Untitled PDF

1
iblical
erspectives
FROM SABBATH
to
SUNDAY
A Historical Investigation
of the Rise of Sunday Observance
in Early Christianity
Samuele Bacchiocchi
THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS

ROME, ITALY 1977
Vidimus et approbamus ad normam Statutorum Universitatis
Romae, ex Pontificia Universitate Gregoriana
die 25 iunii 1974
R. P. Vincenzo Monachino, S. I.
R. P. Luis Martinez-Fazio, S. I.
IMPRIMATUR
Romae, die 16 Iunii 1975

R. P. Herve Carrier, S. I
Con approvazione del Vicariato di Roma

in data 17 giugno 1975
© Copyright
by
1999
Samuele Bacchiocchi
To purchase a copy of this book

call (616) 471-2915 or
mail your prepaid order
($20.00, postpaid)
to:
BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES
4990 Appian Way
Berrien Springs
Michigan 49103
Phone (616) 471-2915

Fax (616) 471-4013
E-mail: sbacchiocchi@qtm.net,
or samuele@andrews.edu
Web site: www.biblicalperspectives.com
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Preface .............................................................................................. 5
1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 7
2. Christ and the Lord’s Day................................................................ 15

The Sabbath’s Typology and its Messianic Fulfillment ....................... 16
The Attitude of Christ to the Sabbath .................................................. 20
The Sabbath in the Letter to the Hebrews ........................................... 44
Ad Admonition of Christ Regarding the Sabbath ............................... 49
Notes to Chapter 2 ............................................................................. 52
3. The Resurrection-Appearances and the Origin of Sunday.......... 73

The Resurrection ............................................................................... 73
The Appearances of the Risen Christ ................................................. 79
Notes to Chapter 3 ............................................................................. 82
4. Three New Testament Texts and the Origin of Sunday ............... 90

1 Corinthians 16:1-3 .......................................................................... 90
Acts 20:7-12 ...................................................................................... 96
Revelation 1:10.................................................................................. 104
Notes to Chapter 4 ............................................................................ 116
5. Jerusalem and the Origin of Sunday.............................................. 131

The Jerusalem Church in the New Testament ................................... 133
The Jerusalem Church after A. D. 70 ............................................... 144
Notes to Chapter 5 ............................................................................. 151
6. Rome and the Origin of Sunday..................................................... 164

Predominance of Gentile Converts ................................................... 164
Early Differentiation Between Jews and Christians ......................... 165
Anti-Judaic Feelings and Measures .................................................. 166
The Church of Rome and the Sabbath .............................................. 173
Rome and the Easter-Controversy ..................................................... 180
The Primacy of the Church of Rome ................................................... 184
Notes to Chapter 6 ............................................................................ 188
-3-
Table of Contents 4
7. Anti-Judaism in the Fathers and the Origin of Sunday.................. 215

Ignatius ................................................................................................. 215
Barnabas ............................................................................................... 217
Justin Martyr ........................................................................................ 221
Notes to Chapter 7 ............................................................................... 228
8. Sun-Worship and the Origin of Sunday ........................................... 239

Sun-Worship and the Planetary Week Prior to A. D. 150 .................... 240
Reflexes of Sun-Worship on Christianity ............................................ 246
The Day of the Sun and the Origin of Sunday .................................... 251
Notes to Chapter 8 ............................................................................... 257
9. The Theology of Sunday ................................................................... 275

Resurrection ......................................................................................... 275
Creation ................................................................................................ 277
The Eighth Day .................................................................................... 280
Notes to Chapter 9 ............................................................................... 296
10. Retrospect and Prospect .................................................................. 308

Notes to chapter 10 .......................................................................... 322
Appendix: Paul and the Sabbath .......................................................... 326

The Traditional Interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17 ......................... 326
The Colossian Heresy ........................................................................... 328
What Was Nailed to the Cross? ............................................................ 330
Paul’s Attitude Toward the Sabbath ...................................................... 333
Notes to the Appendix .......................................................................... 347
PREFACE
The attraction that the problem of the origin and of the observance of
Sunday has exerted on students of Early Church in the last two or three
decades, is by no means exhausted. This, we believe, is due to two principal
reasons. On the one hand, the ever-increasing non-observance of the Lord's
Day as a result of the radical transformation of the weekly cycle, caused
by the complexity of modern life and by the scientific, technological and
industrial progress, demands a serious reexamination of the significance
of Sunday for the Christian today. To accomplish a sound theological
reappraisal of Sunday it is necessary to investigate its Biblical basis and
its historical genesis.
On the other hand, the many studies on this topic, though excellent,
have not given a fully satisfactory answer because of the lack of consider-
ation of some of those factors which in the Church of the first centuries
contributed to the concrete genesis and development of a day of worship
different from the Jewish Sabbath.
On account of this, the new work of Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi is to be
welcomed. He takes up again the study of this suggestive theme and, by
analyzing critically the various factors—theological, social, political, pa-
gan-religious—which have somehow influenced the adoption of Sunday as
day of Christian worship, he makes an effort to provide a complete picture
of the origin and progressive configuration of Sunday until the fourth cen-
tury. It is a work that recommends itself because of its rich content, the rig-
orous scientific method, and the vast horizon with which it has been con-
ceived and executed. This is indicative of the author’s singular ability to
encompass various fields in order to capture those aspects and elements re-
lated to the theme under investigation.
We gladly mention the thesis that Bacchiocchi defends regarding the
birth-place of Sunday worship: for him this arose most probably not in the
primitive Church of Jerusalem, wellknown for its profound attachment to
Jewish religious traditions, but rather in the Church of Rome.
The abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday as the
Lord’s Day, are the result of an interplay of Christian, Jewish and pagan-
-5-
Preface 6
religious factors. The event of Christís resurrection which occurred on that

day, had naturally significant importance. Following the order of redemp-
tive history, the author begins his investigation with the Messianic typology
of the Sabbath in the Old Testament and proceeds to examine how this found
its fulfilment in the redemptive mission of Christ.
The strict scientific orientation of the work does not prevent the author
from revealing his profound religious and ecumenic concern. Conscious that
the history of salvation knows not fractures but continuity, he finds in the
rediscovery of the religious values of the Biblical Sabbath, a help to restore
to the Lord’s Day its ancient sacred character. This is in reality the exhorta-
tion that already in the fourth century the bishops addressed to the believers,
namely to spend Sunday not in outings or watching shows, but rather to
sanctify it by assisting at the eucharistic celebration and by doing acts of
mercy (St. Ambrose, Exam. III, 1, 1).
Rome, June 29, 1977

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Present Crisis of the Lord’s Day
The cycle of six working days and one for worship and rest, though
the legacy of Hebrew history, has in time prevailed throughout almost all the
world. In fact, Jewish and Christian worship find their concrete expression
in one day, recurring weekly, wherein adoration of God is made possible and
more meaningful by the interruption of secular activities.
In recent times, however, our society has undergone much radical
transformation, because of its technological, industrial, scientific and spatial
achievements. Modern man, as Abraham Joshua Heschel asserts, “lives un-
der the tyranny of things of space.”1 The growing availability of leisure
time, caused by shorter work weeks, tends to alter not only the cycle of six
days of work and one of rest, but even traditional religious values, such as
the sanctification of the Lord’s day. The Christian today therefore is tempted
to consider time as a thing that belongs to him, something which he may
utilize for his own enjoyment. Worship obligations, if not totally neglected,
are often reduced to easy dispensability according to the whims of life.
The Biblical notion of the “holy Sabbath,” understood as a time to
cease from secular activities in order to experience the blessings of creation-
redemption by worshiping God and by acting generously toward needy
people, is increasingly disappearing from the Christian view. Consequently,
if one contemplates the pressure that our economic and industrial institu-
tions are exerting to obtain maximum utilization of industrial plants–by pro-
graming work shifts to ignore any festivity— it is easy to comprehend how
the pattern transmitted to us of the seven day week, with its recurring day of
rest and worship, could undergo radical changes.
The problem is compounded by a prevailing misconception of the
meaning of God’s “holy day.” Many well-meaning Christians view Sunday
observance as the hour of worship rather than as the holy day of the Lord.
Having fulfilled their worship obligations, many will in good conscience
-7-
Introduction 8
spend the rest of their Sunday time engaged either in making money or in
seeking pleasure.
Some people, concerned by this widespread profanation of the Lord’s
day, are urging for a civil legislation that would outlaw all activities not
compatible with the spirit of Sunday.2 To make such legislation agreeable
even to non-Christians, sometimes appeal is made to the pressing need of
preserving natural resources. One day of total rest for man and machines
would help safeguard both our power resources and the precarious environ-
ment.3 Social or ecological needs, however, while they may encourage rest-
ing on Sunday, can hardly induce a worshipful attitude.
Might not more hopeful results be expected from educating our Chris-
tian communities to understand both the Biblical meaning and experience of
God’s “holy day”? To accomplish this, however, it is indispensable first of
all to articulate clearly the theological ground for Sunday observance. What
are the Biblical and historical reasons for Sunday-keeping? Can this day be
regarded as the legitimate replacement of the Jewish Sabbath? Can the fourth
commandment be rightly invoked to enjoin its observance? Should Sunday
be viewed as the hour of worship rather than the holy day of rest to the
Lord?4
To provide an answer to these vital issues it is indispensable to ascer-
tain, first of all, “when,” “where,” and “why” Sunday rose as a day of Chris-
tian worship. Only after reconstructing this historical picture, and having
identified the main factors which contributed to the origin of Sunday, will it
be possible to proceed with the task of reassessing the validity and signifi-
cance of Sunday observance.
The Problem and Objectives of this Study
The problem of the origin of Sunday observance in early Christian-
ity has aroused in recent times the interest of scholars of differing religious
persuasions. The numerous scientific studies, including several doctoral dis-
sertations, which have appeared over the last two decades are clear evidence
of renewed interest and effort put forth to find a more satisfactory answer to
the ever intriguing question of the time, place and causes of the origin of
Sunday-keeping.5
The tendency in recent studies, however, has been to make Sunday
observance either an exclusive and original creation of the apostolic com-
munity of Jerusalem6 or a too-pagan adaptation of the “dies solis—Sun-day”
with its related Sun-worship.7 But any investigation and conclusion which
Introduction 9
takes into account only a few causal factors is patently unilateral and poorly
balanced. If we recognize, as J. V. Goudoever does, that of “all parts of
liturgy the feasts are perhaps the most enduring: it is practically impossible
to change the day and form of festival,”8 we should expect that only com-
plex and deep motives could have induced the majority of Christians to aban-
don the immemorial and prominent Jewish tradition of Sabbath-keeping in
favor of a new day of worship. In any attempt therefore to reconstruct the
historical process of the origin of Sunday, attention ought to be given to the
greatest number of possible contributory factors—theological, social, politi-
cal and pagan—which may have played a minor or greater role in inducing
the adoption of Sunday as a day of worship.
This study has two well definable objectives. First, it proposes to
examine the thesis espoused by numerous scholars who attribute to the
Apostles, or even to Christ, the initiative and responsibility for the abandon-
ment of Sabbath-’keeping and the institution of Sunday worship. Consider-
ation will be given to Christ’s teachings regarding the Sabbath, to the resur-
rection and the appearances of Christ, to the eucharistic celebration and to
the Christian community of Jerusalem, in order to determine what role, if
any, these played in establishing Sunday observance.
Our purpose will be to ascertain whether Sunday worship originated
during the lifetime of the Apostles in Jerusalem or whether it started some-
time later somewhere else. This verification of the historical genesis of Sun-
day-keeping is of great importance, since it may explicate not only the causes
of its origin, but also its applicability to Christians today. If Sunday indeed is
the Lord’s day, all Christians, yes, all mankind should know it.
Secondly, this book designs to evaluate to what extent certain factors
such as anti-Judaic feelings, repressive Roman measures taken against the
Jews, Sun-worship with its related “day of the Sun,” and certain Christian
theological motivations, influenced the abandonment of the Sabbath and the
adoption by the majority of Christians of Sunday as the Lord’s day.
This study, then, is an attempt to reconstruct a mosaic of factors in a
search for a more exact picture of the time and causes that contributed to the
adoption of Sunday as the day of worship and rest. This is in harmony with
C. W. Dugmore’s suggestion that “it is sometimes worth reconsidering what
most people regard as a chose jugee, even if no startling conclusions can be
definitely proved.”9 To reexamine accepted solutions and hypotheses, sub-
mitting them anew to critical scrutiny, is not a simple academic exercise, it is
rather a duty to be performed in the service of truth.
Introduction 10
Our study does not concern itself with the liturgical or pastoral as-
pects of Sunday observance in primitive Christianity, inasmuch as such prob-
lems have already been treated exhaustively in recent monographs.10 We
shall examine solely those texts which can help to establish the time and the
causes—formal and material, immediate and remote—of the origin of Sun-
day worship. Our concern is limited to the problem of origins.
With the exception of a few incidental references to later texts, the
documents we shall examine fall within the first four centuries of our era.
Patristic testimonies will be examined until this late a period, in order to
verify the historical validity of the motivations which appear in the scanty
documents of the earlier part of the second century. This is the period in
which Sunday worship moved from a nebulous beginning to an established
practice. This being the period in which ecclesiastical institutions are still in
an embryonic stage, the student who reads the few available documents with
later ecclesiological criteria, may easily be led astray.
The sources have been analyzed by taking into account chronologi-
cal, historical and geographical factors. Significant passages have been sub-
mitted to careful scrutiny, since often their textual and contextual problems
have been either bypassed or interpreted unilaterally. This creates the un-
warranted impression, for instance, that there exists, as stated by N. J. White,
“an unbroken and unquestioned Church usage” of the phrase “Lord’s day—
kuriake hemera” to refer to Sunday since the earliest apostolic times.11
The documents available for the present research are of a heteroge-
neous nature such as letters, homilies, and treatises. Their derivation, au-
thenticity and orthodoxy are not always certain, but since they are all that we
have, everything of value must be wrung from them. According to the can-
ons of scientific rigor, objection could be made to the use of a document
such as, for instance, Pseudo-Barnabas. However, if one should limit him-
self only to the analysis of archival documents, of archeological monuments
and other pieces of undisputed authenticity, it would be impossible to make
any real progress, owing to their scarcity. It is therefore necessary to exam-
ine the rich patristic and apocryphal literature while keeping in mind its
limitations.
To make the present study accessible also to the lay reader, both the
New Testament and Patristic texts have been quoted in English from repu-
table translations. The Revised Standard Version has been used, but when
necessary the Greek text of E. Nestle and K. Aland has been inserted. In the
case of patristic texts of particular relevance, various available critical edi-
Introduction 11
tions have been examined. Where an English edition is not available or is

unsatisfactory, the author has translated. Significant Greek or Latin words
have been placed within brackets.
The frequent references to the recent monographs of W. Rordorf, F.
A. Regan and C. S. Mosna are symptomatic of their importance as well as of
the necessity that was felt to challenge some of their conclusions. Undoubt-
edly the working hypotheses which have made possible the present research,
after having undergone the sieve of the critics, will necessitate in their turn
modifications and emendations.
This study largely represents an abridgement of a doctoral disserta-
tion presented in Italian to the Department of Ecclesiastical History at the
Pontifical Gregorian University, in Rome. The material has been substan-
tially condensed and rearranged. This re-elaboration has been motivated by
the desire to make the study comprehensible even to lay readers. To achieve
this often the discussion of technical questions has been placed in footnotes.
It is the hope that the present work may furnish for theologians indis-
pensable historical data necessary for reflections on the significance of Sun-
day, and that it may arouse also the interest of historians to reconsider the
question of the origin of Sunday in the attempt to come nearer to “truth.” It
is also the hope that earnest readers may be stimulated through a better un-
derstanding of the meaning of God’s holy day to search for a deeper fellow-
ship with the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
1. Abraham Joshua Heshel, The Sabbath, its Meaning for Modern
Man, 1951, p. 10. The same author underlines the notion that “Judaism is a
religion of time aiming at the sanctification of time” (ibid., p. 8). 2. On
the historical development of the Sunday legislation see: H. Huber, Geist
und Buchstabe der Sonntagsruhe, 1958, who traces this development until
the Middle Ages. A similar treatment is provided by J. Kelly, Forbidden
Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, dissertation, Catholic University of
America, 1943. For the Puritan view, see J. Bohmer, Der Christliche Sonntag
nach Ursprung und Geschichte, 1951. Ronald Goetz, “An Eschatological
Manifesto,” The Christian Century 76 (Nov. 2, 1960): 1275, argues that the
principle of separation of church and state is overlooked by the advocators
of Sunday laws (cf. John Gilmary Shea, “The Observance of Sunday and
Civil Laws for its Enforcement.” The American Catholic Quarterly Review,
8, (1883): 152ff.
Introduction 12
3. Harold Lindsell comes close to proposing Sunday as a national

rest day in his editorial in Christianity Today of May 7, 1976, entitled “The
Lord’s Day and Natural Resources.” He argues that the only way to achieve
the dual objective of Sunday observance and the conservation of energy
would be “by force of legislative fiat through the duly elected officials of the
people.” The opposition to the editorial by Sabbatarians, who view Lindsell’s
proposal as a violation of the rights guaranteed to Americans under the First
Amendment, apparently induced the editor to come up with a counterpro-
posal in another editorial in the same journal of November 5, 1976. Accord-
ing to Lindsell’s new proposal, Saturday rather than Sunday should be en-
forced as a day of rest for all people. Seventh-day Adventists emphatically
rejected even the latter proposal, on the ground that the forced observance of
any day of the week would bring hardship and deprive of religious freedom
some segments of population (cf. Leo R. Van Dolson, “Color the Blue Laws
Green,” Liberty, 72 [1977]: 30).
4. W. Rordorf, Sunday. The History of the Day of Rest and Worship
in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, 1968 (hereafter cited as
Sunday), p. 296, holds that “right down to the fourth century the idea of rest
played absolutely no part in the Christian Sunday.” Since in Rordorf’s opin-
ion Sunday rest was not an original or indispensable component of Sunday
worship but an imperial imposition (p. 168), he raises the question “whether
it is an ideal solution for the day of rest and the day of worship to coincide”
(p. 299). He prefers to assign to Sunday an exclusive cultic function which
can be realized in the gathering of the Christian community, in any moment
of the day, for the eucharistic celebration.
5. The following are some of the most recent and significant studies:
W. Rordorf, Sunday; by the same author, “Le Dimanche, jour du culte et
jour du repos dans l’Église primitive,” Le Dimanche, Lex Orandi 39, 1965,
pp. 91-111 (hereafter cited as “Dimanche”); Sabbat et dimanche dans l’Église
ancienne (compilation and edition of texts), 1972 (hereafter cited as Sabbat);
C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica dalle origini fino agli inizi del V Secolo,
Analecta Gregoriana vol. 170, 1969 (hereafter cited as Storia della domenica);
J. Danielou, “Le dimanche comme huitième jour,” Le Dimanche, Lex Orandi
39, 1965, pp. 61-89; by the same author, The Bible and the Liturgy, 1964, pp.
222-286; Pacifico Massi, La Domenica nella storia della salvezza, saggio
pastorale, 1967 (hereafter cited as La Domenica); Francis A. Regan, “Dies
Dominica and Dies Soils. The Beginning of the Lord’s Day in Christian
Antiquity,” unpublished dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1961
(hereafter cited as Dies Dominica); H. Riesenfeld, “Sabbat et jour du
Introduction 13
Seigneur,” New Testament Essays. Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959,

pp. 210-218; the article appears with minor changes as a chapter “The Sab-
bath and the Lord’s Day,” in The Gospel Tradition: Essays by H. Riesenfeld,
1970, pp. 111-137; C. W. Dugmore, “Lord’s Day and Easter,” Neotestamentica
et Patristica in honorem sexagenarii 0. Culln~ann, 1962, pp. 272-281; Y. B.
Tremel, “Du Sabbat au Jour du Seigneur,” Lumi~re et Vie 58(1962): pp. 29-
49; J. M. R. Tillard, “Le Dimanche, jour d’alliance,” Sciences Religieuses
16 (1964): pp. 225-250; by the same author, “Le Dimanche,” La Maison-
Dieu 83 (1965); Le Dimanche, Lex Orandi 39, 1965; Ph. Delhaye-J.L. Lecat
“Dinianche et sabbat,” Mélanges de Science Religieuse (1966): 3-14 and
73-93; by the same author, “Le dimanche,” Verbum Caro (1966); A. Verheul,
“Du Sabbat au Jour du Seigneur,” Questions Liturgiques et paroissiales
(1970): 3-27; Pierre Grelot, “Du Sabbat juif au dimanche chr6tien” La
Maison-Dieu 123, 124 (1975): 79-107 and 14-54; other studies will be cited
in the course of the study.
6. This exclusive approach is reflected, for instance, in the method-
ology of W. Rordorf, when he states: “There are in principle two possible
solutions to this problem: either we conclude that the observance of Sunday
originated in Christianity, in which case we have to ask what factors contrib-
uted to its emergence: or we are convinced that the Christian Church adopted
its observance of Sunday from elsewhere. We must come to one conclusion
or the other in our search for the origin of the Christian observance of Sun-
day, for it cannot have been both devised and adopted by Christians” (Sun-
day, p. 180). Rordorf tenaciously defends the first solution, but his method
and conclusions are criticized even by C. S. Mosna, see below fn. 8. Simi-
larly J. Dani~lou writes: “Sunday is a purely Christian creation, connected
with the historical fact of the Resurrection of the Lord” (Bible and Liturgy,
pp. 222 and 242). This view is examined especially in chapters 3, 5 and 9.
7. See, for instance, H. Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen
Verstandnis des Neuen Testaments, 19102, pp. 74f.; A. Loisy, Les Mystères
paiens, 1930, pp. 223f; also Les Èvangiles synoptiques, 1907, I, pp. 177f.; R.
L. Odom, Sunday in Roman Paganism, 1944; P. Cotton, From Sabbath to
Sunday, 1933, pp. 130f.
8. J. V. Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, 1959, p. 151. C. S. Mosna
criticizes W. Rordorf for giving “to the rise of Sunday festivity a too-Chris-
tian origin, neglecting other useful elements and detaching it from its Jewish
context” (Storia delia domenica, pp. 41 and 5).
9. C. W. Dugmore (fn. 5), p. 274.
Introduction 14
10. For the pastoral aspects of Sunday observance see V. Monachino,

La Cura pastorale a Milano, Cartagine e Roma nel secolo IV, Analecta
Gregoriana 41, 1947; and S. Ambrogio e la cura pastorale a Milano nel
secolo IV, 1973; C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, part IV, deals with the
liturgical and pastoral aspect of Sunday both in the East and the West; for the
question of Sunday rest, see H. Huber, Spirito e lettera del riposo domenicale,
1961; J. Duval, “La Doctrine de l'Église sur le travail dominical et son
5volution,” La Maison-Dieu 83 (1965): 106f.; L. Vereecke, “Le Repos
du dimanche,” Lumière et vie 58 (1962): 72f.
11. A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, 1911, s. v. “Lord’s
Day,” by N. J. White.
Chapter 2
CHRIST AND THE LORD’S DAY
The expression “Lord’s day—kuriake hemera” which first appears

as an undisputed Christian designation for Sunday near the end part of the
second century, denotes a day which belongs exclusively to the “Lord—
kurios.”1 Since Sunday has been traditionally viewed by many Christians
as the day of which Christ is Lord and which is consecrated to Him, we may
well begin our historical enquiry into the origin of Sunday observance by
ascertaining if Christ anticipated the institution of a new day of worship
dedicated exclusively to Him.
The sayings of Christ found in the Gospels do not contain the ex-
pression “Lord’s day.” The Synoptics (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2 :28; Luke 6 :5),
however, contain a similar locution, namely “Lord of the Sabbath—kurios
tou sabbatou,” a phrase used by Christ at the end of a dispute with the Phari-
sees over the question of legitimate Sabbath activities.
Various authors have sought to establish a causal relationship be-
tween Christ’s proclaiming himself “Lord of the Sabbath” and the institu-
tion of Sunday as the “Lord’s day.” C. S. Mosna, for instance, emphatically
states that “Christ proclaimed Himself master of the Sabbath specifically to
liberate man from formal burdens like the Sabbath, which had become un-
necessary.”2 He sees in this pronouncement Christ’s intention to institute
His new day of worship. Wilfrid Stott similarly interprets Christ’s logion as
an implicit reference to Sunday: “He is the Lord of the Sabbath and in this
expression, quoted by all three of the Synoptics, there is a covert reference
to the Lord’s day. He, as Lord, chooses his own day.” 3
To assess the validity of these assumptions, we must determine
Christ’s basic attitude toward the Sabbath. To put it forthrightly, did Christ
genuinely observe or intentionally break the Sabbath? If the latter were the
case, then we would need to find out if Christ by His words and actions
intended to lay the foundations for a new day of worship which would even-
tually replace the Sabbath.
Form critics would regard this investigation as futile, since they view
the Gospels’ report of Christ’s Sabbath teachings and activities, not as au-
thentic historical accounts but as later reflections of the primitive Church.
Christ and the Lord’s Day 16
What Jesus Himself may have thought, they claim is impossible to ascer-
tain.4 We see no justification for such historical skepticism, especially since
a new quest for the historical Jesus has begun which casts shadows on previ-
ous methodologies and promises to find in the Gospels a much larger num-
ber of genuine deeds and words of Jesus.5 However, even if the sabbatical
materials of the Gospels represent later reflections of the Christian commu-
nity (which to us is inadmissible), this point would not diminish their his-
torical value. They would still constitute a valuable source for studying the
attitude of the primitive Church toward the Sabbath.6 In fact, the consider-
able space and attention given by the Gospel writers to Christ’s Sabbath
healings (no less than seven episodes are reported)7 “and controversies, are
indicative of how important the Sabbath question was at the time of their
writing.
The Sabbath’s Typology and its Messianic Fulfillment
A good place to start our enquiry into Christ’s concept of the Sabbath
is perhaps the fourth chapter of Luke’s Gospel. Here we find excerpts from
the sermon Christ preached in the synagogue of Nazareth on a Sabbath day
upon inauguration of His public ministry. It is noteworthy that in the Gospel
of Luke the ministry of Christ not only begins on the Sabbath—the day which,
according to Luke (4:16), Christ habitually observed—but also ends on “the
day of preparation as the sabbath was beginning” (23 :54). The sabbatical
ministry of Jesus which provoked repeated rejections (Luke 4 :29; 13 :14,
31; 14:1-6) appears to be presented by Luke as a prelude to Christ’s own
final rejection and sacrifice.
In His opening sermon Christ refers to Isaiah 61:1-2 (cf.58 :6), which
says, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to
preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the
captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are
oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18-19).
Practically all commentators agree that the “acceptable year of the
Lord” (4:19) which Christ is officially ordained (“anointed”) to proclaim,
refers to the sabbatical year (i.e. the seventh year)8 or the Jubilee year (i.e.
the fiftieth year, after seven Sabbaths of years). At these annual institutions,
the Sabbath became the liberator of the oppressed of the Hebrew society.
The land was to lie fallow, to provide free produce for the poor, the dispos-
sessed and the animals.9 The slaves were emancipated if they so desired and
debts owed by fellow citizens were remitted.10 The jubilee year also re-
quired the restoration of property to the original owner.11 That the text of
Isaiah, read by Christ, refers to these sabbatical institutions is clear by the

context which speaks of the liberation of the poor, captives, blind (or prison-
ers), oppressed.”
It is significant that Christ in His opening address announces His
Messianic mission in the language of the sabbatical year. His brief comment
on the passage is most pertinent: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in
your hearing” (4:21). As P. K. Jewett aptly remarks, “the great Jubilee Sab-
bath has become a reality for all those who have been loosed from their sins
by the coming of the Messiah and have found an inheritance in Him.”12
We may ask, why did Christ announce His mission as the fulfillment
of the sabbatical promises of liberation? Did He intend to explain, perhaps
in a veiled fashion, that the institution of the Sabbath was a type which had
found its fulfillment in Himself, the Antitype, and therefore its obligation
had ceased? (In such a case Christ would have paved the way for the re-
placement of the Sabbath with a new day of worship.) Or did Christ identify
His mission with the Sabbath in order to make the day a fitting memorial of
His redemptive activities?
To answer this dilemma we need, first of all, to remind ourselves of
the Messianic redemptive implications of the Sabbath. Inherent in the insti-
tution of the Sabbath is the assurance of divine blessings, “God blessed the
seventh day” (Gen. 2 :3 cf. Ex. 20:11). The Old Testament notion of “bless-
ing” is concrete and finds expression in full and abundant life. The blessing
of the Sabbath in the creation story (Gen. 2 :3) follows the blessing of the
living creatures (Gen. 1 :22) and of man (Gen. 1 :28). Therefore, it expresses
God’s ultimate and total blessing over His complete and perfect creation
(Gen. 1:31). By blessing the Sabbath God promised to be man’s benefactor
during the whole course of human history. 13
The blessings of the Sabbath in the unfolding of the history of salva-
tion, become associated more specifically with God’s saving acts. For in-
stance in the Exodus version of the commandments, Yahweh introduces Him-
self as the merciful Redeemer who liberated Israel “out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage” (Ex. 20:2). To guarantee this newly granted
freedom to all the members of the Hebrew society, the Sabbath command-
ment enjoins that rest be granted to all, including even the animals (Ex. 20:10).
In the Deuteronomic version of the decalogue, the redemption motif
not only appears in the preface (Deut. 5 :6) to all the commandments (as in
Exodus 20:1), but also is explicitly incorporated into the Sabbath command-
ment itself. It was perhaps to drive home the immediate relevancy of the
Sabbath commandment to the Israelites and to all ensuing generations, that

in this reiteration of the commandments the Sabbath is grounded not in God’s
past act of creation (as in Exodus 20:11), which does not always speak to
people’s immediate concerns, but rather in the divine act of redemption:
“You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt and the
Lord your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched
arm: therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day”
(Deut. 5:15).14
Here the reason for observing the Sabbath is, as well stated by Hans
Walter Wolff, “that affirmation which was absolutely fundamental for Is-
rael, namely, that Yahweh had liberated Israel from Egypt. On every Sab-
bath Israel is to remember that her God is a liberator.”15 This call to remem-
ber the exodus deliverance through the Sabbath was for the Israelites a con-
crete experience which involved extending the Sabbath rest to all those who
were not free to observe it. The resting on the Sabbath, however, was not
designed merely as a mnemonic aid to help Israel recall her historical exo-
dus deliverance, but rather, as Brevard S. Childs observes, it meant experi-
encing in the present the past salvation history.16
A. M. Dubarle confirms this interpretation when he writes that through
the observance of the Sabbath “was effectively realized and actualized dur-
ing the whole course of time the deliverance accomplished for the first time
in the month of Abib. It was not, however, only a question of commemorating
by a simple souvenir, but rather a rejoicing resulting from the constant re-
newal of the initial benefit.”17
We might say that the Sabbath contained a three-dimensional scope:
it commemorated the past, present and future deliverance. The weekly re-
lease from the hardships of life which the Israelite experienced in the present,
epitomized also the past Passover liberation as well as the future Messianic
redemption. Because of their close nexus, both the Passover and the Sabbath
could symbolize the future Messianic deliverance. (It is noteworthy that as
the Sabbath became for the Israelites the weekly extension of the annual
Passover, so Sunday later became for many Christians the weekly commemo-
ration of the annual Easter-Sunday.)
The redemptive function of the Sabbath was seemingly understood
as a prefiguration of the mission of the Messiah. The liberation from the
hardship of work and from the social inequalities, which both the weekly
and annual Sabbath granted to all the members of the Hebrew society, was
viewed as foreshadowing the fuller redemption the Messiah would one day
bring to His people. The Messianic age of the ingathering of all the nations
is described in Isaiah as the time when “from Sabbath to Sabbath all flesh
shall come to worship before me (66 :23).
The mission of the Messiah is also described by Isaiah (in the very
passage which Christ applied to Himself in His opening address—Luke 4:18-
19) in the language of the sabbatical year (61 :13). P. K. Jewett aptly com-
ments that God in the act of redemption and restoration of the sabbatical and
jubilee year, “appears again as the Redeemer who guarantees the individual
his personal freedom and preserves for the poor a share in the inheritance of
his people. Surely this is not a dated, ceremonial conception, for God has
supremely manifested himself as Redeemer in Christ the Mediator, the Son
who has made us free indeed (John 8:36).”18
Another significant Messianic typology of the Sabbath can be seen
in the experience of the Sabbath rest—menuhah which A. J. Heschel defines
“as happiness and stillness, as peace and harmony.”19 Theodore Friedman
in a learned article shows persuasively that the peace and harmony of the
Sabbath is frequently identified both in the writings of the Prophets and in
the Talmudic literature with the Messianic age, commonly known as the end
of days or the world to come. He notes, for instance, that “Isaiah employs
the words ‘delight’ (oneg) and ‘honor’ (kaved) in his description of both the
Sabbath and the end of days [i.e. Messianic age] (58: 13—”And thou shall
call the Sabbath delight ... and honor it”; 66: 11— ‘And you shall delight in
the glow of its honor’). The implication is clear. The delight and joy that will
mark the end of days is made available here and now by the Sabbath.”20
Friedman presents also an informative sampling of Rabbinical say-
ings where “the Sabbath is the anticipation, the foretaste, the paradigm of
the life in the world to come [i.e. Messianic age].” 21 A somewhat similar
interpretation of the Sabbath is found in late Jewish apocalyptic where the
duration of the world is reckoned by the “cosmic week” of six epochs of
1000 years each, followed by the Sabbath of the end of time. In the over-
whelming majority of the passages this eschatological Sabbath is explicitly
thought to be the days of the Messiah which either precede or are identified
with paradise restored. 22
The theme of the Sabbath rest which appears in Hebrews 3 and 4
may represent another strand of Messianic typology carried over from the
Old Testament. G. von Rad notes a development of the theme of “rest” in the
Old Testament from the concept of national and political peace (Deut. 12:91;
25 :19) to a spiritual and “wholly personal entering into God’s rest” (cf. Ps.
95 :11).23 This concept, as we shall later see, is repro-posed in Hebrews,

where God’s people are invited to enter into the “Sabbath rest” (4 :9) by
believing (4:3), obeying (4:6, 11) and accepting by “faith” God’s “good news”
(4:1-2).
The author rejects the temporal notion of the Sabbath rest under-
stood as entrance into the land 2f Canaan (Deut. 12:9; 25 :19), since he
argues that the land which Joshua gave to the Israelites (4:8), is not the “Sab-
bath rest” (4:9) which God has made available to His people since creation
(4:3,4, 10). The latter can be experienced by accepting “today” (4:7) the
“good news” (4:2, 6) of salvation. The allusion to the Christ-event is unmis-
takably clear. It is in Him that the Old Testament Sabbath rest finds its ful-
fillment and it is through Him that it now can be experienced by all the
believers. 24
This brief survey has sufficiently established the existence of an
Old Testament Sabbath typology alluding to the Messiah. In the light of this
fact the claim that Christ made in His inaugural address to be the fulfillment
of the redemptive function of the Sabbath, acquires added significance. By
identifying Himself with the Sabbath, Christ was affirming His Messiah-
ship. This explains why Christ, as it will later be shown, revealed His Mes-
sianic mission particularly through His Sabbath ministry. 25 That this was
well understood is evidenced, for instance, by the joint accusation Jewish
leaders levelled against Christ: “He not only broke the Sabbath but also called
God his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5 :18). In the actual
trial it appears that the accusation of Sabbath breaking was not brought against
Christ. Apparently, as W. Rordorf well remarks, “His opponents obviously
preferred to concentrate on the Messianic claim which was implicit even in
His infringements of the Sabbath.” 26
The Attitude of Christ to the Sabbath
The fact that Christ claimed to be the fulfillment of the Messianic
expectations inherent in the Sabbath, raises a most vital question, namely,
how did Christ view the actual observance of the Sabbath? Did He uphold
the validity of the institution for His followers as the unquestionable will of
God? Or did Christ regar.d the obligation of Sabbath-keeping as fulfilled
and superseded by His coming, the true Sabbath?
Some scholars interpret the Sabbath debates and healing activities of
Christ as intentional provocatory acts designed to show that the Sabbath
commandment no longer had binding force. J. Daniélou holds, for instance,
that in the healing episodes, “Christ appears concretely as inaugurating the
true Sabbath [i.e. Sunday] which replaces the figurative Sabbath [i.e. Satur-
day].”27 W. Rordorf expresses the same conviction, though more emphati-
cally, when he writes that, “the Sabbath commandment was not merely pushed
into the background by the healing activity of Jesus: it was simply annulled.”
28
Early patristic interpretations. Unfortunately these conclusions of-
ten have not been based on an analysis of what Christ actually did on, or said
about the Sabbath, but rather in the light of the early patristic interpretation
of the Sabbath material of the Gospels, which has become, and to a large
extent still is, a traditional and an undisputed legacy. From the second cen-
tury onward, in fact, patristic writers produced a list of the “breaches of the
Sabbath” mentioned in the Gospels, adding to these constantly new ones in
order to build a strong case against the Sabbath.
From the Gospels they took up those examples of alleged “Sabbath-
breaking” mentioned by Christ in His debate with the Pharisees, namely:
David who on the Sabbath partook of the forbidden showbread (Matt. 12:3;
cf. I Sam. 21:1-7), the priests who on the same day circumcise (John 7:23)
and offer sacrifice (Matt. 12:5) 29 and God Himself who does not interrupt
His work on the Sabbath (John 5 :17). 30 This repertoire was enriched with
other “proofs” such as the example of Joshua who broke the Sabbath when
“he commanded the children of Israel to go round the walls of the city of
Jericho,”31 of the Maccabees who fought on theSabbath 32 and of the patri-
archs and righteous men who lived before Moses supposedly without keep-
ing the Sabbath.33
Assuming (without conceding) that these arguments are based on
sound criteria of Biblical hermeneutic, would not these exceptions only con-
firm the binding nature of the Sabbath commandment? Furthermore, should
not the person who accepts the early Fathers’ interpretation and usage of the
Sabbath material of the Gospels to determine Christ’s attitude as well as his
own toward the Sabbath, also subscribe, to be consistent, to their negative
and conflicting explanations of the meaning not only of the Sabbath but also
of the whole Jewish economy?
It would be interesting to find out if any Biblical scholar would con-
cur, for instance, with Barnabas’ claim that “the literal practice of the Sab-
bath had never been the object of a commandment of God,”34 or that the
Jews lost the covenant completely just after Moses received it” (4 :7); or
with Justin’s view that God imposed the Sabbath upon the Jews as a brand of
infamy to single them out for punishment in the eyes of the Romans;35 or
with the notion of Syriac Didascalia (21) that the Sabbath had been im-
posed on the Jews as a time of mourning; 36 or with Aphrahates’ concept
that the Sabbath was introduced as a result of the fall.37
If these interpretations of the meaning and nature of the Sabbath are
to be rejected as unwarranted by Old Testament scriptural evidences, then
there is no justification for using as “proof” their arguments against the Sab-
bath, since to a large extent these are based on this kind of fallacious
presuppositions. Later in our study we shall notice that a combination of
conditions which heightened the tension between Rome and the Jews and
between the Church and the Synagogue in the early part of the second cen-
tury, contributed to the development of an “anti-Judaism of differentiation.”
This situation expressed itself in a negative reinterpretation of both
Jewish history and observances like Sabbath-keeping. We cannot therefore
evaluate the references to Sabbath in the Gospels in the light of its early
patristic interpretation, but rather we must assess Christ’s attitude toward
the Sabbath by examining the documents exclusively on their own merits.
Early Sabbath healings. The Gospels of Mark and Luke suggest
that Christ at first limited His Sabbath healing activities to special cases,
undoubtedly because He was aware of the explosive reaction that would
result from His proclamation of the meaning and usage of the Sabbath. In
Luke, Christ’s initial announcement of His Messiahship as a fulfillment of
the Sabbatical year (Luke 4:16-21) is followed by two healing episodes. The
first occurs in the synagogue of Capernaum, a city of Galilee, during a Sab-
bath service and results in the spiritual healing of a demon-possessed man
(Luke 4:31-37). The second is accomplished immediately after the service
in Simon’s house, and brings about the physical restoration of Simon’s mother-
in-law (Luke 4:38-39). In both cases Christ acts out of necessity and love. In
the first instance, it is the necessity to liberate a person from the power of
Satan and thereby restore order in the service that moves Christ to act. The
redemptive function of the Sabbath, which is already implied in this act of
Christ, will be more explicitly proclaimed in later healings. In the second
instance Christ acts out of deference for one of His beloved disciples and for
his mother-in-law. In this case the physical healing makes the Sabbath a day
of rejoicing for the whole family. It is also noteworthy that the healing re-
sults in immediate service: “immediately she rose and served them” (v. 39).
The meaning of the Sabbath as redemption, joy and service, already
present in an embryonic phase in these first healing acts of Christ, is re-
vealed more explicitly in the subsequent Sabbath ministry of Christ. At this
early stage, however, the bulk of Christ’s healing activities are postponed
until after the Sabbath apparently to avoid a premature confrontation and
rejection: “Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were
sick with various diseases brought them to him, and he laid his hands on
every one of them and healed them” (Luke 4:40; cf. Mark 1:32).
The man with the withered hand. The next healing episode of the
man with the withered hand, reported by all the three Synoptics (Matt. 12 :9-
21; Mark 3 :1-6), is the test case by which Christ begins His Sabbath re-
forms. Jesus finds Himself in the synagogue before a man with a paralyzed
hand, brought there in all probability by a deputation of Scribes and Phari-
sees.38 These had come to the synagogue not to worship, but rather to scru-
tinize Christ and “see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they
might accuse him” (Mark 3:2).
According to Matthew they ask Christ the testing question: “Is it lawful
to heal on the sabbath?” (Matt. 12:10). Their question is not motivated by a
genuine concern for the sick man, nor by a desire to explore how the Sabbath
is related to the healing ministry. Rather they are there as the authority who
knows all the exemptions foreseen by the rabbinic casuistic, and who wants
to judge Christ on the basis of the minutiae of their regulations. Christ read-
ing their thoughts is “grieved at their hardness of heart” (Mark 3 :5). How-
ever, He accepts the challenge and meets it fairly and squarely. First He
invites the man to come to the front, saying, “Come here” (Mark 3:3). This
step is possibly designed to waken sympathy for the stricken man and at the
same time to make all aware of what He is about to do. Then He asks the
experts of the law, “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to
save life or to kill?” (Mark 3 :4). To bring this question into sharper focus,
according to Matthew Christ adds a second in the form of a parabolic saying
(which appears twice again in a modified form in Luke 14:5; 13:15), “What
man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not
lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep
(Matt. 12:11, 12).39
These statements raise an important issue. By the question of prin-
ciple, which Christ illustrated with the second question containing a con-
crete example, did He intend to abrogate radically the Sabbath command-
ment or did He aim at restoring the institution to its original divine value and
function? Most scholars subscribe to the former option. L. Goppelt
emphatically states that “Jesus’ double question marks the end of the Sab-
bath commandment: it is no longer a statutory ordinance and it no longer has
absolute validity if this all-embracing, overlapping alternative is valid—
namely to save life.”40
This interpretation rests on the assumption that “to save life” is con-
trary to the spirit and function of the Sabbath. Can this be true? It may per-
haps reflect the prevailing misconception and misuse of the Sabbath, but not
the original purpose of the Sabbath commandment. To accept this supposi-
tion would make God guilty of failing to safeguard the value of life when
instituting the Sabbath.
W. Rordorf argues for the same conclusion from the alleged“faulty
manner of deduction” of Christ’s question of principle and of example. He
explains that from the question of whether it is lawful to save or to kill and
from the example of rescuing an animal in urgent need, “one cannot legiti-
mately draw inferences which are valid also for a sick human being who
does not absolutely need immediate assistance on a Sabbath.”41
The Mishnah is explicit on this regard, “Any case in which there is a
possibility that life is in danger, thrust aside the Sabbath law.”42 However,
in the case of the man with the withered hand as well as in each and all the
other instances of Sabbath healing, it is never a question of help given to a
sick person in an emergency, but always to chronically ill persons. There-
fore, Rordorf concludes that the principle of saving life is not a descriptive
value of Sabbath observance, but rather a reference to the nature of the mis-
sion of the Messiah, which was to extend salvation immediately to all in
need. In the face of this “messianic consciousness,” then “the Sabbath com-
mandment became irrelevant . . . it was simply annulled”43
This kind of analysis does not do justice to several points of the nar-
rative. In the first place, the test question which had been posed to Christ was
specifically concerned with the matter of proper Sabbath observance, “Is it
lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matt. 12:10). Secondly, Christ’s reply in the
form of two questions (one implying a principle and the other illustrating it)
also dealt explicitly with the question of what was lawful to perform on the
Sabbath.
Thirdly, the apparent faulty analogy between Christ’s question about
the legitimacy “to save life or to kill” (Mark 3 :4) on the Sabbath and the
chronically stricken man whose life would be neither saved nor lost by post-
poning the act of healing until after the Sabbath, can be satisfactorily ex-
plained by the new value which Christ places upon the Sabbath. This is ex-
plicitly expressed in the positive statement reported by Matthew: “So it is
lawful to do good on the sabbath” (Matt. 12:12). If it is right to do good and
to save on the Sabbath then any refusal to do it means to do evil or to kill. We
shall later see that this principle is exemplified in the story by two opposite
types of Sabbath-keepers.
Unfortunately, since Rordorf cannot fit Matthew’s positive interpre-

tation of the Sabbath into his scheme, he attempts to solve the problem by
accusing him of “beginning the moralistic misunderstanding of Jesus’ atti-
tude toward the Sabbath.” This misunderstanding allegedly consists in as-
suming “that the obligation to love one’s neighbour displaces in certain
circumstances the command to keep a day of rest.”44
One wonders whether Matthew really misunderstood or truly under-
stood Christ’s meaning and message of the Sabbath, when he wrote, “it is
lawful to do good on the sabbath” (Matt. 12 :12). It is true that in post-exilic
Judaism an elaborate fence had been erected around the Sabbath to assure its
faithful observance. The multitude of meticulous and casuistic regulations
(according to Rabbi Johanan there were 1521 derivative laws)45 produced
to guard the Sabbath, turned the observance of the day into a legalistic ritual
rather than into a loving service. However, it is a misunderstanding to view
the Sabbath exclusively in the light of this later legalistic development.
“The obligation to love one’s neighbour” was the essence of the ear-
lier history of the Sabbath and its related institutions. In the various versions
of the Sabbath commandment, for instance, there is a recurring list of per-
sons to whom freedom to rest on the Sabbath is to be granted. The ones
particularly singled out are usually the manservant, the maidservant, the son
of the bondmaid, the cattle, the sojourner and/or alien. This indicates that the
Sabbath was ordained especially to show compassion toward defenseless
and needy beings. “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh you
shall rest; that your ox and your ass may have rest and the son of your bond-
maid and the alien may be refreshed” (Ex. 23 :12). 46
Niels-Erik Andreasen aptly comments that “the landlord must be con-
cerned with the human value of his subjects, just as Yahweh was when he
secured freedom for his people.”47 It is indeed moving that the Sabbath was
designed to show concern even for the cattle. But, as well remarked by Hans
Walter Wolf, “it is more touching that, of all the dependent laborers, the son
of the female slave and the alien are especially singled out. For when such
persons are ordered to work, they have no recourse or protection.”48
This original dimension of the Sabbath as a day to honor God by
showing concern and compassion to fellow beings, had largely been forgot-
ten in the time of Jesus. The Sabbath had become the day when the correct
performance of a ritual was more important than a spontaneous response to
the cry of human needs. Our story provides a fitting example of this prevail-
ing perversion, by contrasting two types of Sabbath-keepers. On the one
side stood Christ “grieved at the hardness of the heart” of his accusers and
taking steps to save the life of a wretched man (Mark 3 :4-5). On the other
side stood the experts of the law who even while sitting in a place of worship
spent their Sabbath time looking for faults and thinking out methods to kill
Christ (Mark 3 :2, 6).
This contrast of attitudes may well provide the explanation to Christ’s
question about the legitimacy of saving or killing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:4),
namely that the person who is not concerned for the physical and spiritual
salvation of others on the Sabbath, is automatically involved in destructive
efforts or attitudes.49
Christ’s program of Sabbath reforms must be seen in the context of
His overall attitude toward the law.50 In the Sermon on the Mountain, Christ
explains that His mission is to restore the various prescriptions of the law to
their original intentions (Matt. 5 :17, 21ff.). This work of clarifying the intent
behind the commandments was a dire necessity, since with the accumulation
of traditions in many cases their original function had been obscured. As
Christ put it, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in
order to keep your tradition !” (Mark 7:9).
The fifth commandment, for instance, which enjoins to “honor your
father and your mother,” according to Christ, had been made void through
the tradition of the Corban (Mark 7:12-13). This apparently consisted in trans-
lating a service or an obligation to be rendered to one’s parents, into a gift to
be given to the temple. The Sabbath commandment was no exception and
unless liberated from the many senseless casuistic restrictions, would have
remained a system for self-righteousness rather than a time for loving the
Creator-Redeemer and one’s fellow beings.
The crippled woman. To gain further understanding into the scope
of Christ’s Sabbath reforms, we shall briefly consider additional healing epi-
sodes. The healing of the crippled woman reported only by Luke (13 :10-17)
is apparently the last act performed by Christ in the synagogue. The mount-
ing opposition of the authorities must have made it impossible for Christ to
continue His Sabbath ministry in the synagogue. This episode, as compared
with the previous healing of the man with the withered hand (Luke, 6:6-li),
shows a substantial evolution.This can be seen both in the more decided
attitude of Christ who automatically moves into action declaring the woman
“freed” from her infirmity (13 :12) without being asked, and in His public
rebuke to the ruler of the synagogue (13 :15).
The authorities also—in this case the president of the synagogue—

protest now not outside the synagogue but inside, by condemning publicly
the whole congregation for seeking healing on the Sabbath (13 :14). Finally,
the redemptive function of the Sabbath is expressed more explicitly. The
verb “to free—luein” is now used to clarify the meaning of the Sabbath. It is
hard to believe that the verb was used by Christ accidentally, since in the
brief narrative it recurs three times, though in the English RSV translation it
is rendered each time with a different synonym, namely “to free, to untie, to
loose” (13:12, 15, 16).
The verb is used by Christ first in addressing the woman, “you are
freed from your infirmity” (v. 12). The woman who for eighteen years had
been “bent over” (v. 11) at the words of Christ “immediately . . . was made
straight and she praised God” (v. 13). The reaction of the president of the
synagogue brings into sharper focus the contrast between the prevailing per-
version of the Sabbath on the one hand and Christ’s effort to restore to the
day its true meaning on the other. “There are six days,” the president an-
nounced, “on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be healed”
(v. 14). For the ruler, who viewed the Sabbath as rules to obey rather than
people to love, healing was a work unfit for the Sabbath. For Christ, who was
concerned to restore the whole being, there was no better day than the Sab-
bath to accomplish this saving ministry.
To clarify this liberating function of Sabbath, Christ twice again uses
the verb “to free.” First, by referring to a rabbinical concession: “You hypo-
crites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the
manger, and lead it away to water it?” (13 :15). It should be noticed that the
watering of an animal on the Sabbath does not fall into the same emergency
category as rescuing a sheep from a pit (Matt. 12:11). Any beast can survive
for a day without water though it may result in loss of weight and conse-
quently in less marketing value.
One wonders if Christ was alluding to this perverted sense of values,
namely that the financial loss deriving from neglecting an animal on the Sab-
bath was more important to some than supplying the needs of human beings
who would bring no financial returns. Perhaps this is reading too much into
Christ’s words. However, the point Jesus makes is clear, namely, that a basic
service is provided on the Sabbath even to animals.
Building upon the concept of untying an animal, Christ again uses
the same verb in the form of a rhetorical question in order to draw His con-
clusion: “And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan
bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day” (13
:16)? Arguing a minori ad maius, that is, from a minor to a greater case,
Christ shows how the Sabbath had been paradoxically distorted. An ox or an
ass could be freed from his manger on the Sabbath, but a suffering woman
could not be released on such a day from her physical and spiritual infirmity.
What a perversion of the Sabbath! Christ acted therefore against the
normative tradition to restore the Sabbath to God’s intended purpose. It should
be noticed that in this and in all instances Christ is not questioning the bind-
ing obligation of the Sabbath commandment, but rather He argues for its
true values which had been largely forgotten.
The imagery of Christ on the Sabbath loosing a victim bound by
Satan’s bonds (13:16), recalls Christ’s announcement of His mission “to pro-
claim release to the captives” (Luke 4 :18; cf. Is. 61:1-3). The liberation of a
daughter of Abraham from the bonds of Satan on the Sabbath represents
then the fulfillment of the Messianic typology of the day. Paul K. Jewett
perspicaciously comments in this regard, “We have in Jesus’ healings on the
Sabbath, not only acts of love, compassion and mercy, but true “sabbatical
acts,” acts which show that the Messianic Sabbath, the fulfillment of the
Sabbath rest of the Old Testament, has broken into our world. Therefore the
Sabbath, of all days, is the most appropriate for healing.”51
This fulfillment by Christ of the Old Testament ‘Sabbath symbology
(as in the case of its related institution, Passover) does not imply, as sug-
gested by the same author, that “Christians therefore are.., free from the
Sabbath to gather on the first day,”52 but rather that Christ by fulfilling the
redemptive typology of the Sabbath made the day a permanent fitting me-
morial of the reality, namely, His redemptive mission.53
We may ask, how did the woman and the people who witnessed
Christ’s saving interventions come to view the Sabbath? Lukereports that
while Christ’s “adversaries were put to shame” (13:17) by the Lord’s justifi-
cation for His Sabbath saving activity, “the people rejoiced” (13:17) and the
woman God” (13:13). Undoubtedly for the woman and for all the people
blessed by the Sabbath ministry of Christ, the day became the memorial of
the healing of their bodies and souls, of the exodus from the bonds of Satan
into the freedom of the Saviour.
The paralytic and the blind man. This relationship between the
Sabbath and the work of salvation is well brought out in the two Sabbath
miracles reported in the Gospel of John (John 5:1-18; 9:1-41). Owing to
their substantial similarity, we shall consider them together. The resemblance
is noticeable in several ways. The healed men had both been chronically ill:
one an a invalid for 38 years (5 :5) and the other blind from birth (9:2). In
both instances Christ told the men to act. To the impotent man he said, “Rise,
take up your pallet, and walk” (5:8); to the blind man, “Go, wash in the pool
of Siloam” (9 :7).
In both cases the Pharisees formally accuse Christ of Sabbath-break-
ing and view this as an evidence that He is not the Messiah: “This man is not
from God, for He does not keep the sabbath” (9 :16; cf. 5 :18). In both situa-
tions the charge against Christ does not involve primarily the actual act of
healing, but rather the breaking of rabbinical sabbatical laws, when ordering
the invalid to carry his pallet (5 :8,10, 12) and when preparing the clay (9:6,
14).54 In both instances Christ repudiates the charge of Sabbath-breaking,
arguing that His works of salvation are not precluded but rather contem-
plated by the Sabbath commandment (5 :17; 7:23; 9:4).
Before examining Christ’s justification for His Sabbath saving ac-
tivities, attention should be drawn to the verb “answered—apekrinato” used
by John to introduce Christ’s defense. Mario Veloso, in his incisive analysis
of this passage, notes that this verbal form occurs only twice in John.55 The
first time when Christ replies to the accusation of the Jews (5 :17) and the
second time when He clarifies the answer given (5 :19).
The common form used by John over fifty times is “apekrithe” which
in English is also translated “answered.” The special use of the middle voice
of the verb “apekrinato” implies, on the one hand as Veloso explains, a pub-
lic and formal defense56 and on the other hand, as expressed by J. H. Moulton,
that “the agent is extremely related with the action.”57 This means not only
that Christ makes a formal defense but that He also identifies Himself with
the content of His answer. The few words of Christ’s defense deserve, there-
fore, careful attention.
What did Christ mean when He formally defended Himself against
the accusation of Sabbath-breaking, saying, “My father is working still, and
I am working” (John 5:17)? This statement has been subjected to consider-
able scrutiny and some far-reaching conclusions have been advanced. J.
Dani6lou maintains that “the words of Christ formally condemn the applica-
tion to God of the Sabbath rest understood as idleness... The working of
Christ is seen to be the reality which comes to replace the figurative idleness
of the Sabbath.”58
W. Rordorf argues that “John 5 :17 intends to interpret Gen. 2 :2f in
the sense that God has never rested from the beginning of creation, that He
does not yet rest, but that he will rest at the end.”59 In the light of the
parallel passage of John 9 :4, he conjectures that “the promised Sabbath rest
of God . -. found its fulfillment in the rest of Jesus in the grave.”60 There-
fore, he concludes that “Jesus derives for Himself the abrogation of the com-
mandment to rest on the weekly sabbath from the eschatological interpreta-
tion of Gen. 2 :2f.”61
Paul K. Jewett reproposes Oscar Cullmann’s explanation, interpret-
ing the expression “My Father is working until now” as implying a move-
ment in redemptive history “from promise to fulfillment,” that is to say,
from the promise of the Old Testament Sabbath rest to the fulfillment found
in the day of the resurrection.62 The argument hinges on the view that “the
rest of God was not achieved at the end of the first creation” but rather, as
Cull-mann puts it, “is first fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ.”63 Sunday,
then, as the day of the resurrection, represents the fulfillment and culmina-
tion of the Divine rest promised by the Old Testament Sabbath.
To assess the validity of these interpretations we need first to ascer-
tain the meaning of the expression “My Father is working until now—heos
arti” and subsequently to establish its relationship to the Sabbath-Sunday
question. There is a wide consensus of opinion for viewing the “working
still” (5 :17) of the Father as a reference to the work of creation mentioned in
Genesis 2 :2f.64 The reasoning behind this interpretation is that since God
has been “working until now” in creative activities, He has not as yet expe-
rienced the creation Sabbath rest, but a time will come at the eschatological
restoration of all things when this will become a reality. Sunday, however,
being by virtue of the resurrection, as Jewett says, “the earnest and anticipa-
tion of that final Sabbath,” is already celebrated by Christians in place of the
Sabbath.65
The interpretative categories utilized to reach this conclusion are bor-
rowed from the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo, who advocated the
idea of continuous creation to avoid a too anthropomorphic view of God’s
rest. “God never ceased to act,” writes Philo, “but as it is the property of fire
to warm, so it is of God to create.”66 Apparently, however, Philo distinguished
between the creation of mortal things which was completed with the divine
rest and the creation of divine things which still continues.67 Later (ca. A.D.
100-130) Rabbis Gamaliel II, Joshua ben Chananiah, Eliezer ben Azariah
and Aqiba explicitly declared in Rome that God continues His creative ac-
tivity.68
This notion of a continuous divine creation present in Hellenistic
Judaism is, however, foreign to the teachings of the Gospel of John. In har-
mony with the view of all the books of the Bible, John teaches that God’s
works of creation were accomplished in a past time known as “beginning”
(1:1). At this beginning, through the Word that was with God (1:1) “all things
were made . . . and without him was not anything made that was made”
(1:3). Both the phrase “In the beginning—arche” and the aorist form of the
verb “egeneto—made or came into being,” indicate with sufficient clarity
that the works of creation are viewed as concluded in an indefinite distant
past. Moreover the fact that in John 5 :17 the works of the Father are identi-
fied with those performed by Christ on earth indicates that it could not pos-
sibly refer to creative works, since Christ at that moment was not engaged in
works of creation.69 To distinguish between the works of the Father and
those of the Son would mean to destroy the absolute unity between the two
which is emphatically taught in John’s Gospel.
What is then the “working until now” of the Father? There are con-
clusive indications that the expression refers not to the creative but to the
redemptive activity of God. The Old Testament provides an explicative an-
tecedent. There, as G. Bertram shows, “God’s activity is seen essentially in
the course of the history of Israel and the nations.”70 M. Veloso well re-
marks that “it is not a question of a history viewed as a mere succession of
human acts, but rather of a history molded by the saving works of God,
through which it becomes the history of salvation.”71
In the Gospel of John these works of God are repeatedly identified
with the saving ministry of Christ. Jesus says, for instance, “the works which
the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am do-
ing, bear me witness, that the Father has sent me” (5 :36). The purpose of the
manifestation of the works of the Father through the ministry of Christ is
also explicitly stated: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him
whom he has sent” (6:29). And again “If I am not doing the works of my
Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not
believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the
Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (10:37, 38 cf. 14:11, 15 :24).72
This sampling of references clarifies the redemptive nature and pur-
pose of the “working until now” of God mentioned in John 5:17. A brief
comparison with the parallel passage of John 9:4 should remove any linger-
ing doubts. Jesus says, “We must work the works of him who sent me, while
it is day; night comes, when no one can work” (9:4). The striking similarity
between the two texts is to be seen not only in their content but also in their
context. In both instances Christ defends His Sabbath “works” from the ac-
cusation of Sabbath-breaking launched by His enemies. However, in John
9:3-4 the redemptive nature of the works of God is absolutely clear. Not
only is the Father described as the One “who sent” the Son to do His works,
thus implying the missionary character of Christ’s activity, but the very healing
of the blind man is described as the manifestation of “the works of God”
(9:3).
These evidences force the conclusion that the “working until now”
of the Father of John 5 :17 does not refer to an uninterrupted creative activ-
ity of God which would nullify any Sabbath observance but rather to the
wor~ks of salvation accomplished bythe Father through the Son. “Speaking
with qualification,” to use the well-chosen words of Donatien Mollat, “there
is but one ‘work of God’: that is, the mission of the Son in the world.”73
If our identification of the “working until now” of the Father (5 :17)
as the saving mission of Christ is correct, a conclusion which to us appears
inescapable, then those interpretations mentioned earlier which explain
Christ’s words as a reference to the creation Sabbath rest which allegedly
God has never kept yet, are altogether unwarranted, since the notion of crea-
tion is not present at all in John 5 :17.
A question however still remains, namely, does not the fact that Christ
defends His Sabbath healings on the ground of the uninterrupted saving ac-
tivities of His Father manifested through Him imply that, as stated by Jewett,
“by His redemptive work, Jesus sets aside the Sabbath”?74 To assume that
through His Sabbath deeds Christ was announcing (though in a veiled fash-
ion) the end of Sabbath observance, is to hold the same position of those
Jews who accused Christ of Sabbath-breaking (John 5:16, 18; 9:16). But
this is the very charge that Christ consistently refuses to admit. In the heal-
ing episodes we noticed earlier how Christ defended His Sabbath saving
activities on the basis of the humanitarian considerations foreseen, at least in
part, even in their rabbinical Sabbath legislation.
Similarly in John, Christ refutes formally the charge of Sabbath-break-
ing by a theological argument admitted by His opponents. Before consider-
ing Christ’s argument, it must be emphasized that Jesus in this and in all the
other instances does not concede to have transgressed the Sabbath, but rather
defends the legality of His action. As aptly stated by M. Veloso, a defense is
never intended to admit the accusation, but on the contrary to refute it. Jesus
does not accept the charge of Sabbath-breaking levelled at Him by the Jews.
He is accomplishing the work of salvation which is lawful to do on the Sab-
bath.”75
To understand the force of Christ’s defense in John, we need to re-

member what we already discussed in part, namely that the Sabbath is linked
both to the cosmos through creation (Gen. 2:2-3, Ex. 20:8-11) and to re-
demption through the exodus. (Deut. 5:15). While by interrupting all secular
activities the Israelite was remembering the Creator-God, by acting merci-
fully toward fellow beings he was imitating the Redeemer-God. This was
true not only in the life of the people who, as we noticed, on the Sabbath
were to be compassionate toward the lower orders of the society, but par-
ticularly in the service of the temple. There on the Sabbath the priests per-
formed many common works which the Israelites were forbidden to do.
For instance, while no baking was to be done in the home on the
Sabbath (Ex. 16 :23), yet in the temple bread was baked on that day (1 Sam.
21:3-6) to replace the week-old bread of the presence (Lev. 24 :8; 1 Chr. 9
:32). The same is true of all the works related to the maintenance and sacri-
ficial system of the temple. Many activities which were common per se be-
came holy acts on the Sabbath since they contributed to the salvation of the
people. These saving activities could be performed on the Sabbath, since
God Himself, as the Psalmist says, “is from of old working salvation in the
midst of the earth” (Psalm74:12).
On the basis of this theology of the Sabbath admitted by the Jews,
Christ defends the legality of His Sabbath saving acts, saying, “My Father is
working still, and I am working” (John 5 :17). That is to say, I am engaged
on the Sabbath in the same saving activity as the Father, and that is perfectly
lawful to perform. To avoid misunderstanding Christ explains the nature of
the works of the Father which “the Son does likewise” (5 :19). These consist
in raising the dead, giving life (5:21) and in conducting a saving judgment (5
:22-23). For the Jews who were unwilling to accept the Messianic claim of
Christ, this justification of performing on the Sabbath the works of salvation
of the Father, made Him guilty on two counts: “He not only broke the sab-
bath but also ... [made] himself equal with God” (5 :18).
This hostile reaction made it necessary for Christ to clarify further
the legality of His action. In John 7 :21-23 (a passage which most commen-
tators recognize to be related to chapter 5),76 we find the echo of the contro-
versy. Here Christ elaborates His previous theological justification for His
Sabbath acts, by wisely using the example of the circumcision: “You cir-
cumcise a man upon the sabbath. If on the sabbath a man receives circumci-
sion, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me
because on the sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? Do not judge by
appearances, but judge with right judgment (7:22-24).”
Why was it legitimate to circumcise a child on the Sabbath when the

eighth day (Lev. 12 :3) after his birth fell on that day? No explanation is
given since it was well understood. The circumcision was regarded as a re-
demptive act which mediated the salvation of the covenant.”77 It was law-
ful, therefore, on the Sabbath to mutilate one of the 248 parts of the human
body (that was the Jewish reckoning)78 in order to save the whole person.
On the basis of this premise Christ argues that there is no reason to be “an-
gry” with Him for restoring on that day the “whole body” of man (7:23).79
This example clarifies and substantiates Christ’s previous statement
about the “working still” of His Father, since it suggests that works of salva-
tion are accomplished on the Sabbath not only by the Father in heaven but
also by His servants such as the priests on the earth. The Sabbath is then for
Christ the day to work for the redemption of the whole man. In both healings,
in fact, Christ looks for the healed men later on the same day and having
found them, He ministers also to their spiritual needs (John 5 :14; 9:35-38).
His opponents cannot perceive the redemptive nature of Christ’s Sabbath
ministry because they “judge by appearances” (7 :24). They regard the pal-
let which the paralytic carried on the Sabbath as more important than the
physical restoration and social reunification which the object symbolized
(5:10-11). They view the mixing of clay on the Sabbath as more significant
than the restoration of sight to the blind mind (9:14, 15, 26).80
Christ’s provocative infringement of rabbinical regulations (such as
those dealing with the carrying of a pallet or mixing of clay on the Sabbath)
were designed therefore not to invalidate the Sabbath commandment but
rather to restore the day to its positive function. M. J. Lagrange aptly notes
that “Christ was careful to distinguish between that which was contrary and
that which was in harmony with the spirit of the law.... Jesus was working
like the Father and if the actions of the Father in no way contradicted the rest
prescribed by the Scriptures, then the activities accomplished on the Sab-
bath by the Son were not contrary to the spirit of that institution.”81
We can conclude that the works of the Father to which Christ refers
when He says, “My Father is working still, and I am working” (John 5 :17)
are not the works of creation which John views as completed but those of
redemption. God rested at the completion of creation but because of sin He
is “working still” to accomplish its restoration. These works of salvation, on
which the Father is constantly engaged, are contemplated and permitted by
the Sabbath commandment. Christ therefore denies having acted against the
Sabbath when He restored sick persons, since He was accomplishing the
very same saving mission as the Father. Moreover in John 9:4, Jesus appar-
ently extends to His followers the same invitation to do God’s work “while it
is day; night comes when no one can work” (9:4). Some interpret the “night”
as a reference to the death of Christ 82 which inaugurated the true rest of
God by virtue of the resurrection commemorated by Sunday observance.
While it is true that for Christ the “night” of the cross was very near,
it can hardly be said that the term applies exclusively to Christ’s death, since
the “night” is described as a time when “no one—oudes” can work” (9:4).
The death of Christ can hardly be regarded as the interruption of all divine
and/or human redemptive activity. Could not this term allude to the end of
the history of redemption when God’s invitation to accept salvation will no
longer be extended? On the other hand, the expressions “the Father is work-
ing still” (5 :17) and “we must work . . . while it is day” (9:4) which were
spoken by Christ to defend His saving ministry on the Sabbath day well
epitomize the Saviour’s understanding of the Sabbath, namely, a time to
experience God’s continuous salvation by sharing it with others.83
The plucking of ears of corn. This redemptive function of the Sab-
bath is further clarified in the episode of the plucking of the ears of corn by
the disciples on a Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-28; Matt. 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5). An
argument ensued between Christ and the Pharisees, who held Jesus respon-
sible for the action of the disciples. Some scholars interpret Mark’s expres-
sion “the disciples began to make [their] way odon poiein plucking ears of
grain” (Mark 2:23) as meaning the clearing of a pathway for Christ through
the cornfield. Thus the ire of the Pharisees would have been caused by the
great quantity of grain being harvested.
While it must be admittedthat the expression “to make a way—odon
poiein” taken literally could support such conclusion, in the light of the con-
text this can hardly be the case. If the disciples’ intention was to clear a
pathway through the cornfield for their Master,84 they would have trodden
down or cut down the corn with a sickle, not merely plucked ears of corn by
hand. Moreover, if the disciples had actually dared to clear a pathway through
a cornfield, they would have been charged not solely with Sabbath breaking,
but also with trespassing, destroying and stealing private property. The pluck-
ing of ears of corn, therefore, occurred not “to make a way” for their Mas-
ter,84 but rather, as translated by the RSV, “as they made their way” (Mark
2:23) along a path that went through the fields.85
In the opinion of the rabbis, however, by that action the disciples
were guilty on several counts. By plucking the ears of grain they were guilty
of reaping, by rubbing them in their hands they were guilty of threshing, by
separating the grain from the husk they were guilty of winnowing; and by
the whole procedure they were guilty of preparing a meal on the Sabbath
day.86 Therefore, regarding their action as an outright desecration of the
Sabbath, the Pharisees complained to Christ, saying, “Look, why are they
doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (Mark 2:24).One wonders, first of
all, why the disciples were assuaging their hunger by eating raw ears of
grain plucked along the hedge of a field. And also, where were they going on
a Sabbath?
The fact that the Pharisees made no objection to the distance being
covered by their journey suggests that theirs was no more than a Sabbath
day’s journey of approximately two-thirds of a mile.87 The texts provide no
hint about their destination, but the presence of the Pharisees among them
on a Sabbath day suggests the possibility that Christ and the disciples had
attended the service at the synagogue and, having received no dinner invita-
tion, they were making their way through the fields to find a place to rest. If
this were the case, then Christ’s reply to the Pharisees, particularly the quo-
tation, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Matt. 12 :7), could well contain a
veiled rebuke to their negligence to practice Sabbath hospitality. An impor-
tant aspect of the preparation of the Sabbath meal was in fact that of plan-
ning for eventual visitors. Christ then apparently, as well stated by R. G.
Hirsch, “answers their charge with another charge. For the act of the dis-
ciples there was some excuse; for the Pharisees’ neglect to provide the Sab-
bath meals, there was none.” 88
The motivation for the action of the disciples (which in Mark is im-
plied in Christ’s defense of their act) is explicitly stated by Matthew when he
says, “His disciples were hungry” (Matt. 12:1). W. Rordorf argues that
Matthew’s mention of the disciples’ hunger provides no justification for their
breach of the Sabbath, since (1) it implies negligence on their part in “not
having prepared their meals on the previous day as everyone else”; (2) “they
could have fasted for the whole day” if on account of their missionary com-
mitments they had been unable to prepare their food ahead of time; and (3)
the disciples were not “in danger of life through sheer exhaustion.”89
Our author reasons as a skilled rabbi, but he fails to recognize that
Matthew’s justification for the conduct of the disciples is not based on the
rabbinical view of the Sabbath but rather on that of Christ. The sayings and
examples of Christ reported by Matthew present the Sabbath not as an insti-
tution more important than human needs, but as a time of “mercy” (12:7)
and service to humanity (12:12). In this perspective the hunger of the dis-
ciples could legitimately be satisfied on the Sabbath.90
A closer look at the various arguments put forward by Christ to meet

the criticism of His opponents, will provide additional insight into Christ’s
concept of the Sabbath. First of all, Christ reminded the Pharisees of David
and his men, who once assuaged their hunger by eating the showbread which
was forbidden except to the priests (1 Sam. 21:1-7). The implication is clear.
If it was right for David to allay his hunger by eating of the bread conse-
crated to holy use, then it was legitimate also for the disciples to provide for
their needs by plucking ears of grain during the holy time of the Sabbath.91
In both instances, holy bread and holy time were used exceptionally to meet
human needs. Their use was justified by the fact that the intention behind all
divine laws is not to deprive but to ensure life. The exception therefore does
not nullify but corroborates the validity of the commandment.92
The contrast between the case of David and that of Christ adds force
to the argument. David’s followers were soldiers (1 Sam. 22:2) while those
of Christ were peaceful men. David to allay his hunger ate of the forbidden
showbread which is far less lawful to be touched than ears of corn. David’s
hunger, in fact, set aside a specific divine regulation (Lev. 24 :5; Josephus,
Antiquities, 3, 10, 7) while the disciples’ hunger set aside mere rabbinical
notions. By appealing to an exception approved by countless generations93
(“Have you never read . . . .Mark 2:25) Christ reasons a majori ad minus to
demonstrate that His disciples were guiltless (Matt. 12 :7), since like David,
they had obeyed the higher law of necessity.94
The point to observe, however, is that Christ does not minimize the
infraction of the precept by introducing a more liberal casuistry. (He sees
that all forms of casuistry enslave man.)95 On the contrary, Christ states
explicitly and strikingly that David’s action was “not lawful” (Mark 2 :26).
The disciples too, He implies, by their action had broken the Sabbath law of
complete rest. Nevertheless in both instances they were blameless because
the larger obligation overruled the lesser, that is to say, mercy was more
important than sacrifice.
This concept is further elaborated in Matthew by Christ’s saying re-
garding the priests who “profane the Sabbath” (12:5) by performing in the
temple a host of activities illegal for the ordinary person, yet are innocent
(12:5). On the Sabbath, in fact, the work in the temple was augmented by the
double amount of offerings (Num. 28 :9-10).96 Why were the priests “guilt-
less” (12 :5) though working more intensely on the Sabbath? The answer
lies, as we noted earlier, in the redemptive nature of their Sabbath work,
designed to provide forgiveness and salvation to needy sinners.
The priests performed activities on the Sabbath which per se were

rightly condemned by the commandment, yet they were guiltless because
they were fulfilling the purpose of the Sabbath which is to supply the spir-
itual needs of the people. But, how could Christ defend His actions as well
as those of His disciples by this example of the service performed by the
priests on the Sabbath, when neither He nor His disciples were fulfilling the
divine law of sacrifices on that day? The answer is found in the subsequent
statement Christ made, “I tell you something greater than the temple is here”
(Matt. 12 :6).97
The symbolic function of the temple and its services had now found
its fulfillment and were superseded by the service of the True High Priest.
Therefore, on the Sabbath, and even by preference on the Sabbath, Christ
also must intensify His “sacrificial offering,” that is to say, His ministry of
salvation on behalf of needy sinners; and what He does His followers, the
new priesthood, must do likewise. We found in John 7 :22-23 that Christ
expresses the same concept. As the priest on the Sabbath by the redemptive
act of circumcision extended the blessing of the covenant to the newborn, so
Christ on the Sabbath must work for the salvation of the entire human being.
Christ finds in the temple and its services a valid frame of reference
to explain His Sabbath theology, since their redemptive function best exem-
plified both His Messianic mission and the divine intended purpose for the
Sabbath. In fact by identifying His saving mission with the Sabbath, Christ
reveals the ultimate divine purpose of the commandment, namely, fellowship
of man with God. The Sabbath becomes through Christ a time not only to
commemorate God’s past creation but also to experience the blessings of
salvation by ministering to the needs of others.
The humanitarian dimension of the Sabbath unfortunately had largely
been forgotten in Christ’s day. The claims of rituals had taken the place of
the claims of service to human needs. In the statement reported by Matthew,
Christ openly attacks this perversion of the Sabbath, saying, “If you had
known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not
have condemned the guiltless” (Matt. 12:7). For Christ the disciples are “guilt-
less” though they had contravened the Sabbath law of complete rest, be-
cause the true meaning of the commandment is ‘‘mercy and not sacrifice.’’
What do ‘‘mercy” and “sacrifice” stand for? The prophet Hosea, from whose
bodk these words are quoted, rebukes his people for “seeking the Lord . . .
with their flocks and herds” (5 :6) as if God could be propitiated by the many
costly sacrifices (cf. 1 Sam. 15 :22).
The prophet reminds them that what God desires is “mercy and not
sacrifice” (6 :6). This mercy desired by God is characterized both in the Old
and New Testament, as noted by R. Bultmann, not by a vague “disposition,”
but rather by a concrete attitude that finds expression in “helpful acts.” 98 In
the Gospel of Matthew, especially, “mercy” denotes the acts of aid and relief
that members of the covenant community owe to one another (Matt. 5:7,
9:13; 12:7, 23:23). As well expressed by I. R. Achtemeier, “Members of a
community, no matter who they be—Scribes, Pharisees, tax collectors, sin-
ners—are to give love and aid and comfort to one another.” 99 It was this
pity and sympathy for anyone in distress that the Pharisee’s lacked. There-
fore, the hunger which plagued Christ and His disciples did not kindle within
their hearts any feeling of tenderness or eagerness to help. Instead they were
condemning the disciples.
This showing of love by acts of kindness represents for Christ the
true observance of the Sabbath, since it acknowledges the very redemptive
activity of God, which the day commemorates. In fact, as memorial of the
divine redemption from both the bondage of Egypt (Deut. 5:15) and the
bonds of sin (Luke 5:18-19; 13:16; John 5:17), the Sabbath is the time when
believers experience God’s merciful salvation by expressing kindness and
mercy toward others. Therefore, the order of the true Sabbath service which
Christ sets up requires first the living-loving service of the heart and then the
fulfillment of cultic prescriptions. It is a sobering thought that in the Gospels
less is said about the preaching ministry of Christ on the Sabbath in the
Synagogue and more about His ministry of compassion and mercy on behalf
of needy sinners.
This fundamental value of the Sabbath is emphasized by Christ in
another saying pronounced in conjunction with the same episode, but re-
ported only by Mark, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sab-
bath” (2 :27).100 Some authors have interpreted this famous pronounce-
ment of Christ as meaning that “the well-being of man is superior to the
Sabbath rest”101 and since the Sabbath “no longer spelt blessings but hard-
ship, it had failed in its divine purpose, and as a consequence rebellion against
it or disregard of it was no sin.102
The least that can be said of this interpretation is that it attributes to
God human shortsightedness, since from this viewpoint He would have given
a law that could not accomplish its intended purpose and consequently was
forced later to abolish it. By this reasoning the validity of any God-given
law is determined not by its intended purpose but rather by the way human
beings use or abuse it. Such a conclusion would make man and not God the
ultimate arbiter who determines the validity of any commandment.
What did Christ actually mean by the affirmation that “the Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2 :27)? To interpret this
saying as meaning that “the well-being of man is superior to the Sabbath
rest” would imply that the Sabbath rest had been imposed arbitrarily upon
man to restrict his welfare. But this interpretation runs contrary to the very
words of Christ. “The Sabbath,” He said, “was made on account of (dia)
man and not man on account of the Sabbath.” This means that the Sabbath
came into being (egeneto) after the creation of man, not to make him a slave
of rules and regulations but to ensure his physical and spiritual well-being.
The welfare of man, then, is not restricted but guaranteed by its proper
observance. As aptly stated by Charles R. Erdman, “Herein lay the error of
the Pharisees. They had so interpreted the Sabbath day and so loaded it with
minute, absurd and vexing requirements and restrictions, that its observance
was no longer a delight but a burden. The Law, instead of being a servant,
had been transformed into a cruel master, and under its tyranny men were
groaning.”103
By this memorable affirmation “the sabbath was made on account of
man,” Christ then does not abrogate the original Sabbath commandment,
foreseeing the institution of a new day, but rather He strikes off the shackles
imposed by the rabbinical Sabbath theology of post-exilic Judaism which
had exalted the Sabbath above human needs. To require the disciples to deny
their needs in order to keep the Sabbath is to pervert its intended function,
namely, to be a day of blessing, not one of hardship.
Some have argued that when Christ says that the Sabbath was made
for man, He means to condemn the prevailing Jewish exclusivistic notion
that the Sabbath was not for the Gentiles but only for Israel and thereby
proclaims its universal scope.104 While undoubtedly Christ takes this wider
view of the Sabbath, this meaning is quite alien to the context of the pas-
sage, where the question discussed is not the universal scope of the Sabbath
rest but rather its fundamental function.105
To sanction with His Messianic authority His interpretation of the
Sabbath, Christ adds a memorable pronouncement reported by all the
Synoptics, “So the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath” (Mark 2:28 par.).
This conclusion has been thought by some to be logically disconnected in
Mark from the previous statement (2 :27) where the Sabbath is related to
man in general and not to Christ. Since it was the disciples and not the Son
of man who had been accused, it is argued that Christ’s proclamation of
lordship over the Sabbath would not justify His disciples’ breaking it. It is
suggested, therefore, that the formula “son of man” could be a mistransla-
tion of the Aramaic barnasha which can mean man as well as “son of man.”
In this case Christ originally said, “‘The sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath. So man [not the Son of man] is Lord even of the Sabbath”
(Mark 2:27-28).106 The change from “man” to “Son of man” was made
allegedly by the primitive Church because she was afraid to assume per-
sonal responsibility for the violation of the Sabbath and, therefore, timidly
sought only in Christ the freedom from its obligation.107
The idea that the formula “Son of man” is a mistranslation of an
Aramaic phrase is gratuitous. “If the Aramaic is mistranslated in v. 28,” as
D. E. Nineham aptly remarks, “why not in v. 27?”108 We find however that
the phrase occurs earlier in the chapter (2 :10) when Christ in a similar dis-
pute with the Pharisees designates Himself “Son of man” to affirm His au-
thority to forgive sin. This is in fact Christ’s favorite designation for Himself
(it appears in the Gospels some 80 times) because seemingly it denotes His
Messiahship. Therefore the interpretation that “Son of man” is equivalent to
“man,” as well stated by Josef Schmid, “runs counter not only to the literary
use of Mark, in whom the words ‘Son of man’ are found only as a title
whereby Jesus designates Himself, but also to the fact that Jesus Himself
recognized the Sabbath as something instituted by God.” 109
In fact, it would be difficult to reconcile Christ’s affirmation that the
Sabbath was established by God for man (v. 27) with the conclusion that
man in general is lord of the Sabbath, that is to say, free from its obligation.
110 In this case v. 28 would not ‘make v. 27 more intelligible but on the
contrary would represent a negation of its principle.
Moreover, even granting that, as perspicaciously pointed out by Ri-
chard S. McConnell in his dissertation, “the original meaning of Jesus’ words
was that man is the Lord of the Sabbath, it is doubtful whether this means
that the Sabbath law was no longer binding at all, as Rordorf maintains. The
meaning could be that Jesus gave the disciples the right to decide how they
could honor and worship on the Sabbath. The disciples were not the servants
of the Law, but they were given authority to determine by their Master’s
example how to fulfill the intention behind the Sabbath law.”111
To interpret the saying of Christ as the effort of the primitive Church
to justify the replacement of the Sabbath by a new day of worship, is to read
into the passage an issue which is not there. The controversy is not Sabbath
versus Sunday, but rather over the conduct of the disciples who, according
to the charge of the Pharisees, were “doing what is not lawful on the sab-
bath” (Mark 2:24 par.). We noticed that Christ refutes this criticism by put-
ting forth several arguments to demonstrate that the action of satisfying the
hunger by plucking ears of corn was in harmony with the intended function
of the Sabbath. After enunciating the fundamental purpose of the Sabbath,
namely a day established to ensure man’s wellbeing, Christ concludes by
affirming His Lordship over the day.
It is claimed that the two clauses “the sabbath is made for man, and
so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath” do not fit, since the latter
represents “a weakening and a limitation”112 of the former. This conclu-
sion rests on the sole comparison of “man with Son of Man,” without taking
into account what is said about each of them. The train of thought, however,
becomes clear when one focuses on what is said about the two. Of man it
says that the Sabbath was made (egeneto) for him, and of the Son of man
that He is the Lord (kurios) of the Sabbath. The inference “so—hoste” de-
pends on the fact that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath (v. 28) because
He made the day for man’s benefit (v. 27).
The emphasis in the Greek construction is in fact not on the Son of
‘man but on the predicate “Lord” which is rightfully placed first. Its English
literal translation reads, “therefore Lord is the Son of man also of the Sab-
bath.”113 Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath is grounded, then, on the pre-
vious affirmation that the Sabbath was made for man’s benefit.
Some may ask, how can the instituting of the Sabbath for man’s ben-
efit constitute the ground of Christ’s lordship over the day? The answer is
found in the fact that the Son of God can rightfully claim both to have cre-
ated man and also to have instituted the Sabbath to ensure his well-being.
Ultimately, therefore, Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath represents His au-
thority over man himself.
Seen in this perspective the two clauses do fit logically, the latter
representing not a weakening but a strengthening of the previous statement.
Several exegetes acknowledge this logical dependency of the two clauses.
Henry Barclay Swete writes for instance, “In Mark the sequence of thought
is clear. The Sabbath, being made for man’s benefit, is subject to the control
of the ideal and representative Man, to whom it belongs.114
Similarly Joseph Huby explains the nexus between the two clauses,
saying, “The Sabbath having been made for the welfare of man depends
upon the lordship of the Son of Man whom God has ordained as arbiter of
what is suitable for the spiritual well-being and for the salvation of men.115
Therefore by proclaiming Himself “Lord of the Sabbath,” Christ is not grant-
ing to His disciples “fundamental freedom with regard to the Sabbath”116
but rather He is affirming that, as stated by Richard S. McConnell, “He has
the authority to determine in what manner the Sabbath is to be kept so that
God is honored and man is benefited.”
We have noticed that Christ’s defense of His disciples’ plucking ears
of corn on the Sabbath is a rather long speech built up by stages as argument
is added to argument. Five basic thoughts are reported by the Synoptics to
demonstrate not only the innocence of His disciples but especially the true
meaning of the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:8-11). First, Christ refers to
the case of David to clarify the general principle that necessity knows no
law. Holy bread or holy time can be used exceptionally in order to sustain
life.
Secondly, Christ moves from a general principle to a specific ex-
ample of exceptional use of the Sabbath by the priests to prove that the com-
mandment does not preclude but contemplates ministering to the spiritual
needs of people. Being Himself the superior Anti-type of the temple and its
priesthood, Christ as well as His followers, like the priests, must also inten-
sify on the Sabbath their ministry of salvation to needy sinners.
Thirdly, by citing Hosea’s statement, “I desire mercy and not sacri-
fice,” Jesus explains that the order of priorities in the observance of the Sab-
bath is first a loving service of kindness to needy people and then the fulfill-
ment of ritual prescriptions. Fourthly, Christ reaffirms the fundamental prin-
ciple that the Sabbath was instituted to ensure man’s well-being, and there-
fore any denial of human needs on account of the Sabbath commandment
would be a perversion of its original purpose.
Lastly, Christ provides the final and decisive sanction of the conduct
of His disciples and of His interpretation of the Sabbath commandment, by
proclaiming His Messianic lordship over the Sabbath. Guiltless therefore
are the disciples who accepted Christ’s lordship and were doing what He
allowed them to do, but condemned are those who thought to honor the
Sabbath by adhering to often foolish rabbinical traditions while dishonoring
its intended purpose and its Lord.
In the light of this Messianic proclamation of lordship over the Sab-
bath, it is well to consider the meaning of Christ’s summons recorded in
Matthew as a preface to the subsequent Sabbath conflicts. The Saviour says,
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest
(anapauso). Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and
lowly in heart, and you will find rest (anapausin) for your souls. For my
yoke is easy, and my burden light (Matt. 11:28-30).”
Twice in this invitation Christ promises rest to those who come to
Him and learn from Him. This pronouncement, as several commentators
have noted, was apparently made on a Sabbath and should be connected
with the subsequent Sabbath material, since the following verse begins with
“At that time—en ekeino to kairo” (12:1). 117 The possibility exists there-
fore that the rest that Jesus promises is, as stated by J. Danidlou, “the anapausis
[rest] of the true Sabbath.” 118 In this case Christ’s Sabbath rest is viewed
as an easy yoke” and “light burden” possibly by contrast with the heavy
yoke of rabbinical requirements which weighed heavily upon the people.119
This figure was familiar to Christ’s hearers, since the rabbis referred to the
Law as a “yoke” and to the disciples as those who put their neck under the
“yoke.”120
What is the new “Sabbath rest” that Christ promises to those who
labor in vain to procure rest for themselves by fulfilling burdensome legal
obligations? In our previous analysis of the Sabbath material of the Gospels,
we noticed that Christ made the Sabbath the fitting symbol of His redemptive
mission. Not only did Jesus announce His mission as the fulfillment of the
sabbatical time of redemption (Luke 4:18-19), but on the Sabbath He inten-
sified His works of salvation (John 5 :17; 9 :4) on behalf of needy sinners, so
that souls whom “Satan bound” (Luke 13:16) would experience and remember
the Sabbath as the day of their liberation.
Moreover, it was on a Friday afternoon that Christ completed His
redemptive mission on this earth and having said “it is finished” (John 19:30),
He hallowed the Sabbath by resting in the tomb (Luke 23 :53-54; Matt. 27
:57-60; Mark 15 :42, 46). As the Sabbath rest at the end of creation (Gen. 2
:2-1) expressed the satisfaction and joy of the Godhead over a complete and
perfect creation, so the Sabbath rest now at the end of Christ’s earthly mis-
sion expresses the rejoicing of the Deity over the complete and perfect re-
demption restored to man. In the light of Christ’s teaching and ministry, the
Sabbath rest epitomizes the blessings of salvation which the Saviour pro-
vides to burdened souls.
The Sabbath in the Letter to the Hebrews
The echo of this redemptive meaning of the Sabbath is found in He-
brews, to which we alluded earlier, where God’s people are reassured of the
permanence of the blessings of the “Sabbath rest—sabbatismos” (4:9) and

are exhorted to accept them (4:11).121 The author of Hebrews is laboring
with a community of Jewish Christians who apparently shared the conviction
that the blessings of Sabbath-keeping were tied to the Jewish national cov-
enant. Sabbath observance was associated in fact with the material prosper-
ity which only the members of the covenant community would enjoy in a
state of political peace.122 To wean these Jewish-Christians away from such
an exclusive and material view of the Sabbath and to establish its universal,
redemptive and spiritual nature, the author welds together two Old Testa-
ment texts, namely Genesis 2 :2 and Psalm 95 :11. By the former, he traces
the origin of the Sabbath rest back to the time of creation when “God rested
on the seventh day from all His works” (Heb. 4 :4; cf. Gen. 2 :2-3; Ex. 20:11;
31:17).
The fact that the Sabbath rest originated with God gives to it univer-
sal and eternal validity. “This Sabbath of God,” as well stated by Adolph
Saphir, “is the substratum and basis of all peace and rest—the pledge of an
ultimate and satisfactory purpose in creation.”123 By the latter (Psalm 95:11)
he explains the scope of this “Sabbath rest” which includes the blessings of
salvation to be found by entering personally into “God’s rest” (4:10, 3, 5).
To demonstrate this universal redemptive scope of the “good news”
(4:2) of the Sabbath rest which “came to us just as to them [i.e. the Israelitesl”
(4:2) and which can be appropriated personally by “faith” (4 :2), the author
of Hebrews draws several remarkable conclusions from Psalm 95. First, he
reasons that God’s swearing in Psalm 95 :11 that the Israelites should not
enter into His rest indicates that God has promised a Sabbath rest, which,
however the wilderness generation “failed to enter [i.e. in the promised land
of rest] because of disobedience” (4:6; cf. 3:16-19). 124 “Therefore,” he
argues, “it remains for some to enter it” (4 :6).
Secondly, he proceeds to show that God’s Sabbath rest was not ex-
hausted even in the following generation when the Israelites under Joshua
did enter the land of rest, since “David so long afterward” (4 :7) says “Today,
when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Heb. 4 :7, cf. Ps. 95 :7).
The fact that long after the original proclamation of the good news of the
Sabbath rest, even in David’s time, God “again” renews His promise by say-
ing “today,” indicates that the promise of entry into ‘God’s Sabbath rest
(sabbatismos) still “remains . . . for the people of God” (4 :9).125
Lastly, the writer implies that, as well stated by G. von Rad, “the
‘today’ in which the Psalm renews God’s offer of rest has dawned with the
coming of Christ” (4:7).126 By this line of reasoning he is able to demon-

strate that the Sabbath has a three-dimensional meaning. It commemorates
first the completion of creation. Later it came to symbolize the promise of
entry into the land of rest and its temporal realization. Lastly, “these two
meanings,” which, as noted by J. Daniélou, were “the prefiguration and the
prophecy of another sabbatismos, of a seventh day, which had not yet come
about,” have been fulfilled and become a reality for the people of God through
Christ. 127 By the juxtaposition of the two texts (Gen. 2 :2; Ps. 95 :11), the
writer of Hebrews provides unshakable assurance that God’s people through
Jesus Christ shares at length in the whole purpose of creation and redemp-
tion epitomized by the Sabbath rest.
It may be argued that since the author of the Epistle is not discussing
the actual observance of the Sabbath but rather the permanence and fulfill-
ment of its blessings, no inference can be drawn regarding its literal obser-
vance. Such observation is hardly justified since the Epistle is addressed to a
Jewish-Christian community that highly regarded Jewish observances such
as Sabbath-keeping. 128 The fact that the author is not engaged in a polemic
defense of the validity of Sabbath observance, but rather in an exhortation to
experience its blessing which “remains . . . for the people of God” (4 :9),
makes his testimony all the more valuable, since it takes its observance for
granted. What the recipients of the Epistle needed to know was not the bind-
ing obligation of the Sabbath commandment, but rather its true meaning in
the light of the coming of Christ.
The majority of commentators by interpreting the “sabbath rest (Or
the keeping of a Sabbath) that remains for the people of God” (4 :9) as an
exclusive future realization, have failed to grasp the implication of the ex-
hortation for its present observance. Samuel T. Lowrie suggests a plausible
explanation for the prevailing misunderstanding of the teaching of the Epistle
concerning Sabbath-keeping. The Epistle won canonical recognition (in the
West in about the 4th century) only long after the existence of “churches
made up of converted Hebrews.” The result has been that Gentile interpret-
ers, unfamiliar with the circumstances of the original readers of the Epistle,
have missed the points that would be apprehended by primitive Jewish con-
verts.129
It should be noted that while the reassurance of a “Sabbath rest ‘that’
remains . . . for the people of God” (4 :9) and the exhortation “to enter that
rest” (4:11) can suggest a future realization of its blessings, the whole pas-
sage also contains several significant indications of a present Sabbath-keep-
ing experience. In verse 3, for instance, the writer emphatically states, “for
we who have believed are entering (eiserkometha) into the rest.” The present
tense here, as noted by R. C. H. Lenski, is not expressing an abstract univer-
sality, for then it should read “they enter.” 130 The personal form “we enter”
refers to the writer and readers who “having believed” (4 :3) enter in the
present into the “rest” which is qualified in the following verse as being
God’s Sabbath rest available since the creation of the world (4:3-4).
Similarly the verb “remains—apoleipetai” (4:6,9) which literally
means “to leave behind,” is a present passive and therefore does not neces-
sarily imply a future prospect. Verse 9 can be literally translated, “Then a
Sabbath rest is left behind for the people of God” since Joshua’s generation
did not exhaust its promises (v. 8). The present tense emphasizes its present
permanence rather than its future possibility.
The force of the two “Today—semeron” in verse 7 is also
significant. The “today” of the Psalm in which God renews the “good news”
(4 :6) of His rest, indicates to the writer that since the gospel of the Sabbath
rest was reoffered in the days of David, 131 it does extend to Christian
times. The condition for accepting it is the same: “Do not harden your hearts,”
“when you hear his voice” (4:7). This is not a future but a present “today”
response to the “good news.” This response well epitomizes the meaning of
Christian Sabbath-keeping. In verse 10 this concept is further clarified by
means of the analogy between the rest of God and that of man, (literally)
“for whoever entered God’s rest also rested from his works as God did from
his.”
Both verbs “entered—eiselthon” and “rested—katepausen” are not
future but aorist tense, indicating therefore not a future experience but one
which, though it occurred in the past, continues in the present. In the RSV
both verbs are given in the present (“enters - - - ceases”) apparently since the
context underlines the present and timeless quality of God’s rest (4:1,3,6,9,
11). The failure to see this has misled some expositors to interpret this rest as
the rest of death132 or the future celestial inheritance of the believers. This
can hardly be the author’s sole design, since he is laboring to show that a
Sabbath rest still remains in the present for the people of God (4:9).
The point of the analogy in v. 10 is not the works themselves, since
God’s works are good while man’s are evil (cf. Heb. 6 :2 “dead works”);
rather the analogy is made in terms of man’s imitation (osper) of God’s rest-
ing from work. This is a simple statement of the nature of the Sabbath, since
cessation from work is its essential element, for it is written that “God rested
on the seventh day from all his works” (Heb. 4:4). The author therefore
explains the nature of the Sabbath rest—sabbatismos—that remains for the
people of God (4:9) by referring to its basic characteristic, namely cessation

from work (4:10).
But what does this mean? Is the author of Hebrews merely encourag-
ing his readers to interrupt their secular activities on the Sabbath? Being
Jewish-Christians, they hardly needed such a reminder. Moreover this yields
only a negative idea of rest, and the blessings of the Sabbath rest can hardly
be only a pure negation. Obviously the author attributes a deeper meaning to
the resting on the Sabbath. This can - be seen in the antithesis between those
who failed to enter into its rest because of “unbelief—apeitheias” (4:6, 1
l)—that is, faithlessness which results in disobedience—and those who en-
ter into it by “faith—pistei” (4 :2, 3), that is, faithfulness that results in obe-
dience.
The act of resting on the Sabbath represents then the stopping of
one’s doing in order to be able to experience the being saved by faith (4:2, 3,
11). Believers, as Calvin expresses it, are “to cease from their work to allow
God to work in them.”133 By resting on the Sabbath after the similitude of
God (4:10), the believer, as K. Barth puts it, “participates consciously in the
salvation provided by Him [God].134
The Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God (4:9) is for the
author of the Epistle not a mere day of idleness, but rather an opportunity
renewed every week to enter God’s rest, that is to say, to make oneself free
from the cares of work in order freely to accept by faith God’s total blessings
of creation-redemption. It should be noted, however, that this Sabbath expe-
rience of the blessings of salvation is not exhausted in the present, since the
passage goes on to say that we should “strive to enter that rest” (4:11).
This orientation toward the future corresponds to, or even may be
caused by, the anticipation of the final redemption which the Sabbath epito-
mizes. Both in the Old Testament and in rabbinical literature the Sabbath is
viewed also as a type of the world to come.135 Thus in its own way the
Epistle to the Hebrews expresses the essence of Sabbath-keeping (which is
also the core of the Christian life), namely, the tension between the experi-
ence in the present of the blessing of salvation and the eschatological con-
summation in the heavenly Canaan.136
This expanded interpretation of Sabbath-keeping was apparently de-
signed to wean Jewish Christians away from an external and material con-
ception of its observance. We do not know how far our author was acquainted
with the Sabbath material of the Gospels, but we cannot fail to perceive in
his interpretation a reflection of Christ’s redemptive view of the Sabbath
discussed earlier. The meaning of the permanence of God’s Sabbath rest of

Hebrew 4 (cf. vv. 3, 4, 5, 10) is for instance well implied in the Lord’s words
in John 5 :17, “My Father is working still, and I am working.” 137
The rest of God is indeed His uninterrupted saving activity designed
to restore fallen man to Himself. Christ as the One sent by the Father to
redeem and to restore man, is the supreme manifestation of God’s rest. Hence
Christ’s great promise to give rest (anapausis) unto all that come to Him
(Matt. 11:28), is the core of the Sabbath rest (sabbatismos—katapausis) avail-
able to the people of God (Heb. 4 :1, 3, 6, 9, 11). These blessings of salvation
which we enjoy by faith even now on the Sabbath, will be fully experienced
at the end of our earthly pilgrimage. The fact that in Hebrews 4 we find a
reflection of ‘Christ’s view of the Sabbath as the time to experience the bless-
ings of salvation, goes to prove that primitive Christians (at least some) in-
terpreted Christ’s teachings as implying not the literal abrogation but the
spiritual valorization of the commandment.
An Admonition of Christ Regarding the Sabbath
We shall conclude this survey of the Sabbath material of the Gospels
by considering briefly Christ’s unique warning given to His disciples, when
predicting the destruction of Jerusalem: “Pray that your flight may not be in
winter or on a Sabbath—mede sabbato” (Matt. 24 :20).
Several explanations have been advanced to explain the reason for
Christ’s singular admonition. The flight on a Sabbath could be hindered, for
instance, by closed city-gates, by a mood psychologically adverse to flee-
ing, by the refusal on the part of strict observers to help those in need, by the
fear of breaking rabbinical regulations which allowed only a short Sabbath-
day’s journey of two-thirds of a mile, or by the rage of “fanatical Jews who
would become furious at a supposed desecration of the Sabbath.” 138
Some argue, however, that since the words “neither on a Sabbath—
mede sabbato” are omitted in Mark 13 :18, they represent a later Jewish-
Christian interpolation. 139 Even granting such possibility, the fact remains
that the interpolator regarded the Sabbath as binding at the time of his writ-
ing. Taking into account, however, Matthew’s respect for Jewish institutions,
and the Jewish-Christian composition of his readership,140 there appears
no reason to question the authenticity of the phrase. Mark’s (13:18) omis-
sion could be explained by the fact that he was writing to a different audi-
ence, not impeded by Jewish restrictions, and therefore he did not have to
retain Christ’s reference to traveling on the Sabbath.
Others believe that this passage reflects “the uncertainty with regards
to the Sabbath precept” of the Jewish-Christian community which was en-
deavoring to solve the Sabbath problem but had not yet abandoned its obser-
vance.141 The text really offers no reflection regarding the observance of
the Sabbath, since it deals exclusively with the future flight, and the winter
and the Sabbath are introduced incidentally only as possible obstacles. The
uncertainty is not about the observance of the Sabbath, but rather regarding
the arrival of the great “tribulation” (Matt. 24:15,21). The fact that the Sab-
bath is mentioned not polemically but incidentally as an element unfavor-
able to a flight, implies that Christ did not foresee its substitution with an-
other day of worship, but rather that He took for granted its permanence
after His departure.
It could be argued that the statement taken by itself hardly reflects
Christ’s view of the Sabbath, since it is inconsistent with the Savior’s de-
fense of use of the Sabbath to sustain life. But is Christ, in this instance,
actually prohibiting fleeing on the Sabbath? His admonition is to pray for
conditions favorable to a flight. The winter and the Sabbath are introduced
merely as external circumstances that could interfere with a hasty flight.
Christ in no way implies that fleeing in winter or on a Sabbath would be
unlawful. He is solely expressing His sympathetic concern for His follow-
ers, who might be hampered in their flight by these adverse elements.
The considerations for the plight of women pregnant or with nursing
babies (Matt. 24 :19) as well as for the travel difficulties caused by the win-
ter and by the Sabbath (v. 20) are not judgmental values but only indications
of Christ’s tender concern for human frailty. From the standpoint of His
disciples, Christ sees the Sabbath as a time inappropriate for fleeing, since,
being a day of rest, Christians would be unprepared for a flight and fanatical
Jews would possibly hamper their flight. 142 Christ, therefore, in this ad-
monition is not defining Sabbath behavior but merely exhorting His dis-
ciples to pray for favorable circumstances. The fact, however, that Sabbath-
keeping is taken for granted, presupposes, on the one hand, that Christ fore-
saw the permanence of its observance and, on the other hand, that, as stated
by A. W. Argyle, “the Sabbath was still observed by Jewish Christian when
Matthew wrote.”143
Conclusion. Several conclusions emerge from this analysis of the
Sabbath material of the Gospels. The ample report of the Gospel writers of
the conflicts between Christ and the Pharisees on the manner of Sabbath
observance, is indicative first of all of the serious estimate in which the Sab-
bath was held both in Jewish circles and in primitive Christianity. The ex-
tensive accounts of Christ’s Sabbath pronouncements and healjng activities

presuppose, in fact, that primitive Christians were involved in debates re-
garding the observance of the Sabbath. We found, however, that they under-
stood Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath not as a veiled forecast of a new
day of worship, but rather as a new perspective of Sabbath.’keeping. This
consisted both in a new meaning and a new manner of observance of the
Sabbath.
Concerning the latter, the Sabbath was viewed not as a time of pas-
sive idleness but of active, loving service to needy souls (Mark 3:4; Matt.
12:7, 12; John 9:4). This new understanding is attested in as early a docu-
ment as the Epistle to Diognetus (dated between A.D. 130-200). The Jews
are here charged with “speaking falsely of God” when claiming that “He
[God] forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days—how is not this
impious”?144
We found this positive and fundamental value of Sabbath-keeping to
be forcefully established by Christ through His program of Sabbath reforms.
The Lord, we noticed, on the Sabbath deliberately acted contrary to prevail-
ing restrictions, in order to liberate the day from the multitude of rabbinical
limitations and thereby restore it to its original divine intention, namely, to
be a day of physical and spiritual well-being for mankind. We noted, how-
ever, that Christ presents the showing of love by acts of kindness on the
Sabbath to be not merely the fulfillment of the humanitarian obligations of
the commandment, but primarily the expression of the believer’s acceptance
and experience of the divine blessing of salvation (John 9:4; Matt. 11:28).
This relationship between the Sabbath and redemption we found
brought out in the Gospels in several ways. God’s Sabbath rest, for instance,
is presented by Christ, not as a time of idleness, but as His “working until
now” (John 5:17) for man’s salvation. Likewise the priests’ legitimate use of
the Sabbath to minister to needy sinners (Matt. 12 :5; John 7 :23) is pre-
sented by Christ as an indication of the redemptive function of the Sabbath.
But we found the supreme revelation of its redemptive meaning in the Mes-
sianic claims and Sabbath ministry of Christ.
The Saviour not only inaugurated (Luke 4:16) and closed (Luke 23
:53-54) His ministry on a Sabbath but He also explicitly announced His
Messianic mission to be the fulfillment of the promises of redemption and
liberation of the sabbatical time (Luke 4:18-21). Moreover on the Sabbath
Christ intensified His saving ministry (John 5 :17; 9:4; Mark 3 :4) so that
sinners whom “Satan bound” (Luke 13 :16) might experience and remember
the Sabbath as the day of their salvation.
The Sabbath, then, in Christ’s teaching and ministry was not “pushed
into the background” or “simply annulled” to make room for a new day of
worship, but rather was made by the Saviour the fitting memorial of His
salvation rest available to all who come to Him in faith (Matt. 11:28). 145
This redemptive meaning of the Sabbath we found exemplified in
the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here the “Sabbath rest” that
“remains ... for the people of God” (4 :9) is explained to be not a material
experience reserved exclusively for the Jewish nation (4:2, 8) but rather a
permanent and spiritual blessing available to all who enter by faith into God’s
rest (4:2,3, 11). By ceasing on the Sabbath from one’s labor after the simili-
tude of God ‘(4:10), the believer makes himself available to receive by grace
and not by works the foretaste of the blessings of the final redemption which,
through Christ, have already become a certainty (4:7).
This positive interpretation of the Sabbath indicates that the primi-
tive Church understood Jesus’ Messianic pronouncements (Mark 2:28; Matt.
12:6; John 5 :17) and His healing activities, not as the super-session of the
Sabbath by a new day of worship, but as the true revelation of the meaning
of its observance: a time to experience God’s salvation accomplished through
Jesus Christ.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
1. On the usage of the terms “Lord—kurios” and “Lord’s—kuriakos,”
see W. Foerster, TDNT III, pp. 1086-1096. The first undisputed occurrence
is found in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter where twice the expression “he
kuriake—the Lord’s day” (35; 50) is used as a translation of “the first day of
the week,” which we find in Mark 16:2 par. The Gospel is dated in the sec-
ond half of the second century since Serapion of Antioch about A.D. 200
refuted its docetic teachings (cf. Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocry-
pha, I, p. 180). Melito of Sardis (d. ca. A.D. 190), according to Eusebius (HE
4, 26, 2), wrote a treatise “On the Lord’s day—peri kuriakes logos,” but
unfortunately only the title has survived. For other references see Dionysius
of Corinth, cited by Eusebius, HE 4, 23, 11; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
7, 12, 76, 4; Fragment 7 of Irenaeus, ANF 1, p. 569; Origen, In Exodum
homiliae 7, 5; Contra Celsum 8, 22; Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmos 91;
HE 3, 25, 5; De Solemnitate paschali 7; Tertullian uses the Latin equivalent
“dominicus dies” in De oratione 23 and De corona 3. This became the offi-
cial designation for Sunday in the Latin languages (cf. domenica, dimanche).
2. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 174.

