The Lord's Day

The sabbath question and the Lord s Day, the first day of the week, are two separate and independent questions. The sabbath has been abolished (Colossians 2:16-17) regardless of what can be proved about Christians assembling on the first day of the week. All human beings need some rest, and likely those who assemble on the first day of the week get as much rest on that day as do the Seventh-Day Adventists who assemble on Saturday. The fact that a great deal is not said about the first day of the week adds not one iota of strength to the Seventh-Day Adventists case for the sabbath.

The coming of the new covenant necessitated the abolition of the old, for He had to take away the first in order to establish the second (Hebrews 8:5-13; 10:9-10). The system of shadows gave way to the system of substance (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10: 1-20). Under the new covenant, it is not dishonoring to the Father to teach that the sabbath (which was a memorial of God s rest after creation, Exodus 20:11, and a sign between God and Israel, Deuteronomy 5:15) was abolished with the system of shadows. God hath given all judgment unto the Son; that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him (John 5:22-23). It is fitting that in the new covenant we celebrate in the Lord s Supper, an event, the death of the Lord for our sins, on the day of His resurrection, since without the resurrection it would have meant that Christ was a false prophet and did not die for our sins. The work of Christ in dying for our sins, of purchasing the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28), is a more costly, glorious, and important work than the physical creation, and the resurrection is a divine declaration that Christ is God s Son (Romans 1:4).

Christ is head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23), and the Son over his house which is God s house (Hebrews 3:6; 1 Timothy 3:14). The kingdom has been taken from Israel and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof (Matthew 21:42-43; Luke 12:32; Colossians 1:13). Israel no longer constitutes God s holy nation (1 Peter 2:5, 9). It was fitting that the sabbath be abolished, for it was a sign between God and Israel (Deuteronomy 5:15). It was fitting that Christ s people meet on another day, and such they do (Acts.20:7). Concerning our day of assembly, we must listen to Christ the head of the church (Hebrews 1:1-2). Christ has abolished the shadow system through fulfillment and therefore we let no man judge us in respect of the religious days, including the sabbath of the old covenant, for the body, substance, or reality pertains to Christ (Colossians 2:16-17). Our rest is found in Christ (Matthew 11:28-30) and this rest is consummated in eternity (Hebrews 3:6,14,19; 4:1-11). (Compare John Willison, A Treatise Concerning The Sanctification of the Lord s Day, Albany: N.Y.: G. J. Loomis & Co., 1820, pp. 49-52). The rest He brings is indeed glorious as Isaiah foresaw (Isaiah 11:10).

Christ Raised On The First Day

If Christ had been raised on the sabbath day, He would not have been in the tomb either three days or nights or part of three days and nights. When the women came to the tomb on the first day of the week, at early dawn, it was empty (Luke 24:1-2; John 20:1). For Jews the day was from sunset to sunset, and although it was early dawn while it was yet dark, it was the first day of the week. In the evening of the first day of the week Christ appeared to some disciples who were in a building (John 20:19). Eight days later, which would be the first day of the week, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst (20:26).

The term Sunday, or day of the Sun, was the pagan designation, and it appears in the writings of the Christian apologists who were addressing pagan audiences The phrase first day of the week (literally first of the Sabbaths the first day between the Sabbaths) was a Jewish expression based on the practice of designating the days of the week by their number leading up to the sixth (the Preparation) and the seventh (the Sabbath). This was the common terminology of the New Testament and of early Christian writers from a Semitic background (as the Syrian Bardesanes...or Justin in addressing a Jew ). Lord s Day and eighth day were distinctive Christian names and will be discussed further (Ferguson, p. 71).



The first Pentecost after Christ s resurrection and ascension marks the birthday of the church, for it was then that the kingdom came with power (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8; 2:30-36). The world now knew that Christ was reigning as King at God s right hand, and would reign until death is conquered (Acts 2:34-35; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; Revelation 20:11-21:5). Peter said that Israel could know assuredly that God had made Jesus, whom they had crucified, both Lord and Christ. Around three thousand obeyed the gospel that day (Acts 2:36-42). On what day of the week was Pentecost? Pentecost always came on the first day of the week. And he shall wave the sheaf before Jehovah, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering; seven sabbaths shall there be complete: even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meal-offering unto Jehovah (Leviticus 23:11,15-16). As Straub pointed out: If we count the fifty days from the morrow after the Passover, as our Seventh-Day Adventist friends sometimes insist, the rules would apply just one year in seven, viz, when the Passover, with the rotation of the calendar, came on Saturday. The Passover, with its set calendar date, came on each day of the week. The morrow after the sabbath would always be the first day of the week, the day on which Pentecost was celebrated. Christ was raised on the first day of the week, and the first day of the week was the birthday of the church on earth.

