By COGwriter
This article will discuss look to the Bible and second century writings to determine the appropriateness of worship on Sunday for Christians today. A related sermon is available: Sunday: First and Eighth Day?
There are a total of eight verses in the New Testament that specifically use the expression "first day of the week." The term Sunday is not in the New Testament (NKJV).
In addition, to those verses, which we will get to shortly, most Sunday observers have pointed to John's statement about the day of the Lord, which they call the Lord's Day in Revelation 1:10, as proof that Sunday was the day for Christian worship. Suffice it to say that that is the only place in the Bible where that specific expression is used and it makes to reference to any day of the week (more information can be found in the article Is Revelation 1:10 Referring to the Lord's Day or the Day of the Lord?).
So let us look at every verse in the New Testament that discusses the first day of the week. The first six of them are referring to the time after Jesus was resurrected. And they are Matthew 28:1, Mark16:2,9; Luke 24:1, John 20:1,19. None of them discuss any worship service.
Herbert Armstrong wrote the following about these 6 verses:
The Day AFTER Sabbath
(1) Matthew 28:1: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." This is the first place in the Bible where "the first day of the week" is mentioned. Matthew wrote these words, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, many years after the New Testament Church came into being. The text says that late on the Sabbath day it was drawing TOWARD the first day of the week. So this Scripture, we must admit, tells us plainly that three days and three nights after all that was done away had been securely "nailed to the Cross," the Sabbath was still the day BEFORE the first day of the week—still the seventh day of the week.One point is here plainly proved. Many tell us that the Sabbath command was merely for "one day in seven"—that it did not have to be THE seventh day of the week, but merely the seventh part of time. They argue that Sunday, being one day out of seven, fulfills the command. But here is a passage in the NEW Testament, inspired by the Holy Spirit many years after the beginning of the NEW Testament Church, stating in plain language that, three days after all abolished things had been done away, the Sabbath still existed and that it was the seventh day of THE WEEK—the day before the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. That much is proved, and must remain settled for all who honestly seek and accept BIBLE authority. But, was the day changed later?
(2) Mark 16:2: "And very early in the morning THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." This is merely Mark's version of the sunrise visit to the tomb. It was written several years after the crucifixion. The first day of the week, also, was "AFTER the Sabbath was PAST," according to verse 1. So this text proves the same thing as the one above—that the first day of the week was not at that time (three days after the crucifixion) the Sabbath, but the day AFTER the Sabbath. The Sabbath, then, still was the SEVENTH day of the week.
A Common Work Day
(3) Mark 16:9: "Now when Jesus was risen, early the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils." This text speaks of Jesus' appearance to Mary Magdalene later the same day, -the day AFTER the Sabbath.Nothing here calls the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath, we must admit. Nothing here calls it "The Lord's Day." Nothing here hallows Sunday or says God made it holy. Nothing here commands us to observe it. Nothing here sets it apart as a memorial of the Resurrection, or for any purpose. No command or example of REST on this day no authority for observing Sunday here.
(4) Luke 24:1: "Now UPON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing their spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them."
This text tells again the same event recorded by Matthew and Mark, and it shows that on THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK these women came to do the work of a common week-day, AFTER having rested the Sabbath day "according to the commandment." For we read, in the verse just before this, "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Shall we say these women did not yet know the commandment was abolished? No, we cannot, for this statement was not made by the women, but inspired by the HOLY GHOST, who did know it was not abolished. And it was written, at least twenty five years after the establishing of the New Testament Church! The Holy Ghost THEN inspired the direct statement that the rest of these women on the Sabbath day was according to the commandment, which statement would not be possible had the commandment been abolished.
This text, then, establishes Sunday as a common work day, three days after the crucifixion, and it further established that at that time the command to rest on the Sabbath had not been abolished.
(5) John 20:1. "THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher."
This, written many, many years after the crucifixion, is John's version, describing the same visit to the tomb. It confirms the facts above.
Was This a Religious Meeting, to Celebrate the Resurrection?
(6) John 20:19: "Then the same day at evening, being THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."Let us examine this carefully, for some claim this was a religious service called for the purpose of celebrating the Resurrection. But notice this is the same first day of the week that FOLLOWED the Sabbath. It was Jesus' first opportunity to appear to His disciples. For three and a half years He had been constantly with them, on ALL days of the week. His meeting with them, of itself, could not establish any day as a Sabbath.
Were they assembled to celebrate the Resurrection, thus establishing Sunday as the Christian Sabbath in honor of the Resurrection? The text says they were assembled "for fear of the Jews." The Jews had just taken and crucified their Master. They were afraid. The doors were shut because of their fear— probably bolted. Why were they assembled? "FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS" according to this text, and also because they all lived together in this upper room (Acts 1:13). They could not have assembled to celebrate the Resurrection for THEY DID NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS RISEN (Mark 16:11; Luke 24-37, 39, 41). Nothing in this text calls this day "Sabbath," or "Lord's Day," or any sacred title. Nothing here sets it apart, makes it holy. No authority here for changing a command of God! (Armstrong HW. Why Do You Observe Sunday?).