3. Wilfrid Stott, “A Note on the Word KYPIAKH in Rev. 1. 10,”
NTS 12 (1965): 75; P. K. Jewett assumes a middle-of-the road position, inter-
preting Jesus’ claim to be Lord of the Sabbath as implying liberty with re-
spect to the Sabbath but not necessarily an obligation to worship on the first
day of the week. He maintains however that “Christians would never have
come to worship on another day, apart from this freedom respecting the ob-
servance of the Sabbath, a freedom bequeathed to them by the Lord himself”
(The Lord’s Day, A Theological Guide to the Christian Day of Worship, 1972,
p. 43; hereafter cited as Lord’s Day).
4. For Rudolf Bultmann the Sabbath conflicts reported in the Gos-
pels are all ideal scenes reconstructed by the primitive community on the
basis of an oral tradition. His classic treatment is found in The History of the
Synoptic Tradition, ET 1963. Prior to Bultmann’s work had appeared K. L.
Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, 1919 and M. Dibelius, From
Tradition to Gospel, ET 1934.
5. A recent reappraisal of the Sabbath material of the Gospels has
been done by E. Lohse, who contrary to Bultmann, shows that many of the
“logia” are authentic words of Christ (“sabbaton” TDNT VII, pp. 21-30;also
“Jesu Worte iiber den Sabbat,” Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche, Festschrift
fiür I. Jeremias (BZNW 26), 1960, pp. 79-89; W. Rordorf has carried the
work of Lohse further, arguing for additional authentic recollection of his-
torical events from the life of Christ. He is willing to accept the historicity of
the account of the plucking of the ears of corn by the disciples (Mark 2 :23f.
par.) and of Christ’s sayings preserved in Mark 2:27, 28). He does not how-
ever recognize, for instance, John 15:17 as genuine words of Jesus (Sunday,
pp. 54-74; cf. also “Dimanche,” p. 103).
6. If the Gospel writers were already observing Sunday rather than
the Jewish Sabbath, why would they report so many Sabbath healings and
pronouncements of Jesus? Their concern over Christ’s Sabbath activity and
teaching hardly suggests their observing Sunday. L. Goppelt, TDNT VI, p.
19, fn. 53, criticizes R. Bultmann’s view that “the primitive community put
the justification of its Sabbath practice on the lips of Jesus,” by raising this
significant question “But how could this situation [Matt. 12:1-8] be invented
by the Palestinian community with its zeal for the Law (Acts 21 :20f.)?” The
loyalty of the Palestinian Church to Jewish religious customs will be dis-
cussed below in chapter 4.
7. The seven Sabbath miracles are: (I) The Invalid at Bethesda, John
5:1-18; (2) The Demoniac in the Synagogue, Mark 1:21-28 par.; (3) Peter’s
Mother-in-law, Mark 1.29-34 par.; (4) The Man with the Withered Hand,Mark
3:1-6 par.; (5) The man Born Blind, John 9:1-41; (6) The Crippled Woman,
Luke 13:10-17; (7) The Man with Dropsy, Luke 14:1-4.
8. Cf. for instance, the commentaries on Luke by Herschel H. Hobbs,
Henry Burton, W. Robertson Nicoll, Wilfrid J. Harrington, R. C. H. Lenski,
F. Godet, Alfred Loisy, M.-1. Lagrange.
9. On the Sabbath for the land see Ex. 23:11; Lev. 25:6f.; Deut.
24:19-22; Lev. 19:9-10. Cf. Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, The Old Testament
Sabbath, SBL Dissertation Series 7, 1972, p. 214. He suggests two motives
for sabbatical year: regeneration for the land and liberation for man.
10. On the remission of debts owed by fellow citizens see Deut. 15
:1-6; on the release of slaves see Ex. 21:2-6 and Deut. 15:12-18.
11. The jubilee year was apparently an intensification of the sabbati-
cal year, with the main emphasis on restoration to its original owner of all
property, particularly real estate (Lev. 25:8-17, 23-55; 27:16-25; Num. 36:4).
The complexity of city life (Lev. 25 :29-34) made it difficult to put into
operation the jubilee year. We have however indications that the sabbatical
year was observed (Jer. 34 :8-21; 2 Chron. 36:21; Lev. 26 :43). For informa-
tion on the post-exilic period, see E. Schiirer, A History of the Jewish People
in the Time of Jesus Christ, 1885, I. pp. 40-45. On the relationship between
the Sabbath and the sabbatical jubilee year see Niels-Erik A. Andreasen (fn.
9), pp. 217-218.
12. P. K. Jewett, The Lord’s Day, p. 27; W. Rordorf similarly com-
ments that “By means of this quotation from the prophet, Luke’s Gospel
does therefore describe the effect of Jesus’ coming as the inauguration of the
sabbath year” (Sunday, p. 110). Wilfrid J. Harrington, A Commentary, The
Gospel according to St. Luke, 1967, p. 134, also remarks that “seizing upon
this, the gladdest festival of Hebrew life, Jesus likens Himself to one of the
priests, who with trumpet of silver proclaims ‘the acceptable year of the
Lord.’ He finds in that jubilee a type of His Messianic year, a year that shall
bring, not to one chosen race alone, but to a world of debtors and captives,
remissions and manumissions without number, ushering in an era of liberty
and gladness.”
13. K. Barth interprets the creation Sabbath rest of God as the pre-
figuration and inauguration of the redeeming work of Christ (Church Dog-
matics, ET 1956, III, p. 277). He does so however by projecting back into
the perfect creation and the Sabbath rest, the triumph of grace, thus denying
the original status integritatis (Church Dogmatics, IV, p. 508). H. K. La
Rondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism (1975), pp. 81-83, provides a pen-
etrating analysis of Barth’s notion of God’s Sabbath rest, and shows how
Barth swallows up “the reality of Biblical protology into its soteriology.” G.
C. Berkouwer acknowledges that the Sabbath rest “illustrates preeminently
the close relationship existing between creation and redemption” (The Provi-
dence of God, ET 1952, p. 62). He sees in the “maintenance of the Sabbath
after the fall ... a token of the coming salvation of the Lord (cf. Ezek. 20:12)”
(ibid., p. 64). His interpretation however is determined not (as in Barth) by a
destruction of the onto-logical reality of man’s perfection in creation but by
the recognition of the “unsuspected and surprising character of God’s re-
deeming grace in view of the salvation-historical reality and offensiveness
of sin, and by the dynamic function of personal Faith” (La Rondelle, op. cit.,
pp. 82-83; cf. G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of
Karl Barth, 1956, pp. 381-383).
14. Henrique Renckens, La Religion de Israel, 1970, p. 225: “By
keeping the Sabbath the Israelite was to remember regularly Yahweh as Cre-
ator and Redeemer of the people.” Cf. S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegeti-
cal Commentary on Deuteronomy, 1895, p. 85.
15. Hans Walter Wolff, “The Day of Rest in the Old Testament,”
Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972): 500.
16. B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel, SBT 37, 1962, pp.
50-52.
17. A. M. Dubarle, “La Signification religieuse du Sabbat dans la
Bible,” Le Dimanche, Lex Orandi 39, 1965, p. 46.
18. P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 27.
19. A. J. Heschel, The Sabbath, its Meaning for Modern Man, 1951,
p. 10.
20. Theodore Friedman, “The Sabbath: Anticipation of Redemption,”
Judaism 16 (1967):445.
21. Ibid., pp. 443, 447-449.
22. For a concise discussion of the various interpretations of the
Sabbath of the end of time in Jewish apocalyptic literature, see W. Rordorf,
Sunday, pp. 48-51. Cf. also below pp. 281 f.
23. G. von Rad, “There Still Remains a Rest for the People of God:
An Investigation of a Biblical Conception,” The Problem of the Hexateuch
and Other Essays, 1966, pp. 94-102. Ernst Jenni, Die theologische Begriin-
dung des Sabbatgebotes im Alten Testament, ThSt 41, 1956, p. 282, pro-
poses that the Sabbath contributed to the development of the theme of Israel’s
rest.
24. P. Spicq, Commentaire de l’Épitre aux Hebreux, 1953, II, pp.
102-103, points out that the theme of the Sabbath rest in Hebrews contains
both a temporal ideal for the Israelites: the entry into Canaan; and a religious
ideal for the Christians: salvation. The passage is examined below pp. 66-
69.
25. W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 71, 72, recognizes that “the primitive
Church also understood that Jesus’ healing activity was, in fact, in the truest
possible sense of the word a ‘sabbath’ activity: in him, in his love, in his
mercy and his help had dawned the Messianic Sabbath, the time of God’s
own saving activity.” He interprets, however, the Messianic fulfilment of
the Sabbath as signifying that Christ “replaced the Sabbath for those who
believe” (ibid., p. 116). Besides the fact that Christ never alludes to an even-
tual replacement of the Sabbath, one may ask, why would Christ wish to
change it? What new benefit could accrue to Christians by changing the day
of worship? Would such an act bespeak stability and continuity in the divine
plan of salvation? In this regard it is important to reflect on Pacifico Massi’s
question: “Is it ever possible that the ancient economy founded on the weekly
cycle of the Seventh day, by which God had prepared universal salvation in
Christ and had educated his people for centuries, should be wiped out with a
stroke by the event of the Resurrection?” (La Domenica, p. 25). Contrary to
Rordorf, who attempts to make Sunday an exclusive Christian creation de-
tached from the Sabbath, Massi argues that Sunday is the continuation of the
meaning and function of the Sabbath. But does a change in the day of wor-
ship bespeak continuity?
26. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 67.
27. Jean Daniélou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 226.
28. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 70. C. S. Mosna, Storia della Domenica,
pp. 175-178, assumes a median position. He sees in the Sabbath debates and
discussions the effort of the primitive community to seek a new solution to
the Sabbath precept, “even though this was not yet clearly seen in the
action of Christ.” Basically the same position is held by W. Manson, The
Gospel of Luke, 19552, p. 81; and by E. Lohse, Jesu Worte iiber den
Sabbat (fn. 5), pp. 79-89.
29. Jus tin Martyr, Dialogue 27, 5; 29, 3; Epiphanius, Adversus

haereses 30, 32, 10; Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalnros 91 (PG 23, 1169B);
Aphrahates, Homilia 13, 7; Ps.-Athanasius, De semente homilia 13.
30. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 29, 3; 23, 3; Clement of Alexandria, Stro-
mateis 6, 16, 141, 7; 6, 16, 142, 1; Origen, In Numeros homiliae 23, 4;
Chrysostom, De Christi divinitate 4 (PG 48, 810f); in the Syriac Didascalia
26 the polemic is particularly acute: “If God willed that we should be idle
one day for six ... God himself would have remained idle with all his crea-
tures. ... For if he would say, ‘Thou shalt be idle, and thy son, and thy ser-
vant, and thy maidservant, and thine ass,’ how does he (continue to) work,
causing to generate, and making the wind blow, and fostering and nourish-
ing us his creatures?” (Connolly, p. 236).
31. Victorinus of Pettau, De Fabrica mundi 6 (ANF VII, p. 342);
cf.Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 4; cf. also Adversus Marcionen 4, 17 and 2,
21. 32. Tertullian (fn. 31); Victorinus (fn. 31); Aphrahates, Homilia 13, 7;
Athanasius, De sabbatis et circumcisione 3; Gregory of Nyssa, Testinronia
adversus Judaeos 13 (PG 46, 221). Note however that at the beginning of
the Maccabean revolt pious Jews were killed on the Sabbath without offer-
ing resistance (1 Macc. 2:32-38; Macc. 6:11; Josephus, Antiquities, 13, 317).
On account of this terrible event, it was decided to allow the use of weapons
for self-defense even on the Sabbath (1 Macc. 2:39-41).
33. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 19, 6; 23, 3; 27, 5; 46, 2; Irenaeus, Ad-
versus haereses 4, 16, 2; Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 2; Eusebius, I-fE 1, 4,
8; Demonstratio evangelica 1, 6 (PG 22, 57); Commentaria in Psalmos 91.
The argument that before Moses righteous men did not keep the Sabbath
appears to be a fabrication of anti-Sabbath polemic/apologetic, since rab-
binical tradition emphasizes the remote origin of the Sabbath: God Himself
observed the Sabbath (Gen. R. 11, 2 and 6; Pirke de R. Eliezer 20); Adam
was the first man to respect the day (Gen. R. 16, 8; Pirke de R. Eliezer 20);
Abraham and Jacob were scrupulous in its observance (T. B. Yoma 286; Gen.
R. 11, 8; 79, 6); Sarah and Rebecca faithfully lighted the candles on Friday
night (Gen. R. 60, 15); the Israelites during the Egyptian bondage obtained
permission from Pharoah to observe the Sabbath (Ex. R. 7, 28; 5:18).
34. I. Daniélou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 230; cf. Epistle of Barnabas
15:6-8. For an analysis of Barnabas’ view of the Sabbath see below pp. 218f.
35. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 16, 1; 19, 2-4; 21, 1; 23, 1-2; 27, 2. Justin’s
view of the Sabbath is examined below pp. 223f.
36. Syriac Didascalia 21: “Therefore he bound them beforehand with

mourning perpetually, in that he set apart and appointed the Sabbath for
them” (Connolly, p. 190).
37. Aphrahates, Homilia 13; he does not view the Sabbath like Justin
as a punishment for the Jews’ unfaithfulness, but rather as an institution
introduced after the fall only to regulate the rest of men and animals.
38. That the Pharisees used the invalid as a trap for Christ is indi-
cated not only by their role in the episode as spies, but also by their prompt
action: “immediately held counsel - -. how to destroy him” (Mark 3 :2, 6). In
the Gospel of the Nazaraeans the account is embellished by making the case
of the man more urgent: “I was a mason and earned [my] livelihood with
[my] hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore me to my health that I may not
with ignominy have to beg for my bread” (E. Hennecke, New Testament
Apocrypha, 1963, I, p. 148). This attempt to justify the action of Jesus in
view of an alleged acute need, reflects the concern of the Jewish-Christians
to retain the Pharisaic casuistic in their observance of the Sabbath. This
amplification of the account does reveal the existence of a positive under-
standing of the Sabbath, deriving from the attitude of Christ (see below fn.
90). Hennecke remarks that “the circles in which it arose, those of Syrian
Jewish—Christians (Nazaraeans) were clearly not heretical, but belonged,
so far as the Gospel of the Nazaraeans permits us to make out, to the great
Church; in content and character it was more Jewish-Christian than Mat-
thew” (ibid., p. 146). On the Nazarenes, see below pp. 156-157.
39. Emphasis supplied.
40. L. Goppelt, Christentum und Judentum im ers ten und zweiten
Jahrhundert, 1954, p. 46, as cited in W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 71.
41. W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 69-70.
42. Mishnah, Yoma 8, 6; Tosefta, Shabbat 15, 16; I. Abrahams, Stud-
ies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 1967, p. 129f., argues that Christ’s view
of the Sabbath is basically similar to that of the Pharisees, especially on
respect for life. C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinical Literature and Gospel Teach-
ings, 1930, p. 243, rightly retorts that “the words of Jesus go further than the
saving of life..., in Matthew we find nothing but to do good. That would
have been much too wide an extension or application of the Rabbinic prin-
ciple for the Rabbis to have accepted.”

44. Ibid., p. 68; cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel accord-
ing to St. Matthew, 1946, pp. 116-135.
45. Cf. Moore, II, p. 28; for a concise treatment of the development
of the Sabbath in the post-exilic age, see E. Lohse, “sabbaton” TDNT VII.
pp. 4-14.
46. Cf. also Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14.
47. Niels-Erik Andreasen, “Festival and Freedom,” Interpretation
28 (1974) :289.
48. Hans Walter Wolff (fn. 15), p. 504.
49. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus 1951, pp. 68f., views
Christ’s question (Mark 3 :4) as a sarcastic allusion to the plotting of his
opponents which led to a decision to kill Christ (Mark 3 :6); cf. also his Das
Evangelium des Matthiius, 1956, p. 186.
50. W. Rordorf finds in Christ’s attitude toward the law two para-
doxical principles: “on the one hand, Jesus recognized the Torah and even
intensified it, whilst on the other hand, by virtue of his divine authority, he
did not hesitate to make great breaches in it, particularly in its ceremonial
regulations” (Sunday, p. 78). While this conclusion in principle is correct,
Rordorf’s attempt to reduce the Sabbath to the category of a ceremonial
regulation which Christ “simply annulled” (ibid., p. 70) by His Messianic
authority, is altogether unwarranted, since he fails to show that the Sabbath
was regarded as a ceremonial rather than as a moral precept. In the Gospels
the attitude of Christ toward the Sabbath does not differ from that He mani-
fested toward the other nine. William Hendriksen rightly argues that Christ,
when giving the true interpretation of the Sabbath, follows the same method
used with the other nine commandments. After surveying the nine, Hendriksen
writes, “now Christ reveals the true meaning of the fourth commandment
(Ex. 20:8-11). Implied in his interpretation, but in this case not stated in so
many words, is a condemnation of the false explanation which the rabbis
had superimposed upon this commandment and which in the days of Christ’s
sojourn on earth was being propagated by Scribes and Pharisees. They were
either completely ignoring or leaving insufficient room in their teaching for
the following truths, which also summarize Christ’s teaching he now pre-
sented.
a. Necessity Knows no Law (Matt. 12:3 and 4)
b. Every Rule has its Exception (verses 5 and 6)

c. Showing Mercy is Always Right (verses 7 and 11)
d. The Sabbath was made for Man, not Vice Versa (Mark 2:27)
e. Sovereign Ruler of All, including the Sabbath, is the Son of Man
(Matt. 12:8; cf. verse 6).”
52. Ibid., p. 82. Though Jewett recognizes and explains well the
“permanent interpretative category of redemptive history” which the Sab-
bath possesses, he maintains that Christians need only retain of the day, the
custom of gathering weekly on the first day of the week (bc. cit.). Is it not
paradoxical to acknowledge on the one hand that the Sabbath represents in
the New Testament the blessings of Christ’s redemption and then, on the
other hand, to choose a different day to worship the Redeemer? No satisfac-
tory answer can be given to this dilemma by those who refuse to take a hard
look at the biblical and historical validity of Sunday observance.
53. Ferdinand Hahn, The Worship of the Early Church, 1973, p. 15,
comments in this regard that “Jesus is concerned that the Sabbath be under-
stood as an expression of God’s mercy and beneficence toward man; and so,
in the face of law and tradition, he discloses God’s true will through his
eschatological act.” The redemptive meaning of Christ’s Sabbath healings
can be seen also in the spiritual ministry Jesus provides to those whom He
heals (cf. Mark 1:25; 2:5; Luke 13:16; John 5:14; 9:35-38).
54. One of the 39 types of forbidden Sabbath activities was “carry-
ing out from one domain to another” (Mishnah, Shabbath 7, Soncino ed. of
the Talmud, p. 349). The preparation of clay came also within the restric-
tions of rabbinical Sabbath laws. Kneading was forbidden (Mishnah,
Shabbath 7, 2) as well as mixing the feed of animals (Shabbath 24). The
Rabbis based their prohibition of carrying a burden on the Sabbath on Jer.
17:19-27 and Neh. 13:15-19. Nehemiah, however, makes it perfectly clear
that the purpose of the measure was to stop trading on the Sabbath and not to
prohibit carrying a needed personal belonging.
55. Mario Veloso, El Compromiso Cristiano, 1975, pp. 118-119.
Rodolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, A Commentary, 1971, p. 244, also
comments: “&.rrcxptvcero occurs only here and in v. 19 . . . perhaps to show
the official character of the reply.”
56. Ibid., p. 119.
57. J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, 1908, I,

pp. 153, 157. This makes Christ’s statement all the more important. G. A.
Turner and J. R. Mantey go as far as to say that “this verse (v. 17) is probably
the key verse of the entire chapter and also one of the major emphases of the
Fourth Gospel” (The Gospel according to John, 1965, p. 138).
58. J. Daniélou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 227.
60. Ibid., p. 99. The same position is held by H. Strathmann, Das
Evangelium nach Johannes, 1951, pp. 157, 175. Cf. Edwyn C. Hoskyns,
The Fourth Gospel, 1947, p. 267.
62. Paul K. Jewett, Lord’s Day.
63. Oscar Cullmann, “Sabbat und Sonntag nach dem Johannes
evangelium.“Heos arti,” In memoriam E. Lohmeyer, 1953, p. 131. He ar-
gues that the celebration of Sunday in the place of the Sabbath does not
represent disobedience to the fourth commandment, since according to John
5:17 “the true ‘rest’ of God is first fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ.” Is
this a legitimate interpretation of John 5:17? Did the “working still” of God
cease at the moment of Christ’s resurrection? We shall show that this notion
is foreign to the Gospel of John. Francis Noel Davey, The Fourth Gospel,
1947, p. 267, takes an even more radical view, asserting that the working of
God “involves, not the violation of the law of the Sabbath, but its complete
overthrow and fulfilment; for its vacuum is filled with the creative, life-
giving love of God.” Why should God work to overthrow the Sabbath? Is
God working against Himself? Is not the Sabbath His workmanship (Gen.
2:2-3; Ex. 20:8-11)?
64. Cf. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 98. B. F. Wescott understands the
“works” of the Father as “the upkeeping of the material creation and the
redemption and restoration of all things” (cited by M. Veloso [fn. 55], p.
122); P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 85; J. H. Bernard, Gospel according to St.
John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1953, pp. 236-237, reviews
the ancient interpretation of the text and concludes, “The words express the
idea (obvious when it is expressed) that God does not keep the Sabbath heos
arti, that is, hitherto. God’s working has not been intermitted since Creation
. . .The rest of God is for the future.” Similarly J. N. Sanders, A Commentary
on the Gospel according to St. John, Harper’s N. T. Commentaries, 1968, p.
163, affirms that “Jesus in effect repudiates any crudely anthropomorphic
understanding of God’s rest after His six days labour of creation, the
aetiological myth which explained the command to rest from labour on the
Seventh day (cf. Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:11; 31:17).” Hilgenfeld also sees in this
saying an “intentional contradiction of the idea of God in Genesis” (cited by
F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1886, p. 463). Rudolf Bult-
mann (fn. 55), p. 246, holds that the notion of the “working until now” of
God “is clearly based on the Jewish idea that although God rested from his
work of creation (Gen. 2:2f.; Ex. 20:11; 31:17), he is still constantly at work
as the Judge of the world.” This appears to be, however, a too restrictive
view of the “working” of God, especially since in the following verses (21,
25, 28) the giving of life is also presented as the “works” of the Father and
the Son.
66. Philo, Legum allegoriae, 1, 5-6. We noticed earlier (fn. 30) that
this argument was taken over by Fathers to invalidate Sabbath observance.
Origen, for instance, using the text of John, writes: “He shows by this that
God does not cease to order the world on any Sabbath of this world. The true
Sabbath, in which God will rest from all His works, will, therefore, be the
world to come” (In Numeros homiliae 23, 4).
67. Philo, op. cit., 1,16.
68. H. Strack, P. Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, pp. 420-434. Cf. G. Ber-
tram, “t’pyov,” TDNT, 11, pp. 639-640.
69. M. Veloso (fn. 55), p. 119, points out that the works of the Father
are clearly identified with those of the Son: “The identify of the Father and
the Son is clearly presented in the passage of John 5:17-29 by the following
elements: Jesus calls God ‘my Father’ (v. 17), says that what the Father does
the Son does likewise (homoios) (v. 19), makes Himself equal (ison) with
God (v. 18), declares that as the Father gives life, so also (houtos kai) the
Son gives life (v. 21), affirms that all must honor the Son as (kathos) they
honor the Father (v. 23) and proclaims that as (hosper) the Father has life in
himself, even so (houtos) the Son has life in himself (v. 26).”
70. G. Bertram (fn. 68), p. 641.
71. M. Veloso (fn. 55), pp. 124-125.
72. Cf. also John 6:39; 12:49; 50; 4:34; 4:42.
73. D. Mollat, Introduction á l’étude de la Cristologie de Saint Jean,
Mimeographed Edition, Gregorian University, 1970, p. 116. F. Godet, Com-
mentary on the Gospel of John, 1886, p. 463, sagaciously points out that
“the rest in Genesis refers to the work of God in the sphere of nature, while
the question here is of the divine work for the salvation of the human race.”
Luthardt also perceives the redemptive meaning of the “working until now”
of God and contrasts this not with the sabbatic institution but with the
eschatological Sabbath: “Since up to this time the work of salvation has not
been consummated, as it will be in the future Sabbath, and consequently my
Father works still, I also work” (cited by Godet, op. cit., p. 462). F. F. Bruce,
The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1964, p. 74, paraphrases John 5:17 as follows:
“You charge me with breaking the Sabbath by working on it. But although
God’s Sabbath began after the work of creation was finished, and is still
going on, He continues to work—and therefore so do I.” Bruce rightly inter-
prets God’s Sabbath rest that “continues still” as the blessings of salvation
that “may be shared by those who respond to His overtures with faith and
obedience” (bc. cit.).
74. P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 86. To assume that Christ by His
mission and declaration overthrew the Sabbath, as well stated by F. Godet,
“would contradict the attitude of submission to the law which He constantly
observed during His life.... It is impossible to prove in the life of Christ a
single contravention of a truly legal prescription” (fn. 73, p. 461).
75. M. Veloso (fn. 55), p. 128. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel
according to John I-XII, 1966, p. 217, emphasizes that salvation must be
provided especially on the Sabbath.
76. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1956, I, p. 252: “Remem-
ber this passage [John 7 :22-24] is really part of chapter 5 and not chapter 7.”
77. On the redemptive meaning of the circumcision see Rudolf Meyer,
“peritemno” TDNT, VI, pp. 75-76: “the new born boy . . . is redeemed when
his mother circumcises him with the apotropaic cry: ‘A bridegroom of blood
art thou to me!’”
78. Cf. Yoma 856, Soncino ed., p. 421.
79. M. J. Lagrange, Evangile Saint Jean, 1948, p. 140, says that Christ
by the example of the circumcision “tried to show to the Jews that He was
not breaking the Sabbath nor the law of Moses.”
80. This is expressed almost sarcastically in John 9 :26: “They said
to him, ‘What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?’”
81. M. J. Lagrange (fn. 79), p. 141. Cf. Severiano del Paramo, Evan-
gelio de San Mateo, La Sagrada Escritura 1961, I, p. 152.
82. Cf. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 99; H. Strathmann, Das Evangelium

nach Johann es, 1951, pp. 157, 175; Prancis Noel Davey, The Fourth Gos-
pel, 1947, p. 267. In the Syriac Didascalia 21 the Sabbath is regarded as “the
sleep of our Lord” (Connolly, p. 190). Augustine also associates the rest of
the Sabbath with Christ’s “rest in the grave” (De Genesi ad litteram 4, 11;
Epistola 55 ad lanuarium 9, 16). However, the “night ... when no one can
work” (9:4) can hardly be exclusively Christ’s rest in the tomb, since His
death did not suspend all redemptive activities.
83. Note that in John 9 :4 Christ’s followers are enjoined to do God’s
work while there is time to do it. Undoubtedly we must do God’s work every
day, but is not the Sabbath the time when we can best fulfill our ‘”ministry of
reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18) since on that day we commemorate and experi-
ence the “working still” of God?
84. This is the opinion of W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 61: “In this way it is
easier to explain why the disciples caused such a stir”; cf. P. K. Jewett, Lord’s
Day, p. 37, ..... perhaps better to make a path for him.”
85. Sherman E. Johnson, A Commentary on the Gospel according to
St. Mark, 1960, p. 67: “The law permitted gleaning the corners of fields
(Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Ruth 2) and no one would object to a few handfuls of
grain being taken by wayfarers (cf. Mishnah Peah 8, 7); Heinrich A. W.
Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke,
1884, p. 33: “Jesus passed through the corn-fields alongside of these, so that
the way that passed through the fields led Him on both sides along by them;”
William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1958, II, p. 23, provides a cogent
explanation: “In Palestine in the time of Jesus the cornfields and the culti-
vated lands were laid out in long narrow strips; and the ground between
strips was always a right of way, along which the paths ran. It was on one of
these strips between the cornfields that the disciples and Jesus were walking
when the incident happened. There is no suggestion whatever that the dis-
ciples were stealing. The Law expressly laid it down that the hungry travel-
ler was entitled to do just what the disciples were doing, so long as he only
used his hands to pluck the ears of corn and did not use a sickle (Deut. 23
:25).”
86. All of these acts were among the thirty-nine major types of labor
prohibited on the Sabbath. The complete list is provided by E. Lohse (fn. 5),
p. 12; cf. Mishnah, Shabbath 7, 2.
87. Josephus, Antiquities 20, 8, 6, mentions that the Mount of
Oliveswas 5 furlongs from Jerusalem, about 3,033 ft. In Acts 1:12 this dis-
tance is regarded as “a sabbath day’s journey away.
88. Jewish Encyclopedia, 1962, s. v. “Sabbath.”

90. Since W. Rordorf cannot accept this positive meaning and func-
tion of the Sabbath, he charges Matthew with “beginning.., a new Christian
casuistry” and a “moralistic misunderstanding of Jesus’ attitude toward the
Sabbath (that the obligation to love one’s neighbour displaces in certain cir-
cumstances the command to keep a day of rest)” (Sunday, pp. 67, 68); cf.
also G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew,
1946, pp. 116f. Is it not arrogance for a modern scholar to claim greater
understanding of the teachings of Jesus than that of a Gospel writer? More-
over, whatever the merits might be of Matthew’s understanding of Jesus’
attitude toward the Sabbath, it does represent for us a valuable testimony,
which reflects the prevailing conceptions of the Sabbath among the earliest
Palestinian Christian community. The existence of this view is testified, for
instance, by the Epistle to Diognetus 4, 3 (see below p. 72); cf. The Gospel
of the Nazaraeans (cited above, fn. 38); the Oxxyrhynchus Papyrus I (ca.
A.D. 200), lines 4-11 read: “If you do not fast (as to) the world, you will not
find the kingdom, and if you do not keep the Sabbath as Sabbath you will
not see the Father” (E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha I, p. 106). The
saying is found also verbatim in the Logion 21 of the Gospel of Thomas. The
first part suggests a spiritualized interpretation of the Sabbath. In a more
spiritual fashion the same thought appears in Clement of Alexandria,
Stromateis, 4, 6, 29, 3: “According to the gnostic ascending scale, it is by
beneficence that the love, which is lord of the Sabbath, proclaims itself.”
Another indirect witness of the positive understanding of the Sabbath may
be found in the spiritual interpretation given to the Sabbath by the Fathers.
They viewed the Sabbath, for instance, as a symbol of abstention from sin,
doing works of mercy and justice and meditation upon righteousness and
truth (Justin, Dialogue 12, 3; Irenaeus, Epideixis 96; Adversus haereses 4, 8,
2; Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 4; Adversus Marcionem 4, 12 and 2, 21;
Origen, In Numeros homiliae 23, 4; 4, Contra Celsum 8, 23; Ptolemy’s Let-
ter to Flora 5, 12 (SC 24, 60); Syriac Didascalia 26; for further references
and discussion on the interpretation of the Sabbath by the Fathers see C. S.
Mosna, Storia della Domenica, pp. 185, 201; W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 100-
108.
91. Heinrich A. W. Meyer (fn. 85), p. 34, acutely observes: “The
demonstrative force of this citation depends upon a conclusion a majori ad
minus. David in a case of necessity dealt apparently unlawfully even with
shewbread of the temple, which is yet far less lawful to be touched than the
ears of grain in general.”
92. Joseph Schmid, The Gospel according to Mark, The Regensburg

New Testament, 1968, p. 71, supports this view: “By pointing out some similar
action in the Scriptures, one could show that even a form of work in itself
forbidden could be permitted in certain circumstances.,’
93. The formula is frequently used by Christ, cf. Mark 12 :10, 26;
Matt. 12:5; 19:4; 21:16.
94. For Joseph Schmid (fn. 92), p. 72, Jesus shows that “it cannot be
God’s will that his children should suffer hunger because of a mere cultic
precept.”
95. Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel of Mark, 1945, p. 55, recognizes
that “Jesus does not try to answer the Pharisees by saying that picking a few
grains of wheat is not work; he admits that the Law has been broken but
insists that under certain circumstances it is right to break the Sabbath law of
complete rest. Works of necessity break that law, but involve no fault or
guilt”; G. A. Chadwick, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1900, p. 68,
similarly states: “They [the disciples] were blameless, not because the Fourth
Commandment remained inviolate, but because circumstances made it right
for them to profane the Sabbath.”
96. Cf. Ezek. 46:4-5, 10; 2 Chron. 31:3; I Chron. 9:32; I Sam. 21:6;
Roland de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, 1964, p. 36.
97. J. Daniélou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 226, argues that “the analogy with the
Temple shows us that the two institutions are parallel. Jesus shows that He is
greater than the Temple, and He clearly is also greater than the Sabbath. The
Sabbath and the Temple are gone by because Christ Himself, the Sabbath
and the Temple of the New Testament, is here.” Did Christ (and/or Matthew)
equate the temple with the Sabbath, viewing both as doomed and super-
seded by His Messianic coming? While this is true of the temple, whose
destruction Christ foretells (Matt. 24 :2) and whose curtain “was torn in
two” (Matt. 27 :51) to signify that type had met the antitype in Christ’s sac-
rifice, this can hardly be said of the Sabbath. In fact, according to the Gos-
pels, Christ proclaims Himself Lord of the Sabbath, declares that the day
was made for man (Mark 2:27-28), reveals its redemptive function (Luke
4:16-18; 13:12, 15, 16; Matt. 12:12; John 5:17) and alludes to its future
observance (Matt. 24:20).
98. R. Bultmann, “eleos,” TDNT, II, p. 479.
99. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962 ed., s. v. “Mercy.”
100. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 65, concludes on the basis of the alleged

“weakening” of Mark 2 :28, that “in Mark 2 :27 an authentic saying of Jesus
has been transmitted to ~
103. Charles R. Erdman (fn. 95), p. 56.
104. Jubilees 2:31, “He allowed no people or peoples to keep the
Sabbath on this day, except Israel only; to it alone he granted to eat and drink
and keep the Sabbath on it,” cf. Mechilta 109b; Mishnah, Yoma 8, 6; Gerhard
F. Hasel, “The Saviour and His Sabbath,” The Ministry (Feb. 1975): 12,
holds that “against this restrictive position, which limits the Sabbath to one
nation, Jesus took the wider view of the Sabbath.” Cf. Henry Barclay Swete,
The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1902, p. 49: “Our Lord’s words rise
higher, and reach further: at the root of the Sabbath-law was the love of God
for mankind, and not for Israel only.”
105. This view is well stated by P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 38.
106. This is the rendering of W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 64; several hold
the same view: 0. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 1966, p. 88; also The
Christology of the New Testament, 1959, pp. 152f; J. Wellhausen, Einleitung
in die drei ersten Evangelien, 19112, p. 129; also Das Evangelium Marci,
19092, p. 20; P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 38. Conversely T. W. Manson, Con
jectanea Neotestamentica in honorem A. Fridrichsen, 1947, pp. 138f., sug-
gests that originally “Son of man” stood in both vv. 27 and 28.
107. This view is advocated by several authors: W. Rordorf, Sunday,
p. 65: “The primitive Church obviously found man’s fundamental freedom
with regard to the Sabbath enunciated by Jesus in this passage to be some-
thing monstrous”; he argues, therefore, that “the primitive Church interpreted
this freedom in a messianic sense and did not claim it for itself”; cf. Joseph
Schmid (fn. 92), 73; E. Lohse (fn. 5), p. 22; E. Kaesemann, Exegetische
Versuche und Besinnungen, 1960, p. 207; W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium
nach Markus, 19652, p. 70.
108. D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of Mark, 1963, p. 108.
109. Joseph Schmid (fn. 92), p. 72.
110. Joseph Huby, Evangile selon Saint Marc, Verbum Salutis, 1948,
p. 68, provides a wise criticism of the attempt to reduce “Son of man” to
“man” in order to grant to the latter power to dispose of the Sabbath: ~‘The
first mistake of this exegesis is that it empties the unique expression, Son of
man, of all messianic meaning, contrary to the constant use of the New Tes-
tament and to the sense of the parallel texts of Saint Matthew and Saint
Luke. Moreover it would mean to falsify the thought of Saint Mark and to
force the consequences of the principle enunciated in v. 27 that grants to
man an absolute lordship over the Sabbath: circumstances can release [a
person] from the obligation in certain cases, but no mere human power can
claim the right to dispense or to abrogate the divine law according to his
pleasure.”
111. Richard S. McConnell, Law and Prophecy in Matthew’s Gos-
pel, Dissertation, University of Basel, 1969, pp. 71, 72; Charles R. Erdman
(fn. 95), p. 56, makes a penetrating comment: “It is surprising and saddening
to see how widely this saying has been misunderstood and misinterpreted in
the interest of Sabbath desecration. There are those who even try to suggest
that by it Jesus actually abolished the Sabbath, or transformed it from a holy
day into a holiday. This is to interpret the teaching of Jesus, in the interests of
license, quite as absurdjy as the Pharisees interpreted the Sabbath law in the
interest of legalism.” Note also Erdman’s subsequent explanation of the posi-
tive function of the Sabbath.
112. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 65; cf. E. Kiisemann, Essays on New
Testament Themes, ET 1964, p. 39; H. Braun, Spdtjiidischhiiretischer und
friihchristlicher Radikalismus II, 1957, p. 70, fn. 1.
113. This meaning is well explained by R. C. H. Lenski, The Inter-
pretation of St. Mark’s Gospel, 1946, p. 130: “The emphasis is on the predi-
cate which is, therefore, also placed first. He who as ‘lord’ thus stood at the
top of all these laws and institutions was now here to fulfill all that they
meant (Matt. 5:17). He who with the Father as Son of.Yahweh himself had
instituted the Sabbath with its religious observances for man’s benefit was
now here to honor the Sabbath and do this by fulfilling the divine Sabbath
Law. He would be the very last to let his disciples become guilty of any
violation of the Sabbath.”
114. Henry Barclay Swete (fn. 104), p. 50.
115. Joseph Huby (n. 110), p. 69; a similar view is expressed by
Hemrich August Wilhelm Meyer (fn. 85), p. 35.
116. As claimed by W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 65; for others who hold a
similar view see above fn. 107.
117. The connection is recognized by W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 109;

J. Dani6lou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 226; E. Jenni (fn. 23), p. 39. Among the
Fathers, Jerome, Comm. in Esaia,n 16 (on 58:13); Augustine, Epistula 55 ad
lanuarium 12, 22.
118. J. Daniélou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 226.
119. James J. C. Cox, “‘Bearers of Heavy Burdens,’ A Significant
Textual Variant,” AUSS 9 (Jan. 1971): 12-14, recognizes not only the link
between the pericope of Matt. 11:28 and the Sabbath teachings of Matt. 12:1-
14, but also emphasizes “the Matthaean apologetical/polemical understand-
ing of the logia concerned Matt. 11:28.” Matthew would contrast the light
yoke of Christ’s teaching (cf. Didache 6, 2 where the “teaching of the Lord”
is referred to as the “yoke of the Lord”) with the heavy burdens of the law
required by the Rabbis. Cox reaches this conclusion by comparing the text
of Matthew with the parallel passage in the Gospel of Thomas (Logion 90)
and in the Syriac Didascalia (1,6,10; 2,34,7; 6, 12, 11; 6, 17,6); J. C. Fenton,
The Gospel of St. Matthew, 1963, p. 187, similarly suggests that “By those
who labour and are heavy-laden is probably meant those who find the Law,
as it was expounded by the scribes and Pharisees, too difficult to keep. I will
give you rest: The weekly Sabbath rest was thought of as an anticipation of
the final rest of the messianic age.”
120. Cf. Mishnah, Aboth 3,5; Berakoth 2,2.
121. By emphasizing that the creation Sabbath rest of God still re-
mains (apoleipetai) for the people of God (Heb. 4 :6, 9), the author of He-
brews testifies to the fundamental and indissoluble unity of God’s work in
creation and redemption. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ET 1958, 111, p.
257: “From creation—preceding and superseding every human decision of
obedience or disobedience—there remains (apoleipetai) for the people of
God the Sabbath rest (sabbatismos), the divinely willed and ordered fellow-
ship, relationship and agreement between His own and human freedom”; cf.
C. Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 1953, 11, p. 83.
122. Isaiah 58 :13-14 reflects the concept that genuine Sabbath observ-
ance guarantees the blessings of the covenant. By arguing that another Sab-
bath rest remains for God’s people besides the one given by Joshua to the
Israelites, Hebrews 4 appears to refute a prevailing view that the blessings of
Sabbath-keeping were tied to the Jewish national covenant. For the develop-
ment of this idea see G. von Rad and Ernst Jenni (cited above, fn. 23).
Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1899, p. 162 sug-
gests that the author of Hebrews endeavors “to wean the Hebrews from its
external observance by pointing out its spiritual end.” Francis S. Sampson, A
Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1866, p. 156, also sees
in Hebrews 4 a refutation of a prevailing ~ view’’ of the blessings of the
Sabbath covenant.
123. Adolph Saphir, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1946, p. 184.
124. G. von Rad (fn. 23), p. 95 argues that the concept of the Sab-
bath rest understood not simply as peace of mind but as “altogether tangible
peace granted to a nation plagued by enemies and weary of wandering,”
originated in Deuteronomy (12 :9f.; 25:19). The theme is adopted and devel-
oped subsequently (cf. Jos. 21:43-45; I King 8 :56; I Chron. 22 :9; 23:25; II
Chron. 15:15; 20:30; 6:41-42).
125. This point is well made by John Brown, Hebrews, The Banner
of Truth, 1862, p. 208.
126. G. von Rad (fn. 23); p. 99.
127. J. Daniélou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 299; W. Robertson Nicoll,
The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1956, p. 279: “Under the promise of a
land in which to rest, the Israelites who came out of Egypt were brought in
contact with the redeeming grace and favour of God.”
128. This is implied in the effort made by the author of Hebrews to
assert the superiority of the Christian dispensation over that of the Old Cov-
enant as well as by his thorough familiarity with Jewish worship.
129. Samuel T. Lowrie, An Explanation of the Epistle to the He-
brews, 1884, p. 114.
130. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the He-
brews and of the Epistle of James, 1946, p. 130.
131. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 112, emphasizes the force of “Today”:“We
shall misunderstand the burden of the passage if we do not hear in it the
decisive significance of the ‘Today.’ The new day of the ‘Today’ has dawned
in Christ (v. 7). On this new day it is possible to enter into the rest, and yet
more: on this new day this rest has become a reality for those who believe.”
Note the similarity with the “today” of Luke 4:19 and John 9:4.
132. The rest (katapausin) of God (Heb. 4:10) can hardly be the rest
(anapausin) of the grave referred to in Rev. 14:13.
133. J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1972, II, p. 339.
134. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, ET 1958, III, p. 50; cf. C. K. Barrett,

“The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Background of the
New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube, 19642,
p. 372: “[Heb. 4:11] implies, to enter into God’s ‘rest’ is the opposite of
unbelief and disobedience; it means that man shares at length in the perfec-
tion of God’s ultimate purpose for mankind.” F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the
Hebrews, 1964, pp. 74, 78, associates the Sabbath rest of God referred to in
Hebrews 4 with Christ’s words in John 5:17, arguing that it implies not pri-
marily a future bliss, but the blessings of salvation ever available by faith
since creation (see also above fn. 73).
135. See above fn. 20, 21, 22; Epistle of Barnabas 15:8.
136. This view is well expressed by Alexander Balmain Bruce (fn.
122), pp. 160, 161: “Sabbatism... felicitously connects the end of the world
with the beginning, the consummation of all things with the primal state of
the creation. It denotes the ideal rest, and so teaches by implication that
Christians not only have an interest in the gospel of rest, but for the first time
enter into a rest which is worthy of the name ... God rested on the seventh
day, and by the choice of this name the writer happily hints that it is God’s
own rest into which Christians enter... -Christ discarded the rabbinized Sab-
bath, and put in its place a humanized Sabbath, making man’s good the law
of observance, declaring that it was always lawful to do well, and justifying
beneficent activity by representing Divine activity as incessant, and Divine
rest therefore as only relative.”
137. F. F. Bruce (fn. 134) clearly recognizes that the redemptive
meaning of the Sabbath rest found in Hebrews 4 “is implied by our Lord’s
words in John 5:17.”
138. The last explanation is by R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation
of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 1943, p. 939; cf. J. C. Fenton (fn. 119), p. 387;
Theodore H. Robinson, The Gospel of Matthew, 1928, p. 197; William
Hendriksen (fn. 50), p. 859; H.A.W. Meyer (fn. 85), p. 416.
139. Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 1966, p. 10; P. Cot-
ton, From Sabbath to Sunday, 1933, pp. 604; W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 68,
conjectures that “the addition mede sabbaton in Matt. 24:20 (or the whole
verse?) derives from a late Jewish (Maccabean?) milieu”; cf. E. Lohse (fn.
5), p. 30.
140. Cf. for instance Matt. 5:18; 10:6,23; 19:9; 23 :3, 23.
141. C.S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 179; cf. E. Lohse (fn.
139), p. 30; J. Schmid, The Gospel according to Matthew, 1968, p. 34.
142. William Hendriksen (fn. 50), p. 859: “Christ’s own teaching on
the subject of Sabbath observance (Matt. 12:11; Mark 2:27) was sufficiently
generous to make allowance for escape on that day. But the many man-made
rules and regulations by means of which the scribes and Pharisees had cre-
ated the impression that man was indeed made for the Sabbath would have
resulted in refusals on the part of many a strict observer to help those in
need. So the Lord urges his disciples to pray that they may not have to flee in
winter or on the Sabbath.”
143. A. W. Argyle, The Gospel according to Matthew, 1963, p. 183;
W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 120, also remarks: “The very fact, however, that this
saying was preserved among Jewish Christians is sufficient proof of the high
regard in which they held the Sabbath”; E. Lohse (fn. 5), p. 29: “Matt. 24:20
offers an example of the keeping of the Sabbath by Jewish Christians.”
144. Epistle to Diognetus 4, 3, ANF I, p. 26; for further references
and discussion of the patristic interpretation of the Sabbath see above, fn.
9f?.
Chapter 3
THE RESURRECTION-APPEARANCES
AND THE ORIGIN
OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE
The Resurrection
The most common theological motivations presented in recent stud-
ies to explain the origin of Sunday-keeping are the resurrection and/or the
appearances of Jesus which took place on the first day of the week. C. S.
Mosna, for instance, in his recent doctoral dissertation, concludes: “There-
fore we can conclude with certainty that the event of the resurrection has
determined the choice of Sunday as the day of worship of the first Christian
community.” 1
It is argued, as stated by J. Daniélou, that “what made the Sunday
was the synaxis which took place only on the Lord’s day... in commemora-
tion of the Resurrection of Christ.”2 Right from the very inception of the
Church, the apostles allegedly chose the first day of the week on which
Christ rose, to commemorate the resurrection on a unique Christian day
and by the celebration of the Lord’s supper as an expression of genuine
Christian worship.
If, on the one hand, a careful investigation of all the New Testament
texts mentioning the resurrection, reveals the incomparable importance of
the event, on the other hand it does not provide any indication regarding a
special day to commemorate it. In fact, as Harold Riesenfeld notes, “in the
accounts of the resurrection in the Gospels, there are no sayings which direct
that the great event of Christ’s resurrection should be commemorated on the
particular day of the week on which it occurred.”4 Moreover, as the same
author observes, “the first day of the week, in the writings of the New Testa-
ment, is never called ‘Day of the Resurrection’. This is a term which made
its appearance later.” 5 Therefore “to say that Sunday is observed because
Jesus rose on that day,” as S. V. McCasland cogently states, “is really a peti-
tio principii, for such a celebration might just as well be monthly or annually
and still be an observance of that particular day.6
The Resurrection/Appearances and the Origin of Sunday 74
Lord’s Supper. The very “Lord’s Supper—kuriakon deipnon’ which

allegedly gave rise to the “Lord’s day—kuriake hemera” by creating the
necessity to commemorate the resurrection with a unique Christian worship
and on a purely Christian day, was not celebrated, according to the New
Testament, on a specificweekly day nor was the rite understood as com-
memorative of the resurrection.7 It could be argued that Christ’s death and
resurrection cannot be rightly separated since they constitute two acts of the
same drama. Nevertheless it is noteworthy that Paul, who claims to transmit
what he “received from the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:23), states explicitly that by the
eating of the bread and by the drinking of the cup Christians “proclaim the
Lord’s death till he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).8 It is then not Christ’s resurrection
but rather His sacrifice and parousia which the Lord’s Supper is explicitly
designed to commemorate.9
In the same chapter the Apostle takes pains to instruct the Corinthians
concerning the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, but on the question
of the time of the assembly no less than four times he repeats in the same
chapter, “when you come together—sunerkomenon” (1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 33,
34), thus implying indeterminate time and days. If the Lord’s Supper was
indeed celebrated on Sunday night, Paul could hardly have failed to mention
it at least once, since four times he refers to the coming together for its cel-
ebration.
Furthermore, if Sunday were already regarded as the “Lord’s day,”
by mentioning the sacredness of the time in which they gathered, Paul could
have strengthened his plea for a more worshipful attitude during the partak-
ing of the Lord’s Supper. But, though Paul was familiar with the adjective
“Lord’s—kuriakos” (since he uses it in v. 20 to designate the nature of the
supper), he did not apply it to Sunday. In the same epistle in fact, in a pas-
sage we shall later discuss, 10 he refers to the day by the Jewish designation
“first day of the week” (1 Cor. 16:2).
The meaning of the Lord’s Supper is derived from the Last Supper
which Christ celebrated with His disciples. While the Synoptics differ from
John in designating the time of its celebration,11 they all agree that Christ ate
the Passover with His disciples according to the prevailing custom. On that
occasion, however, Christ infused into the rite a new meaning and form. It is
noteworthy that the dominant motif emphasized by Christ during the institu-
tion of the rite is not His resurrection but rather His expiatory death. He
attributes to the bread and the wine the symbolic value of His body and
blood “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26 :28; cf.
Mark 13 :24; Luke 22 :15, 17, 19). That Christ intended to give not only a
new meaning but also a weekly recurrence to the festivity, cannot be in-
ferred from the Gospels, since there are no such allusions. The only appoint-
ment in time that Jesus offers to His disciples is “until that day when I drink
it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29; cf. Mark 14:25;
Luke 22:18).
In the immediate post-New Testament literature, the resurrection is
similarly not cited as the primary reason for the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper or for the observance of Sunday. The Didache, regarded as the most
ancient source of ecclesiastical legislation (dated between A.D. 70-150), 12
devotes three brief chapters (chs. 9, 10, 14) to the manner of celebrating the
Lord’s Supper. In the thanksgiving prayer to be offered over the cup and
bread, mention is made of life, knowledge, church unity, faith, immortality,
creation and food (chs. 9, 10), but no allusion is made to Christ’s resurrec-
tion.
In Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, known as “the earliest Chris-
tian document that has come down to us outside the New Testament” (dated
about A.D. 95), 13our chapters deal with the theme of the resurrection (24-
27). The writer, seeking to reassure the Christians of Corinth that “there is to
be a resurrection, of which he made the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruits” (24
:1), employs three different and effective symbols: the day-night cycle, the
reproductive cycle of the seed (24) and the legend of the phoenix from whose
corpse allegedly another bird arose (25).
The omission of the Lord’s Supper and of Sunday worship—the most
telling symbols of all—is certainly surprising, if indeed, as some hold, the
Eucharist was already celebrated on Sunday and had acquired the commemo-
rative value of the resurrection. What more effective way for the Bishop of
Rome to reassure the Corinthian Christians of their future resurrection than
by reminding them that the Lord’s Supper, of which they partook every Sun-
day, was their most tangible assurance of their own resurrection! Clement,
on the contrary, not only omits this rite which later became commemorative
of the resurrection, but even speaks of “the sacrifices and services” offered
“at the appointed times” in the temple of Jerusalem as “things the Master has
commanded us to perform” (40 :2-4). 14
By manifesting such a profound respect for and attachment to Jew-
ish religious services, Clement hardly allows for a radical break with Jewish
institutions like the Sabbath and for the adoption of a new day of worship
with well defined new theological motivations. On the other hand, a few
decades later we find in Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin not only the opposite
attitude toward Jewish institutions, but also the first timid references to the
resurrection, which is presented as an added or secondary reason for Sunday

worship. 15
The secondary role of the resurrection in earlier sources is recog-
nized even by scholars who defend its influence on the origin of Sunday. C.
S. Mosna notes, for instance, that while in the fourth century the Fathers
established “an explicit link” between the resurrection and Sunday obser-
vance, ‘‘in the first three centuries the memory of the resurrection was hardly
mentioned.”16
Passover. The observance of the Passover in the primitive Church
provides additional indications that initially the event of the resurrection
was not explicitly associated with the feast, which apparently was not cel-
ebrated on Sunday. The injunction to observe Passover is found in the New
Testament only once, in 1 Corinthians 5 :7, 8: "Cleanse out the old leaven
that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ our
paschal lamb has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not
with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened
bread of sincerity and truth."17
Note that in this text the celebration of the Passover is explicitly
motivated by the fact that Christ, the true paschal lamb, “has been sacri-
ficed.” Any reference to the resurrection is absent. The passage, moreover,
provides limited support for a literal observance of the festival, because Paul
here, as W. D. Davies observes, “is not thinking of a specific Christian Pass-
over day, but of the Christian dispensation as such as a feast.” 18 This does
not necessarily imply that the Christians at that time observed Passover only
existentially and not literally.
The fact that Paul himself spent the days of Unleavened Bread at
Philippi (Acts 20:6) and that he “was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if pos-
sible, on the day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:16; cf. 1 Cor. 16:8) suggests that the
Apostle still respected and regulated his life by the normative liturgical cal-
endar of the temple. Moreover we know from the Quartodeciman’s sources
(i.e. those who kept Passover on Nisan 14 according to the Jewish reckon-
ing), which apparently represent a direct continuation of the custom of the
primitive Church, that the paschal feast was indeed observed by Christians.
Its celebration, however, did not take place on Sunday, as we might expect if
it was intended to commemorate the actual day on which the resurrection
occurred, but rather, as well stated by J. Jeremias, “at the same time as the
Jewish Passover, that is, on the night of the 15th of Nisan, and by the date
rather than the day.” 19
In a passage we shall later examine, Epiphanius (ca. A.D. 315-403)

suggests that until A.D. 135 Christians everywhere observed Passover on
the Jewish date, namely, on Nisan 15, irrespective of the day of the week20 If
our informer is correct, this would mean that prior to that time, no necessity
had been felt to institute a Sunday memorial (whether annual or weekly) to
honor the resurrection.
This conclusion is supported indirectly also by the two earliest docu-
ments mentioning the Passover celebration, since both emphasize the com-
memoration of the death rather than of the resurrection of Christ. The Ethiopic
version of the apocryphal Epistle of the Apostles (dated ca. A.D. 150) says,
“and you therefore celebrate the remembrance of my death, i.e. the passover”
(ch. 15). In the Coptic version the passage is basically the same, “And you
remember my death. If now the passover takes place..... . .“ (ch. 15). 21
The second document, the Sermon on the Passover by Melito,22
Bishop of Sardis (died ca. A.D. 190), provides the most extensive theologi-
cal interpretation of the meaning of the Passover celebration for the early
Christians. The Bishop in a highly rhetorical fashion explains in his sermon
how the old Passover has found its fulfillment in Christ. It is significant that
the Biblical setting is still the Exodus story (12:11-30) which the author
reenacts as in the Jewish Passover haggadah. The recurring theme is “the
suffering of the Lord” (v. 58) which the author finds “predicted long in ad-
vance” (v. 58) not only by “the sacrifice of the sheep” (vv. 3, 4, 6, 8, 15, 16,
32, 33, 44) but also in many other Old Testament types:
"This one is the passover of our salvation.
This is the one who patiently endured many things in many people.
This is the one who was murdered in Abel,
and bound as a sacrifice in Isaac,
and exiled in Jacob,
and sold in Joseph,
and exposed in Moses,
and sacrificed in the lamb,
and hunted in David,
and dishonored in the prophets (v. 69).
This is the lamb that was slain.
This is the lamb that was silent.

This is the one who was born of Mary, that beautiful ewe-lamb.
This is the one who was taken from the flock,
and was dragged to sacrifice,
and was killed in the evening,
and was buried at night;
the one who was not broken while on the tree,
who did not see dissolution while in the earth,
who rose up from the dead
and who raised up mankind
from the grave below (v. 71)."
Though Melito in his sermon makes a few passing references to the
resurrection, it is clear from the context that these function as the epilogue of
the passion drama of the Passover. The emphasis is indeed on the suffering
and death of Jesus which constitute the recurring theme of the sermon and of
the celebration.23 This is evidenced also by the very definition of the Pass-
over which the Bishop provides: "What is the Passover? Indeed its name is
derived from that event— 'to celebrate the Passover' (tou paschein) is de-
rived from “to suffer” (tou pathein). Therefore, learn who the sufferer is and
who he is who suffers along with the sufferer (v. 46).24
The resurrection, however, did emerge in time as the dominant rea-
son for the celebration not only of the annual Easter-Sunday, but also of the
weekly Sunday. The two festivities, in fact, as we shall later see-, came to be
regarded as one basic feast commemorating at different times the same event
of the resurrection.25
It would seem therefore that though the resurrection is frequently
mentioned both in the New Testament and in the early patristic literature, no
suggestion is given that primitive Christians commemorated the event by a
weekly or yearly Sunday service. The very fact that Passover, which later
became the annual commemoration of the resurrection held on Easter-Sun-
day, initially celebrated primarily Christ’s passion26 and was observed by the
fixed date of Nisan 15 rather than on Sunday, 27 makes it untenable to claim
that Christ’s resurrection determined the origin of Sunday worship during
the lifetime of the Apostles.
The Appearances of the Risen Christ

Another similar and yet different explanation for the origin of Sun-
day observance has been popularized by W. Rordorf in his recent mono-
graph on the origin and early history of Sunday, which has been translated
and published in several languages. The author with a brilliant but tortuous
argumentation interrelates Christ’s Last Supper, the meals which the risen
Lord consumed with His disciples on Easter Sunday, the breaking of the
bread practiced in the earliest community, and the Lord’s Supper described
in I Corinthians 11:17-34.28 He concludes that all these have their “roots in
the Easter meal, when the risen Lord was present in visible form with His
disciples, and we can assign a definite point in time to the Easter meal: it
happened on Sunday evening!” 29
Moreover, the fact that Christ appeared and ate with the disciples
“not only on Easter-Sunday evening, but also on the following Sunday (John
20:26) and perhaps even on other Sundays after that (Acts 10:41),” 30 is
interpreted as the setting of a regular pattern for a regular eucharistic cel-
ebration on every Sunday night. Therefore Sunday allegedly would derive
both its name “Lord’s day—kuriake hemera and its eucharistic cult from
the “Lord’s Supper—kuriakon deipnon” which on Easter evening under-
went “a second institution” when the risen Lord celebrated the rite anew
with His disciples. 31
Is it possible that the meals consumed by the risen Christ with His
disciples on the occasions of his various appearances, as Otto Betz puts it,
became “the basis for a revolutionary new cult among the earliest Chris-
tians”?32 The Gospel’s accounts of the event significantly discredit such an
hypothesis.The disciples, for instance, had gathered on Easter-Sunday night
“within shut doors” (John 20:19) still confused and disbelieving the resur-
rection (Luke 24 :11), not to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but “for fear of the
Jews” (John 20:19).
John, though he wrote by the end of the first century, 33 when alleg-
edly Christians were celebrating the Lord’s Supper on Sunday, makes no
reference to any meal which Christ took with his disciples on Easter evening.
The omission of this detail can hardly be justified if the Easter-meal - was
regarded as the crucial starting point of Sunday-keeping. Furthermore, the
fact that John does mention a meal which Christ consumed with His dis-
ciples on an early week-day morning on the shore of the lake of Galilee
(John 21:13), strongly suggests that no particular significance was attributed
to Christ’s Easter-Sunday evening meal.34
It is hard to believe that the disciples viewed the Easter evening meal
as “a second institution of the Lord’s Supper,” when Luke, the only reporter
of the meal, “makes no mention,” as C. S. Mosna notes, “of a fractio panis,”
that is, of a breaking of bread. 35 The disciples, in fact, “gave him [i. e. Christ]
a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them” (Luke 24:42-43).
There is no mention of bread or of wine, nor of ritual blessing. The disciples
did not receive the eucharistic elements from Christ, but “they gave Him a
piece of broiled fish” (v. 42). Only Christ ate, why? The answer is explicitly
provided by the context (vv. 36-41) where Christ asks not for bread and
wine, but for “anything to eat” (v. 41) in order to reassure the disciples of the
physical reality of His resurrected body. 36
The mention of Christ’s appearance “eight days later” (John 20:26),
supposedly the Sunday following His resurrection,37 can hardly suggest a
regular pattern of Sunday observance, since John himself explains its rea-
son, namely, the absence of Thomas at the previous appearance (v. 24). Simi-
larly on this occasion John makes no reference to any cultic meal, but sim-
ply to Christ’s tangible demonstration to Thomas of the reality of his bodily
resurrection (vv. 26-29). The fact that “eight days later” the disciples were
again gathered together is not surprising, since we are told that before Pente-
cost “they were staying—hesan katamenontes” (Acts 1:13) together in the
upper room and there they met daily for mutual edification (Acts 1:14; 2 :1).
The appearances of Christ do not follow a consistent pattern. The
Lord appeared to individuals and to groups not only on Sunday but at differ-
ent times, places and circumstances. He appeared in fact to single persons
such as Cephas and James (1 Cor. 15 :5, 7), to the twelve (vv. 5, 7), and to a
group of five hundred persons (v. 6). The meetings occurred, for instance,
while gathered within shut doors for fear of the Jews (John 20:19, 26), while
traveling on the Emmaus road (Luke 24:13-35) or while fishing on the lake
of Galilee (John 21:1-14).
No consistent pattern can be derived from Christ’s appearances to
justify the institution of a recurring eucharistic celebration on Sunday. In
fact, with only two disciples at Emmaus, Christ “took the bread and blessed
; and broke it, and gave it to them” (Luke 24:30). This last instance may
sound like the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. But in reality it was an ordi-
nary meal around an ordinary table to which Jesus was invited. Christ ac-
cepted the hospitality of the two disciples and sat “at the table with them”
(Luke 24:30). According to the prevailing custom, the Lord “took the bread
and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them” (v. 30). This act, as explained
by J. Behm, was “simply a customary and necessary part of the preparation
for eating together.” 38 No wine was served or blessed, since the meal was
abruptly interrupted by the recognition of the Lord “in the breaking of the
bread” (v. 35; cf. 31).
To view any meal that Christ partook with the disciples after His
resurrection as a “second institution” of the Lord’s Supper would conflict
also with the pledge Jesus made at the Last Supper; “I tell you I shall not
drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you
in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29; cf. Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). Since
all the Synoptics unanimously report Christ’s promise not to partake again
of the sacred elements with His disciples in this present world, they could
hardly have viewed any later meal taken with Christ, as a reenactment of the
Last Supper, without making their Master guilty of inconsistency or contra-
dictions.
Lastly, we should note that according to Matthew (28 :10) and Mark
(16:7) Christ’s appearances occurred not in Jerusalem (as mentioned by Luke
and John) but in Galilee. This suggests that, as S. V. McCasland rightly ob-
serves, “the vision may have been as much as ten days later, after the feast of
the unleavened bread, as indicated by the closing fragments of the Gospel of
Peter. But if the vision at this late date was on sunday it would be scarcely
possible to account for the observance of Sunday in such an accidental way.”39
While it may be difficult to explain the discrepancies of the narra-
tives in the Gospels,40 yet the fact that both Matthew and Mark make no
reference to any meal or meeting of Christ with his disciples on Easter-Sun-
day implies that no particular importance was attributed to the meal Christ
shared with his disciples on the Sunday night of his resurrection.
As for Christ’s appearances, therefore, while on the one hand they
greatly reassured the disheartened disciples of the reality of Christ’s resur-
rection, they could hardly have suggested on the other hand a recurring weekly
commemoration of the resurrection. They occurred at different times, places
and circumstances, and in those instances where Christ ate, He partook of
ordinary food (like fish), not to institute a eucharistic Sunday worship, but to
demonstrate the reality of his bodily resurrection.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
1. C.S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 44; cf. pp. 15, 20, 25, 27f.,
51f., 54f., 77f., 88; P. Massi, La Domenica, p. 43, states categorically: “The
resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the origin of Sunday”; P. K.
Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 57: “What, it might be asked, specifically motivated
the primitive Jewish church to settle upon Sunday as a regular time of as-
sembly? As we have observed before, it must have had something to do with
the resurrection which, according to the uniform witness of the Gospels,
occurred on the first day of the week”; F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 191:
“From the study of the above texts one may reasonably conclude that during
the earliest days of the Church there was only one liturgical feast and this
feast was the weekly commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ”; cf.
Josef A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great,
1959, pp. 19-21; also The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origin and
Developn’rent 1951, I, p. 15; Bishop Cassien, “Le Jour du Seigneur dans le
Nouveau Testament,” Le Dimanche, Lex Orandi 39, 1965, p. 30; Y. B. Tremel,
“Du Sabbat au Jour du Seigneur,” Lu?ni~re et Vie (1962): 441.
2. J Daniélou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 243; earlier he writes: “The Lord’s
Day is a purely Christian institution; its origin is to be found solely on the
fact of the Resurrection of Christ on the day after the Sabbath” (ibid., p. 242;
cf. also p. 222).
3. The resurrection of Christ is presented in the New Testament as
the essence of the apostolic proclamation, faith and hope; cf. Acts 1:22; 2:31;
3:75; 4:2, 10,33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:33-37; 17:18,32; 24:15,21; 26:8; I Cor.
15:11-21; Rom. 10:9; 1:1-4; 8:31-34; 14:9; I Thess. 1:9-10.
4.H. Riesenfeld, “The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day,” The Gospel Tra-
dition: Essays by H. Riesenfeld, 1970, p. 124.
5.H. Riesenfeld, “Sabbat et Jour du Seigneur,” in A. J. B. Higgins,
ed., N.T. Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959, p. 212.
6. S. V. McCasland, “The Origin of the Lord’s Day,” JBL 49 (1930):
69; P. Cotton, From Sabbath to Sunday, 1933, p. 79, affirms: “There is
nothing in the idea of the Resurrection that would necessarily produce the
observance of Sunday as a Day of Worship”; C. W. Dugmore, “Lord’s Day
and Easter,” Neotestamentica et Patristica in honorem sexagenarn 0.
Cullmann, 1962, p. 273, raises the question: “Are we right in assuming that
Sunday was everywhere observed by Christians from apostolic age onwards
as the chief occasion of public prayer, or that it was a day on which the
Eucharist was celebrated weekly from the beginning?” His reply is that the
commemoration of the resurrection was initially an annual and not a weekly
event. He maintains that “It is not until about A.D. 150 that we find any clear
and unmistakable reference to a regular meeting of Christians for worship,
including the Eucharist, on the ‘day of the Sun’ (Justin, I Apology 67)” (ibid.,
p. 280).
7. Cf. Joseph A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy, 1959, p. 21; W.
Rordorf, Sunday, p. 221: “We have, therefore, every reason for assuming
that there existed an inner connection between kuriake hemera and kuriakon
deipnon.... It seems probable that the whole day on which this ‘Lord’s Sup-
per’ took place received the title the ‘Lord’s day.’ If this is, in fact, the case
(and this conclusion is almost irresistible) we can infer that the Pauline Lord’s
Supper was celebrated on Sunday, since Sunday would not otherwise have
received its title the ‘Lord’s day.’” Rordorf endeavors to reduce even the
reference to the “daily—kath’hemera” breaking of bread of Acts 2 :46, to a
Sunday evening celebration (ibid., pp. 225-228). He bases his view on three
basic arguments: (1) In the Western text the “daily” of Acts 2 :46 is trans-
posed to v. 45, thus allowing a different interpretation; (2) The assembling
together for the breaking of bread “was a technical term for the coming to-
gether of Christians for their meal of worship”; (3) It would have been im-
possible for the community to assemble “in its full numerical strength on
every evening for the breaking of bread,” therefore “the community break-
ing of bread did not take place daily ... it was celebrated on Sunday evening
(ibid., pp. 227, 228). C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 52, rightly re-
jects Rordorf’s interpretation, affirming that “there is no evidence in Acts 2
:42-46 and 1 Cor. 11 :20f. to indicate that in the earliest Christian com-
munities already existed the custom of a sole weekly celebration of the Eu-
charist... and even more that this occurred on Sunday night.” 0. Betz, in his
review of Rordorf’s book (JBL (1964): 81-83) attacks fiercely the author’s
emphasis on the Sunday evening Eucharist. R. B. Racham, The Acts of the
Apostles, 1957, p. 38, emphasizes that Acts 2 :42-46 represents a community
meal and not a Lord’s Supper. J. Daniélou, Nouvelle Histoire de l’Église,
1963, I, p. 42: “It is not certain that the Christian gatherings always took
place at night. It is very likely that they occurred at different hours.”
8. The allusion to Christ’s sacrifice is clear also in the Synoptics’
account of the Last Supper: Matt. 26:28; Mark 14 :22-25; Luke 22 :17-20.
9.E. B. Allo, Première épitre aux Corinthiens, 1934, p. 296, well
observes regarding the Lord’s Supper of I Cor. 11:20: “The idea of the Pas-
sion fills all the eucharistic ceremony of Corinth .... It is in reality an ‘act’
which remembers the death of Christ and not simply the union of the faithful
in the spirit and worship of the resurrected Christ.”
10. See below pp. 90-91.
11. According to the Synoptics the Last Supper was celebrated on
the night when the Jews ate the Passover (Mark 14:12; Matt. 26:17; Luke
22:7), while according to the Fourth Gospel the Jews celebrated the feast on
the following day, the night following the crucifixion (John 18:28; 19:14-
31). J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 19492, p. 34f., defends persua-
sively the view that the Last Supper was celebrated at the time of the Jewish
Passover. Lately it has been suggested that at the time of Christ there existed
two Passover traditions: (a) the priestly (normative) circles held it on Nisan
14, a date derived from the well-known but variable lunar calendar, and (b)
the Qumran sectarians kept it regularly on Wednesday according to the an-
cient solar calendar of 364 days advocated in the book of Jubilees. Some
scholars have argued that these divergent calendar systems explain the dif-
ference in the dating of the Passover between Synoptics and the Fourth Gos-
pel; see B. Lohse, Das Passafest der Quartodecimaner, 1953; J. Van
Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, pp. 165, 174, 175; W. Rordorf, “Zum
Ursprung des Osterfestes am Sonntag,” Theologische Zeitschrift 18 (1962):
167-189; E. Hilgert, “The Jubilees Calendar and the Origin of Sunday Ob-
servance,” AUSS I (1963): 44-51; A. Jaubert, La date de la Cane, 1957.
While the existence of these two divergent calendar systems is a well-estab-
lished fact, the use of the solar sectarian calendar by primitive Christians is
far from certain. There are indications that the Jerusalem Church (see below
pp. 142-50) in the first century A.D. followed closely the normative calen-
dar of thetemple. Moreover no adequate explanation has yet been provided
for how the Jubilees’ calendar kept abreast with the official one of the temple.
We know that official Judaism intercalated one month whenever needed to
keep the calendar synchronized with the seasons, since the annual feasts
were all tied to the agricultural year. But how was the Jubilees’ calendar
(which was one and one quarter days too short) intercalated to keep in phase
with the seasons? No one really knows. The theory that 35 or 49 days were
intercalated every 28 or 49 years (cf. R. T. Beckwith, “The Modern Attempt
to Reconcile the Qumran Calendar with the True Solar Year,” Revue de
Qumran 7, 27 [Dec. 1970]: 379-387) is difficult to accept, since that would
place the calendar several weeks off the annual seasons. The result would be
that the Qumran Passover did not fall within the same week as the official
Jewish Passover. How can this be reconciled with the fact that the feasts
observed by Christ and the Apostles apparently coincided to a day with the
normative calendar of the temple? Furthermore, why should the Synoptics

have used the sectarian calendar of Qumran? Did not Luke and Mark, ac-
cording to tradition, write for Gentile audiences? Was not Matthew a former
Roman tax collector? What reasons would they have for using an obscure
sectarian calendar? Cf. the cogent arguments presented by William Sanford
LaSor, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 1972, pp. 203-205.
12. E. Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers, 1950, p. 286, proposes
that the Latin fragments represent a translation of the original text composed
about A.D. 100, and the text published by Bryennius represents an expan-
sion produced about A.D. 150 with the help of an abbreviated form from
Barnabas. J. Quasten, Patrology, 1950, I, pp. 36-37, maintains that the manual
was produced between A.D. 100 and 150, because the complex nature of the
ordinances described (such as baptism by infusion), would require some
time for their stabilization. Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, LCL, 1952,
I, p. 307, similarly suggests that the “original ‘Teaching’ is probably early
second century.” Jean Paul Audet, La Didache, Instructions des Ap6tres,
1958, p. 219, is of the opinion that the Didache is contemporaneous to the
Synoptics, and therefore to be dated between A.D. 50 and 70.
13. E. J. Goodsped (fn. 12), p. 47.
14. In chapter 41 Clement reiterates the necessity of respecting “the
appointed rules of his ministration” by referring again to the services of the
temple: “Not in every place, my brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered or
the free-will offerings, or the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, but only
in Jerusalem; and there also the offering is not made in every place, but
before the shrine, at the altar” (v. 2; Kirsopp Lake, fn. 12, p. 79). The refer-
ence to the temple sacrificial services reflects not only the high esteem in
which they were held by some Christians, but also continuance of sacrifice,
though in a reduced form, after A.D. 70; cf. K. W. Clark, “Worship in the
Jerusalem Temple after A.D. 70,” NTS 6 (1959-1960): 269-280; J. R. Brown,
The Temple and Sacrifice in Rabbinic Judaism, 1963.
15. See chapter VII, where the testimonies of these three Fathers are
examined.
16. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 357; W. Rordorf, Sabbat
(texts), p. xvi, in spite of his endeavor to defend an opposite thesis, also
admits: “we can indicate with reasons that the justification for Sunday on
the basis of the resurrection of Jesus, does not appear until the second cen-
tury and even then very timidly.”
17. Emphasis supplied; the expression “paschal lamb” alludes to Cal-

vary where Christ died at the time when the lambs were slaughtered at the
temple (John 18:28; 19:31); cf. C. Spicq, I’ Épitre aux Corinthiens, 1969, p.
20; E. Hoskyns - F. Davey, The Fourth Gospel, 1947, p. 531. J. Jeremias,
“Pasca” TDNT V, p. 900, argues cogently that the casual way in which Paul
refers to Christ as “paschal lamb,” implied that such a “comparison was
already familiar to the Corinthian church.” The identification of Christ’s death
with the Passover sacrifice possibly goes back to Jesus Himself, since in the
Last supper He compares Himself with the paschal lamb. That the sacrifice
of Christ was the core of the rich Passover typology in the primitive church
is widely admitted: cf. J. Bonsirven, “Hoc est corpus meum,” Biblica 29
(1948): 205-219; A. Walther, Jesus, das Passalamm des Neuen Bundes,
1950, pp. 38-91; A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the NT, 1952, p.
49ff.
18. W. D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism, n. d., p. 75.
19. J. Jeremias (fn. 17), p. 902.
20. Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 70, 10, PG 42, 355-356; the text
is cited and examined below, see pp. 161-162, 200-203.
21. The two versions are given in parallel columns in E. Hennecke,
New Testament Apocrypha, 1963, 1, p. 199. The date of the composition is
discussed on pp. 190-191. Note the same emphasis on the death as found in
1 Cor. 5:7 and 11:26.
22. The work was first published in Greek with an English transla-
tion in 1940 by Campbell Bonner, Melito of Sardes, the Homily on the Pas-
sion, with Some Fragments of Ezekiel, Studies and Documents 12, 1940.
The present quotations are taken from Gerald F. Hawthorne, “A New En-
glish Translation of Melito’s Paschal Homily,” in Current Issues in Biblical
and Patristic Interpretation, ed., G. F. Hawthorne, 1975, pp. 147-175.
23. E. Lohse (fn. 11), p. 75, points out that in the Quartodeciman
Passover both the death and resurrection were celebrated, since Melito does
refer a few times to the resurrection. W. Rordorf (fn. 11), pp. 167-168, also
holds that the commemoration of the resurrection was implicit in the
Quartodeciman Passover. Such a conclusion is hardly warranted by Melito’s
Paschal Homily, since the Bishop presents Christ’s resurrection primarily in
the closing remarks of his sermon (vv. 100 to 105) not to explain the reason
for the Passover celebration, but only as the logical epilogue of the passion
drama. That Passover was viewed as the commemoration of the sacrifice
and suffering of Christ is clearly indicated in Melito’s homily by: (1) the
detailed correlation established between the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb
and Christ (vv. 1-8); (2) the reiteration of the Old Testament procedure in the
selection, sacrifice and consuming of the lamb (vv. 11-16); (3) the descrip-
tion of what happened to the Egyptians who were found without the blood of
the sheep (vv. 17-29); (4) the explanation that Israel’s safety was due to “the
sacrifice of the sheep, the type of the Lord” (vv. 30-33); (5) the explicit and
repeated identification of Christ as the Antitype fulfilling the type (vv. 34-
45); (6) the categorical definition that Passover “is derived from to suffer”
(v. 46); (7) the Old Testament predictions of Christ as a suffering lamb (vv.
57-65); (8) the description of the passion of Christ as of a lamb sacrificed
(vv. 66-71); (9) the vituperation of Israel for the murder of the Lord (vv. 72-
99). Practically the whole sermon interprets the Jewish Passover in the light
of the suffering of Christ. We would therefore concur with J. Jeremias that
“in the early Church the resurrection was not an annual festival” and that
among the Quartodecimans, Passover “was generally related to the recollec-
tion of the passion” (fn. 17, p. 902-903). Tertullian supports this conclusion
when he says: “The Passover affords a more than usually solemn day for
baptism; when, withal, the Lord’s passion, in which we are baptized, was
completed” (On Baptism 19 ANF 111, p. 678; cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue,
72).
24. Irenaeus provides a similar definition: “Of the day of His pas-
sion, too, he [Moses] was not ignorant; but foretold Him, after a figurative
manner, by the name given to the passover; and at that very festival, which
had been proclaimed such a long time previously by Moses, did our Lord
suffer, thus fulfilling the passover” (Against heresies 4, 10, 1, ANF 1, p.
473). The explanation that “Passover—pascha’ derives etymologically from
to suffer—paschein” is unfounded, since in Hebrew the term “Passover—
pesah“ means “passing over,” that is, “sparing” and it was used to refer to a
whole range of ceremonies related to the Feast. Could not, however, this
erroneous definition represent an apologetic argument devised to justify the
Christian interpretation of the feast, namely, the commemoration of the suf-
fering of Christ?
25. See below pp. 204-205.
26. The expectation of the parousia was also an important meaning
of the primitive Christian Passover celebration as indicated by the fast which
was broken on the morning of the 15th Nisan (cf. Epistle of the Apostles 15);
see J. Jeremias (fn. 17), pp. 902-903.
27. The question of the origin of Easter-Sunday is discussed below

pp. 198-204.
28. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 221; P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, pp. 64-67,
adopts and defends Rordorf’s view; also P. Massi, La Domenica, p, 40. C. S.
Mosna, Storia della domenica, pp. 52-58, excludes the possibility that Christ’s
appearances influenced the origin of Sunday, but argues that they may have
determined the time of the synaxis, namely the evening hour.
30. Ibid., p. 234.
31. Ibid., p. 233; Joseph A. Jungmann (fn. 1), p. 21, perceives also a
causal relationship between the “Lord’s day” and the “Lord’s supper;” cf.
also Bernard Botte, “Les Dénominations du Dimanche dans Ia tradition
chrétienne,” Le Dimanche, Lex Orandi 39, 1965, p. 13.
32. Otto Betz, “Review of W. Rordorf Der Sonntag,” in JBL (1964):
83. Betz rejects such an hypothesis as does C. S. Mosna, though in a
milder way (Storia della domenica, pp. 52-58).
33. The time of the composition of the fourth Gospel is generally
placed before the end of the first century, since, according to the tradilion of
the early Church, John lived into the reign of Trajan (Irenaeus, Against her-
esies 2, 25, 5; 3, 3, 4; Clement of Alexandria, cited by Eusebius, TIE 3, 25,
5); cf. Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction, 1958, p. 319.
34. Pacifico Massi, La Domenica, p. 40, speculates that the appear-
ance by the lake of Tiberias reported by John (21 :1-19) also occurred on the
first day of the week “since it took place after a day of rest (John 21:1-3).”
Granting such an hypothesis, which is not altogether unlikely, it would mean,
however, that Peter and several of the disciples went fishing Saturday night
(note they spent the night fishing, John 21:3) after having observed the Sab-
bath. Fishing on Sunday can hardly be regarded as intentional observance of
the day.
36. Acts 10:41 is another significant example, where the eating
anddrinking of Christ with His disciples is presented as the crucial proof that
Christ was no phantom.
37. The expression used in this passage, “after eight days,” need not
mean Monday, since it was customary to count the days inclusively, as we
shall note below (chapter IX) in conjunction with the designation eighth
day; cf. R. J. Floody, Scientific Basis of Sabbath and Sunday, 1906, pp. 125-
126.
38. J. Behm, “Klao” TDNT III, p. 728.
39. S. V. McCasland (fn. 6), p. 69.
40. The time-schedule of the Gospel of Peter which places the re-
turn of the disciples with Peter to the lake of Tiberias after the festival of the
unleavened bread (i.e. eight days later) suggests a possible solution to the
two divergent accounts; cf. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 228.
Chapter 4
THREE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS
AND THE ORIGIN
OF SUNDAY
Three well-known New Testament passages generally are cited as

evidence for Sunday observance in the apostolic time: 1 Corinthians 16:1-2,
Acts 20 :7-11 and Revelation 1:10.1 An analysis of these passages is there-
fore imperative in order to establish whether Sunday observance is presup-
posed, or even alluded to, in the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 16:1-3
In the spring of A.D. 55 or 56, Paul recommended a unique plan to
the believers of Corinth (similar to instructions he had given to the churches
of Macedonia and Galatia) to ensure a substantial contribution to the general
fund-raising campaign on behalf of the poor of the Jerusalem church.2 The
plan is so stated: “On the first day of every week each of you is to put some-
thing aside and store it up as he may prosper, so that contributions need not
be made when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2).
Various scholars see in this text a reference to or at least an implicit
indication of a regular Christian Sunday gathering. A. Robertson and A.
Plummer, for instance, in their comment on this verse affirm: “This is our
earliest evidence respecting the early consecration of the first day of the
week by the apostolic church.” 3 They justify this conclusion by interrelating
the laying aside of funds on the first day with Christ’s interpretation of the
positive function of the Sabbath: “If it was right to do good on the Jewish
Sabbath (Matt. 12:12; Mark 3:4), how much more on the Lord’s day? For it
reminded them of the untold blessings which they had received.”4
This attempt to read into the private and individual Corinthian laying
aside of funds on Sunday an indication of the transference of the Gospels’
Sabbath theology to Sunday, is indeed ingenious but, as we shall see, gratu-
itous. Pacifico Massi prefers to interpret the Corinthians’ offering simply as
a weekly expression of the Easter-Sunday faith: “Sunday is the weekly Pass-
over and the day of the assembly. Could there be a better occasion to make
such an offering to the risen Christ?”5
-90-
Three New Testament Texts and the Origin of Sunday 91
Pierre Grelot associates this weekly setting aside of money at home,

as recommended by Paul, with “the Jewish weekly gathering of bread for
the poor at the vigil of the Sabbath.”6 In both instances, Grelot notes, it was
a question of supporting the poor of the mother-church. There is however a
significant difference between the two, since in Judaism, at least according
to the school of Shammai, no collection was taken on the Sabbath. Contribu-
tions for the poor were forbidden since they conflicted with the future mate-
rial abundance which the day symbolized.7 Besides, in Corinth it is not a
question of food but of money that is collected. These differences matter
little to Grelot, since he argues that the collection for the Christians “was not
only an expression of liberality (2 Cor. 8 :6-7), but the service of a sacred
offering (2 Cor. 9:12),” and consequently an integral part of the Sunday ser-
vice.8
C. S. Mosna draws the same conclusion by reasoning that since Paul
designates the “offering” in 2 Corinthians 9 :12 as “service–leiturgia” the
collection must have been linked with the Sunday worship service of the
Christian assembly. Furthermore he speculates that since the designation
“first day of the week” is “a Semitism, it indicates a Jewish origin, presum-
ably from Jerusalem, of such day.”9
In all these explanations one notices a common effort to interpret the
“collection” as related to the Sunday worship service. It is felt, as Charles
Hodge expresses it, that “the only reason that can be assigned for requiring
the thing to be done on the first day of the week, is that on that day the
Christians were accustomed to meet, and what each had laid aside from his
weekly gains could be treasured up, i.e. put into the common treasury of the
church.”10
These attempts to extrapolate from Paul’s fund-raising plan a regular
pattern of Sunday observance reveal inventiveness and originality, but they
seem to rest more on construed arguments than on the actual information the
text provides. Several facts deserve consideration. Observe first of all that
there is nothing in the text that suggests public assemblies, inasmuch as the
setting aside of funds was to be done “by himself–par’heauto.” This phrase
implies, as stated by A. P. Stanley, “that the collection was to be made indi-
vidually and in private.”11
It is objected that the directive “by himself or at his own house” has
no sense, since this would require a later collection of money and this is
precisely what Paul wanted to avoid (1 Cor. 16 :2).12 The objection is, how-
ever, unfounded, since the verb that follows, namely “storing up or treasur-
ing up–thesaurison” clearly implies that the money was to be treasured up in
each individual’s house until the Apostle came for it. At that time the collec-
tion of what had been stored up could be quickly arranged.13
Equally unsatisfactory is the explanation that the money was laid

