"The Lord's Day"
Another argument in favor of the view we are upholding, that the words "revelation of Jesus Christ," are a title meant to convey to us the subject matter of the the visions John is about to receive, comes from John's testimony that he "was in the Spirit in the Lord's day." (1:10) What is meant by "Lord's day" and why is it mentioned by John in this context?
Dr. Seiss wrote:
"With this also agrees the statement of John as to the circumstances under which he came to the knowledge of the things which he narrates. He says he “was in Spirit in the Lord’s day,” in which he beheld what he afterwards wrote."
Seiss' translation is correct in leaving out the definite article before "spirit." He does capitalize "Spirit," however. Whether the word "spirit" here denotes the person of the Holy Spirit, or a state of mind and disposition, is a matter of opinion. I personally think the "spirit" was not the Holy Spirit, for John was already "in the Spirit" before this time, and the context seems to favor the idea that he was enraptured in his mind, being in a prophetic spirit. The absence of the definite article would favor this view. Thus, John is saying that he was "in a spiritual and prophetic frame of mind." Seiss will discuss this in the next quotations.
It is important to note how the contents of the Book of Revelation are a written record of what John saw while "in spirit," in prophetic and ecstatic state, mentally leaving his body and seeing with the eyes of his soul the things he afterwards narrates and describes. To read what he describes lends great support to the view that the Book of Revelation deals, in one way or another, with the coming apocalypse or return of Christ to our world. If it were merely information about things that were to occur, either within a few years after John wrote the Book of Revelation (Preterist view), or about things that were to occur during the 2000 years of the church's history (Historicist view), or of things not yet fulfilled (Futurist view), it is still prophecy. Whether those things have been fulfilled or not is the question that has been debated for thousands of years. To my mind, it is clear that what John records fits in well with the thesis that the whole of the Revelation describes end time events associated with the coming again of Christ. Were it merely more information, it would give information on various points of doctrine, as do the apostolic epistles. But, this is not what we find when we scope the contents.
Seiss continued:
"What is meant by this Lord’s day? Some answer, Sunday — the first day of the week; but I am not satisfied with this explanation. Sunday belongs indeed to the Lord, but the Scriptures nowhere call it “the Lord’s day.” (Unless this be the only time - SG) None of the Christian writings, for 100 years after Christ, ever call it “the Lord’s day.” But there is a “Day of the Lord” largely treated of by prophets, apostles, and fathers, the meaning of which is abundantly clear and settled. It is that day in which, Isaiah says, men shall hide in the rocks for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty; — the day which Joel describes as the day of destruction from the Almighty, when the Lord shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake; — the day to which the closing chapter of Malachi refers as the day that shall burn as an oven, and in which the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings; — the day which Paul proclaimed from Mars’ Hill as that in which God will judge the world, concerning which he so earnestly exhorted the Thessalonians, and which was not to come until after a great apostasy from the faith, and the ripening of the wicked for destruction; — the day in the which, Peter says, the heavens shall be changed, the elements melt, the earth burn, and all present orders of things give way to new heavens and a new earth; — even “the day for which all other days were made.” And in that day I understand John to say, he in some sense was. In the mysteries of prophetic rapport, which the Scriptures describe as “in Spirit,” and which Paul declared inexplicable, he was caught out of himself, and out of his proper place and time, and stationed amid the stupendous scenes of the great day of God, and made to see the actors in them, and to look upon them transpiring before his eyes, that he might write what he saw, and give it to the Churches."
This is the point to be decided. When John refers to "the Lord's day," is he referring to a particular day of the week? To Sunday as most say? To Saturday, as say others? Or, to "the day of the Lord," as Seiss and others affirm, and as I believe? We will discuss it at length. But, first, let us observe an important remark made by Seiss. He says - "And in that day I understand John to say, he in some sense was."
