The Sabbath - who changed it?

The Sabbath--who changed it?

I was raised a Seventh-day Adventist, and went to Adventist schools through one year of college in 1963. I was taught all the right texts to prove that the 7th day is the true Sabbath, and all the rest of Christianity is deceived because the Catholic Church changed the day to Sunday at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

Never satisfied to just accept someone else’s word for it, I studied deeper and noticed that the Nicean Creed doesn’t claim to change the day of the Sabbath, it just says the first day of the week is the one that Christians observe. Nowhere in there does it say we used to keep Saturday holy, but now we are changing to Sunday. That would be a big change, and would not be omitted or ignored.

After I left the Adventist church in 1964, I still wondered what really happened to change the day of worship? How could such an important event just go unnoticed in the record?

(I left the Adventist church over disagreement with Paul’s attitude toward women and marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, not over any dispute about the Sabbath day.)

Since then I have spent fifty years sporadically searching for the truth about who changed the Sabbath day, why and when. I may be a little obsessive, but that is just my nature.

What I found is fascinating. The Catholic church didn’t change the day of worship, but they did choose the 27 books we call the New Testament after the Council of Nicea. The first to list these 27 books, and only these, was a bishop of Alexandria named Athanasius. So what were Christians reading from about 50 AD when Paul wrote his first epistle up until the middle of the fourth century when the New Testament came to be?

They were reading lots of other books, other gospels, other epistles, other apocalypses. But we didn’t know that for centuries, because the Catholic church weeded out all books that didn’t agree with their doctrines or practices. The Gospel of Thomas didn’t make it because it says an individual can find heaven without the intercession of the church. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philllip were cut out, along with the Acts of Thecla, because they exalted women in the church, and by 325 AD the Catholic church had relegated women to secondary status, even though a cursory reading of Acts of the Apostles makes it plain that women were active leaders in the early Christian church.

I find it ironic that Protestant churches today are still using the same books the Catholic church chose for them to deny ordination to women.

That brings up another interesting question. When did the early Christian church of the apostles become the Catholic church? If the day of worship was changed by the early church (maybe even the apostles) does that have more authority than if the Catholic church changed it hundreds of years later? 

The Adventist church, along with many other Protestant churches, ignore the period of time after John died, and don’t start studying church history again until the Council of Nicea, over three centuries later. When the New Testament stops, they stop. If it’s not in the Bible, it’s just tradition. Don’t worry about it.

And yet each of the Apostles had their own disciples who carried on the spreading of the Gospel. Why shouldn’t we study them, too? 

Barnabus was a disciple of Paul, as was Silas. 

Clement of Rome was converted by Peter, and in his book Homilies he defends Peter against the “lawless” one. (More about that later.) Clement died around 100 AD. 

Ignatius of Antioch was a student of the Apostle John. He was appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter. He died in 108 AD.

Polycarp was a companion and follower of John. He was known for his speaking abilities. He died around 155 AD.

Ireneaus, the bishop of Lyons, in what is now France, heard Polycarp speak, and wrote about it in his book, “Against Heresies.” Much of what we know about other forms of early Christianity comes from his descriptions of what he considered heresy.

Clement of Alexandria advocated vegetarianism. He died about 215 AD.

Tertullian lived from 160-220 AD. He came up with the doctrine of the Trinity. It was considered heresy at first, because it didn’t fit in with monotheism. Later it was accepted and became the orthodox view of the church.

Origen is considered the first theologian. He had studied the Greek philosophers and was known for his wealth of knowledge. He was a student of Clement of Alexandria.

Eusebius was the bishop of Ceasarea. He lived from 260-339 AD. He wrote a ten volume “Church History” which ties together all of these people. How can you be a knowledgeable Christian and not be fascinated by how all these people created the Christian church?

In reading these histories it soon becomes apparent that there was no single church from the start. Each of the Apostles had their own take on what was important, and what Jesus’ ministry was all about.

But in all these books by all these writers, not one mentions when the day of worship was changed or why. That strikes me as odd in the extreme. That would be a bigger change than Passover to Easter, of which much was written.

The first mention I can find of the first day of the week being the day of worship is in the Epistle of Barnabus. The 15th chapter is all about the Sabbath and the symbolism involved in the days of the ages of the earth. And at the end of the chapter he casually mentions that Christians “celebrate the eighth day with gladness” in observance of Christ’s resurrection on that day. 

The Epistle of Barnabus was written about 130 AD. It was not written by Barnabus, since he was martyred on the isle of Cyprus in 61 AD, but probably by one of his followers. The mention of the day of worship does not indicate when it was changed, but the context makes it plain it didn’t happen recently.

Chapter 10 of the Epistle of Barnabus makes it clear that the Christians then were no longer keeping the kosher requirements for food, either.

So we know that at Jesus’ crucifixion the Sabbath was on the seventh day, when Christ rested in the tomb. One hundred years later Christians are celebrating “the eighth day” with no record of the change. How can that be?

Maybe there was no change! Bear with me here, because what follows is guesswork and conjecture, but it’s the only way I can make sense of this conundrum.

In Acts 15 we read of the dispute between Paul and Barnabus and the “apostles and elders in Jerusalem.” It seems the apostles in Jerusalem had sent missionaries up to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabus had founded a church, and were demanding that all the new converts be circumcised. The apostles in Jerusalem were preaching to the Jews who were already circumcised, but Paul was preaching to Gentiles, who were not circumcised.

