Nightfire said:
Christians didn't buckle under the pressure of persecution on any of their much harder and more persecuted beliefs - why on something as inoffensive as the sabbath?
a. the Sabbath was not inoffensive. It was made illegal after the destruction of the temple, taxation was enforced etc.
b. The Christians were at times persecuted along with the Jews. Initially they were regarded as a sect of Judaism. This was to their advantage so that they would not be advocating foreign gods. It was later not to their advantage when Jews became hated in the empire. The gentile Christians who had already instituted Sunday observance then began disparage Sabbath worship through fasting, through outright repudiation of it ,etc. Eventually it was abandoned.
I think there's a much better explanation of what these leaders of the early church sought to put into words, than that they simply did it for the sake of being "anti-Jewish".
Their concern was clearly not to be associated with the Jews. This is born out in several sources. This was to them a theological and practical issue, no doubt. But they wound up throwing out the Sabbath which was certainly original, apostolic and commanded by God.
You mention The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, but it only confirms that Christians regarded the type of sabbath-keeping that distinguished "sabbath-keepers" (who were at that time probably the Jews and the "circumcision group" Paul mentions) from Christians, as a misapplication.
We know of many Sabbath keepers at that time in the Christian faith. His statement was that the superstitions regarding not doing good on the Sabbath were ridiculous–the same thing that Christ said.
There's no doubt that if your conscience is condemned by not "keeping" the sabbath, then you should rectify it. But the same goes as for the giving of sacrifices:
This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.
So do it for the sake of the Lord, not to prove to others that you are keeping the law. The ceremonial practice alone can't clear one's conscience before God, even if it makes you feel like you've done a little more to keep his commandments. "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5). As long as the net result shows your love for God and for your neighbour, you cannot go wrong (Gal. 5:22-23).
a. who said it was to clear my conscience? Can we at least agree that commandment keeping does not save anyone? This has been made abundantly clear.
b. The text in Romans is likely not dealing with Jewish issues. First of all the food requirements are not those of the Torah. Jews clearly ate meat. The days mentioned could be anything from fasting days etc.
Considering the huge amount of time Paul spent in dealing with circumcision I doubt that he would pass over a removal of the Sabbath with one passage such as this with no further answer. Espeically when we know Paul and the other Christians were keeping it.
The very fact that it did NOT come up in the judaizers' disputes show what the historical evidence already illustrates, that Sabbath was not an issue as they were keeping it.
But beyond that, do you apply this to Sunday also? Because the ECF who became more and more dogmatic on the issue don't seem to have.
The spirit of the sabbath doesn't lie in it being an external regulation, dutifully kept, but in it being set apart ("holy") from the consequences of the fall - the labour and toil that became necessary to survive and bring forth life on earth (Gen. 3:16-19). It represents eternal life in paradise: God's work as opposed to man's work. So in the light of this, what does it mean, to "keep the sabbath"? Does it mean going to church on Saturday rather than Sunday?
a. it recalls the creation (before there was any fall or hard labor), the deliverance that God brought in Egypt, and the deliverance from sin in the future. However, it was made for man, and frankly, we still have labor, still have a need of remembering our salvation and our Creator. God made a special appointment for that. It is not legalism to keep that appointment IN ADDITION to the other time we give to Him.
Here's something from before the time of Eusebius and Constantine, the Didache (dated 50-120AD):
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. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (14)
See above on the Didache’s dating, content etc. as I covered it in my other post. 50 AD is far earlier than most place it.
This practice of coming together on the Lord's Day (i.e. Sunday) is therefore attested to by the earliest Christians, and must be the meetings Hebrews 10:25 was referring to, further evidenced by Acts 20:7.
A. The church met daily in the temple and home to home. There is no indication at all in Hebrews that Sunday is in view.
B. Acts 20 is the only reference to Sunday gathering of the Christians. As already noted they met everyday, so this proves little. Other dates were included in this segment of Acts so that the progress of Paul’s journey would be seen.
The service itself hardly speaks of the usual Sunday routine. The sermon must have started late, and went until after midnight. Paul was leaving the next day.
