Observing the Sabbath

[Bootstrap]

I am always confused by the appeal to Acts 15. If we are to follow that literally, then we, as Gentiles, would only be required to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." Yet I don't know any Anabaptists (or any Christians at all for that matter) who believe that this is all that is required of them as Gentiles.

In the discussion, following the law of Moses and circumcision were considered at the same time:

But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

So I think their conclusion applies to both following the law of Moses and circumcision. And in Galatians, Paul says that anyone who is circumcised is obligated to keep the whole law of Moses - he thinks they go together too.

Circumcision, like the Sabbath, predates Moses and the 10 Commandments, but circumcision and the law of Moses are considered together here.

But you raise many good points here. And Sabbath, unlike circumcision, goes back to creation.

Rather, Anabaptists, especially conservative Anabaptists, are very intent on following literally all of the commands of Jesus. But most of the teachings of Jesus are his authoritative interpretations of the proper application of the Law and the Prophets, which he came to fulfill and not to destroy. But if the Law and Prophets don't apply to us as Gentiles, then why do we bother following Jesus's teachings on these matters? Most Christians live in obedience to nine of the ten commandments, and it seems odd that we leave one out. I am not saying that we are wrong in leaving it out, but simply that it strikes me as odd.

The 10 Commandments are the basis of the entire Law of Moses. We did not have them before Moses. On the other hand, they are fairly universal things, most are part of the Noahide laws that Jews expected of all Gentiles:

Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat from a live animal.
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws.

And the instructions in Acts 15 rhyme quite a bit with the Noahide laws, assuming that no Christian group would allow murder or stealing or blaspheming God, and that the Christian church would be the governing body.

Exactly how we interpret "to fulfill and not to abolish" varies among denominations, groups, and interpreters, but I think the Bible clearly tells us that at least some things like circumcision and dietary laws are not binding on Gentile Christians.

Never do we hear any of the apostles saying, "Why are you trying to love your neighbor? We are no longer under the law of Moses so we don't have to do that anymore." There are clearly parts of the Law of Moses beyond the things listed in Acts 15 that we Gentile Christians are expected to uphold.

True - but not the things that they were wrestling with. On the other hand, what they were wrestling with included more than just circumcision, including at least the dietary laws.

I do agree that the witness of the early church is clearly against Gentiles observing the Sabbath, and I am not arguing that we as Christians should necessarily observe the Sabbath (I don't). What I am saying is that the New Testament witness is not really clear on the matter. Jesus seems to support continued observation of the Sabbath (without all the man-made rules), but the early church seems to have abandoned the observation of the Sabbath. Perhaps the practice of not observing the Sabbath is more of an oral tradition that was not fully expounded upon in the New Testament. As for me, I place a great deal of trust in the practice of the early (Ante-Nicene) church as they continued the teachings of the apostles. So when they speak with one voice regarding an area that is not entirely clear in the New Testament, I am inclined to listen to that voice and follow.

I tend to agree - and the earlier the better - when they speak with one voice. On many topics, they really do not speak with one voice, but on this one they really do.

But here's a thought. The Old Testament is all about explicit lists of what you do and what you don't do. Lists of religious practices, prescribed in great detail. Lists of exactly which holidays are to be celebrated and when. The New Testament really isn't. The change is not just that we have a different set of lists to follow now. And I don't think it's safe to simply replace Jewish oral tradition with a Christian oral tradition. The change is bigger than that.

For instance, when Paul learns that some Corinthians are going in to temple prostitutes, he doesn't respond by giving them a precise list of rules to observe for sexual behavior, accompanied by penalties for those who do not follow them. He reminds us who we are, and how we should behave as a consequence of that:

5 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

We belong to God, who paid a great price for us. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and we cannot be a temple of the Holy Spirit and be joined to a prostitute at the same time. This is the kind of religious practice we see in the New Testament - knowing who we are in Christ, being set aside for God, and understanding the consequences of that.

As I read the Ante-Nicene fathers, I don't think they all did that exactly the same way. There was more variety in theology than I would have expected. There was more variety in practice than I would have expected. But they really do understand what it means to be set apart for God, and who we are in Christ.

I just wish the New Testament were more clear in saying, "You don't have to observe the Sabbath anymore," just as it was made very clear that we are no longer to observe the dietary restrictions of the Law of Moses nor are we to continue offering animal sacrifices. I just don't see a real clear commandment to no longer observe the Sabbath and I find that confusing.

I don't think any part of the New Testament clearly identifies specifically which parts of the Old Testament law are still binding on New Testament believers. I think both those who follow a 7th day Sabbath and those who do not can be equally set aside for God. That used to bother me a great deal. But increasingly, I think that God wanted to avoid giving us a book that can be used like Old Testament law was among Jews. The New Testament probably isn't the book any of us would have written if we were creating Christianity. But it's the book God wrote for us.

[Josh]

I believe someone mentioned in another post that Jesus' teaching had to do with his audience who were Jews and subject to the law. I too have often questioned our approach to the Ten Commandments or the Levitical law. We seem to pick and choose at random those things which we still need to obey today.

