THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE
A Biblical Analysis of Recent
Sabbath/Sunday
Developments
by
the late Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
There has probably been not one person since the first apostles,
who has done more to investigate and promote the Sabbath/Sunday
issue, than Samuele Bacchiocchi. It is my great pleasure to
reproduce his entire book "The Sabbath Under Crossfire." Dr. Sam
(as he likes to be called) has 4 or 5 books on the Sabbath. You
can find him I'm sure through the Internet - Keith Hunt
INTRODUCTION
Each of the fourteen books I have authored has a story
behind it. In most cases, it was a crossfire of controversy that
erupted regarding a certain biblical doctrine that compelled me
to research and write a book on that topic. This book is no
exception.
I had no plan to write a book in 1998. In fact, when
Immortality or Resurrection? came off the press on December 1997,
I solemnly promised my wife that I would not start another book
in 1998. The reason is simple. Whenever I become involved in a
biblical research project, I spend my seven-months
leave-of-absence from teaching at Andrews University buried in my
basement office from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Having neglected my wife and many odd jobs around the house
during much of 1997, I felt that in good conscience I could not
undertake another major research project in 1998. However, two
important events mentioned below caused me to change my plans.
Thank God for an understanding wife who has accepted such changes
without much complaining during our 37 years of married life. She
deserves much of the redit for whatever good has come from my
ministry of biblical research. Without her loving support none of
my books would have ever seen the light of day.
The Pope's Pastoral Letter. The first event that compelled
me to write this book is the promulgation of the Pastoral Letter
Dies Domini by Pope Paul John II on May 31, 1998. This document
has enormous historical significance because in it the Pope makes
a passionate plea for a revival of Sunday observance by appealing
to the moral imperative of the Sabbath Commandment and to the
need of civil legislation to facilitate the observance of Sunday
as a Holy Day.
The Pastoral Letter raises two important issues that
urgently need to be addressed. The first is the Pope's defense of
Sunday observance as the embodiment and "full expression" of the
Sabbath. This view, as shown in Chapter 1, not only lacks
biblical and historical support, but also represents a
significant departure from the traditional Catholic teaching.
Historically, the Catholic church has taught that Sunday
observance is an ecclesiastical institution different in meaning
and function from the Sabbath. John Paul departs from the
traditional Catholic distinction between Sabbath and Sunday in
order to make Sunday observance a moral imperative mandated by
the Decalogue itself.
The second issue is the Pope's summons to Christians "to
strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to
keep Sunday holy." 1 The justification for such a summons is the
Pope's assumption that Sunday-keeping is a moral imperative
"inscribed" in the Decalogue itself; 2 and consequently, it is
to be supported by civil legislation promulgated by the
international community of nations.
In view of the grave theological and legal implications of
the Pastoral Letter, I felt that a response was imperative. In
July 1998, I posted my initial analysis of "Dies Domini" in
various discussion groups on the Internet. The response surpassed
my fondest expectations. In a few weeks, over 5,000 people
subscribed to a "Sabbath Discussion" list where I examine
important Sabbath/Sunday developments. Several editors of
religious magazines who subscribe to the list requested
permission to publish my response to the Pastoral Letter.
The surprising interest shown by people of different
persuasions in various parts of the world for an in-depth
analysis of recent Sabbath/Sunday developments compelled me to
take up my pen again and write this book. Thank God for a wife
who does not remind me of broken promises.
This book has afforded me the opportunity to examine in
greater depth some of the recent Sabbath/Sunday developments that
I have discussed in a summary way in cyberspace. For example, my
initial eight page analysis of the Pastoral Letter first posted
in the Internet, has been expanded into a 40-page chapter
entitled "Pope John Paul II and the Sabbath." This is the first
and, possibly, the most important chapter of the book because it
examines the biblical, moral, historical, and legal arguments
used by Pope John Paul to emphasize the "grave obligation" of
Sunday observance. 3
Debate With Dale Ratzlaff.
The second event that influenced the writing of this book is
the debate on the Sabbath that took place Monday, June 15, 1998,
between Dale Ratzlaff and myself on KJSL, a Christian radio
station in St.Louis, Missouri. Ratzlaff had served as a
Seventh-day Adventist Bible teacher and pastor before leaving the
church because of doctrinal differences. Ratzlaff claims that
several months of Bible study convinced him that the Sabbath is
not a creational institution for mankind, but a Mosaic, Old
Covenant ordinance for the Jews.
According to Ratzlaff, "New Covenant" Christians do not need
to observe the Sabbath because Christ fulfilled its typological
function by becoming our salvation-rest. Consequently, "New
Covenant" Christians observe the Sabbath spiritually as a daily
experience of salvation-rest, not literally as the observance of
the seventh day unto the Lord.
A major problem with Ratzlaff's interpretation, as shown in
Chapter 4 of this book, is the failure to recognize that the
spiritual salvation - rest does not negate the physical Sabbath
rest. On the contrary, God invites us to cease from our physical
work on the Sabbath in order to enter His spiritual rest (Heb
4:10). Physical elements, such as the water in baptism, the bread
and wine in the Lord's Supper, and the physical rest on the
Sabbath, are designed to help us conceptualize and internalize
the spiritual realities they represent.
Ratzlaff published his views in a 345-page book entitled
"Sabbath in Crisis," where he articulates his "New Covenant"
theology. He is actively promoting his anti-sabbatarian views
through radio talk shows and advertisements in local papers where
he offers his book free. KJSL invited me to respond to his
anti-Sabbath arguments on their radio talk show on June 15, 1998.
As you can imagine, we had an animated discussion. Unfortunately,
the one-hour time limitation, cut even shorter by frequent radio
advertisements, prevented a thorough discussion of the major
issues. We agreed to continue the discussion in cyberspace. Over
a four-month period, I posted twenty-one essays where I deal
systematically with Ratzlaff's major objections against the
continuity and validity of the Sabbath for "New Covenant"
Christians. The demand for these essays has been incredible as
thousands of people from many parts of the world requested them
via email.
The enormous demand for my Sabbath essays may be due in part
to the considerable influence exerted by Ratzlaff's book,
especially among Sabbatarians. A study paper entitled "The
Sabbath" released by the Worldwide Church of God in 1995, lists
the Sabbath in Crisis as one of the three sources used to support
their so-called "New Covenant" theology. 4
"New Covenant" Theology.
It is hard to estimate the farreaching influence of the "New
Covenant" theology championed among Sabbatarians by people like
Ratzlaff. The Worldwide Church of God has experienced a massive
defection of over 70,000 members who have refused to accept the
doctrinal changes demanded by the "New Covenant" theology.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church also has been affected by the
"New Covenant" theology promoted especially by Sabbath in Crisis.
One example is the book "New Covenant Christians" by Clay Peck, a
former Adventist pastor who currently serves as senior pastor of
the Grace Place Congregation in Berthoud, Colorado. In the
"Introduction" to his book, Peck acknowledges his indebtedness to
Ratzlaff, saying: "While I have read and researched widely for
this study, I have been most challenged and instructed by a book
entitled Sabbath in Crisis by Dale Ratzlaff. I have leaned
heavily on his research, borrowing a number of concepts and
diagrams." 5
Similar "Grace-oriented," independent congregations have
been established in various parts of America by former
Seventh-day Adventist pastors who have embraced the "New
Covenant" theology. This development is unique to our times
because never before in the history of Christianity has the
Sabbath come under the crossfire by those who once had championed
its observance.
These developments made me forcefully aware of the need to
respond to the major attacks launched against the Sabbath not
only by the Pope and Sundaykeeping scholars, but also by former
Sabbatarians. Initially I tried to meet this challenge by posting
in cyberspace essays dealing with the anti-Sabbath arguments. I
soon realized that this effort was not enough.
The thousands of email requests from all over the world for
the Sabbath essays posted on the Internet alerted me to the need
to expand my research and publish it in book form. This book is
the result of this endeavor. During the last six months of 1998,
I have worked intensively on this project, hoping to produce a
compelling biblical analysis of recent Sabbath/Sunday
developments.
Objectives of This Book.
This book has two major objectives. The first is to provide
a comprehensive examination of the major arguments used to negate
the continuity, validity, and values of the Sabbath for today.
Each of the first six chapters addresses a major argument
commonly used against the Sabbath. The length of the chapters
(ranging from 40 to 55 pages) reflects my aim to be as exhaustive
as possible within the length limitation of each chapter.
Experience has taught me that simplistic answers do not satisfy
people with inquiring minds. Thus, I have endeavored to examine
each argument as thoroughly as possible. Christians who find
themselves caught in the crossfire of the Sabbath/Sunday
controversy should find these chapters a valuable resource to
deal with popular attacks launched against the Sabbath.
The second objective of this book is to help people discover
the Sabbath as a day of joyful celebration of God's creative and
redemptive love. A major contributing factor to the abandonment
of the Sabbath by an increasing number of Sabbatarians is most
likely their failure to experience the physical, mental, moral,
and spiritual benefits of the Sabbath.
Those who experience the Sabbath as an alienating imposition
and a day of gloomy frustration are apt to welcome a theology
that releases them from such an oppressing and depressing
experience. The solution to the problem, however, is found not in
fabricating a "New Covenant" theology that does away with the
Sabbath Commandment, but in discovering the Sabbath as a blessing
rather than a burden, as a day of joyful celebration rather than
a day of gloomy frustration.
This pastoral concern has motivated me to devote the final
chapter to the rediscovery of the Sabbath. The first part of
Chapter 7 briefly reports the rediscovery of the Sabbath by
scholars, religious organizations, and people of different
persuasions. This is the paradox of our times. While some
Christians are rejecting the Sabbath as an Old Covenant
institution nailed to the Cross, an increasing number of other
Christians are rediscovering the continuity and value of the
Sabbath for our tension-filled, restless lives.
The final section of Chapter 7 explores in a more personal
way how to make Sabbathkeeping a Christ-centered experience - an
experience of the awareness of the Savior's presence, peace, and
rest in our lives. At a time when many are seeking for inner rest
and release through pills, drugs, meditation groups, vacations,
and athletic clubs, the Sabbath invites us to find true inner
rest and peace not through pills or places, but in a right
relationship with a Person, the Person of our Savior, who says:
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give
you rest" (Matt 11:28; NIV).
Method and Style.
This book is written from a biblical perspective. I accept
the Bible as normative for defining Christian beliefs and
practices. Because the words of the Bible contain a divine
message written by human authors who lived in specific historical
situations, every effort must be made to understand their meaning
in their historical context. My conviction is that an
understanding of both the historical and literary context of
relevant Biblical texts is indispensable in establishing both
their original meaning and their present relevance. This
conviction is reflected in the methodology I have followed in
examining those controversial biblical texts that relate to the
Law, in general, and the Sabbath, in particular.
Concerning the style of the book, I have attempted to write
in simple, nontechnical language. In some instances, where a
technical word is used, a definition is provided in parenthesis.
To facilitate the reading, each chapter is divided into major
parts and subdivided under appropriate headings. A brief summary
is given at the end of each chapter. Unless otherwise specified,
all Bible texts are quoted from the Revised Standard Version,
copyright 1946 and 1952. In a few instances, some key words of a
Bible text have been italicized for emphasis without footnoting
them, since the reader is aware that the English Bible does not
italicize words.
Acknowledgments.
It is most difficult for me to acknowledge my indebtedness
to the many persons who have contributed to the realization of
this book. Indirectly, I am indebted to the scholars who have e
written articles, pamphlets, books, and dissertations on
different aspects of the Sabbath/Sunday question. Their writings
have stimulated my thi nki ng and broadened my approach to this
subject.
Directly, I want to express my gratitude to Joyce Jones and
Deborah Everhart from Andrews University, as well as Jarrod and
Eva Williamson from La Sierra University. Each of them has made a
significant contribu tion by correcting and improving the style
of the manuscript. They have worked many hours, reworking
sentences so they sound more English and less Italian.
Words fail to express my gratitude to Gregory and Annita
Watkins for designing a most attractive cover for the book.
Gregory and Annita are a young couple serving at this time as
student missionaries in China. They signed up for the "Sabbath
Discussion" list and were so impressed by the essays they
received in China via email, that they offered to design the
cover for the book. When I accepted their offer I never
anticipated that they would design such a splendid cover. The
cover conveys the message of the book in a masterful way. The
crossfire has attacked the Sabbath, but it has burned only the
superficial veneer. The Sabbath as well as the other moral
principles of the Decalogue are inscribed in the two granite
tables that remain unscathed by the crossfire of human
controversy. What a creative way to portray this fundamental
biblical truth brought out by the book! Thank you, Gregory and
Annita for designing such an attractive and suggestive cover.
