Truth Magazine

By George T. Eldridge

The words “the Lord’s day” are found only once in the scriptures (Rev. 1:10). The author of the book of Revelation is God Himself, who “sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John” (Rev. 1:1). God’s bond-servant is the apostle John. He was one of Jesus’ most intimate earthly friends and was selected by the Lord with two other disciples to be present on a high mountain when He “was transfigured” and “Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him” (John 20:2; Mt. 17:1-3). John was the disciple whom Jesus “loved” (John 19:26). While on the cross, Jesus spoke to John these words concerning His mother, “Behold, your mother” (John 19:27). Therefore, the responsibility of Jesus’ mother became the obligation of John.

The Lord’s Day

It is quite certain that when John uses the expression “the Lord’s day,” he is using it as we use it. As I have said, this is the first passage in God’s Word where there is any mention of “the Lord’s day.” “The Lord’s day” is the first day of the week, commonly called today Sunday.

The word here translated “Lord’s” occurs only twice in the Bible: Rev. 1:10 and 1 Cor. 11:20, where it is applied to the Lord’s Supper. The word “Lord’s” comes from the Greek work kuriakos and properly means pertaining to the Lord. The Lord’s day, the first day of the week, means a day pertaining to the Lord because He claimed it as His own and had set it apart for His own service. Also, the first day of the week was designed to commemorate some important event pertaining to Jesus and was observed in honor of Him.

It is clear, (l) That this refers to some day which was distinguished from dl other days of the week, and which would be sufficiently designated by the use of this term. (2) That it was a day which was for some reason regarded as peculiarly a day of the Lord, or peculiarly devoted to him. (3) It would further appear that this was a day particularly devoted to the Lord issue; for …. (a) if the Jewish Sabbath were intended to be designated, the word Sabbath would have been used. The term was used generally by the early Christians to denote the first day of the week. It occurs twice In the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A. D. 1011, who calls the Lord’s day “the queen and prince of all days.” Chrysostom (on Pa. exia.) says, “It was called the Lord’s day because the Lord rose from the dead on that day:” Later fathers make a marked distinction between the Sabbath and the Lord’s day; meaning by the former the Jewish Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week, and by the latter the first day of the week, kept holy by Christians . . . . No one can doubt that it was an appellation given to the first day of the week; and the passage, therefore, proves (l) that that day was thus early distinguished in some peculiar manner, so that the mere mention of it would be sufficient to identify it in the minds of those to whom the apostle wrote; (2) that it was in some sense regarded as devoted to the Lord Jesus, or was designed in some way to commemorate what He had done; and (3) . . . the observance of that day had the apostolic sanction (Albert Barnes, Barnes on the New Testament, Revelation, p. 491.

Therefore, the Lord’s day means beyond all reasonable doubt the first day of the week, which we call Sunday. “From Ignatius onwards, we have a complete chain of evidence that” the Lord’s day was “the regular Christian name for the first day of the week” (The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22, Revelation, p. 5).

In the Spirit

This state of mind, emotions, feelings, and thoughts should be experienced by all honest and good hearts, especially born-again individuals, when the first day of the week arrives! This means God-fearing people will have the right attitude and correct manner of thinking on Sunday so as to be in church services. At church, we have the (1) observance of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7), (2) giving of one’s money into the church treasury based on his prosperity (1 Cor. 16:1-2), (3) singing of praises to God through congregational singing (Col. 3:16), (4) preaching of God’s Word (Acts 20:7), and (5) stirring up of one another to love and good works by our presence (Heb. 10:23-25).

John could not be in church services on the first day of the week, Sunday. He was on the Isle of Patmos, having been banished there under the persecution of Domitian, Emperor of Rome. Being “in -the spirit,” John recalls the usual church services. He had the spirit of true devotion. Though on that desert island, John was in a religious enjoyment state of mind to devote Sunday to the worship of God and to the honoring of the risen Savior. What a rich spiritual influence the soul enjoys when “in the spirit on the Lord’s day.”

The Attitude Seen Today .

