Reply to Hodge. The Eight Sundays after the Cross

(Ted Noel, Thursday, December 28, 2000)

Dick,

Where shall I begin? Perhaps it would be best to consider areas of agreement. Hodge's seven reasons for the perpetual nature of the Sabbath are all good. I would add one more reason which was discussed earlier. The Sabbath is the visible sign of obedience to God's commandments. Its function in the context of last days is implicit in Revelation, although the word is absent (again, we discussed this earlier). I do not believe that we can fully explore the issue of a proposed transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday without considering this issue. After all, observance of the Edenic Sabbath is visibly different from observance of Sunday.

You include a couple of comments which, while I generally agree with them, have some implications I feel must be discussed. Hodge states that, among other things, the Sabbath is "founded upon the nature common to all men." This is true, as confirmed by Mark 2:27, but I am somewhat concerned about the emphasis this statement can acquire. God created the Sabbath and man, with full and complete knowledge of them both. So while we may agree with the fact that the Sabbath was made for mankind, whose creation pre-dates it, in the mind of God, man was made with a need for the Sabbath. Thus, the two creations are complementary, rather than consequential. This foreknowledge on God's part, with the specific declaration of a specific day for the Sabbath removes the "one day in seven, pick your day" possibility. God made the primary choice. Our only choice in the matter is to obey.

Now to areas of disagreement.

It was your wish to make this a Biblical study and discussion. Therefore, we must reject Rev 1:10 as supporting Sunday observance. The term "Lord's Day" found there appears nowhere else in scripture, so there is no scriptural basis for making it an argument for Sunday. Its cognate term, "the day of the Lord," appears many times, generally denoting the time of the second coming and the first death of the wicked. Thus, there is scriptural basis for suggesting that the term refers to the content of the vision. When the early church writings are examined, the term appears quite some time later to describe Sunday. Hopefully your question mark next to the citation recognizes this difficulty.

I am quite surprised at your inclusion of the language "the eighth day of the week." This phrase appears nowhere in scripture, but figures prominently in the Gnostic syncretistic polemics for Sunday observance of the second through fourth centuries. If you truly wish this to be a Biblical exploration, that phrase should be eliminated.

As for 1 Cor 16:2, I dealt with this in a previous post. It strongly supports Saturday sabbatarianism. You have not dealt with my arguments there, and I will categorically reject your assertion that it supports Sunday observance until you have satisfactorily disposed of my arguments.

You assert that "Acts 13:14 indicates that as an evangelistic work amongst the Jews and proselytes of that day the Christians attended the *Jewish* synagogue on the seventh day, but there is simply no evidence that specifically Christian meetings were held on the seventh day as a weekly ordinance subsequent to the resurrection of Christ." This argument from silence assumes that there was a distinctly Christian organization which immediately separated itself from the Jews. This underlying premise is incorrect. Christians were regarded widely as a Jewish sect. They only became fully separate when they were thrown out of the synagogue later on. In Acts 17 & 18 Paul is still regularly teaching in the synagogue. The first signs of "the Way" being ejected are found in Acts 19:8-9, where after three months of teaching in the synagogue, Paul found it necessary to move to a rabbinical school. Prior to this time, Christians generally met with the Jews. But later on (Acts 24:14; 28:22) Christians still generally were regarded as a sect of the Jews.

I find the use of Acts 20 to support Sunday observance to be a curious although common argument. There we find the story of Eutychus, which clearly occurred on the first day of the week. The question at hand is whether it represents Sabbath-keeping. The story is after sundown, because lights are lit, and it extends to midnight, when Eutychus falls and is raised from the dead. This was Saturday night by modern reckoning. If you were not a (Sunday) sabbatarian, I would stop the discussion there. But since you keep Sunday from sundown Saturday, this fits your pattern of belief. There are two specific details in the story which now draw our attention.

First, the gathering was to "break bread." It is common today to consider this a religious term. I find that argument (included in your dissertation, at least by implication) to be unconvincing. Let us consider Acts 2:46. "And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart," The structure of this text equates "breaking bread" with "taking meals." Thus, breaking bread is no more religious than fishing. Bread was never cut. It was always torn or "broken," as a part of the evening meal. This is exactly what we find in Acts 20:11. There, Paul "breaks bread and eats," then continues talking. Again breaking bread is equated with eating a meal, even in the story in question. There is no mention of wine which would be part of a communion service. If breaking bread was religious, the meal would contradict Paul's own admonition in 1 Cor 11:20-22. But we must not stop there.