Depending on whether Luke was using Roman or Jewish Reckoning there are two possible scenarios here.
A. This was Saturday night, by Jewish reckoning, the early part of the first day. In this case the meeting seems to have started on Sabbath. It ended around day break. He then traveled. If in fact the Church were celebrating Sunday already, why would he travel on the new Sabbath?
B. This was Sunday night, using Roman reckoning. If so then the sermon started late, ended after midnight, Paul stayed on until daybreak and then left. They were simply seeing him off.
Either way it is a strange time for a regular Christian meeting, and gives no indication that it was the norm.
In fact, the last time a sabbath is mentioned being kept, is just after Jesus' burial (Luke 23:55). In the New Testament Jesus reinforces every commandment, explaining their significance, but of the sabbath law He deemed it necessary to say: "The Sabbath [meaning: the day] was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Significantly, one of the main accusations against Him was that He did not keep it. God meant it for rest and pleasure - to give us a patch of Eden every week, every year (and don't forget the year of Jubilee!) - not a day to break our heads against, about sin, of all things.
a. Indeed, it was meant for man. Which is why He did much good on the Sabbath. He restored it to the blessing it was. Now are you implying (as some have in these discussions, so please don’t take it as an offense) that Jesus violated the commands?
b. Paul’s custom was to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath. He went to a place of prayer when there was no synagogue. Paul looked for Christians in the synagogue when persecuting them. James mentions the Jewish church being zealous for the law. Do you think this means they were not keeping it?
John records in his gospel that even then (in Jesus time) people were put out of the synagogue for following Jesus. Obviously they were in his day too.
What comes after Hosea 2:11?
That would be the captivity.
Hos 2:9 Therefore I will take back my grain in its time, and my wine in its season, and I will take away my wool and my flax, which were to cover her nakedness.
Hos 2:10 Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall rescue her out of my hand.
Hos 2:11 And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts.
Hos 2:12 And I will lay waste her vines and her fig trees, of which she said, 'These are my wages, which my lovers have given me.' I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall devour them.
Hos 2:13 And I will punish her for the feast days of the Baals when she burned offerings to them and adorned herself with her ring and jewelry, and went after her lovers and forgot me, declares the LORD.
The end of mirth was the punishment of Israel by all the lovers she had prostituted herself with.
Following this reference to the captivity God speaks of once again showing kindness to them, just as Hosea had to go take back his wife of adultery from far away.
Christ! He restored the true meaning of the law by abolishing its perversions, thereby upholding God's righteousness, which means salvation, and condemning the formulaic kind of righteousness men boast about.
a. Righteousness was always by faith. See Paul’s treatment of David and Abraham.
b. The people before the captivity were honoring God with their lips but not with their heart. Is that what we advocated? Again, Lordship is not legalism.
You said Barnabas spiritualized away any meaning of the Sabbath, but are you aware of the source of this spiritualization?
Heb. 4: (1-3) Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed enter that rest...
(9-11) There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.
The author was clearly not referring to any traditional Saturday rest. It wasn't something people looked forward to, it was something they fell over themselves to circumvent in creative ways, so as not to disturb the burden it had become through even more creative thinking.
I will discuss Hebrews at length I the next post.
The approach of Barnabas is to make of no effect anything to do with the Jews, even before Jesus came.
The dating of this epistle is uncertain, and possibly covers a long range, again because it does not
make clear reference to events. It is certainly after the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70). But
most put it closer to AD 130 or so, based on the use of materials similar to those of the Didache.
The letter is generally very negative toward Judaism, favoring a later date when the relations
were poor. His use of Scripture is quite odd.
Here were a couple of the more unusual segments:
Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that
Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to
Jesus, practiced that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters.
For [the Scripture] saith, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and
three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given
to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten
and the eight are thus denoted — Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have [the
initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the
grace [of our redemption] by the letter T, he says also, "Three Hundred."
He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He
knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No
one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than
this, but I know that ye are worthy.
It is a stretch that Abraham understood circumcision to be a symbol of the initials of Jesus, and
therefore circumcized just the right number of people to spell out the initials of Jesus in ROMAN
Numerals.
