THE LORD'S DAY AND THE EARLY CHURCH

 By Israel Canasa

According to Adventists, the original Christians were Sabbath-keepers who were no different from them. But after the death of the last Apostle, corrupt church leaders who were motivated by greed and power made it easy for sun-worshipping pagans to convert to Christianity. Without any biblical authority, these apostates promoted Sunday as the new Sabbath and called it "the Lord’s Day”. The transition from Sabbath-keeping to Sunday-keeping gradually happened during the early centuries, then it culminated in the 4th century during the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great. From then on, the Pope of Rome, the “little horn”, was vested with tremendous religious and secular powers, which allowed him to completely quell true Christianity for many centuries. The true Church reemerged in the 19th century when the Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded through the prophetic guidance of Ellen White. 

This is Church History in a nutshell according to Seventh-day Adventists. There may be other versions, but the key elements are there. However, historical facts paint an entirely different picture. Ancient documents indicate that even in the 1st century, when some of the Apostles were still alive, Christians already gathered together regularly on the first day of the week to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. But they did not think of it as a new doctrine enforced by the bishop of Rome or a heretical sun-worshipping cult of Christianity. They believed they inherited this practice from the Apostles. There is no record from ancient documents that indicate a Sabbatarian versus Sunday-keeper conflict among Christians, or that there was even a transition from Sabbath to Sunday. Early Christians didn’t view the Lord’s Day as a replacement of the Sabbath, in fact they were free to keep both. What historical documents indicate is that they kept the Sabbath in a very “Christian way” without “Judaizing", but the highlight of their week was the Lord’s Day.

Here are what early non-canonical Christian writers as early as the 1st century write about the Lord’s Day.

“But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure..” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

“We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

“Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death” (Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven” (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225])

"But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection." (Apostolic Constitutions Book VIII [A.D. 250])

These ancient non-canonical writings indicate that Christians already kept the Lord’s Day on Sundays even in the 1st century. This continued to be the case throughout the history of the Church and was only challenged by Sabbatarians some time after the Protestant Reformation. For Adventists, the big questions are why and how. Their very best scholars established a biblical interpretation that says Christians had no biblical basis to replace the Sabbath with Sunday worship. This apparent contradiction between their interpretation and historical Christianity forced them to come up with their own version of Church History.

According to the Adventist worldview, there could be no other explanation as to why the early Church adopted Sunday worship - they must have abandoned the original teachings of the Apostles and therefore, they were apostates. These same Sunday-keeping Christians suffered the most intense persecutions of Rome, yet for Adventists, they don’t represent true Christianity.

But what if there is another explanation? That is what I would like to explore. I have no reason to doubt that Adventists arrived at their conclusions in all honesty and desire for truth. Unfortunately, they got there with a deficient paradigm.

How to Understand the Early Church

In harmony with their Protestant Tradition, Adventist scholars have sought to establish their doctrines using the Sola Scriptura paradigm. Volumes of scholarly books and papers have been published to defend the Sabbath and to dismiss Sunday from a purely biblical perspective. These works are impressively detailed and intensive. Adventists believe that they have the most biblically sound position. But no amount of research could come to the correct conclusion if the methodology used was deficient in the first place. Just as anyone can spend a lifetime trying to solve a puzzle, all is for naught if a key piece is missing. Adventist scholars have no lack of skill in biblical hermeneutics, but what they could be lacking is a key piece of the puzzle. What’s most unfortunate is that they don’t even seem to realize it.

I would like to propose that the key in figuring out the real reason why early Christians adopted the celebration of the Lord’s Day on Sundays is in understanding how ancient Christianity is different from modern Christianity.  What I’d like to point out is that Adventists are operating with a fundamentally different paradigm that is not applicable to the early Church. This paradigm is what protestants call  “Sola Scriptura” but implemented by Adventists in a bastardized way. If the early Christians never operated with this paradigm, it would be very unfair to impose it retroactively on them.