Paul's stated intention in this story was to travel the next day. Verse 11 says that he departed at dawn on his trip. This would be on Sunday, which is proposed as being the new Sabbath. Deliberately planning to take a trip on the Sabbath is definitely contrary to the rest prescribed on the Sabbath. Taking the trip is confirmation of the intent to regard that day as a common day. As a result, I cannot see any support for Sunday observance in Acts 20.

John 20 is part of the argument regarding the "eight Sundays after the cross." Since I have read this argument in detail in other materials on your website, I will deal with that entire thesis here, not just John 20. Since I anticipated this argument, this was prepared in advance, and its "voice" may seem a bit different from the rest of this epistle.

An Exploration of the Sundays from the Cross to Pentecost:

It is readily admitted by proponents of Sunday observance that there is no New Testament command to keep Sunday as a "Christian Sabbath." Instead, an appeal is made to the "good and necessary consequence" of the NT record which is said to indicate a pattern of Sunday observance in the apostolic community from the very earliest days. Jesus is said to have taught this practice by example after the cross until Pentecost, allowing us to see what we should do. Thus, we find that there are a total of eight Sundays to consider.

The first Sunday is resurrection Sunday. There can be no question whatever that Jesus appeared to the disciples on that day. All four gospels record this fact, although we may note that the section of Mark 16 which records it is not in the oldest manuscripts. At this point, we must consider the reason that this event is universally reported.

The Purpose of the Disciples' Gathering on Resurrection Sunday:

There are two issues which must be brought into view here. The first is the primary reason for the assembly and the second is the reason for Jesus' miraculous appearance within it. We may begin our exploration by determining just what the disciples did on that day. To do so we should begin with the Sabbath immediately preceding it.

It is certain that the disciples observed the Sabbath in their usual manner on the usual day, as did their families. Luke 23:56 records that after Jesus' body was laid in the tomb, the women rested on the Sabbath "according to the commandment." The gospels are silent regarding the acts of the disciples over this Sabbath, but we may be well assured that they continued in their regular observance of the Sabbath, since they had done so their entire lives, and are not recorded as having received any instruction to the contrary. The commandment by which the women rested was as applicable to the men as to the women.

All four gospels record that after the Sabbath, early on the first day of the week, the women went to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1, 8, John 20:18) returned and announced to the disciples the fact of Jesus' resurrection. It is clear that they were not believed. The next account tells of the afternoon.

Cleopas and one other went to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31). This town was 11 km (just over 6 miles, further than a Sabbath day's journey) from Jerusalem. At a normal walking pace this would take about two hours. During this time, Jesus spoke with them. Verses 29-30 tell of how Jesus was invited to the regular evening meal as an act of hospitality to a stranger. As the honored guest, Jesus blessed and broke the bread. This occurred while "reclining at the table," an expression which describes an ordinary meal identical to the meal the rest of the disciples later ate in the locked room (Mark 16:14, see also Matt 8:11, Luke 12:37; 13:29; 14:10). The guest would tear off chunks of the flat bread for each person at the table (bread was never cut), hence the expression "breaking bread." In the act of breaking bread, Jesus' hands were seen, and when the nail prints were observed, the disciples realized who their guest was. Immediately Jesus vanished (v. 31).

It is clear that these two did not previously understand the crucifixion as a necessary part of Jesus' life (v. 26 ff.). As a result, they were taken by surprise when it became clear that he had been resurrected (v.31). They went to tell the others who were similarly confused. (Matt 28:10 indicates that the disciples were afraid when they saw Jesus. Mark 16:14 [in a segment of the book which is not in the oldest manuscripts] has Jesus rebuking the disciples for "unbelief and hardness of heart." Only John fails to directly report their unbelief.) This trip could have taken as little as an hour for two excited men. They spoke to the others, then Jesus appeared while they were still eating supper (Mark 16:14). Based on this sequence of recorded events, the supper set by the two was relatively early, while the supper eaten by the rest was late, just before sundown.

None of the gospel accounts directly indicate a reason for the disciples' assembly. All that is recorded is that once they assembled, they locked the door "for fear of the Jews" (John 20:19). Mark 16:14 indicates that they were eating supper, a fact confirmed by Jesus' request for food in Luke 24:41-43. That it had been cooked that day is implied by Luke's indication that Jesus was given a broiled fish to eat (Luke 24:41).

