Why did Peter and John (and presumably every Apostolic-generation believer) still keep the Sabbath if our Lord meant for the first day of the week to become the new Sabbath? Did the Apostles get it wrong? . . .
Sunday only became the new day of rest when the successive generations developed amnesia about the purpose of the seventh day. As far as we know, every believer in that early time (at least, every Jewish believer) kept BOTH the Biblical Sabbath AND a first-day celebration. Once the Church became almost completely Gentile, we see the replacement. It seems only foreordained in hindsight.
That “Sunday only became the new day of rest when successive generations developed amnesia about the purpose of the seventh day,” is Sabbatarian propaganda not backed up by the New Testament. Let’s take a closer look at that record.
To make this post shorter, let me simply agree that Jewish Messianic believers, at least in the area of Palestine, probably kept the Sabbath and a first-day celebration. But, the question that has to be asked has to do with the new Gentile believers. It is here that the record radically changes.
The largest conflict recorded in the New Testament is the conflict between those who believed that the New Testament Christians must keep the Old Testament law and those who argued that it was not so. Part of the record of that conflict is found in St. Paul’s letters:
I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. . . Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day[emphasis mine]. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! . . . When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
I would suggest that St. Paul does not have amnesia about the purpose of the seventh day, definitely not an Apostle who has been trained by Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law so recognized that he features in the Talmud as one of the great teachers of Judaism and the grandson of Hillel the Elder. Nevertheless, St. Paul sees that the coming of the Messiah means a New Covenant that abrogates the ceremonial requirements of the Old Covenant. [Note, this does not mean that the New Covenant has no ceremonial requirements, as the Anabaptists would claim, as St. Paul explicitly rejects this view when he uses rabbinical language in telling the Corinthians that he has given to them what he himself has received, and that they must keep those practices in the same way in which they have been given to them.]
Eventually, the tensions between the “keep the Old Testament Law” party and the New Covenant party required the first Ecumenical Council in Acts 15. It is worth reading the conclusions of the Council:
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Uhm, there is no mention of the Sabbath. Let me repeat that THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE SABBATH. In other words, observance of the Jewish Sabbath was not important in the New Covenant. And, even the Jewish Messianic believers, when they considered the Messiah, agreed that it was not necessary to observe the Sabbath or any of the feasts of the Old Testament per se. In fact, abstaining from food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from meat strangled, and from blood were all more important than the Sabbath and the feasts. In other words, Messianic believers already knew that the Sabbath, as a sign of the covenant, was done. There was a new covenant in force, and the signs of that new covenant are the Holy Spirit, Holy Baptism and the bread and wine which become Body and Blood, and NOT the Sabbath and circumcision. καὶ Ï„Ïεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαÏÏ„Ï…Ïοῦντες á¼Î½ τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ á½•Î´Ï‰Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ Ï„Ïεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. — 1 John 5:8.
So, why were the Palestinians believers allowed to keep the Sabbath, if it were not the signof the New Covenant? The Old Covenant was a true covenant from God. The Sabbath observance was a true observance from God. Please note that outside of the sacrifice of animals because of our sins, Messianic Jewish believers were allowed to observe all the types of the New Covenant. You see, the thing about types is that they are accurate, they are true, they are faithful reflections of an eternal reality. Hmm, the whole subject of types and antitypes is another whole post. But, as St. Paul so severely pointed out to St. Peter, Messianic Jewish believers were only allowed to keep their Old Testament sabbath and feasts if, and only if, they did it with a New Testament mentality and did not use that as a basis of judgment against, or separation from their Gentile non-observant brethren, and so long as they did not try to impose such observances upon the Gentile believers.
But, the mistake that Sabbatarians make is to make the types of what was to come into eternal realities. For those of you who are not up on your highly specialized theology, do no worry about what I have just said. Just relax. You do not have to observe the Sabbath. Sunday is your day. We celebrate the Resurrection on the first day of the week, following both Scripture and ancient Holy Tradition. And, on that day, in the power of the Holy Spirit, we celebrate a sign of our covenant.
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Fr Ernest: “Uhm, there is no mention of the Sabbath. Let me repeat that THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE SABBATH. In other words, observance of the Jewish Sabbath was not important in the New Covenant.”
Another way of looking at the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem is that they did not mention the Sabbath because there was not conflict at that time. Everyone was already keeping the Sabbath?
But this misses the point I was making, to be honest. I am not arguing for a Biblical seventh day of rest, either in an aspirational way or a legalistic way. I’ve know many devout followers of Messiah who keep a Seventh Day as holy and as almost a sine qua non of their faith. They’re simply wrong.
What I have nee arguing is that the Church, as She gentilized, became forgetful of her Jewish past. She did this sometimes by gradual, unintentional means, and sometimes by deliberate steps (the essential setting aside of the Mosaic Law being the first deliberate step: the Gentiles who follow Messiah do not have to become Jews — I know Paul even recommended that the circumcizers go for the whole tamale).
