The Lord's Day

[TrustAndObey]

Revelation 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

This is the only verse in the entire Bible that mentions the Lord's Day.

This begs the question, does this verse say Sunday (or the first day of the week)? For that matter, does it say Saturday (or the seventh day of the week)?

I hear a lot of people say that since John the Revelator was Jewish, this verse means the Sabbath...since Christ is Lord of the Sabbath day.

However, John is being given visions of the great and terrible day of the Lord...the second coming.

I'm curious what my fellow Adventists believe about this verse. Do you feel this verse is saying John was seeing visions of the second coming on the Sabbath day? Or do you believe that this verse is referring to John being given visions of the future great and terrible day of the Lord?

 

[smooze]

It is him seeing the visions on the Sabbath day, He is also instructed in this context to write it down on tablets . I believe he was referring to the sabbath day. Especially because he says' I was in the spirit' I know i get into the spirit on Sabbath at church. Good Thread..

 

[SassySDA]

Revelation 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

This is the only verse in the entire Bible that mentions the Lord's Day.

This begs the question, does this verse say Sunday (or the first day of the week)? For that matter, does it say Saturday (or the seventh day of the week)?

I hear a lot of people say that since John the Revelator was Jewish, this verse means the Sabbath...since Christ is Lord of the Sabbath day.

However, John is being given visions of the great and terrible day of the Lord...the second coming.

I'm curious what my fellow Adventists believe about this verse. Do you feel this verse is saying John was seeing visions of the second coming on the Sabbath day? Or do you believe that this verse is referring to John being given visions of the future great and terrible day of the Lord?

"Revelation 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day,"

I believe he was seeing visions on the Sabbath day.

 

[TrustAndObey]

What verses of the Bible lead you to the conclusion that John was experiencing this on the Sabbath day? I'm not disagreeing necessarily, I'm just curious.

And here's another point I forgot to make....John was given detailed visions, right down to hearing the trumpet that will announce the second coming of our Savior. He saw Christ coming on a cloud.

I know that Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath day, absolutely no argument from me on that point. However, in my opinion John was right there....present for the day of the Lord....the Lord's day.

It's my opinion that John was present for that day to write down for us what he SAW so that we could be prepared. I know you may disagree and that's absolutely okay...I love good, healthy debate brothers and sisters!

I might as well state my opinion fully so that if I'm way off on something I can be corrected. *I* personally feel that the Spirit took John TO the second coming in vision.

Here are the verses that lead me to believe that John was there FOR the Lord's second coming (in vision) and WHY he referred to it as "the Lord's Day":

1 Thessalonians 5:2 - For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

2 Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

(There's a few more, but I'm sure these express where I'm coming from).

 

[TrustAndObey]

Quick example: "January 1st, 2001 is the day of Jane's birth" means the exact same thing as "Jane's birthday is January 1st, 2001."

"Day of the Lord" means the exact same thing as "The Lord's Day."

See what I mean?

 

[SassySDA]

Quick example: "January 1st, 2001 is the day of Jane's birth" means the exact same thing as "Jane's birthday is January 1st, 2001."

"Day of the Lord" means the exact same thing as "The Lord's Day."

See what I mean?

You could very well be right. Tomorrow, when I'm not so sleepy, I will study it out further.

 

[Cliff2]

Revelation 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

This is the only verse in the entire Bible that mentions the Lord's Day.

This begs the question, does this verse say Sunday (or the first day of the week)? For that matter, does it say Saturday (or the seventh day of the week)?

I hear a lot of people say that since John the Revelator was Jewish, this verse means the Sabbath...since Christ is Lord of the Sabbath day.

However, John is being given visions of the great and terrible day of the Lord...the second coming.

I'm curious what my fellow Adventists believe about this verse. Do you feel this verse is saying John was seeing visions of the second coming on the Sabbath day? Or do you believe that this verse is referring to John being given visions of the future great and terrible day of the Lord?

One thing that we can all be certain on is that this verse has no relationship to the first day of the week, Sunday.

Some SDAS's believe it to the the 7th day Sabbath and others believe it to be the Second Coming.

Either way Sunday dose not come into it at all.

 

[NeverADullMoment]

Either way Sunday does not come into it at all.

I was just about to say the exact same thing! You beat me.

To say this one verse is somehow implying that Sunday replaced the seventh day Sabbath really is the most ludicrous debate I've heard against Sabbath-keeping to date.

I see where it could be talking about John being put into the second coming to give us an account of what's to come. As Cliff stated though, it's most definitely not talking about Sunday. It's not a stretch at all to say the Sabbath or the day of the Lord...but Sunday? That's a stretch if ever I've heard one.

 

[SassySDA]

I was just about to say the exact same thing! You beat me.

To say this one verse is somehow implying that Sunday replaced the seventh day Sabbath really is the most ludicrous debate I've heard against Sabbath-keeping to date.

