|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two primary questions are in view throughout this article, "Why Sunday?" and "Is Sunday a Christian Sabbath?" These subjects with be dealt with following a brief examination of the Jewish Sabbath, a necessary starting reference point. As always, it's important to look for a truly biblical understanding of an issue rather than allowing feelings and opinions to rule. Certainly we can and must take ancient tradition into account, not as authoritative, but rather to help illustrate how the early church understood these biblical issues and what their common practice was at the beginning of the church. The same Holy Spirit who teaches believers today taught the early church. Our technological innovations, and amassed knowledge, do not, in and of themselves, make us spiritually superior to believers of almost two millennia ago. The Jewish Sabbath In Jesus' day the Jewish people were unique in all the world that they carefully followed a seven day cycle, or week, with day seven a very specifically delineated day of rest. The importance of this comes from the fact that the early church was Jewish. The Jewish Sabbath was tied to an entire system of Sabbaths, that not only included one day in seven but certain festival weeks, special days in those festival weeks, and even sabbatical years (i.e. Leviticus 25:4).End Note 1 To be a Sabbath keeper, as defined by the Law, meant keeping the entirety of these Sabbaths and not merely a weekly one. In fact, God, in judgment, pointed out that the Israelites, regardless of maintaining a weekly Sabbath, had failed to keep their Sabbath years (i.e. 2 Chronicles 36:21). God utilized an historical reference in establishing the weekly portion of the Sabbath system within the Law.
Some have made this reference to creation as a Biblical claim that Sabbaths were instituted in the beginning and practiced (or to be practiced), by all, even before the giving of the Mosaic Law. This is an untenable position. God, in stating the historical fact that He completed creation and ceased from His work on day seven, initially does not anywhere make a prescriptive command that people were to follow suit.
God's blessing of the Sabbath day and making it holy does single it out for remembrance but, again, God does not at that early time institute any specific means for doing so.End Note 7 At most, it does appear that it became the basis for maintaining a seven day week cycle, certainly a mean of commemorating creation and its completion for generations to come.End Note 2 Passages such as Exodus 16:5 and 16:22, prior to the giving of the Law, do not show that a Sabbath was already being observed, merely that a seven day week had been preserved. It was on this basis that God established the mandatory weekly Sabbath for the Jews.
With the giving of the Law, for Israel, God gave the seventh day a new name, the Sabbath, plus not only specifics for how they were to be observed, but also defined reason for why His people were to observe them.
The Sabbath ordinances were a sign between God and Israel, that they were His people - their obedience in following this highly visible aspect of the Law set them apart from the nations around in a manner that could be observed by all (unlike the other major sign, namely circumcision).
On Mount Sinai, God instituted specific punishment for violation of the Sabbath. This was a covenant between Israel and God and not the entire world and God. Punishment by death for violation of this statute may sound severe but, as already stated, it was considered a primary aspect of God's Law showing Israel to be His set-apart people.End Note 20 The temperate climate of the Promised Land (and even the Sinai during the Exodus) would have allowed for God's admonition to not "light a fire" in your dwellings for a day long period. This, along with specific injunctions that the commanded Sabbaths were for Israel, show that God's focus here was very much on the nation of Israel and any who would join with her.End Note 24 This was a people whose worship required a close geographic proximity due to aspects requiring first of all the tabernacle and subsequently the temple in Jerusalem. It would not be incorrect or farfetched to argue that the entire mandate of the Sabbath, as defined by the Law, was a tabernacle/temple ordinance. All protestations to the contrary come immediately from those who claim a continued mandate for a Sabbath in the Christian era or a Christian Sabbath.
If the Sabbath of the Mosaic Law was a temple ordinance, as with all other temple ordinances, it was abrogated in the fulfilled work of Jesus Christ and ceased to exist with the passing of the last temple (see The Law Fullfilled in Christ). Any establishment or reestablishment of a Sabbath in the New Testament would then have to rest in a new command.End Note 8 Jews understood the Sabbath to be a temple ordinance, something that can be shown by what happened with the destruction of the temple. As with the many of the Sabbaths associated with specific feasts, the weekly Sabbath is described as both a day of rest and a day of sacred assembly.
