If “te kureakê hêmera" really means in modern Greek “ a day that belongs to the Lord” which falls on Sunday, then, we must agree with non SDA’s that the Lord’s Day in Rev. 1:10 is really Sunday.

Hi James, Where do you get that Kuriake means Sunday? I just check the Greek word and it means "1) belonging to the Lord 2) related to the Lord".

There's only two instances of Kuriake in the NT.
1. the "Lord's day" in Rev 1, and the other
2. the "Lord's supper" in 1Cr 11:20.

Can you provide your source that says that kuriake means Sunday? Also your source that "te kuriake hemera" saying that it has been used since the 2nd century and reffers to Sunday? For sure we can anticipate that history records floating around for us to see will say that it means Sunday as that's what they want us to believe. However, that's not what the Greek word means according to the concordance.

If "te kureakê hêmera" meant in *Biblical Greek* "'a day that belongs to the Lord' which falls on Sunday," then we'd have an argument to consider. But what it means in Modern Greek is hardly more relevant than what it would mean in Modern English.

For example, what the phrase means in Modern Greek could have been affected by the traditions of churches, in particular, the Greek Orthdox church, which keeps Sunday.

We've got to keep clear which is the horse and which is the cart.

Sabbath and Sunday in Early Christianity

Part 3: Irenaeus, and "the Lord's Day"

Irenaeus

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in the last half of the second century, also gives us lengthy comments on the Sabbath, and his views probably reflect those of Asia Minor, since that is where he was from. He had also been in Rome and may have been influenced by Justin Martyr. Irenaeus, commenting on the grainfield incident (Matt. 12), notes that Jesus did not break the Sabbath, but Irenaeus gives a rationale that applies to Christians, too:

The Lord...did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest...justifying His disciples by the words of the law, and pointing out that it was lawful for the priests to act freely [Mt 12:5]. For David had been appointed a priest by God, although Saul still persecuted him. For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests.[1]

The implication is that, since all believers are priests, and priests are free to work on the Sabbath serving God, then Christians are free to work on the Sabbath. Regardless of the validity of his reasoning, he obviously did not believe that Christians had to keep the Sabbath. Just as circumcision was symbolic, he says, the Sabbath command was, too, typifying both morality and eschatology:

The Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day in God's service...ministering continually to our faith, and persevering in it, and abstaining from all avarice, and not acquiring or possessing treasures upon earth. Moreover, the Sabbath of God, that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by created things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have persevered in serving God shall, in a state of rest, partake of God's table.[2]

Irenaeus, like Justin, said that the patriarchs before Moses did not keep the Sabbath.[3] But he also said that they kept the Decalogue and that Christians also had to![4] This discrepancy can be explained in two ways. Bauckham suggests that Irenaeus used the term “Decalogue” loosely, as synonymous with the natural law, as suggested in 4.16.3.[5] Another possibility, which I prefer, is that Irenaeus considered a moral person to be de facto keeping the Sabbath command, as suggested in 4.16.1 and in another work: “Nor will he be commanded to leave idle one day of rest, who is constantly keeping sabbath, that is, giving homage to God in the temple of God, which is man's body, and at all times doing the works of justice.”[6]

As another item of evidence probably from the second century, let us consider the Gospel of Thomas 27: “If you do not fast as regards the world, you will not find the kingdom. If you do not observe the Sabbath as a Sabbath, you will not see the father.”[7] The meaning here is debatable, since Gnostics often gave words unusual meanings. Everything needed an “interpretation.”[8] This can be seen in Thomas 27. Fasting “as regards the world” does not mean ordinary fasting, but avoiding worldly sins. Similarly, it was not sufficient to say, “observe the Sabbath.” The words “as a Sabbath” may suggest an esoteric meaning, such as cessation of sin.[9]

Tertullian wrote in both the second century and in the third. Space does not permit a detailed evaluation of his works, nor is it necessary, since he agrees completely with Ignatius, Barnabas, Justin and Irenaeus. He rejected the literal Sabbath,[10] said that the Patriarchs did not observe it,[11] interpreted it in terms of morals [12]and worshipped on Sunday.[13] He gives yet more evidence that second-century Christians had abandoned the Sabbath and observed Sunday as the day for Christian worship.

The Lord's day

Almost all second-century Christians observed Sunday as a day of worship (not a day of required rest), rather than the Sabbath.[14] No matter what the original reason(s) may have been for meeting on the first day of the week, Christians could have easily seen a biblical significance to that day: It was the day on which the risen Lord appeared to the disciples.[15] Of all the days of the week, only the first and the seventh were ever considered, and Sunday was quickly understood as the day for Christian worship.

