Three New Testament Texts
and the Origin of Sunday

Revelation 1:10

The third crucial New Testament passage widely used to defend the apostolic origin of Sunday observance is found in the book of Revelation. John, exiled on the island of Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 1:9), writes: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day—en te kuriake hemera" (Revelation 1:10). The importance of this text derives from the fact that, as claimed by R. H. Charles, "this is the first place in Christian literature where the Lord’s day is mentioned." (64) It is to be observed that the Seer does not use the expression "day of the Lord—hemera tou kuriou" which is uniformly found in the Septuagint and the New Testament to translate the Old Testament "yom YHWH," but a different phrase, "Lord’s day—kuriake hemera." What is the meaning of this new formula?

The problem is to establish in the light of this text and of its context, whether John was "caught away by the power of the Spirit into an ecstasy" (65) on a Sunday "at a time when," as held by O. Cullmann, "the Christian community was gathered together" (66) to worship, or whether the expression carries a different meaning. The former represents indeed the prevailing interpretation. (67) Wilfrid Stott, to cite one, in a recent article concludes that "Revelation 1:10 must be taken as the first example of the Christian name for the first day of the week, the day of Christian worship." (68) However, at least two other possible interpretations of the phrase "Lord’s day" have been recognized and defended by other scholars. Recently some have suggested that the words refer not to the ordinary Sunday but to Easter Sunday and that it was at the time of this annual celebration of the resurrection that John found himself rapt in the Spirit. (69) A third interpretation is that the words are the equivalent of "the day of the Lord" of the Old Testament, understood as the eschatological day of Christ’s parousia and judgment. (70) In this case the Seer finds himself transported by the Spirit into the circumstances of that glorious day and from that vantage point he is shown by prophetic symbols the events preceding and following Christ’s coming. A brief survey of the evidences marshaled in support of each of these three interpretations is necessary before drawing any conclusive statement on the meaning of the word.

Sunday

The equation of Sunday with the expression "Lord’s day" is based not on internal evidences of the book of Revelation or of the rest of the New Testament, but basically on three second century patristic testimonies, namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1, and The Gospel of Peter 35; 50. Of the three, however, only in the Gospel of Peter is Sunday unmistakably designated by the technical term "Lord’s—kuriake" In two different verses it reads: "Now in the night in which the Lord’s day (He kuriake) dawned... there rang out a loud voice in heaven" (verse 35); "Early in the morning of the Lord’s day (tes kuriakes) Mary Magdalene... came to the sepulchre" (verse 50, 51). In this apocryphal Gospel, dated in the second half of the second century, (71) the use of the abbreviated form "Lord’s" without the noun "day—hemera" implies, as L. Vaganay rightly observes, "une façon courante," (72) that is, a common usage of the term.

In Didache 14:1 and in The Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1, as we had occasion to show elsewhere, (73) the adjective "Lord’s—kuriake" does not seem to qualify or imply the noun "day—hemera." In the first instance it expresses the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, namely "according to the Lord’s doctrine or commandment." In the latter passage Ignatius is not contrasting days as such, but rather ways of life. The immediate reference of the Old Testament prophets and the absence of the substantive "day—hemera" justifies "Lord’s life" as a more plausible translation than "Lord’s day." (74) There are, however, beginning with the latter part of the second century, irrefutable examples where the expression "Lord’s day" or simply "Lord’s" is used as a current designation for Sunday. (75)

The crux of the problem is, was Sunday already designated "Lord’s day" by the end of the first century when Revelation was written, or did such a name arise at a slightly later period? That the adjective "kuriakos" was then known is attested by the monumental and papyri inscriptions of the imperial period where it means "imperial." "Lord—kurios" was used for the Emperor, the noun as a title for him and the adjective for that which pertained to him. (76) The use of the two terms, as pointed out by A. Deissmann, shows a marked "parallelism between the language of Christianity and the official vocabulary of Imperial law." (77) It should be noted, however, that Christians did not transfer such titles to Christ solely as a reaction to the imperial cult, since they were fully familiar with the name "Lord—Kurios" through their Greek Old Testament (LXX) where it is used constantly as the most common name of God.

