Jottings

by J. Miller | Category: Jottings | Mar 1967

The apostle John in the island of Patmos writes: "I was [became or came to be] in the Spirit on the Lord's day" (Revelation 1.10). The same Greek word rendered "was" above in the A.V. and R.V. is rendered "was" in the words, "I John ... was [became or came to be] in the isle that is called Patmos" (verse 9). The island of Patmos was not John's regular dwelling-place, but he was there for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus, which is generally understood to mean that he was a prisoner for these reasons. Thus John's being in the Spirit on the Lord's day is not similar to what is stated by Paul in Romans 8.9, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you." This statement in Romans 8 describes what is permanent in the believer's experience.

The word in the Greek for "Lord's" in verse 10 is not the possessive case of the proper noun Lord, as in our English versions, but is an adjective kuriakos, and the footnote in Dr. Marshall's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament on the use of the word in 1 Corinthians 11.20, is of more than a little interest:

"Note that kuriakos is an adjective, for which no exact English

equivalent is available. Only other occurrence in N.T., Rev. 1.10."

Dr. Marshall renders the word, in Revelation 1.10, as "Imperial", but in 1 Corinthians 11.20 as "of the Lord", as though it were the possessive case of the noun "Lord".

We cannot doubt but that the Spirit of God, in causing John and Paul to use this word for the Lord's day and the Lord's supper, intended that God's saints both then and now should see the connexion between the supper and the day. We therefore use the word "Lord's" as in our Bibles for both the day and the supper, though it is an adjective qualifying both the day and supper.

The Lord's day is not the "day of the Lord" (hemera kuriou), which is a day of more than 1,000 years in extent, as 2 Peter 3.10 shows quite clearly. The day of the Lord begins with the Lord coming in judgement as the Son of Man, referred to frequently in both Old and New Testaments, and it will continue during the Lord's millennial reign and until the Judgement of the Great White Throne.

The Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 11.20 is the Remembrance which He instituted after the keeping of the Passover on the night in which He was betrayed. It is quite evident that He, with His disciples, kept the Passover at the earliest possible time for the keeping of the Passover on the 14th day of the month Abib. This was on Friday, as we would think of it. According to Jewish time, the day was from 6 p.m. to 6 p.m., but according to present reckoning, which is from midnight to midnight, we would think of it as Thursday evening. Thus it was that the Remembrance of the Lord was instituted by Him at the earliest time on that day of the Passover. So then we must not think that the Lord's supper means that His Remembrance should be kept in the evening of the Lord's day. It should be kept at the earliest time on the Lord's day that it is convenient for the churches to be gathered in church, not after all the other activities of the day are ended.

Whilst the Lord's supper took place on the 14th day of Abib, the Lord's remembrance in the breaking of the bread was kept on the first day of the week, as is shown clearly in Acts 20.7: "Upon the first day of the week, ...we were gathered together to break bread." The words "gathered together" are the rendering of a Greek word in the passive voice, which shows that there was One who gathered those together in the church of God in Troas. He who gathered them was the Lord, who had given instructions to His disciples on what day they should be together, not any day' of their own choosing. That was on the Lord's day, and on this day the Lord's supper should be kept in an orderly and godly manner, not as the Corinthians were keeping it.

Whether the adjective kuriakos in the Greek of Revelation 1.10 and of 1 Corinthians 11.20 be rendered in English as Lord's, Imperial, or Lordly, there is no doubt that the Lord's day, and the Lord's supper, which should take place on that day, are outstanding events in the life of every sincere believer, and important events in the mind of the Lord. The believer who does not cut out on that day, as far as possible, the events and practices common to other days of the week is, I believe, transgressing on the sanctity of that day. We know also how the apostle Paul viewed the disorder in the church of God in Corinth in which the Corinthians were treating the Remembrance of the Lord in the breaking of the bread as a common meal, something for their stomachs and not for their minds. The Lord's day is not the Sabbath day enjoined upon the Israel people in the law. It is not a day of rest, as that was from the arduous toil of man and beast in the previous six days, but is a day in the beginning of the week associated with the resurrection of the Lord from the dead, and also of the coming of the Holy Spirit, Who came on the first day of the week. It is connected with a new order of things, things which are spiritual and not natural, of things heavenly and not earthly, of the things of the Lord and not our own things.

