02.13. The Lord's Day: How the Apostles Understood the Subject

CHAPTER VI
HOW THE APOSTLES UNDERSTOOD THE SUBJECT
OF THE LORD’S DAY

We have seen already that they did not regard themselves under the law, and that they did not keep the Sabbath; that there is no case on record where a company of Christians only met together on the Sabbath day for any purpose And yet it is probable that those Judaizing teachers who came down to Anti­och, and taught that they must be circumcised and keep the law, or they could not be saved, kept the Sabbath. But if it had been regarded as binding on Christians, we should have had at least some account of its observance somewhere. We have seen, too, that the apostles taught the disciples that they were free from the law, and that no man had any right to judge them in respect of the Sabbath. We have seen, too, that the Christian world has been a unit on the subject of the observance of the Lord’s Day, or first day of the week. We have also seen many reasons why they should have reached this conclusion, but we now come to examine more closely into what the apostles have said concerning this matter, directly. From Heb 10:25, we learn that they had a regular day or time of meeting together, for it is inconceivable that they should be exhorted to not neglect the assembling of themselves together, if there was no appointed time for such a gathering. No one could be blamed for not being present, if there was no under­standing as to the time and place of meeting. We learn, a little on this side of the apostles, that they had a stated time, namely, on Sunday—the resurrection day—when they met everywhere, in the villages and in the country localities, where they could do so without being persecuted, and where they could do no better they met in caves and fastnesses of the mountains. But the question which now engages our attention is, What have the apostles said directly on the subject of keeping the Lord’s Day, or first day of the week? This brings us to our ar­gument number

IV. The primitive church met together on the first day of the week to break bread. This is the direct statement of Acts 20:7. A number of things are said in answer to this, such as that such language does not declare a practice, but simply records an occurrence. Once in the history of Christian work it happened that they met on the first day of the week to break bread„ and that is nothing more than an incident. And yet, if Sabbatarians could find somewhere in the New Testament, a gathering of Christians for Christian worship, only, on the seventh day, it would be regarded as a custom, and there­fore a guide to Christians at the present time.

They try to tell us that there is no evidence that Paul regarded the day as sacred, from the fact that he went on his journey the next morning, which, according to their count, was still the first day of the week. Let us read the connection, beginning with the fourth and closing with the eleventh verse:

“And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gains of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia Tychicus and Trophimus. These going before, tarried for us at Troas. And we sailed away from Philippi, after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. 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. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutycus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed."

Now from this we learn,

But it is said that Paul went on his journey on that day; not only so, but he went on foot, across the country. They forget that there is no reference to his stopping any time during his whole ministry for the Sabbath, and that their argument would ruin their doctrine of the Sabbath. Paul was in haste to reach Jerusalem by the Pentecost, and if he should have gone forward on that day rather than to take his chances of finding another opportunity to cross the waters, there would be nothing strange about it. Still, they have to assume that the first day of the week, on which they met together to break bread, and the "morrow," on which he was ready to depart, were the same day. In the second place, they assume that the journey spoken of in the thirteenth verse was on the first day of the week. It is not so stated; neither is it a necessary inference. And in the third place there would be nothing in it, if they should be able, under the circumstances, to find Paul going on his way. What we do know is that the disciples met together to break bread, and that this was the purpose for which they met. It was therefore to them a day of sacred devotion in the service of the Lord.

V. Paul’s directing the saints in their worship on the first day of the week, both in Corinth and the churches in Galatia, shows that the day was everywhere so employed. See 1Co 16:1-2.

It is sometimes said that this language does not indicate that the first day of the week was regarded as a sacred day, for it was to be devoted to secular purposes; they were to make it a day of money raising, or for the laying apart of some of their income for the purpose of sending a present to the saints who were in Judea.

We find that all bodies of Christians do, and ever have, provided on this day for the temporal necessities of those for whom they are responsible. If they have not done this wholly on the first day of the week, they have at least largely accomplished that work on that day. Can we prove in that way or by that fact that they have not regarded the day as sacred? To ask the ques­tion is enough. Every man who will stop long enough to think, will acknowledge that their providing for this benevolence can in no way interfere with the idea that they regarded the day as sacred. Indeed it strengthens that thought. To make such provisions for the needy, would be as religious an act as could be performed on that or any other day.