The 2nd in particular is widely ignored.

I also don't see a distinction between the 10C and the rest of the law. Why do we as humans think we can pick and choose?

[Valerie]

I think of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day as two separate days. In the New Testament, Gentiles were never commanded to observe the Sabbath. This was not one of the things mentioned in Acts 15. Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath.

The New Testament doesn't spend much effort on Saturday versus Sunday for worship. In Revelation 1:10, John refers to "the Lord's Day" (ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ). Like the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Day implies a day that belongs to the Lord, holy to the Lord. In modern Greek, this word means Sunday, and it clearly means Sunday by the end of the Second Century - it is never used earlier in a way that implies it is Saturday. The Didache (AD 90?) uses this term here, making it clear that this is the day Christians worshipped:

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. 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."

There are at least a few passages in the New Testament that may indicate this was the first day of the week (Sunday):

On the first day of the week, we assembled to break bread. Paul spoke to them, and since he was about to depart the next day, he extended his message until midnight.

On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save in keeping with how he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come.

In the writings of the early church, the earliest text I know that explicitly addresses this is Justin Martyr's Apology (155-157 AD):

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

An earlier quote than Justin Martyrs was that of Ignatius. So who was Ignatius? He lived between 35 & 107 A.D. He was the Bishop of the church at Antioch and a personal disciple of one or more of the Apostles He was executed in Rome c. 107. On his way to Rome as a prisoner, Ignatius wrote letters to several churches; these letters give considerable insight into the structure and beliefs of the churches in Asia Minor at the close of the Apostolic age

Ignatius said in 105 A.D. "No longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day". (of course this was a 'portion' of a longer text but was in the topic of "The Lord's Day" in David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.

It is apparent, since Ignatius was a disciple of the actual Apostles, they were definitely teaching this "Lord's Day" and not observing the Sabbath any longer- it SEEMS to me, that you could apply the principal of the Sabbath as in rest to the Lord's Day of the Church gathering, worship- assembling together, as was stated a day of rest was God's instruction, and He did that Himself. But we recognize from the earliest days of the Church, this was in practice, Apostle John affirmed it as well- and because the Holy Spirit was in the Apostles and guiding them as they "Built the Church" as Jesus commissioned, then surely it was Spirit led-
Also, this confirmed to me, that it was not "Constantine" who initiated this day "Sunday" nor was it in honor of the pagan god- this house of cards attacking the church's practice has fallen in my mind. Another thing I have noted in early church writings, as in the Didache Boot provided, communion (the Eucharist) was done every Sunday.

[Josh]

Which seems more like what honours God:

1. Not working at all one day a week in order to remember when God rested after the six days of creation.

2. Meeting with other believers to worship God and to remember when Jesus rose from the dead once a week.

[Bootstrap]

Ignatius said in 105 A.D. "No longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day". (of course this was a 'portion' of a longer text but was in the topic of "The Lord's Day" in David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.

This is from his Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 9:

CHAPTER 9

9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny -- a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher -- 9:2 if this be so, how shall we be able to live apart from Him? seeing that even the prophets, being His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the dead.

They had walked in ancient practices - observing sabbaths. Now they have attained newness of hope, fashioning their lives around the Lord's day. The Greek is interesting here - μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες - "no longer Sabbatizing but living according to the Lord's (day)". Ignatius is not just saying that Gentiles are free from the law, he is saying that those who had once "sabbatized" now live according to the Lord's day - this presumably includes Jews. In the very early church, before Paul, Christianity was closely associated with Judaism, and Christians followed Jewish practices. Acts 15 is a major jolt - now people can be Christians without being Jews. In Romans and Galatians, it's clear that Paul says asking Gentiles to follow Jewish practices and the law is a bad thing, not a good thing. And in this letter, Ignatius is drawing a clear distinction between Christians and Jews based on Sabbath worship versus the Lord's Day.

And Ignatius associates this with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our worship on the Lord's Day is our identification with Jesus. The resurrection is the basis for the Lord's Day.

Also, this confirmed to me, that it was not "Constantine" who initiated this day "Sunday" nor was it in honor of the pagan god- this house of cards attacking the church's practice has fallen in my mind. Another thing I have noted in early church writings, as in the Didache Boot provided, communion (the Eucharist) was done every Sunday.

I agree. What later theologians did was claim that the Sabbath was now switched to Sunday. Ignatius does not make that claim, he says we no longer Sabbatize, we live according to the Lord's Day.

[Hats Off]

Thanks, Boot. If I can remember all this I will no longer just keep the Lord's day since that is what we do but because I understand why we are to keep the Lord's day.

[silentreader]

I believe someone mentioned in another post that Jesus' teaching had to do with his audience who were Jews and subject to the law. I too have often questioned our approach to the Ten Commandments or the Levitical law. We seem to pick and choose at random those things which we still need to obey today.

Such as..."and blessed is he who has his quiver full of them."

