Truth Magazine

By Patrick Farish

The questions of when, and with what frequency, the Lord’s Supper is to be eaten, are not new. The practices of the religious world today range from the wrong frequency (annual, quarterly, etc.) through the wrong day (Thursday, or any day the notion strikes) to the right day and frequency for the wrong reason (it was my “delightful” experience to sit in a classroom with mostly Baptists and Methodists and hear the wife of a digressive preacher inform all that “the reason we take it every Sunday is [giggle] we’re so sinful!”).

In this paper, though, we are indifferent to the judgments of sectarians, as well as to the practices reported in secular history of the ancients, even when they tend to support our convictions. Our appeal is for a thus saith the Lord: “what say the Scriptures?”

When Should We Eat The Lord’s Supper?

The words of Jesus as He instituted the Supper (Matt. 26:26-29) and those of the Holy Spirit, through Paul, rebuking the Corinthians’ sin in connection with it (1 Cor. 11:17-31), give us no hint as to the “when.” The only “word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17) we have relative to the day the church gathered for the Lord’s Supper is the approved apostolic example found in Acts 20:7, “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.”

The practice of the early Christians, under the direct oversight of an apostle of Christ in what they did, was to gather on “the first day of the week” to break bread. This practice of the early Christians was also recorded by the inspired historian Luke without criticism or qualification. No other day being indicated in Scripture, this practice or example under apostolic direction is exclusive: by its force, the second through the seventh days of the week are eliminated from consideration.

Examples of approved apostolic behavior, one of three ways by which authority is discovered, provide us with instruction with an extra degree of clarity. There is a “background command” for every approved apostolic example, which the apostles knew and obeyed. God viewed their action as sufficient for our instruction and thus did not deem it necessary to record the background command-just the examples reflecting it. The idea that, before an example can be binding there must be discoverable the “background command” corresponding to it, is transcendingly puerile. What is the need of appeal to example-with the accompanying hassle-if prerequisite to the force of an example is a recorded command? In such a case, simply read the command and proceed. The assertion of need for a discoverable “background command” is a clumsy, transparent effort to avoid the force and binding effect of approved apostolic examples.

But, force and binding effect have been assigned by God to approved apostolic examples. He caused Paul to write, “be ye imitators of me” (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1) and “For yourselves know how ye ought to imitate us . . .” (2 Thess. 3:7) and “to make ourselves an ensample unto you, that ye should imitate us” (2 Thess. 3:9) and “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil. 4:9). In the same vein, the Hebrew writer’s exhortations were to be “not sluggish, but imitators of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (6:12) and “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith” (13:7).

Some will continue to rail against the power of approved apostolic examples to reveal the will of God, and thus to bind and loose: but the Scripture is plain. Therefore, as to “when” the Lord’s Supper is to be eaten, we are bound by the Bible to the first day of the week.

Let it here be noted that this is the extent of the binding. The effort some make to establish one time on the first day of the week as the time, and insist that those who do not eat then cannot eat at all, is a presumptuous effort. There is not a first and a second and a third Supper, there is only the Supper, and every Christian is instructed to eat it on the first day of the week.

It is deplorable that some will negligently absent themselves from a service, planning to be present at a later service for the Supper; but abuses are not properly corrected by substitution of new abuses, i.e. binding where the Lord has not. The local church may choose to assemble one time, two times, three or ten times on the first day of the week, with the Lord’s Supper available at all these times. What should we say of such provisions? Only, that they are authorized. Demands arising from illness in the family necessitating that someone always be with the sick one or from shift work in employment or from conditions requiring multiple assemblies to accommodate the crowds, provide circumstances in which making the Lord’s Supper available at only one time would be inexpedient, and exclude faithful people. Let us deal with the problem of indifference or whatever that causes some to neglect some assemblies by working on their hearts, as the Lord instructed-not by seeking to impose our will on them, by going on beyond His word.

How Often Should The Supper Be Observed?

