Response on Rev 1:10. Gnostic Origin of "the Eighth Day."

(Ted Noel, Saturday, January 6, 2001)

Dick,

We actually have a lot less disagreement than the volume of words in your last post might suggest. You spend some time developing the Hebrew and Greek expressions for "day of the Lord" to reach the conclusion that it is unrelated to the term "Lord's Day." Your development may in fact be correct, but it adds nothing to your case for reasons which will become clear shortly.

I made the simple comment about one possible interpretation of the term "Lord's Day" in Rev 1:10 primarily to show that there is a legitimate Biblical understanding of the term which has nothing to do with Sunday. As you point out, there is another, and I will visit it momentarily. For purposes of completeness, I will make one point related to the "day of the Lord" first.

Languages are not static. It is not unreasonable to expect development of language with time. Modern Hebrew is significantly different from Biblical Hebrew. When Jesus gives Peter the name "Cephas" to be translated "Petros," (John 1:42) he was using an appellation which only came into existence within that century in Palestine. Similarly, when Paul describes communion as the "Lord's Supper," he is using another linguistic development. The natural form for Paul to use would be "supper of our Lord." This follows the common third person possessive construction used throughout the rest of the Bible (obviously excepting Rev 1:10). The old standard form was "house of David," "son of Jonah," and so on. The form "David's house," "Jonah's son," and so on would be a linguistic innovation.

Paul's use of kuriake in 1 Cor 11:20 is likely to be reflective this sort of linguistic development. Because it was written on the order of 30 years before John wrote Revelation, it is almost certain to have been known by John, so John is using an innovation already in place. Thus, the comment that "the Lord's Day" is equivalent to "the day of the Lord" has a fundamental plausibility. Bacchiocchi has developed this argument at length in his doctoral dissertation, and I will not attempt to tackle the issue to that depth. My key point was that there is a logical Biblical understanding of "Lord's Day" which has nothing to do with Sunday, while there is no Biblical exposition which can derive Sunday from the phrase.

Your statement, "However, if we regard the day over which the Lord claims a proprietorship as that day in which he rose from the dead then the phrase makes considerably more sense than any explanation an SdA could offer" includes an insurmountable problem for your thesis. There is no specific scriptural claim for God's particular ownership of Sunday. Certainly we have Psalm 24:1 and other texts where "the earth is the Lord's," where every day therefore belongs to the Lord. But there is only one day of the week which the Lord claims specific ownership of, and that is the Edenic Sabbath. Throughout the OT we find phrases such as "my holy Sabbath." Jesus' statement in Mark 2:27 is merely a repetition of the OT claim. When you state that Rev 1:10 "most certainly" refers to the Sabbath, on Biblical grounds we cannot make it refer to any day other than the Edenic Sabbath, since no other Sabbath exists in the language of scripture. It should further be noted that the term "Christian Sabbath" in reference to Sunday was still centuries away.

I can accept either the "day of the Lord" or the Sabbath interpretation for Rev 1:10. Neither case can be made to say anything in favor of Sunday sacredness on Biblical grounds. The key point is that there are Biblical interpretations for the phrase which are reasonable, and neither of them point to Sunday. We have no need to look at the patristic literature. But the patristic literature does in fact give us a good idea of what was meant by the term.

I may have been a bit imprecise when I said that the term "Lord's Day" did not appear in the patristic literature for some time after John wrote Revelation. It was my intent to say that it did not appear with clear reference to Sunday for some time. And since you bring up the Didache', allow me to point out what the Didache' actually says.

This "church manual" was contemporary with John, as you noted. But the term in the Didache' does not refer to Sunday. I include the entire section so that no misunderstanding can occur. From Lightfoot's translation:

It should first be noted that the quotation in 14:4 is probably a conflation of multiple OT passages, since it does not exist in that form in the Bible. But the key issue is the identity of the day. The antitypical pure sacrifice is Jesus. The typical sacrifices in the OT are animals. And the NT church is to offer the sacrifice of praise (Heb 13:15). The only religious assembly in the NT where this degree of personal purity is noted is in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:27), and in it impurity is linked with sacrificial guilt. Also, no sacrifice was ever mentioned by Christ regarding the Sabbath. Further, the only religious celebration for the church where breaking bread was present was the Lord's Supper. Since communion is not on a Biblically prescribed schedule (1 Cor 11:25), this cannot refer to a specific day of the week. With going into great detail, you are aware that the early church varied in its practices regarding timing of the Lord's Supper. Some did it weekly, originally on Sabbath, others weekly on Sunday, and the entire eastern half of the church did it annually on Passover. This difference between east and west led to the Quartodeciman controversy. Thus, the term "Lord's own day" in the Didache' does not refer to Sunday, but refers specifically to the time of the pascha, not a day of the week.

