Revelation Study: Introduction Part 2

Beth Elohim Messianic Synagogue
Revelation Study: Introduction Part 2
Today I will start with the definition of the L-rd’s Day. In Revelation 1:9 we are told that John saw and received this revelation on “the L-rd’s Day.” Leaving the first part of this sentence for a moment, let us look at the second part of the sentence, “the L-rd’s Day.” Most people being accustomed from their infancy to hearing the first day of the week called the L-rd’s Day, conclude in their minds that this day is thus called in Revelation 1:9 because that was the name of it. But to the contrary it is the fact that the day is so called by us because of this verse. In the “New” Testament this day is always called “the first day of the week” (Matt. 27:1; Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24; 1 John 20:1,19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).
Is it not strange that in this one place a different expression is thought to refer to the same day? Yet, the commentators are so sure that it means Sunday, that some go as far as to say it was ‘Easter Sunday.”
There is no evidence of any kind that “the first day of the week” was ever called “ the L-td’s Day before the Apocalypse was written. That it should be so called afterwards is easily understood, and there can be little doubt that the practice arose from the misinterpretation os these words in Revelation 1:9. It is incredible that the earliest use of a term can have a meaning which only subsequent usage makes intelligible. On the contrary, it ceased to be called by its Scriptural name (“the first day of the week,” not because of any advance in Biblical truth or reverence, but because of declension from it. The Greek “Fathers” of the Church were converts from Paganism: and it is not sufficiently recognized how much of the numerous Pagan rites, ceremonies, and expressions they introduced into the Church and how far Christian ritual was elaborated from and based upon Pagan ritual by the Church of Rome. This is especially evident in the case of baptism, Christmas, and Easter, the latter of which are Pagan in origin.
It was these Greek “Fathers” , who on their conversion, brought the title “Sunday” into the Church from the Pagan terminology with which they had been accustomed in connection with their Sun-worship.
Justin Martyr ( 114-165 A.D.) in his second Apology (i.e. his second defense of Christianity), says in Chapter lxvii on “The weekly worship of the Christians,” On the day called SUN-DAY all who live in the country gather together to one place… SUN-DAY is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which G-d, 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 [ i.e., Saturn’s day]; 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.”
It is indeed strange that if John called the first day of the week “the L-rd’s Day,” we find no trace of the use of such a title until a hundred years later. And there we do find a change, it is to “Sunday,” and not “the L-rd’s Day”- a name which has become practically universal. Some Christians continue to perpetuate the name of the L-rd’s Day for Sunday; but in truth it is the survival of a Pagan name, with a new meaning, derived from a misunderstanding of revelation 1:9[ see The Buddha of Christendom by Dr. Robert Anderson, C.B Hodder and Stoughton, p.68 and Chapter ix , and Clark’s edition, pp.65,66].
The French, Spanish, and Italian nations have retained the Roman Pagan names. The English is tainted with Scandinavian mythology. The 1st day they call Dies Dominica, the L-rd’s Day (i.e., the day of the lord, the sun). All the oriental nations called the sun “lord.” The Persians called their god Mithra (the sun), i.e., the lord Mithra. The Syrians called it Adonis , which is form the Hebrew Adonai, l-rd. The Hebrews called it Baal, which means lord, and Moloch. Porphyry, in a prayer to the sun, calls him “Dominus Sol.” The Romans kept the Pagan name, Dies Dominica (the day of the lord sun), for the first day of the week, but called the others by the names of the moon and planets to which they were dedicated. Thus we have Dies Lunae (day of the moon), Dies Martis (day of Mars), Dies Mercurii (Day of Mercury), Dies Jovis (day of Jupiter), Dies Veneris (Day of Venus), Dies Saturnii (day of Saturn).
Objection has been taken to the interpretation of “the L-rd’s Day” here because we have in Revelation 1:9 the adjective “L-rd’s” instead of the noun (in regimen), “of the L-rd,” as in the Hebrew. But what else could it be called in the Hebrew? Those who object do not seem aware of the fact that there is no adjective for “L-rd’s” in Hebrew.. Therefore the only way of expressing “the L-rd’s Day” is by using the two nouns, “ the day of the L-rd” which means equally “the L-rd’s Dya”(YHVH’s Day). It is therefore useless to make any objection on this ground. For if a Hebrew speaker wanted to say, “the L-rd’s Day,” he must say “the day of the L-rd.”
In the Greek there are two ways of expressing this, as in modern languages, either by saying literally, as in Hebrew, “ the day of the L-rd” using the two nouns, or by the adjective “L-rd’s” instead. It comes to the same thing as to signification ; the difference lies only in the emphasis. The natural way of qualifying a noun is by the use of an adjective, as here (kyriakee) “L-rd’s; and when this is done, the emphasis takes its natural course and is placed on the noun thus qualified (“day’). But when the emphasis is required to be placed on the word “L-rd,” instead of the adjective, the noun is used in the genitive case, “ THE L_RD’S day.” This construction places the emphasis on “the L-rd’s). In the former case as in Revelation 1:9 the emphasis is on the word “Day.” In the latter case the emphasis would be placed on “the L-rd’s….” The same day is meant in each case, but with a different emphasis. By way of illustration and proof, I call your attention to the fact that we have the corresponding expressions concerning another “day” in Luke. In Luke 17:22 we have “the days of the Son of Man,” where the emphasis must be placed on “THE SON OF MAN” substantiated by the context. While in 1 Corinthians 4:3 we have “man’s DAY.” The emphasis is on “day,” marking that “day” as actually being present , as it is in the present. The context is so clear that it is actually translated as “judgment,” which is exactly what it means. The apostle says, ‘ It is a very small thing, that I should be judged of you, or of man’s DAY.” The emphasis is on “day” because the tie in which we now live is the tine or “day” when man is judging. Another day is coming, and that is the day when the L-rd will be present, and He will be the Judge. This is the reason the adjective (…) (antrhopinee) man’s is used in 1 Corinthians 4;3; and this is why (…) (kyriakee), L-rd’s is used in Revelation 1:9. So, far fro the use of the adjective being an argument against our conclusion, it is an argument in favor of it. For what is the “DAY of the L-rd” or “the L-RD’S day”? The first occurrence of the expression which is the key to its meaning is found in Isaiah 2:11. It is the day when “ The proud looks of man will be humiliated; the arrogance of men will be bowed down; and when that day comes, Adonai alone will be exalted.”