The Lord s Supper

The Lord s Supper was started by Christ on a week night and in connection with the passover meal (Matthew 26:2, 17-29). However, there is no case where it was observed on any day other than the first day of the week, and Paul showed that it was not to be taken in connection with a meal (1 Corinthians 11:20-22,33-34). We do not observe a day, but we do observe an event on the first day of the week (Luke 22:19-20). We are commanded to observe it (Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25). It was observed with regularity. Paul mentioned the fact that they assembled for the Lord s Supper, although the way some were conducting themselves made it impossible. When therefore ye assemble yourselves, together, it is not possible to eat the Lord s Supper, for (1 Corinthians 11:20-21). Paul spoke of as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord s death till he come (1 Corinthians 11:26). It was not an ordinary meal, for if they were hungry they could eat at home (1 Corinthians 11:33-34). This indicated that they assembled with regularity, as is also evident from the fact that Christians are commanded not to forsake the assembling of themselves together (Hebrews 10:25). When was their regular day of assembly? We know that Christians in Jerusalem did meet every day, although they did not meet every day for the Lord s Supper (Acts 2:46 notice their assembling is contrasted with their eating bread at home). However, they did not have to meet every day, for the church in Troas did not meet every day. Paul waited until they met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). The church in Corinth assembled for the Lord s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20-23, 26, 33-34). Paul instructed them to give on the first day of the week, and this giving must have been done in connection with the assembly, for Paul wanted it done in order that no collections be taken when he arrived (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).
It is certainly fitting that the observance of the Lord s Supper be on the Lord s Day. It should be observed that Christians were never commanded to assemble to eat an ordinary meal, although, of course, it is right for them to eat together (Jude 12).

Acts 20:7

We are not told why Paul was seven days in Acts 21:3-4 and 28:13-14, but we are told, through what happened, why he waited seven days in Troas. ... we tarried seven days. 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 (Acts 20:6-7). Observe: First, Paul was there a full week, but the only assembly of the Christians which is mentioned was on the first day of the week. There was no hint of a sabbath day meeting, which would have taken place if the Christians had been Seventh-Day Adventists.
Second, Paul evidently knew and the brethren in Troas evidently knew that Christians met on the first day of the week. Paul waited for this meeting, and the next day he left according to his intentions (Acts 20:7,11).
Third, it was not a specially called meeting for the brethren to hear Paul. Their assembly was related to a purpose which was unrelated to Paul s preaching to them. when we were gathered together to break bread. This was the purpose of their assembly, just as the Lord s Supper was the purpose of the assembly of the saints in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:20-21, 26, 33-34) on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). The way it is stated indicates that it was not anything unusual but was the purpose of their assembly on the first day of the week. Paul did preach to them, but his preaching was not the purpose for which they assembled. The Seventh-Day Adventists sometime argue that Paul s preaching to Jews in the synagogue on the sabbath proves he kept the sabbath day. Does not his assembly with the Christians for the Lord s Supper prove that this was the day that he assembled with Christians in a distinct Christian assembly? We know why he assembled with Jews on the sabbath, i.e., because that was the Jewish day of assembly, and if he wanted to preach to them in their synagogues he had to go when they assembled; just as one would go to the Seventh-Day Adventist meeting house on the sabbath if he wanted to go when they assembled for their regular weekly service. Acts 20:7 tells us why these Christians assembled, i.e., to break bread. This was not an assembly for a regular meal which they ate at home (Acts. 2:46; 1 Corinthians 11:33-34).

Fourth, when did they start the beginning of a day? Was it from sunset to sunset? McGarvey thought it started at sunset and the first day started on what we call Saturday night. Any time after sunset on that evening would be the Lord s Day as they counted it, and after midnight, which was the time of breaking the loaf on that occasion, was on the Lord s Day as we count it.

If they met on Saturday night, the next morning when Paul left would have been on the same first day of the week. However, Paul met with them on the first day of the week and planned to depart on the morrow (20:7) which he did after speaking even till break of day, so he departed (20:11). Morrow has reference to the next day (Matthew 27:62; Mark 11:12; John 1:29, 35; 6:22; 12:12). The word is used several times in Acts. Cornelius was praying about the ninth hour of the day and after he had his vision he sent men to Peter. Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour (Acts 10:3,7-8,9). Peter had the same vision three days, and while puzzled about it the men from Cornelius came. They lodged there and on the morrow he rose and went forth with them (10:16, 17, 23). Paul was ready to depart on the morrow (20:7). They were in Ptolemais one day. And on the morrow we departed (21:7-3). So the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris. But on the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him (23:31-32). Festus went to Caesarea, and on the morrow he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought (25:6). This was called the next day. When therefore they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded the man to be brought (25:17). Festus was telling Agrippa about it, and Agrippa said, 1 also could wish to hear the man myself. Tomorrow, saith he, thou shalt hear him. So on the morrow (25:22-23).

Jewett pointed out that the historical evidence indicates that early in the second century Christians met Sunday evenings (54). Why did they change? The younger Pliny, governor of the province of Bithynia in Asia Minor, in a letter to Trajan (A.D. 109), tells his lord that the Christians ceased to gather at the time of the evening meal at his command, by which he had proscribed all evening meetings in keeping with the Emperor s edict against seditious assemblies. It would appear, then, that Christians were forbidden to meet on Sunday evening, at least in the province of Bithynia, and it is quite possible that this proscription applied widely in the Eastern part of the Empire (69; Pliny, Epistola, X, p. 97). He speaks of their meeting before it was light (Book X, Letter 83).
Pliny did not identify which day of the week but called it a certain stated day (Galloway, p. 73). Sunday was not used in his day and it is unlikely that he was at home with the seven-day division of time by which Jews and Christians designated the day as the first day of the week. If, in his letter to the Emperor, Pliny was referring to the Jewish Sabbath, as many Adventists claim, it is probable that he would have designated the day by that name, since both he and the Emperor were familiar with the Jewish Sabbath. The fact that he does not designate the day implies that he had in view a day for which no specific name was current, the name Lord s Day being used only among Christians (Jewett, p. 70).