In other words, it seems from a careful reading of both the Fathers and the Scriptures that the Church became Gentile and lost touch with her dodderding old Father Abraham.
The Church did lose touch with Father Abraham. This is why when dispensationalism arose in the 1800’s, it had such an impact on American Evangelicalism. Though dispensationalism is theologically mistaken, it was the first time in several hundred years that theologians had tried to deal seriously with many of the Scriptures in the New Testament that dealt with physical Israel. The resulting interest led, I think, in large part to the willingness of the United States to back the partitioning of Palestine during the time of the United Nations mandate.
Having said that, Huw has a rather good comment on my post about the Jewish Liturgical Year on February 28, which talks about some of the historical developments, especially the second century Jewish revolt that caused a significant separation between the Church and Israel. But, he also mentions that Orthodoxy has dealt kindly with Saturday, and still has many very special liturgies on that day, and that the Saturday/Sunday cycle becomes the historical antecedent for what has become known as the “weekend,” now a two-day period of time rather than a one-day period of time.
One final note, you mention that maybe the Sabbath was not discussed because it was not a problem. Hmm, well, go back to my quote from Colossians. It was indeed a problem, right along with circumcision, just not as high a profile problem. Circumcision and Sabbath are the two defining Jewish covenant symbols, and they were most certainly debated.
I was interested in ancient history, including Roman history, long before I ever became a Christian. The Jews were often mentioned for keeping one lazy day a week. Since they came to the aid of the emperor in a key battle well before the time of Christ, they had a dispensation that did not require them to offer worship to Roman gods. Similarly, their ‘lazy day’ was tolerated.
Lots of people make the historical mistake when reading Scripture of assuming the problem during the first century was always certain Jewish believers wanting to make non-Jewish believers convert to Judaism before allowing them to be Christian. That was the problem in the region of Galatia and the problem that was addressed in the Jerusalem Council in Acts. That was not, however, the problem in Rome when Paul was writing his letter. There was a very different situation in that city which puts Paul’s words, though operating from fundamentally the same principle, in a different light.
This is the historical context. First, you must understand that Romans, especially in the city of Rome tended to have a lesser view of non-Romans. Because of the particularly odd (to the Romans) customs of the Jews and their refusal to worship Roman gods, as well as the dispensations allowing them to do so, the sizeable (certainly thousands and probably some tens of thousands) population of Jews in and around Rome were viewed in a pretty negative light.
By every historical account we have, Christianity came to Rome after the experience and the council dealing with the ‘Judaizers’ from the region of Galatia. It’s also important to note that the non-Jewish Roman converts included many slaves and poor. Unlike the Jews, they would not have been afforded the opportunity to observe a ‘lazy day’ each week. Even if there were wealthier converts, it’s unlikely they would have done so either. The Church did worship on Sundays or the first day. That’s clear from Scripture. But that would not have been a day of rest. Rather, the believers would have risen from bed earlier than everyone else, gathered for worship, and then proceeded on with a normal day of work.
Now, we also know there were riots among the Jews as the church was starting in Rome. (It’s likely these riots may have been related to the church, but in truth the Jews were not known for being restful or content Roman subjects.) In response to those riots, the emperor Claudius ejected most, if not all, of the Jewish population from Rome. That lasted for a good number of years during which the church in Rome grew entirely among non-Jewish people. Then, when Nero became emperor, he rescinded the ban and allowed the Jewish population to return.
Paul is writing Romans (we can certainly tell from the people he addresses at the end) sometime not too long after the ban is lifted. One of his major purposes for writing the letter is almost the exact opposite of the problem he encountered in the region of Galatia. He is writing to break down the disdain of the non-Jewish believers for the Jewish believers and their practices. In Romans, the ‘weaker’ brother is the Jew who keeps special days and special diets. Paul’s way of dealing with it is magnificent. He builds a lengthy and complex argument and then tells the non-Jewish believers, in essence, that they owe everything to the Jews. The Jews are the tree and the non-Jewish believers have been grafted in. It’s an awful reality that so many Jews are refusing to believe, are in effect denying their place as the tree, but the non-Jewish believers must remember to whom the promises were given and from whom the Messiah came.
At any rate, one overarching point of Romans is that, even though the nations are not required to become Jewish, they must never forget through whom their salvation comes. Sadly, the Church often has. But Sabbath was never practiced by non-Jewish converts. Practically, for those who were slaves or of low status, it couldn’t be. Well, I suppose they could claim they wanted to, but that would have led to execution on the spot. I’m not even sure that it would have been viable for the few wealthy converts. Yet, once the Galatian controversy was settled, that never seemed to have been an issue for the Church. First day worship and communion, meeting the sun, and heading off for a full day of work seems to have been fine.