You seldom hear Sunday called “the Lord’s day.” The conduct of too many individuals, even some baptized believers, is that the first day of the week is their own personal day to do with as they choose. Some churches encourage this attitude by disbanding all Sunday services during certain months of the year or having church services on another weekday instead of Sunday, “the Lord’s day.”

Where is the Lord’s day for many? Their reply1s in their behavior! No church services for me! It is my own personal day for activities such as these:

1. Sleep-late day.

2. Be-at-the-cottage-on-the-lake day.

3. Return-from-weekend-activities day.

4. Wash day.

5. Overhaul-the-car day.

6. Free-will-to-work-overtime-at-the-factory day.

7. Mow-the-lawn day.

8. Roof-the-house day.

9. Paint-the-house day.

10 Clean-the-house day.

11. Hunting day.

12. Fishing day.

13. Golfing day.

14., Go-visit-relatives day.

15. Stay-at-home-with-company day.

16. Only-day-I-have-to-work-on-the-farm day.

17. Only-day-I-have-to-rest day.

18. Mother’s day.

19. Father’s day.

20. Tour-the-country day.

21. Boat-racing day.

22. Hot-rod day.

23. A-loaf-and-take-it-easy day.

24. Football day.

25. Baseball day.

26. Read-the-Sunday-paper day:

27. Adinfinitum.

Also, the Lord’s day has become the “Too-Hot Day” or “Too-Cold Day” or “Too-Rainy Day” or “Pain-in-the-Body Day” instead of “in the spirit on the Lord’s day.” They use Sunday for their own personal selfish interest and gratification.

Final Word

God permits you to decide how you will treat “the Lord’s day” and whether you will “be born again.” “Yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). Believe the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12). Be “in the spirit on the Lord’s day.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 11-12
January 5, 1978

By Johnny Stringer

Of the making of special days there is seemingly no end. Men have an apparent inclination to set aside days to honor prominent individuals and to commemorate momentous events, and the result is that there are so many special days that it is a difficult matter to keep track of them all. There is Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, George Washington’s birthday, Lincoln’s birthday, and the list could go on and on. Yet, despite our penchant for the observance of special days, men have shown an amazing lack of interest in the day that God has set aside in honor of the Lord.

That there is a day especially set aside by deity for the honor of the Lord is clear from John’s reference to a day which he designated “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). This could be no other day than the first day of the week, for it was on that day that Christ was resurrected and His church was established, and it is upon that day that Christians are to assemble and remember Him in a special way by partaking of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). As men are busily setting aside and observing special days, it is appropriate to ask, “What’s happened to the Lord’s day?”

Of all the special days, none is so important as the Lord’s day. This is not to say that other special days are wrong, provided they are kept in proper perspective. For example, it is good, in view of all that our parents have done for us and meant to us to have days in which we remember our mothers and fathers and express our appreciation to them. We must remember, however, the, unlike the Lord’s day, such days as these are set aside, not in honor of deity, but of human beings and human events. Their observance is not something that God has demanded as a part of our service to Him. The Lord’s day, however, is in honor of deity; its observance is, part of the divinely revealed religion of Christ. Thus, it is a holy day and its importance is paramount.

When people are more diligent about the observance of days which honor human beings and commemorate human events than they are about observing the Lord’s day, they clearly reveal that they have a higher regard for these human beings and events than they have for the Lord. There are those, for example, who never fait to send a card to their mothers on Mother’s Day, or in some way express their love for their mothers, yet persistently fail to honor the Lord by scriptural observance of the Lord’s day. Certainly it is good to use Mother’s Day as an occasion to show in a special way the love we have for our mothers; but to be more interested in Mother’s Day than in the Lord’s day betrays the fact that we love our mothers more than we do the Lord. This does not mean that we love our mothers too much; it means that we love the Lord too little.