Assembling together for worship was possible during the Exodus, the entire nation could gather round the tabernacle, God's defined place of worship. In the Promised Land, after a time, God specifically set apart Jerusalem as being the place of worship where His temple was to be built.End Note 3
Prior to Jerusalem being specifically identified by God, the fact that Israel had spread out over the land (on both sides of the Jordan) had already limited their ability to have sacred assemblies. Functionally they were reduced to the Sabbaths of a few mandatory festivals each year. This left the weekly Sabbath mostly to be a day of rest. During the exile, with the destruction of the first temple, Jews had a problem: Where do you go to worship? What resulted was a separation of teaching and prayer from elements that would distinctly make a gathering to be worship, namely any service of praise and, of course, sacrifices.End Note 4 With the removal of these integral elements of worship, the remainder, namely prayer and teaching, needed a new place for gathering.End Note 5 This became the synagogue, truly an invention of the people (i.e. their leaders) as it was never mentioned throughout the Old Testament. It follows that this practice returned to Israel with the people following the exile and, even though the temple worship was restored, remained a part of Jewish practice throughout the nation. There were even synagogues in Jerusalem! It appears that a primary function of the synagogue remained that it was where the people would hear God's word read.End Note 6 Against this backdrop of the Jewish Sabbath, Temple worship, and the Synagogue service, the early church did something far different... |
|
|
Why Sunday? The most momentous event in the history of mankind took place early on the first day of the week, what we now call Sunday. While some would say that it was the day of Jesus' death that should be occasioned as that most singular event, this was not the view of the early church. While it was true that Jesus' death paid the just penalty for sin, if Jesus had not risen from the dead, He would have been merely another dead Jewish prophet or teacher. His resurrection proved that He was who He said He was - the Son of God! Jesus' triumph over death proved that He had defeated sin and death and that it had no hold on Him - not to mention that bore witness to Jesus' claim that He could give eternal life.
The apostolic church saw fit to more publicly commemorate Jesus' resurrection than His death. In fact, the church did remember his death, but it was kept "in the family". The church remembered Jesus' death and what He done through it, by the means established by Christ immediately prior to His betrayal. Believers alone celebrated the Lord's Supper. Only those within the fellowship were witness to this; those outside were left primarily knowing that "those believers gather each first day of the week to commemorate a teacher that rose from the dead." It's the fact of Jesus' resurrection that is cause of more inquiry by the lost than ever will be over a death. The first corporate meeting of the church, following Jesus resurrection, was on Sunday evening. By then they had gathered to talk about the incredible events of earlier that day, namely Jesus' resurrection. It was into this discussion that Jesus made a dramatic entry.
One week later, the disciples had all gathered there again. Perhaps some or all of them had gathered otherwise during the week, but it was only at this Sunday meeting that Jesus again honored them with His presence.
Combine the first day of the week with being the day of Jesus' resurrection and with being the day on which He twice met with a gathering of the church and this was the two-fold basis for Sunday becoming the standard day of meeting for the church. It was both a day of commemoration and a day blessed by the appearance of the Lord. Sunday should still be the same, a day when we remember all He did and a day when He is with the church corporately.
Some, who oppose Sunday worship, claim that Scriptures makes no positive command that the church must gather on Sunday. It is true that there is no direct command for such, but this was not the reason why the church began and perpetuated this practice. It became a uniform way of having a common day of gathering rooted in the example of Scriptures. It is not necessary to have a command when clear example is shown.
Sunday did not initially replace the Sabbath for Jews believers; it was in addition to it. In Paul's case, and most assuredly for other believers, this was an opportunity.
Paul used the synagogue service for what it was intended to be, a
place to read and teach Scriptures. This provided a primary venue for
evangelism among the Jewish people and many Jewish converts or
adherents from the Gentile population, all who had a foundation of
Bible teaching from the Old Testament. |
|
|
Usage of the first day of the week, as being the primary Christian day of gathering and worship, is exhibited in a few additional passages of Scriptures. The first passage, in Acts, implies that the gathering began in the evening, perhaps directly following the pattern of the disciples immediately after the resurrection.
Acts of worship on a typical Sunday were to include setting aside freewill offerings, especially to help believers struggling in other places. Giving gifts such as these are considered "an acceptable sacrifice" (see Philippians 4:18), i.e. an act of worship, something befitting a day focused on the worship of Christ.
Sometime before the last book of the Bible was composed, by the apostle John on the isle of Patmos, the first day of the week had been given a name befitting to believer's usage of the day; "the Lord's Day". It is reasonable to assume that the close tie between gathering together corporately and celebrating the Lord's Supper (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:20, which appears to have been an "every time" occurrence in those early days) is the foundation for the day subsequently being called the "Lord's Day". The parallel between the two expressions is likely far more than a coincidence, making "the Lord's Day" a shorter form of saying "the first day of the week to celebrate the Lord's Supper". This short title is still a useful and appropriate designation even though the proper (or formal) name for the day has long since been changed to Sunday. It became and remains a way of specifically designating Sunday to be different than Saturday, a day that also has a special title, "the Sabbath."
