Dimanche | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 30, 1882

Dimanche.

From Les Signes des Temps.

I.

Dimanche ought not to be used in the French Bible in translating Rev. 1:10.

AN Italian correspondent calls our attention to Rev. 1:10, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," or as most French translations read, "I was in the Spirit on dimanche." As the word dimanche is the proper name in the French language for the first day of the week, our correspondent thinks this passage a conclusive proof that the first day of the week is a sacred day. But this argument is not valid as we will now show.

John said only this: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," but he did not define which day of the week this is. The Lausanne Bible translates this literally: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." This is a just translation for it exactly expresses the original, without adding anything to it or taking anything from it. But most other French translations say that John was in the Spirit on dimanche, by which they make John assert that he was in the Spirit on the first day of the week.

But it may be asked, Does not the word dimanche signify Lord's day? and if so is it not a proper word to be used in the translation of Rev. 1:10? We answer that dimanche probably signifies Lord's day, though some eminent authorities assert that the word is derived from the Latin dies magnus and signifies simply great day. But dimanche is the name which the French language assigns to the first day of the week and as this name is generally understood to signify Lord's day, we will raise no question that such is its proper meaning.

But though the first day of the week has borne the name of Lord's day during many centuries, it did not bear that name in the time when John had his vision, nor did it receive this name so far as can be shown from history until nearly the close of the second century. Therefore it is in the highest degree unjust to translate the term Lord's day, used by John, by the word dimanche, which is the definite name for the first day of the week. It is the same as making John say, "I was in the Spirit on the day which is the first day of the week."

II.

The first day of the week did not bear the name of Lord's day when John had his vision. But it is said that by the term Lord's day, John must have meant the first day of the week, because that day was familiarly known in his time by that name. But this statement is absolutely false as we will now show. There are eight instances in the New Testament in which the first day of the week is mentioned, and in not one of these is the day called Lord's day, nor is it called by any other sacred name. There are also numerous instances in the fathers in which the first day of the week is mentioned before the year 200, but in none of these is it called Lord's day. If these statements are true they effectually disprove the assertion so often made, that the first day of the week was familiarly known in John's time by the name of Lord's day, and that for this reason he used the term Lord's day without telling what day he meant.

We come now to the testimony. It is asserted that the first day of the week received the name of Lord's day from the apostles, because Christ rose from the dead on that day. No one can know this to be a fact except from the testimony of the New Testament. We will therefore quote the different instances in which the first day of the week is mentioned, giving them in their chronological order.

Matthew wrote his gospel A.D. 41, about ten years after the resurrection of Christ. If the first day of the week was the Lord's day, Matthew must have known it. He mentions the day in connection with the resurrection of Christ; but, though this event is supposed to have given the day the title of Lord's day, he calls it only by the name of "first day of the week." Matt. 28:1.

Twenty-six years after the resurrection of Christ, Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians. If the first day of the week possessed a sacred title, Paul must have known it, and it was very important that he should recognize the day by that title. But he also calls the day simply "first day of the week." 1 Cor. 16:2.

Luke wrote his gospel A.D. 60, about 29 years after the resurrection of Christ, when the title of Lord's day, if it belonged to the first day of the week, certainly needed to be placed on record in the New Testament. But Luke mentions the day in connection with the event which is supposed to have made it the Lord's day, and yet like Matthew and Paul, he calls it simply the "first day of the week." Luke 24:1.

Three years after writing his gospel, or thirty-two years after the resurrection of Christ, Luke wrote the book of Acts in which he once mentions the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. Many assert that on this occasion Luke mentioned the day in order to establish its sacred character. If he had the strongest possible reason to give to the first day of the week, the title of Lord's day, if that title belonged to that day. But he called the day simply the "first day of the week."

The next year after Luke wrote the book of Acts, Mark wrote his gospel. This was A.D. 64, about thirty-three years after the resurrection of Christ. As the other sacred writers had neglected to call the first day of the week by the name of Lord's day, it was certainly very important that Mark should not forget to give this title to the day if the title belonged to it. But he twice mentions the day, giving it no sacred title, but calling it simply "first day of the week." Mark 16:2, 9.

These are all the instances in which the day is mentioned in the New Testament, before John was banished to the isle of Patmos; for the gospel of John according to the general testimony of the ancient writers, was written after his return from that island. It is certain therefore that the day was not known by the name of Lord's day previous to the vision of John at Patmos.

III.

The name of Lord's day was not revealed to John in his vision as the title of the first day of the week. But it may be said that the name was revealed to John as the proper title of the first day of the week in his vision at Patmos, and that John conferred this sacred title upon a day which as late as the year 96 had been known only as the first day of the week. But if it be true that John was instructed by revelation on that island to call the first day of the week the Lord's day, he would have said, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day which is the first day of the week." Instead of this, he says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," and leaves us to learn from the Bible what day the Lord claims as his day.

But we are not yet done with the testimony of John. A few months after his vision on the isle of Patmos he returned from his banishment and wrote his gospel. In that gospel he twice mentions the first day of the week. If he received instruction at Patmos to confer the title of Lord's day upon the first day of the week, we shall certainly discover that when he mentions the day in his gospel. But though he speaks of the day twice in his account of the resurrection of Christ, he follows the example of the other sacred writers and calls it simply the "first day of the week" and nothing else. John 20:1, 19.

We have thus given the eight instances in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament, and they furnish the most conclusive proof that the day was not by the title of Lord's day in the time of the apostles. Two things are established by this examination of the New Testament. First, that no sacred writer called the first day of the week the Lord's day. Second, that John could not have been instructed to confer the title of Lord's day upon the first day of the week, for if that had been the case when he used the term Lord's day in Rev. 1:10, he would have defined it to mean the first day of the week; or when he wrote his gospel a few months later and in that gospel twice mentioned the first day of the week, he would have connected with that name the sacred title of Lord's day.

(To be Continued.)