No indications have been found of the existence of an imperial "Lord’s day" in the pagan environment that could serve as an exact analogy for that of the Christians. Nevertheless it has been frequently suggested that Christians devised the designation "Lord’s day" in conscious protest to the "Emperor’s day—Sebaste hemera," which apparently occurred monthly or perhaps even weekly. (78) The use of the "Emperor’s day" is confirmed for Asia Minor, and this is significant since it is there that the expression "Lord’s day" appears first to have been used. R. H. Charles explains this view, saying,

"Just as the first day of each month, or a certain day of each week, was called "Emperor’s Day," so it would be natural for Christians to name the first day of each week, associated as it was with the Lord’s resurrection and the custom of Christians to meet together for worship on it, as "Lord’s Day." (79)

While it is plausible to assume that the worshiping of the Emperor as "Lord—kurios" induced Christians to apply the term exclusively to Christ, it is hard to see a connection between the "Emperor’s day" and the Christian’s "Lord’s day." First because, as noted by G. Thieme, it cannot be proven "that the Emperor’s day is equivalent with the beginning of the month." (80) Even if this could be established, the time cycle would still be different. Secondly, because the two adjectives "Imperial—sebastos" and "Lord’s— kuriakos" are radically different. As pointedly observed by W. Rordorf, if a nexus between the two existed "one would at least have expected that first of all the title sebastos, by conscious contrast, would also have been applied to Jesus." (81)

Moreover even the existence of a recurring "Emperor’s day" could hardly have constituted a sufficient reason to change the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday and then to designate the latter "Lord’s day," in contradistinction to the one of the Emperor. By such an action Christians would have provoked the resentment of their pagan neighbors, the very thing they were cautious to avoid. We must conclude therefore that Christians used this expression not in conscious contrast to the Augustus day but as an expression of their faith in their "Lord—kurios" a title deeply rooted in the Old Testament.

The question we still face is to ascertain if the expression "Lord’s day" could have been employed before the end of the first century as a common denomination for the weekly Sunday. Wilfrid Stott presents linguistic and theological explanations to defend this very view. The adjective "Lord’s," he notes, was used by the early Fathers (until A.D. 450) to mean "belonging to" or "given by" Christ. This would imply that the "first day of the week belonged to the Lord... and would be the day instituted by Christ; the day was his gift to the Church." (82) Moreover he argues that "the resurrection proclaimed Christ as Lord" and in Revelation He "is given the title ‘King of Kings and Lord of Lords’" (Revelation 19:16). Therefore he concludes,

"On the Lord’s Day then they would not only be proclaiming Christ as the one who at the resurrection had been shown as Lord, but also looking forward to his final triumph at the parousia. On the Lord’s Day there would then not only be the proclamation ‘Jesus is Lord,’ but also the triumphant cry Maranatha, ‘Even so, come, Lord Jesus’" (83)

Such a positive and comprehensive formulation of a theology for Sunday (Resurrection-Parousia) indeed deserves admiration. But does this interpretation reflect the thinking of apostolic times or of later theological constructions? In our previous study of the role of the resurrection/appearances of Christ in relation to the origin of Sunday, we found no traces of apostolic allusions to a weekly or annual commemoration of the resurrection. In a later chapter it will be shown that even the earliest theological motivations that appear in documents such as those of Barnabas and Justin Martyr lack such an organic view of Sunday observance. (84) Their explanations are in fact of differing nature deriving from divergent sources. The resurrection per se is only timidly mentioned. We cannot therefore legitimately determine the meaning of the expression "Lord’s day" by leaning on its later usage and explanations. This is particularly true, as we shall see, in the light of changes that occurred in the early part of the second century in the Christian reappraisal of Judaism and its religious observances.

It remains for us to define the meaning of the ‘‘Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10 solely in the light of the text, context, and the teaching of the New Testament. Assuming that the Seer intended to specify that on a Sunday he found himself rapt in the Spirit, would he have designated such a day as "Lord’s day"? Because in the New Testament this day is always called "the first day of the week," is it not strange that in this one place the writer would use a different expression to refer to the same day? More important still, if, as many exegetes maintain, (85) John the Apostle wrote at approximately the same time both the Revelation and the fourth Gospel, then would it not seem reasonable to expect him to employ the same expression even in his Gospel, especially when reporting the first-day events of the resurrection and appearances of Jesus (John 20:1, 19, 26)?