We may now consider some preliminary conclusions. First, there was no religious intent in either meal. Passover was the only religious activity which entailed a private meal, and that had been eaten the previous week. The meal at Emmaus was the ordinary evening meal, offered to a guest. The suggestion that "breaking bread" indicates a communion meal is contradicted by the context of the story (See also Acts 2:46, where "breaking bread" is used in parallel with "taking their meals."). The disciples did not understand the issues which would have led to a communion celebration, and the term describes the simple process of the meal, rather than the religious connotation it has acquired in modern times. Similarly, the meal in Jerusalem was just that, for the same reasons. Also, broiled fish is not part of the Lord's Supper. And we should note that Paul specifically condemns any extension of the Lord's Supper into a common meal in 1 Cor 11:20-22. And if the meal was a communion meal, why does Luke's description not mention wine?

It is also proper to conclude that the disciples did not observe the resurrection day as a new Sunday Sabbath. Cleopas and his associate were walking a distance far further than the Sabbath day's journey. The others broiled fish for supper, an activity which would be forbidden on the Sabbath. The women were planning to finish the burial procedures, again an activity which was forbidden on Sabbath. The disciples were confused about the events of the preceding days (Mark 16:14, Luke 24:21-32, 37-38, John 20:25). Any religious gathering at home would have been a new ordinance, and the founder of the order was dead so far as they believed. Therefore, any new religious behavior based on the teaching of a dead leader who was supposed to have been a conquering hero (Luke 24:21) would be placed on hold. When the hero dies, the reason to follow him dies with him. The disciples did not yet understand the Jesus was no ordinary hero.

Conclusion 1:

There is no evidence within the text of the gospel accounts of resurrection day to indicate that the disciples were gathered for any religious purpose. On the contrary, we may affirmatively state that their gathering was not for formal religious purposes. The disciples did not yet understand the prophecies of the cross and resurrection, and therefore were not gathering to celebrate the resurrection, an event which they did not truly expect and to which they were not yet witnesses. They cooked and ate a dinner. Two of them walked from Jerusalem to Emmaus, a distance of about 11 km, far more than a "Sabbath day's journey." We may properly conclude that the disciples were unaware of any plan for a transfer of the Sabbath to the first day of the week.

Jesus' Purpose in His Resurrection Sunday Appearances:

As we consider Jesus motivation on resurrection Sunday, we must begin with the prophecies of his crucifixion and resurrection. It is clear (to us, but not to the disciples) that Jesus was to be in the tomb for three days. He told his disciples and others so on several occasions (Matt 12:40; 26:61; 27:40, 63, Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34: 14:58; 15:29, John 2:19-21). This explains the content of his discussion on the Emmaus road. In Luke 24:25-26 we find Jesus explaining the specifics of why he had to die and be resurrected. He then goes on to amplify this point from the entire Hebrew Bible. There is not one hint of a discussion of a new day for the Sabbath. This further explains why he vanished at the moment he was recognized. His purpose was to teach about the need for his sacrifice, and to demonstrate that now all of the prophecies about him had been fulfilled. The disciples could now be faithful because they understood, not by book learning, but by being eyewitnesses.

In the locked room we find the same content as on the Emmaus road. Belief in the gospel, that is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the sacrifice for our sins, is essential to salvation (Matt 28:9-10, 17-18, Mark 16:9-16, Luke 24:44-47). One other point is of interest. Jesus' appearance in the locked room was miraculous. It was a sign of his divinity (see John 20:30). But the disciples initially thought that he was a spirit (Luke 24:37). Therefore he took care to prove his physical reality.

It is particularly important to note the things which are absent from the accounts of the resurrection day in the gospels. There is not one sentence in which the first day of the week is either the subject or object. That is, while the first day of the week is clearly the time in which all of these events take place, not once is it the subject of discussion. The reason for this is very clear as we read the accounts. Jesus died on Friday ("the preparation"). The third day in Jewish inclusive counting would be the first day of the week. Since the prophecy was that Jesus would rise on the third day, it was imperative that there be eyewitnesses to that fact (Luke 24:48, Acts 1:21-22; 2:32, 1 John 1:1-3). By appearing to the disciples on the day of his resurrection, Jesus confirmed for eyewitnesses the fact of his resurrection. Not only did he appear, he confirmed his corporeality by breaking bread (Luke 24:30), eating a fish (Luke 24:43), and inviting the disciples to touch him (Luke 24:39).

One particularly important omission from the accounts of the resurrection evening meal in Jerusalem is bread and wine. These are the key elements of a communion service, and both are absent. This becomes even more conspicuous when we note that John, who wrote at least thirty years after the fact, fails to mention any meal at all. This void is particularly important in showing that there was no communion service. But, beyond that, we find that Jesus himself stated that he would not partake of wine again until the second coming, a fact testified to by all the synoptics (Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18). If he had taken communion with them as part of teaching Sunday sacredness, he would have violated his own words.