Thus none of the first six are any proof that Christians should worship on Sunday. To show that more modern translations agree with that, here are the first three verses from the New King James Version:
1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. (Matthew 28:1)
1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. (Mark 16:1-2)
9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. (Mark 16:9)
While the comma is off in Mark 16:9, it should be translated as follows "Now after He had risen, early on the first day of the week He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons" (Mark 16:9, NASB, with comma moved by me; at least six versions [NASB, New Living Translation, Berean Study Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, and New American Standard 1977] translate the timing as AFTER He arose). This verse does not endorse Sunday as a Christian day of worship, nor the day of the resurrection.
Here are the next three:
1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. (Luke 24:1-2)
1 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. (John 20:1)
19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." (John 20:19)
None of the six passages mentioning the first day of the week above even hint that Sunday is to be kept.
There is, however, one verse that shows a first day of the week convocation (other than Pentecost) in the New Testament. And it is in the Book of Acts.
Acts 20:7 states:
7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.
While Acts 20:7 does mention the first of the week, it does not mention the term ‘Lord’ much or the expression ‘Lord’s Day.’ And it is talking about either the Sabbath or a Saturday night, and not a Sunday morning. The term "day" is not in the original Greek--and even if it is, again it would be referring to a Saturday night.
Essentially, after a Sabbath dinner, Paul preached to the Christians because he was going to travel on Sunday. Actually, the term ‘Lord’ (Κυριω in the Greek) is not even mentioned until verse 19 of Acts 20, which the context shows occurs several days later (either on Wednesday or Thursday—and no one has claimed that these are “the Lord’s Day”).
The eighth and final place were the term "first day of the week" was mentioned is as follows (the word day is also not in the original Greek):
2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come (1 Corinthians 16:2).
Essentially, Paul wants people to put together a collection for him , before he comes, so it won't be going on while he is there. Thus, this is not an authorization to take up a collection at a Sunday worship service, instead it is a time Paul felt would be more convenient for people. Plus being the day after the Sabbath, they would have been more likely to remember to do it if they were told about in on the Sabbath.
Perhaps, I should also place here, Herbert Armstrong's explanation of 1 Corinthians 16:2, as he adds some helpful insights:
This speaks of a collection—but for WHOM— for WHAT? Note it! Not for the preacher—not for evangelism—but "the collection FOR THE SAINTS." The poor saints at Jerusalem were suffering from drought and famine. They needed, not money, but FOOD. Notice Paul had given similar instruction to other churches. Now observe his instruction to the Romans: "But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia (where the Corinthian Church was located) to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem . . . When, therefore, I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain." (Rom. 15:25-28).
Ah! Did you catch it? It was not money, but FRUIT that was being sealed for shipment to the poor saints at Jerusalem!
Now turn back to I Corinthians 16. Paul is speaking concerning a collection FOR THE SAINTS. Upon the first day of the week each of them is instructed to do what? Look at it! Does it say drop a coin in the collection plate at a church service? Not at all!
It says "let everyone of you lay by him in STORE." Note it! LAY BY! STORE UP! Store up BY HIMSELF—at home! Not lay by at the church house—lay by HIM---at home.
Now WHY? "That there be no GATHERINGS when I come." Men GATHER fruit out of the orchard—they GATHER vegetables out of the ground, to be STORED UP. But putting coins in a collection plate at church, or handing in your tithe- envelope could not be called a GATHERING, but an offering or collection.
Notice further: "And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they (more than one) shall go with me." (verses 3-4).
Apparently it was going to require several men to carry this collection, gathered and stored up, to Jerusalem. If it were tithe or offering for the minister or the spread of the Gospel, Paul could have carried the money alone.
So, once again, the last and final text in the Bible where we find "THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK" mentioned, it is a WORK DAY—a day for gathering fruit and food out of the orchards and the fields and gardens, and storing it up. It was to be the FIRST labor of the week, hence the first day of the week, as soon as the Sabbath was past! (Armstrong HW. Why Do You Observe Sunday?).
That is it. That is all the verses in the New Testament about the first day of the week, which we now call Sunday. So, it is clear that the idea of Sunday worship simply does not come from the New Testament.
Here is a detailed explanation about the day of the crucifixion:
Was Jesus Resurrected on Sunday?
If you visit a mainstream Christian church and ask members why the day on which they and other people attend worship services is Sunday, a typical response might be that Jesus was resurrected on that day. But how well does this idea bear up under close scrutiny?
Notice what Christ told the Pharisees, who were looking for a sign of the Messiah: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and NO SIGN will be given to it EXCEPT the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:39-40).
The only sign Jesus gave to prove He was the Messiah was that the grave would only hold Him for a limited amount of time-exactly "three days and three nights" (or 72 hours). But the Easter Sunday tradition maintains that Christ was buried just before sunset on "Good Friday" afternoon and resurrected early Sunday morning-only two nights and one day (or 36 hours)!
