Old Wine

Apostles – Temple

During his lifetime, Jesus worshiped regularly in the temple when he was in Jerusalem and in the synagogue when he was elsewhere (Luke 4:16). After he ascended, his followers continued to practice Judaism in the same way.

The apostles and other disciples, a group of about 150, were in Jerusalem for the Passover festival. After Jesus’ resurrection, he told them to remain in Jerusalem, rather than going home and then returning for Shavuot (Pentecost), another pilgrim festival (Deu. 16:16).

Acts 3:1 records Peter and John going up to the temple at the time of prayer, at 3 pm. This is the minchah prayer time that Jews traditionally observe. Many Christians read this passage and fail to note that the apostles were practicing Judaism on this occasion and others.

This was not just a one-time visit either. In the preceding verses (2:46) we’re told that they continued to meet together in the temple courts every day. No doubt when the occasion arose, they would preach. But only one or two sermons are recorded. On the dozens of other days, they apparently went to the temple to worship and pray.Paul himself, years later when he was in Jerusalem, would go to the temple, purify himself, and pay the expenses for four men who were concluding a Nazirite vow (Acts 21:24).

As far as synagogue worship is concerned, we see Paul visiting the synagogues in almost every town that he visited (Acts 17:2). Where there was no synagogue, he tried to find a place where the Jews met for prayer, so he could worship with them.

It’s easy to forget that when Paul was seeking believers in Jesus to persecute them, he was going to synagogues to find them (Acts 9:2). He repeats this account in his testimony to Agrippa (Acts 26:11). It’s clear that believers in Jesus were worshiping in the synagogues with other Jews throughout the empire.

The apostle James, in summarizing the discussion in Acts 15 of how to get the Gentile believers started following God’s Law when they had never done it before, enumerates four laws that they should start with, apparently to avoid offending the Jewish community that they were worshiping with. Then he concludes his message by pointing out that the Law of Moses is taught in every synagogue, so that presumably these Gentile believers could learn it over time during their weekly synagogue meetings.

James also mentions synagogue attendance in his epistle, one of the earliest. In chapter two he says that if a rich man comes into your synagogue, don’t show him favoritism over a poor man. Many translators try to hide that fact by translating it as “assembly”, but it’s clearly the word “synagogue”.

The believers often met in homes of other believers, as we see in the greetings at the end of Paul’s letters. But there can be no doubt that they worshiped in synagogues with other Jews during the years immediately following Jesus’ ascension.

I always have to laugh when I walk by a building near where I live. The building is labelled, “First Church of the Apostolic Faith.” The reason I laugh is because if it were really the apostolic faith, it would be a synagogue. The religion of Jesus and his followers in the first century was Judaism. Acknowledging this can go a long way toward helping us understand the New Testament.

Was Paul A Christian?

Last week we discussed the issue of whether Jesus was a Christian. The issue is even more clear cut in the case of Paul, as he made several statements which define his religion for us.

The headings in many Bibles describe Paul’s (Saul’s) encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road as “Saul’s conversion”, as if he converted from Judaism to Christianity. That’s certainly not how he saw it in his later life. Much of his defense in the last half of the book of Acts involves his claiming that his message is identical to the Hebrew scriptures. (Acts 26:22)

Let’s take a look at some of his specific statements concerning his religion. When Paul was on trial before the Sanhedrin, he made the statement, “I am a Pharisee.” He didn’t say, “I used to be a Pharisee”; he said, “I am a Pharisee.” He clearly still considered himself to be a member of that branch of Judaism.

A little later, in his appearance before Agrippa, he made the statement, “According to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.” Here he is talking about the past. But he refers to “our religion”, the religion that he holds in common with Agrippa. What religion is that? And what religion is Pharisaism a sect of? Judaism, of course. Paul never thought of himself religiously as other than a Jew.

He did, however, identify also with another sect of Judaism. In his trial before Felix he says, “I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect.” (Acts 24:14) Paul claimed religious affiliation with the Way, a sect of Judaism. He goes on to say, “I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets.” He’s being rather emphatic that his religion is Judaism. Even his accusers claim that “he is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5) A sect is a subdivision of a religion, and the religion referenced is clearly Judaism.

Some people think of Paul as the real founder of Christianity. Paul, like Jesus, never had any idea of starting another religion. His focus was Judaism the way it was intended to be, with Jesus as the promised Messiah and Redeemer.