While not authoritative, as are Scriptures, other writings of the early church show that the Lord's Day had become common and continued practice by the beginning of the second century A.D.End Note 11
A Roman ruler, called Pliny the Younger, wrote to the Emperor (circa 112 A.D.) over his frustration with a growing number of Christians. Tertullian, a Christian writing about a century later, also makes mention of this:
A closer examination of the Pliny's letter to Trajan (see below) shows that the "early morning" meetings were actually two-fold or two-part. In his day, there was a morning and an evening gathering of the church; the "fixed day" that is casually referenced was, of course, Sunday. It was not referred to specifically because the Romans did not, at that time, follow a seven day weekly cycle and, as such, didn't have a point of reference for how the day was "fixed".End Note 13
If the meeting day being referenced by Pliny had been the Jewish Sabbath it is much more likely that he would have referred to it as such. The fixed day for the Jews was well known End Note 25, with synagogues being found in most major Roman cities including Rome.End Note 9 It is probable that Pliny was not yet aware that the Christian day of celebration was always the day following the Jewish Sabbath. The need for Christians to meet twice on Sunday's in the early church was a practical one. Whether in the Jewish world or the Roman one, believers had to work on Sundays. The only time for common gathering was before and after the work day. How better than to begin the day with what we would call worship (including teaching and singing) and ending it with a common fellowship around a meal (which in all probability also included the Lord's Supper).End Note 10 Persecution appears to be the reason that some congregations within a century or so of the early church reduced Sunday to a single morning gathering.End Note 23 Contrary to those who claim Sunday worship to be a Roman Catholic invention and contrary to the practice of the early church, the reverse is true. The early church universally utilized Sunday as a day of worship and the Roman Catholic church merely followed suit - leaving this one practice unchanged and unadulterated (though the same cannot be said for their practices upon that day). Churches of the east, not directly associated with Rome continued Sunday worship from the very beginning. While we have typically referred to Sunday as the first day of the week, following the wording of Scriptures, the early church also called it the eighth day of the week, specifically making note that it followed the seventh day (i.e. the Jewish Sabbath). Either terminology was quite legitimate in the Roman world where a seven day cycle was not the norm. The early church spoke often of their day of meeting. For the record I've provided a few more citations from the first centuries of the church:
All these quotes show that Sunday worship was universally the practice of the early church. Perhaps the greatest change over those first centuries was an increasing legalism that began to prescribe details about how, when and where people were to worship on that day. This easily transitioned into the much later development of claiming Sunday to be a Christian Sabbath. The following section in this article will examine this concept in further detail. Prior to that, two further questions remain... Is Sunday a mandatory day of worship for the Christian church? The testimony of Scriptures is a resounding "No!" Believers are no longer under the Law, with its minutiae of mandatory regulations and celebrations. Paul was clear to warn Christians to not be re-enslaved, having been set free. We now do what we do out of love for God and love for others (Matthew 22:37-39).
In the next section, we will also see that the Jewish apostles had clear opportunity to re-impose the Sabbath, or define a new Sabbath, for the Gentile church but clearly and intentionally did not. End Note 16 Does this mean that a believer should not get together with other believers? The resounding command of Scriptures is that believers need to meet with other believers.
While it is not mandatory that this meeting take place on Sundays, it is certainly the longstanding practice of the church. Since a majority of churches make use of this day, it makes it easier for a believer, traveling anywhere in the world, to know when to meet together with other believers. The elders of any local church have the right to set a common meeting time for their gathering, as they see fit and as will best benefit the believers within their care.End Note 15 Again, for most, this will mean sometime on a Sunday, but not always. For example, some Messianic Jewish believers choose to worship on Saturdays. Certainly this would work better in a country such as Israel where the Sabbath is still a mandated day of rest versus Sunday. If choosing Sunday instead, the church in Israel would have to choose to meet, as did the early church, before work in the morning or after work in the evening. Myth Busting: Contrary to many Saturday Sabbatarians, the emperor Constantine (circa 337 A.D.) did not force believers to switch from Saturday to Sunday worship. Some even falsely push this claim later to the Roman Catholic Church. The fact remains, there is far too much evidence, as already examined, that the church had adopted Sunday worship from the very beginning. So what did Constantine do? He primarily used governmental authority to make it easier for Christians to gather on the first day of the week. The result was a mandatory day of rest which has been carried into many lands touched by Christianity since.
|
|
|
Is Sunday a Sabbath? Must we still have a Sabbath? Jesus followed the Sabbath, therefore we should too. Statements such as these can be found throughout many churches spanning many years. Unfortunately this is an example of the irrational basis by which select practices have been promoted and defended, including tithing. Jesus was a Jew, living under the Law, who fulfilled every aspect of it in spirit and in truth.