I see where it could be talking about John being put into the second coming to give us an account of what's to come. As Cliff stated though, it's most definitely not talking about Sunday. It's not a stretch at all to say the Sabbath or the day of the Lord...but Sunday? That's a stretch if ever I've heard one.

Amen sista! I concur with both you and Cliff. It is most definitely NOT referring to Sunday, by any stretch of the Sunday-keeper's (or anyone else's) imagination.

Praise God for the TRUTH!

 

[TrustAndObey]

Well, even if you're a "one verse one-der" (I love that phrase now Sassy), you can't pull Sunday out of this one verse no matter how hard you try. Yet you'll even see in some concordances that Sunday is the Lord's day. Oh yeah? Where does that verse mention a specific day of the week ANYWHERE?

 

[PaleHorse]

Well, even if you're a "one verse one-der" (I love that phrase now Sassy), you can't pull Sunday out of this one verse no matter how hard you try. Yet you'll even see in some concordances that Sunday is the Lord's day. Oh yeah? Where does that verse mention a specific day of the week ANYWHERE?

A quick word about concodances/lexicons; the Strong's is probably the most popular one out there but it is also the one that incorporates the most interpretation in it's definitions of words - something that should never happen. Allow me to explain using the example of the word sabbatismos:

The word sabbatismos only occurs once in the entire Bible (Hebrews 4:9), as such, in order to define what that word means we cannot compare scriptures to determine the meaning, we must look to other Greek texts that have this word and see if the meaning can be determined. As it turns out, there are only 5 such texts that use the word sabbatismos, and they are:

• Plutarch, “De Superstitions 3 (Moralia 1660)
• Justin Martyr,”Dialogue With Trypho” 23,3
• Epiphanius, “Adversus Haereses” 30,2,2
• “Apostolic Constitutions” 2,36
• Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

In every one of these texts the meaning of sabbatismos is "a seventh-day sabbath keeping" or "a sabbath keeping". As such the majority of the concordances/lexicons out there define sabbatismos as:
BDAG #6544 σαββατισμός
• σαββατισμός, οῦ, ὁ (σαββατίζω; Plut., Mor. 166a cj.; Just., D. 23, 3) sabbath rest, sabbath observance fig. Hb 4:9(CBarrett, CHDodd Festschr. ’56, 371f [eschat.]). —S. on κατάπαυσις HWeiss, CBQ 58, ’96, 674-89. M-M. TW.

Louw-Nida #6544 σαββατισμός
• σαββατισμός, οῦ, ὁ (σαββατίζω; Plut., Mor. 166a cj.; Just., D. 23, 3) sabbath rest, sabbath observance fig. Hb 4:9(CBarrett, CHDodd Festschr. ’56, 371f [eschat.]). —S. on κατάπαυσις HWeiss, CBQ 58, ’96, 674-89. M-M. TW.

Liddell-Scott #36978 Σαββατισμός, σαββατισμός Σαββα±τισμός, ὁ,
a keeping of days of rest, N.T.

Thayer’s Lexicon #4520
1) a keeping [continuing] Sabbath

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; Arndt and Gingrich
sabbatismoV, pronounced sabbatismos, form: noun
1) Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance

Now lets look at the Srong's Lexicon:
Strong’s Lexicon #4520 σαββατισμός
1) a keeping [continuing] sabbath
*2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians

Now, I'd like to know how they come up with that second definition. Simply put, there is no etymological reason for it. Their first definition is fine, the second one requires extensive interpretation. And that violates the very reasons for having a concordance/lexicon in my opinion. A lexicon’s purpose is to give the reader the plain meaning of words so that the reader can interpret passages for himself. It is outside of the scope of any proper lexicon to try and give the reader its own interpretation of any given word. As such, I find it improper for the Strong’s Lexicon, in light of all the other respected lexicon’s definitions of sabbatismos, to try and give a second definition that is actually an interpretation rather than a definition. Logic dictates that since sabbatismos is only used once in the entire Bible there should only be one definition.

This same applies to the Strong's in defining the "Lord's Day". For some reason they say the Lord's Day is Sunday - yet there is no etymological reason to define it in this manner. This is why serious Greek/Hebrew students and scholars avoid using the Strong's Lexicon altogether; it is inaccurate. For most Bible studies it is adequate but the reader should alway question if the definitions given make sense.

 

[SassySDA]

(I love that phrase now Sassy),

I do come up with some good ones, don't I????? ROFL

You love it because it is so apropo. It fits. They come at us with ONE VERSE, like they are some kind of "one-der" for doing so. Like they are wearing a cape and have SUPER SCRIPTURE across the back of it.

When anyone who knows ANYTHING about the bible, knows that if there's one verse, and it's God's TRUTH, you will find MANY more to concur with it. It's when you only find ONE that you should know that it needs to be reviewed further.