Did the church actually regard Rev 1:10 as referring to Sunday from the earliest days? It is not particularly helpful to look at late claims when we have documents as early as the first century which speak to the issue. After all, Justin Martyr claims that the Sabbath was "imposed on [the Jews], namely, because of your sins and the hardness of your heart." (Dialogue 18, 2) This claim is just a valid as the claims of the Apostolic Constitutions (ca. AD 380) and Venantius Honorius (6th century) (BTW, neither is before Nicaea) regarding the Lord's Day. None of them are meaningful, because they are all false.

You have mentioned Ignatius of Antioch as supporting "Sunday/Lord's Day" observance. His bishopric was during the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117), so he is nearly a contemporary of the apostle John. The actual extent of his writing is subject to great scholarly dispute. But let us assume that the Short Recension was truly written by Ignatius. This brings us to a single quote of interest. The phrase in question is (Greek) "kata kuriaken zoen zontes." Sunday proponents translate the clause which contains it as "no longer sabbatizing, but living according to the Lord's Day." Some refer to manuscripts where the last word is missing to allow them to infer this translation. But the oldest manuscript available (Codex Mediceus) contains the whole phrase, and it properly literally translates "no longer sabbatizing, but living according to the Lord's life." The intent of the clause, as confirmed by Ignatius' context, is that we should no longer be acting like Pharisees who encumber the Sabbath with masses of rules. That sabbatizing (not sabbath-keeping) should be replaced with an observance which comports with the example (or life) of Jesus. Thus, the passage not only fails to support Sunday observance, it strongly supports keeping the Edenic Sabbath. Further, it does not contain the phrase "Lord's Day," or kuriake hemera in any extant manuscript. By way of contrast, consider the verbal construction "living according to the Lord's Day." This gives the thought a strained non-sequitur quality. That alone should call its validity into question. And we should note that the very mention of "sabbatizing" indicates that this epistle was addressed to Sabbath-keeping Christians.

On this front, I must bring in the testimony of Pionius regarding Polycarp, who was taught by John the Revelator. Pionius ("The Life of Polycarp," ch. 22) points out that it was Polycarp's custom to worship on the Sabbath, and it was at a Sabbath assembly that he was appointed Bishop of Smyrna.

Many of the claims of the early fathers were of polemic nature. They served to make a political point in religious guise. When Christians (regarded as a sect of the Jews) were threatened in the persecution of Hadrian which followed the second Jewish revolt, physical survival seemed to dictate a change in appearance from the Jews. While the church leaders cannot be accused of writing "because we are at risk we must change," the fact remains that this was an historic motivation. Their method was Gnostic. It rests on the gematria principle that when two words have the same gematria (numerology) value, they have the same spiritual value. We recognize this as divining, a pagan practice forbidden by God. Its specific application appears in the logic presented by many early writers to support observance of Sunday.

The Greek words for "Jesus" and "Cross" both have a gematria value of 888. Jesus rose from the grave on Sunday, which is the first day of the week, but, if counted from the prior week, it becomes the eighth day. This coincidence of the number 8 had profound significance in Gnostic gematria. When added to the fact that Jesus was referred to as the "sun of righteousness" (Mal 4:2) in scripture, and light was made on the first day (even though the sun waited till the fourth), we have a very strong Gnostic convergence. Sunday was commonly called the "day of the Sun" and in Gnostic gematria would then be the "Lord's Day" since the spiritual significances of Jesus, the cross, and Sunday were seen to be identical. We see this to some degree in the "Epistle of Barnabas."

