Sunday is not Pagan

First I want to state clearly that I disagree with the notion that Sunday replaces the Sabbath or that any weekly observance on the “first Day of the Week” is Biblically ordained.  And that I strongly believe Biblically The Lord’s Day is The Sabbath.  

I believe all Paulian Christians kept keeping the Sabbath into the 2nd Century and that even in the Fourth Century many Seventh Day Sabbath keeping Christians still saw themselves as Paulian like the Nazarenes.

But this idea that Sunday was chosen because Pagan at heart Emperors wanted to worship Jesus on a day for Sun Worship is absurd.

Christians well before Nicaea did start doing first day of the week observances because they misunderstood certain “first day of the week” references in 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7.

There was no Seven Day Week among Pre-Christian Greco-Romans, the idea of a Seven Day Week with one day in particular as more Holy than the others is inherently Abrahamic no matter which day you choose.

I'm going to copy and paste a Quote from Tacitus at this link, skim down to [4].

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/

“We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils. In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well. Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.”

First of all we see a hint that the very idea of a day of rest was revolting to Roman Pagans, this is all the more reason why I believe Capitalist “Work Ethic” Values are Roman in Origin not Protestant.

When at some point Christianized Greco-Romans started identifying the days of the weeks with the visible wandering heavenly bodies since there were seven of them, Saturday was named for Saturn probably because of the influence of what Tacitus said here, or the older sources he got these ideas from.  

Now Biblically we know from Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:43 that the Israelites were departing from the proper worship of YHWH when they worshiped the planet we now call Saturn.  But there would have been a pagan affiliation no matter which Planet was assigned to the Seventh Day, Saturn’s Harvesting and Agriculture characteristics do fit some of the Sabbath's associations.  And Tacitus’s observation that Saturn is the farthest from us of the visible Planets is worthy of note.  It appearing to move through the night sky the slowest could also be a good reason to associate it with rest.

The day on which Jesus Rose from the Dead was associated with The Sun because of the Biblical reasons for viewing The Sun as a symbol of Jesus (Malachi 4:2) and Sunrise as a Symbol of Resurrection (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 1:78-79, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 5:45, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Samuel 23:4, Psalm 110:3).

And the SDA belief that it's specifically about attacking the Sabbath is also silly.  The fact is none of the earliest Christian Sunday observance based laws even post Nicaea forbade also resting on the Sabbath.  If you wanted to make another day the weekly day of rest with the intention of making Sabbath observance more difficult, what would make sense is making the Sixth Day, the Biblical Preparation Day, the legally enforced day of rest.

The Lords Day is The Sabbath not Sunday

First I want to make clear I'm not a Seventh Day Adventist or a member of any any other dogmatically Sabbath based sect (I am considering being Baptized as a Seventh Day Baptist but they are a denomination not interested in being Judgmental towards those who disagree with them).  

I do not support Legalism, Christians are not bound to observe any weekly service, at all. I'm writing this to refute the notion that The New Testament "Lords Day" is Sunday.

Not everyone who believes weekly Sunday worship is Biblical defines it as Sunday supplanting the Sabbath.  Some like Chris White  just define it as the New Testament ordaining weekly Sunday worship as a separate thing from The Sabbath.  

In The New Testament the term "The Lord's Day" occurs only once. Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet".

We're not told what day of the week this is, or if it's a weekly day at all. Sunday supporters just assume this phrase means something distinct from the Sabbath and therefore it backs up their other reasons for saying The New Testament calls for worship on the First Day of The Week.

But in Matthew 12:8 Jesus said He was the Lord of the Sabbath, and Isaiah 58:13-14 calls the Sabbath, "The LORD's Holy Day". So using Scripture to Interpret Scripture this can only mean the Sabbath.