Finally, we note that Jesus departed immediately after he had fully satisfied the disciples about the truth of the resurrection. In Emmaus, as soon as the disciples saw his hands, he vanished (Luke 24:31). With the other disciples, he confirmed his reality, charged them with the gospel, and the account ends, to be picked up days later. Only the confirmation of the prophecy of the resurrection fits with the account of Jesus' actions. But the evidence does not end here.

We have noted that the disciples cooked food on resurrection Sunday. This actions would be a sin on the Sabbath. Yet Jesus did not say anything about it. If Sunday were to be the proper day for the Sabbath after the cross and resurrection, there should be instruction about this, probably in the form of a gentle rebuke for breaking the new Sabbath, but none exists. We may confidently state that if it was Jesus' intention to change the day of the Sabbath to Sunday, he had a very devious way of making it clear, since there is not one word about it in the gospel accounts.

Conclusion 2:

Jesus' intention in the resurrection day appearances was to create eyewitnesses by confirming the prophecies of the cross and resurrection. He demonstrated his physical resurrection, and charged the disciples with preaching the gospel, of which the resurrection was the final element (1 Cor 15:1-4, Titus 3:3-7). There is no evidence in scripture that he directly taught anything about Sunday observance on that day. Nor did he teach Sunday sacredness implicitly by partaking of communion.

Upper Rooms:

It has been suggested that the assemblies of the disciples were in an upper room, which is a synagogue. This has been suggested to be a continuation of worship in an "aliyyah" (Hebrew for upper room). To determine what is being suggested, we must perform two tasks. The first is to examine the gospel record for the location of the gathering on resurrection Sunday. The second will be to consider the scriptural use of the Hebrew word.

Matthew says nothing about the meeting place. Mark only states that the disciples were eating supper when Jesus met with them. Luke says nothing about the location, but implies with Jesus' request for something to eat that it was at supper. John merely says that "the doors were shut where the disciples were" (John 20:19), saying nothing more about the place itself. Put simply, we have no idea whether the disciples were in an upper room or not. But information exists to suggest an answer.

The usual house in Judea was a single story with a flat roof which was accessible by a stair.* Only if the owner was relatively well off would the house have a second story. Thus, when we read the story of the Last Supper, we find that the owner of the house was relatively well off (Mark 14:13-15). Since the disciples were poor, it is unlikely that they had houses with upper stories. This does not mean that they were not at the home of a friend who had a second story, but unless such is stated, it remains purely speculative.

A variant of the idea is that an aliyyah was the upper room of a synagogue. Thus, the upper room used at the Last Supper would have been the upper room of a synagogue. But the synoptic gospels speak differently of this place. Matt 26:18 refers to a house owned by a person. Mark 14:14 speaks of a guest room which the owner of the house will allow to be used by Jesus and the disciples. Luke 22:11 also speaks of a guest room. None of these descriptions fit a synagogue, but all fit a private residence. This is as it should be, for the Passover was eaten at home, not in the synagogue. But we must not stop here.

Aliyyah appears nineteen times in the OT. Five times it appears in a religious context. 2 Ki 23:12 refers to King Josiah tearing down pagan altars which had been built in a number of places, including the "upper chamber of Ahaz." 1 Chr 28:11 refers to David giving the plans of the temple to Solomon. Those plans included upper chambers. 2 Chr 3:9 refers to construction details of those upper chambers. Psa 104 is a figurative Psalm which praises the Lord in poetic language, referring to God setting his aliyyah in the waters (v. 3) and watering the mountains from his aliyyah.

The remainder of aliyyahs are secular. Judg 3:20, 23, 23, 25 use aliyyah to refer to a summer parlor. 2 Sam 18:33 and Neh 3:31, 32 use aliyyah to refer to a watchman's chamber over a city gate. 1 Ki 17:19, 23 speaks of a bedroom. 2 Ki 4:10, 11 use aliyyah to describe a niche or cubbyhole in a bedroom. 2 Ki 1:2 is less clear, but probably describes a room in the palace. Jer 22:13, 14 speak of the second story of a house.

Aliyyah may be best defined simply as a chamber, usually on the upper story of a structure, ordinarily a common room. We are completely unable from Biblical sources to identify any predominant religious use for such a room. It is possible that such a term became used for a room in a synagogue, since synagogues came into being during the intertestamental period. But the nature of the assembly, both at the Last Supper and on resurrection Sunday deny this interpretation. The Passover was eaten at home, not in a synagogue. And the latter assembly was for a common meal, certainly not a synagogue activity. Which brings us to the final issue: "fear of the Jews."