The conclusion generally accepted by Christians is that the Lord’s Supper should be eaten each first day of the week. This conclusion is in conflict with the judgment of the religious world generally, which observes it with a variety of frequencies, other than weekly. A commonly advanced defense for a quarterly or annual observance-or indictment against a weekly observance-is along the lines of the Supper’s becoming commonplace, if eaten weekly: supposedly the less frequent eating keeps the event significant–or novel. This objection grows out of a complete misunderstanding of what the Supper is, and how it is to be observed. Those so arguing yearn for an experience which externally moves them, rather than the self scrutiny and reflection the Scripture prescribes, for reminder and renewal each Lord’s Day.

Arguments supporting the weekly observance have ranged from the reaction of the children of Israel to “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” (Ex. 20:8 = they remembered every Sabbath, so we should observe every first day) to the weekly collection as reflected by 1 Cor. 16:1f and the fact that it is understood to be each week. These arguments are appreciated; but the argument here is, that we eat the Supper every first day of the week as a necessary inference from the language of Acts 20:7.

“Inference” involves drawing a conclusion from evidence presented. The conclusion is implied by the evidence. A “necessary” inference is an inference or conclusion from which there is no escape, given the evidence. While He was on earth, Jesus expected men to whom He spoke to use their reasoning power, to draw conclusions. The Sadducees, who believed there was no resurrection, had been trying to pose problems that would cause Jesus to falter, as recorded in Matt. 22:23-33. Rather than wasting time on their hypothetical case, Jesus answered them this way: “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (vs. 31, 32). Jesus did not say explicitly (i.e., in so many words), “There is a resurrection.” Jesus did say, implicitly (i.e., by the information He conveyed), “There is a resurrection.” If God is the God of the living-and He is; and if God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at a time subsequent to their “shuffling off this mortal coil”– and He is (confer Exodus 3:6), then the only possible conclusion (the necessary inference) is that after they died, they lived. Jesus employed necessary inference in His teaching, and He expected men to draw the right conclusion.

An attempt is made to evade surfaces here: some say “yes, I know Jesus used necessary inference, and I accept His use of it; what I draw back at is man’s using it.” This unnecessarily clouds the issue. The proper use of inference today is the same as when Matthew wrote: the facts are provided by the Lord; and men must draw the conclusion.

When Acts 20:7 reveals that the disciples gathered for the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week, we conclude that this means every first day of the week. Our conclusion is forced (the inference is made necessary) by consideration of the question, “upon which first day of the week may we sinlessly refuse to do what the Lord said to do, on the first day of the week?” The alternative to weekly observance of the Supper is the sin of presumption. The notion that we can choose to omit the Supper on the first day of some weeks is a notion without authority: it is presumption, it is going “onward and (abiding) not in the teaching of Christ”; and he who so acts “hath not God” (2 John 9).

Conclusion

God expects that Christian who is able to assemble with the saints on the first day of the week to do so, and to break the bread every time the first day of the week occurs. Things beyond our control (i.e. illness, etc.) may make this impossible, sometimes; but we should be careful that they are beyond our control and not rather matters of our making the wrong choice. God knew our needs: among them was this need of a weekly reminder of our helplessness, and of His graciousness.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 6-8
January 5, 1978

By Jerry Parks

No one should appreciate the unique activities of the Lord’s day more than the Christian. Yet often those claiming to be Christians seem to show the least appreciation for this day. One of the things associated with the Lord’s day is the action of assembling with the saints.