Some will argue the definition of "day." But Christ clearly stated that there are 12 hours in a day, not including the night (John 11:9-10). Therefore, when Easter Sunday proponents take His remark and conclude that Christ was in the grave three days x 12 hours = 36 hours, we can see that they are leaving out the "three nights." There are approximately 12 hours of daytime and 12 hours of nighttime in one 24-hour day! So three days and three nights is definitely 72 hours. But was it exactly 72 hours? Jesus said He would rise "AFTER three days" (Mark 8:31)-i.e. no less than 72 hours. But He also said He would rise "IN three days" (John 2:19, 21)-i.e. no more than 72 hours. This is absolutely clear-72 hours exactly! And God is always right on schedule.
Also consider that, when the women came to His tomb Sunday morning, "it was still dark" (John 20:1) and He had already risen. How could this be? The Sunday-resurrection proponents contend that He had risen just moments before. If they are correct, then "three days and three nights" earlier would be just before sunrise on Thursday morning. Yet no one believes Christ was buried on Thursday morning-or any morning for that matter-and with good reason. When Joseph of Arimathea laid Christ's body in the tomb, "the Sabbath drew near" (Luke 23:50-54). Biblical days, including Sabbaths, begin at sunset and end the following sunset (cf. Genesis 1:5-31; Leviticus 23:32)-a nighttime period followed by a daytime period.
Christ, then, was buried in late afternoon-before a particular Sabbath began at sunset. Three days and three nights later would be the same time of day-late afternoon! Now we have another problem. If we assume that Christ was buried on Friday afternoon, as the Good Friday tradition asserts, then His resurrection-72 hours later-would be Monday afternoon. Yet no one believes this either-again, with good reason. For remember that Christ had already risen before the women came to His tomb prior to daybreak Sunday morning! What, then, is the answer?
Why have so many thought that Christ was put in the grave on Friday afternoon? Mark 15:42 states that "it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath." Since the weekly Sabbath always occurred on the seventh day of the week (now called Saturday), the "Preparation Day" was normally on Friday. However, we have already seen the problem with this. The answer to the apparent dilemma is that the weekly Sabbath is not the only Sabbath mentioned in the Bible. Leviticus 23 lists seven annual Holy Days that occur in God's Festivals. Each of these days was considered a Sabbath (or a "rest" from normal labor). All annual Sabbaths or "High Days" (except Pentecost) fell on particular calendar dates rather than set days of the week.
Now the mystery can be solved by reading John 19:31. The Jews wanted to remove the crucifixion victims "because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a HIGH DAY)." Christ kept the Passover with His disciples the night before His death (Luke 22:15). He died on the cross the next afternoon, which was still Passover (the 14th of Abib or Nisan according to the Hebrew Calendar-Leviticus 23:5). Leviticus 23:6-7 reports that the next day, beginning the evening after His crucifixion, was not a weekly Sabbath, but an annual Sabbath-the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Now put together the facts. It is clear from the Bible that Christ died and was buried on Passover afternoon-and that the following day was an annual Sabbath. It is also clear that he was resurrected at the same time of day-late afternoon. But which afternoon? Since the women found Him already gone Sunday morning, it would be sensible to conclude that He had been resurrected the previous afternoon on Saturday! This would mean He had been buried three days and three nights earlier-Wednesday afternoon. It would also mean that Passover, Nisan 14, fell on a Wednesday that year. And, indeed, that is what happened in A.D. 31, a year that fits the time frame the Bible demands.
Scripture also provides further proof that there were TWO Sabbaths that week-an annual and a weekly one. In Mark 15:47, Mary Magdalene and her companion watched Joseph of Arimathea lay Jesus in the tomb near the end of the Passover. The next verse, Mark 16:1, tells us that after the "Sabbath," Mary Magdalene and her companions bought spices with which to anoint Christ's dead body. However, Luke 23:56 shows that they prepared the spices before the Sabbath. Naturally, they couldn't have prepared spices before they were even bought! The only explanation that makes sense is that they bought the spices on Friday and prepared them the same day-after the annual Sabbath on Thursday and before the weekly Sabbath on Saturday! Then they rested on the weekly Sabbath-at the end of which Jesus was resurrected. The next morning, Sunday, they came to the tomb before sunrise and found him already gone.
But some will point out Mark 16:9, which says, "Now when He rose early on the first day of the week...." Yet how can this be? To understand, we should read the verse in the original King James Version and continue further in the sentence: "Now when Jesus was risen [the perfect tense is correct here-He was already risen] early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." He was not "rising" on Sunday morning. As we've seen, He rose Saturday afternoon. So early Sunday morning, He was already "risen." Also realize that in the original Greek there was no punctuation. Had the King James translators simply put a comma after the word "risen" and not after "week," this would make complete sense. The Centenary Translation renders it this way: "Now after his resurrection, early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene."
