-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Truth about the Lord's Day
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
In this thread we maximize the common ground no matter if you consider Saturday or Sunday to be the Lord's day.
First a 7 minute video for reference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvdhuVUFN6g
Now notice that in the list below there are groups who consider Sunday as the Lord's Day today and also groups who select Saturday.
==========================
I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.
And of course 7th day groups
Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)
========================== end of list
But all the groups listed admit that prior to the Cross Saturday was the Lord's Day and both groups listed apply the term to the 4th Commandment.
Were you aware of that point of common ground?
in Christ,
Bob
Church of God and Messianic Jewish Congregation must be included.
Lord's Day was Sabbath Saturday as witnessed by Polycarp, the disciple of Apostle John. Polycarp was arrested on the Sabbath and martyred on the HIgh Sabbath. He rejected the Easter, but he emphasized on Passover.
Day of Worship was never changed in the Bible, but after the Bible writing, Marcionists started to change it to Sunday in the early 2C.
Polycarp never used the phrase 'Kuriakeh Hehmera'.
He did not <<emphasize on Passover>>.
Although Marcion was strongly anti-Jewish, <<Macionists>> did not <<start to change it (Day of Worship) to Sunday in the early 2C>>.
TrevorL
Member
Greetings Bob,
The following are a few references:
Isaiah 2:12 (KJV): For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
Joel 1:15 (KJV): Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.
Joel 2:1 (KJV): 1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
Zephaniah 1:7 (KJV): Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.
Zechariah 14:1 (KJV): Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
Malachi 4:5 (KJV): Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
2 Corinthians 1:14 (KJV): As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 (KJV): For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
Revelation 1:10-12 (KJV): 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
John was transported in vision to the future “day of the Lord” to receive by means of signs and symbols and direct revelation the things concerning the Revealing or Apocalypse of Jesus Christ.
Kind regards
Trevor
I have not watched the video, nor do I fit into either list. Have you considered the possibility that there is a third position - that “the Lord’s day” is the day of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to establish His Kingdom, to reward the faithful and punish the wicked.
The following are a few references:
Isaiah 2:12 (KJV): For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
Joel 1:15 (KJV): Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.
Joel 2:1 (KJV): 1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
Zephaniah 1:7 (KJV): Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.
Zechariah 14:1 (KJV): Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
Malachi 4:5 (KJV): Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
2 Corinthians 1:14 (KJV): As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 (KJV): For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
Revelation 1:10-12 (KJV): 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
John was transported in vision to the future “day of the Lord” to receive by means of signs and symbols and direct revelation the things concerning the Revealing or Apocalypse of Jesus Christ.
Kind regards
Trevor
If you had proof you would offer it. I challenge you again: Give me Scriptural proof that "keeping the Sabbath Day," means to worship on the Sabbath Day.
If it didn't mean to worship on it “keeping of the Sabbath Day” Hebrews 4:9 would have been senseless "for the People of God";
The Sabbath without the basis for its keeping, namely, that "Jesus gave them rest ... HE HAVING ENTERED INTO HIS OWN REST AS GOD ..." THROUGH HAVING RAISED FROM THE DEAD "IN THE SABBATH", does not exist in the New Testament or Old.
Were its sole end, basis and purpose, blessedness and holiness, not been TO WORSHIP GOD AS THE PEOPLE OF GOD ON IT, the Sabbath Day is void and no Sabbath Day of the BIBLE.
GOD gave the Sabbath so that it would "for the People of God" every Seventh Day of the week bring that connecting-point in time and EXISTENCE ON EARTH AS "The Body of Christ's Own" around, in which THEY, might "Sabbaths'-Feast of Christ the SUBSTANCE ... NOURISHMENT being ministered by joints and bands holding to the HEAD ...", "... which is CHRIST the ALL in all fulfilling FULLNESS OF GOD GIVEN TO THE CHURCH". Colossians 2:12-19 Ephesians 1:22,23.