Although a few Christians observed the Sabbath, Sunday was more distinctively Christian. It became the day on which believers worshiped the Lord, and the day became known in the second century as “the Lord's day [kuriake hemera].”[16] The term was so well known that the word for “day” became unnecessary — if a Christian wrote about the kuriake, readers would understand that Sunday was meant. This term therefore gives additional evidence that Sunday was the Christian day of worship in the second century.[17] Let us survey the evidence for this term.

In the late first century, John used kuriake hemera in Rev 1:10, but the meaning there is debated. In the early second century, Ignatius used kuriake alone, and textual variants cause the meaning to be debatable.[18] The Gospel of Peter 35 and 50 (middle second century) used kuriake to designate the day of Jesus' resurrection.[19] Eusebius reports that Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170) wrote, “Today we have kept the Lord's holy day [kuriake hagia hemera], on which we have read your letter.”[20] The Acts of Peter (last half of the second century) “clearly identifies dies dominica (`the Lord's Day') with `the next day after the Sabbath,' and the Acts of Paul [also last half of the second century] represents the apostle as praying `on the sabbath as the Lord's Day [kuriake alone] drew near' “[21] — both clearly referring to Sunday. Didache 14, which may date from the second half of the second century, referred to “the Lord's [day] of the Lord [kuriake de kuriou].”[22]

Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) also gives clear evidence that kuriake meant the eighth day, Sunday,[23] and he spoke of “keeping” the Lord's day.[24] He quoted a Valentinian Gnostic who equated the kuriake with the ogdoad, the eighth heaven.[25] “The same identification of kuriake, the eighth day, with the ogdoad, the eighth heaven, is found in the antignostic Epistula Apostolorum [also second century].”[26]

In summary, evidence for the use of “Lord's day” is clear for the latter half of the second century, but it is less clear for the first half. The terminology, however, is a secondary issue. The actual day observed by Christians is clear: Throughout the second century, all written evidence shows Christians rejecting the literal Sabbath and observing Sunday as the day for Christian worship.[27] Even in the early second century, Sunday-keeping was the norm throughout Christendom (except for Jewish sects) — with no trace of controversy or any evidence that the custom was a recent innovation. The church that began as a Sabbath-keeping group became a Sunday-keeping group that rejected literal Sabbath-keeping. Now let us explore how this change could have come about.

[1] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.8.2-3; ANF 1:471.

[2] Ibid., 4.16.1; ANF 1:481. He called the future kingdom “the seventh day...the true Sabbath of the righteous” in 5.33.2 (ANF 1:562).

[3] Ibid., 4.16.2; ANF 1:481.

[4] “If any one does not observe [the Decalogue], he has no salvation” (4.15.1; ANF 1:479). “The righteous fathers had the meaning of the Decalogue written in their hearts and souls, that is, they loved the God who made them, and did no injury to their neighbor. There was therefore no occasion that they should be cautioned by prohibitory mandates, because they had the righteousness of the law in themselves” (4.16.3; ANF 1:481).

[5] “Extant example of early Christian paraenesis based on the Decalogue show that it was used with considerable selectiveness and flexibility, and normally with reference only to the second table.... The Decalogue is a less precise term than we expect it to be. It may be that Irenaeus and Ptolemaeus were so used to the flexible and selective use of the Decalogue in Christian paraenesis that the term suggested to them not so much ten individual commandments to be mentally listed, but simply the moral law” (Bauckham, pp. 267-9).

[6] Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 96 (Joseph P. Smith, trans. Ancient Christian Writers [Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1952], vol. 16, p. 105). This passage in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching illustrates Irenaeus' understanding of the law:

He does not wish those who are to be redeemed to be brought again under the Mosaic legislation ‑‑‑ for the law has been fulfilled by Christ ‑‑‑ but to go free in newness by the Word, through faith and love towards the Son of God.... We have no need of the law as pedagogue.... For no more shall the law say: “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” to him who has not even conceived the desire of another man's wife; or “thou shalt not kill,” to him who has put away from himself all anger and enmity.... Nor will it demand tithes of him who has vowed to God all his possessions, and who leaves father and mother and all his kindred, and follows the Word of God. Nor will he be commanded to leave idle one day of rest, who is constantly keeping sabbath, that is giving homage to God in the temple of God, which is man's body, and at all times doing the works of justice. (89, 95-96; ACW 16:103, 105)

The point it that if a man does not lust, he does not need a command about adultery because he is already obeying it. Likewise, in Irenaeus' thought, if a man is always acting justly, he does not need a command about the Sabbath, because he is always obeying it.