F. F. Bruce thought if we compared Paul s intention to depart on the morrow (20:7) with till break of day, so he departed (20:11), that we infer that for Luke the day did not begin, in the Jewish way, at sunset, but in the Greek way, at dawn; it was therefore not on Saturday evening, but on Sunday evening, that they came together. if it were from sunset to sunset, and they met on Saturday night, Paul would have left the brethren early Sunday morning. If they met on Sunday night, and Monday started at the break of day, he left Monday morning. If time was reckoned from midnight to midnight, they met on Sunday night, and leaving at the break of dawn meant that he left Monday morning. Some say that if time was reckoned from midnight to midnight, they observed the Lord s Supper after midnight and this would have been on Monday, since sunset on Saturday did not start the Lord s Day but midnight Saturday night did. (a) If they did not eat the Lord s Supper on the first day of the week, they failed to do what they came to do on that day. (b) The breaking of bread can refer both to the Lord s Supper (Matthew 26:26) and to an ordinary meal (Acts 2:46). If after midnight was Monday morning, it may be that the breaking of bread in Acts 20:11 referred to an ordinary meal for Paul, for he is the only one indicated as eating. And when he was gone up, and had broken bread, and eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the lad alive (20:11-12). Paul is the only one mentioned or implied in verse 11. If it refers to a meal, they partook of the Lord s Supper on the first day of the week; Paul ate a meal after midnight and then left at dawn. The times mentioned are midnight and morning. However, since the Lord did not date the beginning of the day as to whether it started at sunset, sunrise, or midnight, I see no ground on which to be dogmatic.

Fifth, the only time we find mentioned on which the disciples observed the Lord s Supper is the first day of the week. A daily, monthly, or yearly service is not mentioned in connection with the observance of the Lord s Supper by the church. If the Seventh-Day Adventists maintain it did not say they did it every first day of the week, our reply is: (a) It did not say observe every sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11). (b) Since Christians gathered on the first day of the week to break bread, they would do this whenever the first day of the week came around. Paul did not say lay by in store every first day of the week, but it is clear that whenever that day came they laid by in store (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).

1 Corinthians 16:1-2

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come (1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 14:37). This order was not given just to the church in Corinth; it had also been given to the churches of Galatia. Was Paul ordering them to do something at home on the first day of the week? Does Paul ever specify, unless this is such a case, a religious duty to be done on a specific day at home? Is there any case where Paul commanded any Christian to do any religious service on the sabbath day? Is it not strange that Paul overlooked the sabbath day if it is as important as the Seventh-Day Adventists maintain? Do the Seventh-Day Adventists today lay by in store at home each first day of the week? Do they give financially in their services on the sabbath, and then the very next day, the first day of their work week, lay aside what they are going to give next Saturday?

Paul said to each one of you lay by him in store (16:2). The word lay originally meant to bring to a place, to place, put, lay (Kittel, VIII, p. 152). Economically the word means to invest money, Luke 19:21 ff.; each of you set money aside in self-denial, 1 Corinthians 16:2 (p. 155).

Paul said each one of you lay by him in store (16:2). The word store was used of a place where something was stored whether in a treasure chamber, chest, or house e.g., state warehouse...temple treasury, or temple storehouse for offerings in kind... The cultic treasuries provided an impulse for private money boxes (1 Corinthians 16:2) (Kittel, III, p. 136). As to whether it was laid by at home in a private money box, I shall return to this shortly. S. L. Caiger said that the word was a common term for collections...made in pagan Temples (Archaeology and the New Testament, 1939, pp. 163-164). Did churches have treasuries? They must have had, otherwise where did they put money which was being collected to send to Paul, for example? (Philippians 4:15-17) The church in Jerusalem must have had a treasury. Money was collected, and distributed as there was need, and there must have been some place where it was collected and stored for distribution. Possessions were sold and parted them to all, according as any man had need (Acts 2:44-45). Each person did not go about distributing what he had received for the sale of his goods. They had all things common by living out of a common treasury (Acts 4:32). This is evident from the fact that they sold possessions and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need (4:34-35). Can you imagine each apostle standing there with money piled at his feet until it was needed for distribution? It was laid at their feet, but it must have been kept some place while awaiting distribution. Barnabas brought the money and laid it at the apostles feet (4:37). Ananias kept back part of the price, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles feet (5:2). As Jack McKinney pointed out, this is the background of the situation in Acts 6. The apostles were evidently acting as the treasurers and they were so overburdened that they could not look after it all and do their main work of teaching. There was a complaint that the Grecian widows were neglected in the daily ministration (6:1). And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word (6:2-4). The apostles had been doing this, and to continue it they would have had to forsake the word of God, and serve tables (literally in the Greek, to keep on serving tables). They must have been doing it, for otherwise why at this time did they appoint men who were specially selected for this work?

What did serving tables mean? If the apostles had been serving meals to all needy Christians, and to others who were living out of the common treasury (for they had sold their possessions), they could not have done it all. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that the food was not passed to the Grecian widows. It is hard to conceive that they were at the eating table and being neglected in plain sight of others who were eating. The apostles would have been the ones obviously and openly neglecting them. However, the word tables is used today for bank in Greece. The money changers in the temple had their money on tables, and this is the same word for tables in Acts 6:2 (John 2:15). In Acts 4:32 distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need (4:35). This was obviously in charge of the apostles, for the money had been laid at their feet (4:35). It was money, not food, which the apostles were distributing (4:34-35,37; 5:1-2). This was the daily ministration concerning which the Grecian widows were being neglected (6:1). The seven were to be appointed by the apostles over this business (6:3). The word for business is the word which is used for need in Acts 4:35 where distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need (4:35). When this was done the apostles were able to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word rather than to the ministry or service of tables (6:2,4).