To conclude, a Sunday morning resurrection could not be the reason for changing the weekly day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. But even if Christ were resurrected on Sunday, why would His disciples-who had kept the seventh-day Sabbath with Him-have abandoned His example of keeping the Ten Commandments and switched to Sunday-keeping? And why would they have picked Sunday, a day already associated with pagan sun worship? But the Bible is very clear that Christ was NOT resurrected on Sunday morning. So this pitiful attempt to CHANGE God's Law does not hold water! (Meredith R.C. Which Day is the Christian Sabbath? © 2006 Living Church of God).
Furthermore, the idea that Jesus was arrested late Tuesday night, and delivered to the authorities early on Wednesday (the fourth day of the week), was understood in the late second/early third century as even the Didascalia Apostolorum teaches:
For when we had eaten the passover on the third day of the week at even, we went forth to the Mount of Olives; and in the night they seized our Lord Jesus. And the next day, which was the fourth of the week, He remained in ward in the house of Caiaphas the high priest (Didascalia Apostolorum, Chapter 21, verse 14. R. Hugh Connolly, version Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929).
Now although the above account later states that the crucifixion was actually on Friday, that portion of the Didascalia Apostolorum account does not agree with the scriptures. The Bible account does not allow for a holding period of a couple of days before the actual crucifixion (the biblical account specifically discusses the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread and this would not allow for such a delay). Thus, it was understood in the second century that Jesus' arrest occurred Tuesday night, and therefore must have been crucified on the following Wednesday.
Furthermore, notice what else was understood by some in the late second/early third century as recorded in the Didascalia Apostolorum:
And again (there was) the day of the Sabbath; and then three hours of the night after the Sabbath, wherein our Lord slept. And that was fulfilled which He said: The Son of man must pass three days and three nights in the heart of the earth [Mt 12.40], as it is written in the Gospel. And again it is written in David: Behold, thou hast set my days in measure [Ps 38.6 LXX] (Didascalia Apostolorum, Chapter 21. R. Hugh Connolly, version. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929).
Notice that the above account teaches that Jesus was resurrected late evening on a Saturday. And while we in the COGs (Churches of God) would suggest that the resurrection occurred a few hours earlier, the above account (which is often used by Roman Catholics and others) shows that Jesus was NOT understood to have been resurrected on a Sunday!
In the third century, the Catholic bishop and saint Victorinus wrote:
Now is manifested the reason of the truth why the fourth day is called the Tetras, why we fast even to the ninth hour, or even to the evening, or why there should be a passing over even to the next day...
The man Christ Jesus, the originator of these things whereof we have above spoken, was taken prisoner by wicked hands, by a quaternion of soldiers. Therefore on account of His captivity by a quaternion, on account of the majesty of His works,--that the seasons also, wholesome to humanity, joyful for the harvests, tranquil for the tempests, may roll on,--therefore we make the fourth day a station or a supernumerary fast (Victorinus. On the Creation of the World. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).
The above account shows that the fasting occurred the fourth day (tetras means fourth) at the ninth hour (3:00 pm). That is the precise time of the death of Christ according to the Bible. Victorinus is admitting that later that day, there was the Passover time (as does the Bible). He also clearly states that Jesus was arrested on Wednesday. And that is correct. And three days later would be late Saturday afternoon.
...he celebrated the sabbath of the passover; then on the next day he went to church...Smyrna, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, as Eusebius attests in the fifth book of his Ecclesiastical History. While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned, others in the East kept that feast on the sabbath indeed (Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapters, XXI,XXII. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).
In the late sixth century, Bishop Gregory of Tours wrote:
The day of the Lord's resurrection is the first, not the seventh (Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, trans. Ernest Brehaut (extended selections), Records of Civilization 2, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1916. Electronic version © Paul Halsall December 1997).
Bishop Gregory would have not insisted that the resurrection was on Sunday and not the Sabbath unless there were those who held a contrary position.
Another part of the reason is that even into the 19th century, there was a ceremony in Rome that indicated a Saturday resurrection. Notice:
This ceremony is thus graphically described by the authoress of Rome in the 19th Century:"...the Pope himself, who walked beneath a crimson canopy, with his head uncovered, bearing the Host in a box; and this being, as you know, the real flesh and blood of Christ, was carried from the Sistine chapel through the intermediate hall to the Paulina chapel, where it was deposited in the sepulchre prepared to receive it beneath the altar...I never could learn why Christ was to be buried before He was dead, for, as the crucifixion did not take place till Good Friday, it seems odd to inter Him on Thursday. His body, however, is laid in the sepulchre, in all the churches of Rome, where this rite is practised, on Thursday forenoon, and it remains there till Saturday at mid-day, when, for some reason best known to themselves, He is supposed to rise from the grave amidst the firing of cannon, and blowing of trumpets, and jingling of bells...*"
* The above account referred to the ceremonies as witnessed by the authoress in 1817 and 1818. It would seem that some change has taken place since then, caused probably by the very attention called by her to the gross anomaly mentioned above; for Count Vlodaisky, formerly a Roman Catholic priest, who visited Rome in 1845, has informed me that in that year the resurrection took place, not at mid-day, but at nine o'clock on the evening of Saturday. This may have been intended to make the inconsistency between Roman practice and Scriptural fact appear somewhat less glaring. Still the fact remains, that the resurrection of Christ, as celebrated at Rome, takes place, ...on the day of Saturn...(Hislop, Alexander. Two Babylons. Loizeaux, Neptune (NJ), Second American Edition, 1959--originally expanded in 1858).