[7] James Robinson, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 129.

[8] Thomas 1; Robinson, p. 126.

[9] “The metaphorical sense of the logion in its surviving version depends entirely on the words ton kosmou [as regards the world].... By means of this emendation an originally literal requirement to keep the Jewish Sabbath has become a metaphorical command to keep some form of spiritual Sabbath” (Bauckham, p. 265).

[10] Apology 21; ANF 3:36 and Against Marcion 1:20; 5.19; ANF 3:285, 471.

[11] An Answer to the Jews 2; ANF 3:153.

[12] An Answer to the Jews 4; ANF 3:155.

[13] Apology 16; ANF 3:31; and On Idolatry 14; ANF 3:70.

[14] The Ebionites and Nazarenes were the primary exceptions. But they were clearly heterodox ‑‑‑ they rejected Jesus' virgin birth and the apostle Paul, and they required circumcision and other laws of Moses. The New Testament shows the early church fighting on two broad fronts: libertine antinomianism on one side and legalistic Judaizing on the other. In the second century, these groups are represented by Gnostics on the libertine side, and Ebionites on the Judaistic side. The Ebionites were spiritual, if not genetic, descendants of the Pharisee Christians who wanted Gentile believers to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses (Ac 15:5). The Sunday-keeping majority cannot be called libertine. If anything, they tended to be strict.

[15] Bauckham writes: “Whether the choice of Sunday was originally a matter of mere convenience or whether it was initially chosen as the day of the Resurrection, there can be no doubt that it was soon associated with the Resurrection, and only this can really account for the fact that worship on Sunday acquired normative status throughout the Christian world” (p. 240).

[16] The genitive form, “day of the Lord [h_mera tou kuriou],” could not be used because it already had a different technical meaning in the Septuagint (cf. Bauckham, p. 225).

[17] “Another evidence of the early observance of Sunday is the fact that Christians frequently referred to it as the Lord's day during the second century.... The designation `eighth day' was very popular among Christians in the second and third centuries; however, the most common Christian term for Sunday was `Lord's day.' The term `Lord's day' was in wide use by the end of the second century and may also have been in use near the beginning of it” (Maxwell, p. 139).

[18] Neither Barnabas nor Justin use the term Lord's day, “but they use instead the designations `eighth day' and `Sunday' for the first day of the week.... Their specific Sunday statements are in [apologetic] contexts that would preclude their use of this term even if they were acquainted with it” (Strand, p. 347).

[19] Bauckham, as with other texts, is cautious: “It is clear that kuriak_ is already an accepted technical term and refers to a day, but the nature of the context makes impossible a final decision between Sunday and Easter” (p. 229). Irenaeus may have used kuriak_ in fragment 7, but it may not be his word, and it may refer to Easter (“Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus” 7, ANF 1:569-70; Strand, p. 346-7).

[20] Bauckham is again cautious: “A reference to weekly Sunday worship seems very probable but not certain” (p. 229, citing Eusebius' History 4.23.11).

[21] Bauckham, p. 229, citing Act. Verc. 29.

[22] Maxwell, pp. 106-8, and Bauckham, p. 227-8.

[23] Miscellanies 5:14; ANF 2:469.

[24] Ibid., 7:12; ANF 2:545.

[25] Exc. ex Theod. 63:1, quoted in Bauckham, p. 230; Irenaeus mentioned the Gnostic ogdoad in Against Heresies 1.5.3 (ANF 1:323). It is difficult to interpret their numerology: “The eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work” (Miscellanies 6:16; ANF 2:512).

Clement explained the “rest” of the Fourth Commandment as “abstraction from ills” and as impassibility in preparation for the eschaton (ibid.). In this, he agreed with his Gnostic opponents. Epiphanius said that the Valentinian Ptolemaeus taught that Jesus rejected the literal Sabbath and that Ptolemaeus interpreted the Sabbath as commanding “us to be idle with reference to evil actions' “ (Bauckham, pp. 265-6, citing Epiphanius, Pan. 33:3:5:1-13). Clement also used a similar interpretation for the Lord's day: “He...keeps the Lord's day when he abandons an evil disposition” (Miscellanies 7:12; ANF 2:545).