Karl Barth illustrated this with God’s vertical descent upon the earthly and human horizontal plane every Seventh Day Sabbath.
Christ’ Resurrection “on the Sabbath” though, provides the Divine ascending interruption from the horizontal earthly and human plane.
I admit that it seems to be no more than theoretical or a wish, but there is no doubt it is BIBLICAL.
Sunday received nothing in the same vein in the Scriptures.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is yet another <<position>>.
Isaiah 66 indisputably places the day of judgment of the wicked on the same day in which the redeemed will go into the New Jerusalem "to worship on the Sabbath".
"The Day of the Lord" will be --- and is --- "The Lord (Jesus)' Day" : the day of his TRIUMPH over "the last enemy : death" in "The Last Day" and Day of the Resurrection, Judgment and Eternal Redemption or Condemnation.
Jesus gave them rest. It is rest; not worship.
Wrong again. The purpose is rest; not worship. I am a preacher of the gospel. I do more work on Sunday than on any other day of the week.
You can't prove that through Scripture. Instead of posting meaningless references. Post the verse and exegete it. Show how the verse relates the Sabbath to worship. It doesn't. The Sabbath is never related worship. That is a myth.
And so?
Christ arose from the dead on the first day of the week. That day is Sunday. It is not the Sabbath.
You haven't proved it to be biblical. Where is your evidence?
You haven't proved that either.
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles... John, the disciple of the Lord…exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan" (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4).
Valentinus, Cerinthus, and Marcion are considered by Catholics and others to have been Gnostic heretics, while Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus were claimed bishops of Rome. Thus these quotes from Irenaeus show that the supposed Roman bishops did not have a higher leadership role than Polycarp of Smyrna had, because it apparently took the stature of the visiting Polycarp to turn many Romans away from the Gnostic heretics. The other reality is that according to Tertullian, it took the Church of Rome decades before they got rid of those heretics (Tertullian. The Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 30. Translated by Peter Holmes. Electronic Version Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved), thus suggesting that Rome tolerated heresies much more than Polycarp did.
Cerinthus taught allegorizing of scripture, taught that non-biblical tradition was more important than scripture, blended Gnostic teachings with the Bible, implemented improper festivals, claimed to be an apostle, and claimed that angels gave him messages. Although the Apostle John denounced him, many of his teachings eventually found their way into the Church of Rome. More on Cerinthus can be found in the article Cerinthus: An early heretic.
Marcion was possibly the first heretic to attempt to do away with the Sabbath. Valentinus of Rome, who Polycarp denounced, who is believed to have been the first affiliated with Christianity to teach the Trinitarian concept of three hypostasis or make any clear statement of ‘equality’ regarding three alleged persons of God. But notice that the Church of Rome tolerated them both for decades, yet Polycarp denounced them.
Irenaeus also reported:
And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points…For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not Irenaeus. (FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors); American Edition copyright © 1885. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc.).
http://www.cogwriter.com/polycarp.htm
It was reported that Polycarp was arrested in the evening of Sabbath and martyred on the High Sabbath.
In other words, there was still the custom of remembering the Sabbath, High Sabbath ( Passover Sabbath).
Ploycarp fought for Passover against Easter.
Lord's Day ( Re 1:10) is the Saturday because LOrd Jesus is the Lord of Sabbath ( Mark 2:26-27)
Polycarp was gathering on Sabbath and they still had the worship service on Saturdays.
Polycarp followed Apostle John as his disciple, and knew what Apostle JOhn wrote.
Polycarp was gathering on Sabbath and they still had the worship service on Saturdays.
Polycarp followed Apostle John as his disciple, and knew what Apostle JOhn wrote.
Last edited:
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and he emphasized that to a Jewish audience who considered themselves under the law.
Christ is not only Lord of the Sabbath, but Lord of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. He is Lord of every day, every day of the week of the month, every month of the year, every year of the decade, every decade of the century, every century of every millennium of history. Christ is Lord! Period!