As far as extra Biblical references go (which don't actually matter to me). The Didache (supposedly the oldest Extra-Biblical Christian writing) also does not say when "The Lord's Day" is, just refers to it. The one quote of Ignatius of Antioch often used in this debate says in the only surviving Greek text (which is the language he wrote in) "If, then, those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's life ...". Clearly not about when or if we should do a weekly observance at all, simply referring to us not being bound by The Law. Some later Latin texts add "The Lord's Day" to this, and some even make clear it's Sunday, but these are clearly latter corruptions.

It's not till the second half of the Second Century AD. that indisputable references to The Lord's Day being Sunday occur, in texts like the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, or Acts of Peter, or Acts of Paul, or Acts of John, or Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth in 170 AD. You might think that sounds sufficiently early, but they're after the Bar Kochba revolt which occurred around about a third of the way into the Second Century. That is when the Church started taking on Anti-Semitic tendencies in response to the persecution of Christians carried out under Bar Kochba. I feel this separation of Christian observance from the Sabbath was based solely on that agenda.

Now, for Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2.

The Corinthians reference is to me certainly not about weekly observance. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." One could argue that Paul expected his Epistle to be read to the Congregation on a Sabbath meeting, and that they should then begin saving up this money the very next day.

Acts 20:7 I don't really see as calling for anything. It just says they broke bread together, and then Paul preached.

I personally find the debating that goes own between Protestant and Evangelical denominations on when to observe the "Lord's Supper", should it be Weekly, Monthly or Yearly, and so on to be silly. Jesus told us when in the actual account of the Supper itself "when ye eat". It's not supposed to be an appointed ceremony, it's simply a matter of whenever we eat we remember that Jesus's Body was Broken and his Blood was Shed for us.

And I don't think Paul needed a special day to Preach on either, Preaching is simply what he did.

This being during the counting of the Omer means it involved Biblical Significance for the First Day of The Week already in The Torah in Leviticus 23.  The Resurrection and Pentecost were on Sundays because Leviticus 23 ordained them to be, those Sundays being important did not introduce anything new.

I keep hearing that ALL of Jesus post Resurrection appearances were on Sundays from the Evangelical Sunday supporting people.  However only the Doubting Thomas incident could be interpreted that way.  Besides that it's well known The Ascension was a Thursday being day 40 of the Omer (Acts 1:3). 

When you read through Acts, you'll see Sabbath observances are definitely still kept by Early Christians, even Paul. Even if the word Sabbath isn't used, if Paul is disputing with Jews in a Synagogue, you can infer that it is a Sabbath or a New Moon or a Holy Day. And for this reason it's clear that even the Mars' Hill Sermon was preached on a Sabbath not a Sunday, in Acts 17:16-19.

Ezekiel 45 clearly has the Sabbath still being observed in the Messianic Temple.  And I believe that is the New Heaven and New Earth not The Millennium.

So what day we do a weekly observance is not something to be Dogmatic on. Or even if we do a weekly observance at all.  I'm ultimately against the entire modern definition of what a "church" is, archaeology shows no church buildings were built till the Third Century. But the evidence both Biblical and Extra-Biblical shows that the first 2 or 3 generations of The Church met on the Jewish Sabbath, not Sunday.  And then the Nazarenes kept the Sabbath at least into the late Fourth Century.

The history even of the how Sunday replaced Saturday is more complicated then most people realize.  Even in the Nicene Era a lot of Christians were kind of just doing both.

The Eucharist has more Hebrew Bible precedent then just the Passover Seder, it is also connected to Melchizedek's Supper in Genesis 14 and the Shewbread.  The Shewbread was kept in the Holy Place on the Table of Shewbread all Week and then eaten by the Priests on The Sabbath.  Under the New Testament all Believers are the Priesthood, so that is Biblical Support for the Eucharist being part of what we do on the Weekly Sabbath.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-showbread-and-eucharist.html

Baptists should believe in Universal Salvation.

The first reason is that many Baptists love to stress that Baptists have long been advocates of Religious Freedom aka Liberty of Conscience.  