Jesus offered sacrifices at the temple, yet few would claim that we too need to follow this example. Why? Jesus' fulfilled work abrogated the Law, setting us free to follow a higher law, the Law of Love. All regulation of the Mosaic Law, specifically for those under that old covenant with Israel, no longer applies to the church. The wearing of robes, temple sacrifices and offerings (including tithing), and even Israel's covenant-sign of the Sabbath all no longer apply to the church in the new covenant.
Jesus declared that He had authority over the Sabbath. He had the right to set aside any regulation of the Sabbath for those who were with Him, even as they were set aside for David (see the verses immediately prior to the above passage). This can hardly be taken as a claim that Jesus is making the Sabbath a universal practice. Jesus wasn't trying to turn the Sabbath into a controversy, rather through many events on the Sabbath He was pointing out that the Pharisees had taken it too far and didn't understand what God wanted it to be. If Jesus, by His statement in Mark 2, was attempting to claim the Sabbath as a universal practice for all mankind, this would have been an unnecessary controversial statement as Judaism never held the Sabbath to be a universal ordinance binding on all nations. They believed what the Law and Prophets said, that it was special sign for Israel alone (i.e. Ezekiel 20:12, 20 and Exodus 31:13-17). Jesus upheld the Law and the Prophets! He, during His earthly ministry, was concerned about Jewish conduct on the Sabbath, the conduct of those who were then required to keep it. Wherein nine of the Ten Commandments are specifically restated within the New Testament, for the church, Jesus and the apostles nowhere restate the command regarding the Sabbath in any fashion that would be binding upon the Gentile world or believers. Jesus' words that "the Sabbath was made for man" at most made clear assertion that man needs rest. Here Jesus was stating that mankind needs a day of rest, as such a "sabbath", but not a legally defined one. This universal truth makes it reasonable and recommended that we have a day of rest, but no specific day is then mandated or established. Likewise there is no mandate here making it compulsory for governments to make Saturday or Sunday a legally mandated day off. Much of the world does not have the luxury of a mandated day of rest and in some countries that do, it does not fall on a Sunday. A passage in Matthew is used by some to claim that the church must follow and be concerned about the regulations of the Jewish Sabbath (or, in the least, a Christian Sabbath with similar regulations).
Without getting into a discussion of eschatology or preterist views, it can be clearly seen that this event spoken of in Matthew was to have a future fulfillment, sometime after when it was spoken by Jesus. As it had not taken place by the time of Jesus' resurrection and ascension, it obviously was a message for the church. It's is here that some say that because it speaks of the Sabbath it meant that the Sabbath had to still be in view for believers of the future. In response, consider more closely what Matthew did and did not say. Matthew was writing to primarily a Jewish audience, something that can be seen throughout his gospel in the way he words particular matters. In fact, it is not improbable that the book of Matthew was first written in Hebrew as was testified to by some of the early church Fathers.End Note 18 Matthew, in writing to an audience that was primarily Jewish, knew that those needing to flee would be among people still trying to keep Sabbath travel restrictions. This cannot be taken to mean that Jesus was saying that travel on the Sabbath, especially to escape (i.e. save a life), would be wrong. This would even go against Jesus' message and actions on the Sabbath during His earthly life. At most, if you're trying to flee when a majority around you are holding to legalistic restrictions on travel, it will be a hindrance, as would be being pregnant or nursing or traveling in the winter. Those Jewish Sabbath regulations included shutting the gates and closing all shops from which you would need to get supplies. Even today in parts of Israel it is impossible or difficult to travel on the Sabbath. Mark, writing primarily to a Gentile audience, also records the same warning with a slightly different set of examples.
Notice that Mark drops the reference to the Sabbath, something that would not be an inconvenience or problem to those in mostly Gentile areas. Winter, pregnancy and nursing are all left in as being possible hindrances. The Sabbath reference would have been irrelevant for his target audience. If there was any intent by God to reinstitute the Sabbath for believers, whether on the same day as the Jews or even on the first day of the week, the council in Jerusalem (circa 48 A.D.) had that opportunity. The entire dispute, being considered at that council, was over those trying to impose Jewish customs and the Law of Moses onto the Gentile church.