aside privately since at that time there was no church treasury.14 The very
first institution of the apostles was the election of Hellenistic deacons to
administer the continuous stream of gifts coming in and in turn passing out
to the needy (Acts 6 :1-6). Paul recognizes the office of the deacon and
presents a list of the qualities a person aspiring to such an office should
possess (1 Tim. 3 :8-13). 15
To the same Corinthian community he mentions “the helpers and
administrators” (1 Cor. 12:28) among God’s appointed offices, thus imply-
ing the existence in the local church of persons capable of administering
funds. Moreover the fact that the Apostle expects the Corinthians themselves
to select and approve the persons who were to take the money to Jerusalem
(1 Cor. 1614) indicates that the church was competent in financial matters.
It is also observed that the laying aside of funds was done privately
since public worship places did not yet exist. 16 Such argument is however
discredited by the fact that Paul expects his plan to be carried out not only
privately but also on an individual basis: “each of you by himself–hekatos
humon par’heauto” (v.2). Besides, while it is true that Christians assembled
in private homes, Paul does not regard such gatherings as private because of
the nature of the place. In fact, in the same epistle he says repeatedly: “when
you assemble as a church” (1 Cor. 11:18; cf. vv. 20, 33, 34), thus clearly
differentiating between a private laying aside of money at one’s home and
the public gatherings which also took place in private homes.
If the Christian community was worshiping together on Sunday, it
appears paradoxical that Paul should recommend laying aside at home one’s
gift. Why should Christians deposit their offering at home on Sunday, if on
such a day they were gathering for worship? Should not the money have
been brought to the Sunday service? Chrysostom’s reason that the money
was to be laid in store at home “lest one might feel ashamed of offering a
small sum” is hardly justified.17 This would imply that Christians are to avoid
the embarassment of giving little, by giving only when they can show a
substantial gift.
Equally deficient is James Moffat’s suggestion that “possibly Paul
agreed with the school of Shammai that no alms should be handled at wor-
ship.”18 This would attribute to Paul a rabbinical narrow-mindness which
hardly befits his liberal spirit. Moreover, as pointed out by William Barclay,
“Paul uses no fewer than nine different words to describe this collection.”19
Some of these, such as “fellowship” (koinonia—2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13), “service”
(diakonia— 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13), “ministration” (leitourgia—2 Cor. 9
:12) and “offering” (prosfora—Acts 24:17) are explicitly liturgical terms
associated with a religious service. Thus the Apostle could hardly view the
giving or the depositing of an offering during a church service as a secular
act.20 It would appear then that Paul’s recommendation to take up a private
rather than a collective congregational collection on Sunday, suggests that
on such a day no regular public services were conducted.
If Paul regarded the first day of the week as the Christian day of
worship, presumably he would have designated such a day as “Lord’s day—
kuriake hemera” since he was familiar with and did use the adjective
“Lord’s—kuriakos” in the same epistle (1 Cor. 11:20) to designate the name
and the nature of the Lord’s Supper. If the Apostle had done so, then the
claim that the Lord’s Supper gave both its name and its cult to the Lord’s day
would appear altogether plausible. But the fact that Paul \employs the adjec-
tive “Lord’s” to describe only the eucharistic supper and not Sunday sug-
gests that the term was known and used, but was not yet applied to the first
day of the week. 21
Regarding the time of the Lord’s Supper celebration, we have al-
ready noticed that in the same epistle the Apostle repeatedly leaves the ques-
tion indeterminate (1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 33, 34; cf. 14 :23, 26). Presumably the
Lord’s Supper was celebrated in different days and homes, according to pri-
vate arrangements made every week by the community. This plan may have
been encouraged by the fact that Christians’ evening assemblies were mis-
taken for meetings of hetaeriae. The latter were gatherings of illegal societ-
ies (clubs of friends) which were forbidden by the Roman law since they
were centers of political intrigue.
A letter from Pliny, governor of Bithynia, (dated A.D. 112) to the
Emperor Trajan, sheds light on this question.22 There the governor, who asks
the Emperor to instruct him on the procedure to follow in processing the
Christians, reports what he had found out about the Christians’ “guilt” through
long interrogations united with torture. He states that Christians on “an ap-
pointed day (stato die) had been accustomed to meet before daybreak” for a
religious service. Later on the same day (apparently in the evening) they met
again to partake of “ordinary and harmless food.” He then adds, “from all
these things they desisted after my edict which, in accordance with your
orders, prohibited the associations (he taeriae).”23 It is clear that Christian
gatherings came under the suspicion of the hetaeriae because they shared an
obvious resemblance, namely, both assembled for their communal meals in
the evening of appointed days.
We are not informed to what extent the prohibition of the hetaeriae
was applied in the whole empire.24 It would appear however that any kind of
fraternity was viewed with suspicion. Trajan (A.D. 117-138), for instance,
turned down Pliny’s request for permission to constitute a firemen guild that
would not exceed one hundred and fifty members, in order to protect the city
of Nicomedia from future fires. The Emperor’s rationale is that “whatever
title we give them, and whatever our object in giving it, men who are banded
together for a common end will all the same become a political association
before long.”
That Christians came under this kind of suspicion is indicated by the
protest of Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-225) against the insinuation that the Chris-
tian agape meal was a “factio” (a meeting of the hetaeria’s kind). After de-
scribing the nature of the agape feasts, the North African Bishop writes:
“Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is
like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any
complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions.
But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congre-
gations just what we are when separated from each other; ... when the pious,
when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction
but a curia—i.e., the court of God.”25
This prevailing suspicion that the Christians’ religious meals were a
kind of illegal assemblies, coupled with the accusation that these were
Thyestean banquets,26 could explain the reason for Paul’s indefinite refer-
ences to the time of the gatherings. To avoid giving rise to such suspicions,
the Christians in Corinth may well have changed from week to week both
the day and the place of their evening Lord’s Supper meals.
Almost all authors maintain that the “appointed day—stato die” on
which according to Pliny Christians gathered, is Sunday.27 W. Rordorf, for
instance, holds that “Stato die cannot easily be satisfactorily understood ex-
cept as a reference to Sunday.”28 If this prevailing interpretation is correct,
then Rordorf’s conclusion that “Paul ordered the setting aside of money to
take place on Sunday . . . because the Christians had already begun to fix
their calendar by reference to the weekly Sunday,” 29 would deserve consid-
eration. (Note however that about fifty years separate the two documents
and during that period of time, as we shall notice, changes could readily
have occurred).
But, does “stato die” necessarily refer to a regularly recurring Sun-
day meeting? The term “status” (a participle of sisto) which means “ap-
pointed, established, fixed, determined, regular” does not exclusively imply
a fixed recurring day, when used in reference to time, but also one which is
appointed or established. The gathering then could recur periodically but not
necessarily on the self-same day.
The context suggests also several reasons why “stato die” could pos-
sibly be a day fixed from week to week. Christians were denounced, pro-
cessed and condemned in the province. This is indicated by the fact that
Pliny upon his arrival found the problem already existing. To avoid giving
cause of suspicion it is possible that Christians every week changed the day
and place of their gathering. Moreover, the governor by means of interroga-
tion and torture had obtained detailed information regarding the time of the
day and the manner in which the Christian assembly was conducted. But in
regard to the actual day he found out only that they gathered on a “stated
day.”
If Christians in Bithynia were already gathering regularly on Sun-
day, they would have confessed this as they disclosed the rest of their wor-
ship activities. We shall notice that a few decades later (ca. A.D. 150) Justin
Martyr explicitly and emphatically informs the Emperor that Christians gath-
ered on “the day of the Sun,”30 apparently as a means of creating a favorable
impression. Let us note also that Pliny was cautiously appealing to the Em-
peror for a more humane application of the anti-Christian law which by con-
demning Christians indiscriminately was causing their killing without re-
gard to their age, sex or attitude. 31 If Pliny had found that they gathered on
the day of the Sun, would he not presumably have mentioned this fact in
order to present the Christian worship in a more favorable light? We shall
later show that the day of the Sun enjoyed in the Roman world a certain
prestige and veneration.
In the light of this excursus we conclude that the “appointed day” of
Pliny is not necessarily the selfsame day of the week, unless it was the Sab-
bath, which possibly Pliny prefers not to mention to avoid placing Chris-
tians in a worse light by associating them with the Jews. The latter revolted
during Trajan’s time in Libya, Cyrene, Egypt, Cyprus and Mesopotania.
Extensive massacres took place before these revolts were crushed.32 To re-
port to Trajan that the Christians gathered weekly on the day of Saturn like
the Jews would have encouraged the Emperor to take harsher measures, the
very thing Pliny’s letter wished to discourage. Any attempt therefore to draw
support for Paul’s first-day coIlection~plan from Pliny’s testimony appears
unwarranted.
Returning now to our passage, the question still to be considered is,
why did Paul propose a first-day deposit plan? The Apostle clearly states the
purpose of his advice, “so that contributions need not be made when I come”
(1 Cor. 16:2). The plan then is proposed not to enhance Sunday worship by
the offering of gifts but to ensure a substantial and efficient collection upon
his arrival. Four characteristics can be identified in the plan. The offering
was to be laid aside periodically (“on the first day of every week”—v. 2),
personally (“each of you”—v. 2), privately (“by himself in store”—v. 2) and
proportionately (“as he may prosper”—v. 2).
To the same community on another occasion Paul thought it neces-
sary to send brethren to “arrange in advance for the gift . . . promised, so that
it may be ready not as an exaction but as a willing gift” (2 Cor. 9:5). The
Apostle was desirous to avoid embarassment both to the givers and to the
collectors when finding that they “were not ready” (2 Cor. 9:4) for the offer-
ing. To avoid such problems in this instance he recommends both a time—
the first day of the week—and a place—one’s home.33
Paul’s mention of the first day could be motivated more by practical
than theological reasons. To wait until the end of the week or of the month to
set aside one’s contributions or savings is contrary to sound budgetary prac-
tices, since by then one finds himself to be with empty pockets and empty
hands. On the other hand, if on the first day of the week, before planning any
expenditures, one sets aside what he plans to give, the remaining funds will
be so distributed as to meet all the basic necessities. While it is difficult at
present to determine what economic significance, if any, was attached to
Sunday in the pagan world, it is a known fact that no financial computations
or transactions were done by the Jews on the Sabbath.34 Since the Jewish
custom of Sabbath-keeping influenced even many Greeks and Romans, to
some extent 35 and since the Sabbath was indeed the last day of the week (as
indicated by the fact that Sunday was then known as “the first day of the
Sabbath [i.e. week—mia ton sabbaton]”, it appears reasonable that Paul
should recommend the Christians to plan on the very first day of the week—
that is, right after the Sabbath—for the special fund-raising contribution,
before other priorities might diminish their resources. The text therefore pro-
poses a valuable weekly plan to ensure a substantial and orderly contribu-
tion on behalf of the poor brethren of Jerusalem, but to extract more mean-
ing from the text would distort it.
Acts 20 :7-12
The second scripture crucial for our investigation is a firsthand re-
port by Luke (“we-passage”—Acts 20:4-15) of a gathering at Troas which
occurred on the first day of the week. The writer, who rejoined Paul’s travel-
ing party at Philippi (Acts 20 :6), reports now in the first person plural and
with considerable detail the meeting which occurred at Troas on the eve of
Paul’s departure. He writes: ‘7.On the first day of the week (mia ton sabbaton)
when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, in-
tending to depart on the morrow (te epaurion); and he prolonged his speech
until midnight. 8. There were many lights in the upper chamber where we
were gathered. 9. And a young man named Eutychus was sitting in the win-
dow. He sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer; and being over-
come by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10.
But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him said, “Do not be
alarmed, for his life is in him.” 11. And when Paul had gone up and broken
bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and
so departed. 12. And they took the lad away alive, and were not a little com-
forted.”
Fundamental importance is attributed to this passage inasmuch as it
contains the only explicit New Testament reference to a Christian gathering
conducted “on the first day of the week ... to break bread” (Acts 20:7). F. F.
Bruce, for instance, affirms that this statement “is the earliest unambiguous
evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for wor-
ship on that day.”36 P. K. Jewett similarly declares that “here is the earliest
clear witness to Christian assembly for purposes of worship on the first day
of the week.”37 Statements like these which view Acts 20 :7 as the first
“unmistakable evidence of the observance of Sunday” could be multiplied.38
These categorical conclusions rest mostly on the assumption that verse
7a represents “a fixed formula” which describes the habitual time (“On the
first day of the week”) and the nature (“to break bread”) of the primitive
Christian worship.39 Since, however, the meeting occurred in the evening
and “the breaking of the bread” took place after midnight (vv. 7, 11) and
Paul left the believers at dawn, several questions need to be considered be-
fore making any conclusive statement. Was the time and nature of the Troas
gathering ordinary or extraordinary, occasioned perhaps by the departure of
the Apostle? Since it was an evening meeting, does the expression “first day
of the week—mia ton sabbaton” indicate Saturday night or Sunday night?
In other words, does Luke reckon his days evening to evening ac-
cording to Jewish usage, or midnight to midnight by Roman custom? (Ac-
cording to the former, the evening before Sunday was considered as the
evening of the first day, and according to the latter the evening following
Sunday was the evening of the first day.) Was the phrase “to break bread”
already used as a fixed formula to designate exclusively the eucharistic cel-
ebration? Did “the breaking of bread” occur only on the first day of the
week? ln the light of the context, was the “breaking of bread” performed by
Paul at Troas part of the habitual Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Supper?
Or was it perhaps a fellowship supper (agape) organized to bid farewell to
Paul? Or was it a combination of both? In an attempt to answer these funda-
mental questions several considerations deserve attention.
A good number of scholars hold that the meeting occurred on Sun-

day night because Luke, who had mingled with the Gentiles and was writing
for them, used the Roman computation which reckoned the day from mid-
night to midnight.40 On such reckoning, as we noted above, an evening meet-
ing on the first day of the week could only be on Sunday night. The passages
which supposedly support the Roman system are found in Acts 4:3; 20:7;
23:31-32. In each instance the term “morrow—te epaurion or te aurion” is
mentioned in the context of an evening occurrence. The reasoning is that
since Luke speaks of the morrow as being a new day in the evening, when
according to Jewish reckoning the new day had already begun, this means
that he uses not the Jewish but the Roman time reckoning. (According to the
latter the new day starts after midnight.)
The weakness of the argument lies in the fact that the expression “te
epaurion or te aurion” does not exclusively mean “on the following day”
but can be equally translated “on the next morning.” Both alternatives are
legitimate translations of the Greek. In fact the word “aurion” is derived
from “eos” which means “dawn.” Therefore, the word per se, as pointed out
by Pirot-Clamer, “designates the following morning without prejudging
whether or not this morning belongs to a new day.”41 In fact the word “day—
hemera” must be either added to or implied in “morrow—te epaurion,” to
translate it “on the following day.” All of this goes to show that the evi-
dences for a Roman time reckoning are weak indeed.
However, even granting that Luke employed the Roman computa-
tion, this would mean that the believers came together on Sunday evening
and consequently the “breaking of bread” (allegedly the essential part of the
Sunday worship) which took place after midnight, would have occurred dur-
ing Monday’s time limit. In such a case the time of the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper would provide no direct support for Sundaykeeping. R. C. H.
Lenski acknowledges this dilemma when he says, “It is true that this is the
first Christian service held on a Sunday, that is recorded in Acts; yet little
can be proven from it since it was a special service in every way; and Paul
and his company left early Monday morning.... If this had been a Sunday
morning service, it would be of more help to us in establishing Sunday as the
regular day of worship in the apostolic congregation.”42
This author endeavors to solve the problem by claiming gratuitously
that “indeed a morning service was held at Troas on this Sunday although no
mention of it is made by Luke. We also think that Paul purposely started his
journey on Monday.43” This effort to accommodate the story in order to
build a case for Sunday worship is ingenious indeed, but unfortunately it is
based on what the passage does not say.
Why should Luke have neglected to mention the earlier morning meet-
ing, when he as an eyewitness provides so many details of the event? Why
should the “breaking of the bread” have been postponed until after midnight
if the believers had met earlier in the morning for their Sunday worship?
Moreover, it is hard to believe that Paul out of respect for Sunday postponed
his departure until Monday morning, when at Philippi he “sailed after the
days of Unleavened Bread” (Acts 20 :6) and arrived in Troas presumably on
Sunday since he stayed there “for seven days” (Acts 20:6) prior to his depar-
ture on the following first day.44
To argue for Luke’s use of the Roman day-reckoning and thus place
the Troas meeting on a Sunday night, undermines the very efforts aimed at
gaining support from the passage for a regular Sunday observance. C. S.
Mosna states well this reason when he asserts: “Either one holds that the
Eucharist was celebrated within the limits of Sunday’s time, and therefore in
the night between Saturday and Sunday, or the specification of the day by
Luke has no value and the text has nothing to say as far as Sunday worship is
concerned.”45
We have reasons to believe that Luke uses consistently in his narra-
tive the Jewish time reckoning. According to such a system, as we men-
tioned earlier, the first day began on Saturday evening at sunset, the night
part of Sunday preceding the day part. The evening of the first day on which
the meeting occurred would then correspond to our Saturday night. 46
This view is supported by the fact that Lu’ke, though a Gentile, uses
the Jewish system in his Gospel when reporting the burial of Christ: “It was
the day of preparation [i.e. Friday], and the sabbath was beginning” (Luke
23 :54). In Acts also he repeatedly shows his respect for the Jewish calendar
and religious customs. He mentions for instance that Herod arrested Peter
“during he days of Unleavened Bread” and that he intended “after the Pass-
over to bring him out to the people” (12 :3, 4). He reports that he himself left
Philippi with Paul on the morrow of the complete rest which marked the last
day of the Unleavened Bread (20 :6; cf. Luke 22 :1, 7).
He does not hesitate on repeated occasions to show how Paul re-
spected Jewish customs (Acts 16:1-3; 18:18; 20:16; 21:24). He says, for
instance, that Paul “was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day
of Pentecost” (20:16). Later he reports how in the city, the Apostle under
pressure purified himself, and “went into the temple, to give notice when the
days of purification would be fulfilled” (21 :26). To these could be added
Luke’s frequent references to the Sabbath meetings which Paul attended with
both “Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18 :4; cf. 17 :2, 16: 13; 15:21; 13:14, 42, 44).
In the light of these indications it would appear that Luke respected the Jew-
ish liturgical calendar and used it quite consistently when reckoning time.
According to such a system, as we noted earlier, the first-day meet-

ing at Troas occurred on Saturday night. It is suggested by some that this
was a convenient time for a Christian gathering after the close of the Sab-
bath.47 The restraints of the Sabbath did no longer apply and both Jewish (as
Paul and Timothy) and Gentile Christians could freely engage in social and
spiritual activities. The weakness of this observation is that it implies that
Christians observed the Sabbath according to restrictive rabbinical concep-
tions. Such a view hardly harmonizes with the positive and spiritual under-
standing of the Sabbath we find in the Gospels.
If the gathering at Troas occurred during the night of Saturday-Sun-
day it is hardly likely that it was a formal and regular Sunday service. Paul
would have observed with the believers only the night of Sunday and trav-
eled during the day time. This, as we know, was not allowed on the Sabbath
and would not have set the best example of Sunday-keeping either. The pas-
sage seems to suggest, as noted by F. J. Foakes-Jackson, that “Paul and his
friends could not as good Jews, start on a journey on a Sabbath; they did so
as soon after it as was possible, v. 12. at dawn on the ‘first day’—the Sab-
bath having ended at sunset.”48
Bearing in mind also that Paul “as was his custom” for three weeks
at Thessalonica (Acts 17 :2-3), for eighteen months at Corinth (Acts 18:4,
11), and for shorter periods in other places, expounded the Scriptures on the
Sabbath to Jews and to Greeks, both in the synagogue and in the open air
(Acts 16 :13; 13 :44, 42, 14), it would seem reasonable to suppose that at
Troas also he met on the Sabbath with the believers. It is hard to believe that
Paul spent seven days at Troas without meeting with the believers until the
eve of his departure. The first-day evening meeting must then be regarded as
the final farewell gathering organized “to break bread” with Paul.
It could be argued that whether Luke used Jewish or Roman time
reckoning is of relatively little importance to the question of Sunday obser-
vance, since he clearly says that the meeting took place on “the first day of
the week... to break bread.” Whether it was the evening before Sunday (Jew-
ish method) or the evening following Sunday (Roman method), it was still
the first day on which the meeting occurred. This fact is undisputable. How-
ever, it is to be observed that the “breaking of bread” took place after mid-
night (Acts 20:7, 11). Such an unusual time would suggest more an extraor-
dinary occasion than a habitual custom. If the purpose of the gathering was
to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, as various scholars hold, why then did Paul
postpone the rite until after midnight when many, like Eutychus, were doz-
ing, and then resume talking until dawn? We would think that its logical
time, if indeed that was the purpose for the meeting, would have been either
during the opening session or just prior to Paul’s departure, as a farewell

expression of unity in Christ.
The fact that the “breaking of bread” occurred, on the contrary, within
a prolonged discourse of several hours, when the believers were hardly awake,
strongly suggests that its function was more social than cultic. In fact,
extremely few words are employed to describe what allegedly was to
have been the core of the meeting. Moreover no direct indications are
given of any communal participation: “And when Paul had gone up and
had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while.., and
so departed” (v. 11).
The verbs used are all in the singular. It appears that it is primarily
Paul, the guest of honor, who talks, breaks bread, eats, and talks again until
departure, while the believers, perhaps too many to be cared for, look on,
satisfied to be nourished spiritually. It is hard to escape the conclusion, as
expressed by the historian Augustus Neander, that “the impending departure
of the apostle, may have united the little Church in a brotherly parting-meal,
on the occasion of which the apostle delivered his last address, although
there was no particular celebration of a Sunday in the case.”49
The technical expression “to break bread—klasai arton” deserves
closer attention. What does it actually mean in the context of the passage?
As Henry J. Cadbury and Kirsopp Lake ask, “with the meaning of ‘having
supper’ or of celebrating the Eucharist?”50 They hold that “the former seems
more probable.” J. Behm in his specialized article explains that “the break-
ing of bread is simply a customary and necessary part of the preparation for
eating together. It initiates the sharing of the main course in every meal.... It
is the description of a common meal in terms of the opening action, the
breaking of bread. Hence the phrase is used for the ordinary table fellowship
of members of the first community each day in their homes (Acts 2:42, 46)
and also for the common meals of the Gentile Christian communities (Acts
20:7, cf. 1 Cor. 10: 16).”51
The author notes however that later the expression “breaking of bread”
became the technical designation for the Lord’s Supper.52 While it must be
admitted that such a usage occurs in the post-apostolic literature, this hardly
seems to be its exclusive meaning or usage in the New Testament. In fact the
verb “to break—klao” followed by the noun “bread—artos” occurs fifteen
times in the New Testament. 53 Nine times it refers to Christ’s act of break-
ing bread when feeding the multitude, when partaking of the Last Supper
and when eating with His disciples after His resurrection;54 twice it de-
scribes Paul’s commencing and partaking of a meal; 55 twice it describes the
actual breaking of the bread of the Lord’s Supper56 and twice it is used as a
general reference to the disciples’ or believers’ “breaking bread” together.57
It should be noticed that in none of these instances is the Lord’s Sup-

per explicitly or technically designated as “the breaking of bread.” An at-
tempt could be made to see a reference to the Lord’s Supper in the two
general references of Acts 2:46 and 20:7. However, as far as Acts 2:46 is
concerned, the phrase “breaking bread in their homes” obviously refers to
the daily table-fellowship of the earliest Christians, when, as the text says,
“day by day.., they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising
God and having favour with all the people (vv. 4647.) 58
Such daily table-fellowship, though it may have included the cel-
ebrations of the Lord’s Supper, can hardly be regarded as exclusive liturgi-
cal celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. The equivalent statement found in
Acts 20:7, “we were gathered together to break bread,” similarly need mean
no more than “we were gathered to eat together.” In fact, as C. W. Dugmore
acutely observes, “there is no mention of a cup, nor even of any prayers or
chants: Paul’s discourse does not follow the reading of Scripture lection.”59
We may add also, as noted above, that Paul alone broke bread and ate. No
indication is given that he ever blessed the bread or the wine or that he dis-
tributed it to the believers.
Furthermore, the breaking of bread was followed by a meal “having
eaten—geusamenos” (v. 11). The same verb is used by Luke in three other
instances with the explicit meaning of satisfying hunger (Acts 10:10; 23 :14,
Luke 14:24). Undoubtedly Paul was hungry after his prolonged speech and
needed some food before he could continue his exhortation and start his
journey. However, if Paul partook of the Lord’s Supper together with a
regular meal, he would have acted contrary to his recent instruction to
the Corinthians to whom he strongly recommended satisfying their hun-
ger by eating at home before gathering to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (1
Cor. 11:2, 22, 34).
The conjecture that at Troas Paul reversed the usual order (i.e. meal
followed by Lord’s Supper) by partaking of the Lord’s supper before the
fellowship meal, in order to correct the prevailing disorders (1 Cor. 11:18
22), rests on a slim foundation.60 First, because the Apostle clearly admon-
ishes to satisfy hunger at home and not during the Lord’s Supper celebration
(1 Cor. 11:27, 34). Postponing the meal until immediately after the rite could
hardly have cured the abuses and enhanced the celebration. Secondly,
because the two verbs “had broken bread and eaten” (v. 11) are not nec-
essarily describing two distinct rites, but rather the same one. Bearing in
mind that there is no mention of eating before midnight, the breaking of
bread appears to be the customary preparation for eating together. This
suggests then that Paul participated in a farewell fellowship supper (rich
indeed with religious overtones) but not strictly in what he himself des-
ignates as “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor.11:20).
The New Testament does not offer any indications regarding a fixed
day for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Acts 2 :42-46, for instance,
describes the table-fellowship gatherings of the Jerusalem’s believers, in
which the “breaking of bread” took place “daily—kath’hemera.”61 Simi-
larly we noticed that Paul, while he recommends to the Corinthian believers
a specific day on which to privately set aside their offerings, concerning the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper he repeatedly says in the same epistle and
to the same people, “when you come together” (1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 33, 34),
implying indeterminate time and days. The actual mention of the “first day
of the week” could well have been motivated, not by the custom of gather-
ing on such a day but, as A. Wiokenhauser observes, “by the accident which
happened on that occasion. 62
It should be noted that the Eutychus’ incident is the main episode
recorded of Paul’s seven-day stay at Troas and occupies by far the greater
part of the narrative (vv. 9, 10, 12). By comparison the description of the
“breaking of bread” is very brief, limited exclusively to one verb, “had bro-
ken bread” (v. 11). It is possible therefore that the resurrection of Eutychus
occurring the very day the community had gathered for a parting-meal in
honor of Paul, motivated Luke to specify the very day on which the whole
thing happened. Such an unusual occurrence undoubtedly left a lasting im-
pression on the believers.
Another reason for Luke’s reporting that the breaking of bread oc-
curred on the first day of the week could possibly be his desire to provide the
reader with sufficient chronological references, for following more readily
the itinerary of Paul’s trip. In chapters 20 and 21 Luke writes as an eyewit-
ness in the first person plural (“we-section”—20 :4-15; 21: 1-18) and gives
no less than thirteen time references to report the various stages of Paul’s
journey.63 It is probable therefore that the mention of the gathering on the
first day of the week, rather than being a notice of habitual Sunday-’keep-
ing, is one of a whole series of chronological notes with which Luke fills the
narrative of this voyage.
In the light of these considerations the probative value of Acts 20:7-
12 for regular Sunday”keeping seems rather insignificant. The occasion, the
time and manner in which the meeting was conducted are all indicative of a
special gathering and not of a regular Sunday worship custom. The simplest
way to explain the passage is that Luke mentions the day of the meeting not
because it was Sunday, but (1) because Paul was “ready to depart” (20 :7),
(2) because of the extraordinary experience and miracle of Eutychus, and
(3) because it provides an additional significant chonological reference to
describe the unfolding of Paul’s journey.
Revelation 1 :10
The third crucial New Testament passage widely used to defend the
apostolic origin of Sunday observance is found in the book of Revelation.
John, exiled on the island of Patmos on account of the word of God and the
testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1 :9), writes: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s
day—en te kuriake hemera” (Rev. 1 :10). The importance of this text derives
from the fact that, as claimed by R. H. Charles, “this is the first place in
Christian literature where the Lord’s day is mentioned.” 64 It is to be ob-
served that the Seer does not use the expression “day of the Lord—hemera
tou kuriou” which is uniformly found in the Septuagint and the New Testa-
ment to translate the Old Testament “yom YHWH,” but a different phrase,
“Lord’s day—kuriake hemera.” What is the meaning of this new formula?
The problem is to establish in the light of this text and of its context,
whether John was “caught away by the power of the Spirit into an ecstasy”65
on a Sunday “at a time when,” as held by 0. Cullmann, “the Christian com-
munity was gathered together”66 to worship, or whether the expression car-
ries a different meaning. The former represents indeed the prevailing inter-
pretation.67 Wilfrid Stott, to cite one, in a recent article concludes that “Rev-
elation 1:10 must be taken as the first example of the Christian name for the
first day of the week, the day of Christian worship.”68 However, at least two
other possible interpretations of the phrase “Lord’s day” have been recog-
nized and defended by other scholars.
Recently some have suggested that the words refer not to the ordi-
nary Sunday but to Easter-Sunday and that it was at the time of this annual
celebration of the resurrection that John found himself rapt in the Spirit.69 A
third interpretation is that the words are the equivalent of “the day of the
Lord” of the Old Testament, understood as the eschatological day of Christ’s
parousia and judgment.70 In this case the Seer finds himself transported by
the Spirit into the circumstances of that glorious day and from that vantage
point he is shown by prophetic symbols the events preceding and following
Christ’s coming. A brief survey of the evidences marshaled in support of
each of these three interpretations is necessary before drawing any conclu-
sive statement on the meaning of the word.
Sunday. The equation of Sunday with the expression “Lord’s day” is
based not on internal evidences of the book of Revelation or of the rest of the
New Testament, but basically on three second-century patristic testimonies,
namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1, and The Gos-
pel of Peter 35; 50. Of the three, however, only in the Gospel of Peter is
Sunday unmistakably designated by the technical term “Lord’s—kuriake”
In two different verses it reads: “Now in the night in which the Lord’s day
(He kuriake) dawned... there rang out a loud voice in heaven” (v. 35); “Early
in the morning of the Lord’s day (tes kuriakes) Mary Magdalene... came to
the sepulchre” (v. 50, 51). In this apocryphal Gospel, dated in the second
half of the second century, 71 the use of the abbreviated form “Lord’s” with-
out the noun “day—hemera” implies, as L. Vaganay rightly observes, “une
façon courante,” 72 that is, a common usage of the term.
In Didache 14:1 and in The Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1, as we had
occasion to show elsewhere,73 the adjective “Lord’s—kuriake” does not seem
to qualify or imply the noun “day—hemera.” In the first instance it ex-
presses the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, namely “according to
the Lord’s doctrine or commandment.” In the latter passage Ignatius is not
contrasting days as such, but rather ways of life. The immediate reference of
the Old Testament prophets and the absence of the substantive “day—hemera”
justifies “Lord’s life” as a more plausible translation than “Lord’s day.”74
There are, however, beginning with the latter part of the second century,
irrefutable examples where the expression “Lord’s day” or simply “Lord’s”
is used as a current designation for Sunday. 75
The crux of the problem is, was Sunday already designated “Lord’s
day” by the end of the first century when Revelation was written, or did such
a name arise at a slightly later period? That the adjective “kuriakos” was
then known is attested by the monumental and papyri inscriptions of the
imperial period where it means “imperial.” “Lord—kurios” was used for the
Emperor, the noun as a title for him and the adjective for that which per-
tained to him. 76
The use of the two terms, as pointed out by A. Deissmann, shows a
marked “parallelism between the language of Christianity and the official
vocabulary of Imperial law.”77 It should be noted, however, that Christians
did not transfer such titles to Christ solely as a reaction to the imperial cult,
since they were fully familiar with the name “Lord—Kurios” through their
Greek Old Testament (LXX) where it is used constantly as the most com-
mon name of God.
No indications have been found of the existence of an imperial “Lord’s
day” in the pagan environment that could serve as an exact analogy for that
of the Christians. Nevertheless it has been frequently suggested that Chris-
tians devised the designation “Lord’s day” in conscious protest to the
“Emperor’s day—Sebaste hemera,” which apparently occurred monthly or
perhaps even weekly.78
The use of the “Emperor’s day” is confirmed for Asia Minor, and
this is significant since it is there that the expression “Lord’s day” appears
first to have been used. R. H. Charles explains this view, saying, “Just as the
first day of each month, or a certain day of each week, was called “Emperor’s
Day,” so it would be natural for Christians to name the first day of each
week, associated as it was with the Lord’s resurrection and the custom of
Christians to meet together for worship on it, as “Lord’s Day.”79
While it is plausible to assume that the worshiping of the Emperor as
“Lord—kurios” induced Christians to apply the term exclusively to Christ,
it is hard to see a connection between the “Emperor’s day” and the Christian’s
“Lord’s day.” First because, as noted by G. Thieme, it cannot be proven
“that the Emperor’s day is equivalent with the beginning of the month.”80
Even if this could be established, the time cycle would still be different.
Secondly, because the two adjectives “Imperial—sebastos” and “Lord’s—
kuriakos” are radically different. As pointedly observed by W. Rordorf, if a
nexus between the two existed “one would at least have expected that first of
all the title sebastos, by conscious contrast, would also have been applied to
Jesus.”81
Moreover even the existence of a recurring “Emperor’s day” could
hardly have constituted a sufficient reason to change the day of worship
from Sabbath to Sunday and then to designate the latter “Lord’s day,” in
contradistinction to the one of the Emperor. By such an action Christians
would have provoked the resentment of their pagan neighbors, the very thing
they were cautious to avoid. We must conclude therefore that Christians
used this expression not in conscious contrast to the Augustus day but as an
expression of their faith in their “Lord—kurios” a title deeply rooted in the
Old Testament.
The question we still face is to ascertain if the expression “Lord’s
day” could have been employed before the end of the first century as a com-
mon denomination for the weekly Sunday. Wilfrid Stott presents linguistic
and theological explanations to defend this very view. The adjective “Lord’s,”
he notes, was used by the early Fathers (until A.D. 450) to mean “belonging
to” or “given by” Christ. This would imply that the “first day of the week
belonged to the Lord... and would be the day instituted by Christ; the day
was his gift to the Church.”82
Moreover he argues that “the resurrection proclaimed Christ as Lord”
and in Revelation He “is given the title ‘King of Kings and Lord of Lords’”
(Rev. 19:16). Therefore he concludes, “On the Lord’s Day then they would
not only be proclaiming Christ as the one who at the resurrection had been
shown as Lord, but also looking forward to his final triumph at the parousia.
On the Lord’s Day there would then not only be the proclamation ‘Jesus is Lord,’
but also the triumphant cry Maranatha, ‘Even so, come, Lord Jesus’” 83
Such a positive and comprehensive formulation of a theology for

Sunday (Resurrection-Parousia) indeed deserves admiration. But does this
interpretation reflect the thinking of apostolic times or of later theological
constructions? In our previous study of the role of the resurrection/appear-
ances of Christ in relation to the origin of Sunday, we found no traces of
apostolic allusions to a weekly or annual commemoration of the resurrec-
tion.
In a later chapter it will be shown that even the earliest theological
motivations that appear in documents such as those of Barnabas and Justin
Martyr lack such an organic view of Sunday observance.84 Their explana-
tions are in fact of differing nature deriving from divergent sources. The
resurrection per se is only timidly mentioned. We cannot therefore legiti-
mately determine the meaning of the expression “Lord’s day” by leaning on
its later usage and explanations. This is particularly true, as we shall see, in
the light of changes that occurred in the early part of the second century in
the Christian reappraisal of Judaism and its religious observances.
It remains for us to define the meaning of the ‘‘Lord’s day of Revela-
tion 1:10 solely in the light of the text, context, and the teaching of the New
Testament. Assuming that the Seer intended to specify that on a Sunday he
found himself rapt in the Spirit, would he have designated such a day as
“Lord’s day”? Because in the New Testament this day is always called “the
first day of the week,” is it not strange that in this one place the writer would
use a different expression to refer to the same day?
More important still, if, as many exegetes maintain,85 John the Apostle
wrote at approximately the same time both the Revelation and the fourth
Gospel, then would it not seem reasonable to expect him to employ the same
expression even in his Gospel, especially when reporting the first-day events
of the resurrection and appearances of Jesus (John 20:1, 19, 26)?
In the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, written several decades later, we
notice for instance that the day of the resurrection is designated not as “first
day of the week” but as “Lord’s—kuriake” since the latter had by then be-
come the term commonly used. If Sunday had already received the new
appelation “Lord’s day” by the end of the first century when both the Gospel
of John and the book of Revelation were written, we would expect this new
name for Sunday to be used consistently in both works, especially since they
were apparently produced by the same author at approximately the same
time and in the same geographical area. If a new term prevails and is more
readily understood, a writer does not confuse his readers with archaic time
designations.
Moreover, if the new denomination already existed and expressed

the meaning and nature of Christian worship, a Christian writer could hardly
legitimately use a Jewish designation instead. Therefore, the fact that the
expression “Lord’s day,” used in the New Testament only by John, occurs in
his apocalyptic book but not in his Gospel where the first day is explicitly
mentioned in conjunction with the resurrection (John 20:1) and the appear-
ances of Jesus (John 20:19, 26), weakens the claim that “John by ‘dominica
dies’ [i.e. Lord’s day] (Rev. 1:10) wishes to indicate specifically the day in
which the community celebrates together the eucharistic liturgy.”86 Addi-
tional reasons will be submitted below in connection with the third interpre-
tation.
Easter-Sunday. Others maintain that the “Lord’s day” of Revela-
tion 1:10 must be understood as a designation for the annual Easter-Sunday
rather than the weekly Sunday.87 We shall mention some of the basic argu-
ments of this thesis.
C. W. Dugmore in a recent study argues that the designation “Lord’s
day” as used in the earliest Christian literature denotes Easter-Sunday rather
than the weekly Sunday. He notes that there is little evidence in “the New
Testament and in the literature of the Sub-apostolic age that Sunday was the
most important day in the Christian week.” Moreover, certain allusions to
the “Lord’s day” such as found in the Didache 14:1 and Apostolic Constitu-
tions 7:30, can be taken to refer more readily to Easter-Sunday.88 The appli-
cation of the term “Lord’s day” to the first day of the week would represent,
as stated also by A. Strobel, “a secondary development.”89 This supposedly
occurred “after Sunday had become a regular day of worship among the
Christians and had come to be thought of as a weekly commemoration of the
Resurrection.”90
This thesis of an earlier application of the name “Lord’s day” to Eas-
ter day has some merits. We shall later show by using different sources and
reasons that the weekly Sunday worship apparently did develop in conjunc-
tion with the Easter-Sunday festivity, owing to similar causes. 91 It is to be
observed however that such a conclusion can hardly be defended from
Didache 14 :1 (the work is variously dated between A.D. 60 to 150)92 where
the adjective “Lord’s—kuriake” is related not to the time but to the manner
of the Lord’s Supper celebration. Even granting that it referred to time, the
mention of the confession of sins (14:1), of the reconciliation between brothers
(14:2) and the appeal through the words of Malachi (1:11) to offer “in every
place and time a pure sacrifice” (14:3) hardly bespeak an annual celebration.
In the Apostolic Constitutions 7, 30, 1, which largely reproduces
Didache 14, the statement is found, “On the day of the resurrection of the
Lord, that is, the Lord’s day, assemble yourselves together.” C. W. Dugmore
interprets this “Lord’s day” as a designation of “Easter-Sunday which was
still known to Christians of the third quarter of the fourth century in Syria as
he kuriake [the Lord’s].” From this he concludes, “Why should we doubt
that the phrase en te kuriake hemera [on the Lord’s day]’ (Rev. 1:10) of the
Jewish-Christian Seer, writing just before the close of the first century, equally
refers to Easter-Sunday?” The weakness of this conclusion is that it rests on
the false assumption that the “Lord’s day” in the cited passage of the Apos-
tolic Constitutions refers exclusively to Easter-Sunday.93 This can hardly be
proven from the context, where the admonition to assemble together to offer
in every place a pure sacrifice hints clearly of the weekly Sunday gathering.
In an earlier chapter however Easter-Sunday is designated “Lord’s day” (15,
19),94 but this only goes to show that the same term was used to denominate
both festivities.
C. W. Dugmore believes that additional support for “the preeminence
of Easter-Sunday over other Sundays is shown in the fact that catechumens
were normally baptised and made their first communion at Easter.” Further-
more, Melito’s Paschal Homily, where mention is made not only of the sac-
rifice but also of the resurrection of Jesus, according to our author, indicates
that “primitive Christian commemoration of the Cross and Resurrection was
an annual and not a weekly event.”95 But such reasoning is faulty. To say that
Melito’s sermon indicates that the celebration of the “Resurrection was an
annual and not a weekly event” is to fail to recognize that the document does
not deal at all with weekly Sunday observance since it is strictly a Passover
Homily. Moreover, as we have shown earlier, the core of the sermon is the
reenactment of the suffering and death of Jesus, the resurrection being men-
tioned only incidentally by way of epilogue.
J. van Goudoever uses internal evidences of the book of Revelation
to interpret chapter 1:10 as a reference to Easter. He refers specifically to the
harvest scene described in chapter 14 : 14f., and argues that, since in Pales-
tine harvest did actually begin on 16 Nisan, then Revelation 1:10 could be a
reference to Easter day.”96 To determine a dating on the basis of agricultural
symbolism is hazardous, since, as aptly observed by W. Rordorf, in the same
chapter (14:17-20) an autumn vintage scene is described “in exactly parallel
terms ... Is it then a question of spring or of autumn?”97 The conclusion is
obvious. Apocalyptic imagery of agricultural seasons cannot be used as valid
criteria to justify the interpretation of the ‘‘Lord’s day” as a reference to
“Easter-Sunday.”
Kenneth Strand submits additional arguments on behalf of the Eas-
ter-Sunday interpretation of Revelation 1:10. He points out that “in the Jew-
ish Boethusian and Essene traditions there was an annual Sunday celebra-
tion of the first-fruits wave sheaf... Since the early Christians considered
Christ in His resurrection as the antitypical First-fruits, that particular seg-
ment of early Christianity which followed the sectarian rather than the Phari-
saic reckoning... would readily have adopted an annual Sunday celebration
honoring Christ’s resurrection.... By way of contrast, no liturgical or even
psychological background can be deduced from practices in Judaism for an
early Christian weekly Sunday.... We are readily led to conclude that in the
earliest period of Christian history the only kind of Sunday ‘Lord’s Day’
observed by the Christian community was indeed an annual one, and that the
weekly Sunday celebration somehow developed from the annual.”98
While Strand defends the priority of the application of the term “Lord’s
day” to Easter-Sunday over the weekly Sunday, at the same time he wisely
recognizes that the foregoing discussion does not apply to Revelation 1:10,
since the document derives from the Quartodeciman area of the province of
Asia. The Christians in that province to whom John addressed his book,
according to Polycrates, who claims to be following the tradition of the same
Apostle, strongly rejected the Easter-Sunday custom, holding fast to the
Quartodeciman reckoning.99 Therefore, it would be paradoxical if John, who
kept Passover by the fixed date of Nisan 14, wrote to Christians of the
same Quartodeciman area that he “was in the Spirit on Easter-Sunday.”
J. Danidlou recognizes this fact and timidly admits that “in the Apoca-
lypse (1:10), when Easter takes place on the 14 Nisan, the word does not
perhaps mean Sunday.”100
The Day of the Lord. The identification of the “Lord’s day” of Rev-
elation 1:10 with the eschatological day of the Lord understood as the day of
Christ’s judgment and parousia appears to us as the most plausible.101 Sev-
eral indications justify such an interpretation.
The immediate context which precedes and follows Revelation 1:10
contains unmistakable references to the eschatological day of the Lord. In
the preceding verses Christ is portrayed as the One who “is coming with
clouds, and every eye will see him” (v. 7) and as the One “who is and who
was and who is to come (v. 8). In the following verses John describes the
vision of the glorious and triumphant “Son of Man” who has“the keys of
Death and Hades” (vv. 12-18). The same “Son of Man” appears again later
to John with “a sharp sickle in his hand... for the harvest of the earth” (14:14-
15), where unquestionably the reference is to a future time of judgment. The
immediate context is clearly eschatological. This suggests that John felt him-
self transported by the Spirit to the future glorious day of the Lord.
It could be objected, as Louis T. Talbot points out, that if John “was

projected into ‘the day of the Lord,’ how, then, could he write of this present
church age, as he does in chapters two and three?”102 The same author ex-
plains that the answer is found in verses 10 and 12 of the same chapter: “I ...
heard behind me a great voice ... and being turned, I saw . . .“ First, he
looked forward into “the day of the Lord,” then he turned back, as it were,
and saw this church age in panorama, before looking forward again into the
future at things which will surely come to pass.”103
This threefold dimension of the vision of the Lord’s day is brought
out in v. 19 where John is told, “write what you see, what is and what is to
take place hereafter.” From the vantage point of the Lord’s day, then, John is
shown first what the glorious Son of Man is already doing (“what you see —
v. 19) for the seven churches which He holds in His right hand (vv. 16, 20);
secondly, what is the immediate condition of the Church (“the things which
are”—v. 19); and lastly the events (“what is to take place hereafter”—v. 19)
that will transpire until the return of Christ in glory and the establishment of
His eternal kingdom.
A thematic study of the content of the book of Revelation corrobo-
rates that the day of the parousia constitutes the focal point of every vision
and the fundamental theme around which the whole book revolves.104 The
book is introduced in fact as “the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
him to show to his servants what must soon take place” (v. 1). After the
dedication of the book to the seven churches of Asia Minor, John announces
the nature of this revelation in unmistakable terms: “Behold, He is coming
with the clouds and every eye shall see him” (v. 7).
The same announcement is found in the last chapter at the conclu-
sion of the revelation received: “Behold, I am coming soon” (22:7, 12);
“The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come’” (22 :17). The vision of the throne, of
the seven seals, of the seven trumpets, of the woman, the beast and the lamb,
of the seven last plagues, of the harlot and Babylon, of the destruction of
Satan and the establishing of the New Jerusalem, all describe events leading
to or following the coming of Christ.105 The context of the whole book then
strongly suggests that the “Lord’s day” of Revelation 1:10 represents not a
literal 24-hour day but rather the great day of the Lord to which John was
transported in vision to be shown by symbolic imagery the events preceding
and following Christ’s coming.
That the day is symbolic rather than literal is also presupposed by the
many scenes which John could hardly have received in a single session. We
note that he is taken in vision on the Lord’s day” in the first chapter and
a chain of visions is shown him to the very last chapter, where he de-
clares: “I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when I heard
and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed
them to me . . .“ (22:8).
This apparently suggests that the angel showed to John all the vari-
ous scenes to the very end, when in gratitude he fell down to worship him.106
Were all the visions actually shown to John in the same day and context,
supposedly on a Sunday morning? Since the scenes are many and with dif-
ferent themes, “it would seem a rather strange phenomenon,” as Fred B.
Jensen rightly notes, “if John’s mind could have received this entire revela-
tion in one day.”107 J. F. Walvoord similarly observes that “it is questionable
in any case whether the amazing revelation given in the entire book could
have been conveyed to John in one twenty-four hour day and it is more
probable that it consisted of a series of revelations.”108
The expressions like “I saw, I looked, I was shown,” which occur
frequently throughout the book, do imply that the scenes were shown at
different times. In fact in chapter 4:2 John explicitly mentions for the second
time and with the identical words found in chapter 1:10: “I was in the Spirit—
egenomen en pneumati.” This obviously indicates a different time and ses-
sion in which he was taken in vision. Therefore it is hard to conceive that
“the Lord’s day” on which John was shown the whole series of visions that
comprise the entire book denotes a literal day since, as we noticed, many
scenes with different themes were shown to him on separate occasions. It
appears to be more consistent with the context to assume that John was trans-
ported in vision to the future day of the Lord and that from that vantage point
“he heard” and “saw” the many scenes that were “showed” him in several
sessions.
Wilfrid Stott objects to this interpretation, because though the adjec-
tive “Lord’s—kuriakos’ is employed extensively in the patristic literature
with nouns such as “head, body, flesh, soul, blood, passion, cross, burial,
sayings and teachings, parables, commands, power and authority and name,”
only in one instance does it occur with an eschatological meaning, namely in
Origen, Commentary S. John 10:35: “When all these things will be resur-
rected in the great Lord’s [day]—kuriake.”109 The observation is valid in-
deed, but why not concede an exception in usage? After all the expression
“Lord’s Day—kuriake hemera” is only a minor variation from the commonly
used phrase “day of the Lord—hemera (tou) kuriou.”110 The adjective
“Lord’s—kuriakos,” as we have noticed, occurs only twice in the New Tes-
tament (1 Cor. 11:20; Rev. 1:10), an indication thus of a still limited usage in
comparison with the name “Lord—kurios” which is employed over 680 times.
It is worth noting that even the phrase “Lord’s Supper—kuriakon

deipnon” in 1 Corinthians 11:20 is unique per se and is used only by Paul in
that instance. The rite, in fact, which at first was referred to as “the breaking
of bread,” later came to be known as “Eucharist—eucharistia”.111 We are
confronted here with the use of an adjective which has no parallel in the
vocabulary of the New Testament. It would seem legitimate to conclude
therefore that just as the expression “Lord’s Supper” was used once by Paul
as an exception of what apparently was known as “the breaking of bread,” it
is possible also that the phrase “Lord’s day” was employed once by John as
an exception and variation of the common expression “day of the Lord.”
The context, as we have seen, certainly justifies such interpretation.
Additional support for this interpretation is provided by the fact that
John mentions twice again the day of judgment and of Christ’s coming, and
in each instance he uses a somewhat different expression: “the great day of
God—tes hemeras megales tou theou” (16:14) and “the great day of wrath—
he hemera he megale tes orges” (6:17).
These variations in the designation of the day of Christ’s coming
indicate that the event was of such a great importance that it could be desig-
nated in a great variety of ways without the risk of being misunderstood. No
less than thirty times John refers explicitly to it in his book.112 In the New
Testament, in fact, the day of Christ’s coming, which is regarded as the foun-
dation and consummation of the Christian faith, hope and living, is described
by a wide variety of expressions, such as “the day of judgment,”113 “the day,”114
“that day,”115 “the last day,”116 “the great and notable day,”117 “the day of wrath
and revelation,”118 “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,” “the day of Christ,”119
“the day of the Lord,”120 “the great day,”121 and “the great day of God.”122
Christ himself calls the day of His coming “his day—hemera autou” (Luke
17 :24). The fact that such a broad diversity of expressions is used to name
the day of Christ’s coming, and the fact that John himself refers to it with
different appellatives, make it altogether plausible that “the Lord’s day” is
simply one of the many different designations for the same event.123
Considering the predominant place which “the day of the Lord” oc-
cupies in the thinking and life of the early Christians, being regarded as the
consummation of all their hopes (1 Thess. 4:16-18; 1 Cor. 15:23,52), as well
as the very incentive for ethical conduct (1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Peter 3 :10-12), it
would seem natural that John would refer to it at the very outset of his work
(1:1,7,8) and ‘be taken in vision to that very day (1:10). What more than the
vision of Christ’s coming could bring reas surance to John, who was suffer-
ing tribulation “on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus”
(1:9)? Together with the souls “who had been slain for the word of God,”
John undoubtedly was crying, “0 Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long
before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the
earth” (6:10)? “Little wonder,” aptly remarks Walter Scott, “that the gaze of
the aged and honored prisoner was directed onward to the glory and strength
of the kingdom, when right would be vindicated and wrong punished.”124
The use of the adjective “Lord’s day” rather than the noun “day of
the Lord” should also be noticed. E. W. Bullinger draws attention to the fact
that in Greek as in modern languages, using the adjective rather than the
noun of the same root does not change the meaning but the emphasis. The
author explains: “The natural way of qualifying a noun is by using an
adjective, as here “ kuriake—Lord’s,” and when this is done, the emphasis
takes its natural course, and is placed on the noun thus qualified (“day”). But
when the emphasis is required to be placed on the word “Lord,” then, in-
stead of the adjective, the noun would be used in the genitive case, “of the
Lord.” In the former case (as in Rev. 1:10) it would be “the Lord’s DAY.” In
the latter case it would be “THE LORD’S day.” The same day is meant in
each case but with a different emphasis.”125
John’s use of the adjective rather than of the noun may well reflect
his desire to emphasize the very day of Christ’s glorious coming into which
he was taken by the Spirit. This is suggested also by the use of the verb
“egenomen.” Its English (RSV) rendering “I was” does not fully convey the
meaning of the Greek verb, which, though susceptible of a variety of modi-
fications of meaning, expresses for the most part the idea of generation,
transition, or change of state. In Revelation 8:8 for instance the same verb is
translated “became” (“a third of the sea became blood”).
Our text can be literally translated, “I came to be in (or by) the Spirit
on the Lord’s day.” Since the verb denotes the ecstatic condition into which
the Seer was brought by the Spirit, we would expect the “Lord’s day” to
represent not the time but the content of what he saw. A somewhat similar
parallel can be seen in Paul’s ecstatic experience. He reports, “I fell (genesthai)
into a trance and I saw him [i.e. the Lord]” (Acts 22:17; cf. 2 Cor. 12:3). The
verb used (ginomai) is identical and the immediate result of the vision was
for Paul a view of the Lord, while for John that of the Lord’s day.
The immediate hearing by John of “a loud voice like a trumpet” (1:10)
may also be an allusion to the eschatological day of the Lord. “The Trumpet
Voice,” as Philip Carrington remarks, “recalls at once the Angel with the
Trumpet who was expected in Jewish mythology to sound the reveille for
the Judgment Day.”126 Though trumpets were used in the Old Testament for
calling people together on several important occasions (Num. 10 :2, 9, 10;
Ex. 19 :19), 127 the instrument was especially associated with “the day of the
Lord” (Joel 2:1, 15; Zech. 9:14). In Zephaniah “the great day of the Lord” is
called “a day of trumpet blast” (1:14-16).
In the New Testament the trumpet is particularly associated with the
second advent of Christ. It calls the members of God’s Church before Christ
(Matt. 24 :3 1), it announces Christ’s descent from heaven (1 Thess. 4:16)
and it resurrects the dead (1 Cor. 15 :52). In Revelation the seven visions
announced by the seven trumpets (8:2, 6-8, 10, 12; 9:1, 13; 11:15) present a
series of cataclysmic events which culminate with the sounding of the sev-
enth trumpet, which proclaims, “The kingdom of the world has become the
kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign for ever and ever”
(11 :15).
This close association between the voice of the trumpet and the sec-
ond coming of Christ suggests the possibility that “the loud voice like a
trumpet” (1 :10) that John heard “on the Lord’s day” (1:10) was a manifesta-
tion of that very event. In fact, as the Seer turned “to see the voice” (1:12) he
gazed in rapture at the Son of Man in power and majesty in the midst of the
churches. This vision is a fitting prelude to the coming of the “son of man
with a golden crown on his head” (14:14) as “King of kings and Lord of
lords” (19:16).
A final indication of the eschatological nature of “the Lord’s day” is
provided by the unique parallelism between chapter 4:1-2 and chapter 1:10.
In both instances John “was in the Spirit—egenomen en pneumati” (1:10 cf.
4:2), heard “a voice like a trumpet” (1:10 cf. 4:1) and was shown a member
of the Deity in His glory (1:12-18 cf. 4 :2-11). On both occasions Christ is
proclaimed as the One “who was and is and is to come” (1:8 cf. 4:8). How-
ever, in chapter 4:1 we find an additional helpful detail. Before John is taken
in vision, he is told, “Come up hither, and I will show you what must take
place after this” (4:1). In the very next statement John says, “At once I was
in the Spirit” (4 :2). The reason then for John’s being taken up in vision is
here clearly stated: so that he may see “what must take place after this” (4
:1).
In chapter 1 :10, however, when John is taken up in vision such a
reason is not explicitly expressed but in its stead we find the expression “on
the Lord’s day.” It would seem reasonable to conclude, then, by virtue of the
striking parallelism found between the two chapters where similarities of
expressions, context and content occur, that the phrase “on the Lord’s day”
of chapter 1 :10 ought to be understood in the light of the parallel expres-
sion, “what must take place after this” of chapter 4 :1. We might say that in
chapter 1:10, John first names the background against which he saw the
vision—namely, the Lord’s day—and then he proceeds to describe the events
related to it, while in chapter 4 :1 John is explicitly told that the ensuing
vision has to do with future events.
In the light of the above considerations, it seems very unlikely that
the phrase “Lord’s day” of Revelation 1 :10 refers to Sunday. It rather ap-
pears to be a variation of the expression “the day of the Lord” which is
commonly employed in the Scripture to designate the day of the judgment
and of the parousia. We would therefore concur with J. B. Lightfoot in con-
cluding that “there is very good, if not conclusive evidence, for thinking that
the day of judgment was intended.”128
Conclusion. The foregoing analysis of the three New Testament ref-
erences commonly submitted as proof for Sunday observance in apostolic
times has shown convincingly that no probative value can be derived from
them. In both 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 and Acts 20:7-12, we found that the first
day of the week is mentioned to describe respectively a private fund-raising
plan and an extraordinary gatherjng of the Troas believers with Paul. Simi-
larly we noticed that the expression “Lord’s day” of Revelation 1:10, in the
light of its immediate and wider context can be best interpreted as a designa-
tion for the day of judgment and of the parousia.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
1. The four Gospels report unanimously that the resurrection of Christ
occurred on the “first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1;
John 20:1). The writers, however, provide no hint that on such days a new
cult was celebrated in honor of the risen Christ. Apparently it is on account
of this fact that most recent researchers on the origin of Sunday examine
exclusively 1 Cor. 16:2, Acts 20 :7f. and Rev. 1:10 as alleged testimonies of
Sunday observance in apostolic time.
2. The arrangement was apparently made in conjunction with the
trip described in Acts 18:23, as is confirmed by the allusion to such a con-
tribution in Gal. 2:10; cf. 2 Cor. 9:2f.; Rom. 15:26.
3. A. Robertson and A. Plummer, The Epistle of St. Paul to the
Corinthians, 1911, p. 384; cf. A. P. Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to
Corinthians, 1858, p. 344: “This is the earliest mention of the observance of
the first day of the week. The collections were to be made on that day, as
most suited to the remembrance of their Christian obligations”; F. J. Foakes-
Jackson, The Acts of the Apostles, 1945, p. 187: “The earliest mention of the
first day as being connected with a Christian assembly is in 1 Cor. 16 :2,
where St. Paul suggests that on that day a collection should be made for the
poor at Jerusalem”; A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scriptures, 1953, 1040-

840: “It is clear from 1 Cor. 16 :2 that Sunday had already become the day
for the Christian assembly and Eucharist”; E. B. Allo, St. Paul, premiere
epitre aux Corinthiens, 1956, p. 456, is of the opinion that the “first day of
the week here refers to Sunday worship which by the time of the composi-
tion of the epistle had already replaced the Sabbath”; F. Regan, Dies Dominica,
p. 15, supports this view.
4. A. Robertson and A. Plummer (fn. 3), p. 384.
5. P. Massi, La Domenica, p. 283.
6. Pierre Grelot, “Du Sabbat Juif au Dimanche Chrétien,” La Maison-
Dieu 124 (1975):31-32.
7. “Beth Shammai says: ‘Contributions for the poor are not allotted
on the Sabbath in the synagogue, even a dowry to marry an orphan man to an
orphan young woman Beth Hillel permits these activities” (Tosefta, Shabbat
16:22); cf. Theodore Friedman, “The Sabbath: Anticipalion of Redemption,”
Judaism 16 (1967): 448. James Moffat, The First Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians, 1947, p. 271, also suggests that “possibly Paul agreed with the
school of Shammai that no alms should be handled at worship.” Can it be
true that Paul had transferred to Sunday such an extreme rabbinical regula-
tion which applied to the Sabbath? This hardly seems possible since the
admonition is given to Gentile believers to whom Paul allowed considerable
freedom on matters of religious traditions (cf. Rom. 14:1-6; Gal. 4:8-10;
Col. 2:16).
8. Pierre Grelot (fn. 6), p. 32.
9. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, pp. 7-9; C. Callewaert, “La
Synaxe eucharistique ~i Jerusalem, berceau du dimanche,” Ephemerides
Theological Lovanienses 15 (1938): 43, similarly argues that the designa-
tion implies that Sunday originated in the primitive community of Jerusa-
lem. W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 41-42, objects to this explanation on the basis
of his belief that the planetary week had not yet been adopted and therefore
Paul had no other name at his disposal to designate a recurring day. The
objection fails to convince, first because there are evidences that the plan-
etary week did exist at that time and secondly because we know that Chris-
tians continued to use the Jewish names of the week for a long time. In fact
the planetary names first appear only in Christian literature addressed to the
pagans (ef. Justin Martyr, I Apology 67; Tertullian, Apology 16; Ad Nationes
1).
10. Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Co-

rinthians, 1959, p. 364; James Moffat (fn. 7), p. 271; “It may be that the
sums were brought to the Sunday service”; W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 195,
maintains that Paul proposed the first day of the week saving plan “because
the Christians had already begun to fix their calendar by reference to the
weekly Sunday.”
11. Arthur P. Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians,
1858, p. 344.
12. J. Nedhal, Sabbath und Sonntag im Neuen Testament, diss. 1956,
pp. 156f.
13. Arthur P. Stanley (fn. 11), p. 344: “The word thesaurizo, ‘hoard-
ing, or ‘treasuring up,’ also implies that the money was to remain in each
individual’s house till the Apostle came for it”; R. C. H. Lenski, The Inter-
pretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 1946, p.
759: “Each member is to keep the growing amount ‘by him,’ par’eauto, in
his own home, and is not to deposit it with the church at once.”
14. R. C. H. Lenski (fn. 13), p. 760; A. Robertson and A. Plummer
(fn. 3), p. 384: “It is improbable that at that time there was any Church trea-
sury.”
15. Hermann W. Beyer, “Diakonos” TDNT 11, p. 90: “Deacons are not to be
double-tongued or avaricious—qualities necessary in those who have ac-
cess to many homes and are entrusted with the administration of funds.”
16. This view was expressed by Vincenzo Monachino in his critique
of my dissertation.
17. Chrysostom, Homily 43 on I Corinthians (PG 61, 367): “Paul
says, Let each lay by him in store, not, Let him bring it to church, lest one
might feel ashamed of offering a small sum.” This view is advocated by J.
Kosnetter, “Der Tag des Herrn im Neuen Testament,” Der Tag der Herrn,
1958, pp. 384.
18. See above fn. 7.
19. William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians, 1956, pp. 182-
183.
20. A century later Justin Martyr reports that during the Sunday ser-
vice “they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and
what is collected is deposited with the president” (I Apology 67, ANF I, p.
186).
21. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 1885, II, p. 129, referring

to Sunday, aptly remarks: “The day is commonly called ‘~dc~ ~&iv a~w~v
[first day of the week]’ in the New Testament. As late as 57 AD. the designa-
tion occurs in St. Paul (I Cor. 16:2) where we should certainly have expected
(kuriake [Lord’s day]) if the word had then been in common use.”
22. The Letters of Pliny, Book X, 96.
23. W. Rordorf argues that the prohibition of the hetaeriae affected
only the “second gathering of Christians” and not “their meeting in the morn-
ing” (Sunday, pp. 203-204). From this he reaches the following farfetched
conclusion: “Under pressure from the state, Christians had to give up their
observance on Sunday evening, but because at that time they already had an
observance on Sunday morning, they could transfer to the morning their
eucharistic celebration which they could not have possibly renounced” (ibid.,
p. 252). The Sunday morning service would have arisen then, by the trans-
position of the Lord’s Supper from the evening to the morning, caused by
Trajan’s prohibition of the hetaeriae. If this were true, the Sunday morning
service would derive from external political pressures rather than from genu-
ine theological reasons. But the question is, Did the Roman prohibition of
associations apply at that time to the whole empire to cause a unanimous
shift everywhere of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper from Sunday evening
to the morning? (Note C. S. Mosna’s criticism of Rordorf’s view in Storia
della domenica, pp. 101-105). More important still, did the prohibition ap-
ply exclusively to the evening meeting? This can hardly be construed from
the statement: “quod ipsum facere desisse post edictum meum,” which is
translated by A. Mannaresi, “from all these things they desisted after my
edict” (L’Impero Romano e il Cristianesimo, 1914, p. 107). This being the
conclusion of the confession (adfirmabant) regarding their gatherings, it
obviously refers to both the earlier and later meetings. This is corroborated
by another letter of Trajan to Pliny, where the Emperor categorically refuses
to grant permission even for such a legitimate association as a firemen guild
(Book X, 39). Because of the peculiar situation of Bithynia, as Marta Sordi
points out, Trajan prohibits even those lawful associations “which were per-
mitted and encouraged in the rest of the empire” (Il Cristianesimo e Roma,
1965, p. 143). It would seem only logical then that the prohibition in Bithynia
extended to all forms of Christian meetings. If this conclusion is correct
(which to us appears irresistible) Pliny’s letter provides no indications re-
garding the origin of the Sunday morning service. In fact, we shall show that
Pliny’s “appointed day—stato die” can hardly refer to Sunday at all; see
below pp. 98-99.
24. The lex iulia de collegiis as well as the Senatus consultus of 64
B.C. prohibited the assemblies of the hetaeriae (associations of friends) but
its application depended on prevailing circumstances; cf. Cicero, De senectute

13, 44f. For a discussion of the hetaeriae, see Marta Sordi (fn. 23), pp. 142-
144.
25. Tertullian, Apology 39, ANF III, p. 47; cf. also Apology 37 where
Tertullian pleads for a legal recognition of Christians’ assemblies saying:
“Ought not Christians ... to have a place among the law-tolerated societies,
seeing they are not chargeable with any such crimes as are commonly dreaded
from societies of the illicit class?” (ANF III, p. 45). The pagan Cecilius in
the Octavius of Minucius Felix repeatedly charges Christians with congre-
gating and speaking secretly (cf. ch. 9 and 10, ANF IV, 177-178). Lucian of
Samosata (ca. A.D. 165) in his satire describes Peregrinus, during his brief
flirtation with Syrian Christianity, as a Christian thiasarches (i.e., leader of
an association—On the Death of Peregrinus, LCL, p. 11). Celsus also (ca.
A.D. 175) regards Christians’ associations as “secret societies” (Origen Con-
tra Celsum 1, 1).
26. On the accusation pagans levelled at the Christians see Justin
Martyr, I Apology 26, 7; Athenagoras, Supplicatio 3; Theophilus of Antioch,
Ad Autolicum 1, 3,4; Tertullian, Apology 2; Minucius Felix, Octavius 8.
27. Cf. L. C. Mohlberg, “Carmen Christo quasi Deo,” Rivista di
Archeologia cristiana 14 (1937): 95; C. S. Mosna, Storia della dornenica, p.
98;
A.Harnack, Die Lehre der zwblf Apostel, 1884, p. 53; A. A. McArthur, The
Evolution of the Christian Year, 1953, p. 18.
28. W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 202-203.
29. Ibid., p. 195.
30. Justin Martyr, Apology 67; For text and discussion see below pp.
230f.
31. For a profound analysis of Pliny’s letter see Vincenzo Monachino,
Le Persecuzioni e la polemica pagano-cristiana, 1974, pp. 43-50: “the letter
is indeed a protest made with prudence and grace against the existing juridi-
cal norm” (ibid., p. 50).
32 . Dio Cassius, Historia 69; see the well documented account by
A. Fuks, “The Jewish Revolt of 115-17,” Journal of Roman Studies 51 (1861):
98-104.
33. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 194, wisely points out that since the money
was not for immediate distribution “it was psychologically better to leave
the money with the individual contributor ... for this particular collection it
was better that the church should not meet (as for other collections or as
hitherto).”
34. A Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1927, p. 309, specu-
lates that in the Roman world the first day of the week was perhaps a payday
for many members, but he admits that there are no testimonies to support
this conjecture. On the prohibition of contributions on the Sabbath, see above
fn. 7.
35. Philo in Alexandria boasts that while “every country and nation
and state show aversion to foreign institutions,” this is not the case with the
Jewish Sabbath. Referring to “the whole inhabited world,” he then raises a
hyperbolical question: “Who has not shown this high respect for the sacred
Seventh Day by giving rest and relaxation from labor to himself and his
neighbors, free-man and slave alike, and beyond these to his beasts?” (Vita
Mosis 2,20); similarly Josephus in Rome affirms: “There is not any city of
the Grecians nor of the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our
custom of resting on the Seventh Day has not come” (Against Apion 2, 39);
Seneca, referring to the Jews, also laments: “Meanwhile, the customs of this
accursed nation have gained such an influence that they are now received
throughout all the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors”
(cited by Augustine, City of God, 6, 11); note how Tertullian chides the Ro-
mans for their adoption of the Jewish Sabbath (Ad Nationes 1, 13).
36. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, 1954, pp. 407-
408.
38 Cf. 0. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 1953, pp. lOf., 8Sf.; R.
B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, 1964, p. 377: “Here there is unmis-
takable evidence of the observance of Sunday or the first day of the week”;
J. A. Alexander, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 1956, p. 689: “The
observance of the first day of the week, as that of our Lord’s resurrection,
had already become customary”; F. J. FoakesJackson (fn. 3), p. 187; Charles
W. Carter, The Acts of the Apostles, 1963, pp. 305-306; R. J. Knowling, The
Acts of the Apostles, 1942, p. 424: “The statement here proves that this day
had been marked out by the Christian Church as a special day for public
worship and for ‘the breaking of bread.’”
39. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 199; P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, pp. 60-61.
40. F.F. Bruce (fn. 36), p. 408; Theodor Zahn, Die Apostlelgeschichte
des Lukas; 1927, p. 706; Geschichte des Sonntags, 1878, p. 3; H. J. Cadbury,
and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, 1933, IV, p. 255; W. Ror-
dorf, Sunday, pp. 201-202; G. Ricchiotti, Gli Atti degli Apostoli, 1952, p.336;
C. Marcora, “La vigilia nella liturgia,” Archivio Ambrosiano 6 (1954): 24-
29; J. Nedbal (fn. 12), p. 156; H. Dumaine, DACL IV, col. 887.
41. Pirot-Clamer, Actes des Ap6tres, 1949, p. 276. J. Morgenstern,
“The Reckoning of the Day in the Gospels and in Acts,” Crozer Quarterly
31 (1949): 232-240, argues that both systems are used in the New Testa-
ment.
42. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles,
1944, p. 825.
43. Loc. cit.
44. Pierre Grelot (fn. 6), p. 34; R. B. Rackham (fn. 38), p. 376.
45. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 15; C. W. Dugmore,
“Lord’s
Day and Easter,” Neotestamentica et Patristica in honorem sexagenarn
0.Cullmann, 1962, p. 275: “If the gathering at Troas occurred during
the night of Sunday-Monday it is less likely to have been a formal
Eucharist.”
46. H. Riesenfeld, “Sabbat et jour du Seigneur,” New Testament Es-
says. Studies in Memory of T. M. Manson, 1958, pp. 210-217. E. Jacquier,
Les Actes des Ap6tres, 19762, p. 598; C. F. D. Moule, Worship in the New
Testam-ent, 1961, p. 16; J. Dupont, Les Actes des Ap6tres, n.d., p. 171; P.
Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar, 1952, p. 38: “We must take
the night to be Saturday night which was regarded as the beginning of Sun-
day”; cf. also his The Early Christian Church, 1957, p. 153; C. S. Mosna,
Storia della domenica, p. 14; H. Leclercq, DACL XIII, col. 1523; F. Regan,
Dies Dominica, p. 89f.; J. Danidlou, Review of W. Rordorf, Sunday in
Recherches de science religieuse 52 (1964): 171f.; Dictionary of the Apos-
tolic Church (1915), s.v. “Lord’s Day,” by J. J. Clemens; R. B. Rackham (fn.
38), p. 377.
47.This view is well expressed by Pierre Grelot (fn. 6), pp. 33-34; cf.
H. Riesenfeld cited above fn. 46.
48. F. J. Foakes-Jackson (fn. 38), p. 187.
49. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and
Church, 1831, I, p. 337.
50. Henry J. Cadbury and Kirsopp Lake (fn. 40), pp. 255-256.
51. J. Behm, “klao,” TDNT III, pp. 728-729.
52. Ibid., p. 730; cf. Didache 14, 1; Ignatius, Ephesians 20,2; Acts of
Peter 10; Clemen tine Homilies 14, 1; Acts of John 106, 109; Acts of Tho-
mas, 27, 29, 50, 121, 133, 158.
53. Cf. Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 22nd
Edition, s.v. “to break” and “breaking.”
54. Matt. 14:19; 15:36; 26;26; Mark 8:6; 8:19; 14:22; Luke 22:19;
24: 30; 24:35.
55. Acts 20:11; 27:35.
56. I Cor. 10:16; 11:24.
57. Acts 2:46; 20:7.
58. J. Behm (fn. 51), p. 731: “Acts 2:42,46, refers to the daily fellow-
ship of the first Christians in Jerusalem and has nothing to do with liturgical
celebration of the Lord’s Supper.”
59. C. W. Dugmore (fn. 45), p. 274.
60. The hypothesis is advanced by R. B. Rackham (fn. 38), p. 378:
“S. Paul had heard at Ephesus of the disorders which occurred at the Eucha-
rist in Corinth, which arose from its coming after the Agape. He wrote that
he would set these matters in order when he came; and one of his ‘orders’
may have been the transposition of the Eucharist and Agape.”
61. For a discussion of Rordorf’s interpretation of this passage see
above, p. 76, fn. 7.
62. A. Wickenhauser, Atti degli Apostoli, 1968, p. 300; R. B. Rackham
(fn. 38), p. 376: “The service of that Sunday was stamped upon S. Luke’s
memory by an incident so remarkable that he proceeds to relate it in detail.”
63. Cf. Acts 20:3,6,7,15, 16; 21:1,4,5,7,8, 10, 15, 18.
64. R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, ICC, 1920, p. 23. For
later testimonies to the use of “Lord’s day” for Sunday, see above p. 17, fn.1.
65. This translation is by Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John,
1967, p. 435.
66. O. Cullmann (fn. 38), p. 7; cf. Martin Kiddle, The Revelation of

St. John, 1940, p. 11, who maintains that “in mentioning the time of his
vision, the Lord’s day, John is once again quietly emphasizing a common
participation in the Christian life.”
67. Cf. B. B. Allo, L’Apocalypse, 1933, p. 11: “The ‘Lord’s day’ is
not the great ‘Day of Yahweh’ where the Prophet found himself transported
in spirit, ... but rather Sunday, the day of the Resurrection of the Lord”;
Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 1906, p. 13; Isbon T.
Beckwith (fn. 65), p. 435; B. Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes,
1953, p. 15; T. F. Glasson, The Revelation of John, 1965, p. 21; B. A. Dowell,
The Meaning of the Book of Revelation, 1951, p. 31; J. Bonsirven,
L’Apocalypse, 1951, p. 95; D. Mollat, “La liturgia nell’Apocalisse,” Studi
Biblici Pastorali 2 (1967): 136-146.
68. W. Stott, “A Note on the Word KYRIAKIT in Rev. 1:10,” NTS 13
(1967):75.
69. A. Strobel, “Die Passab-Erwartung in Lk 17:20,” Zeitschrift für
die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 49 (1958):185, writes that the expres-
sion “Lord’s day” in Rev. 1:10 “certainly does not merely mean any ordi-
nary Sunday... but 16 Nisan;” cf. also C.W. Dugmore (fn. 45), p. 279; J. van
Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, 19612, pp. 169f; and from a different per-
spective K. A. Strand, “Another Look at the Lord’s Day in the Early Church
and Rev. 1:10,” NTS 13 (1967): 174-181.
70. Fenton J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St. John, 1908, p. 15; A.
Deissmann, “Lord’s Day,” Encyclopedia Biblica, III, p. 2815; J. B. Lightfoot,
The Apostolic Fathers, 1885, II, p. 129; E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse,
1935, pp. 9-14; Philip Carrington, The Meaning of the Revelation, 1931, pp.
77-78; William Milligan, The Book of Revelation, 1940, p. 13; Louis Talbot,
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 1960, pp. 19-20; John F. Walvoord, The Rev-
elation of Jesus Christ, 1966, p. 42; Clark’s Foreign Theological Library,
1851, XXII, p. 89; Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ,
1948, p. 36; cf. also the Commentaries of Wetstein, Ziillig, Maitland and
Todd on the Apocalypse, in loc. Others incorporate the eschatological motif
in the Sunday worship, cf. A. Feuillet, L’Apocalypse, 1962, p. 71; 0. Cullmann
(fn 9 66), pp. 12-15; W. Stott (fn. 68), p. 74.
71. Cf. Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, 1969, I, p. 180:
“at the latest the second half of the second century, since Serapion dates this
gospel back about a generation at least”; cf. also P. Gardner-Smith, “The
Date of the Gospel of Peter,” Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976): 401f.;
Johannes Quasten, Patrobogia, 1967, I, p. 108.
72. L. Vaganay, L’Évangile de Pierre, 1930,2 p. 292.

73. These crucial passages are analyzed in my Italian dissertation,
Un Esame dei testi biblici e patristici dei primi quattro secoli allo scopo
d’accertare it tempo e le cause del sorgere della domenica come Giorno del
Signore, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1974, pp. 99-120; cf. also the fifth
chapter of the dissertation, published under the title, Anti-Judaism and the
Origin of Sunday, 1975, pp. 90-93. The passage of Ignatius is also examined
below, see pp. 213-17. The crucial passage of Didache 14:1 translated liter-
ally reads: “On (or according to) the Lord’s of the Lord (kata kuriaken de
kurios) come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing
your transgressions that your offering may be pure.” The expression “Lord’s
of the Lord” is enigmatic and three basic solutions have been proposed to
clarify its meaning: (1) J. B. Audet replaces the “Lord’s—kuriaken” by the
word “day—hemeran” translating the passage: “On the day of the Lord come
together.... (La Didache, Instruction des Apôtres, 1958, p. 460); (2) C. W.
Dugmore argues that “since every Sunday is the Lord’s Day, the Sunday of
the Lord can only mean the Sunday on which he rose from the dead, i. e.,
Easter-Sunday” (fn. 45, p. 276); (3) Jean Baptiste Thibaut shows persuasively
that “Lord’s—kuriaken” is used as an adjective and not as a substantive and
that the issue is not the time but the manner of the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper: “If it was a question of time, in that case the genius of the Greek
language would have simply required the use of the dative: te kuriake. The
preposition kata marks here a relation of conformity. Consequently the word
which is implied and to which the qualifying kuriaken applies, is not hemeran
(day) but another term which can be easily supplied, namely the word didaken
(doctrine) present in the title of the work.... The initial phrase of chapter 14...
should be translated literally, ‘according to the sovereign doctrine of the
Lord’.. .“ (La Liturgie Romaine, 1924, pp. 33-34). We subscribe to Thibaut’s
interpretations for the following additional reasons: (1) Chapter 14 deals not
with the question of time but with the prerequisites to accede to the Eucha-
rist, namely confession of sin (14:1) and reconciliation with fellow beings
(14:2); (2) the quotation from Mal. 1:10 again emphasizes not the specific
time (“In every place and time”), but the manner of the sacrifice (“offer me
a pure sacrifice”—14 :3); (3) the Didache contains numerous exhortations
to act “according to—kata” the commandment or doctrine (1:5; 2:1; 4:13;
6:1; 11; 13:6); (4) in view of the fact that the Didachist wishes to justify his
instruction with the authority of the Lord, kata with the accusative estab-
lishes a relation of conformity and not of time; (5) Didache 14:1 is linked by
the conjunction “and—de” to the previous chapter, which closes with the
exhortation to “give according to the commandment” (13 :7). The repetition
of “according to—kata” could have caused the omission of the word “com-
mandment” or “doctrine;” (6) the Didachist exhorts to “be frequently gath-

ered together” (16:2). This hardly suggests exclusive Sunday gatherings.
74. See below pp. 214-16.
75. Examples are given above p. 17, fn. 1.
76 . Cf. Theodore Racine Torkelson, An Investigation into the Usage
and Significance of the Greek Adjective KYRIAKOS During the First Four
Centuries of the Christian Era, thesis 1948, pp. 29f.; A. Deissmann (fn. 34),
p. 358; P. Cotton, From Sabbath to Sunday, 1933, p. 122.
77. A.Deissmann (fn. 34), p. 357.
78. A. Deissmann (fn. 34), pp. 359f.; also Bible Studies, 19032, pp.
218-19; P. Cotton (fn. 76), p. 126; E. Lohmeyer, Die Of fenbarung des Johan-
ties, 19532, p. 15.
79.R.H. Charles (fn. 64), p. 23.
80. G. Thieme, Die Inschrif ten von Magnesia am Meander und das
Neue Testament, 1905, p. 15.
82. Wilfrid Stott (fn. 68), p. 73.
83. Ibid., p. 74.
84. See below pp. 213f.
85. This position is widely held especially by Catholic exegetes; see
Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction, 1958, pp. 283-290, 319,
547-557.
87. See above fn. 69 for references.
88. These points are presented by C. W. Dugmore (fn. 45), pp. 274-
278. K. A. Strand (fn. 69), p. 177, submits an additional reference attributed
to Irenaeus to support the view of an earlier application of “Lord’s day” to
the annual Easter, “from which a later Christian Sunday drew its basic char-
acteristics.” The passage reads: “This [custom] of not bending the knee
upon Sunday, is a symbol of the resurrection... it took its rise from apostolic
times, as the blessed Irenaeus, the martyr and bishop of Lyons, declares in
his treatise On Easter, in which he makes mention of Pentecost also; upon
which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is of equal significance
with the Lord’s day, for the reason already alleged concerning it” (Frag-
ments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus 7, in ANF, I, pp. 569-570). Strand
concludes that in this reference “there is no doubt that the ‘Lord’s Day’ re-
fers to an annual Easter-Sunday, for the term is placed in comparison with
another annual Sunday, Pentecost-Sunday” (bc. cit.). Is this conclusion cor-
rect? It seems to us that the comparison here is not between Easter and Pen-
tecost, but rather between the weekly Sunday and the annual Easter season
(which included Pentecost). What it says is that Christians do not bend their
knees at Easter because the feast “is of equal significance with the Lord’s
day [i.e., weekly Sunday], for the reason already alleged concerning it.” What
is the reason already given? “Sunday is a symbol of the resurrection.”
Tertullian provides a similar statement: “On Sunday it is unlawful to fast or
to kneel while worshipping. We enjoy the same liberty from Easter to Pente-
cost” (De corona 3, 4; cf. also Augustine, Epistula 55, 28 CSEL 34, 202,
where the resurrection is explicitly given as reason for the custom). Irenaeus’
statement, therefore, does show the close nexus existing between the two
feasts, but it hardly suggests an earlier application of the term “Lord’s day”
to Easter-Sunday. The weakness of Strand’s conclusion from this reference
does not invalidate his hypothesis of an earlier origin of Easter-Sunday. This
we shall ourselves defend as a most plausible explanation; see below pp.
19Sf.
89. A. Strobel (fn. 69), p. 185, fn. 104, writes “xup~ocx~ as a term
applied to Sunday represents, as it is generally acknowledged, a secondary
development.”
90. C.W. Dugmore (fn. 45), p. 279.
91. See below pp. 19Sf.
92. E.Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers, 1950, p. 286. is of the opin-
ion that the Greek Didache published by Bryennius was composed soon
after AD. 150; Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers LCL, 1952, I, p. 331,
advocates the same date; I. P. Audet (fn. 73), p. 219, places its composition
at the time of the Synoptics between A.D. 50 and 70. This date must be
regarded as too early, inasmuch as the complex ecclesiastical ordinances
(such as baptism by infusion) presuppose, as J. Quasten (fn. 71, pp. 40-41)
points out, “a period of stabilization of a certain length.”
93. C.W. Dugmore (fn. 45), p. 277.
94. Apostolic Constitutions 5, 19 admonishes not to break the Pass-
over fast before the “daybreak of the first day of the week, which is the
Lord’s day” (ANF VII, p. 447). The same designation appears again further
down in the same chapter: “From the first Lord’s day count forty days, from
the Lord’s day till the fifth day of the week, and celebrate the feast of the
ascension of the Lord.” Even in these instances the “Lord’s day” is hardly
used for Easter day only. The phrase “from the first Lord’s day” implies that
subsequent Sundays shared the same appellation.
95. C. W. Dugmore (fn. 45), p. 278.
96. J. van Goudoever (fn. 69), pp. 169f.
98. K. A. Strand, “The ‘Lord’s Day,’” in Three Essays on Early Church
History, 1967, p. 42. The basic weakness of Strand’s argument is that it as-
sumes that primitive Christianity was influenced by the sectarian calendar
of Qumran in determining its feasts. We have found no indications of this.
On the contrary, it appears that the earliest Christians followed the norma-
tive calendar of the temple. See our discussion above p. 77, fn. 11 and below
pp. 148f. Furthermore, Strand assumes that Easter-Sunday was already wide-
spread in John’s time, but we shall show that this is not the case; see below
pp. 198-206.
99. Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 6-7. K. Strand (fn. 69), p. 180, advances an
interesting hypothesis, namely that the “Lord’s day” in Rev. 1:10 might refer
to the seventh-day Sabbath. He bases this conjecture on a passage of the Acts
of John (composed apparently in Asia Minor in the third century, see E.
Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, 1965, II, p. 214), where in describing
John’s trip to Rome as a prisoner watched by Roman soldiers, it says: “And
on the seventh day, it being the Lord’s day, he said to them: Now it is time
for me also to partake of food” (ANF VIII, p. 561). Strand argues that the
seventh day cannot refer to the seventh day of the journey, since that would
mean that John fasted on the intervening Sabbath, a practice prohibited in
the eastern church. While the observation is valid in general (see below pp.
188-9), it does not seem to apply to this particular document because of its
Gnostic flavor (cf. J. Quasten (n. 71), p. 136). We know that gnostics en-
couraged Sabbath fasting (see below pp. 186-7). Moreover what excludes
Strand’s interpretation is another reference found at the conclusion of the
Acts of John, the so-called Metastasis, where it says: “John therefore kept
company with the brethren rejoicing in the Lord. And on the next day, as it
was a Sunday (xupLco65~) and all the brethren were assembled . . .“ (E.
Hennecke, The New Testament Apocrypha, 1965, II, p. 256). The “kuriake”
here is translated “Sunday,” since it is followed by the eucharistic celebra-
tion described in chapters 107-110. Mario Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo
Testamen to, 1966, II, pp. 63-64, provides the following reconstruction of
the Sunday eucharistic service: “(1) preaching (ch. 106); (2) prayer (ch. 108);
(3) blessing, breaking and partaking of bread (ch. 109); (4) benediction: ‘Peace
be with you, beloved’ (ch. 110). That the expression “Lord’s day—kuriake”
was used at that time in Asia Minor as a technical designation for Sunday, is
attested by the Gospel of Peter, 35, 50, 51 (cited above p. 113). This is also
confirmed by a later document, the Acts of Peter (dated ca. AD. 190) where
the author even more explicitly affirms: “And on the first day of the week,
that is the Lord’s day, a crowd gathered and many sick persons were brought
to Peter that he might heal them” (Coptic fragment, cf. Mario Inserillo, Gli
Evangeli Apocrifi, 1964, pp. 151-152; also E. Hennecke, New Testament
Apocrypha, 1965, II, p. 314).
100. J.Danielou, The First Six Hundred Years, 1964, p. 74. The fail-
ure to recognize the Quartodeciman setting of Asia has misled Clark into the
erroneous conclusion that Easter-Sunday “was introduced there on the au-
thority of John” (Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, 1851, XIII, p. 91).
However, his observation that “the celebration of the weekly festival is hardly
to be conceived without that of the yearly” (Ic. cit.), is valid indeed. But in
the case of the province of Asia where the Quartodeciman practice was rig-
orously guarded, this would hardly bespeak an early introduction of Sunday
observance. It could be argued that John could have designated “Lord’s day”
Nisan 15, but we have found no other testimony to support it.
101. Advocators of this view are cited above, see fn. 70.
102. Louis T. Talbot (fn. 70), p. 20.
103. Loc. cit.
104. A thematic outline of Revelation is presented in my Italian dis-
sertation (fn. 73), pp. 90-92.
105 Rev. 4:8; 6:10, 17; 11:15; 14:14; 16:15, 20; 19:7, 17; 20:11; 21;
22:7, 17.
106. This is corroborated by the fact that the angel that makes known
the revelation to John in chapter 1:1 appears again at the close of the revela-
tion in chapter 22 :8.
107. Fred B. Jensen, An Investigation of the Influence of Anti-Juda-
ism Affecting the Rise of Sunday in the Christian Tradition, thesis 1949, p.
43.
108. J. F. Walvoord (fn. 70), p. 42.
109. Wilfrid Stott (fn. 68), p. 71.
110. Furthermore. note that the day of Christ’s coming is referred to

in a great variety of ways; see below fns. 113 to 122.
111. Cf., for instance, Didache 9:1; Ignatius, Ephesians 13:1; Phila-
delphians 4: Smyrnaeans 8:1; Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66, 1; Dictionnaire
d’archéologie chrétienne, 1907, s.v. “Fractio panis” by F. Cabrol, col. 210Sf;
The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, s.v. “Lord’s Supper” by M.
H. Shepherd: “Christian writers from the second century on (e. g., the Didache,
Justin, Ignatius, Irenaeus) preferred the title ‘Eucharist’ derived from the
thanksgiving over the principal act of the Lord’s Supper.”
112. Besides the texts already quoted, see the references given above
fn. 105.
113. Matt. 10:15; 12:36; Mark 6:11; 2 Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17, Jude
6.
114. Luke 17:30; Matt. 25:13; Rom. 13:12.
115. Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; 14:25; Luke 10:12; 17:31; 21:34; 1
Tim. 1:12.
116. John 6:39-40; 11:24; 12:48.
117. Acts 2:20.
118. Rom. 2:5; Rev. 6:17.
119. I Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6,10; 2 Thess. 2:2.
120. Thess. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10.
121. Rev. 6:17; Jude 6; Acts 2:20.
122. Rev. 6:14.
123. Cf. Gerhard Delling, “hemera” TDNT II, p. 952: “In Paul as in
the Gospels, Christ is the Lord of this hemera [i.e., day of His parousia].”
124. Walter Scott (fn. 70), p. 36.
125. E. W. Bullinger (fn. 70), p. 12
126. Philip Carrington (fn. 70), p. 78.
127. Note that the day of atonement, which was viewed as a day of
judgment, was announced by the blowing of trumpets, Num. 29:1.
128. J, B. Lightfoot (fn. 70), p. 129; cf. A. Deissmann, “Lord’s day,”
Encyclopedia Biblica, III, p. 2815, who similarly identifies the “Lord’s day”
with “the day of Yahweh” and “the day of judgment.”
Chapter 5
JERUSALEM
AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY
Though the three New Testament references commonly quoted to

substantiate an apostolic origin of Sunday observance belong to the geo-
graphic area of the Greek-speaking Christian communities of Greece (1 Cor.
16 :2) or Asia Minor (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10), there is a marked tendency in
recent studies to attribute to the Apostolic community of Jerusalem the ini-
tiative and responsibility for the abandonment of the Sabbath and the institu-
tion of Sunday worship. J. Danidlou affirms, for instance, that “the institu-
tion of Sunday goes back to the very first community and is a purely Chris-
tian creation.” 1 In another study, the same author declares that “the custom
of gathering together on this day [i.e. Sunday] appears in the very week
following the Resurrection, when we find the Apostles gathered in the
Cenacle. Sunday is the continuation of this weekly reunion.” 2
C. S. Mosna concludes his investigation on the origin of Sunday wor-
ship stating, “We can conclude without doubt that Sunday was born in the
primitive community of Jerusalem before than in the Pauline community.” 3
W. Rordorf similarly claims that several arguments can be cogently advanced
for the opinion that the Christian observance of Sunday is a genuinely Chris-
tian creation which reaches back into the oldest period of the primitive com-
munity and even to the intention of the risen Lord himself. 4
This thesis rests on several basic assumptions. P. K. Jewett notes, for
instance, that “it seems very unlikely that Paul pioneered in the observance
of Sunday, when he is the only New Testament writer who warns his con-
verts against the observance of days (Col. 2:17; Gal. 4:10; Rom. 14:6).” 5
The same author sagaciously remarks that, “if Paul had introduced Sunday
worship among the Gentiles, it seems likely that Jewish opposition would
have accused his temerity in setting aside the law of the Sabbath, as was the
case with reference to the rite of the circumcision (Acts 21:21).” 6
Moreover Paul, as noted by W. Rordorf, “would have referred more
to the observance of Sunday and . . . would have answered the objections of
a Judaizing opposition.” 7 It is assumed therefore that “Paul found the cus-
tom of worship on the first day of the week established among the Christians
-131-
Jerusalem and the Origin of Sunday 132
when he began his Gentile mission; that is to say, first-day worship is of

Judaeo-Christian origin.” 8
It is also assumed that since the events of the resurrection and/or
appearances of Jesus occurred and were experienced in Jerusalem on Sun-
day, therefore it must be there that the Apostles first instituted Sunday wor-
ship to commemorate these very events by a distinctive Christian day and
with a unique Christian liturgy. Moreover it is presumed that a change in the
day of worship, and its subsequent adoption by many Christians everywhere,
could only have been accomplished by the apostolic authority exercised in
Jerusalem, the Mother Church of Christendom.
The principle implied in this observation is valid indeed, and is one
we need to bear in mind in our quest for the genesis of Sunday observance.
Christians at large would hardly have accepted the injunction to change the
day of their weekly worship or the date of their annual Passover celebration
from any one church, except from the one that enjoyed universal and undis-
puted position of leadership. The Passover controversy, as we shall see, pro-
vides a most fitting example.
Another significant argument is the alleged necessity that was im-
mediately felt by the earliest Christians in Jerusalem to have a special time
and place for their worship, since it is claimed, they “no longer felt at home
in the Jewish Sabbath worship.” 10 C. S. Mosna reasons, for instance, that the
Apostles instituted Sunday “long before Paul might think about its institu-
tion,” since “the first Christians found themselves in the necessity to have a
special day of worship because the content of the Sabbath was by then insuf-
ficient to the exigencies of the new faith.” 11 W. Rordorf expresses the same
conviction in similar words when he says that “the practical necessity for a
regular time of worship in the Christian communities does therefore point to
a pre-Pauline origin for the observance of Sunday.” 12
Eusebius’ (ca. A.D. 260-340) account of the Ebionites—a Jewish—
Christian sect of early Christianity—is submitted by several scholars as an
additional evidence for an apostolic origin of Sunday. The historian reports
that the liberal wing of the Ebionites “observed the Sabbath and the rest of
the discipline of the Jews but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the
Lord’s day as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.” 13 The conten-
tion is that these Jewish Christians retained the original Sunday practice of
the Jerusalem Church, since they would hardly have borrowed it from the
Gentile Church after they broke away from it. 14
These arguments appear persuasive indeed, but their validity must

be tested in the light of the historic information provided by the New Testa-
ment and by the early patristic literature regarding the ethnic composition
and the theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church. This we shall now
investigate, extending our inquiry to A.D. 135, that is, up to the time of the
destruction of the city by Hadrian. At that time, as we shall see, both city and
the Church there underwent radical changes caused by the Emperor’s edict
of expulsion of Jews and Jewish Christians. This struck the final blow, not
only to the Jewish aspiration of national independence from the Romans,
but also to the position of leadership of the Jerusalem Church. In fact, subse-
quently the role of the Church there was too insignificant to be able to influ-
ence the rest of Christendom.
The Jerusalem Church in the New Testament
What information does the New Testament provide regarding the
attitude of the Jerusalem Church toward Jewish worship services and litur-
gical calendar? Does it suggest, as some hold, that the Church “no longer
felt at home in the Jewish Sabbath worship: therefore it had to assemble by
itself and at a special time”? 15 We shall endeavor to answer these questions
by considering first the place and time of the earliest Christian gatherings,
and secondly the ethnic composition and theological orientation of the Jerusa-
lem Church.
The place of Christian gatherings. The meeting places most fre-
quently mentioned in the book of Acts are the temple, the synagogue, and
private houses (once, a gathering in the open air). 16 In Acts 2 :46 the report
that Christians were “attending the temple together and breaking bread
in their homes” suggests a possible distinction between the public evan-
gelistic preaching and private fellowship gatherings. However in chapter
5 :42 it says that “every day in the temple and at home they did not cease
teaching and preaching Jesus as Christ.” This would imply that no for-
mal distinction existed between public evangelistic meetings and the pri-
vate fellowship gatherings. 17
The picture that emerges from Acts is indeed of an intense communal
life of the new converts who “with one accord” (Acts 1:14) would often
gather to share their faith both publicly in the temple, i.inder Solomon’s
portico, or in the synagogues, as well as privately in houses. 18 But presum-
ably a difference did exist between these two types of gatherings. In the
temple and synagogue the primitive community could proclaim the Gospel
(Acts 3 :11 f.; 5 :12 f.) as well as participate in the prayer (Acts 3 :1; 22 :17;
2 :46-47) and instruction from the Scriptures. In the private meetings, on the
other hand, believers could receive personal instruction from the Apostle
(Acts 6 :42; 1 :14) as well as express their bond of fellowship by partaking
together of food and of the Lord’s Supper. 19
The private gatherings of the primitive community, though designed
to express more freely and fully the content of their faith in the risen Lord,
are not presented as conflicting with the services of the temple and syna-
gogue but rather as complementing them. Ralph P. Martin remarks that “in
the early days of the Church’s life, there seems to have been no desire to
leave the parent religion—at least as far as the outward practice of the faith
was concerned.” 20 The author points out that “the earliest Christian Church
looked like a party within the Jewish fold” and was explicitly designated as
the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). The same word “sect—hairesis” is
used in Acts to describe both the Christian party (Acts 24 :5, 14; 28 :22) and
the official Jewish parties of the Sadducees (Acts 5 :17) and Pharisees (Acts
15:5; 26:5). Therefore, Martin concludes that “there was nothing, on the
face of it, which would strike strange about the congregating of like-minded
Jews as a band of Nazarenes.” 21
Some scholars even suggest that externally the primitive community
may at first have resembled a special synagogue, since according to the
Mishnah it only required ten male Jews to form a synagogue anywhere. 22
Christ’s followers, it says in Acts 1 :14, “with one accord devoted them-
selves to prayer (proseuke).” The Greek term employed here is the one that
designates the regular “prayer-assembly” of the synagogue (cf. Acts 16:13,
16). The use of a synagogal appellation to describe the devotional gathering
of the first believers suggests the possibility that Christian gatherings could
have been regarded as a type of synagogue meeting.
It is a fact that the synagogue is the place of worship most frequently
mentioned. We have found this to be true in Christ’s ministry since he taught
and worshiped in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Mark 1:21-28; 3:1-6; 6:2;
Matt. 4:23; Luke 4:15, 16-30,31 ff., 44; 6:6; 13:10-17; John 6:59; 18:20).
Similarly in Acts, the record of Christian attendance at the synagogue is
most impressive. Paul met in the synagogue regularly with “Jews and
Greeks” (Acts 18:4,19; 13:5, 14,42,44; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17), and even
Apollo, when he arrived at Ephesus, met with the believers at Ephesus in
the synagogue (Acts 18 :24-26). C. W. Dugmore, to whom we are in-
debted for an exhaustive study on the influence of the synagogue upon
the Christian service, shows persuasively that the “synagogue did influ-
ence both the form of service and the times at which Christians met to-
gether for public prayer in the first four centuries of our era to a much
greater extent than has sometimes been recognized.”23
Did the acceptance of the Messiah as Lord and Savior create an im-
mediate exigency to adopt a new place and time of worship in order to give
expression to the new Faith? It is easy and tempting to interpret the fragmen-
tary record of the Jerusalem Church in the light of the later separation which
occurred between the Church and the Synagogue. This effort may be moti-
vated by the commendable desire to minimize the attachment of the Jerusa-
lem Church to the Jewish religious customs and thus defend the uniqueness
of content and expression of the Christian faith right from its inception. While
such objectives may be praiseworthy, they hardly justify an inaccurate re-
construction of the early worship customs of the Jerusalem Church.
The frequent references to the temple, the synagogue, prayer and
preaching, suggest that Christian worship arose not as an ex novo institution
but rather as a continuation and re-interpretation of the Jewish religious ser-
vices. Peter and John, for instance, after the Pentecost experience, go up to
the temple at the hour of prayer (Acts 3 :1). Attendance at the temple and at
the synagogue still continues, though complementary private meetings are
conducted. Similarly the language of the Jewish worship—sacrifice, offer-
ing, priest, elder—remains in use. It is obvious that all of these were reinter-
preted in the light of their Messianic fulfillment—of the Christ-event. There
is no hint however that their new faith caused the immediate abandonment
of the regular worship places of the Jews.
The Time of Christian Gatherings. We need now to consider the
time of the worship services of the Jerusalem Church. Did the first Chris-
tians respect and use the Jewish liturgical calendar or did they purposely
reject it, choosing rather new days and dates for their weekly and annual
festivities? Oscar Cullmann maintains that the gatherings of the earliest Chris-
tians “took place daily (Acts 2:46; 5:42; see also Luke 24:53). The Sabbath
too may still have been observed here and there. However ... already in the
earliest times the primitive Christian service created for itself a specifically
Christian setting in which one day was specifically marked out as the day for
the Church services—the Lord’s Day. That is not the Jewish Sabbath but in
deliberate distinction from Judaism, the first Christians selected the first day
of the week, since on this day Christ had risen from the dead, and on this day
he had appeared to the disciples gathered together for a meal.” 24
According to our author—a position widely supported by many schol-
ars—the gatherings of the primitive community occurred daily, sporadically
on the Sabbath and regularly on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection
and the appearances of Christ. We need not take time to consider again the
claim of a regular Sunday observance in the earliest days of the Church,
since in our previous chapters we have established that such a thesis rests
basically on three misconstrued New Testament passages and on theological
motivations absent in the apostolic literature.
Regarding the daily gatherings, Luke in at least three instances re-
fers to the Apostles and/or believers who “daily—kath’hemera—pasan
hemeran” (Acts 2 :46; 5 :42; cf. Luke 24 :53) came together for instruction
and fellowship. It is possible that in the enthusiasm of Pentecost, for some
time the believers did gather daily around the Apostles, but obviously only
the Apostles could sustain a continuous daily program of teaching in the
temple and in the homes (Acts 5 :42). As H. Riesenfeld aptly remarks, “for
those who were not Apostles this must be an hyperbole.” 25 These daily gath-
erings were undoubtedly evangelistic in nature, designed to proclaim the
Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. Possibly new converts participated in these
meetings, but there is no indication that the whole community was expected
to participate in daily services.
The Sabbath, according to 0. Cullmann, representative of a popular
view, was observed “here and there” but since the earliest times the Church
chose the first day of the week as the new day of worship “in deliberate
distinction from Judaism.” 26 In a later chapter we will have occasion to
show that the exigency to differentiate from the Jews did indeed contribute
substantially to the adoption of Sunday observance in the place of the Sab-
bath. But this is a later development which did not occur in the early days of
the Jerusalem Church.
C.S. Mosna reasons that the Christians in Jerusalem detached them-
selves very early from the temple and synagogue because of the persecution
from the religious leaders: “After the stoning of Stephen, they are searched
in the houses (Acts 8 :3) and the persecution contributed to isolate them
from the Jews and their practices (Acts 9 :2).” 27 There is no doubt that Jew-
ish persecutions contributed in time to isolate Christians from Jewish reli-
gious services and customs, but as will be shown below, such a break did not
take place so drastically or so immediately.
Paul, for instance, after the martyrdom of Stephen, went searching
for Christians in the synagogues of Damascus (Acts 9:2; cf. 22:19), presum-
ably because they still met there. In his later ministry the Apostle himself “as
was his custom” (Acts 17 :2) met regularly on the Sabbath in synagogues or
open air, not only with the Jews (Acts 13:14; 17:2; 18:4) but also with the
Gentiles (Acts 13:44; 16:13, 18 :4). This was possible because no radical
separation had yet occurred from Jewish places and times of gatherings.
It should also be observed that the first Jewish persecution reported

in Acts 6-8 was apparently directed not against the whole Church but prima-
rily against the “Hellenists.” These, according to recent researches, were a
non conformist group of Jewish Christians seemingly quite different from
the main body of the Church. 28 This is suggested by Acts 8:1 where it is
reported that when “a great persecution arose against the Church in Jerusa-
lem . . . they were scattered . . . except the apostles.” The fact that the Apostles
were allowed to remain in the city proves, as noted by 0. Cullmann, “that the
whole community did not share in the very peculiar and bold ideas of this
group [i.e. Hellenists].” 29 However, it should be mentioned to the credit of
the Hellenists that their bold and vocal missionary activity resulted in the
evangelization of Samaria (Acts 8 :140).
Some suggest that this group of Christian Hellenists (Greek. speak-
ing Jews) “publicly claimed for themselves Jesus’ own freedom with regard
to the Sabbath” 30 and adopted Sunday observance. Even granting such an
assumption which rests on gratuitous conjectures, it should be observed that
these Hellenists represented only a radical group that was early detached
from the mother Church where the Apostles resided. Inasmuch as they were
not the spokesmen of the Church, they could hardly have enjoined the Church
at large to accept a new day of worship.
Moreover, if indeed Sunday observance was one of the distinguish-
ing marks of their religious practices, this would have stirred a sharp contro-
versy within the Church, especially in view of their “vocal” missionary ac-
tivity. 31 But no echo of such a polemic can be detected in Acts. At the Jerusa-
lem council, for instance, Sabbath observance was not among the issues of
the day. In fact, we now shall consider overwhelming indications of its regu-
lar observance, particularly in the ultra-conservative Jewish-Christian com-
munity of Jerusalem.
The Theological Orientation of the Jerusalem Church. A study of
the ethnic composition and theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church
provides perhaps the most significant data by which to test the validity of the
thesis claiming Jerusalem as the birthplace of Sunday observance. The Church
originated in the city around the nucleus of the twelve Apostles. Since these
as well as their first converts were, as well stated by T. W. Manson, “Jews by
birth and upbringing.. . it is a priori probable that they would bring into the
new community some at least of the religious usages to which they had long
been accustomed.”32
Luke reports that among the many Jewish converts, there were a great
many of the priests” who “were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). F. A. Regan
well notes that “Luke gives no hint that their conversion in any way con-
flicted with the adherence to the Old Law.” 33 In fact, possibly, as suggested
by B.Bagatti, “they naturally continued to exercise their ministry.” 34 Their
ministry may well have been needed, in view of the fact that, as Luke re-
lates, there were many thousands . among the Jews of those who believed”
(Acts 21:20). It seems plausible to identify these converted priests with the
“Elders” who assisted James and the Apostles in the administration of the
Church (Acts 15:4,22,23; 16:4; 20:17,18).
F. F. Bruce advances the hypothesis that “there may have been sev-
enty of them, constituting a sort of Nazarene Sanhedrin, with James as their
president.” 35 This information provided by Luke reveals that the Jerusalem
Church not only was composed mostly of Jewish converts but possibly was
even administered by ex-priests according to the familiar Jewish model of
the Sanhedrin. Their basic attitude toward Jewish religious observances is
best expressed by Luke’s terse statement, “they are all zealous for the law”
(Acts 21:20). 36
The choice and exaltation of James provides further confirmation of
the “Jewish” theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church. Why was James
“the Lord’s Brother” (Gal. 1 :19) and not an Apostle chosen to be the leader
of the Church? Apparently in the choice of a leader for the Church, the blood
factor was regarded as more important than any previous relationship with
Christ. This reason, already implicit in the references of Luke and Paul37 to
James, is explicitly brought out in several later works of Judaeo-Christian
origin.
Hegesippus, a second-century Jewish convert native of Palestine, and
various anonymous authors who produced works such as The Proto-
evangelium of James, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the History of Joseph the
Carpenter, the Gospel of Thomas, the divers Apocalypses of James and the
Clemen tine Recognitions and Homilies, highly exalt the figure of James. 38
In these works James is glorified as the legitimate representative of Christ, 39
as the real brother of Christ to whom he first appeared, 40 as the head of the
Church, 41 as the one “for whose sake heaven and earth came into being,” 42
as the priest who alone “was allowed to enter the Sanctuary . . - to implore
divine pardon for the people,” as the son of a priest and as “a saint from his
mother’s womb.” 43 It appears therefore that in the eyes of Judaeo. Chris-
tians, as well summarized by B. Bagatti, “James ... was superior to Peter
and Paul, because he was a descendant of David, of the same blood as Jesus,
and therefore the legitimate representative of the sacerdotal race; and finally
he had observed the law to the point of heroism. No other apostle could
claim such prerogatives.” 44
While this exaltation of James represents a later development, moti-

vated apparently by the necessity to enhance the position of the Jerusalem
Church at a time when she had faded into obscurity, the fact remains that
James was seemingly chosen because he could claim blood relation to Christ
and thus fulfill the role of a legitimate Christian “high-priest.” This reveals
how Jewish-oriented the new Christian “priesthood” and leadership really
were in the city. More enlightening still for our investigation into the pos-
sible origin of Sunday observance in Jerusalem is the basic attitude of James
and his party toward Jewish legal obligations.
In the year A.D. 49-50 the leaders of the Christian Church met in
Jerusalem to deliberate on the basic requirements to be fulfilled by Gentiles
who accepted the Christian faith. The Council was occasioned by the dis-
sension which arose in Antioch when certain agitators came to the Church
there from Judea, teaching: “unless you are circumcised according to the
custom of Moses, you cannot be saved: (Acts 15:1). These Judaizers appar-
ently claimed to speak in the name of James, though he distinctly denied
having authorized them to do this (Acts 15 :24).
To settle the dispute it was found necessary for Paul and Barnabas to
go to Jerusalem to discuss the problem with the “apostles and elders” (Acts
15 :3). At the meeting there was “much debate” (Acts 15 :7) and discourses
were made by Peter, Paul and Barnabas ‘(vv. 7, 12). At the end James, who
appears to have acted as the presiding officer, proposed that Gentiles who
became Christians were to be exempted from circumcision, but they were to
be notified “to abstain from the pollutions of idols and unchastity and from
what is strangled and from blood. For from early generations Moses has had
in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in the syna-
gogues” (vv. 20-21).
The proposal was approved by “the apostles and elders” (v. 22) and
immediate measures were taken to ensure its implementation. The decision
of the council, which is mentioned three times (Acts 15 :20, 29; 21:25) with
slight variations, provides some insight into the attitude of the Jerusalem
Church toward the Jewish law. Several points are noteworthy. The exemp-
tion from the circumcision was granted only “to the brethren who are of the
Gentiles” (v. 23).
No innovation occurred for the Jewish Christians, who still circum-
cised their children. This is indicated not only by the existence after the
council of a circumcision party, apparently supported by James (Gal. 2:12),
that constantly harrassed the Gentile communities evangelized by Paul (Gal.
3:1; 5:12; 6:12; Phil. 3:2), but also by the explicit charge that “James and the
elders” reported to Paul (approximately ten years later), namely: “You teach
all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not
to circumcise their children or observe the customs” (Acts 21:22). The con-
cern of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church for such a rumor (even at such
late day, about A.D. 58) and their proposal to Paul to silence the accusation
by undertaking a vow of purification at the temple (Acts 21:24), reveals how
profoundly attached they still were to Jewish institutions like circumcision.
Moreover, the very provisions proposed by James and adopted by
the Council indicate that the Gentiles were not granted indiscriminate free-
dom from the law. Of the four precepts of the decree, in fact, one is moral
(abstention from Un-chastity”) and three are ceremonial (abstention “from
pollution of idols and from what is strangled and from blood”—v. 20). This
undue concern for ritual defilement and food laws is reflective indeed of the
great respect which still prevailed for the ceremonial law.
To avoid offending the prejudices of Jewish Christians, Gentile con-
verts were to abstain from eating anything offered to idols and even from
accepting or participating in a Gentile domestic feast where food with idola-
trous associations might be served. They also were to follow the Jewish food
laws by not eating the flesh of animals killed by strangulation. This exces-
sive concern of James and of the Apostles (Acts 15 :22) to respect Jewish
scruples regarding food and association with the Gentiles, hardly allows us
to imagine that a weightier matter such as Sabbath observance had been
unanimously abrogated. 45
But how can some interpret the silence of the Council on the Sabbath
question as “the most eloquent proof that the observance of Sunday had
been recognized by the entire apostolic Church and had been adopted by the
Pauline Churches”? 46 That such a drastic change in the day of worship had
been unanimously accomplished and accepted, without provoking dissension,
is hard to believe in view of several factors. The prevailing attitude of the
Jerusalem Church, as we have already noticed, was characterized by intran-
sigent respect and observance of Jewish customs and institutions. In such a
climate it was practically impossible to change the date of a millenarian
institution like the Sabbath which was still highly respected.
The statement which James made to support his proposal is also sig-
nificant in this regard: “for from early generations Moses has had in every
city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues”
(Acts 15:21). The connection between James’ proposal (v. 20) and this ex-
planatory statement (v. 21) has been variously understood. Some take it as
meaning that Jewish Christians need not fear that Gentile freedom would
undermine the observance of the Mosaic laws, “being still read every Sab-
bath in the Christian synagogues or congregations. 47
Others understand the verse as meaning that since the precepts of the
law of Moses were diligently taught every Sabbath, Gentile Christians must
be careful not to offend the prejudices of their Jewish fellow-believers.48
Still others interpret it as meaning that the Gentiles would certainly not find
the prohibition arbitrary or harsh since they were well acquainted with the
Levitical regulations from their habitual attendance at the synagogue on the
Sabbath.49 F. F. Bruce thinks that James’ “observation was perhaps intended
to calm the apprehensions of the Pharisaic party in the Jerusalem Church, in
whose eyes it was specially important that the whole Torah should be taught
among the Gentiles.”50
Though the above interpretations apply James’ remark to different
people (Gentile Christian, Jewish Christian, both, and the Pharisaic party)
they all recognize that both in his proposal and in its justification James
reaffirms the binding nature of the Mosaic law which was customarily
preached and read every Sabbath in the synagogues. The manifestation of
such an excessive respect by the Council for the Mosaic ceremonial law, and
James’ explicit reference to the customary reading and preaching from it on
the Sabbath in the synagogues, exclude categorically the hypothesis that the
Sabbath had already been replaced by Sunday.
The last visit of Paul to Jerusalem (A.D. 58-60), to which we alluded
earlier, further evidences the commitment of the Jerusalem Church to the
observance of the law. Luke’s mention that Paul “was hastening to be at
Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:16) and that they
had spent the days of “Unleavened Bread” at Philippi (Acts 20 :6), indicates
that Christians still regulated their lives by the normative Jewish liturgical
calendar. More enlightening, however, is the account of what happened in
Jerusalem itself. James and the Elders, after Paul had “related one by one the
things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (Acts
21:19), reported to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands there are
among the Jews of those who have believed: they are all zealous for the law,
and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among
the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children
or observe the customs” (Acts 21:20, 21).
The profound loyalty of the leadership of the Jerusalem Church to
Jewish religious traditions is self-evident. Not only James and the elders
informed Paul that the many thousands of Jewish members of their Church
were “all zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20), but they even confronted the
Apostle with the rumor that he dissuaded Jewish believers from practicing
ancestral customs such as the circumcision handed down by Moses. Wish-
ing to believe that their misgivings were unfounded (and indeed there is no
evidence for their truth), James and the elders proposed that Paul discredit
the malicious accusation and prove that he himself “lived in observance of
the law” (Acts 21:24) by undergoing a purificatory rite at the temple to-
gether with four Church members who apparently had contracted ceremo-
nial defilement. By this, it was felt, the multitude of Jerusalem believers as
well as the rest of the population in the city could see for themselves that the
Apostle still conformed to the law of Moses.
This concern of the leadership of the Church to reassure the Jewish
believers in Palestine of Paul’s respect for ancestral customs suggests, as
noted by R. C. H. Lenski, on the one hand, that members had suffered possi-
bly because of false rumors regarding Paul, and on the other hand that “they
still retained their Jewish way of living, circumcised their children, ate ko-
sher, kept the Sabbath, etc.”51 This undoubtedly facilitated the conversion
of “many thousands” (Acts 21:20) of Jews, inasmuch as the acceptance of
the Gospel did not require significant changes in their life style.
This excessive attachment of the Jerusalem Church to Jewish reli-
gious customs may perhaps perplex the Christian who regards the Mother
Church of Christendom as the ideal model of his religious life. One must not
forget, however, that Christianity sprang up out of the roots and trunk of
Judaism. The early Jewish converts viewed the acceptance of Christ not as
the destruction of their religious framework, but as the fulfillment of their
Messianic expectations which enhanced their religious life with a new di-
mension. The process of separating the shadow from the reality, the transi-
tory from the permanent, was gradual and not without difficulty.
Paul’s conduct also deserves consideration. Did he violate his con-
viction by accepting the proposal to purify himself at the temple? It hardly
seems so since, for instance, he was not ashamed to mention the incident
when defending himself before Felix (Acts 24:17, 18). Some suggest in fact
that since the Apostle had earlier assumed a Nazirite vow on his own initia-
tive (Acts 18 :18) at Cenchreae, he was already planning to offer sacrifice at
the temple to complete his vow. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that
there is no reference to Paul’s taking a vow in Jerusalem. 52 Furthermore, as
F. J. A. Hort remarks, “the time spoken of appears too short for him to begin
and complete a vow. 53
It seems plausible to assume therefore that Paul had purposely planned

to bring to his “nation alms and offerings” (Acts 24:17) to draw the Jewish
and Gentile wings of the Church closer together. 54 To accomplish this objec-
tive, he evidently felt that he needed to provide also a tangible demonstra-
tion of his personal loyalty to law and customs. This concern of the Apostle
to reassure the Jewish believers of his respect for the law reveals not only
the loyalty of the latter to Jewish religious customs, but also Paul’s unwil-
lingness to offend his Jewish brethren on such matters (if a question of prin-
ciple was not involved). This attitude of the Apostle suffices to discredit any
attempt to attribute to him the responsibility for the abrogation of the Sab-
bath and introduction of Sunday observance.
Christ’s pericope regarding the flight from Jerusalem is also signifi-
cant in this regard. In Matthew, a Gospel addressed to Jewish—Christians,
Christ’s admonition is reported thus: “Pray that your flight may not be in
winter or on the Sabbath” (24:20). In our earlier analysis of this text we
concluded that the passage, as stated by E. Lohse, “offers an example of the
keeping of the Sabbath by Jewish Christians.” 55 This saying may well re-
flect the concern of the Jerusalem Church for the observance of the Sabbath
not simply on account of its actual reference to the city, but especially be-
cause according to the tradition of the early Church the Gospel of Matthew
was composed in Aramaic for the Jewish Christians of Palestine.
The foregoing analysis of the New Testament sources regarding the
Jerusalem Church has firmly established that the primitive Christian com-
munity there was composed primarily of and administered by converted Jews
who retained a deep attachment to Jewish religious customs such as Sab-
bath-keeping. It is therefore impossible to assume that a new day of worship
was introduced by the Jerusalem Church prior to the destruction of the city
in A.D. 70. We might add that in view of the enormous influence exerted on
the Church at large by the Jewish Christian leadership and membership, it
would have been practically impossible for any Church anywhere to intro-
duce Sunday observance prior to A.D. 70.
W. D. Davies, a well-recognized specialist on early Christianity, con-
cisely and sagaciously summarizes the religious situation of the time: “Ev-
erywhere, especially in the East of the Roman Empire, there would be Jew-
ish Christians whose outward way of life would not be markedly different
from that of the Jews. They took for granted that the gospel was continuous
with Judaism; for them the new covenant, which Jesus had set up at the Last
Supper with his disciples and sealed by his death, did not mean that the
covenant made between God and Israel was no longer in force. They still
observed the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles; they also con-
tinued to be circumcised, to keep the weekly Sabbath and the Mosaic regula-
tions concerning food. According to some scholars, they must have been so
strong that right up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 they were the domi-
nant element in the Christian movement.”56
The Jerusalem Church After A.D. 70
The question may be raised at this point, is it possible that the Chris-
tian community of Jerusalem introduced Sunday worship in the place of
Sabbath-keeping after the exodus from the city which occurred prior to its
destruction in A.D. 70? The historical significance of the Jewish-Christian
abandonment of the city and migration to Pella (a Transjordan city in the
northern region of Perea) must not be underestimated. J. Lebreton conve-
niently summarizes the importance of the event: “The exodus had decisive
consequences for the Church of Jerusalem: the last link was broken which
bound the faithful to Judaism and to the Temple; down to the end they had
loved its magnificent construction, its ceremonies and its memories; now
there remained of it not a stone upon stone; God had weaned them from it.
And this exodus finally alienated Jewish opinion from them; they had aban-
doned Jerusalem at the hour of its greatest tribulation; their faith was, then,
not that of their nation, and they were seeking salvation elsewhere.”57
Did the abandoning of the city by the Judaeo-Christian community
result in their alienation also from Jewish institutions such as the Sabbath?
F. A. Regan assumes this very position in his dissertation and suggests that
the year A.D. 70 marks the decisive break between Sabbath and Sunday. He
writes: “Can one point to any one event in particular, in which the decisive
break occurred between the Sabbath and the day we call Sunday? A most
likely date would probably be the year A.D. 70 with the destruction of the
Temple of Jerusalem.”58
Undoubtedly the exodus and the destruction of Jerusalem had deci-
sive effects on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. There are
however significant historical indications which exclude the possibility
that already bac.k in the year A.D. 70 or soon afterwards the Judaeo-
Christians of Palestine broke away from Sabbath-keeping and introduced
Sunday observance. We shall briefly consider some of the more pertinent
historical data.
The historians, Eusebius (ca. A.D. 260-340) and Epiphanius (ca. A.D.
315-403), both inform us that the Church of Jerusalem up to the seige of
Hadrian (A.D. 135) consisted of converted Hebrews and was administered
by 15 bishops from the “circumcision,” that is, of Jewish extraction.59 Their

basic attitude seems to have been one of deep loyalty to Jewish religious
customs. Eusebius, for instance, reports that both the conservative and the
liberal wings of the Ebionites (a Judaeo-Christian group) were “zealous to
insist on the literal observance of the Law.”60
The Ebionites. Some argue that Eusebius’ statement that the liberal
group of the Ebionites observed not only “the Sabbath and the rest of the
discipline of the Jews” but also “the Lord’s day as a memorial of the resur-
rection of the Saviour,” means that some Jewish Christians must have ob-
served Sunday from the earliest times. The assumption is that these Jewish
Christians would not have appropriated the worship day of the Gentile Church
after they had broken away from it.61 The weakness of this thesis is that it
rests on several gratuitous suppositions. It is assumed, for instance, that the
liberal group of the Ebionites who observed Sunday represent the followers
of the “original Sunday practice of Jewish Christianity” while the conserva-
tive group who kept the Sabbath represent some backsliders who “for some
reason or other may have later given it [i.e. Sunday] up.”62
In the light of the profound respect for the law which, as we noticed
above, characterized the primitive Jewish Christians, it is indeed hard to
believe that these who began as liberals turned into conservatives later and
not vice versa. It should be noted that Eusebius wrote his account of the
Ebionites almost two and a half centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem,
without specifying the time of their adoption of Sunday observance. Note
that though Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 130-200), a much earlier source, provides a
report almost identical to that of Eusebius, he makes no mention of any
Sunday observance.63 It is possible therefore that a group of Jewish—Chris-
tians, desiring to join the main body of the Church, adopted Sunday obser-
vance at a later date while still retaining their Sabbath-keeping.
Another false supposition is that the Ebionites represent or at least
can be related to the primitive Jewish—Christians. It is true that both stressed
the importance of the observance of the law, but they differed radically from
each other on their view of the nature of Christ. The Ebionites’ Christology
was in fact like that of the Gnostics, regarding Christ as a plain and common
man “who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary.” 64 Such a
Christological error can hardly be attributed to the primitive Jewish—Chris-
tians. Therefore, on account of such a fundamental doctrinal difference the
Ebionites, as well noted by J. Daniélou, “should not be confused purely and
simply with the heirs of the first, Aramaic-speaking, Christians who fled to
Tranjordan after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”65 Marcel Simon, in fact,
argues on the basis of information provided by Epiphanius that “the sect of

the Ebionites appears to be the result of a confluence between original Jew-
ish Christian and a pre-Christian Jewish sect.”66
The origin of this heterodox Jewish-Christian sect can hardly be placed
in New Testament times. We know for instance that at the time of Justin,
Jewish-Christians were characterized not by Christological heresy but by
two opposite tendencies toward the law: some who did not demand Gentile
Christians “to be circumcised, or to keep the Sabbath or to observe any other
such ceremonies ;“ others who wanted “to compel Gentiles . . . to live in all
respects according to the law given by Moses.”67
Note should be taken of the fact that according to Justin’s account,
both the milder and the stricter class of Jewish—Christians stressed the ob-
servance of the Sabbath. No mention is made of their keeping Sunday. If the
Jewish Christians already had adopted Sunday in addition to their
Sabbath~keeping, Justin almost certainly would have alluded to it sometime
in his repeated debates on the Sabbath issue reported in his Dialogue with
Trypho. What better way to encourage his Jewish friend Trypho and his people
to observe Sunday than by pointing to their kinsmen, the Jewish Christians,
who were already doing so! But the absence of any reference to Sunday
observance by Jewish Christians, coupled with the very efforts Justin makes
to show from the Old Testament the superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath,
presupposes that in his time Sunday observance was alien to both Jews and
Jewish-Christians.
The Nazarenes. That primitive Jewish Christians did not observe Sun-
day is supported also by the testimony of Epiphanius regarding the “ortho-
dox” Jewish Christian sect of the Nazarenes. The Bishop reports that “the
sect originated after the flight from Jerusalem, when the disciples were liv-
ing in Pella, having left the city according to Christ’s word and migrated to
the mountains because of its imminent siege. Therefore in this manner it
arose when those of whom we spoke were living in Perea. From there the
heresy of the Nazarenes first began.”68
These Nazarenes, whose existence in the fourth century is attested
even by Jerome,69 appear to be the direct descendants of the Christian com-
munity of Jerusalem which migrated to Pella. M. Simon well assesses their
identity when he writes that “they are characterized essentially by their tena-
cious attachment to Jewish observances. If they became heretics in the eyes
of the Mother Church, it is simply because they remained fixed on outmoded
positions. They well represent, though Epiphanius is energetically refusing
to admit it, the very direct descendants of the primitive community, of which
our author knows that it was designated by the Jews by the same name of
Nazarenes.”70
If the Nazarenes, as most scholars maintain, are indeed the “direct
descendants of the primitive community of Jerusalem,” we would expect
these (and not the Ebionites) to have retained the original practice of Jewish
Christianity. One should read what Epiphanius has to say about them, par-
ticularly with regard to their day of worship. In spite of the Bishop’s attempt
to denigrate them as “heretics” in the rather extensive account that he gives
of their beliefs, there is nothing heterodoxical about them. After identifying
them with the Jews for using the same Old Testament books (hardly a her-
esy!), he continues: “The Nazarenes do not differ in any essential thing from
them [i.e. Jews], since they practice the custom and doctrines prescribed by
the Jewish law, except that they believe in Christ. They believe in the resur-
rection of the dead and that the universe was created by God. They preach
that God is one and that Jesus Christ is his Son. They are very learned in the
Hebrew language. They read the law .. Therefore they differ both from the
Jews and from the Christians; from the former, because they believe in Christ;
from the true Christians because they fulfill till now Jewish rites as the cir-
cumcision, the Sabbath and others.”71
This picture of the Nazarenes matches very well that of the Jerusa-
lem Church we have reconstructed earlier. The possibility exists therefore
that the Nazarenes represent the survival of both the ethnic and theological
legacy of primitive Jewish Christianity. 72 The fact that they retained Sab-
bath-keeping as one of their distinguishing marks shows persuasively that
this was the original day of worship of the Jerusalem Church and that no
change from Sabbath to Sunday occurred among Palestinian Jewish Chris-
tians after the destruction of the city.
The Malediction of the Christians. Another indication of the sur-
vival of Sabbath observance among Jewish—Christians in Palestine is pro-
vided, though indirectly, by the test introduced by the rabbinical authorities
to detect the presence of Christians in the synagogue. The test consisted in a
curse that was incorporated in the daily prayer—Shemoneh Esreh—and was
to be pronounced against the Christians by any participant in the synagogue
service. Marcel Simon reports the Palestinian text of the curse and suggests
also the date of its introduction, which most scholars accept: “It is on the
suggestion of R. Gamaliel II, a little after the fall of Jerusalem and very
likely in the neighborhood of the year A.D. 80, that was inserted in the
Schemoneh Esreh the famous formula against the Minim: ‘May the apostate
have not any hope and may the empire of pride be uprooted promptly in our
days. May the Nazarenes and the Minim perish in an instant, may they all be
erased from the book of life, that they may not be counted among the righ-
teous. Blessed be Thou, 0 God, who bringest down the proud.’”73
That this malediction was regularly pronounced in the synagogues is
confirmed by the testimonies of several Fathers. Jerome, for instance, writes
explicitly, “three times daily in all the synagogues under the name of the
Nazarenes you curse the Christians. 75 The purpose of the formula was not
simply to curse the Christians as apostate, but as Marcel Simon observes, it
constituted “a truthful test” to discover them. He explains that “since all the
members of the community could be called upon in turn, in the absence of
the official priests, to officiate in the public worship, the method was cer-
tain: the participant contaminated with heresy had necessarily to hesitate to
pronounce, with this benediction, his own condemnation. The Talmud stated
very clearly: “Whenever someone made a mistake in any benediction of the
Minim, he was to be called back to his place because supposedly he was a
Min” 76
The fact that after the destruction of Jerusalem a test was introduced
by the Palestinian rabbinical authorities to bar the Christians’ presence and/
or participation in the synagogue service, indicates that many Jewish—Chris-
tians in Palestine still considered themselves essentially as Jews. 77 Their
acceptance of Christ as the Messiah did not preclude their attending the Sab-
bath services at the synagogue. The existence of this situation discredits there-
fore any attempt to make Jewish—Christians responsible at this time for the
substitution of Sunday worship for Sabbath-keeping.
Hadrian’s Policy. Additional indirect indications of the permanence
of Sabbath observance in the Jerusalem Church after A.D. 70 are provided
by the events connected with the destruction of the city by Hadrian in A.D.
135. The Emperor, after ruthlessly crushing the Barkokeba revolt (A.D. 132-
135), rebuilt on the ruins of Jerusalem a new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina.78
At this time harsh restrictions were imposed on the Jews. They were ex-
pelled from the city, forbidden categorically to re-enter it and prohibited to
practice their religion, particularly their two characteristic customs, the Sab-
bath and circumcision.
The rabbinical sources speak abundantly of the restrictions imposed
by Hadrian, whose reign is commonly referred to as “the age of persecu-
tion—shemad” or “the age of the edict—gezarah.”79 The following quota-
tion is a sample of statements often found in the Talmud regarding Hadrian’s
antiJewish policies: “The Government of Rome had issued a decree that

they should not study the Torah and that they should not circumcise their
sons and that they should profane the Sabbath. What did Judah b. Shammu’a
and his colleagues do? They went and consulted a certain matron whom all
the Roman notables used to visit. She said to them: ‘Go and make proclama-
tion of your sorrows at night time.’ They went and proclaimed at night, cry-
ing, ‘Alas, in heaven’s name, are we not your brothers, are we not the sons of
one mother? Why are we different from every nation and tongue that you
issue such harsh decrees against us?’”80
These repressive measures taken by the Emperor against Jews af-
fected not only the general attitude of Christians at large toward the Jews,
but especially the ethnic composition and theological orientation of the Jerusa-
lem Church. On the latter Eusebius reports: “And thus, when the city had
been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of
its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman
city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aelia, in
honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian. And as the Church there was now com-
posed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the
bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.” 81
The fact that as a result of Hadrian’s edict Judaeo-Christian mem-
bers and bishops were replaced by Gentile ones, indicates that a clear dis-
tinction was made at that time between the two. We would assume that the
distinction was limited not only to the racial factor, but that it included also
a new theological orientation in particular toward characteristic Jewish fes-
tivities such as Passover and the Sabbath. This hypothesis is supported by
the testimony of Epiphanius, who in his lengthy report about the contro-
versy over date of the celebration of Passover states: “The controversy arose
[etarakthe—literally, was stirred up] after the exodus of the bishops of the
circumcision [A. D. 135] and it has continued until our time.82
The Bishop makes specific reference to the fifteen Judaeo-Christian
bishops who administered the Church of Jerusalem up to A.D. 135 and who
up to that time had practiced the Quartodeciman Passover since they based
themselves on a document known as the Apostolic Constitutions— diataseis
ton apostolon— where the following rule is given: “you shall not change the
calculation of time, but you shall celebrate it at the same time as your breth-
ren who came out from the circumcision. With them observe the Passover.”83
Though Epiphanius is not always a trustworthy source, his informa-
tion about the observance of the Quartodeciman Passover by the Jerusalem
Church up to A.D. 135, and about the controversy which arose at that time
deserves credibility for severa1 reasons. The report harmonizes well with
what we know about the theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church
from the sources we examined earlier. Moreover, in this instance the Bishop
is merely reporting what the Audians84 (a sect that refused to accept the
decree of the Council of Nicaea on the Pasehal reckoning) believed, namely,
that they were following the Apostles’ example and authority (as expressed
in the Apostolic Constitutions) by observing Passover on Nisan 14.
Epiphanius does not challenge the authenticity of this alleged Apos-
tolic decree, but argues gratuitously that the Audians had misunderstood its
meaning, since it was the intention of the Apostles that all should come to
the unity of faith by eventually adopting the Easter-Sunday date in place of
Nisan 14. The weakness of such an interpretation is shown by his very men-
tion (of what apparently was a known and accepted fact) that the contro-
versy over the date of the celebration of Passover arose after the time of the
exodus of the bishops of the circumcision,” thus clearly implying that prior
to that time the Quartodeciman reckoning was unanimously followed.85
The Passover controversy, which we shall later examine, was appar-
ently provoked by a minority group who refused to abandon the
Quartodeciman practice and to accept the Easter-Sunday innovation.86 The
fact that the controversy over the Passover date arose not prior to but at the
time when the new anti-Judaic policy of the Emperor caused a reconstitution
of the Jerusalem Church with Gentile members and leaders suggests, first,
that up to that time the Church, composed primarily of Judaeo-Christians,
had been loyal to basic Jewish religious institutions, such as Passover and
the Sabbath; and secondly that certain changes, particularly in the liturgical
calendar, were occasioned by the new repressive measures taken by the
Emperor against Jewish religious practices. This question will receive fur-
ther consideration in our study of the relationship between Easter-Sunday
and the weekly Sunday. We shall notice then that apparently both festivities,
which were and still are interrelated, originated contemporaneously in the
same place and owing to the same causes.87
These historical data which we have briefly considered discredit any
attempt to make the Jerusalem Church, prior to A.D. 135, the champion of
liturgical innovations such as Sunday worship. We have found that of all the
Christian Churches, this was seemingly both racially and theologically the
one closest and most loyal to Jewish religious traditions.88 After A.D. 135
when Jerusalem was rebuilt as a pagan Roman colony—Aelia Capitolina—
, it lost its political and religious prestige for both Jews and Christians. It
would be vain therefore after this time to probe further into the origin of
Sunday observance among the small new Gentile Church in the city, of which
nothing is known for the second century with the exception of few uncertain
names of bishops.
Our investigation into the origin of Sunday observance has so far
assumed a negative approach. It has shown how unfounded is the claim that
the primitive community of Jerusalem instituted Sunday worship to com-
memorate the Easter resurrection and/or the appearances of Christ by means
of the Lord’s Supper celebration. This effort, however, has not provided
an alternative answer to the question of the place, time and causes of the
origin of Sunday keeping. To this task therefore we shall now address
ourselves, endeavoring to reconstruct a picture which we contend is his-
torically accurate.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
1. J. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 1964, p. 342.
2. J. Danielou, The Bible and the Liturgy, 1966, p. 243.
3. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 53. The same conclusion is
reached through a different reasoning by H. Riesenfeld, “Sabbat et jour du
Seigneur,” New Testament Essays. Studies in Memory of T. M. Manson, 1958,
pp. 213f.; Y. B. Tremel, “Du Sabbat au Jour du Seigneur,” Lumiére et Vie
(1962): 44f.; Pierre Grelot, “Du Sabbat juif au dimanche chrétien,” La
Maison-Dieu 124 (1975): 28-31.W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 237. Among others
who have already advocated that Sunday observance originated within the
primitive Church of Jerusalem, see H. Dumaine, “Dimanche,” DACL IV,
col. 892f.; P. Cotton, From Sabbath to Sunday, 1931, p. 71; J. Nedbal, Sabbat
und Sonntag im Neuen Testament, dissertation 1956, pp. 170f.; C. Callewaert,
“La synaxe eucharistique h Jerusalem, berceau du dimanche,” Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses 15 (1938): 34-73.
5. P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 56. The crucial Pauline references to
the Sabbath (Col. 2:16-17; Gal. 4:10; Rom. 14:6) are examined in the appen-
dix.
7. W. Rordorf, Sunday, 218.
8. P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 57. J. A. Jungmann, The Mass of the
Roman Rite, 1950, I, pp. 20f., argues that the replacement of the Sabbath
with Sunday occurred between the martyrdom of Stephen and the persecu-
tion of the year A.D. 44 as a result of the Jewish persecution. We shall notice
that this view is discredited by the information available on the Jerusalem
Church.
9. Cf. W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 232-237.
10. Ibid., p. 218.
11. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, 53.
13. Eusebius, HE 3, 25, 5, NPNF I, 159; the same account is given
by Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium, 2, 1, PG 83, 389.
14. H. Dumaine, “Le dimanche,” DACL IV, col. 893, is of the opin-
ion that the observance of Sunday among the Ebionites “has all the chances
of being the survival of the custom of the primitive Church of Jerusalem.
This institution, therefore, has really nothing of Hellenistic Christianity”; cf.
C. Callewaert (see fn. 4), p. 51; C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, pp. 54-
55; W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 216-218; P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 57.
16. Temple: Acts 2:46; 3:4; 5:12, 20, 25, 42; Synagogue: Acts 9:20;
13:5, 14, 42; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 19, 26; 19:8; Houses: Acts 1:13; 2:46;
5:42; 12:12; 20:7; by the riverside: Acts 16:16.
17. O. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 1966, p. 10, reasons that
since even private houses were regarded as “churcc—ecclesia,” the ex-
pression “in the temple” could signify “in the house.” It is difficult to accept
this explanation since two very distinct terms existed and were used to des-
ignate respectively “the temple—hieron” and “the church— ecclesia.”
18. Cf. Acts 3:11; 5:12; John 10:23.
19. H. Riesenfeld (fn. 3), p. 212, suggests that “obviously Christians
assisted in the Jewish capital at the worship of the temple and of the syna-
gogue, because of the reading of the Scriptures and prayers. Through the
sacrifices they understood ever better that these had been replaced by the
death of Christ. After participating in the worship at the temple, they gath-
ered among themselves (Acts 2:46; 5:42), that is to say in a private house,
such as the upper room (Acts 1:13), and there the Christians listen as-
siduously to the teaching of the Apostles, participating loyally in the broth-
erly communion, in the breaking of bread and in the prayers (Acts 2:42;
cf. 6:1-2).”
20. Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church, 1974, p. 18; cf. T.
W. Manson, “The Jewish Background,” Christian Worship: Studies in its
History and Meaning, ed. N. Micklem, 1936, p. 35
21. Ralph P. Martin (fn. 20), p. 19.
22. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Chris-
tianity, 1933, I, p. 304; Karl L. Schmid, “Ecclesia,” TDNT III, pp. 501-536.
Ferdinand Hahn, The Worship of the Early Church, 1973, p. 41, rejects the
theory that the “church” developed out of the model of the synagogue, be-
cause he says, “the Christians took great liberties with the whole tradition of
Old Testament Judaism.” Hahn argues that initially primitive Christians de-
tached themselves from the Jewish worship, but that subsequently, espe-
cially under James the brother of the Lord, they developed a “strict obser-
vance of the law, fidelity to the cult, and a markedly particularistic attitude”
(bc. cit.). Why would primitive Christians break away at first from Jewish
worship and then be attracted to it again later? The New Testament provides
no indications to support this theory. Hahn says, for instance, that “the ap-
pointment of a presbyterate during the forties was likewise a conscious re-
turn to Jewish practice. Similar dependence must not be presupposed for the
initial period, as though primitive Christian worship were directly related to
the synagogue worship” (ibid., pp. 51-52). Is the appointment of a presbyterate
by the Jerusalem Church really indicative of a return to Jewish practice?
Does it not suggest rather a development in the organizational structure of
the Church after the existing Jewish model? What about the election of the
Hellenists to care for the social welfare of the needy (Acts 6:1-6)? Was not
their function similar to the Jewish “collectors of alms who for their part had
no connection with the conduct of worship”? (Hermann W. Bayer,
“Diakonos,” TDNT II, p. 91). The election of new officers must be seen in
the context of the development of the local structure of the Church deter-
mined by the growth of the community. Existing Jewish organizational and
liturgical structures provided a valid model which Christians adapted to their
exigencies. Mario Fois, Collegialità, Primato e Laicato nella Chiesa
Prirnitiva, Gregorian University, 1973, pp. 52-75, shows cogently how the
development of the ecclesiastical structures in the primitive Palestinian
Church were patterned after existing Jewish models.
23. C. W. Dugmore, “Lord’s Day and Easter,” Neotestamentica et
Patristica in honorem sexagenarii 0. Cullmann, 1962, p. 272; also The In-
fluence of the Synagogue upon Divine Office, 1944, pp. 7f.; W. 0. E.
Qesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy, 1925; P. P.
Levertoff, “Synagogue Worship in the First Century,” Liturgy and Wor-
ship, ed. W. K. L. Clarke, 1932.
24. 0. Cullmann (fn. 17), pp. 10-11.

25. H. Riesenfeld (fn. 3), p. 213.
26. O. Cullmann (fn. 17), p. 9.
27. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, pp. 179-180. He sees indi-
cations of this detachment from the synagogue already in the Gospel of Mat-
thew (4:23); 10:17; 12:9) where the expression “in their synagogues” oc-
curs.
28. Cf. 0. Cuilmann, “Dissensions Within the Early Church,” Union
Seminary Quarterly Review (1967): 83; M. Simon, St. Stephen and the Hel-
lenists in the Primitive Church, 1958, p. 113, is of the opinion that these
Hellenists influenced the Ebionites. This seems hardly possible, since we
shall later show (see below pp. 153-6) that the Ebionites possibly represent a
later development of Jewish Christianity. E. Lohmeyer, Galilda und Jerusa-
lem, 1936, distinguishes between the Jewish and Galilean theology of the
early Christians; cf. H. R. Baltz, Methodische Problem der neutestamentlichen
Christologie, 1967, pp. 171f.
29. 0. Cullmann, “Courants multiples dans Ia communauté primi-
tive,” Judéo-christianisme, ed. Joseph Moingt, 1972, p. 58.
30. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 127; cf. p. 217. Rordorf’s assumption
rests primarily on Acts 6:14, where false witnesses accuse Stephen of hav-
ing said: “This Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the
customs which Moses delivered to us.” He conjectures gratuitously that the
“customs” could include also the Sabbath; cf. also M. H. Shepherd, The
Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse, 1960, p. 17. Note however that these
are not the words of Stephen but of false accusers. A similar charge was
made against Paul: “You teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to
forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the
customs” (Acts 28 :21). Paul, however, denied such an accusation: “I have
done nothing against the people or the customs of our fathers” (Acts 21:17).
Apparently Paul could say this in good conscience because he had never
urged Jews, for instance, to abandon the circumcision. The exemption was
extended only to the Gentiles (Acts 15 :23). It is a significant datum that
while Paul was accused by the Jews with regard to the circumcision, no
charge is ever made against Paul of Sabbath-breaking. Similarly in the charge
made against Stephen, there is a generic reference to the temple, law and
customs but no specific allusion to the Sabbath.
31. The expression is found in E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte,

1959, p. 226.
32. T. W. Manson (fn. 20), p. 35.
33. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 4.
34. B. Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, 1971, p. 67.
35. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, 1954, p. 429;
Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles, 1905, p. 322,
support the same view: “It appears likely that the Jerusalem church was
organizationally patterned after the Jewish temple. James may have had a
body of seventy elders, corresponding to the Sanhedrin, to assist him in the
administration of the Judean Church.”
36. Lino Randellini, La Chiesa dei Giudeo-cristiani, 1967, p. 27,
holds that the Jerusalem Church was composed for an indeterminate time
period of circumcised Hebrews who appeared as “a sect within Judaism.
They frequented the temple, celebrated the feasts, observed the Sabbath and
fastings, submitted themselves to legal prescription and had their children
circumcised”; Cabrol and Leclerq, Monumenta ecclesiae liturgica, 1902, I,
p. XVI, similarly point out that in the first expansion of the Church which
occurred after the death of Stephen, “almost the whole administration origi-
nated from the Jerusalem Church, in which the authority and domination of
the Judaizers, as they are called, far exceeded the influence of the Helle-
nists”; C. W. Dugmore, The Influence (fn. 23), p. 44, emphasizes that Gen-
tile-Christians, though in time they influenced the customs of the Church,
“joined a Church which was essentially Jewish in origin and nucleus”; Mario
Fois (fn. 22), p. II, acutely remarks that Christians, in establishing their struc-
tures, could not avoid “to look at the existing Jewish and Hellenistic-Roman
models”; cf. D. Judant, Judaisme et Christianisme, Dossier patristique, 1968,
p. 15.
37. Cf. Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; I Cor. 15:7; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18.
38. For a concise survey of the exaltation of James in these works,
see B. Bagatti (fn. 34), pp. 70-78.
39.The Protoevangelium of James, 18.
40. The Gospel to the Hebrews, “And when the Lord had given the
linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him.
For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he
had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among
them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread!
And immediately it is added: he took bread, blessed it and brake it and gave
it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of
man is risen from among them that sleep” (E. Hennecke, New Testament
Apocrypha, 1963, I, p. 165; cf. The Protoevangelium of James 18; The
Kerygmata Petrou 1:1 “Peter to James, the lord and bishop of the holy church
. . .” (E. Hennecke, op.cit., II, p. III).
41. Cf. II Apocalypse of James III-IV (found at Nag Hammadi). In
the Recognitions of Clement 1, 68, James is designated as “the chief of the
bishops” (ANE VIII, p. 94). In the same document the following instruction
is given: “Observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless
he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of
whomsoever may come after him” (4,35 ANF VIII, 142). The same attribu-
tion of primacy to James is found in the introduction of the Epistle of Clem-
ent to James: “Clement to James, the Lord, and the bishop of bishops, who
rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches every-
where” (ANF VIII, p. 218).
42. Gospel of Thomas, Logion 12: “The disciples said to Jesus: ‘We
know that thou will go away from us. Who is it who shall be great over us?’
Jesus said to them: ‘Wherever you have come, you will go to James the
righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being’” (E. Hennecke
(fn. 40) I, p. 290).
43. Hegesippus cited by Eusebius, HE 2, 23, 5-6; cf. Josephus, Antiqui-
ties 20,9, 1, who reports that equitable Jewish citizens denounced the High
Priest Ananus to the procurator Albinus for his arbitrary execution of James.
Apparently James enjoyed great favor with the Jewish people in the city.
In a passage attributed to Josephus, the AD. 70 destruction of Jerusalem
is seen as the right chastisement for the unjust death of James (see
Eusebius, HE 2, 23, 20).
44. B. Bagatti (fn. 34), p. 70. The tradition that James transmitted to
the Church both royal and sacerdotal power is found, for example, in The
History of Joseph the Carpenter which makes Joseph a priest; Epiphanius,
Adversus haereses, PG 41, 393-4; Apocalypse of James VII, 2, places on the
mouth of the dying James these words: “The light proceeding from the light
shall crown me” (cited by Bagatti (fn. 34), p. 74).
45. The concern of the circumcision party, apparently supported by
James (Gal. 2:12), even after the Jerusalem Council, to urge circumcision
upon Gentile converts, is indicative of little change in the attitude of Jewish

Christians toward Mosaic regulations (cf. Gal. 5:12; 6:12; Phil. 3:2; Acts
15:1-2, 5).
46. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 219; P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, pp. 56-57,
similarly argues that “the fact that we find no hint of such [i.e., controversy
over the Sabbath], especially at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), indicates
that in this matter the entire apostolic church, including the Jewish party,
was in agreement. First-day worship, then, was not a Pauline invention.”
47. Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the Acts of the
Aposties, 1956, p. 548. The author provides a concise synthesis of the
various views.
48. Cf. F. F. Bruce (fn. 35), p. 312, fn. 41: “A variant interpretation of
v. 21 makes James mean that, since Jewish communities are to be found in
every city, their scruples are to be respected.”
49. Everett F. Harrison, Acts: The Expanding Church, 1975, pp. 236-
237: “Perhaps all that James wanted to do was to underscore the fact that
Gentiles who had been in the habit of attending the synagogue (available
almost everywhere) were well acquainted with the Levitical regulations ap-
plicable to Gentiles, so the request of the Council should not be regarded as
arbitrary or harsh.”
50. F. F. Bruce (fn. 35), p. 312.
51. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles,
1944, p. 878. The author suggests that “these Jewish believers in Palestine
suffered because of false rumors regarding Paul” (bc. cit.).
52. Richard B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, 1964, p. 414,
remarks: “Indeed the proposal itself was probably suggested by his [i.e.,
Paul’s] own conduct. For on his last visit to Jerusalem he had fulfilled the
vow of a Nazirite (Acts 18:18): and as he speaks of himself (in Acts 24:17)
as having come ‘to make offerings,’ it is not unlikely that he was bound on
this occasion also under some vow of thanksgiving.”
53. F. J. A. Hort, Judais tic Christianity, 1890, pp. 109-110. His conclu-
sion is that “though not mentioned in Acts, he [Paul] was already proposing
to offer sacrifice in the Temple on his own account, possibly in connection
with a previous vow, possibly also, I cannot but suspect, in connection with
the Gentile contribution to the Jewish Christians, not mentioned in chapter
21 but clearly mentioned in 24:17.”
54. Everet F. Harrison (fn. 49), p. 328, points out that Paul “could not
have rested content with handing over the fund that his churches had raised
if the real objective of the trip—a unifying of the Jewish and Gentile wings
of the church—was not achieved.”
55. E. Lohse, “Sabbaton” TDNT VIII, p. 29. The passage is dis-
cussed above, pp. 69-71.
56. W. D. Davies, “Paul and Jewish Christianity,” Judéo-
christianisme, 1972, p. 72.
57. J. Lebreton and J. Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church,
1949, I, p. 306. Three scholars especially have in recent times challenged the
historicity of the account of the flight to Pella given by Eusebius (HE 3, 5, 2-
3): J. Munck, “Jewish Christianity in Post-Apostolic Times,” New Testa-
ment Studies 6 (1959-60): 103-104; G. Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in
den Pseudoklementinen, 1958, pp. 229-231; 5. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of
Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 1951, p. 169. The objections to the
migration to Pella are based on an analysis of the references found in the
Clem-en tine Recognitions, Josephus, Epiphanius and Eusebius. M. Simon,
“La migration à Pella. Légende ou réalité,” Judéo-christianisme, pp. 37-54,
shows how objections cannot stand if one takes into account the contamina-
tion of the community by heterodox sects which settled around Pella and the
nexus of the flight with the martyrdom of James.
59. Eusebius, HE 4,5,2-11; Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 70, 10,
PG 42, 355-356.
60. Eusebius, HE 3, 27, 3, trans. by Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius, The
Ecclesiastical History, 1949, I, p. 263. (Hereafter cited as Lake, Eusebius
History.)
61. Advocators of this view are listed above, see fn. 14.
62. W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 217-218; cf. P. K. Jewett, Lord’s Day, p. 57.
63. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 7, 26, 2, ANF I, p. 352, writes: “Those
who are called Ebionites ... practice circumcision and persevere in those
customs according to the law and Jewish way of life and pray toward Jerusa-
lem, as if it were the house of God.”
64. Eusebius, HE 3, 27, 2, NPNF I, 159; Irenaeus, Adversus haereses
1, 26, 2, ANF I, p. 352, explicitly associates the Ebionites’ view of Christ
with that of Gnostics such as Cerinthus and Carpocrates. Both “represented

Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and
Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation.”
65. J. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 1964, p. 56.
This distinction is made also by H. J. Schoeps, Aus Frühchristlicher Zeit,
1950, p. 282.
66. M. Simon (fn. 57), p. 48. Simon bases his conclusion on the
striking similarity between the beliefs of the Ebionites and those of a pre-
Christian Jewish sect called “N~acpc~toL—Nasarenes” (to be distinguished
from the Christian Nazarenes) reported by Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 1,
18. He rightly affirms that “it is impossible to attribute ... to the communityof
Jerusalem the very same particular doctrines professed by the Ebionites of
the Pseudo-Clementine” (ibid., p. 48, fn. 27).
67. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 47, ANF I, 218. Philip Schaff
and Henry Wace recognize this fact and emphasize that while at the time of
Justin, Jewish-Christians were distinguished not by “doctrinal heresy” but
by “two opposite tendencies” toward the Jewish law, a few decades later, at
the time of Irenaeus, “the distinction which Justin draws between the milder
and stricter class is no longer drawn: all are classed together in the ranks of
heretics” (NPNF I, p. 158, fn. 7). The two writers also note that “it has been
the custom of historians to carry this distinction [i.e., between Ebionites and
Nazarenes] back into apostolic times, and to trace down to the time of
Epiphanius the continuous existence of a milder party—the Nazarenes—
and of a stricter party—the Ebionites; but this distinction Nitzsch
(Dogmengesch, p. 37f.) has shown to be entirely groundless. The division
which Epiphanius makes is different from that of Justin, as well as from that
of Origen and Eusebius” (bc. cit.). It is possible that the Ebionites developed
into a heterodox sect adopting Gnostic views of Christ, as a result of their
being rejected by Gentile Christians. The separation was apparently encour-
aged by the existing repressive measures of Rome against the Jews which
we shall discuss below, pp. 171-184. Justin mentions in fact that in his time
there were many Gentile Christians who did not “venture to have any inter-
course with or extend hospitality” to those Jewish-Christians who “believed
in and obeyed” Christ but who also observed Jewish institutions. He hastens
to add, however: “I do not agree with them” (Dialogue 47, ANF I, 218). It is
possible, therefore, that some Jewish-Christians, rejected by the main stream
of Christendom, drew closer at this time to Jewish Gnostic sects, adopting
their heretical Christology and Sunday observance (some at least). By the
time of Irenaeus they had come to be kiiown as “Ebionites,” since the Bishop
identifies them explicitly by that name (Adversus haereses 1, 26, 2).
68. Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 29, 7, PG 42, 402.

69. Jerome reports to have come across the Nazarenes in “Beroes, a
city of Syria” (De Viris ill. 3, NPNF 2nd, III, p. 362).
70. M. Simon (fn. 57), pp. 47-48; cf. B. Bagatti (fn. 34), pp. 31-35;
J. Danidou (fn. 65), p. 56, also views the Nazarenes as the descendants of the
Aramaic-speaking Christians who fled to Transjordan and who “separated
from the rest of the Church because they regarded the Jewish observances of
Sabbath and circumcision as still of obligation.”
71. Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 29, 7, PG 41, 402.
72. B. Bagatti (fn. 34), pp. 30-31, remarks: “The Nazarenes always
considered themselves the equal of the other Christians of Gentile stock, and
they wished, as one of their exponents, the writer Hegesippus, says, to ap-
pear as true Christians distinct from the heretics, even those of their own
stock.”
73. M. Simon, Verus Israel: etudes sur les relations entre chrétiens
et juif s dans l’empire romain, 1964, p. 235. The date A.D. 80-90 for the
introduction of the malediction is accepted by practically all scholars. For an
extensive bibliography see W. Schrage, “aposunagogos” TDNT VII, p. 848;
James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue, 1934, pp. 77-78
corroborates the date of the curse by the following argumentation: “This
declaration, the Birkath-ha-minim, was composed by Samuel the Small, who
lived in the second half of the first century. His exact date we do not know,
but he was a contemporary of Gamaliel II, who presided at Jabne from 80 to
110, and was also acquainted with two rabbis who were killed in the capture
of Jerusalem in 70. We may therefore conclude that he was older than
Gamaliel, and date the malediction which he composed to between 80 and
90”; cf. also C. W. Dugmore, The Influence (fn. 23), p. 4.
74. Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 16; Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses
29, 9, PG 41, 404-405; Jerome, In Isaianr, PL 24, 87 and 484.
75. Jerome, In Isaiam 5, 18, PL 24, 87.
76. M. Simon (fn. 73), p. 236.

77. James Parkes (fn. 73), p. 78, notes that “the fact that the test was
a statement made in the synagogue service shows that at the time of making
it the Judaeo-Christians still frequented the synagogue.” This conclusion is
shared also by Ernest L. Abel, The Roots of Anti-Semitism, 1943, p. 131:

“The Jewish Christians ... felt that their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah
did not preclude their following the precepts of Judaism and they continued
to attend the synagogue. Since they were Jews themselves, there was no way
in which they could be identified unless they personally indicated their be-
liefs. As a result, the Jewish leaders adopted special methods for the detec-
tion of heretics. Foremost among these was the Birkath-ha-Minim, which
was written by Shemuel ha-Qaton around A.D. 80.”
78. Dio Cassius, Historia 59, 12, 1, LCL VIII, p. 447, writes: “At
Jerusalem he founded a city in the place of the one which had been razed to
the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the
god he raised a new temple to Jupiter.”
79. S. Krauss, “Barkokba,” Jewish Encyclopedia, 1907, II, p. 509,
synthesizes the dramatic situation, saying, “The Jews now passed through a
time of bitter persecution; Sabbaths, festivals, the study of the Torah and
circumcision were interdicted and it seemed as if Hadrian desired to annihi-
late the Jewish people .... The subsequent era was one of danger ( sha’at
hasekanah’) for the Jews of Palestine, during which the most important ritu-
alistic observances were forbidden; for which reason the Talmud states
(Geiger’s ‘Jud. Zeit.’ i. 199, ii, 126; Weis, ‘Dor,’ ii, 131; Rev. Et. Juives,’
xxxii. 41) that certain regulations were passed to meet the emergency. It was
called the age of the edict (‘gezarah’) or of persecution (‘shemad,’ Shab.
60a; Caut. R. ii, 5)”; see also H. Graetz, History of the Jews, 1940, II, p. 425;
5. Grayzel, A History of the Jews, 1947, p. 187; 5. W. Baron, A Social and
Religious History of the Jews, 1952, II, pp. 40-41, 107.
80. Rosh Hashanah 19a in The Babylonian Talmud, trans. I. Epstein,
1938, XIII; p. 78; Baba Bathra 60b similarly states: “a Government has
come to power which issues cruel decrees against us and forbids to us the
observance of the Torah and the precepts ... .“ (Babylonian Talmud, XXV, p.
246); see also Sanhedrin ha, 14a; Aboda Zarah 8b; the anti-Jewish edicts of
Hadrian regarding worship, which are found in the rabbinical sources, have
been brought together by Hamburger, in Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel and
Talmud, 2 ed., s.v. “Hadrianische Verfolgungsedikte”; J. Derenbourg, who
provides a well documented treatment of Hadrian’s war and policies, writes:
“The government of Rome prohibited, under penalty of death, circumcision,
the observance of the Sabbath and the study of the law” (Essai sur l’histoire
et la géographie de la Palestine, 1867, p. 430; see fn. 79 for additional rab-
binical source references); referring to Hadrian’s anti-Jewish edicts, Jean
Juster similarly notes: “Their existence cannot be disputed since the rab-
binic sources are in agreement on the matter; the deep hatred which is shown
toward Hadrian—which is deeper even than that shown to Titus—all of this
shows that Hadrian must have done very grievous things against the Jews”
(Les Juif s dans l’empire romain 1965, p. 226, fn. 3); in the Midrash Rabbah
(eds. H. Freedman, M. Simon, 1939) also occur frequent references to
Hadrian’s decree. As a comment to Exodus 15, 7, it says for instance: “For
even if an enemy decrees that they should desecrate the Sabbath, abolish
circumcision or serve idols, they [i.e., the Jews] suffer martyrdom rather
than be assimilated” (93:170); under Ecclesiastes 2, 17, it says: “Imikanton
wrote to the emperor Hadrian, saying, ‘If it is the circumcision you hate,
there are also the Ishmaelites; if it is the Sabbathobserver, there are also the
Samaritans. Behold, you only hate this people [Israel]’” (8:66-67); cf. also
S.W. Baron (fn. 79), II, p. 107.
81. Eusebius, HE 4, 6,4, NPNF 2nd, I, pp. 177-178.
82. Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 70, 10, PG 42, 355-356.
83. Ibid., PG 42, 357-358; in the Didascalia Apostolorum a similar
statement is found: “It behooves you then, our brethren, in the days of the
Pascha to make inquiry with diligence and to keep your fast with all care.
And do you make a beginning when your brethren who are of the People
keep the Passover” (Didascalia Apostolorum, 21, 17, ed. R. H. Connolly,
1929, p. 187. Some scholars because of this similarity identify the Apostolic
Constitutions quoted by Epiphanius with the Didascalia Apostolorum. The
text quoted by Epiphanius, however, differs substantially from that of the
Syriac Version of the Didascalia which has come down to us. For a discus-
sion of the problem, see M. Richard, “La question pascale au lie si~cle,”
L’Orient Syrien 6 (1961): 185-186.
84. Concerning the Audians see Dictionnaire de théologie catholique,
1903, s.v. “Audiens” by A. Bareille; Dictionnaire d’histoire et géographie
ecclesiastique, 1931, s.v. “Audée” by A. Reignier.
85. For a more detailed discussion of Epiphanius’ testimony see my
Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday, 1975, pp. 45-52.
86. B. Bagatti (fn. 34), p. 10, is of the opinion that the Passover con-
troversy in Jerusalem was provoked by the return of Judaeo-Christians to
the city, since about sixty years later Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, facing
opposition from Quartodecimans, appealed for help to his teacher Clement
of Alexandria (PG 9, 1490). This does not exclude the possibility that even
among the new Gentile membership some refused to accept the new Easter-
Sunday date. The question is discussed further below pp. 199-203.
87. See below pp. 198f.

88. B. Bagatti (fn. 34), p. 33, provides additional indications for the
survival of the “Jewish imprint” in the Jerusalem Church even after the time
of Hadrian. He writes: “On the ‘Jewish’ character that remained in the church
at that time we have various testimonies, as that of Bardesanus (180-223)
who speaking (PS 2, 605) of his disciples, affirmed that they observe Sun-
day and not the Sabbath, and that they do not circumcise ‘as the Christians
of Judea’. A letter inserted into the pseudoClementine Books (PG 2, 31-56)
under the name of Clement, given the title: ‘To James, Lord and Bishop of
Bishops, who rules the holy Church of the Jews of Jerusalem.’” Bagatti con-
tinues submitting significant historical data indicating the presence of two
rival communities (one Jewish and the other Gentile—Christian) until well
into the 5th century (see pp. 10-14). The survival in Jerusalem of such strong
Judaeo-Christian influence for centuries after the first destruction of the city,
discredits any attempt to make A.D. 70 the historical breaking point between
Sabbath and Sunday.
Chapter 6
ROME
AND
THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY
In examining the possible origin of Sunday observance among primi-

tive Jewish-Christians, we have just concluded that it is futile to seek among
them for traces of its origin, because of their basic loyalty to Jewish reli-
gious customs such as Sabbath-keeping. We shall therefore direct our search
for the origin of Sunday to Gentile Christian circles. We would presume that
these, having no previous religious ties with Judaism and being now in con-
flict with the Jews, would more likely substitute for Jewish festivities such
as the Sabbath and Passover new dates and meaning.
The adoption of new religious feast days and their enforcement on
the rest of Christendom could presumably be accomplished in a Church where
the severance from Judaism occurred early and through an ecclesiastical
power which enjoyed wide recognition. The Church of the capital of the
empire, whose authority was already felt far and wide in the second century,
appears to be the most likely birth-place of Sunday observance.1 To test the
validity of this hypothesis, we shall now proceed briefly to survey those
significant religious, social and political conditions which prevailed both in
the city and in the Church of Rome.
Predominance of Gentile Converts
Paul’s addresses in his Epistle to the Romans, particularly the last
chapters, presuppose that the Christian community of Rome was composed
primarily of a Gentile—Christian majority (chapters 11, 13) and a Judaeo-
Christian minority (14f.). “I am speaking to you Gentiles” (11 :13), the
Apostle explicitly affirms, and in chapter 16 he greets the majority of believ-
ers who carry a Greek or Latin name.2 The predominance of Gentile mem-
bers and their conflict with the Jews, inside and outside the Church, may
have necessitated a differentiation between the two communities in Rome
earlier than in the East.
-164-
Rome and the Origin of Sunday 165
Leonard Goppelt, in his study on the origin of the Church, supports

this view when he writes: “The Epistle presupposes in Rome, as one would
expect, a Church with a Gentile.Christian majority (11, 13) and a Judaeo-
Christian minority (14f.) This co-existence of the two parties provoked some
difficulties comparable to those known at Corinth at the same time.... The
situation of the Church of Rome in relationship to Judaism, as far as the
Epistle to the Romans allows us to suspect, is similar to the one presented us
by the post-Pauline texts of Western Christianity: a chasm between the Church
and Synagogue is found everywhere, one unknown in the Eastern churches
which we have described above. Judaism does not play any other role than
the one of being the ancestor of Christianity.”3
The Jewish-Christians, though a minority in the Church of Rome,
seem to have provoked “disputes” (Rom. 14:1) over questions such as the
value of the law (2 :17), the need for circumcision (2 :25-27), salvation by
obedience to the law (chs. 3, 4, 5), the need to respect special days and to
abstain from unclean food (chs. 14-15). However, the predominance of Gen-
tile members primarily of pagan descent, and their conflict with the Judaeo-
Christians inside the Church and with Jews outside, may have indeed con-
tributed to an earlier break from Judaism in Rome than in the Orient. The
abandonment of Sabbath-keeping and the adoption of Sunday could then
represent a significant aspect of this process of differentiation.
Early Differentiation between Jews and Christians
In the year A.D. 49 the Emperor Claudius, according to the Roman
historian Suetonius (ca. A.D. 70-122), “expelled the Jews from Rome since
they rioted constantly at the instigation of Chrestus”4 (a probable erroneous
transcription of the name of Christ). 5 The fact that on this occasion con-
verted Jews like Aquila and Priscilla were expelled from the city together
with the Jews (Acts 18 :2) proves, as Pierre Batiffol observes, “that the Ro-
man police had not yet come to distinguish the Christians from the Jews.”6
Fourteen years later, however, Nero identified the Christians as being a
separate entity, well distinguished from the Jews. The Emperor, in fact, ac-
cording to Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55-120), “fastened the guilt [i.e. for arson upon
them] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abomi-
nation, called Christians by the populace.”7
This recognition on the part of the Romans of Christianity as a reli-
gious sect distinct from Judaism seems to be the natural result of attempts
made on both sides to differentiate themselves in the eyes of the Roman
authorities. If initially Christians identified themselves with Jews to benefit
from the protection which the Roman law accorded to the Jewish faith and
customs, toward the sixties, as F. F. Bruce observes, “it was no longer pos-
sible to regard Christianity (outside Palestine) as simply a variety of Juda-
ism.”8 The Jews themselves may have taken the initiative to dissociate from
the Christians, whose majority in the empire was now composed of uncir-
cumcised.
The circumstances seem to have been favorable to force such a dis-
tinction particularly in Rome. After the year 62, in fact, Jewish influence
was present in the imperial court in the person of the Empress Poppea Sabina,
a Jewish proselyte and friend of the Jews, whom Nero married that year. 9 A.
Harnack thinks in fact that Nero in order to exculpate himself from the
people’s accusation of having provoked the fire, at the instigation of the
Jews, put the blame on the Christians.10 It is a fact that though the Jewish
residential district of Trastevere was not touched by the fire, as P. Batiffol
remarks, “the Jews were not suspected for an instant of having started it; but
the accusation fell on the Christians: they were, then, notoriously and per-
sonally distinct from the Jews.” 11
The Christians did not forget the role played by the Jews in the first
imperial and bloody persecution they suffered, and the Fathers did not hesi-
tate to attribute to them the responsibility of having incited Nero to perse-
cute the Christians.12
The fact that the Christians “by 64 A.D.,” as F. F. Bruce comments
‘‘were clearly differentiated at Rome . . .‘‘ while it “took a little longer in
Palestine (where practically all Christians were of Jewish birth)”13 is a sig-
nificant datum for our research on the origin of Sunday. This suggests the
possibility that the abandonment of the Sabbath and adoption of Sunday as a
new day of worship may have occurred first in Rome as part of this process
of differentiation from Judaism. Additional significant factors present in the
Church of Rome will enable us to verify the validity of this hypothesis.
Anti-Judaic Feelings and Measures
Following the death of Nero the Jews who for a time had experi-
enced a favorable position soon afterwards became unpopular in the empire
primarily because of their resurgent nationalistic feelings which exploded in
violent uprisings almost everywhere. The period between the first (A.D. 66-
70) and second (A.D. 132-135) major Jewish wars is characterized by nu-
merous anti-Jewish riots (as in Alexandria, Caesarea and Antioch) as well as
by concerted Jewish revolts which broke out in places such as Mesopotamia,
Cyrenaica, Palestine, Egypt and Cyprus. 14 They made their last pitch to re-
gain national independence, but it resulted in the desolation of their holy

city, in the loss of their country and consequently in their being no longer
strictly a natio but simply a homeless people with a religio.
The description that the Roman historian Dio Cassius (ca. A.D’. 150-
220) provides of these uprisings reveals the resentment and odium that these
provoked in the mind of the Romans against the Jews. For example, of the
Cyrenaica revolt he writes: “Meanwhile the Jews in the region of Cyrene
had put a certain Andreas at their head, and were destroying both the Ro-
mans and the Greeks. They would eat the flesh of their victims, make belts
for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood and wear
their skins for clothing; many they sawed in two, from the head downwards;
others they gave to wild beasts, and still others they forced to fight as gladi-
ators. In all two hundred and twenty thousand persons perished. In Egypt,
too, they perpetrated many similar outrages, and in Cyprus....”15
Christians often suffered as victims of these outbursts of Jewish vio-
lence, seemingly because they were regarded as traitors of the Jewish faith
and political aspirations and because they outpaced the Jews in the conver-
sion of the pagans. Justin, for instance, reports: “In the recent Jewish war,
Barkokeba .ordered that only the Christians should be subjected to dreadful
torments, unless they renounced and blasphemed Jesus Christ.”16
Roman measures and attitudes. The Romans who had previously
not only recognized Judaism as a religio lecita but who had also to a large
extent shown respect (some even admiration) for the religious principles of
the Jews,17 at this time reacted against them militarily, fiscally and literarily.
Militarily, the statistic of bloodshed as provided by contemporary historians,
even allowing for possible exaggerations, is a most impressive evidence of
the Roman’s angry vengeance upon the Jews. Tacitus (ca. A.D. 33-120), for
instance, gives an estimate of 600,000 Jewish fatalities for the A.D. 70 war.18
In the Barkokeba war, according to Dio Cassius (ca. A.D. 150-235),
580,000 Jews were killed in action, besides the numberless who died of
hunger and disease. “All of Judea,” the same historian writes, “became al-
most a desert.”19 Besides military measures, Rome at this time adopted new
political and fiscal policies against the Jews. Under Vespasian (A.D. 69-79)
both the Sanhedrin and the office of the High Priest were abolished and
worship at the temple site was forbidden. Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), as we
noted earlier, went so far as to prohibit any Jew, under the threat of death, to
enter the area of the new city. Moreover he outlawed the practice of the
Jewish religion and particularly the observance of the Sabbath.20
Also significant was the introduction by Vespasian (A.D. 69-79) of

the fiscus judaicus, which was intensified by Domitian (A.D. 81-96) first,
and by Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) later.21 This Jewish “fiscal tax” of a half
shekel, which previously had formed part of the upkeep of the temple of
Jerusalem, was now excised for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus even from
those, according to Suetonius (ca. A.D. 70-122) “who without publicly
acknowledging that faith yet lived as Jews.”22 Christian members could eas-
ily have been included among them. E. L. Abel aptly points out that “al-
though the amount was insignificant, the principle was important since no
other religious group in the Roman society paid such a tax. It was clearly
discriminatory and marked the beginning of the social deterioration of the
Jews in society.”23
The sources do not inform us of any specific action taken by the
Christians at this time to avoid the payment of such a discriminatory tax.
However we may suspect, as S. W. Baron perspicaciously remarks, that in
connection with this redefinition of the fiscal obligations as resting only
upon professing Jews, the growing Christian community secured from Nerva
exemption from the tax and, indirectly, official recognition of the severance
of its ties with the Jews’ denomination.24
The introduction of Sunday worship in place of “Jewish”
Sabbath..keeping—the latter being particularly derided by several Roman
writers of the time—could well represent a measure taken by the leaders of
the Church of Rome to evidence their severance from Judaism and thereby
also avoid the payment of a discriminatory tax.
The Roman intelligentsia also resumed at this time their literary attaok
against the Jews. Cicero, the renowned orator, in his defense of Flaccus—a
prefect of Asia who had despoiled the Jewish’ treasure—already a century
earlier (59 B.C.) had immortalized his attack against Judaism, labeling it a
“barbaric superstition.”25 In the following years literary anti-Semitism was
kept scarcely alive by the few sneers and jibes of Horace (65-8 B.C.), Tibullus
(d. ca. 19 B.C.), Pompeius Trogus (beginning of first century A.D.) and Ovid
(43 B.C.-A.D. 65). 26 With Seneca (ca. 4 B.C.-A.D. 65) however a new wave
of literary anti-Semitism surged in the sixties, undoubtedly reflecting the
new mood of the time against the Jews. This fervent stoic railed against the
customs of this “accursed race—sceleratissime gentis,” and especially their
Sabbath-keeping: “By introducing one day of rest in every seven, they lose
in idleness almost a seventh of their life, and by failing to act in times of
urgency they often suffer loss.”27
Persius (A.D. 34-62) in his fifth satire presents the Jewish customs
as the first example of superstitious beliefs. The Jewish Sabbath, particu-
larly, is adduced as his first proof that superstition enslaves man.28 In a frag-
ment attributed to Petronius (ca. A.D. 66), the Jew is characterized as wor-
shiping “his Pig-god” and as cutting “his foreskin with a knife” to avoid
“expulsion by his people—exemptus populo” and to be able to observe the
Sabbath.29 The anonymous historians who wrote about the history of the
Great War (A.D. 66-70) of the Jews with the Romans,. according to Josephus
“misrepresented the facts, either from flattery of the Romans or from hatred
of the Jews.”30
Quintilian (ca. A.D. 35-100) alludes to Moses as the founder “of the
Jewish superstition” which is pernicious to other people.31 Similarily for
Martial (ca. A.D. 40-104) the circumcised Jews and their Sabbath are a syn-
onym of degradation.32 Plutarch (ca. A.D. 46-1 19) labeled the Jews as a
superstitious nation and singled out their Sabbath-keeping (which he regarded
as a time of drunkenness) as one of the many barbarian customs adopted by
the Greeks.33 Juvenal, in a satire written about A.D. 125, pitied the corrupt-
ing influence of a Judaizing father who taught his son to eschew the uncir-
cumcised and to spend “each seventh day in idleness, taking no part in the
duties of life.”34
Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55-120), whom Jules Isaac labels as “the most beau-
tiful jewel in the crown of anti-Semitism,”35 surpassed all his predecessors
in bitterness. The Jews, according to this historian, descend from lepers ex-
pelled from Egypt and abstain from pork in remembrance of their leprosy (a
disease which, according to prevailing beliefs, was common among pigs).
Their indolence on the Sabbath commemorates the day they left Egypt. “All
their customs,” Tacitus writes, “are perverse and disgusting” and as a people
they are “singularly prone to lust.”36
After Tacitus, as F. L. Abel points out, “anti-Jewish literaturc de-
clined.” The historian Dio Cassius (ca. A.D. 130-220) is perhaps an excep-
37
tion. In describing the Cyrenaican Jewish uprising (ca. A.D. 115), Dio ex-
presses, as we read earlier, his resentment and hatred against the Jews, pre-
senting them as savages who ate their victims’ flesh and smeared their blood
on themselves.38 The fact that practically all the above mentioned writers
lived in the capital city most of their professional lives and wrote from there,
suggests that their contemptuous remarks about the Jews—particularly against
their Sabbath-keeping—reflect the general Roman attitude prevailing toward
them, especially in the city. (We should not forget that the Jews were a siz-
able community estimated by most scholars at about 50,000 already at the
time of Augustus.)39
“The feeling against the Jews was strong enough” for instance, as F.
F. Bruce writes, “to make Titus, when crown prince, give up his plan to
marry Berenice sister of Herod Agrippa the Younger.” 40 The Prince, in fact,
because of the mounting hostility of the populace toward the Jews, was forced,
though “unwillingly—invitus,” to ask her to leave Rome. 41
That hostility toward Jews was particularly felt at that time in Rome,
is indicated also by the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. He was in
the city from ca. A.D. 70 to his death (ca. 93) as a pensioner of the imperial
family, and he felt the compulsion to take up his pen to defend his race from
popular calumnies. In his two works, Against Apion and Jewish Antiquities,
he shows how the Jews could be favorably compared to any nation in regard
to antiquity, culture and prowess.
Christian Measures and Attitudes. In the light of these repressive
policies and hostile attitudes prevailing toward the Jews (particularly felt in
the capital city), what measures did the Church of Rome take at this time to
clarify to the Roman authorities her severance with Judaism? Any change in
the Christians’ attitude, policies or customs needs to be explained not solely
on the basis of the Roman-Jewish conflict, but also in the light of the rela-
tionship which Christians had both with Rome and with the Jews. To this we
shall briefly address our attention before considering specific changes in
religious observances which occurred in the Church of Rome.
A survey of the Christian literature of the second century bears out
that by the time of Hadrian most Christians assumed an attitude of reconcili-
ation toward the empire, but toward the Jews they adopted a policy of radi-
cal differentiation. Quadratus and Aristides, for instance, for the first time
addressed treatises (generally called “apologies”) to Hadrian (A.D. 117-138)
to explain and defend the Christian faith. The early apologists, as J. Lebreton
notes, “believed in and worked for the reconciliation of the Church to the
Empire.”42
Though they were unable to provide a definite formula of recon-
ciliation with the Empire, as A. Puech brings out, they were confident that
the conflict was not incurable.43 Undoubtedly their positive attitude must
have been encouraged by the Roman policy toward Christianity, which par-
ticularly under Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) and Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161)
may be defined as one of “relative imperial protection.”44 Hadrian, in fact, as
Marcel Simon observes, while “he reserved his severity for the Jews, ... he
felt himself attracted with sympathy for Christianity.” In his Rescriptus the
Emperor provided that no Christian was to be accused on the basis of public
calumnies.
On the other hand, how different at that time was the attitude of
many Christian writers toward the Jews! A whole body of anti-Judaic litera-
ture was produced in the second century condemning the Jews socially and
theologically. It is beyond the scope of the present study to examine this
literature. The following list of significant authors and/or writings which
defamed the Jews to a lesser or greater degree may serve to make the reader
aware of the existence and intensity of the problem: The Preaching of Peter,
The Epistle of Barnabas, Quadratus’ lost Apology, Aristides’ Apology, The
Disputation between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ, Justin’s Dia-
logue with Trypho, Miltiades’ Against the Jews ‘(unfortunately lost),
Apollinarius’ Against the Jews (also perished), Melito’s On the Passover,
The Epistle to Diognetus, The Gospel of Peter, Tertullian’s Against the Jews,
Origen’s Against Celsus 45
F. Blanchetiere, in his scholarly survey of the problem of anti-Juda-
ism in the Christian literature of the second century, persuasively concludes:
“From this survey, it results that “the Jewish problem” regained interest by
the thirties of the second century, that is, Hadrian’s time. In fact, the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers give the impression of almost a total lack of interest
of their authors for such a question. Meanwhile at that time the Kerugma
Petrou felt the necessity to clarify the relationship between Jews and Chris-
tians. With the Epistle of Barnabas [which he dates ca. A.D. 135] appeared a
whole group of writings, treatises and dialogues, a whole literature “Against
the Jews—Adversos Judaeos” attacking this or that Jewish observance, when
it is not a question of the foundation of Judaism itself. Moreover we must
notice that the Eastern Roman areas have not been equally involved.”46
While disparaging remarks about the Jews and Judaism are already
present in earlier documents, 47 it is not until the time of Hadrian that there
began with the Epistle of Barnabas the development of a “Christian” theol-
ogy of separation from and contempt for the Jews. The Fathers at this time,
as F. Blanchetière aptly states, “did not feel any longer like Paul ‘a great
sorrow and constant pain’ in their hearts, nor did they wish any longer to be
‘anathemas’ for their brethren... Without going to the extreme example of
abusive language as used by the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin, in
the same manner as Barnabas, only knew that Israel throughout its history
had been hard-hearted, stiff-necked and idolatrous ... Israel, murderer of the
prophets, is guilty of not having recognized the Son of God ... It is only
justice, therefore, that Israel be collectively and indistinctly struck, condemned
and cursed.”48
The adoption of this negative attitude toward the Jews can be ex-
plained (but not necessarily justified!) by several circumstances existing
particularly at the time of Hadrian. First, the relationship between Rome and
the Jews was extremely tense. The latter, as we noted earlier, were subjected
to repressive and punitive measures.49 Secondly, a conflict existed between
the Church and the Synagogue. Christians were not only barred from the
synagogues, but often denounced to the authorities and, whenever possible,
directly persecuted by the Jews 50 Thirdly, a certain degree of imperial pro-
tection was granted to the Christians. Possibly Rome recognized that Chris-
tians had no nationalistic aspirations and consequently posed no political
threat.51 Fourthly, the influence of Judeo-Christians was felt within the Church.
By insisting on the literal observance of certain Mosaic regulations, these
encouraged dissociation and resentment.52
Such circumstances invited Christians to develop a new identity, not
only characterized by a negative attitude toward Jews, but also by the substi-
tution of characteristic Jewish religious customs for new ones. These would
serve to make the Roman authorities aware that the Christians, as Marcel
Simon emphasizes, “liberated from any tie with the religion of Israel and the
land of Palestine, represented for the empire irreproachable subjects.”53 This
internal need of the Christian community to develop what may be called an
“anti-Judaism of differentiation” found expression particularly in the devel-
opment of unwarranted criteria of Scriptural hermeneutic through which
Jewish history and observances could be made void of meaning and func-
tion.
Regarding Jewish history, it is noteworthy that while the Apostolic
Fathers do not make explicit or implied references to it, the Apologists rein-
terpret and interrelate past and present Jewish history (often by using an a
posteriori scriptural justification) to prove the historic unfaithfulness of the
Jews and consequently the justice of their divine rejection. 54 Barnabas, for
instance, attempts to demolish the historical validity of Judaism by voiding
its historical events and institutions of their literal meaning and reality. Though
the covenant, for example, was given by God to the Jews, “they lost it com-
pletely just after Moses received it” (4 :7) because of their idolatry and it
was never reoffered to them.
For Barnabas the ancient Jewish economy has lost its sense or rather
makes no sense. Justin similarly by a tour de force establishes a causal con-
nection between the “murdering of Christ and of His prophets” by the Jews,
and the two Jewish revolts of A.D. 70 and 135, concluding that the two
fundamental institutions of Judaism, namely circumcision and the Sabbath,
were a brand of infamy imposed by God on the Jews to single them out for
punishment they so well deserved for their wickedness.55 Melito, whom E.
Werner calls “the first poet of deicide,”56 in his PaschalHomily, in highly
rhetorical fashion reinterprets the historical Exodus Passover to commemo-
rate the “extraordinary murder” of Christ by the Jews:
“You killed this one at the time of the great feast. (v. 92)
God has been murdered,
the King of Israel has been destroyed
by the right hand of Israel.
O frightful murder!
O unheard of injustice! (vv. 96-97) 57
The history of Israel is viewed therefore as a sequel of infidelities,
of idolatries (particularly emphasized are Baal Peor and the golden calf) and
of murders (of the righteous, of the prophets and finally of Christ). Conse-
quently the misfortunes of the Jews, especially the destruction of the city,
their expulsion and dispersion and their punishment by Rome, represent a
just and divine chastisement.
This negative reinterpretation of Judaism, motivated, as we have
succinctly described above, by factors present inside and outside the Church,
particularly affected the attitude of many Christians toward Jewish religious
observances. In view of the fact that Judaism has rightly been defined as an
“orthopraxis” (deed rather than creed) and that religious observances such
as the circumcision and the Sabbath were not only outlawed by Hadrian’s
edict but also consistently attacked and ridiculed by Greek and Latin au-
thors, it should not surprise one that many Christians severed their ties with
Judaism by substituting for distinctive Jewish religious observances such as
the Sabbath and the Passover, new ones. In this process, as we shall now see,
the Church of Rome, where, as we noted above, the break with Judaism
occurred earlier and where anti-Judaic hostilities and measures were par-
ticularly felt, played a leadership role. This can be best exemplified by a
study of her stand on the Sabbath and Passover questions.
The Church of Rome and the Sabbath
The adoption and enhancement of Sunday as the exclusive new day
of worship presupposes the abandonment and belittling of the Sabbath. We
would presume therefore that the Church where Sunday worship was first
introduced and enforced adopted some measures to discourage Sabbath ob-
servance. While it must be admitted that we have evidence for the observance
of both days, particularly in the East, 58 this must be viewed as a compromise

solution on the part of those who wished to retain the old Sabbath while at
the same time accepting the new Sunday worship. Their very concern to
preserve some type of Sabbath observance disqualifies them as pioneers of
Sunday-keeping, since they could hardly have championed the new day while
trying to retain the old.
In the Church of Rome the situation was substantially different. Not
only was Sunday worship urged there, but concrete measures were also taken
to wean Christians away from any veneration of the Sabbath. These we shall
now consider, endeavoring to identify those motives which may have caused
such a course of action.
We shall start our investigation with Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100- ca.
165), who taught and wrote in Rome by the middle of the second century.
While prior to him Ignatius in Asia Minor (ca. A.D. 110) and Barnabas at
Alexandria (ca. A.D. 135) explicitly upbraided Sabbath-keeping, it is Justin
who provides the most devastating and systematic condemnation of the Sab-
bath and the first explicit account of Christian Sunday worship. Since in the
subsequent chapter we shall closely examine Justin’s views on the Sabbath
and Sunday, here we need only to state his position.59
The Sabbath for Justin is a temporary ordinance, derived from Moses,
which God did not intend to be kept literally, for He Himself “does not stop
controlling the movement of the universe on that day.” He imposed it solely
on the Jews as a mark to single them out for punishment they so well de-
served for their infidelities.”60 The acceptance of this thesis makes God guilty,
to say the least, of discriminatory practices, inasmuch as He would have
given ordinances for the sole negative purpose of singling out Jews for pun-
ishment.
Someone could argue that Justin’s position does not necessarily re-
flect the attitude of the whole Church of Rome toward the Sabbath, espe-
cially since Rome was the crossroads of all ideas. While this caution de-
serves attention, it is well to note that Justin does not represent a solitary
voice in Rome against the Sabbath. Similar views were expressed by the
renowned heretic, Marcion, who at that time (ca. A.D. 144) established his
headquarters in Rome. The influence of Marcion’s anti-Judaic and anti-Sab-
bath teachings was felt far and wide.61
More than half a century later, Tertullian still found it necessary to
defend the Christians in North Africa from the influence of Marcions teach-
ing by producing his longest treatise, Against Marcion, which he revised in
three successive editions.62 In Rome particularly, as Justin testifies, “many

have believed him [i.e. Marcion] as if he alone knew the truth.”63 Regarding
the Sabbath, according to Epiphanius Marcion ordered his followers “to fast
on Saturday justifying it in this way: Because it is the rest of the God of the
Jews... we fast in that day in order not to accomplish on that day what was
ordained by the God of the Jews.”64
How would fasting on the Sabbath demonstrate hatred against the
“evil” God of the Jews? The answer is to be found in the fact that for the
Jews the Sabbath was anything but a day of fast or of mourning. Even the
strictest Jewish sects objected to fasting on the Sabbath. The rabbis, though
they differed in their views regarding the time and number of the Sabbath
meals, agreed that food on the Sabbath ought to be abundant and good. The
following statement epitomizes perhaps the typical rabbinic view: “‘Do you
think that I (God) gave you the Sabbath as burden? I gave it to you for your
benefit.’ How? Explained Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, ‘Keep the Sabbath holy
with food, drink and clean garment, enjoy yourself and I shall reward you.”65
That the early Christians adopted this Jewish custom is implied, for
instance, by Augustine’s rhetorical remark, when referring to the Sabbath,
he says: “Did not the tradition of the elders prohibit fasting on the one hand,
and command rest on the other?” 66 Further support can be seen in the opposi-
tion to the Sabbath fast by Christians in the East and in some important
Western areas, such as in Milan at the time of Ambrose (d. A.D. 397), and in
certain churches and regions of North Africa.67 The transformation of the
Sabbath from a day of feasting and joy to a day of fasting and mourning, as
we shall see, represents a measure taken by the Church of Rome to degrade
the Sabbath in order to enhance Sunday worship.68
It should be noted that Justin and Marcion, though they differ in
their theological interpretation of the Sabbath, both share the same anti-Sab-
bath attituae: the former devaluates the theological meaning of the day, making
it the trademark of Jewish wickedness; the latter deprives the day of its physi-
cal and psychological pleasures to show contempt to the God of the Jews.
Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome because of his du-
alistic-Gnostic views, but the custom of fasting on the Sabbath was retained.
In fact, the historical references from Pope Callistus (A.D. 217-222),
Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 170-236), Pope Sylvester (A.D. 402-417), Pope Inno-
cent 1 (A.D. 401-417), Augustine (A.D. 354-430) and John Cassian (ca. A.
D. 360-435) all present the Church of Rome as the champion of the Sabbath
fast, anxious to impose it on other Christian communities as well.69
Did the Church of Rome borrow the custom directly from Marcion?
It would seem strange that the Church would have adopted a custom advo-
cated solely by a heretic whom she disfellowshiped, and whose motivations
for the Sabbath fast were mostly unacceptable. It seems more likely that
some, at least, already practiced Sabbath fasting in Rome prior to Marcion’s
arrival. It has been suggested in fact that the weekly Sabbath fast originated
as an extension of the annual Holy Saturday of Easter season when all Chris-
tians fasted. Tertullian and Augustine, for instance, associated the two, but
while they approved of the annual paschal Sabbath fast, they condemned the
fasting of the weekly Sabbath which Rome and a few Western Churches
practiced. “You sometimes,” Tertullian writes, “continue your station [i.e.
fast] even over the Sabbath, a day never to be kept as a fast except at the
Passover season.”70
Since Easter-Sunday, as we shall soon show, was apparently intro-
duced first in Rome in the early part of the second century to differentiate
the Christian Passover from that of the Jews, it is possible that the weekly
Sabbath fast arose contemporaneously as an extension of the annual paschal
Sabbath fast. If this was the case, Sabbath fasting was introduced prior to
Marcion’s arrival in Rome, and he exploited the new custom to propagate
his contemptuous views of the God of the Jews. That the weekly Sabbath
fast was introduced early in Rome is clearly implied by a statement of
Hippolytus (written in Rome between A.D. 202-234) which says: “Even to-
day (kai gar nun) some... order fasting on the Sabbath of which Christ has
not spoken, dishonoring even the Gospel of Christ.” 71 While it is difficult to
establish whether Hippolytus was referring to Bishop Callistus’ decretal con-
cerning the Sabbath fast or to some Marcionites against whom he wrote a
treatise (possibly to both?), the expression even today” clearly presupposes
that the custom had been known for some time, presumably since the in-
troduction of Easter-Sunday. 72
Hippolytus does not explain who are those who “order fasting on
the Sabbath.” However, since a liturgical custom such as Sabbath fasting
could be rightfully enjoined only by official ecclesiastical authority, and since
Bishop Callistus, according to the Liber Pontificales, did intensify at that
time a seasonal Sabbath fast, it would seem reasonable to assume that the
writer was indirectly referring to the very hierarchy of the Roman Church as
responsible for the ordinance. It might be objected that Hippolytus, by dis-
approving the custom, weakens the argument of a widespread Sabbath fast
in Rome.
The objection loses force, however, when we consider the writer’s

cultural background and position in Rome. In fact, even though he lived in
Rome under the pontificate of Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217), Callistus (A.D.
217-222), Urban (A.D. 222-230) and Pontianus (A.D. 230-235), he was nei-
ther a Roman nor a Latin. His language, philosophy and theology were
Greek.73 Furthermore, after he lost the election to the Papal See (Callistus
was elected instead in A.D. 217), he headed a dissident group and was con-
secrated antipope. His condemnation of those who ordered the Sabbath fast
could then be explained in the light of his Eastern origin and orientation
(Sabbath fast was generally condemned in the East because of the existing
veneration for the day) 74 and of his conflicts with the hierarchy of the Church
of Rome. In other words, both personal and theological reasons could have
motivated Hippolytus to oppose the Sabbath fast which by the decretal of
Callistus at that time was enjoined particularly as a seasonal fast.
The Roman custom of fasting on the Sabbath was not however unani-
mously accepted by Christians everywhere. Opposition to it, in fact, seems
to have been known even in Rome, as indicated by Pope Siricius’ condem-
nation (A.D. 384-398) of a certain priest, Jovinianus, who according to the
Pope, “hates the fastings ... saying they are superfluous; he has no hope in
the future.”75 Augustine, who wrote at length and repeatedly on the subject,
limits the practice of Sabbath fasting prevailing in his day to “the Roman
Christians and hitherto a few of the Western communities.76 John Cassian
(d. ca. A.D. 440) similarly confines the Sabbath fasting custom to “some
people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city [i.e., Rome].”77
Most scholars agree that the custom originated in Rome and that
from there it spread to certain Western communities. It should be added that
Rome maintained such a custom until the eleventh century, in spite of re-
peated protests by the Eastern Church. Mario Righetti in his scholarly His-
tory of Liturgy notes for instance that “Rome and not a few Gallican churches,
in spite of the lively remonstrances of the Greeks, which were refuted by the
polemic works of Eneas of Paris (d. 870 A.D.) and Retrannus of Corby (d.
A.D. 868), preserved the traditional Sabbath fast until beyond the year A.D.
1000.”78
R. L. Odom has persuasively brought out that the Roman insistence
on making the Sabbath a day of fast contributed significantly to the historic
break between the Eastern and Western Christian Church which occurred in
A.D. 1054.79 The fact that the Sabbath fast seemingly originated in Rome is
however of relatively little value to our present research, unless we under-
stand why such a practice arose in the first place and what causal relation-
ship exists between it and the origin of Sunday.
The sources usually present the Sabbath fast as the “prolongation—

superpositio” of that of Friday, making both fasting days commemorative of
the time, when to use Tertullian’s phrase, “the Bridegroom was taken away,”
that is, when Christ was under the power of death.80 The Easter-Friday and
Sabbath fasts were however designed to express not only sorrow for Christ’s
death, but also contempt for its perpetrators, namely the Jews. In two related
documents, the Didascalia Apostolorum (dated in the earlier half of the third
century) and the Apostolic Constitutions (ca. A.D. 375), Christians are in a
similar vein enjoined to fast on Easter-Friday and Saturday “on account of
the disobedience of our brethren [i.e., the Jews] ... because thereon the People
killed themselves in crucifying our Saviour,81 ........because in these days ...
He was taken from us by the Jews, falsely so named and fastened to the
cross.”82
In the light of the close nexus existing between the annual Paschal
Sabbath fast and the weekly one,83 it is reasonable to conclude that the latter
originated in Rome as an extension of the former, not only to express sorrow
for Christ’s death but also to show contempt for the Jewish people and par-
ticularly for their Sabbath.84 Pope Sylvester (A.D. 314-335) in a historic
statement, often quoted by his successors in defence of the Roman Sabbath
fast, clearly supports this conclusion: “If every Sunday is to be observed
joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath
on account of the burial is to be regarded in execration of the Jews
(exsecratione Judaeorum). In fact all the disciples of the Lord had a lamen-
tation on the Sabbath, bewailing the buried Lord, and gladness prevailed for
the exulting Jews. But sadness reigned for the fasting apostles. In like man-
ner we are sad with the saddened by the burial of the Lord, if we want to
rejoice with them in the day of the Lord’s resurrection. In fact, it is not proper
to observe, because of Jewish customs, the consumption of food (destructiones
ciborum) and the ceremonies of the Jews”85
In this statement Pope Sylvester places in clear contrast the differ-
ence in theological meaning and manner of observance between Sabbath
and Sunday. Christians are enjoined to mourn and abstain from food on the
Sabbath, not only on account of the burial” of Christ, but also to show con-
tempt for the Jews (exsecratione Judaeorum), and for their Sabbath feasting
(destructiones ciborum).86 Apparently the Sabbath fast was intended also to
provide greater honor and recognition to Sunday: “We are sad [on the Sab-
bath]”... Pope Sylvester wrote, “to rejoice... in the day of the Lord’s resur-
rection.”
Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau (ca. A.D. 304), present-day Austria,

similarly emphasizes the same function of the Sabbath fast when he writes:
“On the seventh day... we are accustomed to fast rigorously that on the Lord’s
day we may go forth to our bread with giving thanks.”87 The sadness and
hunger which Christians experienced even more severely on the Sabbath,
because their fasting had already started on Friday,88 were designed there-
fore to predispose the Christians to enter more eagerly and joyfully into the
observance of Sunday and on the other hand, as stated by Victorinus, to
avoid “appearing to observe the Sabbath with the Jews, of which the Lord of
the Sabbath Himself, the Christ, says by His prophets that His soul hateth.”89
A strict Sabbath fast would naturally preclude also the celebration of
the Eucharist, since the partaking of its elements could be regarded as break-
ing the fast. While some Christians opposed such a view, believing rather
that the reception of the Lord’s Supper made their fast more solemn,90 in
Rome we know for certain that Saturday was made not only a day of fasting,
but also a day in which no eucharistic celebration and no religious assem-
blies were allowed. Pope Innocent I (A.D. 402417) in his famous letter to
Decentius which was later incorporated into the Canon Law, establishes that
“as the tradition of the Church maintains, in these two days [Friday and
Saturday] one should not absolutely (penitus) celebrate the sacraments.”91
Two contemporary historians, namely Sozomen (ca. A.D. 440) and Socrates
(ca. A.D. 439) confirm Innocent I’s decretal. The latter writes, for instance,
that “although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred
mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria
and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”92
Socrates does not explain why in Rome and Alexandria there were
no eucharistic celebrations on the Sabbath; he states however that the cus-
tom went back to “an ancient tradition.” This would allow us to suppose that
the proscription of the celebration of the Mass and the injunction of fasting,
because of their close nexus, may well have originated contemporaneously,
possibly early in the second century as part of the effort to break away from
Jewish rites.93 Sozomen’s description of the customs prevailing in his day is
strikingly similar to the one of Socrates, though he speaks only of religious
assemblies, without reference to any eucharistic celebration. He confirms
however that while “the people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere,
assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week,”
such a “custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.”94
In the light of this cumulative evidence, it appears that the Church of
Rome played a key role in early Christianity in emptying the Sabbath of its
theological-liturgical significance and in urging the abandonment of its ob-

servance.95 The injunction to fast on the Sabbath, accompanied by the prohibi-
tion to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and to hold religious meetings on this
day, represent definite measures taken by the Church of Rome, on the one
hand, to wean Christians away from the veneration of the Sabbath, and, on
the other hand, to enhance Sunday worship exclusively. The reason for such
an intransigent attitude toward Jewish institutions such as Sabbath-keeping
can be found in the need for a radical differentiation from Judaism which
was particularly felt in the early part of the second century.
We noted above how the fiscal, military, political and literary attaoks
and measures of the Romans against the Jews encouraged Christians to sever
their ties with the latter. This was particularly true in Rome where most
Christian converts were of pagan extraction and experienced an earlier dif-
ferentiation from the Jews than in the East.96 The change of the date and
manner of observance of Jewish festivals such as the Sabbath and Passover
would help to clarify to the Roman authorities their distinction from Juda-
ism. The adoption of Easter-Sunday, which we shall now consider, furnishes
an additional indication to support this thesis.
Rome and the Faster-Controversy
The Origin of Easter-Sunday. The historian Eusebius (ca. A.D.
260-340) provides a valuable dossier of documents regarding the contro-
versy which flared up in the second century over the date for the celebration
of the Passover.”97 There were of course two protagonists of the controversy.
On the one side, Bishop Victor of Rome (A.D. 189-199) championed the
Easter-Sunday custom (i.e., the celebration of the feast on the Sunday usu-
ally following the date of the Jewish Passover) and threatened to excommu-
nicate the recalcitrant Christian communities of the province of Asia which
refused to follow his instruction.98
On the other side, Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus and representative
of the Asian Churches, strongly advocated the traditional Passover date of
Nisan 14, commonly called “Quartodeciman Passover.” Polycrates, claim-
ing to possess the genuine apostolic tradition transmitted to him by the
Apostles Philip and John, refused to be frightened into submission by the
threats of Victor of Rome.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (from ca. A.D. 176), according to Eusebius,
intervened as peacemaker in the controversy. In his letter to Victor, Irenaeus
not only displays a magnanimous spirit, but also endeavors to show to the
Roman Bishop that the predecessors of Soter, namely, “Anicetus, and Pius,
and Hyginus and Telesphorus and Sixtus,” even though “they did not ob-
serve it [i.e., the Quartodeciman Passover] ... were none the less at peace
with those from the dioceses in which it was observed.”99 By stating that
Soter’s predecessors did not observe the Quartodeciman Passover, Irenaeus
implies that they also, like Victor, celebrated Easter on Sunday. By tracing
the controversy back to Bishop Sixtus (ca. A.D. 116-ca. 126), mentioning
him as the first non-observant of the Quartodeciman Passover, Irenaeus sug-
gests that Passover began to be celebrated in Rome on Sunday at his time
(ca. A.D. 116-126).
To conclude this from this passing reference of Irenaeus may be
rightly deemed hazardous. There are however complementary indications
which tend to favor this possibility. Bishop Sixtus (ca. A.D. 116-ca. 126), for
instance, administered the Church of Rome right at the time of Emperor
Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) who, as we noted earlier, adopted a policy of radical
repression of Jewish rites and customs.100 These repressive measures would
encourage Christians to substitute for customs regarded as Jewish, new ones.
In Jerusalem, we noticed, the Judaeo-Christian members and leaders were at
that time expelled from the city together with the Jews, and were replaced
by a new Gentile group. It was also at that historical moment that, according
to Epiphanius, the Easter-controversy arose. The Bishop of Cyprus writes,
“the controversy arose after the time of the exodus (ca. A.D. 135) of the
bishops of the circumcision and it has continued until our time.”101
If, as Epiphanius implies, the controversy was provoked by the in-
troduction after A.D. 135 of the new Easter-Sunday celebration which a sig-
nificant number of Quartodeciman Christians rejected, then Sixtus could
very well have been the initiator of the new custom, since he was Bishop of
Rome only a few years before. Some time must be allowed before a new
custom becomes sufficiently widespread to provoke a controversy. The ref-
erences of Irenaeus and Epiphanius appear then to complement one another.
The former suggests that Easter-Sunday originated in Rome under Sixtus
and the latter that the new custom was introduced in Jerusalem by the new
Greek bishops, thus provoking a controversy. Both events occurred at ap-
proximately the same time.
Marcel Richard endeavors to show that the new day was introduced
at this time not by the Church of Rome but by the Greek bishops who settled
in Jerusalem. Owing to Hadrian’s prohibition of Jewish festivals, they would
have pioneered the new Easter-Sunday date to avoid appearing “Judaizing”
to the Roman authorities.102 While we accept Richard’s conclusion that Eas-
ter-Sunday was first introduced in Hadrian’s time, we find it hard to believe
that it was the new Gentile leadership of the Jerusalem Church that intro-
duced the new custom and to cause a large segment of ‘Christianity to
accept it especially at a time when the Church in the city had fallen into
obscurity.
There is a wide consensus of opinion among scholars that Rome is
indeed the birthplace of Easter-Sunday. Some, in fact, rightly label it as “Ro-
man-Easter.” 103 This is suggested not only by the role of the Church of
Rome in enforcing the new custom and by Irenaeus’ remarks,104 but also by
later historical sources. In two related documents, namely the conciliar let-
ter of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)105 and Constantine’s personal con-
ciliar letter addressed to all bishops, 106 the Church of Rome is presented as
the prime example to emulate on the matter of Easter-Sunday, undoubtedly
because of her historical position and role in championing its observance.
Easter-Sunday and Weekly Sunday. What is the relationship, one
may ask, between the annual Easter-Sunday and the weekly Sunday? Were
the two feasts regarded perhaps as one similar feast that celebrated at differ-
ent times the same resurrection event, or were they considered as two differ-
ent feasts which fulfilled different objectives? If the two were treated as one
similar feast, it would seem plausible to suppose that the birthplace of Eas-
ter-Sunday could well be also the place of origin of the weekly Sunday ob-
servance, since possibly the same factors acted in the same place to cause
the contemporaneous origin of both.
In numerous patristic testimonies the weekly and annual Easter-Sun-
day are treated as basically the same feast commemorating the same event
of the resurrection. In a document attributed to Irenaeus it is specifically
enjoined not to kneel down on Sunday nor on Pentecost, that is, the seven
weeks of the Easter period, “because it is of equal significance with the
Lord’s day.”107 The reason given is that both feasts are a symbol of the resur-
rection.” Tertullian confirms that custom but adds the prohibition of fasting
as well: “On Sunday it is unlawful to fast or to kneel while worshiping. We
enjoy the same liberty from Easter to Pentecost.”108 F. A. Regan comments
on the text, saying: “In the season extending from Easter to Pentecost, the
same custom was followed, thus showing the relation between the annual
and weekly feasts.” 109
Origen explicitly unites the weekly with the yearly commemoration
of the resurrection: “The resurrection of the Lord is celebrated not only
once a year but constantly every eight days.”110 Eusebius similarly states:
“While the Jews faithful to Moses, sacrificed the Passover lamb once a year
... we men of the New Covenant celebrate every Sunday our Passover.”111
Pope Innocent I, in a letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio, confirms the