This kind of spiritualization is the norm in the letter. Note also that he thought this to be a very novel idea. And indeed it was! As you read through the letter he seems to be presenting what he thinks will be new information to the reader concerning the real significance of the Jews.
Here is another example:
Now, wherefore did Moses say, "Thou shalt not eat the swine, nor the
eagle, nor the hawk, nor the raven, nor any fish which is not possessed of
scales?" He embraced three doctrines in his mind [in doing so]. Moreover,
the Lord saith to them in Deuteronomy, "And I will establish my
ordinances among this people." Is there then not a command of God they
should not eat [these things]? There is, but Moses spoke with a spiritual
reference. For this reason he named the swine, as much as to say, "Thou
shalt not join thyself to men who resemble swine." For when they live in
pleasure, they forget their Lord; but when they come to want, they
acknowledge the Lord. And [in like manner] the swine, when it has eaten,
does not recognize its master; but when hungry it cries out, and on
receiving food is quiet again. "Neither shalt thou eat," says he "the eagle,
nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the raven." "Thou shalt not join thyself,"
he means, "to such men as know not how to procure food for themselves
by labor and sweat, but seize on that of others in their iniquity, and
although wearing an aspect of simplicity, are on the watch to plunder
others." So these birds, while they sit idle, inquire how they may devour
the flesh of others, proving themselves pests [to all] by their wickedness.
"And thou shalt not eat," he says, "the lamprey, or the polypus, or the
cuttlefish." He means, "Thou shalt not join thyself or be like to such men
as are ungodly to the end, and are condemned to death." In like manner as
those fishes, above accursed, float in the deep, not swimming [on the
surface] like the rest, but make their abode in the mud which lies at the
bottom. Moreover, "Thou shalt not," he says, "eat the hare." Wherefore?
"Thou shalt not be a corrupter of boys, nor like unto such." Because the
hare multiplies, year by year, the places of its conception; for as many
years as it lives so many it has. Moreover, "Thou shalt not eat the hyena."
He means, "Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor a corrupter, nor be like to
them that are such." Wherefore? Because that animal annually changes its
sex, and is at one time male, and at another female. Moreover, he has
rightly detested the weasel. For he means, "Thou shalt not be like to those
whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth, on account of
265
their uncleanness; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who
commit iniquity with the mouth. For this animal conceives by the mouth."
Moses then issued three doctrines concerning meats with a spiritual
significance; but they received them according to fleshly desire, as if he had
merely spoken of [literal] meats. David, however, comprehends the
knowledge of the three doctrines, and speaks in like manner: "Blessed is
the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly," even as the
fishes [referred to] go in darkness to the depths [of the sea]; "and hath not
stood in the way of sinners," even as those who profess to fear the Lord,
but go astray like swine; "and hath not sat in the seat of scorners," even as
those birds that lie in wait for prey. Take a full and firm grasp of this
spiritual knowledge. But Moses says still further, "Ye shall eat every
animal that is cloven-footed and ruminant." What does he mean? [The
ruminant animal denotes him] who, on receiving food, recognizes Him that
nourishes him, and being satisfied by Him, is visibly made glad. Well spake
[Moses], having respect to the commandment. What, then, does he mean?
That we ought to join ourselves to those that fear the Lord, those who
meditate in their heart on the commandment which they have received,
those who both utter the judgments of the Lord and observe them, those
who know that meditation is a work of gladness, and who ruminate upon
the word of the Lord. But what means the cloven-footed? That the
righteous man also walks in this world, yet looks forward to the holy state
[to come]. Behold how well Moses legislated. But how was it possible for
them to understand or comprehend these things? We then, rightly
understanding his commandments, explain them as the Lord intended. For
this purpose He circumcised our ears and our hearts, that we might
understand these things.
It again seems a stretch that God gave the dietary laws to show that people should not associate
with those who have oral sex and conception as he thinks that weasels do, or those who change
genders as he thinks that hyenas do. There is also no indication that David wrote Psalm 1 to
clarify the kind of people that the dietary laws were referring to.
His approach to Scripture leaves a lot to be desired.
Now here is his statement regarding the Sabbath. And while his reasoning is again rather unusual
it is important because it is the first statement in which the Sabbath is clearly seen as replaced
with Sunday. So by this time we are safe to say that some at least are making this argument.
Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which
[the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify
ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He
says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my
mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of
the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands,
and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it."
First of all note that he, unlike some today, saw the Sabbath mentioned at creation, not just Sinai.
Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six
days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand
years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth,
saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my
children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be
271
finished. "
a. that meaning is not exactly evident.
b. Apparently he missed the memo on not knowing the hour of Jesus' coming. But he certainly was not alone on that error
c. Unless we are giving a lot of slack he has missed that prediction.
And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His
Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge
the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He
truly rest on the seventh day.
Er...huh?
Again he takes the meaning of the creation narrative to mean something totally different than it did. Now he introduces the truth Sabbath as an end-time fulfillment.
Now this in itself is not out of line. The true rest will be in heaven. However, like most of his analysis, his point is to show that the Sabbath never had a literal application. Jesus obviously didn’t share this view. The Sabbath could hardly be for man if it was only an eschatological prediction.
Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it
with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify
the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things,
we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting
sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness
no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall
be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having
been first sanctified ourselves.
Apparently he is now saying the 7th day is so holy that we can’t sanctify it until we are made holy. So it is so holy, we should disregard it.
Further, He says to them, "Your new
moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks:
Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have
made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning
of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we
keep the eighth day with joyfullness, the day also on which Jesus rose
again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended
into the heavens.
a. he takes the statement out of context. God could not endure their hypocritical festivals that masked their evil actions.
b. he asserts that the resurrection of Jesus ushered in a new world, which as I already dealt with is not supported in Scripture. He then speaks of an 8th day. This eventually became a popular convention. The notion is here already presented that the new day is above the old as the 8th follows the 7th. But it is interesting that he gives no scriptural admonition to keep it.
So he already said that the seventh day will not occur until the second coming. He now
says that the 8th day...which follows the 7th...comes at Jesus first coming.
It is pretty plain that there was no Scripture with a plain meaning to the author. While he does provide a witness to the fact that Christians were keeping Sunday at this time, and some were elevating it above the Sabbath his rationale is near bizarre.
Moreover, the very fact that he was presenting all this about the Jews to those who were ignorant of all these facts (he continually speaks of how novel his ideas are) shows that they were not informed by Jesus originally on all these points. This confusion as to the nature of Sabbath, the rationale for Sunday etc. is further evidence that this was not original.
From mechon-mamre: shabbat
The Torah does not prohibit "work" in the 20th century English sense of the word. The Torah prohibits "melachah", which is usually translated as "work", but does not mean precisely the same thing as the English word. Before you can begin to understand the Shabbat restrictions, you must understand the word "melachah". Melachah generally refers to the kind of work that is creative, or that exercises control or dominion over your environment. The quintessential example of melachah is the work of creating the universe, which God ceased from doing on the seventh day. Note that God's work did not require a great physical effort: he spoke, and it was done.
It should be interesting to see how today's sabbath-keepers motivate their "keeping" the commandment in the Jewish tradition, without transgressing the traditional way that Moses established it. No gathering, cooking or baking (Ex. 16:22-30), no making fire (Ex. 35:1-3)... Either way, it's not simply an issue of "when". To make it out as such is to be ignorant of God's purpose with it - to forget that like all the other laws, it is a shadow of something. Of someone.
A. The keeping of Sabbath among Sabbath keepers might be an interesting topic. But if we strive to keep the example of Jesus that hardly seems to be a bad thing.
B. Nor is it simply an issue of when. The focus on the “when” rather than the meaning of the Sabbath is simply forced by those who knew well the when, but got rid of the whole thing.
The question is simple. If Jesus and the apostles kept it, and even the church itself in most places for 400 years, excepting at first Rome and later Alexandria, then
a. Why was it abandoned?
b. How can it be anything but original and apostolic?
What changed after 400 years that made you abandon what Jesus left his apostles doing?