The early church was clearly NOT commanded to observe a Sabbath,
neither the Jewish Sabbath nor some reconstituted Christian version
for Sunday. |
|
|
It was enslaving regulation and legalism which was slowly added to Sunday worship that over time removed much of the joy that the early church had in their weekly gatherings. Formal toleration of Christianity by the Roman Empire gave way to mandated Christianity and enforced practices. The Roman Catholic Church (as such the successor of the Roman Empire) actually had people tortured and killed for not observing it in the centuries that followed. Much of the legalistic requirement that was imposed on the church did not fall away in the Protestant Reformation, including in the Church of England, Lutheran and Reformed Churches. Many legalistic mandates were not only maintained - such as mandatory attendance - but others were added to make Sunday out to be the "Christian Sabbath". Perhaps the greatest difference between the Church of England and the Puritans was the former believed the state could regulate and enforce a Christian Sabbath while the latter believed this was up to the church. The Law was not only a schoolmaster to lead people to Christ, it was held to be a guide to right living afterward - of course meaning the Ten Commandments and this gave need to their having a Christian Sabbath. These beliefs and practices are the heritage brought to the New World by the Pilgrims and Puritans. Puritans obviously got over their aversion to using the state to enforce church regulations, as this became the norm throughout much of New England through their efforts.
Outside of New England, the governor of Virginia in 1610 (Lord De La Warr) enforced strict Sunday Sabbatarianism. Incorrigible offenders could even suffer the death penalty for their transgression, though this was never actually carried out.
A foundation for this New World belief and practice is found in Reformed Englishmen such as John Hooper, who has been referred to as the author of English Sabbatarianism. His teaching gives abnormal emphasis to the Ten Commandments, again making a Christian Sabbath necessary. In his "Declaration of the Ten Holy Commandments", published in 1548, he taught that God founded the Sabbath from creation, and that by raising Jesus from the dead on the first day of the week had changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Denying charges that this was a manmade alteration and observance, he stated "This Sunday that we observe is not the commandment of men." His writings remained a best seller, going through many printings over four decades. By 1570, his teachings had spread throughout the countryside of England creating widespread emphasis on, and practice of, a so-called Christian Sabbath.
While it would be easy to blame reformed churches for this establishment of a Christian Sabbath, there were some that spoke forcefully against. A Thomas Rogers preached a message on December 10, 1599 where:
Notably, many of the Calvanistic preachers who supported enforcing a strict Christian Sabbath ignored or downplayed what Calvin himself wrote. An examination of Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion" reveals that he encouraged a solemn respect for the Sunday tradition, taught the Ten Commandments as a guide for Christian living, but otherwise believed that God abolished the Sabbath at Christ's death. Some who opposed this new Sabbatarian emphasis were quick to make use of Calvin's writings in this regard. Still, it was those of the reformed church that held the greatest influence in spreading Sunday Sabbatarianism. Reformed clergy (puritan) had managed to gain political control, or influence, over the parliament in England who needed their support in the English civil war. In this climate these believers were able to virtually make observance of a Sunday Sabbath a test of one's political correctness. In 1646, this led to the drafting of a document known as the Westminster Confession of Faith. This document, which was opposed by many Anglicans, reluctantly accepted (at least in part) by English politicians, was heartily embraced by the Scottish Parliament and Church of Scotland. It was the rural and fully Presbyterian churches of Scotland who had previously embraced a Christian Sabbath and now had it in a major document with legislative power of enforcement. Undeniably, the Westminster Confession of Faith is a major and valuable statement of Christian belief - for the most part supported by good theology and proof texts. But like all documents of man, it can have flaws. The Westminster had two. As such, the weakly defended sections on Infant Baptism and on a Sunday Sabbath, show that these believers allowed longstanding traditions to be embedded into these sections.End Note 19 In the Westminster confession it teaches...