It must be noted that the expression (…) (yom YHVH , the day of the L-rd) occurs I the Hebrew Bible 16 times, viz.
Isa.13:6,9
Ezek.13:5
Joel 1:15; 2;1; 11:iii;14:4-14.
Amos 5:18 (twice), 20
Obad. 16 (Heb.1)
Zeph.1:7,14(twice)
Mal.4;5 (Heb.3:23).
In four other places where the English Bible states, “the day of the L-rd,” the Hebrew has the proposition lamed (…)for or to, before the word YHVH. In Isaiah 2:12, Ezekiel 30:3, and Zechariah 14:1 it means “a day for YHVH”; and in Zechariah 14:7 it means “a day (known) to YHVH.” That is the one great subject of all the future events seen by John in his vision and recorded for us in the Apocalypse.
One other fact must be brought to the fore and that is the reason the first day of the week came to be called “ Sunday.” The Pagans called it “Dominus Sol,” the L-rd Sun. Hence the Latin name “ Dies Dominica,” used by the early Christian Fathers for the Sunday, and the speedy transition of its name from “the Lord Sun: to “the Lord’s Day,” and then “Sunday.” Bingham (Ant. Xx.sec.5) mentions the fact that it was the custom of the Primitive Church to replace heathen days and festivals by those which were Christian.
We see just one of many results of this in the Yule-tide and Christmas. Bingham (Ant. xx, sec. 2) also mentions the fact that the early Christians were charged with being worshippers of the sun. Tertullian also admitted that Christians were only looked upon by some as a sect of sun worshippers, while some account for this on other grounds: (e.g., the sects of the Gnostics and Basilideans having retained or introduced solar forms of worship). Yet these facts are more accurately and fully accounted for by the adoption of the name “the L-rd’s Day” for the Sunday; while it serves to throw light on the transition from the original name of “the first day of the week.” Using all the evidence thus far, I feel justified in believing and teaching that the Apocalypse consists of a series of visions which set forth the events connected with “the Revelation of Yahshua HaMashiach,” which will take place during “the L-rd’s DAY;” that day being so called because it is viewed as being then present; and as it had been called heretofore in prophecy, “the day of the L-rd.”
I will end this introduction to our study of the Book of Revelation with a discussion on the Titles of the Messiah.
The titles used for Yahshua HaMashiach in this book afford further evidence that the Church is not the subject of the Book. I consider seven of these names, all used in this and the previous introduction to this study. The most important os these names is given in connection with John’s vision in Chapter 1:13-16. In verse 13 He is THE SON OF MAN.
This is a title connected with Yahshua in relation to the earth. Its first occurrence in Psalm 8 fixes its peculiar signification. That Psalm begins and ends with a reference to the “earth,” and after speaking of the Son of Man,” it adds “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands.” It will be found therefore, that wherever this title occurs, it always refers to Adonai Yahshua in connection with His dominion in the earth. And when used in reference to His second coming, it refers to the judgment which He is then and there to administer.
The title “Son of Man” occurs no less than 80 times in the four Gospels and Acts, because we had Messiah on the on the earth , and the presentation of the King and the Kingdom. But, when He again reveals Himself by this title, it is in the Book of Revelation (1:13; 4:14). Thus we are led to the fact, and told if we have ears to hear, that the Apocalypse relates to the coming of “the Son of Man” to exercise judgement of the whole of earth as He takes His rightful place as King over all the earth.
The first use of the title in the B’rit Chadashah is in Matthew 8;20 where it is said: “ The Son of Man hath nowhere to lay his head.” The last place we see the title is in Revelation 14:14 where the Son of Man is seen “having on His head a golden crown.” Amazing! Both verses are connected with His “head,” and with the earth; while the latter event there is an association between the crown, judgment, and dominion.
The significance of this title is contrasted with the title “Son of G-d” in John 5:25-7: “ Verily I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of The Son of G-d, and they that hear shall live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so hath he given it to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is The Son of Man.”
Thus it is clear that the use of this title twice in Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 and not once in the Church Epistles provides further proof that the Church is not the subject of the Apocalypse. It is unfortunate that the Church replaced the word “ecclesia” which means assemblies or called out ones, used throughout the B’rit Chadashah to Church as I taught in our first class. The Church has no more to do with Yahshua under the title of “The Son of Man” than the Syro-Phoenician woman had anything to do with Him as :the Son of David.” This fact is a key to all passages where this title is used. It shows that Matthew 14 and 25 have nothing to do with the Church, because of the use of this title in Matthew 24:30 and 25:31. Both refer to His coming in clouds to the earth in judgement after the Believers have been taken up, and after the Great Tribulation.
In the next class, I will provide an outline of the Book of Revelation, and we will begin Chapter 1.
Shalom,
Rabbi Tamah Davis-Hart