We recall that the door was locked "for fear of the Jews" (John 20:19). If the disciples were afraid of the Jews, why would they go to a synagogue? That is a place where they would be certain to meet their enemies! It strains the imagination to suggest that the disciples would deliberately assemble in a place where they would be at great risk. Locking the door of the room clearly indicates that they were attempting to lower their risk of exposure and arrest.

Just what were they afraid of? The Jews had just murdered Jesus in cold blood because he threatened the foundations of their society. The disciples would be just as much at risk as their leader until the furor died down. This is the motivation which led Peter to deny Christ during the proceedings leading up to the cross.

Conclusion 3:

We have no information which allows us to determine whether the disciples had gathered on the ground floor or in a second story room. But even if it was an upper room, there is ample evidence to deny the possibility that it was the upper room of a synagogue.

Summary of the First Sunday:

Jesus made three recorded appearances on resurrection Sunday. These were to the women at the tomb, the disciples walking to Emmaus, and to the disciples in Jerusalem. His purpose in these appearances was to create eyewitnesses to the fact of his resurrection, the crucial final act of the gospel drama. There is no scriptural warrant for proposing that he suggested here that Sunday should become the new Sabbath, either in word or in deed.

The Second Sunday:

It is suggested that on the Sunday one week after the resurrection, Jesus again appeared to the disciples who were gathered for a religious service. John 20:26 states that this occurred "after eight days" from resurrection Sunday. The Greek word "meta" translated "after" is stated by one standard lexicon** to refer to a time after the completion of the specified time. That is, after the eight days is complete, Jesus appeared again. Using Jewish inclusive counting, the eight days would be Sunday through Sunday, making the appearance at earliest on Monday. However, Greek experts with whom I have consulted are of divided opinion. One flatly stated that the word "won't bear that much weight." He and others, including the translators of the New American Standard Bible believe that the expression simply means "after a week" allowing the second recorded appearance to again be on Sunday. This leads us to consider the circumstances.

Thomas had not been present when Jesus appeared originally, and stated that he would not believe until he saw for himself (John 20:24-25). Jesus miraculously appears after the disciples were inside and the doors were shut. Thomas sees, and believes. Then Jesus commends Thomas for his belief (v. 29). The account ends. There is no evidence that there is any sort of religious assembly underway. Neither is any communion meal described.

It is of great significance that the day of the week is not directly identified. Had God intended this event to be used to support Sunday observance, it is imperative that Sunday would have in some way been directly identified. Instead, we are left to deduce that it was Sunday. And the content of Jesus' statements on this day is similar to the week before. Thomas' belief in the fact of the resurrection is at issue, not the day of worship. Unlike the previous week, where the day is specifically identified in order to show the fulfillment of prophecy, here it is unimportant. The prophetic date had been fully verified by the rest of the disciples, and having passed, could no longer be confirmed first-hand. What was necessary was for Thomas to become an eyewitness to the fact of the resurrection. There is no hint of any religious service (i.e. communion) or instruction regarding Sunday observance.

The Third Sunday:

The third Sunday is suggested to be found in John 21:1-14. The day of the week is not specified in the text, nor is the interval between the second Sunday and this event given. It is merely "after." We may immediately state that on Biblical grounds this event cannot be used to support Sunday observance, since it cannot be established that it was Sunday. But let us proceed as if it were Sunday and consider the details of the story.

Peter and six other disciples had been fishing all night without success (v. 5). Jesus directs them to cast their net on the other side of the boat (v. 6). They catch 153 fish and come to shore (vv. 8, 12). Jesus already has a fire burning with fish cooking on it (v. 9). Let us assume that Jesus had been teaching that Sunday was the new Sabbath, and was continuing to teach by example.

Our first observation must be of the activities of the disciples. They had spent the entire night fishing, which was their daily occupation. This would be a violation of the Sabbath under any interpretation of the command. If they had been taught Sunday Sabbatarianism in any form, they were demonstrating that they were poor students. But we must not stop with the students. We must consider the teacher.

Jesus' response to the failure to catch fish is to instruct the disciples in fishing! He is complicit in their Sabbath-breaking. For God incarnate to violate his own command boggles the imagination. For him to do it in the process of teaching that very command is completely incomprehensible. But his Sabbath-breaking does not stop there. He has started a fire, contrary to the Sabbath commands (Ex 35:3, Num 15:23). And he is cooking, another act inconsistent with Sabbath-keeping. Finally, he had to obtain the fish to cook, another act against the Sabbath, as seen in the story of the manna (Ex 16).

