W

 hen it comes to determining the correct interpretation of Scripture, once I form my own opinion, I always check out the historical record. If the ancients (1st century or earlier) believed and practiced in accordance with my own conclusion, I look at that as a positive sign. I am persuaded this approach works well when it comes to determining the "how to" aspect of Scriptural applications. However, we need to be careful with our examination of the historical record when it comes to "whether or not" certain beliefs were practiced. I say this especially in reference to the first century and afterwards, and the specific concern lies with Torah observance by Messianic believers.

     A friend recently gave me a copy of a Catholic Answers article titled "What the Early Church Believed: Sabbath or Sunday?" Of course, the conclusion promoted by the anonymous author[1] is that the early Messianic believers (first century and beyond) worshipped on Sunday. There is no question that there are records of early believers promoting worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh. There is also no question that other Messianic believers worshipped on the Sabbath. To back up his claim, the Catholic author cites numerous ancient sources, such as The Letter of Barnabas, The Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, The Didascalia, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Augustine and Pope Gregory I, all of whom seem to uphold Sunday worship while deriding and, yes, even condemning those who worship on the Sabbath.

     With such an array of witnesses supportive of Sunday being the correct day on which to worship, how can the Catholic Church possibly be mistaken? I'm sure that's their line of reasoning. It would certainly appear the deck is stacked in their favor. No one would consider the possibility that all of them were both deceived and deceivers. Yet, that is what I believe, and I'm willing to demonstrate as much to anyone. I have authored several studies in which I validate my view that Torah is just as valid today as it was when it was given to Moses. I therefore won't take the time here to refute the author's list of "proof texts," such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17 and Revelation 1:10 [2]. None of these verses state that the  Sabbath is no longer binding, and it can be demonstrated that both Catholics and Protestants take each of the above verses out of context. I will instead take the time to demonstrate that, indeed, there were Messianic believers who worshipped on the Sabbath because they understood the Law had not been abolished.

     First, we all need to recognize that even as the Apostle Paul and the other apostles labored to spread the glad tidings of our blessed hope in Yeshua the  Messiah, the enemy was at work creating division and hatred. Towards the end of his ministry, the Apostle Paul uttered this warning in Acts chapter 20:

29 I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30 Even from your own number, men will rise up and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them.

     Is it possible that the "Barnabas" who wrote the famous Epistle of Barnabas[3] was among those who distorted the truth? The Catholic Answers article dates the epistle to the year 74 ce, obviously aiming for the earliest possible date of authorship, which would create the potential for interaction with the apostles; other authorities date it to as late as 130 ce. But  notice the pertinent quote:

“We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8).

 

 

 

 

     We should pay very close attention to the reason the author gives for keeping Sunday. He states that it's the day on which Yeshua rose from the dead. Please consider the fact that all four of the so-called "gospel" accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written more than 30 years after the events they describe. You would expect at least one of those authors to have mentioned that a new day of worship was set in motion after Yeshua's resurrection. But nothing of the sort is mentioned.

     Or how about the Apostle Paul? Why didn't he write something like, "We no longer keep the old law, but rather the new law in Messiah, and just as He rose on the first day of the week, so we now worship on the first day of the week"? Why do we instead read that it was Paul's custom to meet on the Sabbath day (Acts 17:2)? Why did Paul boldly state that he had not offended (sinned against) the law (Acts 25:8, 28:17)? If the Jews were ready to execute Paul for allegedly bringing a foreigner into the temple (Acts 21:29), what would their reaction have been if he had been found teaching that the Sabbath had been "done away"?!

     Should I mention the fact that the New Testament authors omitting anything about meeting on the first day of the week in honor of Yeshua's resurrection was unanimous? Not only did Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul not mention any such custom, but neither did Peter, James or the author of Hebrews. And yet, we are now expected to buy the reasoning offered by the unknown author of the Epistle of Barnabas?

     Interestingly, other "Church fathers" follow pseudo-Barnabas' lead. Here's what Ignatius had to say:

“[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death” (Epistle to the Magnesians 9 [A.D. 110]).

     Here in this epistle, Ignatius follows the same course as the previously-cited author, metaphorically comparing Sunday observance to Yeshua's resurrection, i.e., the day "on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death." Why was this line of reasoning never presented by the New Testament authors?

     Not to be outdone, Justin Martyr offered up the same reasoning for Sunday observance:

“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” (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

     A question that comes to mind as I read these supposed theologians' reasoning is, "Why don't they supply proof texts from the New Testament writings to justify their claims?" An even bigger question is why no one seems to question the authority of these "Church fathers." Aren't we supposed to question their reasoning, searching the Scriptures daily to confirm Scriptural support for such a consequential new teaching, like the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 did? In the case of the noble Bereans, they were able to confirm the Apostle Paul and Silas' message was true. Can the same be said when we examine the writings of pseudo-Barnabas, Ignatius and Justin Martyr? No, it cannot. Just where and how did they come up with reasoning that the Almighty now wants believers to worship on Sunday because that's the day on which Yeshua rose from the dead?[4]

     The next writing offered by the Catholic author comes from The Didascalia:

“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven” (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).