While having someone legally whipped or put to death for violating Sunday sounds really extreme, as with the example from Virginia provided earlier, in reality the death penalty for such a transgression is completely fitting if one accepts that Sunday is a successor to the Jewish Sabbath (Exodus 35:2). Those who claim that the Christian Sabbath is an extension of the Jewish Sabbath, merely on a new day, must show how their observance upholds the first. If that Mosaic Law is still in effect, and applicable to all, then all of it must be in effect (and this would include the Sabbath sacrifices i.e. Numbers 28:9-10). It would then be proper, indeed necessary, to compel others to not work or do business on the Sabbath.End Note 22 Otherwise it must be specifically shown to have been changed by God or reinstituted within a new higher law for the church. The fact is that either the Law continues with all aspects intact or it is a new law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are examples of parts of the Mosaic Law being reinstituted or continued within the royal law of Christ. Sunday cannot be shown to be part of a new law with any enforceable participation or penalties for non-participation. If it's the old Law, then all of it still applies, all penalties must be enforced, and Saturday is the day it must be held. This opposes the clear teaching of the New Testament and especially that of the Apostle Paul (read Galatians!). Observance of the Lord's Day is nowhere biblically shown to be a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath. It was a wholly new celebration. And while there is wisdom in utilizing that day as a day of rest, it is nowhere mandated to be the only or necessary day of rest. Jesus made it clear that man needs a day of rest (Mark 2:27-28) but He did not make it a new enforceable law, which is why Paul could instruct people to not judge others in this regards (Colossians 2:16-17). The Mosaic Law, complete with its death penalty for Sabbath breaking, was fulfilled in Jesus. The church lives in this new freedom and no longer fears punishment. Simply put, the Westminster Confession of faith goes beyond Scriptures in mandating doing nothing other than worship on Sunday. Indeed the early church was filled with grave sinners if this was the Scriptural standard (as they all had to go to work on that day). To further ban recreations, as if this could not be rest, is a mandate that goes against the spirit of Jesus' words that we require rest. Playing a game with my children or taking a bicycle ride with my wife is all certainly recreation and rest from my labors. Regardless of how good the remainder of the Westminster Confession of faith is regarding upholding biblical doctrine, the church must call aspects, such as this regarding a so-called Christian Sabbath, what it really is: legalism. To such legalism Paul's words are an apt prescription:
|
|
|
1. One commentary, additionally drawing on the writings of another author, provides a quick summary of the Sabbath cycles within the Law.
Passages which tie the weekly Sabbath together with other Sabbatical cycles and festivals, as well as the tabernacle/temple offering system, include:
2. Scholars have spent considerable effort trying to figure out how a seven day weekly cycle came about. Many creative and speculative answers try and give a reason for such a system to "evolve", but the fact remains that there is no visible 7-day cycle in nature from which it could have been observed and drawn on. What archaeology confirms is that a seven-day cycle was in use from the beginning of the Akkadian Empire (24th - 22nd centuries B.C.) in the region of Mesopotamia. Since records are fragmentary before this and no conclusive evidence has yet been found as to the duration of a week in prior times, some have speculated that king Sargon (the first king of the empire) invented and imposed the seven day cycle. This is highly improbable. It is much more reasonable to believe that people in this region had continued to observe the seven day cycle taught by God and passed on to them via their ancestors Noah and his family. The long standing customary use of a seven day week was carried by Abraham from Mesopotamia into the Promised Land. Its usage may have waned during the captivity of Egypt, since Egypt did not utilize a similar system. The giving of the Law and God's provision of weekly manna, skipping each seventh day, would have reinforced and reinstituted the seven day week for the Jews. This Jewish observance was carried directly into Christianity and subsequently adopted by the Roman world following its formal Christianization in the 4th century A.D. It was officially associated with the Julian Calendar and, of course, the Gregorian Calendar which followed in the 16th century. This seven day cycle is now the norm throughout the governments of the entire world. 3. The Samaritans, which arose during the time of the exile, chose to not believe that Jerusalem was the place God had chosen. They claimed Mount Gerizim instead and even subsequently altered their copy of the Law to help support their assertion, not to mention rejecting all other books of the Old Testament except for their Law. Jesus' encounter with a Samaritan woman provides New Testament confirmation that Jews held Jerusalem to be the place chosen by God in accordance with Old Testament Scriptures.
4. Is not praise truly a sacrifice, one that continues into the New Testament? Any professed worship service that does not have praise has failed to include something that is integral to worship. See Hebrews 13:15-16 and Psalms 54:6:
It appears that instrumental music was excluded from the synagogue, where worship was not permitted prior to the destruction of the temple, likely as it was considered to be part of praise. This type of music was a defined part of the temple worship (i.e. 2 Chronicles 35:15; 2 Chronicles 9:11; 2 Chronicles 5:12). The book of Psalms incorporates a song that specifically refers to music as part of Sabbath worship, but this appears to have been in regards to temple worship.
