Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I guess we're just having a communication breakdown here.

The Sabbath is not determined by night and day periods, but from one evening to the next.

No breakdown. Evening to evening means end of daylight to end of daylight. That does not occur for weeks in the north and the south.

You mentioned that you cannot understand how people strive so much to avoid something in the Word. That's what I am seeing in this sabbath issue! Gal 4 distinctly says Law is gone with its days, months and years. Sabbaths being a shadow means all of them, not barred. ANd the hoops one requires to insert pagan calendars and bypassing the conclusions from a simple read are puzzling to me.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Interesting. Would this mean the first day of the week is never mentioned in Scripture at all? How would you say "first of the week" in Greek?

Also, tradition and history are unanimous that Jesus rose the day after the seventh day Sabbath. If that is not what happened, what evidence is there available that points in that direction?

If what I have postulated is correct, then there is no phrase for "first of the week" in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

The best I have found so far is first, from Luke 18:12. There, the Pharisee of the parable tells God in soliloquy that he fasts twice in the week. Here, "week" is the singular sabbatou. Otherwise, I have not found the word "week" in the New Testament Scriptures outside of the other references already given (But this might just mean, especially as hyperbole, that the Pharisee claimed to fast two separate meals on the Sabbath to prove how devout he was).

So, I checked the LXX, and I see, for example that in Genesis 29:27-28, the word translated as "week" is έβδομα, which is an ordinal derived from the Greek word for seven, that is, ἑπτά. As such, it means "seventh".

In Exodus 34:22, the Greek word for "weeks" is εβδομάδων, that is, a period of sevens, which makes sense, since Pentecost is a celebration that takes place seven weeks, or a group of seven days by seven days, or 49 days, the day after Unleavened Bread ends.

Leviticus 12:5 reads δις επτά ημέρας, or seven days twiced, that is, two weeks.

Numbers 28:26 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

Deuteronomy 16:9 has επτά, or the number 7.

Deuteronomy 16:10 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

Deuteronomy 16:16 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

2 Chronicles 8:13 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens. This reference is interesting, because the word σαββάτοις, or sabbaths is also present, thus showing a different rendering between sabbaths and weeks.

Jeremiah 5:24 has προστάγματος, which has nothing to do with weeks or days, but rather, the order of appointments.

Daniel 9:24-27 and 10:2-3 have εβδομάδες, or period of sevens.

In all cases, then, the LXX knows nothing using any reference to the sabbath as a metonym. So, did using sabbath as a metonym for the word week come into existence after the LXX but before the NT? I haven't yet found anything to suggest it. Again, it seems like a translators choice.

I see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 41, he claims Jesus rose from the dead on what might appear to be Sunday.

See: https://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/041.html

The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.

Apparently, in the Talmud it is suggested that there are no names to the days of the week for Jews in Hebrew, so each day of the week is understood in relation to the Sabbath, so, the first day from the Sabbath would be Sunday, the second day from the Sabbath would be Monday, the third day from the Sabbath would be Tuesday, and etc. But I haven't yet been able to verify that as of yet. If this is the case, it might confirm that "first day of the week/sabbath" was a colloquial idiom referring to Sunday.

Now, how to otherwise say "first of the week"? It looks to me like you could say something close to πρώτο της εβδομάδας or próto tis evdomádas or first of the sevens/week, but I need some help with that, as I am not sure. Maybe another member can chime in???

Finally, as far as tradition goes, I would ask, where does the tradition come from and why or how did it develop? If the tradition developed over time from a misunderstanding of what sabbath/s was/were in view, that is, the sabbath/s mentioned in the Gospels were the high days, then the tradition developed in error and can be discarded. But that is only a guess, as I don't actually know how and when and where and why the tradition developed.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am so much enjoying this thread.

Votivesoul, I’m thrilled you see the I/You distinctions mentioned in Gal 4. I’ve never heard anyone else say that after I shared my thoughts with them. That is a definite key to understanding the chapter. In fact, it’s for that very reason that the issue cannot be pagan days, though.

After chapter 3 clearly stated that the law was like a schoolmaster for those like Paul who were Israelites (THE WE), Paul said that the tutors and governors, as you wonderfully pointed out, are representative that same old covenant Law. The illustration continues from chapter 3 talking about law. And it is for this reason that we know LAW is the elements of the world in 4:3. In interpreting the mini parable of the heir’s childhood being practically the same as a servants, -- seeing as he does no more practical activity in the inheritance before he actually inherits it – Paul said that the heir is no different than the servant. We later learn that Gentiles to whom he wrote – THE YOU and YE – were the servants to idols. But Paul did not say that while they were servants to idols that they were under the tutors of governors that Israel was under before Christ. That is common sense, because, of course, being under law before Christ was only referring to Israel.