Last but not least, I do express my special thanks to my
wife who has been my constant source of encouragement and
inspiration during the past thirty-seven years of our married
life. She saw little of me while I was researching and writing
this book. Without her love, patience, and encouragement, it
would have been most difficult for me to complete this project in
such a relatively short period of time.
Author's Hope.
I have written these pages with the earnest desire to help
Christians of all persuasions to discover the Sabbath as God's
gift of freedom to mankind. Freedom from work in order to be free
before Him and hear His voice. Freedom from the world of things
in order to enter into the peace of God for which we were
created. Freedom to look at the world through the eyes of
eternity and recapture some measure of Edenic delight. Freedom to
taste and know that the Lord is good. Freedom to sing the
Psalmist's Sabbath song: "Thou, O Lord, has made me glad by thy
work; at the work of thy hands I sing for joy!" (Ps 92:4-5-A Song
for the Sabbath).
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
1. Dies Domini, paragraph 67.
2. Dies Domini, paragraph 47; emphasis supplied.
3. Dies Domini, paragraph 62.
4. The other two sources cited in the study paper on "The
Sabbath" released by the Worldwide Church of God in 1995, are the
special issue of Verdict (vol.4), entitled "Sabbatarianism
Reconsidered," published by Robert Brinsmead on June 4, 1981, and
the symposium "From Sabbath to the Lord's Day," edited by Donald
Carson and published by Zondervan in 1982.
5. Clay Peck, "New Covenant Christians" (Berthoud,CO,1998),p.2.
......................
To be continued
The SABBATH under CrossfirePope John Paul and the Sabbath #1 HE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE
Chapter 1
POPE JOHN PAUL THE SECOND AND THE SABBATH
On May 31, 1998, Pope John Paul II promulgated a lengthy
Pastoral Letter, "Dies Domini" in which he makes a passionate
plea for a revival of Sunday observance. He appeals to the moral
imperative of the Sabbath commandment and to the need of civil
legislation to facilitate Sunday observance. This document has
enormous historical significance since it addresses the critical
problem of the prevailing Sunday profanation at "the threshold of
the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000." 1 This event has great
significance for the Catholic Church, as over thirty million
Catholics are expected to make their pilgrimage to Rome, seeking
forgiveness for their own sins and a reduction of the temporal
punishment for their loved ones in Purgatory.
The Pope is keenly aware that the crisis of Sunday
observance is a major obstacle to the spiritual renewal the Great
Jubilee is designed to bring about. He believes that the
prevailing profanation of Sunday reflects the spiritual crisis of
the Catholic Church and of Christianity, in general. The
"strikingly low" attendance to the Sunday Mass indicates, in the
Pope's view, that "faith is weak" and "diminishing." 2 He
believes that if this trend is not reversed it can threaten the
future of the Catholic Church as it stands at the threshold of
the third millennium. He states: "The Lord's Day has structured
the history of the Church through two thousand years: how could
we think that it will not continue to shape the future?" 3
While reading the Pastoral Letter, I was reminded of a
speech President Abraham Lincoln delivered on November 13, 1862.
There he emphasized the vital function of the Sabbath in the
survival of Christianity: "As we keep or break the Sabbath day,
we nobly save or meanly loose the last and the best hope by which
mankind arises." 4 Obviously, for Abraham Lincoln, the Sabbath
meant Sunday. This does not detract from the fact that one of
American's outstanding presidents recognized in the principle of
Sabbathkeeping the best hope to renew and elevate human beings.
The Pastoral Letter, like all papal documents, has been
skillfully crafted with an introduction; five chapters which
examine the importance of Sunday observance from theological,
historical, liturgical, and social perspectives; and a
conclusion. Pope John Paul and his advisers must be commended for
composing a well-balanced document that addresses major issues
relating to Sunday observance within the space limitation of
approximately thirty pages.
The introduction sets the stage for the Pope's pastoral
concerns by identifying some of the contributory factors to the
crisis of Sunday observance and the solution that must be sought.
A major factor is the change that has occurred "in socioeconomic
conditions [which] have often led to profound modifications of
social behavior and hence of the character of Sunday." 5 The
Pope notes with regret that Sunday has become merely "a part of a
weekend" when people are involved "in cultural, political or
sporting activities" that cause the loss of awareness of "keeping
the Lord's Day holy." 6
Given the present situation, John Paul strongly believes
that today it is "more necessary than ever to recover the deep
doctrinal foundations underlying the Church's precept, so that
the abiding value of Sunday in the Christian life will be clear
to all the faithful." 7
The Pastoral Letter reveals that the Pope firmly believes
that the solution to the crisis of Sunday observance entails both
doctrinal and legal aspects. Doctrinally, Christians need to
rediscover the "biblical" foundations of Sunday observance in
order to keep the day holy. Legally, Christians must "ensure that
civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy." 8
Objectives of This Chapter.
No attempt is made in this chapter to analyze all the
aspects of Sunday observance discussed in the Pastoral Letter. In
the light of the overall objective of this book to consider from
a biblical perspective the recent attacks against the Sabbath,
this chapter focuses especially on how Pope John Paul deals with
the Sabbath in his attempt to justify and promote Sunday
observance.
The chapter divides into three major parts in accordance
with the following three major issues addressed:
Pope John Paul II and the Sabbath
(1) The theological connection between Sabbath and Sunday
(2) The "biblical" support for Sunday observance
(3) The call for Sunday legislation
PART 1 THE THEOLOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN SABBATH AND SUNDAY
A surprising aspect of the Pastoral Letter is Pope John
Paul's defense of Sunday observance as the embodiment and "full
expression" of the Sabbath. In some ways this view represents a
significant departure from the traditional Catholic explanation
that Sunday observance is an ecclesiastical institution different
from the Sabbath. In the past, this explanation virtually has
been regarded as an established fact by Catholic theologians and
historians. Thomas of Aquinas, for instance, makes this
unambiguous statement: "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 [Sabbath commandment] but by the
institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people." 9
In his dissertation presented to the Catholic University of
America, Vincent J. Kelly 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." 10
Even the new "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (1994)
emphasizes the discontinuity between Sabbath and Sunday
observance: "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath
which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its
ceremonial observance replaces that of the Sabbath." 11
John Paul departs from the traditional distinction the
Catholic Church has made between Sabbath and Sunday, presumably
because he wants to make Sunday observance a moral imperative
rooted in the Decalogue itself. By so doing, the Pope challenges
Christians to respect Sunday, not merely as an ecclesiastical
institution, but as a divine command. Furthermore, by rooting
Sundaykeeping in the Sabbath commandment, the Pope offers the
strongest moral reasons to urge Christians to "ensure that civil
legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy."
The Pope's vew of Sunday as the embodiment and "full
expression" of the Sabbath stands in stark contrast to the
so-called "New Covenant" and Dispensational authors who emphasize
the radical discontinuity between Sabbath and Sunday. The latter,
as we shall see in the following chapters, is also the position
of former sabbatarians who reduce the Sabbath to a Mosaic, Old
Covenant institution that terminated at the Cross. The Pope
rejects this position, defending instead the creational origin of
the Sabbath in which he finds the theological foundation of
Sunday observance. He writes: "In order to grasp fully the
meaning of Sunday, therefore, we must re-read the great story of
creation and deepen our understanding of the theology of the
'Sabbath.'" 12
Creative and Redemptive Meanings of the Sabbath.
The Pope's reflections on the theological meaning of the
Sabbath are most perceptive and should especially thrill
Sabbatarians. For example, speaking of God's rest on the seventh
day of creation, John Paul says: "The divine rest of the seventh
day does not allude to an inactive God, but emphasizes the
fullness of what has been accomplished. It speaks, as it were, of
God's lingering before the 'very good' work (Gen 1:31) which his
hand has wrought, in order to cast upon it a gaze full of joyous
delight. This is a 'contemplative' gaze which does not look to
new accomplishments but enjoys the beauty of what has already
been achieved." 13
This profound theological insight into the meaning of the
divine Shabbat as a rest of cessation in order to express the
satisfaction over a complete, perfect creation, and to fellowship
with His creation, is developed at some length in my book "Divine
Rest for Human Restlessness." There I wrote: "God's cessation on
the seventh day from doing expresses His desire for being with
His creation, for giving to His creatures not only things but
Himself." 14
John Paul speaks eloquently of the theological development
of the Sabbath from the rest of creation (Gen 2:1-3; Ex 20:8-11)
to the rest of redemption (Deut 5:12-15). He notes that in the
Old Testament the Sabbath commandment is linked "not only with
God's mysterious 'rest' after the days of creation (cf. Ex
20:8-11), but also with the salvation which he offers to Israel
in the liberation from the slavery of Egypt (cf. Deut.5:1215).
The God who rests on the seventh day, rejoicing in His creation,
is the same God who reveals his glory in liberating his children
from Pharaoh's oppression." 15
Being a memorial of creation and redemption, "the 'Sabbath'
has therefore been interpreted evocatively as a determining
element in the kind of 'sacred architecture' of time which marks
biblical revelation. It recalls that the universe and history
belong to God; and without constant awareness of that truth, man
cannot serve in the world as a co-worker of the Creator." 16
The Sabbath Defines Our Relationship with God.
Contrary to Dispensational and so-called "New Covenant"
writers who reduce the Sabbath to a Mosaic, ceremonial ordinance
given exclusively to Jews, John Paul rightly recognizes that "the
Sabbath precept ... is rooted in the depths of God's plan. This
is why, unlike many other precepts, it is set not within the
context of strictly cultic stipulations but within the Decalogue,
the `'en words' which represents the very pillars of the moral
life inscribed on the human heart. In setting this commandment
within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and
then the Church declare that they consider it not just a matter
of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible
expression of our relationship with God, announced and expounded
by biblical revelation. This is the perspective within which
Christians need to rediscover this precept today." 17
What a profound statement worth pondering! Sabbathkeeping is
"not just a matter of community religious discipline but a
defining and indelible expression of our relationship with God."
To appreciate the truth of this statement, it is important
to remember that our life is a measure of time, and the way we
use our time is indicative of our priorities. Believers who give
priority to God in their thinking and living on the Sabbath show
in a tangible way that God really counts in their life. Thus,
Sabbathkeeping is indeed "a defining and indelible expression of
our relationship with God."
John Paul develops this point eloquently saying: "Man's
relationship with God demands times of explicit prayer, in which
the relationship becomes an intense dialogue, involving every
dimension of the person. 'The Lord's Day' is the day of this
relationship par excellence when men and women raise their song
to God and become the voice of all creation." 18
Sunday as the Fulfillment of the Sabbath.
In the light of these profound theological insights into the
Sabbath as being a kind of "sacred architecture" of time that
marks the unfolding of God's creative and redemptive activity,
and as the defining expression of our relationship with
God, one wonders how does the Pope succeed in developing a
theological justification for Sunday observance? He does this by
making Sunday the embodiment of the biblical Sabbath.
For example, John Paul without hesitation applies to Sunday
God's blessing and sanctification of the Sabbath at creation.
"Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day 'blessed' by God
and 'made holy' by him, set apart from the other days to be,
among them, 'the Lord's Day.'" 19
More importantly, the Pope makes Sunday the "full
expression" of the Sabbath by arguing that Sunday, as the Lord's
Day, fulfills the creative and redemptive functions of the
Sabbath. These two functions, the Pope claims, "reveal the
meaning of the 'Lord's Day' within a single theological vision
which fuses creation and salvation." 20
"On 'the Lord's Day," John Paul explains, "which the Old
Testament [Sabbath] links to the work of creation (cf. Gen 2:1-3;
Ex 20:8-11) and the Exodus (cf. Deut 5:12-15), the Christian is
called to proclaim the new creation and the new covenant brought
about in the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Far from being abolished,
the celebration of creation becomes more profound within a
Christocentric perspective .... The remembrance of the liberation
of the Exodus also assumes its full meaning by Christ in his
Death and Resurrection. More than a 'replacement' of the Sabbath,
therefore, Sunday is its fulfillment, and in a certain sense its
extension and full expression in the ordered unfolding of the
history of salvation, which reaches its culmination in Christ."