Paul spoke of some widows who were enrolled and supported by the church (1 Timothy 5:9-16). Those who were not widows indeed were to be supported by others, that the church be not burdened (5:16). Since they were regularly supported by the church, if they were widows indeed, the church must have had regular funds for their support. How could the church have had funds for their support if there was no church treasury?
Was Paul speaking of each man on the first day of the week deciding how much he was to give and placing it by itself at home? It this were the case, why did Paul specify the first day of the week? Is there any home duty which is done on just one specific day of the week? Could not a person as easily decide on any other day of the week as to how much he would give and set it aside then? Why would each first day of the week be the time when he would put some more money in his private money box? Would he not put into his private money box at home any money he received on any and every day of the week? If he were paid once a month would he not put it in his private money box on whatever day of the month he got the money?

If the sabbath day were bound on Christians, according to the regulations in the Decalogue, Christians would rest on the sabbath and the sabbath would have been an excellent time to figure out how much they were going to give, and take it out of one money box and put it in the special money box for the collection at home. If they met regularly as Christians on the sabbath, why would not the sabbath have been the time for the church collection?

Of course, one day would have been as good as another for doing this, and in fact one would automatically put in his private money box at home any money he received on any day of the week unless he immediately paid some debt or purchased something. There is no sense in doing it on one special day if it is done at home. However, since the Christians did meet on the first day of the week, it does make sense for them to give on that day, and this explains why Paul said on the first day of the week and not on some other day.

If the Seventh-Day Adventists are right, and each person on the first day of the week laid by money at home, it would frustrate Paul s purpose for their laying by in store. He said they were to lay by in store that no collections be made when I come (16:2). If every Christian aid by in store at home, and if Christians met on the sabbath day for heir regular weekly assembly, Paul would have had either to visit ~ach one of them to collect what they had at home, or he would have said to make a special appointment for them to all come together in me place and bring the money to him whenever he came.

If they took it with them to a sabbath service, they would have to take it out of the place where they had laid by in store at home, and it would either have had to be placed in a church treasury on the sabbath or Paul would have had to be there to receive it from each of them.

Paul said, Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of he week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, hat no collections be made when I come (16:1-2). These are the only two uses of the word collection in the New Testament. The collection for the saints was to be made before Paul got there, or otherwise there would be collections when he came. Paul would have had to collect from each of them, instead of the collection being there waiting for him in the church treasury. There would be that one collection, gathered over a period of time in their weekly assemblies, waiting when Paul got there; instead of Paul having to collect from each individual what he had laid by at home. Only by weekly putting it into the one collection for the saints could Paul avoid numerous collections when he came. The collections were made weekly so that when Paul got there the collection for the saints was waiting for him.

If by him was the only thing in the context, one could conclude that it could be at home, but in the light of the context it is clear that the collection was being gathered on the first day of the week over a period of time so that it would all be there waiting for Paul when he came that no collections be made when I come. The Seventh-Day Adventists interpretation necessitates collections for each individual when Paul came, instead of it all being there in the church treasury as the collection for the saints which they had gathered over a period of time. When we remember that the Christians in Corinth regularly assembled for the Lord s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:18-34), and that Christians gathered for the Lord s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), it is clear why Paul specified the first day of the week for the contribution to be made in the assembly in order that the collection would be waiting when Paul arrived.

The Lord s Day (Revelation 1:10)

Is this the first day of the week, or is it the sabbath day? This passage by itself does not give any additional identification.

First, if it were the sabbath day it does not prove that the sabbath is binding on us. We know it has been abolished (Colossians 2:16-17). Paul s desire to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost does not prove that Pentecost is binding on Christians (Acts 20:16).

Second, it is not the sabbath just because Jesus said He was Lord of the sabbath (Mark 2:27-28; Matthew 12:8). Jesus was affirming that His lordship included the sabbath (even of the sabbath) as well as the other days. As Lord of all days He had the authority to abolish the sabbath, which He did (Colossians 2:11).
Third, By this name he could not have intended to speak of the Sabbath, for the word Sabbath was then universally used by Jews and Christians for the seventh day (J. W. Howson in Schaff s commentaries). In Acts, the seventh day is called the sabbath.

Fourth, Revelation 1:10 by itself does not prove that John assembled on that day, for he spoke of being in the Spirit, not of being in the assembly, on the Lord s Day. It certainly says nothing about John keeping the sabbath.
Fifth, Christ is frequently set forth in the New Testament as Lord (Romans 10:9; Acts 2:36). We belong to Him by right of purchase (Acts 20:28). In that day in official terminology it was used especially as a title for imperial (Kittel, III, p. 1096). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia said, In secular use it signified imperial, belonging to the lord the emperor and so its adoption by Christianity in the sense belonging to the Lord to Christ was perfectly easy... it is even possible that the full phrase, the Lord s Day, was coined as a contrast to the phrase, the Augustian day, a term that seems to have been used in some parts of Europe to denote days especially dedicated in honor of Caesar-worship (p. 1919).