unity existing between the two feasts: “We celebrate Sunday because of the
venerable resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, not only at Easter but in
actuality by the single weekly cycle [i.e. every Sunday].”112
In the light of these representative statements, it would appear that
when the weekly and yearly Easter-Sunday gained acceptance, they were
regarded by many as one feast that commemorated at different times the
same event of the resurrection. Though the resurrection is not presented in
earlier sources as the dominant motivation for Sunday observance, there
seems to be no question as to the basic unity of the two festivities.
At this point it is important to ascertain what in Rome caused the
abandonment of the Quartodeciman Passover and the introduction of Eas-
ter-Sunday. We would presume that the same causes motivated also the re-
pudiation of the Sabbath and the introduction of Sunday-keeping, since the
latter was regarded by many Christians as an extension of the annual Easter.
(Today Italians still refer to Sunday as “pasquetta”—which means little Easter.)
Scholars usually recognize in the Roman custom of celebrating Eas-
ter on Sunday instead of the 14th of Nisan, to use J. Jeremias’ words, “the
inclination to break away from Judaism.”113 J. B. Lightfoot holds, for in-
stance, that Rome and Alexandria adopted Easter-Sunday to avoid “even the
semblance of Judaism.”114 M. Righetti, a renowned liturgist, points out
also that Rome and Alexandria, after “having eliminated the Judaizing
Quartodeciman tradition, repudiated even the Jewish computations, making
their own time calculations, since such a dependence on the Jews must have
appeared humiliating.”115
The Nicene conciliar letter of Constantine explicitly reveals a marked
anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Quartodeciman Passover.
The Emperor, in fact, desiring to establish a religion completely free from
any Jewish influences, wrote: “It appeared an unworthy thing that in the
celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews,
who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, there-
fore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul Let us then have nothing in
common with the detestabte Jewish crowd: for we have received from our
Saviour a different way... Strive and pray continually that the purity of your
souls may not seem in anything to be sullied by fellowship with the customs
of these most wicked men... All should unite in desiring that which sound
reason appears to demand, and in avoiding all participation in the perjured
conduct of the Jew”116
The anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Jewish reckon-

ing of Passover could not have been expressed more explicitly and force-
fully than in the letter of Constantine. Nicaea represents the culmination of a
controversy initiated two centuries earlier and motivated by strong anti-Ju-
daic feelings and one which had Rome as its epicenter. The close nexus
existing between Easter-Sunday and weekly Sunday~ presupposes that the
same anti-Judaic motivation was also primarily responsible for the substitu-
tion of Sabbath-keeping by Sunday worship.
Several indications have already emerged in the course of our study
supporting this conclusion. We noticed, for instance, that some Fathers rein-
terpreted the Sabbath as the trademark of Jewish unfaithfulness. Specific
anti-Sabbath measures were taken particularly by the Church of Rome. The
‘Sabbath was made a day of fasting to show, among other things, contempt
for the Jews. Similarly, to avoid appearing to observe the day with the
Jews, the eucharistic celebration and religious assemblies were forbid-
den on the Sabbath. Additional evidence on the role played by anti-Juda-
ism in the abandonment of Sabbath observance will be submitted in chap-
ters seven and nine.
The Primacy of the Church of Rome
In the course of our investigation various indications have emerged which
point to the ‘Church of Rome as the one primarily responsible for liturgical
innovations such as Easter-Sunday, weekly Sunday worship and Sabbath
fasting. But the question could be raised, did the Church of Rome in the
second century already exert sufficient authority through her Bishop to influ-
ence the greater part of Christendom to accept new festivities? To answer
this question, it is necessary to verify the status she enjoyed particularly in
the second century.
The process of affirmation of the primacy of the Bishop and of the
Church of Rome in the early Church is difficult to trace, primarily because
the sources available report facts or events but do not define the jurisdic-
tional authority exerted 3t that time by the Church of Rome. However, his-
tory teaches us that the authority of Metropolitan Sees was defined not prior
to but after their actual establishment. 117 For the purpose of our study we
shall make no attempt to define the nature or extent of the jurisdictional
authority of the Roman Church, but simply to describe what appears to be
the status quo of the situation in the second century.
About the year A.D. 95, Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to
the Church of Corinth to settle a discord which had broken out within the
Church and had resulted in the deposition of the presbyters (ch. 47). The
prestige of the Roman Church in this case is implied by the resolute and in
some cases even threatening tone of the letter that expects obedience (cf.
chs. 47 :1-2; 59 :1-2).118 As J. Lebreton observes: “Rome was conscious of
its authority, and the responsibility which this involved; Corinth also recog-
nized it and bowed to it. Batiffol has described this intervention as ‘the
Epiphany of the Roman Primacy’ and he is right.” 119
The fact that the letter was highly respected and regularly read not
only in Corinth but in other churches as well, so that it came to be regarded
by some as inspired, implies, as Karl Baus notes, “the existence in the con-
sciousness of non-Roman Christians of an esteem of the Roman Church as
such which comes close to according it a precedence in rank.” 120
Ignatius, few years later (about A.D. 110-117) in his Letter to the
Romans, similarly attributes ‘unusual honorific and fulsomely respectful
epithets to the Church of Rome (c. Prologue). While in his Epistles to the
other Churches Ignatius admonishes and warns th~ members, in his Letter
to the Romans he expresses only respectful requests. The singular venera-
tion of the Bishop of Antioch for the Roman Church is evident when he
says: “You have never envied any one; you have taught others. What I desire
is that what you counsel and ordain may always be practiced” (Romans 3:1).
In his prologue Ignatius describes the Church of Rome as being “wor-
thy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy
of success, worthily pure and preeminent in love.” In his final recommenda-
tion he requests: “Remember in your prayers the church of Syria, which has
God for its pastor in my place. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, together
with your love” (Romans 9 :11). Though these statements do not define the
actual jurisdictional power exerted by the Church of Rome, nevertheless
they do indicate that Ignatius at the beginning of the second century attrib-
uted to her a precedence of prestige and honor.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (from ca. A.D. 178), whom we have al-
ready met as peacemaker in the Easter-controversy, in his book Against Her-
esies (composed under the pontificate of Pope Eleutherus—A.D. 175-189),
describes the Church of Rome as “the very great, the very ancient and uni-
versally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most
glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” 121 He then states categorically: “For it is
a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on
account of its preeminent authority (potentior principalitas) that is, the faithful
everywhere.”122
Irenaeus’ high regard for the office and authority of the Bishop of
Rome is best exemplified in his embassy to Bishop Eleutherus (A.D. 175-
189) intended to solicit his intervention in the Montanist heresy which was
disturbing the peace of the churches of Gaul, as well as in his letter to Bishop
Victor (A.D. 189-199) on the Quartodeciman problem.123 In the latter in-
stance, it is worth noting that though Irenaeus protested against Victor’s
excommunication of the Asiatics, as P. Batiffol aptly observes, “he did not
dream of questioning Victor’s power to pronounce this excommunication.”124
The Bishop of Rome demonstrated his unsurpassed authority when
enforcing the Roman-Easter. Asian Bishops such as Polycarp and Polycrates,
though they refused to accept the Roman custom, nevertheless both took
cognizance of the request of the Roman Bishops. The former felt the com-
pulsion in A.D. 154 to go personally to Anicetus of Rome to regulate the
Passover question and other matters. The latter complied with the order of
Victor to summon a council. “I could mention the bishops who are present,”
Polycrates wrote him in about A.D. 196, “whom you required me to sum-
mon and I did so.”125
When notified of the Asian bishops’ refusal to accept Easter-Sun-
day, Victor drastically “declared all the brethren there wholly excommuni-
cated.” 126 This is perhaps the most explicit evidence of the authority of the
Roman Bishop to enforce a new custom, and even to cut off from the com-
munion of the Church an entire dissident community. P. Batiffol aptly com-
ments in this matter that “It is Rome alone that Ephesus answers and resists.
We see the authority Rome exercises in this conflict. Renan has said appro-
priately in reference to this case: ‘The Papacy was born and well born.’”127
The undisputed authority exerted by the Church of Rome through
her Bishop could be further substantiated by later instances such as: Pope
Victor’s excommunication of the Monarchian Theodotus; Tertullian’s state-
ment that from the Church of Rome “come into our hands the very authority
of apostles themselves”;128 Callistus’s (A.D. 217-222) excommunication of
the heretic Sabellius; Pope Stephen’s (A.D. 245-7) rehabilitation of Basilides
of Emerita in spite of his deposition by Cyprian; Cyprian’s request to Pope
Stephen to depose Marcion of Arles, a convinced follower of Novatian. Other
indications could be added such as the designation of the Church of Rome as
the “Chair of Peter—Cathedra Petri” by the Muratorian fragment, by Cyprian
and by Firmilian of Caesarea; the role played by the Pope in the question of
the lapsed as well as of the heretical baptism; 129 the introduction and en-
forcement by the Church of Rome of the date December 25 for the celebra-
tion of Christmas.130
In the light of these indications the Church of Rome seems to have

emerged to a position of pre-eminence already in the second century. The
Roman Pontiff was in fact the only ecclesiastical authority widely recog-
nized and capable of influencing the greater part of Christendom (even though
some churches rejected his instructions) to accept new customs or obser-
vances.
Conclusion. The role that the Church of Rome played in causing the
abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday has been underes-
timated, if not totally neglected, in recent studies. If one recognizes, as ad-
mitted by 0. Cullmann, that “in deliberate distinction from Judaism, the first
Christians selected the first day of the week,”131 then Rome emerges as the
most logical place for the origin of Sunday. It is there that we found both the
circumstances and the authority necessary to accomplish such a liturgical
change.
Vincenzo Monachino in the conclusion of his dissertation on the
Pastoral Care at Milan, Carthage and Rome in the Fourth Century acknowl-
edges the role of leadership in the West by the Church of Rome. He writes,
“we do not think to err if we affirm that the place where this type of pastoral
care had been elaborated was the city of Rome, though we must recognize
for Milan some influence from the Orient.”132 C. S. Mosna specifically ad-
mits that Rome was influential in causing the disappearance of the venera-
tion of the Sabbath. He states, “perhaps in this [i.e. disappearance of Sab-
bath] the example of Rome, which never had any special cult on the Sab-
bath, must have been influential.”133 These conditions did not exist in the
East where Jewish influence survived longer, as evidenced by the survival
of a veneration for the Sabbath and of respect for the Jewish reckoning of
the Passover. 134
Our investigation so far has established that Sunday observance arose,
as W. D. Davies states, “in conscious opposition to or distinction from the
Jewish Sabbath.”135 We have found that the change in the day of worship
seems to have been encouraged, on the one hand, by the social, military,
political and literary anti-Judaic imperial policies which made it necessary
for Christians to sever their ties with the Jews, and, on the other hand, by the
very conflict existing between Jews and Christians.
The Church of Rome, whose members, mostly of pagan extraction,
experienced a break from the Jews earlier than in the East and where the
unpopularity of the Jews was particularly great, appears to have played a
leading role in inducing the adoption of Sunday observance. This we found
indicated not only by the introduction and enforcement of the new Easter-
Sunday festivity (closely related to the weekly Sunday) but also by the mea-
sures Rome took to devaluate the Sabbath theologically and practically. The
Sabbath was in fact re-interpreted to be a temporary institution given to the
Jews as a sign of their unfaithfulness. Therefore Christians were enjoined to
show their dissociation from the Jewish Sabbath by fasting on that day, by
abstaining from the Lord’s supper and by not attending religious assemblies.
In view of the fact that anti-Judaism has emerged as a primary factor
which contributed to the introduction of Sunday observance in the place of
Sabbath, it is now important to more fully verify its presence and influence
in the Christian literature of the early part of the second century.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
1. The role of leadership of the Church of Rome in the second cen-
tury is discussed below pp. 207-211.
2. This per se is not a decisive argument, since, as Harry J. Leon
demonstrates from archeological inscriptions of ancient Rome, many Jews
preferred Latin and Greek names. He submits a compilation of 254 examples
of Latin names and 175 examples of Greek names used by Jews in ancient
Rome (The Jews of Ancient Rome, 1960, pp. 93-121). That the majority of
the members in Rome were pagan converts is clearly indicated by Paul’s
statement in Romans 1:13-15, where he says: “I am eager to preach the gos-
pel to you also who are in Rome ... in order that I may reap some harvest
among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles” (emphasis supplied).
Apparently this Gentile — Christian community of Rome had limited con-
tacts with the Jews prior to Paul’s arrival. This is suggested, for instance, by
the fact that when Paul met with the Jewish leaders three days after his ar-
rival, they told him: “We have received no letters from Judea about you, and
none of the brethren coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you”
(Acts 28:21). Marta Sordi, Il Cristianesimo e Roma, 1965, pp. 65-72, argues
persuasively on the basis of several statements of Paul (Phil. 1:12-14; 4 :22;
1:17; Col. 4:10-11), of the inscription of lucundus Chrestianus (a servant of
the daughter-in-law of Tiberius) and of Tacitus’ testimony (Annales 12, 32)
regarding Pomponia Graecina (the wife of Aulus Plautius, the conqueror of
Britain, and an early convert to Christianity), that a “clear separation” ex-
isted between the Church and the synagogue in Rome. Christians apparently
gathered in the home of converted nobles “avoiding any conflict with the
local Judaism” (p. 69). Apparently Paul came in conflict with Jewish circles,
since he could name only three “men of the circumcision among his fellow
workers” (Col. 4 :10-11).
3. Leonard Goppelt, Les Origines de l’Église, 1961, pp. 202-203.
4. Suetonius, Claudius 25, 4; H. J. Leon (fn. 2), pp. 23f., advocates
an earlier date (closer to A.D. 41); some scholars however think that
“Chrestus” is simply the name of an agitator and it has therefore no relation
to the Christian propaganda; see Marta Sordi (fn. 2), pp. 64f.; see also S.
Benko, “The Edict of Claudius of A.D. 49 and the Instigator Chrestus,”
Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1969): 406-418. Dio Cassius (A.D. 150-235),
Historia 60, 6, does not mention Claudius’ expulsion, but refers to an edict
which prohibited the Jews from gathering according to their customs.
5. Tacitus, Annales 15, 44, in his report of the Neronian persecution,
spells the name in such a manner. On the evolution of the name, see A.
Labriolle, “Christianus,” Bulletin du Cange 5 (1929-1930): 69-88; A. Fer-
rua, “Christianus sum,” La Civiltà Cattolica 2 (1933): 552-556; and 3 (1933):
13-26; Tertullian in his Apology 3 chides the pagans, saying: “[The namel
Christian ... is wrongly pronounced by you ‘Chrestianus’ (for you do not
even say accurately the name you despise).”
6. Pierre Batiffol, Primitive Catholicism, 1911, p. 19. This hypoth-
esis is supported, for instance, by the attitude of the proconsul of Achaia,
Anneus Novatus Gallio, brother of Seneca, who upon hearing the ruler of
the synagogue accusing Paul of being a renegade of the law, said: “since it is
a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it
yourselves” (Acts 18:15; cf., 13:29; 24:5).
7. Tacitus, Annales 15,44.
8. F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame, 1958, p. 140; Leonard Goppelt
(fn. 3), p. 42, similarly remarks: “In the imperial city Christians are distin-
guished from Jews by A.D. 64, but not as early as A.D. 49. The State’s rec-
ognition of their separate status occurred somewhere between these two dates
according to the Roman sources.
9. Flavius Josephus, Life 3, relates that in A.D. 63 while visiting
Rome he was introduced to the Empress, who showed a liking for him. In
Antiquities 22, 8, 11, he mentions that she was a Jewish proselyte. Cf. Tacitus,
His toria 1,22.
10. A. von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in
the First Three Centuries, 1908, pp. 51, 400. J. Zeiller, The History of the
Primitive Church, 1949, I, p. 372, also entertains this possibility. He asks:
“Did the protégés of Poppea admitted into the circle immediately surround-
ing the emperor, think that they would serve Nero as well as themselves ‘by
pointing out as the authors of the crime the Christians’ who took pleasure, it
was said ... ‘in the ideas of heavenly vengeance, a universal conflagration,
and the destruction of the world”
11. P. Batiffol (fn. 6), p. 20; Ernest Renan, The Antichrist, 1892,
p.112 similarly observes: “The Roman usually confounded the Jews and the
Christians. Why was the distinction so clearly made on this occasion? Why
were the Jews, against whom the Romans had the same moral antipathy and
the same religious grievances as against the Christians, not meddled with at
this time?” He suggests that the “Jews had a secret interview with Nero and
Poppea at the moment when the Emperor conceived such a hateful thought
against the disciples of Christ” (bc. cit.).
12. Cf., Tertullian, Apology 21; Commodian, Carmen apologeticum,
PL 5, 865; Justin Martyr, Dialogue 17, 3; a text in Clement’s letter To the
Corinthians (5:2) could preserve the remembrance of the hostile Jewish In-
tervention: “Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most upright
pillars of the church [i.e., Peter and Paul] were persecuted and condemned
unto death” (trans. by K Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers, An American
Translation, 1950, p. 51). J. Zeiller (fn. 10), p. 373, pointedly observes: “In
any case, from that day the Christians began to be distinguished by the Ro-
man authorities from the Jews, who remained in possession of their privi-
leges, while Christians were arrested, judged and condemned.” Peter
Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, 1969, p. 47, underlines the fact
that while the Romans took notice of Christianity after its separation from
Judaism, it was actually the Jewish persecution, being “an intra muros con-
troversy,” which had the more creative role, obliging Christians to become a
separate entity and to cause themselves to be recognized as such by the Ro-
man authorities.
13. F.F. Bruce (fn. 8), p. 157.
14. For a concise account of the Jewish insurrections and wars, see
Giuseppe Ricciotti, The History of Israel, n. d., II, pp. 402-461; Heinrich
Graetz, History of the Jews, 1940, II, p. 393; see also the well documented
account by A. Fuks, “The Jewish Revolt of 115-117,” Journal of Roman
Studies 51 (1861):98-104.
15. Dio Cassius, Historia 69, LCL, p. 421; cf., the similar account
given by Eusebius, HE 4, 2 and Chronicon 2, 164.
16. Justin Martyr, I Apology 31, 6, trans. by Thomas B.. Falls, Writ-
ings of Saint Justin Martyr, The Fathers of the Church, 1948, p. 67 (hereafter
cited as, Falls, Justin’s Writings); cf. Dialogue 110.
17. See, above p. 101, fn. 35.
18. Tacitus, Historiae 5, 13; Josephus, Wars of the Jews 6, 9, 3 speci-
fies that 97,000 Jews were taken captive and 1,000,000 were either killed or
perished during the siege.
19. Dio Cassius, Historia 69, 13; he acknowledges, however, that
even the Roman army suffered great losses. Hadrian, in fact, in his letter to
the Senate omitted the customary opening expression, “If you and your chil-
dren are in health, it is well; I and the legions are in health” (bc. cit.).
20. See above pp. 160-1, fns. 79-80. Some scholars maintain that
sacrifices still continued at the temple after A.D. 70, though in a reduced
form; cf. K. W. Clark, “Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after A.D. 70,”
NTS 6 (1959-1960): 269-280; see also J. R. Brown, The Temple and Sacri-
fice in Rabbinic Judaism, 1963. On the pathetic attempts of the Jews to visit
their ruins, see Jerome, Commentarius in Zephanaiam 1. 15-16, PL 25, 1418f.;
other patristic sources are analyzed by R. Harris, “Hadrian’s Decree of Ex-
pulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem,” Harvard Theological Review 19 (1926):
199-206; cf. also W. D. Gray, “Founding of Aelia Capitolina,” American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 39 (1922-1923): 248-256.
21. J. Zeiller (fn. 10) pp. 384-385, remarks concerning Domitian:
“His antipathy toward the Jews was in harmony with his financial necessi-
ties, for his Tresaury was exhausted after the excessive expenses he had
incurred in the embellishment of Rome. Accordingly, he caused to be levied
with great strictness the tax of the didrachma.”
22. Suetonius, Domitianus 12, LCL, p. 365; the historian relates how
as a youth he had personally witnessed “a man ninety years old examined
before the procurator and a very crowded court, to see whether he was cir-
cumcised” (ibid., p. 366); Heinrich Graetz (fn. 13b, p. 389, points out: “Se-
vere, however, as he was toward the Jews, Domitian was doubly hard to-
ward the proselytes and suffered them to feel the full weight of his tyranni-
cal power”; cf. also E. M. Smallwood, “Domitian’s Attitude toward the Jews
and Judaism,” Classical Philology 51 (1956):1-14. Nerva (A.D. 96-98) as
one of the first acts of his administration “removed the shameful [extortion]
of the Jewish tax,” as it reads on the legend of a coin he struck to commemo-
rate the occasion; see Dio Cassius, Historia 58, 1-2. Under Hadrian (A.D.
117-138), according to Appian, a contemporary his. torian, the Jews were

subjected at that time to a “poll-tax... heavier than that imposed upon the
surrounding people” (Roman History, The Syrian Wars 50, LCL, p. 199.
23. Ernest L. Abel, The Roots of Anti-Semitism, 1943, p. 97.
24. S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 1952,
II, p. 106. Baron also notes that “unlike the later period, when capitation
taxes became universal, a head tax at that time had by itself a discriminatory
character” (ibid., p. 373, fn. 20). The author provides bibliographical refer-
ences of special studies on the Roman capitation tax (bc. cit.).
25. Cicero, Pro Flacco 28, 67. In his oration he said: “The practice
of their sacred rites was at variance with the glory of our empire, the dignity
of our name, the custom of our ancestors. But now it is even more so, when
that nation by its armed resistance has shown what it thinks of our rule; how
dear it was to the immortal gods is shown by the fact that it has been con-
quered, let out for taxes, made a slave” (ibid., 28, 69; the translation of this
and of the subsequent texts of Roman authors, is taken from the convenient
collection of Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Juda-
ism, 1974, I, p. 198).
26. Horace ridicules Jewish superstitions and in one instance he men-
tions the case of his friend Aristius Fuscus who refused to discuss some
private affairs with him, saying: “‘I’ll tell you at a better time. Today is the
thirtieth day, a Sabbath. Would you affront the circumcised Jews?’ ‘I have
no scruples,’ said I. ‘But I have. I am a somewhat weaker brother, one of
many. You will pardon me; I’ll talk another day’” (Sermones 1, 9, 65-70, M.
Stern [fn. 24], p. 325; cf. also pp. 323, 324, 326, for other examples). Tibullus
in a poem blames himself for leaving in Rome his beloved Delia. He regrets
not having sought excuses such as portents against the journey, presaging
birds or the day of Saturn: “Either birds or words of evil omen were my
pretexts, or there was the accursed day of Saturn to detain me” (Ca rmina 1,
3:16-18, Stern [fn. 24], p. 319). For the identification of Saturn with the
Jewish Sabbath, see Tacitus, Historiae 5, 4. Ovid in three references urges
not to let the Jewish Sabbath hinder activities: “Persist, and compel your
unwilling feet to run. Hope not for rain, nor let foreign sabbath stay you,
nor Allia well-known for its ill-luck” (Remedia Amoris 219-220; cf., Ars
Amatoria 1, 75.80; 413416, M. Stem [fn. 24], pp. 348-349). Pompeius
Trogus in his distorted reconstruction of Jewish history makes the well-
known statement that the ancestors of the Jews were lepers and that Moses
“from a seven days’ fast in the desert of Arabia, for all time, consecrated
the seventh day, which used to be called Sabbath by the custom of the
nation, for a fast-day, because that day had ended at once their hunger and
their wanderings” (Historiae Philippicae 36 in Justin’s Epitoma 1:9-3 :9, M.
Stern [fn. 24], pp. 337-338).
27. Seneca, De Superstitiones, cited by Augustine, The City of God
6, 11. Seneca also says: “Meanwhile the customs of this accursed race have
gained such influence that they are now received throughout all the world.
The vanquished have given laws to their victors.” He then adds what he
thought of Jewish sacred institutions: ‘The Jews, however, are aware of the
origin and meaning of their rites. The greater part of the people go through a
ritual not knowing why they do so” (loc. cit., M. Stem [fn. 24], p. 431).
28. Persius, Saturae 5, 176-184.
29. Petronius, Fragmenta 37. The passage reads: “The Jew may wor-
ship his pig-god and clamour in the ears of high heaven, but unless he also
cuts back his foreskin with the knife, he shall go forth from the people and
emigrate to Greek cities, and shall not tremble at the fasts of Sabbath im-
posed by law” (M. Stern [fn. 24], p. 444; cf. also texts on pp. 442-443). On
the misconception of the Sabbath as a fast day, see Pompeius Trogus [fn. 25]
and Suetonius, Divus Augustus 76.
30. Josephus, War of the Jews 1, 2. He further criticizes these his-
torians for representing “the Romans as a great nation, and yet they continu-
ally depreciate and disparage the actions of the Jews” (Ibid., 1, 7-8). Minucius
Felix in his Octavius 33, 2-4 mentions Antonius Julianus, possibly the procu-
rator of Judea in A.D. 70, who wrote on the Jewish war: “Consult Antonius
Julianus on the Jews, and you will see that it was their own wickedness
which brought them to misfortune, and that nothing happened to them which
was not predicted in advance, if they persisted in rebelliousness” (M. Stern
[fn. 24], p. 460).
31. Quintillian, Institutio oratoria 3, 7, 21, M. Stern (fn. 24), p. 513:
“The vices of the children bring hatred on their parents; founders of the
cities are detested for concentrating a race which is a curse to others, as for
example the founder of the Jewish superstition.”
32. Martial, Epigrammata 4, 4, mentions the odor “of the breath of
fasting Sabbatarian women” among the most offensive stenches. For other
references of Martial, see M. Stern (fn. 24), pp. 523-529. Damocritus (first
century A.D.), another military historian, according to Suda, wrote a work
On Jews, in which “he states that they used to worship an asinine golden
head and that every seventh year they caught a foreigner and sacrificed him.
They used to kill him by carding his flesh into small pieces” (Suda,
Damocritus, M. Stern [fn. 24], p. 531).
33. Plutarch, De superstitione 3, M. Stern (fn. 24)’, p. 549: “‘Greeks
from barbarians finding evil ways!’ Euripides, The Trojan Women, 764, be-
cause of superstition, such as smearing with mud, wallowing in filth, keep-
ing the Sabbath [sabbatismos —cf. Heb. 4:9].” Plutarch associates the Sab-
bath with the Dionysiac feasts: “I believe that even the feast of the Sabbath
is not completely unrelated to Dionysius. Many even now call the Bac-
chants Sabi and utter that cry when celebrating the god.... You would not
be far off the track if you attributed the use of this name Sabi to the
strange excitement that possesses the celebrants. The Jews themselves
testify to a connection with Dionysius when they keep the Sabbath by
inviting each other to drink and enjoy wine” (Questiones convivales 4,
6,2, M. Stern [fn. 24], pp. 557-558).
34. Juvenal, Satirae 14, 96-106. Juvenal not only repeats the com-
mon charges against Jewish customs (Sabbath, circumcision, horror for the
porcine flesh and worship of the sky) but also denounces the exclusive spirit
and solidarity of the Jews (cf. Tacitus, fn. 35). He rues the unfortunate off-
spring who “accidentally has had as a Father a Sabbathkeeper: he will wor-
ship only the clouds and the divinity of the sky and will make no distinction
between human flesh and that of pork, which his father does not eat. In the
same way he is circumcised. Brought up to despise the Roman laws, he only
learns, observes and respects the Jewish law and all that Moses has handed
down in a mysterious book: not to show the way to a traveller who does not
practice the same ceremonies, not point out a well to the uncircumcised. The
cause of all this is that his father spends each seventh day in idleness, taking
no part in the duties of life” (bc. cit.; cf. Theodore Reinach, Textes d’auteurs
Grecs et Romains relatif s au Judaisme, 1963, pp. 292-293; additional state-
ments of Juvenal [Satirae 3, 5, 10; 3,5,296; 6, 156; 6,542] are given on pp.
290-293).
35. Jules Isaac, Genése de l’Antisémitisme, 1956, p. 46.
36. Tacitus, Historiae 55. The passage continues attacking particu-
larly the Jewish apartheid policy: “The most degraded out of other races,
scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contribution and pre-
sents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among
themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion,
though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They
sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singu-
larly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among
themselves nothing is unlawful.” Tacitus adds: “Those who come over to
their religion adopt the practice [i. e., circumcision], and have this lesson
first instilled into them, to despise gods, to disown their country, and set at
nought parents, children and brethren. Still they provide for the increase of
their numbers” (trans. by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, The Annals and
the Histories by P. C. Tacitus, 1952, p. 295).
37. Ernest L. Abel (fn. 22), p. 79.
39. For a discussion of the Jewish population in Rome in the early
Empire see Harry J. Leon (fn. 2), p. 135, fn. 1.
40. F. F. Bruce (fn. 8), p. 267; 5. W. Baron (fn. 23), p. 203, similarly
states: “The anti-Jewish feeling in Rome and Italy also rose to a considerable
height the moment this group of foreigners [i.e., the Jews] started to prolifer-
ate rapidly. With their special way of life, they were a strange element, even
in the cosmopolitan capital. The literature of the age reflects the partly con-
temptuous and partly inimical attitude prevailing among the educated classes
in the imperial city.”
41. Suetonius’ expressive invitus invitam (Titus 7, 1, 2) indicates
that the separation was difficult for both of them. Titus’ love affair with
Berenice is also reported by Dio Cassius, Historia 66, 15, 3-4 and by Taci-
tus, Historiae 2, 2; cf. E. Mireaux, La Reine B!r~nice, 1951; J. A. Crook,
American Journal of Archaeology 72 (1951), pp. 162f.
42. J. Lebreton, La Chiesa Prim itiva, l957, p. 540.
43. A. Puech, Les Apologistes grecs du IIe siécle de notre ère,
1912, p. 5.
44. Hadrian’s attitude toward Christianity is revealed primarily by
his Rescriptus to Minucius Fundanus written probably about 125-126. The
Emperor did not prohibit the prosecution of the Christians, but he demanded
that the accusation be made before a tribunal in a regular process. Popular
protestations against the Christians were not to be accepted and false accus-
ers were to be severely punished (The Rescriptus is quoted by Justin, I Apo-
logia 68 and by Eusebius, HE 4,9). While Hadrian’s Rescriptus is somewhat
ambiguous in his formulation, perhaps intentionally, basically however the
Emperor manifested a moderate attitude toward Christianity; for some sig-
nificant studies on Hadrian’s Rescriptus, see C. Callewaert, “Le rescrit

d’Hadrien à Minucius Fundanus,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuse
8 (1903):152-189; Marta Sordi, “I rescritti di Traiano e Adriano sui cristiani,”
Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 14 (1960). 359-370; W. Schmid, “The
Christian Reinterpretation of the Rescript of Hadrian,” Maya 7 (1953): if.
According to Lampridius, an authority not too convincing, Hadrian was dis-
posed to offer Christ a place in the Pantheon (see Vita Alexandri Seven 43, 6).
45. For an excellent survey of Christian anti-Jewish literature of the
second century, see F. Blanchetiére, “Aux sources de l’anti-judaYsme chrd-
tien,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuse 53 (1973): 353-398. In
the Preaching of Peter (Kerygma Petrou), of which we possess only a few
fragments dated in the first half of the second century, the Jewish worship of
God is rejected as absurd as that of the Greeks: “Neither worship him in the
manner of the Jews; for they also, who think that they alone know God, do
not understand, worshipping angels and archangels, the months and the moon.
And when the moon does not shine, they do not celebrate the so-called first
Sabbath.... What has reference to the Greeks and Jews is old. But we are
Christians, who as a third race worship him in a new way” (E. Hennecke,
New Testament Apocrypha, 1965, II, p. 100). Regarding Quadratus, our only
information is Eusebius’ statement that he addressed to Hadrian “a discourse
con. taming an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had
attempted to trouble Christians” (HE 4, 3, 2, NPNF 2nd, I, p. 175). If the
“wicked men,” as argued by H. Graetz (Geschichte der Juden, 1911, IV, p.
169), are Jews spreading slanderous reports about the Christians, then the
apology could have been a refutation of Jewish charges. The Apology of
Aristides (dated A.D. 143; cf. J. R. Harris, The Apology of Aristides, 1891,
pp. 6-13) though it commends Jewish monotheism and philanthropy, con-
demns their worship as irrational: “In their imagination they conceive that it
is God they serve; whereas by their mode of observance it is to the angels
and not to God that their service is rendered :—as when they celebrate
sabbaths and the beginning of the months ... which things, however, they do
not observe perfectly” (ch. 14, Syriac, ANF X, p. 276). All that we know of
The Disputation between Jason and Papiscus is what Origen (ca. A.D. 248)
wrote to refute Celsus (ca. A.D. 178), a heathen philosopher of Rome, who
affirmed that the treatise “was fitted to excite not laughter, but hatred.” Origen
confutes the charge saying that “if it be impartially perused, it will be found
that there is nothing to excite even laughter in a work in which a Christian
[i.e., Jason] is described as conversing with a Jew on the subject of the Jew-
ish Scriptures, and proving that the predictions regarding Christ fitly apply
to Jesus” (Against Celsus 4, 52, ANF IV, p. 251). This work, as noted by F.
Blancheti&e (art. cit., p. 358) could be “a forerunner of or at least a parallel

attempt to the Dialogue of Justin.” Miltiades, a contemporary of Justin, ac-
cording to the account of Eusebius, “composed [treatises] against the Greeks
and against the Jews, answering each of them separately in two books” (HE
5,17, 3, NPNF 2nd, I, p. 234). Note that now Judaism and paganism are
treated in two distinct apologies, undoubtedly because of their importance.
This appears as a new development. About Apollinarius, Eusebius reports
that besides the Apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius, he wrote five books:
“Against the Greeks, On Truth, a first and second book, and Against the
Jews also in two books” (HE 4, 27, 1). It is noteworthy that Apollinarius
devotes two treatises Against the Jews and only one Against the Greeks. On
Melito see above pp. 82-84, and on Justin Martyr see below pp. 223f. The
Epistle to Diognetus (dated by H. I. Marrou ca. A.D. 200) provides us with
an exceptional and eloquent testimony of the definite break which had taken
place between the Church and the Synagogue and of the prevailing contemp-
tuous attitude of Christians against the Jews. Jewish sacrificial worship is
labelled “an act of folly” (ch. 3). “As to their scrupulosity concerning meats,
and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about cir-
cumcision and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are
utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,—I do not think that you require to
learn anything from me” (ch. 4, ANF I, p. 26; cf., H.I., Marrou, A Diognéte,
SC 33, pp. 112.114). In the fragments of the Gospel of Peter (ca. A.D. 180)
the Jews are portrayed as executing the condemnation and crucifixion of
Christ mercilessly (cf. 2 :5; 3 :6-9; 6 :21; 12 :50, E. Hennecke, op. cit., I, pp.
184-186). Tertullian’s Adversus Judaeos is the first systematic attempt to
refute Judaism which has come down to us. Less versed in Judaism than
Justin, Tertullian endeavors to demonstrate the obsoleteness of the Mosaic
dispensation. Origen (ca. A.D. 248) formulates explicitly the doctrine of the
divine punishment of the Jewish race: “We say with confidence that they
will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime
of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the Saviour of the human
race in that city where they offered up to God a worship containing the sym-
bols of mighty mysteries. It accordingly behooved the city where Jesus un-
derwent these sufferings to perish utterly, and the Jewish nation to be over-
thrown and the invitation to happiness offered them by God to pass to oth-
ers,—the Christians” (Against Celsus 4, 12, ANF IV, p. 506). For a conve-
nient survey of later anti-Jewish literature, see A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus
Judaeos, A Bird’s-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance,
1935.
46. F. Blanchetière (fn. 44), p. 361 (emphasis supplied).
47 .The Didache, for instance, warns Christians not to fast “on the
same days with the hypocrites, for they fast on Monday and Thursday, but
you must fast on Wednesday and Friday. And do not pray like the hypocrites,
but pray thus as the Lord commanded in his gospel” (8:1-2, trans. by E. J.
Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers, 1950, pp. 14, 15). The use of the New
Testament designation of the Scribes and Pharisees (“hypocrites”—Matt.
23:13-19), implies that the reference is directed against the Jewish leader-
ship. Ignatius (ca. A.D. 110) also in his letters io several Christian communi-
ties of Asia Minor, warns repeatedly against Judaizing (see below, p. 213).
48. F. Blanchetière (fn. 44), pp. 396-397. The author notes that be-
tween the patristic literature of the first and that of the second century, there
is more of a break than a continuity. He finds this break in several ways.
First in the sources of inspiration. The Apologists do not use the Gospels or
the Pauline epistles, but almost exclusively the invectives of the Old Testa-
ment prophets against the unfaithfulness of the Israelites. Secondly, there is
a break in the theme of the plan of salvation. While in the New Testament
salvation is extended to all people, for Barnabas and Justin, for instance,
after the apostasy of Israel of the golden calf, the Jewish people are purely
and simply rejected: “The law is not any longer a teacher as for Paul, but a
medicine to be used only by the Jews.” Thirdly, there is a break in attitude
and style. Though in the New Testament there are some virulent remarks
against certain factions of Judaism, in the Apologists of the second century
there is only a uniform and consistent condemnation of the Jewish peonle
and Judaism. Finally, there is a break in perspective. There is no more crying
over Jerusalem for the rejection of salvation, but condemnation (see Barnabas,
Justin, Diognetus, Melito) of Israel as murderer of the prophets and despiser
of the Son of God. A valuable discussion of the “Theology of Separation” is
provided also by Edward H. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews, 1965, pp.
35-43; cf., also Le6n Poliakov, The History of Anti-Semitism, pp. 17-25.
49. See above pp. 171f.
50. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 17, 1 laments the fact that the Jews falsely
represent the Christians, accusing them as traitors and sacrilegious: “The
other nations have not treated Christ and us, His followers, as unjustly as
have you Jews, who, indeed, are the very instigators of that evil opinion they
have of the Just One and of us, His disciples.” In chapter 96 of the same
work, Justin adds: “In your synagogues you curse all those who through
Him have become Christians, and the Gentiles put into effect your curse by
killing all those who merely admit that they are Christians” (Falls, Justin’s
Writings, pp. 173 and 299). The existence of a general climate of mistrust
and hostility is indicated by recurring expressions such as: (1) “You hate us”
(I Apology 36: Dialogue 39,1; 82,6; 133,6; 136,2; 134,5); (2) “You curse us”
(Dialogue 16,4; 93,4; 95,4; 108, 3; 123, 6; 133, 6); (3) “Jesus... whose
name you profane, and labour hard to get it profaned over all the earth”
(Dialogue 120, 4); (4) “You accuse Him of having taught those godless,
lawless, and unholy doctrines which you mention to the condemnation of
those who confess Him to be Christ” (Dialogue 108, 3; cf. 47, 5); (5) “Our
teachers [Rabbis] laid down a law that we should have no intercourse with
any of you, and that we should not have even any communication with you
on these questions” (Dialogue 38, 1; 112,4; 93, 5). The hostility in some
instances reached the point of putting the Christians to death, whether di-
rectly as during the Barkokeba revolt (Dialogue 16,4; 95,4: 133, 6; I Apol-
ogy 31) or indirectly by helping the Romans (Dialogue 96,2; 110, 5; 131, 2).
Cf. also Tertullian, Scorpiace 10: “The synagogues of the Jews— fountains
of persecution”; cf. Ad Nationes 1, 14; Origen, Contra Celsum I, reports at
length the accusations which Celsus’ Jews launched against the Christians.
51. It is noteworthy that, according to Eusebius, Domitian tried for
political plotting the relatives of Christ, but after examining them “he let
them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church” (HE
3,20,7); see above fn. 43.
52. Justin reports, for instance, that there were Jewish Christians
who “compelled those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all re-
spects according to the law given by Moses” (Dialogue 47, ANE I, p. 218).
The extreme anti-Judaic movement of Marcion also contributed to develop
an anti-Judaism of differentiation; see below pp. 189f.
53. M. Simon, Verus Israel: études sur les relations entre chrétiens
et juifs dans l’empire romain, 1964, p. 128, Robert M. Grant, Augustus to
Constantine, 1970, pp. 104-105, points out that the apologetic movement
started under Hadrian, prompted by the Hellenizing efforts of the Emperor
and by the effects of the Barkokeba revolt. Leon Poliakov (fn. 47), p. 21,
similarly remarks: “At the time of Hadrian’s prohibition of the circumcision
and of the bloody Barkokeba rebellion in 135, the first Christian apologists
were attempting to prove that the Christians, having no link with Israel and
the land of Judea, were irreproachable subjects of the empire.”
54. For a concise and cogent analysis of the apologists’ reinterpreta-
tion of Jewish history, see F. Blanchetiere (fn. 44), pp. 373-385.
55. Cf. Dialogue 16, 1 and 21, 1. These and other passages are quoted
and discussed below, pp. 226-7. F. Blanchetiere (fn. 44), p. 377, observes
that Justin is the first to establish “an explicit link between the defeat of the
rebellions of 70 and 135 and their consequences—ruin of Jerusalem, de-
portation, implantation of non-Jewish population in Palestine— on the
one hand and their direct responsibility for the death of Christ on the
other” (cf. p. 382).
56. E. Werner, Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966): 191-210.
The formulae used by Melito, according to Werner, are particularly strong,
explicit and unique.
57. Translation by Gerald F. Hawthorne, “A New English Transla-
tion of Melito’s Paschal Homily,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic
Interpretation, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, 1972, pp. 171-172. A. T. Kraabel ex-
presses a legitimate surprise when he says: “I am unable to explain how a
generation could read the Pen Pascha without calling attention to the impli-
cations of this ... prolonged, bitter, personal attack on Israel” (“Melito the
Bishop and the Synagogue at Sardis: Text and Context,” Studies Presented
to George M. A. Han fmann, 1971, p. 81). Kraabel explains that the bitter-
ness of Melito’s attack was caused “by the size and power of the [Sardis]
Jewish community” (ibid., p. 83).
58. For references on the observance of both Sabbath and Sunday in
the East, see below p. 234.
59. The view of Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin on the Sabbath-Sun-
day question is discussed in chapter VII.
60. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 23, 3; 29, 3; 16, 1; 21, 1. These texts are
quoted and discussed below, pp. 223f.
61. K. Bihlmeyer and H. Tuechle, Storia della Chiesa, 1969, I, p.
186, remark that Marcion’s Church irradiated its influence “in length and
breadth with a surprising rapidity, in a special way in the East as far as Persia
and Armenia, thus surpassing in extension and importance all other Gnostic
groups.”
62. Tertullian argues against Marcion concerning the Sabbath say-
ing: “even if as being not the Christ of the Jews, He [i.e., Christ of the N.T.]
displayed a hatred against the Jews’ most solemn day, He was only pro-
fessedly following the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very hatred of the
Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: “Your new moons and
your Sabbaths my soul hateth” (Against Marcion 1, 1, ANF III, p. 271). The
thrust of Tertullian’s lengthy and elaborate arguments, presented particu-
larly in books 1, 2, 4, 5 of Against Marcion, is to show, contrary to what
Marcion taught, that the type of Sabbath-keeping originally intended by the

God of the Old Testament is identical to Christ’s teachings regarding it. There
is therefore no contradiction but harmony between the teachings of the Old
Testament and of the New Testament regarding Sabbath-keeping, inasmuch
as they both derive from the same God who was the God of both dispensa-
tions. Note, however, that in his attempt to defend the oneness of the God of
the Old and of the New Testament, Tertullian reduces the Sabbath to an
institution which God has always despised. He does so by equating arbi-
trarily Isaiah 1:13 (a popular testimonium) with Christ’s attitude toward the
Sabbath.
63. Justin Martyr, I Apology 58, ANF I, p. 182; cf. I Apology 26,
ANF I, p. 171: “Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, ...
by the aid of devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies.”
The influence of Marcion was apparently so strongly felt in Rome even half
a century later as to call for a refutation of his teachings by Hippolytus.
Eusebius (HE 6, 22) and Jerome (De Viris illustribus 61) mention the trea-
tise Against Marcion which Hippolytus wrote, but which, unfortunately, has
not come down to us.
64. Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 42, 3, 4; cf. Tertullian, Against
Marcion 4, 12.
65. Yerushalmi, Shabbat 15, 3, quoted by Nathan A. Barack, A His-
tory of the Sabbath, 1965, p. 182, fn, 70; Barack provides additional sources
and a good treatment of the Sabbath meals (ibid., pp. 100 and 182; cf. Judith
8:6; Jubilees 50:10,12,13; CDC 11:4,5; SB 1, p. 611ff.
66. Augustine, Epistle to Casulanus 36, 6, NPNF 1st, 1, p. 267.
67. The fact that in Milan Christians did not fast on the Sabbath is
attested by the advice Ambrose gave to Monica, Augustine’s mother: “When
I am here [i.e., in Milan] I do not fast on Saturday; but when I am in Rome,
I do” (Augustine, Epistle to Casulanus 36, 32; NPNF 1st, I, p, 270; cf. also
Augustine’s Epistle to Januarius 54, 3, Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii, ch. 38; the
same difference existed in North Africa in the time of Augustine. In fact the
Bishop writes: “It happens, especially in Africa, that one church, or the
churches within the same district, have some members who fast and others
who do not fast on the seventh day” (Epistle to Casulanus 36, 32, NPNF 1st,
I, p. 270); Tertullian, referring to the Montanists, says that they did not fast
“the Sabbaths and the Lord’s days” (On Fasting 15, ANF 112); Tertullian
indicates the existence in North Africa of a similar divergence on the matter
of kneeling on the Sabbath—a practice closely allied in meaning to that of
the fast; see On Prayer 23; for an analysis of the Sabbath fast in Early Chris-
tianity, see Kenneth A. Strand, Essays on the Sabbath in Early Christianity,
1972, pp. 9-15, 25-43.
68. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 60, raises a significant question:
“Thus while protecting the practices of the Church from false and misleading
influences, nevertheless the Church of the East was very solicitous in pre-
serving the special reverence due to both Saturday (the Sabbath), and the
Lord’s Day. How is it then, one may rightly ask, that the day which the
Church of the West kept as a fast day, the Church of the East celebrated as a
festival?” Following the indications of J. Bingham, Regan explains that the
veneration of the Sabbath in the East was due to both the influence of the
new converts from the Synagogue and a reaction against the teaching of
Marcion who fasted on the Sabbath to show his contempt for the God of the
Old Testament whom he considered evil. J. Bingham, The Antiquities of the
Christian Church, 1878, 111, p. 1139, points out: “The Jews being generally
the first converts to the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence
for the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the Sabbath, as that which had
been appointed by God Himself, as the memorial of his rest from the work
of creation, settled by their great master, Moses, and celebrated by their an-
cestors for so many ages, as the solemn day of their public worship, and
were therefore very loath it should be wholly antiquated and laid aside”;
Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origin and Develop-
ment, trans. by F. A. Brunner, 1959, I, p. 246, holds that the respect for the
Sabbath in the East was a means of defence of the Christian community
against the Manichean doctrine concerning the wicked nature of created
matter; C. W. Dugmore, The Influence of the Synagogue upon the Divine
Office, 1944, p. 38, believes that veneration for the Sabbath im the East “was
reinforced continually by converts from Judaism”; P. Cotton, From Sabbath
to Sunday, 1933, p. 66, similarly writes: “The East was more conservative,
more closely in touch with Judaism and Judaistic Christianity.”
69. On Callistus, see Le Liber Pontificalis, texte, introduction et com-
mentaire, ed. L. Duchesne, 1955, I, p. 141; Hippolytus, In Danielem com-
mentarius 4, 20, 3, GCS I, p. 234; Sylvester, cited by S. R. E. Humbert,
Adversus Graecorum calunrnias 6, PL 143, 936; Augustine, Epistle to
Casulanus 36, 6, NPNF 1st, I, p. 267: “The Roman Church and some other
churches, though few, near to it or remote from it observe a fast on that day.”
Innocent I, Ad Decentium, Epist. 25, 4, 7, PL 20, 555: “We do not deny the
fast of the sixth day, but we affirm that it is to be kept even on the Sabbath.”
John Cassian, Institutes 3, 10, NPNF 2nd, XI, p. 218: “Some people in some
countries of the West, and especially in the city [i.e., Rome]... think that a
dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed on the Sabbath,

because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encoun-
ter with Simon (Magus).” Cassian’s own comment is that Peter did not in-
tend to establish a permanent canonical rule but fasted in view of the par-
ticular emergency of the time. Augustine similarly reports that though many
thought that Peter instituted the Sabbath fast, yet, he adds, “many Romans
maintain that it is false” (Epistle to Casulanus 36, 21, PL 33, 1168).
70. Tertullian, On Fasting 14, ANE IV, p. 112; Augustine similarly
associates the fasting of the weekly Sabbath fast with the annual paschal
Sabbath fast. He explains, however, that while the weekly Sabbath fast was
kept only by “the Church of Rome and some churches in the West . . . once a
year, namely at Easter, all Christians observed the seventh day of the week
by fasting” (Epistle to Casulanus 36, 31, NPNF 1st, I, p. 270). The fact that
the weekly Sabbath fast, which only Rome and a few Western Churches
kept, is related by Augustine to the annual one, strongly suggests that the
former possibly developed as an extension of the latter. As W. Rordorf well
observes, since “the whole of western Christendom by this time [i. e.,
Tertullian’s time] fasted on Holy Saturday, it would have been easy to have
hit upon the idea of fasting on every Saturday (just as every Sunday was a
little Easter)” (Sunday, p. 143). Rordorf suggests also that Tertullian’s posi-
tion against the Sabbath fast may well reflect “Montanist influence” (Sun-
day, p. l45); K. A. Strand establishes by a chronological and comparative
analysis of Tertullian’s writings that Tertullian’s attitude toward the Sabbath
evolved from negative initially, to positive in his later Montanist period (fn.
66, pp. 25-42); the same prohibition to fast on the Sabbath with the excep-
tion of the annual Paschal Sabbath fast, is found in the Apostolic Constitutions
5, 15, 20 and in the Apostolic Canons 64.
71. Hippolytus, In Danielem commentarius 4,20,3, GCS I, p. 234,
Hippolytus’ statement “Even today they are ordering (xcd y&p v~3v) the
fast on the Sabbath” can hardly be construed to allude to the seasonal fast
enjoined by Callistus, since the verb (present indicative) indicates a practice
continuing from the past to the present.
72. The date of composition of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel
is given by various scholars between A.D. 202 and 234; see Johannes Quasten,
Patrology, 1953, II, p. 171.
73. Cf. Johannes Quasten (fn. 71), II, pp. 163-165.
75. Siricius, Epistula 7, Adversus Jovinianuni, PL 13, 1168.
76. Augustine, Epistle to Casulanus 36, 27, NPNF 1st, I, p. 268;

again in par. 4 of the same letter Augustine limits the practice of the Sabbath
fast to “the Roman Christians, and hitherto a few of the Western communities.”
77. John Cassian, Institutes 3,10, NPNF 2nd, II, 218.
78. M. Righetti, L’Anno liturgico, manuale di storia liturgica, 1969,
II, p. 39.
79. R. L. Odom, “The Sabbath in A.D. 1054,” AUSS 1 (1963): 74-80.
80. Tertullian, On Fasting 13, ANF IV, p. 111; L. Duchesne, Chris-
tian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, 1927, p. 231, argues that the Roman
Saturday fast originated as a prolongation of the weekly Friday fast. He bases
his conclusion on the fact that the Sabbath fast is commonly designated as
“the prolongation—superpositio” or by similar expressions which imply that
it was regarded as the continuation of the Friday fast; cf. Victorinus of Pettau,
On the Creation of the World 5; Tertullian, On Fasting 14; Canon 26 of the
Council of Elvira (Mansi II, p. 10).
81. Didascalia Apostolorum 14, 19, trans. H. Connolly, 1929, pp.
184 and 190. W. Rordorf points out that “in the Didascalia the institution of
the Sabbath is interpreted as a ‘preventive punishment’ of the Jewish people”
(Sabbat, p. 40). The Sabbath, in fact, according to the Didascalia, was
laid upon the Jews as a perpetual “mourning for their destruction” (ibid.,
p. 190). Justin, as we shall see, regards the Sabbath in a similar fashion
(see below p. 226).
82. Apostolic Constitutions 5, 18, ANF VII, p. 447. The anti-Judaic
motivations for the paschal Sabbath fast appear again in the same document.
For instance, while fasting, Christians are “to bewail over them [i.e., the
Jews], because when the Lord came they did not believe on Him, but re-
jected His doctrine” (5, 15, p. 445). Epiphanius also affirms: “In fact the
very apostles establish: ‘when they [i.e., the Jews] feast, we should mourn
for them with fasting, because in that feast they fastened Christ on the Cross”
(Adversus haereses 70, 11, PG 42, 359-360). P. Cotton, From Sabbath to
Sunday, 1933, p. 67, remarks: “We may well assume that anti-Jewish con-
siderations, so prominent in Victorinus, were by no means absent as a factor
in hastening the observance of the Sabbath fast”; similarly Righetti com-
ments: “One notices in some churches in the East, as well as in Rome and
Spain, a strong tendency to emphasize the Sabbath with a fast, probably
because of a certain anti-Semitism, as Victorinus of Pettau in Stiria (d. ca.
A.D. 300) leaves us to suppose” (fn. 86, p. 195); see also the texts and com-
ments that follow.

84. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 204, suggests that “the
weekly Sabbath fast developed from the fast of Holy Saturday, since Sunday
was regarded as a little commemoration of the resurrection. According to
Epiphanius (Adversus haereses 42, 3, 3), this could have been influenced by
Marcion’s hate for the Jewish Sabbath as well as for the ancient law.”
85. S. R. E. Humbert. Adversus Graecorum calumnias 6, PL 143,
937 (emphasis supplied). This treatise was composed in the form o~”a de-
bate about the year 1054 by Cardinal Humbert. The Cardinal had been sent
by Pope Leo IX early in 1054 as papal nuncio to Constantinople to endeavor
to bring back the Greeks into conformity with the religious practices of the
Roman (Latin) Church. The mission however did not succeed. The treatise
was composed as a further attempt to dissuade the Greeks from holding on
to certain divergent religious practices such as the veneration of the Sab-
bath. The significance of the document for our study is twofold: (1) it sub-
stantiates the existing divergent attitude toward the Sabbath between the
East and the West; (2) it quotes the earlier testimony of Pope Sylvester (ca.
AD. 314-335) which offers additional insights into the motivations for the
Sabbath fast. The authenticity of Pope Sylvester’s statement is confirmed
(1) by the fact that Humbert quotes accurately other documents such as the
famous decretal of Innocent I (see fn. 90) and (2) by the fact that Popes like
Hadrian I (Epist. 70, ad Egilam Episcopum, PL 98, 335) and Nicolas I (Epist.
152, Ad Hincma rum, PL 119, 115f) refer to Sylvester’s statement to defend
the Roman Sabbath fast.
86. Augustine, Epistle to Casulanus 36,4, NPNF 1st, I, p. 266, re-
futes the charge of an anonymous Roman Metropolitan who claimed that
those Christians who eat their meals on the Sabbath “are sons of the bond-
woman ... and prefer Jewish rites to those of the Church.” These charges are
indicative of the unusual effort put forth by the Church of Rome to discour-
age the veneration of the Sabbath, regarded as a Jewish institution.
87. Victorinus, On the Creation of the World, 5, ANF VII, p. 342.
88. Note that Victorinus (fn. 86) admonishes also to “fast rigorously
on the parasceve [i.e., Friday].” The same injunction is found in the Didascalia
Apostolorum 21 where Christians are exhorted to fast on “Friday and the
Sabbath” for what the Jews did to Christ, but to “eat and make good cheer,
and rejoice and be glad [on Sunday], because that the earnest of our resur-
rection, Christ, is risen” (Connolly, p. 190); Canon 29 of the Council of
Laodicea (Mansi 2:570) orders “that Christians should not Judaize and should
not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, how-
ever, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it,
because they were Christians.” In these texts the order to fast or to work on
the Sabbath seems to be designed on the one hand to depreciate the Sabbath
and on the other hand to enhance the prestige and the solemnity of Sunday.
We may wonder in what way the Friday fast contributed to avoiding any
semblance of Jewish Sabbath observance. The answer seems to be found in
the fact that the extension of the Friday fast over the Sabbath made the fast
of the second day particularly severe. L. Duchesne (fn. 79), p. 233, notes
that “the Sabbath fast was most severe, since no food could have been eaten
since the Thursday night.”
89. Victorinus, see fn. 86.
90. This was the view of Tertullian, On Prayer 19, ANE III, p. 68. To
reconcile the keeping of the fast with the partaking of the Eucharist, Tertullian
suggested to those who were troubled in their conscience, to take the “Lord’s
Body” home and to eat it after the completion of the fast (bc. cit.).
91. Innocent I, Ad Decentium, Epist. 25, 4,7, PL 20, 555; the letter is
passed into the Corpus Juris, c. 13, d. 3 De Consecratione.
92. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5, 22; NPNF 2nd, II, p. 132.
93. See above pp. 177f. and below pp. 205-207.
94. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 7, 19, NPNF 2nd, II, p. 390.
95. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 330, aptly remarks: “In
the weekly liturgical celebrations, Rome differentiated herself from all the
Eastern communities as well as from many in the West, drawing nearer some-
what to the usages of Alexandria. First of all, Friday and Saturday were non-
liturgical as far as the celebration of the Eucharist is concerned. Already
concerning Alexandria, the testimony of Socrates has been reported. While
in all the Churches of the Christian World it was customary to celebrate the
Eucharist on the Sabbath, the Alexandrians and the Romans, on account of
an ancient tradition, refused to do so; this information is confirmed by
Sozomen. Further on, while in all the Churches of the Orient, at Milan and in
Africa because of the veneration for the Sabbath day one would not fast,
at Rome and in Spain on the contrary such a day was consecrated to
fasting.” He also suggests that Rome influenced the disappearance of the
veneration of the Sabbath: “Perhaps in this the example of Rome (which
never had any special cult on the Sabbath) must have acted and been
influential” (ibid., p. 354).
96. See above pp. 165-167.

97. Eusebius’ account of the Easter controversy is found in his HE
5,23-24.
98. It is difficult to accept Eusebius’ claim that with the exception of
“the dioceses of Asia, ... the churches throughout the rest of the world” cel-
ebrated Easter on Sunday (HE 5,23,1) when we consider the following facts:
(1) Pope Victor (ca. A.D. 189-199) demanded the convocation of councils in
various provinces to codify the Roman Easter (Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 8) obvi-
ously because a divergent custom existed. (2) The bishops of Palestine who
assembled together to discuss the matter, according to Eusebius, “treated at
length the tradition concerning the passover” and then they formulated a
conciliar letter which was sent “to every diocese that we [i.e., the bishops]
may not be guilty toward those who easily deceive their own souls” (HE
5,25, 1). The lengthy discussion and the formulation of a conciliar letter
aimed at persuading and preventing the resistance of the dissidents (possibly
Judaco-Christians who had not been invited to the Council) again indicates
that in Palestine by the end of the second century there were still Christians
who persisted in the observance of the Quartodeciman Passover. (3) The
following testimonies of the Fathers indicate a wider observance of the
Quartodeciman Passover than conceded by Eusebius: Epistola Apostolorunt
15; two fragments from two works of Hippolytus (one of them was on the
Holy Easter) preserved in the Chronicon Paschale 6 (PG 92, 79) where he
states: “Consider therefore in what the controversy consists ...” This would
imply that the controversy was still alive in his time and feh possibly in
Rome; Athanasius of Alexandria, who mentions the “Syrians, Cilicians, and
Mesopotamians” as observant of the Quartodeciman Passover (see his de
Synodis 1, 5 and ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2); Jerome, who paraphrases a
statement from Irenaeus’ work, On the Paschal Controversy, where the lat-
ter warns Pope Victor not to break the unity with “the many bishops of Asia
and the East, who with the Jews celebrated the Passover, on the fourteenth
day of the new moon” (see De Viris Illustribus 35, NPNF, 2nd, III, p. 370); a
fragment of Apollinarius, Bishop of Hierapolis (ca. A.D. 170) from his work
on Easter, preserved in the Chronicon Paschale 6 (PG 92, 80-81), where it
says: “The 14th Nisan is the true Passover of our Lord, the great Sacrifice;
instead of the lamb, we have the Lamb of God”; Severian, Bishop of Gabala
(f 1. ca. A.D. 400), who strongly attacks those Christians who still main-
tained the Jewish Passover ritual (see his Homilia 5 de Pascha, ed. J. B.
Aucher [Venice: 1827], p. 180; Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (ca. A.D.
315-403) deals extensively with the Quartodeciman controversy in his Ad-
versus haereses 50 and 70. The Bishop suggests in various instances that the
Quartodeciman custom, which he calls “heresy,” was widespread. He writes,

for instance: “And another heresy, namely the Quartodeciman, arose—rose
up again) in the world—anekupse palim to kosmo” (Adversus haereses 50,
1, PG 41, 883). On the basis of these testimonies we would concur with Jean
Juster’s comment that Eusebius is guilty of “wilful obscurity” when mini-
mizing and limiting the observance of the Quartodeciman Passover only to
the dioceses of Asia (Les Juifs dans l’empire romain, 1965, p. 309, fn. 3).
99. Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 14.
100. Hadrian’s repressive policy toward the Jews is discussed above
pp. 159-62.
101. Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 70,9 PG 42, 355-356; the pas-
sage is examined in my Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday, 1975, pp.
45-52; cf. above p. 161.
102. M. Richard, “La question pascale au lIe si~cle,” L’Orient Syrien
6 (1961):185-188. Richard’s view that Easter-Sunday was first introduced
by the Greek bishops of Jerusalem is difficult to accept, not only because
these did not enjoy sufficient authority to influence the greater part of Chris-
tianity, but also because the necessity of a differentiation from Judaism arose,
as we have seen, earlier in Rome than in Palestine. However, Richard’s con-
clusion that the Easter-controversy started at the time of Hadrian with the
introduction of Easter-Sunday, deserves credibility, since our informer,
Epiphanius, a native of Palestine, was interested in the traditions of his country
and possessed documents which have since disappeared. He mentions, for
instance, the conflict between Alexander of Alexandria and Crescentius on
the problem of Passover, which is not reported by others (Adversus haereses
70, 9, PG 42, 356B). For a thorough analysis of the thesis of Richard, see
Christine Mohrmann, “Le conflict pascal au lie siécle,” Vigiliae Chris tianae
16 (1962): 154-171; see also p. Nautin, Lettres et écrivains chr~tiens des lIe
et IlIe si~cles, 1961, pp. 65-104.
103. The expression “Roman—Easter” as a designation of Easter-
Sunday is frequently used by C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, pp. 117,
119, 333; cf. also M. Righetti (fn. 77), II, pp. 245-246. This does not mean
that in Rome only Easter-Sunday was observed. A statement of Irenaeus
suggests otherwise. He says: “The presbyters before thee who did not ob-
serve it [i.e., the Quartodeciman Passover], sent the Eucharist to those of
other parishes who observed it” (cited by Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 15). The Eu-
charist (a small piece of consecrated bread called “Fermentum”), was in
fact sent by the Bishop of Rome as a symbol of communio to the main
churches—tituli—-inside and outside the city and to not-too-faraway bish-

ops (for a discussion of the problem, see C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica,
p. 333; V. Monachino, La Cura pastorale a Milano, Cartagine e Roma nel
secolo IV, 1947, p. 281; L. Hertling, Communio, 1961, p. 13; cf. Hippolytus,
Traditio Apostolica 22). The fact that the Eucharist was sent to Quartodeciman
Christians living in Rome or in its outlying districts, indicates not only that
they were present in Rome, but also that the predecessors of Victor had main-
tained Christian fellowship with them. C. J. Hefele explains the aversion of
Victor against the Quartodeciman Passover as a reaction against a certain
Blastus, who according to Tertullian (De prescriptione 53) “wanted to intro-
duce Judaism secretly” (A History of the Christian Councils, 1883, I, pp.
312-313). Canon 14 of the Council of Laodicea forbade the sending of the
Eucharist to other parishes, which shows that the custom prevailed till the
fourth century.
104. Eusebius writes that the churches which celebrated Easter on
Sunday, leaned on an “apostolic tradition” (HE 5, 23, 1). Irenaeus, however,
though a supporter of the Roman—Easter, does not refer to the Apostles, but
to “earlier times—kai polu,” mentioning specifically Bishop Sixtus (ca. A.D.
116-125) as the first non-observant of the Quartodeciman Passover. It is
possible then that “earlier times” might refer to Sixtus’ time. W. Rordorf,
“Zum Ursprung des Osterfestes am Sonntag,” Theologische Zeitschrift 18
(1962):167-189, argues for the apostolic origin of the Roman Easter. B. J.
Van Der Veken, “De primordis liturgiae paschalis,” Sacris Erud. (1962):
500f., holds, on the contrary, that while the Quartodeciman Passover has an
effective apostolicity, less probable is that of the Roman—Easter. Kenneth
A. Strand (see Three Essays on Early Church with Emphasis on the Roman
Province of Asia, 1967, pp. 33-45), advances persuasive arguments in sup-
port of the thesis that possibly “Rome and other places where Peter and Paul
labored did indeed receive from these apostles a Sunday-Easter tradition,
whereas Asia received from John a Quartodeciman observance” (p. 36).
Strand’s arguments are basically the following: (1) The 364-days fixed solar
“priestly” calendar used by various sectarian groups like the Qumranites
where the day of omer or first fruit was celebrated always on Sunday, could
well have been adopted by a segment of Early Christianity. (2) A Roman
innovation could not have “so successfully and universally supplanted an
apostolic tradition at so early a period, especially at a time when the flow of
Christian tradition was still definitely from East to West rather than vice
versa” (p. 35). (3) Irenaeus, reared in Asia, a disciple of John and defender of
the apostolic tradition, would hardly have yielded to the Quartodeciman tra-
dition for the Easter-Sunday, if the latter had no apostolic authority. (4) The
geographical distribution of the two customs given by Eusebius (supposedly

only the Asian Christians observed the Quartodeciman Passover) fits with
the geographical sphere of influence traditionally attributed to Peter and Paul.
While it must be admitted that these arguments have been cogently formu-
lated, it would seem to us that they do not take into account the following
facts: (1) Various sources (see above fns. 97 and 102) suggest that the Quarto-
deciman Passover was far more widespread than Eusebius is willing to ad-
mit. In fact, prior to Pope Victor’s time, it seems to have been practiced by
some Churches even in Rome (see fn. 102). The fact that Irenaeus refers to
“the presbyters before Soter” (Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 14), by-passing the latter,
as examples of Bishops who allowed the observance of the Quartodeciman
Passover, suggests that the change in the Roman policy on the Easter ques-
tion took place at the time of Soter. L. Duchesne, a renowned Hellenist,
notes in this regard that “under Soter, successor of Anicetus, the relations
seem to have been more tense” (Histoire ancienne de l’Église, 1889, I, p.
289. In Gaul, however, the two divergent Easter celebrations seem to have
co-existed, even at the time of Irenaeus, without causing major problems. In
fact Irenaeus testifies: “We also live in peace with one another and our dis-
agreement in the fast confirms our agreement in the faith” (HE 5, 24,13). (2)
The Easter controversy, as we have noticed (see above pp. 161-2), according
to Epiphanius, “arose after the time of the exodus of the bishops of the cir-
cumcision” (PG 42, 355, 356). This statement seems to imply that prior to
that time, Easter-Sunday was unknown in Palestine and probably was prac-
ticed only by a few Christians in the rest of the world. If this were so, then
Irenaeus’ reference to Sixtus (ca. A. D. 115-125) as the first non-observer of
the Quartodeciman Passover (HE 5,24, 14) should be regarded not as a pass-
ing or casual example, but rather as accurate historical information. (3) It is
rather inconceivable that a man like Paul could have been influenced by a
sectarian calendar that laid stress on days and that he should have introduced
it in the areas where he labored, since, as P. K. Jewett notes, “he is the only
New Testament writer who warns his converts against the observance of
days (Col. 2:17; Gal. 4:10; Rom. 14:6)” (Lord’s Day, p. 56). Furthermore, it
should be noticed that Paul respected the normative Pharisaic-rabbinic cal-
endar as is indicated by the fact that he hastened to be at Jerusalem for Pen-
tecost (Acts 20:16; cf., I Cor. 16:8). In fact Paul’s free public ministry ended
(ca. A.D. 58-60) at the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost, while
undergoing the rite of purification to demonstrate to the Jewish brethren that
he also was living “in observance of the law” (Acts 21:25; see above pp.
148-51). (4) Concerning Irenaeus, while on the one hand it is true that he
had been reared in Asia and that he was a defender of the apostolic succes-
sion, on the other hand it should be noted (a) that he always advocated peace
and compromise as indicated not only by his letter to Bishop Victor but also
by his embassy to Bishop Eleutherus, Victor’s predecessor, on behalf of the
Montanists (see Eusebius, HE 5,4, 1; 5, 3, 4); (b) that he had studied in
Rome and was serving the Church in the West (Bishop of Lyons from ca.
A.D. 177); (c) that he greatly respected and supported the Church of Rome
founded “by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul” and with which
“every church should agree, on account of its preeminent authority” (Adver-
sus haereses 3, 2, ANF I, 415). (5) The authority that the Bishop of Rome
exerted by the end of the second century should not be underestimated. It is
worth noting that even though Polycrates disagreed with Victor on the ob-
servance of the Passover, he complied with the Bishop’s order to summon a
council. In fact he states: “I could mention the bishops who are present whom
you required me to summon and I did so” (Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 8). Similarly
Irenaeus did not challenge Victor’s right to excommunicate the Asian Chris-
tians, but only advised a more magnanimous attitude (see below pp. 207f.).
(6) The conflict and tension between Judaism and the Empire, which be-
came particularly acute under Hadrian, may well have induced Bishop Sixtus
to take steps to substitute those distinctive Jewish festivities as the Passover
and the Sabbath with new dates and theological motivations, in order to
avoid any semblance of Judaism. The anti-Judaic motivations for both the
Paschal and weekly Sabbath fast would seem to provide additional support
to this hypothesis (see above. pp. 193f.). All these indications seem to chal-
lenge and discredit the hypothesis of an apostolic origin of the Roman—
Easter tradition.
105. The conciliar decree of the Council of Nicaea specifically en-
joined: “All the brethren in the East who formerly celebrated Easter with the
Jews, vdll henceforth keep it at the same time as the Romans, with us and
with all those who from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same
time with us” (Ortiz De Urbina, Nic~e et Constantinople, 1963, I, p. 259; cf.
Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 1,9).
106. Constantine, after having deplored the disagreements existing
concerning such a renowned feast, exhorts all the bishops to embrace “the
practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome, and in Africa; through-
out Italy, and in Egypt” (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 19, NPNF 2nd, I, p.
525); cf. Chronicon Paschale, PG 92, 83 where it is reported that Constantine
urged all Christians to follow the custom of “the ancient church of Rome
and Alexandria.”
107. Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus 7, ANF I, pp.
569-570.
108. Tertullian, De Corona 3,4, CCL 2, 1043; in the treatise On Idola-

try14, Tertullian, referring to the pagans, similarly writes: “Not the Lord’s
day, not Pentecost, even if they had known them, would they have shared
with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians” (ANF
III, p. 70).
110. Origen, Homilia in Isaiarn 5, 2, GCS 8, 265, 1.
111. Eusebius, De solemnitate paschali 7, 12, PG 24, 701A; cf. also
706C.
112. Innocent I, see fn. 90; cf. Athanasius, Epistolae paschales, PG
26, 1389.
113. J. Jeremias, “Pascha” TDNT V. p. 903, fn. 64.
114. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 1885, II, part I, p. 88.
The full statement reads: “In the Paschal controversy of the second century
the bishops of Jerusalem, Caesarea, Tyre and Ptolemais ranged themselves
not with Asia Minor, which regulated the Easter festival by Jewish passover,
but with Rome and Alexandria, thus avoiding even the semblance of Juda-
ism.”
115. M. Righetti (fn. 77), II, p. 246.
116. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19, NPNF 2nd, I, pp. 524-
525 (emphasis supplied). The letter is found also in Socrates, Historia Ec-
clesiastica 1,9; Theodoret, Historia Eccl,esiastica 1, 10. The anti-Judaic
motivation for the adoption of a new Easter date is explicitly expressed also
in an earlier document, Pseudo-Cyprian, De Pascha computus, trans. G. Ogg,
1955, where paragraph I says: “we desire to show ... that Christians need at
no time ... to walk in blindness and stupidity behind the Jews as though they
did not know what was the day of Passover .. .“ (written ca. A.D. 243).
117. A fitting example is provided by the development of the patriar-
chal authority of the Bishop of Constantinople. At the Council held in that
city in A.D. 381, he was given honorary pre-eminence after the Bishop of
Rome, and in 451, in spite of the objections of the Pope, patriarchal powers
were formally conferred upon him (canon 28); cf. Dictionnaire de th~ologie
catholique (1908), s.v. “Constantinople,” by S. Vailhe.
118. Clement says, for instance: “If any disobeys what has been said
by him [i.e., Christ] through us, let them know that they will involve them-
selves in no slight transgression or danger” (59:1-2, trans. by E. Goodspeed,

The Apostolic Fathers, 1950, p. 78). Irenaeus acknowledges Clement’s au-
thority when he writes: “In the time of this Clement the Church of Rome
despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians” (Adversus haereses
3,3,3, ANF 1, p. 416).
119. J. Lebreton and J. Zeiller (fn. 10), p. 413.
120. Karl Baus, From the Apostolic Community to Constantine, 1965,
p. 152.
121. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3, 3, 1, ANF 1, p. 415.
122. Loc. cit.
123. On Irenaeus’ mission regarding the Montanist heresy, see Euse-
bius, HE 5, 3, 4 and 5, 4, 1; on his intervention on the Easter controversy, see
Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 12-18.
124. P. Batiffol (fn. 6), p. 227, writes concerning the excommunica-
tion that Bishop Victor pronounced against Polycrates: “The Bishop of Rome
condemns their observance of Easter as a usage that is against the Canon of
the Apostolic faith, and he cuts them off, not from the Roman, but from the
Catholic communion. He is conscious then, that such a sentence on his part
is legitimate. Irenaeus protests against the excommunication of the Asiatics,
it is true, but he does not dream of questioning Victor’s power to pronounce
this excommunication.”
125. Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 8 (emphasis supplied).
126. Eusebius, HE 5,24, 9, NPNF 2nd, I, p. 242. Some argue that
Eusebius does not really say that Victor excommunicated the Asiatic churches.
It is hard, however, to understand Eusebius’ words to mean anything else
than that he did actually cut off communion with them. This is also what
Socrates says in his His toria Ecclesiastica 5, 22.
127. P. Batiffol (fn. 6), p. 225.
128. Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics 26, ANF III, p.
260.
129. For a concise discussion of these various historical episodes
expressing the consciousness of a preeminent position of the Roman church,
see Karl Baus (fn. 119), pp. 355-360; cf. Giuseppe D’Ercole, Communio-
Collegialità-Primato e sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum dai Vangeli a Co-
stantino, 1964, pp. 157-205, who provides also an extensive bibliography;
Jean Colson, L’Épisco pat catholique, 1963.
130. The role of the Church of Rome in the adoption of December

25 as the date for the celebration of Christmas is discussed below, pp. 256-
61.
131. 0. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 1966, p. 10.
132. P. V. Monachino (fn. 102), p. 407. Leonard Goppelt, Apostolic
and Post-Apostolic Times, 1970, p. 126, writes concerning the role of Rome
as follows: “The Church of Rome had already gained a certain superiority
early in the history of the Church. It became prominent as the church of the
capital of the world (Rom. 1:8, 16:16), as the meeting point of the entire
Church (cf. the greetings in Rom. 16; Col. 4; I Peter 5:13), as the abode of
Peter and Paul (Ignatius, Romans 4, 3; 1 Clem. V. 4f.), and as the first great
church to suffer as martyr (Rev. 17:6). Because of all this, as Luke points out
she became to a certain extent the successor of Christian Jerusalem, and as I
Clement demonstrates, she thus assumed the responsibility for other
churches.”
134. Bruce Metzger acknowledges that the need for Christians in
the West to separate from the Jews provides “a reasonable historical ex-
planation” for “the difference between East and West in the observance of
the Sabbath.... In the West, particularly after the Jewish rebellion under
Hadrian, it became vitally important for those who were not Jews to avoid
exposing themselves to suspicion; and the observance of the Sabbath was
one of the most noticeable indications of Judaism. In the East, however, less
opposition was shown to Jewish institutions” (Studies in the Lectionary Text
of the Greek New Testament, 1944, II, sec. 3, p. 12).
135. W. D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism, n.d., p. 74.
Chapter 7
ANTI-JUDAISM IN THE FATHERS
AND THE
ORIGIN OF SUNDAY
Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin, whose writings constitute our major

source of information for the first half of the second century, witnessed and
participated in the process of separation from Judaism which led the major-
ity of the Christians to abandon the Sabbath and adopt Sunday as the new
day of worship. Their testimonies therefore, coming from such an early pe-
riod, assume a vital importance for our inquiry into the causes of the origin
of Sunday observance.
Ignatius
According to Irenaeus, Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch at the time of
Trajan (A.D. 98-117).1 The Bishop argues “against the Judaizing tendencies
of his territory, which, not far geographically from Palestine, had suffered
the influences of the synagogue and of the Judaeo-Christians.” 2 His lan-
guage suggests that the separation from Judaism was in progress, though the
ties had not yet been severed. In fact the tenacious survival and veneration
of Jewish institutions such as the Sabbath is explicitly mentioned by this
author. For instance, in his Epistle to the Magnesians Ignatius writes, “For if
we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s
favor. For the most divine prophets lived in accordance with Jesus Christ
(ch. 8:1,2).”4
In the following chapter he refers again to these Old Testament proph-
ets “who lived in ancient ways” and who “attained a new hope, no longer
sabbatizing but living according to the Lord’s life (or Lord’s day—meketi
sabbatizontes kata kuriaken zoen zowntes).”5 The necessity to renounce
Jewish customs is again urged in chapter 10:3, where the warning is given
that “it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like the Jews. For
Christianity did not believe in Judaism but Judaism in Christianity.” In
his letter to the Philadelphians the Bishop similarly admonishes that “if
-215-
Anti-Judaism in the Fathers and the Origin of Sunday 216
anyone expounds Judaism to you, do not listen to him. For it is better to

hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one
who is uncircumcised” (ch. 6 :1).
These frequent recommendations to abandon the practice of Judaism
imply a strong leaning toward Jewish practices within the Christian commu-
nities of Asia Minor. In this climate it is hardly conceivable that a radical
break from Sabbath keeping had already taken place. On the other hand, the
condemnation of Jewish practices such as “sabbatizing,” that is, the obser-
vance of the Sabbath according to Jewish manner, 6 and the exhortation “to
live according to the life of the Lord,” in the course of time may well have
motivated the adoption not only of a way of life but even of a day of worship
which would be different from the one of the Jews. The introduction of Sun-
day-keeping could then be part of the process of differentiation from Juda-
ism which became necessary for reasons mentioned earlier.
Was Sunday already observed by few or by many in the province of
Asia at the time of Ignatius (ca. A.D. 115)? This can hardly be established by
the problematic passage of Magnesians 9:1. The key sentence “no longer
sabbatizing but living according to the Lord’s life (or Lord’s day),” in recent
times has been subjected to considerable scrutiny by various scholars.7
To read in the passage a reference to Sunday, it is necessary either to
insert the substantive “day—hemeran” or to assume that the latter is implied
by the usage of a cognate accusative. But, as pointed out by Fritz Guy, “in
the seven letters there is no appearance of such a cognate accusative con-
struction.8 This would be the only exception. Moreover the noun “life—
zoen” is present in the oldest extant Greek manuscript (Codex Mediceus
Laurentinus); thus “Lord’s life” is the most likely translation.
More significant still is the context. As Kenneth A. Strand concisely
and incisively remarks, “Regardless of what “Lord’s Day” may have meant
either in Magnesia or in Antioch and regardless of whether or not Ignatius
intended a cognate accusative, the context reveals that it is not the early
Christians who are pictured as “no longer sabbatizing,” but that it is the Old
Testament prophets who are described.... Surely Ignatius knew that the Old
Testament prophets observed the seventh day of the week, not the first! The
contrast here, then, is not between days as such, but between ways of life—
between the Jewish “sabbatizing” way of life and the newness of life sym-
bolized for the Christian by Christ’s resurrection.”9
The “sabbatizing” then which Ignatius condemns, in the context of
the conduct of the prophets, could hardly be the repudiation of the Sabbath
as a day, but rather, as R. B. Lewis, asserts, “the keeping of the Sabbath in a

certain manner—Judaizing.” 10 This in fact is the sense which is explicitly
given to the text in the interpolated long recension: “Let us therefore no
longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idle-
ness. 11 But let every one of you keep the Sabbath in a spiritual manner,
rejoicing in the meditation on the law, not in the relaxation of the body,
admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day
before, nor using lukewarm drinks, nor walking within a prescribed space,
nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.”12
The fact that Ignatius urges Christians to stop “practicing Judaism”
(Magnesians 8:1) or “living like the Jews” (10:3) and to follow the example
of the prophets in not judaizing on the Sabbath, implies that many Christians
were still following traditional Jewish customs, especially in the matter of
Sabbathkeeping. If such were the case, it would hardly seem reasonable to
presume that Christians in Asia had already radically abandoned the Sab-
bath and were observing solely Sunday.
Let us note, on the other hand, that Ignatius, by urging Christians to
differentiate themselves from Jewish practices such as “sabbatizing,” offers
us significant insight on how the existence of anti-Judaizing attitudes and
efforts contributed to the adoption of Sunday observance. We have indica-
tions, however, that in the East the substitution of the Sabbath by Sunday
worship was gradual since Jewish observances there constituted, as A. P.
Hayman points out, “a perennial attraction .. for the Christian.”13
The constant influx of converts from the synagogue may well have
contributed to maintain a constant admiration toward Jewish rites like the
Sabbath. 14 Numerous Eastern Fathers in fact fought constantly against the
Sabbath which many Christians observed in addition to Sunday. 15 In the
West, particularly in Rome, however, we have found that the break with
Judaism occurred earlier and more radically, causing the replacement of Jew-
ish festivities such as the Sabbath and Passover.
Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas, dated by the majority of the scholars be-
tween A.D. 130 and 138, 16 was written by a pseudonymous Barnabas prob-
ably at Alexandria, a cosmopolitan cultural center where the conflict be-
tween Jews and Christians was particularly acute 17 Two major reasons make
the epistle important for our present investigation. First, because it does con-
tain the first explicit reference to the observance of Sunday, denominated as
“eighth day.” Secondly, because it reveals how the social and theological
polemics and tensions which existed at that time between Jews and Chris-
tians played a key role in the devaluation of the Sabbath and the adoption of
Sunday by many Christians.
A careful reading of the Epistle of Barnabas reveals that the author
purposes to demonstrate the total repudiation on the part of God of Judaism
as a true religion. While Ignatius condemns the “judaizing” of some Chris-
tians, Barnabas rejects totally “Judaism” both as a theological and a social
system. It would seem that the author’s attacks are directed particularly, as
A. Harnack observes, “against Judaizing Christians who probably wanted to
safeguard Jewish religious beliefs and customs.” 18 In fact, Barnabas cat-
egorically condemns those Christians who leaned toward a position of com-
promise with the Jews, saying, “take heed to yourselves and be not like some,
piling up your sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is
ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it.. .“ (4 :6-7).19
In order to persuade these Judaizing Christians to abandon Jewish
beliefs and practices, Barnabas launches a twofold at tack against the Jews:
he defames them as a people and he empties their religious beliefs and prac-
tices of any historical validity by allegorizing their meaning. As a people,
the Jews are described as “wretched men” (16:1) who were deluded by an
evil angel (9:5) and who “were abandoned” by God because of their ancient
idolatry (5 :14). They drove “his prophets to death” (5 :12) and they cruci-
fied Christ “setting him at naught and piercing him and spitting upon him”
(7:9).
As to the fundamental Jewish beliefs (such as the sacrificial system,
the covenant, the promised land, the circumcision, the levitical laws, the
Sabbath and the temple) the writer endeavors to demonstrate that they do
not apply literally to the Jews, since they have a deeper allegorical meaning
which finds its fulfillment in Christ and in the spiritual experience of the
Christians.20 The writer however, as J. B. Lightfoot points out, even though
he “is an uncompromising antagonist of Judaism,... beyond this antagonism
he has nothing in common with the anti-Judaic heresies of the second cen-
tury.”21 W. H. Shea rightly observes in fact that “on many of the cardinal
beliefs of Christendom the author is quite orthodox.”22
The repudiation of and separation from Judaism on the part of
Barnabas represents then, not the expression of a heretical movement, but a
necessity felt by the Christian community of Alexandria. However, the alle-
gorical method and extreme attitude of the writer testifies, as J. Lebreton
aptly remarks, “not indeed to the deep thought of the Church, but, at least, to
the danger which Judaism constituted for it, and the Church’s reaction to the
danger.”23
The depreciation of the Sabbath and the introduction of the “eighth

day” is part of this attempt which the author makes to destroy the strong-
holds of Judaism. His reasoning deserves attention. He writes: “1. Further,
then, it is written about the sabbath also in the Ten Words which God uttered
to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai, ‘And treat the sabbath of the Lord as
holy with clean hands and a pure heart.’ 2. And in another place he says, ‘If
my sons keep the sabbath, I will let my mercy rest upon them.’ 3. He men-
tions the sabbath at the beginning of the creation: ‘And in six days God
made the works of his hands, and ended on the seventh day, and he rested on
it and made it holy.’ 4. Observe, children, what ‘he ended in six days’ means.
This is what it means, that in six thousand years the Lord will bring all things
to an end, for a day with him means a thousand years. He himself bears me
witness, for he says, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord will be like a thousand years.’
Therefore, children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will
be brought to an end. 5. ‘And he rested the seventh day’ means this: When
his Son comes and destroys the time of the lawless one, and judges the un-
godly and changes the sun and moon and stars, then he will rest well on the
seventh day. 6. Further he says, ‘You shall treat it as holy, with clean hands
and a pure heart.’ If, then, anyone can now, by being pure in heart, treat as
holy the day God declared holy, we are entirely deceived. 7. Observe that we
will find true rest and treat it as holy only when we shall be able to do so
having ourselves been made upright and had the promise fulfilled, when
there is no more disobedience, but all things have been made new by the
Lord. Then we shall be able to treat it as holy, after we have first been made
holy ourselves. 8. Further he says to them, ‘Your new moons and sabbaths I
cannot endure.’ You see what it means: it is not the present sabbaths that are
acceptable to me, but the one that I have made, on which, having brought
everything to rest, I will make the beginning of an eighth day, that is, the
beginning of another world. 9. This is why we also observe the eighth day
with rejoicing, on which Jesus also arose from the dead, and having shown
himself ascended to heaven (ch. 15).”24
Three basic arguments are advanced by Barnabas to invalidate Sab-
bath observance:
(1) The rest of the seventh day is not a present experience but an
eschatological rest that will be realized at the coming of Christ when all
things will be changed (vv. 4-5).
(2) The sanctification of the Sabbath is impossible for man at the
present time since he himself is impure and unholy. This will be accom-
plished in the future “after we have first been made holy ourselves” (vv. 6-7).
(3) God has explicitly declared , “Your new moons and sabbaths I
cannot endure”; therefore the present sabbaths are not acceptable to Him,
but only the one which is future. This will mark the beginning of the eighth
day, that is, of a new world (v. 8).
With these arguments Barnabas, “utilizing this weapon of allegori-
cal exegesis,”25 empties the Sabbath of all its validity for the present age,
endeavoring to defend the church from the influence of such an important
Jewish institution. His effort to supersede the Sabbath by means of these
intricate allegorical and eschatological argumentations is an implicit re-
cognition of the influence that the Sabbath was still exerting in the Christian
community of Alexandria. The “eighth day” is inserted at the end of chapter
15 as an appendix to the discussion on the Sabbath, and two basic justifica-
tions are given for its “observance”:
(1) The eighth day is the prolongation of the eschatological Sabbath:
that is, after the end of the present age symbolized by the Sabbath, the eighth
day marks “the beginning of another world” (v. 8). “This is why
spend(agomen) even (dio kai) the eighth day with rejoicing” (v. 9).
(2) The eighth day is “also (en he kai) the day on which Jesus rose
from the dead” (v. 9).
The first theological motivation for the observance of Sunday is of
an eschatological nature. The eighth day, in fact, represents “the beginning
of a new world.” It is here that appears the incoherence of the author—
perhaps acceptable at that time. While, on the one hand, he repudiates the
present Sabbath inasmuch as this would have a millennaristic-eschatolog-
ical significance, on the other hand he justifies the observance of the eighth
day by the same eschatological reasons advanced previously to abrogate the
Sabbath.
It is noteworthy that Barnabas presents the resurrection of Jesus as
the second or additional motivation. Sunday is observed because on that day
“Jesus also (en he kai) rose from the dead” (v. 9). Why is the resurrection
mentioned as the additional reasons for observing Sunday? Apparently be-
cause such a motivation had not yet acquired primary importance.
Barnabas in fact, in spite of his sharp anti-Judaism, justifies the “ob-
servance” of the eighth day more as a continuation of the eschatological
Sabbath than as a commemoration of the resurrection. This bespeaks a timid
and uncertain beginning of Sunday-keeping. The theology and terminology
of Sunday are still dubious. There is no mention of any gathering nor of any
eucharistic celebration. The eighth day is simply the prolongation of the

eschatological Sabbath to which is united the memory of the resurrection.
Later in our study it will be shown that Sunday was initially denomi-
nated “eighth day” not only because it epitomized the eschatological Chris-
tian hope of a New World, but above all because in the growing conflict
between the Church and Synagogue it best expressed the fulfillment and
supersedure of Judaism (of which the Sabbath was a symbol) by Christian-
ity.26 Jerome (ca. A.D. 342-420), for instance, explicitly interprets the sym-
bolism of the seventh and eighth days as the transition from the Law to the
Gospel, when he writes that “after the fulfillment of the number seven, we
rise through the eighth to the Gospel.”27
The polemic arguments presented by Barnabas both to invalidate the
Sabbath and to justify the eighth as the continuation and replacement of the
seventh, reveal how strong antiJudaic feelings motivated the adoption of
Sunday as a new day of worship. However, his paradoxical argumentation,
his failure to distinguish clearly between the seventh and the eighth
eschatological periods, and his uncertain theology of Sunday all seem to
indicate that a distinct separation between Judaism and Christianity as
well as between Sabbath and Sunday observance had not yet taken place,
at least in Alexandria.28
Justin Martyr
Philosopher and Christian martyr, of Greek culture and extraction,29
Justin Martyr offers us the first extensive treatment of the Sabbath and the
first detailed description of Sunday worship. The importance of his testi-
mony derives, above all, from the fact that our author, a trained and profess-
ing philosopher, in the treatment of the problem of the Sabbath, as F. Regan
observes, “does strive for a perceptive and balanced approach.”30 Moreover,
since he lived, taught and wrote his Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho in
Rome under the reign of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), he allows us a
glimpse of how the problem of Sabbath and Sunday was felt in the capital
city.31 His assessment of both is indeed valuable to our in vestigation.
The attitude of Justin toward the Jewish Sabbath appears conditioned
both by his concept of the Mosaic Law, and by his feeling toward the Jews—
the latter having possibly colored the former. Barnabas, of Jewish extrac-
tion, with his allegorical method attempted to empty such Jewish institu-
tions as the Sabbath and circumcision of all temporal and historical value,
attributing to them exclusive spiritual or eschatological significance. Justin,
on the contrary, being of Gentile origin, ignored the moral and corporal value
of the Mosaic legislation, and regarded the law, as James Parkes states, “an
unimportant portion of the Scriptures, a temporary addition to a book other-
wise universal and eternal, added because of the special wickedness of the
Jews.” 32 For example, to Trypho, Justin explains: 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 upon
you, namely, because of your sins and your hardness of heart.33
While Paul recognizes the educative value of the ceremonial law,
Justin considers it “in a negative manner as the punishment for the sins of
Israel.”34 He confirms this thesis repeatedly. After arguing, for instance, that
the holy men before Moses35 did not observe either the Sabbath or the
circumcision, he concludes: “Therefore, we must conclude that God, who is
immutable, ordered these and similar things to be done only because of sin-
ful men.”36 The Sabbath then, according to Justin, is a temporary ordinance
deriving from Moses, enjoined to the Jews on account of their unfaithful-
ness for a time, precisely until the coming of Christ.37
The acceptance of this thesis is indispensable for Justin, in order to
safeguard the immutability and the coherence of God. He explains: “If we
do not accept this conclusion, then we shall fall into absurd ideas, as the
nonsense either that our God is not the same God who existed in the days of
Henoch and all the others, who were not circumcised in the flesh, and did
not observe the Sabbaths and other rites, since Moses only imposed them
later; or that God does not wish each succeeding generation of mankind
always to perform the same acts of righteousness. Either supposition is ri-
diculous and preposterous. Therefore we must conclude that God, who is
immutable, ordered these and similar things to be done only because of sin-
ful men.”37
The Christian Church has never accepted such a false thesis. To say
for instance that God commanded the circumcision and the Sabbath solely
on account of the wickedness of the Jews “as a distinguishing mark, to set
them off from other nations and from us Christians” so that the Jews only
“might suffer affliction,” 38 makes God guilty, to say the least, of discrimina-
tory practices. It would imply that God gave ordinances with the sole nega-
tive purpose of singling out the Jews for punishment. Unfortunately it is
with this frame of mind that Justin argues for the repudiation of the Sabbath.
The following are his basic arguments:
(1) Since “before Moses there was no need of Sabbaths and festivals,
they are not needed now, when in accordance with the will of God, Jesus
Christ, His Son, has been born of the Virgin Mary, a descendant of Abraham.”
39
The Sabbath therefore is regarded by Justin as a temporary ordinance,
deriving from Moses, enjoined on the Jews because of their unfaithfulness,
and designed to last until the coming of Christ.
(2) God does not intend the Sabbath should be kept, since “the ele-
ments are not idle and they do not observe the Sabbath,”40 and He Himself
“does not stop controlling the movement of the universe on that day, but He
continues directing it then as He does on all other days.”41 Moreover the
Sabbath commandment was violated in the Old Testament by many persons
such as the chief priests who “were commanded by God to offer sacrifices
on the Sabbath, as well as on other days.”42
(3) In the new dispensation Christians are to observe a perpetual Sab-
bath not by idling during one day but by abstaining themselves continually
from sin: “The New Law demands that you observe a perpetual Sabbath,
whereas you consider yourselves pious when you refrain from work on one
day of the week, and in doing so you don’t understand the real meaning of
that precept. You also claim to have done the will of God when you eat
unleavened bread, but such practices afford no pleasures to the Lord our
God. If there be a perjurer or thief among you, let him mend his ways; if
there be an adulterer, let him repent; in this way he will have kept a true and
peaceful Sabbath.”43
(4) The Sabbath and circumcision are not to be observed since they
are the signs of the unfaithfulness of the Jews, imposed on them by God to
distinguish and separate them from other nations: “The custom of circum-
cising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distin-
guishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The
purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are
now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and your cities ruined by
fire, that the fruits of your land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes;
that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your cir-
cumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distin-
guished from other men.... As I stated before, it was by reason of your sins
and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon
you the observance of the Sabbath as a mark.”44
One wonders what caused Justin to strike at institutions such as the
Sabbath and circumcision and to make these—the symbol of the national
Jewish pride—the mark of the divine reprobation of the Jewish race. Is it
possible that this author was influenced by the intense anti-Judaic hostilities
which we found present particularly in Rome? A reading of Dialogue leaves
us without doubt. Though Justin apparently seeks to dialogue dispassion-

ately and sincerely with Trypho,45 his superficial description and negative
evaluation of Judaism, together with his vehement attacks on the Jews, re-
veals the profound animosity and hatred he nourished toward them.
He does not hesitate, for instance, to make the Jews responsible for
the defamatory campaign launched against the Christians: “You have spared
no effort in disseminating in every land bitter, dark, and unjust accusations
against the only guiltless and just light sent to men by God.... The other
nations have not treated Christ and us, his followers, as unjustly as have you
Jews, who indeed, are the very instigators of that evil opinion they have of
the Just One and of us, His disciples.... You are to blame not only for your
own wickedness, but also for that of all others.”46
The curse that was daily pronounced by Jews in the synagogue against
Christians apparently contributed to heighten the tension. Justin protests re-
peatedly against such practice: “To the utmost of your power you dishonor
and curse in your synagogues all those who believe in Christ.... In your syna-
gogues you curse all those who through them have become Christians, and
the Gentiles put into effect your curse by killing all those who merely admit
that they are Christians.”47
The Jewish hostilities toward the Christians seem to have known
intense degrees of manifestation at certain times. Justin says for instance,
“You do all in your power to force us to deny Christ.” 48 This provoked an
understandable resistance and resentment on the part of the Christians. “We
resist you and prefer to endure death,” Justin replies to Trypho “confident
that God will give us all the blessings which He promised us through Christ.”49
The presence of such a profound resentment against the Jews, particularly
felt in Rome, would naturally lead Christians like Justin to strike at a cardi-
nal Jewish institution like the Sabbath and turn it, as F. Regan remarks, into
a mark to single them out for punishment they so well deserved for their
infidelities.”50
This repudiation and degradation of the Sabbath presupposes the adop-
tion of a new dayof worship. What better way to evidence the Christians’
distinction from the Jews than by adopting a different day of worship? It is a
fact worth noting that in his exposition of the Christian worship to the Em-
peror Antoninus Pius, Justin twice underlines that the assembly of the Chris-
tians took place “on the day of the Sun”: “On the day which is called Sunday
(te tou eliou legomene hemera) we have a common assembly of all who live
in the cities or in the outlying districts, and the memoirs of the Apostles or
the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as there is time.”
“Sunday, indeed, is the day on which we all hold our common as-
sembly because it is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness
and prime matter, created the world; and our Saviour Jesus Christ arose from
the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before that of
Saturn, and on the day after, which is Sunday, he appeared to his Apostles
and disciples, and taught them the things which we have passed on to you
also for consideration.”51
Why does Justin emphasize that Christians worship “on the day of
the Sun”? In view of his resentment toward the Jews and their Sabbath, is it
not plausible to assume that he did so to make the Emperor aware that Chris-
tians were not Jewish rebels but obedient citizens? Bearing in mind, as will
be shown in the next chapter, that the Romans already at that time venerated
the day of the Sun, Justin’s explicit and repeated reference to such a day
could well represent a calculated effort to draw the Christians closer to the
Roman customs than to those of the Jews. This appears substantiated by the
very reasons he advances to justify Sunday observance. We shall synthesize
the three basic ones as follows:
(1) Christians assemble on the day of the Sun to commemorate the
first day of creation “on which God, transforming the darkness and prime
matter, created the world.” (67, 7). Is the nexus between the day of the Sun
and the creation of light on the first day a pure coincidence? It hardly seems
so, especially since Justin himself in his Dialogue with Trypho explicitly
compares the devotion pagans render to the Sun with that which Christians
offer to Christ who is more radiant than the sun: “It is written that God once
allowed the Sun to be worshiped, and yet you cannot discover anyone who
ever suffered death because of his faith in the Sun. But you can find men of
every nationality who for the name of Jesus have suffered and still suffer all
kinds of torments rather than deny their faith in Him. For His word of truth
and wisdom is more blazing and bright than the might of the sun, and it
penetrates the very depths of the heart and mind.”52
Christians apparently noticed early the coincidence between the cre-
ation of light on the first day and the veneration of the Sun which took place
on the self-same day. As J. Danidlou well remarks, “the day consecrated to
the Sun was found to coincide with the first day of the Jewish week and so
with the Christian Lord’s Day. .. . Sunday was seen as a renewal of the first
day of creation.”53 One wonders what encouraged the association of the two
themes. Is it possible that Christians in their search for a day of worship
distinct from the Sabbath (the mark of Jewish unfaithfulness) perceived in
the day of the Sun a valid substitute since its rich symbology could effec-
tively express Christian truth? Such an hypothesis will be examined in the

following chapter.
(2) Christians worship on the day of the Sun, because it is the day in
which “our Saviour Jesus Christ arose from the dead.... For they crucified
him on the day before that of Saturn, and on the day after, which is Sunday,
he appeared to his Apostles and disciples” (67, 7). The resurrection of Christ
was already felt to be a valid motivation for assembling on the day of the
Sun to offer worship to God. But, as W. Rordorf admits, “in Justin’s First
Apology (67, 7) the primary motivation for the observance of Sunday is to
commemorate the first day of creation and only secondarily, in addition, the
resurrection of Jesus.”54 The resurrection, presented by both Barnabas and
Justin as a additional reason for keeping Sunday, will however gradually
become the fundamental motivation for Sunday worship.55
(3) Christians observe Sunday because being the eighth day it “pos-
sesses a certain mysterious import, which the seventhday did not possess.56
For instance, Justin claims that circumcision was performed on the eighth
day because it was a “type of the true circumcision by which we are circum-
cised from error and wickedness through our Lord Jesus Christ who arose
from the dead on the first day of the week.”57 Further, the eight persons
saved from the flood at the time of Noah “were a figure of that eighth day
(which is, however, always first in power) on which our Lord appeared as
risenfrom the dead.”58
Let us note that while in his exposition of the Christian worship to
the Emperor, Justin repeatedly emphasizes that Christians gather on the day
of the Sun (possibly, as we suggested, to draw them closer to Roman cus-
toms in the mind of the Emperor), in his polemic with Trypho the Jew, Justin
denominates Sunday as the “eighth day,” in contradistinction to and as a
supersedure of the seventh-day Sabbath.59 The two different designations
could well epitomize two significant factors which contributed to the change
of the Sabbath to Sun-day, namely, anti-Judaism and paganism. We might
say that while the prevailing aversion toward Judaism in general and toward
the Sabbath in particular caused the repudiation of the Sabbath, the existing
veneration for the day of the Sun oriented Christians toward such a day both
to evidence their sharp distinction from the Jews and to facilitate the accep-
tance of the Christian faith by the pagans. This conclusion will become in-
creasingly clear in the next two chapters where we shall examine the influ-
ence of Sun-worship and the early theology of Sunday.
Conclusion. This brief analysis of the texts of Ignatius, Barnabas

and Justin has confirmed the presence in their respective communities
(Antioch, Alexandria, Rome) of strong anti-Judaic feelings which, augmented
by social tensions and theological convictions, created the necessity of avoid-
ing any semblance of Judaism.
Iguatius at Antioch condemns the “judaizing” of some Christians and
particularly their “sabbatizing” (that is, the observance of the Sabbath ac-
cording to the manner of the Jews), enjoining Christians “to live according
to the life of the Lord.” Although, according to our evaluation, the text of
Magnesians 9, 1 refers to the “Lord’s life” rather than to the “Lord’s day,”
this does not minimize the fact that the condemnation of “sabbatizing” and
the invitation “to live not according to Judaism,” indicate that a separation
from Judaism was being urged. These conditions undoubtedly encouraged
the adoption of Sunday worship in order to force a clearer distinction from
the Jews.
Barnabas in Alexandria, in his effort to neutralize the influence of
Jewish customs, assumes a radical position, repudiating, with his allegorical
method, the historic validity of Jewish practices and beliefs and “denying
purely and simply that the literal practice of the Sabbath had ever been the
object of a commandment of God.”60 He empties the Sabbath of its signifi-
cance and obligation for the present age in order to present the eighth day as
its legitimate continuation and replacement.
Finally, the testimony of Justin, coming from Rome, confirms what
we have already gathered from other sources, namely the existence, particu-
larly in the capital city, of deep anti-Judaic feelings. These apparently influ-
enced Justin in reducing the Sabbath to “the very sign of the reprobation of
the Jewish people.”61 The adoption of a new day of worship appears to have
been motivated by the necessity to evidence a clear dissociation from the
Jews. 62 Is it not true even today that the different worship day of the Mos-
lem, the Jew and the Christian makes the distinction among them altogether
more noticeable? The diversity of motivations advanced by Justin to justify
Sunday worship (the creation of light on the first day, the resurrection of
Christ, the eighth day of the circumcision, the eight souls of the ark, the
fifteen cubits—seven plus eight— of water that covered the mountains dur-
ing the flood) reflects the effort being made to justify a practice only re-
cently introduced. As the controversy between Sabbath and Sunday sub-
sided and the latter became solidly established, the resurrection emerged as
the dominant reason for its observance.
The investigation conducted so far suggests that the primary causes

that contributed to the forsaking of the Sabbath and to the adoption of Sun-
day are to a large degree social and political in nature. The social tension that
existed between Jews and Christians as well as the Roman anti-Jewish policy
greatly conditioned Christians in their negative evaluation of significant Old
Testament institutions like the Sabbath.
A question however has remained unanswered, namely, why was Sun-
day rather than another day of the week (such as Wednesday or Friday, for
example) chosen to evidence the Christian separation from Judaism? To an-
swer this question, we shall examine in the two following chapters, first, the
possible influence of Sun-worship with its related day of the Sun, and sec-
ond the Christian motivation for both the choice and observance of Sunday.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 7
1.Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5, 2, 8, 4.
2. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 95
3. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 140, observes with regard to Magnesians
9, 1, that “the real importance of this passage from Ignatius, ... is that it
provides contemporary evidence that many Gentile Christians were being
tempted to observe the Sabbath.”
4. The translation used of Ignatius’ letters is that of E. J. Goodspeed,
The Apostolic Fathers, 1950, with the exception of Magnesian 9, 1, which is
our own.
5. This concept of a spiritual Christian movement within the Old
Testament, of which the prophets were exponents and examples, may seem
to us unrealistic, but is indicative of Ignatius’ profound respect for the Old
Testament. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 26, notes in this regard: “Ignatius’
insistence on the role of the prophets in preparing the way for Christ and the
Church, evidences the prevailing spirit of the authors of Christian Antiquity
in their deep reverence for those saintly characters of the Old Testament and
their inspired message.”
6. See below fns. 10, 11.
7. Cf. Fritz Guy, “The Lord’s Day in the Letter of Ignatius to the
Magnesians,” AUSS 2 (1964):1-17; Richard B. Lewis, “Ignatius and the Lord’s
Day,” AUSS 6 (1968): 46-59; Wilfrid Scott, “A Note on the Word KYPIAKH
in Rev. 1:10,” NTS 12 (1965): 72.73; Kenneth A. Strand, “Another Look at

‘Lord’s Day’ in the Early Church and in Rev. 1:10,” NTS 13 (1965): 174-
181; C. W. Dugmore, “Lord’s Day and Easter,” Neotestamen tica et
Patristica in honorem sexagenarii 0. Cullmann, 1962, pp. 272-281; Robert
A. Kraft, “Some Notes on Sabbath Observance in Early Christianity,”
AUSS 3 (1965): 27-28.
8. Fritz Guy (fn. 7, p. 16).
9. Kenneth A. Strand, Three Essays on Early Church History, 1967,
p. 45; cf. his longer study cited in fn. 7.
10. R. B. Lewis (fn. 7), p. 50; Kenneth A. Strand (fn. 9), p. 45, simi-
larly points out that “the contrast here then is not between days as such, but
between ways of life—between the Jewish ‘sabbatizing’ way of life and the
newness of life symbolized for the Christian by Christ’s resurrection”; Rob-
ert A. Kraft (fn. 7), remarks in a similar vein: “It is certainly illegitimate to
see behind this context a simple (I) Sabbath! Sunday controversy. It is rather
a contrast of two different ways of living—one apart from ‘grace’
(‘judaizing’), the other in the power of the resurrection life.”
11. Pagan and Christian authors constantly condemned the idleness
and the feasting which characterized Jewish Sabbath-keeping. Plutarch (ca.
A.D. 40-120) places the Jewish “Sabbath-keeping—sabbatismos” among
the existing wicked superstitions (De superstitione 3). He upbraids espe-
cially their drinking (Questiones convivales 4, 6, 2) and their sitting “in their
places immovable” on the Sabbath (De superstitione 8; see above pp. 173-6
fns. 24 to 39, for additional references of pagan authors). The author of the
Epistle to Diognetus denounces the Jewish “superstition as respects the Sab-
baths.” He labels as “impious” the Jewish teachings that God “forbade us to
do what is good on the Sabbath days” (ch. 4; ANE I, p. 26; cf. Justin, Dia-
logue 29, 3; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 6, 16, 141,7; Syriac Didascalia
26; Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 66, 23,7; Chrysostom, De Christi divinitate
4). In the light of these constant denunciations, the “sabbatizing” condemned
by Ignatius represents the fanatical and superstitious Jewish Sabbath-keep-
ing, which apparently attracted both pagans (cf. Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1,
13) and Christians.
12. Pseudo-Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians 9, ANF I, pp. 62-63.
13. A. P. Hayman, ed., and trans., The Disputation of Sergius the
Stylite Against a Jew, CSCO 339, p. 75. It is interesting to notice the ratio-
nale adopted by those Syrian Christians who, for instance, “gave oil and
unleavened bread to the synagogue” (22:12). Sergius quotes them as saying:

“If Christianity is good, behold, I am baptized as a Christian. But if Judaism
is also, behold, I will associate partly with Judaism that I might hold on to
the Sabbath” (22, 15, p. 77—emphasis supplied). Hayman offers a signifi-
cant comment to this text: “It is possible to cite evidence proving that the
Disputation of Sergius the Stylite is witnessing here to a situation endemic
in Syria from the first to the thirteenth century A.D. From the warning of the
Didascalia in the third century to the canons of the Jacobite church in the
thirteenth, the Christian authorities strove to counteract the perennial attrac-
tion of Jewish observances for Christians. Not only in Syria, but throughout
the Orient, and occasionally in the West, the Church was perpetually con-
fronted with the problem of Judaising Christians as Marcel Simon’s
comprehensive study of the phenomenon has demonstrated. The Church’s
anti-Jewish polemic was motivated, not by any abstract theological considera-
tions, but by a very real threat to its position” (ibid., p. 75).
14. Regarding the observance of the Sabbath in the early Church,
see above the discussion on the Jerusalem Church and the Nazarenes, pp.
135f.; Gospel of Thomas 27: “[Jesus said]: If you fast not from the world,
you will not find the kingdom; if you keep not the Sabbath as Sabbath, you
will not see the Father” (E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, 1963, I,
p. 514). The “Jewish-Christian” tendencies of this Gospel favor a literal in-
terpretation of Sabbath observance; Justin Martyr in his Dialogue 47 differ-
entiates between those Jewish-Christians who do and those who do not com-
pel Gentiles to observe the Sabbath, thus clearly implying the existence of
Sabbath-keeping Christians; Martyrdom of Poiycarp 8, 1 records that
Polycarp’s death occurred on “a festival Sabbath day.” The phrase could
well reflect Sabbath observance among some Christians in Asia Minor, in
spite of their hostile attitude to the Jews exhibited by the document (see
12:2; 13:1); see below pp. 234-235 for a discussion of additional references
from the Syriac Didascalia and of the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles.
15. Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. A.D. 360) explicitly
condemns the veneration of the Sabbath and enjoins working on such a day
in order to show a special respect for Sunday: “Christians must not Judaize
by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, honouring rather the
Lord’s day by resting, if possible, as Christians. However if any shall be
found judaizing, let them be anathema from Christ” (Mansi II, pp. 569, 570).
Canon 16 however recognizes the special nature of the Sabbath since it pre-
scribes that “the Gospels along with other scriptures be read on the Sab-
bath”: cf. also Canons 49, 51; Athanasius, Epistolae festales 14, 5 PG 26,
1421, exhorts his readers not to fall back again into Sabbath observance; cf.
De Sabbatis et circumcisione 5, PG 28, 139; also Ps-Athanasius, Homilia de
semente 13, PG 28, 162; Cyril, Catecheses 4, 37, PG 33, 502, warns the
catechumens not to fall back into the Jewish religion; Basil considers her-
etics those who advocate the observance of the Sabbath, Epistula 264,4, PG
32, 980; Epistula 265,2, PG 32, 988; John Chrysostom denounces strongly
those Christians who visited the synagogues and celebrated Jewish feasts,
particularly the Sabbath, Adversus Judaeos 1, PG 48, 843, 856 and 941;
Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus eos qui castigationes aegre ferunt, PG 46, 309,
considers the two days Sabbath and Sunday as brothers, and says: “With
which eyes do you look at the Lord’s Day, you who have dishonored the
Sabbath? Do you perhaps ignore that the two days are brothers and that if
you hurt one, you strike at the other?” Palladius (ca. AD. 365425), in his
history of early monasticism, known as Lausiac History, refers repeatedly to
the observance of both Sabbath and Sunday (7, 5; 14, 3; 20, 2; 25, 4; 48, 2);
for other references, see C. Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius II, Texts
and Studies 6, 1904, pp. 198f.
16. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 1953, I, pp. 90-91; E.
Goodspeed, Apostolic Fathers, 1950, p. 19; William H. Shea, “The Sabbath
in the Epistle of Barnabas,” AUSS 4 (July 1966): 150; J. B. Lightfoot, The
Apostolic Fathers, 1890, I, part 1, p. 349; A. L. Williams, “The Date of the
Epistle of Barnabas,” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933): 337-346.
17. J. B. Lightfoot comments in this regard: “The picture... which it
presents of feuds between Jews and Christians is in keeping with the state of
the population of that city [Alexandria], the various elements of which were
continually in conflict” (The Apostolic Fathers, 1926, p. 240).
18. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1908, ed.
s. v. “Barnabas” by A. Harnack; cf. also Constantin von Tischendorf, Codex
Sinaiticus, ed. 8, n. d., p. 66, who similarly points out: “it is addressed to
those Christians who, coming out of Judaism, desired to retain, under the
New Testament, certain peculiarities of the Old
19. James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue, 1934,
p. 84, observes: “The whole of the epistle of Barnabas is an exposition of the
Church as the true Israel. It is heresy even to try and share the good things of
promise with the Jews. In tones of unusual gravity, and with a special ap-
peal, the author warns his hearers against such mistaken generosity.”
20. W. H. Shea (fn. 16), pp. 154-155, provides a concise summary of
Barnabas’ systematic attack against Jewish fundamental beliefs.
21. J. B. Lightfoot (fn. 17), p. 239.

22. W. H. Shea (fn. 16), p. 151; see fn. 10, where the author enumer-
ates the fundamental orthodox Christian doctrines found in the writing of
Barnabas.
23. J. Lebreton and J. Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church,
1949, I, p. 442. The same author offers a reasonable explanation for the
vigorous reaction of Barnabas against the danger of Judaism: “We must re-
mark in conclusion that this Jewish danger and the strong reaction against it,
can be explained by what we know of the great influence of the Jews at
Alexandria: previous to the Christian preaching this great influence is shown
by the lite and work of Philo; in the first centuries of the Christian era it
continued and threatened the church: it was at Alexandria above all that the
apocryphal Gospels, with their Judaizing tendencies, were read” (ibid., p.
443, fn. 10).
24. Translation by E. Goodspeed (fn. 16), pp. 40-41.
25. J. Lebreton (fn. 23), p. 441; the author observes that “Barnabas
was only following the example of numerous Jewish exegetes, who likewise
allegorized the law” (bc. cit.); cf. Phibo, De migratione Abrahami 89.
26. See below chapter IX, pp. 285f.
27. Jerome, In Ecclesiastem II, 2, PL 23, 1157.
28. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 26, aptly remarks that
Barnabas’ intricate and irrational argumentation is indicative “of the effort
which Judaeo-Christians were making to justify their worship.”
29. Tertullian denominates him, “philosopher and martyr” (Adversus
Valentinianus 5). In the first chapter of I Apologia, Justin introduces himself
as “Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, of the city of Flavia
Neapolis in Syria-Palestine”; cf. Eusebius, HE 4, 11,8.
31. Eusebius, HE 4, 12, 1: “To the Emperor Titus Aelius Adrian An
toninus Pius Caesar Augustus ... I, Justin, son of Priscus... present this peti-
tion”; Johannes Quasten (fn. 16), p. 199, with reference to the two Apolo-
gies, writes: “Both works are addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius. It
seems that St. Justin composed them between the years 148.161, because he
remarks (Apology I, 46): ‘Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago
under Quirinus.’ The place of composition was Rome.” Concerning the Dia-
logue, Quasten observes: “The Dialogue must have been composed after the
Apologies, because there is a reference to the first Apology in chapter 120”
(ibid., p. 202). Even though Eusebius (HE 4, 18, 6) indicates Ephesus as the
place where the conversation was held, probably at the time of the Barkokeba
revolt, mentioned in chapters 1 and 9 of the Dialogue, it is evident that the
Dialogue does not report the exact disputation held about 20 years before. It
would seem reasonable to assume that Justin makes of an actual disputation
which he held, merely the framework of his Dialogue, which, however, he
writes in the light of the situation in Rome at that time. The fact that he
writes the Dialogue in Rome and not in Ephesus, twenty years after its oc-
currence, is indicative of the necessity which Justin felt to take up his pen to
defend Christianity from Jewish accusations in Rome.
32. James Parkes (fn. 19), p. 101; cf. Dialogue 19 and 22.
33. Justin, Dialogue 18, 2, Falls, Justin’s Writings, p. 175.
34.W. Rordorf, Sabbat, p. 37, fn. 1.
35. In chapter 19 of the Dialogue Justin cites specifically Adam, Abel,
Noah, Lot and Melchisedek. In chapter 46 he submits a somewhat different
list of names.
36. J. Dani&ou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 234, comments on Justin’s reas-
oning, saying: “We can see from the foregoing that God could suppress the
Sabbath without contradicting Himself in any way, since He was led to insti-
tute it only because He was forced to do so by the wickedness of the Jewish
people, and in consequence He had the desire to make it disappear as soon as
He had accomplished His purpose of education.”
37. Justin, Dialogue 23, 1, 2, Falls, Jus tin’s Writings, p. 182.
38. Justin, Dialogue 16, 1 and 21, 1.
39. Justin, Dialogue 23, 3, Falls, Justin’s Writings, p. 182.
40. Loc. cit.
41. Justin, Dialogue 29, 3.
42. Loc. cit.
43. Justin, Dialogue 12, 3, Falls, Jus tin’s Writings, p. 166.
44. Justin, Dialogue 16, 1 and 21, 1, Falls, Justin’s Writings, pp. 172,
178. The mention of circumcision and the Sabbath by Justin, as distinguishing
marks designed to prohibit the Jews “to enter your city of Jerusalem” (Dia-
logue 16), seems to be an implicit reference to Hadrian’s decree which for-

bade every Jew from entering the city (cf. Dialogue 19, 2-6; 21, 1; 27, 2; 45,
3; 92, 4); in chapter 92 of the Dialogue the reference to Hadrian’s edict
appears even more explicit. In fact Justin plainly states that the circumcision
and the Sabbath were given because “God in His foreknowledge was aware
that the people [i.e., the Jews] would deserve to be expelled from Jerusalem
and never be allowed to enter there” (Falls, Jus tin’s Writings, p. 294); Pierre
Prigent similarly comments that, according to Justin, the circumcision and
the Sabbath were given to Abraham and to Moses because “God foresaw
that Israel would deserve to be expelled from Jerusalem and not to be al-
lowed to dwell there” (Justin et l’Ancien Testament, 1964, p. 265 and p. 251.
45. Someone could argue that some of the friendly overtures of Jus-
tin toward the Jews are indicative not of tension, but of friendly relations
which existed between the Jews and the Christians. Does not Justin entertain
the possibility (which, however, as he admits, other Christians rejected) that
the converted Jews who kept on observing the Mosaic Law could be saved,
as long as they did not persuade Gentiles to do the same? (Dialogue 47).
Does not Justin call the Jews “brethren” (ibid., 96) and promise “remission
of sins” to those who repented? (ibid., 94). Does not Justin say that in spite
of the fact that the Jews curse the Christians and force them to deny Christ,
yet “we [i.e., the Christians] pray for you that you might experience the
mercy of Christ”? (ibid., 96). While, on the one hand, it cannot be denied
that Justin prayed for and appealed to the Jews as individuals to repent and
accept Christ, on the other hand, it must be recognized that Justin’s concern
for the salvation of the sincere Jews did not change their status as a people
from enemies to friends. In fact in the very next sentence of chapter 96 of the
Dialogue, Justin explains the reason for the Christian’s attitude: “For He
[i.e., Christ] instructed us to pray even for our enemies.” There is no doubt
as to the Jews being the Christians’ enemies. Justin explains, however, that
the hostile attitude of the Jews toward the Christians is none else than the
continuation of their historical opposition to and rejection of God’s truth and
messengers. In chapter 133, for instance, after having reiterated the tradi-
tional rebellious attitude of the Jews toward the prophets, he states: “Indeed,
your hand is still lifted to do evil, because, although you have slain Christ,
you do not repent; on the contrary, you hate and (whenever you have the
power) kill us ... and you cease not to curse Him and those who belong to
Him, though we pray for you and for all men, as we were instructed by
Christ, our Lord. For He taught us to pray even for our enemies, and to love
those that hate us, and to bless those that curse us” (Falls, Justin’s Writings,
pp. 354-355). While Christians, then, prayed for the conversion of the Jews,
they recognized at the same time, as Justin says, that the Jews did not repent
and that as a people they were “a useless, disobedient and faithless nation”
(Dialogue 130). “The Jews,” Justin affirms elsewhere, “are a ruthless, stu-
pid, blind, and lame people, children in whom there is no faith” (Dialogue
27). Such a negative evaluation of the Jews and of Judaism reflects the exist-
ence of an acute conflict both between Jews and Christians and between
Jews and Empire. We noticed, in fact, how Justin interprets the Sabbath and
circumcision as the marks of unfaithfulness imposed by God on the Jews so
that they only might suffer punishment and be “expelled from Jerusalem and
never be allowed to enter there” (Dialogue 92, see above fn. 44). It might be
worth noticing also that Justin’s appeals to the Jews in the context of a syste-
matic condemnation of their beliefs and practices, is similar to Celsus’ ap-
peal to the Christians to participate in the public life and pray for the Em-
peror, in the context of the most systematic and vehement demolition of the
fundamental truths of Christianity. Could it be that Justin and Celsus (both
professional philosophers) used sensible appeals to make their attacks ap-
pear more reasonable?
46. Justin, Dialogue 17, Falls, Justin’s Writings, pp. 174, 173; the
fact that the Jewish authorities actively engaged in publicizing calumnies
against the Christians is substantiated (1) by Justin’s threefold repetition of
the accusation (cf. Dialogue 108 and 117); (2) by the similar reproach made
by Origen (Contra Celsum 6, 27; cf. ibid., 4, 32); (3) by Eusebius’ testimony
who claimed that he found “in the writing of the former days that the Jewish
authorities in Jerusalem sent round apostles to the Jews everywhere announc-
ing the emergence of a new heresy hostile to God, and that these apostles,
armed with written authority, confuted the Christians everywhere” (In Isaiam
18, 1, PG 24, 213A); (4) by the debate between the Jew and the Christian
preserved by Celsus, which perhaps contains the most complete catalogue
of the typical accusations hurled by the Jews at the Christians at that time.
For further discussion of the role of the Jews in the persecution of the Chris-
tians, see W. H. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church,
1965. pp. 178-204.
47. Justin, Dialogue 16 and 96, Falls, Justin’s Writings, pp. 172, 299;
the fact that Justin refers at various times to the curse that was daily pro-
nounced against the Christians (see chapters 47; 93; 133) daily in the syna-
gogues, suggests that the practice was well known and widespread at that
time. Epiphanius (Adversus haereses 1, 9) and Jerome (In Isaiam 52, 5) con-
firm the existence of the practice at their time; see also above pp. 35-38.
48. Justin, Dialogue 96, Falls, Jus tin’s Writings, p. 299; it is worth
noting that, according to Justin, Jewish proselytes in comparison with ethnic
Jews preserved a double portion of hatred for the Christians. He writes: “The
proselytes... blaspheme His name twice as much as you [i.e., Jews] do and
they, too, strive to torture and kill us who believe in Him, for they endeavor
to follow your example in everything” (Dialogue 122, Falls, Justin’s Writ-
ings, p. 337).
49. Justin, Dialogue 96.
50. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 26; cf. Dialogue 19,2-4; 21, 1;
27, 2; 45,3; 92,4.
51. Justin, I Apology 67, 3-7, Falls, Justin’s Writings, pp. 106-107
(emphasis supplied).
52. Justin, Dialogue 121, Falls, Justin’s Writings, p. 335; cf. Dia-
logue 64 and 128.
53. J. Daniélou, Bible and Liturgy, pp. 253 and 255; the causal relation-
ship between the day of the Sun and the origin of Sunday is investigated in
the next chapter, see especially pp. 261f.
55.The role of the resurrection on the origin of Sunday is considered
in chapter IX, pp. 270-3.
57. Justin, Dialogue 41,4.
58. Justin, Dialogue 138, 1; the reference to the “eight souls” occurs
in the New Testament in I Peter 3 :20 and II Peter 2:5. J. Dani~lou perceives
a justification for the eighth day even in Justin’s reference (cf. Dialogue
138) to the “fifteen cubits” of water that covered the mountains during the
flood (“Le Dimanche comme huiti~me jour,” Le Dimanche, Lex Orandi 39,
1965, p. 65).
59. J. Danielou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 257, comments sagaciously
that the symbolism of the eighth day like that of the first day “was used by
the Christians to exalt the superiority of the Sunday over the Sabbath.” Note
that Justin uses the Old Testament, both to maintain the thesis that the Sab-
bath was a temporary institution, introduced as the sign of reprobation of the
Jewish people, and to prove the superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath. The
Fathers, we shall notice (see below pp. 28Sf.), found additional “proof” texts
in the Old Testament to justify the validity of the eighth day and to use its
symbolism as an effective polemic! apologetic device in the Sabbath/Sun-
day controversy.
60. J. Danielou, Bible and Liturgy, pp. 230-231.
61. Ibid., p. 233.
62. The anti-Judaic motivations for the repudiation of the Sabbath
and the adoption of Sunday appear in the subsequent patristic literature. The
probative value of later texts is however inferior, inasmuch as they consti-
tute the second moment of reflection on a phenomenon which had already
occurred. By way of appendix to the material considered in this chapter we
might mention few later texts. These may serve to corroborate the conclu-
sions which have emerged. Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254) sees in the manna
which did not fall on the Sabbath day a preference given by God himself to
Sunday over the Sabbath already at the time of Moses: “If then it is certain
according to the Scriptures that God made the manna rain on the Lord’s Day
and ceased on the Sabbath, the Jews ought to understand that our Lord’s day
was preferred to their Sabbath and it was then indicated that the grace of
God did not in any way descend from heaven in their Sabbath day, nor the
heavenly bread, which is the Word of God, came to them. ... However on our
Sunday the Lord makes rain continually manna from heaven.” (In Exodum
homiliae 7, 5, GCS 29, 1920); the author of the Epistle to Diognetus se-
verely denounces the observances of the Sabbath and Jewish festival as an
“impious” superstition (ch. 4); in the Syriac Didascalia (ca. A.D. 250) the
Sabbath is interpreted as a perpetual mourning imposed by God on the Jews
in anticipation of the evil which they would have done to Christ: “He [Moses]
knew by the Holy Spirit and it was commanded him by Almighty God, who
knew what the people were to do to His Son and His beloved Jesus Christ, as
even then they denied Him in the person of Moses, and said: ‘Who hath
appointed thee head and judge over us?’—therefore he bound them before-
hand with mourning perpetually, in that he set apart and appointed the Sab-
bath for them. For they deserve to mourn, because they denied their Life and
laid hands upon their Saviour and delivered Him to death. Wherefore, al-
ready from that time there was laid upon them a mourning for their destruc-
tion” (ch. 21, Connolly, pp. 190-191). The author of this document then
proceeds to prove in a subtle manner that those “who keep the Sabbath imi-
tate mourning” (bc. cit.). Undoubtedly this was an impressive way to dis-
courage Sabbath-keeping. Eusebius attributes to the unfaithfulness of the
Jews the reason for the transference of the feast of the Sabbath to Sunday:
“On account of the unfaithfulness of these [Jews] the Logos has transferred
the feast of the Sabbath to the rising of the light, and he has transmitted to us,
as a figure of the true rest, the day of the Saviour, the day which belongs to
the Lord, the first day of light, in which the Saviour of the world, after hav-
ing accomplished all His works among men, and obtained victory over death,
passed through the doors of heaven” (Commentaria in Psalmos 91, PG 23,
1169). F. A. Regan, Dies Dotninica, p. 56, rightly points out that Eusebius
was a victim of “gross exaggeration” in affirming that “it was Christ Him-
self who instituted the transfer.” Perhaps Eusebius himself recognized that
he had crossed the limits of the credible, since a few paragraphs later he
contradicts what he had previously stated, saying: “Verily, all the rest, all
that was prescribed for the Sabbath, we have transferred to the Lord’s Day,
inasmuch as it is the most important, the one which dominates, the first and
the one who has more value than the Sabbath of the Jews (tou Ioudaikos
sabbatou timioteras)” (ibid., PG 23, 1172). For other references see above
fn. 15 and below pp. 28Sf.
Chapter 8
SUN-WORSHIP
AND THE
ORIGIN OF SUNDAY
The choice of Sunday as the new day of Christian worship cannot be

explained solely on the ground of negative anti-Judaic motivations. For in-
stance, Christians could have achieved the same objective by adopting Fri-
day as a memorial of Christ’s passion. We might say that anti-Judaism cre-
ated the necessity for substituting a new day of worship for the Sabbath, but
it did not determine the specific choice of Sunday. The reasons for the latter
must be found elsewhere.
Several significant studies have suggested that Christians may have
derived “a psychological orientation” toward Sunday from the sectarian so-
lar calendar used by Qumranites and similar groups, where the annual omer
day and day of Pentecost always fell on Sunday. 1 Though allowance must
be made for such a possibility, we are at a loss to find any explicit patristic
reference associating Easter-Sunday or weekly Sunday with this sectarian
solar calendar.2 Moreover, if our thesis is correct that Sunday observance
originated in Rome by the beginning of the second century, rather than in
Jerusalem in the apostolic period, it seems most unlikely that Christians
of pagan background would have derived the date for their annual and/or
weekly Sunday festivities from a Jewish sectarian liturgical calendar,
especially at a time when new festivals were introduced to evidence sepa-
ration from Judaism.
The influence of Sun-worship with its “Sun-day,” provides a more
plausible explanation for the Christian choice of Sunday. The chief objec-
tion against this possibility is of chronological nature. W. Rordorf, for in-
stance, argues that “We can consider the possibility that the origin of the
Christian observance of Sunday was influenced by some sun-cult only if a
“day of the sun” existed before the Christian observance of Sunday, that is to
say if we can prove the existence of the seven-day planetary week in pre-
Christian times.”3
-239-
Sun-Worship and the Orgin of Sunday 240
He maintains however that “since the earliest evidence for the exist-
ence of the planetary week [i.e. our present week, named after seven plan-
ets] is to be dated toward the end of the first century A.D.,” at a time when
“the Christians observance of Sunday was a practice of long standing,” any
influence of Sun-worship on the origin of Sunday is to be categorically ex-
cluded.4
There is no question that the existence of the planetary week with its
“Sun-day—dies solis” is crucial for determining any influence of Sun-wor-
ship on the Christian adoption of Sunday observance, inasmuch as the Sun
before the existence of a weekly “Sun-day” was venerated every morning.5
It is not indispensable however that the planetary week should have origi-
nated in pre-Christian times, if Sunday-keeping was introduced in the early
part of the second century. In fact, if it can be proved that the planetary week
was in existence in the Greco-Roman world already in the first century of
our era and that the Sun was venerated at that time on Sunday, then the
possibility exists that Christians—especially new pagan converts—in their
search for a new day of worship to differentiate themselves from the Jews
could have been favorably predisposed toward the day of the Sun. The exist-
ence of a rich Biblical tradition that associated God and Christ with the power
and splendor of the Sun could well have facilitated an amalgamation of ideas.
To verify the validity of this hypothesis we shall briefly consider the follow-
ing factors:
(1) Sun-worship and the planetary week prior to A.D. 150.
(2) The reflexes of Sun-worship in Christianity.
(3) The day of the Sun and the origin of Sunday.
Sun-Worship and the Planetary Week Prior to A.D. 150

Sun-worship. Was Sun-worship known and practiced in ancient
Rome in the first century A.D., and if so, to what extent? Gaston H.
Halsberghe, in his recent monograph The Cult of Sol Invictus (part of the
series on Oriental Religions in the Roman Empire edited by the living au-
thority on the subject, M. J. Vermaseren), presents persuasive texts and argu-
ments indicating that Sun-worship was “one of the oldest components of the
Roman religion.”6
According to his well-founded conclusions, the Sun-cult in ancient
Rome experienced two phases. Until the end of the first century A.D., the
Romans practiced what he calls an “autochthonous [i.e. native or indigenous]
Sun-cult,” but “starting in the second century A.D., the Eastern Sun-worship
began to influence Rome and the rest of the Empire.”7 A sampling of evi-
dences will suffice to make us aware of its existence and importance.
A calendar of the time of Augustus (the Fasti of Philocalus dated

before 27 B.C.) beside the date of August 9th reads: “Soli indigiti in colle
Quirinali—to the native Sun on Qjuirinal hill.” 8 Scholarly opinion differs
on the interpretation of the phrase “native Sun—Sol indiges” which occurs
in few ancient Roman texts, inasmuch as the Romans could well have desig-
nated the Sun as their national god, though in actuality it was an imported
deity. 9 However, even granting that Sol indiges was not really indigenous to
the Romans, the fact remains that it was regarded as a Roman god.
After the conquest of Egypt (31 B.C.) Augustus sent two obelisks to
Rome and had them “dedicated to the Sun—Soli donum dedit”10 in the Cir-
cus Maximus and in Mars Field to thank the same god for the victory.
Tertullian reports thatin his time (ca. A.D. 150-230) “the huge Obelisk” in
the circus was still “set up in public to the Sun,” and that the circus “was
chiefly consecrated to the Sun.”11
Several altars of the first century A.D. have been found dedicated to
“the Sun and the Moon—Solis et Lunae.” 12 Nero (A.D. 54-68) attributed to
the Sun the merit for the discovery of the plot against him and erected the
famous “Colossus Neronis at the highest point of the velia, representing the
Sun, with the features of Nero and with seven long rays around his head.”13
Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), who identified himself with the Sun in his coins,
according to Elius Spartianus (ca. A.D. 300) “dedicated to the Sun” the Co-
lossus Neronis after removing the features of Nero.14 Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55-
120) also reports that Vespasian’s (A.D. 69-79) third legion “according to
the Syrian custom, greeted the rising sun.”15
Halsberghe maintains that from the beginning of the second century
the Eastern cult of “Sol Invictus—Invincible Sun” penetrated in Rome in
two different fashions: privately, through the cult of Sol Invictus Mit hra and
publicly through that of Sol Invictus Elagabal. 16 While we disagree with the
author on the date of the diffusion of Mithraism, since there are significant
indications that it had reached Rome already in the first century A.D., 17 the
differentiation between the two cults is persuasively demonstrated. Mithraism
primarily was a private cult, though it numbered among its adherents magis-
trates and emperors. Sol Invictus Elagabal, on the other hand, was a popular
cult with grandiose temples and during the rule of the young Emperor
Elagabalus (A.D. 2 18-222) was made the official cult of the whole empire.
These diversified forms of Sun-worship, resulting from the penetra-
tion of Eastern Sun-cults, substantiate Halsberghe’s conclusion that “from
the early part of the second century A.D. the cult of Sol Invictus was domi-
nant in Rome and in other parts of the Empire. “18 The identification and
worship of the Emperor as Sun-god, encouraged by the Eastern theology of
the “King-Sun,” and by political considerations, undoubtedly contributed to
the diffusion of a public Sun-cult.19
Planetary week. Since the expansion of the Sun-cult is con-
temporaneous with the origin of Sunday, is it possible that the former influ-
enced the latter? A causal relationship between the two is conceivable only
if the planetary week with its “dies solis—day of the Sun” already existed in
the first century A.D. in the Greco-Roman world. Only in this case the pre-
dominant Sun-cult could have enhanced the day of the Sun and consequently
influenced Christians to adopt it for their weekly worship after reinterpret-
ing its symbolism in the light of the Christian message.
Scholarly opinion differs on the question of the origin of the plan-
etary week. Some view it as a pagan interpretation of the Jewish week while
others regard it as a strict pagan astrological invention.20 D. Waterhouse ar-
gues persuasively in favor of an amalgamation of Babylonian, Greek, Egyp-
tian and Jewish ingredients.21 For the puropse of our research the time of its
penetration is more important than the causes of its origin.
The existence and common use of the planetary week already in the
first century A.D. are well attested by several testimonies. In the present
study we need refer only to few of them. The Roman historian Dio Cassius,
who wrote his Roman History between A.D. 200-220, reports that Jerusalem
was captured both by Pompey in 63 B.C. and by Gaius Sosius in 37 B.C. “on
the day even then called the day of Saturn.”22 That the praxis of naming the
days of the week after the planetary deities was already in use before Christ
is further corroborated by the contemporary references of Horace (ca. 35
B.C.) to “dies Jovis—Thursday”23 and of Tibullus (ca. B.C. 29-30) to dies
Saturni—Saturday.”24 Dio Cassius himself speaks of the planetary week as
“prevailing everywhere” in his time to the extent that among the Romans it
was “already an ancestral custom.”25
Two Sabine calendars found in central Italy in 1795 and a third one
which came to light at Cimitele, near Nola in southern Italy, in 1956 (all
three dated no later than the time of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37),26 present in the
right column the eight letters from A to H of the eight-day Roman nundinum
market week and in the left column the seven letters from A to G, represent-
ing the seven-day planetary week.27 In addition to these calendars should be
considered also several so-called “indices nundinarii” (some of them dated
in the early empire).28 These give the name of the towns and the correspond-
ing days of the planetary week (which always starts with Saturday—dies
Saturni) on which the market was to be held.
In the light of these and other indications, the archeologist Attilio
Degrassi at the Third International Congress of Greek and Roman Epigra-
phy (1957) stated: “I wish to insist on my conviction that this planetary week...
did not become known and commonly used, as generally believed, only in
the first half of the first century A.D., but already in the first years of the
Augustan era [27 B.C. -A.D. 14]... This is a conclusion that appears inevi-
table after the discovery of the calendar of Nola.”2
Subsequent indications of the widespread use of the planetary week
in the first century A.D. are impressive. A brief listing of them will suffice
for our purpose. A stone calendar found in Puteoli (dated first century A.D.)
contains the date and name of three planetary days; “[Mercu]ri—[Wednes-
day], Jovis—[Thursday], Veneris—E Friday].”30 Apollonius of Tyana, a re-
nowned wonder-worker, according to his biographer Philostratus (ca. A.D.
170-245) in a trip he took to India between A.D. 40-60, received from larchas,
an Indian sage, seven rings each named after the “seven stars” and he wore
them “in turn on the day of the week which bore its name.’’31
Petronius, a Roman satirist (died ca. A.D. 66) in his novel The Ban-
quet of Trimalchio describes a stick calendar which Trimalchio had affixed
on the doorpost with the number of the days on the side and “the likeness of
the seven stars” on the other side. A knob was inserted in the respective
holes to indicate the date and the day. 32 Sextus Julius Frontinus (ca. A.D. 35-
103), a Roman soldier and writer, in his work The Stratagems, referring to
the fall of Jerusalem of A.D. 70, writes that Vespasian “attacked the Jews on
the day of Saturn, on which it is forbidden for them to do anything serious
and defeated them.”33
In Pompeii and Herculaneum there have been uncovered not only
two series of mural pictures of the seven planetary gods in an excellent state
of preservation 34 but also numerous wall-inscriptions and graffiti either list-
ing explicitly the plan. etary gods of the week or giving the planetary name
of the day of a particular date. 35 A two-line mural inscription for instance
reads: “the 9th day before the Kalends of June [May 24] theEmperor.. . it
was the day of the Sun.”36 Such evidence erases all doubt of the widespread
use of the planetary week before A.D. 79, the date of the destruction of
Pompeii by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.
A pictorial calendar found on the wall of the ruins of the baths of
Titus (A.D. 79-81) deserves mention on account of its originality. In a square
frame there appear in the upper row the pictures of the seven planetary gods.
In the center are the twelve signs of the zodiac representing the months and
on the two sides appear the numbers of the days, on the right the days I to
XV, and the left, the days XVI to XXX. Beside each of these there are holes
where knobs were inserted to indicate the month, the number of the day and
the protecting planetary god. Its location in such a public building is indica-
tive of its popular use.37
Plutarch (ca. A.D. 46-after 119) the celebrated Greek biographer, in
a treatise entitled Symposia, written in question-and-answer form between
A.D. 100-125, poses the question: “Why are not the days which have the
names of the planets arranged according to the order of the planets but the
contrary?” 38 Unfortunately, only the title of this dialogue has been preserved.
However, the question per se implies not only that the planetary week was
commonly used by the end of the first century, but also that apparently by
then most people could not even account for the differences between the
current astronomical order of the planets and that of the planetary week.39
Numerous testimonies could be cited in support of the wide use of
the planetary week in subsequent centuries, but these would be too late to be
relevant to our research.The above brief listing of evidence shows conclu-
sively that the planetary week was known and used in ancient Rome at least
since the beginning of our Christian era.41
The Enhancement of the Day of the Sun. The contemporaneous
existence of Sun worship and of the planetary week suggests the possibility
that with the development of the former, the day dedicated to the Sun took
on greater importance.42 This is corroborated by the process whereby the
primacy and prestige of the day of Saturn was transferred to that of the Sun.
In fact, initially the day of the Sun “had nothing to distinguish it from the
other days”43 since it was the second day of the week following Saturn-day
which was the first. In time, however, the day of the Sun came to occupy the
first and “most venerable” position.
The process which led to the enhancement of Sun-day at the expense
of Saturn-day is difficult to trace because of the lack of explicit information
regarding what religious customs, if any, were associated with either day.
This may be due, partly at least, to the Roman concept of religion as being
social, political and external. Religion was viewed, as V. Monachino ex-
plains, “as a contract between the State and the gods” rather than as a per-
sonal devotion expressed by participation in weekly worship services.44 The
significant official religious ceremonies were attended primarily by aristo-
crat s and dignitaries who displayed their religiosity merely by fulfilling
external rituals.
This is not to belittle the preference the day of the Sun received for
social and religious purposes. Constantine in his two constitutions of March
3 and July 3 A.D. 321, by describing the day of the Sun as “venerable—
venerabilis” and as “famous for its veneration—veneratione sui celeb rem,”45
shows, as aptly noted by Arthur Weigall, “that he was thinking of it as a
traditional sun-festival.”46 The veneration of the Sun, however, seemingly
did not require pagans to participate on Sunday in special public Sun-wor-
ship services.47
This matter is illuminated by a statement of Tertullian found in his
apology To the Pagans (written in A.D. 197). Replying to the taunt that Chris-
tians were Sun-worshiper because “they prayed toward the east” and “made
Sunday, a day of festivity,” he writes: “What then? Do you do less than this?
Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshiping the
heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is
you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the
week; and you have selected its day [Sunday] in preference of the preceding
day [Saturday] as the most suitable in the week for either an entire absti-
nence from bath, or for its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest
and for banqueting.”48
This statement provides significant information: (1) it indicates that
at that time both Christians and pagans shared the custom of praying toward
the east and of spending Sunday as a feast day; (2) it suggests that the Ro-
mans not only had adopted the planetary week, but had also already selected
Sunday in the place of Saturn-day as their day of rest and feasting; (3) it
mentions the nature of the pagan Sunday-keeping, that is, a social festival
marked primarily by abstention from bathing, idleness and banqueting.
When did the day of the Sun come to acquire such a festal character in an-
cient Rome? No certain indications are available to pinpoint the time. Pliny
the Elder (died A.D. 79) in his Natural History writes that “in the midst of
these planetary gods moves the Sun, whose magnitude and power are the
greatest . . . he is glorious and preeminent, all-seeing and all-hearing.”49
Several Mithraea or sanctuaries of the pagan Sun-god Mithra have
been found where the Sun occupies a dominant place in the sequence of the
planetary gods. In the Mithraea of the Seven Portals and of the Seven Spheres
(both excavated at Ostia, the ancient port city of Rome)50 as well as in the
Bononia relief,51 the Sun occupies either the first or the last or the highest
place among the planetary gods. The Epicurean Celsus (ca. A.D. 140-180)
similarly describes the famous Mithraic ladder of the seven gates to be as-
cended by regenerated souls by starting with Saturn and ending with the
dominant Sun.52 This pre-eminence assigned to the dies Solis—Sunday, as F.

Cu-mont notes, “certainly contributed to the general recognition of Sunday
as a holiday.”53
That the day of the Sun enjoyed preeminence already by the middle
of the second century is clearly indicated by the famous astrologer Vettius
Valens. In his Anthology composed. between A.D. 154 and 174,54 in explain-
ing how to find the day of the week of any given birth date heexplicitly
states:”And this is the sequence of the planetary stars in relation to the days
of the week: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn.”55
The preeminence of Sunday is also implied in Justin Martyr’s three-
fold reference to it in his I Apology 67. Why in his brief exposition of the
Christian worship did he mention three times “the day of the Sun”? Why did
he present the creation of light on the first day as the first reason for the
Christian Sunday gathering? Apparently because the day was venerated by
the Romans. By associating Christian worship with both the day and the
symbolism of the pagan Sun, Justin, as we suggested earlier, aimed at gain-
ing from the Emperor a favorable appraisal of Christianity.
Though not sufficiently explicit to establish the exact time when the
day of the Sun emerged as the first and most important day of the week,
these few indications do reveal however that it occurred in concomitance
with the development of Sun-worship which became widespread beginning
from the early part of the second century.
If the day of the Sun, enhanced by the prevailing Sun-cult, did sup-
plant the day of Saturn in the Roman world by the beginning of the second
century, one may ask, did Christians, as well expressed by B. Botte, “adapt
the day of the Sun to the Christian Sunday as they adapted the natalis invicti
[December 25] making it the symbol of the birth of Christ Sun of righteous-
ness”?56 In other words, could not the Christian adoption of Sunday obser-
vance in place of the Sabbath be contemporaneous and related to the emer-
gence of the day of the Sun over that of Saturn in the Roman world? We
shall attempt to answer this question first by briefly considering some gen-
eral reflexes of the Sun-cult in Christian thought and practice and then by
focusing on the specific influence of the pagan day of the Sun on the Chris-
tian adoption of that day.
Reflexes of Sun-Worship on Christianity
Christians resented and denied the accusation of being Sun-worship-
ers (and even suffered horrible martyrdoms rather than offer a pinch of in-
cense on the imperial altars), yet as Jacquetta Hawkes well puts it, “with the
malicious irony so often apparent in history, even while they fought hero-
ically on one front, their position was infiltrated from another.”57 For in-
stance, while on the one hand, Tertullian strongly refuted the pagan charge
that the Christians were Sun-worshipers,58 on the other hand he chides the
Christians at length for celebrating pagan festivals within their own commu-
nities.59 That Christians were not immune to the popular veneration of the
Sun and astrological practices is attested by the frequent condemnation of
these by the Fathers.60
Three significant reflexes of Sun-worship in the Christian liturgy can
be seen in the theme of Christ-the-Sun, in the orientation toward the east and
in the date of Christmas. These we shall briefly examine, since they shed
some light on the possible causal relationship between Sun-worship and the
origin of Sunday observance.
Christ-the-Sun. In numerous pagan pictorial representations which
have come down to us, the Sun or Mithra is portrayed as a man with a disk at
the back of his head. 61 It is a known fact that this image of the Sun was used
in early Christian art and literature to represent Christ, the true “Sun of righ-
teousness.” In the earliest known Christian mosaic (dated ca. A.D. 240) found
in the Vatican necropolis below the altar of St. Peter (in the small mauso-
leum M. or the Iulii), Christ is portrayed as the Sun (Helios) ascending on
the quadriga chariot with a flying cloak and a nimbus behind his head from
which irradiate seven rays in the form of a T (allusion to the cross?).62 Thou-
sands of hours have been devoted to drawing the sun-disk with the equal-
armed cross behind the head of Christ and (from the fifth century) the heads
of other important persons.
The motif of the Sun was used not only by Christian artists to portray
Christ but also by Christian teachers to proclaim Him to the pagan masses
who were well acquainted with the rich Sun-symbology. Numerous Fathers
abstracted and reinterpreted the pagan symbols and beliefs about the Sun
and used them apologetically to teach the Christian message. 63 Does not the
fact that Christ was early associated in iconography and in literature (if not
in actual worship) with the Sol invictus— Invincible Sun, suggest the possi-
bility that even the day of the Sun could readily have been adopted for wor-
shiping Christ, the Sol iustitiae—the Sun of Justice? It would require only a
short step to worship Christ-the.’Sun, on the day specifically dedicated to
the Sun.
Eastward Orientation. The Christian adoption of the East in place
of Jerusalem as the new orientation for prayer provides an additional signifi-
cant indication of the influence of the Sun cult on early Christian worship.
The Jews (as indicated by Daniel’s custom and by Solomon’s prayer at the
dedication of the temple) 64 considered praying toward Jerusalem to be an
obligation which determined the very validity of their prayers. That primi-
tive Christians continued to adhere to such a practice is evidenced by the
JudaeoAhristian sect of the Ebionites who, as reported by Irenaeus, “prayed
toward Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.”65
The Fathers advance several reasons for the adoption of the eastward
position for prayer. Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150-215) explains that
“prayers are offered while looking toward sunrise in the East” because the
Orient represents the birth of light that “dispels the darkness of the night”
and because of the orientation of “the ancient temples.”66 For Origen (ca.
A.D. 185-254) the East symbolizes the soul that looks to the source of light.67
Others urged Christians to pray looking toward the East to remind them-
selves of God’s paradise and/or of Christ’s coming.68
Christians who had previously venerated the Sun, facing the neces-
sity of dissociating themselves from the Jews, apparently not only aban-
doned Jerusalem as the orientation for prayer, but also reverted, unconsciously
perhaps, to the direction of sunrise, reinterpreting its meaning in the light of
the Christian message. One wonders, was the change of direction for prayer
from the Jewish temple to sunrise interrelated also with the change of the
worship day from the “Jewish” Sabbath to the day of the Sun? While prayer
per se is not a weekly (at least it ought not to be) but a daily religious prac-
tice, could not the daily praying toward the Sun have encouraged Christians
to worship also weekly on the day of the Sun? Moreover, could not the fact
that Christ and His resurrection were associated with the rising sun have
easily predisposed Christians to worship the rising “Sun of Justice” on the
day of the Sun?
Cultured and well-meaning pagans, according to Tertullian, corre-
lated the Christian praying toward the East with their Sunday observance,
presenting both customs as one basic evidence of Christians’ Sun-worship.
Tertullian denied the charge, attributing to the pagans the very same cus-
toms. Note, however, that both the accusers and the refuter interrelate the
two customs, presenting them as one basic indication of Sun-worship.69
This close nexus between the two customs, admitted even by the
pagans, suggests the possibility that Christians could well have adopted them
contemporaneously because of the same factors discussed above. This is the
conclusion which also F. A. Regan reaches after an extensive analysis of
patristic references dealing with the orientation toward the East. He writes:
“A suitable, single example of the pagan influence may be had from an in-
vestigation of the Christian custom of turning toward the East, the land of
the rising sun, while offering their prayers. ... For in the transition from the
observance of the Sabbath to the celebration of the Lord’s day, the primitive
Christians not only substituted the first day of the week for the seventh, but
they went even further and changed the traditional Jewish practice of facing
toward Jerusalem during their daily period of prayer.”70
The strong attraction exerted by the solar cults on the Christians sug-
gests the possibility therefore that these influenced not only the adoption of
the eastward direction for daily prayers but also of the day of the Sun for the
weekly worship.
The Date of Christmas. The adoption of the 25th of December for
the celebration of Christmas is perhaps the most explicit example of Sun-
worship’s influence on the Christian liturgical calendar. It is a known fact
that the pagan feast of the dies natalis Solis Invic ti—the birthday of the
Invincible Sun, was held on that date.71 Do Christian sources openly admit
the borrowing of the date of such a pagan festivity? Obviously not.72 To
admit borrowing a pagan festival, even after due re-interpretation of its mean-
ing, would be tantamount to an open betrayal of the faith. This the Fathers
were anxious to avoid.
Augustine and Leo the Great, for instance, strongly reprimanded those
Christians who at Christmas worshiped the Sun rather than the birth of
Christ.73 Therefore, it is well to keep in mind that in the investigation of the
influence of the Sun-cults on the Christian liturgy, the most we can hope to
find are not direct but indirect indications. This warning applies not only for
the date of Christmas but for that of Sunday as well.
Few scholars maintain that the date of the 25th of December was
derived from astronomical-allegorical observations. It was the opinion of
some Fathers that both the conception and passion of Christ occurred at the
time of the vernal equinox on the 25th of March.74 Reckoning from that date
the nine months of pregnancy of Mary, the date of the birth of Christ was
computed to be the 25th of December. 0. Cullmann rightly observes how-
ever that these computations “can scarcely have given the initiative.”75 They
seem to represent rather an a posteriori rationale advanced to justify an al-
ready existing date and practice. To the majority of scholars, as stated by J.
A. Jungmann, “It has become progressively clear that the real reason for the
choice of the 25th of December was the pagan feast of the dies natalis Solis
Invicti which was celebrated in those days with great splendor.”76
Gaston H. Halsberghe in his recent monograph The Cult of Sd Invictus,

already cited, similarly concludes: “The authors whom we consulted on this
point are unanimous in admitting the influence of the pagan celebration held
in honor of Deus Sol Invictus on the 25th of December, the Natalis Jnvicti,
on the Christian celebration of Christmas. This influence is held to be re-
sponsible for the shifting to the 25th of December of the birth of Christ,
which had until then been held on the day of the Epiphany, the 6th of Janu-
ary. The celebration of the birth of the Sun god, which was accompanied by
a profusion of light and torches and the decoration of branches and small
trees, had captivated the followers of the cult to such a degree that even after
they had been converted to Christianity they continued to celebrate the feast
of the birth of the Sun god.”77
Let us note that the Church of Rome (as in the case of Easter-Sunday
so in the question of the celebration of Christmas) pioneered and promoted
the adoption of the new date. In fact the first explicit indication that on the
25th of December Christians celebrated Christ’s birthday, is found in a Ro-
man document known as Chronograph of 354 (a calendar attributed to Fuzious
Dionysius Philocalus), where it says: “VIII Kal. Jan. natus Christus in
Betleern Judaeae—On the eighth calends of January [i.e., December 25th]
Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”78 That the Church of Rome intro-
duced and championed this new date, is accepted by most scholars. For in-
stance, Mario Righetti, a renowned Catholic liturgist, writes: “After the peace
the Church of Rome, to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan
masses, found it convenient to institute the 25th of December as the feast of
the temporal birth of Christ, to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated
on the same day in honor of the “Invincible Sun” Mithras, the conqueror of
darkness.”79
In the Orient, however, the birth and the baptism of Jesus were cel-
ebrated respectively on January 5 and 6. B. Botte, a Belgian Benedictine
scholar, in a significant study concludes that this date also evolved from an
originally pagan feast, namely Epiphany, which commemorated the birth
and growth of light.80 It was not an easy task for the Church of Rome to get
the Eastern churches to accept the new date of December 25th, since many
of them “firmly adhered to the practice of observing the festival of Christ’s
birth in its old form as an Epiphany festival on January 5th-6th.”81
It would take us beyond our immediate scope to trace the process of
adoption by the various Christian communities of the Roman Christmas date.
It will be sufficient to notice that the adoption of the date of December 25th
for the celebration of Christ’s birth provides an additional example not only
of the influence of the Sun-cult, but also of the primacy exerted by Rome in
promoting liturgical innovations.
The three examples we have briefly considered (Christ-theSun, the
eastward orientation, and the Christmas date) evidence sufficiently the in-
fluence of Sun-cults on Christian thought and liturgy. J. A. Jungmann sum-
marizes it well when he writes that “Christianity absorbed and made its own
what could be salvaged from pagan antiquity, not destroying it but convert-
ing it, Christianizing what could be turned to good.”82 These conclusions
justify a more direct investigation of the influence of the pagan veneration
of the day of the Sun on the Christian adoption of the very same day.
The Day of the Sun and the Origin of Sunday
The association between the Christian Sunday and the pagan venera-
tion of the day of the Sun is not explicit before the time of Eusebius (ca. A.D.
260-340). Though Christ is often referred to by earlier Fathers as “True Light”
and “Sun of Justices”83 no deliberate attempt was made prior to Eusebius to
justify Sunday observance by means of the symbology of the day of the Sun.
On the other hand Eusebius several times refers explicitly to the motifs of
the light, of the sun and of the day of the Sun, to explain the substitution of
the Christian Sunday for the Jewish Sabbath.
For example, in his Commentary on Psalm 91 he writes: “The Logos
has transferred by the New Alliance the celebration of the Sabbath to the
rising of the light. He has given us a type of the true rest in the saving day of
the Lord, the first day of light. ... In this day of light, first day and true day of
the sun, when we gather after the interval of six days, we celebrate the holy
and spiritual Sabbaths.... All things whatsoever that were prescribed for the
Sabbath, we have transferred them to the Lord’s day, as being more authori-
tative and more highly regarded and first in rank, and more honorable than
the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, it is on this day of the creation of the world that
God said: “Let there be light and there was light.” It is also on this day that
the Sun of Justice has risen for our souls.”84
Eusebius’ two basic reasons for the observance of Sunday, namely,
the commemoration of the creation of light and of the resurrection of the
Sun of Justice,85 are reiterated almost verbatim by Jerome (ca. A.D’. 342-
420), when he explains: “If it is called day of the Sun by the pagans, we most
willingly acknowledge it as such,since it is on this day that the light of the
world has appeared and on this day the Sun of Justice has risen.”86
In a sermon attributed to Maximus of Turin (d. ca. A.D. 400-423) we
find an extreme development. The very designation “day of the Sun” is viewed
as a proleptic announcement of the resurrection of Christ: “We hold the day

of the Lord to be venerable and solemn, because on it the Savior, like the
rising sun conquered the darkness of the underworld and gleamed in the
glory of the resurrection. This is why the same day was called day of the
Sun by the pagans, because the Sun of Justice once risen would have
illuminated it.”87
These and similar texts where the meaning of and the motivation for
Sunday observance are explicitly interrelated to the symbology of the day of
the Sun, come to us from a later period when Sunday was already well estab-
lished. Since these statements represent later admissions, can they be legiti-
mately utilized to ascertain the influence of the day of the Sun on the origin
of Sunday observance? We shall answer this ques tion by raising another,
namely, is it not possible, as remarked by F. H. Colson, that “what the Chris-
tians of a later epoch wrote may well have been said and thought by them of
the earlier, even if it was not written”?88
Let us not forget that prior to the Edict of Milan (A.D. 313) Chris-
tians were an illegal minority forced to defend their beliefs and practices
from pagan accusations and influences. Tertullian, we noticed, though he
speaks of the day of the Sun which both Christians and pagans celebrated,
avoids using the sun-symbology to justify the Christian Sunday seemingly
for two reasons: firstly because that would have supported the pagan accusa-
tion that Christians were Sun-worshipers (a charge he strongly resented);
secondly, because he was cognizant of the influence which pagan festivals
still had on the Christians.89
In his treatise On Idolatry, for instance, Tertullian exclaims: “How
widked to celebrate them [i.e. pagan feasts] among brethren.”90 Therefore,
any attempt to associate the day of the Sun with the Christian Sunday, at a
time when the latter was still a young institution, could have been readily
misinterpreted by Christians still susceptible to pagan influences. Besides,
this would have sanctioned existing pagan accusations. A century later, how-
ever, when Sunday observance became well established, the Fathers, at least
some, did not hesitate to designate the Christian Sunday as “the true day of
the Sun.”91
This denomination should not be regarded as “a new apologetic tech-
nique,” but rather an explicit admission of what had been an implicit recog-
nition. 92 Is it possible that even the Biblical notion of the sun and of light
predisposed Christians favorably toward the day and the symbolism of the
sun? It is a fact that there existed in Judaism and in primitive Christianity a
rich and long-standing tradition which viewed the Deity as the True Light
and the Sun of Righteousness. 93 Malachi, for example, predicted that “the
Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings” (4:2). 94
Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, announced the coming of
Christ, saying “the sunrising (anatole) from on high has visited us, to give
light to them that sit in darkness”95 (Luke 1 :78-79). John, both in his Gospel
and in Revelation, repeatedly describes Christ as “the light of men,” “the
light shining in darkness,” “the true light,”97 “a burning and shining lamp.”97
Even Christ defined Himself as “the light of the world’98 and urged His fol-
lowers to “believe in the light’’ in order “to become sons of light.”99 The
book of Revelation closes with the assurance that in the new earth there will
be no need of the sun because “God will be their light.”100
The existence of two distinct traditions, one Judaeo-Christian which
associated the Deity with the Light and the Sun, and the other pagan which
venerated the Sun, especially on Sun-day, could well have produced an amal-
gamation of ideas within the Christian community. This process could have
predisposed those Christians who had previously venerated the Sun and who
now needed to differentiate themselves from the Jewish Sabbath, to adopt
the day of the Sun for their weekly worship, since its symbology well ex-
pressed existing Christian views. Such considerations were possibly encour-
aged by the valoriztion in the Roman society of the day of the Sun in place of
the preceding day of Saturn.101
It should be clearly stated, however, that by adopting the day of the
Sun, Christians did not intend to sanction and/or to encourage the worship of
the pagan Sol invictus (an insinuation that Tertullian emphatically repudi-
ates),102 but rather to commemorate on that day such divine acts as the cre-
ation of light and the resurrection of the Sun of Righteousness. Both events,
they noticed, not only occurred on the day of the Sun, but could also be
effectively proclaimed through the rich symbology of the sun.
Eusebius well exemplifies this in the passage we cited earlier, where
referring to the day of the Sun he writes, “It is on this day of the creation of
the world that God said. ‘Let there be light and there was light.’ It is also on
this day that the Sun of Justice has risen for our souls.”103 In associating the
creation of light and the resurrection of Christ with the day of the Sun,
Eusebius was expressing explicitly what had been implicitly understood by
many Christians for a long time. We noticed, for instance, that almost two
centuries earlier, Justin Martyr placed in juxtaposition the creation of light
and the resurrection of Christ with the day of the Sun .104 Why? Presumably
because all three (creation of light, resurrection of Christ and day of the Sun)
shared a common denominator, namely, association with the Sun-Light of
the first day.
How did Christ’s resurrection come to be associated with sunrising?
Apparently because, as we noted earlier, there existed a Judaeo-Christian
tradition which described the Deity by means of the symbolism of the sun.
Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho cites several Old Testament passages to
prove that Christ is “more ardent and more light-giving than the rays of the
sun.”105 This theme was undoubtedly encouraged by prevailing solar beliefs
which Christians found to supply an effective symbology to proclaim the
Christian message. Melito of Sardis (d. ca. A.D. 190), for example, utilizes
the common beliefof the daily baptism of the sun and stars in the ocean and
of their daily rising to disperse darkness,106 to explain the baptism and resur-
rection of Christ: “If the sun washes itself with the stars and the moon in the
ocean, why should not Christ have washed himself in the Jordan? He, the
king of the heavens and the chief of creation, the Sun of the orient, who
appeared both to the dead in Hades and to the mortals in the world! He, the
only Sun who rose from heaven.”107
An earlier indication of the viewing of Christ’s resurrection as the
rising of the sun, is provided by Ignatius (ca. A.D. 110) in his Epistle to the
Magnesians. Referring to what we have concluded to be the Lord’s life, he
adds, “on [or by] which also our life arose through him and his death” (9:1).
It has been noted that the Bishop here “uses a verb which is regularly ap-
plied to the rising of the heavenly bodies [anatello] and not that which is
commonly used of the resurrection from the dead [anistemi]108 Should we
regard this as purely coincidental? B. Botte replies emphatically that “it is
impossible.” He then raises a significant question: “If the resurrection of
Christ is presented by the image of a rising star, is it rash to think that S.
Ignatius intended to allude discreetly to the designation of the day of the sun
which had been given to Sunday?”109
To conclude that Ignatius was referring to the day of the Sun when
he employed the verb commonly used for sunrising to describe the resurrec-
tion is hazardous. The subject of the immediate context, as we noticed, is the
prophets who obviously did not observe the day of the Sun. The fact how-
ever thatIgnatius views the resurrection of Christ as the sunrising, suggests
the possibility of an early amalgamation of ideas. In other words, since Sun-
day was the day of the Sun and since Christ’s resurrection was viewed as the
rising of the “Sun of Justice,” it would only take a short step for Christians to
associate the two.
In fact, in their search for a day of worship distinct from that of the
Jews, Christians could well have viewed the day of the Sun as a providential
and valid substitution. Its symbology fittingly coincided with two divine
acts which occurred on that day: the first creation of light and the rising of
“the Sun of the second creation.” F. H. Colson rightly points out that this
coincidence could well have been regarded as “a proof that in this pagan
institution the Divine Spirit had been preparing the world for something
better. In fact, the devout convert might well rejoice to be able to put a Chris-
tian construction on what had been a treasured association of his pagan
past.”110
These feelings we noticed are explicitly expressed at a later date.
Maximus of Turin views the pagan day of the Sun as the prefiguration of the
“Sun of Justice” who “once risen would have illuminated it.”111 Eusebius
similarly clearly states that “the Savior’s day.., derives its name from light,
and from the sun.’’112 It is true that such bold admissions are not found in
earlier sources, but the earlier unwillingness of the Fathers to acknowledge
explicitly the adoption of the day of the Sun and/or of its symbology can be
satisfactorily explained, as we said above, by the existing necessity to safe-
guard a recently introduced institution.
Today, for instance, Christians generally do not fear to admit that
their Christmas celebration (date, lights, trees, gifts, etc.) derives from the
pagan festivity of the Natalis So/is Invicti. Why? Undoubtedly because such
an admission would hardly tempt any Christian to commemorate the birth of
the Sun-god rather than that of Christ. For early Christian converts from
paganism however, the situation was altogether different. Any explicit ac-
knowledgment that pagan dates and symbols had been borrowed to com-
memorate Christ’s birth and resurrection could readily have encouraged many
Christians to relapse (as actually happened) into their recently abandoned
pagan practices. It was therefore this danger of “paganizing” a recently “Chris-
tianized” pagan festivity that led the Fathers, initially at least, to avoid, as a
precautionary measure, establishing an explicit interdependence between the
Christian Sunday and the pagan day of the Sun.
Conclusion. In this chapter we have found that all the necessary
ingredients for the day of the Sun to influence the origin of Sunday obser-
vance were already present when the latter made its appearance.
Various ‘Sun-cults were predominant in ancient Rome by the early
part of the second century. That these attracted the imagination and interest
of Christian converts from paganism, we found evidenced by the develop-
ment of the theme of Christ-the-Sun, and by the adoption of the eastward

orientation for prayer and of the date of the 25th of December. The existence
of a rich Biblical tradition which associated the deity with the Sun and Light
seemingly facilitated, if it did not encourage such an amalgamation of ideas.
The valorization of the day of the Sun over that of Saturn, as a result
of the diffusion of the Sun-cults, possibly oriented Christians (who desired
to differentiate themselves from the Sabbath of the Jews) toward such a day.113
This choice how ever, it must be stated again, was not motivated by their
desire to venerate the Sun-god on his day, but rather by the fact that its sym-
bology could fittingly commemorate two important events of the history of
salvation—creation and resurrection: “it is on this day that the Light of the
World has appeared and on this day that the Sun of Justice has risen.”114
Moreover, the day of the Sun enabled Christians to explain also the Biblical
mysteries to the pagan world by means of an effective symbology that was
very familiar to them.
Our investigation into the origin of Sunday observance has so far
focused on two major contributory factors. The first, anti-Judaism, which
appears to have caused a widespread devaluation and repudiation of the Sab-
bath, thereby creating the exigency of a new day of worship. The second, the
development of Sun-cults with the consequent enhancement of the day of
the Sun over that of Saturn, a contingency which apparently oriented Chris-
tians toward such a day, since it provided an adequate symbolism to com-
memorate significant divine acts. However, no adequate consideration has
yet been given to the theological motivations for Sunday observance pre-
sented in the early Christian literature. Since these provide additional in-
sights into this complex question of the origin of Sunday, we shall now di-
rect our attention to them before drawing a final conclusion.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 8
1. See above p. 119 fn. 88.
2. J. V. Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, 1959, pp. 161-162, argues
for the influence on early Christianity of the old calendar of Enoch and Jubi-
lees, by referring to Anatolius (d. Ca. A.D. 282), Bishop of Laodicea. The
Bishop defends the celebration of the Quartodeciman Passover after the ver-
nal equinox by appealing to Jewish authorities such as Philo, Josephus and
“the teaching of the Book of Enoch” (cited by Eusebius, HE 7, 32, 14-20).
Note however that Anatolius is not defending Easter-Sunday but the
Quartodeciman Passover. Moreover to justify the celebration of the latter
after the vernal equinox, the Bishop does not cite only the Book of Enoch
but also several Jewish writers such as Philo, Josephus, Musaeus, Agathobuli
who “explaining questions in regard to the Exodus, say that all alike should
sacrifice the passover offerings after the vernal equinox, in the middle of the
first month” (Eusebius, HE 7, 32, 17). The fact that some of the writers
mentioned were not representatives of sectarian Judaism, suggests that the
insistence on the celebration of Passover after the vernal equinox was com-
mon to both sectarian and normative Judaism.
3. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 181; C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica,
p.33, shares the same view: “To be able to speak of influence [of Sun-wor-
ship] on Sunday, one should demonstrate that the day dedicated to the Sun
already existed in the earliest times of the Christian community as a fixed
day that recurred regularly every week, and that it corresponded exactly to
the day after the Sabbath. For this, one should demonstrate the existence of
the planetary week before Sunday.”
4. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 37; note Rordorf’s categorical statement:
“If the question is raised whether the origins of the Christian observance of
Sunday are in any way connected with the Sunday observance of the Mithras
cult, it must be answered with a definite No” (loc. cit.).
5. Regarding Sun-worship in India, Persia, Syria and in the Greek
and Roman world, see F. J. Dölger, Sol Salutis, 19252, pp. 20f., 38f.; for
Palestine see Realencyklopddie far protestantische Theologie und Kirche,
1863, s.v. “Sonne, bei den Hebräem,” by W. Baudissin; Lexikon far Theo-
logie und Kirche, 1964, s.v. “Sonne,” by H. Baumann; F. J. Hollis, “The
Sun-cult and the Temple at Jerusalem,” Myth and Ritual, 1933, pp. 87-110;
that the Sun-cult was widespread before Josiah’s reform is well estab. lished
by passages such as 2 King 23:11, “[Josiah] removed the horses that the
kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the
Lord ... and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire”; cf. also Ezek. 8:16
and Wisdom 16:28: “To make it known that we must rise before the sun to
give thee thanks and must pray to thee at the dawning of the light.” Philo, De
vita contemplativa 3, 27, reports that the Therapeutae prayed at sunrise, seek-
ing for heavenly light.
6. Gaston H. Halsberghe, The Cult of Sol Invictus, 1972, p. 26. This
thesis was proposed earlier by A. von Domaszewski, Abhandlungen zur
Romischen Religion, 1909, p. 173.
7. Gaston H. Halsberghe (fn. 6), pp. 27 and 35.
8. Fasti of Philocalus, CIL I, 2, 324 or Fasti of Amiternum, CIL IX,
4192. F. Altheim, Italien und Ram, 1941, II, pp. 24-25, provides abundant
evidences that Sol Indiges was worshipped in Rome as early as the fourth
century B. C. In the oldest calendar the Sun-god is associated with Jupiter.
Marcus Terentius Varro (116—ca. 26 B.C.) De re rustica 1, 1,5, reports that
the Sun and the Moon were usually invoked immediately after Jupiter and
Tellus. Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55-120) mentions that in the Circus there was an
old temple dedicated to the Sun (Annales 15, 74, 1; cf. 15,41, 1).
9. G. Wissowa, Religion und kultus der Ramer, 19122, pp. 31Sf.
argues that the expression “indigiti-native” could only have designated the
Sun-cult as native when the Eastern Sun-cults arose.
10. CIL VI, 701; A. Piganiol, Histaire de Rome, 1954, p. 229, holds
that Augustus favored the worship of the Sun and “gave priority to the gods
of light”; Halsberghe (fn. 6), p. 30, is of the opinion that Augustus did not
intend to import to Rome the Egyptian solar god, but rather to give credit for
the victory to the ancient Roman Sal: “No single deity of the Roman pan-
theon could more rightfully claim this glorious victory than the ancient Ro-
man Sal, since it was achieved through his special intervention and protec-
tion. The two obelisks which were symbols of the Sun god in Egypt, consti-
tute additional support for this interpretation.” Anthony, before Augustus,
portrayed the Sun god on his coins and after marrying Cleopatra he renamed
the two sons of the queen as Helios and Selene (cf. A. Piganiol, op. cit., p.
239; H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’empire
rornain, I, p. 44, fn. 73; W. W. Tarn, The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd
ed., X, p. 68; cf. Dio Cassius, Historia 49, 41 and 50, 2, 5, 25. Cicero (106-
43 B.C.) shows the high esteem that cultured Romans had for Sun worship
when he describes the Sun as “the lord, chief, and ruler of the other lights,
the mind ‘and guiding principle, of such magnitude that he reveals and fills
all things with his light” (De republica 6, 17, LCL, p. 271).
11.Tertullian, De spectaculis 8, AI’.IF III, p. 83; Tacitus (fn. 8) con-

firms the existence of the temple dedicated to the Sun in the circus.
12. Cf. CIL I, 327; XIV, 4089; V, 3917; VI, 3719; these texts are
discussed by Halsberghe (fn. 6), p. 33.
13. H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum,
1940 I, pp. 134 and 171; cf. Tacitus, Annales 15, 74.
14. Elius Spartianus, Hadrianus 19, LCL Scriptores Historiae
Augustae I, p. 61; cf. A. Piganiol (fn. 10), pp. 288, 332-333, explains that
Hadrian associated himself with the Sun “whose image appears on the last
coins”; cf. H. Cohen (fn. 10), II, p. 38, n. 187, 188.
15. Tacitus, Historiae 3, 24.
16. Gaston H. Halsberghe (fn. 6), p. 35; cf. A. von Domaszewski (fn.
6), p. 173.
17. According to Plutarch (A.D. 46-125), Vita Pompeii 24, Mithra
was introduced into Rome by the Cilician pirates taken captives by Pompey
in 67 B.C. Papinius Statius (d. ca. A.D. 96) in a verse of the The baid speaks
of “Mithra, that beneath the rocky Persean cave strains at the reluctant-fol-
lowing horns” (Thebaid I, 718-720, LCL I, p. 393). Turchi Nicola, La
Religione di Roma Antica, 1939, p. 273: “The Mithraic religion was made
known through the pirates ... but its influence was particularly felt beginning
with the first century after Christ”; the same view is expressed by Franz
Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra, 1956, p. 37; Textes et Monuments, 1896-
1899, I, p. 338: “The propagation of the two religious [i.e., Mithraism and
Christianity] was approximately contemporaneous” cf. Enciclopedia
Cattolica, 1952, s.v. “Mithra e Mithraismo,” by M. J. Vermaseren: “Mithra
entered Rome (67 B.C.) with the prisoners of Cilicia ... Its diffusion increased
under the Flavii and even more under the Antoninii and Severii.”
18. Gaston H. Halsberghe (fn. 6), p. 44.
19. This point is well expressed by Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of
Mithra, 1956, p. 101.
20. E. Schürer, “Die siebentagige Woche im Gebrauch der christlichen
Kirche der ersten Jahrhunderte,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft 6 (1905): 18f., advocates that the planetary week developed
independently of the Jewish week, primarily as a result of belief in the seven
planets. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 33, argues persuasively “that the planetary
week as a whole developed in association with the Jewish week.” The diffu-
sion of the Jewish Sabbath in the Greco-Roman world would have attracted
astrological belief in the evil influence of the planet Saturn. Subsequently

the other planets were attached to the remaining days of the week. F. H.
Colson, The Week, 1926, p. 42, maintains that the planetary week is not “a
pagan interpretation of the Jewish week” since the order of the planets is not
the real one, but an astrological invention developed by the belief that each
individual hour of the day was under the control of a planet. This explana-
tion is given by Dio Cassius (ca. A.D. 220) in his Historia 37, 18-19. Dis-
tributing the 168 hours of the week to each of the planets according to their
scientific order, the first hour of Saturday stands under the protection of
Saturn, who assumes the control over the day. The first hour of the second
day falls to the Sun, the first hour of the third day to the Moon and so forth.
In other words, the planet which controlled the first hour became the protec-
tor of the day, dedicated to it. The same explanation is found in the
chronographer of A.D. 354 (Chronica minora: Monumenta Gernraniae Hist.,
auctores antiquissimi, IX, 1892); F. Boll, “Hebdomas,” PaulyWissowa VII,
col. 2556f. gives detailed proof that the planetary week did not originate in
Babylon.
21. S. D. Waterhouse, “The Introduction of the Planetary Week into
the West,” The Sabbath in Scripture and History (to be published by Review
and Herald): “Thus it came about that the ingredients for the planetary week
were brought together; the concept ‘of planetary gods being taken from the
Babylonians, the mathematics having been supplied by the Greeks, and the
dekans or hours, adopted from the Egyptians. Alexandria, possessing a large,
indigenous, and influential Jewish population, was well suited for bringing
in a final ingredient, that of the Hebrew weekly cycle.”
22. Dio Cassius, Historia 49, 22, LCL 5, p. 389; cf. Historia 37, 16
and 37, 17; Josephus, Wars of the Jews 1, 7, 3 and Antiquities of the Jews 14,
4, confirms Dio Cassius’ account, saying that the Romans succeeded in cap-
turing the city because they understood that Jews on the Sabbath only acted
defensively.
23. Horace, Satirae 2, 3, 288-290, LCL p. 177, represents a supersti-
tious mother as making this vow: “‘0 Jupiter, who givest and takest away
sore affliction,’ cries the mother of a child that for five long months has been
ill abed, ‘if the quartan chills leave my child, then on the morning of the day
on which thou appointest a fast, he shall stand naked in the Tiber.’” The
translator H. R. Fairelough explains: “This would be dies Jovis [the day of
Jupiter], corresponding to our Thursday” (loc. cit.); cf. J. Hastings’ Encyclo-
pedia of Religion and Ethics, 1928, s.v. “Sunday”; Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
refers several times to the seven-day week: “You may begin on the day ...
less fit for business, whereon returns the seventh-day feast that the Syrian of
Palestine observe” (Ars Anratoria 1, 413-416; cf. 1,75-80; Remedia Amoris
217-220).
24. In one of his poems, Tibullus explains what excuses he could
have found for staying in Rome with his beloved Delia: “Either birds or
words of evil omen were my pretexts or that the sacred day of Saturn had
held one back” (Carmina 1, 3, 15-18). The day of Saturn was regarded as an
unlucky day (dies nefastus) for undertaking important business. Sextus
Propertius, a contemporary of Tibullus, speaks, for instance, of “the sign of
Saturn that brings woe to one and to all” (Elegies 4, 1, 8 1-86).
25. Dio Cassius, Historia 37, 18, LCL p. 130: “The dedication of the
days to the seven stars which are called planets was established by Egyp-
tians, and it spread also to all men not so very long ago, to state it briefly
how it began. At any rate the ancient Greeks knew it in no way, as it appears
to me at least. But since it also prevails everywhere among all the others and
the Romans themselves ... is already to them an ancestral custom.” W. Rordorf,
Sunday, pp. 27 and 37, takes Dio Cassius’ statement that the planetary week
had come into use “not so very long ago,” to mean that it did not exist before
“the end of the first century A.D.” This conclusion, however, is invalidated
first by Dio’s own comment that the planetary week was prevailing every-
where and that the Romans regarded it as an ancestral custom (a new time
cycle does not become widespread and ancestral overnight); secondly, by
Dio’s mention that already back in 37 B.C., when Jerusalem was captured
by Sosius and Herod the Great, the Sabbath “even then was called day of
Saturn” (Historia 49, 22). Moreover note that Dio makes the Greeks, not the
Romans, the terminus ante quem the planetary week was unknown. We would
therefore agree with C. S. Mosna that “the planetary week must have orginated
already in the first century B.C.” (Storia della domenica, p. 69).
26. The Sabine calendars have been dated by T. Mommsen between
19 B.C. and A.D. 14, see CIL 12, 220; this date is supported by Attilio
Degrassi, “Un Nuovo frammento di calendario Romano e la settimana plan-
etaria dei sette giorni,” Atti del Terzo Congresso Internationale de Epigrafia
Greca e Latina, Rome, 1957, p. 103; the article is included by the author in
his Scritti vari di antichità, 1962, pp. 681-691; Degrassi is of the opinion
that even the newly found calendar of Nola “is not later than the time of
Tiberius” (p. 101).
27. That the letters from A to G stand for the seven days of the plan-
etary week, as stated by A. Degrassi (fn. 26), p. 99, “has been recognized
long ago.” This is proven by the fact that they occur “for the whole year in
the manuscript Philocalian Calendar of A.D. 354” (bc. cit.). Herbert Thurston
explains the Sabine calendars, saying: “when the Oriental sevenday period,
or week, was introduced, in the time of Augustus, the first seven letters of
the alphabet were employed in the same way as done for the nundinae, to
indicate the days of this new division of time. In fact, fragmentary calendars
on marble still survive in which both a cycle of eight letters—A to H—
indicating nundinae, and a cycle of seven letters—A to G—indicating weeks,
are used side by side (see Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 2nd ed., I, 220.
The same peculiarity occurs in the Philocalian Calendar of A.D. 356, ibid.,
p. 256). This device was imitated by the Christians, and in their calendars
the days of the year from 1 January to 31 December were marked with a
continuous recurring cycle of seven letters: A, B, C, D, E, F, G” (The Catho-
lic Encyclopedia, 1911, s.v. “Dominical Letter”).
28. A. Degrassi (fn. 26) pp. 103-104; cf. CIL 12, 218; one has been
found in Pompei:i and therefore it is prior to A.D. 79, CIL IV, 8863; these
calendars are also reproduced by A. Degrassi in his recent edition of
Inscriptiones Italiae, 1963, XIII, ns. 49, 52, 53, 55, 56.
29. A. Degrassi (fn. 26), p. 104, (emphasis supplied).
30. CIL X, part I, 199 (No. 1605).
31. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 3,41, LCL I, pp. 321, 323.
32. Petronius, Sat yricon 30, LCL, p. 45.
33. Frontinus, Strategemata 2, 1, 17, LCL, p. 98; Dio Cassius’ ac-
count is strikingly similar: “Thus was Jerusalem destroyed on the very day
of Saturn, the day which even now the Jews reverence most” (Historia 65,7,
LCL, p. 271.
34. For a good reproduction of the Pompeiian painting of the plan-
etary gods see Erasmo Pistolesi, Real Museo Borbonico, 1836, VII, pp. 116-
130, plate 27; cf. “Le Pitture Antiche d’Ercolano,” Real Accademia de Archeo-
logia, III, pp. 257-263; H. Roux Ain~, Herculanum et Pompei: recueil
g,~n~ral des peintures, bronzes, mosaiques, 1862, pp. 106-109; cf. J. Hastings,
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1928, s.v. “Sunday.”
35. CIL I, part 1, 342; CIL IV, part 2, 515, no. 4182; at Herculaneum
was found inscribed in Greek upon a wall a list entitled “Day of the Gods”
followed by the names of the seven planetary deities in the genitive form,
CIL IV, part 2, 582, no. 5202; cf. CIL IV, 712, no. 6779; see E. Schiirer (fn.
20), pp. 27f.; R. L. Odom, Sunday in Roman Paganism, 1944, pp. 88-94.
36. CIL IV, part 2, 717. no. 6338.

37. Attilio Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae, 1963, XIII, pp. 308-309,
plate 56; Troianus Marulli, Sopra un’antica cappella cristiana, scoperta di
fresco in Roma nelle terme di Tito, 1813; I. A. Guattani, Meinorie enciclope-
diche per il 1816, pp. 153f. table 22; Antonius De Romanis, Le Antic/ic
catnere esquiline, 1822, pp. 21, 59f.
38. Plutarch’s Complete Works, III, p. 230.
39. According to the geocentric system of astronomy of that period,
the order of the planets was as follows: Saturn (farthest), Jupiter, Mars, Sun,
Venus, Mercury, and Moon (nearest). In the planetary week, however, the
days are named after the planets in this sequence: Saturn Sun, Moon, Mars,
Mercury, Jupiter, and Venus; for a discussion, see R.L. Odom (fn. 35), pp.
11-17.
40 R. L. Odom (fn. 35), pp. 54-124, surveys the evidences for the
planetary week till the third century A.D.
41. This conclusion is shared by several scholars; see F. H. Colson
(fn. 20), p. 36: “Reviewing the evidence discussed ~above, we see that the
planetary week was known in some sense in the Empire as early as the de-
struction of Pompeii and most people will think a century earlier”; B. Botte,
“Les Denominations du dimanche dans la tradition chrdtienne,” Le Dimanche,
Lex Orandi 39, 1965, p. 16: “When Tibullus wrote his Elegy, the use of the
planetary week had already entered the customs. But, considering, on the
one hand, the absence of any allusion prior to this date and, on the other
hand, the abundance of indications beginning from the second century, we
clearly see that the change took place toward the beginning of the Christian
era”; cf. H. Dumaine, “Dimanche,” DACL IV, 911.
42. F. H. Colson (fn. 20), p. 75, rightly notes: “A religion in which
the supreme object of adoration was so closely connected if not identified
with the Sun, could hardly fail to pay special reverence to what even non-
Mithraists hailed as the Sun’s-day.”
43. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 35; note that initially the day of the Sun
was the second day of the planetary week, following the day of Saturn which
was first. This is clearly proved, for instance, by several stone calendars (so-
called indices nundinarii) where the days of the week are given horizontally,
starting with the day of Saturn; see above fn. 28. In a mural inscription found
in Herculaneum the “Days of the Gods” are given in capital Greek letters,
starting with “kronou [of Saturn], Heliou [of Sun] .. .“ (CIL IV, part 2, 582,
no. 5202). A similar list was found in Pompeii written in Latin and begin-
ning with “Saturni [of Saturn]” (CIL IV, part 2, 712, no. 6779). W. Rordorf,
Sunday, p. 35, rightly stresses this point: “It must, however, be emphasized
straight away that in the planetary week Sunday always occupied only the
second place in the sequence of days.”
44. V. Monachino, De persecutionibus in imperio Romano saec. I-IV
et de polemica pagano-christiana saec. II-III, Gregorian University, 1962,
p. 147.
45. The text of the first law of March 3, 321 is found in Codex Justi-
nianus III, 12, 3 and that of July 3, 321, in Codex Theodosianus II, 8, 1.
Considering the fact that the necessity to legislate on a social custom such as
a day of rest, arises when this endangers public welfare (as suggested by the
exception made for farmers), it is plausible to suppose that the veneration of
the day of the Sun was already a well-rooted tradition.
46. Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, p. 236.
47. According to Eusebius, The Life of Constantine 4, 18 and 20,
Constantine recommended that Christians, including the soldiers, “attend
the services of the Church of God.” For the pagan soldiers the Emperor
prescribed a generic prayer to be recited on Sunday in an open field. (cf.
Sozomen, HE 1, 8, 12). This imperial injunction cannot be taken as an ex-
ample of traditional pagan Sunday worship, since the motivation of the leg-
islation is clearly Christian: “in memory ... of what the Saviour of mankind
is recorded to have achieved” (NPNF 2nd, I, p. 544). Moreover it should be
noted that the Constantinian law did not prohibit agricultural or private ac-
tivities but only public. This shows that even at the time of Constantine the
pagan observance of Sunday was quite different from the Jewish keeping of
the Sabbath.
48. Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1, 13, ANF III, p. 123. W, Rordorf, Sun-
day, p. 37, argues that Tertullian does not allude to the day of the Sun but to
that of Saturn, since he later speaks of Jewish customs such as the Sabbath
which pagans had adopted. Unfortunately Rordorf fails to recognize that
Tertullian responds to the charge that Christians are Sun-worshipers, first,
by making the pagans themselves guilty of having adopted the day and the
veneration of the Sun; and secondly, by showing them how they had devi-
ated from their tradition by adopting even Jewish customs such as the Sab-
bath. For an analysis of the passage, see my Italian dissertation, pp. 446-
449; F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 35, recognizes that Tertullian refers to
Sunday.
49. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 2, 4, LCL, p. 177.

50. Samuel Laechli, Mithraism in Ostia, 1967, p. 11, 13, 14, 38-45,
72-73. The Mithraeum of the Seven Doors is dated A.D. 160-170 while that
of the Seven Spheres is dated late in the second century. In the former, the
Sun’s “door” is the tallest and widest; in the letter, the Sun’s sphere is pre-
sumably the last; see Leroy A. Campbell, Mithraic Iconography and Ideol-
ogy, 1968, pp. 300-307, figs. 19 and 20.
51. On the Bononia relief the planetary gods are placed on the face
of the tauroctone arch and they run counter clockwise from Luna (Monday)
at the right, followed by Mars (Tursday) and so on, closing with Sol (Sun-
day) at the left; see F. Cumont, Textes et Monuments,1886-1889, II, p.
261 and I, p. 119; cf. L.A. Campbell (fn. 50), p. 342.
52. In Origen, Contra Celsunr 6, 21-22. Celsus lists the planets in
the reverse order (Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Moon, Sun) en-
abling the Sun to occupy a significant seventh position. Note that though the
arrangement of the gods of the week-days may vary in Mithraic iconography,
the sequential order of the planetary deities is not disrupted and the Sun
usually occupies a preeminent position. Priscillian (ca. A.D. 370) provides a
slightly different list but always with the Sun at the top (Tractatus 1, 15). In
the Brigetio relief, however, the planetary gods follow the regular sequence
of the planetary week from Saturn to Venus; see L. A. Campbell (fn. 50)
plate XXXIII.
53. F. Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Ro-
mans, 1912, p. 163; Cumont also comments: “Each day of the week, the
Planet to which the day was sacred was invoked in a fixed spot in the crypt;
and Sunday, over which the Sun presided, was especially holy” (The Mys-
teries of Mithra, 1956, p. 167); cf. Textes (fn. 51) I, p. 119: “The dies Solis
was evidently the most sacred of the week for the faithful of Mithra and, like
the Christians, they had to keep holy Sunday and not the Sabbath” (cf. also
p. 325). A statement from Isidore of Seville (ca. A.D. 560-636) best summa-
rizes the priority Sun worship accorded to the day of the Sun: “The gods
have arranged the days of the week, whose names the Romans dedicated to
certain stars. The first day they called day of the Sun because it is the ruler of
all stars” (Etymologiae 5, 30 PL 82, 216).
54. The date is established by Otto Neugebauer and Henry B. Van
Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes, 1959, p. 177.
55. Vettius Valens, Anthologiarum 5, 10, ed. G. Kroll, p. 26. Robert

L. Odom, “Vettius Valens and the Planetary Week,” AUSS 3 (1965): 110-137
provides a penetrating analysis of the calendations used by Vettius Valens
and shows convincingly that “Vettius Valens, who undoubtedly was a pa-
gan, used the week of seven days, [and] reckoned the seven-day week as
beginning with the day of the Sun (Sunday) and ending with ‘the sabbatical
day’ (Sabbath day)” (p. 134); H. Dumaine “Dimanche” DACL IV, 912 de-
fends the same view on the basis of different evidences; cf. W. H. Roscher,
“Planeten,” Aligeineines Lexikon der griech. und rbm. Mythologie, 1909,
col. 2538.
56. B. Botte (fn. 41), p. 21.
57. Jacquetta Hawkes, Man and the Sun, 1962, p. 199.
58. Tertullian strongly rejected the pagan accusation that the Chris-
tians’ rejoicing on Sunday was motivated by the worship of the Sun (see
Apology 16, 1 and Ad Nationes 1, 13, 1-5, ANF III, p. 31 and p. 122). Simi-
larly Origen regarded Celsus’ likening of Christianity to pagan mystery reli-
gions, Mithraism included, as absurd and unworthy of eithei refutation or
repetition (see Against Celsus 1, 9 and 6, 22, ANE IV, p. 399-400 and 583).
59.Tertullian, On Idolatry 14 ANF III, p. 70: “How... wicked to cel-
ebrate them [i.e., pagan festivals] among brethren! ... The Saturnalia and
New-year and Midwinter’s festivals and Matronalia are frequented—pre-
sents come and go—New-year’s gifts—games join their noise—banquets
join their din! Oh, better fidelity of the nations to their own sect, which
claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself!”
60. Jack Lindsay, Origin of Astrology, 1972, provides in chapter 20
“Pagan and Christians” (pp. 373-400) a valuable and concise survey of the
influence of astrological beliefs on early Christianity. Origen complains that
many Christians believed that nothing could happen unless it had been de-
creed by the stars (Philocalia, 23). H. Dumaine and De Rossi point out that
the names of the planetary week used in Christian funerary inscriptions re-
flect the prevailing superstition, according to which the day mentioned be-
longed to the protecting star (“Dimanche” DACL IV, 872-875; cf. E. Schiirer
(fn. 20), pp. 35-39). The Fathers protested against such beliefs. Philaster,
Bishop of Brescia (d. ca. A.D. 397) condemns as heresy the prevailing belief
that “the name of the days of the Sun, of the Moon ... had been established
by God at the creation of the world. .. . The pagans, that is, the Greeks have
set up such names and with the names also the notion that mankind depends
from the seven stars” (Liber de haeresibus 113, PL 12, 1257). In a document
attributed to Priscillian (ca. A.D. 340-385) anathema is pronounced against

those Christians who “in their sacred ceremonies, venerate and acknowl-
edge as gods the Sun, Moon... and all the heavenly host, which are detest-
able idols worthy of the Gehenna” (Tractatus undecim, CSEL 18, p.14); cf.
Martin of Braga, De correctione rusticorum ed. C. W. Barlow, 1950, p. 189;
Augustin, In Psalmos 61, 23, CCL 39, p. 792.
61. A number of examples can be seen in F. Cumont, Textes et monu-
nrents II, p. 202, no. 29; p. 210, no. 38; p. 241, no. 73; p. 290, no. 145; p.
311, no. 169; p. 350, no. 248; p. 434, no. 379.
62. See E. Kirschbaum, The Tomb of St. Peter and St. Paul, 1959, pp.
3Sf.; P. Testini, Archaelogia Cristiana, 1958, p. 167. The mosaic came to
light during the recent excavations (1953-1957) under the altar of St. Peter’s
basilica; cf. an artistic reproduction of Christ portrayed as Sol Invictus in F.
Cumont (fn. 61), I, p. 123, table no. 6.
63. Justin, Dialogue 121, ANF I, p. 109 contrasts the devotion of
Sun-worshipers with that of the Christians, who on account of the word of
Christ who “is more blazing and bright than the might of the sun ... have
suffered and still suffer, all kinds of torments rather than deny their faith in
Him.” In a document attributed to Melito, Bishop of Sardis (d. ca. A.D. 190)
a striking parallelism is established between Christ and the sun: “But if the
sun with the stars and the moon wash in the ocean, why should not Christ
also wash in the Jordan? The king of the heavens and the leader of creation,
the sun of the east who both appeared to the dead in Hades and to the living
in the world, and this only Sun rose from Heaven” (On Baptism, ed. J. B.
Pitra, Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi, 1884, 2,5). Clement of Alexan-
dria (ca. A.D. 150-215) elaborates diffusely on the symbol of Christ as true
Light and true Sun and applies to Christ a common pagan designation for a
heavenly god: “pantepoptes”—the one who looks down on all.” Clement
skillfully urges the pagans to abandon their rites of divination and be initi-
ated instead into Christ the true Sun and Light (see Protrepticus II, 114, 1,
GCS 1,80, 16; Stromateis 7,3,21,6, GCS 3, 15, 28; Paedagogus 3,8,44,1,
GCS 1, 262, 7). Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254) manifests the same predilection
for the denomination “Sun of Justice”: “Christ is the Sun of Justice; if the
moon is united, which is the Church, it will be filled by His light” (In Numeros
homilia 23, 5, GCS 7, 217, 24; cf. In Leviticum homilia 9, GCS 6, 438, 19).
Cyprian (d. A.D. 258) Bishop of Carthage exhorts believers “to pray at sun-
rise to commemorate the resurrection ... and to pray at the setting of the sun
... for the advent of Christ” (De oratione 35, CSEL 3, 292). Ambrose (A.D.
339-397), Bishop of Milan, to counteract the widespread Sun-cult, frequently
contrasts Christ “lumen verum et Sol iustitiae—true light and Sun of jus-
tice” with the “Sol iniquitatis—Sun of iniquity” (In Psalmos 118, sermo
19,6 CSEL 62, 425, 4f). A. J. Vermeulen, The Semantic Developntent of
Gloria in Early Christian Latin, 1956, p. 170, comments that Christians did
not adopt an exclusive apologetic attitude, but “they took a much easier view
of certain pagan customs, conventions and images and saw no objection,
after ridding them of their pagan content, to adapting them to Christian
thought.” J. Dani~lou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 299, offers a similar observa-
tion. Eusebius of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 500) writes: “I know many who wor-
ship and pray to the Sun. For at the time the sun is rising they pray and say,
‘Have mercy upon us,’ and not only sun-worshipers and heretics do this, but
also Christians, departing from the faith, mingle with heretics” (PG 86, 453).
That the problem assumed alarming proportions is indicated by the vigorous
attack of Pope Leo the Great (d. A.D. 461) against the veneration of the Sun
by many Christians (Sermon 27, In Nativitate Domini, PL 54, 218). F. J.
D6lger, Sol Salutis. Gebet und Gesang in christlichen Altertum. Mit
besonderer Riicksicht auf die Ostung in Gebet und Liturgie, 1925, provides
especially in chapters 20 and 21 an extensive documentation of the influ-
ence of Sun-worship on the Christian liturgy.
64. Dan. 6:11; 2 Chron. 6:34f; cf. Jewish Encyclopedia, 1907, s.v.
‘‘Prayer.”
65. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1,26, ANF I, p. 352.
66. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7, 7, 43, GCS 3, 32.
67. Origen, De oratione 32, GCS 2, 400, 23.
68. Apostolic Constitutions 2, 57, 2 and 14, specific instructions are
given to ensure that both the church building and the congregation face the
orient. Moreover believers are urged to “pray to God eastward, who ascended
to the heaven of heavens to the east; remembering also the ancient situation
of paradise in the east.. .“ (ANE VII, p. 42); cf. Didascalia 2, 57, 3; Hippolytus,
De Antichristo 59, GCS 1, 2, 39-40; Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-
386) instructed his baptismal candidates to face first the West, the devil’s
domain, and facing that direction, they were to say: “I renounce you Satan”
and then after “severing all ancient bonds with hell, the Paradise of God,
which is planted in the East is open to you” (Catechesibus 1,9, Monumenta
eucharistica, ed. J. Quasten, 2,79). An early Christian Syrian author tells us:
“The Apostles therefore established that you should pray toward the east,
because ‘as the lightning which lighteneth from the east is seen even to the
west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,’ that by this we may know
and understand that He will appear suddenly from the east” (Didascalie
d’Addai 2, 1, see F. Dolger (fn. 5) p. 72, n. 3); cf. also Basil, De Spiritu
Sancto27, 64, PG 32, 189; Gregory of Nyssa, De oratione Domini 5, PG 44,
1184; Augustine, De sermone Domini in morte 2, 5, 18, PL 34, 1277.
70. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 196,
71. In the Philocalian calendar (A.D. 354) the 25th of December is
designated as “N[atalis] Invicti—The birthday of the invincible one” (CIL I,
part 2, p. 236); Julian the Apostate, a nephew of Constantine and a devotee
of Mithra, says regarding this pagan festival: “Before the beginning of the
year, at the end of the month which is called after Saturn [December], we
celebrate in honor of Helios [the Sun] the most splendid games, and we
dedicate the festival to the Invincible Sun. That festival may the ruling gods
grant me to praise and to celebrate with sacrifice! And above all the others
may Helios [the Sun] himself, the king of all, grant me this” (Julian, The
Orations of Julian, Hymn to King Helios 155, LCL p. 429); Franz Cumont,
Astrology and Religion Among Greeks and Romans, 1960, p. 89: “A very
general observance required that on the 25th of December the birth of the
‘new Sun’ should be celebrated, when after the winter solstice the days be-
gan to lengthen and the ‘invincible’ star triumphed again over darkness”; for
texts on the Mithraic celebration of Dec. 25th see CIL I, p. 140; Gordon J.
Laing, Survivals of Roman Religion, 1931, pp. 58-65, argues persuasively
that many of the customs of the ancient Roman Saturnalia (Dec. 17-23) were
transferred to the Christmas season. G. Brumer, Jahrbuch für Litur-
giewissenschaft, 1935, p. 178f and K. Prumm, Stimmen der Zeit, 1939, p.
215, date the festival of December 25 back to the Emperor Aurelian (A. D.
270-275), whose fondness for the worship of the Sun is well known. The
hypothesis rests on Augustine’s censure of the Donatists (PL 38, 1033) for
failing to observe January 6th. This, however, hardly implies that Christians
celebrated Christ’s birthday on December 25th already at that time.
72. An exception is the comment of an unknown Syrian writer who
wrote in the margin of the Expositio in Evangelia of Bar-salibaeus (d. A.D.
1171) as follows: “Therefore the reason why the aforesaid solemnity was
transferred by the Fathers from the 6th of January to the 25th of December,
they explain to have been as follows: It was a solemn rite among the pagans
to celebrate the festival of the rising of the sun on this very day, December
25th. Furthermore, to augment the solemnity of the day, they were accus-
tomed to kindle fires, to which rites they were accustomed to invite and
admit even Christian people. When therefore the Teachers observed that
Christians were inclined to this custom, they contrived a council and estab-
lished on this day the festival of the true Rising” (J. S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca
orientalis 2, 164, trans. by P. Cotton, From Sabbath to Sunday, 1933, pp.
144-145).
73. Augustine, Sermo in Nativit ate Domini 7, PL 38, 1007 and 1032,
enjoins Christians to worship at Christmas not the sun but its Creator; Leo
the Great (fn. 63) rebukes those Christians who at Christmas celebrated the
birth of the sun rather than that of Christ.
74. L. Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, 1919,
pp. 260f., presents this hypothesis as a possibility. M. Righetti, Manuale di
Storia Liturgica, 1955, II, pp. 68-69, explains that the date of March 25th
“though historically unfounded, was based on astronomical-allegorical con-
siderations, namely that on the day of the vernal equinox the world was
created.” According to this theory, on the same date of March 25 creation
began and Christ, as Augustine says, was “conceived and crucified” (De
trinitate 4, 5, PL 42, 894); cf. Hippolytus, In Danielem commentarius 4, 23,
for a similar view.
75. 0. Cullmann, The Early Church, 1956, p. 29. Cullmann main-
tains that two factors contributed “to the separation of the festival of Christ’s
birth from Epiphany, and to the transference of the former to December 25th,”
namely, “the dogmatic development of christology at the beginning of the
fourth century” and the influence of the pagan festival held in honor of the
Sun—god on December 25. Theologically, Cullmann argues, it became nec-
essary, after the condemnation at the Council of Nicaea of the doctrine that
God the Son did not become incarnate at his birth, to dissociate the festival
of the birth from that of the Epiphany. Both festivals were celebrated, espe-
cially in the East, on January 5th-6th (as birth-baptism), and this must have
been objectionable, since the birth of Christ commemorated under the com-
mon theme of “Epiphany=appearing,” could easily be misinterpreted hereti-
cally. This theological explanation, though very ingenious, hardly justifies
the adoption of December 25, especially in the West. In fact, to be able to
speak of separation of the two festivities, it is necessary to prove first of all
that in Rome, Christians had previously celebrated Christmas on January 6,
a fact that we have not found.
76. Joseph A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory
the Great, 1962, p. 147; L. Duchesne (fn. 74), p. 26, also recognizes this as
a more plausible explanation: “A better explanation is that based on the fes-
tival of Natalis Invicti, which appears in the pagan calendar of the Philocalian
collection under the 25th of December. . . . One is inclined to believe that the
Roman Catholic Church made the choice of the 25th of December in order
to enter into rivalry with Mithraism”; John Ferguson, The Religions of the
Roman Empire, 1970, p. 239, defends the same view; cf. Franz Cumont (fn.
71), p. 89 and (fn. 51), I, p. 342: “It appears certain that the commemoration
of the nativity was placed on December 25, because on the winter solstice
was celebrated the rebirth of the invincible god. By adopting this date ... the
ecclesiastical authorities purified somehow some pagan customs which they
could not suppress.”
77. Gaston H. Halsberghe (fn. 6), p. 174; 0. Cullmann (fn. 75), p. 35,
explicitly states: “The choice of the dates themselves, both January 6th and
December 25th, was determined by the fact that both these days were pagan
festivals whose meaning provided a starting point for the specifically Chris-
tian conception of Christmas”; the same view is emphatically expressed by
B. Botte, Les Origines de la Noël et de l’Épiphanie, 1932, p. 14; cf. C.
Mohrmann, “Epiphania,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques (1937): 672.
78 T. Mommsen, Chronography of Philocalus of the Year 354, 1850,
p. 631; L. Duchesne, Bulletin critique, 1890, p. 41, has established that the
calendar goes back to 336, because the Depositio nra rtyrum is preceded in
the Philocalian by the Depositium episcoporum of Rome, which lists Sylvester
(d. A.D. 335) as the last pope.
79. M. Righetti (fn. 74), II, p. 67; this view is widely held: see L.
Duchesne above fn. 76; 0. Cullmann (fn. 75), p. 30: “The Roman Church
intentionally opposed to this pagan nature cult its own festival of light, the
festival of the birth of Christ.”
80. B. Botte (fn. 41), pp. 14f; see above fn. 75.
81. Q. Cullmann (fn. 75), p. 32; for a concise account of the diffusion
of and opposition to the Roman Christmas, see M. Righetti (fn. 74), II, pp. 70f.
82. Joseph A. Jungmann (fn. 76), p. 151.
84. Eusebius, Cominentaria in Psalmos 91, PG 23, 1169-1172; cf.
below fn. 112.
85. Note that Justin Martyr, long before Eusebius, alludes to the same
two motivations (though not so explicitly) in his I Apology 67, see above p.
230 and below p. 265.
86. Jerome, In die dominica Paschae homilia CCL 78, 550, 1, 52; the same
in Augustine, Contra Faustum 18,5; in Sermo 226, PL 38, 1099, Augustine
explains that Sunday is the day of light because on the first day of creation
“God said, ‘Let there be light! And there was light. And God separated the
light from darkness. And God called the light day and the darkness night”
(Gen. 1:2-5).
87. Maximus of Turin, Homilia 61, PL 57, 371; Gaudentius, Bishop
of Brescia (ca. A.D. 400), Sermo 9, De evangelica lectione 2, PL 20, 916 and
De Exodo sermo 1, PL 20, 845, explains that the Lord’s day became first in
relationship to the Sabbath, because on that day the Sun of righteousness has
appeared, dispelling the darkness of the Jews, melting the ice of the pagans
and restoring the world to its primordial order; Eusebius, Life of Constantine
4, 18, NPNF 2nd, I, p. 544, explicitly states: “The Savior’s day which de-
rives its name from light and from the sun”; cf. Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus
in Psalmos 67, 6, CSEL 27, 280; Athanasius, Expositio in Psalmos 67, 34,
PG 27, 303; Ambrose, Hexaemeron 4, 2, 7; and Epistula 44, PL 16, 1138.
88. F. H. Colson (fn. 20), p. 94.
89. See above fns. 48, 58 and 60.
90. Tertullian, On Idolatry 14, ANE III, p. 70; Martin of Braga, De
correctione rusticorum, ed. C. W. Barlow, 1950, p. 189, forcefully rebukes
Christians, saying: “What madness it is therefore, that one who has been
baptized in the faith of Christ should not worship on the Lord’s day, the day
on which Christ rose from the dead, but says rather that he worships the day
of Jupiter and Mercury. . . . These have no day but were adulterers and magi-
cians... and died in evil.”
91. We found this to be true also in the case of Christmas. Only later
were Christians willing to explicitly admit the borrowing of a pagan festival;
see above fn. 72.
92. This point is well made by F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 157.
93. For instance, Justin Martyr, Dialogue 121, ANF I, p. 260, associ-
ates Christ with the Sun on the basis of Scriptural texts: “The word of His
truth and wisdom is more ardent and more light-giving than the rays of the
sun... Hence also the Scripture said, ‘His name shall rise above the sun.’ And
again Zechariah says, ‘His name is the East.’”
94. Psalm 84:11 applies the title sun to God Himself: “For the Lord
God is a sun and a shield”; Psalm 72:17, alluding to the Messiah, says: “May
his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun”; cf. Isaiah
9:2; 60:1-3, 19-20; Zechariah 3:8.
95. John 1:4-5.
96. John 1:9.
97. John 5:35.
98. John 8:12; cf. 9:4-5.
99. John 12 :34.
100. Rev. 22 :4. In the inaugural vision John describes Christ’s face
“like the sun shining in full strength” (Rev. 1:16). Note also that when Christ
was transfigured before Peter, James and John, it is said: “his face shone like
the sun, and his garments became white as light” (Matt. 17:2). See F.A. Regan,
Die Dominica, pp. 157-163 for further texts and discussion.
101. E. Lohse, “a&~3r3~-~ov,” TDNT VII, p. 29, fn. 228, admits this
possibility: “A contributory factor was undoubtedly the fact that from the
first century B.C., the seven-day week named after the planets had been
increasingly adopted in the Hellenistic-Roman world. The day of Saturn was
generally regarded as an unlucky day, while Sunday which followed it was a
particularly good day.”
103. Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmos 91, PG 23, 1169-1172.
104. Justin, I Apology 67; the passage is quoted and discussed above,
pp. 230-231.
105. Justin, Dialogue 121, see fn. 93.
106. Macrobius, Saturnalia 1, 9, 9 speaks of the sun as “opening the
day in the orient and closing it in the occident”; Juvenal, Satirae 14,280:
“Herculeus heard the roaring sun in the bottom of the sea” and “The sun
roars when it rises as when a red hot iron is immersed in water.”
107. Melito of Sardis, Fragment VIlIb, 4, SC 123, p. 233; Zeno of
Verona frequently uses solar metaphors to explain Christian teachings. He
compares the baptism of the neophytes to immersion of the sun in the ocean
and the rising of the sun to the immortal glory promised to the believers
(Liber II, 46, PL 11, 503A and 504).
108. F.H. Colson (fn. 20), p. 92.
109. B. Botte (fn. 41), p. 21.

110. F. H. Colson (fn. 20), p. 93.
111. Maximus of Turin, Homilia 61, PL 57, 371.
112. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 4, 18, NPNF 2nd, I, p. 544.
113. Several scholars support this conclusion: Franz Cumont (fn. 53),
p. 163, affirms: “The preeminence assigned to the dies solis also certainly
contributed to the general recognition of Sunday as a holiday”; P. Cotton (fn.
72), p. 130, similarly notes: “It cannot be denied that the pagan use of Sun-
day has had an appreciable effect upon Christianity in bringing the Christian
Sun-day into preeminence in the Church as the sole day of worship”; cf. F.
H. Colson (fn. 20), p. VI; 0. Cullman (fn. 75) acknowledges the association
between the resurrection and the day of the Sun by the middle of the second
century: “From the middle of the second century the term ‘Sunday’ occurs
for the former ‘Lord’s Day’ This means that the Christians’ thought about
the redemptive act of the resurrection of Christ ... had already become asso-
ciated with the symbolism of the sun.” Cullmann, however, fails to prove
that the designation “Lord’s day” is prior to that of “Sunday.”
114. Jerome, In die dominica Paschae homilia, CCL 78, 550, 1, 52.
Chapter 9
THE THEOLOGY OF SUNDAY
What are the basic theological motivations advanced by the early

Fathers to justify both the choice and the observance of Sunday? Were they
developed out of Biblical-apostolic teachings or were they elicited by the
existing need to silence opposition coming from Sabbath-keepers? Do the
early theological explanations reflect an organic and positive view of Sun-
day observance or theological uncertainty and polemic? These are questions
we shall bear in mind while surveying the theological reasons adduced by
the Fathers to justify Sunday worship. Such an analysis hopefully will en-
able us to test the validity of the conclusions emerging from our study.
The major motives for Sunday observance which appear in the early
patristic literature perhaps can be best grouped around three basic headings:
Resurrection, Creation and Symbology of the Eighth Day. We shall examine
them in this order, bearing in mind that the theological reflections are not
static but dynamic, evolving in the course of time.
Resurrection
In chapter III we already showed that no indication can be found in
the apostolic period of efforts made to institute a weekly or yearly com-
memoration of the resurrection on Sunday. Nevertheless it is a fact that the
resurrection did become the dominant reason for Sunday observance. Au-
gustine (A.D. 354-430) perhaps provides the most explicit enunciation of
the resurrection as the reason for the origin of Sunday, when he writes, “The
Lord’s day was not declared to the Jews but to the Christians by the resurrec-
tion of the Lord and from that event its festivity had its origin.”1 In another
epistle the Bishop of Hippo similarly states that “the Lord’s day has been
preferred to the Sabbath by the faith of the resurrection.”2
This concise and explicit recognition of the resurrection as the cause
of the origin of Sunday observance represents the culmination of long theo-
logical reflection. Early in the second century the resurrection is not pres-
ented as the first or the sole motivation for Sunday observance. Ignatius, we
have found, alludes to Christ’s resurrection in his Epistle to the Magnesians,
when speaking of the “divine prophets who lived according to Jesus Christ”
-275-
The Theology of Sunday 276
(8 :2). He says that they “attained a new hope, no longer sabbatizing but
living according to the Lord’s life, on [or by] which also our life rose up
through his death” (9:1). The probative value of the resurrection for Sunday
observance is rather negligible in this text, both because the reference to the
resurrection of Christ is indirect and because we have shown earlier that
Ignatius is not contrasting days but rather ways of life.3
In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. A.D. 135) we found that the resurrec-
tion is mentioned by the author as the second of two reasons, important but
not dominant. The first reason, which we shall consider subsequently, is
eschatological in nature. Sunday, which he designates as the “eighth day,” is
the prolongation of the Sabbath of the end of time and marks “the beginning
of another world” (15 :8).
The second reason is that Sunday is the day “on which Jesus also (en
ha kai) rose from the dead, and having shown himself ascended to heaven”
(15 :9). The resurrection of Jesus is presented here as an additional justi-
fication, presumably because it was not yet viewed as the primary reason for
Sunday observance.4
In Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) the situation is strikingly similar.
Like Barnabas he displays a profound antagonism toward Judaism and the
Sabbath. In I Apology Justin, like Barnabas, presents the resurrection as the
second of two reasons: Sunday, indeed, is the day on which we all hold our
common assembly because it is the first day on which God, transforming the
darkness and [prime] matter, created the world; and our Saviour Jesus Christ
arose from the dead on the same day.5
For Justin “the primary motivation for the observance of Sunday,” as
W. Rordorf admits, “is to commemorate the first day of the creation of the
world and only secondarily, in addition, the resurrection of Jesus.”6 It is note-
worthy that both Barnabas and Justin who lived at the very time when Sun-
day worship was rising, present the resurrection as a secondary motivation
for Sunday-keeping, apparently because initially this was not yet viewed as
the fundamental reason.
Nevertheless, the resurrection of Christ did emerge as the primary
reason for the observance of Sunday. Several liturgical practices were in fact
introduced to honor its memory specifically. The Lord’s supper, for instance,
writes Cyprian (d. ca. A.D. 258), “though partaken by Christ in the evening..,
we celebrate it in the morning on account of the resurrection of the Lord.”7
Similarly, “fasting and kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day,” according to
Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-225), were regarded as unlawful.”8 Though he gives
no explicit reason for these practices,9 (undoubtedly well understood by his

contemporaries) other Fathers clearly explain that these were designed to
aid in remembering Christ’s resurrection. Augustine (A.D. 354430) for in-
stance, explicitly states that on Sunday “fasting is interrupted and we pray
standing, because it is a sign of the resurrection.”10
It appears therefore that initially Christ’s resurrection was not felt to
be the exclusive or the preponderant justification for Sunday worship, but it
did emerge rather early as the dominant reason which inspired several litur-
gical practices.11 We need, then, to recognize and evaluate the role played
by other theological motives as well.
Creation
The commemoration of the anniversary of the creation of the world
is a justification often adduced by the Fathers for observing Sunday. We
noticed above that Justin Martyr in his I Apology 67 presents this as the
primary reason for the Christian Sunday gathering: “Sunday, indeed, is the
day on which we hold our common assembly because it is the first day on
which God, transforming darkness and prime matter, created the world.”
In our previous discussion of this passage, we concluded that Justin’s
allusion to the creation of light on the first day seems to have been suggested
by its analogy with the day of the Sun. The statement, however, indicates
that even the inauguration of creation on the first day per se was viewed as a
valid justification for the Christian weekly gathering. F. A. Regan points out
that Justin’s creation motif found in chapter sixty-seven is “evolved from the
opening lines of chapter fifty-nine where he unfolds the simple account of
the original creation of light and the world.”12 The beginning of creation on
the first day of the week is associated by Justin with the resurrection of
Christ, apparently because both events occurred on the same day and could
be symbolically linked together as rep. resenting the beginning of the old
and of the new creation.
Justin’s effort to establish a nexus between creation and resurrection
was not an isolated attempt. We noticed earlier the testimonies of Eusebius
and Jerome where the two events are explicitly linked together.13 Ambrose
(ca. A.D. 339-397), Bishop of Milan, also echoes this teaching in a hymn
of praise to Sunday where he says: “On the first day the blessed Trinity
created the world or rather the resurgent Redeemer who conquered death,
liberated us.”14
This link between creation and resurrection is found even more ex-
plicitly in a sermon of Eusebius of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 500): "The holy day
of Sunday is the commemoration of the Lord. It is called Lord’s (kuriake)

because it is the Lord (kurios) of all days. ... It was on this day that the Lord
established the foundation of the creation of the world and on the same day
He gave to the world the first-fruits of the resurrection.... This day is there-
fore for us the source of all benefits; the beginning (ocpx~) of the creation of
the world, the beginning of the resurrection, the beginning of the week. Since
this day contains three beginnings, it prefigures the principle of the Trin-
ity."15
Additional patristic testimonies could be cited where the inaugura-
tion of creation on the first day is presented and defended as a valid justifica-
tion for the observance of Sunday.16 This view raises an important question:
Why would Christians claim that Sunday commemorated creation, when in
the Old Testament and in Jewish thinking this was regarded as an exclusive
prerogative of the Sabbath? That this was well understood by early Chris-
tians is exemplified by the clear differentiation made between creation and
resurrection by those who observed both Saturday and Sunday. In the Apos-
tolic Constitutions(ca. A.D. 380), for instance, Christians are enjoined to
keep the Sabbath and the Lord’s day festival: “The Sabbath on account of
creation, and the Lord’s day of the resurrection.”17
Was perhaps the transference of the commemoration of creation from
the Sabbath to Sunday a calculated attempt to deprive the Sabbath of its
theological raison d’être? Was the creation motive attributed to Sunday in
order to silence Sabbathkeepers who were defending the superiority of the
Sabbath on account of its commemoration of the completion of creation?
The echo of this controversy reverberates in several testimonies. In the Syriac
Didascalia (ca. A.D. 250), for instance, the terms of the dispute are most
explicit: “Cease therefore, beloved brethren, you who from among the people
have believed, yet desire still to be tied with bonds, and say that the Sabbath
is prior to the first day of the week because the Scripture has said: ‘In six
days did God make all things; and on the seventh day he finished all his
works, and he sanctified it.’ We ask you now, which is first, Alaf or Tau? For
that (day) which is the greater is that which is the beginning of the world,
even as the Lord our Saviour said to Moses: “In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth.”18
The issue of the controversy is precise. Jewish converts, some at
least, were claiming superiority for the seventh-day Sabbath on the ground
that the day symbolized the completion of creation. Sunday-keepers, on the
other hand, refuted such an argument by arguing that Sunday is superior to
the Sabbath inasmuch as being the first day it commemorates the anniver-
sary of creation.
This reasoning appears again, though in a more refined theological

form, in the treatise On the Sabbath and Circumcision, found among the
works of Athanasius (ca. A.D. 296-373), but probably spurious. The author,
rather than arguing for the superiority of Sunday by means of the dualism,
anniversary versus completion of creation, presents the two days as symbols
of two successive creations: “The Sabbath was the end of the first creation,
the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second in which He renewed and
restored the old. In the same way as He prescribed that they should formerly
observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor
the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation. Indeed, He did not
create another one, but He renewed the old and completed what He had
begun to do.”19
Sabbath and Sunday are curiously contrasted here as symbols of the
old and new creation. The superiority of Sunday is established by virtue of
the nature of the “second creation which has no end,” contrary to the first
creation commemorated by the Sabbath which “has ended” with Christ. More-
over, since the new creation “renewed and restored the old one,” it incorpo-
rated the Sabbath and its meaning. By this clever, yet artificial, theological
construction, the Sabbath is made a temporary institution “given to the former
people [i.e. the Jews], so that they would know the end and the beginning of
creation.”20
This notion of the Sabbath, as announcer of the end of the first and
the beginning of the second creation, is totally foreign to the Scriptures. To
claim, for instance, that God by resting on the Sabbath “from all His works
wishes to say by this that His works need the completion that He Himself
has come to bring,”21 is to misconstrue the actual meaning of the divine
otiositas—rest. In the creation story God’s Sabbath rest symbolizes specifi-
cally the completion and perfection of creation.22
What caused some Christians to devise such an artificial and
unscriptural doctrine of two successive creations? In the light of the existing
polemic, reported by documents such as the Didascalia, it would seem
that this clever apologetic argument was evoked by the necessity to re-
fute the Sabbath-keepers’claim of the superiority of the Sabbath as me-
morial of creation.23
In the ongoing polemic, the symbology of the first day apparently
provided an effective instrument to defend the new day of worship from the
attacks of both pagans and Sabbath-keeping Christians. To the pagans, Chris-
tians could explain that on the day of the Sun they did not venerate the Sun-
god but rather they celebrated the creation of the light and the rise of the Sun
of Righteousness, events which occurred on the first day.
To Sabbath-keepers they could show that the first day is superior to

the seventh, because the day commemorated the beginning of creation, the
anniversary of the new creation and the generation of Christ. These were by
no means the sole arguments advanced to justify Sunday observance. The
symbology of the eighth day provided another valuable arsenal of apolo-
getic techniques to defend the superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath. These
we shall consider now in order to gain additional information on the motiva-
tions for the adoption of Sunday.
The Eighth Day
The speculations on the meaning of the first day have already made
us aware of how important numerical symbolism was for early Christians.
This type of symbolism, alien to modern thought, provided early Christian
preachers and theologians with practical and yet profound argumentations
that captivated much of the thinking of Christian antiquity. Since the Sab-
bath was the seventh day of the Jewish week, Sunday could be considered,
as stated by Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-389), as “the first day with
reference to those that followed and as the eighth day with regard to those
that preceded.”24 The latter designation for Sunday, as we shall discover, was
employed far more frequently than the former in the Christian literature of
the first five centuries.
The irrationality of an eighth day in a seven-day week did not seem
to bother the ancients. An explanation is suggested by the prevailing cus-
tom, still common in countries like Italy, to reckon a week by counting in-
clusively from any given day to the same day of the following week. For
instance, an Italian will often set an appointment on a Sunday for the follow-
ing Sunday not by saying, “I will meet you a week from today,” but rather
“0ggi otto—eight days today” since both Sundays are counted. By the same
principle the Romans called their eight-day marked cycle “nundinum-ninth
day.” That this method of inclusive reckoning was used by Christians is
indicated by several patristic testimonies. Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-ca. 225),
for instance, writes that pagans celebrated the same festival only once a year,
but Christians “every eighth day,” meaning every Sunday. 25
The fact that Sunday could be viewed as the eighth day “with refer-
ence to those preceding”26 does not explain why such a name became so
popular a designation for Sunday until about the fifth century. The task of
tracing its origin is not an easy one, because, as A. Quacquarelli observes,

“the octave [i.e., the eighth] provided the Fathers with material for continuous
new reflections.”27
Baptism. W. Rordorf proposes that “Sunday came to be associated
with the number eight because baptism was administered on Sunday and we
know that baptism was early connected with the symbolism associated with
the number eight.”28 While it is true that baptism came to be regarded as the
fulfillment of the typology of the eighth day of the circumcision and of the
eight souls saved from the waters of the flood, this connection, however, is
not common in the writings of the Fathers before the fourth century. Eusebius
(d. ca. A.D. 340), to our knowledge, is the first to explain explicitly that “the
ogdoad is the Lord’s day of the resurrection of the Saviour when we believe
that the cleansing of all our sins took place. It was on that day that children
were symbolically circumcised, but that in reality the whole soul which is
born of God is purified by baptism.29
This theme of the baptismal resurrection, built on the typology of the
circumcision and of the story of the flood, occurs again in the fourth century
in several texts 30 and it gave rise to the octagonal shape of Christian fonts
and baptistries. “At this moment,” however, as J. Daniélou points out, we
are very far from its relationship to Sunday.” 31 In earlier texts the eighth day
of the circumcision and the eight persons saved from the flood are regarded
primarily as a prefiguration of the resurrection of Christ on Sunday. Justin
Martyr (ca. A.D. 100-ca. 165), for instance, interprets the eight persons of
the ark as “symbol of the eighth day, wherein Christ appeared when He rose
from the dead, for ever the first in power.”32
Cyprian (c. A.D. 258) flatly rejects the suggestion that children should
be baptized on the eighth day in accord with the ancient custom of the cir-
cumcision, because, he maintains, “the eighth day, that is to say, the first
after the Sabbath, was to be that day on which the Lord would resurrect and
vivify us and give to us the spiritual circumcision. “33 Origen (ca. A.D. 185-
ca. 254) similarly views the eighth day as the symbol of the resurrection of
Christ which provided an immediate and global circumcision, namely the
baptismal purification of the world. He writes, Before the arrival of the eighth
day of the Lord Jesus Christ the whole world was impure and uncircum-
cised. But when the eighth day of the resurrection came, immediately we
were cleansed, buried, and raised by the circumcision of Christ.34
In these texts the circumcision is not associated with Sunday baptis-
mal ceremony, but rather with the event itself of the resurrection, to which is
attributed cleansing power. Moreover, baptism was not administered in the

primitive ‘Church exclusively on Sunday. Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-ca. 225)
in his treatise On Baptism, while he recommended Passover and Pentecost
as the most suitable times for baptism, also admits that “every day is the
Lord’s, every hour, every time is apt for baptism.”35 Cosmic-week. More
plausible appears the explanation that the “eighth day” became a designa-
tion for Sunday as a result of prevailing chiliastic-eschatological specula-
tion on the seven-day creation week, sometimes called “cosmic week.” In
contemporary Jewish apocalyptic literature the duration of the world was
commonly subdivided into seven periods (or millennia) of which the sev-
enth generally represented paradise restored.36 At the end of the seventh pe-
riod would dawn the eternal new aeon which, though not so designated,
could readily be viewed as “the eighth day,” since it was the continuation of
the seventh.
These speculations were common in Christian circles as well.37 In
the Slavonic Secrets of Enoch, for instance (an apocryphonof the Old Testa-
ment interpolated by Jewish Christians toward the end of the first century)
we find not only the seven-day millennia scheme, 38 but also the first explicit
designation of the new aeon as “the eighth day”: And I appointed the eighth
day also, that the eighth day should be the first created after my work and
that the first seven should revolve in the form of seven thousand, and that at
the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of no-counting,
endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.39
This eschatological symbol of the eighth day as a type of the new
eternal world apparently appealed to those Christians who were trying to
break away from the Sabbath, since it provided them with a weighty argu-
ment to justify their choice and observance of Sunday. In The Epistle of
Barnabas (ca. A.D. 135) we find the first instance of this usage. Here the
teaching of the Book of Enoch concerning the cosmic week followed by the
eighth day is polemically employed to repudiate the Sabbath and to justify
Sunday observance. “40
Barnabas interprets the six days of creation as meaning “that in six
thousand years the Lord will bring all things to an end, for a day with him
means a thousand years” (15 :4). The seventh day, he explains, represents
the return of Christ that will put an end to the reign “of the lawless one and
judge the ungodly and change the sun and moon and stars, then he will rest
well on the seventh day” (15 :5). Therefore, he argues, the sanctification of
the Sabbath is impossible at the present time, but it will be accomplished in
that future age (seventh millennium) “when there is no more disobedience,
but all things have been made new by the Lord” (15 :6-7).
Barnabas then closes making a renewed attempt to disqualify the

observance of the Sabbath for the present age and to present instead the
“eighth day” as a valid substitution: “Further he says to them, “Your new
moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.” You see what he means: it is not the
present Sabbaths that are acceptable to me, but the one that I have made, on
which having brought everything to rest, I will make the beginning of an
eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world. This is why we also ob-
serve the eighth day with rejoicing, on which Jesus also rose from the dead,
and having shown himself ascended to heaven.”41
This cosmic-eschatological symbolism of the eighth day employed
by Barnabas to justify the observance of Sunday is constantly reiterated and
elaborated by numerous Fathers. This bespeaks a widespread tradition that
speculated on the duration of the world by means of the cosmic week. The
existence of such speculation could readily have encouraged the choice of
the “eighth day” because as symbol of eternity it not only provided a valid
justification for Sunday observance, but, in the polemic against
Sabbath~keepers, offered also an effective apologetic argument.42 In fact, as
symbol of the eternal new world, the eighth day far surpassed the seventh
day which symbolized the kingdom of one thousand years in this transitory
world.
Continuation of Sabbath. Some scholars suggest that Sunday was
denominated “eighth day” because it originated as a continuation of the Sab-
bath services which extended into Sunday time.43 According to Jewish reck-
oning, the first day of the week began on Saturday evening at sunset. Any
worship conducted at that time could readily have been regarded as a con-
tinuation of the Sabbath services. Christians who gathered for worship on
Saturday night could then have coined the denomination “eighth day,” to
signify that their worship was the prolongation of that of the Sabbath.
Barnabas suggests this possibility. We noticed that he defends the eighth day
more as a continuation of the eschatological Sabbath than as a commemoration
of the resurrection.
The irrationality is striking since Barnabas justifies the observance
of the eighth day by the very same eschatological reasons advanced previ-
ously to abrogate the Sabbath. This effort does suggest however that the
“eighth day” (as implied by the number) was viewed at that time not as a
substitution but as an addition to the Sabbath. Note that Barnabas says, “This
is why we also (dio kai) observe the eighth day.” The adjunctive “also” pre-
supposes that the Sabbath still enjoyed recognition, in spite of the prevailing
efforts to invalidate it.44
It is possible, therefore, that Sunday was initially denominated “eighth

day” because, as J. Daniélou realistically explains, the Judaeo-Christians
“who celebrated the Sabbath, the seventh day, as the rest of the Jews, after
the Sabbath, they prolonged the Jewish liturgy with the specifically Chris-
tian eucharistic cult. This was regarded by the Christian community as the
continuation of the Sabbath, that is of the seventh day. It was therefore only
natural that they should consider it as eighth day, even though in the calen-
dar it continued to be the first day of the week. And the feelings which Chris-
tians had to succeed to Judaism, of which the Sabbath was a symbol, must
have contributed to confirm this impression.”45
Superiority of Eighth Day. In the growing conflict between the
‘Church and the Synagogue and between Sabbath keepers the eighth day
came to be dissociated from the Sabbath. Its rich symbology became widely
used primarily as a polemic argument to prove the fulfillment, the substitu-
tion, and the supersedure of Judaism and of its Sabbath as well as the supe-
riority of Christianity and of its Sunday.
To accomplish this objective, the Old and the New Testament were
searched for references (so called Testimonia) which would denigrate the
Sabbath and provide some theological justification for the eighth day. Bar-
nabas indicates that this process had already begun. He endeavors not only
to find theological justifications for the eighth day, but also attempts to in-
validate the observance of the Sabbath, by quoting, among other texts, Isaiah
1:13: “Further he says to them, ‘Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot
endure.’ You see what he means: it is not the present Sabbaths that are ac-
ceptable to me” (15 :8).
Barnabas’ initial endeavor to exhalt the superiority of the eighth day
at the expense of the seventh is carried on by several Fathers who enriched
this teaching with new testimonia and arguments. Justin Martyr (ca. A.D.
100 ca. 165), for instance, extrapolates from the Scriptures some new inter-
esting “proofs” to show that “the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious
import, which the seventh did not possess.”46
The eighth day of the circumcision, the eight persons saved from the
flood and possibly the fifteen cubits (seven plus eight) of the flood-waters
which rose above all mountains are arbitrarily interpreted a prefiguration of
and justification for the observance of the eighth day. On the other hand, we
noticed that Justin reduces the seventh day to a trademark of Jewish infidel-
ity. To prove such a thesis he contends that the Sabbath was not observed
before Moses, that God Himself did not keep it and that several persons in
the Old Testament, like the priests, legitimately broke it.47
These “proofs” became the standard repertory utilized in the contro-

versy not only by the Fathers but even by Gnostic sects. Irenaeus (ca. A.D.
130-ca. 200) refers to a group of them, known as Marcosians, who defended
the doctrine of the “ogdoad” (eighth) not only by arguing from the story of
the flood and of the circumcision (already used by Justin)’, but also from the
fact that David was the eighth son and that the fleshy part of man was alleg-
edly created on the eighth day. “In a word,” Irenaeus comments, “whatever
they find in the Scriptures capable of being referred to the number eight,
they declare to fulfill the mystery of the ogdoad.”48
The Gnostics, in fact, who, as J. Danidlou points out, “were decided
enemies of Judaism, were carried away by this theme [i.e. eighth day],”49
since it enabled them to do away with the “Jewish” Sabbath. However, they
substituted the Judaeo-Christian eschatological view of the eighth day as
symbol of the eternal kingdom to come, with the view of the cosmological
and spiritual world of rest and eternity found above this world of sevenness.
They developed this interpretation by bringing together the Pythagorean
notion of the seven spheres which were embraced by the eighth, immovable
firmament, with the prestige attributed by Christians to the eighth day; 50
Thus, for the Gnostic, Sunday became the symbol of full and perfect life
attainable here below by “spiritual” people. Theodotus illustrates this in a
text reported by Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150-215): “The rest of the
spiritual men takes place on the day of the Lord (kuriake) in the ogdoad
which is called the day of the Lord (kuriake)”51 Here the Lord’s day is iden-
tified with the ogdoad to designate the super-celestial kingdom inhabited by
the soul of spiritual persons.
This heretical Gnosis is reflected in Clement of Alexandria, one of
the most liberal minds of Christian antiquity. In a comment on the passage
of Ezechiel 44 :27, “the priests are purified for seven days” and on the
eighth sacrifices are offered, Clement in a neutral fashion summarizes the
prevailing meanings attributed to the numbers seven and eight. The former,
h~ explains, represents the seven ages of the world or the seven heavens or
the present state of change and sin. The latter, on the other hand, symbolizes
the supreme rest in the future world or the super-celestial kingdom or the
state of changelessness and sinlessness. 52
In spite of his syncretistic mind, Clement manifests a clear antago-
nism toward the number seven, symbol of the Sabbath. In fact, he regards it
as “a motherless and childless number.” The number eight, on the other hand,
not only possessed prestigious qualities but, according to Clement, it is also
the day the Lord has made which all men should celebrate. 53
Returning now to the mainstream of Christianity, we shall notice that

the seventh and the eighth day are interpreted more eschatologically than
cosmologically. Several other practical meanings are also devised out of the
Scriptures and the natural world. The function of all these interpretations is
obviously polemic, designed, as noted by F. A. Regan, “to point out the
superiority of the Lord’s day over the Sabbath, and the fulfillment of the
seventh in this eighth.” 54
Irenaeus reproposes the millenarian scheme of Barnabas, interpret-
ing the seventh day as the symbol of the judgment and world to come and
the eighth as the eternal blessedness. 55 Like Justin, he also reduced the
Sabbath to an existential meaning, namely, perseverance in the service of
God during the whole life and abstention from evil. 56
Origen (ca. A.D. 185-ca. 254) continues the Irenaeus tradition by
limiting the Sabbath to a spiritual dimension, but differs from him in its
eschatological interpretation. Contrary to the Western tradition which inter-
preted the seven days as the seven millennia of the history of this world,
Origen, consistent with the Eastern tradition, views the number seven as the
symbol of this present world and the eighth as symbol of the future world:
“The number eight, which contains the power of the resurrection, is the fig-
ure of the world to come, just as the number seven is the symbol of this
present world.” 57 Though Origen approaches the controversy over the two
days in a philosophical Gnostic fashion, his intention to denigrate the sev-
enth day, and to exhalt in its place the eighth, should not be missed. In the
same Commentary on Psalm 118 he presents the seventh day as the sign of
matter, of impurity and of uncircumcision, while to the eighth day he re-
serves the symbol of perfection, of spirituality and of purification by the
new circumcision provided by Christ’s resurrection. 58
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (d. A.D. 258), free from excessive
allegorism or chiliastic speculations, views the eighth day as the “first and
sovereign after the Sabbath—id est post sabbatum primus et dorninus”—
fulfilling both Sabbath observance and the circumcision ritual. The eighth
day “preceded in symbol—praecessit in imagine” the seven, therefore it rep-
resents the fulfillment of and the superiority over the Sabbath. 59
In the Syriac Didascalia (ca. A.D. 250) the eighth day is curiously
obtained by counting inclusively from Sabbath to Sabbath: “The Sabbath
itself is counted even unto the Sabbath, and it becomes eight [days]; thus an
ogdoad is [reached], which is more than the Sabbath, even the first of the
week.” 60 Inasmuch as by counting inclusively from Sabbath to Sabbath, the
eighth day is still the Sabbath, one wonders how the author could legiti-
mately apply this designation to Sunday. Perhaps he himself became aware
of his irrationality, for when arguing for the superiority of Sunday over the
Sabbath, he uses exclusively the symbology of the first day. He contends, in
fact, that the first day was created before the seventh, that it represents the
inauguration of creation, that it was shown to be prestigious by the law of
the first-born and that it was predicted that it would take the place of the
seventh since it says. “The last shall be first and first last.”
To devaluate the Sabbath further the Didascalia too reiterates the
traditional arguments that the patriarchs and righteous men before Moses
did not keep the Sabbath and that God Himself is not idle on the Sabbath. He
then concludes by stating more explicitly and emphatically than Barnabas
that “the Sabbath therefore is a type of the [final] rest, signifying the seventh
thousand [years]. But the Lord our Saviour, when He was come, fulfilled the
types and . . . destroyed that which cannot help.” 61
Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (ca. A.D. 315-367), perhaps provides the
classic example where the eighth day stands explicitly as the continuation
and fulfillment of the Sabbath. He writes: “Although the name and the ob-
servance of the Sabbath had been established for the seventh day, we [Chris-
tians] celebrate the feast of the perfect Sabbath on the eighth day of the
week, which is also the first.” 62 Later he interprets the fifteen gradual Psalms
as “the continuation of the seventh day of the Old Testament and the eighth
day of the Gospel, by which we rise to holy and spiritual things.” 63
Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau in Austria (d. ca. A.D. 304), in his short
treatise On the Creation oj the World, devotes special attention to the mean-
ing of the seventh and eighth days. He explores and synthesizes all the pos-
sible uses of the number seven, but can find only that such a number be-
speaks of the duration of this present world, of the consummation of the
humanity of Christ and of the “seventh millenary of years, when Christ with
His elect shall reign.” The eighth day, on the contrary, which he finds an-
nounced in the title of “the sixth Psalm for the eighth day, . . . is indeed the
eighth day of that future judgment, which will pass beyond the order of the
seven-fold arrangement.” It is on account of this inferiority that, according
to Victorinus, the Sabbath was broken by Moses when he commanded “that
circumcision should not pass over the eighth day,” by Joshua, when on the
Sabbath “he commanded the children of Israel to go round the walls of the
city of Jericho,” by Matthias, when “he slew the prefect of Antiochus,” and
finally by Christ and His disciples. 64
What motivated this systematic devaluation of the Sabbath and the

consequent enhancement of the eighth day by such bizarre and irrational
arguments? Victorinus leaves us in no doubt that this was a calculated at-
tempt to force the Christians away from any veneration of the Sabbath. This
is indicated not only by the fantastic arguments which are devised for Sun-
day and against the Sabbath, but also by the specific injunction to fast on the
Sabbath lest Christians “should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews,
which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that
‘His soul hateth.’”65
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (ca. A.D. 339-397), reproposes several
traditional interpretations of the symbol of the seventh and eighth days while
at the same time adding his own practical arguments to the controversy. He
claims, for instance, that “the Sabbath was symbol of the ancient economy
based on the sanctification of the law,” while the eighth day represents the
new economy “sanctified by His [Christ’s] resurrection.” 66 The Christian’s
eighth day for Ambrose begins here on the earth below, since “the seventh
age of the world has ended and the grace of the eighth which made man not
of this world but of above, has been revealed.” 67 However, the full rest of the
eighth day, which “Jesus has purchased for His people through His resurrec-
tion,” according to Ambrose, “is not to be found on earth but in heaven.”68
In his Letter to Horontius Ambrose uses the analogy of the natural
and supernatural birth to prove the superiority of the eighth day. A baby born
at seven months will face hardship; but the child regenerated on the eighth
day will inherit the kingdom of heaven. 69 Then Ambrose rather enigmati-
cally says that in the seventh is found the “name” while in the eighth the
“fruit” of the Holy Spirit. 70 Old Testament passages such as Ecclesiastes
11:2, “Give a portion to those seven, and also to those eight,” and Psalm
118 :24, “This is the day the Lord has made,” as well as the rite of the
circumcision, are again interpreted as predictions and prefigurations of
the eighth day. 71
Like previous Fathers, Ambrose also believes that “God appointed
beforehand another day . . . because the Jews refused through contempt the
commands of their God.” 72 He urges that Christians therefore leave behind
the seventh day, the symbol of the seventh age of the world which has ended
and that they enter into the grace of the eighth day: prefigured in the Old
Testament, inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection, and representing the fulfill-
ment and supplantation of the Sabbath. 73
Jerome (ca. A.D. 342-420), like his contemporary Ambrose, sees in
the seventh and eighth days the symbol of the passage from the Law to the
Gospel: “The number seven having been fulfilled, we now climb to the Gos-
pel through the eighth.” 74 Therefore, for Jerome to observe the Sabbath
is a sign of retrogression, because he explains (alluding to Ecclesiastes
11:2) that “the Jews by believing in the Sabbath, gave the seventh part,
but they did not give the eighth because they denied the resurrection of
the Lord’s day.”75
Augustine (A.D. 354-430) represents perhaps the maximum specu-
lative effort of the Western Fathers to interpret the seventh and eighth days
both eschatologically and mystically. Though his treatment of the subject is
relatively free from polemic and captivates the reader by its profound spiri-
tual insights, the Sabbath still retains a temporary and subordinate role which
finds its fulfillment in the eighth day. Before the resurrection of Christ, the
mystery of the eighth day, according to Augustine, “was not concealed from
the holy Patriarchs, but it was locked up and hidden and taught only as the
observance of the Sabbath.”76 Like his predecessors he sees in the baptismal
symbols of the circumcision and the flood, prefigurations of the eighth day.
He explicitly associates the eight persons saved from the flood with the eighth
day, saying that they are “the same thing which is signified in different ways
by the difference of signs, as it might be by a diversity of words.”77
Augustine’s teaching on the eighth day, as C. Folliet well argues, is
inseparable from that of the Sabbath. 78 Following the Western millenarian
tradition of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian and Victorinus, 79 he interprets
the creation-week as representing the seven ages of the history of this world,
which are followed by the eighth day, the new eternal age. At first Augustine
held to a clear distinction between the eschatological meaning of the seventh
and the eighth day. He writes, for instance, “the eighth day signifies the new
life at the end of the ages, the seventh the future rest of the saints on this
earth.”80 Later, as a result of intense and mature reflection, Augustine re-
jected the prevailing material understanding of the seventh millennium as a
time of carnal enjoyment of the saints on this earth and merged the rest of
the seventh day with that of the eternal octave.81
The eighth day, however, for Augustine represents not only this his-
torical continuation and culmination of the eschatological Sabbath, but also
the mystical progress of the soul toward the internal world of peace. In this
case the Sabbath which “Christians observe spiritually by abstaining from
all servile work, that is to say, from all sin” symbolizes the spiritual “tranquil-
lity and serenity of a good conscience,” while the eighth day stands for the
greater eternal peace awaiting the saints.82 Thus, for Augustine the eighth
day epitomized the fulfillment of the Sabbath both as historical perspective
and as interior reality.
Pope Gregory the Great (ca. A.D. 540-604), the last great Doctor of
the ancient Latin Church, provides perhaps a final example of a speculative
and practical effort to use the symbology of the eighth day to prove the
superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath. The Pontiff denounces in no uncer-
tain terms certain Sabbath-keeping Christians who advocated abstention from
work on the Sabbath. He wrote in a letter: “It has been reported to me that
certain men of a depraved spirit have sown among you the seeds of a per-
verted doctrine contrary to the holy faith, forbidding to perform any work on
the Sabbath day. What shall I say of such men except that they are the preach-
ers of the Antichrist? . .. This is why we accept in a spiritual way and observe
spiritual what is written about the Sabbath. For the Sabbath means rest and
we have the true Sabbath, the very Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”83
To find support for the eighth day, Gregory refers to the traditional
admonition of Ecclesiastes 11:2, “Give portion to seven and also to eight,”
interpreting it as a prefiguration of the day of Christ’s resurrection, “for He
truly rose on the Lord’s day, which since it follows the seventh day Sabbath
is found to be the eighth from creation.”84 For another Old Testament predic-
tion foretelling the eighth day, the Pontiff turns to the seven sacrifices which
Job offered on the eighth day after the feasting of his sons and daughters. He
explains that “the story truly indicates that the blessed Job when offering
sacrifices on the eighth day, was celebrating the mystery of the resurrection
and served the Lord for the hope of the resurrection.” 85
Gregory also introduces a new and interesting eschatological in-
terpretation of the seventh and eighth days by viewing the Christian life
as a mirror of the life of Christ Himself: “What the wonderful Saviour
experienced in Himself, truly signifies what happens in us, so that we,
like Him, might experience sorrow in the sixth and rest in the seventh
and glory in the eighth.” The sixth day represents, therefore, the present
life “characterized by sorrow and distressing torment.” The Sabbath sig-
nifies man’s repose in the grave when “the soul freed from the body finds
rest.” The eighth day symbolizes “the bodily resurrection from death and
the rejoicing at the glorious reunification of the soul with the flesh.”
Then Gregory concludes with a veiled allusion to the day of the Sun,
stating that “the eighth day opens to us the vastness of eternity, through
the light which follows after the seventh day.”86
These testimonies reveal a continuity in the usage of the rich sym-
bology of the eighth day. The chief purpose appears to have been primarily
to demonstrate the fulfillment and continuation of the Sabbath through Sun-
day. We have noticed what a wide range of a posteriori arguments were
devised from the Scriptures, from prevailing calendric speculation and from
the natural world, to prove the superiority of the eighth day, Sunday, over the
seventh day, Sabbath.
The detachment of the Eighth Day from Sunday. Beginning with
the fourth century a new trend appears where the numeric symbolism of the
eighth day is progressively detached from Sunday and is used less as a po-
lemic argument and more as a pedagogical device. It is employed, on the
one hand, to preserve among Christians eschatological expectation and there-
by keep them from being captivated by material things. On the other hand, it
is retained and used as a symbol of the resurrection per se, because as J.
Danièlou has well observed, it permitted “to establish a link between the
texts of the 0. T. where the number eight is found and the resurrection and to
see, therefore, in these passages prophecies of the resurrection.”87 This new
trend is particularly noticeable in the East. The three Cappadocian Fathers,
for example, though they deal at length with the symbolism of the eighth
day, seem to avoid applying its name and meaning to Sunday.88 They prefer
to devote their attention to the implications of the eschatological meaning of
the eighth day for the present life.
Basil, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. A.D. 330-379), regards the eighth day,
which, he says, is “outside the time of the seven days” as a figure of “the
future life.”89 He prefers, however, to establish the meaning of the future
world to come by the number “one” rather than “eighth.” He does this by
associating the “monad” of Greek thought with the Biblical “one–mia,” which
he derives from the original day of creation, arguing that the week by return-
ing perpetually on itself (day one) has no beginning or end and therefore is a
figure of eternity. 90 Because of this meaning, expressed by both the number
“one” and “eight,” according to Basil, “the Church teaches her children to
recite their prayers standing on Sunday so that, by the continual reminder of
eternal life, we may not neglect the means necessary to attain it.” 91 This
association of the meaning of the eighth with the practice of standing for
prayer on Sunday represents a solitary reference. We shall see that it secured
no following.
Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-389), a contemporary of Basil, em-
ploys the eighth day, which for him “refers to the life to come, not to encour-
age Sunday observance but rather to urge “doing good while yet here on
earth.”92 This trend is even more pronounced in the other Cappadocian, Gre-
gory of Nyssa (ca. A.D. 330-395), the younger brother of Basil. Though he
wrote a treatise On the Ogdoad, as remarked by F. Regan, he does not make
“a single reference to the Lord’s day.”93 As a philosopher he defines the
octave in platonic terms as the future age which is not susceptible of “aug-
mentation or diminution” and which does not “suffer either alteration or
change.” 94 As a mystic he views the ogdoad as “the future age toward which
the internal life is turned.” 95 In commenting on the eighth beatitude, he finds
the meaning of the octave in the Old Testament rites of purification and
circumcision, which he explains mystically as representing “the return to
purity of man’s nature stained by sin,.., and the stripping off of the dead
skins,” symbol of the mortal and carnal life. 96
Gregory, therefore, finds in the meaning of the number “eight” not
polemic arguments to urge the observance of Sunday in place of the Sab-
bath, but rather the symbol of the eternal and spiritual life which has already
begun here below. His avoidance of any association between the number
eight and Sunday observance is perhaps explained by his view (prevailing in
the East) that Sabbath and Sunday were not antagonists but brothers: “With
which eyes do you look at the Lord’s day, you have dishonored the Sabbath?
Do you perhaps ignore that the two days are brothers and that if you hurt
one, you strike at the other?” 97
The Cappadocians’ detachment of the eschatological meaning of the
eighth day from the cultic observance of Sunday finds sanction in a surpris-
ing statement from John Chrysostom (ca. A.D. 347-407), Bishop of
Constantinople. In his second Treatise on Compunction, he makes a star-
tling statement: “What is then the eighth day but that great and manifest day
of the Lord which burns like straw and which makes the powers on high
tremble? The Scripture calls it the eighth, indicating the change of state and
the inauguration of the future life. Indeed, the present life is one week only,
beginning on the first day, ending on the seventh and returning to the same
unit again, going back to the same beginning and continuing to the same
end. It is for this reason that no one calls the Lord’s day the eighth day but
only first day. Indeed, the septenary cycle does not extend to the number
eight. But when all these things come to an end and dissolve, then the course
of the octave will arise.” 98
This statement of Chrysostom represents the culmination of the de-
velopment of the eschatological interpretation of the eight day, which by
reflex epitomizes to some extent the vicissitudes which accompanied the
birth and development of Sunday observance. The very name “eighth day”
and its inherent eschatological meaning, which at first Barnabas and after-
wards several Fathers used to justify the validity and superiority of Sunday
over the Sabbath, are now formally and explicitly repudiated since their raison
d’6tre has ceased.99
The eighth day is retained exclusively as symbol of the age to come

and of the resurrection. The search for texts in the Old Testament containing
the number eight or fifteen (seven plus eight) continues but now no longer to
prove that “the eighth day possesses a more mysterious import which the
seventh did not possess,” 100 but rather that the resurrection event (whether it
be the resurrection of Christ or the baptismal resurrection or the eschato-
logical resurrection) was already prefigured and predicted by the prophets. 101
Some significant conclusions regarding the origin of Sunday emerge
from this brief survey of the use of the “eighth day” in early Christianity.
The fact that the typology of the eighth day first appears especially in the
writings of anti-Judaic polemics, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Dialogue with Try pho, and that it was widely used as an apologetic device
to prove the superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath, suggests, first of all,
that Sunday worship arose as a controversial innovation and not as an un-
disputed apostolic institution. The polemic was apparently provoked by a
Sabbath-keeping minority (mostly Jewish-Christians) who refused to accept
the new day of worship. This we found to be indicated by the very specula-
tions on the eschatological superiority of the eighth day over the seventh,
since these contentions had meaning only in a polemic with Jewish-Chris-
tians and Jews. In these circles where the Sabbath and the cosmic week
played an important role, the opposition to the new day of worship was strong
enough to cause the development of the apologetic arguments about the eighth
day, in order to refute the claims of these sabbatarians.
The wide range of arguments drawn from apocalyptic literature, the
Scriptures, philosophy and the natural world to prove the superiority of the
eighth day over the seventh, presupposes also that the validity of Sunday
observance was being constantly challenged by a significant segment of
Sabbath-keeping Christians.102 In the controversy over the two days, how-
ever, the symbolism of the eighth day was found to provide an effective
apologetic device, since it could justify Sunday on several grounds. As the
eighth eschatological day, Sunday could be defended in Jewish and Jewish-
Christian apocalyptic circles as the symbol of the new world, superior to the
Sabbath which represented only the seventh terrestrial millennium.
As the Gnostic ogdoad, Sunday could represent the rest of the spir-
itual beings in the super-celestial eternal world, found above the sevenness
of this transitory world. As the Biblical number eight which the Fathers found
in several references of the Old Testament (such as, the eighth day of the
circumcision, the eight souls saved from the flood, the fifteen cubits—seven
plus eight—of the flood-waters above all mountains, the title of Psalms 6
and 11 “for the eighth day,” the fifteen gradual Psalms—seven plus eight—
, the saying “give a portion to seven or even to eight” of Ecclesiastes 11:2
and others), Sunday could be prestigiously traced back to the “prophecies”
of the Old Testament. Invested with such “prophetic” authority, the eighth
day could “legitimately” represent the fulfillment of the reign of the law
allegedly typified by the Sabbath and the inauguration of the kingdom of
grace supposedly exemplified by Sunday. Jerome expressed this view well,
saying that “the number seven having been fulfilled, we now rise to the
Gospel through the eight.” 103
It appears that the denomination “eighth day,” coined very early by
Christians, epitomizes to some extent the manner and the causes of the ori-
gin of Sunday. It suggests that Sunday worship arose possibly “as a prolon-
gation of that of the Sabbath,”104 celebrated initially on Saturday evening.
Later, due to the existing necessity for Christians to differentiate themselves
from the Jews, the service was apparently transferred from Saturday evening
to Sunday morning. 105 While we have been unable to document this trans-
ference, the fact that the introduction of Sunday worship provoked a contro-
versy, we found to be well attested, especially by the polemic use of the
symbolism of the eighth day which was developed out of apocalyptic, Gnos-
tic and Biblical sources to prove the superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath.
We also found an indirect evidence for the existence of a controversy over
the two days in the fact that the name and the meaning of the eighth day were
detached from Sunday and retained exclusively as a symbol of the resur-
rection of Christ, when the Sabbath.Sunday controversy subsided. 106
Conclusion. This brief survey of the various early Christian motiva-
tions for Sunday observance suggests that the new day of worship was intro-
duced in a climate of controversy and uncertainty. The very memory of the
resurrection, which in time became the dominant reason for Sunday obser-
vance, we found, initially played only a secondary role. On the contrary, the
great importance attached to the symbolism of both the first and the eighth
days, is indicative of the polemic which accompanied the introduction of
Sunday observance. It appears that because of the exigency which arose to
separate from the Jews and their Sabbath, Gentile Christians adopted the
venerable day of the Sun, since it provided an adequate time and symbolism
to commemorate significant divine events which occurred on that day, such
as the creation of light and the resurrection of the Sun of Justice.
This innovation provoked a controversy with those who maintained
the inviolability and superiority of the Sabbath. To silence such opposition,
we found that the symbolism of the first and of the eighth day were intro-
duced and widely used, since they provided valuable apologetic arguments
to defend the validity and superiority of Sunday. As the first day, Sunday
could allegedly claim superiority over the Sabbath, since it celebrated the
anniversary of both the first and the second creation which was inaugurated
by Christ’s resurrection. The seventh day, on the other hand, could only claim
to commemorate the completion of creation. As the eighth day Sunday could
claim to be the alleged continuation, fulfillment and supplantation of the
Sabbath, both temporally and eschatologically.
In closing this survey of the theology of Sunday in early Christianity,
we need to restate a question we raised at the beginning of this chapter,
namely, Do the earliest theological justifications for Sunday observance re-
flect Biblical-apostolic teachings or rather a posteriori arguments solicited
by prevailing circumstances? We need not take time to test the orthodoxy of
the various arguments developed, for instance, out of the numeric symbol-
ism of the first and of the eighth day, nor do we need to examine the often
ridiculous testimonia drawn from the Old Testament to prove that the eighth
day was more prestigious than the seventh. The very fact that Sunday-keep-
ers have long ago rejected not only the initially popular designation “eighth
day,” but also the whole train of arguments based on items such as the cre-
ation of light, the new world, the eighth day of the circumcision, the eighth
day of purification, the eight souls saved from the flood, Ecclesiastes 11:2,
the title of Psalm 6 and others, represents an implicit admission that such
arguments were not warranted by sound Biblical exegesis and theology.
What about the motive of the resurrection which in time became the
dominant reason for Sunday observance? Should not this constitute a valid
justification for worshiping on Sunday rather than on the Sabbath? To this
question we shall address ourselves in our concluding chapter. By reviewing
in retrospect the origin of Sunday we shall consider the implications of the
early Christian theology of Sunday for the pressing problem of the present
observance of Sunday.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 9
1. Augustine, Epistula 55, 23, 1, CSEL 34, 194.
2. Augustine, Epistula 36, 12, 14, CSEL 34, 4.
3.The passage is discussed above pp. 213f.
4. In Barnabas, the material cause of the origin of Sunday is the
exigency to break with Judaism (see above pp. 218f.) of which the Sabbath
was a chief stronghold. The formal cause, on the other hand, is the fact that
the eighth day represents eschatologically the beginning of the new world
and in the present age it commemorates the risen Christ. The resurrection is
not viewed as the first cause but as the second of two reasons.
5. Justin, I Apology 67, 5-7, Falls, Justin’s Writings, pp. 106-107.
These are not the only motivations, since we noticed that in his polemic with
Jews and Jewish Christians Justin argues for Sunday observance on the ba-
sis of the eighth day of the circumcision and of the eight persons saved from
the flood; see above pp. 230-232.
7. Cyprian, Epistola 63, 15, CSEL 3, 2, 714; Jerome, Commentarius
in epistola ad Galatos 4, 10, PL 26, 404-405, extends the symbol of the
resurrection to the daily celebration of the Eucharist as well.
8. Tertullian, De corona 3, 4, ANF III, p. 94.
9. The reason is suggested by Tertullian in his treatise On Prayer 23,
ANE III, p, 689 where he admonishes to stand for prayer on “the day of the
Lord’s Resurrection” and “in the period of Pentecost” because both festivi-
ties were distinguished “by the same solemnity of exultation.”
10. Augustine, Epistola 55, 28, CSEL 34, 202; cf. Epistola 36, 2,
CSEL 34, 32; the same reason is given by Hilary of Poitiers, Praefatio in
Psal mum 12, PL 9, 239; Basil, lie Spiritu Sanctu 27, 66, SC p. 236 explains
that the standing position during the Sunday service helps to remember the
resurrection. However, he comments that the origin of the custom is veiled
in mystery; cf. Apostolic Constitutions 2,59, ANF VII, p. 423: “We pray
thrice on Sunday standing in memory of Him who arose in three days.”
11. The fact that in the mind of many Fathers Easter-Sunday and
weekly Sunday were regarded as one basic festival commemorating at dif-
ferent times the same event of the resurrection (see above pp. 204f.) sug-
gests the possibility that both of these originated contemporaneously, possi-
bly in the early part of the second century in Rome (see above pp. 198f.).

13 See above p. 262.
14. M. Britt, The Hymns of the Roman Breviary and Missal, 1948, p.
91; Britt attributes the hymn to Pope Gregory the Great while J. Dani~lou to
Ambrose (Bible and Liturgy, p. 249).
15. Eusebius of Alexandria, De die Dominico, PA 86, 416.
16. See, for instance, Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 44 In novam
Dominicam, PG 36, 612: “As the first creation began on the Lord’s Day (this
is clearly indicated by the fact that the Sabbath falls seven days later, being
repose from work), so the second creation began on the same day”; Dionysius
of Alexandria, Analecta sacra spicilegio solesmensi 4, ed. J. B. Pitra, 1883,
p. 421: “God Himself has instituted Sunday the first day both of creation and
also of resurrection: on the day of creation He separated light from darkness
and on the day of the resurrection He divided belief from unbelief”; the
author known as the Ambrosiaster, Liber quaestionum veteris et novi
testamenti 95, 2, CSEL 50, 167, proposes a variation on the same theme: “In
fact the world was created on Sunday and since it fell after creation, again it
was restored on Sunday......In the same day He both resurrected and created.
17. Apostolic Constitutions 8, 33, 1, ANF VII, p. 495; cf. ibid. 7, 36,
1, ANF VII, p. 474: “0 Lord Almighty, Thou has created the world by Christ,
and has appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that on that day
Thou hast made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon Thy laws”;
Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians 9 (longer version), ANF I, p. 62: “But let
every one keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in the medita-
tion on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship or
the works of creation of God.”
18. Syriac Didascalia 26, ed. Connolly, p. 233; other interesting argu-
ments are submitted to prove the superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath.
For instance, the author argues that when the first day Sunday was made,
“the seventh day was yet unknown. ... Which is greater, that which had come
into being, and existed, or that which was yet unknown, and of which there
was no expectation that it should come to be?” Another argument is drawn
from the priority enjoyed by the firstborn in the paternal blessings: “Are
your last children blessed, or the firstborn? As the Scripture also saith: Jacob
shall be blessed among the firstborn”; the author then argues for the superi-
ority of Sunday by quoting Barnabas 6 :13: “Behold, I make the first things
as the last and the last as the first” and Matthew 20:16: “The last shall be
first, and the first last”; he concludes by referring to the contention that Sun-
day as the “ogdoad [i. e. eighth day] ... is more than the Sabbath” (Connolly,
pp. 234-236). The variety and bizarre nature of these arguments is indicative
of an ongoing polemic between Sabbath and Sunday-keepers, as well as of
an effort put forth by both sides to defend the superiority of their respective
day of worship.
19. Athanasius, lie sabbatis et circumcisione 4, PG 28, 138 BC.
20. Loc. cit.
21. Ibid.
22. J. Danielou, “Le Dimanche comme huitième jour,” Le Dimanche,
Lex Orandi 39, 1965, p. 62: “In the Old Testament... the Seventh Day is the
expression of perfection”; Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, The Old Testament Sab-
bath SBL Diss. Series 7, 1972, p. 196: “We must remind ourselves that it is
not the rest (cessation from work) which concludes creation, but it is the
concluded creation which occasions both rest and the Sabbath”; on the sev-
enth day as symbol of totality, completion and perfection, see Nicola Negretti,
Il Settimo Giorno, Analecta Biblica 55, 1973, pp. 44-45, 57-58.
23. Another interesting variation of the creation argument is the inter-
pretation of the first day, not as the anniversary of the creation of the world
but of the generation of Christ. This idea appears in Clement of Alexandria
(ca. A.D. 150-ca. 215) for whom “the seventh-day, by banishing evils, pre-
pares the primordial day, our true rest.” This first day of creation is allegori-
cally interpreted as “the Word illuminating hidden things,” since on that day
“He who is the light was brought forth first of all” (Stromateis 6, 16, GCS 2,
501-502); Eusebius elaborates this concept by explaining that on the first
day only light was created, since “there was no other creation that would
befit the Word” (Commentaria in Psalmos, PG 23, 1173-1176). This con-
cept of the generation of the Word on the first day, which most Christians
today would reject as subordinationism, must be regarded as another inge-
nious attempt to devise a viable theological justification for the observance
of the Sabbath.
24. Gregory of Nazianzus, 0 ratio 44 In novam Dominicam, PG 36,
612C - 613A.
25. Tertullian, On Idolatry 14, ANF III, p. 70; Syriac Didascalia 26,
Connolly, p. 236: “But the Sabbath itself is counted even unto the Sabbath,
and it becomes eight [days]; thus an ogdoad is [reached], which is more than
the Sabbath, even the first of the week”; it is not clear how the eighth day
could be applied to Sunday, when the number is derived by counting from

Sabbath to Sabbath; see below p. 290; Justin, Dialogue 41, ANE I, p. 215:
“For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is
called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the
cycle”; cf. Dialogue 138.
26. See fn. 24.
27. A. Ouacquarelli, L’Ogdoade Cristiana e i suoi riflessi nella liturgia
e nei monumenti, 1973, p. 45.
28. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 277. In the New Testament a typological
relationship is established between the circumcision and baptism, but there
are no allusions to the significance of the eighth day per se; see Col. 2:11-13;
cf. 0. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, 1950, pp. 56ff.
29. Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmos 6, PG 23, 120A.
30. Ambrose, Expositia Psalmi 118, 2:1-3, CSEL 62. 4f., teaches that
the eighth day of the circumcision is the symbol of baptism, the spiritual
circumcision inaugurated at the first Easter; cf. also De Abraham 2, 11,79,
CSEL 32, 631; Gregory of Nyssa, De octava, PA 44, 608-609; Athanasius,
lie sabbatis et circumcisione, PG 28, 140C-141B; Chrysostom, De circum-
cisione, PA 50, 867D.
31. J. Danielou (fn. 22) p. 88.
32. Justin, Dialogue 128, ANE 1, p. 268; cf. Dialogue 41, ANF 1, p.
215: “The command of circumcision, again, bidding them always to circum-
cise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by
which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose
from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath”; cf. Dialogue 23.
33. Cyprian, Carthaginense Concilium sub Cypriano tertium 3,3, 1.
PL 3, 1053; cf. Epistola 64 CSEL 3, 719.
34. Origen, Selecta in Psalmos 118, PG 12, 1588.
35. Tertullian, On Baptism 19, ANE 111, p. 678.
36. W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 48-51, provides a concise summary and
an illustrative chart of the prevailing eschatological interpretations of the
cosmic week found in late Jewish apocalyptic literature. The eschatological
Sabbath, usually viewed as a seventh millennium which would follow the
present age (measured in six millennia) was interpreted according to three
basic variants: (1) paradise restored, (2) an empty time of silence which
would follow the Messianic age and precede the new age and (3) an interim
period of the Messiah which marks the anticipation of the new world. These
divergent interpretations are indicative of the keen interest in late Judaism
and in New Testament times, for eschatological-chiliastic problems. F. A.
Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 212, comments in this regard: “The Judaic preoc-
cupations with the millennium ... gained a wide following during the New
Testament era and the centuries immediately preceding it. The coming of the
Messianic age, the so-called ‘days of the Messiah’ with its transition be-
tween ‘this world’ and ‘that world to come’ as well as the ‘end of days’ were
terms that dotted the vocabulary of the age”; cf. J. L. McKenzie, “The Jew-
ish World in New Testament Times,” A Catholic Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures, 1953, ed. 738t.; J. Bonsirven, Judaisme Palestinien au temps de
J~sus Christ, 1935, pp. 341f.
37. In the Oriental tradition, as we shall see, the Biblical week was
usually interpreted as representing the whole duration of the world in con-
trast to the eighth day of eternity. In the Western tradition, however, the
cosmic week was interpreted historically as representing succession of spe-
cific time periods; cf. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5, 28, 3; 5, 33, 2;
Hippolytus, In Danielein commentarius 4, 23-24; Tertullian, Adversus Mar-
cionem 4, 39; De anima 37, 4; see J. Dani6lou, “La typologie mill6nariste de
Ia semaine dans le christianisme primitif,” Vigiliae ,hristianae, (1948):1-16.
38. See. J. Quasten, Pat rology, 1950, 1, p. 109. The prevailing
interpretation of the millennium as a thousand year~ reign of Christ and of
His saints upon the earth, was based upon a misinterpretation of Revelation
20:lf. It was believed that “during this time, intervening before the final end
of the world, there would be a superabundance of spiritual peace and har-
mony ... It can be easily seen how such a theory would fit into a formulation
of a Christian world-day-week” (F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 214).
39. “Enoch 33 :7, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 1913, 11, p. 451. This millenarian interpreta-
tion of the week possibly derived from another apocryphal work, the Book
of Jubilees. Mario Erbetta comments on this regard: “From the fact that Adam
did not attain to the age of one thousand years, Jubilees 4:30 concludes that
the prophecy of Genesis 2 :17 (“In the day that you eat of it you shall die”)
was effectively fulfilled. It is clear that such way of reasoning must have led,
already before the Christian era, to suppose that one day of the world was
equivalent to one thousand years. The transition to a world week of 7000
years: 6000 from creation to judg,xnent and 1000 of rest, did not require
much acumen” (Oh Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 1969, III, p. 31, fn. 67);
cf. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 215; P. Prigent, Les Testimonia dans le

christianisme primitif. L’Èpître de Barnabe I-XVI et ses sources, 1961, pp.
65-71, argues for the presence of the notion of the eighth day already in
Jewish apocalyptic.
40. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 215: “The dependency of the
author of the Epistle of Barnabas is also quite evident. In the fifteenth chap-
ter, verse four of this work we have an exposition of II Enoch 32:2-33.”
41.Epistle of Barnabas 15:8-9, trans. Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Ap-
ostolic Fathers, 1950, p. 41.
42. Since Jewish Christians belonged to those Jewish apocalyptic
circles (see J. Danièlou, fn. 22, p. 71) who attributed great importance to
calendric speculations, it is easy to understand why in the controversy be-
tween Sabbath-keepers and Sunday-keepers, the latter capitalized on the
eschatological value of the eighth day, inasmuch as being a symbol of the
eternal new world, Sunday could devaluate the meaning and role of the Sab-
bath.
43. J. Danielou (fn. 22), p. 70; the passage is quoted below, see fn.
45; Jean Gaillard, “Le Dimanche jour sacr&” Cahiers de la vie spirituelle
76, 1947, p. 524: “Initially Sunday was a Christian complement of the Sab-
bath, without any thought of supplanting the traditional sacred day of the
Jews”; H. Riesenfeld, “Sabbat et jour du Seigneur,” New Testament Essays.
Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1958, pp. 210-217, suggests that ini-
tially Christians assembled for worship on Saturday evening and later the
meeting was shifted to Sunday morning; cf. H. Leclerq, “Dimanche,” DACL,
col. 1523; C. F. D. Moule, Worship in dig New Testament, 1961, p. 16. It is
possible that Saturday evening was reckoned as Sunday time not only by the
Jews but by Christians as well. Augustine, for instance, referring to the vigil
of Easter-Sunday, explicitly states: “Then in the evening as the Sabbath was
over, began the night which belongs to the beginning of the Lord’s day, since
the Lord consecrated it by the glory of the resurrection. Therefore we cel-
ebrate now the solemn memory of that night which belongs to the beginning
of the Lord’s day” (S. Guelf. 5, 4, Miscellanea Augustiniana I, p. 460; cf.
Epistola 36, 28, CSEL 34, 57). C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, pp. 46,
59, observes that Sabbath evening was “a favorable time” for a Christian
gathering, since it followed the rest of the Sabbath and Christians at that
time were free to meet.
44. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 26, perceives in this “the
effort which Judaeo-Christians were making to justify their worship”; see
above p. 222 for a discussion of the passage.
45. J. Danièlou (fn. 22), p. 70.

46. Justin, Dialogue 24, 1. Falls, Justin’s Writings, p. 183.
47. Justin’s arguments against the Sabbath and in favor of Sunday
are discussed above pp. 226f.
48. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1, 18, 3, ANF 1, p. 343.
49. J. Danièlou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 258; cf. Irenaeus, Adversus
haereses 1,25,1.
50. J. Danièlou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 258, comments: “They [i.e. the
Gnostics] borrowed this vision from astrology, which had spread its notions
throughout the Hellenistic world of the time and especially in neo-
pythagoreanism. Basic to this idea was the contrast between the seven plan-
etary spheres which are the domain of the cosinocratores, the archontes,
who hold man under the tyranny of the heimarmene, and, beyond the heavexi
above, that of the fixed stars, which is the place of incorruptibility and re-
pose (Cumont, Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, p. 162).”
Dani6lou then explains how the Gnostics “brought together the supreme
dignity of the eighth day in Christianity with the pythagorean view of the
planetary spheres. Thus they were led to the conception of the octave as
meaning, not the kingdom to come of Judaeo-Christian eschatology, but the
world on high, of which all creation is only the degradation” (ibid., p. 259).
A significant example is provided by Irenaeus’ report of the Gnostic sect,
known as Valentinians, who held that “He [the Demiurge] created also seven
heavens, above which they say that he, the Demiurge, exists. And on this
account they term him Hebdomas, and his mother Achamoth Ogdoads, pre-
serving the number of the first-begotten and primary Ogdoad as the Pleroma”
(Adversus haereses 1, 5, 2, ANE 1, p. 322). In this case the Ogdoad [i.e.
Eighth] apparently represents the supreme God.
51. Clement of Alexandria, Excerpta ex Theodoto 63, 1 SC 23, 185;
cf. Origen, Contra Celsum 6, 22; especially Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1,
5, 3, ANF I, p. 323.
52. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4, 25; 6, 16.
53. Ibid., 6, 16, 138.
54. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 224; J. Danièlou (fn. 22), pp. 72,
74, explicitly points out that “the doctrine of the ogdoad as heavenly world
and future world was developed to seek a justification for Sunday obser-
vance. Beginning with this reflection, a search was made for texts announc-
ing the eighth day in the Old Testament ... It is an aspect of the anti-Jewish
polemic designed to exalt Sunday in order to reject the Sabbath. ... Initially
the opposition is between the Jewish day of worship and that of the Chris-
tians.”
55. J. Danièlou (fn. 22), p. 65, notes: “Irenaeus develops greatly
the notion of the seven millennia and of the eighth day. We cite a text ‘And
in the seventh day he will judge the earth. And on the eighth, which is the
aeon to come, he will deliver some to eternal punishment and others to life.
This is why the Psalms have spoken of the octave’ (5, 28, 3).”
56. Irenaeus’ concept of the Sabbath is not homogeneous. In some
instances he shares Jus tin’s view that the Sabbath and circumcision were
given by God to the Jews “for their punishment ... for bondage” because
“righteousness and love to God had passed into oblivion, and became ex-
tinct in Egypt” (Adversus haereses 4, 16, 3 and f, ANF I, pp. 481-482). Like
in Justin so in Irenaeus, this view was encouraged by the conflict with Jews
and Jewish-Christians. Irenaeus however was faced also with the reverse
error of the Gnostic5 who depreciated the Sabbath to justify their view of the
evil god of the Old Testament. To refute this Gnostic dualism, Irenaeus de-
fends the positive function the Sabbath fulfills in helping the progressive
development of humanity: “These things, then, were given for a sign; but
the signs were not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no pur-
pose, inasmuch as they were given by a wise Artist. ... But the Sabbath taught
that we should continue day by day in God’s service” (Adversus haereses
4,16,1, ANF I, p. 481). To this ecclesiastical meaning Irenaeus adds an
eschatological sense to the Sabbath: “The times of the kingdom ... which is
the true Sabbath of the righteous, in which they shall not be engaged in any
earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God,
supplying them with all sorts of dishes” (Adversus haereses 5, 33, 2, ANF I,
p. 562; cf. ibid., 5, 30, 4; 4, 8, 2). Augustine, we shall notice (see below p.
294), at first accepted but later rejected this materialistic interpretation of
the seventh millennium. Note that Irenaeus’ spiritualiza tion of the Sabbath
(widely followed by the Fathers) does not represent a positive effort to en-
hance the Sabbath, but rather a subtle subterfuge to do away with the com-
mandment while safeguarding at the same time the immutability of God.
57. Origen, Selecta in Psalmos 118, 164, PG 12, 1624.
58. Ibid., 118,1, PG 12, 1588; In Exodurn homiliae 7,5, GCS 29,
1920, Origen argues: “If then it is certain according to the Scriptures that
God made the manna rain on the Lord’s Day and cease on the Sabbath, the
Jews ought to understand that our Lord’s day was preferred to their Sab-
bath.”
59. Cyprian, Epistola 64, CSEL 3, 719; cf. Carthaginense Condiliurn

sub Cvpriano tertium, PL 3, 1053.
60. Syriac Didascalia 26, ed. Connolly, p. 236.
61. Ibid., p. 238; see above fn. 18.
62. Hilary, Tractatus super Psalmos 12, CSEL 22, 11.
63. Ibid., CSEL 22, 14.
64. Victorinus, On the Creation of the World, ANE VII, 342; Asterius
of Amasa, Homilia 20, 8, PG 40, 444449 defends the superiority of the eighth
day by the fact that the number eight is not related to any time cycle. Fur-
thermore he says: “Inasmuch as the first resurrection of the race after the
flood happened to eight persons, the Lord has begun on the eighth day the
resurrection of the dead.”
65. Victorinus, see fn. 64.
66. Ambrose, Explanatio Psalmi 47, CSEL 64, 347; cf. Epistola 26,
8, PL 16, 1088: “Therefore the seventh day represents a mystery, the eighth
the resurrection.”
67. Ambrose, ibid., 1140.
69 Ambrose, ibid., 1137.
70. Ambrose, ibid., 1137: “Great is the merit of the seventh day by
virtue of the Holy Spirit. However the same spirit names the seventh day
and consecrates the eighth. In that is the name, in this is the fruit.”
71. Ambrose, ibid., 1137-1138.
73. Ambrose, ibid., 1140-1141.
74. Jerome, Commentarius in Ecclesiastem 11,2, PL 23, 1157.
75. Jerome, loc. cit.
76. Augustine, Epistola 55, 23, CSEL 34, 194.
77. Augustine, Sermo 94, Bibliteca Nova ed. May, p. 183.
78. C. Folliet, “La Typologie du sabbat chez saint Augustine,” Revue
des êtudes Augustiniennes 2 (1956): 371-390.
79. On Irenaeus see fn. 56; on Victorinus see above p. 291 fn. 64;
Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 3, 24, and 4, 39 interprets the millennium
as a literal period of one thousand years on the earth, in the city of the New
Jerusalem rebuilt by God; Hippolytus, In Danielem com~mentarius 4, 23-
24 elaborates a scheme of seven ages, speculating on the actual date of Christ’s
return.
80. Augustine, Sermo 80, PL 38, 1197; in this sermon Augustine enu-
merates distinctly the five ages from Adam to Christ already passed. lIe then
explains: “With the coming of the Lord begins the sixth age in which we are
living. ... When the sixth day has passed, then rest will come ... and the saints
completed, we shall return to that immortality and blessedness which the
first man lost. And the octave shall accomplish the mysteries of God’s chil-
dren.” The basic difference between the eschatological seventh and eighth
day, according to Augustine, is qualitative: “For it is one thing to rest in the
Lord while still being in the midst of time—and this is what the seventh day
Sabbath signifies— and another thing to rest endlessly beyond all time with
the Artisan of time, as signified by the eighth day” (Sermo 94, Biblioteca
Nova, ed. Mai, p. 184); in his Epistola 55, 23, CSEL 34, 194, Augustine
represents the eighth day as a revelation of the resurrection: “Before the
resurrection of the Lord, although this mystery of the octave which repre-
sents the resurrection was not concealed from the holy Patriarchs, filled as
they were with the prophetic spirit, but was reserved, transmitted and hidden
by the observance of the Sabbath.”
81. See Augustine, City of God 20, 7: “I also entertained this notion
at one time. But in fact those people assert that those who have risen again
will spend their rest in the most unrestrained material feasts, in which there
will be so much to eat and drink that not only will those supplies keep within
no bounds of moderation but will also exceed the limits even of credibility.
But this can only be believed by materialists’ (trans. Henry Bettenson, ed.
David Knowles, 1972, p. 907). Augustine did not repudiate totally the no-
tion of the seventh millennium, but fused the rest of the seventh with that of
the eternal octave: “The important thing is that the seventh will be our Sab-
bath, whose end will not be an evening, but the Lord’s Day, an eighth day, as
it were, which is to last for ever” (City of God 22, 30, trans. Henry Bettenson,
p. 1091).
82. Augustine, In Johannis evangelium tractatus 20, 2, PL 35, 1556;
cf. Enarratio in Psalmos 91,2, PL 37, 1172: “He whose conscience is good
is tranquil; and this very tranquillity is the Sabbath of the heart.”
83. Gregory the Great, Epistola 13, 6, 1, PL 71, 1253.
84. Gregory the Great, Moralium 35, 8, 17, PL 76, 759.

85. Gregory the Great, Moralium 1, 8, 12, PL 75, 532.
86. Gregory the Great, Homiliarurn in Ezechielern 2, 4, 2, PL 76,
973f.
87. J. Danièlou (fn. 22) p. 87; cf. by the same author, Bible and Lit-
urgy, p. 264.
88. The fact that Sunday came to be viewed no longer as the continua-
tion but rather as the replacement of the Sabbath—the new Sabbath— lim-
ited the possibility of applying to Sunday the eschatological symbolism of
tht. eighth day, since the latter implies continuation rather than substitution.
Eusebius expresses explicitly this concept of “transference” when he states:
“All that had been prescribed for the Sabbath, we have transferred to the
Lord’s day, since it is more authoritative, the one that dominates, the first
and the one which has more value than the Sabbath” (Commentaria in
Psalmos 91, PG 23, 1172).
89. Basil, In Hexaemeron 2, 8, SC p. 177; cf. PG 29, 52B; De Spiritu
Sancto 27, SC, pp. 236-237.
90. Basil, In Hexaemeron 2, 8, SC, p. 180: “Why did he [Moses] not
call this day the first, but one? ... The week itself constitutes one single day,
revolving seven times upon itself. Here is a true circle, beginning and end-
ing with itself. This is why the principle of time is called not the first day, but
one day”; cf. De Spiritu Sancto 27, SC p. 236: “There was an evening and a
morning, one day as though it returned regularly upon itself.”
91. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 27, SC p. 237.
92. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 44, In novam Don2inicarn, PA
36, 612.
93. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 240; J. Danièlou (fn. 22), pp. 80-
81 acutely notes: “Basil’s effort to retain for Sunday its archaic name of the
eighth day will have no following. What will remain will be the eschatological
symbolism which was attached to it This is what we meet in Gregory of
Nyssa, that is typical of this attitude. In his Hexaemeron, he makes no allu-
sion to Sunday.”
94. Gregory of Nyssa, De octava, PG 44, 609 B-C.
95. Gregory of Nyssa, In Psalmos 2, 8, PG 44, 504D-505A.
96. Gregory of Nyssa, De beatitudinibus, Oratio 8 PG 44, 1292 A-

D.
97. Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus eos qui castigationes aegre ferunt,
PG 46, 309.
98. John Chrysostom, De corn punctione 2, 4, PG 47, 415 (emphasis
supplied).
99. J. Danièlou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 275, acknowledges this develop-
ment: “This text of Chrysostom marks the furthest point of the eschatological
interpretation of the eighth day, since it formally denies this name to the
Lord’s Day and reserves it for the age to come.”
l01. For texts, see J. Danièlou (fn. 22), pp. 87-88.
102. The existence of Christian Sabbath-keepers in early Christian-
ity has been largely discounted in recent studies. This creates the false im-
pression that Sunday observance was unanimously and immediately adopted
by all Christians. What is greatly needed to correct this view, is a compre-
hensive analysis of all the patristic references providing direct or indirect
information on the survival of the practice of Sab bath-keeping in early Chris-
tianity. It is the hope of the present author to undertake this study in the near
future.
103. Jerome, Commentarius in Ecclesiastem 11,2, PL 23, 1157.
104. H. Riesenfeld (fn. 43) p. 213.
105. See above fn. 43; Louis Duchesne, Origines du culte chrètien,
1920, p. 48: “Sunday initially was placed in juxtaposition with the Sabbath.
As the gulf between the Church and the Synagogue widened, the Sabbath
became less and less important until finally it was completely neglected.”
106. J. Danièlou (fn. 22), p. 89 notes this development: “The theme
of the eighth ... is progressively detached from Sunday and 1os~s its liturgi-
cal roots when Sunday is no longer in opposition to the Jewish seventh day.”
Chapter 10
RETROSPECT
AND
PROSPECT
In introducing our study we posed several vital questions: What are

the Biblical and historical reasons for Sunday-keeping? Can Sunday be re-
garded as the legitimate replacement of the Sabbath? Can the fourth com-
mandment be rightly invoked to enjoin Sunday observance? Should Sunday
be viewed as the hour of worship rather than the holy day of rest to the Lord?
We stated at the outset that to answer these questions, and thereby to formu-
late valid theological criteria needed to help solve the pressing problem of
the widespread profanation of Sunday, it is indispensable to ascertain both
the Biblical basis and the historical genesis of this festivity. We believe that
this verification was justified by the Christian conviction that any present
decision regarding the Lord’s day must be based on Biblical authority con-
fronted with the historical developments of primitive Christianity.
Having reached the end of our historical investigation, we summa-
rize its results and consider its implications for the urgent questions of today.
We are aware that the conclusions which have emerged in the course of the
present study, though the result of an effort which has been intentionally
honest and objective, still rest on an inevitable personal interpretation of
available evidences. It will be therefore the sieve of the critics that will even-
tually corroborate or challenge their validity. Nevertheless the fact remains
that our conclusions represent the result of a serious effort which has been
made to understand and interpret the available sources. The reader will in
fact find in the preceding pages extensive discussion and precise reasons for
every single conclusive statement which we now submit.
The analysis of the ample Sabbath material of the Gospels has re-
vealed, first of all, the high esteem in which the Sabbath was held both in
Jewish circles and in primitive Christianity. We have shown that the Gospels
testify that for the earliestChristians, Christ did not, as some contend, “push
into the background” or “simply annul” 1 the Sabbath commandment to pave
-308-
the way for a new day of worship, but rather He enriched its meaning and
function by fulfilling its Messianic typology. This Jesus did, not only by
announcing His redemptive mission to be the fulfillment of the promises of
liberation of the sabbatical time (Luke 4:18-21), but also through His pro-
gram of Sabbath reforms. We noticed that the Lord acted deliberately on the
Sabbath, contrary to prevailing rabbinical restrictions, in order to reveal the
true meaning of the Sabbath in the light of His work of redemption: a day to
commemorate the divine blessings of salvation, especially by expressing
kindness and mercy toward others.
To make the Sabbath a permanent symbol of His redemptive bless-
ings, we found that Christ identified His Sabbath ministry with that of the
priests, whose work in the temple on the Sabbath was lawful on account of
its redemptive function. As the true temple and priest, Christ likewise inten-
sified on the Sabbath His saving ministry (Mark 3 :4-5; Matt. 12:1-14; John
5:17, 7:23, 9:4) so that sinners whom “Satan bound” (Luke 13 :16) might
experience and remember the Sabbath as the memorial of their redemption.
That the apostolic community understood this expanded meaning and func-
tion of the Sabbath, we found indicated not only by the Gospel’s accounts of
Christ’s Sabbath pronouncements and healing activities, but also by Hebrews
4 where the Sabbath is presented as the permanent symbol of the blessings
of salvation available to all believers by faith.
The object of our study, however, was not to trace the theological
development and/or actual practice of the Sabbath among early Christians,
but rather to ascertain the historical genesis of Sunday observance. Never-
theless, in examining, for instance, the Biblical and historical data regarding
the primitive community of Jerusalem for traces of Sunday observance, we
found irresistible proof that both the membership and the leadership of the
mother Church of Christendom were mostly Jewish converts deeply attached
to Jewish religious observances such as Sabbath-keeping. A convincing evi-
dence was provided by the sect of the Nazarenes, a group descending di-
rectly from the primitive community of Jerusalem. These, we found, retained
exclusively Sabbath-keeping after A.D. 70 as one of their distinguishing
marks, thus proving that no change from Sabbath to Sunday occurred among
primitive Palestinian Jewish Christians.
We submitted to careful scrutiny the three New Testament passages
(I Cor. 16 :1-2; Acts 20 :7-11; Rev. 1:10) generally cited as proof of Sunday
observance in apostolic times. We are able to show, however, that they pro-
vide no probative indication for the practice of Sunday worship. We found
the first explicit but yet timid reference to Sunday in the Epistle of Barnabas
(ch. 15). The author mentions no gatherings nor any eucharistic celebration,
but simply that Christians spent (&-yo~v) the eighth day rejoicing, inas-
much as it represented the prolongation of the eschatological Sabbath to
which is united the memory of the resurrection. Since Barnabas lived at the
crucial time when Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) adopted rigorous and
repressive measures against the Jews, outlawing their religious observances
and particularly their Sabbath-keeping, we checked to see if possibly Sun-
day observance made its first appearance at that time.
We found that both external pressures and internal needs encouraged
many Christians at that time to break radically with the Jews. Externally, the
existing conflict between the Jews and the empire made it necessary for
Christians to develop a new identity in order to avoid the repressive and
punitive measures (fiscal, military, political and literary) aimed at the Jews.
Internally, the influence of the synagogue and of JudaeoChristians who in-
sisted on the literal observance of certain Mosaic regulations, prompted Chris-
tians to sever their ties with Judaism. To develop this new identity, many
Christians not only assumed a negative attitude toward the Jews as a people,
but also substituted characteristic Jewish religious observances such as Pass-
over and the Sabbath with Easter-Sunday and the weekly Sunday. This ac-
tion apparently would serve to make the Roman authorities aware that Chris-
tians liberated from Jewish religious ties represented for the empire irre-
proachable subjects.
Several indications emerged in the course of our study corroborating
this hypothesis. We found, for instance, that with Barnabas began the devel-
opment of a body of “Christian” literature characterized by what we have
called an “anti-Judaism of differentiation.” This found expression in a nega-
tive reinterpretation of the meaning and function of Jewish history and ob-
servances like the Sabbath.
We have shown that the devaluation of the Sabbath was accomplished
in several ways. Many, like Barnabas, emptied the Sabbath commandment
of all temporal meaning and obligation by speculating on the superior sym-
bology of Sunday as the eighth day. The latter was arbitrarily traced back to
several references of the Old Testament where the number eight occurs and
was variously interpreted as representing the eternal new world, the rest of
the spirituals in the super-celestial world, perfection and spirituality, the Chris-
tian dispensation of grace, and the resurrection of Christ and of the believer.
Over against this exalted meaning of the eighth day, the Sabbath as
the seventh day was degraded to represent the end of the present age, this
transitory world, impurity and matter, the dispensation of the law, and man’s
repose in the grave. Some, like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, concerned
to safeguard the consistency of God’s nature and law, preferred to retain the
Sabbath as an ecclesiastical and spiritual symbol (namely, perseverance in
the service of God during the whole life and abstention from sin) while at
the same time denying its literal obligation. Others, as reflected in the Didas-
calia, deprived the Sabbath of its commemorative value of creation by mak-
ing Sunday the symbol of the anniversary and renewal of the old creation.
Still others, like Justin, assumed the most radical position, reducing
the Sabbath to a sign of divine reprobation imposed on the Jewish people on
account of their wickedness. In all these differing interpretations, one de-
tects a common concern to invalidate the Sabbath in order to justify in its
place Sunday observance. These polemic and often absurd arguments fabri-
cated to justify and exalt Sunday at the expense of the Sabbath, substantiate
our hypothesis that Sunday observance was introduced in a climate of con-
troversy owing to an existing need to force a break with Judaism.
In the course of our investigation several concomitant factors emerged
suggesting that this break with Judaism and with its characteristic festivities
occurred first and to a greater degree in the Church of Rome. We found, for
instance, that in Rome most Christian converts were of pagan extraction and
experienced an earlier differentiation from the Jews than converts in the East.
The repressive measures adopted by the Romans against the Jews—particu-
larly felt in the capital city— apparently encouraged the predominant Gen-
tile membership of the Church of Rome to clarify to the Roman authorities
their distinction from Judaism by changing the date and manner of obser-
vance of characteristic Jewish festivals such as the Passover and the Sabbath
which most Christians still observed.
We found in fact that the Church of Rome took a definite stand against
both festivities. The Quartodeciman Passover was substituted by Easter-Sun-
day apparently at the time of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), as suggested by
Irenaeus’ reference to Bishop Sixtus (ca. A.D. 116-126) and by Epiphanius’
statement regarding the origin of the controversy at about A.D. 135. The
sources attribute explicitly to the Bishop of Rome the role of pioneering and
championing Easter-Sunday, in order to avoid, as later stated by Constantine,
“all participation in the perjured conduct of the Jews.”
The close nexus existing between Easter-Sunday and weekly Sun-
day (the latter being viewed by many Fathers as an extension of the former)
gives us reason to believe that both festivities originated contemporaneusly
in Rome because of the same anti-Judaic motivations. We found support for
this conclusion in the fact that the Church of Rome rigorously enforced fast-
ing on the Sabbath (a custom which apparently originated early in the sec-
ond century as an extension of the annual Holy Saturday fast) to show, among
other things, contempt for the Jews. Similarly, in Rome the eucharistic cel-
ebration and religious assemblies were forbidden on the Sabbath, to avoid
appearing to observe the day with the Jews. Moreover, we found that in
the second century only the Roman Bishop enjoyed sufficient ecclesias-
tical authority to influence the greater part of Christendom to accept new
customs or observance (even though some churches refused to comply
with his instruction).
The specific choice of Sunday as the new Christian day of worship
in contradistinction to the Jewish Sabbath was suggested, however, not by
anti-Judaism but by other factors. It appears that anti-Judaism caused a de-
valuation and repudiation of the Sabbath, thus creating the necessity to seek
for a new day of worship; but we found the reasons for the specific choice of
Sunday elsewhere. The diffusion of the Sun-cults, which early in the second
century caused the advancement of the day of the Sun to the position of first
day of the week (the position held previously by the day of Saturn), oriented
especially Christian converts from paganism toward the day of the Sun.
The choice of the day of the Sun, however, was motivated not by the
desire to venerate the Sun-god on his day but evidently by two different
factors. On the one hand, the existence of a rich Judaeo-Christian tradition
which associated the Deity with the sun and light, apparently predisposed
Christians favorably toward the day and symbolism of the sun. ‘On the other
hand Christians realized, spontaneously perhaps, that the venerable day of
the Sun provided a fitting symbology that could efficaciously commemorate
and explain to the pagan world two fundamental events of the history of
salvation—creation and resurrection: “It is on this day that the Light of the
World has appeared and on this day that the Sun of Justice has risen.” 2
Sunday, moreover, commemorated adequately both the beginning of
creation—in contradistinction to the Sabbath, the memorial of its comple-
tion—and the resurrection of Christ, viewed as the beginning of the new
creation. We have shown that the motif of the resurrection, which initially
was not regarded as exclusive or dominant, in time did become the pre-
ponderant reason for Sunday worship. Lastly, Sunday was chosen inasmuch
as, being the eighth day following the seventh-day Sabbath, it could express
the continuation, the fulfillment and the supersedure of the Sabbath both
temporally and eschatologically.
The picture then that emerges from the present investigation is that
the origin of Sunday was the result of an interplay of Jewish, pagan and
Christian factors. Judaism, as we have seen, contributed negatively and posi-

tively to the rise of Sunday. The negative aspect is represented by the repres-
sive measures adopted by the Romans against the rebelling Jews as well as
by the Jewish hostility toward Christians, both of which created the neces-
sity of a radical Christian separation from Judaism. This need for a differen-
tiation was a determining factor in causing both the repudiation of the Sab-
bath and the exigency of a new day of worship. The positive contribution of
Judaism to the rise of Sunday we have found ppssibly (?) in the psychologi-
cal orientation toward Sunday derived from the sectarian Jubilees’ calendar
and especially in the Jewish apocalyptic speculations on the cosmic week.
The latter made it possible to defend the choice of Sunday in Jewish and
Jewish Christian circles, since as the eighth eschatological day representing
the eternal new world, Sunday could be shown to be superior to the seventh
terrestrial millennium symbolized by the Sabbath.
Paganism suggested to those Christians who had previously known
the day and the cult of the sun, the possibility of adopting the venerable day
of the Sun as their new day of worship, since its rich symbology was condu-
cive to worship the True Sun of Righteousness who on that day “divided
light from darkness and on the day of the resurrection separated faith from
infidelity.”3 Christianity, lastly, gave theological justification to Sunday obser-
vance by teaching that the day commemorated important events such as
the inauguration of creation, the resurrection of Christ and the
eschatological hope of the new world to come. It appears therefore that
Jewish, pagan and Christian factors, though of differing derivation,
merged to give rise to an institution capable of satisfying the exigencies
of many Jewish and pagan converts.
In the light of these conclusions we ought to consider now those
questions raised at the outset regarding the theological legitimacy of Sunday
observance and its relevancy for Christians today. Our study has shown (we
hope persuasively) that the adoption of Sunday observance in place of the
Sabbath did not occur in the primitive Church of Jerusalem by virtue of the
authority of Christ or of the Apostles, but rather took place several decades
later, seemingly in the Church of Rome, solicited by external circumstances.
The earliest theological justifications in fact, do not reflect an or-
ganic Biblical-apostolic teaching, but rather differing polemic argumenta-
tions. Even those Biblical testimonia which were drawn from the Old Testa-
ment (references to the numbers eight and one) to prove the legitimacy and
superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath were mostly based on unwarranted
criteria of Biblical hermeneutic, and consequently they were in time aban-
doned. This means, to put it bluntly, that Sunday observance does not rest on
a foundation of Biblical theology and/or of apostolic authority, but on later
contributory factors which we have endeavored to identify in our present
study.
It is noteworthy (as we were able to show in chapter IV of our Italian
dissertation) 4 that Sunday liturgy and rest were patterned only gradually
after the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, the complete application of the Sabbath
commandment of a bodily rest to Sunday was not accomplished before the
fifth and sixth centuries. 5 This corroborates our contention that Sunday be-
came the day of rest and worship not by virtue of an apostolic precept but
rather by ecclesiastical authority exercised particularly by the Church of
Rome. In the past this explanation has been regarded virtually as an estab-
lished fact by Catholic theologians and historians. Thomas of Aquinas,
for instance, states unambiguously: “In the New Law the observance of
the Lord’s day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath not by
virtue of the precept but by the institution of the Church and the custom
of Christian people.” 6
Vincent J. Kelly, in his dissertation presented to the Catholic Univer-
sity of America, similarly affirms: “Some theologians have held that God
likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New
Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath.
But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that
God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days
she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first
day of the week, and in the course of time added other days, as holy days.”7
This traditional claim that the Church of Rome has been primarily
responsible for the institution of Sunday observance, though widely chal-
lenged by recent Catholic (and protestant) scholarship, has been amply sub-
stantiated by our present investigation. How does this conclusion affect the
theological legitimacy and relevancy of Sunday observance? For those Chris-
tians who define their beliefs and practices exclusively by the Reformation
principle of sola Scriptura, to observe Sunday as the Lord’s day not on the
authority of the Scripture but of the tradition of the Church, is a paradoxical
predicament. As well stated by John Gilmary Shea, “Protestantism, in dis-
carding the authority of the Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday
theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath.”8
A dilemma, however, exists also for the Roman Catholic Church,
inasmuch as she has traditionally enjoined Sunday observance by invoking
the authority of the Sabbath commandment. Pope John XXIII, for instance,
in his encyclical Mater et Magistra (1961) emphasizes the social and reli-
gious obligation of Sunday observance by appealing explicitly to the Sab-
bath precept. He states: “In order that the Church may defend the dignity
with which man is endowed, because he is created by God and because God
has breathed into him a soul to His own image, she has never failed to insist
that the third commandment: 'Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day,' be
carefully observed by all.”9
This justification of Sunday observance on the basis of the Sabbath
commandment raises important theological questions: How is it possible to
maintain that the Sabbath “has been fulfilled and abolished in Jesus”10 and
yet at the same time enjoin Sunday observance by appealing to the same
Sabbath commandment? Moreover, how can the fourth commandment (third
according to Catholic reckoning) be legitimately applied to Sunday, when it
is the seventh and not the first day that the commandment demands to keep
holy? C. S. Mosna, conscious of this dilemma, in the conclusive remarks of
his dissertation proposes that “it would be better to renounce seeking a founda-
tion for Sunday rest in the ancient Sabbath precept.”11
On what ground then can Sunday rest be defended? Mosna finds a
“fundamental reason” in the fact that the Church “influenced Constantine’s
decision to make Sunday a day of rest for the whole empire, and this un-
doubtedly in order to give to the Lord’s day a preeminent place above the
other days.” Therefore, Mosna argues that the Church “can claim the honor
of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days.” 12This expla-
nation harmonizes well with the traditional claim that Sunday observance
“is purely a creation of the Catholic Church.” 13 But if Sunday rest is an
ecclesiastical-imperial institution, how can it be enjoined upon Christians as
a divine precept? What valid ground can this provide to enable theologians
to reassess the meaning and function of the Lord’s day for Christians today?
One can hardly hope to cope wth the widespread profanation of the Lord’s
day, merely by invoking ecclesiastical authority without providing an ad-
equate theological rationale.
Some argue that a theological justification for Sunday rest is pro-
vided by the demands of worship. C. S. Mosna, for instance, asserts that “an
essential theological motivation to support resting on Sunday is the fact that
this is absolutely indispensable to provide the material time for worship on
the Lord’s day and to favor its conditions.” 14 That the interruption of work is
a prerequisite to worship, is an axiomatic truth. But is a Christian to rest on
the Lord’s day merely to fulfill its worship obligations? If this were the ex-
clusive reason, then why insist on the rest from work for the entire day, since
the time spent in actual corporate or private worship amounts at most to one
or two hours? In other words, if the free time that remains after the Sunday
service has no theological significance, one cannot but question the legiti-
macy of demanding total rest from work on Sunday.
In view of the fact that idleness is the beginning of all manner of
vices, would it not be more appropriate after the Sunday service to urge
Christians to return to their respective jobs or to engage in some purposeful
activities? Moreover, if rest is to be taken only to ensure attendance to the
Church service, does not the five-day working week already provide ample
time to fulfill worship obligations, thus making the notion of Sunday rest
altogether irrelevant and anachronistic to modern man?
Should we then conclude that Sunday is to be regarded as the hour of
worship rather than the holy day of rest to the Lord? Apparently it is toward
this direction that some Christian Churches are moving. The Catholic Church,
for instance, as expressed by C. S. Mosna, “is tim idly introducing the cus-
tom of hearing the Sunday Mass on Saturday night.”15 Mosna maintains that
“such practice is to be encouraged... in order to provide the Sunday bless-
ings to those employees and workers who are not free because of their work-
ing schedule but, who as Christians, have the right to participate in the Sun-
day liturgy.”16
Note however that the possibility of hearing the Sunday Mass on
Saturday night is extended not only to those Catholics who on Sunday would
be impeded to fulfill the precept by unavoidable obligations, but also, as
explicitly stated by the Archbishop of Bologna, to “classes of persons such
as skiers, hunters, holidaymakers, tourists, and others, who on festivities
normally leave home at a time when no Mass is celebrated in the churches,
and go to places where churches are either too far or non-existent.”17
This extension of the prerogatives of Sunday to Saturday evening
suggests the possibility of further perplexing developments. Martino Morganti
points out, for instance, that “the extension is already insufficient to accom-
modate all, because... Saturday evening is already fully week-end and for
many the exodus out of the cities has already begun.” 18 Owing to the con-
stant reduction of the working-week, it seems plausible to foresee then that
in the future the Catholic Church in her desire to minister to the largest num-
ber of vacationers, might anticipate the Sunday Mass precept even to Friday
evening. Some radical Catholic theologians feel no discomfort with this devel-
opment, since they argue, as expressed by Th. Martens that “the problem of
the “sliding-scivolarnento” of Sunday must be resolved not on the basis of

theological, historical or traditional principles, but... on the basis of a pasto-
ral judgment that holds together the two extremes: the will of Christ and the
situation of the present world. It appears to us that the Gospel and tradition
do not specify the actual day of the Lord.”19
To say the least, this interpretation not only reduces the obligation of
the Lord’s day to the attendance of a church service, but it even advocates
the possibility of anticipating it in order to accommodate the social and rec-
reational priorities of modern Christians. Does this view of the Lord’s day as
the hour of worship reflect correctly the Biblical teaching of the sanctifica-
tion of the Sabbath, accomplished by renouncing the utilitarian use of its
time? Hardly so. But, should Sunday be viewed differently, namely as the
embodiment of the theology and obligations of the Biblical Sabbath?
In the light of our investigation into the historical genesis and initial
theological basis of Sunday observance, we must reply, “No.” We have shown
that Sunday arose not as a divine precept demanding the sanctification of
time, but as an ecclesiastical institution designed to force a differentiation
from Jewish Sabbath-keeping. The very primitive theology of Sunday did
not require total rest from work on Sunday. As stated by W. Rordorf, “until
well into the second century we do not find the slightest indication in our
sources that Christians marked Sunday by any kind of abstention from work.”
20
The resurrection of Christ, which in time became the dominant reason for
Sunday observance, initially was commemorated by a common gathering
for worship (Justin, I A pology 67) and not by a whole day of rest.
Should not, however, the commemoration of Christ’s resurrection
constitute a valid justification for consecrating Sunday time to the service of
God and of mankind? While this may appear as a worthy motivation, never-
theless it does rest entirely on a subjective interpretation. By virtue of the
same reasoning one could defend the worthiness of Thursday, Friday or Satur-
day as days of rest, since on these days occurred respectively Christ’s be-
trayal, death and burial. But where is it stated that those days associated with
significant events of Christ’s life are to be observed weekly by abstaining
from work? We have shown, for instance, that though Christ’s resurrection
is greatly exalted in the New Testament, there is no hint suggesting that the
event is to be commemorated at a specific time. The very Lord’s Supper,
which in time became the essence of Sunday worship, initially was celebrated
at indeterminate times and commemorated Christ’s death and parousia rather
than His resurrection. According to Pauline teaching, the believer is to honor
Christ’s resurrection existentially, namely by walking after baptism “in new-
ness of life” (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12-13).
When later the resurrection became the predominant reason for Sun-
day observance, even then no attempt was made to make this event the theo-
logical basis for total rest on that day. On the contrary, an appeal was made
to the Sabbath commandment. Ephraem Syrus (ca. A.D. 350), to cite an
example, urges Christians to rest on Sunday by invoking the Sabbath
commandment: “The law ordains that rest be granted to slaves and animals,
in order that slaves, serving girls and workers may cease from work.” 21 The
law to which Ephraem refers is obviously that of the Sabbath, since prior to
Emperor Leo the Thracian (A.D. 457-474) no imperial law proscribed agri-
cultural work on Sunday. 22
The fact that Sunday became a day of rest not by virtue of its histori-
cal genesis or theological meaning but rather by absorbing gradually the
prerogatives of the Sabbath, makes it virtually impossible to construct a valid
theological basis to enjoin rest on Sunday. Some may wish to solve this
dilemma by altogether divorcing rest from worship, thus retaining Sunday
exclusively as the hour of worship. W. Rordorf, who leans toward this solu-
tion, asks “whether it is, in fact, an ideal solution for the day of rest and the
day of worship to coincide.”23 He prefers to assign to Sunday an exclusive
worship function which finds its fulfillment when the community gathers
together to partake of the Lord’s Supper and to hear the preaching of
God’s Word. Having fulfilled their worship obligations, Christians should
feel free to spend the rest of the day engaged in any type of work or
legitimate activity.
Does this proposal contribute to solving or to compounding the prob-
lems associated with Sunday observance in our time? Does not this provide
Christians with a rational justification for spending most of their Sunday
time either in making money or in seeking pleasure? Is this what Sunday
observance is all about? To divorce worship from rest, regarding the latter as
non-essential to Sunday observance, it means to misunderstand the meaning
of the Biblical commandment which ordains the consecration not of a weekly
hour of worship but of a whole day of interruption of work out of respect for
God. Undoubtedly for some Christians the reduction of Sunday observance
to an hour of worship is unacceptable, but our study has shown that both the
historical genesis and the theological basis of Sunday observance offer little
help to encourage the consecration of the total Sunday time to the Lord.
Is there a way out of this predicament? The proposal which we are
about to submit may at first appear radical to some, but if it were accepted by
Christians at large it could indeed revitalize both the worship and the rest
content of the Lord’s day. Since our study has shown that Sunday obser-
vance lacks the Biblical authority and the theological basis necessary to jus-
tify the total consecration of its time to the Lord, we believe that such an
objective can be more readily achieved by educating our Christian commu-
nities to understand and experience the Biblical and apostolic meaning and
obligation of the seventh-day Sabbath. We are not here proposing to repro-
duce sic et simpliciter the rabbinical model of Sabbath-keeping which the
Lord Himself rejected, but rather to rediscover and restore those permanent
interpretative categories which make the Sabbath, God’s holy day for the
Christian today.
We cannot here survey the theological thematic development of the
Sabbath in redemptive history and its relevancy for the Christian today. The
most we can do in our closing remarks is to emphasize the basic difference
between Sabbath and Sunday. While the aim of the latter, as we have seen, is
the fulfillment of a worship obligation, the objective of the former is the
sanctification of time. The main concern and obligation of the Sabbath com-
mandment is for man to rest on this day (Ex. 20:10; 34:21). What is involved
in the Sabbath rest? If it were only inactivity or abstentionfrom work, we
would question the value of such benefit. Is there anything more depressing
than having nothing to do, waiting for the Sabbath hours to pass away in
order to resume some meaningful activity?
In the Sabbath commandment, however, “rest” is qualified. It is de-
fined not as a frivolous good time, but as a 4’solemn rest, holy to the lord”
(Ex. 31:15; 16:23, 25; 35:2; Lev. 23:3). Though the Sabbath is given to man-
kind (Ex. 16 :29; 31:14; Mark 2 :27), nevertheless it belongs to Yahweh (Ex.
16 :23, 25; 20:10; 31:15; Lev. 23:3). Repeatedly God calls the day “my Sab-
baths,” 24 undoubtedly because He “rested..., blessed and hallowed it” (Gen.
2 :2-3). This particular manifestation of the presence and blessings of God
constitutes the ground and essence of the holiness of the Sabbath. The
rest of the Sabbath is then not self-centered relaxation—a time when all
wishes and desires can be fulfilled without restraint—, but rather a di-
vinely-centered rest—a time when a person is freed from the care of work,
to become free for God and fellow-beings and thus finds genuine re-
freshment in this freedom.
The physical relaxation which the rest of the Sabbath provides may
be regarded as the preliminary preparation necessary to experience the total-
ity of the divine blessings of creation-redemption which the day commemo-
rates. The themes of the Sabbath spell out and encompass the unfolding of
the His toria salutis (redemptive history): creation (Gen. 2 :2-3; Ex. 20 :11;
31:17), liberation (Deut. 5:15; 15:12-18; Lev. 25 :2-54), covenant-consecra-
tion (Ex. 31:13, 14, 17; Ez. 20:20), redemption (Luke 4:18-21; 13:12, 16;
John 5:17; 7:23; Matt. 11:28; 12:5-6; Heb. 4:2, 3, 7) and eschatological res-
toration (Is. 66:23; Heb. 4:11). By evoking and commemorating God’s sav-
ing activities, the Sabbath provides the believer with a concrete opportunity
to accept and experience the total blessings of salvation.
The believer who interrupts his daily routine and dedicates 24 hours
to his Creator and Redeemer, as K. Barth puts it, “participates consciously in
the salvation provided by Him [God].” 25 In other words, the stopping of
one’s doing on the Sabbath represents the experience of being saved by God’s
grace. It is an expression of renunciation to human attempts to work out
one’s salvation and an acknowledgment of God as the author and finisher of
our salvation. 26
Chrysostom rebuked the Christians of his day, saying: “You appro-
priate for yourselves this day, sanctified and consecrated to the listening of
spiritual discourses, for the benefit of your secular concerns.” 27 Such warn-
ing is particularly applicable today, when Christians, owing to the greater
availability of time and money, are tempted to question the sacredness of the
Sabbath commandment and endeavor to rationalize away its obligations. In
our consumer society where time has become a good that many use exclu-
sively for selfish gratification, a rediscovery of the obligations and blessings
of Sabbath-keeping could act as a brake or a dike against that insatiable
greediness and selfishness of modern humans. The Christian who on the
Sabbath day is able to detach himself from his work and concerns, dedicat-
ing the day to the glory of God and to the service of his fellow beings, dem-
onstrates in a tangible way how divine grace has delivered him from his self-
centeredness and has enabled him genuinely to love God and people.
Resting on the Sabbath is an expression of our complete commit-
ment to God. Our life is a measure of time and the way we spend it is indica-
tive of where our interests lie. We have no time for those toward whom we
feel indifferent, but we make time for those whom we love. To be able to
withdraw on the seventh day from the world of things to meet the invisible
God in the quiet of our souls, means to love God totally. “For the Jews,” as
well expressed by P. Massi, “rest was an act of worship, a type of liturgy.
This enables us to understand why a series of ritualistic prescriptions were
developed to regulate the liturgy of rest.” 28 A. M. Dubarle points out that
while the offering of the first-fruits or firstborn animals had the effect of
freeing all the rest after that for secular use, in the case of time the situation
was the opposite: “The offering of time, accomplished on the last day of the
week, and not on the first as was the case in the offering of the material
goods, had the effect of consecrating the whole time, inasmuch as it tended
toward the day of meeting with God.” 29
What does the consecration of the Sabbath time to God actually in-
volve? A superficial reading of the rabbinical restrictions prevailing at the
time of Christ may give the impression that the Sabbath was a day of rigor-
ous inactivity. The pious Jews, however, dedicated their Sabbath time to
study, prayer, meditation, and acts of mercy. Religious services were con-
ducted in the synagogue on Friday evening, Sabbath morning, and Sabbath
afternoon, for the reading of the law and of the prophets, and for their expo-
sition. We have found, moreover, that Christ provides the supreme example
of how to consecrate the Sabbath time to God. He used the Sabbath time to
listen to and to proclaim the word of God: “He went to the synagogue, as his
custom was, on the Sabbath day. And he stood up to read. . . . He was teach-
ing them on the Sabbath; and they were astonished at his teachings” (Luke 4
:16, 31, 32; cf. 13 :10). Furthermore, we noticed that Jesus intensified on the
Sabbath His redemptive ministry on behalf of man’s physical and spiritual
needs, in order to make the day the fitting memorial of the salvation-rest
available to all that come to Him (Matt. 11:28). According to the example of
Jesus, then, the Sabbath for the Christian today is a time to experience the
blessings of salvation by worshiping God and by providing the warmth of
fellowship and service to needy fellow beings.
Sabbath observance in this cosmic age can well be for modern man
the fitting expression of a cosmic faith, a faith which embraces and unites
creation, redemption and final restoration; the past, the present and the fu-
ture; man, nature and God; this world and the world to come; a faith that
recognizes God’s dominion over the whole creation and over human life by
consecrating to Him a portion of time; a faith that fulfills the believer’s true
destiny in time and eternity; a faith that would treat the Lord’s day as God’s
holy day rather than as a holiday.
NOTES ON CHAPTER 10
1. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 70; speaking of the primitive Christians
Rordorf emphatically states: “They came to understand that this com-
mandment had been fulfilled and abolished in Jesus” (ibid. p. 298).
2. Jerome, In die dorninicae Paschae homilia, CCL 78, 550, 1, 52.
3. Dionysius of Alexandria, in Analecta sacra spicilegio solesmensi
4, ed. J. B. Pitra, 1883, p. 421.
4. The chapter is entitled “Jewish Patterns for the Christian Sunday.”
Basically this chapter is a comparison between the worship and rest struc-
ture of the Sabbath and that of Sunday. On the basis of the numerous paral-
lelisms existing between the two days, it is shown that Sunday was gradu-
ally structured after the Sabbath, though innovations and modifications oc-
curred. Owing to the limitations of space and time we were unable to incor-
porate this material in the present study.
5. Earlier traces can be found in Tertullian, Dc oratione 23; Syriac
tdascalia 13; Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmos 91, PG 23, 1169C. Begin-
ning with Ephraem Syrus (fn. 18) the equation of Sunday with the Sabbath
becomes explicit. Jerome (fn. 2) (ca. A.D. 342-420) compares Jewish Sab-
bath-keeping with Christian Sunday observance: “They [the Jews] performed
no service works on the Sabbath, we do not on the Lord’s day”; ef. Pseudo-
Jerome, Epistola 3, PL 33, 225; Caesarius of Arles (ca. A.D. 470-542) uses
the so called “quanto magis—how much more” formula which was later
repeated countless times: “If the wretched Jews observed the Sabbath with
so much devotion to the extent of abstaining from all earthly work, how
much more Christians on the Lord’s day must devote themselves only to
God” (Sermo 13, 3-4, CCSL 103, 1 p. 68); Martin of Braga, Dc correctione
rusticorum 18, defines in details the agricultural activities forbidden on Sun-
day. For a study on the casuistic of Sunday rest, see M. Zalba, “De conceptu
opens,” Periodica 52 (1963): 124-163; H. Huber, Geist und Buchstabe der
Sonntagsruhe, 1958, pp. 117f; W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 167-173.
6. Thomas Aquinas, Sunirna Theologica, 1947, II, 0. 122 Art. 4, p.
1702.
7. Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations,
Catholic University of America Press, 1943, p. 2; Pope John XXIII, Mater et
Magistra, trans. William J. Gibbons, Paulist Press, 1961, p. 76, “The Catho-
lic Church has decreed for many centuries that Christians observe this day
of rest on Sunday, and that they be present on the same day at the Eucharist
Sacrifice”; John Gilmary Shea, “The Observance of Sunday and Civil Laws
for Its Enforcement,” The American Catholic Qua rtely Review 8 (Jan. 1883):
139: “The Sunday, as a day of the week set apart [or obligatory public wor-
ship of Almightly God, to be sanctified by a suspension of all servile labor,
trade, and worldly avocations and by exercises of devotion, is purely a cre-
ation of the Catholic Church”; Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked
About, 1927, p. 136: “Now the Church . . instituted, by God’s authority,
Sunday as the day of worship.”
8. John Gilmary Shea (fn. 7), p. 152.
9. Pope John XXIII (fn. 7), p. 76; John A. McHugh and Charles J.
Callan, trans. Catechism of the Council of Treni for Parish Priests, 1958, p.
404: “‘Thou shall do no work on it, says the Lord, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy beast, nor the
stranger that is within thy gates.’ Ex. 20:10. These words teach us, in the
first place, to avoid whatever may interfere with the worship of God.”
The Catechism continues explaining in the light of the Sabbath com-
mandment which works are forbidden and which actions Christians should
perform on Sunday.
11. C. S. Mosna, Storia della Domenica, p. 367; W. Rordorf, Sun-
day, p. 298, shares the same conviction: “Therefore we must ask whether it
would not perhaps be better if we were to refrain, so far as possible, from
basing the hallowing of Sunday on the Sabbath commandment?”
12. C. S. Mosna, Storia della Domenica, pp. 366-367.
13. John Gilmary Shea (fn. 7), p. 139.
14. C. S. Mosna, Storia della Do?nenica, p. 367.
15. Ibid. p. 365.
16. Loc. cit.
17. La Civiltà Cattolica 115 (1964): 511; in the same issue La Civiltà
Cattolica reports the communique of the Vatican Radio of June 12, 1964,
where the following motivation is given for advancing the Sunday Mass to
Saturday evening: “Among the considerations that have motivated this con-
cession, we have taken into account the great and ever increasing develop-
ment of the so-called week-end tourism, and of skiing sports, because the
schedule of departure and return make ever so difficult the fulfillment of the
Festive precept” (p. 94). Another reason mentioned is the scarcity of priests
that makes it impossible for certain areas to have a Sunday Mass. Some
Fathers requested during the Second Vatican Council both to define the holy
day on the basis of the sunset to sunset principle in order to place the Satur-
day evening Mass within Sunday legal time and also to allow Christians
prevented from hearing the mass on Sunday to fulfill the obligation during
the week. The Commission on Liturgy gave “serious consideration—serio
considerata est” to the proposal of advancing the Sunday Mass to Saturday
evening, but the questions of the reckoning of the day and of the make-up of
the Sunday Mass during the week, were referred to post-conciliar commis-
sions (Schema Constitutionis de Sacra Liturgia, Emendationes, IX, 11). Note
that in the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarurn, approved by the Council “it is
established that the proper time for fulfilling the precept is from the sunset
of the eve till the end of Sunday or a feast day” (n. 15).
18. Martino Morganti, “La Messa domenicale anticipata al sabato,”
in La Domenica, Liturgica-Nuova Serie, 1968, p. 217.
19. Th. Maertens, Paroisse et Liturgie 49 (1967): 193; cf. ibid. 46
(1964): 586; other Catholic theologians do not approve of the extension of
the Sunday Mass to Saturday evening. P. Falsioni, for instance, has repeat-
edly denounced this concession as “the death certificate of Sunday” (Rivista
Pastorale Liturgica 1967): 311, 229, 97, 98; (1966): 549-551. The validity
of the Sunday Mass precept has been contested in numerous Catholic stud-
ies. Some challenge its Biblical-theological basis; others its relevancy and
the difficulty to reconcile the freedom of Christian xvorship with the obliga-
tory nature of the precept; still others denounce the formalism that the pre-
cept generates. An excellent survey of the various arguments and solutions
is provided by the special issues of Lumi~re et Vie 58 (1962), and of La
Maison-Dieu 83 (1965); cf. ibid. 124 (1975). On the basis of the distinction
made by the Commission on Liturgy of the II Vatican Council between the
Sunday assembly and the participation at the Eucharistic celebration, Morganti
proposes an interesting solution. He maintains that the Sunday assembly
cannot be transferred and must take place on Sunday. The believers who for
valid reasons are unable to attend the service can be dispensed from the
assembly but not from the Eucharist. The absentees, however, can fulfill the
latter by participating in a Eucharistic celebration during the week (fn. 18,
pp. 223-224). This development, to say the least, creates a striking dichotomy
between assembly and Eucharist, besides providing a subtle rationale to jus-
tify the absence from the former and the transference of the obligations of
the latter. One wonders, what is left of the Sunday precept? It is interesting
to notice by way of contrast, that W. Rordorf, a Calvinist, argues that the
Lord’s Supper is the very raison d’etre of Sunday worship: “If we do not
celebrate any Lord’s Supper on Sunday, we have basically no right to call
Sunday the ‘Lord’s day’ (or dirnanche do,nenica), for the very thing which
should make it the Lord’s day, namely the Lord’s Supper, is lacking” (Sun-
day, pp. 305-306). Rordorf’s argument derives from his contention that the
Lord’s Supper was initially celebrated exclusively on Sunday and thus it
was the core of Sunday worship. While it is true that the Eucharist later
became the essence of Sunday worship, we have shown that this was not the
case in New Testament times. The rite was then celebrated at indeterminate
times and apparently within the context of a supper meal.
20. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 157; see above fn. 5.
21. Ephraem Syrus. Hymni et sermones, ed. T. J. Lamy, T, 1882, pp.
543-544; for other references, see above fn. 5.
22. Leo the Thracian justifies the prohibition of agricultural work on
Sunday by appealing to the Jewish hallowing of the Sabbath. Cf. T. Zahn,
Geschichte des Sonntag, 1878, p. 77, fn. 44.
24. Ex. 31:13; Lev. 19:3,30; Is. 56:4; 58:13; Ez. 20:12; 22:26; 23:38;
44:24-25. K. Barth, Church Dogmaticis, 1961, III, p. 50.
26. Calvin emphasizes this meaning of the Sabbath rest, saying:
“Under the rest of the seventh day, the divine Law giver meant to furnish the
people of Israel with a type of the spiritual rest by which the believers were
to cease from their works and allow God to work in them. . . . We must rest
entirely in order that God may work in us ((~,tjtutes, 1972, II, pp. 339-340).
27. Chrysostom, De baptismo Christi homilia 1, Pa 49, 364.
4; Neh. 9:14.
28. P. Massi, La Domenica, 1967, p. 366.
29. A. M. Dubarle, “La Signification religieuse du sabbat dans la
Bible,” Le Dimanche, Lex Orandi 39, 1965, p. 52.
APPENDIX
PAUL
AND THE SABBATH
In the Sabbath-Sunday debate three Pauline texts have been tradi-

tionally cited (Col. 2:14-17; Gal. 4:8-11; Rom. 14:5-6) to prove that Paul
regarded the Old Testament Sabbath as no longer binding, especially for
Gentile Christians. Of the three references, Colossians 2:14-17 has been
quoted far more extensively than the other two inasmuch as the passage
explicitly speaks of Christ’s nailing something to the cross (2:14) and warns
against paying heed to regulations (dogmata) with regard to several things,
such as “a Sabbath” (2:16). In view of the importance attributed to these
statements we shall conduct our enquiry into Paul’s attitude toward the
Sabbath, by focusing our investigation primarily on Colossians 2:14-17,
without neglecting the information provided by Galatians 4:8-11 and
Romans 14:5-6.
The Traditional Interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17
A brief historical survey of the interpretation of Colossians 2: 16-17
may serve to make us aware that the passage has been quite consistently
explained to mean that the Sabbath is a Jewish institution, abolished by Christ
on the cross. In a fragment attributed to Irenaeus, Colossians 2:16 is quoted
to discourage Christians from observing “feasts and fasts” which “are dis-
pleasing to the Lord.”1
Tertullian uses this passage to argue against Marcion that the Law
does not derive from another God, but is the shadow belonging to the body,
Christ. He asks Marcion: “Now tell me, Marcion, what is your opinion of
the apostle’s language, when he says, “Let no man judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of a holy ‘day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath,
which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ?” [Col. 2:16].
We do not now treat of the law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here
teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to
substance—that is, from figurative types to reality, which is Christ.”2
Though Tertullian openly states that his intention is not to discuss
the question of the law, yet in his incidental remark he explicitly reveals his
-326-
Appendix: Paul and the Law 327
understanding of the text when he says, “the apostle here [Col. 2:16] teaches
clearly how it [the law] has been abolished.”
Augustine continues this tradition, applying Colossians 2:16-17
more specifically to the Sabbath. He quotes the passage to show that
Christ was not guilty when he broke the Sabbath, because “He was re-
moving the shadows.”3
Luther took up this tradition saying of Colossians 2:16-17 “Here Paul
abolished the Sabbath by name and called it a bygone shadow because the
body, which is Christ himself, has come.”4 Calvin similarly understood
Colossians 2:16 to mean that “Christ has by his death abolished ... the obser-
vance of rites.”5 He explains that “the reason why he frees Christians from
the observance of them is, that they were shadows at a time when Christ was
still, in a manner, absent.” 6 Calvin holds that the distinction between days
“was suitable for the Jews, that they might celebrate strictly the days that
were appointed, by separating them from others. Among Christians, how-
ever, such a division has ceased.”7
This interpretation which views the Sabbath in the Colossians pas-
sage as a bygone ceremonial shadow of the Jewish dispensation, abolished
by Christ on the cross, has come down to our time as the most predominant
interpretation. The mention of a few significant scholars will suffice to es-
tablish this fact.
J. Daniélou, for instance, declares: “St. Paul proclaimed the end of
the Sabbath (Rom. 14:6) If the Sabbath was to die little by little, this was
because it was only a provisional institution and a figure of the world to
come. Now this world has come: the figure need only disappear: “Let no
one, then, call you to account for what you eat or drink, or in regard to a
festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of things to come,
but the substance is of Christ” (Col. 2:16).”8
W. Robertson Nicoll similarly maintains that “the unmistakable teach-
ing” of Colossians is that “the obligation of the Jewish Sabbath has passed
away as much as sacrifices and circumcision.”9 Paul K. Jewett likewise com-
ments that “Paul’s statement [Col. 2:16] comes as near to a demonstration,
as anything could, that he taught his converts they had no obligation to ob-
serve the seventh-day Sabbath of the Old Testament.”10 C. S. Mosna con-
cludes in a similar vein saying that “according to this text [Col. 2:16-17] . . .
the Colossiansare in danger of losing their liberty by accepting the Sabbath
precept.... Among the prescriptions of the Law, even the sabbath rest was to
be abolished.”11
The interpretation of W. Rordorf is essentially the same. On the basis

of Galatians and Colossians, he defines Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath in
the following terms: “With regard to Gentile Christians he [Paul] absolutely
refuses to countenance any longing eyes cast at the Old Testament law: they
are free from any observance of the law. ... In particular there is never any
question of them observing the Jewish sabbath.”12
These samplings of testimonies exemplify that Colossians 2:16-17
throughout Christian history has been interpreted quite consistently to mean
that Paul regarded the Sabbath as an Old Testament typological institution
fulfilled by Christ and therefore no longer binding on Christians. Since this
interpretation has been “hallowed” by history, to submit the Colossians and
related passages to a new critical scrutiny may appear as a pretentious un-
dertaking. Yet this is a service that needs to be rendered to test the validity of
any inherited interpretation.
To ascertain Paul’s understanding of the Sabbath (as well as of the
Jewish festivities in general) particularly in the light of the crucial passage
of Colossians 2:14-17, several questions need to be considered. Inasmuch as
the warning regarding the observance of sacred days is only one aspect of
the “Colossian heresy” that the Apostle is refuting, we need to ascertain first
of all what was the basic nature of the false teaching that unsuspectingly
risked to “disqualify” (2:18) the Colossian believers? Did the false teachers
advocate exclusively a rigorous observance of the ordinances of the Mosaic
law? Are these to be identified with “the written document—cheirographon”
which God through Christ “wiped out... removed, [and] nailed to the cross”
(2:14)? Can one legitimately infer from the passage that the observance of
holy days such as the Sabbath is viewed by Paul as Mosaic ordinances “nailed
to the cross”? Is the Apostle advocating that Christians are released from all
obligation to observe holy days? We shall endeavor to answer these ques-
tions by briefly considering first, the nature of the “Colossian heresy,” sec-
ondly, what was nailed to the cross and lastly Paul’s attitude toward the
Sabbath and holy days.
The Colossian Heresy
To establish the religious-historical background of the Colossian her-
esy is not an easy task, inasmuch as the cryptic allusions to such concepts as
“tradition–paradosis” (2:8), “fulness–pleroma” (1:2:9,10), “philosophy–
philosophia” (2:8), “eating and drinking–brosei, posei” (2:16), “principali-
ties and powers–archai, exousiai” (2:15), and “elements of the world–
stoicheia tou kosmou” (2: 8, 20), find correspondence both in “gnostic Juda-
ism” and in “Hellenistic syncretism.”13 Both of these are in fact equally used
by commentators to define the derivation of the gnosis of Colossae. For the
purpose of our study, however, we need not enter into the debate regarding
the ideological provenance of the Colossian “philosophy” (2:8). It will suf-
fice to reconstruct the main outline of its teachings on the basis of the short
quotations and catchwords cited by Paul in chapter 2 in the context of his
admonition to the believers.
The false teaching which Paul refutes in Colossians is characterized
by a theological and a practical error. Theologically, the Colossian “phi-
losophy” (2:8) was competing with Christ for man’s allegiance. Its source of
authority, according to Paul, was man-made “tradition–paradosis” (2: 8) and
its object was to impart true “wisdom–sophia” (2:3,23), “knowledge–gnosis”
(2:2,3; 3:10), and “understanding–sunesis” (1:9; 2:2). To attain such knowl-
edge Christians were urged to do homage to cosmic principalities (2:10, 15)
and to “the elements of the universe–ta stoicheia tou kosmou” (2:8,18,20).
What precisely Paul meant by the latter phrase is still much debated.
Some interpret “the elements—stoicheia” as the “elementary teachings about
God belonging to this world” which were present in rudimentary form both
in Judaism and paganism.14 Others view them as “the basic elements of this
world” particularly the earth, water, air and fire, from which it was thought
all things derived. 15 Most modern exegetes, however, have adopted a per-
sonified interpretation of the stoicheia (especially on the basis of the parallel
passage in Galatians 4:3,9; cf. 3:19), identifying them with angelic media-
tors of the law (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2) and with paganastral gods
who were credited with control of the destiny of mankind.16 To gain protec-
tion from these cosmic powers and principalities, the Colossian “philoso-
phers” were urging Christians to offer cultic adoration to angelic powers
(2:15,18,19,23) and to follow ritualistic and ascetic practices
(2:11,14,16,17,21,22). By that process one was assured of access to and par-
ticipation in the divine “fulness–pleroma” (2:9,10, cf. 1:19). The theologi-
cal error then basically consisted in interposing inferior angelic mediators in
place of the Head Himself (2:9,10,18,19).
The practical outcome of these theological speculations was the in-
sistence on strict ascetism and ritualism. These consisted in “putting off the
body of flesh” (2:11) (apparently meaning withdrawal from the world);17
rigorous treatment of the body (2:23); prohibition to either taste or touch
certain kinds of foods and beverages (2:16,21), and careful observance of
sacred days and seasons—festival, new moon, Sabbath (2:16). Christians
presumably were led to believe that by submitting to these ascetic practices,
they were not surrendering their faith in Christ, but rather they were receiv-
ing added protection and were assured of full access to the divine fulness.
This may be inferred both from Paul’s distinction between living “according
to the elements of the universe” and “according to Christ” (2: 8) and
from the Apostle’s insistence on the supremacy of the incarnate Christ.
“In him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily” (2:9), therefore Chris-
tian attain “the fulness–pleroma” of life not through the elements of the
universe, but through Christ, “who is the head of all rule and authority”
(2:10; cf. 1:15-20; 3:3).
On the basis of this bare outline, we can already establish that the
Sabbath is mentioned in the passage not in the context of a direct discussion
on the obligation of the law, but rather in the context of syncretistic beliefs
and practices (which incorporated elements from the Old Testament, un-
doubtedly to provide a justification for their ascetic principles) 18 advocated
by the Colossian “philosophers.” We are not informed what type of Sabbath
observance these teachers promoted, nevertheless on the basis of their em-
phasis on scrupulous adherance to “regulations,” it is apparent that the day
was to be observed in a most rigorous and superstitious manner. It is pos-
sible, in fact, as we shall discuss later, that astrological beliefs attached to
the day of Saturn made the observance of the day all the more superstitious.
If then, as is generally recognized, Paul in Colossians is refuting not
the usual brand of Jewish or Jewish-Christian legalism, but rather a syncre-
tistic “philosophy” which incorporated among others Jewish elements, 19 is
it legitimate to use this passage to define Paul’s basic attitude toward the
Sabbath? Does Paul’s condemnation of a perverted use of a religious obser-
vance constitute a valid ground to conclude that the Apostle releases all Chris-
tians from its obligation? More important still, does Colossians 2:16-17 ac-
tually imply that Paul thought and taught that Christians were no longer
under obligation to observe any holy day? Before considering these ques-
tions, we need to establish what role the law plays in Paul’s refutation of the
Colossian heresy. Is the Apostle for instance referring to the moral and/or
ceremonial law when he speaks of the “written document–cheirographon”
which God “set aside, nailing it to the cross” (2:14)? This clarification will
help us establish whether in Paul’s mind the Sabbath is part of what was
nailed on the cross.
What Was Nailed To The Cross?
To understand the legal language of Colossians 2:14 it is necessary,
first of all, to grasp the arguments advanced by Paul in the preceding verses
to combat the Colossian “philosophy.” We noticed that false teachers were
“beguiling” (2:4) Christians to believe that the observance of “regulations–

dogmata” was needed in order to court the protection of those cosmic beings
who allegedly could help them to participate in the completeness and per-
fection of the divinity. To oppose this teaching, Paul emphasizes two vital
truths. First he reminds the Colossians that in Christ, and in Him alone, “the
whole fulness of the deity dwells bodily” (2:9) and therefore all other
forms of authority that exist are subordinate to Him, “who is the head of
all rule and authority” (2:10). Secondly the Apostle reaffirms that it is
only in and through Christ that the believer can “come to the fulness of
life” (2:10), because Christ not only possess the “fulness of deity” (2: 9)
but also provides the fulness of “redemption” and “forgiveness of sins”
(1: 14; 2:10-15; 3:1-5).
In order to explain how Christ extends “perfection” (1:28; 4:12) and
“fulness” (1: 19; 2:9) to the believer, Paul, as Herold Weiss has persuasively
shown, “does not make recourse to the law but to baptism.” 20 This repre-
sents a significant variation, since the explanation of the significance of the
law is always an integral part of Paul’s presentation of the Gospel. The fact
then that in the whole of Colossians 2 the “term ‘law’ (nomos) is absent . . .
from the controversy,” 21 corroborates what we said earlier, namely that the
Colossian heresy was not based upon the usual Jewish legalism but rather on
an unusual (syncretistic) type of ascetic and cultic regulations (dogmata),
which undermined the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemption.
To combat these false teachings Paul chose to extol the centrality of
the crucified, resurrected and exalted Christ, explaining how Christian per-
fection is the work of God who extends to the Christian the benefits of Christ’s
death and resurrection through baptism (2:11-13 The benefits of baptism are
concretely presented as the forgiveness of “all our trespasses” (2:13; 1:14;
3:13) which results in being “made alive” in Christ (2:13). The reaffirmation
of the fulness of God’s forgiveness, accomplished by Christ on the cross and
extended through baptism to the Christian, constitutes indeed Paul’s basic
answer to those trying to attain to perfection by submitting to “regulations.”
To emphasize the certainty and fulness of divine forgiveness (already stated
in 2:13), the Apostle utilizes in 2:14 a legal metaphor, namely that of God as
a judge who “wiped out, ... removed [and] nailed to the cross . . . the written
document–cheirographon.”
What did Paul mean by the cheirographon (a term used in antiquity
in the sense of a “written agreement” or a “certificate of debt”)? 22 Was he
referring to the Mosaic Law with its ordinances (tois dogmasin ), thus de-
claring that God nailed it to the cross? If one adopts this interpretation, there
exists a legitimate possibility that the Sabbath could be included among the
ordinances nailed to the cross. There are indeed certain authors who hold
this view. 23
Besides the grammatical difficulties, 24 “it hardly seems Pauline,”
writes J. Huby, “to represent God as crucifying the ‘holy’ (Rom. 7:6) thing
that was the Mosaic Law.” 25 Moreover this view would not add to but de-
tract from Paul’s argument designed to prove the fulness of God’s forgive-
ness. Would the wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial law provide to
Christians the assurance of divine forgiveness? Hardly so. It would only
leave mankind without moral principles. Guilt is not removed by destroying
law codes.
Most commentators interpret the cheirographon either as the “cer-
tificate of indebtedness” resulting from our transgressions or a “book con-
taining the record of sin” used for the, condemnation of mankind. 26 Both
renderings, which are substantially similar, can be supported from rabbinic
and apocalyptic literature. “In Judaism,” as stated by E. Lohse, “the relation-
ship between man and God was often described as that between a debtor and
his creditor.” 27 For example a Rabbi said: “When a man sins, God writes
down the debt of death. If the man repents, the debt is cancelled (i.e. de-
clared invalid). If he does not repent, what is recorded remains genuine
(valid).” 28
In the Apocalypse of Elijah is found the description of an angel hold-
ing a book, explicitly called a cheirographon, in which the sins of the seer
are recorded. 29 On the basis of these and similar examples, it is quite obvi-
ous that the cheirographon is either a “certificate of sin-indebtedness” or the
“record book of sins” but not the law of Moses, since the latter, as Weiss
points out, “is not a book of records.” 30
What Paul then is saying by this daring metaphor is that God has
“wiped out,” “removed,” and “nailed to the cross” through the body of Christ
(which in a sense represents mankind’s guilt), the cheirographon, the instru-
ment for the remembrance of sin. The legal basis of this instrument was
the “binding statutes–tois dogmasin” (2:14), but what God destroyed on
the cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement into sin,
but the written record of our sins. 31 By destroying the record of sins,
God removed the possibility of a charge ever being made again against
those who have been forgiven. 32
This view is supported also by the clause “and this he has removed
out of the middle–kai auto erken ek tou mesou” (2:14). It has been shown
that “the middle” was the position occupied at the center of the court or
assembly by the accusing witness. 33 In the context of Colossians, the accus-
ing witness is the cheirographon which God in Christ has erased and re-
moved out of the court. One cannot fail to sense how through this forceful
metaphor, Paul is reaffirming the completeness of God’s forgiveness pro-
vided through Christ on the cross. By destroying the evidence of our sins,
God has also “disarmed the principalities and powers” (2:15), since it is no
longer possible for them to function as the accusers of the brethren (Rev.
12:10). There is no need therefore for Christians to feel incomplete and
to seek to participate in the fulness of the divinity (Pleroma) through the
“regulations–dogmata.” Those who through baptism have died and have
been made alive with Christ, can live now in the certainty of their re-
demption and forgiveness. Therefore, the powers and principalities need
no longer concern them.
We have seen that in this whole argument the Law, as stated by
Weiss, “plays no role at all.”34 Any attempt therefore to read into the
cheirographon a reference to the Sabbath or to any other Old Testament
ordinance is altogether unwarranted. The document that was nailed to the
cross contained not moral or ceremonial laws, but rather the record of our
sins. Is it not true even today that the memory of sin can create in us a sense
of incompleteness? The solution to this sense of inadequacy, according to
Paul, is to be found not by submitting to a system of “regulations–dogmata,”
but by accepting the fact that on the cross God has blotted out our sins and
granted us full forgiveness. We can conclude then by saying that Colossians
2:14 reaffirms the essence of the Gospel—the Good News that God has nailed
on the cross the record and the guilt of our sins—but it has nothing to say
about the law and the Sabbath.
Paul’s Attitude Toward The Sabbath
Having refuted the intellectual speculations of the Colossian “phi-
losophy” by reaffirming the supremacy of Christ and the fulness of His re-
demption (vv. 8-15), Paul now turns to their practical consequences, dealing
explicitly with certain features of their religious practices. “16. Therefore,
let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink or with
regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. 17. These are only a shadow
of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”
Since in this admonition the Sabbath is singled out as one of the
religious practices which “are a shadow of what is to come,” it has been
generally concluded that “here Paul abolished the Sabbath by name and called
it a bygone shadow because the body, which is Christ himself, has come.” 35
To test the validity of this traditional interpretation, several questions need
to be considered. Are the practices (including the Sabbath?) advocated by
this fastidious clique to be regarded as strictly Mosaic prescriptions, or as
exaggerated puritanical teachings deriving from a syncretistic ideology? Is
the Apostle condemning abstinence from food and drink as well as the use of
sacred days and seasons as such, or is he warning against the wrong use
made of these? What kind of Sabbath observance did the false teachers ad-
vocate? What was Paul’s basic attitude toward the Sabbath and Jewish festi-
vals in general?
Nature of regulations. Do the regulations with regard to “eating,
drinking, festival, new moon and sabbath” belong exclusively to the Mosaic
Law? While the reference to the observances of “festival, new moon and
sabbath” plainly shows that the false teachers derived some of their teach-
ings from the Old Testament, the restrictions regarding “eating and drink-
ing” can hardly be traced to the same source. The terms “brosis” and “posis”
describe not (as often inexactly translated) “food–broma” and “poma” but
the act of “eating and drinking.” 36 Therefore it is not a question, as R.C. H.
Lenski points out, “about proper and improper food and drink, some being
clean, others unclean, but rules about when to eat and to drink and to
fast.”37 Such dietary restrictions can hardly be traced back to the Leviti-
cal law since this does not contemplate anascetic program but only ‘dis-
tinguishes between clean and unclean food. Moreover, the Mosaic law is
silent on the subject of drink, except in the case of the Nazirites and
Rechabites, who abstained from intoxicants on account of a special vow.
38
These exceptions however entailed a discipline of their own, well dis-
tinct from the general provision of the law.
That the dietary prescriptions mentioned in Colossians 2:16 do not
belong to the Mosaic law is further indicated in v. 21 by the prohibition
(regarding apparently the consumption of food) imposed by the proponents
of the “philosophy”: “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch.” Such
ascetic restrictions designed to promote “rigor of devotion and self-abase-
ment and severity to the body” (2:23) were foreign to normative Jewish
teachings.
Usually such ascetism arises from a dualistic concept of life which
despises the material part of the world and the human body in order to attain
to a higher sanctity. No traces of this dualistic view can be found in the
Hebrew concept of man, which is altogether wholistic.
There are ‘indications that in Paul’s time this form of ascetism was
developing within the Church. In Romans 14 the Apostle deals with a dis-
sension caused by an ascetic party which (similar to that of Colossae) in-
sisted on vegetarianism and abstention from wine (14:2,21) as well as on the
observance of days (14:5-6). A similar party possibly existed at Ephesus,
since Paul warns Timothy against those “who forbid marriage and enjoin the
abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving”
(I Tim. 4:3).
Was this ascetic teaching influenced primarily by sectarian Judaism
or by pagan ascetism? It is difficult to answer this question conclusively
since we are informed that a vegetarian regime was promoted by (1) Jewish
sects such as the Therapeutae and probably the Essenes; (2) Gnostic sects
such as the Encratites, Ebionites andMarcionites; and (3) pagan schools such
as the Orphic mysteries, the Pythagoreans and the Neo-platonists.59
Philostratus (ca. A D. 220) reports, for example, that Apollonius of
Tyana (d. ca. A.D. 98), a Neo-Pythagorean philosopher, “declined to live
upon a meat diet, on the ground that it was unclean, and that it made the
mind gross; he partook only of dried fruits and vegetables, for he said that all
the fruits of the earth are clean.” 40 (It is noteworthy that even James, the
Lord’s brother, according to Heg~sippus “was holy from his mother’s womb;
and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh”).41
The pagan reasons for practicing ascetism and fasting were many. It
was believed, for instance, that fasting prepared a person to receive a divine
revelation. 42 The belief in the transmigration of souls apparently motivated
abstinence from animal meat, since eating it was regarded as a form of ‘can-
nibalism.’ Others were led to ascetism by their dualistic view of the world.43
In the case of the “philosophy” of Colossians, the dietary taboos and the
observance of sacred times were apparently regarded as an expression of
subjection to and worship of the “elements of the universe” (2:20,18).
Some scholars regard the Colossian false teachings as a offshoot of
the teaching of the Qumran community. They point out that the emphasis on
dietary rules, festal calendar and the veneration of the angels, tallies com-
pletely with the practices of the Qumran sect. 44 The Colossian “philosophy”
however, as E. Lohse rightly points out, “does not reveal any signs of the
kind of radical understanding of the law that is advocated by the Qumran
community. The term ‘law’ (nomos) is absent anyway from the controversy
in which Colossians is engaged.” 45 The most plausible conclusion held by
most scholars is that the false teachings and practices at Colossae were of a
syncretistic nature, containing both pagan and Jewish elements. The Old
Testament was apparently invoked to provide a justification for their syncre-
tistic beliefs and practices. 46
If this conclusion is correct (which to us seems hardly disputable),
then Paul’s reference to the Sabbath and festivities must be understood in
the context of the heretic, ascetic and syncretistic practices which he op-
poses. In this case, whatever is said about the perverted use of an institution
like the Sabbath, cannot be legitimately used to challenge the validity of the
commandment per se. A precept is not nullified by the condemnation of its
abuse. But before focusing more directly on Paul’s attitude toward the Sab-
bath, we need to ascertain what is actually condemned in Cobssians 2:16-
17: practices or principle?
Practices or principle? Does Paul formally condemn the five as-
cetic-cultic practices (“eating, drinking, festival, new moon and sabbath”)
promoted by the false teachers in Colossae? In view of the fact that these
practices were undermining the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemption, we
would indeed expect Paul to condemn them outrightly. But is this what the
Apostle does?
Let us first consider the verb he uses: “me ouk tis umas krineto–let
no one continue to judge you.” The verb is neutral and it does not mean “to
condemn” but “to judge” whether approvingly or disapprovingly. 47 Paul uses
the same verb repeatedly in Romans when dealing with a similar problem:
“let not him who abstains pass judgment (me krineto) on him who eats”
(14:3). “One man esteems (krinei ) one day as better than another, while
another man esteems (krinei) all days alike” (14:5). The meaning of the verb
“krino” according to its common usage is not “to condemn,” but rather “to
express an opinion, to resolve, to pass judgment.” Note then that the verb
used indicates that Paul is considerably tolerant on this question. He does
not condemn the specified practices, but simply insists that no one should be
compelled to observe them. As stated by Charles R. Erdman, Paul “leaves
the decision to every Christian.” 48
A. Lukyn Williams calls attention to this important fact, saying: “Ob-
serve that St. Paul takes a far wider view than that of forbidding the obser-
vance of dietary laws and of festival seasons. He leaves the matter free for
the individual person. What he says is that the observance (or, by implica-
tion, nonobservance) is not to form a basis for anyone to sit in judgment on
the Colossians.”49
We conclude then that in v. 16 the warning is not against the Sab-

bath, festivals and dietary laws as such, but rather against those who pro-
mote these practices as indispensable aids to Christian perfection and as
needed protection from “the elements of the world,” thus denying the all-
sufficiency of Christ. 50 That Paul had no intention to declare these obser-
vances worthless is further indicated in v. 17: “These are a shadow of what is
to come, but the body belongs to Christ.” By acknowledging the holy days
of the Old Testament as “a shadow of what is to come–skia ton mellonton,”
Paul could hardly have “abolished the Sabbath by name and called it a by-
gone shadow.”51 E. F. Scott aptly remarks that “Himself a Jew, Paul cannot
admit that the most sacred ordinances of Judaism are worthless shadows.
His thought is rather that of the writer to the Hebrews, who finds a value in
all the ancient ceremonies in so far as they point forward, in a sort of picture-
language, to the great consummation (e.g. the Sabbath typifies the perfect
rest of God. Heb. 4:11).”52
Several commentators, however, unable to see how Paul could view
Old Testament holy days and ascetic practices of syncretistic nature, as “shad-
ows” having prophetic meaning and function, have attempted to solve the
dilemma by adding arbitrarily the word “only” or “at best” after “shadow,”
thus making the latter pejorative. 53 Furthermore, the verb “are (estin) a
shadow” is interpreted or translated as “were (en) a shadow,” thus implying
that their function had absolutely ceased with Christ’s coming. 54 To justify
this interpretation some argue that Paul could not have viewed dietary laws
of dubious origin as “shadows of what is to come.” Instead, they were a
shadow of the Christian religion, but they are no longer so. 55 This interpreta-
tion implies that they could serve a legitimate function only prior to but not
after Christ’s coming, which of course is not true. How could superstitious
dietary taboos be accepted by God at one time and then rejected later?
The most plausible conclusion is that Paul is not disputing about the
origin, form or legitimacy of these observances, but rather that he acknowl-
edges their value, apparently because he recognized them to be expressions
of noble and sincere—though misguided—spiritual aspirations. What the
Apostle does, however, is to place these observances in their proper per-
spective with Christ, by means of the contrast “shadow—body.” 56
In this perspective Paul sees that not only the observance of holy
days, but that even dietary scruples can serve as a shadow, preparing Chris-
tians for the realities of the world to come. 57 Old Testament festivals have a
message for Christians. The Passover ‘(which today we call Easter) com-
memorates Christ’s atoning sacrifice and proclaims His coming (Mark 14:25;
I Cor. 11:26); the Unleavened Bread typifies “sincerity and truth” (I Cor. 5:
8); Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4); the Sabbath, as
we have seen, the blessings of salvation, which are a foretaste of the eternal
rest of God’s people.58 However, Paul warns that shadows must not become
a substitute for the reality which is Christ, the “Body” (v. 17) and the “Head”
(v. 19). William Barclay aptly expresses Paul’s thought, when he writes:
“He [Paul] says that ... a religion which is founded on eating and drinking
certain kinds of food and drink, and on abstaining from others, a religion
which is founded on Sabbath observance and the like, is only a shadow of
real religion; for real religion is fellowship with Christ.”59
We frown upon this perverted sense of priorities, yet this problem
has constantly afflicted Christianity. All too often religion has been made
into rituals and rules to obey. “These,” Paul explains, “have indeed an ap-
pearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and
severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of
the flesh” (2:23). Any plan of legal piety can only make a Christian into a
prisoner of the ‘‘flesh,’’ ‘‘puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind”
(2:18). The solution which the Apostle offers to ascetic and cultic legalism
is: “Seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand
of God. Set your mind on things that are above, not on things that are on
earth. For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God (3: 13).”
We conclude therefore that Paul in Colossians 2:16 is not condemning
abstinence from food and drink or the use of sacred days such as the Sab-
bath, but the wrong motive involved in their observance. What Paul attacks
is the promotion of these practices as auxiliary aids to salvation, and as means
to gain protection from the ‘‘elements of the universe.”
The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16. The sacred times prescribed by
the false teachers are referred to as “a festival or a new moon or a sabbath–
eortes he neomenia he sabbaton” (2:16). The unanimous consensus of com-
mentators is that these three words represent a logical and progressive se-
quence (annual, monthly and weekly) as well as an exhaustive enumeration
of the sacred times. This view is validated by the occurrence of these
terms, in similar or reversesequence, five times in the Septuagint and
several times in other literature.60 There is, however, an exceptional oc-
currence in Isaiah 1:13-14 where the “new moon” is found at the begin-
ning of the enumeration rather than in the middle, but an exception does
not invalidate a common usage.
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary interprets the
“sabbaton–sabbath days” as a reference to the annual ceremonial sabbaths
and not to the weekly Sabbath (Lev. 23-6-8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37,
~38). It is a fact that both the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement in Hebrew
are designated by the compound expression shabbath shabbath6n, meaning
“a sabbath of solemn rest” (Ex. 31:15; 35:2; Lev. 23:3,32; 16:31). But this
phrase is rendered in the Septuagint by the compound Greek expression
“sabbata sabbaton” which is different from the simple “sabbaton” found in
Colossians 2:16. It is therefore linguistically impossible to interpret the lat-
ter as a reference to the Day of Atonement or to any other ceremonial sabbaths,
since these are never designated simply as “sabbata.”
The cited commentary rests its interpretation, however, not on the
grammatical and linguistic use of the word “sabbaton” but rather on a theo-
logical interpretation of the Sabbath as related to ‘‘shadow in Colossians
2:17. It is argued that “the weekly Sabbath is a memorial of an event at the
beginning of earth’s history... hence the “sabbath days” Paul declares to be
shadows pointing to Christ cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath.., but must
indicate the ceremonial rest days that reach their realization in Christ and
His Kingdom.” 61
To determine the meaning of a word exclusively by theological as-
sumptions, rather than by linguistic or contextual evidences, is against the
canons of Biblical hermeneutics. Moreover even the theological interpreta-
tion which the Adventist commentary gives to the Sabbath is hard to justify,
since we have seen that the Sabbath can legitimately be regarded as the 62
“shadow” or fitting symbol of the present and future blessing of salvation.
Furthermore we have noticed that the term “shadow” is used not in
a pejorative sense, as a label for worthless observances which have ceased
their function, but to qualify their role in relationship to the “body of Christ.”
Another significant indication pointing against annual ceremonial sabbaths
is the fact that these are already included in the word “eortes–festival” and if
“sabbaton” meant the same thing there would be a needless repetition. These
indications compellingly show that the word “sabbaton” as used in Colossians
2:16 cannot refer to any of the annual ceremonial sabbaths.
Does the plural form “sabbata” refer exclusively to the seventh-day
Sabbath? The fact that the plural has three meanings, namely (1) several
Sabbaths (LXX Ez. 46:3; Is. 1:13; Acts 17:2), (2) one Sabbath (in spite of
the plural—LXX Ex. 20:11; Mark 1:21; 2:23-24; 3:2-4), and (3) the whole
week (cf. the titles of Psalms in the LXX, Ps. 23:1; 47;1; 93:1; Mark 16:2;
Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7), has led some to believe that in Colossians the term
refers not exclusively to the seventh-day Sabbath but also to “week-days.”63
This view deserves consideration since the enumeration does sug-

gest yearly, monthly and weekly festivities. Moreover the fact that in Galatians
4:10 (cf. Rom. 14:5), where Paul opposes a strikingly similar false teaching
which insisted on the observance of “days, and months, and seasons, and
years,” the list begins with “days–hemeras” (plural), gives us reasons to
believe that the “sabbaths” in Colossians include other days besides the Sab-
bath. In this case Paul is warning against the observance of yearly, monthly
and weekly holy days in general (including the Sabbath). Support for this
interpretation is provided also by the juxtaposition in which “eating and drink-
ing” and the observance of sacred times are placed. The same correlation
between eating—not—eating and the observance of days is suggested in
Rom. 14:2, 5. It is therefore altogether possible that the “days” of Ro-
mans and Galatians, and the “sabbaths” of Colossians, are interrelated,
including besides the Sabbath other week days characterized by fasting
or dietary taboos.
It is well known that not only the Jews but even the early Christians
fasted on fixed days.64 In sectarian Judaism fasting was made even more
rigorous. Observe that in the Zadokite Document the observance of fasts is
enjoined together with that of holy days: “Keep the sabbath in its every
detail, and the festivals and fasts in accordance with the practice laid down
originally by the men who entered the new covenant in ‘the land of Dam-
ascus’” (CD 6:18). We know however that fasting was not allowed on the
Sabbath, among both Jews and primitive Christians.65 This would mean that
if, as some believe, the abstention from food spoken of in Colossians and in
Romans can be legitimately correlated with the “days” and “sabbaths,”66
then the latter could not be referring ‘directly to the seventh-day Sabbath but
rather to certain fasting days of the week.
Assuming for the sake of enquiry that the “sabbaths” in Cobssians
do refer to or include the Sabbath day, the question to be considered is: What
kind of Sabbath observance did the false teachers advocate? The data pro-
vided by the Letter to the Colossians are too meager to answer this question
conclusively. Yet the nature of the heresy allows us to draw some basic con-
clusions. The rigoristic emphasis on the observance of dietary rules would
undoubtedly be carried over to Sabbath-keeping as well. The venera. tion of
“the elements of the universe” would also affect the observance of the Sab-
bath and of sacred times, since it was commonly believed that the astral
powers, which direct the stars, control both the calendar and human lives.
Gunther Bornkamm comments in this regard: “Paul mentions New
Moon and Sabbath (Col. 2:16), days, months, seasons, and years (Gal. 4:10),
i.e. in each case days and seasons that do not stand under the sign of the
history of salvation, but under the sign of the periodic cycles of nature, i.e.
corresponding to the movement of the stars. Thus the stoicheia tou kosmou
[elements of the universe] provide their content and meaning.”67
In the context of the Colossian heresy it appears then that the Sab-
bath was observed not as the sign of creation, election or redemption but, as
Eduard Lohse points out, “for the sake of ‘the elements of the universe,’ who
direct the course of the stars and thus also prescribe minutely the order of the
calendar.”68 Note that this astrological superstition did not prevail only in
Hellenistic circles but also in Judaism. The Qumran community, for instance,
speculated on the relationship between angels, the power of the stars, and
the strict observance of sacred times. 69
The Jewish-Christian sect of the Elchasaites (ca. A.D. 100) provides
another example of how the veneration of astral powers affected their obser-
vance of the Sabbath. Hippolytus reports: “Elchasai speaks thus: “There
exist wicked stars of impiety... Beware of the power of the days, of the sov-
ereignty of these stars and engage not in the commencement of any un-
dertaking during the ruling days of these. And baptize not man or woman
during the days of the power of these stars, when the moon (emerging) from
among them, courses the sky, and travels along with them... But, moreover,
honour the day of the Sabbath, since that day is one of those during which
prevails (the power) of these stars.”70
In later Christian polemic against the Jews we find additional evi-
dence of astral influence on the observance of sacred days like the Sabbath.
In the Epistle to Diognetus, for instance, we read these scathing rebukes:
“But as to their [i.e. the Jews] scrupulosity concerning meats and their su-
perstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision,
and their fancies about fasting and new moons, which are utterly ridiculous
and unworthy of notice,—I do not think that you require to learn anything
from me.”71
The fragment of the Preaching of Peter contains this blunt warnng:
“Neither worship ye him as do the Jews, for they, who suppose that they
alone know God, do not know him, serving angels and archangels, the month
and the moon: and if no moon be seen, they do not celebrate what is called
the first sabbath, nor keep the new moon, nor the days of unleavened bread,
nor the feast (of tabernacles?), nor the great day (of atonement).”72
In the pagan world, as we have already noticed,73 Saturday was re-
garded as an unlucky day because of its association with the planet Saturn.
In view of the prevailing astral superstitions which influenced the obser-

vance of days among both Jews and pagans, it seems plausible to assume
that any Sabbath observance advocated by the Colossians’ ascetic teach-
ers—known for their promotion of the worship of the elements of the uni-
verse—could only have been of a rigorous and superstitious type. A warning
against such a type of Sabbath-keeping by the Apostle would have been not
only appropriate but also desirable. But in this case Paul would be attacking
not the principle of Sabbath-keeping but its perversion. Observe, however,
that the Apostle is not admonishing against the form of these observances,
but against their perverted function.
The manner in which a Christian eats, drinks, of observes days and
seasons is (as well stated in Romans 14:5) a matter of personal conviction to
be respected, but the motivation for observing them is not a matter of per-
sonal viewpoint. These observances are and must remain a shadow pointing
to the substance which belongs to Christ and must never become the substi-
tute for the reality. It is not therefore the form or manner of observance of
sacred times that Paul opposes but their perverted function and motivations,
which adulterated the ground of salvation. The information provided by the
other two similar passages (Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:8-11), which we shall now
consider, corroborates this conclusion.
The Sabbath in Romans and Galatians. In Rome a fanatical (he-
retical) ascetic group, strikingly similar to that of Colossae, advocated strict
vegetarianism, abstention from wine and the observance of days (Rom. 14:1-
10,21). We suggested earlier that probably Paul is correlating (as in Colossians
2:16) the eating-not-eating, with the observance of days. If this interpreta-
tion is correct, then the “days mentioned in Romans 14:5-6 can hardly in-
clude the Sabbath, since we know that the latter was regarded as a day of
feasting and not of fasting.74
The problem in Rome was apparently milder than in Colossae or in
Galatia. The ascetic teachers there were probably a less influential minority
and were not “propagandists for a ceremonialism that was aimed at the heart
of the cross.”75 This is indicated by the tolerant and restrained language of
the Apostle: “One esteems one day as better than another, while another
man esteems all days alike. Let everyone be fully convinced in his own
mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also
who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while
he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God
(14: 5-6).”
The principle of acting according to one’s convictions and of respect-

ing a different viewpoint (Rom. 14:3, 10, 13-16, 19-21) on the matter of diet
and days, stands out in Romans in obvious contrast to the principle of justi-
fication by faith. On the latter Paul adamantly refuses to compromise, on the
former he acknowledges the individual’s conscience as the ultimate author-
ity. What accounts for this obvious difference?
The answer is to be found in Paul’s understanding of what is essen-
tial and what is unessential to salvation. That faith in Jesus Christ is the
ground of salvation, is for Paul an unquestionable and essential principle (cf.
Rom. 3:22, 26, 27, 28, 31; 4:3, 13, 22-25; 5:1). But since faith is experienced
and expressed differently in each individual, the way in which faith is prac-
ticed is unessential. “Let everyone,” Paul says, “be fully convinced in his
own mind” (14:6). The basic principle repeatedly laid down by the Apostle
to determine the legitimacy of the observance of days or of dietary rules, is
to be sure to be motivated by a conscientious desire to honor the Lord (“ob-
serve to the Lord–kurio fronei”–14:6,7,18; cf. 1Cor. 16:31).
On the basis of this principle, we may ask, could Paul have advo-
cated the abandonment of Sabbath observance? It is hard to believe that he
would regard such a practice as a hindrance to honoring the Lord, when he
himself “customarily” (Acts 17:2) met with “Jews and Greeks” on the Sab-
bath in the synagogue (Acts 18:4). W. Rordorf argues that Paul assumes a
twofold position. With regard to the “weak” Jewish Christians he grants them
freedom to observe the law including the Sabbath. On the other hand, to the
“strong” Gentile Christians he grants absolute “freedom from any obser-
vance of the law,” particularly from the Sabbath.76
Can this conclusion be legitimately drawn from Romans 14? Ob-
serve that the conflict between the “weak” and the “strong” over diet and
days is only remotely related (if at all) to the Mosaic law. The “weak man”
who “eats only vegetables” (14:2). drinks no wine, (14:21) and “esteems
one day as better [apparently for fasting] than another” (14:5) can claim no
support for such convictions from the Old Testament. Nowhere does the
Mosaic law prescribe strict vegetarianism, total abstinence from wine and a
preference for fasting days.77
Similarly the “strong man” who “believes he may eat anything” (14:2)
and who “esteems all days alike” is not asserting his freedom from the Mo-
saic law but from ascetic beliefs apparently derived from sectarian Judaism.
78
The whole discussion then is not about freedom to observe the law versus
freedom from its observance, but concerns “unessential” scruples of con-
science dictated not by divine precepts but by human conventions and su-
perstitions. Since these differing convictions and practices did not under-
mine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and respect in
this matter.
The situation in Galatians is radically different. Here Paul strongly
reprimands those Gentile Christians who had themselves circumcised (Gal.
6:12; 5:2) and who had begun to “observe days, and months, and seasons,
and years” (4:10). He defines their adoption of these practices as a return to
the slavery of the “elemental spirits” (stoikeia–4:8-9)—cosmic powers cred-
ited with controlling the fate of mankind. In many respects the polemic in
Galatians 4:8-11 is strikingly similar to that of Colossians 2:8-23. In both
places the superstitious observance of sacred times is described as slavery to
the “elements.” In Galatians, however, the denunciation of the “false teach-
ers” is stronger. They are regarded as “accursed” (1:8. 9) ‘because they were
teaching a “different gospel.” Their teaching that the observance of days and
seasons was necessary to justification and salvation, perverted the very heart
of the Gospel (5:4).
Whether or not the Sabbath is alluded to in Galatians depends upon
the interpretation of “days–hemerai” (4:10). Some critics argue on the basis
of the parallel passage of Colossians 2:16, where “sabbaths” are explicitly
mentioned, that “the ‘days’ certainly indicate even the sabbaths.”79 We do
not deny this possibility, but we have shown earlier that the plural “sabbaths”
used in Colossians, was the common designation not only for the Sabbath
day but also for the whole week. Thus the plural “days” of Galatians could
well indicate that the Colossians’ “sabbaths” are “week-days” and not vice
versa.
Assuming that the Sabbath is part of the “days” observed by the
Galatians80 the questions to be considered are: What motivated the obser-
vance of the Sabbath and of festivities? Is Paul opposing the Biblical precept
which enjoins the observance of the Sabbath and of festivals, or is he de-
nouncing the perverted use made of these religious practices?
It is generally agreed that the Galatians’ observance of Jewish festi-
vals was motivated by superstitious beliefs in astral influences. This is sug-
gested by Paul’s charge that their adc~ption of these practices was tanta-
mount to a return to their former pagan subjection to elemental spirits and
demons (4:8-9). Apparently, on account of their pagan background, the
Galatians, as aptly stated by W. Rordorf, “could discern in the particular
attention paid by the Jews to certain days and seasons nothing more than
religious veneration paid to stars and natural forces.”81
The fact that in the pagan world, as we already noticed, Jewish Sab-
bath observance was often attributed to the evil influence of the planet Sat-
urn, may well have contributed to the development of this misconception. It
would appear, then, that any Sabbathkeeping practiced by the Galatians would
be motivated by a superstitious misconception of the Biblical precept.
Paul’s concern, however, is not to expose the superstitious ideas at-
tached to these observances, but rather to challenge the whole system of
salvation which the Galatians’ false teachers had devised. By conditioning
justification and acceptance with God to things such as circumcision and the
observance o’f days and seasons, the Galatians were making salvation de-
pendent upon human achievement. This for Paul is a betrayal of the Gospel:
“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you
have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4).
It is within this context that Paul’s denouncement of the observance
of days and seasons must be understood. If the motivations for these obser-
vances would not have undermined the vital principle of justification by
faith in Jesus Christ, Paul would only have recommended tolerance and re-
spect (as he does in Romans 14), even if some ideas were foreign to Old
Testament teaching. Since however the motivations for these practices adul-
terated the very ground of salvation by dogmatic confidence, the Apostle
does not hesitate to reject them. In Galatians as in Colossians, then, it is not
the principle of Sabbath-keeping that Paul opposes, but rather the perverted
use of cultic observances which were designed to promote salvation not by
divine grace but rather by human achievements.
Conclusion. Our analysis of the three Pauline texts generally adduced
as proof of Paul’s repudiation of the Sabbath as an Old Testament ceremo-
nial shadow, has shown that this interpretation is unwarranted on several
counts. In the first place, in all the three texts Paul does not discuss whether
or not the Sabbath commandment is still binding in the Christian dispensa-
tion, but rather he opposes complex ascetic and cultic practices, which (par-
ticularly in Colossians and Galatians) were undermining the vital principle
of justification by faith in Jesus Christ.
Secondly, the fact that a superstitious form of Sabbath-keeping may
have been part of heretical teachings denounced by Paul, does not invalidate
the binding nature of the precept since it is a perversion and not a precept
that is condemned. The reproof of the misuse of a Biblical precept cannot be
legitimately interpreted as the abrogation of the precept itself.
Thirdly, the fact that Paul recommends tolerance and respect even
with regard to differences in diet and days (Rom. 14:3-6) stemming from
human conventions, indicates that on the question of “days” he was too lib-
eral to promote the repudiation of the Sabbath commandment and the adop-
tion of Sunday observance instead. If he had done so, he would have en-
countered opposition and endless disputes with Sabbath advocators. The
absence of any trace of such a polemic is perhaps the most telling evidence
of Paul’s respect for the institution of the Sabbath.
In the final analysis then, Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath must be
determined not on the basis of his denunciation of heretical and superstitious
observances which possibly included Sabbath-keeping, but rather on the basis
of his overall attitude toward the law. The failure to distinguish between
Paul’s concept of the law as a body of instruction which he regards as “holy
and just and good” (Rom. 7:12; cf. 3:31; 7:14,22) and of the law as a system
of salvation apart from Christ which he strongly rejects, is apparently the
cause of much misunderstanding of Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath.
There is no question that the Apostle respected those Old Testament
institutions which still had value for Christians. We noticed, for example,
that he worshiped on the Sabbath with “Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:4,19;
17:1,10,17), he spent the days of “Un‘leavened Bread” at Philippi (Acts
20:16), he “was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pen-
tecost” (Acts 20:16), he assumed a Nazirite vow on his own initiative at
Cenchreae (Acts 18:18), he purified himself at the temple to prove that he
“lived in observance of the law” (Acts 21:24), and he had Timothy circum-
cised (Acts 16:3). On the other hand, whenever any of these or similar prac-
tices were promoted as the ground of salvation, he denounced in no uncer-
tain terms their perverted function. We might say, therefore, that Paul re-
jected the Sabbath as a means of salvation but accepted it as a shadow point-
ing to the substance which belongs to Christ.
NOTES ON THE APPENDIX

1. Irenaeus, Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus 38, ANF
I, 575.
2. Tertullian, Against Marcion 5, 19, ANF III, 471, 472 (emphasis
supplied).
3. Augustine, Sermons on New Testament Lessons 86, 3, NPNF 1st,
VI, 515, 516: “The Lord did break the sabbath; but was not therefore guilty.
What is that I have said, ‘He brake the sabbath’? He, the Light had come, He
was removing the shadows. For the sabbath was enjoined by the Lord God,
enjoined by Christ Himself, who was with the Father, when that Law was
given; it was enjoined by Him, but in shadow of what was to come. ‘Let no
man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or
of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to
come.’ He had now come whose coming these things announced. Why do
the shadows delight us?”
4. Martin Luther, “Wider die himmlischen Propheten,” in his Sammtli-
che Schrif ten, ed. by Johann Georg Walch, 1890, vol. XX, col. 148. In vol.
IX, col. 375 we find a similar statement: “The New Testament tells the Chris-
tian that every day is a day of celebration. . . . That is why Paul once in a
while calls to the attention of the Christians that they are not bound to any
day (Gal. 4:10-11). The same is even clearer in Cobssians 2: 16-17. We see
now that the Sabbath is done away with and the people are free from it.”
5. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle
to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, trans. John Pringle,
1948, p. 191.
6. Ibid., p. 192.
7. Loc. cit.
8. J. Danièlou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 228; Merrill F. linger, “The Sig-
nificance of the Sabbath,” Bibliotheca Sacra 123 (1966): 57, “Keeping new
moons and sabbaths the unique and dominant feature of the Mosaic cov-
enant of legalism—a pedagogue to conduct to Christ—is declared to be com-
pletely at variance with the gospel of grace (Col. 2:16-17; Gal. 4:9-10; Heb.
4:4) now that Christ has come and given us His wonderful salvation.”
9. W. Robertson Nicoll, The Epistle to the Colossians, The Expositor’s
Bible, 1908, p. 231; A. S. Peake, The Epistle to the Colossians, The Ex-
positor’s Greek Testament, 1942, p. 531, similarly comments on Col. 2:17,
saying: “The Sabbath is placed on the same footing as the others, and Paul
therefore commits himself to the principle that a Christian is not to be cen-
sured for its non-observance.”
10. P. K. Jewett, The Lord’s Day, p. 45, fn. 20; William Hendriksen,
Exposition of Colossians and Philemon, New Testament Commentary, 1965,
p. 124, comments on the text by raising the following rhetorical question:
“What justification could there be for imposing upon converts from the Gen-
tile world the observance of the Jewish sabbath, when the Bringer of eternal
rest is urging every one to come unto him (Matt. 11:28, 29; cf. Heb. 4:8,
14)?” This argument fails to convince because, as we have shown in chapter
II, Christ by fulfilling the Messianic typology of the Sabbath did not annul
its function but enriched it, making the day the fitting memorial of the bless-
ings of salvation. Note also that if the Sabbath is “Jewish” so is Passover or
Easter and Pentecost. Yet, have not all these feasts been taken over by Gen-
tile Christians after changing their dates? Was a new date needed to express
their fulfilment?
11.C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, pp. 184, 182.
12. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 138; cf. also his article “Le Dimanche,
jour du culte et jour du repos dans l’èglise primitive,” Lex Orandi 39, 1965,
p. 109, where he states: “The literal observance of the Sabbath... was only a
shadow of things to come. Its fulfilment is now present in the person of
Jesus Christ (Col. 2:17)”; the same view is expressed by P. Massi, La
Domenica, pp. 22-23.
13 Among the interpreters who define the heresy of Colossae as a
“gnosticizing Judaism” are: Jacques Dupont, Gnosis: La Connaissance
religieuse dans les èpêtres de S. Paul, 1949, pp. 256, 489.93; E. Percy, Die
Problem der Kolsser und Epheserbriefe, 1946, pp. 137-178; Joseph B.
Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, 1879, pp.
73-113; Stanislas Lyonnet, “Paul’s Adversaries in Colossae,” in Conflict at
Colossae, ed. Fred 0. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks, SBL Sources for Bibli-
cal Study 4, 1973, pp. 147-162. On the other hand, Gunther Bornkamm,
“The Heresy of Colossians,” in Conflict at Colossae, p. 126, states categori-
cally: “No doubt seems possible to me, however, on one point: The Colossian
doctrine of the elements belongs to the ancient mythology and speculation
of the Oriental Aeon-theology, which was widespread and active in Helle-
nistic syncretism”; cf. Ernst Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Kolosser, 1930, pp.
3f.; M. Dibelius, An die Kolosser, Epheser, An Philemon, 1953, excursus on
2:8 and 2:23. Others interpret the Colossian heresy as a syncretism of Jewish
and Hellenistic elements; see Edward Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles

to the Colossian and to Philemon, 1971, pp. 115-116; Norbert Hugede,
Commentaire de l’Èpître aux Colossiens, pp. 9, 143; W. Rordorf, Sunday, p.
136: “We are in fact, dealing with the possibility of a whole stream of syn-
cretistic tradition in which Jewish-Christian material is inextricably interwined
with material of Hellenistic and oriental provenance”; cf. Handley C. G.
Moule, Colossian Studies, 1898, who defines the heresy as “an amalgam of
Judaism and Gnosticism, in a wide reference of the latter word.”
14. See J. B. Lightfoot (fn. 13), p. 178; E. de W. Burton, Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the
Colossians, ICC 35, 1897, p. 247; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the
Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, 1958, p. 92; W. M. L. DeWette,
Kurze Erklii rung der Brief an die Kolosser, an Philemon, an die Epheser
und Philipper 1847, p. 44; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-
book to the Epistle to the Galatians, 1884, pp. 219-220. This view reflects
the exegetical tradition of Tertullian, Jerome, Luther and Calvin. For refer-
ences and discussion see Herold Weiss, “The Law in the Epistle to the
Colossians,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972):294-295. In his doc-
toral dissertation on The Law and the Elements of the World (published 1964),
A. J. Banstra argues that stoicheja tou kosmou denotes the powers of law
and flesh which dominate man in this world; cf. J. Blinzer, in Studiorum
Paulinorum Con gressus Internationalis, 1961-63, II, pp. 429-443.
15. Gerhard Delling, “stoicheion,” TDNT VII, p. 684, explains that
this was the common understanding of the phrase by ordinary people. There-
fore he defines it as “that whereon the existence of this world rests, that
which constitutes man’s being.” According to this view Paul would have
alluded to the weak and impotent elements which enslaved mankind in pre-
Christian religion.
16. Among the expositors on Colossians and Galatians who advo-
cate a personified interpretation of the stoicheia are: Norbert Hugedè, A. B.
Caird, F. F. Bruce, E. F. Scott, E. Lohse, H. Schlier, M. Dibelius, Beare,
Conzelmann, C. Toussaint. See especially R. K. Bultmann, Theology of
the New Testament, 1951, I, p. 173; H. Schlier, Principalities and Pow-
ers in the New Testament, 1961; D. E. H. Whitely, The Theology of St.
Paul, 1964, p. 25.
17. The phrase suggests the practice of the mystery cults when in the
initiation rite the devotee removed his clothes and took a purificatory bath.
For texts and discussion see E. Lohse (fn. 13), p. 102. Apparently Paul’s
reply to those “philosophers” who insisted on circumcision as the true initia-

tion, is that the true circumcision is not physical but metaphorical, namely
the surrender of the old life (cf. Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3, Eph. 2:11).
18. A. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 1976, p. 198, points out
that the ascetic program advocated by the Colossian false teachers was “for-
eign to the Jewish mentality . . . Paul treats it as an offshoot of Judaism, but
it was probably put together by Gentile Christians who looked to the Old
Testament to provide the justification for their ascetic principles.”
19. In addition to the interpreters mentioned above (fn. 13), several
other authors recognize the syncretistic nature of the Colossian heresy. See
E. F. Scott, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the
Ephesians, 1948, p. 51: “Some of the practices he mentions are obviously
Jewish; others would seem, just as clearly, to be of Pagan origin”; A. B.
Caird (fn. 18), pp. 160-163; H. A. A. Kennedy, “Two Exegetical Notes on St.
Paul,” The Expository Times 28 (1916-1917): 303; Charles R. Erdman, The
Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Phileinon, 1929, p. 73: “The
Colossian heresy was essentially Jewish. However, there is no question that
it had elements of an Oriental mysticism”; William Hendriksen (fn. 10), pp.
123-124; Herold Weiss (fn. 14), p. 304: “These practices were the expres-
sion of a religious syncretism.” Ralph P. Martin, Colossians, and Philemon,
New Century Bible, 1974, pp. 90-91; Charles Masson, L’Epitre de St. Paul
aux Colossiens, 1950, pp. 130-134.
20. Herold Weiss (fn. 14), p. 305.
21. E. Lohse (fn. 13), p. 116; Weiss (fn. 14), p. 307 similarly empha-
sizes: “1 wish to . . . repeat what was said at the beginning: in the whole of
the epistle the word law is not used at all. Not only that, but the whole sig-
nificance of the law, which appears unavoidable for Paul when he presents
his gospel, is completely absent.”
22. Cf. Moulton-Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament,
1929, p. 687.
23. F. Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, 1927, II, pp. 228-229, categor-
ically defends this view. C. Masson (fn. 19), p. 127, lists as advocators of
this position Oltremare, Abbott, Haupt and Kittel.
24. To justify this interpretation the phrase “cheorographon tois
dogmasin” is translated “the document consisting in ordinances.” But,
Charles Masson (fn. 19), p. 128, fn. 1, explains that “the grammatical justi-
fication for this construction is highly debatable . . . It should have by rule
the preposition en (cf. v. 11) to say that the document “consisted in or-
dinances.”
25. J. Huby, Saint Paul: les Èpîtres de la captivite, 1947, p. 73. Charles
Masson (fn. 19), p. 128, mentions that for Schlatter, Huby and Percy “the
idea of the law nailed on the cross with Christ would have been unthinkable
for Paul.”
26. Charles Masson (fn. 19), p. 128, holds that “one must admit with
Schlatter, Dibelius, Lohmeyer, Percy that the ‘chirograph’ is a certificate
acknowledging the debt resulting from our transgressions. The image de-
rives from a rabbinic concept: God—or his angels—record in the books the
report of the good and evil actions of men. To this very day, in the prayer
‘Abinu Malkenu,’ prayer for the ten penitential days that begins the New
Year, the Jews say: ‘On account of thy great mercy erase all the documents
that accuse us’ (Dibelius, Lohmeyer, p. 116, n. 1, Str. Billerbeck).” Histori-
cally this view was held by Origen, In Genesim homilia 13, PG 12. 235;
Augustine (quotes Chrysostom) Contra Julianum 1, 6, 26, PL 44, 658; Su-
per Epistola ad Colossenses 2, lectio III. G. R. Beasley-Murray, “The Sec-
ond Chapter of Colossians,” Review and Expositor 70 (1973): 471: “The
‘bond’ is an I.O.U., a signed statement of indebtedness; if it applies to the
Jew through his acceptance of the Law, it also applies to the Gentile who
recognizes his obligation to what he knows of the will of God. It means, in
the picturesque paraphrase of Moule, ‘I owe obedience to God’s will, signed
Mankind.’” The study of the usage of cheirographon in Jewish and Jewish-
Christian sources has helped to clarify that the term was used to describe the
“celestial book” where sins are recorded. The first inkling of this interpreta-
tion came over fifty years ago when P. Batiffol published Les Odes de Salo-
mon, 1911, pp. 81-85. J. Danièlou found confirmation for Batiffol’s sug-
gestion in the Gospel of Truth. A. J. Banstra (fn. 14), pp. 159, reaffirms that
the cheirographon must be a book in which sins are recorded.
27. E. Lohse (fn. 13), P. 108.
28. Tanhuma Midrash 140b; cf. SB III, p. 628.
29. J For text and discussion see A. J. Banstra (fn. 14), pp. 159-160.
Banstra argues, however, that the book recording the sins of men is mankind’s
flesh which Christ took upon himself on the cross. Support for this view is
derived from the Gospel of Truth where it says: “For this reason Jesus ap-
peared, he took this book for himself. He was nailed to a cross of wood; he
affixed the decree (diatagma) of the Father upon the cross” (Edgar Hennecke,
New Testament Apocrypha, 1963, I, p. 237). The identification of the
cheirographon with mankind’s body of flesh which Christ took on himself

to the cross was first proposed by 0. A. Blanchette, “Does the Chierographon
of Col. 2:14 Represent Christ Himself?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23
(1961): 306-312.
30. Herold Weiss (fn. 14), p. 302: “It would seem to me that indeed
cheirographon is to be interpreted in terms of the context provided by the
Apocalypse of Elijah. In it a book containing a record of sin is used for the
condemnation of mankind. This would mean that it is not correct to identify
the cheirographon with the law of Moses, which is not a book of records.”
31. Some interpret the phrase “cheirographon tois dogmasin” as “the
law with its legal demands.” In support of this view the similar text of
Ephesians 2:15 is cited where it says: “by abolishing in his flesh the law of
commandments and ordinances–ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin.” How-
ever, the similarity between the two is only apparent. In the first place the
phrase “the law of commandments” which occurs in Ephesians is not found
in Colossians. Secondly, the dative in Ephesians “en dogmasin” is governed
by “en,” thus expressing that the law was set out “in regulations.” Such a
preposition does not occur in Colossians. Lastly, the context is substantially
different. While in Ephesians the question is how Christ removed what sepa-
rated Jews from Gentiles, in Colossians it is how Christ provided full for-
giveness. The former He accomplished by destroying “the dividing wall of
hostility” (2: 14—a possible reference to the wall that divided the court of
the Gentiles from the sanctuary proper, cf. Josephus, Jewish Wars 5, 5, 2; 6,
2, 4) “by abolishing the law of commandments [set out] in regulations” (2:15).
The latter, by utterly destroying “the written record of our sins which be-
cause of the regulations was against us.” E. Lohse (fn. 13), p. 109, rightly
points out that “the words ‘because of the regulations’ stand first in a posi-
tion of emphasis in order to call special attention to the legal basis for the
certificate’s witness against us” (emphasis supplied). In Hellenistic Judaism
the commandments of God are often called “regulations–regulations”– 3
Macc. 1:3, “the ancestral commandments–dogmaton; cf. 4 Macc. 10:2;
Josephus, Antiquities 15, 136; Contra Apionem 1, 42.
32. Isaiah 43:25 provides a similar promise: “I am He who blots out
your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.
33. The legal position of the “middle” is present in the New Testa-
ment in texts such as Mark 3:3; 9:36; Acts 4:7. The expression occurs
repeatedly in Greek juridical texts; see discussion in Norbert Hugedè
(fn. 13), p. 140.
34. Herold Weiss (fn. 14), p. 311, fn. 10. Weiss also comments: “In
fact the letter moves in an environment quite removed from that of the Pauline
epistles where at every juncture there is likely to be a confrontation between
Jewish and Gentile Christianity over the question of the Mosaic law” (loc.
cit.).
36. On “food/eating–broma/brosis” cf. Johannes Behm, TDNT I,
pp. 642-645; on “drink/drinking –poma/posis” cf. Leonhard Goppelt, TDNT
VI, pp. 145-148.
37. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the
Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, 1946, p. 123. Norbert
Hugedè (fn. 13), p. 143, similarly remarks: “It is not then a question of dis-
tinction between clean and unclean food as recommended by Lev. 11, but of
the practice of fasting according to the custom of pagan ascetics”; A. S.
Peake (fn. 9), p. 530: “The question is not altogether between lawful and
unlawful food, but between eating and drinking or abstinence. Ascetism rather
than ritual cleanness is in his mind.”
38. The Nazirite’s vow included abstention from all grape products
(Num. 6: 2-4). This however was a temporary and voluntary vow. Some,
such as Samuel (I Sam. 1:11) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15) were Nazirite
for life. But we have no record of a person taking the vow voluntarily for
life. Perpetual vows were taken by parents on behalf of children. The
Rechabites led a nomadic life in tents and abstained from wine and all in-
toxicating drinks (Jer. 35:1-19).
39. For texts and discussion see G. Bornkamm, “lakanon,” TDNT
IV, p. 67.
40. Vita Apollonii 1, 8; cf. Apuleius, Metamorph. 11, 28: “abstain
from all animal meat.”
41. Cited by Eusebius, HE 2, 23, 5, NPNF 2nd, I, p. 125.
42. Cf. J. Behm, “nestis” TDNT IV, p. 297: “The Greeks and Romans
knew that abstention makes receptive to ecstatic revelations.” See the article
for sources and discussion.
43. References can be found in G. Bornkamm (fn. 39), p. 66.
44. Among the advocators of this view are Stanislas Lyonnet (fo.
13), pp. 147-153; W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and
Spirit,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, 1957, pp. 167f.; Pierre Benoit,
“Oumran et le Nouveau Testament,” NTS 7 (1960-61): 287. For a more bal-
anced assessment of relationships with Oumran teaching see E. Yamauchi,
“Sectarian Parallels: Qumran and Colosse,” Bibliotheca Sacra 121, 1 (1964):
141-152.
45. E. Lohse (fn. 13), p. 116
46. See above fns. 18, 19.
47. Cf. R. C. H. Lenski (fn. 37) p. 122; A. S. Peake (fn. 9), p. 530
48. Charles R. Erdman (fn. 10), p. 73.
49. A. Lukyn Williams, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Cobs-
sians and to Philemon, 1928, p 102.
50. Ralph P. Martin (fn. 19), p. 90: “The root principle needs to be
noted. Paul is not condemning the use of sacred days and seasons.... What
moves him here is the wrong motive involved when the observance of holy
festivals is made part of the worship advocated at Colossae in recognition of
the ‘elements of the universe’, the astral powers which direct the course of
the stars and regulate the calendar. And so they must be placated.”
52. E. F. Scott (fn. 19), p. 52.
53. Cf. RSV; R. C. H. Lenski (fn. 37), p. 125: “These things are a
shadow at best.”
54. For example, A. B. Caird (fn. 18), p. 198, maintains that “the
RSV translation, what is to come cannot be correct, since, if the fulfilment
lay still in the future, the shadow would not yet be superseded.” A. Lukyn
Williams (fn. 49), p. 104, comments: “en [were] would have implied that
they had absolutely ceased as facts, which of course they had not.” Handley
C. G. Moule, Colossian Studies, n.d., p. 175, points out that “esti is very
slightly emphatic by position; I have represented this by indeed.’ He means
to acknowledge in passing the real place and value of the Festivals as ‘shad-
ows’.” Cf. Meyer, ad bc.
55. This argument is advanced by Norbert Hugedé (fn. 13), p. 145.
56. It is possible that the contrast “shadow-body” which derives
from Plato (cf. Republic 7, 514 a-517a; 10; 596; Timeus 46c; 71b) was em-
ployed by the Colossian philosophers to teach that “full reality” (pleroma)
could be attained only by venerating the “shadow,” namely the angels and
the elements of the universe, by ascetic regimen. If so, Paul answers their
teaching by giving a christological twist to their contrast.
57. The fact that Paul does not condemn dietary scruples in Romans
14 but rather exhorts to observe them “in honor of the Lord” (14:6) indicates
that he recognizes in them some positive function.
58. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon, 1879, p. 195, comments: “The reality, the antitype, in each case is
found in the Christian dispensation. Thus the passover typifies the atoning
sacrifice; the unleavened bread, the purity and sincerity of the true believer;
the pentecostal feast, the ingathering of first fruits; the Sabbath, the rest of
God’s people; etc.”
59. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians and
Thessalonians, 1959, p. 175.
60. Cf. Septuagint, II Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Ez. 45:17; Hosea
2:11. See also Jub. 1:14; Jos. Ber. 3:11; Justin, Dialogue 8:4.
61. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 1957, VII, pp. 205-
206.
62. See above chapter II.
63. Norbert Hugedé (fn. 13), p. 144: “A. Bailly in his dictionary, ad
loc., takes pains to point out that if the singular sabbaton designates the day
of rest of the Bible (sabbata can also have this meaning sometimes), the
plural ta sabbata is the expression used specifically to designate the week
(Anthologie, V. 160); the author cites N.T. texts where the word has this
meaning: Matt. 28:1: eis mian sabbaton (= the first day of the week); cf.
Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7. We see there. fore that the
word already in itself, without taking into consideration the hellenistic con-
text where we are and which orients us, has but very far relations with the
Sabbath day, designated by the Decalogue as the memorial of creation and
of the exodus from Egypt On the three usages of the plural “sabbata” see
the explicit explanation of E. Lohse, TDNT VII, pp. 7, 20.
64. The Didache (8:1) admonishes Christians not to fast with the
hypocrites on the second and fifth days of the week, but rather on the fourth
and sixth.
65. On Sabbath fasting among Jews and early Christians see above
pp. 185f.
66. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 137: “It is not certain what we should

understand by ‘observance of days.’ Since the phrase occurs in the context
of abstention from food, we might think of it in terms of some kind of fast
day”; a similar view is held by M.-J. Lagrange, L’Èpître aux Romains, 1950,
p. 325; Joseph Huby, Saint Paul, Èpître aux Romains, 1957, pp. 455-456;
James Denney, Romans, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1961, p. 702.
67. Giinter Bornkamm (fn. 13), p. 131.
68. Eduard Lohse (fn. 13), p. 115.
69. In the Book of Jubilees, of which fragments have been found in
the first and fourth caves at Qumran, it is said not only that every kind of
angel was created on the first day of creation along with heaven and earth,
but also that it was the angel of God that revealed the calendar and taught
men the signs of the Zodiac in order to observe the days, month and sabbaths
(Jub. 5: 1Sf). The proper and exact observance of days is of supreme impor-
tance. Every misfortune which has befallen Israel is attributed to negligence
of the calendar and festivals. References to festivals, months, sabbaths, and
years similar to those in Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16 occur for ex-
ample in Jubilees 6:32-38; 23:19. The Zadokite Document declares that “with
those that held fast to His commandments—God ever made good His ever-
lasting Covenant with Israel, revealing to them the hidden things concerning
which Israel in general had gone astray—even His holy sabbaths and His
glorious festivals, His righteous ordinances, the ways of His truth and the
purposes of His will, the which, if a man do, he shall live” (CD 3:1; 6:18-19;
emphasis supplied).
70. Hippolytus, The Refutation of all Heresies 9, 11, ANF V, p. 133;
cf. Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 29, 8, 5. Similar astrological superstitions
underlie the Sabbath observance of Cerinthus (Filastrius, Haereses 36, CSEL
38, 19), of Desitheus of Samaria (Origen, De Principiis 4, 3, 2), of the
Simonians (Ps.-Clement, Homilia 2, 35, 3) and of the Hypsistarians (Gre-
gory Nazianzius, Oratio 18, 5, PG 35, 991); cf. E. Lohse, “sabbata,” TDNT
VII, p. 33.
71. The Epistle to Dionetus 4, ANF 1, 26.
72. The Preaching of Peter; quoted in Clement of Alexandria, Stroma-
teis 6, 5, 41, 2, trans. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 1924, p.
17. Aristides writes in his Apology 14 (Syriac): “In their [i.e., the Jews’]
imagination they conceive that it is God they serve; whereas by their mode
of observance it is to the angels and not to God that their service is rendered:
—as when they celebrate sabbaths and the beginning of the months, and
feasts of unleavened bread, and a great fast; and fastings and circumcision
and the purification of meats, which things, however, they do not observe
perfectly” (ANF X, p. 276). Cf. also Origen, Contra Celsum 1, 26.
73. See above pp. 173f. and p. 243.
75. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1965, p. 173.
78. Note that the distinction between clean and unclean food in Ro-
mans 14:14 is different from that of Leviticus 11. In the latter unlawful foods
are designated in the LXX by the word “akathartos;” which means “im-
pure.” In Romans, however, the term used is “koinos” which means “com-
mon.” Apparently the dispute was about meat which per se was lawful to eat
but because of association with idol worship (cf. I Cor. 8: 1-13) was re-
garded by some as “koinos” thus unfit for human consumption.
79. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 183. Cf. H. Schlier, Der
Brief an die Gala ter, 1962, p. 204-207; he admits however that “days”
may have a wider meaning; W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 131; “By hemera in
v. 10 a reference is certainly being made to the sabbath days which recur
week by week.”
80. This is altogether possible, especially in view of the fact that the
Galatians were causing themselves to be circumcised and to become Jews in
every respect.
81. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 133; on the astral superstition associated
with the Sabbath see above fns. 70, 71, 72.

Untitled PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS

Romae, die 16 Iunii 1975

Con approvazione del Vicariato di Roma

To purchase a copy of this book

Phone (616) 471-2915

2. Christ and the Lord’s Day................................................................ 15

3. The Resurrection-Appearances and the Origin of Sunday.......... 73

4. Three New Testament Texts and the Origin of Sunday ............... 90

5. Jerusalem and the Origin of Sunday.............................................. 131

6. Rome and the Origin of Sunday..................................................... 164

7. Anti-Judaism in the Fathers and the Origin of Sunday.................. 215

8. Sun-Worship and the Origin of Sunday ........................................... 239

9. The Theology of Sunday ................................................................... 275

10. Retrospect and Prospect .................................................................. 308

Appendix: Paul and the Sabbath .......................................................... 326

religious factors. The event of Christís resurrection which occurred on that

Rome, June 29, 1977

tions have been examined. Where an English edition is not available or is

3. Harold Lindsell comes close to proposing Sunday as a national

Seigneur,” New Testament Essays. Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959,

10. For the pastoral aspects of Sunday observance see V. Monachino,

The expression “Lord’s day—kuriake hemera” which first appears

Isaiah, read by Christ, refers to these sabbatical institutions is clear by the

Sabbath commandment to the Israelites and to all ensuing generations, that

95 :11).23 This concept, as we shall later see, is repro-posed in Hebrews,

Unfortunately, since Rordorf cannot fit Matthew’s positive interpre-

The authorities also—in this case the president of the synagogue—

To understand the force of Christ’s defense in John, we need to re-

Why was it legitimate to circumcise a child on the Sabbath when the

A closer look at the various arguments put forward by Christ to meet

The priests performed activities on the Sabbath which per se were

permanence of the blessings of the “Sabbath rest—sabbatismos” (4:9) and

coming of Christ” (4:7).126 By this line of reasoning he is able to demon-

people of God (4:9) by referring to its basic characteristic, namely cessation

discussed earlier. The meaning of the permanence of God’s Sabbath rest of

tensive accounts of Christ’s Sabbath pronouncements and healjng activities

2. C. S. Mosna, Storia della domenica, p. 174.

29. Jus tin Martyr, Dialogue 27, 5; 29, 3; Epiphanius, Adversus

36. Syriac Didascalia 21: “Therefore he bound them beforehand with

43. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 70.

b. Every Rule has its Exception (verses 5 and 6)

57. J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, 1908, I,

82. Cf. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 99; H. Strathmann, Das Evangelium

88. Jewish Encyclopedia, 1962, s. v. “Sabbath.”

92. Joseph Schmid, The Gospel according to Mark, The Regensburg

100. W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 65, concludes on the basis of the alleged

117. The connection is recognized by W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 109;

134. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, ET 1958, III, p. 50; cf. C. K. Barrett,

Lord’s Supper. The very “Lord’s Supper—kuriakon deipnon’ which

resurrection, which is presented as an added or secondary reason for Sunday

In a passage we shall later examine, Epiphanius (ca. A.D. 315-403)

This is the lamb that was silent.

The Appearances of the Risen Christ

normative calendar of the temple? Furthermore, why should the Synoptics

17. Emphasis supplied; the expression “paschal lamb” alludes to Cal-

27. The question of the origin of Easter-Sunday is discussed below

Three well-known New Testament passages generally are cited as

Pierre Grelot associates this weekly setting aside of money at home,