Proof That The Early Church Assembled

When we examine the scriptures, we see many references to the assembling of the saints. Acts 20:7 is such an example. “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.” This is an approved apostolic example teaching us that the first century brethren came together on the first day to break bread. The first day comes once each week, thus the early church met each first day of the week. 1 Cor. 16:2 indicates a weekly gathering and gives significance to the first day. In Matt. 18, Jesus was teaching concerning how to deal with offenses between brethren. Verse 15 says to “tell him his fault between thee and him alone. . .” Verse 16 says to take one or two with. you if the first attempt at reconciliation fails. Then, in verse 17, he says what to do if he neglects to hear them; and that is to tell it unto the church (assembly). This portrays an action taking place when the church was gathered together. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul is instructing the Corinthian brethren as to what to do with the man among them that was living in adultery. In verse 4, he said, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together (Emp, mine, 1.P.), to deliver such a one unto Satan . . . .” This action was to be taken when they were gathered together. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul dealt with another problem within the church at Corinth. They were abusing the Lord’s supper by turning it into a drunken feast. Notice Paul’s wording in verse 20 as he described their abuse: “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper . . . .” Their mistake was not coming together, but rather what they were doing when they came together partake of the Lord’s supper. This is what they had been commanded to do. In 1 Cor. 14, Paul dealt with the problem the Corinthian brethren had concerning an improper attitude towards spiritual gifts. In verse 23, he described the church coming together in one place where these gifts were being exercised. They were right to come together but wrong in placing undue significance on spiritual gifts. James 2 speaks about the problem of respect of persons. Such respect was evidently being displayed when they came together to worship. James 2:2 says, “For if there come unto your assembly (emp. mine J.P.) a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel . . . .” Who can deny, when we consider the import of these passages, that the early church assembled with the saints? Thus, from these passages alone we can see that the first century Christians considered assembling with the saints an important aspect of their lives.

Part of God’s Divine Purpose

The Hebrew writer, in chapter ten, settled the matter of the importance of our assembling with the saints by the use of the negative command “not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together.” I believe, however, that we do a great injustice to this wonderful chapter by pulling the passage out of its context. The author of this epistle is not only giving a command to assemble, but also showing how that this is a part of God’s divine purpose in saving man. Assembling with the saints is for our benefit and thus should be regarded as a privilege rather than an obligation. When one asks the question, “Do I have to attend all the services?”, he is manifesting that he does not understand that assembling with the saints is a part of God’s divine purpose for saving man.

The book of Hebrews contains a number of practical exhortations. Throughout the book, a principle is argued and then a plea is made. Nowhere is this easier to see than in Hebrews ten. Let me relate these pleas to the matter of faithfully assembling for worship and study.

Throughout the book, Jesus is portrayed as the Great High Priest through whom all blessings flow. As a result of these blessings we have boldness to enter into the holiest by His blood. He is both the High Priest who made the offering and the actual sacrifice itself. This is the fact that is being established in Hebrews ten. The writer makes the application and plea. Notice the context beginning in verse 19:

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised; and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works:

Because of who Christ is and what he has done for us, we are encouraged to do several things. This can easily be seen by noticing the phrase “Let us” in verses 22, 23, 24. Let us examine each of these:

(1) Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith (v. 22). Think of the impact of that statement! To be able to approach your heavenly Father as one of His children. As a result of what Christ has done for us we can approach God as our Father. James said “Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you” (James 4:8). The priests of the Old Covenant drew near to God, symbolically, whenever they approached the golden alter to burn incense, but the veil still intervened between the worshipped and the worshippers. The whole scene was one of mystery and terror to the priests as well as the people. But now, through Christ all this has changed and we can boldly approach God crying Abba, Father (Rom. 8:15).

(2) Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering (v. 23). We are still pilgrims here. The tendency is to hold fast to the things we have accumulated in this life and to let the things that are of eternal consequence slip from us. This is why we have so many admonitions throughout God’s word for us to give diligence to make our calling and election sure. Robert Milligan’s translation of this verse expresses this idea, very well. He said, “Let us hold fast the faith which we have confessed and cling to the hope which it ministers” (New Testament Commentary on Hebrews p. 283). We have not reached the goal of our destiny. Eternal life is still with us an object of hope. And hence, the necessity of clinging to this hope as the anchor of our souls.

(3) Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works (v. 24). Christianity is not a religion of isolation. It is not “every man for himself.” Throughout the New Testament, the idea is stressed that the various relationships that we sustain one to another will have a direct bearing on our relationship with Christ. We are not to be selfish, carying merely for ourselves, but to consider how we might help others to draw near to God and hold fast without wavering. Consider the following passages: Matt. 25:40; Gal. 6:1-10; Eph. 4:1-3; Phil. 2:35; Col. 3:1-24. Because of what Christ has done we should “draw near,” “hold fast,” and “consider one another.”

