THE LORD'S DAY; OR STRONG PROOF IN FAVOR OF THE SABBATH by Daniel T. Bourdeau

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, June 24, 1880

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 56, No. 1

THE LORD'S DAY; OR STRONG PROOF IN FAVOR OF THE SABBATH.

By Daniel T. Bourdeau

BY ELD. D. T. BOURDEAU.

In A. D. 96, the beloved apostle, while giving the circumstances under which he received the Revelation, wrote, “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” Rev. 1: 9, 10.

All believers in the Bible must admit that John wrote these words by inspiration. He was “in the Spirit,” wrapped in heavenly vision, when the truths of the book of Revelation were communicated to him, and it was with the aid of the Holy Spirit that he penned these truths. He therefore used the very words designed to convey the mind of God, who was giving instructions for the church, till the end of the Christian dispensation. It is also a fact worthy of notice that the truths he was communicating are the “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.” Verse 1. God is speaking to us through his Son. Here we have the united authority of God and his Son. There is not a word that is superfluous, nor a thought that we can dispense with.

It was, therefore, necessary for us to know that John was in the Spirit in the isle of Patmos, that he was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and that there is a day that belongs to the Lord in this dispensation. John was in the Spirit in a particular place and on a particular, definite day, the Lord’s day. And the fact that there is a Lord’s day in this dispensation involves an obligation to consecrate a day unto the Lord. For we cannot show that a day is the Lord’s without refraining from our own secular work upon it, and employing it in the nobler work of the Lord. This scripture is a complete refutation of the doctrine which teaches that there is no Sabbath for the Christian age. It is also a refutation of the idea that the Lord claims every day; for if every day was the Lord’s day, then John would mean that he was in the Spirit and had his vision every day! Upon the same principle we might say that he had his vision in every place. No; there is definiteness in this matter. The very place and the very time are mentioned.

But which day is the Lord’s day? John does not say, “I was in the Spirit on one of the Lord’s days,” as though there were at least two different Sabbaths, but, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” Now, the Bible, being a sufficient rule of faith and practice, must give us light as to what day is the Lord’s day, and if we find a day that the Lord claims as his own, we will necessarily have to conclude that it is the Lord’s day mentioned in our text. God, speaking through his immutable law, says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20: 10. He reserved it by sanctifying it in Eden before the fall. Gen. 2: 2, 3; Matt. 5: 17–19; Rom. 3: 31; James 2: 8–12. This is the Lord’s holy day (Isa. 58: 12), the day of which Christ styles himself the Lord. Mark 2: 28. And there is no other day that God or Christ claims under this dispensation. It was, therefore, on the holy Sabbath that John was in the Spirit. And if the Sabbath was the Lord’s day at the close of the first century, it is the Lord’s day in 1880.

If, as some claim, the first day was made the Lord’s day by our Lord Jesus Christ, would he not have said so either in his lifetime or through his followers who wrote by inspiration after his death? But even in this case we would be in a dilemma; for several scriptures show that there is but one weekly Sabbath or Lord’s day (Acts 13: 42, 44: 18: 4; Rev. 1: 10), and establishing the first day as a Lord’s day would give us a second Lord’s day or weekly Sabbath. And to represent that the day that the Lord reserved and commanded to be kept by us as a memorial of creation, has, by divine authority, been replaced by one to be kept in memory of the resurrection, would be to represent that divine authority clashes with numerous declarations of Scripture which show the unchangeable nature of that law of which the Sabbath is a part. Deut. 5: 29; Ps. 111: 7, 8; 119: 152, 160; Isa. 51: 6, 7; Matt. 5: 17–19; Rom. 3: 31; 7: 7–12; James 2: 8–12; Rev. 12: 17; 14: 12; 22: 14.

Christ was very careful to institute all the ordinances of the new covenant, and to give them special force by his own example, as in the case of baptism and the Lord’s supper. But so far as the record of inspired writers is concerned, Christ did not so much as mention the first day in his teachings. Much less do we find that he ever claimed it as his own, and that he and his disciples kept it as the Lord’s day.

Nor did the apostles have the audacity to attempt to make of the first day the Lord’s day. Had they tried to do this, they might have been justly branded as apostates. A testament is of force when the testator is dead. The New Testament, or will, was sealed and confirmed by the death of Christ; and Paul says that when a covenant is confirmed “no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” Gal. 3: 15. How, then, can men teach that the apostles instituted a new Lord’s day after the resurrection of Christ? This would be breaking Christ’s will after his death, to insert in it a new clause. A similar act in human affairs would be regarded as a heinous crime, and its author would have to pay a heavy penalty. It would be considered a sacrilege for an heir to selfishly change the just and merciful will of his father after his death, and he would have to suffer for doing so.

Under a false show of erudition in the Greek, some will seize the fact that the Greek word rendered “Lord’s” and applied to day in Rev. 1: 10, is also used in 1 Cor. 11: 20, and is there applied to the supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, and they hastily conclude from this fact that a special day of the Lord Jesus, and not the day of the Lord Jehovah, is intended in Rev. 1: 10. This is strange reasoning, and does violence to the principles of language and common sense; it is a miserable deception played upon a people under the pretense of scholarship!

Let us for a moment imagine ourselves in the Old World, where “there are lords many.” We pass the residence of a man of wealth and influence, and, observing his fine carriage, say, “This is the lord’s carriage.” We go on a little farther, and on the estate of another rich man we notice a valuable horse, and say, “This is the lord’s horse;” and thereafter one who had heard both these remarks says, “Now you were mistaken as to the ownership of the horse. It is the lord’s horse and the carriage is the lord’s carriage, and we know the carriage belongs to the first man you visited; therefore the horse does not belong to the second man, but to the first!” This would be no greater abuse of language than to say that because the word “Lord’s” is used in reference to the Lord’s supper, it must, when used in Rev. 1: 10, mean a new day belonging especially to the Lord Jesus, and not at all the day of the Lord Jehovah, the only Lord’s day under the Christian economy.

But does the genius of the Greek language really require that we apply the term κυριακή, in Rev. 1: 10, to Christ? By no means. In Greek, as well as in English, Lord’s or lordly may be applied to other things than to those which belong to Christ. But there is a principle which is true in all languages, and

which permits us to apply the term in question to Jehovah; namely, that the tense of an adjective or qualifying word which is derived from a substantive, must be determined by the aid of that substantive. Take, for example, the words office and official. The official duties of a person are the duties which grow out of his office. Let us apply this principle to the case before us. We have κυριακή, lordly, which is derived from κυριος, Lord, and κυριος is applied in the original to God the Father as well as to Christ. David, speaking of Jehovah and of Christ, says, “The Lord [κυριος, the Father] said unto my Lord [κυριω, the Son; it is the same noun as the first, only it is in a different case], Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Matt. 22: 44. Other texts could be quoted in support of this point.

(Concluded next week.)