5. Philo of Alexandria, Egypt, an educated Jewish leader, referred to synagogues as schools - as such they were the original "Sabbath schools".
Alfred Edersheim (lived 1825-1889), a Jewish teacher and Bible scholar who converted to Christianity, comments on the teaching element of the Synagogue in ancient times.
6. Regarding teaching Scriptures in the Synagogue: The regular reading of the Law, in a fashion that would enable it to be read through in a year, appears to have come from a progression of changes, most probably for convenience. Not only did the localness of the synagogue provide for easier access for all the people (and a place to gather when there was no temple), but it also spread out the readings from the prescribed requirement of the Law that it was to be read through on a single day. At least, in its final form, it met the requirement that people were to have regularly heard the entire Law.
7. In response to those who claim the Sabbath to be a "creation ordinance" or something commanded by God at creation, there is no evidence of such within Scriptures. A later, or subsequent, command (i.e. the Mosaic Law) based upon an historical fact, or established upon remembrance of an historical event, does not constitute proof. God did give a direct command to Adam (and Eve), but not in regards to a Sabbath, in this He established a specific law that should not be broken, see Genesis 2:16-17. Without a specific set of regulations concerning what would constitute rest, if Adam and Eve and even the generations that immediately followed were to merely infer it to be a law, it is likely they all could (and would) have unintentionally sinned in this regards. Mankind's sin was fully intentional, something made certain by God who established very clearly what was right and was wrong by direct command, especially to Adam and Eve. 8. Some have elevated the Ten Commandments above all others in the Mosaic Law. The fact remains, they are part of the totality of the Mosaic Law which was fulfilled and abrogated through the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. Nine of the Ten Commandments are then restated within the New Testament, therefore to be binding for believers, solely because they are commands rooted and resting in the absolute holiness of God. They are shown to be continued statues that cannot be abrogated, exhibiting our minimum requirement before God. In this they are eternal commands for mankind, unchanged from prior to the Law, during the Law, and after the Mosaic Law. Their inclusion in the Mosaic Law, and especially within the highly significant commands written in stone, was to show their prominence to those under the Mosaic Law. For those who immediately protest that the Sabbath also appeared on those stones, as if this makes it the same, they have missed that the Sabbath was given as a specific sign for Israel (to whom those stone tablets were specifically being given). As long as God's covenant with the nation of Israel was in effect, that sign law was to be observed by them as something written in stone, binding upon all those who were under that covenant. It was never binding on the rest of mankind everywhere. 9. Pliny's information was admittedly second hand as he was not a believer and had not participated in the Christian gatherings. His information was gathered from "research" including the questioning of former professed Christians and the torture of a few practicing ones. All truly had nothing to hide, except perhaps for the meeting locations which were certain to change. 10. It appears to have been a pattern of the early church to eat a meal as part of their gathering and in association with the Lord's Supper. The apostle Paul indirectly confirms this, while rebuking the Corinthian church for its problems and giving clearer instruction for the Lord' Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:17-33). Paul was not trying to ban the meals, only to have the church remember what their focus was in gathering and that it be done orderly, properly, and equally for all. 11. The apocryphal so-called Gospel of Peter also bears witness to the usage of the term "the Lord's Day" in the first centuries of the church. The person claiming to write as the apostle Peter utilized a terminology that would be commonly used and accepted by his readers. Two relevant excerpts...
Apocryphal gospels of the second century, including the Acts of Paul
and the Acts of Peter, also made use of the common term "the
Lord's Day". In fact, the writer of the Acts of Peter even
identifies the Lord's Day as "the next day after the
Sabbath" and in a similar fashion the writer of the Acts of Paul
presents that apostle as praying "on the Sabbath as the Lord's
Day drew near." |
|
|
12. Origen and Cyprian both reflected a thought developed much earlier by Justin Martyr that the eighth day in the Mosaic Law, when Jewish boys were to be circumcised, was a type of the perfect circumcision of the heart brought about by the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Later writers also utilized this theme.