Now here is the point: If the things previously mentioned are important, which obviously they are, then so are the assemblies of the saints. This is exactly the reason for our assembling together, to draw near, hold fast and to consider one another. How can we draw near to God when we are staying away from the services devoted to Him? You cannot go north and south at the same time. Nor can you get nearer to God by moving away from Him. Remember what James said, “Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you.” Again, how can we hold fast the profession of our faith when we are losing our grip by unfaithfulness? It is illogical and unreasonable to think that we will be made stronger by failing to assemble with the saints. Notice, we are to hold fast “without wavering.” What about those who attend once in a while or hit and miss, are they not wavering? Again, how can we consider one another to provoke unto love and good works” when we are not concerned enough as to wonder what my absence is saying to others about how important we consider these matters? When we absent ourselves from the services of the church for any flimsy excuse, are we not encouraging others to be unfaithful and indifferent?

Let me also point out that when we examine the context of Hebrews ten and view the 25th verse in the light of this context, we see that the assembly is not an end to itself. Assembling with the saints is simply a means to an end. Just “being in attendance” is not the desired goal. Using this opportunity to grow, to enrich one’s faith, to join with others in those things we know from God’s word to be acceptable forms of worship to Him and to help others to enhance their faith, is the purpose of the assembly. That is the goal we are seeking to reach. That is God’s divine purpose for commanding us to assemble with the saints. Ritualistic attendance is not satisfying to God nor beneficial to us. But when we “desire the sincere milk of the word,” “love . . . God with all thy heart . . . soul . . . mind,” and “seek ye first the kingdom of God,” (1 Pet. 2:2; Matt. 22:37; Matt. 6:33), then we will welcome each opportunity to associate with brethren of like precious faith and do all possible to worship and glorify God.

With these facts in mind it is easy to see why the Hebrew writer goes on to say the things we find recorded in verses 25-29:

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, :b the manner of some is: but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who bath trodden under foot the Son of God, and bath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and bath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

I believe we can safely say that verse 25 is a transition verse. The writer is shifting gears so to speak. He goes from the subject of perseverance to the subject of apostasy. Satan is no respector or persons. The Christian is constantly the object of Satan’s relentless attacks. Attending the assemblies is a safeguard against such apostasy. Thus, again we see the importance of the assemlbies which is expressed in the negative command that Christians not forsake them.

He then points out the seriousness concerning this matter of forsaking the assemblies. He says it is willful sin, that there remains no more sacrifice for sin, only a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. Such a one has trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace. We need to realize what a man is involving himself in when he forsakes the assemblies of the saints: (1) He disobeys a divine commandment. (2) He disrespects the Lord’s will that he break bread on the Lord’s day; (3) He neglects his spiritual development; (4) He fails to engage in the other items of scriptural worship; (5) Usually, such a one fails to give as he has been prospered, (6) He fails to assist the church in its greatest mission, (7) He may lead others astray. I believe this is enough for us to see why attendance at the congregation assembly is such a serious matter.

If we can continually keep before our minds the importance of assembling with the saints, then we will be less likely to employ flimsy excuses to absent ourselves from the wonderful opportunities we have to worship and draw near to God, strengthen our faith, and encourage one another by our joint participation in the unique activities of the Lord’s day.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 4-6
January 5, 1978

By Mike Willis

In Rev. 1:10, John wrote, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day . . .” By the time that the book of Revelation was written, one day had already come to be designated as the “Lord’s day.” Which day was it? Sabbatarians tell us that the Lord’s day is the seventh day of the week and teach that the early church worshiped on the Sabbath day. They further charge that either the pope or Constantine changed the day of worship of the New Testament church and that those of us who worship on the first day of the week have departed from New Testament Christianity. Let us find out just what John meant when he spoke of the “Lord’s day” to see if the first or the seventh day of the week is the Lord’s day.

Sabbath Observance Was Abolished

The observance of the Sabbath day was instituted shortly after God led Israel out of Egyptian bondage. The commandment to “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy” was given to the nation Israel in conjunction with the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20; Deut. 5). God specifically stipulated how the Sabbath was to be observed. Here are some of the ordinances required for proper observance of the Sabbath day, according to the Mosaical law: (a) do no work (Ex. 31:15); (b) kindle no fire (Ex. 35:3); (c) gather no sticks (Num. 15:32); (d) offer burnt offerings (Num. 28:9-10); (e) buy no goods (Neh. 10:31; 28:9-10); (f) bear no burden (Jer. 17:21); (g) prepare shewbread (1 Chron. 9:32); (h) stay in one’s place (Ex. 16:29; Acts 1:12). Anyone who disobeyed these commandments was to be punished by being put to death (Ex. 31:14; Num. 15:32-36).