Sola Scriptura is bastardized when it is used to conveniently protect a doctrinal position by totally rejecting or downplaying contrary extra-biblical evidence, no matter how valid this evidence is. I’m calling it “bastardized” because it is not what the reformers intended to mean when they first adopted this principle. This is evidenced by the fact that the first reformers, particularly Luther, did not espouse a total abandonment of all Christian traditions (like gathering on Sundays). In fact, they reignited the field of study called “Patristics”, or the study of the early Church Fathers to prove that the Roman Catholic Church had departed not only from the Bible but also from the original Christian traditions. They appealed to the Bible as well as the Church Fathers to make their case while keeping the Bible as their primary authority. Prima Scriptura would have been the better term to describe this principle.

I will be using the term Prima Scriptura to mean the paradigm that upholds the Sacred Scriptures as the primary source of faith and practice, but without ignoring secondary sources that could help us understand the Scriptures better. While I’ll be using the term Sola Scriptura to mean almost the same, but bastardized so that secondary sources could be dismissed at whim, regardless of validity. I am proposing that Prima Scriptura is a more holistic principle and a more balanced approach to figure out the truth than Sola Scriptura. I would also contend that the early Church held a Prima Scriptura paradigm. Needless to say, we have to get this right because a wrong paradigm is detrimental in our quest for truth.

To establish a fair explanation as to why the early Church celebrated the Lord’s Day on Sundays, I will first present biblical and historical evidences that show why Sola Scriptura could not have been the paradigm that the early Church operated with. Then I will show how the Lord’s Day celebration came to be the standard Christian practice using the Bible and non-canonical yet still trustworthy historical documents.

Biblical and Historical Reasons Against Sola Scriptura

There are two main reasons to believe why Sola Scriptura could have not been the paradigm of the early Christians. First, this is what the Bible tells us. Second, this is what history indicates for us. 

1. Paul instructed the Church to keep both oral and written traditions

2 Thessalonians 2:15

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (ESV)

If we accept only that which was explicitly written in the Bible, we go directly against what Paul said. Paul instructed the Church to hold fast to both written and oral traditions that came from them. For the early Christians, oral Apostolic traditions are just as important as written traditions. Knowing this, we shouldn’t be surprised if early Christians practiced traditions that were not explicitly mandated in the Bible. They were not handicapped by Sola Scriptura. They don’t have a missing piece of the puzzle. They were in a better position to understand the Apostles than modern Adventist scholars who are confined to study only the written tradition.

But if there is a so called “oral tradition”, how can we know what they are if they were not written? Thankfully, Paul didn’t leave us in the dark. 

2. Paul said that the Church is the Epistle of Christ written with the Holy Spirit

2 Corinthians 3:2–3

"[2] You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. [3] And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (ESV)

If we can regard the written epistles of the Apostles with high esteem, how much more should we respect the Church which according to Paul, is an Epistle from Christ written with the ink of the Holy Spirit? The whole Gospel (the Life and Teachings of Christ) was delivered to them by the Apostles in oral and written form. They were tasked to live by it, preserve it, and proclaim it. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to regard the collective life of the Church with the same reverence as the Scriptures. It’s not just reasonable, but also biblical to learn from the history of the early Church.

Apostolic Traditions that were not explicitly written in scriptures can be reasonably inferred from the universal practices of the churches that were scattered throughout the Roman world. That, coupled with allusions and mentions from the New Testament can lend more credence that a particular tradition is of Apostolic origin. As Paul said, not all traditions are to be rejected. Believers were commanded to keep Apostolic Traditions in both written and oral form. 

We can read more about the early Church through ancient Christian documents written by the Church Fathers and other Christian writers. They may not be as authoritative as the Bible, but they give us a window into the life of the early Church. They are valid witnesses who can show us how the Holy Spirit guided the Church. The Bible is clear that both the Scriptures and the Church are works of the Holy Spirit.

3. Sola Scriptura was unknown to ancient Christians

While the earliest Christians view the Scriptures with the highest regard (Prima Scriptura), their treatment of Scriptures was very different from how we treat it today.

It must be noted that literacy in the early centuries is not as high compared to our era. Only 10% of the population can read and write. When ancient people hear a new teaching, most of them don’t automatically ask “where is that in the Bible”. They use their reason first. Then if they need more clarity, a literate person can delve into the Scriptures. But an illiterate person will naturally consult a teacher.

It must also be pointed out that the Scriptures are not as accessible to them as they are to us. One can go to a local Jewish synagogue to read the Hebrew Scriptures but there’s a high chance that they will not be given full access to it. Christian writings are even trickier to have. Not all Christian congregations have the complete copy of the New Testament. The NT Canon won’t be compiled until the end of the 4th century. Only the Gospels were widespread, and perhaps some epistles of Paul. Copies of Scriptures were also very expensive to produce. It was extremely difficult for ordinary people to acquire a copy. 

Because of these limitations, it is reasonable to believe that the default action of an ancient truth seeker is not to consult Scriptures but to consult authoritative teachers who can expound the Scriptures for them. The credibility of a teacher depends on the “school” or “tradition" where they came from. A greek philosopher must come from a Platonic or Aristotelian school. A jewish rabbi must show that they were under the tutelage of a reputable rabbi. And a Christian preacher must prove that he came from a succession of ordained teachers going back to one of the Apostles.

4. The Church was gifted with an unbroken succession of ordained teachers

The Holy Spirit, through Paul structured the Church to have a succession of teachers who will preserve the Apostolic Teachings. Paul said to Timothy:

“You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Timothy 2:1-2

The Apostles ordained capable teachers, and the teachers in turn ordained their successors. These ordained teachers came to be known to later generation of Christians as the Church Fathers. They were the disciples of the disciples of the Apostles. The Church can accept the authority of a teacher only if they were “sent”. It was not a battle of who has the best interpretation of Scriptures but more of who has the authority to teach the Christian message. If an ordained teacher departs from the original teachings of the Apostles, the Church, along with teachers from other churches can refute and correct him (Gal 1:8-9).

The early Church understood the importance of this succession in settling doctrinal conflicts and keeping the unity of the Church. As Origen pointed out:

“…seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (Origen, De Principiis - Preface [225 AD])

It was actually easy to spot a false teacher - they simply do not have the pedigree. In fact, many ancient heresies came from teachers who departed from this succession. Heretics claim that they have a special knowledge of Scriptures. Some of them even have their own specially revealed scriptures. These heretics were called Gnostics. Notice that these Gnostics have similar claims to modern cults. They claim to have the best interpretation of Scriptures, and if that is not enough, they also claim that they received special revelations. What they could never produce is a proof that they came from a lineage of teachers that can be traced to the Apostles.

Simply put, Sola Scriptura is a modern paradigm that is unknown to ancient Christians. It would be unfair to impose this paradigm upon ancient Christianity. They had a very different way of verifying the true doctrines of Christ. They hold the Scriptures with high regard, but they also accept the teaching authority of the ordained teachers of the Church. As the Ethiopian humbly said when Philip asked him if he understood what he’s reading - “how can I unless someone explains it to me?”.

5. The New Testament Canon was not compiled until the end of the 4th century

If you were a truth seeker in the second or third century with a narrow Sola Scriptura paradigm, how can you be sure that the scripture you are reading is even from the Apostles? There are hundreds of early Christian writings from 1st to 4th centuries. Which ones are authentic? Which ones are gnostic? Which ones are heretical? The New Testament Canon was not compiled until the fourth century by the Catholic Church through its councils - namely the Council of Hippo (393 AD), and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). They were the first councils that declared the Canon of the New Testament Scriptures as we accept them today.

Here’s an excerpt from the Council of Carthage:

"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these . . . Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church."

The earliest Christians can’t go by Sola Scriptura even if they wanted to. Without first accepting the authority of the Church, they didn't have a way to verify the authenticity and orthodoxy of a document. It is important to remember that the Church existed already even before the New Testament Scriptures were written. Modern adherents of Sola Scriptura seem to forget this. The early Church didn’t form out of a group of people who came up with the best interpretation of the writings of the Apostles. They were the recipient of the complete Apostolic Teachings delivered to them first in oral form. The Apostles wrote them letters to remind them and exhort them, and to supplement what they already received. The oral tradition they received from the Apostles helped them to fully discern which scriptures are authentic, and which ones are not.

Therefore, judging them as heretics or apostates because they did not go with our Sola Scriptura interpretation of the Bible is unfair. We are imposing on them a novel paradigm that existed only after the Protestant Reformation. This modern playing field among Protestants where each denomination competes for the most convincing and most scholarly interpretation of Scriptures simply did not apply to the early Church. If we realize the implications of this reality, we should be humble enough to regard the beliefs and practices of the early Church with higher esteem than our modern point of view. If the early Church understood a passage in Scriptures differently from us, then it’s more likely that theirs is the better one; specially if they universally understood it that way. They were clearly better equipped to understand the true doctrines of the Lord from the Scriptures.

Historical and Biblical evidence that the celebration of the Lord’s Day was of Apostolic origin

By using history and the Bible we can surmise that the celebration of the Lord’s Day on Sundays is one of the Apostolic Traditions that were preserved by the early Church. Sure, there was no explicitly written command from the Bible, but combined with other sources that help us better understand the Scriptures, we can have a reasonable conclusion that this is the case. 

1. If the Apostles never taught Sunday as the Lord’s Day, why is there no record of resistance against this heretical practice? 

The earliest Christians wrote volumes of books to combat heresies and schisms. Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Papias, and many more are first and second century Church Fathers who wrote voluminous treatises against heretics and schismatics. Why is there no trace of any early Christian writer who resisted the Lord’s Day? These Christians are martyrs of the faith. Are we to say that they have been compromised already? We have to ask why it was so easy for them to change or add to the teachings of the Apostles while they are so eager to dedicate their lives in refuting heresies and even die for the Lord.

The earliest Christians believed that they are preserving the teachings of the Apostles. If a false doctrine was introduced, they vehemently reject it through oral debates and written treatises. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the reason why there is no record of anybody who resisted the celebration of the Lord’s Day is that it was of Apostolic origin. 

2. If it was not an Apostolic Doctrine, how did it spread so rapidly? 

The Apostles founded Christian congregations around the known ancient world. Each of them were separated by very long distances. Information does not flow as freely as it does in our modern times. If a new doctrine was introduced, we could expect that resistance from other churches will slow its spread. Remember that they were willing to die for the doctrines that they received from the Apostles.

The Body of Christ was carefully designed by the Holy Spirit to be resilient against heresies. The fact that the churches were scattered and separated by distance made it hard for heresies to spread far and wide. If a heretical doctrine was introduced by someone from a local church, other churches would gang up against it before the heresy could spread. Just like the human body, the Church as the Body of Christ has an immune system. Each church, particularly the most ancient ones who were privileged enough to be founded by the Apostles was a fierce white blood cell of the Faith. We can see this system in action when we read about ancient heresies and how the Church dealt with them. Here are some examples. 

• A heresy called Montanism was started by Montanus in 157 AD. Montanism was condemned by church councils in Asia Minor by 190 AD. 
• A heresy called Adoptionism teaches that Jesus was born as a mere (non-divine) man. It was started by Theodotus of Byzantium around 190 AD. It was condemned as a heresy by the Synod of Antioch in 268 AD. 
• A heresy called Sabellianism is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God. It was started by Sabellius around 250 AD and was condemned as a heresy by early Christian writers such as Gregory Thaumaturgus, Epiphanius, and Tertullian. 

These examples should be enough to show that early Christians did not tolerate heresies. If a heresy starts to spread, bishops from different churches muster their forces to refute it. This is usually done through synods or councils. One has to wonder how heresies such as the celebration of the Lord’s Day escaped the radar of the defenders of the true Christian faith.

In light of these considerations, it is highly unlikely that this practice started as a heresy some time after the death of the last Apostle. Knowing that the early Church were intolerant of novel teachings and heresies, and the fact that there was no recorded resistance are strong indications that it was the Apostles who instituted it. It was the standard practice in every church they planted. Therefore, nobody resisted it, the Church just continued it.

3. Ellen White herself said that the early Church kept their faith unsullied during the persecution

"Under the fiercest persecution these witnesses for Jesus kept their faith unsullied… The loss of every earthly blessing could not force them to renounce their belief in Christ.”  GC 41.1

“Persecution ceased, and in its stead were substituted the dangerous allurements of temporal prosperity and worldly honor.” GC 42.4

"Most of the Christians at last consented to lower their standard, and a union was formed between Christianity and paganism." GC 43.1

Ellen White said that pagan influences entered the Church only after the persecutions. The persecution of Christians ended in 313 AD when Emperor Constantine and Emperor Lucius signed the Edict of Milan. Therefore, by the words of Ellen White herself, the practices of the persecuted Church should not be wantonly rejected because it was precisely during this era when their faith was tested and purified with the fires of persecution.

The narrative that the Pope of Rome colluded with Constantine to impose pagan Sunday worship throughout Christendom is a mere story based on nothing but biased imagination. There is simply no historical record that can support this. The Lord’s Day was celebrated by early Christians centuries before Constantine. The fact that Constantine declared a Sunday Law to respect Christians is testament to the fact that Christians already kept Sunday prior to the law’s declaration. Even Adventist scholars like the late Samuel Bacchiocchi have pointed this out. Therefore, if pre-Constantine Christians were as pure as Ellen White said, and pre-Constantine Christians celebrate the Lord’s Day on Sunday, then this practice is not heretical, and it certainly is not the mark of the beast. Ellen White wrote a wildly contradictory and unsubstantiated account of Church History in her book, The Great Controversy.

4. Jesus promised that the Church will be led by the Holy Spirit into all the truth

John 16:13

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

Moreover, Jesus promised that he will be with his Church until the end and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. This means that he will not allow the Church to universally fall into apostasy. Notice that this is not a conditional promise. He will protect the Church no matter what. If Adventists assert that their modern interpretation of the Bible is correct and the early Christians apostatized easily because of sun-worshipping pagan influence, then they must be ready to admit its implications. These implications are:

• The persecuted Church of the early centuries abandoned the Apostle’s teachings quite easily but somehow they were still willing to die for the Lord
• True Christianity disappeared in the early centuries and was needed to be reestablished in 1863 by a bunch of people who claim to have the best interpretation of Scriptures
• The New Testament Canon was preserved and compiled by an apostate Church
• The Doctrine of the Trinity was defined by an apostate Church

How then can Adventists trust the authority of this apostate Church in identifying which Scriptures are canonical? All the copies of each book in the New Testament Canon was preserved by this Sunday-keeping Church throughout the persecution era. They bled and died to protect the Scriptures until they are finally able to compile and close the New Testament Canon in the late 4th century. If Adventism’s Church History is correct, then they undermine the very foundation of their faith! How could they accept the Scriptures of an apostate Church? They have a lot of explaining to do.

I think it would be better to trust that the Lord was with his bride all throughout the early centuries. There is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to fall into apostasy especially during the era in which they demonstrated their love for the Lord by suffering and dying for Him.

5. The Bible already gave clues that the first day of the week was a day of Christian gathering

Adventists have done everything they can to dismiss the significance of Bible verses that mentioned Christian gatherings on the first day of the week. Every Adventist knows how to explain them away. Since there is no explicitly written mandate that Christians should gather regularly on Sundays, a narrow understanding of Sola Scriptura logically entails that early Christians had no biblical basis to keep it. But as I’ve shown in the previous section, early Christians had more than just the written tradition.

Acts 20:7

“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.”

The traditional Adventist interpretation of this verse is that the church in Troas just finished gathering on a Sabbath, but Paul extended his preaching until the evening, which by jewish reckoning is the first day of the week. “To break bread” simply meant that they had a potluck dinner. For Adventists, this doesn’t prove a regular Sunday gathering, but it’s a one off event that could actually be an evidence that they regularly meet on Sabbaths.

But if we look carefully, we can have a better understanding of what Luke was really talking about. Luke described the day (Sunday), the activity (gathered together), and the purpose of that activity (to break bread), which is strikingly identical to how early Christians celebrated the Lord’s Day as described in non-canonical documents: “But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread” (Didache 14  [AD 70]). Based on Christian lingo, this is a description of what they do on Sundays.

We can further demonstrate why the Adventist interpretation is invalid by considering its implications. First, if the church in Troas just gathered to listen to Paul and eat dinner together, then they along with Paul were doing the very thing that Paul himself condemned! Paul said that believers must eat at their own houses before they meet together in order to respect the less fortunate believers.

1 Corinthians 11:20–22

“When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.”

Second, if the Church didn’t celebrate the Lord’s Supper that day, then they missed a once in a while opportunity to celebrate it with Paul. It would have been an opportune moment to have communion with an Apostle.

Finally, even if we grant without conceding that it was a Sabbath gathering that extended to Sunday evening, then this is a strong evidence that the succeeding generation of early Christians continued the practices that the Apostles started. There are historical evidences that Christians gathered on both Sabbaths and Sundays even in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Here's an excerpt from the Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII:

"Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and the Lord's day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord's day of the resurrection."

“...but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead.” Apostolic Constitutions, Book II

It is a historical fact that the early Church gathered on both Sabbaths and Sundays. It was first recorded in Acts 20:7, then several centuries later, they still do it. Therefore we can reasonably deduce that gatherings on Sundays to celebrate the Lord’s Day originated in the 1st century with the behest of the Apostles.

Because of extra-biblical, yet still Christian sources that identify Sunday as the Lord’s Day, there is a strong case that when John said he was "in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” Rev 1:10, he meant that he was in the Spirit on a Sunday.  This is another indication that the Apostles were the first ones who coined the term “Lord’s Day” (κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ). In non-canonical writings, we know that Christians understood the Lord’s Day as the first day of the week. If it originally meant the Sabbath, there was no record of it. Never was the Sabbath identified as the Lord’s Day in both the Bible and early Christian documents. 

The Bible gave us clues that the celebration of the Lord’s Day on Sundays originally came from the Apostles. It is only with a narrow and selective understanding of the Bible, and ignoring the witness of the early Church could we claim that the early Christians departed from what the Apostles originally taught. All the evidence that we have point to the fact that early Christians just continued the Apostolic Traditions which was first delivered in oral form, supplemented with writings, and preserved for the next generation of Christians by a succession of ordained teachers.

Conclusion

By looking back at the history of the earliest Christians, we can get important insights on how they lived their faith. We can’t dismiss the fact that they gathered together on Sundays to celebrate the Lord’s Day. They did not do it as a replacement of the Sabbath, but as a unique Christian institution that can be traced back to the Apostles. It is a false dichotomy to contrast Sabbath versus Sunday, for one can be a Christian and keep both. How the early Church understood the Sabbath is a different matter of discussion. But early Christian writings seem to suggest that the Sabbath, although still important to Christians, was secondary to the Lord’s Day.

The Adventist version of Church History that paint true Christians of the early centuries as sabbatarians who became a minority because of the Sunday Cult (which would become the Catholic Church) is simply without historical basis. The early Church were known as fierce defenders of the Faith. They preserved and proclaimed the Gospel with their lives! They won’t give up their faith so easily just to adopt a pagan practice. The fact that there was no resistance to these heretics gives us a strong indication that these heretics never even existed. This “Sunday Cult” is most likely just a mythological boogeyman in a version of Church History that was imagined to protect a system of false doctrines.

What we see with all the evidence is that the early Church received both oral and written traditions from the Apostles. They can understand the writings of the Apostles better because they also received the teachings in oral form. Combined, the oral and written tradition form a complete body of doctrines that the Church preserved and proclaimed against all odds. As the Epistle of Christ written by the Holy Spirit, the Church is the sacred witness of the “faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints”. They have proven their faithfulness by fighting heretics with all their might and suffering through the fiercest persecutions of Rome. In all faithfulness, they followed the instructions of Paul:

Galatians 1:8–9

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” 

It’s quite amazing how the early Church preserved the Gospel. Although the churches were scattered across the ancient world with limited communication, they still proclaimed the Gospel in startling unity particularly in the celebration of the Lord's Day. This unity is only possible if they held on to the original teachings that they received from the Apostles. A departure would have been met with stern resistance from other Apostolic churches. Apparently, the celebration of the Lord’s Day on the first day of the week is one of the Apostolic Traditions that the early Church universally preserved.

Adventists, who are more than 1,800 years removed from the time of the Apostles, have interpreted the Bible apart from its original context, thrown away the witness of the early Church in favor of a suspicious prophet, and then judged the persecuted early Church as heretics and apostates. For the reasons stated above, I now have extreme difficulty believing them. No amount of modern and deficient interpretation of the Bible and suspicious prophetic claim can overturn the united witness of the early Church who suffered, bled, and died for the Lord. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Seventh-day Adventist.