Another misleading idea is that Paul had his name changed when he became a “Christian”. We’ve seen in the Hebrew scriptures that Abram, Sarai, and Jacob had their names changed by God. That’s not the case with Paul. The transition in his name occurred when he was already on a missionary journey. Acts 13:9 says, “Then Saul, who was also called Paul…” There is no name change, just a reference to another name by which he was known.

We need to realize that several people in the New Testament are called by different names depending on whether they were among Hebrew speakers, Greek speakers, or Aramaic speakers. “Saul” is a Hebrew-based name, shared with the first king of Israel, while Paul (Paulos) is clearly Greek.

Peter is another individual who went by three different names, Simon (Shimon) among Hebrew speakers, Cephas (Kefa) among Aramaic speakers, and Peter (Petros) among Greek speakers. Acts 1:23 tells of another man who went by three names, “Joseph (Hebrew) called Barsabbas (Aramaic), also known as Justus (Greek).”

Paul makes it easy to identify his claimed religion when he identifies himself as a Pharisee, which he calls a sect of our religion, and then claims to be a follower of the Way, also a sect of that same religion. We need to realize that the religion taught by both Jesus and Paul was essentially Judaism, with Jesus as the culmination of it.

Was Jesus A Christian?

Was Jesus a Christian? This is a question that I used to hear from theology professors. At the time, I thought it was a trick question, something like, “Is the Pope Catholic?” After all, if Christians are followers of Jesus and his teachings, wouldn’t they be pretty much equivalent?

In another sense, the question is anachronistic. The term “Christian” was unknown in Jesus’ day. It occurs only three times in the New Testament. The first reference to it seems to be in Antioch. This is what the believers were called, whether by their opponents or by their friends is unknown. (Acts 11:26)
Another usage is in the mouth of King Agrippa at the trial of Paul. After Paul’s testimony about his experience, Agrippa comments about Paul trying to persuade him to become a Christian. (Acts 26:28) Paul seems to avoid the term in his reply, saying that he wished Agrippa could become like him. The third and final use of the term is in I Peter 4:16 where Peter talks about suffering as a Christian.

Even though the term was not used during the lifetime of Jesus, I’ve become convinced that the question, “Was Jesus a Christian?” is crucial for understanding Jesus’ life and ministry. We can define “Christian” in a couple of ways. We can define it as a follower of Jesus. By this definition, Jesus would certainly identify with it.

Another definition, however, may accord more closely with how we actually use the term. A Christian is an adherent of the religious system that has come to be known as Christianity. Ever since the second or third century, Christianity has been used to draw a contrast with Judaism. If a person follows Christianity, he does not follow Judaism, and vice versa.

I have become convinced that Jesus, as well as all of his immediate followers, would have described their faith as Judaism, the faith and practice that God established for his people in the Hebrew scriptures. There was no intention to start a new religion.

The issue rarely comes up in the life of Jesus because it was inconceivable. But the one time that people seem to be asking if he’s teaching something new, in Luke 5:33-39, he emphatically denies it, saying, “You don’t fix an old coat with a new patch.”

Jesus was announced at his birth, and presented himself throughout his life, as the “king of the Jews”. He saw himself as the culmination of the prophecies and promises of the Hebrew scriptures, as the ultimate king who would reign over Israel from Jerusalem. He even went so far as to express continuity with the teachings of the Pharisees when he told the crowds that “the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, so you must obey them”. (Matt. 23:2-3) (He then goes on to criticize them for not following their own teachings.)

Jesus’ claim to the kingship of Israel was not accepted by the authorities, and they killed him for it. But after his resurrection, that was still clearly the plan. When Jesus’ disciples asked if he was now going to establish his kingdom, his reply was essentially, “Later”. (Acts 1:6-7)

Jesus may have been the reason for the origin of Christianity, but he unequivocally affirmed the tenets of Judaism, God’s Law (Matt. 5:17-18), his scriptures (Matt. 22:29), his people (John 4:22), and his Messiah (John 4:26). Jesus never criticized Judaism, but the wrong understandings of its practitioners. His death inaugurated the new covenant, which was to be made with Israel. (Jer. 31:31) In the way that we most commonly think of Christianity today, Jesus was not a Christian.

Fence Around Torah

There is a non-canonical Jewish writing from around the time of Jesus titled “Pirkei Avot”, which is translated as “Chapters of the Fathers.” It records the oral transmission of Jewish teaching from a couple of centuries before Jesus until a couple of centuries after him.

The work begins with the following statement. “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and handed it down to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; the Prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. The latter said three things: Be cautious in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence for the Torah.”

