Early Christianity: From Sabbath to Sunday
I recently penned a post for Banned by HWA that was published there under the banner “Quietly Dismissing Herbert Armstrong.” In reviewing some of the commentary which the post provoked, I was struck by how some folks have continued to accept Armstrong’s inaccurate/false narrative surrounding the early history of the Christian Church. According to the Pastor General of the old Worldwide Church of God, the First Century Church universally observed the Sabbath. Moreover, he taught that Emperor Constantine (in cooperation with the Roman Church) changed the day of Christian worship from the Sabbath to Sunday.
The reasoning behind this narrative is almost as interesting and entertaining as the narrative itself. It goes something like this: 1) Scripture clearly records that Christ, his apostles, and the early saints continued to observe the Sabbath; 2) The existence of Constantine’s famous decree recognizing Sunday as a day of rest (and, by implication, worship) throughout the territories of the Roman Empire; and 3) The existence of several statements by Roman Catholics claiming responsibility for changing the Christian day of worship. Admittedly, this reasoning appears reasonable at first glance. However, while I wouldn’t dispute any of the three points which they have employed to generate their narrative, we would be remiss not to point out that these folks have ignored/excluded a whole lot of history to arrive at their conclusions about Sabbath to Sunday observance within the early Church.
It still seems foreign and strange to many Christians, but a consensus has developed over time among Biblical scholars that there were two forms of Christianity extant in the First Century (a Gentile and a Jewish variety). Moreover, the evidence for this, both within the New Testament and among other writings from the period, is pretty compelling. In the New Testament, the account we find there of the Jerusalem Council in the fifteenth chapter of Acts (and in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians) makes plain that there were real differences and tensions between the Jewish and Gentile branches of the Church. Likewise, other early Christian writings like the Didache and some of the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch underscore these differences.
When confronted with the evidence of the Jerusalem Council, many Armstrongites insist that the only issue at stake in those discussions was the Jewish ritual of circumcision. Scripture, however, clearly refutes such a notion. Now, in fairness, it is true that the whole controversy began with the insistence of some Jewish Christians that “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1) However, when Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to resolve the matter, we read: “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5) In other words, some of the Jewish Christians were insisting that Gentile converts to Christianity had to adopt and abide by the tenets of the Old Covenant outlined in the Torah.
After much discussion of the matter, Peter reminded the assembly that God had prompted him to share the gospel with the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) A casual reading of this account could easily miss just how important this point was in comprehending the significance of what was happening. Unfortunately, as the first eleven chapters of the book of Acts make plain, the original twelve apostles had not fulfilled Christ’s instructions to take his message to all nations. In short, Peter and the other apostles had focused their evangelistic efforts almost exclusively on their Jewish brethren for the ten or so years following the end of Christ’s earthly ministry. Hence, it should not seem strange or incomprehensible to us that the earliest church was almost entirely Jewish in composition, nature, and ritual. As such, we can see that it was completely natural for these folks to continue to observe rituals that were familiar to them (like circumcision, the Sabbath, the Holy Days, clean and unclean meats, etc.).
It should also be remembered, though, that Gentiles had no such traditions, and that most of them were wholly unfamiliar with Jewish rituals and practices. In the account of the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts, however, Peter points out that God had also chosen to give the Gentiles his Holy Spirit “even as he did unto us.” (Acts 15:8-9) He went on to point out that the insistence of these Jewish Christians that Gentiles adopt Jewish forms did not make sense in light of this fact. “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” he asked. (Acts 15:10) The clear implication being that Christ had fulfilled the requirements of the law on their behalf, because NONE of them (the Jews) had ever been able to do it!
In the account, James agrees with the points that Peter has made. He affirms that it was God who decided to offer salvation to the Gentiles through Christ, and he went on to remind the assembly that this had been prophesied to happen long ago. (Acts 15:13-18) As a consequence of these facts, James concluded: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” (Acts 15:19-21) Notice that James specifically delineates only four items from the entire Torah which Gentile Christians should be required to observe and goes on to suggest that Moses already has enough adherents among the Jews!
Moreover, once again, the summary of the account makes plain that the assembly was dealing with a much more comprehensive question regarding the relationship of Gentile Christians to the requirements of the Torah than the simple matter of circumcision. The opening to the letter which the assembly sent to the Gentile Christians informing them of their decision makes this plain. We read: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment…” (Acts 15:24) And the letter’s conclusion makes plain that the assembly has adopted James’ “sentence” regarding their obligations to the requirements of the Torah. We read: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” (Acts 15:28-29)
Hence, for the author of Acts, the rather substantial question of whether or not Gentile converts would be required to observe the tenets of the Law, was settled amicably and in short order. From Paul’s perspective, however, the question had never been completely and finally resolved – there were still plenty of Jewish Christians out there who believed that their Gentile brethren should be required to follow the same observances which they had followed all of their lives (and which they continued to follow as Christians).
This is made very clear in Paul’s letter to the saints of Galatia. Nevertheless, in comparing Paul’s perspective on what had happened at the Jerusalem Council, it is important to remember the context of Paul’s remarks. In short, Paul was extremely angry that Jewish Christians had had the audacity to contradict his teachings to the Gentiles. He opens the epistle by claiming his incredulity at the thought that any of his Galatian Christian converts would fall for this message (that they were obligated to observe the tenets of the Torah). He wrote: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:6-7)
Remember, Paul saw himself as the “Apostle of the Gentiles.” (Romans 11:13) Moreover, he believed that the message which he had brought to the Galatians had been given to him via a special revelation from Jesus Christ, and he made clear that he did not appreciate those Jewish Christians invading his territory and imposing their brand of Christianity on his converts! (Galatians 1:8-12) Paul then proceeded to give the Galatians a brief summary of his personal history in the Jewish faith and his interactions with the pillars of the Jewish Church after his conversion to demonstrate that those contacts had not made any significant contributions to his message. (Galatians 1:13-24) Now, of course, those folks had made significant contributions to Paul’s knowledge about Christ and his teachings (the notion that they didn’t is frankly absurd), but we must remember that when he wrote these things Paul was extremely angry with those Jewish Christians who had interfered with his work among the Galatians.
After he had vented some of his anger and frustration, Paul proceeded to give his account of what had transpired at the Jerusalem Council. He wrote that those “who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.” (Galatians 2:6-10)
In this respect, the two accounts (Acts and Galatians) of what happened at the Jerusalem Council are the same: Both accounts suggest that some kind of accommodation between Jewish and Gentile Christians was reached as a consequence of that assembly – to live and let live. In other words, Paul understood that agreement to allow Jewish Christians to continue to observe the tenets of the Mosaic Law and to permit Gentile Christians to ignore them.
For Paul, however, the intrusion of those Jewish Christians among his sheep in Galatia had not only violated the understanding reached at the Jerusalem Council, it had also underscored the flawed premise of the theology of those Jewish Christians. He wrote:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:16-21)
Thus, as Paul’s missionary work among the Gentiles resulted in more and more conversions, we can see that tensions grew between the two branches of the Christian faith. In short, Jewish Christians must have felt the pressure of those greater numbers of Gentile Christians within the Church – that the proportion of Christians observing the tenets of the Mosaic Law continued to shrink. And we have all seen the tensions which America’s changing demographics have produced within our own population – So, it shouldn’t be hard for us to imagine similar group dynamics playing out within the early Church!
Thanks to the writings of the First Century Jewish historian, Josephus, we know that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. It would be hard to overestimate the devastating impact which those events would have had on the Jewish portion of the Church. As Jewish Christians continued to observe the tenets of the Mosaic Law and were in the habit of worshipping at the temple and in synagogues, it is highly unlikely that the conquering Romans would have made any distinction between those Christians and their Jewish brethren. In other words, Jewish Christians were scattered and persecuted by the Romans after those events in 70 CE (just like other Jews).
Hence, it is easy to see how Paul’s version of Christianity would have been in the ascendancy for the last thirty years of the First Century. In other words, by the close of that century, the vast majority of Christians were of the Gentile variety (not observing the tenets of the Mosaic Law). However, while it’s easy to imagine those circumstances, there is other evidence extant that the Gentile branch of Christianity had become the dominant variety by the close of this period. In short, there are other Christian writings from this period which support this narrative of what was happening within the Church. Unfortunately, many lay Christians are not only unfamiliar with the contents of these documents – they are completely unaware of the fact that they even exist!
There is a document known as The Didache (a Greek word for teaching or doctrine) which was probably written late in the First Century and was purported to represent the teachings of Christ’s apostles (see earlychristianwritings.com). The Didache opens with a discussion of the way of life in juxtaposition to the way of death, and it expounds upon Christ’s teaching regarding the two great commandments (love for God and neighbor). The document also discusses the early practices of the Christian Church regarding things like baptism, fasting, prayer, and the Eucharist. Moreover, the document’s commentary about the organization of the Church (or rather the lack of discussion of a well-defined structure/hierarchy) makes plain that it came from this primitive era of Christianity. For our present purposes, however, the most important feature of The Didache is its insistence that Christians assemble on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) for fellowship and worship. In other words, the document takes it for granted that this is the proper day for Christian worship – there is no mention of the Sabbath!
Likewise, we have the writings of Ignatius of Antioch from late in the First Century and early in the Second Century to support this historical narrative about the two versions of Christianity. In his epistle to the saints of Philadelphia, Ignatius wrote: “But if anyone preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchers of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men.” (See earlychristianwritings.com) For Ignatius, any Christians who were teaching the saints that they had to observe the Jewish law were clearly heretics.
In his epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius wrote: “Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace.” Later in the same epistle, he wrote: “It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.” (See earlychristianwritings.com)
Writing sometime in the middle part of the Second Century, Justin Martyr also provided us with evidence of what was happening within the Church during this early period. In his First Apology, Justin Martyr wrote this about Christian worship in his time: “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” (See earlychristianwritings.com) In other words, by the middle of the Second Century, it was considered standard practice for Christians to gather for fellowship and worship on Sunday!
As we have seen from both the biblical and the historical narrative, the Armstrongite narrative regarding the history of Sabbath to Sunday observance is false. The reality is that the vast majority of Christians had been observing Sunday for hundreds of years by the time that Constantine made his famous decree. In effect, the emperor was merely offering official recognition of what was already the practice of most of his Christian and pagan subjects. Likewise, the observance of Sunday by most Christians was already well-entrenched by the time that the Roman Church had acquired the power to enforce its authority over other Christians. Hence, the narrative that Constantine and/or the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday is shown to be a fiction pure and simple!
**Although I do not wish to convey the impression that I agree with all of the conclusions reached by these biblical scholars, I think that the works of folks like Gerd Ludemann, Bart Ehrman and James Tabor offer some interesting and helpful insights into this period of Christian history (Sorry, I'm not in the habit of name dropping, but scholars do offer some helpful insights for those of us who are truly desirous of understanding this critical period).
Lonnie Hendrix
27 comments:
Where to begin, It is obvious you do not come to the plate with an unbiased agenda. You do not seem to understand what a child can read for themselves Mathew 5:17-18 Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it in Christ's own words. if you can not understand that statement then you seem to be ignorant concerning any scriptures. If you do not believe what Christ said then you are calling him a liar.
We can see how quickly Sabbatarians can flip, just in recent history in the last 30 years. About 90 to 95% of WCG followers gave up on Sabbath observance.
In the early second century, Roman emperor Hadrian definitely was crushing the Jews , who were identified as Sabbath Keepers.
This some 60 to 70 years after the time of the Apostles. So obviously , a lot of doctrinal drift can happen in that long of a time frame. Many Gentile christians or even Jewish Christians abandoned the Sabbath so as to not get caught up in the Jewish persecutions of the time.
We do see Polycarp,a disciple of John , as late as 150AD still hanging on and practicing the Passover on the 14th Day of the First Month, and claiming that this was the practice of the early Christian Church and was taught as such.
Ignatius and Justin Martyr have no more authority over changing the Sabbath, than Tkach did, and did so many decades after the early christian church. We must rely on SOLA SCRIPTURA, or become Catholics is really the choice.
Lonnie notes: "Biblical scholars that there were two forms of Christianity extant in the First Century (a Gentile and a Jewish variety). Moreover, the evidence for this, both within the New Testament and among other writings from the period, is pretty compelling. In the New Testament, the account we find there of the Jerusalem Council in the fifteenth chapter of Acts (and in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians) makes plain that there were real differences and tensions between the Jewish and Gentile branches of the Church. Likewise, other early Christian writings like the Didache and some of the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch underscore these differences."
=================================================
Hallelujah! I have been saying this here and elsewhere for 20 years. I gave this as my last FOT Sermon in Myrtle Beach noting as well the statement "21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." was to assure those afraid Judaism and the law was under threat should chill as it would always be around.
Congrats on knowing who Ludemann, Ehrman and James Tabor's actual position on Paul and not Jesus as the author of Gentile and thus modern Christianity with the Jewish Christian faction, Peter, James and John losing out bigtime. A simple honest read of Galatians 1 and 2 will show just how little Paul thought of anything but his Gospel and of Peter, James and John of whom he said "Who they are makes no difference to me, I learned nothing from them."
The NT is full of intrigue and early church politics. You can't have Paul and Gospel Jesus. You have to pick one.
You nailed it
"From Sabbath to Sunday" caught my attention as I'm casually re-reading Samuele Bacchiocchi's book with that title. The change definitely occurred prior to Constantine and prior to Catholic dogma; as I said before, the Catholics, like HWA, wanted to take credit for something they didn't do.
The argument presented, I would say, "Seems reasonable - in theory", as a have an alternative, still non-Armstrongist point of view. I don't want to sound like Bob Thiel, but the argument doesn't take into account "church history" - or rather, the overall conditions at that time in history. There definitely were splits within "proto-Christianity", but I don't find them to be in the manner you described.
But your argument would please an outspoken local Protestant Pastor, who expressed the anachronistic view that "Paul stopped being a Jew and became a Christian when he was struck down on the road to Damascus".
Peter Was NOT The First Pope it was Simon Magus.
You can also spend the next 20 years telling us that there were "real differences" between the Jewish and gentiles Christians, and many of us will still refuse to believe you.
Tonto
Where do you get the 90 - 95% figure from? My understanding is that there were about 100 thousand baptized members when HWA died, with about 40 thousand still still attending various Sabbath keeping splinters.
"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” (Acts 15:21)
Miller:
I enjoyed your excellent essay. But I am going to don my Armstrongist raiment and masquerade as a critic. I spoke with an Armstrongist years ago about Act 15 and he raised an issue that I think he said he got from a sermon. It focuses on the scripture I quoted from your post above. You explained this scripture as follows:
"Notice that James specifically delineates only four items from the entire Torah which Gentile Christians should be required to observe and goes on to suggest that Moses already has enough adherents among the Jews!"
Armstrongists do not see this scripture in that way. Their belief is that the Law of Moses is a kind of baseline requirement for Christians. Everybody, including Gentiles, was already keeping the Law of Moses including the Sabbath day before the Jerusalem Council was ever convened. Therefore, the Jerusalem Council assumed that the Law of Moses was being kept already and the decision was to only add a few extras for Gentiles because of their particular religious and cultural environment. And these additions are listed in Acts 15:20. And the statement in Acts 15:21 is an acknowledgement that the Law of Moses was being kept, including the Sabbath, and Christians were exposed to the Law of Moses every Sabbath in synagogues. Verse 21 even acknowledges that the Sabbath was being observed by Christians, Armstrongists would assert.
Now I will change my Armstrongists raiment. There is a problem with the scope of the decision made by the Jerusalem Council for everyone. The Council specified something for Gentiles but it is difficult to understand the context. Armstrongists remove the Law of Moses from the scope of the Council and hold it inviolate, including the Sabbath. But the wording of Acts 15 clearly identifies the Law of Moses as an included issue. Because the Pharisees rose up and said:
"It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the Law of Moses." (Acts 15:5)
So it was both circumcision in particular and the Law of Moses in general that began the controversy and both were included within the scope of the Council's consideration. So the Armstrongist assertion fails. One cannot hold the Law of Moses inviolate and outside the Council's reach. So then why did James mention what he did in Acts 15:21? I think James is reassuring the Jewish Christians that their practice would not be neglected by the Council's decision. And I have a feeling that Christian Jews and Judaistic Jews were sitting side by side in synagogues. Christ was a Jew who preached a form of Late Second Temple Judaism to Jews. And Paul underscored that Christians are all spiritual Jews - it is a part of the salvific package. But how Jewish does one have to be?
The Armstrongist assertion fails on other points of scope. If their argument were to stand, it would mean that all Christians must keep the Law of Moses (not just the batch of laws that Herman Hoeh decided were still in force under the New Testament). This means everything must be observed. Hoeh was not around to advise them and when the Council said the Law of Moses they meant just that. That clearly was not the intent of the Council because they did not enforce circumcision on Gentiles - the other big issue. They did not explicitly proscribe it however. It is just excluded for Gentiles from the list in Acts 15:20.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Continuation
But I said earlier that the scope of the decision was a problem for everyone. Now I leave the Armstrongist side of the issue and move to the Christian side. The four items emphasized by James are in addition to what? It has to be in addition to something. Armstrongists would point out that it does not include, for instance, proscribing stealing or adultery so the Law of Moses has to be assumed. But we know that idea fails so where do those laws come into the picture? I think the only logical conclusion is that the four items were added to the Sermon on the Mount.
My last comment. Tabor and Ehrman see the rift between Paul and James as the death knell for Christianity, my guess. Dennis could verify this conjecture. That view would mean that Christianity is internally inconsistent and must be relegated to the heap of substandards. I do not believe the Tabor/Ehrman interpretation to be the case at all. I believe that Paul believed the Sermon on the Mount but saw no reason to maintain a comprehensive Judaistic praxis going forward. And James believed the Sermon on the Mount but wanted to retain Judaistic praxis. There is nothing wrong with James' position even though one might think it anti-Pauline. It is differs from Paul's view but not in a significant way. That is because the OT practices became customs and traditions and were no longer requirements for salvation. That is the whole argument about circumcision. Jewish Christians under James could go ahead and maintain circumcision as a custom. But they could not make physical circumcision a condition for salvation any longer (Circumcsion was linked to the Abrahamic promises which were an early statement of salvation and became spiritual in the NT). Paul was fine with doing Jewish stuff, he just did not see it as a requirement for salvation and he opposed that. The Jerusalem Council assured Jewish Christians that their customs and traditions would not be proscribed. And the problem with Armstrongism is that its founders made certain OT customs (formerly laws) requirements for salvation. They recognize that physical circumcision is no longer required but they cannot recognize that the physical seventh day Sabbath is no longer required. Both exist spiritually in Christ. That is another topic but I am finished for now.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 6/21 @ 3:32,
I believe that Christ did fulfill the law - that he kept it perfectly. Like Paul, I believe that he did this for us, because the Israelites had demonstrated that no one theretofore had been able to do so. Moreover, Christ condensed the commandments into two great eternal principles which Christians are still obligated to observe. And, although I continue to observe the Sabbath, I share Paul's view that doing so does nothing to earn my salvation or a place in God's Kingdom - Jesus Christ ALONE accomplishes that for me/us.
Tonto,
Many of the Christians of the First and Second Century proved that they were willing to die for their faith, but you propose that they were willing to surrender their Sabbath observance because of persecution? That doesn't make sense. If Jewish and Roman persecution couldn't persuade them to abandon Christ, why do you think that it would have convinced them to abandon the Sabbath? Moreover, Ignatius and Justin Martyr didn't change anything either, and we don't have any evidence that they believed that they had the authority to do so. As I related in the post, their comments reflect the fact that Sunday observance was already standard practice among the vast majority of Christians.
Hoss,
I think that the evidence indicates that (for the most part) the two branches of early Christianity coexisted/tolerated each other. I don't subscribe to Tabor's thesis that there was ever an irreparable rupture between the two branches (and that they continued to share a great deal in common. For instance, I believe Tabor made too much of the differences between the two groups relative to the Eucharist. Sure, John's gospel doesn't discuss the last supper in the same terms as the other gospels, and the Didache seems to suggest an alternative understanding of the ritual. However, when one considers John's account of Christ's message about the "bread of life" and the imagery of Christ as the "true vine," we see that the symbolism referred to in the other gospel accounts and Paul's epistle to the Corinthians is not as different as it might first appear.
Finally, I believe that Paul's version of Christianity triumphed because God intended for it to triumph. I believe that God called Paul to spread the gospel message to the Gentiles, because the Jewish apostles had not followed Christ's instructions to do just that. Moreover, I believe that God intended to correct the focus of Jewish Christians on the more traditional understanding of a Messianic kingdom and redirect the focus onto the spiritual work which Christ had accomplished and continued to direct/promote at God's right hand. I'm not saying (or suggesting) that Jewish Christians weren't Christians, but I do believe that God raised up Paul to correct some of the mistaken notions which they harbored.
--Lonnie
Dennis,
Thank you for your kind words about the post. I think that Ludemann, Ehrman and Tabor have employed the evidence we have in brilliant ways and arrived at some sustainable conclusions about Early Christianity. However, I don't buy ALL of their conclusions. While I respect and applaud the work of all three (and have invited everyone to examine their work), I did not drink the Kool-Aid - I have not swallowed their narratives hook, line and sinker!
In some ways, I believe that they have overcorrected the traditional narrative of a harmonious relationship between Paul, Peter and James. There is abundant evidence that Paul was a prickly person with a big ego. There is also clear evidence that he was prone to angry outbursts when he felt that others were infringing on his territory. However, I don't believe that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that he ever regarded Peter, James and John as enemies (or anything other than brothers in Christ). Tabor almost becomes conspiratorial in this instance - In effect, suggesting a conspiracy to cover-up an irreparable breach between the men (that would have to rank as one of the most spectacularly successful plots of all time).
Yes, they had differences that sometimes even provoked open hostility and resentment; but the notion that they ever officially or unofficially excommunicated each other is frankly absurd. It is obvious to me that Paul's anger over the situations in Galatia and Corinth evoked some statements from him that did not comport with the reality of his relationship with those Jerusalem "pillars." For instance, the claim that his message did not derive from (or depend on) those who were Christians before him is clearly not supported by what we know about Paul's situation (even the things which he reveals about himself).
Are we to believe that Paul didn't have some awareness of the beliefs of the people he was persecuting prior to his conversion? Are we to believe that he didn't learn anything from his brief time with the Christians in Damascus after his experience on the road leading there? Are we expected to believe that he didn't learn anything about Jesus or his teachings from his encounters with Peter, James and other Jewish Christians? For me, Paul's statements in this regard are akin to those statements by Roman Catholics claiming responsibility for exchanging Sabbath observance for Sunday!
Yes, there were clearly differences between Paul's brand of Christianity and that of the Peter and James variety. Nevertheless, it is counterintuitive and just as misleading to ignore the many elements which they shared in common. For instance, I think that the evidence reveals a great deal more harmony with regard to the Eucharist than some of these scholars are willing to allow (see my previous comment in this thread). In other words, I think that we do NOT have to choose between Paul and Gospel Jesus - I think that is a false dilemma.
--Lonnie
--Lonnie
Thanks for your observations. Tonto appears to be following one of Bacchiocchi's theses on Sabbath change, and I understand the problems with that line of thought.
For myself, besides Talmudic records, I think my view was influenced by Bart Ehrman's account of early "Christianities" and Walter Bauer's view of "regional" morphing of the Gospels of Jesus/Paul to be compatible with local religious background.
The proposition of the "irreversible split" is supported by accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem, marked by those who chose to stay and fight and those who fled to Pella.
NEO,
Thank you for the kind remarks about this post. Your assessment of James' remarks in Acts 15:21 is sound and consistent with the evidence, and I believe that your characterization of how Armstrongites would respond in this instance is also accurate. Finally, I also concur with your views on the implications of these scholars' views for Christianity when carried to their logical conclusions - see my remarks to Dennis and others.
--Lonnie
(Anonymous Anonymous said...
Tonto
Where do you get the 90 - 95% figure from? My understanding is that there were about 100 thousand baptized members when HWA died, with about 40 thousand still still attending various Sabbath keeping splinters.)
MY RESPONSE:
Minimally, 250k people were baptized at one time or another in the WCG ie, the passed thru the doors, were baptized and were considered members. The average half life of a member was about 10 years.
There are far less than 40k people who are still Sabbath Keepers in the COG universe left. More in the neighborhood of 25K. I have gone thru things like old WCG congregational phone books, or member lists, and the 10% figure is approximately accurate.
Simply go through an old online AC Envoy for instance and sample it. Or the list of WCG ministers that was published in the early 80s complete with pictures.
Take any local congregational area, total up attendees, divide by peak attendance in the 1970 to 1990 period, and you will indeed see AT LEAST a 90% attrition rate. I have done these approximations across congregations around the country that I have visited and the figures hold up strongly..
Even within scripture , (pre 100 AD)we see many false doctrines and false teachings arising. Gnosticism had reared its head, as well as early beginnings of Marcionism, Montanism , Docetism and many others.
There was also strong legalistic Phariseesism influences too, again , all made plain in scripture. All of these railed against enlightened 10 commandment keeping, and Sabbath observing as well, trying to make the Christian church over into a Pharissee Christian church. This is often what Paul was railing against in the NT.
Contrary to popular modern day romantic ideals, the New Testament church was a mess, with drunkeness at the Passover, sexual sins of many types, internal politics, class/economic envy and every manner of goofy idea and doctrine. It is not a unified field of bliss in the least.
The mercy of God amazes me, and I am thankful for his patience with myself as well.
Armstrongite leaders & lay-members alike have very shallow scholarly depth, having typically not read outside of Pervbert's dumb little plagiarized tracts.
When confronted with Colossians 2:16-17 - (the most feared scripture in Armstrongism) - these dazed-disciples have no rebuttal.
It's evident that Lonnie has put a lot of thought and work into his essay, but like any political debate coming out of DC there are a lot of things unproven, speculative, and open to interpretation. The Sabbath, holydays, clean and unclean meats are rituals? The law fulfilled in Christ? I know everyone has their pat answers but there are a couple of scriptural examples that jump out to me in this regard:
Paul speaking to Gentle believers says. . .
"Let US keep the feasts (Gk. heortazo, to observe a festival, celebrate a holyday), 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, and then has the audacity to use as a ministerial authority for Gentiles, "the law of Moses", 1 Corinthians 9:7-10! Notice the implications that not only is this "law" still in force, but it is satisfied without having to mess around with "oxen"! Hmmm!!
Concerning the change of the Sabbath to Sunday, one cannot improve on Bacchiocchi's several books. They deal with all objections one by one!
Anonymous (3:32)
Do you think you are really following in the footsteps of Christ if you fail to set aside the OT as he did? If you love the law and respect if you will recognize it as what Christ defined it to be. It is not a mash-up of some parts of the OT and NT innovated by HWA and Herman Heoh.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
BP8,
If the Corinthian Church was keeping the Sabbath and holy days, then how do you explain the Didache, epistles of Ignatius and Justin's Apology? How could those things so completely disappear in such a short span of time?
Paul was a Jew. Hence, his reference to leavening in this epistle (I Corinthians) as a symbol of how sin and error can spread should be comprehensible to us. He wrote this in the context of their toleration of a man in their midst who was sleeping with his father's wife. His remarks here (I Corinthians 5:1-13) were obviously intended to demonstrate to them the spiritual dangers inherent to them in tolerating this behavior. Actually, if understood in the context in which they were delivered, they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Feast of Unleavened Bread! The "feast" here is obviously the more general one which they were all then participating in as Christians (but one would only get that sense by reading the entire chapter instead of lifting out two verses to employ as a prooftext).
Likewise, in the ninth chapter of this same epistle, Paul employed yet more imagery from the Torah to illustrate a broader principle which he was attempting to establish. Once again, if we follow the context of the remarks (I Corinthians 9:1-14), we see that Paul was trying to demonstrate to these folks that he was entitled to their support in his capacity as their apostle. The fact that Paul and the other Jewish Christians used the Old Testament to illustrate their teachings about Christ does NOT constitute an endorsement of the notion that Christians are obligated to observe the tents of the Old Covenant.
Bacchiocchi was probably the preeminent Sabbatarian Christian scholar of our time, and I respect his work. Nevertheless, like the other scholars I mentioned previously, it does NOT follow that we should adopt all of his conclusions. Our collective experiences in Armstrongism should make all of us very wary of ever again drinking all of anyone's Kool-Aid! Like the Bereans, we should NEVER abandon our critical thinking skills.
Tonto noted We do see Polycarp ... practicing the Passover on the 14th Day of the First Month
Yes, Polycarp and his dispute with Victor, Bishop of Rome, over Passover is an interesting point. They seemed to "agree to disagree" and at that stage, Rome didn't try to overrule the Asian churches (which it eventually did). Nor did Polycarp, as successor to John, try to exert authority over Victor.
As an aside, with Polycarp's martyrdom, Dave Pack said "Polycarp was killed by the Catholic Church". Ah, Polycarp was executed by the Romans, for refusing to honor Caesar by burning incense...
Miller Jones writes:
“If the Corinthian Church was keeping the Sabbath and holy days, then how do you explain the Didache, epistles of Ignatius and Justin's Apology? How could those things so completely disappear in such a short span of time?”
I would suggest the WCG to GCI is a recent example of how things can change in a short span of time.
"How could those things so completely disappear in such a short span of time"? Ask the Tkach boys, they had no trouble bringing that about. Rank authority!! And like Hoss said, Victor won, Poly carp lost!
"The feast here (1 Corinthians5) is obviously??? the more general one which they were all participating in as Christians"? So Polycarp died in 155 and was still observing the Passover but you're suggesting new festivals were already popping up in 57 AD? I know of no other source that suggests that but rather the opposite!
"The notion that Christians are obligated to observe the tents of the old covenant"?
That's a loaded statement we could debate forever. I like what Does Ford said concerning the law, that it is " forever a standard but never the method" and "abuse doesn't cancel out use"! There is no doubt the Pharisees and Armstrong abused the law but that doesn't tarnish the many positive things the NT says about it.
" Adopt all of Bacchiocchi's conclusions "? I wouldn't adopt ALL of anyone's conclusions, HWA's, Dr. Fauci's, or yours. That would be drinking the kool aid!
There was another reason why sabbath keeping was abandoned by Jewish Christians. The hatred that the Jewish community developed toward Christianity was, imo, the number one reason why this happened.
Throughout the New Testament, we see the the hatred growing against the budding Christian faith. The Jewish leadership was constantly direct assault, stirring up the Gentiles, against them, or by subversion. Paul, in I Thes. 2:14-16, sums up the attitudes and actions of the Jews as persecuters, not pleasing God, and opposed to everyone. By the time the 1st century came to a close, the Post 70 AD Jewish religion was described as "the synagogue of Satan". (Rev.2:9,3:9) Interestingly enough, synagogue became a early Christian slang name for any religion considered false by them.
As Lonnie has already noticed, by the early 2nd century, the Christian Jews were no longer observing the sabbath or holy days. The destruction of the Temple, the Levitical priesthood, and the sacrificial system that has vanished (Heb 8:13) made it impossible to keep the old law, as ordained by Moses. However, it was also impossible to worship in the synagogues anymore as well. The hatred that the rabbis and their followers had for the Christian Jews created an overwhelmingly hostile environment for them. The hatred was so intense, that prayers were inserted into the synagogue liturgy that would curse the Christians. Needless to say, no Christian could recite those prayers, and the Christian Jews left the synagogues, never to return. They then simply forsook any Jewish identity and blended into the Gentile Christian communities. The old way of life was dead and gone, there was no reason to go through the motions anymore.
Anonymous and BP8,
I have often joked that Armstrongites acted out the entire 1,900+ year history of Christianity in the span of seventy years (and there is obviously some merit to the statement). However, I don't think that comparing the Worldwide metamorphosis into Grace Communion to what happened with early Christianity is of much use to us. Unlike Worldwide and Grace Communion, the early Church had no authoritarian structure or apparatus available to impose such a change. Moreover, Armstrongism NEVER had anything akin to the Roman Empire actively pursuing its demise (and please don't mention the State of California if you don't want everyone here to howl with laughter) and killing its members. Moreover, there are still large numbers of both former members (like me) and current members of splinter groups who are still observing the Sabbath.
As for Polycarp, I would encourage folks to read his epistle to the Philippians. He wrote to them: "For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom" of the blessed and glorified Paul." In fact, he mentions Paul several times in this epistle and also mentions the aforementioned Ignatius. Hence, although this man was purported to be a disciple of John, we don't find any expressions of ill will or negativity expressed toward Paul or his disciples. In other words, this evidence also supports the conclusions I've promoted here.
Finally, please list for us all of the tenets of the Old Covenant which you feel Christians are obligated to observe? And, if you only believe that certain ones have been carried over into the New Covenant, then please explain your reasoning for excluding the other provisions. As for the question of rituals, are you suggesting that there weren't any rituals associated with the Sabbath and Holy Days? Are we correct in assuming that you don't believe those rituals have been carried forward?
--Lonnie
As he was mentioned in several of the comments here, a few remarks about the work of Samuele Bacchiocci are in order. Dr. Bacchiocci rejected the Armstrongist notion that Sunday observance could be traced to Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church of the Third and Fourth Centuries. Instead, he advanced the notion that the beginnings of Sunday observance among Christians could be traced to the Emperor Hadrian's decree about the Jews and Sabbath observance in 135 C.E. According to him, Sunday observance among Christians began as a consequence of 1) persecution of Jews and their religion (which was in turn part of the Roman reaction to the two Jewish rebellions) which led to a gradual abandonment of the Sabbath and 2) the existence of pagan Sun worship which influenced Christians to adopt Sunday as their new day of worship.
After reviewing the Scriptures and writings cited above, the problems with his narrative are immediately apparent: 1) He completely ignores the topic of the Jerusalem Council related in Acts and in Paul's letter to the Galatians, 2) He ignores the evidence from the Didache and epistles of Ignatius that suggest Sunday observance was already standard practice among Gentile Christians before 135 C.E., and 3) He ignores/dismisses the evidence from both the gospel accounts and Justin's Apology that memorializing Christ's resurrection WAS a factor in influencing the adoption of Sunday as a day of fellowship and worship.
While Dr. Bacchiocchi's observation about Roman persecution of the Jews providing an impetus for early Christians to distance themselves from their Jewish brethren makes sense, it does not seem to provide a completely satisfactory explanation for the abandonment of the Sabbath. I noted in my own post that the impact of what happened in 70 C.E. should not be underestimated. Nevertheless, it seems self-evident to me that the impact of those events would have had a much greater impact on the Jewish portion of the Church than it did on the Gentile one.
Miller Jones writes:
“Are we correct in assuming that you don't believe those rituals have been carried forward?”
No you are not correct. (BTW, the purification offering [hatta’t] is my favourite offering).
"Ezekiel's program is a revision - and up-dating and a rectification - of selected topics of existent priestly legislation and practice very similar to, if not identical with, that of the Pentateuch..." (Moshe Greenberg, "The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Restoration," pp.233-35).
“No Purification Offering - No Christ - No New Covenant”.
There can be no new covenant with the House of Israel and Judah without sacrifices. The purification offering plays an important part in this.
Eze 45:21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
Eze 45:22 And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.
"[In] the combined passover and festival of unleavened bread in the spring ... [the] ... sequencing ... [of the] ... two-part celebration in vv 21/22/23-24 represents an AB/A'/B' structure. In each case there is some emphasis upon the sin offering [hatta’t]. In particular, the passover sin offering [hatta’t] has no parallel in the Pentateuch. This emphasis aligns with v 17b and implies the regular need to purify the sanctuary and so protect its holiness from the people's sins" (Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC, p.266).
In the Millennium the Passover offering is a public purification offering of a bullock.
Zec 2:11 AND MANY NATIONS [GOYIM] shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and SHALL BE MY PEOPLE: AND I WILL DWELL IN THE MIDST OF THEE,
But before the Passover can be celebrated the Temple must be cleansed by means of animal blood. While this is in preparation for the Passover, the main reason for the yearly purification of the Temple is to cleanse the Temple so that Christ’s dwelling presence (aka the “Shekinah”) remains in the Temple.
After Christ withdrew His presence, of dwelling in the midst of His people, the First Temple was destroyed and the people reaped more of the curses of the covenant.
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
The third part of the covenant formula did not occur with the Second Temple but awaits the Third Temple - after Christ's second appearance, of three and a half years.
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that KEEPETH THE SABBATH FROM POLLUTING IT, AND TAKETH HOLD OF MY COVENANT;
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
When the goyim taketh hold of the New Covenant as God’s people (Zec 2:11), keeping the Sabbath, etc, Jesus Christ will be dwelling in the midst of them (Zec 2:11) as He will be dwelling in the midst of the children of Israel (Eze 43:7a).
BTW (for me): Christ died on Friday afternoon, between the evenings, kept the Sabbath by sleeping/resting with his fathers and rose on the first day of the working week as there was work to do. Just as the physical harvest began after the Sabbath so the next phase of the spiritual harvest also began.
Heb 10:18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
"The logic of the book [of Hebrews] is based on ancient rhetorical patterns and pre-modern exegetical principles that makes the reader's task exceptionally difficult" (Richard Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest - Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology, p.141).
I also agree with the author of Hebrews in the sense he meant it using Second Temple exegesis.
Lonnie, you are asking a lot, covenants, obligation, rituals?? I have no ax to grind, nor a defense for any church teaching, but I will offer my personal understanding and will try to be brief.
Since the new covenant does involve "laws", (Jer.31, HEB.8-10), which ones would you exclude? Surely not the 10 commandments. How about the statutes and ordinances? Not according to Ezekiel 11:19-20 and 36:26-27! So what gives? The law is simply the mind of God in any conceivable circumstance. What are we to do if circumstances do not currently exist, no physical priesthood, no civil theocratic government, etc., that which affects US, but not the law. Is the law still valid?
The Christian and the New covenant:
Romans 6-8 declares that the law is (still) holy, just, and good but our relationship to it has changed. Christians have a different standing, individual not national, a different emphasis, faith not performance, a different walk, in the spirit and not after the flesh, a different service, love and newness of spirit and not lip service. This is summarized in Romans 7:6:
" But now (different standing) we are delivered from the law (different relationship) that being dead but now alive (us, not the law) wherein we were held; so that we should serve (same law, different service) in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter ".
Bullinger describes this service as " not in our old nature the letter only, but following the new nature on a new and different principle ". Christ shows this to be a deepening of significance rather than a lessoning of obligation. In other words,we now have the law (form) with the accompanying spiritual substance. Walking in the spirit satisfies BOTH!! (Romans 8:4, 13:10, 5:5)
So to me it's not a question of WHETHER we keep the law, but HOW, and by what method? Examples of this would be Christ's teachings on murder and adultery, Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 when he appealed to the law for support, and 1 Corinthians 5, " let us keep the feast (the law)". Keep it HOW??? Not with old leaven but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. And no, since Christ is now that true bread from heaven which I partake of by faith (John 6:47-51), I feel no obligation to the ritual of eating matzos and Triscuits, or fasting on Atonement! But that in no way diminishes or hinders my enjoyment of celebrating the holyday, which is now full of significance and meaning.
I know that this approach is devastating to authoritarian MAN like the Pharisees and Armstrong groups who for their own good demand boot strap obedience and will do anything to keep people busy and maintain power. But God gives us His way for our good and understanding, but it's up to us to make that distinction.
Post a Comment