In this very brief review we find two key problems with the idea of Jesus teaching Sunday sacredness. First, there is no information to allow us to even deduce that it occurred on Sunday. Second, we find at least five separate ways that he would be breaking the Sabbath if this event truly occurred on the Sabbath. Thus, to conclude that this event represents Jesus teaching Sunday observance is to move far beyond the statements of scripture in one way, and to simply ignore them in another.

The Fourth and Fifth Sundays:

It is suggested that the fourth and fifth Sundays on which Jesus taught Sunday-keeping by example are described in 1 Cor 15:6-7.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 1 Cor 15:3-8

As we examine this passage, we find that it does not identify the day of the week for any of the appearances of Christ. We may infer that verse 5 refers to resurrection Sunday as a result of the study done above. But then the list skips the appearance to Thomas (or conflates it with resurrection Sunday), moving on to two other appearances and the Damascus road conversion of Saul. There is no internal evidence in this list to even suggest the intervals between the appearances. We know that Saul was converted (Acts 9) after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7), which occurred in AD34, 3 1/2 years after the cross. So this list is not internally defined by any identifiable intervals. We know that the appearances in the list prior to the Damascus road occurred over a period of forty days (Acts 1:3), but no other chronological data exists. Therefore we cannot establish even that these constitute Sunday appearances. There seems to be no way that these events can be used to support the thesis of teaching Sunday observance by example.

The Sixth Sunday:

It is suggested that Matt 28:16 describes another Sunday where Jesus appeared and taught Sunday observance by example.

8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.
9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.
10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they shall see Me."

16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matt 28:8-10, 16-20

As we examine this passage, it becomes clear that there is a significant gap between verses 10 and 16 (and not just because I left out vv. 11-15!). What is being presented is not a chronologically detailed account, but a sequential synopsis of key events which Matthew was inspired to record for the purpose of developing the message of the gospel commission. None of this can be used to support Sunday observance, for two reasons. First, it adds nothing to what we already know about any confirmed Sunday, and there is no reference to the first day of the week in the passage.

The Seventh Sunday:

It is suggested that Acts 1:14-15 represents a Sunday gathering for worship and prayer.

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them;
11 and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.
13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.
14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 And at this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together, and said,
16 "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. Acts 1:9-16

As we begin this passage, we see Jesus' ascension. This occurred after Jesus spent forty days with the disciples (Acts 1:3). Since the first appearance was on a Sunday, the ascension was thirty nine days later, on a Thursday. Even if we have erred in the Jewish inclusive counting, the ascension was no earlier than Wednesday, nor later than Friday. In any case, the specific day of the week is not stated, only the interval. This is again important. If God had wanted us to keep Sunday, he certainly would have made it clear that the events we have been studying had taken place on the first day of the week. Since this is not what we see, we may legitimately infer that the day of the week is not an issue of importance.

But as we look closer, the language of this story is a bit different from the language of other passages which were indefinite. Verses 12 and 13 tell us that when Jesus ascended the disciples returned to Jerusalem. Then, when they had entered, (note the specific language), they went to the upper room where they were staying. This is the day of the ascension. Luke then parenthetically records just who "they" were, and adds that they, along with certain women, were continually involved in prayer. Verse 15 begins with "at this time." What time was that? The specific language requires that this was immediately after they climbed the stairs and entered the room. Let us restate the sequence.

Jesus ascended on a weekday. That day the disciples returned to Jerusalem, climbed the stairs and entered the room where they were staying. At that time Peter started talking, and the casting of lots to select Matthias to replace Judas began. This was all on a weekday, not a Sunday. Verse 14 is specifically enlightening as to the issue of Sunday worship.

The disciples were "continually devoting themselves to prayer." This means that it was a continuing activity. It was not just a Sunday activity, but an every day activity. This is the only activity other than the selection of Matthias which is recorded for the upper room. Because it occurred every day, it offers no support to sanctity for any particular day. To consider this day as a special day of religious observance due to the prayer would also ignore the fact that Paul tells us to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). If that indicates a day of sacredness, then all days would be sacred, and that is clearly not Biblical.

The issue of an aliyyah appears again here. While the book of Acts was written in Greek so that the Hebrew word does not appear, we definitely have an upper room in this story. But to consider it as part of a synagogue would be incorrect. Acts 1:13 indicates that this was where they were staying. In other words, it was either a house or a public place of lodging. So to consider the location as indicating a synagogue would be incorrect. (I am aware of your doctoral dissertation which suggests that synagogues were found in private homes. I have to say that at this point I am unconvinced. But even if that were true, we have here a weekday activity, which can have no probative value regarding Sunday observance.)