Lord s Day is used by Christians with reference to the day of Christ s resurrection, and the term is consciously distinguished from the Sabbath day... The Sabbath is never referred to as kuriake, Lord s, or lordly. It became common to omit the word day after kuriake, leaving the adjective alone with the noun to be understood, (Revelation 1:10 reflects the earliest usage in giving the full phrase). Thus in Modern Greek the word for Sunday or the first day of the week is kuriake. This usage was well established at an early date, for in Christian Latin the word for Sunday was dominica, the exact translation of the Greek, Lord s (Ferguson, 71).

Sixth, the word Lord s is used in the New Testament only in Revelation 1:10 and in 1 Corinthians 11:20, the Lord s Supper. We know the Lord s Supper sustains a unique relationship to Christ, for He instituted it in memory of His death for our sins. The first day of the week sustains a unique relationship to Christ, for it is the day of His resurrection which made possible the church, the new spiritual creation; it is the day of the beginning of the church on earth; the day on which the saints assembled to partake of the Lord s Supper; and as a day it speaks of a greater event Christ s resurrection, new creation, and our hope of resurrection and eternal life based on His resurrection than the creation recorded in Genesis 1.

The Lord s refers to something peculiarly belonging to Christ the Lord under the new covenant. This is strengthened by the fact that the cup of the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:21; 11:27), and the table of the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:21) pertain to Christ and His new covenant. They are not an old covenant cup or table. Furthermore, the Lord s death pertains to Christ s death for our sins (1 Corinthians 11:26). The Lord s is in the adjective form in 1 Corinthians 11:20 and Revelation 1:10, but the noun form in the other passages (10:21; 11:27) including the Greek which is translated Lord s death in 1 Corinthians 11:26. How could this be the sabbath day, when the word used through the New Testament for the seventh day is the sabbath ?
Seventh, as Hessey brought out in his Hampton Lectures on Sunday, the first day of the week has been known as the Lord s Day in all the centuries following. As Hessey said, In no one place in the New Testament is there the slightest hint that the Lord s Day is a Sabbath, or that it is to be observed Sabbatically, or that its observance depends on the Fourth Commandment, or that the principle of the Sabbath is sufficiently carried out by one day in seven being consecrated to God. Whatever the Lord s Day had, was its own, not borrowed from the Sabbath, which was regarded for religious purposes as existing no longer. Nay more, when certain Judaizing persons had troubled the Church by insisting that the law of Moses was binding upon Gentile converts, the Apostles met in council. Their decision was that certain things should be abstained from by the Gentiles, but they did not enjoin any positive ceremonial observance connected with the older Covenant, not even the Sabbath. And to this it should be added that St. Paul in writing to the Colossians (ii.16)... In writing to the Galatians (iv.9,10), he says...No testimony can be more decisive than this to the fact that the Sabbath was of obligation no longer (Sunday, 36-37).

The Lord s Day is not a sabbath day; therefore, we would not expect the first day of the week to have the characteristics of the sabbath day. Christian writers frequently reproach Jews for keeping the Sabbath: Aristides, Apology 14 (Syriac text); Epistle of Diognetus 4:5. They argued that the Sabbath was not kept before Moses and therefore was not part of the permanent will of God: Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews 2-4; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 19:2; 21:1 and frequently; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV. xvi. 2. (Ferguson, p. 78).
Eighth, Ignatius (A.D. 30-107) made it clear that Christians did not observe the seventh day as a day of rest, and that their day of assembly was the Lord s Day. There are two versions of his Epistle to the Magnesians. In the shorter version he wrote, If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death. In the longer version we read: Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for he that does not work, let him not eat. For says the (holy) oracles, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread. But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days (of the week). Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, To the end, for the eighth day, on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ (Alexander Roberts, The Ante Nicene Fathers, Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885, I, pp. 62-63). By their keeping of the sabbath, it is obvious that Ignatius taught that they were to spend the sabbath day in a way very different from the Jews and not observe it, and that the first day of the week, the Lord s Day, was the unique day for the Christian.

J. B. Lightfoot in commenting on the first part of Ignatius statement said, i.e. those who were brought up in the practices of Judaism. If the Jewish converts gave up the observance of sabbaths, a fortieri ought Gentile converts not to barter Christ for Judaic rites (The Apostolic Fathers, N.Y.: Macmillan and Co., 1889, II, p. 128). This living after the Lord s Day signifies not merely the observance of it, but the appropriation of all those ideas and associations which are involved in its observance (p. 129). However, we observe an event (His death) on the day He arose (the first day of the week).

Ninth, the Didache, or The Teaching of The Apostles was written around the beginning of the second century. One does not endorse everything in this uninspired document in order to recognize its testimony to the existence of the Lord s Day. And on the Lord s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled (J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1962, I, p. 128). The Didache contrasts the two ways: the way of life and the law of death. Under the way of life it teaches that one should love God and his neighbor. In the list of things one was not to do are prohibitions against murder, adultery, stealing, magic, sorcery, abortion, coveting, perjury, false witness, etc., but nowhere is there a command to keep the sabbath or a prohibition against working on that day. The author must have known of the Jewish sabbath, but he speaks of the Lord s own day and not of the Sabbath.

Tenth, there is an epistle, wrongly attributed to Barnabas, some of which is not later than the first half of the second century (Ante Nicene Fathers, I, p. 135). There is an interpretation of Isaiah 1:13-14, and possibly also an allusion of Ezekiel 43:18,26,27. (Hessey, 41; Galloway, p. 78). Among other things we read: Further, He says to them, Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure. Ye perceive how He speaks; Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, (namely this,) when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a begin-fling of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens (ANF, I, p. 147).