This pseudonymous work begins by defaming Jews and allegorizing away any meaning in their practices. Thus it is a polemic. His prime stated reason for Sunday observance in opposition to Sabbath is "...it is not the present sabbaths that are acceptable to me, but the one that I have made, on which, having brought everything to rest, I will make the beginning of an eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world." (Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 15) This demonstrates a non-scriptural emphasis. The earliest work which unequivocally uses "Lord's day" to designate Sunday is the disputed apocryphal Gospel of Peter (ca. AD140?) Thus, my statement that "Lord's Day" did not come into use for some time to designate Sunday is true. We should also note that since the Didache' clearly uses the term to apply to communion rather than Sunday, the use of Lord's Day to describe Sunday is a post-apostolic innovation. And since the Gospel of Peter is of somewhat questionable character, the earliest unquestioned record of Sunday being called the "Lord's Day is in the writings of Clement of Alexandria near the close of the second century.

Another author of about this time who advocated Sunday was Justin Martyr. But we should note that Justin believed that true Sabbath-keeping was not one day in seven, but continual abstention from sin (Dialogue 12, 3). He is just as defamatory in his Dialogue with Trypho and Apologies as Barnabas is. So these works are also polemic. His reasons for Sunday observance are also allegorical, and the resurrection is secondary. "The day of the Sun, indeed, is the day on which we all hold our common assembly because it is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter, created the world; and our Saviour Jesus Christ arose from the dead on the same day." (I Apology 67:3-7) Just to show the fanciful allegorical method used by Justin, let us note this quote. "For righteous Noah, along with other mortals at the deluge, i.e. with his own wife, his three sons and their wives, being eight in number, were a symbol of the eighth day, wherein Christ appeared when He rose from the dead, for ever the first in power." (Dialogue, 138). This is the typical logic of Gnostic gematria.

It is curious that Gentile Christians took the first day as the celebration of creation, when the scriptures (Ex 20:11) and Jewish tradition held that the Sabbath was the memorial of creation. This stands in contrast to the Apostolic Constitutions (ca. AD 380) which enjoin observation of both the Sabbath (for creation) and Sunday (for the Resurrection).

As for the term "eighth day" in scripture, the NASB & KJV have 21 examples of the phrase, with not one referring to a day of the week. Most have to do with timing of circumcision or the various ceremonial laws, while a few mention either chronological sequence or calendar date. But not one can be used to support any "eighth day" interpretations for Sunday keeping.

I could go on for quite a while, but I would be repeating my basic points.

First, the term "Lord's Day" has legitimate Biblical interpretations which have nothing to do with Sunday observance. And there are no Biblical interpretations of the phrase which have anything to do with Sunday.

Second, The term "Lord's Day" does not acquire a Sunday connotation until a minimum of forty years and possibly a century after John wrote Revelation. This qualifies as "some time." We may further state that the available patristic evidence affirmatively identifies the term initially with communion, which was not originally a weekly service. Sunday as "the Lord's Day" is therefore a post-apostolic innovation.

Finally, the use of "The Lord's Day" as Sunday developed in polemic materials designed to persuade readers of the detestable status of Jews and "their" Sabbath. The logical method of the arguments used was allegorical and frequently quite fanciful. It was based on the principles of Gnostic gematria (as was the use of the term itself), which is pagan and has no proper place in the church. Its use is syncretism.

Conclusion:

1) The "Lord's Day" of Rev 1:10 has nothing to do with Sunday. And, as you note, even if it did, it would not demonstrate that it was celebrated as the Sabbath.

2) The entire logical structure of the Lords' Day/Eighth Day argument is Gnostic syncretistic allegorical polemic. My use of the term is in no way an ad hominem argument as you suggest. It is, in fact, a specific and accurate description of the historical derivation and logical structure of the thesis.

I agreed not to engage in name calling. I have abided by that agreement, and now you have sufficient information to allow you to see how I have not violated our agreement. We did not wish to engage in competing histories, but since you presented the patristically-based quote challenging my position and the characterization of my argument, I feel that I have little choice but to show how I was correct, using historical non-Biblical data. Perhaps we can now return to the use of Biblical exegesis of doctrine as originally proposed and agreed.

By the way, I have already affirmatively contradicted the Sunday sacredness proposition for 1 Cor 16:2, Acts 20:7, Luke 24, and Col 2:16. I anticipate we will deal with Gal 4:10 shortly.

We should also note, since I have been dealing with early church writings, that the first ecclesiastical writer to claim that Christ transferred the sanctity from Sabbath to Sunday was Eusebius in the fourth century. Therefore, any claim that Jesus transferred the day is simply not supported by ecclesiastical history, since fully three centuries passed between his death and the first such claim.

I invite you to continue with your response to Installment 9 (and this Installment if you so desire).

Your Friend in Christ,
Ted