The first two of these, be cautious in judgment and raise up many disciples, were certainly characteristic of Jesus. He famously commanded, “Judge not, lest you be judged.” He also gave instructions for making disciples in one of his last talks with his followers. So far Jesus seems to be in harmony with these men of the Great Assembly.

But what about the third item, making a fence for Torah? What does that even mean? And is it something that Jesus bought into?

The rabbis considered it to mean setting guidelines for what you do, so that you don’t even come close to breaking God’s Law. One example of this is the command not to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk. This command is given three times in the books of Torah, and the rabbis decided that a good way to keep from accidentally doing that would be to never serve milk and meat together at the same meal. Hence the intricate traditions about keeping kosher, with even different sets of dishes for meat and dairy.

Many Christians think that the Pharisees overdid this idea of a fence around the Law by developing traditions that kept people from God. We’ve seen in a previous posting that Jesus doesn’t criticize the Pharisees for being too zealous for the Law, but for not being observant enough. What would Jesus think, then about this idea of making a fence around Torah?

Interestingly, Jesus seems to do exactly that in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. There are five different topics on which Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said…, But I tell you…” In each of these cases he first cites a command from the Torah, and then gives the fence that he wants to make to prevent anyone from getting close to breaking it.

For example, he cites the prohibition against murder, and then extends it to say that you should not even be angry with someone. Likewise he cites the command aginst adultery, and then extends it to say that you shouldn’t even look at a woman lustfully. If this isn’t building a fence around Torah, I don’t know what is.

It’s clear that Jesus was zealous enough for the keeping of God’s Law that he instructed his hearers to avoid even getting close to breaking it. Jesus, like the men of the Great Assembly, advocated building a fence for Torah.

Purging All Foods

What did Jesus think about the dietary laws of the Hebrew Bible? In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 the Israelites are told not to eat any detestable thing. Then the various animals are listed that are not to be eaten.

It’s notable that nowhere in scripture is it recorded that Jesus ate any of these forbidden meats. But that could be considered an argument from silence. What did Jesus teach his disciples about these food laws?

We don’t have any examples in the gospels of Jesus addressing these laws specifically. But we do have an example in Acts of Peter, one of Jesus’ closest followers during his years of teaching, and his view of the food laws after sitting under Jesus’ teaching for years.

In Acts 10 Peter is on his roof praying, and he has a vision of a large sheet full of animals, and hears a voice telling him to kill and eat. He refuses to do so, saying that he has never eaten anything unclean. The voice then says, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

This is repeated two more times. Clearly Peter does not think that this is God telling him to eat. When he replies, “No way, lord”, the word for “lord”, as with the Spanish “Senor”, can also mean “sir”. Peter replies politely to the source of the voice, telling him that he’s not going to do it.

The next verse says that Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision. Was it really about food, or something else. After being summoned to the house of Cornelius, Peter realizes that the vision is not about food, but about men. “God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.” But it’s clear from Peter’s response to the vision that Jesus had not taught his disciples to disregard the food laws.

There is, however, a passage in Mark 7 that looks at first glance like Jesus is abolishing the food laws. In Mark 7:19 some translations say something like, “in saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.” There are a number of reasons why this cannot possibly be the meaning of the passage.

In the broader context Jesus has been criticized by some Pharisees because his disciples did not do a ceremonial hand-washing before eating. This was not a biblical command, but an oral tradition. Jesus points out that while they are sticklers for their tradition, they are breaking the actual commands of God by using a weasel-word, “corban”, to evade their responsibility to the Law to honor their parents. Jesus’ whole theme in this context is to follow the bibical Law. He’s not going to turn around a few verses later and abrogate the food laws.

Jesus teaches the crowd that nothing outside a man can make him “unclean”. The uncleanness that he is talking about is a heart condition. Later his disciples ask him about this statement. He replies to them, “Are you so dull? Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body, purging all foods.”

It is this last phrase, “purging all foods”, that some translators take as a parenthetical comment by the author saying that Jesus was nullifying the food laws. It’s a real stretch grammatically to go back two or three verses to find an antecedent for “purging” in Jesus making a statement. It’s much more natural to consider the phrase, “purging all foods” to be part of Jesus’ statement. Besides that, forbidden meats were not considered to be foods at all.

It’s also clear that Jesus isn’t talking about forbidden foods. He’s not even talking about ceremonial uncleanness. The kind of uncleanness that Jesus is talking about comes from the heart, the uncleanness of sin, of setting aside God’s Laws, as the Pharisees were doing. Sometimes the translators come to a passage with a particular agenda of what they think a passage means, and they let their preconceptions color their translation, and it ends up misleading people about what the passage actually says.