[26] Bauckham, p. 274. On p. 223, Bauckham cites Epistula Apostolorum 18. He also cites “Melito of Sardis, ap. Eusebius HE 4:23:12,” but I could not find this in an English translation of Eusebius 4:23:12, nor did Bauckham discuss this text in his chapter.

[27] Bauckham writes:

All second-century references to the Sabbath commandment either endorse the metaphorical interpretation or reject the literal interpretation as Judaistic or do both.... For all these writers the literal commandment to rest one day in seven was a temporary ordinance for Israel alone. The Christian fulfills the commandment by devoting all his time to God.... No writer of the period betrays any thought of its being a provision for needed physical rest (pp. 269, 266).

A Seventh-day Adventist agrees with this historical assessment:

It is unhistorical to say that the early fathers were `silent' about the Sabbath. They were not silent about it, and what they had to say was hostile to literal Sabbath keeping.... A careful analysis of the four most noteworthy authors who dealt with the Sabbath in the second and early third centuries, Barnabas, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, reveals a great unanimity of attitude toward the literal Sabbath. To a man, they opposed it. This is very significant, partly because Barnabas and Justin represented Christian attitudes as early as the 130s, and partly because these four writers encircled the Mediterranean basin: Barnabas in Alexandria, Justin first in Asia and then in Rome, Irenaeus first in Asia and then in Gaul, Tertullian for a while in Rome and then in Carthage (Maxwell, pp. 154-7).

There are many examples of "Jehovah" being applied to Jesus Christ, or of titles applied to Jehovah being applied to Him. Here are a few:

1.In Isa. 6:5 Isaiah says He say Jehovah high and lifted up. John, in John 12, refers to the same passage of Isaiah, and says it was referring to Jesus Christ.



2.Ps. 23:1 says "Jehovah is my shepherd." Jesus referred to Himself as the "Good Shepherd."

3.Jer. prophecied that the Messiah would be called "Jehovah our righteousness" (Jer. 23:56; "Jehovah Tsidkenu")

4.Joel 2:23 says whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved. Both Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 quote this passage in reference to Christ.

5.In John 8, Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am," taking the name of Jehovah, which was understood by the Jews, who took up rocks to stone Him.

6.Isa. 10:20 refers to Jehovah as the "Holy One of Israel." Peter, in Acts 3, applies this same title to Christ.

7.Isa. 44:6 refers to Jehovah as "the first and the last." In Revelation, Jesus applies this title to Himself.

8.Isaiah 43:11 says: "I, even I, am Jehovah; and there is no savior besides Me." Titus 2:11-13 says this(note the end):



9.Deut. 10:17 refers to Jehovah as the "Lord of Lords." Rev. 17:14 applies this title to Jesus Christ.

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from him[Father : as it is a salutation from the Father and Jesus. Notice what qualification is given to the Father versus Jesus. All throught Revelation the same qualification are associated to the Father again.] which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; (Rev 1:4)

And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,(Rev 1:5)

I[Father] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty3841.(Rev 1:8)

Saying, I[Father] am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.(Rev 1:11)

And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and [one][Father] sat on the throne.(Rev 4:2)

And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty3841, which was, and is, and is to come. (Rev 4:8)

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.(Rev 4:11)

And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.(Rev 5:1)

And he[Jesus] came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. (Rev 5:7)

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him[Father] that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb[Jesus] for ever and ever. (Rev 5:13)

And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God[Father], (Rev 11:16)

Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty3841, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. (Rev 11:17)

This being so it should agree with its noun "hēmera" in both case and gender, and it does. Both are dative case, and both are feminine, confirming that this is simply an adjective describing the day, and is nothing at all to do with Jesus. John was in the Spirit on a lordly day.

Hi Tom, Thanks for these Bible references relating to Jehovah. As I said, this is currently my study and I'm enjoying it. I will respond to your 9 points this Sabbath as right now, I'm overwhelmed as usual. However, yesterday I stumble on something that says very clearly who is
1. "which is, and which was, and which is to come",
2. Alpha and Omega,
3. beginning and the ending.
4. the first and the last

To me, according to the Bible, these 4 attibutes belong to the Father.

I will just lay the Bible quotes for now and make quick comment in braket and highlights.

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

The question is: if the day comes thst they must take a flight, but it is Sabbath, what do you think they will do ar act?

When applied to us, when we pray that our flight don't fall on Sabbath, but in fact it still fall on Sabbath, what should we do?

So, we knew that Sunday is Kuriake, and "te kureakê hêmera" in Rev. 1:10 - means the day of the Lord, which falls on Sunday.
Why do we insist that it is not Sunday???