But Israel was under the tutors and governors of the elements of the world according to 4:3. Paul then rephrased that same point of being under law by coming right out and saying Israel was redeemed from Law in verse 4-5. This makes Law the elements of the world in verse 3. Verses 4 and 5 interpret what the tutors and governors are in verse 2 just as chapter 3:24 identifies law using the picture of a schoolmaster.

Gentiles were not under the elements of the world that Paul identified in 4:3 in their times before Christ, since that verses uses the pronoun “WE” to indicate Israel’s schoolmaster. And I say “before Christ” because these Gentiles were under idols then. But that does not mean they were under idols immediately before they became Christians.

So, those under Law, or under the schoolmaster and elements of the world, were the Israelites. And the Israelites were redeemed from beneath the law and elements of the world when Christ came when we compare verse 5 with 3. They received adoption of sons.

Then Paul directs his words to the Gentiles, and changes pronouns to say “YE” in verse 6, who were the servants in 4:1, and says there was also a change in them. They were no more servants but sons.

The key, here, is that nothing was said about idols at all so far in the context. Elements referred to Law. We’re not told that Gentiles were servants to idols when we’re told they were servants in verse , until verses 8 introduces that thought. They did service to non-existent gods – verse 8. But because Paul already identified elements of the world in verse 3 to be law in verse 5, for Paul to ask the gentiles why they would RETURN to weak and beggarly elements means that, somehow, they were returning to LAW. “Elements of the world” are the same elements that were weak and beggarly in verse 9.

For this reason, others on the forum cannot agree with you and I that versed 3’s elements of the world was law. You see they were law, though, because you see the same distinction that I saw in the pronouns WE and YOU referring to Jews and Gentiles.

We cannot change the reference of “elements of the world” from law in verse 3 to idolatry in verse 9. It’s the same “elements” that are necessary, basal and fundamental to the New covenant, because in this way the aspects of Law were the schoolmaster that led them to Christ in precisely the way that you described chapter 3.

Idolatry is not the antecedent for the “elements of the world” in neither verse 3, especially, or verse 9. Elements are God-ordained elementary school of Law for both verses.

“Elements” were first referred to as Law in verses 3 through 5. Paul would not use that term to describe something other than law later, or he’d be inconsistent and confusing.

There are two ways to reconcile the points that the service to idols in verse 8, and the common denominator of verse 3’s and verse 9’s reference to ELEMENTS, makes comprehensive reading out of Paul’s words. Both of the only two possibilities, though, conclude that the days, months and years in verse 10 cannot be pagan days, but Israel’s religious time periods of Law.

1. The Gentiles were in a form of bondage to idols and were going back into bondage again, BUT IN A DIFFERENT FORM, by going under the schoolmaster of elements of the world that God freed Israel from. Paganism and Law were both forms of bondage.

2. The Gentiles had come out of paganism and went into Law-keeping before they eventually found Christ in the church at Galatia, which means they indeed did return to the Israelite Law they put themselves under before they found Christ but after they left paganism.

Either way, it does not add up that the religious time periods were elements of verse 9 due to the use of the term in verse 3.

Scholars have noticed this and claim it must be one of the two instances I laid out above.

ADAM CLARKE: on verse 9:

To the weak and beggarly elements - After receiving all this, will ye turn again to the ineffectual rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law - rites too weak to counteract your sinful habits, and too poor to purchase pardon and eternal life for you? If the Galatians were turning again to them, it is evident that they had been once addicted to them. And this they might have been, allowing that they had become converts from heathenism to Judaism, and from Judaism to Christianity. This makes the sense consistent between the 8th and 9th verses.

ALBERT BARNES on verse 9:

To the weak and beggarly elements - To the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, imposing a servitude really not less severe than the customs of paganism. On the word elements, see the note at Gal_4:3. They are called “weak” because they had no power to save the soul; no power to justify the sinner before God. They are called “beggarly” (Greek πτωχὰ ptōcha, poor), because they could not impart spiritual riches. They really could confer few benefits on man. Or it may be, as Locke supposes, because the Law kept people in the poor estate of pupils from the full enjoyment of the inheritance; Gal_4:1-3.

