Bob Can’t Let It Go!
In yet another post attempting to refute my own post about the early Church, “Dr” Bob Thiel has returned to the subject of “First Century: Saturday or Sunday.” I’ll give Bob one thing – He clearly recognizes that this history goes to the heart of the viability of the Armstrong Churches of God’s teachings about Torah observance and the continuing obligation of “TRUE” Christians to keep the Sabbath. For Bob, the real history of the early Church represents an existential threat to Armstrongism! He understands that the narrative about when Sunday observance began is essential to the ACOG’s raison d’etre!
First, the narrative which I presented about the Council of Jerusalem was Scriptural and recognized by most scholars as reflecting what actually happened there. You can’t get much more objective than artificial intelligence (unperturbed by human biases), and my Bing copilot has this to say about that event: “The Council of Jerusalem was a conference of the Christian Apostles in Jerusalem about 50 CE. It was held to decide as to the authority of the law of Moses and adjust the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. The council decreed that Gentile Christians did not have to observe the Mosaic Law of the Jews. It is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later ecumenical councils and a key part of Christian ethics.”
Likewise, BibleGateway’s Encyclopedia of the Bible had this to say about that event:
“COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM (συνέδριον, G5284; tr. “council” in every occurrence in the NT, RSV. Heb. סַנְהֶדְרִין), Biblical meaning: “an ecclesiastical assembly for deciding matters of doctrine or discipline” (RHD). Used in reference to the first general church Council recorded in Acts 15, where the word “council” per se does not occur; not to be confused with the Jewish Sanhedrin.
1. The Council’s occasion and issue. The Council of Jerusalem most likely occurred about a.d. 48 or 49, and prob. between the first and second missionary journeys of Paul, following a temporary visit of Paul and Barnabas to the church at Antioch of Syria. In Acts 15:1-5 Luke describes the occasion for the Council. Galatians 2:1-10 is now viewed by most scholars as Paul’s general, though non-chronological, account of the same event.
Certain believing Christian Jews of the sect of the Pharisees (commonly known as Judaizers) regarded submission to Jewish legal rites, but circumcision in particular, as essential to the salvation of the Gentiles and their admission to membership in the Christian Church (Acts 15:1). Representatives of this sect visited the flourishing Jew-Gentile Christian Church at Antioch of Syria as purported emissaries of the Jerusalem apostles (Gal 2:12), while Paul and Barnabas were ministering there, and evidently during a temporary visit of Peter also (2:11). Their insistence upon circumcision of the Gentile believers as essential to personal salvation and to membership in the Church appeared to Paul to negate faith in Christ as adequate for justification, and thus in effect render void Christ’s death on the cross (2:21). Paul stoutly withstood them and even severely rebuked Peter for his social, though perhaps nonreligious, segregation (2:11-20). Peter’s reprehensible conduct was most likely due to fear produced by the ostentation of the Judaizers at Antioch, rather than by any disposition to compromise the vital issue of the conditions for Gentile salvation. However, even in this he was not guiltless (see Acts 11:1-18). These Judaizers precipitated the single greatest crisis of the Early Church, and one of the greatest of all church history. They threatened a cleavage within the Jew-Gentile Christian Church that might never have been healed, and which might well have precluded the universal worldmission of the Gospel.
The decision to send a delegation, including Paul and Barnabas, from Antioch to the Jerusalem mother church for an official decision in the dispute evidently had a twofold authorization; (1) the Antioch church (Acts 15:2, 3), and (2) divine revelation (Gal 2:1, 2; cf. Acts 13:2-4). Titus, an uncircumcised Gr. believer, was among the “certain other” delegates (15:2) sent to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1, 2) where he became a test case. Paul refused to yield to the demands of the Judaizers at the Jerusalem Council that Titus be circumcised, lest by such a concession they win the right of their position before the Council and thus impose the burden of the Mosaic law upon all Gentile believers. Paul was sustained by the Council and Titus later became one of his most trusted co-workers in the Gentile world mission.” (See Encyclopedia of the Bible: Council of Jerusalem)
Hence, it is easily verifiable that the narrative which I presented about the Jerusalem Council was neither novel nor inconsistent with the understanding of the vast majority of Biblical scholarship on the subject. Indeed, what I posted about the Jerusalem Council is sustained by simply opening your own copy of the Bible to Acts 15 or typing that event into the search engine on your own computer! In other words, it doesn’t take a whole lot of intensive research and effort!
Similarly, the ACOG’s narrative about the adoption of Pagan practices by the Church has been thoroughly discredited by both Biblical and historical scholars. Once again, as Herbert Armstrong used to say, “you don’t have to take my word for it” – the veracity of my assertions on the subject are easily verified with a few clicks of your own computer. (See Christian Sunday Observance Did NOT Originate in Pagan Practices) Sure, the Romans referred to the first day of the week as the day of the Sun, but they also referred to the Sabbath as the day of Saturn. Once again, all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) affirm that the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples on the first day of the week – the one that the pagans referred to as Sunday! To ignore the importance of that event (Christ’s resurrection) to early Christians is tantamount to discounting a great deal of the text of the New Testament!
Finally, I have provided numerous links to the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers over the years (See Early Christian Writings: Church Fathers). Once again, the truth of my assertions are only a few clicks away on your own computer! I have also included many excerpts from these writings in previous posts on this subject (See Early Christianity: From Sabbath to Sunday). Unfortunately, Bob’s narrative about Church history does NOT square with the available evidence from both Scripture and history. The Sabbath pointed to our rest in Christ (See Hebrews 4). Unlike Bob, I have no animus for the Sabbath, and I have no special attachment to Sunday (Indeed, I continue to personally observe the Sabbath). Nevertheless, Bob’s narrative that there was a Great Conspiracy to suppress Sabbath observance and replace it with the pagan Sunday is simply NOT consistent with the available evidence.
Lonnie Hendrix
