Category: Q&A

Dr. Gentry:

I have a question for you. I recently heard a postmill/amill debate. The amill gave a criticism against postmill that I am really stuck on. Maybe you can help.

He said that postmills apply the restoration Psalms and prophecies like dispensationalists do, in a literalistic, types and shadows fashion. For example, regarding Psalm 2:8 the amill said that postmills apply the terms ‘nations’ and ‘earth’ in a way that Jesus and the apostles never intended (political entities, etc.). From his perspective, the NT teaches that for Christ to make the nations and earth His footstool refers to the salvation of the Gentiles from every tribe tongue and nation, not Christ’s influence on political structures, etc. I think this is a good argument and I am a bit stumped. Can you help me?

J.B.

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your question. I don’t see where the problem is in this critique of postmillennialism. I would note the following:

1. Be careful not to throw out all literalism just because dispensationalism wrongly uses it.
2. I don’t see the problem with using Psa 2:8 as evidence of postmillennialism. That is, I don’t understand what the issue of “political entities”/ “political structures” has anything to do with the amill/postmill debate here. Even setting aside the idea that particular political entities are in view here, the fact remains that the psalm declares that Christ will make “the nations” (whatever they are) and “the very ends of the earth” his possession. He is not speaking merely of converts out from the nations, but the nations and the very ends of the earth themselves. The psalm appears to be speaking of some sort of global dominance.
3. Nevertheless, I would note that David calls upon the kings and judges of the earth to do homage to the Son (Psa 2:10-12). It seems he goes to great lengths to speak of not only people in general (nations and ends of the earth) but even their political rulers and judges.
4. Besides all of this, reducing the significance of Psa 2 would not affect the broader argument for postmillennialism. Postmillennialism is not a “one text” eschatological system (as premillennialism tends to be with Rev 20).

Dr. Gentry:

How do you reconcile the “then” in Matt 24:9 with the “but before all these things” in Luke 21:12? Charles Missler claims that this as proof that there are two different abominations in view as well as two different temples.

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your question. I would note the following:

1. Sometimes Scripture only loosely deals with before/after connections. Consider the “problem” with Judas at the Passover/Lord’s Supper service. In Matt (26:19-27) and Mark (14:16-24) the Passover appears before the Lord’s Supper; in Luke it appears after it (Luke 22:13-23).
2. Matthew’s “then” statement probably means “then during these things” rather than “after” these things. Luke’s “before” statement may mean “before these things are completed,” In this case there is no conflict.
3. But whatever interpretation one puts on these verses, the whole “problem” cannot be a concern against the preterist view because both Matt 24:1-34 and Luke 21 clearly refer to soon coming events as dogmatically declare in Matt 24:34 and Luke 21:32.

Dr. Gentry:

If Revelation was written in AD 65-66 about events in AD 70, how could John have expected it to be widely circulated in so short a period of time? It seems the book’s grandiose vision would be largely wasted because of the time frame involved. It couldn’t do much good, especially since the bulk of its actions (on your view) occur in Palestine. S. F., Los Angeles, CA

Dr. Gentry’s response:

This is a good question that many folks have. However, this concern tends to evaporate on closer consideration.

• First, we do not believe John knew the exact date the events would play out. It is not like he thought: “Well, it is now AD 66. I had better get to work on this book because these events are going to start up in earnest in AD 68 and will be over in AD 70.” Remember, he said the dates were “at hand” and “soon.” He did not say: “They will begin on March 15, A.D. 68.”
• Second, nevertheless, Revelation is directed specifically to seven particular churches who could have easily gotten it quickly enough. These were the ones John was directly addressing and specifically concerned with. In fact, according to the majority of commentators, including dispensationalists Robert L. Thomas and John F. Walvoord (at Rev 1:11 in their commentaries), the order of appearance of those churches shows that they were arranged according to a Roman postal road. They would fairly quickly receive Revelation since they were on this know postal road.
• Third, Revelation’s usefulness does not evaporate with the occurrence of the events of the Jewish War. Consider Isaiah 7 or Micah 5: they do not cease to be useful when Christ is finally born of a virgin in Bethlehem. Does Paul’s letter to the Corinthians about their particular problems (divisions among followers of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos; a man marrying his father’s wife; and so forth) have no meaning for us today? Most of the NT epistles are “occasional letters.” That is, they were written to address specific issues on certain occasions. Yet their authority and applicability still remain for us today as we apply the principles embodied therein.

