Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710 from Isaiah 58:13,14 says, "The sabbath is a sign between God and his professing people; his appointing it is a sign of his favour to them; and their observing it is a sign of their obedience to him."
He goes on...
"Even in Old Testament times the sabbath was called the Lord's day, and is fitly called so still; and for a further reason, it is the Lord Christ's day, #Re 1:10|. If we thus remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, we shall have the comfort and profit of it, and have reason to say, It is good to draw near to God."
The above quotes from Henry and many others from him point to the weekly sabbath as the Lord's Day. No problem, until we read this supposed Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710 from Acts 20:7-12,
"They came together on the first day of the week, the Lord's day. It is to be religiously observed by all disciples of Christ. In the breaking of the bread, not only the breaking of Christ's body for us, to be a sacrifice for our sins, is remembered, but the breaking of Christ's body to us, to be food and a feast for our souls, is signified. In the early times it was the custom to receive the Lord's supper every Lord's day, thus celebrating the memorial of Christ's death."
These two Commentary's by Matthew Henry, 1710 are in conflict with each other. Question: Did someone tamper with the later Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710? If so, what purpose? Sun-day worship? Seems like it to me.
He goes on...
"Even in Old Testament times the sabbath was called the Lord's day, and is fitly called so still; and for a further reason, it is the Lord Christ's day, #Re 1:10|. If we thus remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, we shall have the comfort and profit of it, and have reason to say, It is good to draw near to God."
The above quotes from Henry and many others from him point to the weekly sabbath as the Lord's Day. No problem, until we read this supposed Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710 from Acts 20:7-12,
"They came together on the first day of the week, the Lord's day. It is to be religiously observed by all disciples of Christ. In the breaking of the bread, not only the breaking of Christ's body for us, to be a sacrifice for our sins, is remembered, but the breaking of Christ's body to us, to be food and a feast for our souls, is signified. In the early times it was the custom to receive the Lord's supper every Lord's day, thus celebrating the memorial of Christ's death."
These two Commentary's by Matthew Henry, 1710 are in conflict with each other. Question: Did someone tamper with the later Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710? If so, what purpose? Sun-day worship? Seems like it to me.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?