They had been freed by the gospel from the galling servitude of paganism, and they now again had sunk into the Jewish observances, as if they preferred slavery to freedom, and were willing to go from one form of it to another.

These scholars realize that the elements of verse 9 are the same as verse 3, and, therefore, have to be law because of what 5 interprets them to be.

The only way that the time periods could be pagan in verse 10 is for verse 9's reference to use a different antecedent for Law than what currently exists in the verse. We cannot have two different antecedents for elements referred to in both verses 3 and 9. And LAW is the only consistent antecedent because there truly were religious time periods under Law. If verse 9’s elements are referring to idolatry, and Paul already established that ELEMENTS in verse 3 was LAW in verse 5, then it’s pretty confusing when we realize Law did indeed have time periods that were KEPT as ORDINANCES. Consistency can only be found in law and paganism both serving as BONDAGE, making gentiles going back under bondage that is under law instead of bondage under idols. And that still puts the religious time periods to be those of law.

Furthermore, Bondage is stated to be law in the additional mini parable of Hagar and Sarah.

Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.



One COVENANT gendered to bondage, and the new covenant gendering to freedom. Had it been correct to say that the religious time periods of verse 10 were pagan, then Paul would not say that their bondage under the elements of verse 9 was expounded upon to be seen as the old covenants in verse 24!

And then Chapter 5:1-2 continues to say that the BONDAGE was Law, with not a hint of expounding information about verse 9’s bondage of the gentiles being times of paganism.

Basically, Paul said, “You gentiles are going n the kindergarten bondage that Israel was supposed to leave and be freed from when Christ came, when us Jews are not even under that bondage any more!”

Just briefly, I think it is an unnecessary inference to think the elements for the Heir are the same elements for the Gentile. The elements of the world for the Heir are the Torah commandments. The elements for the Gentile are idolatrous practices. They need not be the same elements, even if the word is the same. The Israelite and the Gentile came from two totally different worlds, governed by different moralities, laws, customs, practices, and even God/gods. The Israelite, if he leaves faith in Christ for the Torah goes back to the world he once knew. The Gentile, if he leaves faith in Christ for idolatry goes back to the world he once knew. Additionally, the Gentile, if he leaves faith in Christ for the Torah, is attempting to go to a world in which he doesn't, and never did, belong. That means it's impossible, no matter how much he might be deceived into thinking otherwise.

If, as you and I both have stated, the distinction between the "we" and the "ye" is really there, and of true importance, then I think it sound to realize there are two different sets of elements, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile.

[votivesoul]

I found another perspective on the plural use of sabbath in the Gospels.

See: https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/2018/...y-of-the-week/

It suggests the plural usage is the counting down of the sabbaths leading up to Pentecost. This might be as valid, or even more so, than what I have so far argued. Will have to ponder it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Just briefly, I think it is an unnecessary inference to think the elements for the Heir are the same elements for the Gentile. The elements of the world for the Heir are the Torah commandments. The elements for the Gentile are idolatrous practices. They need not be the same elements, even if the word is the same. The Israelite and the Gentile came from two totally different worlds, governed by different moralities, laws, customs, practices, and even God/gods. The Israelite, if he leaves faith in Christ for the Torah goes back to the world he once knew. The Gentile, if he leaves faith in Christ for idolatry goes back to the world he once knew. Additionally, the Gentile, if he leaves faith in Christ for the Torah, is attempting to go to a world in which he doesn't, and never did, belong. That means it's impossible, no matter how much he might be deceived into thinking otherwise.

If, as you and I both have stated, the distinction between the "we" and the "ye" is really there, and of true importance, then I think it sound to realize there are two different sets of elements, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile.

Again, though, why continue ONLY with reference to law in describing bondage to these gentiles as Paul did when he said Law gendered to bondage like Hagar did, if not to indicate he was concerned with gentiles going under law? Idols are only mentioned as a sideline issue. However, before chapter 4:9 and after, law is focused upon as binding.

Elements, too, are basal and necessary things. They are ordained of God. To compare law with the New Covenant, we see how the concept of fundamental basal issues fit perfectly well, as chapter 3 literally states. But where is a sense of that sort of preparatory purpose in elements found in the context of Galatians in reference to paganism? Were the saved gentiles that were in the church dabbling with "elements of paganism" in the same sense that Israel was under elements of the law that prepped them for Jesus? In other words, were the pagan elements part of some "preparatory" purpose that would allegedly lead them into deeper and more substantial paganism, as New COvenant is deeper and more substantial than Law?