Again, it is said that there is no evidence that they met together at all on the first day of the week; that the only direction in the matter is that of laying by in store such an amount of their earnings as they would be able to spare. But the very purpose had in view in this request would be defeated in that way. Paul thought he might be in great haste, and there would be no time for such gathering of means after his arrival, and therefore he would have it all provided in a place where it might be used at once; that if he should reach the city in the evening and wish to depart in the morning, the contribution would be ready, and that no time would be lost. But if this money should be at their homes, the collection would yet have to be made. But why request them to lay by them in store on the first day of the week? Why not say to them, Lay up all you can till I come, so that the amount which I ought to take will be provided for? It is not too much to say that such would have been his directions in the matter if such had been his thought.

It is strange again, if they are correct in this view, that the whole Christian world differs with them in reference to it. Almost everywhere it is cited as a rule for raising the necessary expenses of church and missionary work. The rendering of this passage by Benjamin Wilson in the Emphatic Diaglott brings out the meaning more clearly than that of the Common Version:

“And concerning the collection which is for the saints;—as I directed the congregation in Galatia, so also do you. Every first day of every week, let each of you lay something by itself, depositing as he may be prospered, so that when I come, collec­tions may not then be made."

Dr. Macknight takes a like view of the passage and renders it:

"Now concerning the collection which is for the saints, as I ordered the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. On the first day of every week, let each of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may be prospered, putting it into the treasury, that when I come, there may be then no collections." The Doctor takes the same view of the purpose of the collec­tion which has already been mentioned, and therefore urges that the use of a treasury or chest was employed by them for this purpose. He then says:

"From this passage it is evident that the Corinthian brethren were in use to assemble on the first day of the week for the pur­pose of worshiping God. And as the apostle gave the same order to the Galatians, they likewise must have held their relig­ious assemblies on the first day of the week." The only rational way of accounting for this order is the thought which has been generally, almost unanimously, adopted —that Paul selected the day on which the congregation met for worship, and ordered that at these regular meetings they should thus participate in the contribution. This will account for the same demand being made of the Corinthians that was made of the congregations in Galatia.

If we were looking for the one great purpose of the meeting on every Lord’s Day, it would be the same as that of the church at Troas—"the breaking of bread," or the communion. That this may appear to us as it was, let us turn and read 1Co 11:20-30 :

“When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was be­trayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in re­membrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drink­eth unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body." The evident meaning of this severe reproof is that they should meet together for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but by their abuse of this holy appointment they were not really partaking of the supper at all. They had turned it into a kind of club dinner, or a Sunday feast, and had left the spiritual im­port of the beautiful, solemn service. It reveals the fact, how­ever, that they should meet together for the purpose of breaking bread. The time of their meeting is found in the first part of the sixteenth chapter, which, as we have seen when clearly translated, was on every first day of the week.

Thus it is seen that, like the church at Troas, so the churches at Corinth and the churches in Galatia met every first day of the week to break bread. Hence these meetings furnished an op­portunity for Paul’s benevolent enterprise—raising money for the needy.

VI. Our sixth and last argument is founded on Rev 1:10 : “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day." On this passage Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (American edi­tion) has this to say:

"It has been questioned, though not seriously till of late years, what is the meaning of the Greek phrase, he kuriake hentera, which occurs in one passage only of the Holy Scripture, Rev 1:10, and is in our English version translated ’the Lord’s Day.’ The general consent, both of Christian antiquity and of modern divines, has referred it to the weekly festival of our Lord’s resurrection, and identified it with the first day of the week, on which he rose, with the patristical ’ eighth day,’ or ’day which is both the first and the eighth,’ in fact with the ha tou haliou hemera, Solis Dies, or Sunday, of every age of the church.