John "saw" what we would today call "episodes," "previews," or "clips," to use cinema language. John was "seeing" the coming of the Lord, and the numerous things "coming on the earth" (Luke 21:26), just as today we might see video recordings of events. People today who see the video of the World Trade Center being hit by planes are not seeing the actual event, but a "symbol" or video copy of that event. So, it is with what John sees, and what we see, in the book of Revelation. It is a written record of a coming event, seen beforehand in visions of "that day." John, in his mind and spirit, was able to teleport into the future, as if he had been in a "time machine," and to record the things which he saw in conjunction with the "day of the Lord."
John's previous experience in seeing the coming of the Lord was on the "mount" in which Christ was transfigured. The event on the mount is significant, and ought to be considered in the context of John foreseeing the coming of Christ in the Apocalypse.
"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” (Matt.16:26-17:3 NIV)
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy..." (II Peter 1:16-19 KJV)
Concerning the event on the mount, Albert Barnes wrote:
"that transfiguration was understood to have an important reference to the coming of the Saviour in his kingdom and his glory, and was designed to be a representation of the manner in which he would then appear. This is referred to distinctly by each one of the three evangelists who have mentioned the transfiguration. Matthew 16:28, "there be some standing here which shall not taste of death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom;" Mark 9:1-2; Luke 9:27-28. The transfiguration which occurred soon after these words were spoken was designed to show them what he would be in his glory, and to furnish to them a demonstration which they could never forget, that he would yet set up his kingdom in the world...they had in fact such a view of him as he would be in his kingdom, that they could entertain no doubt on the point; and the fact, as it impressed their own minds, they made known to others. The evidence as it lay in Peter's mind was, that that transfiguration was designed to furnish proof to them that the Messiah would certainly appear in glory, and to give them a view of him as coming to reign which would never fade from their memory. As that had not yet been accomplished, he maintained that the evidence was clear that it must occur at some future time. As the transfiguration was with reference to his coming in his kingdom, it was proper for Peter to use it with that reference, or as bearing on that point."
This is the view of most bible commentaries, that the experience of Peter, James, and John on the mount, was one in which they beheld Christ in his second coming. This certainly is the view of Peter in his commentary on that experience. Peter said that he, James, and John, got a view of "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" when they were seeing the things they saw while on the mount. Peter says they were then "eyewitnesses" of his "majesty," and such majesty as will be seen by all when the Lord returns. Just as Jesus had said, some "standing here" (Peter, James, and John) would "see" the Lord "coming in his kingdom" before they died. Thus, John got a preview of the return of Christ while on the holy mount, and gets another, more complete vision of it on the isle of Patmos. The Apostle John is supremely the witness of the second coming.
Seiss continued:
"This is what I understand by his being “in Spirit in the Lord’s day.” I can see no essential difference between the Lord’s day, and the day of the Lord. They are simply the two forms for signifying the same relations of the same things."
This is the point that is in dispute on what is meant by "the Lord's day." Does "Lord's day" mean the same thing as "day of the Lord"? Are they but two ways of saying the same thing, as Seiss and others affirm? If I say "president's wife" or "wife of the president," am I not saying the same thing, though in a different grammatical form? What is the essential difference between saying "table of the Lord" or "Lord's table"? Between saying "law of the Lord" or "Lord's law"? Between saying "gospel of Christ" or "Christ's gospel"? Between "word of God" or "God's word"? We could multiply examples. I agree with Seiss that they are ways of saying the same thing, and so "the Lord's day" denotes, not Sunday, but "the day of the Lord," the day of Christ's return. But, more on this as we go along.
Seiss continued:
"And if John was thus mystically down among the scenes of the last day, and has written only what he says he has written, that is “things that he saw;” it cannot be otherwise but that in dealing with the contents of this book we are dealing with what relates pre-eminently to the great Apocalypse and Epiphany of our Lord, when he cometh to judge the world in righteousness.
And when we come to consider the actual contents of this book, we find them harmonizing exactly with this understanding of its title. It takes as its chief and unmistakable themes what other portions of the Scriptures assign to the great day of the Lord. It is nothing but Apocalypse from beginning to end."
This is all weighty evidence in favor of the view that "Lord's day" means all the same as "day of the Lord." The contents of the scroll that contains John's record of the coming Apocalypse detail events and scenes of the last day, of those things that are destined to come to pass in conjunction with the Lord's coming again, as any honest reader of the prophecy must admit. The evidence for this has already been presented.
Seiss continued:
"First we have the Apocalypse of Christ in his relation to the earthly Churches, and his judgment of them; then the Apocalypse of his relation to the glorified Church, and the marshalling of them for his forthcoming to judge the world; then the Apocalypse of his relation to the scenes of the judgment, as they are manifested on earth under the opening of the seals, the prophesying of the witnesses, and the fall of Babylon; then the Apocalypse of his actual manifestation to the world in the battle of the great day of God Almighty, the establishment of his kingdom, and the investiture of the saints in their future sovereignties; and finally the Apocalypse of his relation to the final act of judgment, the destruction of death and the grave, and the introduction of the final estate of a perfected Redemption. What, indeed, is all this, but just what was foretold by all the prophets, by Christ himself, and by all his apostles, as pertaining to THE DAY OF THE LORD? Verily, this book is but the rehearsal, in another and ampler manner, of what all the Scriptures tell us about the last day and the eternal judgment. It is pre-eminently The Apocalypse and Epiphany of Jesus Christ."
Insightful words are these! What Seiss called a "rehearsal" we would today call a "video preview." Anyone who wants to know more about the coming last day, about the end of the age, about the final destiny of men and earth, will want to read and meditate upon this glorious record of Christ's coming Apocalypse.
"The day of the Lord"
Seiss wrote:
"When we speak of the day of the Lord, or the judgment period, many have the notion that it is but one day, or a very brief space of time. They are consequently led to wonder how we can speak of the impending nearness of that day, and yet look for the rebuilding of a great city then to be destroyed. The difficulty, however, does not lie in the nature of the things, but in the popular misapprehensions of what the day of the Lord means, and the length of the period which it covers. The mistake is in taking the day of the Lord, or the coming again of our Savior, as if one particular moment of time, and one single event or scene were to be understood."
This is sadly missed by many bible students. When we think of the first "coming" of Christ, do we focus on one event and say that is the point when he "came"? If, as Seiss powerfully argues, the first coming of Christ encompassed many years and many events, then we certainly cannot limit the second coming to a single 24 hour period. The same is true in regard to the use of the word "day" in regard to "the day of the Lord." "Day" does not mean a 24 hour period, no more than it did in regard to the time when Christ was here the first instance. Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad." By "my day" Christ did not mean the day of his birth alone, but of his whole time spent here on earth. "Day" oftentimes in scripture denotes a marked out "period of time."
Seiss wrote:
"What the Scriptures describe as the day of the Lord, and the second coming of Christ, is no more limited to a single event or moment of time than was the day of his first coming, which extended over more than thirty years, and embraced various stages and successive presentations. If we take the prophecies concerning the first advent, we find it impossible to apply them to any one day, year, or scene, in the evangelic history. Micah said that Christ should “come out of Bethlehem” (Ephratah), but Hosea said that he would come “out of Egypt.” Malachi said that he should “suddenly come to his temple,” and Zechariah that he would come to Zion “riding upon an ass, upon a colt the foal of an ass;” whilst, according to Isaiah, “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” were to see the “great light.” All these presentations were his coming. He did come when he was born at Bethlehem; he did come out of Egypt; he did come when he announced himself at Nazareth; he did come as a great light among the people of Northern Galilee; he did come riding into Jerusalem on the ass; he did come suddenly to his temple when he twice drove out the moneychangers; and he came when he reappeared after his resurrection. Each one of these particular incidents is alike called his coming; but they were only so many separate presentations, at different dates, extending through a period of thirty-three years, all of which together are required to make up the first advent as a whole. And just as it was then, so it will be again. The second coming, like the first, is complex and distributive, extending through a variety of successive and diverse scenes, stages, events, and manifestations, requiring as many, if not still more, years."
In the next posting we will continue our discussion of the meaning of "Lord's day" and of its connection with the words "revelation of Jesus Christ."
No comments:
Post a Comment