It's simply far too obvious as I see it for the elements of verse 9 to be elements as the earlier reference makes it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Is it possible for someone to keep the Sabbath by themself? What exactly would you do?

Set the day apart from the other days. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy". Holy means essentially separated. Doing your ordinary work (your job, cooking, cleaning, business transactions, etc) during the other six days, and not doing those things on the Sabbath, as well as not requiring such work from others (your children, other people, any work animals you might have, etc* see note below) helps to mark the seventh day as different or separate from the other days. Doing this in honour of Jesus as Creator of heaven and earth and as Lord of the Sabbath establishes your activity as "sanctified" or devoted to a divine purpose.

It is often helpful to mark the beginning and end of the Sabbath. By acknowledging the Sabbath has now started (on what we call Friday evening), and then acknowledging the Sabbath has ended and the week has restarted (on what is commonly called Saturday evening), you are establishing a separation or boundary between the Sabbath and the other days and officially recognizing the Sabbath as hallowed by God.

In Lev 23 God says the Sabbath is an appointment and a "holy convocation", or sacred assembly. But that of course implies two or more people assembling together to worship God. However, God calls these things His appointments (moedim, often thought of as "Feasts"). So you can think of it as an appointed time that one meets with God. Yes, He is with us at all times, but there are times when we "meet God" or encounter God in a non ordinary way, a way other than just existing in His presence 24/7. Prayer, for example, is "time with God", as is the Sabbath. Obviously, the two would go together!

So if one were the only Sabbath keeping believer they were in contact with, and so could not meet with other believers on the Sabbath, they could still meet with God, and use the day for prayer, worship, study of His Word, etc. Church is two or more gathered in His name, but even if it's just you and the Lord, that's two, you can still have church, in a sense.

We "welcome the Sabbath" at it's start with prayer and usually a meal. (The Sabbath is technically a feast, or festive occasion, so a nice meal is usually appropriate.) We also "say goodbye to the Sabbath" at its end, that is we recognise the passing from the Sabbath to the first day of the week, with prayer. We welcome the Sabbath with Psalm 95 and prayer, and acknowledge its ending with a psalm and prayer, and singing psalm 24 (which is "A Psalm For the First of the Week") to sort of officially recognise the start of the first day of the week.

There are other things we do, but basically we 1) stop our ordinary work, 2) formally recognise the start and stop of the Sabbath with prayer, and 3) use the day with a special emphasis on prayer and worship as well as just enjoying God's blessings.

*Note: Not requiring labour of others is why most Sabbath keepers do not shop or go to restaurants or stores or conduct financial transactions on the Sabbath.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

If what I have postulated is correct, then there is no phrase for "first of the week" in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

The best I have found so far is first, from Luke 18:12. There, the Pharisee of the parable tells God in soliloquy that he fasts twice in the week. Here, "week" is the singular sabbatou. Otherwise, I have not found the word "week" in the New Testament Scriptures outside of the other references already given (But this might just mean, especially as hyperbole, that the Pharisee claimed to fast two separate meals on the Sabbath to prove how devout he was).

So, I checked the LXX, and I see, for example that in Genesis 29:27-28, the word translated as "week" is έβδομα, which is an ordinal derived from the Greek word for seven, that is, ἑπτά. As such, it means "seventh".

In Exodus 34:22, the Greek word for "weeks" is εβδομάδων, that is, a period of sevens, which makes sense, since Pentecost is a celebration that takes place seven weeks, or a group of seven days by seven days, or 49 days, the day after Unleavened Bread ends.

Leviticus 12:5 reads δις επτά ημέρας, or seven days twiced, that is, two weeks.

Numbers 28:26 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

Deuteronomy 16:9 has επτά, or the number 7.

Deuteronomy 16:10 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

Deuteronomy 16:16 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens.

2 Chronicles 8:13 has εβδομάδων, or period of sevens. This reference is interesting, because the word σαββάτοις, or sabbaths is also present, thus showing a different rendering between sabbaths and weeks.

Jeremiah 5:24 has προστάγματος, which has nothing to do with weeks or days, but rather, the order of appointments.

Daniel 9:24-27 and 10:2-3 have εβδομάδες, or period of sevens.