13. Cycles that we would call "weekly" varied around the world from 3 to 12 days (ancient Columbia and New Guinea to southern China). These cycles are what are also referred to as market cycles. In the eighth or seventh century B.C., in the area of southern Italy, an eight day market week became the norm. This eight day cycle was inherited by the Roman world and remained in force for seven or eight centuries. There is evidence that the new seven day cycle (especially popularized by Christianity) overlapped in usage with the earlier eight day cycle, as such two competing systems, in both the first and second centuries A.D. Needless to say, the seven day system subsequently won out due to the rapid rise and spread of Christianity. Until Christianity, Judaism's seven day cycle never experience widespread popularity or influence outside of Israel as Judaism did not proselytize or seek to impose their beliefs on other nations. For more information on weekly cycles, refer to The Seven Day Circle: The History and meaning of the Week by Eviatar Zerubavel, section "The Market Week", pages 45-47; The University of Chicago Press, 1985. 14. An earlier section in the same book provides witness to the importance of reading Scripture in the Lord's Day gathering, before the preaching.
15. Consider a few of the many of the passages in the New Testament that speak of the church coming together, implying the entirety of that local fellowship meeting together at a common time.
16. The Jewish church remained "zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20)", but obviously not in a manner where it would be required of all. To require adherence to the Law would have been in opposition to the message of the apostles that salvation was freely available to Greek and Jew, without Gentiles becoming Jews. While the temple still stood it could be argued that Jews, as part of the physical nation of Israel, were legitimately carrying out the mandates of the Law, and temple ordnances, prescribed for them as a nation. The message of the gospel was that these things were no longer necessary to have fellowship with God; Gentiles did not have to become Jews; believers did not have to go to any temple to worship God. 17. Lest anyone claim that Eusebius' reference to the Ebionites provides proof that a branch of the church held to both Saturday (Sabbath) and Sunday (a day of worship), Eusebius is very clear that they were a schismatic sect. Though not uniform, many held that Jesus was of natural human descent and even those who believed in a virgin birth denied the pre-existence of the Son. Additionally, they believed adherence to the ceremonial Law was necessary to salvation and that the Apostle Paul's writing were to be rejected as one who was apostate from Judaism. Trivia: A modern Ebionite movement exists which still reflects many beliefs of the earlier. The second paragraph of their Ebionite Manifesto proclaims:
Excerpts from the fourth and fifth paragraphs show that they deny Jesus to be the Savior or to have risen from the grave:
18. For more on Matthew being written for a Hebrew audience consider the second footnote from this article regarding a disputed passage in the gospel of John: http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/disputedjohn.htm#end2 19. For the record, I agree with the theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith, except in regards to Infant Baptism and a Sunday Sabbath. Charles Spurgeon agreed with the Westminster Confession of Faith in all points expect for Infant Baptism. The seeming piety of a Christian Sabbath is a hard tradition to go against. 20. The law stating that an individual violating the covenant sign of the Sabbath was to be put to death was not merely hypothetical, it was acted upon on God's direct command.
21. The law concerning the Sabbath is directly restated in Deuteronomy too:
22. If we are to follow a Sabbath, the original or a Christian Sabbath on Sunday, then the instruction of God's Word is that everyone should not work AND trade with any who would work on that day. Enforcing this could be by compulsion and legal means.
So much for those leisurely Sunday buffets and restaurant meals! It never ceases to amaze me that even those who hold to a Christian Sabbath will go places where it means others will be working, or have to work, to enable their day of leisure. This takes on a decidedly Jewish flavor, not of Biblical Judaism but rather more modern, where observant Jews will hire or ask a Gentile to do what they are banned from doing. Again, if the Law still applies, it applies in its totality and enforcement should be as exampled by God in His word. Merely longing for the Sabbath to end was shown to be violating the Sabbath in spirit...
By this standard virtually every child forced to do nothing but attend church or read Scriptures for the whole of Sunday is guilty of breaking the Sabbath, if this is what the Lord's Day really is. 23. The emperor Trajan (ruled 98-117 A.D.) had ordered a ban on all evening assemblies considering them a source of sedition within the empire. Though it was not a specific attack on Christianity, Christians certainly ran afoul of it. While Pliny the Younger was governor of Bithynia under Trajan, he wrote that believers in his area were meeting morning and night, yet his goal was to force them to respect the ban imposed by the emperor.
It would follow that some believers would choose to merely meet in the morning, rather than unnecessarily break the ruler's decree, as there is no Scriptural command that there must be two Sunday meetings, let alone that one must be in the evening. 24. For those who would join with Israel under the Old Covenant, the need is to observe the Law fully:
25. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (alt. Seneca, or Seneca the Younger), a Roman statesman who lived circa 4 B.C. - 65 A.D., actually mocked the Jews for resting every seven days as well as stringently adhering to it even when circumstances were grave:
|
|
|
(c) 2009/2010
Brent MacDonald/LTM. Non-profit duplication is permitted as long as
the source is cited.
|