21
The Pope maintains that New Testament Christians "made the
first day after the Sabbath a festive day" because they
discovered that the creative and redemptive accomplishments
celebrated by the Sabbath, found their "fullest expression in
Christ's Death and Resurrection, though its definitive
fulfillment will not come until the Parousia, when Christ returns
in glory." 22
The Pope's attempt to make Sunday the "extension and full
expression" of the creative and redemptive meanings of the
Sabbath is very ingenious, but it lacks biblical and historical
support. There are no indications in the New Testament that
Christians ever interpreted Sunday to be the embodiment of the
creative and redemptive meanings of the Sabbath. From a biblical
and historical perspective, Sunday is not the Sabbath because the
two days differ in authority. The difference in authority lies in
the fact that while Sabbathkeeping rests upon an explicit
biblical command (Gen 2:2-3; Ex 20:8-11; Mark 2:27-28; Heb 4:9),
Sundaykeeping derives from an interplay of social, political,
pagan, and religious factors. I have examined these factors at
length in my dissertation "From Sabbath to Sunday," published by
the Pontifical Gregorian University, in Rome, Italy. The lack of
a biblical authority for Sundaykeeping may well be a major
contributing factor to the crisis of Sunday observance that John
Paul rightly laments.
The vast majority of Christians, especially in the Western
world, view their Sunday as a holiday to seek personal pleasure
and profit rather than a holy day to seek divine presence and
peace. I submit that a major contributing factor to the
secularization of Sunday is the prevailing perception that there
is no divine, biblical command to keep Sunday as a holy day.
The lack of a biblical conviction that Sunday should be observed
as the holy Sabbath day may well explain why most Christians see
nothing wrong in devoting their Sunday time to themselves rather
than to the Lord. If there was a strong theological conviction
that the principle of Sundaykeeping was divinely established at
creation and later "inscribed" in the Decalogue, as the Pope
attempts to prove, then Christians would feel compelled to act
accordingly.
Difference in Meaning.
John Paul recognizes the need to make Sundaykeeping a moral
imperative and he tries to accomplish this by rooting the day in
the Sabbath commandment itself. But this cannot be done because
Sunday is not the Sabbath. The two days have a different meaning
and function. While in Scripture the Sabbath memorializes God's
perfect creation, complete redemption, and final restoration,
Sunday is justified in the earliest Patristic literature as the
commemoration of the creation of light on the first day of the
week, the cosmic-eschatological symbol of the new eternal world
typified by the eighth day, and the memorial of Christ's Sunday
Resurrection. 23
None of the historical meanings attributed to Sunday require
per se the observance of the day by resting and worshipping the
Lord. For example, nowhere does Scripture suggest that the
creation of light on the first day ought to be celebrated through
a weekly Sunday rest and worship. Even the Resurrection event, as
we shall see, does not require per se a weekly or annual Sunday
celebration.
The attempt to transfer to Sunday the biblical authority and
meaning of the Sabbath is doomed to fail because it is impossible
to retain the same authority, meaning, and experience when the
date of a festival is changed. For example, if a person or an
organization should succeed in changing the date of the
Declaration of Independence from the 4th to the 5th of July, the
new date could hardly be viewed as the legitimate celebration of
Independence Day.
Similarly, if the festival of the Sabbath is changed from
the seventh to the first day, the latter can hardly memorialize
the divine acts of creation, redemption, and final restoration
which are linked to the typology of the Sabbath. To invest Sunday
with the theological meaning and function of the Sabbath means to
adulterate a divine institution by making a holy day out of what
God created to be a working day.
Difference in Experience.
Third, the difference between Sabbath and Sunday is one of
experience. While Sundaykeeping began and has remained largely
the hour of worship, Sabbathkeeping is presented in Scriptures as
twenty-four hours consecrated to God. In spite of the efforts
made by Constantine, church councils, and the Puritans to make
Sunday a total day of rest and worship, the historical reality is
that Sunday observance has been equated with church attendance.
John Paul acknowledges this historical reality in chapter 3 of
the Pastoral Letter entitled "The Day of the Church. The
Eucharistic Assembly: The Heart of Sunday." The thrust of the
chapter is that the heart of Sunday observance is the
participation in the Mass. He cites the new Catechism of the
Catholic Church, which says: "The Sunday celebration of the
Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's
life." 24
The end of Sunday church services represents for many
Christians also the termination of Sundaykeeping. After church,
they go in good conscience to the shopping mall, a ball game, a
dance hall, a theater, etc. It came as a surprise for me to
discover that even in the "Bible Belt" many shops open for
business as soon as the church services are over. The message is
clear. The rest of Sunday is business as usual.
The recognition of this historical reality has led
Christopher Kiesling, a distinguished Catholic Liturgists, to
argue for the abandonment of the notion of Sunday as a day of
rest and for the retention of Sunday as the hour of worship. 25
His reasoning is that since Sunday has never been a day of total
rest and worship, there is no hope to make it so today when most
people want holidays, not holy days.
Celebrating the Sabbath, however, means not merely attending
church services but consecrating its twenty-four hours to the
Lord. The Sabbath commandment does not say, "Remember the Sabbath
day to keep it holy by attending Sabbath school and church
services." What the commandment requires is to work six days and
rest on the seventh day unto the Lord (Ex 20:8-10). This means
that the essence of Sabbathkeeping is the consecration of time.
The act of resting unto the Lord makes all the Sabbath
activities, whether they be formal worship or informal fellowship
and recreation, an act of worship because all of them spring out
of a heart which has decided to honor God.
The act of resting on the Sabbath unto the Lord becomes the
means through which the believer enters into God's rest (Heb
4:10) by experiencing more fully and freely the awareness of
God's presence, peace, and rest. This unique experience of
Sabbathkeeping is foreign to Sundaykeeping because the essence of
the latter is not the consecration of time but rather church
attendance, generally followed by secular activities.
THS WAS NOT THE CASE AFTER WW2 IN BRITAIN. I GREW UP IN THE 1940s and 1950s AND MOST CHURCHES HAD MORNING SERVICES WITH SUNDAY-SCHOOLS, AND THEY HAD EVENING SERVICES. THE TOWNS CLOSED DOWN, SO DID THE MOVIE THEATERS, AND NO PROFESSIONAL SPORTS WERE DONE ON SUNDAY. SO IT WAS NOT RETRUN TO NORMAL THINGS AFTER CHURCH SERVICE IN BRITAIN. THAT IS OF COURSE NOT AS IT IS TODAY WHEN ONLY ABOUT 3 PERCEENT OF PEOPLE IN BRITAIN ATTEND REGULAR CHURCH SERVICE ON SUNDAY. Keith Hunt
In the light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude
that the Pope's attempt to make Sunday the theological and
existential embodiment of the Sabbath is doomed to fail because
the two days differ radically in their authority, meaning, and
experience.
PART 2
THE "BIBLICAL" SUPPORT FOR SUNDAY OBSERVANCE
The second chapter of the Pastoral Letter entitled "Dies
Christi The Day of Christ" focuses on three major, biblical
events that allegedly justify Sunday observance: (1) The
Resurrection and appearances of Christ which took place on 'the
first day after the Sabbath' (Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24:1; John
20:1);26 (2) the religious gatherings that occurred on the first
day of the week (cf. 1 Cor 16:2; Acts 20:7-12); 27 and (3) the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit fifty days after the Resurrection
which occurred on a Sunday (Acts 2:2-3). 28 We examine these
arguments in their respective order.
(1) The Resurrection/Appearances of Christ
The Pope maintains that the earliest Christians "made the
first day after the Sabbath a festive day, for that was the day
on which the Lord rose from the dead." 29 He argues that though
Sunday is rooted in the creative and redemptive meaning of the
Sabbath, the day finds its full expression.
............
To be continued
The SABBATH under Crossfire #2The Pope's Sunday NT evidence? THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE
by Samule Bacchiocchi PhD
PART 2 THE "BIBLICAL" SUPPORT FOR SUNDAY OBSERVANCE
The second chapter of the Pastoral Letter entitled "Dies
Christi The Day of Christ" focuses on three major, biblical
events that allegedly justify Sunday observance: (1) The
Resurrection and appearances of Christ which took place on 'the
first day after the Sabbath' (Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1);
26 (2) the religious gatherings that occurred on the first day
of the week (cf. 1 Cor 16:2; Acts 20:7-12); 27 and (3) the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit fifty days after the Resurrection
which occurred on a Sunday (Acts 2:2-3). 28 We examine these
arguments in their respective order.
(1) The Resurrection/Appearances of Christ
The Pope maintains that the earliest Christians "made the
first day after the Sabbath a festive day, for that was the day
on which the Lord rose from the dead." 29 He argues that though
Sunday is rooted in the creative and redemptive meaning of the
Sabbath, the day finds its full expression in the Resurrection of
Christ. "Although the Lord's Day is rooted in the very work of
creation and even more in the mystery of the Biblical [Sabbath]
'rest' of God, it is nonetheless to the Resurrection of Christ
that we must look in order to understand fully the Lord's Day."
30
Importance Attributed to Resurrection.
The Resurrection and Appearance of Christ on the first day
of the week constitute, in the Pope's view, the fundamental
biblical justification for the origin of Sunday worship. He
summarizes concisely the alleged Biblical evidences in the
following paragraph: "According to the common witness of the
Gospels, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead took
place on 'the first day after the Sabbath' (Mark 16:2,9; Luke
24:1; John 20:1). On the same day, the Risen Lord appeared to the
two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Luke 24:1335) and to the eleven
Apostles gathered together (cf. Luke 24:36; John 20:19). A week
later - as the Gospel of John recounts (cf. John 20:26) the
disciples were gathered together once again when Jesus appeared
to them and made Himself known to Thomas by showing him the signs
of His Passion. The day of Pentecost - the first day of the
eighth week after the Jewish Passover (cf. Acts 2:1), when the
promise made by Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection was
fulfilled by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke 24:49;
Acts 1:4-5) - also fell on a Sunday. This was the day of the
first proclamation and the first baptisms: Peter announced to the
assembled crowd that Christ was risen and 'those who received his
word were baptized' (Acts 2:41). This was the epiphany of the
Church, revealed as the people into which are gathered in unity,
beyond all their differences, the scattered children of God." 31
Numerous Catholic and Protestant scholars concur with John
Paul in attributing to Christ's Resurrection and appearances on
the first day of the week the fundamental reason for the choice
of Sunday by the Apostolic church. In his doctoral dissertation
on the origin of Sunday, Corrado Mosna, a Jesuit student at the
Pontifical Gregorian University who worked under Vincenzo
Monachino, S.J.(the same professor who monitored my
dissertation), concludes: "Therefore 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 " 32
The same view is expressed by Cardinal Jean Danielou: "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." 33 In a similar vein, Paul Jewett, a
Protestant scholar, writes: "What, it might be asked,
specifically motivated the primitive Jewish church to settle upon
Sunday as a regular time of assembly? 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." 34
(It is more than just interesting that inspite of Paul in Romans
14, that some throw at you today, to support Sunday observance,
this theology has to ignore the contradition it would then be
with Romans 14, when if Paul is talking about (which he is not)
ANY day to set aside as holy, Sunday cannot be used as THE
"specific" day above any other day of the week. Hence all who try
to establish Sunday holiness, either have to ignore Romans 14 or
have to admit Paul is NOT discussing days in the context of
"which is holy to the Lord" - Keith Hunt)
Evaluation of the Resurrection.
In spite of its popularity, the alleged role of the
Resurrection in the adoption of Sunday observance lacks biblical
support. A careful study of all the references to the Resur-
rection reveals the incomparable importance of the event, 35 but
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." 36
Moreover, as the same author observes, "The first day of the
week, in the writings of the New Testament, is never called 'Day
of the Resurrection'. This is a term which made its appearance
later." 37 Its usage first appears in the fourth century.
Therefore, "to say that Sunday was observed because Jesus rose on
that day," as S.V.McCasland cogently states, "is really a petitio
principii [begging the question], for such a celebration might
just as well be monthly or annually and still be an observance of
that particular day. 38
The New Testament attributes no liturgical significance to
the day of Christ's Resurrection simply because the Resurrection
was seen as an existential reality experienced by living
victoriously by the power of the Risen Savior, and not a
liturgical practice associated with Sunday worship. Had Jesus
wanted to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, He would have
capitalized on the day of His Resurrection to make such a day the
fitting memorial of that event. But none of the utterances of the
risen Savior reveal an intent to memorialize the day of His
Resurrection by making it the new Christian day of rest and
worship. Biblical institutions such as the Sabbath, Baptism, and
the Lord's Supper all trace their origin to a divine act that
established them. But there is no such divine act for the
institution of a weekly Sunday or an annual Easter Sunday
memorial of the Resurrection.
The silence of the New Testament on this matter is very
important since most of its books were written many years after
Christ's death and Resurrection. If by the latter half of the
first century Sunday had come to be viewed as the memorial of the
Resurrection which fulfilled the creation/redemption functions of
the Old Testament Sabbath, as the Pope claims, we would expect to
find in the New Testament some allusions to the religious meaning
and observance of the weekly Sunday and/or annual Easter-Sunday.