Though many religious people say that they observe the Sabbath day, I have never yet met anyone who observed it according to the Scriptures. Though they might do no work and buy no goods, I know of no Sabbatarian who prepares shewbread and offers burnt offerings on the Sabbath day as the Mosaical law requires. Neither have I ever met the man who believes that all those who do not observe the Sabbath day should be put to death. Even those who believe in worshiping on the Sabbath day do not believe in observing it as the Bible dictates.

However, when the law of Christ was given, the Mosaical law was abolished or abrogated (Heb. 8:13; 7:12; Eph. 2:14-16; etc.). Consequently, Paul could write, “And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:1317). Hence, Sabbath observance was abolished when the rest of the ordinances of the Mosaical law were abolished. Men do not observe the Sabbath, not because the pope or Constantine said not to observe, but because of a divine decree which set aside the Sabbath day.

Scriptural Evidence For The First Day of the Week

The first day of the week is the Lord’s day. It is the only day in the week which can properly be called the “Lord’s day.” When one remembers some of the important things which transpired on that day, he can see why the day came to be called the “Lord’s day.” On the first day of the week, Jesus arose from the dead (Mk. 16:1-9). On that day, he appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mk. 16:9); to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13-35); to the apostles with Thomas absent (Jn. 20:19-25?; to the apostles with Thomas present (Jn. 20:26-?9); etc. Inasmuch as Pentecost always fell on the first day of the week (Lev. 23:15), these important events with reference to the early church occurred on the first day of the week: the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), the first gospel sermon and the obedience of three thousand whom the Lord added to the church. Hence, the first day of week was an important day for the early church.

The early church met habitually on the first day of the week to worship the Lord. Let me give scriptural evidence that this is so. There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the early church assembled regularly. Paul wrote, “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse . . . . Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:17, 20). Notice that these passages show that the church customarily assembled. The instructions in 1 Cor. 14 presuppose an assembly of the church. Then, too, Heb. 10:25 (“not forsaking our own assembling together”) shows that the early church customarily assembled together for worship. That this assembly occurred on the first day of the week is evident from the Scriptures as well. In 1 Cor. 16:1-2, Paul wrote, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of the every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.” Notice several things from this verse. The instructions were given to a number of churches; these were not limited to Corinth. The instructions enjoined were to be observed on the first day of every week. Too, the instructions are not “come together to give” but “give while you are come together.” Hence, this passage is conclusive evidence that the early church worshipped on Sunday, the first day of the week, which day came to be known as the Lord’s day.

Furthermore, Acts 20:7 shows that the early church worshipped regularly on the first day of the week. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem on an urgent trip to take funds gathered for benevolent purposes for the saints in Jerusalem. However, he wanted to worship with the saints at Troas. Apparently, he arrived on Monday for he tarried seven days (Acts 20:6) to await the assemblying of the saints. The Scriptures say, “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.” Notice, that Paul expected the church to assemble on the first day of the week and, for that reason, waited seven days to meet with them. Too, the early church usually met on that day to “break bread,” to observe the Lord’s supper. Hence, this passage further confirms what I have said, namely,:that the early church regularly worshipped on -the first day of the week.

Therefore, when we read that John was in the Spirit on the “Lord’s day,” we should properly understand that this was the first day of the week, the day set aside to worship and adore God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. The Scriptural evidence is quite clear that the early church worshipped on the first day of the week. The change in the days of worship from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week occurred by divine decree.

Extra-Biblical Evidences

Lest someone still is unconvinced that the early church worshipped on the first day of the week, I would like to cite the extra-biblical evidences which confirm what I have already proven from the Scriptures. McClintock and Strong cited a number of post-biblical evidences that the early church worshipped on the first day of the week; here are part of them:

“The epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, which, though certainly not written by that apostle, was in existence in the earlier part of the 2d century, has (c. 15) the following words ‘We celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which, too, Jesus rose from the dead.’