Those who are of this disposition need to be reminded of the principle that our Lord enunciated in Matt. 10:37, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” The same principle is taught in Lk. 14:26, where Jesus said that a man must hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothels, and sisters in order to be His disciple. He did not use the word “hate” literally, but as a strong figure of speech, a very forceful and emphatic way of saying that we must love these relatives less than we love the Lord. If our love for the Lord exceeds our love for all mere humans, then we will necessarily be more interested in honoring Him on His day than we are in honoring any human being on that person’s special day.

There are those who, even on the rare occasions that they attend church- services on the Lord’s day, do so more to honor a human being than to honor Christ. For example, there are some who attend one time a year-on Mother’s Day! Whom do you think they are honoring?

In fact, denominational groups sometimes set aside certain Lord’s day assemblies for special services designed for the observance of some event other than the Lord’s day. For example, the following announcement appeared recently in the newspaper under the title, “Pleasant Valley Homecoming”:

Everyone to invited to attend the first Homecoming at Pleasant Valley Baptist Church, also known as Back Horn, located near Walcott, Sunday, May 15.

Homecoming, high attendance day and open home for the newly remodeled church will begin at 10 Sunday morning and continue until 3:30 In the afternoon. Former pastors will be attending, the church history will be related, various singing groups will be featured and other activities have been planned for the special observance.

I’m sure a wonderful time was had by all, but does this sound like the primary purpose was to honor the Lord? No, they obviously substituted Homecoming Day for the Lord’s day.

As I write these words, Mother’s Day has just passed, and I am reminded that some denominational churches design their services on that day so as to honor, not the Lord, but mothers. On Mother’s Day they have special Mother’s Day services, and on Father’s Day they have special Father’s Day services. Surely, it is right and scriptural for preachers to teach the truth regarding the responsibilities of mothers and fathers, and regarding the respect and appreciation that children should have for their parents. But to center the activities of the Lord’s day assembly around mothers or fathers, so that they are the ones being honored rather than the Lord; is quite another matter. Some also have been known to set aside certain Lord’s day assemblies to honor grandmothers and grandfathers. The Lord’s day has ceased to be treated as His by these groups. Rather than seeking to honor the Lord, they use His day to honor mere humans.

Another problem is that so many of man’s special days come on or near the Lord’s day, so that people often use such days as an occasion. to neglect the scriptural observance of the Lord’s day. This has become a greater problem as more and more special days have come to be observed on Monday, so that people sometimes get that day as a holiday from their jobs. Thus, having three consecutive days off from work, they are able to travel away from home, and in their recreational pursuits which are occasioned by some special day, they forget the Lord’s day. Similarly, there are children who will fail to assemble with saints to honor the Lord on His day, in order that they can assemble with their brothers and sisters to honor their mother or father on bother’s Day or Father’s Day; and there are mothers and fathers who will fail to assemble for worship on the Lord’s day, in order that they can be present on such occasions- thereby choosing to receive honor from their children rather than to give honor to the Lord on His day.

Yes, as men give priority to humanly devised special days, it is with a sense of urgency that we ask, “What’s happened to the Lord’s day?” It strikes me as noteworthy that as we read in scripture of the various days observed by the devout in Israel, we find little inclination to set aside days in honor of human beings, no matter how great they were. Where, for example, do we read of any celebration of the birthday of Moses or of Abraham? Rather than being preoccupied with setting aside and observing days to honor human beings and human events, they were more concerned with observing the holy days which God had set aside to honor and glorify deity. Modern man would do well to be similarly disposed.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 10-11
January 5, 1978

By Keith Sharp

Truth is the reasonable course between extremes. This old cliche, while not an inspired safeguard against error, is certainly a general truism. In the church of Christ today there are two opposite extremes being taken toward church finances. Both of these radical positions stem from a failure to recognize the divine pattern for church finances. I believe inspired truth is to be discovered about mid-way between these poles.

On the one hand, with examples so numerous I will not burden you with their repetition, many avowed churches of Christ have begun using denominational methods of raising money for congregational endeavors. Selling tickets to dinners, seminars and even movies are becoming fairly common. In this and other regards, such churches directly parallel the movement to denominational status of the Christian Church in the 19th century. In the 1800’s

. . . a portion of the church made a transition in the last half of the century from s system of fund-gathering by weekly contributions to more organized methods. The change was typical of the denominational evolution taking place In the church… (David E. Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources Of Division In The Disciples Of Christ 1865-1900, p. 62)

A century later “progressive” churches of Christ follow belatedly along.