The development of the idea that Sunday should be a ‘sabbath’ of rest seems to have come about much later. The first century was an intriguing period in Rome, so I happen to have picked up a lot about that. I haven’t specifically studied the development of Christian practices. I would wager, though, that Sunday did not become recognized as a day of rest until Christianity was legalized in the empire. Again and again through history, people have come to realize that it’s actually good for people to have a rhythm of rest. They work better and often accomplish more. It seems that God knew what he was doing. 😉
But not observing any Sabbath among the gentile believers was an almost immediate shift once the gospel was extended to the nations. It didn’t happen because they forgot their Jewish heritage. It happened because they weren’t Jews and many of them were slaves.
One small nitpicky point. The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament is always shown as being celebrated in the evening as a Vesper service. So, the Christian community in Rome would have gathered for Eucharist on Saturday night followed next Sunday morning by a non-Eucharist morning prayer. Historical records show that the Lord’s Supper did not switch to Sunday morning until the second century.
But, otherwise, your points are quite valid. It was a slave population which had little free time, and certainly did not have a “lazy day.” Even the middle-class and rich did not have such a day. So, the leisurely picture we have in our minds of a Sunday morning worship has little to do with the reality of the Roman cultural situation.
Ah, thanks. I’m still stronger on non-Christian and non-Jewish ancient history though I’ve been trying to absorb much about both of the above for the last decade plus. I knew they met on Sunday morning before heading off to work. Given that the Jewish heritage of the faith counted the start of a day at sundown, it makes sense that the Eucharist would have been in a service after that day of labor by non-Gentiles.
Ok, this is an interesting, complex argument. I have no answers, only questions for all three of you:
First, as Scott P mentioned, I am uncomfortable with any argument from silence. The Council did not mention the Sabbath, but also did not mention the Ten Commandments. Isn’t Sabbath-keeping implied, just as the morality rules/laws were?
I have a bit of a hard time with Scott M’s post. Did you mean that Sabbath/7th day keeping was abandoned in the 1st century, then picked back up again after Constantine? That seems to me to be going against the grain of Romanizing the Church, and removing all signs of Jewishness.
Trying to keep an open mind here, how do you guys deal with the Sabbath as a act performed by God immediately after creation? Why would He do that? Just as a model for the Jews, and not all of mankind?
Maybe I’m just hoping I’m wasn’t wrong in turning down all that double-time through the years……
Well, let’s look again at what the problem was:
“Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.'”
Please note that circumcision was not the only issue at the Council. It was the entire subject of the Law of Moses. Again, go back to what St. Paul is commenting in both Galatians and Colossians. Sabbaths, feasts, etc., etc., are mentioned in both epistles. So, it is not an argument from silence. Remember, the man who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke, is also the same man who traveled with St. Paul. Acts 15 summarizes an entire Council and relies on the fact that the reader, Theophilus, to whom the Book of Acts was written, would already have known about the Pauline controversies since St. Luke, in his introduction to both the Gospel and the Acts, notes that Theophilus is asking questions that he proposes to answer.
In other words, it is helpful to connect the dots.
It is a model for all mankind. As I mentioned, we’re constantly discovering that we actually do better and produce more when we have a rhythm of rest. But the key here is discovering it.
The gentile converts in Roman culture in the first century began as tiny minorities, many of them slaves. Regardless of their class, though, they would have had no opportunity to take a day of rest. Roman society did not work that way. ‘Lazy day’ is exactly how they referred to the Jewish sabbath. Moreover, had the slaves said we’ve now adopted this illegal religion and aren’t going to work one day a week — well, you can see where that would go. The idea of a day of rest was actually pretty unknown anywhere in any ancient culture outside Jewish culture. But the church would have been toast from day one for actual crimes against Roman society (far beyond simply being an unrecognized religion) if they had mandated a day of rest.
In Romans, when Paul is talking about not getting into disagreements or disputes over holy days, what you eat, etc., it’s actually part of his long argument for the stronger brother (the Roman — at least how they would have considered themselves) to look down on the weaker (the Jew with all the special religious observances).
Besides, Sabbath was part of the works of the Law under which gentile believers were no longer bound. It is good for us to have a day of rest. That is good for all mankind and a gift from God. And as it became possible, that became reexpressed in the Church. But that is not the same observance as the Jewish Sabbath.
My main point is that it’s not really as simple as non-Jewish christian moving Sabbath to a different day. Nor is it something that evolved or came up after scripture was written. This was an issue as the church was growing and as the good news was being extended to the nations. And it was every bit as complicated and important as dietary practices and circumcision. Most people have a hard seeing into the lens of an ancient culture to get a feel for how some of these things played out.
And, of course, I just notice that should have been ‘not to look down’.