  Regarding Revelation, even after Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed, Christians would need to know what happened and why — since God had worked for so many centuries through Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple. Revelation presents these events in dramatic fashion to underscore the vitally important redemptive historical truths involved of the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant. The destruction of Jerusalem was no accident of history; it plays into the plan of the Lamb who had been slain as he avenges himself and his people against his assailants.

• Fourth, we can (and should! and must!) draw lessons from Revelation for all times. For example:
  1. Like Paul warns in Rom 11, God judges his people and we should not boast against the branches because we might be broken off. Wasn’t Israel God’s special people for so long? But look at what he did to them when they became unfaithful and rejected and slew their own Messiah!
  2. Revelation shows that Jerusalem’s destruction was no accident of history. It shows that behind the historical scenes, spiritual forces are at work as God works his plan in history.
  3. Revelation shows very clearly that God in the NT era also exercises wrath. He is not the liberal God-of-love that we hear so much about. Liberals often try to distinguish the OT conception of God from the NT conception. Revelation clearly undercuts that attempt.
  4. Revelation shows that God upholds his people in their trials. He answers their prayers — in his time and according to his plan. Though the Jews and Rome were persecuting our first century fathers, God upheld them. He will uphold you as well. After all, in each of the seven letters he urges upon the broader church: “He that has ears to hear, hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
  5. Revelation shows that despite the might of Nero and Rome, when God opposes them, they are doomed. His people should not fear earthly forces arrayed against them.
  6. Revelation shows that God’s redemptive forces have been established (the redemptive new creation, cp. Rev 21:1-2 with 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15-16) in time and on earth, and that they will gloriously impact the outcome of history. This occurs as the new creation forces gradually (like a mustard seed!) flow out into the world. God is at work in history and moving it toward its goal, which is already unfolding around us.
  7. Etc., etc.!

Dr. Gentry:

You are committed to the Reformed faith, yet you don’t take the historicist approach to eschatology which was widely held among the Reformers. Why do you not follow the Reformers in this part of their theology. G.K., Minneapolis, Minn.

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thank you for your inquiry. You are correct that I am committed to Reformed theology. However, I differ from the Reformers in that I take a preterist approach to Revelation rather than an historicist approach. I do so for the following reasons:

• First, we should remember that Revelation was not well received among some of the Reformers. Martin Luther, the famed reformer and untiring interpreter of Scripture, originally rejected Revelation as non-canonical, complaining, “My Spirit cannot adapt itself to the book.” In his German translation of the Bible, he complained in the preface to Revelation that the book was “neither apostolic nor prophetic.”

  Fellow reformer Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) refused to take a doctrinal proof-text from Revelation. Calvin himself wrote no commentary on it, despite his writing a very thorough series of commentary on almost all of the Bible.

• Second, the Reformers were locked in a literal life-and-death struggle with Romanism. Consequently, they tended to view many judgment passages through the lens of their opposition to Rome. They let application override interpretation in some situations.

  Such an exposition is known as an “actualizing interpretation.” “Actualizing interpretations take two forms. In one form the imagery of the Apocalypse is juxtaposed with the interpreter’s own circumstances, whether personal or social, so as to allow the images to inform understanding of contemporary persons and events and to serve as a guide for action” (J. Kovacs and C. R. Rowland, “Revelation: Apocalypse of Jesus Christ” [Oxford: Blackwell, 2004], 9).