Eleventh, Pliny, when proconsul of Bithynia, wrote a letter around 104 A.D. to the Emperor Trajan concerning Christians. He said, They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies (F. C. T. Bosanquet, The Letters of Caius, Plinius, Caecilius, Secundus. London: C. Bell & Sons, Ltd., 1912, p. 395). Pliny had dealt with Christians who had been accused by others of being Christians, and his letter to Trajan told of what he had done with such, and asked additional guidance. A later edition of Pliny translated any assemblies as political associations (Pliny Letters, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953, X. xcvi, II, p. 405. Translated by William Melmoth, and revised by W. M. L. Hutchinson. See Jewett, pp. 68-78).

Twelfth, Justin Martyr (110-165) wrote, And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities and the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.... But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration (ANF, I, p. 186). The president was the one who presided over the meeting.

In the Dialogue With Trypho he said, The command of circumcision, again, bidding (them) always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, (namely through) our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and (yet) remains the first (I, p. 215).

One does not have to accept all his interpretations in order to accept this historical testimony to the day on which the Christians met, and the fact that the first day of the week, not the sabbath, was the day.

To Trypho he said, Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? (IX, ANF, I, p. 199). Trypho said you observe no festivals or sabbaths (p. 199). For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham (XXIV, ANF, 1, p. 206). There were sacrifices before Moses but not the elaborate system found in the law of Moses.

Thirteenth, Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-193-217, ANF, II, p. 165) wrote Stromata or Miscellanies around 190. He said the Greeks and Hebrews recognized as sacred the seventh day, but Clement distinguishes it from the Lord s Day and said, And the Lord s Day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth book of the Republic, in these words: And when seven days have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they are to set out and arrive in four days. By the meadow is to be understood the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious; and by the seven days each motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which speeds to the end of rest. But after the wandering orbs the journal leads to heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and day (V. xiv, ANF, II, p.469).

He viewed the sabbath as a type of Christ our rest. In commenting on the fourth commandment, he wrote, The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest abstraction from ills preparing for the Primal Day, our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed (VI, xci, ANF, II, p. 512).

He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps the Lord s Day, when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord s resurrection in himself (VII, xii; ANF, II, p. 545).

One does not have to accept all the reasoning s of a writer in order to recognize the fact that he testifies to the first day of the week, not the sabbath, as the distinct day on which the Christians assembled.
Fourteenth, The New Testament apocryphal literature is almost worthless for information about New Testament times, but it is quite valuable as evidence for the beliefs and practices of those who wrote and those for whom they wrote. As such we find it confirming the linguistic usage of the second-century church eighth day as the Lord s Day , the Lord s Day as the day of the resurrection , Sunday as the day of meeting , and the Christian rejection of the Sabbath (Ferguson, p. 74).

It is unnecessary to continue to trace references to the first day of the week down through the centuries. The references which have been given are sufficient to show that Christians whose lives overlapped those of some contemporaries of the apostles recognized the sabbath was not binding on Christians, and that Christians met on the first day of the week. James A. Hessey, in Sunday, has traced it down through the centuries. W. B. Galloway, who seems to try to transfer some of the things about the sabbath to the Lord s Day, has given an extended discussion of the historical evidence extending into the fifth century A.D. in his book The Decalogue And The Lord s Day.

This historical material on the Lord s Day undermines the claim, made by the Seventh-Day Adventists prophetess Mrs. White, that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

How shall I spend the rest of the Lord s Day when I am not in the assembly? The Lord did not specify, other than assembling and partaking of the Lord s Supper; so who am I to lay down a series of legislative requirements? As long as what we do on that day is within our control, should we not do those things which we think will help us and others as Christians? To some it may mean an extra rest; to others it may be an opportunity to spend more time with the family; to others time may be spent in reading and meditation; to others it involves visiting. Is not spending time with one s family as much our responsibility as a Christian as doing some other things people do and which they consider directly related to the work of the church?

Did The Catholic Church Change The Sabbath To Sunday?

Did the Pope change the sabbath to Sunday as the Seventh-Day Adventists claim? (Uriah Smith, Marvel, pp. 181-183; Mrs. Ellen C. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 53-54, 447-449, 452; Rome s Challenge: Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?, Takoma Park, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, n.d.)
First, the sabbath has been abolished, not changed to the first day of the week (Colossians 2:16-17). The Lord s Day is an entirely different day.

Second, the Seventh-Day Adventists quoted Roman Catholic literature to prove that they changed the sabbath to Sunday. The Seventh-Day Adventists view the Papacy as a vice-regent of Satan, the arch-deceiver, and that the great apostate had succeeded in exalting himself above all that is called Cod, or that is worshipped 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (The Great Controversy, 53). Surely one should not accept the Roman Catholic claim that they changed the sabbath to Sunday, without the proof that this is not just another claim of the vice-regent of the arch-deceiver. Why did Mrs. White, supposedly an inspired writer, accept this claim of the Roman Catholic Church?

Third. on the basis of what assumption does the Roman Catholic Church base the claim that the Roman Catholic Church changed the sabbath to Sunday? They teach that the change was made in the first century, and they claim that they made the change in the first century. St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Col.ii,16; Gal.iv,9-1O; Rom.,xiv,5). The Gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts,xx,7; 1 Cor.,xvi,2), and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord s Day (The Catholic Encyclopedia, N.Y.: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913, Vol. XIII, p. 289).

