 4:10; Deut. 19:4; Josh. 3:4; 1 Sam. 4:7; 19:7, etc.
From this it is evident that when Christ predicted that he was to suffer certain things, be put to death, and rise the third day, he reckoned the day of his suffering as the first day in the computation.
But how can a portion of Friday, the Sabbath, and a part of Sunday, be called, three days and three nights? There is no difficulty, if such was the manner of speaking in use among the Jews. What did they understand by it? This is the only question to be settled. There is a passage in Esther which would seem to throw some light upon the question. She told Mordecai (4:16) to gather the Jews together who were in Shushan, and fast for three days, neither eating nor drinking night or day; and she would do the same and so would go in unto the king. This expression is certainly equivalent to three days and three nights. And how was it fulfilled? In chap. 5:1, we read that on the third day Esther appeared before the king. In like manner, we read of Joseph that he put his brethren into ward three days, but on the third day he released them and permitted them to depart to Canaan.
From these instances it appears clear that, according to Jewish usage, it did not require three full days and nights to answer to the expression, "three days and three nights;" but that it was applied to a period of time covering the part of one day, the whole of another, and a portion of a third.
The day following the crucifixion, the chief priests came to Pilate desiring a guard to be set; and it is objected that they would not do this upon the Sabbath. This is not the way, to be sure, we should expect the Sabbath to be spoken of; but as to the chief priests and Pharisees, we do not think we can presume much on the piety of men who were just then so infuriated with the spirit of the devil as to condemn the Saviour to the cross. It is far easier to suppose they would come to Pilate upon the Sabbath than to think that the Sabbath which 'followed that preparation day,' Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54, and which the women kept according to the commandment, Luke 23:56, was only a ceremonial sabbath.
But, says one, if we could show that Christ did not rise on the first day of the week, how it would sweep away the argument for Sunday-keeping. To be of any service, the argument to this end must be very plain and positive; for all the world almost are established in the belief that his resurrection was on Sunday. The evidence is not so clear; and to try to use it, is to seize the maul by the head instead of the handle; for it would be a hundred-fold harder to make a person believe that Christ's resurrection did not take place upon the first day of the week, than to show him that if it did, it proved nothing in favor of a Sunday Sabbath. Were we arguing with a Sunday-keeper, we would prefer to admit Christ's resurrection on Sunday rather than otherwise; for we like to agree with an opponent as far as possible; and because, after he has carefully built up his argument, it is so easy to show that point after point is only assumption, and that the whole structure falls in hopeless ruin to the ground.
And farther, to undertake to prove Christ's resurrection upon another day, is a tacit admission that if he did rise on the first day of the week, it is of force in behalf of a Sunday Sabbath; whereas if ten thousand resurrections could be shown upon that day, it would prove nothing whatever in its favor as a day of rest and worship. U. S.
PEACE AND SAFETY.
By J. O. Corliss
BY ELD. J. O. CORLISS.
MANY and various are the interpretations given of the Bible, especially of those scriptures that refer to the coming of the Lord and the end of the world. Any view that will explain away their force and give them a “spiritual” meaning, or place the event of which they speak in the distant future, is listened to by many with evident pleasure.
Recently a man preached from the words, “But the end of all things is at hand; be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” 1 Pet. 4:7. The speaker commenced by saying that he, in common with all good orthodox people, believed in the second personal appearing of Jesus Christ upon the earth; but he could not, with some, think that these words had any reference to that event. He then gave some (to him, no doubt) weighty reasons why he differed from them. Mighty achievements were yet to be executed, whose completion would require ages. The entire world must first be settled, and brought under a high state of civilization, in order to become converted. The mighty forests must be cleared away, and the soil on which56they stand cultivated and become like the garden of Eden. In short, he seemed to think the end no nearer than when Peter wrote the text.
How strangely some men reason! Just think of it! The gospel must bring the world from its darkness occasioned by the fall to the highest point of civilization, convert the world, and restore the earth to its primitive beauty, in order for the Lord to come and destroy it! Could it not be just as effectually destroyed without? What marvelous views such people must have of the infinite wisdom of the great God, and how short-sighted the wisdom that begets such reasoning! It may truthfully be called human, and not heavenly, wisdom. Such representations are faithfully portrayed in the word of God. 2 Pet. 3:3, 4; “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” Since Inspiration has recorded that such speeches will be made in the last days, may we not safely conclude, when we hear them on every hand, that we have entered upon that time?
Another argument advanced was, that had Peter meant the end of the world, he would have said so in so many words. The conclusion was therefore drawn that Peter simply exhorted the people to be sober, and watch unto prayer, because he was about to die! What? Everybody watch and be sober because Peter was going to die? Peter’s death the end of all things? We could not believe that, for a number of reasons: 1. We believe Peter had more sense than to think his life of such importance as to call its termination the end of all things; 2. Had he meant the end of his life he would have “said so in so many words;” 3. That is not the way Bible writers talked about dying. Hear Paul: “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.” 2 Tim. 4:6. Peter also says, “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, . . . . I will endeavor that ye may be able, after my decease, to have these things always in remembrance.” 2 Pet. 1:14, 15
The apostle spoke of that which ever seemed uppermost in his mind—the time when all would render up their account, and receive their reward. 1 Pet. 5:4; 2 Pet. 2:9. God spoke through Peter to those who should live in the time of the end.
In his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul spoke of the Lord’s coming as an event immediately pending: “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” Chap. 5:4. “Therefore let us not sleep, as do others.” Verse 6. Yet he told them in his next letter that before the Lord should come, certain events must transpire which were then matters of prophecy. 2 Thess. 2:1, 3. Paul here speaks as a representative of the whole Christian church, as his epistles cover the whole Christian age. Hence the “ye” and “us” used in the first letter, refer to a class living after the fulfillment of those events given in the second letter; and the apostle expresses himself in language appropriate to that time.
Peter, guided by the same unerring Spirit, takes the same course. In his first epistle he says, “The end of all things is at hand.” In his second letter he speaks again of the Lord’s coming, and says that in making it known he has not followed cunningly devised fables. He then cites for his authority the sure word of prophecy, to which, he says, “ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn.” 2 Pet. 1:16-19. This certainly refers to that people who see the glad day dawn, and yet he speaks as though it applied to the church in his day. If we take heed to the prophecy, as to a light that shines in darkness, it will point with such unerring certainty to that great event that none need be in doubt.
In view of the many omens of the end, how strange that some still persist in lulling the world to sleep. “When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape.” 1 Thess. 5:3.
OUR MESSAGE.
By John Harvey Waggoner
IN Rev. 10:6, 7, an angel swears to the ending of the time, prophetic time, contained in the little book which was opened, in his hand. This was fulfilled by the first angel's message of Rev. 14:6, 7, proclaiming "the hour of his Judgment is come." The Judgment of investigation and of decision of character is identical with the cleansing of the sanctuary; a work to take place at the end of the prophetic period of two thousand and three hundred days. Dan. 8:14. Rev. 10 closes with these words: "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings."
Without a full understanding of the fact that the time referred to in the oath of the angel is prophetic time, it would be natural to conclude that this oath announced the coming of Christ, and the end of the dispensation. And this was the view of those who gave the first message. They did not understand that the Judgment was to sit, and the sanctuary be cleansed, before the coming of the Lord. They fully believed that they were giving the first angel's message, and that, with the close of their message, time should be no longer. But "their eyes were hidden," that they did not see that two messages were to follow the one they were giving, and that the coming of the Lord is after the three are all given. The words of Rev. 10:11, are a prophecy of the third angel's message, and by this we learn that it is to go to "many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings."
Rev. 14:9, says the third angel proclaimed his message "with a loud voice." Thus in these texts we learn two interesting and important truths: 1. This message is to go to the nations of the earth. 2. It is to go with a loud voice, or in mighty power.
God's purposes of grace are worked out by instrumentalities. He has committed to man the work of proclaiming the gospel to his fellow-man. The responsibility of this message is upon us. Not as a burden grievous to be borne, but as a privilege granted to us by infinite mercy, that we may be "workers together with God," the highest honor that weak mortals can enjoy. This message must increase in extent and power. God's word has spoken it, and it cannot fail. But to fulfill this, those who proclaim it, who send it forth to the nations, must be clothed with power from on high. It is their privilege to "be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might." As the message rises in power, God will clothe his servants with strength and power to rise with it. He will be "the health of our countenance," if we put our trust in him.
When Israel went out of Egypt they came to a point where they were hemmed in by the sea, the mountains, and the host of the Egyptians. At this point, with every avenue closed before them, the voice of the Lord is heard, saying, "Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward."
These things "were written for our learning." Let us rise up and go forward. The sea, so dark and forbidding before us, will divide as we approach it, and soon we will sing the song of victory on the other shore.
J. H. W.
I AM A BAPTIST—AND I AM MORE.
By R. F. Cottrell
BY ELD. R. F. COTTRELL.
I AM a Baptist, because I believe the Baptist principle of interpretation to be sound; viz., that whatever is commanded by an institution, is to be learned from the law of the institution, and not from other sources. Therefore, finding the ordinance of baptism in the New Testament, we are not to go back to the law of circumcision to determine who are the proper subjects of the ordinance; and in respect to the mode, or what baptism is, the only rule to determine this is the meaning of the word, the manner of its use in the New Testament, and the circumstances attending its administration as therein recorded. In other words, the law of the institution is the only rule of obedience. This is the reason why I am a Baptist.
And the reason why I am more than a Baptist is, I apply the same mode of reasoning and interpretation to other institutions and duties of revealed religion. For example, take the Sabbatic institution. I know of no rule of obedience, but the the fourth commandment. And taking this law for the rule of action, I can keep no other day as the Sabbath, but the one expressly named in the commandment, the seventh day. Therefore I am a Seventh-day Baptist.
And I am more than this. Applying the same obvious, common-sense rules of interpretation to the prophecies, or in other words, to the promises of the Scriptures, that I do to their institutions and laws, I find that Jesus, when he was about to leave the world and go to his Father, promised that he would come again in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, attended by all the holy angels. And he gave certain signs of his return, by which believers might know when his coming would be near, even at the doors.
These signs have appeared. I believe his promises, and I believe that the promised signs have been fulfilled; and hence, that his second advent is near, even at the doors. Therefore I am an Adventist.
But if it is time that the true people of God should be Adventists in the sense of believing that Christ's advent is even at the doors, it is certainly time that the advent messages, prophesied in Rev. 14:6-12, should be in process of fulfillment, being distinctly proclaimed in the world, by the believers in Jesus Christ. True Adventists will find their duty and their history clearly marked out in this prophetic sketch. Those who cannot point out their progress in the advent proclamation by the use of this unerring prophetic outline, are not genuine Adventists, though they may bear the name.
The genuine experience of Adventists is here given in advance. And the final advent message develops the true people of God, distinguished as those "who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Are these the distinguishing marks of those Adventists who hold that the commandments of God have been superseded and abolished by the faith of Jesus? A person is not a commandment-keeper who breaks one of the commandments. Such should be described as those who break the commandments. And the Sabbath law is one of the commandments of God.
Therefore No-Sabbath Adventists are not the ones described in this prophecy. And the words of this commandment have not been changed. It still says, "The SEVENTH DAY is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Therefore I am a Seventh-day Baptist Adventist.
THE BELIEVERS IN THE TWO FIRST CENTURIES.
By Stephen N. Haskell
BY ELD. S. N. HASKELL.
The obscurity which enshrouds the lives of the apostles is such that very few have any just idea of the extent and efficiency of their labors. To them the divine commission, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," was personally addressed. Profane history, faint, and uncertain though its record is of these times, gives abundant evidence that the disciples were not disobedient to this sacred charge. Their efforts were not confined to the learned and enlightened, but they went also to the heathen, those who had little or no knowledge of God. They had not the facilities for labor existing at the present time. Their journeys were largely performed on foot, and, to some extent at least, they labored with their hands for their own support. The printed sheet was not at their command. They could not through the mails send written communications of good cheer and counsel to their friends and each other; but with dauntless and unflinching zeal they labored on until all but one sealed their testimony with their blood.
Peter who for a time confined his labors to his countrymen and the Samaritans, having been admonished by divine revelation to call nothing common or unclean which God had cleansed, labored with much zeal and success in Greece, Thrace and Asia Minor. He also extended his travels as far as Babylon.
Paul who had his first experience after his conversion in Arabia, states that he labored more abundantly than the other apostles, and that from Jerusalem round to Illyricum he had fully preached the gospel of Christ. This embraces a large extent of territory, the different countries of which it would be useless to mention. Clemens, who lived contemporary with him, states that "he preached the gospel both in the east and west, that he taught righteousness to the whole world, and went to the utmost limits of the west." For two years he also preached in the imperial city of Rome.
Andrew seems to have chosen Scythia and the adjacent countries as the field of his labor. He passed along the Euxine or Black Sea and returned to what is now Constantinople, where he labored with considerable success. He afterward traveled through Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia and Epirus.
Philip is supposed to have labored in company with Andrew in Scythia, afterward in Phrygia.
Bartholomew, supposed by some to be the same as Nathanael, extended his labors as far as India on the side of the Ganges. He is also said to have traveled in Lesser Asia.
Thomas, according to the testimony of Jerome, was very active and useful, laboring among the Medes, Persians, Parthians, Magians, etc., and traveling as far as the Island of Taprobane, supposed to have been the same as Ceylon. When the Portuguese visited India in the sixteenth century, they discovered, from certain traditions and ancient monuments, that this apostle had preached there, and it is asserted that he was put to death in that country by some Bramins, who feared that his labors might eventually prove subversive to their idolatrous superstitions.
Matthew remained in Judea for some time where it is wrote his gospel, after which he labored in Ethiopia, Persia, Parthia, and India, in the latter place, or in Abyssinia, he was put to death.
Simon, who was probably called Zelotes, appears to have taken a wide field of labor. He traveled in Egypt, Cyrene, Asia, etc. By some it is asserted that he introduced the gospel into Britain. Others, however, are of the opinion that he directed his course toward Persia, where he suffered martyrdom.
John, the beloved disciple, shared with Peter for some time the severe persecutions which came upon them at Jerusalem, after which his field of labor is not definitely known. Some locate it in Parthia and India, others in Asia Minor.
Jude, the brother of James, commenced his labors in Palestine, but afterward extended them to Mesopotamia, Persia, Armenia, and Libya. James the less, was an eminent supporter of the church at Jerusalem, and did not extend his labors beyond that place.57About twenty-four years after our Lord's ascension, the Hebrew rulers, having become violently enraged at the rapid dissemination of evangelic truth, commanded this apostle, then in his ninety-sixth year, to ascend one of the galleries of the temple and proclaim to the people that they had deceived themselves in supposing Jesus of Nazareth to have been the promised Messiah. Fired with holy indignation at these orders, and resolving to devote the last remnant of his life and strength to the honor of the Saviour, this venerable man ascended the eminence, and, with a loud voice asserted that the crucified One was indeed the Son of God, and that he would, in fullness of time, appear in the clouds of heaven as the great Judge of quick and dead. Exasperated by this declaration, the Pharisees threw him headlong over the battlement, and while he was in the act of praying for his inhuman murderers, their associates beat out his brains with a fuller's club.
Although the apostles were successively removed from the scenes of their labor, the great cause of missions inaugurated by them and the great Teacher, was by no means checked. Holy men were raised up to take their places, and the gospel light was rapidly diffused. Early British historians give strong intimation that as early as A. D. 60 the gospel had begun to be successfully established in that country. Eusebius distinctly states that some of the apostles "passed over the ocean and preached in the British isles," and Theodoret mentions the Britons among the nations whom the "fishermen, publicans, and tentmakers," as he styles them, had induced to embrace the religion of the crucified Jesus. It also appears that the gospel was carried to Britain by persons of royal birth who were prisoners at Rome about the time that the apostle Paul was held a captive at that place.
In the second century this work continued. The followers of the apostles imitated their example in distributing their worldly goods to the poor, and leaving their own country to carry the gospel to distant lands. As soon as they were enabled to organize a Christian society in one nation they hastened to another, unlocking the stores of divine revelation to those who were sitting in darkness. In A. D. 106, Pliny in writing to the Emperor Trajan says: "The number of culprits [Christians] is become so great as to call for serious consultation; the contagion of their superstition having spread not only through cities, but even in villages and the country."
Some years after this Tertullian in speaking of the extension of the gospel, numbers among those who had previously embraced it, the Dacians, Germans, Scythians, Sarmatians; many of the Getuli, great numbers of the Moors, those in the utmost bounds of Spain, the various nations of Gaul, and those of Britain which were inaccessible to the Roman arms.
Thus we see disseminated throughout the entire Christian church, the same spirit of reaching out for the salvation of others which was manifested in its commencement. No sooner had Andrew found the Saviour than he sought his brother Simon and brought him to Christ. So likewise did Philip bring Nathanael to the Saviour. John 1:41-49. It is the spirit of Christ, and hence it will ever remain with the true church.
Paul Kept the Faith
PAUL kept the faith at Antioch, even when the infatuated crowd attempted to drown his voice with their clamor, and interrupted him, contradicting and blaspheming. He kept the faith at Iconium, when the envious Jews stirred up the people to see him. He kept the faith at Lystra, when the fate of Stephen almost became his, and he was dragged, wounded and bleeding, outside the ramparts of the town, and left there to languish, and for aught they cared, to die. He kept the faith against his erring brother Peter, and withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. He kept the faith when shamefully treated at Philippi, and made the dungeon echo back the praises of his God. He kept the faith at Thessalonica, when lewd fellows of the baser sort accused him falsely of sedition. He kept the faith at Athens, when to the world's sages, he preached of Him whom they ignorantly worshipped as the unknown God. He kept the faith at Corinth, when compelled to abandon that hardened and obdurate city, and to shake off the dust of his garments as a witness against it. He kept the faith at Ephesus, when he pointed his hearers not to Diana but to Jesus Christ as their only Saviour. He kept the faith at Jerusalem, when stoned by the enraged and agitated mob—when placed upon the torturing rack and bound with iron fetters. He kept the faith at Cesarea, before the trembling, conscience-stricken Felix, when he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. He kept the faith before Agrippa, and, by his earnestness, compelled the king to say, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."—Sel.