Whether the above ceremony still exists, this writer does not know. But it is interesting that at least one Roman ceremony acknowledged a Saturday resurrection that late. Perhaps, this ceremony was originally adopted by Rome partially because the early Romans knew that Jesus was actually resurrected on Saturday.
Irrespective of that celebration, it is clear that there is evidence outside the Bible that among those that professed Christ, there were some who understood that the crucifixion was on a Wednesday and the resurrection was on a Saturday.
Furthermore, even the late Jerry Falwell, a Sunday-keeping Protestant evangelic minister stated:
Rev. Jerry Falwell, chancellor of Liberty University in Virginia. "Saturday is clearly the Sabbath as is recorded many times in the Old Testament...“I personally believe he was crucified on Wednesday evening … and rose after 6 p.m. Saturday evening,” Falwell tells WorldNetDaily. (Kovacs J. Sunday, holy Sunday? Pastor resurrects Sabbath debate with $1 million reward. Posted: October 13, 2001 1:00 am Eastern. WorldNetDaily.com).
Hence, it is clear that some know that Jesus was not resurrected on a Sunday.
More biblical information on this subject can also be found in the article What Happened in the Crucifixion Week?.
What was different about Jesus, as far as the Pharisees were concerned, was that Jesus emphasized that the Sabbath was not just for rest, it was a time to do good. Here are a few statements from Jesus on that:2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue (Mark 6:2, NKJV throughout except where indicated).
16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read (Luke 4:16).
6 Now it happened on another Sabbath, also, that He entered the synagogue and taught (Luke 6:6).
10 Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath (Luke 13:10).31 Then He went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths (Luke 4:31).
As far as when the Sabbath actually is for Christians, the Apostle Paul was inspired to write:12 Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12).
9 "I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy?" (Luke 6:9).
5 "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:5).
23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment (John 7:23-24).
This clearly shows that the command to keep the seventh day Sabbath is in the New Testament. Only those who will not observe it because of their disobedience argue otherwise. And that is when Paul observed it. As Acts 13:42-44 shows,Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.'" And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest." It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience...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 (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, NIV).
...the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.
Also Acts 18:4, discussing Paul, states, "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks."
Perhaps it should be mentioned that The Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles essentially proving that the biblical Sabbath was Saturday, that the Lord's day in Revelation 1 is not a reference to Sunday, that the Church of Rome implemented Sunday, and that nearly all Protestants followed Rome. The full text is found in the article The Christian Sabbath.
There is a writing that is believed to come from certain Jews between 100-300 B.C., though no one is certain of the date called the Book of Jubilees. It has a prediction that the day of the week would be changed:
(Book of Jubilees, Chapter 6, verses 33-37. From The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament by R.H. Charles, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913 Scanned and Edited by Joshua Williams, Northwest Nazarene College. http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/6.htm accessed 10/31/15)
- But if they do neglect and do not observe them according to His commandment, then they will disturb all their seasons and the years will be dislodged from this (order), [and they will disturb the seasons and the years will be dislodged] and they will neglect their ordinances.
- And all the children of Israel will forget and will not find the path of the years, and will forget the new moons, and seasons, and sabbaths and they will go wrong as to all the order of the years.
- For I know and from henceforth will I declare it unto thee, and it is not of my own devising; for the book (lies) written before me, and on the heavenly tablets the division of days is ordained, lest they forget the feasts of the covenant and walk according to the feasts of the Gentiles after their error and after their ignorance.
- For there will be those who will assuredly make observations of the moon -how (it) disturbs the seasons and comes in from year to year ten days too soon.
- For this reason the years will come upon them when they will disturb (the order), and make an abominable (day) the day of testimony, and an unclean day a feast day, and they will confound all the days, the holy with the unclean, and the unclean day with the holy; for they will go wrong as to the months and sabbaths and feasts and jubilees.
This seems to be a prediction for Sunday. But this prophecy did not come from God. It is likely that Satan knew he would eventually influence various ones to keep Sunday. A version of Mithraism affected parts of the world when the above was likely written, but probably had not entered into the Roman Empire then. ut later it did--and before Jesus was born. There is also a small possibility that one of God's prophets warned the children of Israel, and some of it was incorporated into the Book of Jubilees (something similar seems to have happened with the Enoch--the Bible refers to to one of his statements in Jude 14--which is also found in the co-called Book of Enoch--yet other than perhaps the first chapter or so, the rest of the claimed Book of Enoch did not come from Enoch nor God).
Mithraism is believed to have entered Rome around 75 B.C. While various Romans worshiped the sun-god, sun-god worship became obligatory throughout the Roman Empire under Heliogabalus who reigned from 218-222 (Monroy MS. The Church of Smyrna: History and Theology of a Primitive Christian Community. Peter Lang edition, 2015, p. 215).
The pagan Emperor Constantine allegedly saw a vision of the sun-god Sol in 310 and became more of a sun-god worshiper and followed Mithras (a little more on that later).
Perhaps it should be mentioned that it has been claimed that the Gnostics got the idea of Sunday from the sun-god called Mithras also spelled as Mithra (whose "birthday" is celebrated on December 25th). Here is some of what The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
Mithraism A pagan religion consisting mainly of the cult of the ancient Indo-Iranian Sun-god Mithra. It entered Europe from Asia Minor after Alexander's conquest, spread rapidly over the whole Roman Empire at the beginning of our era, reached its zenith during the third century, and vanished under the repressive regulations of Theodosius at the end of the fourth century...Helios Mithras is one god...Sunday was kept holy in honour of Mithra...The 25 December was observed as his birthday, the natalis invicti, the rebirth of the winter-sun, unconquered by the rigours of the season (Arendzen. J.P. Transcribed by John Looby. Mithraism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Published 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
More recent scholars have noted basically the same thing. Notice what the 21st century historian Craig Harline wrote about the origin of Sunday:
The Roman calendar has long featured numerous annual festivals and an eight day market cycle, but it had no tradition of weekly commemoration of a particular day. During the first century AD, this changed as Rome adopted a seven-day week of its own, shaped by Jewish, planetary, and native Roman traditions...
To begin with, Sun Day mattered more than even among Roman pagans, who still far outnumbered Christians and who may well have influenced how Christians worshiped on their special day.
The second century pagan empire was not irreligious...on Sun Day, Roman pagans began with early services in honor of the rising Sun and Sun God...
More important in raising the status of Sun Day among pagans was Mithraism. This movement was related to the emperor's Invincible Sun Cult but carried much broader appeal, especially among the empire's multitude of soldiers. Followers of Mithra did emphasize Sun Day, and with greater impact than early Christians. In fact they may have influenced the Christian choice of the first day of the week for worship and some Christian forms of worship. Purification by baptism, the virtues of abstinence...setting aside heaven for the pure...and celebrating the birth of their God on December 25 are all allowable parallels. Another was Mithraism's treatment of Sun Day.
Christians assigned their own meanings to such practices...Christ was the true Sun, and east was the direction in which Christ ascended into heaven...the similarities in worship, the new status of the first day among both groups at about the same time, the pagan assumption that Christians were fellow Sun-worshipers, and the emergence of the Christian metaphor "Christ the Sun" all suggest a connection of some sort (Harline C. Sunday: A History of the First Day from Babylonia to the Super Bowl. Doubleday, NY, 2007, pp. 5,9-10).
Absolutely astounding! There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Jesus Christ is the Sun nor that east was the direction in which Christ ascended into heaven (to verify that latter point, simply read the account in Acts 19-11). Actually, the Bible is clear that humans are not to worship any celestrial bodies, which includes the sun:
And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage (Deuteronomy 4:19).
Although in English, the terms "son" and "sun" sound exactly the same, that is not the case in either Greek nor Latin. In Greek they are phonetically pronounced hwee-os and hay-lee-os respectively (Source: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). In Latin, they are spelled filius and sol respectively.
Furthermore, the Greek for the expression Christ the Sun would be Χριστός τό Ηλiου. Ηλiου meant sun, but was also the name of the sun god (Helios). Wikipedia has this interesting statement:
In Late Antiquity a cult of Helios Megistos ("Great Helios") drew to the image of Helios a number of syncretic elements, which have been analysed in detail by W. Fauth by means of a series of late Greek texts, namely: an Orphic Hymn to Helios; the so-called Mithras Liturgy. Notice that Helios is tied to Mithraism. And that the cult of Helios drew syncretic elements (Helios. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios verified 09/10/07).
Combining "Christianity" was pagan elements is syncretic. But since Mithraism was itself syncretic, it is more accurate to say that a modified Mithraism is what emerged after Constantine (including the dress of clergy, etc.).
Does any true Christian think that real Christians were going around saying, "Christ is true Helios" or "the Son of God is Helios"?
Thus, this is apparently why those into Mithraism would consider that the paganized "Christians" that did this were sun-worshipers like them. This probably brought the two groups (Mithraism/Helios followers and sun-honoring Christ professors) closer together and may better explain how what passes for mainstream Christianity adopted such non-biblical practices such as a December 25th celebration called Christmas.
Thomas H. Greer wrote:
Mithra was also associated with the sun, and his followers marked Sunday as his day of worship. They called it the "Lord's Day," for Mithra was known to them as Lord (Greer T. A brief history of Western man, 3rd edition. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977; Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized Apr 27, 2006, p. 121).
Notice the following carving of Mithra:
Can you see the sun-rays from around Mithra's head? Does that not suggest the "halo" like depictions of Christ that now exist? This is yet another area where pagan practices apparently influenced what now passes for mainstream "Christianity."
Many people cite the Didache (circa 70-135 A.D.) as the first text showing that Sunday was used by 2nd century Christians. However, the terms for Sun or day are not in the text.
In the Didache, the Greek expression normally translated by 19th Century Protestant scholars as "On the Lord's day" is Κατα κυριακήν δε κυριου (
The other early text often cited by Sunday supporters is from Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians. However, the terms for Sun or day are also not in the text. Although some scholar erroneously translated `κυριακήν as "Lord's Day", it should be translated as “Lord’s way” or combined with the Greek word that follows it , ζωντες (Ignatius. Letter to the Magnesians. Verse 8. In: Holmes M. The Apostolic Fathers--Greek Text and English Translations, 3rd printing 2004, p. 154
There is also a quote allegedly from Ignatius’ Letter to the Trallians, however it is from verse 9 in the ‘longer version’ of that letter, which scholars discount as not authentic--it was lengthened much later by someone else—the shorter version, whose authenticity is widely accepted, says nothing about “the Lord’s Day” (Ignatius. Letter to the Trallians. Verse 9. In: Holmes M. The Apostolic Fathers--Greek Text and English Translations, 3rd printing 2004, pp. 164-165).
It should be noted that although Sunday-leaning historians such as Philip Schaff have suggested that there was no controversy involved with the switch to Sunday, this is a false assertion, as he ignores some of what he edited. No one in the truly in the Church of God ever accepted Sunday.
Furthermore, around 200 A.D. Tertullian's writings suggest that there were problems regarding the switch to Sunday:
Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this?...We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest (Tertullian. Ad Nationes (Book I), Chapter 13. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).
Notice that Tertullian is stating that Sunday worshipers have been charged with worshiping the sun as God and that Tertullian is trying to claim that Sunday is not far from Saturday as the day of rest. But Saturday was the day God implemented, not Sunday.
Year ago, I wondered before going to Greece why native Greeks did not realize that Κυριακήν did not literally mean "Lord’s Day" as that meaning is not inherent in the word. But after speaking with several knowledgeable Greeks, I concluded that because of pressures of tradition from compromised religious authorities, the meaning of this term had been changed over time--so much so that modern Greeks do not seem to think about its original meaning.
Now the modern Greek word for Sunday is Κυριακή (Stavropoulos DN. Oxford English-Greek Learner’s Dictionary, 14th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, p. 487). Hence the Greeks consider that the word is simply now means Sunday, and thus they ignore its literal meaning. However, even in modern Greek, Κυρια (the base of the other words) still literally means Master or Lord—it has nothing to do with the Sun or a day—nor is the idea of "Sunday" supported by the context in Ignatius (more information can be found in the article Lord's Day or Day of the Lord?).
Jesus taught that "in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9, see also the article Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings).
The alleged Epistle of Barnabas (c. 135 A.D.) from Alexandria is sometimes also cited by Sunday supporters, but scholars do not believe that Barnabas wrote it, and it essentially claims God wanted the ‘eighth day’ instead of the seventh-day Sabbath in the Book of Isaiah (even though terms for eight or eighth are never mentioned in Isaiah). It should be understood that the "eighth day" was popular with those involved with Greek philosophy at that time (which included most of the "educated" classes).
The idea of Christianity being tied to an "eighth" comes from a concept held by Gnostic heretics that the Logos (Jesus) was related to the Ogdoad (a word signifying eight). Irenaeus condemned that as a heresy in the second century and noted the following:
By the conjunction of Logos and Zoo were brought forth Anthropos and Ecclesia; and thus was formed the first-begotten Ogdoad, the root and substance of all things, called among them by four names, viz., Bythus, and Nous, and Logos, and Anthropos. For each of these is masculo-feminine, as follows: Propator was united by a conjunction with his Ennoea; then Monogenes, that is Nous, with Aletheia; Logos with Zoe, and Anthropos with Ecclesia.
These Aeons having been produced for the glory of the Father, and wishing, by their own efforts, to effect this object, sent forth emanations by means of conjunction...Moreover, they declare that this invisible and spiritual Pleroma of theirs is tripartite, being divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. And for this reason they affirm it was that the "Saviour" -- for they do not please to call Him "Lord" -- did no work in public during the space of thirty years, thus setting forth the mystery of these Aeons (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book 1, Chapter 1, Verses 1-3).
1...Valentinus, who adapted the principles of the heresy called "Gnostic" to the peculiar character of his own school, taught as follows: He maintained that there is a certain Dyad (twofold being), who is inexpressible by any name, of whom one part should be called Arrhetus (unspeakable), and the other Sige (silence). But of this Dyad a second was produced, one part of whom he names Pater, and the other Aletheia. From this Tetrad, again, arose Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. These constitute the primary Ogdoad. He next states that from Logos and Zoe ten powers were produced (Irenaeus. Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 11, Verse 1).
There are several important concepts above. The first is that this is clearly not biblical. The second involves the Ogdoad, that is, the eighth--this eighth quickly develops into an eighth day of the week belief, which is now the day we call Sunday (Sunday is considered to be both the first and eighth day of the week by Roman heretics such as Justin Martyr). The third is that Irenaeus was condemning people such as Valentinus and his followers for holding such views. And while Valentinus was condemned by Polycarp around 155 A.D., the Roman Catholics allowed him and his people to fellowship with them for another two decades before finally putting them out forever. However, by tolerating these heretical ideas, the Romans and their followers sadly adopted these unbiblical practices.
WCG/GCI writer Michael Morrison (prior to 2006) wrote:
Ignatius used kuriake alone, and textual variants cause the meaning to be debatable...
Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) also gives clear evidence that kuriake meant the eighth day, Sunday, and he spoke of “keeping” the Lord’s day. He quoted a Valentinian Gnostic who equated the kuriake with the ogdoad, the eighth heaven. “The same identification of kuriake, the eighth day, with the ogdoad, the eighth heaven, is found in the antignostic Epistula Apostolorum [also second century].”
In summary, evidence for the use of “Lord’s day” is clear for the latter half of the second century, but it is less clear for the first half.
Notice that it is admitted that Sunday was not shown to be the "Lord's day" until a century or so AFTER Jesus was resurrected. Also, notice that Clement of Alexander tied his eighth day in with the Gnostic ogdoad.
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:
Clement of Alexandria, himself infected with Gnosticism, actually uses Marcus number system though without acknowledgement (Strom, VI, xvi) (Arendzen JP. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Marcus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
This Marcus was a heretic, who followed the Gnostic heretic Valentinus who was denounced by COG leader Polycarp of Smyrna, but tolerated for decades afterwards by the Church of Rome. He also taught the ogdoad as well--the sun and the zodiac circle were important to the Marcosians:
They maintain, then, that first of all the four elements, fire, water, earth, and air, were produced after the image of the primary Tetrad above, and that then, we add their operations, viz., heat, cold, dryness, and humidity, an exact likeness of the Ogdoad is presented. They next reckon up ten powers in the following manner:— There are seven globular bodies, which they also call heavens; then that globular body which contains these, which also they name the eighth heaven ; and, in addition to these, the sun and moon. These, being ten in number, they declare to be types of the invisible Decad , which proceeded from Logos and Zoe . As to the Duodecad , it is indicated by the zodiacal circle, as it is called; for they affirm that the twelve signs do most manifestly shadow forth the Duodecad , the daughter of Anthropos and Ecclesia...The sun also, who runs through his orbit in twelve months, and then returns to the same point in the circle... Also the circumference of the zodiacal circle itself contains three hundred and sixty degrees (for each of its signs comprises thirty); and thus also they affirm, that by means of this circle an image is preserved of that connection which exists between the twelve and the thirty. Still further, asserting that the earth is divided into twelve zones, and that in each zone it receives power from the heavens, according to the perpendicular [position of the sun above it], bringing forth productions corresponding to that power which sends down its influence upon it, they maintain that this is a most evident type of the Duodecad and its offspring. (Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, Book I, Chapter 17, Verse 1).
Catholic scholar and Priest Bagatti wrote:
The application of these principles, of Platonic or Pythagorean origin, to Christianity introduced a great diversity of views…In this system were admitted as personified the tetrad (= 4), namely, the four fundamental elements of the cosmos, become through application synonymous with the cross…the ogdoad was referred to Christ-Day for which reason the eighth day was called the ‘Lord’s Day’… (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi, 13 Maii 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 14 Junii 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, p. 149)
So, pagan Greek concepts, that the Gnostics adopted, apparently combined some information from Mithraism, ended up in the Lord's Day.
Notice what the Greco-Roman Bishop Victorinus wrote in the late 3rd century:
"This you have also, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitanes." But because you yourself hate those who hold the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes, you expect praise. Moreover, to hate the works of the Nicolaitanes, which He Himself also hated, this tends to praise. But the works of the Nicolaitanes were in that time false and troublesome men, who, as ministers under the name of Nicolaus, had made for themselves a heresy, to the effect that what had been offered to idols might be exorcised and eaten, and that whoever should have committed fornication might receive peace on the eighth day. Therefore He extols those to whom He is writing; and to these men, being such and so great, He promised the tree of life, which is in the paradise of His God. (Victorinus. Chapter 2, verses 6-8. Commentary on the Apocalypse. Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886)
The statement about hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans comes from Revelation 2:6 and relates to the Church of Ephesus. It was towards the end of the Ephesus era (c. 130-135) that the Greco-Romans began to adopt Sunday, which they and the Gnostics called the eighth day.
That being said, the first clear reference to those professing Christ meeting on Sunday (as opposed to simply "the eighth day") was from the philosopher Justin Martyr around 150 A.D.
His statement is often translated as,