Baptists have been at the forefront of it right from the beginning of the Baptists as we today understand them with Thomas Helwys and John Smyth.  Before them some notion of Religious Toleration had been proposed in the English speaking world by some 16th Century Puritans like Robert Browne, but for them it was just about disagreements within Christianity (or even just within Protestantism), it was these first Baptists who were the first to argue for Religious Liberty for even Jews, Muslims and Atheists.

And this tradition continued with Leonard Busher followed by Richard Overton, the real ideological brain of the Levellers, and then Roger Williams and John Clarke who founded Rhode Island.  Then Isaac Backus and John Leland during the era of the American Revolution.

My reason for arguing Universal Salvation should naturally go with belief in Liberty of Conscience is not quite what you’d probably first assume.  The relationship between Religious Freedom and Evangelism should be the argument that conversions made under force or coercion simply will not be sincere.  

I believe Jesus Christ should be viewed as the model for Human morality, not as a Sovereign who doesn’t hold Himself to the same rules as His subjects.  So if it’s morally wrong for us to persecute, torture or kill people for holding the wrong beliefs, it’s an absurd contradiction to then say that is ultimately exactly what Jesus will do when He returns.

For the Scriptural Reasons Universal Salvation is true, start by checking out my Six Points of Universal Salvation page, then read other posts with the Universal Salvation tag where I go more in depth.

Now my fellow Universal Salvation believers in Pedobaptist denominations may argue that since Salvation isn't only for a select few; why not just Baptize the babies automatically?  Well as an Evangelical Universalist I still see a meaningful distinction between those who are in The Kingdom already and those who aren’t yet.  Water Baptism is a ritual performed to symbolize choosing to become a full Citizen of The Kingdom.  

But returning to why specifically Baptists should rethink any knee jerk rejection of Universal Salvation is the fact that Baptists who came to that conclusion appeared very early on.  And were even important players in getting the ball rolling on modern Universalism in the first place.

They start at least with the 17th Century Bell Alley General Baptist Church of Thomas Lambe, Henry Denne and Samuel Oats.  And in her book The Reformation of The Heart: Gender and Radical Theology in The English Revolution starting on page 69 Sarah Apetrei highlights the women of that Congregation who were important voices of Universal Salvation like Elizabeth Attaway.  They were an influence on first Gerrard Winstanley and then The Quakers.

The Everlasting Gospel by Georg Klein-Nicolai is a German book on Universal Salvation that seems to have its origin among the Schwarzenau Brethren also called the Dunkers and German Baptists.

The rise of Universal Salvation in the American Colonies in the late 18th Century that led to the foundation of the Universalist Church of America involved several Baptists and people of a Baptist Background.  Elhanan Winchester would probably be the most orthodox to modern Baptists, but there’s also Adams Streeter and Hosea Ballou who also each had been Baptist Pastors, Caleb Rich who was born into a Baptist family, and Giles Chapman who married a German Baptist.  

James Murray and his mentor James Relly never had actual ties to any Baptist Church, but they came to a view on the Sacraments basically the same as the Quakers and like Gerrard Winstanley and the early Quakers a Baptist perspective on the Pedobaptism vs Credobaptism debate plays a role in how they got there.

The Universalist Church of America as a denomination never had a uniform policy on Baptism, but they were always consistently Congregationalist.

George MacDonald had been a Congregationalist, so not a Baptist but someone who'd agree with us on Church Polity.

The main contemporary Baptists who believe in Universal Salvation are the Primitive Baptist Universalists in Appalachia, who are more theologically liberal then other Primitive Baptists (and myself) on a number of things.  I'm hoping writing this can help change that.

The Seventh Day Baptists are partly known for being one of the most allowing of divergent doctrinal views within its denomination.  And I do agree that the Sabbath was never changed to Sunday, that idea is based on a misunderstanding of two verses.  So it does disappoint me that when I read the Statement of Faith on their official website the only belief of mine that is in potential conflict with any part of it is Universal Salvation.  

I also see a logical relationship between Sabbatarianism and Universal Salvation.  Believing that Sunday supplanted the Sabbath goes hand in hand with the mainstream Christian view that God permanently divorced Israel to take a new wife.  I'm not a Dispensationalist or strictly speaking a Two House Theology advocate.  Rather for me God’s determination to restore Israel no matter how far they fall is a specially emphasized part of His refusal to allow any to perish.  

And going back to Sarah Apetrei's book, there is documentation of the wife of John Belcher an early Seventh Day Baptist as Pastor of a Church at Belle Lane in the 1660s believing in Universal Salvation.

I know a lot of Baptists are among the most strict KJV Onlists so I should also link to this old post of mine.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2017/05/kjv-only-universalism.html

And for the Landmarkists who think the Novatians were ancient Baptists, there is evidence they may have believed in Universal Salvation.  It was their critic Cyprian who popularized the idea that there is no Salvation outside The Church which went hand in hard with how he was also the first to really stress making Infant Baptism obligatory.

Novatus, or as he is often called, Novatian, an eminent presbyter of Rome, who contested the bishopric of the church there with Cornelius, advanced something like Universalism. He extolled in the highest, though in general terms, the unbounded goodness of God (De Regula Fidei, cap. ii., prope finem, edit. Jackson, Lond., 1728, pp. 23-25); and maintained that the wrath, indignation, and hatred of the Lord, so called, are not such passions in him as bear the same name in man; but that they are operations in the divine mind which are directed solely to our purification (De Regula Fidei, cap. iv.). In short, he asserted the peculiar principles of Universalism; but whether he pursued them out to their necessary result does not appear.

https://universalistchristian.org/books/ancient-history/

I'm now thinking the Biblical Day does begin at Sunrise

I wrote my post arguing agaisnt the Lunar Calendar assuming Biblical days begin and end at Sunset, but I'm now addressing that question.

I discovered some websites like these.

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/daystarts.html

https://www.bibletimemarkers.com/a-day-begins-at-sunrise

I am not at this time endorsing anything else on those sites.  But the first one I notice does support a Rapture view similar to what mine was when I was a Futurist in being at the 7th Trumpet and before the Bowls.  That site however is still assuming a Lunar Calendar for determining the Months, which I am now highly skeptical of.  I also probably do not agree with their Passion Week chronology.

Both argue that during the Creation Week, the Day is when God does the work, and at the end of each day it describes the times of Sunset and Sunrise (evening and morning) following.  The first act of Creation is the creation of Light, which thematically supports the day beginning at Sunrise.  Then in Genesis 1:5, 15-16 and 18 the Day is listed before the Night.  Like many other times later on when referring to "forty days and forty nights" or "three days and three nights", in fact almost any time you see "nights" plural, and there are 27 verses that refer to "day and night".  Also the Sun is always listed before the moon in verses like Genesis 37:9, Deuteronomy 4:19. 17:3 and 33:14.  And in Numbers 28 the daily sacrifices are listed as morning first then evening.

In Leviticus 23 a few things make more sense when you remove the Sunset to Sunset based assumptions.  And this is the most important chapter to understanding the Torah Calendar.

What's said about the 14th of Nisan and Passover when compared to Exodus 12 and other Passover passages is a lot less confusing if the days begin and end at sunrise, since then the evening is the middle of the day.  

But the Yom Kippur instructions are what's really revealing.  The Day of Atonement is the Tenth day of the Seventh Month, that was determined already back in chapter 16.  But in verse 32 the Ninth Day is mentioned for some reason.  What the verse seems to be saying is this 24 hour period that functions like a Sabbath begins at the Sunset of the 9th and ends the next Sunset.  The emphasis on that here clearly implying that's not when actual calendar days begin and end, doing it that way here is a special occasion.

I have argued in the past against viewing Yom Kippur as a Fast day.  But this understanding of verse 32 can negate my main argument, since it can allow the Fast to be from Sunset of the 9th to the Sunset of the 10th so that in the Evening of the 10th you eat the meat of Sacrificed Animals, similar to how the 14th as Passover works in this model.