But it should be clear to an unbiased observer that Jesus held and taught the laws of God, including the food laws. Remember that he insisted that not a jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until heaven and earth disappear.

Jesus and Sabbath

Many Christians are of the opinion that Jesus broke the Sabbath commandments regularly, and thus endorsed the ignoring of the Law. I used to think that myself. But a closer study of the relevent passages changed my mind.

In every case where Jesus is accused of breaking the Sabbath, he responds to his accusers. And his response in never along the lines of “The Sabbath is no longer operational.” He always comes back with something that implies, “I know the Sabbath laws better than you do.”

Let’s look at a couple of examples. In Luke 6 there are two instances of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of breaking Sabbath laws. In the first, some of his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands, and eat the kernels. It was not Jesus doing this, but his disciples. Nevertheless, it drew an accusation from the religious leaders.

Jesus responded with a story from I Samuel 21 about David and his hungry companions receiving permission to eat the consecrated bread that was supposed to go to the priests. (Lev. 24:5-9) The point Jesus was making here was that the Sabbath regulations are flexible enough to meet human need. The moral he draws is that, “The son of man is lord of the Sabbath.” I don’t think he is referring to himself by using that title, although he does elsewhere. He clarifies in the parallel passage in Mark 2 that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The term “son of man” is a Hebrew idiom that means the human one. He is saying that the Sabbath is not intended to cause hardship for humans, but to be a blessing.

Also in Luke 6 is the story of Jesus encountering a man with a shriveled hand while he was teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath. He knew that the religious leaders were looking to accuse him. So he asks them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?” His question is specifically about biblical Sabbath laws.

Here he is making the same point as in the previous instance, that the intention of the Sabbath is to help people, not to harm them. He knew the intent behind the laws better than they did.

There are several other examples in the gospels of the leaders being skeptical of Jesus healing on the Sabbath. But Jesus points out that they feed their animals on the Sabbath, which he parallels to his healing work.

Lest we think that Jesus really did ignore the idea of the Sabbath, or taught his followers to do so, we should note what happens after his crucifixion. At the end of Luke 23 the women who had been following him “went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.”

These were women who had been listening to Jesus teaching for months or years. If Jesus had even hinted that Sabbath commands need not be followed, they would have been the first to go to the tomb on the Sabbath, but the actions of his followers are a pretty reliable indicator of the content of his teaching.

Jesus taught his followers to observe the seventh-day Sabbath, although according to his understanding, not that of many of the religious leaders. Those who claim to follow him today should continue to follow his teaching and example in this area.

Jesus and Torah

What was Jesus’ position on the Torah, the Law of God given through Moses? It’s a question that we don’t often ask, but it’s crucial for understanding Jesus and being a follower of his.

First, Jesus was a fully Torah-observant Jew. If he were not, he wouldn’t qualify to be a sinless sacrifice. The first epistle of John (3:4) states that “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness… And in him is no sin.” So it’s clear that Jesus kept the law in its entirety.

But did he advocate for others to keep it? There are certainly instances like when he healed a man of leprosy (Matt. 8:4), and then sent him to the priest to offer the gift Moses commanded. And after his resurrection, when he commissioned the apostles to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19-20), the essence of that discipleship was obeying the commandments.

But the signature teaching of Jesus concerning the law is found in his Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew 5. In verses 17 and 18 he says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” I can’t imagine a stronger statement of the Law’s continuity than that.

Some would say that Jesus “fulfilled” the Law by his death and resurrection, and after that it was abolished. Certainly Jesus fulfilled the Law by keeping it completely. But there are a few things to note here. One is that the Greek word for “accomplished” is not the word for prophecy being fulfilled; it literally means “until everything happens,” presumably until the end of time.

In connection with this, we should note that the time frame that Jesus refers to is not two or three years until his passion, but “until heaven and earth disappear.” If you are reading this, that hasn’t happened yet.

In addition, Jesus resorts to extreme language. He talks about the smallest letter or stroke of a letter, a jot or tittle in the old terminology. This clearly is done to add emphasis to his statement of the Law’s continuity.

There are some things that Jesus says or does at other times that some take as changing or abrogating the Law. We will look at them in subsequent postings. But his intent in this passage is so clear and emphatic that it’s impossible to mistake.

But just in case it could, Jesus continues by saying, “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, (sounds like a lot of the Christian church) but whosoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” I want that to apply to me! Do you?