That doesn't mean there is any command to worship on the Sabbath, or Saturday.
Christ arose on the first day of the week--Sunday.
The early believers, first, worshiped every day of the week (Acts 2:41-43)
Then they began to worship on the first day of the week or Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1Cor.16:2; Rev.1:10)
The first day of the week, Sunday, also became known as "the Lord's Day." The Jews never referred to it as such.
Re:
<<<Christ is not only Lord of the Sabbath, but Lord of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.>>>
O no! the 'lords' of these days other than "the day The Seventh Day Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD" are the sun, the moon, the mythical 'gods' like Thor of Thursday and the planets like Saturn the lord of Saturday.
Not even the time-cycles of the mythical pagan gods correlate with the hours of Biblical or the Lord God's created days.
Jesus nor Jesus' Resurrection has anything to do with 'Sunday' which is as pagan and idolatrous as the worshiped lord of the Baal-priests, the Caesars of this world.
Where is the <command to worship on> THESE days, <<Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday>>?
And where is the UN-CORRUPTED Scripture for these FALSE allegations:
<<<Christ arose on the first day of the week--Sunday.>>>
<<<The early believers, first, worshiped every day of the week>>>
<Acts 2:41-43> does NOT mean what you claim it means.
<<<Then they began to worship on the first day of the week or Sunday>>>
<Acts 20:7; 1Cor.16:2; Rev.1:10> do NOT say so!
<<<The first day of the week, Sunday, also became known as "the Lord's Day.">>>
It really doesn't matter to me.
Demonstrate through Scripture that there is any command to worship on the Sabbath, or the Lord's Day, or the first day of the week, or Sunday, or Saturday, or any other day of the week.
Where is your scripture that we are commanded to worship on any specific day of the week.
“There were added about three thousand souls the same day” (Instrumental Dative). 2:41 “The Lord added to the Church such as were ordained for eternal life (literally) according to the day / true to the character of the Day” – kath’ hehmeran. 2:47 …. Day of Pentecost, not of any or every usual day.
The earliest Christian believers, according to their history in the Acts of the Apostles, assembled “every day” for worship. Luke’s “Acts” does not only mention the fact that the Apostolic Congregation worshiped “every day”. It further stipulates that the Church observed Passover. That implies that Christian worship “every day”, is meant generally. In Acts 2:46, the phrase stipulating the believers’ “continuing daily” with one accord in the temple, is placed as a parenthesis within the very history of their worship on the Day of Pentecost. The expression “continuing daily” is clearly used not in the sense of special, congregational and liturgical worship “continuing daily”, but refers to the believers’ “waiting” in Jerusalem as Christ had commanded them for the promise of power to be fulfilled.
The fact that 2:1 states that the believers assembled “in one place” implies that they were not always assembled in one place, and if not always in one place, then not always on every day.
In Acts 5:42 it is said that the apostles ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ daily in the temple and in “every house”. The meaning is clear that the apostles taught each day, but not each day in congregation in the temple neither each day in congregation in the believers’ homes. Had congregational teaching and preaching every day been meant, the apostles would have taught and preached in “houses” and not in “every house”. By mentioning “temple” as well as “every house” two distinct ways of preaching and teaching are implied. When they worshipped in the temple the people came to the apostles in the temple to be taught and to hear their public proclamation. When in the houses, the apostles went to the people to teach and proclaim the Gospel privately.
“The apostles in those days had to leave the Word of God and serve tables”. 6:2 Seven deacons were appointed to see after charity in order to allow the apostles to engage full time in proclaiming the Gospel. That implies that the multitude of disciples 6:1 did not worship full time, every day.
“Continuing daily” does not mean that the Church had no special day of worship. In addition to the special observance the earliest Christians bestowed on the celebration of Passover, Acts also records the gathering of the Christian Body on Sabbaths (Saturdays) but never on Sunday except as the result of Sabbaths' Assemblies --- once only --- Acts 20:7.