On the other hand, some members of the Lord’s church deny the very necessity of a contribution to the local church each first day of the week. In an article written specifically to debunk the idea of a binding pattern of Lord’s day public collections, one brother demanded:

How can it be dogmatically said that a weekly pooling of funds is a FACT taught in 1 Cor. 16:1, 2? (Donald W. Trash, “Lay By Him In Store: A Study of 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2,” Sentinel of Truth, May, 1970).

I believe the truth lies between these extremes. In this study we will seek to answer the inquiry: Did first century churches have regular Lord’s day contributions?

From the very beginning of the church of Christ on Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, public collections were a regular activity of local churches. “And all that believed were together, and had all things common” (Acts 2:44). A “treasury” is “the place of deposit and disbursement of collected funds. . . the funds. . . kept or held to be kept in such a depository (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, p. 2434). Thus, in having “all things common,” the Jerusalem church, from the very’ beginning, had a treasury.

This practice of gathering individual funds into a public treasury for the collective work of the congregation continued, without revealed interruption, throughout the first century (Acts 4:32-37; 5:1-11; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-28; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 and 9). There are those who have contended with me, in private conversation, that a congregation could conceivably exist scripturally for years with no treasury and no collection. This not only contradicts the examples and commands we just cited but also violates the nature and work of the local congregation.

A local church of Christ is simply a group of disciples of Christ in a given locality who agree to worship God together on a regular basis and to do God’s work collectively (cf. Acts 2:44-46). New Testament congregations worked through the planned use of collected funds (cf. Phil. 4:14-18). These principles being true, without a treasury and a collection, Christians violate the very nature of the local church and do no work as a church.

From a practical viewpoint, would you want to be a member of a congregation that did no work at all? How can a church do a scriptural, collective work without a treasury compiled through a Lord’s day contribution? Those who would fail to give on the first day of the week , or who hold back some of what they might have contributed either are refusing to give to the Lord’s work altogether or claim to have superior wisdom to the elders of the church in selecting spiritual uses for such funds. Is either attitude pleasing to God?

The only passage which details the “how” and “when” of this collection is 1 Cor. 16:1-2. It says, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 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.”

Paul did not merely make a suggestion in this passage. This contribution was a command. He declared, “as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” The term “given order” means “to appoint, arrange, charge, give orders to” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, III, 145, so J.H. Thayer, A Greek English Lexicon Of The New Testament, p. 142); “order, direct, command” (W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon Of The New Testament, p. 188). Cf. Lk. 17:9-10; Acts 18:2; 23:1; 1 Cor. 7:17.

Some argue that this collection could not be a command since it is a matter of free will.

Would not the requirement to give be in contradiction to: Acts 5:4; 11:29; 2 Cor. 8, 9? Does not God provide us with opportunity and leave us free to determine if, when, and how much we give?” (Trask, Ibid).

Obedience to the Gospel is of one’s own free will (Rev. 22:17). Is obedience to the Gospel commanded? Old Testament “free will” offerings were commanded (Ex. 35:4-9; Deut. 16:10-11). God commands a first day of the week contribution. We exercise free will in determining whether or not to obey and how liberally to give.

Does this passage authorize a collection for purposes other than the relief of needy saints? Most assuredly the local church has a collective work to do in addition to the work of individual Christians (1 Tim. 5:16). This includes the use of its resources to provide for edification (Heb. 10:24-25; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) and evangelism (Phil. 4:14-18), as well as the relief of needy saints. The passage before us is the only one in the New Testament which specifies how the resources for that collective work are to be raised, and it thus constitutes the New Testament pattern on how the local congregation can raise its funds.