Ruth’s Example

In the book of Ruth we are introduced to a young woman who is a Gentile, a Moabite, yet she joined herself to Israel and to Israel’s God. She provides an example for those of us Gentiles who have embraced the God of Israel today.

Ruth never becomes a Jew; she is referred to throughout the book as “Ruth the Moabitess.” Yet she very specifically identifies with at least two things, the God of Israel, and the people of Israel. “Your people will be my people, and your God my God.” She becomes fully part of the covenant people to the extent that she becomes an ancestor of King David, and by extension, of the Messiah.

We see something similar in the New Testament. In Ephesians 2 Paul reminds Gentile believers in Jesus that they were once separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of the promise. But now in Christ they are brought near to God, included in citizenship in Israel, and beneficiaries of the covenants.

Paul expresses the same thing a little differently in Romans 11 where he represents believing Gentiles as wild olive branches being grafted into a cultivated olive tree. The olive tree clearly represents Israel, and through faith these Gentiles become a part of that. But they are not Jews, not cultivated olive branches. They are always wild branches that have been grafted in.

I used to think that the idea of Gentiles identifying with Israel and becoming part of the covenant people was exclusively a New Testament concept. After all, Paul emphasizes that the mystery of the gospel “is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel.” (Eph. 3:6)

But then I discovered, by the reading of an excellent book, “fellowHeirs” by Tim Hegg, that to some extent this situation had been the norm throughout the life of Israel. When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, they were a mixed multitude. (Exodus 12:38) There were both native-born and foreigners. The Hebrew word “ger” is used to designate foreigners who had joined themselves to Israel. Many times in the books of Torah it is mentioned that there is one law for both the native-born and the foreigner. (e.g. Num. 15:14-16; Lev. 24:22)

These foreigners living among Israel and embracing God and his commands and people were analogous to the Gentile believers in Jesus in the first century. They were recipients of God’s grace and members of the covenant community.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that during the wilderness wanderings, these foreigners had multiplied and become far more numerous than the native-born Israelites. Suppose further that these foreigners turned against the native-born and started considering them as their opponents. Suppose also that these foreigners abandoned God’s Law, considering it obsolete, but still considered themselves followers of God and his promises. That would have been a major disaster. But that was essentially what happened to the Gentile church in the second and third centuries.

If we Gentile believers in Jesus understood that our identity, like Ruth and the foreigners in Israel, depended on our connection with Israel, as well as with Israel’s God, we would be less likely to, as Paul says in Romans 11:18, “boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.”

Resurrection Timing

All four canonical gospels record the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can we determine from these accounts when during the week the resurrection occurred? I think we can.

Of the four gospels, Matthew is the only one that seems to mention actual resurrection events. The other three gospels talk about effects of the resurrection, the moved stone, the empty tomb, and appearences of Jesus. These things could have been encountered at any time subsequent to the resurrection. Matthew alone mentions the earthquake, which would have marked the time of the resurrection. So it’s to Matthew that we should go for chronological details.

Most translations of Matthew 28:1 say something like, “After the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week…”. The translators here tend to render the words based on their assumptions, rather than the underlying Greek text. There are two words in particular that they tend to translate unnaturally, to fit what they think happened.

The first of these is the word that is often translated “after”. In all the other occurrences this word means “late”, specifically, “in the evening”. If it were translated faithfully here, it would almost certainly say, “late on the Sabbath”, that is, on Saturday evening toward sunset.

Often translation errors and misunderstandings occur because we don’t understand the Jewish concept of the day as starting and ending at sunset. This is consistent with the account in Genesis where each day of creation is described as, “the evening and the morning”. That concept is key here.

The other word that is commonly mistranslated is a Greek word that only occurs twice in the New Testament. It contains the Greek word for “light”, and that makes translators think it refers to “dawning”. In reality, it is a Greek idiom that means “draw near” or “approach”. This is made clear by its only other use, in Luke 23:54. This passage refers to Jesus being taken down from the cross because the Sabbath was approaching. It was evening, and the word can’t possibly be referring to dawn.

I light of this (so to speak), the passage in Matthew 28:1 would be more naturally rendered, “Late on the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was approaching.” This would point to a time around sunset on Saturday evening. Luke points out (23:56) that after preparing spices, the women rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. It’s only natural that they would have set out as early as they could, once the Sabbath was over, or almost over.