Last edited by a moderator:
Had not Luke recorded that the Church gathered for worship on specific occasions, one might have been more inclined to deduce from the disciple’s use to “continue every day”, that they deemed “all days alike”. (Paul) But now the distinction had been made: certain days were selected and separated from other days of the year and from other days of the week, as days of Christian dedication and worship. Two weekdays are notably distinguished in terms of being mentioned in the Acts, the “Sabbath” and the “First Day of the week”. No other days of the week are called by name in Acts. That makes the mention of these two days singular and significant. Only these two days of the week, the Sabbath and Sunday, are in the Acts indicated by name and at the same time are associated with congregation of Christian believers. From this fact arises the question, Were both these days in the same manner associated with congregation, worship and proclamation of the Gospel? Were both days “holy”, that is, “put apart” for the purpose of worship? Were both days liturgical? Or was one only? And in what manner would the First Day and the Sabbath be similar to both be “holy”, or different both not to be “holy”? Which of the two days was the real Day of Worship for the Church and, what for Christians was the basic motive for its “keeping”? Were both days, celebrated Christian Feast Days? These questions are clearly answered when the relevant Scripture passages are consulted. Acts as such supplies the answers. We will not enter into argument rooted in any time after the time of the lives of the people involved – the apostles, or any time after the time of the recording of their acts. It is not necessary at all to go to later times than Luke’s own time, the time of the origin of Acts to find out which day of the week the Christian day of worship used to be then.
The chapters in Acts which mention these two days of the week, are, respecting Sunday (“First Day of the week”), 20
7); respecting “Sabbath” (Saturday), 1314, 42, 44); 1613); 172); 184). There is, though, also Acts 2:1 to 4:3. This passage does not supply the name of the day of the week that the event recorded there occurred on. Yet it tells of a day on which, 1, God acted in such a manner, and, 2, the first Christians acted in such a manner and had such an experience, that the attributes and qualities of the Christian Day of Worship are made unmistakably recognisable. Acts does not say the things that characterise the Christian Day of worship happened “on Sunday”, or, “on the Sabbath”, but it without doubt presupposes the Christian Day of Worship. Which of Sunday and the Sabbath could this day have been? If this day had been the first Christians’ Day of Worship, it follows that where their Day of Worship might elsewhere in Acts be described, it would be described there, as it is described in chapter Two. Corresponding passages in Acts must supply the answer to the question which day of the week the very first Christian Day of Worship that started the Church’s era was.
The chapters in Acts which mention these two days of the week, are, respecting Sunday (“First Day of the week”), 20
7); respecting “Sabbath” (Saturday), 1314, 42, 44); 1613); 172); 184). There is, though, also Acts 2:1 to 4:3. This passage does not supply the name of the day of the week that the event recorded there occurred on. Yet it tells of a day on which, 1, God acted in such a manner, and, 2, the first Christians acted in such a manner and had such an experience, that the attributes and qualities of the Christian Day of Worship are made unmistakably recognisable. Acts does not say the things that characterise the Christian Day of worship happened “on Sunday”, or, “on the Sabbath”, but it without doubt presupposes the Christian Day of Worship. Which of Sunday and the Sabbath could this day have been? If this day had been the first Christians’ Day of Worship, it follows that where their Day of Worship might elsewhere in Acts be described, it would be described there, as it is described in chapter Two. Corresponding passages in Acts must supply the answer to the question which day of the week the very first Christian Day of Worship that started the Church’s era was...... DEMANDS the legalist.
Where are your Scriptures which justify your demand, DHK?
GIVE ANY EXAMPLE from the Scriptures where true believers argued like you do?
Where have you seen any faithful challenging God, Unless you give us definite COMMAND, we shall obey you?
