0 votes
by (4.1k points)
Revelation 1:9-10 "I, John, who also am your brother, and fellow-partner in the tribulation, and in the reign and endurance, of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, because of the word of God, and because of the testimony of Jesus Christ; I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying,"

To what was John referring when he said he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's day?" Did he mean to reference the common expression in the scriptures of "the day of the Lord," or did he mean to reference the first day of the week commonly taken to be Sunday?

1 Answer

0 votes
by (4.1k points)
edited by
(1) Rather than enter into a discussion as to whether the Book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John (a necessity if the book legitimately has a place in the Canon), I shall ask simply whether you can point to a passage other than Matthew 12:8 which associates with the Lord a specific day of the week.  Of course, the "Lord" in view is the Son of God, Jesus, the Christ; for this question has to do with the supposed Sunday resurrection of Jesus.  Apart from a Sunday Resurrection, there would be no basis upon which to claim special status for the first day of the week.  

(2) As an addendum to the first point, suppose that the Resurrection did occur on Sunday.  In that case, could it be argued that the Sabbath is any LESS the "Lord's Day" than is Sunday?  Or perhaps the declaration of Matthew 12:8 means simply that the "Son of man" (the appellation of Jesus for himself; the same appellation was used of the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel) is the Lord of EVERY day?

(3) And here another problem arises, namely, the fact that the Resurrection could not have occurred on Sunday.  

To begin with, we must make the assumption that the sign of Three Days and Three Nights of entombment (Matthew 12:38-42) was fulfilled precisely, so that there is no technicality upon which to gainsay the fulfillment.  

The contemporary Protestant Pulpit stupidly teaches the absurd tradition of "Good Friday" Crucifixion and "Easter Sunday" Resurrection, and then attempts to reconcile the tradition with the Three Days and Three Nights sign by asserting that the Jews reckoned any part of a day as a full day of twenty and four hours.

But even the Talmudic Jews who murdered Jesus were certain that the sign had been fulfilled in detail, by an entombment of precisely Three Days and Three Nights.  Not a few of the Talmudic Jews who opposed Christ Jesus were lawyers whose crafty minds ever are searching out loopholes and technicalities whereby the Spirit of the Law might be disregarded without violation of the Letter.  From the very beginning, the Talmudic Jew has sought to overthrow the Christian Faith, using every means at his disposal.  And no more devastating blow could be delivered to the Christian Faith than to demonstrate that the "Sign of Jonas" was not fulfilled.  Accordingly, the greatest proof that the sign of Three Days and Three Nights was fulfilled to perfection is the two-thousand-year silence of the Jew regarding the fulfillment.  The Jew has not contested the fulfillment of the sign of Three Days and Three Nights simply because the fact of fulfillment is unassailable.

Were Protestant tradition true -- entombment on Friday just before sunset and resurrection at sunrise on Sunday -- not only the Christ-hating Jew, but also any rational man, would reject as invalid the only proof which Jesus offered that he was sent by God the Father and that his every deed and his every utterance were by the authority of the Father.

On the basis of entombment for precisely three days and three nights, we are forced to the conclusion that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and was entombed just prior to sunset Wednesday.  After an interval of precisely three days and three nights, Jesus was raised from the Dead just prior to sunset on the weekly Sabbath, which we term Saturday.

This conclusion is in harmony with the Gospel Accounts, for in John 19:31 it is recorded that the approaching Sabbath was a High Sabbath, the Passover, which in that year happened to fall on the day we term Thursday.  Thus, the week in view had two Sabbaths, each of which was preceded by a "day of preparation."

(4) Inasmuch as this matter, the notion of the "Lord's Day," ought be thrashed until every sign of life has been pounded out of it, I shall call attention to Romans chapter 14, and, in particular, to verses 5 and 6.  One Christian esteems one day to be above (which is to say, hallowed or sanctified) another day, while another Christian esteems every day to be alike (this might be termed the "Psalm 118:24 attitude"), but the Scripture censors neither opinion.  How, then, can this disparity of opinion be of no consequence, if Sunday indeed is "the Lord's Day"?

(5) Here is yet another stake driven through the heart of the vampire:

The argument is made that, in celebration of the Resurrection, the "early Church" met on the First Day of the Week.  In support of the argument, three passages are cited:

(a) John 20:19 - "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."

This appearance of Jesus took place about a full day after the Resurrection.  It is curious that this passage is cited by Preachers who claim that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost, for it hardly qualifies as a "meeting of the early Church."  (There is a strong argument that construction of the living, spiritual edifice which is the Church began immediately upon the Resurrection of Jesus; but that is a matter for another discussion.)

The next recorded gathering or "assembly" of the disciples took place EIGHT days later, which would have been on Monday, the SECOND day of the week (and still was prior to Pentecost):

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."

In the first instance, it was in the evening that Jesus appeared to the disciples.  If, as many teach, the practice of gathering on Sunday commemorates a sunrise Sunday resurrection, should not the disciples have gathered in the morning, rather than in the evening?

And there also is the question of Roman reckoning of the day (in which the day begins at midnight) as opposed to Talmudic reckoning (in which the day begins at sunset).  The Greek word OPSIOS means "evening," but there is question among scholars as to the hour at which evening begins; about all than can be said with certainty is that OPSIOS does not necessarily begin at sunset.  However, it seems quite apparent that, both in the Creation Account of Genesis and in Israel prior to the advent of Talmudic Judaism, evening commences at high noon; accordingly, evening begins the day; thus, the expression "and there was evening and there was morning."

It appears impossible to determine whether the appearances of Jesus took place before or after sunset.  And thus, it appears impossible to determine whether the appearances were, by Talmudic reckoning, on the  same day reported for the gathering or on the next day.  To explain:  if the disciples gathered before sunset on the FIRST day of the week, but Jesus did not appear to them until after sunset, the appearance would have taken place on the SECOND day of the week, according to Talmudic reckoning.

(b) Acts 20:7 - "And upon THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

The gathering at Troas took place on the seventh day after Paul and company arrived.  This appears to be about the only passage which might provide support for Sunday as a day of worship, yet the stated purpose of the gathering is "to break bread."  And both in the immediate context and back in the second chapter of Acts, the act of "breaking bread" appears to be nothing more than the taking of a meal.

(c) I Corinthians 16:2 - "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."

This passage has nothing to do with gathering of the local assembly; it instructs the Christian to augment, on a weekly basis, the private accumulation of money which, at some later date, he is to entrust to Barnabus and Paul for delivery to the impoverished Christians in Judaea, Acts 11:27-30.  The money thus accumulated by each Christian is a gift to fellow Christians.  The criterion for this gift is specified by Paul in II Corinthians 9:7 as "not grudgingly, or of necessity."

Some contemporary Preachers, seeking techniques to increase the amount of contributions, cite II Corinthians 9:7 when passing the offering plate.  But to do so is wrong on three counts:

(i) The passage has nothing to do with support of the teaching ministry; as verse 1 reads, "For as touching THE MINISTERING TO THE SAINTS..."

(ii) To cite the passage with respect to support of the teaching ministry is disingenuous, amounting to a display of false humility.

(iii) The Scripture repeatedly commands that those who are taught support their teacher; thus, such support is of necessity.  

(6) Finally, the Scripture teaches that the Justified enjoy a temporal status of "fellowship" with the Lord, which fellowship is broken by sin, and is restored by confession of sin; consider passages such as Psalm 66:18 and I John 1:9.  A correct sorting out of the matter is complicated greatly by considerations concerning the Spirit of God; teaching on the matter should be scrutinized, for not all of it is correct.  Suffice it to say that some teachers associate this fellowship with the "filling of the Spirit," and claim that the phrase "in the Spirit" of Revelation 1:10 is the declaration by the author, "John," that he was "filled with the Spirit" on the First Day of the Week, Sunday.  Of course, such an interpretation would seem to indicate that, for the author "John," the "filling of the Spirit" was the exception, rather than the norm.

(7) The "Lord's Day" is not to be confused with "the Day of the Lord."  The Scripture has only one instance of the Greek adjective KURIAKOS, which means "pertaining to the Lord"; this is I Corinthians 11:20, speaking of the Lord's Supper.  It is KURIAKOS which appears in Revelation 1:10.  The Greek noun KURIOS in the genitive case, meaning "of the Lord," is used throughout the Scripture when speaking of the Day of the Lord as an episode of judgment.

(8) It appears to me evident that the concept of the First Day of the Week, Sunday, as "the Lord's Day" is nothing more than another of the numerous fanciful inventions which have been devised by the Protestant; it has no Scriptural basis.

As a corollary, the Sabbath, the sixth day of the week, remains the only day accorded special status, that status being enhanced by virtue of the Sabbath being the actual day of the Resurrection.  However, as discussed in Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, the Sabbath day is symbolic.  Indeed, in view of Romans 14:5-6, veneration of the Sabbath as physical day of the week appears to be an element of the shadows of the Old Covenant; consider Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5, Hebrews 10:1.
Welcome to Study Bible Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.