The Eighth Sunday:

The Day of Pentecost is commonly considered to have occurred on Sunday. The arithmetic for this is particularly simple. Jesus and the Twelve ate the Passover on Thursday evening after sundown, as the preparation day began. That night included prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, then the arrest and subsequent proceedings. The crucifixion took place in the daylight hours of Friday, which was the daylight part of Passover. Firstfruits was the next day, the Sabbath. And Pentecost was fifty days after Firstfruits, bringing us to a Sunday. (I happen to agree with this calendation as being most likely, since Paul refers to "Christ our Passover" being sacrificed (1 Cor 5:7). This would provide the simplest fulfillment of the typology.)

While this arithmetic is likely to be correct, it is not certain. Matt 26 records Jesus eating the Passover at "evening" (Gr. opsios). Thayer's Greek Lexicon (and Strong's) defines this as either the period from 3PM to 6PM or from 6PM to the beginning of night. In other words, this could be on Thursday, not Friday, by Jewish reckoning. (See also Mark 14:17-18, where the same Greek word is used. Luke and John do not record the specific time of the Last Supper.) A Thursday Passover yields a Sabbath Pentecost.

Further confusion arises when we consider John 18:28. There we find the High Priest Caiaphus refusing to enter the Praetorium in order to avoid being defiled, which would prevent him from eating the Passover. If he were to eat before sundown, this would place the Passover on Friday, with Pentecost on Sunday. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary points out that from the earliest days there has been dispute over when to eat the Passover. They cite Abn Ezra, the Samaritans and the Karaites (a very strict sect of Jews) who held that it was to be eaten between sunset and total darkness, in contrast to the Pharisees who held to the pre-sundown timing. Thus it is possible that Passover could have been as late as Sabbath! This would lead to a Monday Pentecost. (If Jesus held the Karaite position and Caiaphus the Pharisaic, there would be no scriptural conflict. Both would have eaten the Passover on Friday, and Pentecost would fall on Sunday.)

While scholars may debate as to the day of the week of Pentecost, it is important to note that the day of the week is not recorded. This is an indication that it is Pentecost which is important, not the day of the week. It was the Feast of the Harvest (Ex 23:16). The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on that day began the harvest of souls for the Lord in the apostolic church. This is not the only typological function of the day. Pentecost marks the renewing of the covenant with Israel. The law was given from Sinai fifty days after the Red Sea crossing, which fell on the date of Firstfruits. Thus, the Ten Commandments were given on what would become Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost, renewing the covenant with Israel.

There is much more which could be said about the typology of Pentecost. But we need not amplify except to say that the types which Pentecost represents are specifically brought to mind by noting the festival, and the absence of a mention of the day of the week indicates that it is not in view. We may finally confirm the typological function of Pentecost by seeing the results of the events of the day. Three thousand were brought to Christ. This is exactly the proper result for the disciples who had been eyewitnesses to the gospel on resurrection Sunday and now preached as eyewitnesses (Acts 2:32).

This is the unifying thread for the events we have been discussing. Jesus was raised on the proper day to complete the drama of the gospel. He appeared to eyewitnesses to allow them to spread the word with conviction. Then on the festival of the harvest, he initiated the gospel harvest with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The day of the week has no place in any part of the scriptures so far discussed except as a confirmation of the prophecies of the resurrection. And that is the only place where it is recorded.

That this conclusion is correct is confirmed when we look at 1 Cor 15 (quoted above). There Paul gives a list of appearances of Jesus after his resurrection. After making a parenthetical comment about his own unworthiness to be an eyewitness, Paul goes on to speak of the ultimate importance of the resurrection, without which, our faith would be in vain (vv. 13-14). In other words, the appearances were for the purpose of confirming the fact of the resurrection. I cannot add to the words of Paul.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 1 Cor 15:3-4

Summary:

Sunday 1 (the Resurrection). Without question, the resurrection occurred on Sunday, and the appearances to the disciples confirmed it, creating eyewitnesses. The disciples acted as if it were an ordinary Sunday, and no evidence of teaching of Sunday sacredness can be found.

Sunday 2. The fact of this being Sunday is open to question. But the day is not mentioned, which speaks volumes. Again, the purpose of the appearance is to create an eyewitness.

Sunday 3. The idea that this was Sunday is purely speculative. And if it were a Sunday, Jesus' example is that it was not to be sacred, for he engaged in at least five activities which are not consistent with the Sabbath.

Sundays 4-6. The identification of these days as Sundays is purely speculative on scriptural grounds.