It says that “Paul and Barnabus had no small dissension and disputation with them.”  In Galations 2:11 Paul says he got right up in Peter’s face. Was this just about circumcision? That would be painful enough, I suppose, and would surely make it hard to convert Gentiles, but I think there was a much larger problem here. I think Peter and Paul were preaching two different gospels and we have lost that understanding through the years as we tried to make them preach the same message. Paul is angry because he believed that Peter and James were teaching his converts the wrong gospel. It’s that old “faith vs. works” controversy at the start.

I believe that James and Peter taught from a Jewish perspective down in Jerusalem, where all their converts were Jews. They were all circumcised, they all kept the kosher laws on food, and they all kept the Sabbath. Although they no longer made animal sacrifices, believing that Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled that requirement, in most other respects they believed as Jews and acted as Jews.

However, Paul came to a different understanding. In many of the texts cited by Sabbath keepers showing Paul going to the synagogue on the Sabbath, it was specifically to preach his gospel to the Jews who gathered there. And over and over again, when he spoke to the Jews they became angry and threw Paul out or stoned him.

“But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.” Acts 13:45

“But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabus, and expelled them out of their coasts.” Acts 13:50

“But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.” Acts 15:2

“And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.” Acts14:19

What was the message that Paul was preaching to arouse such anger among the Jews? If it was just that you no longer need circumcision, the response would probably be, “Oh well, too late now!” 

I believe the answer is best given by Paul in Galations 3:23-26. “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwords be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galations 2:16

“I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Galations 2:21

I believe Paul was teaching that faith in God is what saves you, and you no longer need to keep the law. God will dwell in your heart and show you the right way to behave. You just have to accept Christ as your savior.

You no longer need to be circumcised, you no longer need to keep the laws on clean and unclean meats, and you are no longer required to keep the Sabbath holy. There is a message to make a devout Jew furious!

The text in Acts makes it plain that Paul and Peter came to an understanding whereby Peter continues to preach his message to the Jews in Judea, and Paul goes away to present day Turkey and Greece to preach his message. It doesn’t take a lot of reading between the lines to see two different churches emerging: one led by Peter and James which keeps all the Old Testament laws, and one led by Paul and Barnabus which does not keep the Jewish laws, but remains uncircumcised, considers nothing unclean to eat, and celebrates being released from the burdensome requirements of the Jewish Sabbath.

I believe two circumstances caused Paul’s church to become the dominant church, and the other one to fade away. I see irony here, also, because the Catholic church considers Peter to be its first leader, but their beliefs are closer to Paul’s.

The most important reason Paul’s religion survived is Paul wrote everything down. When he died all his converts could read his letters and continue to worship and preach his message. His writings constitute half of the New Testament.

Another reason Paul’s church survived is they were not in Jerusalem in 70 AD when the Romans invaded and burned down the Temple, slaughtering thousands of Jews and scattering the rest. The Christian church at Jerusalem suffered the same fate as the rest of the Jews. The Romans would not have seen any difference.

James and Peter had already been martyred, and although Clement of Rome was a follower of Peter, and defended Peter against “the lawless one” (he used another name, but it doesn’t take a lot of guessing who he was referring to), no more is heard of Sabbath keeping, kosher eating Christians after Jerusalem was destroyed. (Last line not true. See footnote below.)

Well. except for the Ebionites, a small sect who kept all the Jewish laws and festivals, and believed that Jesus existed, but not in any sense divine. They believed he was a human being, not born of a virgin, just a great prophet come to show them how to live a good righteous life. Most people today would not consider them Christian at all.

So there you are. One Sabbath keeping church, one non-Sabbath keeping church. No changing the day of worship at all--Paul started with no law and no Sabbath, and his church survived.

I can’t prove it, but it makes sense to me. Most importantly, it explains why there is no record of the day ever being changed.

Don Rogers

May 5, 2013

Footnote: I finally got a copy of the book "From Saturday to Sunday" by Samuele Bacchiocchi. The book is out of print and if you can find a new one they run about $150. I found a used one for $19.50. For those who don't know, Bacchiocchi was an Adventist theologian who studied the original documents in the Vatican and taught at Andrews University for over fifteen years. 

His research shows the early change to Sunday around the second century two hundred years before the Council of Nicea. His thesis both confirms and disputes some of my ideas. His quotes from Justin the Martyr confirm that the Sabbath and circumcision were both thrown out together as Jewish anachronisms. Justin wrote in his "Dialogue with Trypho" in 150 AD:

     " We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all your     festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed on you, namely, because of your  sins and your hardness of heart."

He cites many sources for Sabbath keeping by some Christian groups past the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, including a group that escaped to Syria before the Romans invaded. So strike the line about no Sabbath keepers after Jerusalem fell. 

He failed to find much evidence of Sunday keeping before 130 AD. My findings are the same, but my contention is that the removal of the Jewish Sabbath requirement came first from Paul, and the substitute day followed sometime later. I think the use of the terms "celebrate" and "gladness" in the Epistle of Barnabas in reference to the observance of the eight day is an intentional contrast with the bondage and yoke of the law as Paul referred to it. 

Bacchiocchi correctly attributes the adoption of Sunday as a reaction to the bitter, violent anti-Jewish beliefs of the second century, and the desire to differentiate the Christian church from the Jews as the Romans continued to persecute the Jews. But I don't see much evidence that he considered the idea that the seventh day Sabbath might have been rejected by some Christians long before the Sunday observance began.

Don Rogers
May 8, 2013