You behave unbelievable, DHK!
Besides, You know as well as any next Christian there are in the New Testament COMPELLING INSTRUCTION that "JESUS gave them rest and THEREFORE there for the People of God REMAINS (MANDATORY) a keeping of the Sabbath."
It really doesn't matter to you, is obvious; it really matters for me.
Both Acts 20:7 and 1Corinthians 16:2 IMPLY Congregational worship ON THE SABBATH,
In Acts 20:7 the Participle ‘sunehgmenohn’ being a Perfect which indicates, ‘Our having-Come-Together-For-to-Break-Bread before Paul afterwards conversed with them”—“conversed” being the Verb of the sentence—not ‘gathered’, which is no Indicative and DOES NOT EXIST.
1Corinthians 16:2 …
Wherever he preached his usual SABBATH’S sermons—as in this case his (favourite) sermon in chapter 15—, Paul “gave instruction regarding the emergency relief”. His advice was, “Do your calculations and save up PRIVATELY on the First Day of the week.” No one at the time would do it on the Sabbath!
16:1,2 ends Paul’s sermon recorded in chapter 15!
Sure, <<The Jews never referred to “The Lord’s Day” as such.>>
But the CHRISTIAN Jew, John, did.
The witness of the New Testament for the validity of the Sabbath and its keeping – including Mk.2:27-28 and Revelation 1:10 – exactly for the reason of Christ’s Lordship of the Sabbath Day, is undeniable.
The Church in fact did appeal to Jesus’ “Lordship”, not for the annulment of the Sabbath but for its confirmation.
The Church’s appeal can be made, indeed must be made as if Jesus’ Lordship constitutes a requirement.
Jesus needed to give no direct command or wasn’t obliged to appeal to a direct commandment because his LORDSHIP is commandment!
Jesus’ deeds speak louder and clearer than any words. Prophetic Scriptures – the Word Himself its Inspiration, Guide and Author – tell of creation, of redemption, of restitution and recreation… all confirming the Seventh Day Sabbath!
The claim that a command from the Lord Jesus – in any form! – to not observe the Sabbath OR T
BSERVE it, is abstract and superfluous. It should be put forward positively, that “…a command from the Lord Jesus to observe the Sabbath …” can be found constituted – in many forms. “The witness of the New Testament” and “appeal” of “the Christian Church” “to a command from the Lord Jesus” to “observe the Sabbath”, “is very clear” in the “form” of Jesus’ claim that HE, IS, the “Lord of the Sabbath”. This “form” of “command” is only excelled in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in which ACT He claims his Lordship finally and fully – a Lordship of the Sabbath and THEREFORE it is “The Lord’s Day”! Jesus (through resurrection from the dead) reigns over the First Day, over all days and over every day, but not with the specific claim unto himself of its time and scope and content – a time and scope and content of worship that signifies and demands the Sabbath to belong unto its Lord as no other day does.
Why would a commandment, a command or an appeal to a command be needed if Jesus wanted his followers to keep the Sabbath while they had it all in the Fourth Commandment, in His own example and in the Sabbath’s own prophetic significance? Exactly because of the new and drastic relation the Sabbath had acquired in the resurrection of Christ from the dead! Jesus claimed Lordship of the Sabbath – to confirm this specific and exclusive relation between Lord, event and day of the week. It was Jesus’ new and own dimension of time and reality.
Had Jesus meant that his Church should not keep the Sabbath, then a direct command to the effect could be expected. Would Jesus not, while He wanted the Sabbath no longer to be kept, have positively referred to the “new Day of Rest” the First Day of the week? He would! That or anything nearly of the sort Jesus never did – specifically NOT in the form of the claim of being Lord of the Sabbath or in the form of his resurrection. And that quite plainly protests that Jesus never imagined the Sabbath to be replaced or abrogated, but constantly had its improvement – through his own doing – in mind.
Last edited by a moderator: