Upon the whole, this seems to be the most probable explanation of the title. Though other ‘armies’ might not be entirely excluded, the idea which would most naturally suggest itself, when the term was used absolutely in connexion with J”, would, it seems, be the armies of heaven. But, whatever uncertainty may rest on the origin of the expression, all agree that as used by the prophets it is 958 most significant and sublimest title: it designates Him, namely, as One who is supreme over untold ‘hosts’ of spiritual or other agencies, whom He can employ to give effect to His purposes (Ps 103°: 21),—in a word, as the Omnipotent. It is accordingly in the LXX often + very appropriately represented by κύριος ravroxpdrwp, ‘Lord Omnipotent’ —or, more exactly (in contrast to the more abstract παντοδύναμος), ‘Lord all-sovereign’ (sec Westcott, The Historic Faith, p. 21 tt.).t S. R. DRIVER.
LORD’S DAY (ἡ Κυριακὴ juepa).—This term has from the very earliest times been applied in Greek and Latin Christian literature to the first day of the week in its religious aspect. The scope of this article is necessarily limited; we can here discuss only (i.) the term ‘Lord’s Day’ itself, (ii.) The connexion of the Lord’s Day with the Sabbath, (ili.) the origin of the institution, (iv.) the nature of Lord’s Day worship in NT times,
* The isolated passages Dt 209, 1 K 25, 1 Ch 273 (even if they are not to be explained, with Borchert, by Ges.-Kautzsch, § 124. 2b) do not detract from the force of the remark.
t+ 2S and Minor Prophets (usually), Jer (12 times). Elsewhere κύριος Σαβαὼϑ is generally used (so Ro 929, Ja 64: see SABAOTH): in Ps, however, and occasionally also in other books, κύριος τῶν δυνά μεων (i.e. of forces, armies : see the use of δύναμες for NI in Nu 1. 2. 1014. passim, and in other similar passages).
t So in NT, 2 Co 618 (a reminiscence of the usage of the LXX, but not an exact quotation); comp. x. ὁ θεὸς ὁ wavroxparap, Rev 18 48 1117 153 167 198 2122 (as Am 313 413 al.); ὁ θεὸς ὁ +., Rev 1614 1915 (as Am 527),
A title borne by Nebo, ‘Overseer or ruler (pakid) of the multitudes of heaven and earth’ (KAZ? 413, cited by Cheyne, Orig. of Psalter, 323, ct. Isaiah3, i. p. 18; KIB iii, 2, 53° Delitzsch, Assyr. HWB 360f.), is perhaps worth comparing.
LORD’S DAY
i. The scriptural authority for the term ‘ Lord’s Day’ is Rev 1” ‘I wasin the Spirit on the Lord’s Day,’ ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ. Few will agree with Eichhorn in referring this to Easter Day. The opinion of Wetstein and others, who interpret it οἱ the day of Judgment, seems plaus- ible, but is open to two formidable objections. (1) A writer so im τορπαῖοα with OT phraseology as is the author of the Apocalypse would surely have used, in this sense, the familiar ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου (κυριακός is not in LXX). (2) Such a use of the term is quite unknown to the Greek Fathers. From the Didaché and Ignatius onwards they use ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα, or Simply 7 κυριακή, only in the sense of Sunday. Such an unbroken and unquestioned Church a eae be regarded as decisive on this point. To this may be added that as in v.° Patmos hes the place οἵ the vision, so here ‘the Lord’s
ay’ naturally seems to fix the time. It would, however, be a mistake to conclude that Rev 1” is the origin of the term. Itis merely the first extant ἘΠ: its use (Didaché 14, Ignat. Ep. Magn. 9 are certainly later). The phrase might have arisen as early as A.D. 57, forin 1 Co 11” we find κυριακὸν δεῖπνον. This is the first occurrence of κυριακός in extant Greek literature. The absolute use of Κύριος, which indicates an identification of Christ with the J” of the OT, naturally led to the formation of a corresponding adjective. However, ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα was not yet in current use, for in this same Epistle (1 Co16*) St. Paul uses ‘the first day of the week,’ μία σαββάτου ; and a little later, Ac 907, we find the similar ἡ ula τῶν σαββάτων, St. Luke with his usual historical accuracy using; doubtless, the phrase current at the time of which he was writing. Contrast the inexactness of the Gospel of Peter, where ἡ κυριακή is twice used of the actual day of Christ’s resurrection, and betrays at once by the anachronism a 2nd cent. writer. At some time, then, between A.D. 57 and A.D. 96 the term ‘ Lord’s Day’ arose, and it was probably first used in Churches which had to contend with Judaism.
ii. It has been reckoned a pious opinion (Bram- hall, Works, vol. v. pp. 41, 58) that the observance of the Lord’s Day was one of ‘the things concern- ing the kingdom of God’ of which the risen Lord spoke during the forty days preceding the Ascen- sion, This idea is enn Lee to the instinctive desire to base on a direct divine sanction an institution so universal and so binding on all Christians. But the assumption is quite un- necessary. Whether the first day of the week was ‘blessed and hallowed’ by Christ Himself with His own lips, or by the Church, His body, His visible representative, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in any case the Lord’s Day was certainly sanctioned by inspired apostles, and thus con- fessedly stands on a level with ordination, and perhaps one or two other ordinances, as an institu- tion as much beyond the power of the Church to alter or to abrogate as it would be for her to change the number of the Gospels.