A great number of lexicons and commentaries, in discussing 1 Cor. 16:2, assert that “lay by him in store” means to “put aside at home something from his weekly earnings” (The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 1194, as quoted by Trask). Several translations render the wording in agreement with this position. Thus, we are told, 1 Cor. 16:1-4 has no reference to a congregational collection, but only to a private saving.

This position is neither supported nor contradicted by the Greek. It is a matter of Biblical interpretation. When a lexicon of accepted quality defines a word, that carries significant weight. When it gives the opinion of the author on the use of a word in a particular context, it is acting as a human commentary and carries no more weight than any other human opinion. Noted scholars can be quoted on both sides of this question.

However, I believe the context destroys the “private savings” position. If this were something to be done at home, why were they to perform this act on the “first day of the week” (v. 2), the very day the saints assembled to commemorate the Lord’s death (Acts 20:7)? If no public contributions were being made, would this not necessitate a special collection for the needy saints when Paul arrived in Corinth, the very thing he sought to avoid (v. 2)?

The apostle’s meaning is, that every first day of the week each of the Corinthians was to separate, from the gains of the preceding week, such a sum as he could spare, and put it into the treasury; that there might be no occasion to make collections when the apostle came (James MacKnight, Apostolical Epistles, p. 208).

The term “lay by” teaches stewardship giving. In this collection we are laying up treasures in Heaven (Matt. 6:19-21). The word “himself” along with “every one of you” emphasizes the individual responsibility of each Christian to so give.

How often was this contribution taken? The apostle simply stated, “Upon the first day of the week.” The literal translation of the phrase is “Every one of a week” meaning “On the first day of every week” (Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, p. 704). As regularly as the first day of the week arrived, such a collection was to take place. Was this to be done in the assembly? Why else would the first day of the week, the day when all Christians assemble, be specified as the time for the collection? How else would such a congregational collection be carried out? I believe the passage necessarily implies the collection took place in the assembly.

Therefore, I conclude that the New Testament evidence warrants these conclusions. Churches of Christ in apostolic times had treasuries and regular collections. At least by the time the apostle Paul wrote the first letter to Corinth (ca. 55 or 56 A.D.), the divinely commanded practice was a public contribution of the members of the local church each first day of the week.

This constitutes the New Testament pattern of church finances. Local congregations should solicit funds in no other way. Individual Christians are obligated to give as they have been prospered each first day of the week into the treasury of the church that the work of the church might go forth. This is the truth between extremes. Let us diligently follow this God ordained rule.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 8-10
January 5, 1978

By J.W. McGarvey

“How often should the Lord’s Supper be observed? The various religious denominations have agreed that each party may settle this question according to its own judgment. This principle, when applied to matters on which the Lord’s will has not been revealed, is generally a good one; but when applied to things concerning which the divine will can be known or determined even approximately, human judgment should yield to it. The Disciples of Christ contend that it should be celebrated every week. But why do you observe it so often?’ asks one of our religious neighbors, who thinks twice, three times, or four times a year often enough; ‘by what authority do you hold that this solemn feast should be spread every Lord’s day?’ Before answering this question, we will put one to our interrogator: `What is your authority for the religious observance of the first day of the week?’ He will doubtless answer: First, the intimations in the New Testament; second, the universal testimony of antiquity, that the Christians, in the age immediately succeeding that of the apostles, met for worship every Lord’s day, and that they regarded it as a custom established by the apostles. This we regard as sufficient evidence for the religious observance of this day.’ This answer is correct. Now, we have precisely the same authority, based on the same evidence, for the weekly observance of this Supper. In Acts xx.7, the inspired historian says: ‘And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them,’ etc. We learn from this passage that the chief object of these disciples at Troas, in assembling on the Lord’s day, was not to hear Paul preach, but `to break bread;’ and it is the universal testimony of antiquity, that in the age immediately following that of the apostles, the disciples celebrated this feast every first day of the week, and that they regarded it as a custom established by the apostles. Consistency demands, therefore, that every religious denomination, while contending for the religious observance of the Lord’s day, should also insist, with equal zeal, on the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, p. 8
January 5, 1978