 

 

 

 

 

    And so the teaching builds on itself. Not only are we supposed to worship on the first day of the week as homage to the Resurrection, but it's also due to an expressed belief that Sunday is the day on which Yeshua ascended up to heaven.[5] Since Catholics actually teach that Yeshua's ascension was on a Thursday, they must conclude, at the very least, that The Didascalia author was mixed up. None of the reasoning outlined in The Didascalia has the support of Scripture.

     Also on the Catholic Answers' list is the highly-regarded Origen, who follows the same pattern as his predecessors:

“Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection” (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).

     As with his predecessors, Origen fails to include proof texts supportive of his view.

     The next writer on the Catholic Answers list is Victorinus, who breaks with his predecessors in not mentioning the Resurrection. However, he does introduce what is likely the true underlying reason for Sunday worship as opposed to Shabbat worship:

“The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to  observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished” (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).

     As prejudice against Jews grew, so did the effort to distinguish the Catholic Church from Judaism, and that most assuredly included Sabbath observance. The Sabbath, for Jews, is considered a day of joy and feasting. What better way to demonstrate that we have nothing to do with Judaism than by fasting on their day of gladness? Victorinus, though quite anti-semitic, was probably the most forthright and honest of those who attempted to uphold Sunday worship. As an aside, I find it appalling and disgusting that leading Catholics here in this 21st century would produce such anti-semitic quotes in support of their anti-Torah stance. Victorinus, like Hitler, hated Jews, but that won't stop Catholics from borrowing his quotes in defense of their (unscriptural) belief that the Sabbath was "abolished."

     The next theologian cited by Catholic Answers is Eusebius of Caesarea:

“[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality” (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).

     Once again, the above is simply another Church father's perspective of why Sunday is the "one and only truly holy day." As with the majority of these writers, he rests his case on his personal view of which day the Resurrection occurred, which, again, lacks any support from the Bible. We don't question the magnitude of the Resurrection; it's the basis of our hope for eternal life. However, where in the Bible do we find the day of Resurrection to be the determining factor of the day on which we set aside for rest and worship? Unless the author is able to produce a supportive proof text, we can only conclude that he relies solely on man's reasoning and is therefore deceived.

     Eusebius also throws in the interpretational notion that a "shadow of things to come" means the shadow is no longer valid. I maintain that his interpretation is a false one. The shadow parallels the Apostle Paul's commentary on how we all now see through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12). Many things in this life are but shadows of things to come. Marriage, for example, is a shadow of the real marriage that will take place in the Kingdom. The Passover is a shadow of the final deliverance when that marriage finally occurs. As Yeshua stated in Luke 22:16, the Passover will not be fulfilled until it is celebrated in the Kingdom. The feast of Trumpets is a shadow of Yeshua's Second Coming, when the trump shall sound. The day of Atonement is a shadow of Judgment Day. The feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) is a shadow of the final redemption, when the saints will eternally dwell with Yahweh and Yeshua. The Sabbath is not only a memorial to the rest from Creation, but also a shadow of the rest the saints will experience in the Kingdom. "Shadow of things to come" means "foreshadow," not something that is gone. The shadow only goes away when the light overtakes it. Yeshua is that light and He has not yet come to deliver His people.

     Included on Catholic Answers' list of supportive historical "evidence" is testimony from Athanasius of Alexandria:

“The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of  the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation” (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).

     Again, we see more of the same. Where in the Bible do we read that the first day of the week is the "memorial of the new creation"? And this is supposed to be supportive evidence? The concern is that these so-called theologians incorporate interpretational spins based on actual facts and events that really happened, then declare their concoction of truth mixed with error to be doctrine. And millions fall for it.

     Catholic Answers next offers the testimony from John Chrysostum:

“You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?” (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).

     Chrysostum here mirrors the disgusting anti-semitic rhetoric used by Victorinus, going so far as to imply that those who "grovel in the Law" will not be in the Kingdom of Yahweh.

     As with Victorinus, so it was with Chrysostum: He reasons that we must do anything and everything to disassociate ourselves from Judaism, and alas, if we're found feasting on Shabbat and fasting on the same days as the Jews, then we have just "overthrown the gospel"! Is "disgusting" too strong of a term to describe how I feel about John Chrysostum's attitude? And just to be clear, there are no New Testament proof texts supportive of Chrysostum's approach, yet he condemns those who do not agree. In fact, Yeshua associated with any and all, including the hated publicans. His concern was more about avoiding the "blind guides," which, in my opinion, would include the likes of Victorinus. Moreover, the Apostle Paul wrote that he became all things to all men, including Jews, that he might by all means save some (1 Corinthians 9:16-22). I am 100% certain he would not have advised converts to avoid worshipping on the Sabbath AND to also fast on that day to spite the Jews.