Likewise is Exodus 12:18, everywhere else the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread are 15-21 of the First Month, but in this passage it includes the Evening of the 14th making it consist of 8 evenings.  

This also explains how confused the Rabbinic Jewish observance of Passover is.  While Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45 provide Hebrew Bible precedent for expanding the use of the word Passover to cover the entire seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread, the change to a Sunset based observance causing the Evening of the 14th to become the Evening of the 15th explains why Rabbinic observance basically forgets that the 14th is Passover.  

Rabbinic tradition does call the 14th the Fast of the Firstborn.  Originally that was clearly tied to the 14th being the day the Egyptian First Born were killed and Israel's spared, but that is supposed to be happening during the Seder so the Sunset based reckoning now has that happening on the 15th so why the 14th is called the Fast of the Firstborn is something the Rabbis struggle to explain.

Speaking of Rabbinic tradition, Fasts are still traditionally supposed to begin at Sunrise, so that sounds like a carry over from the original reckoning.

1 Samuel 30:17 also arguably makes more sense on a Sunrise to Sunrise calendar.

It also mirrors the Torah year better.  Biblically the year begins in Spring, and Dawn is essentially the Spring of the day, hence Sunrise sometimes being refereed to as "dayspring".

Malachi says Jesus is the Sun of Righteousness, and the Fourth Gospel says He is the Light, and Peter calls Him the Lightbearer, there is also the Womb of the Morning reference in Psalm 110.  Revelation says Jesus is the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega.  So the day beginning and ending with Sunrise fits that typological pattern.

Which then leads to overlooked details of the Passion narrative.  Matthew 27:57 and Mark 15:42 depict the evening following the Crucifixion as still the day before The Sabbath.  And John 20:19 depicts the Evening following when Jesus had Risen and been seen Risen as still the First Day of The Week.

The KJV translation of Matthew 28:1 says the Sabbath ends at Sunrise, the Young's Literal Translation and the Peshitta agree.  But modern translations will try to say "after the Sabbath" to force it to still fit the Sunset based calendar assumptions.

Using the Internet on The Sabbath

I've noticed a few example of Torah observing Christians saying they don't go on The Internet on The Sabbath.  I find that strange.

Any argument that going on the Internet qualifies as servile work would be as absurd as the Rabbis saying it would violate the Sabbath to push the button on an Elevator.

The Sabbath is also a day of Assembly, part of it's purpose is for God's People to come together.  In the modern world The Internet is a vital part of how we do that.  If you know other believers in your area you should feel free to consider communing with them more important.

But we should never neglect using part of The Sabbath Day to check whatever online groups and communities we are members of.  And so on.  Cause some of us lack local like minded Believers we can fellowship with in person.

Sabbath posts

The Sabbath is considered a morality dispute to many Christians.  But for various reasons I tend to wind up discussing it on my Prophecy Blog, because anything about The Calendar is potentially Prophetic.  So I figured I'd share some posts here.

In which I argue against the notion that The New Testament calls for Sunday Worship.

In which I address the SDA desire to connect it to The Mark.

In which I argue against those saying Jesus rose on The Sabbath not Sunday.

In which I address the Lunar Sabbath theory.

In which I revisit my view on The Sabbath's role in the Passion narrative.

In which I discus The Sabbath's connection to The Manna.

The last half of those I made within the last week.  They may be subject to some editing in the near future.

Update October 28th 2016:  And now I have made on on this Blog.

 Using The Interne ton The Sabbath.

Update April 2016: And I did a follow up on the Lunar Sabbath issue.

Update June 2024: As that Prophecy Blog is Retired now I'm gonna need to redo the more important of those, mostly on this Blog probably rather then Materialist Eschatology.

I've changed The Lord's Day is The Sabbath not Sunday quite a bit, abandoning tangents I don't feel like supporting anymore and adding some new material.