All Christians, Jewish and Gentile, met on the first day of the week to observe the Lord s Supper. Jewish Christians for a time observed the sabbath also along with the entire law of Moses (Acts 21:20-25). However, it was not a part of the gospel and they were not allowed to bind it on Gentiles (Acts 21:21,25). The article on Sunday said, Sunday...for Christians began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in apostolic times, as the day set apart for public and solemn worship of God (XIV, pp. 335-336). It is true that the church could not abrogate the natural law, but the apostles, as the divine infallible teachers of Christ s Church, could and did change the time, the motive, and the details of the Sunday observance (The Question Box, p. 410. Edited by B. L. Conway, of the Paulist Fathers. It was authorized by Patrick Cardinal Hays, Archbishop of New York.).
The Roman Catholic Church claims that the sabbath was changed by the inspired men in the first century, and they assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the New Testament church which existed in the first century. The Seventh-Day Adventists do not accept this assumption of the Roman Catholic Church; therefore, they should cease to quote the statement about the change of the sabbath which is based on the assumption that the Roman Catholic Church is the New Testament church. Mrs. Ellen C. White knows that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in the first century. She knows it was a gradual development over centuries. Little by little, at first in stealth and silence, and then more openly as it increased in strength and gained control of the minds of men, the mystery of iniquity carried forward its deceptive and blasphemous work... The nominal conversion of Constantine, in the early part of the fourth century, caused great rejoicing, and the world, cloaked with a form of righteousness, walked into the church. Now the work of corruption rapidly progressed (The Great Controversy, pp. 49-50). This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of the man of sin foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above Cod. It is one of the leading doctrines of Romanism that the pope is the visible head of the universal church of Christ, invested with supreme authority over bishops and pastors in all parts of the world (p. 50). The observance of Sunday as a Christian institution had its origin in that mystery of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:7, R.V.) which, even in Paul s day, had begun its work. Where and when did the Lord adopt this child of the papacy? What valid reason can be given for a change which the Scriptures do not sanction? (p. 54) A child of the papacy would have to be born after the origin of the papacy and its origin took place centuries after the days of the apostles.

Fourth, the sabbath was abolished by Cod in the first century (Colossians 2:16-17), and Christians met on the first day of the week as their distinct day of assembly (Acts 20:7). The change was too early for the Pope to have done it.

Fifth, the 1887 edition of The Great Controversy includes the statement of the publishers that: We believe that the writer has received the illumination of the Holy Spirit in preparing these pages...the blessing of the Holy Spirit has been vouchsafed to her in large measure...the writer of these pages has drawn from the heavenly fountain, and received help from the sanctuary (iv). Mrs. White herself wrote, Through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the scenes of the long-continued conflict between good and evil have been opened to the writer of these pages (1950 edition, p. 12). As the Spirit of Cod has opened to my mind the great truths of His word, and the scenes of the past and the future, I have been bidden to make known to others that which has thus been revealed, to trace the history of the controversy in past ages, and especially so to present it as to shed a light on the fast-approaching struggle of the future (13). If Mrs. White had been an inspired prophetess, she would have known that the Roman Catholic claim is false, and that it is based on an assumption (that it is the New Testament church) which Mrs. White herself did not accept. Only a false prophetess would have endorsed such a false position, i.e., that the Roman Catholic Church changed the sabbath to Sunday. As E. P. Woodward wrote, If Rome is right in her claim of changing the day, then she is right in claiming to be the Apostolic church, for the first claim is based on the second. Our Seventh-Day Adventist friends are at liberty to take either horn of the dilemma thus presented: accept the Pope as the true Head of the Church, or renounce one of their fundamental doctrines (Seventh-Day Adventism, p. 89).

Sixth, the Protestant Churches did not follow the Papacy but the New Testament on this subject. The reformers, Knox as well as Luther and Calvin, held that The Lord s Day is not to be identified with the Old Testament Sabbath. They considered that the fourth Commandment was a part of the ceremonial law. With the early Fathers, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others, they made the Sabbath typical of the continual rest given to God s people in this world and the next (Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, N.Y.: Charles Scribner and Son, Publishers, 1909, p. 60; Paul K. Jewett, The Lord s Day, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971, pp. 100-106a.). There are Protestants who think the sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday, but the fact is the sabbath was abolished, and the Lord s Day is another day.

Seventh, the Council of Laodicea could not have abolished the sabbath and instituted the Lord s Day because the sabbath was abolished in the first century (Colossians 2:16-17), the bishop of Rome did not attend this Council, the bishop of Rome did not have supreme authority then, and it was a Council of the Greek, not the Roman, Church (Canright, SDA Renounced, pp. 243-244). The Council of Laodicea, which met somewhere between 343-381 A.D., tried to keep Christians from binding Judaistic rites. Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord s Day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Edinburgh, 1876, Vol. II, p. 316. Quoted by B. Frank Rhodes, Jr., Gospel Advocate, Dec. 17, 1942, p. 1203; Canon p.29).

Mrs. White said, In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire (The Great Controversy, pp. 53, 682). The sabbath was abolished in the first century and Christians met on the first day of the week (Colossians 2:16-17; Acts 20:7). However, the Lord s Day was not a legal holiday. Constantine made it a legal holiday (Canright, p. 240). That Constantine called it the venerable day of the sun is of no more significance for us than the fact that Thursday was named after the German god Thor.