      A fifth century writer named Augustine made it ultra clear that the Sabbath should not be observed:

“Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian” (The Spirit and the Letter 24 [A.D. 412]).

     I had to read the above three or four times because, initially, I couldn't discern whether or not Augustine was truly arguing against Sabbath observance. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but in this instance he truly was arguing against Sabbath observance. I found an alternate translation of Augustine's The Spirit and the Letter, chapter 24, where it's made even clearer that the Sabbath is the only one of the ten commandments that, according to Augustine, should not be obeyed. He terms the other nine commandments "the law of faith," whereas the Sabbath is "the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones." Here's a more complete text:

"Well, then, is it owing to the one precept about the Sabbath day, which is included in it, that the Decalogue is called the letter that kills? Because, forsooth, every man that still observes that day in its literal appointment is carnally wise, but to be carnally wise is nothing else than death? And must the other nine commandments, which are rightly observed in their literal form, not be regarded as belonging to the law of works by which none is justified, but to the law of faith whereby the just man lives? Who can possibly entertain so absurd an opinion as to suppose that the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, is not said equally of all the ten commandments, but only of the solitary one touching the Sabbath day?

     Finally, I am displaying Catholic Answers' citation from the Council of Laodicea's Canon 29:

“Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however,  particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians” (Canon 29 [A.D. 360])

     This teaching, or "Canon," has at least two flaws. First and foremost, it's unscriptural. A truth seeker should wonder why none of the apostles ever taught that we should work on the Sabbath. The only "work" sanctioned on the Sabbath is the righteous labor, such as acts of compassion, on behalf of the Kingdom, as sanctioned by Yeshua (John 5:17). We can be certain that's not the kind of work promoted by the Council of  Laodicea! The second flaw is actually a flaw committed by the Catholic Answers author. The fact that a fourth century council needed to include a charge to work on the Sabbath, as opposed to resting that day as Jews do, proves that there were believers in that century who were doing just that: resting on the Sabbath. Why bother incorporating such a stern mandate if all believers "just knew" the Sabbath had been done away Therefore, this citation from the Council of Laodicea offers yet another clue to the fact that there were Messianic believers who kept the Sabbath. It proves the exact opposite of what the author was trying to prove.

     I hope we can now see that, just as the Apostle Paul warned his brethren, the mystery of iniquity was already at work in his day (2 Thess 2:7), long before these so-called Catholic "Church Fathers" came along. Instead of teaching new believers to work on the Sabbath, Paul claimed to have obeyed the Law of the Jews (Acts 25:8, 28:17). Instead of teaching that obedience to the Law was unnecessary and would even prevent men from entering the Kingdom, Paul commended Timothy for "knowing the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in the Messiah Yeshua" (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The "Scriptures" Paul was referring to was not the New Testament, and it certainly wasn't the writings of the Church fathers. It was Torah. The Apostle Paul taught the complete opposite of Catholic Answers' teaching, but sadly, many of their members are by now so entrenched in this false doctrine that it will take a miracle from Yahweh for their eyes to be opened.

     I understand my refutation of Catholic Answers' article will not garner much traction, if at all, from those who have been conditioned to believe the Law was "done away" and "nailed to the Cross." I understand that even the majority of Protestants are sold on this same notion. I have refuted this argument elsewhere, including a presentation I gave at the 2006 Unity Conference. I actually delivered that presentation prior to  completing a more in-depth study on the relevance of Torah in today's world, which I hope to finish in the near future. We need obedience to the moral code found in Torah now more than ever.

 

___________________________________

 

1 I'm not sure if Bernadeane Carr is the author of the article, but her name appears at the bottom as the Censor Librorum, indicating that, in her estimation, the article is "free of doctrinal or moral errors." —Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004.
2 I actually don't dwell too much on Revelation 1:10, as no one can prove that "day of the Lord" means "Sunday." It could also mean "the day of judgment." However, an ancient Hebrew manuscript of the book of Revelation has been found, and "day of the Lord" isn't even mentioned in Rev 1:10. It says, "As Ruach Ha-Qodesh was resting on me, I heard behind me a great voice." This Hebrew manuscript, by the way, is shown to  pre-date our current copies from the Greek.
3 At one time, the epistle was attributed to the Barnabas mentioned in the book of Acts. It is now generally understood that the author is unknown.
4 It should be mentioned that there is no clear reference in the gospel accounts that Yeshua rose on Sunday. Many, myself included, are persuaded that He rose at the end of the Sabbath, just prior to the beginning of the first day of the week. It can be demonstrated that traditional Bible verses used to validate a Sunday resurrection, notably Mark 16:9, are later additions, possibly added by the very "Church fathers" who teach this belief as doctrine.
5 There is nothing in the Bible to support a belief that Yeshua ascended to heaven on a Sunday. In fact, even Catholic doctrine states that the ascension was on a Thursday.