Another factor in favor of understanding the resurrection taking place Saturday evening is that it makes sense of Jesus’ discussion of the sign of Jonah in Matthew 12:40. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

It’s impossible to get three days and three nights into a time frame of a Friday evening crucifixion and a Sunday morning resurrection. But with a Saturday evening resurrection, we can calculate backwards to a Wednesday evening crucifixion, and have three days and three nights.

But wasn’t Jesus removed from the cross because the Sabbath was approaching? Yes, but this wasn’t necessarily the weekly Sabbath (Saturday). The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the day after Passover) was to be regarded as a Sabbath, and no work was to be done on it. This day was apparently on a Thursday that year.

From the account in the gospel of Matthew, we see that it’s very likely that the resurrection of Jesus occurred shortly after sunset on Saturday evening. There were no doubt encounters and appearances to various people at several times during the night and morning, as recorded in the gospel accounts. But it makes sense to think of the resurrection actually occurring immediately after the Sabbath, on Saturday evening.

Sunday Observance

It comes as a surprise to many, but there is not even a hint in the New Testament of Sunday being a special day, let alone a replacement for God’s chosen Sabbath. Certainly the first day of the week is mentioned a few times, but every time, without exception, the significance of the mention is that it is not the Sabbath.

The first day is mentioned in the gospels in connection with the resurrection narrative. I can’t prove it, but it seems very likely to me that the reason God waited until after the Sabbath to raise Jesus is that he didn’t think it was appropriate to do on the Sabbath. It did represent his day of rest, after all.

But aside from the resurrection accounts, there are only two mentions of the first day in the New Testament, one in Acts 20:7 and the other in I Cor. 16:2. Neither one involves a gathering for worship.

In the Acts 20 passage we see Paul arriving to join his companions at Troas. Paul was in a hurry to continue on to Jerusalem for the feast of Shavuot (Pentecost), as all Jewish men were commanded in Deuteronomy 16:16 to go to Jerusalem three times a year. He wouldn’t be leaving on the Sabbath, so he planned to set sail the day after the Sabbath, what we would think of as Sunday.

Acts 20:7 says, “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” Our first reaction, given our culture, is often that this was a Sunday morning communion service. But we need to remember a couple of things. First, the Jews reckoned a day as being from sunset to the next sunset, consistent with the Genesis account of creation, where “the evening and the morning” were the first day. This gathering in Acts 20 occurs fairly late in the evening, since Paul continues talking until midnight. It seems obvious that this is a late Saturday evening gathering.

The second thing we need to be aware of is that preparation of cooked food was forbidden on the Sabbath. In order to have a banquet for Paul’s going-away, they needed to wait until after the Sabbath to prepare the food. Since this was in early spring, just after the feast of unleavened bread, sunset would bave occurred about six o’clock. Then, with an hour or two to cook the food, they could have gathered about eight or nine in the evening.

We also need to be aware that the phrase “break bread” is an idiom for having a meal together. It is used several times in the gospels and Acts. Nowhere does it clearly mean taking communion, and in some places it can’t possibly mean that. It’s more natural to take this event as a pot-luck supper on Saturday evening to celebrate Paul’s departure.

The passage does say that Paul talked until midnight, which might make us think of a long sermon, especially since somebody fell asleep and fell from a window. But the primary Greek word for Paul talking is the word from which we get the word “dialogue”. It’s likely that Paul was not giving a speech, but just conversing with other people there.

To repeat, the reason this gathering was held on the “first day of the week” was because hot food was not to be prepared on the Sabbath, so another day had to be chosen.

The other mention of the first day is in I Cor. 16:2 and the circumstance is similar. It was the understanding of Jews that money was not to be handled on the Sabbath. So Paul instructs his readers to put aside money weekly, i.e. on the first day of the week, so it will be ready when he comes.

This is not an offering in a meeting, but a setting aside of money at home on a regular basis, perhaps on payday. Paul is encouraging people to make a voluntary contribution toward the needy in Jerusalem.

There is one more passage that bears mentioning. In Revelation 1:10 the author writes, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” It’s true that Sunday began to be called “the Lord’s day”, but that was considerably later than this time. Since the subject of the book of Revelation is the events of the time the prophets called the “day of the Lord”, it seems best to take the statement as John saying that he was spiritually transported to a future day of judgment.

Those who try to use these passages to support a practice of revering Sunday as a special, divinely-favored day are doing it without any biblical warrant whatsoever. God designated the seventh day as the Sabbath at the time of creation, and reiterated it at the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. Jesus and the apostles kept the seventh-day Sabbath, and as his followers, we are expected to do so as well. Even the writer to the Hebrews reminds us of this when he writes, “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God.” (Heb.4:9)