Mark of The Beast

Did Mrs. White teach that Sunday keeping is the mark of the beast? Mrs. White claimed the papacy changed the sabbath from the seventh day to the first (CC, p. 446). Roman Catholics acknowledge that the change of the Sabbath was made by their church, and declare that Protestants by observing the Sunday are recognizing her power (pp. 447-448). What then is the change of the Sabbath, but the sign, or mark, or the authority of the Roman Church the mark of the beast ?

The Roman Church has not relinquished her claim to supremacy; and when the world and the Protestant churches accept a sabbath of her creating, while they reject the Bible Sabbath, they virtually admit this assumption (pp. 448; on page 280 in the 1887 edition). When Mrs. White endorsed this false claim of the Roman Catholic Church, she virtually admitted that it is the New Testament church, but she does not believe this and neither do I. How can it be the mark of the beast when the sabbath was abolished, and Christians met on the Lord s Day, long before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence? The 1887 edition said, The change of the Sabbath is the sign, or mark, of the authority of the Romish Church. Those who, understanding the claims of the fourth commandment, choose to observe the false in place of the true Sabbath, are thereby paying homage to that power by which alone it is commanded.

The change in the fourth commandment is the change pointed out in the prophecy, and the keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the reception of the mark (p. 281). Only a false prophetess would say that the Roman Catholic claim is right and that not observing the sabbath is a mark of submission to the authority of Rome. How could it be in submission to Rome s authority when the sabbath was abolished, and Christians met on the first day of the week, long before the development of the Roman Catholic Church? (Colossians 2:16-17; Acts 20:7).
David Goldstein, a Roman Catholic, pointed out that public worship took place in the first century on the first day of the week, and he cited 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7; and that the old law and the sabbath had been abolished. This Catholic based their claim, that they changed the day to the first day of the week as the day of worship, on the assumption the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church. Having their historic sense beclouded by refusal to accept the fact that the Catholic Church dates back to the first Pentecost day, the defender of the abrogated day of weekly worship...slanderously declares that Sunday was substituted for the Sabbath by the Apostate Church through Constantine.

While it is a perversion of historic truth to declare that Constantine was the first to command Sunday observance, to him is due the credit for having made Sunday a legal day of rest. By this civic act all Christians gained the free opportunity to practice public worship on the first day of the week. Indeed, it was Constantine who removed obstacles to the attendance of Sunday worship; but he did not institute the public worship of God by Christians on the first day of the week, for the reason that this was already the established practice of the Church, which had persevered under superhuman difficulties (Campaigners For Christ Handbook, Boston: Thomas J. Flynn & Co., Inc. 1934, p. 182).

Mrs. White said that there are now true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion, who honestly believe that Sunday is the Sabbath of divine appointment. God accepts their sincerity of purpose and their integrity before Him. But when the Sun-day observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God, to obey a precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome, will thereby honor popery above God...not until the issue is thus plainly set before the people, and they are brought to choose between the commandments of God and the commandments of men, that those who continue in transgression will receive the mark of the beast (p. 449; page 281-282 in the 1887 edition).

Just before this she wrote, Those who, understanding the claims of the fourth commandment, choose to observe the false instead of the true Sabbath are thereby paying homage to that power by which alone it is commanded. But in the very act of enforcing a religious duty by secular power, the churches would themselves form an image to the beast; hence the enforcement of Sunday-keeping in the United States would be an enforcement of the worship of the beast and his image (p. 449).

There can, therefore, be no worship of the beast, nor reception of his mark, such as is contemplated in the prophecy, till it is enforced by the two-horned beast (Uriah Smith, The Marvel of Nations, p. 185).
The Supreme Court of the United States, which has outlawed prayer in the classroom, stands in no danger of making people observe Sunday as the sabbath in submission to the will of the Catholic Church.
As Canright asked, how can Seventh-Day Adventists be persecuted for not observing Sunday, and how can they escape bearing what they view as the mark of the beast, if they follow Mrs. White s counsel given in 1902 to observe Sunday if required by law? She warned, The man of sin, who thought to change times and laws, and who has always oppressed the people of Cod, will cause laws to be made enforcing the observance of the first day of the week. But God s people are to stand firm for Him (T, IX, p. 230). In a communication of August 17, 1902, she answered the question as to what you should do in the case of Sunday laws being enforced. The light given me by the Lord at a time when we were expecting just such a crisis as you seem to be approaching, was, that when the people were moved by a power from beneath to enforce Sunday observance, Seventh-Day Adventists were to show their wisdom by refraining from their ordinary work on that day, devoting it to missionary effort.

Give them no occasion to call you lawbreakers One does not receive the mark of the beast because he shows that he realizes the wisdom of keeping the peace by refraining from work that gives offense, doing at the same time a work of highest importance (I, IX, p. 232). Whenever it is possible, let religious services be held on Sunday (p. 233). Of course, they were to keep the sabbath (pp. 233-234). Sunday is a child of the papacy, exalted by the Christian world above the sacred day of Cod s rest. In no case are God s people to pay it homage (p. 235). We do not pay homage to a day but to the Lord whose resurrection was on that day.
Give Sunday to the Lord as a day for doing missionary work This way of spending Sunday is always acceptable to the Lord (p.238). Why was not this Sunday keeping (and the mark of the beast, for it was required in these cases by law that they not work), since they assemble and also do missionary work on the Lord s Day as do non-Seventh-Day Adventists?