  For instance, we see this in the original Westminster Confession of Faith (25:6) where the Pope is called the Antichrist and the “man of lawlessness.” This not only gives too much credit to Romanism, but clearly misinterprets Scripture. If the Pope were Antichrist, then the papacy existed in the first century, for John confronts the antichrist in the first century (1Jn 2:18-22). But the Pope cannot be the Antichrist, for John defines the Antichrist as “one who denies the Father and the Son” (1Jn 2:22), as those who “do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2Jn 7). This is clearly not referring to Roman Catholic teaching.

• Third, historicist expositions of Revelation from that era, the 1500-1600s are impossible today. If you can find an historicist exposition of Revelation from you will quickly observe that they believed Revelation outlined church history up to their own time, when they believed its final prophecies were coming to fulfillment. Just reading an earlier historicist exposition today refutes it.

  Kovacs and Rowland note this problem: “Altogether more contentious and daring is the way certain interpreters saw these figures appearing in their own day. For some this reflects a conviction that the last days have come” (Kovacs, 128; referenced above). M. E. Boring seems to be correct when he notes that “although widely held by Protestant interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view” (M. Eugene Boring, “Revelation: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching” [Louisville: John Knox, 1989], 49).

• Fourth, by the very nature of the case historicism suffers from a need of constant revision. The historicist school, also called the “continuous historical,” sees the prophetic drama in Revelation as providing a panorama of Church history from the apostolic era to the return of Christ. Historical continuity is the main focus of this approach which forecasts future history. Historicists deem Revelation an “almanac of church history.” Historicists apply the numerous judgment scenes to various wars, revolutions, and socio-political and religious movements (e.g., the rising of Roman Catholicism, the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, World Wars I and II), as well as important historical /persons (e.g., various Popes, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Mussolini).

  According to Alan Johnson, Joachim of Floris (d. 1202) popularized this view, though traces of it are found earlier in the Ante-Nicene fathers (Johnson, “Revelation” in EBC, 12:409). As noted above, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers greatly employed it against the Roman Catholic Church.

  The weaknesses, though, are manifold. The position almost always assumes that present interpreters live at the conclusion to history so that all in Revelation leads up to their time just before the end. For instance Mede noted in his commentary: “While I write news is brought of a Prince from the North (meaning Gustavus Adolphus) gaining victories over the Emperor in defence of the German afflicted Protestants.”

  Commenting on recurring problems in eschatological debate in general, Brethren historian F. Roy Coad well states: “Almost invariably interpretation has been vitiated by the reluctance or incapacity of commentators to visualise their own age as other than the end time” (F. Roy Coad, “Prophetic Developments: A Christian Brethren Research Fellowship Occasional Paper” [Pinner, England: 1966], 10).

  As a consequence, beliefs are in a constant state of revision, especially for Revelation commentators in this school. Consequently, as history has grown longer, older varieties of this interpretive school have experienced a great number of failed expectations. This view long remained “strangely attractive in spite of the recurrent anguish and disappointment it causes” (John Court, “Myth and History in the Book of Revelation” [Atlanta: John Knox, 1979], 7).

  Thus, this approach is continually in revision as it proposes more and more constructions based on the supposed prophetic allusions to historic events. For instance, this view was prominent in the Middle Ages when millennialism began to flourish once again. The system was used to show that “the millennium was about to dawn” (Carson, Moo, Morris, “Introduction to the New Testament,” [Zondervan] 482).

• Furthermore, its relevance is confined to the Western world, with the progress of history traced only in a western direction (apparently where book sales are most profitable!).

  In addition, it tends to lose its relevance for its original persecuted audience.

  Its major problem, though, is that harmony among its proponents is almost wholly lacking due to its subjectivity.

Dr. Gentry:

I have two questions on how you might respond to some Dispensational explanations of Ezekiel 40-48. (1) Some dispensationalists argue that the dimensions of Ezekiel’s temple are not a problem because the topography of the land will be radically changed in the millennium. They cite Zechariah 14 in defense of this topographical reconfiguration. They also cite the following passages to argue that Jerusalem will be much larger than what it is today: Jer. 31:38-40; Ezk. 48:30-35; Zech. 14;10-11. (2) The other thing relates to Ezekiel’s sacrificial system. They state that since the apostles did not have a problem with sacrifice in the New Testament, then why should we see it as problematic in the millennium? They cite Acts 21:17-26 in support of the idea that the apostles did not have a problem with sacrifice as a memorial and that Ezekiel’s sacrifices will have some efficacy for the unregenerate who are present in the millennium.

I have noticed that recently many Dispensationalists have felt the pressure of Covenant Theologians and have started an attempt to go on the offensive with their system via the internet and find ways to get around Covenant objections.

Thanks, J.R. B.

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your inquiry. Just briefly I would respond thus:

First, the prophetic texts that speak of Jerusalem being raised up are taken by dispensationalists in a woodenly literal fashion, as you know. But in fact, their interpretation is absurd. For instance, in Isa 2:2 we read:

“Now it will come about that in the last days, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways, and that we may walk in His paths. For the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:3

If this were taken literally (as dispensationalists do) note the absurdities involved:

1. For Jerusalem to be raised up as the highest mountain would involve such tectonic upheaval that it would absolutely destroy the city. Earthquakes are destructive natural phenomena. But this would involve even more catastrophe than quaking. It would engage mountain-building, which is absolutely destructive to a built city.
2. If it were indeed raised above the highest mountains, it would be uninhabitable. It would be higher than Mt. Everest. This would give it a horribly cold and snowy climate.
3. Not only would it be uninhabitable, but you wouldn’t see great masses of people heading up the mountain to learn the law of the Lord.
4. Obviously, this prophecy is speaking symbolically of the exaltation and dominance of God’s kingdom, not its physical elevation.

Second, the matter of temple worship. The problem with the dispensational argument based on Acts is: The old covenant and new covenant overlapped for about forty years. God did not shut down the old covenant immediately. He gave the Jews a generation to understand the changing of the redemptive economy. We should note:

1. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (written around AD 68-69), the writer speaks of the old covenant as nearing its final conclusion. Notice the verb tenses in this particularly important statement: “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13). Consequently, in Acts the temple service was still in effect, but winding down. The temple began to be used as a base-of-operations for the Jewish converts to Christ to reach out to the Jews. But when AD 70 comes, the temple is forever removed.
2. The very idea of the sacrificial system was to point to its conclusion, when it was finally fulfilled and no longer necessary: “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near” (Heb. 10:1).

   In fact, the text goes on to say: “But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but A BODY Thou hast prepared for Me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (In THE ROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF Me) to do Thy will, O God.’ After saying above, ‘Sacrifices and offerings and WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices for sin Thou hast not desired, nor hast Thou taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Thy will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us” (Heb 10:3-15).

   This is why Jesus taught the woman at the well: “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father” (John 4:21). The temple was on its way out. Mount Zion was about to lose its centrality and purpose.

3. To return to bloody sacrifices even as a “memorial,” would be to turn back to the blood of bulls and goats rather than turning to the blood of the Lamb of God. All bloody rites (including circumcision) have been done away with in Christ.

I hope this is helpful for your discussions with dispensational friends.

Dr. Gentry:

Hi , I was reading in the book of Matthew in chapter 3:17: “and suddenly a voice came from heaven saying , This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Then it says in Luke 3:22: “and a voice came from heaven which said, You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

I was thinking: Did God the Father say first to John the Baptist’s audience that “This is My beloved Son” and then He said to Jesus: “You are My beloved Son”?

I’m confused . Could you give me a good explaination so if someone asks me why does it sound contradictory, then I could give them a good answer.

Sami K.

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your question. It shows a deep interest in God’s word — and defending it against those who question it.

It’s possible that two statements were made by God, one for Jesus and the other for the audience gathered to witness his baptism. In fact, the Gospel of the Ebionites does record two statements. But this doesn’t seem likely since each of the biblical Gospels suggest that only one statement was made. If one of the legitimate Gospels had a two-fold statement, your suggestion would be the best resolution to the “problem.”

It seems to me that Mark and Luke recorded the original statement as it was actually heard: “You are My beloved Son.” Notice that they both agree on this statement; Matthew is the one who disagrees slightly.

But when we come to Matthew we read: “This is My beloved Son.” Apparently Matthew is presenting the situation in such as way as to “apply” it to those reading his Gospel. We must keep in mind that the Gospels were written to be read by a particular audience.

In Matthew’s case he appears to change the original direct statement so that his audience to whom he writes will realize its significance. He applies it by pointing out that “this is My beloved Son.” His audience needs to know that this very Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

His applying it in this way suggests that John the Baptist’s original audience actually heard an audible voice making the statement (“You are My Beloved Son”). This was not some internal, psychological experience of Christ. But Matthew took the liberty to change one word (he changes “you” to “this”) in order to let his readership know that this voice was actually heard by all those standing there when Christ was baptized, and also that God’s voice objectively declared that Christ was indeed the Son of God. This is the main point of the matter.

Of course, we notice that the two statements do not contradict one another. In fact, they supplement one another in affirming the same truth: Christ is God’s beloved Son.

In our daily contexts we can alter the actual statement of someone to make a point, without changing the meaning of the statement. For instance, someone might say to me: “I told you this would happen!” But when I report my interaction with that person to someone else (my audience) I might legitimately say: “He told me that this would happen.” The meaning is preserved even though the actual words are altered for the audience.

It would be a much different story, of course, if Mark and Luke said: “This is NOT my beloved Son,” and Matthew “slightly” altered this by dropping the single small word “not,” to say: “This IS my beloved Son.” But this is not the kind of thing that happens in the Gospel accounts. The same truth is affirmed, though slightly adapted for different audience purposes.

Dr. Gentry:

The following passage troubles me regarding your preterist position. It states that Israel will one day be converted, and only then will the great tribulation begin (according to the order of verses following Matt 23:39). That verse reads: “For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'” How does the preterist respond to this?

R.G. (Canada)

Dr. Gentry’s response:

This passage often appears as an objection to a preterist reading of Matthew 24, in that it seems to suppose Israel will one day be converted and then the great tribulation will transpire. But this statement does not suppose a future conversion (though I believe Rom 11 does suppose such).

Note:

1. The word “for” connects this statement with the preceding context. The preceding context is one of unrelenting denunciation, ending with judgment. The “for” must indicate something less than a spiritual praise of Christ and acceptance by God.
2. The phrase “from now on” is indefinite, holding out only an indefinite possibility. Thus, it does not declare as a matter of fact: “you will see me.” Jesus is denouncing the Jews, not offering them hope, for:
3. If this pointed to a blessing, it would be out of character in the flow of the narrative all the way from 23:1 through chapter 24. Any sudden idea of Israel’s praising Jesus is totally contrary to the text, see especially 23:31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37.
4. The praise here (“blessed is he who comes”) is not necessarily a voluntary, loving praise. It could well be a constrained praise, as in Phil 2:10-11 and Rom 14:11. Given the context, it appears to be constrained and with reluctance.

Dr. Gentry:

Luke 24:36 is difficult for me. Is it referring to the final judgment or the judgment on the Jews/A.D. 70? It seems that even those who escape still “stand before the Son of Man.”

Dr. Gentry’s response:

I believe that all of Luke 21:8ff refers to AD 70. I do so because of the numerous near-term indicators: Luke 21:28, 29-031, 32. If the disciples will faithfully endure through those trials, if they will flee when Jesus warned them to flee (rather than apostatizing and returning to Judaism), they will be able to stand faithfully before Christ when the judgment comes. “Stand” often means “stand before a judge” (see: Matt 25:32; 27:11; 1 thess 2:19; 3:13). The thought expressed here is to “stand” in securing a good verdict rather than to be judged and condemned. This does not focus on the final judgment but simply alludes to it as the outcome of faithfulness through the events of AD 70. That is, if the disciples persevere through the short term judgment befalling Israel and Jerusalem, they will secure for themselves long term benefits when the final day of judgment comes.

Dr. Gentry:

How do you reconcile the different audiences that Jesus was addressing: the disciples on the Mount of Olives in Matt 24:1 vs. all the people in the temple complex in Luke 21:37-38?

Dr. Gentry’s response:

This statement in Luke 21:37-38 does not refer simply to the Olivet Discourse (which was limited to the disciples, Matt 24:30), but concludes the entire, broader section regarding Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem (this section begins at Luke 19:29, not at Luke 21:1). Distinctively Luke repeatedly emphasizes Jesus’ determination to go to Jerusalem for his death (Luke 9:51, 53; 10:30; 13:22; 19:28). In Luke 21:37-38 he is pointing out that Jesus did appear and minister in Jerusalem and in the temple. That is the point made with this statement.

Dr. Gentry:

My question is on the Sabbath and the day worship should be on. Would you point me to the passages that tell the Christian to worship on Sunday. Is there a passage that does away with Sabbath worship?

John P.

Dr. Gentry’s response:

Thanks for your question, John. This is an important issue in that we must worship God according to his directives, not our preferences or convenience. And since the Ten Commandments specifically declare the worship day to be the last day of the week (the seventh day, Exo. 20:8-11), we need to know if we are correct in worshiping on the first day of the week.

Just briefly I would offer the following two lines of biblical evidence for the Christian day of worship being changed to Sunday (the first day of the week) from Saturday (the last day of the week).

1. The Old Testament anticipates a change of worship time.

   In the Old Testament God’s people worshiped on the seventh day of the week, which is the end of the week. The primary reason for this is that the week is structured on the pattern of God’s creation. However, another reason appears relevant as well.

   The drift of redemptive history traces man’s fall and God’s redemption. In the Old Testament God’s people look ahead to redemption coming in fulness in Christ. Thus, their rest was oriented towards the future, when Christ entered history at his incarnation to effect redemption. Consequently, the Jews rested (and worshiped) at the end of their week, showing that redemption had not yet fully come but would arrive in the future.

   Now in the New Testament era we look back to the source of our redemption. Jesus has already come and we work on that basis. Thus, we rest (and worship) at the beginning of our week.

   Interestingly, this forward-looking anticipation is embodied in various Old Testament eighth day ceremonies. The eighth day is, of course, the first day of new week.

   For instance, circumcision was to be performed on the eighth day, signifying a new beginning in the covenant. Elsewhere we read prophecies regarding Christ, who was to be like the sun rising with healing in his wings bringing in a new day: “But for you who fear My name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall” (Mal. 4:2). Throughout the Old Testament era, they looked forward to a new morning, a new beginning, in Christ when he comes.

2. The New Testament records a change of worship time.

   When we come to the New Testament we discover the eighth day being significant once again, but in a new way. Christ was resurrected on the eighth day, which is the first day of a new week (John 20:1, 19). The redemption sought in the Old Testament finally comes in the New Testament and is effected on the eighth day, Sunday.

   Furthermore, we see the early Christians worshiping on the first day of the week, in confirming the change wrought by Christ and his sanctifying a new day.

   For instance, in Acts 20:6-7 we read regarding Paul: “We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days. And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.” Notice that the Christians were “gather together” so that they might “break bread.” Note also that Paul preached to them (a rather long sermon!)

   We see this pattern again in 1Corinthians 16:2 where Paul directs the church to do certain things on “the first day of the week”: “On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.”

   It becomes obvious, then, that the first day of the week is the time for Christian worship in the apostolic church.

I hope this is helpful for your consideration. Thanks for sending us your question.