The Lord's day is the only day of the week on which the Lord's supper or remembrance may be kept. Indeed, it is the one day of the week when saints must be together for this purpose, associated with which is the offering to God of spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2.5) in our drawing near to God into the Holy Place or Holies (Hebrews 10.l~22). These are the same Holies as those into which Christ entered when He had obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9.12); these Holies are said to be "heaven itself" (Hebrews 9.24), of which the Holies in the Tabernacle were like in pattern to the true Holies in heaven.

Paul, in writing in Hebrews 9, speaks of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies as a first and second Tabernacle. This is different from what is said in Exodus by Moses as to the Tabernacle. There the LORD tells Moses, "Thou shalt make the Tabernacle with ten curtains; of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with cherubim the work of the cunning workman shalt thou make them" (Exodus 26.1). "And thou shalt make fifty clasps of gold, and couple the curtains one to another with the clasps: and the Tabernacle shall be one" (Exodus 26.6). This Tabernacle of ten curtains covered the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, and it was one Tabernacle. But in Hebrews 9, Paul speaks of the Holy Place being the first Tabernacle and the Holy of Holies being the second. These two were divided by the second veil, the first veil being the d9or of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26.31-37).

In Hebrews we are told,

"Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first Tabernacle, accomplishing the services; but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors [Greek, ignorances] of the people: the Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into [of the] the Holies hath not yet been made manifest, while as the first Tabernacle is yet standing" (Hebrews 9.6-8)

Why does he write of the first and second Tabernacle? It seems to me that the answer is that he is being guided by the Spirit of God to show that the house of God today and the Holies in heaven itself are distinct, though the way of access between them is through the veil, that is to say His (Christ's) flesh (Hebrews l0.l9-22). The house of God today is composed of living stones, saints builded together on earth according to the pattern proper to today (1 Peter 2.3-6); "Whose house are we, if we hold fast our boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end" (Hebrews 3.6). There was a day in Israel when the high priest entered into the Holies, the antitype to that entering being Christ's entrance into heaven. But in this dispensation there is an entrance of those in the house of God into the Holies such as was not permitted in the dispensation of the law.

In that dispensation the place of the people was outside the gate. The priests entered the Holy Place to accomplish the services continually throughout the year, and the high priest once in the year on the day of atonement entered the Holies or Holy of Holies with blood not his own. But our High Priest entered "through the greater and more perfect Tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in once for all into the Holy Place [Greek, Holies], having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9.11,12). The words "through His own blood, entered in once for all into the Holy Place [Holies)" should be carefully noted. "Through His own blood" should not be construed to mean "with" His own blood, as though He was like the high priest of Israel who entered first with the blood of a young bullock for a sin offering for him-

self, and then with the blood of a goat on behalf of the people (Leviticus 16). "Through His own blood" does not mean in any sense that the Lord carried His own blood into heaven. "Through" is the English rendering of the Greek preposition dia, which, used with the genitive case, signifies the means of His entrance into the Holies of heaven itself. It is propounded by some that He bore His own blood into heaven. This is error. Of course we sing such hymns as:

"He sprinkled with His blood

The mercy-seat above;

For Justice had withstood

The purposes of Love.

But Justice now withstands no more

And Mercy yields her boundless store."

This and other hymns follow typical language, but they do not mean that the Lord carried into heaven His literal blood. It is said of the martyrs that they washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb: "These are they which come out of the great Tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7.14). We cannot take this passage of Scripture as referring to saints literally washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb. If the Lord's blood was taken to heaven and sprinkled on a mercy-seat in heaven, then the material substance of His blood could not possibly be available for saints on earth to wash their robes. We say as much on this matter so that what we say may fall under the eyes of some believers who were led astray by this wrong teaching. That Christ carried into heaven the infinite value of His atoning Sacrifice in His own blessed Person I have no doubt whatever, but we must rid ourselves of the wrong teaching which some have propagated on this matter.

We refer again, in closing, to the divine institution of the first day of the week-the Lord's day. This was the day on which saints were to be gathered together to keep the Lord's command regarding the breaking of the bread, and to engage in offering spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ, and also to teach the saints, as in Acts 20, etc. Other meetings for prayer, for preaching and teaching and for Bible reading may be arranged, but these should not be confused with that which the Lord has definitely arranged for. As the Law in the past arranged for the high priest of old to enter the Holies, so in this dispensation the Lord has arranged for saints in churches of God to be gathered together on the Lord's day to keep His remembrance and to enter the Holies, so that they may render to God their sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving.

J. Miller | Mar 1967
Jottings