In all cases, then, the LXX knows nothing using any reference to the sabbath as a metonym. So, did using sabbath as a metonym for the word week come into existence after the LXX but before the NT? I haven't yet found anything to suggest it. Again, it seems like a translators choice.

I see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 41, he claims Jesus rose from the dead on what might appear to be Sunday.

See: https://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/041.html



Apparently, in the Talmud it is suggested that there are no names to the days of the week for Jews in Hebrew, so each day of the week is understood in relation to the Sabbath, so, the first day from the Sabbath would be Sunday, the second day from the Sabbath would be Monday, the third day from the Sabbath would be Tuesday, and etc. But I haven't yet been able to verify that as of yet. If this is the case, it might confirm that "first day of the week/sabbath" was a colloquial idiom referring to Monday.

Now, how to otherwise say "first of the week"? It looks to me like you could say something close to πρώτο της εβδομάδας or próto tis evdomádas or first of the seven/week, but I need some help with that, as I am not sure. Maybe another member can chime in???

Finally, as far as tradition goes, I would ask, where does the tradition come from and why or how did it develop? If the tradition developed over time from a misunderstanding of what sabbath/s was/were in view, that is, the sabbath/s mentioned in the Gospels were the high days, then the tradition developed in error and can be discarded. But that is only a guess, as I don't actually know how and when and where and why the tradition developed.

On the tradition topic, I was thinking if Jesus had risen on, say Tuesday, then there should be some hint of that in church history, I woukd think there would be some evidence of an entering in or beginning of a first day of the week tradition in opposition to the original facts and understanding of the apostles.

Your post gives much food for thought.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No breakdown. Evening to evening means end of daylight to end of daylight. That does not occur for weeks in the north and the south.

Evening means when the sun approaches the horizon. So there are in fact 365 evenings in the arctic. Honestly, even if you were correct, it would only mean folks living in the extreme arctic or antarctic are exempt. Neither you nor I nor anyone reading this thread is living in such locations. It's like saying "baptism can't be required because somebody somewhere in a desert with no water can't be baptised".

You mentioned that you cannot understand how people strive so much to avoid something in the Word.

Some people read and study and pray to find out what God wants them to do. Other people read and study and pray to find out what they don't have to do.

That's what I am seeing in this sabbath issue! Gal 4 distinctly says Law is gone with its days, months and years.

If law is gone and this means we don't have to do what the 4th commandment says, then it means we don't have to do what the other commandments say, either. Also, you provide your summary statements of what Galatians says, but I find Galatians doesn't actually say what you say. We are to hold fast the form of sound words, and speak as the oracles of God. Therefore when we say "the Bible says X" but the Bible doesn't actually say "X", we are on dangerous ground.

Sabbaths being a shadow means all of them, not barred. ANd the hoops one requires to insert pagan calendars and bypassing the conclusions from a simple read are puzzling to me.

There are no hoops, it's simple grammar. As for shadows, that comes from Colossians and is referring to the judging, not the items for which the Colossian brethren were being judged.

The point of Galatians is NOT "make sure you don't do the things contained in the law" as if obedience to God is ever a bad unchristian thing. The point is SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. And by the way "deeds of the law" isn't referring to obeying God's commandments, but was and is a well documented rabbinical idiom for adherance to sectarian halacha or "traditions of the elders", as it is well documented not only in talmudic lusage but in Qumran documents.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There are no hoops, it's simple grammar. As for shadows, that comes from Colossians and is referring to the judging, not the items for which the Colossian brethren were being judged.

The point of Galatians is NOT "make sure you don't do the things contained in the law" as if obedience to God is ever a bad unchristian thing. The point is SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. And by the way "deeds of the law" isn't referring to obeying God's commandments, but was and is a well documented rabbinical idiom for adherence to sectarian halacha or "traditions of the elders", as it is well documented not only in talmudic lusage but in Qumran documents.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The issue is what circumcision, and holiness was causing within the different sects of Judaism. SEEKING TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. Cain's issue was that by doing something he wanted his work to be accepted. When it was rejected he had an issue, that issue was with his brother 1 John 3:12. Cain is corrected by God, and told how he could get it right with God so his sacrifice would be accepted. In Rabbinical Judaism it is all of the mitzvah, that is the focus, not God. going about to establish their own righteousness Romans 10:3. We aren't saved by works, we are judged by our works. Therefore if we love God, it isn't grievous to keep His commandments 1 John 5:3. Therefore remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. So, therefore this is a moral precept? Am I right?