"But the views antagonistic to this general conduct deserve at least a passing notice. (1) Some have supposed St. John to be speaking, in the passage above referred to, of the Sabbath, because that institution is called in Isa 58:13, by the Almighty himself, ’ My holy day.’ To this it is replied, if St John had intended to specify the Sabbath he would surely have used that word, which was by no means obsolete, or even obso­lescent, at the time of his composing the book of the Revela­tions. And it is added that if an apostle had set the example of confounding the seventh and first days of the week, it would have been strange indeed that every ecclesiastical writer for the first five centuries should have avoided any approach to any such confusion. They do avoid it, for as Sabbaton is never used by them for the first day, so kuriake is never used by them for the seventh day." The writer then proceeds to show that other interpretations were equally unsound, and that it must have the meaning gener­ally agreed upon, namely, that of the first day of the week. Next the author shows us that all men have ever understood the Lord’s Day to refer to the day of the resurrection, or first day of the week. I have given a number of the quotations which are given here, but I will notice a few which I have not noticed be­fore, that you may see just how the fathers understood these words. I quote Mr. Smith’s use of them. See Vol. II; pages 1676-1680:

“The epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, which though certainly not written by that Apostle, was in existence in the early part of the second century, has (c. 15) the following words: ’ We cele­brate the eighth day with joy, on which too Jesus rose from the dead." The author then quotes Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, as using language quite as strong and clear as that which is put to the account of Barnabas. Then he quotes from Melito, bishop of Sardis, who had written a work on the Lord’s Day. He then says:

“The next writer who may be quoted is Ireneus, bishop of Lions, A. D. 178. He asserts that the Sabbath is abolished; but his evidence to the existence of the Lord’s Day is clear and distinct. It is spoken of in one of the best known of his frag­ments. Victor, bishop of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Ter_ tullian, Origen, Minucius Felix, Cyprian and his colleagues, Commodian, Victorinus, Peter, bishop of Alexandria. He in­troduces them all as holding the same views and as using the same phraseology respecting the first day of the week. They call it Lord’s Day, first day, eighth day, resurrection day, Sunday, but they never call it Sabbath.’ " The only reason why these men never speak of Christians meeting for worship on the Sabbath day—except a few Juda­izers who kept both days—is because they did not meet on that day.

After Christ rose from the dead and was made both Lord and the anointed One—Acts 2:36—the word Lord constantly refers to him. Before this it was used of the Father, and afterward, when a quotation from the Old Testament was employed contain­ing such use. But after it was known that all authority in heaven and earth had been given into his hands ( Mat 28:18-19,) the apostles employed this term wholly of Christ.

We have already seen that Christians used the “Lord’s Day" of the first day of the week. We have not found, and cannot find, that they ever spoke of the seventh day of the week by that phrase. No more could it refer to the Sabbath of the Decalogue, than "The Lord’s Supper" of 1Co 11:20 could have meant the Jewish Passover. As it meant the supper, or breaking of bread in honor of Jesus, so this day was the day of victory through his resurrection from the dead. “The Lord’s Day “of Rev 1:10 not only refers to the first day of the week, but the use of it there shows that the phrase was familiar to all the saints at that time. To have employed an obscure term would have defeated his purpose entirely. No other day than this would have been regarded as worthy of such honorable distinction. It was the day of the Lord’s victory over death; the day on which he appeared to his disciples by many infallible proofs; the day of the Spirit’s descent; the day of the announcement of his kingdom, and the beginning of his church; the day on which remission of sins was first offered to the world in his name; the day on which his law went forth from Zion and his word from Jerusalem; the day on which, from the very first, his disciples met to break bread, in memory of his dying love. No wonder John “was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day." While he was in exile for his devotion to Jesus; while he was maltreated by the great enemy of the race, who had put his Master to death, the return of this day would fill his heart with the thoughts of certain victory. lie knew that the disciple, were then everywhere remembering the Lord’s death, were praying for his exile, and for the Master’s intervention in his behalf. The disciples soon learned that the first day of the week, being the Lord’s Day, was not their day; it was not a day for secular pursuits, or social mirth, but a day of holy joy in the solemn service of the Savior of men. A word to the reader, and I have done. Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath. The cross of Christ is of none effect to you, if you are justified by the law. But no flesh is justified by the law in the sight of God. We have seen that the whole law, Sabbath and all, was done away in Christ, and that we are now only under law to Christ. And we now lay down the challenge of Elijah, changed to our present subject: If Christ is our lawgiver, serve him; if Moses is our lawgiver, serve him. The mixing of the law and the gospel has been the great weak­ness of the church. I exhort you, therefore, to use your freedom in Christ Jesus; to stand fast, therefore, in the liberty of a Chris­tian, and be not entangled in the yoke of bondage.