“A pagan document now comes into view. It Is the well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan written (about A.D. 100) while he presided over Pontus and Bithynia. The Christians (says he) affirm the whole of their guilt or error to be that they were accustomed to meet together on a stated day (state die), before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as a god, and to bind themselves by a sacramentum, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, the8, or adultery; never to break their word, or to refuse, when called upon; to deliver up any trust; after which it was their custom to separate, and to assemble again to take a meal, but a general one, and without guilty purpose’ (Epist. x, 97).”

“A thoroughly Christian authority, Justin Martyr, who flourished A.D. 140, stands next on the list. He writes thus: ‘On the day called Sunday (te tou heliou legomene hemera) Is an assembly of all who five either in the cities or In the rural districts, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read . . . . He afterwards assigns the reasons which Christians had for meeting on Sunday. There are, ‘because it is the First Day, on which God dispelled the darkness (to skotos) and the original state of things (ten hulen), and formed the world, and because Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead upon it’ (Apol. I, 67)” (“The Lord’s Day,” Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. V, p. 507).

After citing these evidences and several more, McClintock and Strong gave their summation of the evidence:

“The results of our examination of the principal writers of the two centuries after the death of St. John may be thus summed up. The Lord’s day (a name which has now come out more prominently, and is connected more explicitly with our Lord’s resurrection than before) existed during these two centuries as a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of scriptural Christianity. It was never defended, for it was never impugned, or, at least, only impugned as other things received from the apostles were. It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it . . . . ” (Ibid., p. 508).

Hence, both biblical and extra-biblical evidences confirm that the early church worshiped on the first day of the week, a day which they called the Lord’s day.

Conclusion

Why, then, does the Lord’s church worship on the first day of the week? The answer is simple: because the Scriptures authorize it. The first day of the week, therefore, is the day of worship of the New Testament church. On that day, worship according the divine pattern must be offered. Do you observe the Lord’s day?

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 2-4
January 5, 1978

By Daniel H. King

There are a lot of people in the churches who, when they read our articles and hear our sermons on liberalism, social gospelism, and the issues presently confronting the church, will scoff and say, “Just more of the ravings of those crazy antis.” At the same time, though, there are sincere and well-intentioned brethren in a multitude of places who are caught up in personalities, family ties, friendships, and politics in local churches and hate to leave. And so they stay.

They have the wisdom to see the direction in which many of their friends and brethren are moving. And yet they stay. They have no words of derision. They want no part in slinging mud at the “antis” because they know that what they are saying and have been saying all along is true. Liberalism to them is not something one reads about in the papers and periodicals. It is present reality, very present reality. Indeed, it is moving in at such a rapid pace that it scares them to death. And, what scares them even more is the fact that they usually stand almost entirely alone in trying to stem the tide. Their plight is sad. But still they stay. We continue to hope and pray that soon they will see the hopelessness of their present condition and the futility of their task while they continue to fellowship this sin and contribute to its malignant growth in the churches by encouraging and financing it. But they know that if they take a strong stand for truth and sound doctrine they might be forced out like many of us were and like the early disciples were forced out of the synagogues (Jn. 16:2). And so, they stay.

All too many, however, think of this horrendous cancer as benign until it is far too late for the radical surgery that it requires to arrest it. After a time they awake to find that it has enlarged and has swallowed the whole church (1 Cor. 5:6), stolen their children’s hearts and affections, and entangled them in a web from which they feel powerless to escape. Their innocuous presence is no real threat to the eventual triumph of the malignancy. And so they stay. They fret and they fuss, they rant and they rave. But still they stay. They are frustrated and bewildered, incensed and infuriated. But they stay. They possess neither the intestinal fortitude nor the courage to defy the “powers that be” who “lord it over” the flock (1 Pet. 5:3) in the place of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 5:4) by leading the church into error (Acts 20:3). They have insight, hindsight and foresight, but they have no grit and they lack mettle. “And besides,” they say, “I like it here.”

Is there any wonder that they stayed? You know, unless they change, I hope they do stay.

Truth Magazine XXI: 50, pp. 787
December 22, 1977