Sunday 7. Scripture identifies the time of the ascension as forty days after resurrection Sunday, which prevents it from falling on a Sunday.

Sunday 8 (Pentecost). While this day was likely to have been a Sunday, this is not certain, both on scriptural and historical grounds. Further, Pentecost fulfills a typological function here, and Sunday does not. The fact that the day of the week is not stated speaks volumes as to the intent of scripture with regard to Sunday sacredness.

Of the eight "Sundays," only one is certain. Two others are likely, one is not a Sunday, and the rest are speculative. If we consider the two likely candidates to be Sundays, then there are only three of eight. This does not constitute a pattern. On the other hand, there is voluminous evidence that the purpose of all the post-cross appearances was to prepare the gospel commission by creating eyewitnesses and instructing them in their mission, which they began to carry out on Pentecost.

I cannot find support for Sunday in the scriptural accounts of these events. Other evidence must be proffered. This leads me to dispute your assertion that a "prima facie plausibility" for Sunday observance exists within the New Testament. I have argued that not one text supposing to present Sunday sacredness actually does so in the slightest. I believe the evidence to be conclusive and coercive. Thus, the argument that the "weekly Sabbath *must* be in force now, but in a way that carefully and theologically distinguishes it from the weekly Sabbath days that were celebrated by the Jews" stands without visible support.

We must for a moment consider other negative evidence. Your thesis is that we are to honor the day of the resurrection, based on what you believe the NT to say about such a celebration. Yet in the NT, there is exactly one new celebration specifically enjoined on believers. That is the Lord's Supper, and it commemorates Jesus' death, not his resurrection (1 Cor 11:26). (If you wish to suggest baptism as well, I will grant that, although it's a different kind of event.) This celebration was taught by explicit example in the gospels, and is explicitly enjoined by Paul. Yet in no place do we find any explicit or even implicit injunction to keep Sunday. This voice of inspiration, which clearly speaks of a new "Passover" celebration is totally silent on a new Sabbath. This silence speaks volumes.

In order for the Sunday thesis to have plausibility, there must be a record in scripture of religious events occurring specifically on Sunday because it was Sunday. The "eight Sundays" argument is illustrative. Assuming that three events were on Sunday, the first occurred not because it was Sunday, but because it was the third day after the cross. The second occurred not because it was Sunday but because that was when Thomas was present. The last was on Sunday because it was Pentecost, not because it was on Sunday. Scripture is utterly devoid of Sunday religious events which occurred because the day was Sunday. Absent such evidence, there is no reason for us to consider the Sunday thesis.

You have raised Col 2:16. You assert that the shadows (v. 17) were nailed to the cross. Yet Paul states that the chierographon ton dogmasin (our death sentence) was nailed to the cross (v.14), not the skia ton mellonton (meat, drink, festivals, new moons, Sabbaths) (vv.16-17). How can you make this conclusion? I dealt with this passage at length in a previous post and you have not discussed my arguments. Please note that Paul's argument presupposes the continued existence of the items in that list.

Finally, allow me to briefly revisit the Edenic origin of the Sabbath. You state that "there was never an inauguration of the seventh day for the Israelites to "remember."" This implies an incorrect conclusion, even though the exact words are correct. While the Sabbath does not exist in scripture as a recorded specific direct literal statutory command until Sinai, I must challenge the assertion that it was not commanded until then. First, your own work indicates that it was in force in Eden. No command can be in force until it is commanded! Gen 2:3 states that God "hallowed" (KJV) the seventh day. This word implies that the seventh day was set aside for holy purposes. This only has meaning with regard to man. Next, no item made holy in scripture is ever held back. They were all immediately put into service. Next, we should consider the Hebrew. The verb qadash is in the Piel imperfect. This does two things. First, it adds emphasis. Second, it shows the hallowing to be ongoing. Therefore, God did not hallow only that single day, but hallowed every succeeding seventh day as well. This makes it stand as a command for man to keep every seventh day holy, which makes Ex 20:8 a virtual quote of Gen 2:3. The Sabbath existed and was commanded from the beginning, and therefore could not be "inaugurated."

I think at this time it is appropriate to ask you to deal with my objections to your premises rather than moving forward as if they stood uncontradicted. As we have both noted, the burden lies with you to show affirmatively the case for Sunday observance. Since every thesis you have presented supposedly supporting Sunday observance stands affirmatively contradicted, it is necessary for you to show how my refutations are incorrect before proceeding further. Your "prima facie plausibility" has yet to be established.

I await your reply.

* The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times, by Ralph Gower, Moody Press, 1987
** Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by Arndt and Gingrich, 1957