 

[Cliff2]

A quick word about concodances/lexicons; the Strong's is probably the most popular one out there but it is also the one that incorporates the most interpretation in it's definitions of words - something that should never happen. Allow me to explain using the example of the word sabbatismos:

The word sabbatismos only occurs once in the entire Bible (Hebrews 4:9), as such, in order to define what that word means we cannot compare scriptures to determine the meaning, we must look to other Greek texts that have this word and see if the meaning can be determined. As it turns out, there are only 5 such texts that use the word sabbatismos, and they are:

• Plutarch, “De Superstitions 3 (Moralia 1660)
• Justin Martyr,”Dialogue With Trypho” 23,3
• Epiphanius, “Adversus Haereses” 30,2,2
• “Apostolic Constitutions” 2,36
• Martyrdom of Peter and Paul

In every one of these texts the meaning of sabbatismos is "a seventh-day sabbath keeping" or "a sabbath keeping". As such the majority of the concordances/lexicons out there define sabbatismos as:
BDAG #6544 σαββατισμός
• σαββατισμός, οῦ, ὁ (σαββατίζω; Plut., Mor. 166a cj.; Just., D. 23, 3) sabbath rest, sabbath observance fig. Hb 4:9(CBarrett, CHDodd Festschr. ’56, 371f [eschat.]). —S. on κατάπαυσις HWeiss, CBQ 58, ’96, 674-89. M-M. TW.

Louw-Nida #6544 σαββατισμός
• σαββατισμός, οῦ, ὁ (σαββατίζω; Plut., Mor. 166a cj.; Just., D. 23, 3) sabbath rest, sabbath observance fig. Hb 4:9(CBarrett, CHDodd Festschr. ’56, 371f [eschat.]). —S. on κατάπαυσις HWeiss, CBQ 58, ’96, 674-89. M-M. TW.

Liddell-Scott #36978 Σαββατισμός, σαββατισμός Σαββα±τισμός, ὁ,
a keeping of days of rest, N.T.

Thayer’s Lexicon #4520
1) a keeping [continuing] Sabbath

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; Arndt and Gingrich
sabbatismoV, pronounced sabbatismos, form: noun
1) Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance

Now lets look at the Srong's Lexicon:
Strong’s Lexicon #4520 σαββατισμός
1) a keeping [continuing] sabbath
*2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians

Now, I'd like to know how they come up with that second definition. Simply put, there is no etymological reason for it. Their first definition is fine, the second one requires extensive interpretation. And that violates the very reasons for having a concordance/lexicon in my opinion. A lexicon’s purpose is to give the reader the plain meaning of words so that the reader can interpret passages for himself. It is outside of the scope of any proper lexicon to try and give the reader its own interpretation of any given word. As such, I find it improper for the Strong’s Lexicon, in light of all the other respected lexicon’s definitions of sabbatismos, to try and give a second definition that is actually an interpretation rather than a definition. Logic dictates that since sabbatismos is only used once in the entire Bible there should only be one definition.

This same applies to the Strong's in defining the "Lord's Day". For some reason they say the Lord's Day is Sunday - yet there is no etymological reason to define it in this manner. This is why serious Greek/Hebrew students and scholars avoid using the Strong's Lexicon altogether; it is inaccurate. For most Bible studies it is adequate but the reader should alway question if the definitions given make sense.

An excellent post, I hope all can take the time to read it.

Thanks

 

[PaleHorse]

Thanks Cliff for the kind words.
I just want to show that just because a word is defined a particular way in a concordance or lexicon that doesn't mean it is accurate or complete. Though I believe the Strong's Lexicon is adequate for most study, one does have to be careful when using it. In fact, there is a forum where very serious discussion takes place about lexicography, and if someone were to go there and cite from the Strong's Lexicon in their arguments they would likely get laughed off the boards by the other members.
Most greek students/scholars I know tend to use the BDAG and dismiss Strong's completely. I wish there was an online version of the BDAG - that would really help I think.

 

[Starr SDA Living Word]

Happy Sabbath and God Bless all!!!

 

[smooze]

she is the spam queen LOL

 

[2tim]

Revelation was written in (roughly) 90 AD. The term "Lord's Day" was not used to refer to Sunday until (roughly) 325 AD.

hope this helps.

Be you,
2Tim

 

[TrustAndObey]

Revelation was written in (roughly) 90 AD. The term "Lord's Day" was not used to refer to Sunday until (roughly) 325 AD.

Right. And when it was used to refer to Sunday it was just a matter of "backtrack" logic. They needed to find verses that supported the idea that Sunday is holy. This verse certainly doesn't say that, but they really want it to.

If they had changed the day of worship to Thursday they'd say "we keep Thursday holy because of the Last Supper."

It really is just a matter of people trying to get the Bible to say what they want it to.

 

[smooze]

oh i had to post quick. My post count was at 666 . My goodness this will not do. The Lord is awesome. I hope we can all measure up 1 day . Have a good day all
GOd Bless

 

[TrustAndObey]

Contrary to modern superstition, the number 666 won't "get ya". It's not the boogeyman. LOL

It's the man that has that number in his name that we have to worry about.

So Jonathan..."BOO! Got ya!"