In the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, written several decades later, we notice for instance that the day of the resurrection is designated not as "first day of the week" but as "Lord’s—kuriake" since the latter had by then become the term commonly used. If Sunday had already received the new appellation "Lord’s day" by the end of the first century when both the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written, we would expect this new name for Sunday to be used consistently in both works, especially since they were apparently produced by the same author at approximately the same time and in the same geographical area. If a new term prevails and is more readily understood, a writer does not confuse his readers with archaic time designations. Moreover, if the new denomination already existed and expressed the meaning and nature of Christian worship, a Christian writer could hardly legitimately use a Jewish designation instead. Therefore, the fact that the expression "Lord’s day," used in the New Testament only by John, occurs in his apocalyptic book but not in his Gospel where the first day is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the resurrection (John 20:1) and the appearances of Jesus (John 20:19, 26), weakens the claim that "John by ‘dominica dies’ [i.e. Lord’s day] (Revelation 1:10) wishes to indicate specifically the day in which the community celebrates together the eucharistic liturgy." (86) Additional reasons will be submitted below in connection with the third interpretation.

Easter Sunday

Others maintain that the "Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10 must be understood as a designation for the annual Easter Sunday rather than the weekly Sunday. (87) We shall mention some of the basic arguments of this thesis.

C. W. Dugmore in a recent study argues that the designation "Lord’s day" as used in the earliest Christian literature denotes Easter Sunday rather than the weekly Sunday. He notes that there is little evidence in "the New Testament and in the literature of the Sub-apostolic age that Sunday was the most important day in the Christian week." Moreover, certain allusions to the "Lord’s day" such as found in the Didache 14:1 and Apostolic Constitutions 7:30, can be taken to refer more readily to Easter Sunday. (88) The application of the term "Lord’s day" to the first day of the week would represent, as stated also by A. Strobel, "a secondary development." (89) This supposedly occurred "after Sunday had become a regular day of worship among the Christians and had come to be thought of as a weekly commemoration of the Resurrection." (90)

This thesis of an earlier application of the name "Lord’s day" to Easter day has some merits. We shall later show by using different sources and reasons that the weekly Sunday worship apparently did develop in conjunction with the Easter Sunday festivity, owing to similar causes. (91) It is to be observed however that such a conclusion can hardly be defended from Didache 14:1 (the work is variously dated between A.D. 60 to 150) (92) where the adjective "Lord’s—kuriake" is related not to the time but to the manner of the Lord’s Supper celebration. Even granting that it referred to time, the mention of the confession of sins (14:1), of the reconciliation between brothers (14:2) and the appeal through the words of Malachi (1:11) to offer "in every place and time a pure sacrifice" (14:3) hardly bespeak an annual celebration.

In the Apostolic Constitutions 7, 30, 1, which largely reproduces Didache 14, the statement is found, "On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s day, assemble yourselves together." C. W. Dugmore interprets this "Lord’s day" as a designation of "Easter Sunday which was still known to Christians of the third quarter of the fourth century in Syria as he kuriake [the Lord’s]." From this he concludes, "Why should we doubt that the phrase en te kuriake hemera [on the Lord’s day]’ (Revelation 1:10) of the Jewish-Christian Seer, writing just before the close of the first century, equally refers to Easter Sunday?" The weakness of this conclusion is that it rests on the false assumption that the "Lord’s day" in the cited passage of the Apostolic Constitutions refers exclusively to Easter Sunday. (93) This can hardly be proven from the context, where the admonition to assemble together to offer in every place a pure sacrifice hints clearly of the weekly Sunday gathering. In an earlier chapter however Easter Sunday is designated "Lord’s day" (15, 19), (94) but this only goes to show that the same term was used to denominate both festivities.

C. W. Dugmore believes that additional support for "the preeminence of Easter Sunday over other Sundays is shown in the fact that catechumens were normally baptized and made their first communion at Easter." Furthermore, Melito’s Paschal Homily, where mention is made not only of the sacrifice but also of the resurrection of Jesus, according to our author, indicates that "primitive Christian commemoration of the Cross and Resurrection was an annual and not a weekly event." (95) But such reasoning is faulty. To say that Melito’s sermon indicates that the celebration of the "Resurrection was an annual and not a weekly event" is to fail to recognize that the document does not deal at all with weekly Sunday observance since it is strictly a Passover Homily. Moreover, as we have shown earlier, the core of the sermon is the reenactment of the suffering and death of Jesus, the resurrection being mentioned only incidentally by way of epilogue.

J. van Goudoever uses internal evidences of the book of Revelation to interpret chapter 1:10 as a reference to Easter. He refers specifically to the harvest scene described in chapter 14: 14f., and argues that, since in Palestine harvest did actually begin on 16 Nisan, then Revelation 1:10 could be a reference to Easter day." (96) To determine a dating on the basis of agricultural symbolism is hazardous, since, as aptly observed by W. Rordorf, in the same chapter (14:17-20) an autumn vintage scene is described "in exactly parallel terms ... Is it then a question of spring or of autumn?" (97) The conclusion is obvious. Apocalyptic imagery of agricultural seasons cannot be used as valid criteria to justify the interpretation of the ‘‘Lord’s day" as a reference to "Easter Sunday."

Kenneth Strand submits additional arguments on behalf of the Easter Sunday interpretation of Revelation 1:10. He points out that

"in the Jewish Boethusian and Essene traditions there was an annual Sunday celebration of the firstfruits wave sheaf... Since the early Christians considered Christ in His resurrection as the antitypical Firstfruits, that particular segment of early Christianity which followed the sectarian rather than the Pharisaic reckoning... would readily have adopted an annual Sunday celebration honoring Christ’s resurrection.... By way of contrast, no liturgical or even psychological background can be deduced from practices in Judaism for an early Christian weekly Sunday.... We are readily led to conclude that in the earliest period of Christian history the only kind of Sunday ‘Lord’s Day’ observed by the Christian community was indeed an annual one, and that the weekly Sunday celebration somehow developed from the annual." (98)

While Strand defends the priority of the application of the term "Lord’s day" to Easter Sunday over the weekly Sunday, at the same time he wisely recognizes that the foregoing discussion does not apply to Revelation 1:10, since the document derives from the Quartodeciman area of the province of Asia. The Christians in that province to whom John addressed his book, according to Polycrates, who claims to be following the tradition of the same Apostle, strongly rejected the Easter Sunday custom, holding fast to the Quartodeciman reckoning. (99) Therefore, it would be paradoxical if John, who kept Passover by the fixed date of Nisan 14, wrote to Christians of the same Quartodeciman area that he "was in the Spirit on Easter Sunday." J. Daniélou recognizes this fact and timidly admits that "in the Apocalypse (1:10), when Easter takes place on the 14 Nisan, the word does not perhaps mean Sunday." (100)

The Day of the Lord

The identification of the "Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10 with the eschatological day of the Lord understood as the day of Christ’s judgment and parousia appears to us as the most plausible. (101) Several indications justify such an interpretation.

The immediate context which precedes and follows Revelation 1:10 contains unmistakable references to the eschatological day of the Lord. In the preceding verses Christ is portrayed as the One who "is coming with clouds, and every eye will see him" (verse 7) and as the One "who is and who was and who is to come " (verse 8). In the following verses John describes the vision of the glorious and triumphant "Son of Man" who has"the keys of Death and Hades" (verses 12-18). The same "Son of Man" appears again later to John with "a sharp sickle in his hand... for the harvest of the earth" (14:14-15), where unquestionably the reference is to a future time of judgment. The immediate context is clearly eschatological. This suggests that John felt himself transported by the Spirit to the future glorious day of the Lord.

It could be objected, as Louis T. Talbot points out, that if John "was projected into ‘the day of the Lord,’ how, then, could he write of this present church age, as he does in chapters two and three?" (102) The same author explains that the answer is found in verses 10 and 12 of the same chapter:

" "I ... heard behind me a great voice ... and being turned, I saw . . ." First, he looked forward into "the day of the Lord," then he turned back, as it were, and saw this church age in panorama, before looking forward again into the future at things which will surely come to pass." (103)

This threefold dimension of the vision of the Lord’s day is brought out in verse 19 where John is told, "write what you see, what is and what is to take place hereafter." From the vantage point of the Lord’s day, then, John is shown first what the glorious Son of Man is already doing ("what you see" — verse 19) for the seven churches which He holds in His right hand (verses 16, 20); secondly, what is the immediate condition of the Church ("the things which are"—verse 19); and lastly the events ("what is to take place hereafter"—verse 19) that will transpire until the return of Christ in glory and the establishment of His eternal kingdom.

A thematic study of the content of the book of Revelation corroborates that the day of the parousia constitutes the focal point of every vision and the fundamental theme around which the whole book revolves. (104) The book is introduced in fact as "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place" (verse 1). After the dedication of the book to the seven churches of Asia Minor, John announces the nature of this revelation in unmistakable terms: "Behold, He is coming with the clouds and every eye shall see him" (verse 7). The same announcement is found in the last chapter at the conclusion of the revelation received: "Behold, I am coming soon" (22:7, 12); "The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come’" (22:17). The vision of the throne, of the seven seals, of the seven trumpets, of the woman, the beast and the lamb, of the seven last plagues, of the harlot and Babylon, of the destruction of Satan and the establishing of the New Jerusalem, all describe events leading to or following the coming of Christ. (105) The context of the whole book then strongly suggests that the "Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10 represents not a literal 24-hour day but rather the great day of the Lord to which John was transported in vision to be shown by symbolic imagery the events preceding and following Christ’s coming.

That the day is symbolic rather than literal is also presupposed by the many scenes which John could hardly have received in a single session. We note that he is taken in vision on the Lord’s day" in the first chapter and a chain of visions is shown him to the very last chapter, where he declares: "I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me . . ." (22:8). This apparently suggests that the angel showed to John all the various scenes to the very end, when in gratitude he fell down to worship him. (106) Were all the visions actually shown to John in the same day and context, supposedly on a Sunday morning? Since the scenes are many and with different themes, "it would seem a rather strange phenomenon," as Fred B. Jensen rightly notes, "if John’s mind could have received this entire revelation in one day." (107) J. F. Walvoord similarly observes that "it is questionable in any case whether the amazing revelation given in the entire book could have been conveyed to John in one twenty-four hour day and it is more probable that it consisted of a series of revelations." (108)

The expressions like "I saw, I looked, I was shown," which occur frequently throughout the book, do imply that the scenes were shown at different times. In fact in chapter 4:2 John explicitly mentions for the second time and with the identical words found in chapter 1:10: "I was in the Spirit— egenomen en pneumati." This obviously indicates a different time and session in which he was taken in vision. Therefore it is hard to conceive that "the Lord’s day" on which John was shown the whole series of visions that comprise the entire book denotes a literal day since, as we noticed, many scenes with different themes were shown to him on separate occasions. It appears to be more consistent with the context to assume that John was transported in vision to the future day of the Lord and that from that vantage point "he heard" and "saw" the many scenes that were "showed" him in several sessions.

Wilfrid Stott objects to this interpretation, because though the adjective "Lord’s—kuriakos’ is employed extensively in the patristic literature with nouns such as "head, body, flesh, soul, blood, passion, cross, burial, sayings and teachings, parables, commands, power and authority and name," only in one instance does it occur with an eschatological meaning, namely in Origen, Commentary S. John 10:35: "When all these things will be resurrected in the great Lord’s [day]—kuriake." (109) The observation is valid indeed, but why not concede an exception in usage? After all the expression "Lord’s Day—kuriake hemera" is only a minor variation from the commonly used phrase "day of the Lord—hemera (tou) kuriou." (110) The adjective "Lord’s—kuriakos," as we have noticed, occurs only twice in the New Testament (1Corinthians 11:20; Revelation 1:10), an indication thus of a still limited usage in comparison with the name "Lord—kurios" which is employed over 680 times. It is worth noting that even the phrase "Lord’s Supper—kuriakon deipnon" in 1 Corinthians 11:20 is unique per se and is used only by Paul in that instance. The rite, in fact, which at first was referred to as "the breaking of bread," later came to be known as "Eucharist—eucharistia". (111) We are confronted here with the use of an adjective which has no parallel in the vocabulary of the New Testament. It would seem legitimate to conclude therefore that just as the expression "Lord’s Supper" was used once by Paul as an exception of what apparently was known as "the breaking of bread," it is possible also that the phrase "Lord’s day" was employed once by John as an exception and variation of the common expression "day of the Lord." The context, as we have seen, certainly justifies such interpretation.

Additional support for this interpretation is provided by the fact that John mentions twice again the day of judgment and of Christ’s coming, and in each instance he uses a somewhat different expression: "the great day of God—tes hemeras megales tou theou" (16:14) and "the great day of wrath— he hemera he megale tes orges" (6:17). These variations in the designation of the day of Christ’s coming indicate that the event was of such a great importance that it could be designated in a great variety of ways without the risk of being misunderstood. No less than thirty times John refers explicitly to it in his book. (112) In the New Testament, in fact, the day of Christ’s coming, which is regarded as the foundation and consummation of the Christian faith, hope and living, is described by a wide variety of expressions, such as "the day of judgment," (113) "the day," (114) "that day," (115) "the last day," (116) "the great and notable day," (117) "the day of wrath and revelation," (118) "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ," "the day of Christ," (119) "the day of the Lord," (120) "the great day," (121) and "the great day of God." (122) Christ himself calls the day of His coming "his day—hemera autou" (Luke 17:24). The fact that such a broad diversity of expressions is used to name the day of Christ’s coming, and the fact that John himself refers to it with different appellatives, make it altogether plausible that "the Lord’s day" is simply one of the many different designations for the same event. (123)

Considering the predominant place which "the day of the Lord" occupies in the thinking and life of the early Christians, being regarded as the consummation of all their hopes (2Thessalonians 4:16-18; 1Corinthians 15:23,52), as well as the very incentive for ethical conduct (1Corinthians 1:8; 2 Peter 3:10-12), it would seem natural that John would refer to it at the very outset of his work (1:1,7,8) and ‘be taken in vision to that very day (1:10). What more than the vision of Christ’s coming could bring reassurance to John, who was suffering tribulation "on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (1:9)? Together with the souls "who had been slain for the word of God," John undoubtedly was crying, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth" (6:10)? "Little wonder," aptly remarks Walter Scott, "that the gaze of the aged and honored prisoner was directed onward to the glory and strength of the kingdom, when right would be vindicated and wrong punished." (124)

The use of the adjective "Lord’s day" rather than the noun "day of the Lord" should also be noticed. E. W. Bullinger draws attention to the fact that in Greek as in modern languages, using the adjective rather than the noun of the same root does not change the meaning but the emphasis. The author explains:

"The natural way of qualifying a noun is by using an adjective, as here " kuriake—Lord’s," and when this is done, the emphasis takes its natural course, and is placed on the noun thus qualified ("day"). But when the emphasis is required to be placed on the word "Lord," then, instead of the adjective, the noun would be used in the genitive case, "of the Lord." In the former case (as in Revelation 1:10) it would be "the Lord’s DAY." In the latter case it would be "THE LORD’S day." The same day is meant in each case but with a different emphasis." (125)

John’s use of the adjective rather than of the noun may well reflect his desire to emphasize the very day of Christ’s glorious coming into which he was taken by the Spirit. This is suggested also by the use of the verb "egenomen." Its English (RSV) rendering "I was" does not fully convey the meaning of the Greek verb, which, though susceptible of a variety of modifications of meaning, expresses for the most part the idea of generation, transition, or change of state. In Revelation 8:8 for instance the same verb is translated "became" ("a third of the sea became blood"). Our text can be literally translated, "I came to be in (or by) the Spirit on the Lord’s day." Since the verb denotes the ecstatic condition into which the Seer was brought by the Spirit, we would expect the "Lord’s day" to represent not the time but the content of what he saw. A somewhat similar parallel can be seen in Paul’s ecstatic experience. He reports, "I fell (genesthai) into a trance and I saw him [i.e. the Lord]" (Acts 22:17; cf. 2Corinthians 12:3). The verb used (ginomai) is identical and the immediate result of the vision was for Paul a view of the Lord, while for John that of the Lord’s day.

The immediate hearing by John of "a loud voice like a trumpet" (1:10) may also be an allusion to the eschatological day of the Lord. "The Trumpet Voice," as Philip Carrington remarks, "recalls at once the Angel with the Trumpet who was expected in Jewish mythology to sound the reveille for the Judgment Day." (126) Though trumpets were used in the Old Testament for calling people together on several important occasions (Numbers 10:2, 9, 10; Exodus 19:19), (127) the instrument was especially associated with "the day of the Lord" (Joel 2:1, 15; Zechariah 9:14). In Zephaniah "the great day of the Lord" is called "a day of trumpet blast" (1:14-16). In the New Testament the trumpet is particularly associated with the second advent of Christ. It calls the members of God’s Church before Christ (Matthew 24:3 1), it announces Christ’s descent from heaven (1Thessalonians 4:16) and it resurrects the dead (1Corinthians 15:52). In Revelation the seven visions announced by the seven trumpets (8:2, 6-8, 10, 12; 9:1, 13; 11:15) present a series of cataclysmic events which culminate with the sounding of the seventh trumpet, which proclaims, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign for ever and ever" (11:15). This close association between the voice of the trumpet and the second coming of Christ suggests the possibility that "the loud voice like a trumpet" (1:10) that John heard "on the Lord’s day" (1:10) was a manifestation of that very event. In fact, as the Seer turned "to see the voice" (1:12) he gazed in rapture at the Son of Man in power and majesty in the midst of the churches. This vision is a fitting prelude to the coming of the "son of man with a golden crown on his head" (14:14) as "King of kings and Lord of lords" (19:16).

A final indication of the eschatological nature of "the Lord’s day" is provided by the unique parallelism between chapter 4:1-2 and chapter 1:10. In both instances John "was in the Spirit—egenomen en pneumati" (1:10 cf. 4:2), heard "a voice like a trumpet" (1:10 cf. 4:1) and was shown a member of the Deity in His glory (1:12-18 cf. 4:2-11). On both occasions Christ is proclaimed as the One "who was and is and is to come" (1:8 cf. 4:8). However, in chapter 4:1 we find an additional helpful detail. Before John is taken in vision, he is told, "Come up hither, and I will show you what must take place after this" (4:1). In the very next statement John says, "At once I was in the Spirit" (4:2). The reason then for John’s being taken up in vision is here clearly stated: so that he may see "what must take place after this" (4:1). In chapter 1:10, however, when John is taken up in vision such a reason is not explicitly expressed but in its stead we find the expression "on the Lord’s day." It would seem reasonable to conclude, then, by virtue of the striking parallelism found between the two chapters where similarities of expressions, context and content occur, that the phrase "on the Lord’s day" of chapter 1:10 ought to be understood in the light of the parallel expression, "what must take place after this" of chapter 4:1. We might say that in chapter 1:10, John first names the background against which he saw the vision—namely, the Lord’s day—and then he proceeds to describe the events related to it, while in chapter 4:1 John is explicitly told that the ensuing vision has to do with future events.

In the light of the above considerations, it seems very unlikely that the phrase "Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10 refers to Sunday. It rather appears to be a variation of the expression "the day of the Lord" which is commonly employed in the Scripture to designate the day of the judgment and of the parousia. We would therefore concur with J. B. Lightfoot in concluding that "there is very good, if not conclusive evidence, for thinking that the day of judgment was intended." (128)

Conclusion

The foregoing analysis of the three New Testament references commonly submitted as proof for Sunday observance in apostolic times has shown convincingly that no probative value can be derived from them. In both 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 and Acts 20:7-12, we found that the first day of the week is mentioned to describe respectively a private fundraising plan and an extraordinary gathering of the Troas believers with Paul. Similarly we noticed that the expression "Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10, in the light of its immediate and wider context can be best interpreted as a designation for the day of judgment and of the parousia.