[Neto]

Ignatius said in 105 A.D. "No longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day". (of course this was a 'portion' of a longer text but was in the topic of "The Lord's Day" in David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.

This is from his Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 9:

CHAPTER 9

9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny -- a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher -- 9:2 if this be so, how shall we be able to live apart from Him? seeing that even the prophets, being His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the dead.

They had walked in ancient practices - observing sabbaths. Now they have attained newness of hope, fashioning their lives around the Lord's day. The Greek is interesting here - μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες - "no longer Sabbatizing but living according to the Lord's (day)". Ignatius is not just saying that Gentiles are free from the law, he is saying that those who had once "sabbatized" now live according to the Lord's day - this presumably includes Jews. In the very early church, before Paul, Christianity was closely associated with Judaism, and Christians followed Jewish practices. Acts 15 is a major jolt - now people can be Christians without being Jews. In Romans and Galatians, it's clear that Paul says asking Gentiles to follow Jewish practices and the law is a bad thing, not a good thing. And in this letter, Ignatius is drawing a clear distinction between Christians and Jews based on Sabbath worship versus the Lord's Day.

And Ignatius associates this with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our worship on the Lord's Day is our identification with Jesus. The resurrection is the basis for the Lord's Day.

Also, this confirmed to me, that it was not "Constantine" who initiated this day "Sunday" nor was it in honor of the pagan god- this house of cards attacking the church's practice has fallen in my mind. Another thing I have noted in early church writings, as in the Didache Boot provided, communion (the Eucharist) was done every Sunday.

I agree. What later theologians did was claim that the Sabbath was now switched to Sunday. Ignatius does not make that claim, he says we no longer Sabbatize, we live according to the Lord's Day.

I am not sure that I could be so confident in interpreting "sabbatizing" as meaning primarily "worshiping God on the Sabbath". I think that it is possible that Ignatius was using the term in a more figurative way, and I don't think that we can in any easy way establish that one way or the other. Now if there is a more extensive corpus of writings that demonstrate by the contexts involved that this is clearly what the writers (and readers) understood of the term, then it is a valid point.

I personally suspect that the custom of gathering on "the Lord's Day", if this term does indeed refer to the day we know as Sunday, came about because the Christians continued to gather with Jews in the Synagogues, and then gathered as followers of Jesus after the Sabbath had ended (Saturday night, by our reckoning). (If we look in Scripture as a whole, the term "The Day of the LORD" generally refers to a day of judgement. Not in the particular passages mentioned, but it is still well to keep this in mind.)

Sorry I don't have the time right now to find the reference, but please also recall the case where, when the Jews had refused to listen to Paul's message about Jesus, and began scoffing at him, he left, and met at a house next door. It doesn't say so clearly, but the implication is that he was conducting meetings on the same day as the Jews were meeting in the synagogue, which of course was the Jewish Sabbath.

[Adam]

The proper question is when Gentiles were expected to start observing the Sabbath, dietary laws, or any of the rest of the old law.

So do we ignore the teachings of Jesus since they were mostly aimed at setting forth the proper interpretation and observance of the law of Moses and the Prophets? Do they not apply to us since we, as Gentiles, are not part of the covenant God made with Israel? Or do the teachings of Jesus represent a New Covenant that we are bound to follow as Gentiles who are grafted in? These are actual questions that I am asking...not rhetorical questions.

[Ernie]

Or do the teachings of Jesus represent a New Covenant that we are bound to follow as Gentiles who are grafted in?

I like the New Covenant idea.
In the CA churches where I circulate, the term "Lord's Day" is used. There are sermons on "Proper Lord's Day Observance" etc.
If someone wants to keep Saturday instead of Sunday, I have no problem with that as long as they don't try to impose the law of Moses on the Gentiles.

I see "Lord's Day Observance" as a spiritual discipline that has had some good benefits for the Christian church. (even though I think Sabbatarianism has had a negative effect many Christians)
I think there is something good about setting one day of the week apart for rejuvenation, meditation, fellowshipping with saints, and worship. I try not to hold to it legalistically, but do try to benefit from the discipline. Folks who only do this for two hours on Sunday and then go about their normal lives the rest of the day get some benefit but I don't think they get as much benefit as those who give the whole day. Of course there are those whose occupations are service related and need to work on Sunday, and I would encourage such folks to take a different day of the week for these purposes.
I try not to make use of business services that I would not feel comfortable operating myself on Sunday. I think Christians should be consistent in such matters.
For example, as part of my belief that Lord's Day Observance is a good spiritual discipline, I would avoid going to restaurants on Sunday, since I would not be comfortable operating a restaurant on Sunday.
I do buy gas on Sunday since I would be glad to provide gas for others who are using the day for rejuvenation, meditation, fellowshipping with saints, and worship. I would not employ people to work at a gas station on Sunday but would simply provide an unmanned gas station.
I'm not so concerned about exchange of money as I am about setting aside our temporal pursuits each week and honoring the Lord in a more focused and concentrated way.