The total absence of any such allusions indicates that such
developments occurred in the post-apostolic period as a result of
an interplay of political, social, and religious factors. These I
have examined at length in my dissertation "From Sabbath to
Sunday."
(Absolutely true!! If the day of Christ's resurrection was to
replace the Old Covenant Sabbath, the 4th commandment of the
great Ten, then there can be no doubt that Jesus or the apostles
would have clearly stated that fact. There would have been a
Jerusalem conference as in Acts 15 for the circumcision debate,
to debate and to send forth instructions that the resurrection
day was now the holy Sabbath of the Lord. No such assersions can
be found anywhere in the New Testament - Keith Hunt)
No Easter-Sunday in the New Testament.
The Pope's claim that the celebration of Christ's
Resurrection on a weekly Sunday and annual Easter-Sunday "evolved
from the early years after the Lord's Resurrection" 39 cannot be
substantiated Biblically or historically. There is nearly
unanimous scholarly consensus that for at least a century after
Jesus' death, Passover was observed not on Easter-Sunday, as a
celebration of the Resurrection, but on the date of Nisan 14
(irrespective of the day of the week) as a celebration of the
sufferings, atoning sacrifice, and Resurrection of Christ.
The repudiation of the Jewish reckoning of Passover and the
adoption of Easter-Sunday instead is a post-apostolic development
which is attributed, as Joachim Jeremias puts it, "to the
inclination to break away from Judaism" 40 and to avoid, as J. B.
Lightfoot explains, "even the semblance of Judaism." 41
The introduction and promotion of Easter-Sunday by the
Church of Rome in the second century caused the well-known
Passover (Quartodeciman) controversy which eventually led Bishop
Victor of Rome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (c. A.D.
191) for refusing to adopt Easter-Sunday. 42 Indications such as
these suffice to show that Christ's Resurrection was not
celebrated on a weekly Sunday and annual Easter-Sunday from the
inception of Christianity. The social, political, and religious
factors that contributed to the change from Sabbath to Sunday and
Passover to Easter-Sunday are discussed at great length in my
dissertation.
(Once more this is clearly what "Church history" records and
teaches. It also records there was opposition to Sunday and
Easter-Sunday; for a few hundred years the Christian world was
divided over Sabbath/Sunday and Passover/Easter. As the church of
Rome grew and finally became the "state religion" under
Constantine about 313 A.D. there were much fewer Christians
observing the 7th day Sabbath and Passover, but there always
remained some who did, just as it is so today.
We also have as recorded in Church history, the fact that Polycarp and later Polycrates of Asia Minor went to Rome to debate the issue with the leader of the Roman church about Passover or Easter. Neither of them could persuade the bishop of Rome to give up Easter and observe Passover. Keith Hunt)
Evaluation of the Appearances.
John Paul attaches particular significance to the
appearances of the Risen Lord on the first day of the week to
"the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Luke 24:13-35) and to the
eleven Apostles gathered together (cf. Luke 24:36-49; John
20:19)." 43 The fact that He also appeared to the disciples the
following Sunday ("eight days later" - John 20:26) to make
Himself known to Thomas, and that He fulfilled the promise of
outpouring the Holy Spirit on a Sunday (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5)
is seen as the beginning of a consistent pattern of Sunday
observance. 44
The appearances of Christ do not follow any consistent
pattern. The mention of Christ's appearance "eight days later"
(John 20:26), supposedly the Sunday following His Resurrection,
can hardly suggest a regular pattern of Sunday observance since
John himself explains its reason, namely, the absence of Thomas
at the previous appearance (John 20:24). Moreover, on this
occasion, John makes no reference to any cultic meal but simply
to Christ's tangible demonstration to Thomas of the reality of
his bodily Resurrection (John 20:26-29). The fact that "eight
days later" the disciples were again gathered together is not
surprising, since we are told that before Pentecost "they were
staying" (Acts 1:13) together in the upper room and there they
met daily for mutual edification (Acts 1:14; 2:1).
No consistent pattern can be derived from Christ's
appearances to justify the institution of a recurring eucharistic
celebration on Sunday. The Lord appeared to individuals and to
groups not only on Sunday but at different 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 the disciples were gathered within shut doors for
fear of the Jews (John 20:19,26), traveling on the Emmaus road
(Luke 24:13-35), or fishing on the lake of Galilee (John
21:1-14).
Only with 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 ordinary meal around an
ordinary table to which Jesus was invited. Christ accepted the
hospitality of the two disciples and sat "at the table with them"
(Luke 24:30). According to prevailing custom, the Lord "took the
bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke
24:30). This act, as explained by J.Behm, was "simply a customary
and necessary part of the preparation for eating together." 45
The Witness of Matthew and Mark. Another notable point is 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
observes, "the appearance 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
appearance at this late date was on Sunday it would be scarcely
possible to account for the observance of Sunday in such an
accidental way." 46
While it may be difficult to explain the discrepancies in
the Gospels' narratives, the fact remains that both Matthew and
Mark make no reference to any meal or meeting of Christ with his
disciples on Easter Sunday. This implies that no particular
importance was attributed to the meal Christ shared with his
disciples on the Sunday night of his Resurrection.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude
that Christ's appearances served to reassure the disheartened
disciples of the reality of Christ's Resurrection, but they could
hardly have set the pattern for 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 - John 21:13), not to
institute a eucharistic Sunday worship but to demonstrate the
reality of his bodily Resurrection.
(As a child reading my Bible from the age of 7, reading the
Gospels many numbers of time during my childhood and teens,
attending on a very regular basis "Sunday school" - I never came
close to associating the appearances of Christ after His
resurrection, to teach us the sanctification of Sunday. This is
how the mind of a child would read the Gospels and first chapter
of Acts, if fed no preconceived ideas of theology - Keith Hunt)
(2) The Day of the Sun and the Creation of Light
John Paul maintains that "the Old Testament vision of the
Sabbath" inspired the earliest Christians to link the
Resurrection with the first day of creation. He writes:
"Christian thought spontaneously linked the Resurrection,
which took place on 'the first day of the week,' with the
first day of that cosmic week (cf. Gen. 1:1-2:4) which
shapes the creation story of the Book of Genesis: the day of
the creation of light (cf. 1:3-5)." 47
The linkage between the Resurrection and the creation of
light was not as "spontaneously" inspired by "the Old Testament
vision of the Sabbath," as the Pope suggests. In my dissertation
"From Sabbath to Sunday," I submit compelling documents
indicating that such linkage was inspired by the necessity which
arose in the post-apostolic period to justify the abandonment of
the Sabbath and the adoption of the Day of the Sun.
Hadrianic Anti-Sabbath Legislation.
This development began during the reign of the Emperor
Hadrian (A.D.117-138) as a result of the repressive anti-Judaic
legislation. In A.D.135, Hadrian promulgated a legislation that
categorically prohibited the practice of Judaism, in general, and
of Sabbathkeeping, in particular. The aim of this legislation was
to liquidate Judaism as a religion at a time when the Jews where
experiencing resurgent Messianic expectations that exploded in
violent uprisings in various parts of the empire, especially
Palestine. 48
To avoid the repressive anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath
legislation, most Christians adopted the Day of the Sun as their
new day of worship. This enabled them to show the Roman
authorities their differentiations from the Jews and their
identification and integration with the customs and cycles of the
Roman empire.
To develop a theological justification for worshipping on
the Day of the Sun, Christians appealed to God's creation of
light on the first day and to the Resurrection of Christ as the
Sun of Justice, since both events coincided with the Day of the
Sun. The latter was connected to the first day of the
creation-week, because the creation of light on the first day
provided what appeared to many a providential biblical
justification for observing the Day of the Sun, the generator of
light.
Sunday and the Creation of Light.
The earliest example of this linkage is found in Justin
Martyr's "Apology," addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius
(about A.D.150). Justin writes: "Sunday (dies solis) is the day
on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first
day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and
matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same
day rose from the dead." 49 Christians, as Cardinal J.Danielou
points out, noticed early the coincidence between the creation of
light on the first day and the veneration of the Sun which took
place on the selfsame day. 50
Jerome (A.D.342-420) makes the connection very explicit when
he says: "If it is called the 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 appeared and on this day the Sun of
Justice has risen." 51
These considerations suggest that Christians did not
spontaneously come to view the day of Christ's Resurrection as
the fulfillment of the creative and redemptive accomplishments
celebrated by the seventh day Sabbath. The linkage to the
creation week was made primarily by virtue of the fact that the
creation of the light on the first day provided what to many
Christians appeared to be a "biblical" justification for
observing the Day of the Sun.
Evangelistic Considerations.
The christianization of the Day of the Sun was apparently
designed also to facilitate the acceptance of Christianity by
pagans who worshipped the Sun-god, especially on his day of the
Sun. For them to adopt the Day of the Sun as their Christian day
of worship was not a problem since that day already had special
religious significance in their pagan religion.
It is noteworthy that the growing popularity of Sun worship
led to the advancement of the Day of the Sun from the position of
second day of the week (following Saturn-day), to that of first
and most important day of the week. The historical sources
available indicate that this development occurred in the early
part of the second century - that is, at the very time when
Christians adopted the Day of the Sun for their weekly worship.
52
John Paul acknowledges the evangelistic intent of the
adoption of the "day of the Sun." He writes: "Wise pastoral
intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the
notion of Sunday as 'the day of the Sun,' which was the Roman
name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.
This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of
cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of
the day to Christ, humanity's true 'sun.'" 53
Unfortunately, this strategy backfired because Christians
were often tempted to revert to the popular veneration of the Sun
and other planetary gods. For example, Philaster, Bishop of
Brescia (died 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"
54
In a document attributed to Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop of
Avila (ca. A.D.340-385), anathema is pronounced against those
Christians who "in their sacred ceremonies, venerate and
acknowledge as gods the Sun, Moon ... and all the heavenly host,
which are detestable idols worthy of the Gehenna." 55
The adoption and christianization of the day of the sun,
instead of the biblical Sabbath, has not proven to be a "wise
pastoral intuition" since it has tempted Christians in the past
to revert to pagan worship, and it is tempting Christians today
to treat Sunday as a pagan holiday rather than as a Biblical Holy
Day.
Was Sunday Needed?
At this juncture I would like to pose respectfully to Pope
John Paul some important questions: If the Sabbath had been
divinely established to commemorate God's creative and re-
demptive accomplishments on behalf of His people, what right had
the Catholic Church to make Sunday the legitimate "fulfillment,"
"full expression," and "extension" of the Sabbath? Was the
theology and typology of the Sabbath no longer adequate after the
Cross to commemorate creation and redemption? Was not the Paschal
Mystery fulfilled through the death, burial, and Resurrection of
Christ which occurred respectively on Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday?
(Here Bacchiocchi is wrong! The death of Christ was a Wednesday
afternoon and he was put in the grave Wednesday evening. He arose
from the dead Saturday evening - three days and three nights
later just as he said He would - Mat.12:40. All explained in my other studies.
Keith Hunt)
Why should Sunday be chosen to celebrate the atoning
sacrifice of Christ when His redemptive mission was completed on
a Friday afternoon when the Savior exclaimed "It is finished"
(John 19:30), and then He rested in the tomb according to the
Sabbath commandment? Does not this fact suggest that both God's
creation rest and Christ's redemption rest in the tomb occurred
on the Sabbath? How can Sunday be invested with the
eschatological meaning of the final restoration rest that awaits
the people of God when the New Testament attaches such a meaning
to the Sabbath? "A Sabbath rest [literally, a 'Sabbathkeeping']
has been left behind [apoleipetai] for the people of God" (Heb
4:9). Augustine himself recognizes the eschatological meaning of
the Sabbath when he eloquently says that on that final Sabbath
"we shall rest and see, see and love, love and praise." 56
May I respectfully suggest that the Pope's attempt to invest
Sunday with the theological meaning and eschatological function
of the Sabbath by virtue of Christ's Resurrection on the first
day is well-meaning but misguided. It mistakenly makes Sunday the
biblical Sabbath, when in reality the two days differ radically
in their origin, meaning, authority, and experience.
(Jesus did rest in the grave on the Sabbath. He was resurrected
after sunset on what we would call Saturday evening. It was as
all early Christians knew, a first day resurrection. Christ in
typology was the first fruits from the dead, the first to be
raised from the dead to immortal glory. The cutting of the wave-
sheaf [Sadducee teaching] was correctly done by the Sadducees on
Saturday evening after sunset, and the counting to Pentecost
started from the first day of the week, for 49 days or seven
weekly Sabbaths, to the 50th day, or the morrow after the seventh
Sabbath, which would then always be on a Sunday. Jesus was the
first of the firstfruits, a first day resurrection. We Christians
are the firstfruits to God the Father, pictured by the Feast of
firstfruits Pentecost. All this typology is expounded upon in
various of my studies on this Website - Keith Hunt)
(3) The Religious Gatherings on the First Day of the Week
In his Pastoral Letter, Pope John Paul traces the origin of
Sunday worship back to the Apostolic church. He claims that from
Apostolic times the first day of the week shaped the religious
life of Christ's disciples. 57 To support this claim, the Pope
appeals to three commonly used texts: (1) 1 Corinthians 16:2, (2)
Acts 20:7-12, and (3) Revelation 1:10. Each of these passages are
examined at great length in my dissertation. 58 In this context
I limit myself to a few basic observations.
1 Corinthians 16:2: Christian Sunday Gatherings?
The firstday fund-rasing plan recommended by Paul in 1
Corinthians 16:1-3 is cited by John Paul as an indication that
"from Apostolic times, 'the first day after the Sabbath,' the
first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life
for Christ's disciples (cf. 1 Cor. 16:2)." 59 The Pope affirms
that "ever since Apostolic times, the Sunday gathering has in
fact been for Christians a moment of fraternal sharing with the
poor. 'On the first day of the week, each of you is to put aside
and save whatever extra you earn' (1 Cor. 16:2), says Saint Paul
in referring to the collection organized for the poor churches of
Judaea." 60
John Paul sees in the first-day fund-raising plan
recommended by Paul in this text a clear indication that the
Christian Church gathered for worship on that day. This view is
shared by numerous Catholic and Protestant scholars. 61 For
example, Corrado Mosna argues that since Paul designates the
"offering" in 2 Corinthians 9:12 as "service-leiturgia," the
collection [of 1 Corinthians 16:2] must have been linked with the
Sunday worship service of the Christian assembly." 62
The various attempts to extrapolate from Paul's fund-raising
plan a regular pattern of Sunday observance reveal inventiveness
and originality, but they rest on construed arguments and not on
the actual information the text provides.
Observe, first of all, that there is nothing in the text to
suggests public assemblies inasmuch as the setting aside of funds
was to be done "by himself--par'heauto." The phrase suggests that
the collection was to be done individually and in private.
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?
(It is a mighty big leap to read into this fund-raising as
teaching a "regular" Sunday worship practice, and especially any
teaching to show Sunday was now a "holy day" in-place-of the 4th
commandment Sabbath. People who jump to this conclusion are
indeed doing what many Bible sceptics have claimed: "You can make
the Bible say anything you want it to say" - Keith Hunt)
Purpose of the Fund-raising Plan.
The purpose of the first-day fund-raising plan is clearly
stated by the Apostle: "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
necessary 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 desired to avoid
embarrassing both to the givers and to the collectors when
finding that they "were not ready" (2 Cor. 9:4) for the
offering. To avoid such problems in this instance, he recommends
both a time - the first day of the week - and a place - one's
home.
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 practices, since by then one finds
empty pockets and empty hands. On the other hand, if, on the
first day of the week before planning any expenditures, believers
set aside what they plan to give, the remaining funds will be so
distributed as to meet all the basic necessities. The text,
therefore, proposes a valuable weekly plan to ensure a
substantial and orderly contribution on behalf of the poor
brethren of Jerusalem - to extract more meaning from the text
would distort it.
(Would for sure distort it, but would also be making the Bible
say anything you desire it to say, and that is one very good
reason you have all the "denominations" in Christendom that we
have - Keith Hunt)
Acts 20:7-11: First-Day Troas Meeting.
Fundamental importance is attributed to Acts 20:7-11
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). John Paul assumes that the
meeting was a customary Sunday assembly "upon which the faithful
of Troas were gathered 'for the breaking of the bread [that is,
the Eucharistic celebration]." 63
Numerous scholars share the Pope's view. F.F.Bruce, for
example, affirms that this statement "is the earliest unambiguous
evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together
for worship on that day." 64 Paul Jewett similarly declares that
"here is the earliest clear witness to Christian assembly for
purposes of worship on the first day of the week." 65 Statements
like these could be multiplied.
These categorical conclusions rest mostly on the assumption
that verse 7 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. 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, we need to ask: Was the time and nature of the
Troas gathering ordinary or extraordinary, occasioned perhaps by
the departure of the Apostle?
Special Farewell Gathering.
The context clearly indicates that it was a special farewell
gathering occasioned by the departure of Paul, and not a regular
Sunday-worship custom. The meeting began on the evening of the
first day, which, according to Jewish reckoning, was our Saturday
night, and continued until early Sunday morning when Paul
departed.
Being a night meeting occasioned by the departure of the
Apostle at dawn, it is hardly reflective of regular Sundaykeeping.
Paul would have observed with the believers only the night
of Sunday and traveled during the day time. This was not allowed
on the Sabbath and would not have set the best example of
Sundaykeeping either. The passage suggests, 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 (verse 12) at dawn on the 'first day' the
Sabbath having ended at sunset." 66
If Roman time was being used, the meeting was then Sunday evening— Keith Hunt
The Breaking of the Bread.
The expression "to break bread--klasai arton" deserves
closer attention. What does it actually mean in the context of
the passage? Does it mean that 'the Christians came together for
a fellowship meal or to celebrate the Lord's Supper? It should be
noted that the breaking of bread was simply a customary and
necessary part of the preparation for eating together. The act of
breaking in pieces a loaf of bread by the host marked the opening
action of a meal. In most European cultures, the same function is
fulfilled by the host wishing "Buon appetito--Good Appetite" to
the guest. This ritual gives permission to all to begin eating.
In the post-apostolic literature, the expression "breaking
of bread" is used as a technical designation for the Lord's
Supper. But this is not the common 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.
Nine times it refers to Christ's act of breaking bread when
feeding the multitude, when partaking of the Last Supper, and
when eating with His disciples after His Resurrection (Matt
14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Mark 8:6; 9:19; 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30;
24:35); twice it describes Paul's commencing and partaking of a
meal (Acts 20:11; 27:35); twice it describes the actual breaking
of the bread of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24); and
twice it is used as a general reference to the disciples' or
believers' "breaking bread" together (Acts 2:46; 20:7).
It should be noticed that in none of these instances is the
Lord's Supper explicitly or technically designated as "the
breaking of bread." An attempt could be made to see a reference
to the Lord's Supper in the two general references of Acts 2:46
and 20:7. 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 favor with all the people" (Acts
2:46-47).
Such daily table-fellowship, though it may have included the
celebrations of the Lord's Supper, can hardly be construed as
exclusive liturgical celebrations of the Lord's Supper. The
equivalent statement found in Acts 20:7, "We were gathered
together to break bread," similarly needs mean no more than "We
were gathered to eat together." In fact, there is no mention of a
cup, nor of any prayers or reading of a Scripture. It is Paul
alone who broke bread and ate. No indication is given that he
ever blessed the bread or the wine or that he distributed 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
hunger by eating at home before gathering to celebrate the Lord's
Supper (1 Cor. 11:2,22,34).
The New Testament does not offer any indication regarding a
fixed day for the celebration of the Lord's Supper. While Paul
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 times and days.
The simplest way to explain the passage is that Luke
mentions the day of the meeting not because it was Sunday, but
most likely because (1) Paul was "ready to depart" (Acts 20:7),
(2) the extraordinary miracle of Eutychus occurred that night,
and (3) the time reference provides an additional, significant,
chonological reference to describe the unfolding of Paul's
journey.
(Again, a mighty leap of imagination is needed to read into the
"break bread" passages, to infer a teaching of a regular Lord's
supper celebration on a now sanctified new Christian holy day,
that of Sunday sacredness. I had read those passages many times
as a boy and young man, and never once thought they taught
anything to do with any "sacred" day of any kind - Keith Hunt)
Revelation 1:10: "The Lord's Day."
The third crucial New Testament passage used by John Paul 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 to
kuriake hemera" (Rev 1:10).
John Paul claims that this text "gives evidence of the
practice of calling the first day of the week 'the Lord's Day'
(Rev. 1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing
Christians from the world around them ... And when Christians
spoke of the 'Lord's Day,' they did so giving to this term the
full sense of the Easter proclamation: 'Jesus Christ is Lord'
(Phil. 2:11; cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor. 12:3)." 67
The implication of the Pope's statement is that New
Testament Christians not only called Sunday "The Lord's Day" but
also expressed through such designation their faith in their
Risen Savior. Numerous scholars share the same view. For example,
Corrado Mosna emphatically writes: "By the phrase 'Lord's Day'
(Rev. 1:10), John wishes to indicate specifically the day in
which the community celebrates together the eucharistic liturgy."
68 he phrase "eucharistic liturgy" is used by Catholics to
describe the Lord's Supper celebration in honor of the Risen
Lord.
A detailed analysis of this text would take us beyond the
limited scope of this chapter. In my dissertation "From Sabbath
to Sunday" I devoted twenty pages (pp.111 to 131) to an
examination of this verse. For the purpose of this chapter, I
submit only two basic observations.
First, the equation of Sunday with the expression "Lord's
day" is not based on internal evidences of the book of Revelation
or of the rest of the New Testament, but on three second-century
patristic testimonies, namely, "Didache" 14:1, Ignatius' "Epistle
to the Magnesians" 9:1, and "The Gospel of Peter" 35; 50. Of the
three, however, only in the "Gospel of Peter," written toward the
end of the second century, 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).
It is noteworthy that while in the genuine Gospels Mary
Magdalene and the other women went to the sepulchre "early on the
first day of the week" (Mark 16:2; cf. Matt 28:1; Luke 24:1; John
20:1), in the apocryphal "Gospel of Peter" it says that they went
"early in the morning of the Lord's day." The use of the new
designation "Lord's Day" instead of "first day of the week"
clearly indicates that by the end of the second century
Christians referred to Sunday as "the Lord's Day."
The latter usage, however, cannot be legitimately read back
into Revelation 1:10. A major reason is that if Sunday had
already received the new appellation "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 the new designation "Lord's day" already existed by the
end of the first century, and expressed the meaning and nature of
Christian Sunday worship, John would not have had reasons to use
the Jewish phrase "first day of the week" in his Gospel.
Therefore, the fact that the expression "Lord's day" occurs
in John's apocalyptic book but not in his Gospel where the first
day is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the Resurrection
(John 20:1) and the appearances of Jesus (John 20:19,26) suggests
that the "Lord's day" of Revelation 1:10 can hardly refer to
Sunday.
No Easter Sunday.
A second important consideration that discredits the Pope's
claim that Sunday was called "Lord's Day" in the "sense of the
Easter proclamation" is the fact that the book of Revelation is
addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor who did not observe
Easter-Sunday. Instead, they observed Passover by the biblical
date of Nisan 14. Polycrates, who claims to be following the
tradition of the Apostle John, convened a council of the church
leaders of Asia Minor (about A.D.191) to discuss the summon
received from Bishop Victor of Rome to adopt Easter-Sunday. The
unanimous decision of the Asian bishops was to reject
Easter-Sunday and to retain the Biblical dating of Passover. 69
In the light of these facts, it would be paradoxical if the
Apostle John, who kept Passover by the fixed date of Nisan 14 and
who wrote to Christians in Asia Minor who like him did not
observe Easter-Sunday, would have used the phrase "Lord's Day" to
express his Easter faith in the Risen Lord. Cardinal Jean
Danielou, a respected Catholic scholar, timidly acknowledges this
fact when he writes: "In the Apocalypse (1:10), when Easter takes
place on the 14 Nisan, the word [Lord's Day] does not perhaps
mean Sunday." 70
The only day that John knew as the "Lord's Day" by the end
of the first century when he wrote the book of Revelation is the
Sabbath. This is the only day of which Christ proclaims Himself
to be "Lord--kupios." "For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath"
(Matt. 12:8).
The immediate context that precedes and follows Revelation
1:10 contains unmistakable references to the eschatological day
of the Lord. This suggests the possibility that the "Lord's Day"
on which John was transported in vision was a Sabbath day in
which he saw the great day of Christ's coming. What greater
vision could have given courage to the aged Apostle in exile for
his witness to Christ! Moreover, the Sabbath is closely linked
eschatologically to the Second Advent. The meeting of the
invisible Lord in time on the weekly Sabbath is a prelude to the
meeting of the visible Lord in space on the final day of His
coming.
(As Bacchiocchi elsewhere writes, the meaning of "the Lord's day"
in the book of Revelation, a prophetic book, is in tune with the
Old Testament prophets when they used the phrase "Lord's day" as
the prophetic time of the end of the age and the time when God
steps in to save the world from itself; the time of mighty
tribulation and miracles and prophetic events, that leads up to
the end of the age and the coming of Christ in visible power and
glory, to establish the Kingdom of God on the earth. Most of the
book of Revelation is the prophecy of the time of the wrath of
God's punishment and intervention on the nations of the earth.
John sees in vision this period of the end time, or the "day of
the Lord." The phrase as used by John has nothing to do with ANY
day of the week - Keith Hunt)
Summing up, the attempt of the Pastoral Letter to find
biblical support for Sunday worship in the New Testament
references to the Resurrection (Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John
20:1) - the first-day farewell night meeting at Troas (Acts
20:7-11), the first-day private deposit plan mentioned by Paul in
1 Corinthians 16:1-3, and the reference to the "Lord's Day" in
Revelation 1:10 - is not new. The same arguments have been used
repeatedly in the past and found wanting.
An important fact, often ignored, is that if Paul or any
other apostle had attempted to promote the abandonment of the
Sabbath (a millenarian institution deeply rooted in the religious
consciousness of God's people), and the adoption instead of
Sunday observance, they would have stirred up considerable
opposition on the part of Jewish-Christians, as was the case with
reference to the circumcision.
The absence of any echo of Sabbath/Sunday controversy in the
New Testament is a most telling evidence that the introduction of
Sunday observance is a post-apostolic phenomenon. In my
dissertation "From Sabbath to Sunday," I endeavored to identify
the interplay of social, political, and religious factors that
contributed to this historical change. In the light of these
considerations, the attempt of Pope John Paul to give a biblical
sanction to Sunday worship by tracing its origins to the
Apostolic Church must be viewed as well-meaning but devoid of
biblical support.
(INDEED, ANY CHANGE FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY IN APOSTOLIC TIMES
WOULD HAVE CAUSED A JERUSALEM MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE, LIKE WE
FIND ON THE SUBJECT OF CIRCUMCISION IN ACTS 15. SUCH A CHANGE IN
SUCH A LONG AND IMPORTANT ESTABLISHMENT AND PRACTICE OF 7TH DAY
SABBATHKEEPING WOULD HAVE ROCKED THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS, TO
THE POINT WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT IT IN NO UNCERTAIN
TERMS. NO SUCH WORD BEING THERE ABOUT SUCH A CHANGE CAN ONLY MEAN
ONE THING: THE 7TH DAY SABBATH WAS STILL THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT
AND THERE WAS NO CHANGING IN ITS WORDING; IT STILL REMAINED IN
FULL TACK - FULL DRESS - AND FULLY ESTABLISHED HAS IT HAD BEEN
FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GENESIS 1 AND 2 - Keith
Hunt)
PART 3 POPE JOHN PAUL'S CALL FOR SUNDAY LEGISLATION
In his Pastoral Letter Dies Domini, Pope John Paul devotes
one of the five chapters (chapter 4) to emphasize the obligation
of Sunday observance and the legislation needed to facilitate
compliance with such obligation. The Pope's call for civil
legislation to facilitate Sunday observance stems from three
major considerations which we need to briefly consider:
...................
To be continued
The SABBATH under Crossfire #3The Pope's Position on Sundaykeeping THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE #3
Continued from previous page
(1) The moral obligation of Sunday observance
(2) The ecclesiastical enforcement of Sunday observance
(3) The call for civil Sunday legislation
(1) The Moral Obligation of Sunday Observance
For the Pope, Sunday observance is not an option but a moral
obligation which is well-defined both in the Catholic Catechism
and the Catholic Canon Law. We have seen that John Paul roots
such an obligation in the Sabbath commandment itself, because he
believes that Sunday is "inscribed" in the Decalogue and is the
fulfillment and full expression of the Sabbath. This means that
Sunday must be observed according to the directives of the
Sabbath commandment.
John Paul writes: "It is the duty of Christians, therefore,
to remember that, although the practices of the Jewish Sabbath
are gone, surpassed as they are by the 'fulfillment' which Sunday
brings, the underlying reasons for keeping 'the Lord's Day' holy
- inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments - remain valid,
though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology
and spirituality of Sunday." 71 The Pope continues quoting the
Deuteronomic version of the Sabbath commandment (Deut. 5:12-15).
The moral obligation to observe Sunday for the Pope is "inscribed
solemnly in the Ten Commandments" because, "more than a
'replacement' of the Sabbath, Sunday is its fulfillment, and in a
certain sense its extension and full expression in the ordered
unfolding of the history of salvation." 72 "From this
perspective," John Paul continues, "the biblical theology of the
'Sabbath' can be recovered in full, without compromising the
Christian character of Sunday." 73
Evaluation.
The Pope's attempt to ground the moral obligation of Sunday
observance in the Sabbath commandment is very ingenious, but, as
shown earlier, it lacks biblical and historical support. From a
biblical perspective, there are no indications in the New
Testament that Sunday was ever viewed as the "extension and full
expression" of the Sabbath. Similarly, from a historical
perspective, the Fathers emphasize the difference and not the
continuity between Sabbath and Sunday.
The three major theological meanings of Sunday which I found
in the writings of the Fathers are as follows: (1) the
commemoration of the anniversary of creation, especially the
creation of light on the first day which was suggested by its
analogy to the Day of the Sun; (2) the commemoration of Christ's
Resurrection which eventually emerged as the fundamental reason
for Sundaykeeping; and (3) the cosmic and eschatological
speculations about the significance of the eighth day. An
extensive discussion of these theological reasons is found in
chapter 9 of my dissertation "From Sabbath to Sunday"
Speculations about the eighth day abound in the Patristic
literature because they served to prove the superiority of Sunday
- as the eighth day, symbol of the eternal world - in contrast to
the Sabbath, as the seventh day, symbol of the terrestial
millennium. These speculations were repudiated in the fourth
century when the necessity to prove the superiority of Sunday
over the Sabbath subsided." 74
A careful study of early Christian literature suggests that
Sunday arose, not as "the extension" of the Sabbath, but as its
replacement. The necessity which arose to separate from the Jews
and their Sabbath influenced Gentile Christians to adopt 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.
The adoption of the Day of the Sun provoked a controversy
with those who maintained the continuity and inviolability of the
Sabbath. To silence such opposition, the symbolism of the first
and eighth day were introduced and widely used by the Fathers,
since they provided seemingly valuable apologetic arguments to
defend the 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, and supplantation of the Sabbath, both temporally
and eschatologically. 75
The polemic nature of the theological arguments developed by
the Fathers to justify Sunday observance do not support the claim
of the Pastoral Letter that Sunday was seen by the primitive
Church as "the extension and full expression" of the Sabbath. The
historical reality is that the Fathers emphasized the distinction
between Sabbath and Sunday by making the Sabbath a Jewish
institution terminated by Christ.
In the light of these considerations, the Pope's attempt to
ground the moral obligation of Sunday observance on the Sabbath
commandment must be viewed as a well-meaning but misinformed
endeavor, because theologically, historically, and existentially,
Sunday has never been the Sabbath.
(2) The Ecclesiastical Enforcement of Sunday Observance
In his Pastoral Letter, Pope John Paul emphasizes not only
the moral obligation of Sunday observance, but also the
responsibility of the Catholic Church to ensure that her members
respect such an obligation. This concept is foreign to most
Protestants who view going to church on Sunday as a good
practice, but not as a church law. Protestant churches do not
condemn the failure to attend Sunday services as a serious sin.
By contrast, the Catholic Church views the deliberate failure to
attend Sunday Mass as a grave sin.
It is important to understand the Catholic view of the
obligatory nature of attending Sunday Mass in order to comprehend
why the Catholic Church enforces such practice within the church
by means of Canon Law, and why it also urges civil governments to
pass civil Sunday legislation that respects the duty of Catholics
to fulfill their worship obligations. The connection between the
two is discussed below.
Historically, enforcement of Sunday worship within the
Catholic Church began in the fourth century. The protection
provided by the Constantinian Sunday Law (A.D.321) tempted many
Christians to become negligent about attending Sunday Mass.
To remedy this problem, as John Paul explains, "The Church had to
make explicit the duty to attend Sunday Mass: more often than
not, this was done in the form of exhortation, but at times the
Church had to resort to specific canonical precepts. This was the
case in a number of local Councils from the fourth century
onwards (as at the Council of Elvira of 300, which speaks not of
an obligation but of penalties after three absences) and most
especially from the sixth century onwards (as at the Council of
Agde in 506). These decrees of local Councils led to a universal
practice, the obligatory character of which was taken as
something quite normal." 76
The obligation to attend Sunday Mass was eventually made
"into a universal law" in 1917. Such law was incorporated into
the Catholic "Canon Law," that is, the law that governs the
Catholic religious life. The Pope notes that "this legislation
has normally been understood as entailing a grave obligation:
this is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and
it is easy to understand why if we keep in mind how vital Sunday
is for the Christian life." 77
Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is most
emphatic about the obligation to attend Sunday Mass, saying that
"the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass." 78 While
Protestant churches encourage their members to attend Sunday
services, the Catholic Church obliges their members to attend
Sunday Mass. The reason is that for Catholics "The Sunday
Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian
practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate
in the Eucharist on days of obligation .... Those who
deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin." 79
John Paul explains that "because the faithful are obliged to
attend Mass unless there is a grave impediment, Pastors have the
corresponding duty to offer to everyone the real possibility of
fulfilling the [Mass] precept." 80 To meet this need, Catholic
Church law has made provision for the celebration of several
Masses on Sunday as well as special Masses on Saturday evening
for those who cannot make it to church on Sunday. 81
Is the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice?
The fundamental problem with the obligatory nature of Sunday
Mass which the Pope reiterates in his Pastoral Letter is that it
stems not from the Sabbath Commandment nor from the New Testament
teaching regarding the Lord's Supper. It is rather from the
Catholic dogma of transubstantiation which views the Lord's
Supper as a reenactment of Christ's sacrifice.
Pope John Paul clearly states: "The Mass in fact truly makes
present the sacrifice of the Cross. Under the species of the
bread and wine ... Christ offers himself to the Father in the
same act of sacrifice by which He offered Himself on the Cross."
82 This dogmatic teaching is affirmed in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church: "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of
the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The victim is one and the
same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who
then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of the
offering is different. In the divine sacrifice which is
celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once
in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is
offered in an unbloody manner." 83
It is this view of the Mass as a re-enactment of Christ's
atoning sacrifice before God and on behalf of the faithful that
makes attendance to the Sunday Mass "a grave obligation." By
participating in the Mass, Catholics are promised the immediate
benefits of Christ's sacrifice which is re-enacted on their
behalf before their eyes. 84
Sacrifices and the Sabbath Commandment.
This sacrificial and sacramental view of the Lord's Supper
is foreign to the New Testament and to the intent of the Sabbath
commandment. In ancient Israel sacrificial offerings took place
at the Temple on the Sabbath (Num. 28:9-10), but Sabbath
observance did not entail participating in the sacrificial
rituals of the Tabernacle or of the Temple.
Pope John Paul and the Catholic dogma ignore that the
essence of the Sabbath commandment is not participating in a
sacrificial liturgy but is consecrating the Sabbath time to God.
The Sabbath commandment invites us to offer to God not
sacrifices, but our time, which for many is the most precious
commodity to sacrifice. By giving priority to God in our thinking
and living on the Sabbath, we show in a tangible way that God
really counts in our lives.
Jesus or His followers did not go to the Temple on the
Sabbath to watch the priestly sacrificial liturgy. Instead, they
went to the synagogue to participate in the study of Scripture,
to pray, and to sing praises to God.
By making the Eucharistic (Lord's Supper) celebration the
core of Sunday observance, the Catholic Church has facilitated
the secularization of Sunday. The reason is that many sincere
Catholics believe that once they have fulfilled "the Mass
precept," they are free to spend the rest of their Sunday time as
they wish. For the Pope to reverse this trend at this time is a
monumental task, especially since people today want holidays
rather than Holy Days.
The Nature and Time of the Lord's Supper.
The Catholic "sacrificial" view of the Lord's Supper as a
re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice is foreign to the teaching of
the New Testament. There is no need to repeat Christ's atoning
sacrifice because "he always lives to make intercession" for us
(Heb. 7:25). "Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with
hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to
appear in the presence of God on our behalf (Heb. 9:24). Hebrews
continues noting that Christ does not need "to offer himself
repeatedly" (Heb. 9:25), as the Catholic Mass attempts to do,
because He has "offered [Himself] once to bear the sins of many"
(Heb. 9:28).
Paul understood the Lord's Supper to be a "proclamation,"
not a re-enactment of Christ's death. "For as often as you eat
this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until
he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). The verb "proclaim--katangellein" is
used in the New Testament for heralding the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:14)
and for making known one's faith (Rom. 1:8). This suggests that
the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the
Gospel directed manward, not are-enactment of Christ's sacrifice
directed Godward, as taught by the Catholic church.
The Pope's contention that "the Eucharist is the heart of
Sunday" 85 cannot be supported by the witness of the New
Testament. Paul, who claims to transmit what he "received from
the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:23) regarding the Lord's Supper, nowhere
suggests that it should be celebrated on Sunday as the core of
the Sunday worship. 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 times and days.
If the Lord's Supper was indeed celebrated on Sunday, Paul
could hardly have failed to mention it at least once, since four
times he refers to the coming together for its celebration.
Furthermore, if Sunday was already regarded as the "Lord's day,"
Paul could have strengthened his plea for a more worshipful
attitude during the partaking of the Lord's Supper by reminding
the Corinthians of the sacred nature of the Lord's Day in which
they met. 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, which in
the same epistle he calls by the Jewish designation "first day of
the week" (1 Cor. 16:2).
The preceding observations have served to highlight three
major flaws in the arguments of the Pastoral Letter regarding the
enforcement of Sunday worship.
First, John Paul wants to ground Sunday observance in the
Sabbath commandment in spite of the fact that the essence of
Sabbathkeeping is not participation in sacrificial rituals but
the consecration of time to God.
Second, John Paul contends that the Eucharistic (Lord's
Supper) celebration is the heart of Sunday worship in spite of
the fact that the Lord's Supper was not associated with Sunday or
Sabbath worship in the Apostolic Church.
Third, John Paul maintains that the Lord's Supper is a
sacrifice in which Christ offers Himself anew to the Father on
behalf of the faithful in spite of the fact that the New
Testament describes it as a "proclamation," not a re-enactment of
Christ's death.
What this means is that the authority of the Catholic Church
to enforce the obligation to attend Sunday Mass derives not from
biblical precepts or examples but from ecclesiastical traditions.
The questionable and inconsistent nature of church traditions
hardly provides compelling moral reasons for persuading
Christians today to observe Sunday as the biblical Holy Sabbath
Day.
(3) The Call for Civil Sunday Legislation
In his Pastoral Letter, Pope John Paul call upon Christians
to "strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty
to keep Sunday holy." 86 Such a call stems from the belief that
participation in the Sunday Mass is not an option, but a grave
obligation that can only be freely fulfilled if the State
guarantees to all the right to rest on Sunday.
Importance of Civil Sunday Legislation.
John Paul rightly notes that prior to the Sunday Law
promulgated by Constantine in A.D.321, Sunday observance was not
protected by civil legislation. 87 This meant that "Christians
observed Sunday simply as a day of worship, without being able to
give it the specific meaning of Sabbath rest." 88 In many cases,
Christians would attend an early Sunday morning service and then
spend the rest of the day working at their various occupations.
The Constantinian Sunday Law changed the situation dramatically.
As the Pope points out, "Christians rejoiced to see thus removed
the obstacles which until then had sometimes made the observance
of the Lord's Day heroic." 89 What Constantine did in making
Sunday a legal holiday for the empire was not "a mere historical
circumstance with no special significance for the church," but a
providential intervention that made it possible for Christians to
observe Sunday "without hinderance." 9o
To highlight the importance of civil legislation that
guarantees Sunday rest, the Pope points to the fact that "even
after the fall of the Empire, the Councils did not cease to
insist upon arrangements [civil legislation] regarding Sunday
rest." 91 In the light of the fact that in the past most
countries have maintained Sunday laws to permit Christians to
observe Sunday, the Pope call for civil legislation that respects
the Christian "duty to keep Sunday holy." 92
To emphasize the need for civil legislation that guarantees
Sunday rest, the Pope points to the "Encyclical Rerum Novarum"
(1891) where Pope Leo XII speaks of "Sunday rest as a worker's
right which the State must guarantee." 93 The Pontiff notes that
Sunday legislation is especially needed today, in view of the
physical, social, and ecological problems created by
technological and industrial advancements. "Therefore," the
Pope concludes, "in the particular circumstances of our time,
Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation
respects their duty to keep Sunday holy." 94
The same view is explicitly expressed in the new Catechism
of the Catholic Church: "In spite of economic constraints, public
authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and
divine worship ... In respecting religious liberty and the common
good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sunday and the
Church's holy days as legal holidays."" 95 It is evident that
the Catholic Church is committed to ensure that civil legislation
protects their rights to observe Sunday and the holy days.
The Constitutionality of Sunday Laws.
The Pope is well aware that in many countries, like the
United States, there is a separation between Church and State.
This means that if Sunday Laws are perceived to be "advancing
religion," they would be declared to be unconstitutional under
the First Amendment. Thus, the Pope's strategy is to downplay the
religious aspect of Sunday Laws, highlighting instead the social,
cultural, and family values. For example, John Paul says:
"Through Sunday rest, daily concerns and tasks can find
their proper perspectives: the material things about which
we worry give way to spiritual values; in a moment of
encounter and less pressured exchange, we see the face of
the people with whom we live. Even the beauties of nature -
too often marred by the desire to exploit, which turns
against man himself - can be rediscovered and enjoyed to the
full." 96
By emphasizing the human and "secular" benefits and values
of Sunday Laws, John Paul knows that he can gain greater
international acceptance for such legislation. It is worth noting
in this regard the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGowan v.
Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) that upheld Maryland's Sunday
Closing Laws as not violative of the Federal Constitution. The
reason the Court justified the state's interest in protecting a
common day of Sunday rest is that Sunday has become secularized
in the American society. The Court said: "We believe that the air
of the day is one of relaxation rather than religion." 97
The recognition of this reality leads Attorney Michael
Woodruff to write as follows in "Sunday"magazine of the Lord's
Day Alliance: "If we must justify the retention of the Lord's Day
as a secular day of rest, we must find compelling secular grounds
to make it so ... If Courts view Sunday laws as having the direct
effect of 'advancing religion,' then under current First
Amendment doctrine, such laws must be unconstitutional. However,
if the laws are generally applicable and have a religion-neutral
purpose, then the effect is likely to be seen incidental. To this
end, the distinction between religious practice and the form of
laws is important." 98
The Pope is well aware of the need to maintain this
distinction. Thus in his Pastoral Letter, he appeals to the
social and human values that Sunday Laws guarantee and promote.
He writes:
"In our historical context there remains the obligation [of
the state] to ensure that everyone can enjoy the freedom,
rest and relaxation which human dignity requires, together
with the associated religious, family, cultural and
interpersonal needs which are difficult to meet if there is
no guarantee of at least one day a week on which people can
both rest and celebrate." 99
The Influence of the Pastoral Letter.
At this juncture, we may ask: How much influence will the
Pastoral Letter exercise in the international community of
nations in promoting Sunday civil legislation? The answer to this
question largely depends upon the Pope's determination to pursue
the enforcement of Sunday observance inside and outside the
Catholic Church.
At this point, the indications are that John Paul is deeply
committed to bringing about a renewal and revival of Sunday
observance by ensuring that civil legislation facilitates the
obligation to keep Sunday holy. While in Rome last October
(1998), I contacted the "Sala Stampa - the Press Office" of the
Vatican to learn if the Pope has been pursuing further the call
of his Pastoral Letter for a revival of Sundaykeeping. The Office
informed me that there is no doubt that the Pope is serious about
it. One indication is that during the three months following the
release of the Pastoral Letter, in his Sunday address before
reciting the "Angelus," John Paul has consistently appealed to
the faithful "to rediscover the importance of Sunday." 100
The influence of the Holy See on the international community
must not be underestimated. It is reported that when confronted
by Pope Pious XII's opposition, Stalin smirked, "How many
divisions does the Pope have?" If Stalin were to come out of his
grave, he would be shocked to discover that the communist regime
that he established with so much bloodshed has collapsed due, in
no small degree, to the influence of the man who commands no
military divisions.
In evaluating John Paul's role in helping to bring about the
fall of totalitarian regimes, Gorbachev said in 1992: "Everything
that happened in Eastern Europe during these past few years would
have been impossible without the Pope, without the political role
he was able to play.
A major goal of John Paul's global vision is to protect and
defend the rights of the Catholic Church to carry out her mission
unhindered. In a speech entitled "The Vatican's Role in World
Affairs: The Diplomacy of Pope John Paul II," J. Michael Miller,
CSB, President of the University of St.Thomas and former employee
of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See (1992-1997), stated:
"The driving force behind John Paul's diplomatic initiatives is
the defense of human rights, especially religious freedom, which
allows the Church to carry out its mission in peace ... John Paul
does have what we might call an 'agenda' for world affairs which
he works systematically to promote through his preaching, his
speeches to political leaders, his major writings, his endless
globetrotting - which does not avoid trouble spots." 102
The influence of the Pope in the international arena is far
greater than many realize. It is important to clarify that it is
not the Vatican as a State that participates in international
affairs, but the Holy See. The latter is not a territorial State,
but a moral and juridical society, governed by the Pope, and
representative of the Catholic Church in the community of
nations. At present the Holy See maintains full diplomatic
relations with over 160 nations. It receives and sends
ambassadors all over the world.
It has signed formal agreements with sovereign nations. It
participates in dozens of international organizations concerned
with moral, social, humanitarian, and cultural affairs.
The goals of John Paul, as Michael Miller rightly points out,
"are, admittedly, a mixture of the religious and the more
narrowly political. John Paul, however, is not constrained by
American ideas of the separation of church and State, but pursues
what he regards as the common good of all humanity." 103
This mixture of religious and political goals can be
detected in reading the Pastoral Letter where John Paul calls for
Sunday rest as a religious and social necessity. For example, he
writes: "The link between the Lord's Day and the day of rest in
civil society has meaning and importance which go beyond the
distinctly Christian point of view." 104 By calling for a civil
Sunday legislation on the basis of the common good of all
humanity, John Paul can gain considerable support for his agenda
from the international community of nations.
Pluralistic Society.
In evaluating John Paul's call for a Sunday Rest
legislation, one must distinguish between his legitimate concern
for the social, cultural, ecological, and religious well-being of
our society, and the hardship such legislation causes to
minorities who for religious or personal reasons choose to rest
and worship on Saturday or on other days of the week.
To call upon Christians to "strive to ensure that civil
legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy" 105 means
to ignore that we live today in a pluralistic society where there
are, for example, Christians and Jews who observe the seventh-day
Sabbath as their Holy Day, and Moslims who may wish to observe
their Friday.
If Sundaykeepers expect the State to make Sunday a legal
holiday to facilitate their Sunday rest and worship, then
Sabbatarians have an equal right to expect the State to make
Saturday a legal holiday to protect their Sabbath rest and
worship. To be fair to the various religious and nonreligious
groups, the State would then have to pass legislation
guaranteeing special days of rest and worship to different groups
of people. The implementation of such a plan is inconceivable
because it would disrupt our socio-economic structure.
Sunday Laws Not Needed.
Sunday Laws, known as "Blue Laws," are still in the books of
some American States and represent an unpleasant legacy of an
intolerant past. Such laws have proven to be a failure,
especially because their hidden intent was religious, namely, to
foster Sunday observance. People resent any attempt by the State
to force religious practices upon them. This is a fundamental
principle of the First Amendment to the American Constitution,
that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion."
Sunday legislation is superfluous today because the
short-work week, with a long weekend of two or even three days,
already makes it possible for most people to observe their
Sabbath or Sunday. However, problems still do exist, especially
when an employer is unwilling to accommodate the religious
convictions of a worker. The solution to such problems is not to
be sought in Sunday or Saturday Laws, but in such legislation as
the pending "Religious Freedom in the Workplace Act." This bill
is designed to encourage employers to accommodate the religious
convictions of their workers when these do not cause undue
hardship to their company.
The Pope's call for Sunday Rest legislation ignores the fact
that Sunday Laws have not resolved the crisis of diminishing
church attendance. In most European countries, Sunday Laws have
been in effect for many years. On Sunday most of the business
establishments are shut down. Even most gasoline stations are
closed on Sunday - a fact that can be costly to uninformed
American tourists. But, have Sunday Laws facilitated church
attendance? Absolutely not! The truth of the matter is that
church attendance in Western Europe is considerably lower than
that in the United States, running at less than 10% of the
Christian population. In Italy, where I come from, it is
estimated that 95% of the Catholics go to church three times in
their lives, when they are "hatched, matched, and dispatched."
The moral and religious decline in our society is not due to
lack of legislation but to lack of moral convictions to compel
people to live according to the principles God has revealed. The
Church should not seek to solve the crisis of diminishing church
attendance by external legislation but by the internal moral and
spiritual renovation of its members. What many Christians need to
discover today is that Christianity is not a cultural heritage
that entails going to church from time to time but a commitment
to Christ. This commitment is expressed in a special way on the
Sabbath day when we stop our work in order to allow our Savior to
work more fully and freely in our lives.
Conclusion
Pope John Paul has legitimate reasons for making a
passionate plea for a revival of Sunday observance at a time when
church attendance is dwindling at an alarming rate. He
understands that if Christians ignore the Lord on the day they
call the "Lord's Day," ultimately they will ignore God every day
of their lives. This trend, if not reversed, can spell doom to
Christianity.
The solution to the crisis of declining church attendance
must be sought, however, not by calling upon the international
community of nations to make Sunday and the Catholic Holy Days
civil holidays, but by summoning Christians to live according to
the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.
The Fourth Commandment specifically calls upon believers to
"Remember" what many have forgotten, namely, that the seventh day
is holy unto the Lord our God (Ex. 20:8-11). John Paul rightly
acknowledges that "The Sabbath precept ... is rooted in the
depths of God's plan" 106 and is "a kind of 'sacred
architecture' of time which marks biblical revelation. 107 He
notes also that "When the divine commandment declares: 'Remember
the Sabbath day in order to keep it holy' (Ex. 20:8), the rest
decreed in order to honor the day dedicated to God is not all a
burden imposed upon man, but rather an aid to help him recognize
his life-giving and liberating dependence upon the Creator, and
at the same time his calling to cooperate in the Creator's work
and to receive his grace." 108
My appeal to Pope John Paul is to use the far-reaching
influence of his office to help Christians everywhere rediscover
the Sabbath, as he puts it, not as a burden, but as an "aid"
designed to help them recognize their "life-giving and liberating
dependence upon the[ir] Creator." 108 This vital function of the
Sabbath has long been forgotten by most Christians who have been
taught through the centuries that the Sabbath is Jewish,
fulfilled by Christ, and no longer binding upon Christians. This
heresy has deprived a countless number of Christians of the
physical, moral, and spiritual renewal provided by a proper
observance of the Sabbath.
Our tension-filled and restless society needs to rediscover
the Sabbath as that "sacred architecture of time," which can give
structure and stability to our lives and relationship with God.
At a time when many are seeking for inner peace and rest through
magic pills or fabulous places, the Sabbath invites us to find
such inner rest and renewal, not through pills or places, but
through the Person of our Saviour who says: "Come unto me, and I
will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). It invites us to stop our work
on the Sabbath in order to allow our Savior to work more freely
and fully in our lives and thus experience the awareness of His
presence, peace, and rest.
.....................
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
1. Dies Domini, paragraph 3.
2. Dies Domini, paragraph 5.
3. Dies Domini, paragraph 30.
4. Quoted by R. H. Martin, "The Day: A Manual on the
Christian Sabbath" (New York, 1933), p.184.
5. Dies Domini, paragraph 4.
6. Dies Domini, paragraph 4.
7. Dies Domini, paragraph 6.
8. Dies Domini, p"Summa Theologica" (New York, 1947), II, 0,
122 Art. 4, p.1702.
10. Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day
Occupations," (Washington, DC, Catholic University of America
Press, 1943), p.2; Pope John XXIII "Mater et Magistra," trans.
William J. Gibbons, (New York, 1961), p.76, notes: "The Catholic
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 Quarterly Review" 8 (Jan. 1883), p.139, writes:
"The Sunday, as a day of the week set apart for obligatory public
worship of Almighty God, to be sanctified by a suspension of all
servile labor, trade, and worldly avocations and by exercises of
devotion, is purely a creation of the Catholic Church." Martin J.
Scott, "Things Catholics Are Asked About" (New York, 1927), p.
136, adds: "Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority,
Sunday as the day of worship."
11. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City, 1994),
p.524.
12. Dies Domini, paragraph 8.
13. Dies Domini, paragraph 11.
14. Samuele Bacchiocchi, "Divine Rest for Human
Restlessness" (Rome, Italy, 1980), p.67.
15. Dies Domini, paragraph 12.
16. Dies Domini, paragraph 15.
17. Dies Domini, paragraph 13.
18. Dies Domini, paragraph 15.
19. Dies Domini, paragraph 14.
20. Dies Domini, paragraph 17.
21. Dies Domini, paragraph 59.
22. Dies Domini, paragraph 18.
23. For a discussion of the theology of Sunday as developed
in the early Christian literature, see Chapter 9 "The Theology of
Sunday" of my dissertation "From Sabbath to Sunday. A Historical
Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early
Christianity" (Rome, Italy, 1977), pp.270-302.
24. Dies Domini, paragraph 32. Cited from Catechism of the
Catholic Church (note 11), p.525, paragraph 2177. On paragraph 46
of Dies Domini, John Paul states: "Since the Eucharist is the
very heart of Sunday, it is clear why, from the earliest
centuries, the Pastors of the church have not ceased to remind
the faithful of the need to take part in the liturgical
assembly."
25. Christopher Kiesling expresses this view in his book
"The Future of the Christian Sunday" (New York, 1970).
26. Dies Domini, paragraph 20.
27. Dies Domini, paragraph 21.
28. Dies Domini, paragraph 28.
29. Dies Domini, paragraph 18.
30. Dies Domini, paragraph 19.
31. Dies Domini, paragraph 20.
32. Corrado S. Mosna, "Storia della Domenica dalle origini
fino agli Inizi del V Secolo" (Rome, Italy, 1969), p.44.
33. Jean Danielou, "The Bible and Liturgy" (South Bend,
Indiana, 1956), p.242.
34. Paul K. Jewett, "The Lord's Day: A Theological Guide to
the Christian Day of Worship" (Grand Rapids, 1972), p.57.
Pacifico Massi states categorically: "The Resurrection is the
only plausible explanation for the origin of Sunday" (La Domenica
nella Storia della Salvezza [Napoli,1967], p.43). F. A. Regan
affirms: "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" ("Dies Dominica and
Dies Solis: The Beginning of the Lord's Day in Christian
Antiquity," Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of
America [Washington, DC, 1961 ], p.191). See also Josef A.
Jungmann, "The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great"
(South Bend, Indiana, 1959), pp.19-21; also "The Mass of the
Roman Rite, Its Origin and Development" (New York, 1951), vol. 1,
p.15; Y. B. Tremel, "Du Sabbat au Jour du Seigneur," Lumiere et
Vie (1962), p.441.
35. The Resurrection of Christ is presented in the New
Testament as the essence of the apostolic proclamation, faith,
and hope. See, for example, 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; 1 Cor 15:11-21;
Rom 10:9; 1:1-4; 8:31-34; 14:9; 1 Thess 1:9-10.
36. Harold Riesenfeld, "The Sabbath and the Lord's Day," The
Gospel Tradition: Essays by H. Riesenfeld (Oxford, 1970), p.124.
37. Harold Riesenfeld, "Sabbat et Jour du Seigneur," in A.
J. B. Higgins, ed., N.T. Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W.
Manson (Manchester, 1959), p.212. For examples of the use of the
phrase "Day of the Resurrection" for Sunday, see, Eusebius of
Caesarea, Commentary on Psalm 91, Patrologia Graeca 23, 1168;
Apostolic Constitutions 2,59, 3.
38. S. V. McCasland, "The Origin of the Lord's Day," Journal
of Biblical Literature 49 (1930), p. 69. Similarly, Paul Cotton
affirms: "There is nothing in the idea of the Resurrection that
would necessarily produce the observance of Sunday as a Day of
Worship" (From Sabbath to Sunday [Bethlehem, PA, 1933], p.79).
39. Dies Domini, paragraph 19.
40. Joachim Jeremias, "Pasha," Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, Gerhard Friedrich, ed., (Grand Rapids, 1968), vol.
5, p.903, note 64.
41. J. B. Lightfoot, "The Apostolic Father" (London, 1885),
vol. 2, p.88.
42. For a discussion of the Passover controversy and its
implications for the origin of Sunday observance, see my
dissertation "From Sabbath to Sunday" (note 23), pp.198-207.
43. Dies Domini, paragraph 20. 44. Ibid.
45. Johannes Behm, "Klao," Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, Gerhard Kittel, ed., (Grand Rapids, 1974), vol. 3, p.
728.
46. S. V McCasland (note 38), p.69.
47. Dies Domini, paragraph 24.
48. See "From Sabbath to Sunday" (note 23), pp.178-182.
49. Justin Martyr, Apology 67, 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. (Grand Rapids, 1973),
vol. 1, p.186.
50. Jean Danielou (note 33), pp.253,255.
51. Jerome, In die dominica Paschae homilia, Corpus
Christianorum Series Latina 78, 550, 1, 52.
52. For a discussion of the development of Sun-worship and
of the advancement of "the Day of Sun" in ancient Rome, see my
dissertation "From Sabbath to Sunday" (note 23), pp.238-262.
53. Dies Domini, paragraph 27.
54. Philaster, Liber de haeresibus 113, PL 12, 1257.
55. Priscillian, Tractatus undecim, CSEL 18, p.14. See also,
Martin of Braga, De correctione rusticorum ed. C. W. Barlow (New
York, 1950), p.189; Augustin, In Psalmos 61, 23, CCL 39, p.792.
56. Augustine, City of God 22, 30, Vernon J. Bourke, ed., (New
York, 1958), p.544.
57. Dies Domini, paragraph 21.
58. See "From Sabbath to Sunday" (note 23), pp.90-94.
59. Dies Domini, paragraph 21.
60. Dies Domini, paragraph 70.l
61. See "From Sabbath to Sunday" (note 23), pp.90-94.
62. Corrado S. Mosna (note 32), p.7.
63. Dies Domini, paragraph 21.
64. F. F. Bruce, "Commentary on the Book of the Acts" (Grand
Rapids, 1954), pp.407-408.
65. P K. Jewett (note 34), p.61.
66. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, "The Acts of the Apostles" (New
York, 1945), p.187.
67. Dies Domini, paragraph 21.
68. Corrado S. Mosna (note 32), p.21.
69. For texts and discussion of the Easter controversy, see
"From Sabbath to Sunday" (note 23), pp.198-207.
70. Jean Danielou, "The First Six Hundred Years" (New York,
1964), vol. 1, p.74.
71. Dies Domini, paragraph 62.
72. Dies Domini, paragraph 59.
73. Dies Domini, paragraph 60.
74. For texts and discussion, see "From Sabbath to Sunday"
(note 23), pp.278-301.
75. For texts and discussion of the controversy surrounding
the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday, see
"From Sabbath to Sunday" (note 23), pp.213-269.
76. Dies Domini, paragraph 47.
77. Ibid., emphasis supplied.
78. Catechism of the Catholic Church (note 11), p.526,
paragraph 2180. Emphasis supplied.
79. Ibid., p.527, paragraph 2181. Emphasis supplied.
80. Dies Domini, paragraph 49. Emphasis supplied.
81. Ibid.
82. Dies Domini, paragraph 43.
83. Catechism of the Catholic Church (note 11), p.344,
paragraph 1367. Emphasis supplied.
84. Ibid., paragraph 1366.
85. Dies Domini, paragraph 52.
86. Dies Domini, paragraph 67.
87. Dies Domini, paragraph 64.
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid.
90. Ibid.
91. Ibid.
92. Dies Domini, paragraph 67.
93. IDies Domini, paragraph 66.
94. Dies Domini, paragraph 67.
95. Catechism of the Catholic Church (note 11), p.528,
paragraphs 2187-2188.
96. Dies Domini, paragraph 67.
97. Cited by Michael J. Woodruff, "The Constitutionality of
Sunday Laws," Sunday 79 (January-April 1991), p.9.
98. Ibid., pp.21-22.
99. Dies Domini, paragraph 66.
100. "Sunday Is Christ's Day, Commemorating His
Resurrection," New release, Vatican City, July 26, 1998.
101. Cited in Jonathan Kwitny, "Man of the Century" (New
York, 1997), p.592.
102. J. Michael Miller, "The Vatican's Role in World
Affairs. The Diplomacy of Pope John Paul II," Speech delivered in
the Fall of 1997 at the University of St. Thomas in Houston,
Texas.
103. Ibid.
104. Dies Domini, paragraph 65.
105. Dies Domini, paragraph 67.
106. Dies Domini, paragraph 13.
107. Dies Domini, paragraph 15.
108. Dies Domini, paragraph 61.
109. Ibid.
..........................
To be continued
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment