Why Do Christians Worship on Sunday?

Christians of numerous denominations consider Sunday as their day of rest and worship. Many, out of reverence for it, name Sunday the “Lord’s Day.” By such confession, they openly acknowledge that Christ owns the day—He has made it His own. This is a foundational belief of almost all Christians the world over. In fact, most Christians consider a deviation from it almost heretical. In this Christians have accepted unchallenged the reasons for Sunday rest and worship given by the Church, believing that the resulting practice is a mark of faith, piety and obedience. Notwithstanding, are the reasons for Sunday rest and worship in fact true and legitimate? Do they explain not only why Christians are to rest and worship on Sunday but also act together as an implied command to do so?

In chapter 67 of his work, First Apology, the early church father Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) provided two reasons to explain and justify Sunday as the Christian day of rest and worship. The early Church wholeheartedly adopted Justin’s explanations and has since incorporated them into her official catechisms and statements of faith (e.g. the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith and others). But even though by Justin’s day, many—if not all—Christians were accepting the practice of Sunday rest and worship—as we learn from early church documents like the Didache—Justin, one of the first Christian apologists, merely provided an explanation or justification; he did not invent the practice.

Now the first reason given by Justin for Sunday as the Christian day of rest and worship is that “it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world” (italics added). The second reason given by him is that “Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day [Sunday] rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things.” Both of these explanations appear legitimate and for a Christian to doubt their validity would seem more a result of an underlying apostasy! But wait a minute. What has God to say about these reasons?

As to the first, we must ask, “Where in the Bible does God announce this?” Where does God command us to worship and rest giving His beginning act of creation (Gen. 1:1-5) as the reason or justification? And we answer, “Nowhere.”  Well then, what does God actually say about resting and worshipping? “So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation” (Gen. 2:3, italics added).

Rather than saying that the beginning of creation on Day One is the reason Christians should rest and worship, God in fact makes it plain that Christians should rest and celebrate through worship because after He had finished and completed His work of creation, He rested and celebrated. (In Gen. 1:31, God “celebrates” His own handiwork by acknowledging and proclaiming its goodness). The Bible makes it plain that it is because of the end and completion of creation that God commands commemoration and this accordingly on the last or seventh day of the week, the Sabbath, not the first, Sunday. For Justin to give any other reason for this is—speaking generously—to spin the Word of God.

And as far as the teaching that a second reason is in consequence of the resurrection, again, where is this found in the Bible? And again we answer, “Nowhere.” It sounds pious and holy to say such a thing but this is exactly how Satan operates in the world—by twisting, perverting and corrupting our understanding of the Word, using our own ignorance, envy and pride to “lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Rather, we are to remember that God’s essential act of redemption and reconciliation was deliverance of His people from slavery, first (typically) out of Egypt (Deut. 5:15) and consequently out of the world of sin (Rom. 6:22). This deliverance from the old fetters of sin into the new fetters of righteousness (Eph. 3:1) is the essential reason for Christ’s foretold life and sacrificial death (Gen. 3:15). In the sense that Christ has delivered all God’s people, the true Ekklesia, from the curse of death, this deliverance through Christ leads us to abide in Him through devotional gratefulness and the certain trust that removes every shred of doubt and fear. In other words, Christ has given us rest through the cross. By Christ’s death—not His resurrection—God removed our record of debt that stood against us, by nailing it to the cross (Col. 2:4). This is the second reason provided by God in His Word.

Nevertheless, is not the resurrection important? It is, of course, but not as a reason to rest and worship. One must ask why then was Christ resurrected? What purpose or function does it serve? Well, it stands as the final guarantee of the truth of the Gospel.  It vindicates Christ and gives us surety. Because of the validation it gives to Christ and His euangelion, we have an eternal hope (Heb. 6:19; 10:23; 1 Peter 1:3). However, there is another—not well understood—reason why the resurrection is important and necessary and it has nothing to do with that given by Justin. Very briefly, the resurrection occurred so that Christ could present Himself as the “first fruits” of a redeemed humanity. Even as the first fruits of the barley harvest were being dedicated to God through the “wave offering” by the priests in the Temple, so too did Christ—the fulfillment of the OT “law and the prophets”—offer Himself to God as a kind of wave offering at the celebration of the Feast of First Fruits which occurred on the first day of the week, Sunday.

But Justin further maintains in his Apology that, “on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things [i.e. the reasons given above].” But where in the Bible does Christ teach these things? The answer, as you’ve probably guessed already, is “Nowhere.” 

It is apparent from his context that Justin is referring to Christ’s post resurrection appearances to the disciples, the first being on Sunday evening—which means parenthetically that this appearance occurred very likely on Monday, since evening for the Jews was the beginning of a new day. (John 20:19-20). Although He had opportunity, there is absolutely no indication in John that Jesus gave the disciples any reason to change the Sabbath. (This is not an argument from silence.) It is also true of the other appearances recorded in John (20:26-27; 21:4-6, 15-19). Likewise, as far as the Synoptic gospels are concerned, the same holds. In fact, we find the golden opportunity for Christ to teach what Justin claims for Him, in Luke’s account of one of Jesus’ final appearances (24:13ff) where Lord teaches two disciples He has met on the road to Emmaus. In the episode, Christ refers to the teachings of the OT prophets, “beginning with Moses” (who brought the Ten Commandments to God’s people at Sinai!) and how it was necessary to “suffer these things” (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22) in order to fulfill (i.e. teleos, the goal or purpose) God’s will. Among His final words given by the pen of Luke via the Holy Spirit, Christ says “that everything written about Me in the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled, then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45).

We see from the these accounts that Christ was teaching some final lessons (from the OT!) to His disciples before His ascension, but again, nowhere in these final moments does He teach what Justin claims. If He had in fact taught them, it would only prove that His teaching was false and contrary to the Word of God. He could then be justifiably accused of dividing His own kingdom (Matt. 12:25).

The bottom line is that Christians have been sold a bill of goods, and this probably not by accident, given the anti-Semitic stance of the early Church. The Church’s reasons for resting and worshipping on Sunday are in fact unbiblical; they are not part of God’s purpose or intention and might even be understood as a form of idolatry. “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). In accepting the justifications for Sunday rest and worship given by men like Justin, Christians “leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). If we are truly obedient to the Lord (John 14:15) and desire to honour our relationship with Him through rest and worship, shouldn’t we at least do it for the reasons God Himself considers important?

SOLI DEO GLORIA

If you have found this post challenging or rewarding, read this related essay on the importance of the Sabbath for the true disciple of Christ.

The Four “Levels” of Biblical Interpretation

It is of vital importance to understand that the Bible needs to be interpreted; it cannot be understood if read according to face value alone.

In our context, to interpret means to explain and elucidate the meaning of a text; to construe the significance of a text. The word derives from the Latin interpres, a negotiator, that is, one who is able to find the resolution (or truth?) of a matter. This is of fundamental importance in understanding the Bible. If one takes the historical-grammatical approach—literalism in other words—as do the Dispensationalists, (or so they claim) one will never fully understand the Bible. This is why we need both the witness of the Ekklesia, which is the historical Church, and more importantly the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to fully comprehend the true and intended meaning of Scripture. This is not to deny that most of Scripture is plain and clear—of course it is. It is rather simply to acknowledge the same truth as that mentioned by Peter, “There are some things in them [Paul’s letters, i.e. NT scripture] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16, italics added. See also Heb. 5:11). Nor is this to deny Sola Scriptura. We are not adding to or changing God’s Word by interpreting His meaning, otherwise the Holy Spirit would be a liar!

In this specific regard I believe that tradition, both Jewish and Christian, has much to teach us. And according to this tradition, there are actually four “levels” of Biblical interpretation. According to the post-apostolic church fathers as well as the Rabbis of Judaism, there are four potential levels of meaning for any given passage. The four levels are:

Simple (literal, plain, ordinary, obvious) At this level, the Bible uses words in the ordinary, everyday sense. We read for example in 2 Kings 6:1, “Now the sons of the prophets said to Elisha, ‘See, the place where we dwell under your charge is too small for us.’” In other words their quarters were too cramped. A huge portion of Scripture is this simple and straightforward. And no passage of Scripture loses the basic, simple meaning. If we eliminate this level, we are then interpreting Scripture according to our own biases and assumptions. The plain and simple meaning provides the context of the passage. Without context, our interpretation is cast adrift and we will often end up creating our own meaning instead of discovering the underlying revelation. This is the level known by Biblical scholars as the grammatical-historical. It is important to recognize that the grammatical-historical method of interpretation recognizes different kinds of language including the figurative, the symbolic and the allegorical. This level does not mean the commonly understood notion of literalness.

Hinted (oblique, secondary, implied) The next level includes more meaning, but often the meaning is not obvious. Nevertheless, the meaning of a hinted passage is based firmly on the simple and is empirical and experiential. We see this throughout Proverbs, as in 20:10, “Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” The simple meaning is a straightforward declaration for merchants to be honest in their economic activities because God hates dishonesty. But the hinted meaning implies that in all our dealings in life, we should be fair and honest, not just in economic transactions.

Comparative or conceptual (allegorical, symbolic, abstract)
The dictum “Scripture interprets Scripture” becomes important at this level. Here, one passage of Scripture is compared with one or more others in order to obtain clarification or elucidation of meaning or to see how the original meaning has been expanded or augmented. It now also becomes important to remember that one cannot justify a novel interpretation at this level by ignoring the meaning and context of the simple level. The simple level is never irrelevant; it is always applicable as the beginning of the interpretive process. To understand the Bible, one begins at the simple level, always. The conceptual or comparative level is the allegorical level. Allegory is defined as a statement of abstract ideas or principles through the use of representational language. It is symbolic in that one or more things including people, objects, places, actions, and events represents or stands in for another. A prime example of this is found in Exo. 12:5ff where the lamb takes the place of God’s people (v. 13). Another (related) example is the re-enactment of the Passover Seder in the rite of the Lord’s Table, (Mark 14:22-24, Matt. 26:26-28 and pars.) where the bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In fact, these instances are good examples in that not only is each symbolically self-contained, that is, the symbolism embedded within the passage explains the deeper significance of that particular passage but as well the first passage helps to explain why the second is so important. The second passage from the NT is a kind of unfolding of the first. In theological terms, the OT passage is a “type” of which the second is the “antitype” or fulfillment. It is a case of scripture interpreting scripture. However, this level is also dangerous because it is so tempting to fallen human nature to “invent” meaning in a passage that simply does not apply. We want the Bible to teach what we think it should. Beware!

The Mystical or Spiritual level

In our examples from Mark and Matthew, the physical elements described really existed. At the Passover Seder—that He would fulfill in the celebration of Lord’s Supper or Communion—Christ broke real bread and poured real wine, the simple level. However, these actions (and their elements), because tied ritualistically with the Jewish Passover, were also suggesting a deeper significance, the hinted or implied level. But the bread was also symbolic of His body and the wine of His blood, hence the conceptual, comparative, allegorical, or symbolic level. More than this, the broken bread of His body and poured wine of His blood were pointing to Christ’s atoning death in order to fulfill Scripture, thereby reconciling His elect (i.e. the true remnant spoken of by Jeremiah in 31:7 and 50:20). This is the mystical level. At this level, our minds and hearts are illuminated by God’s Holy Spirit—the Ruach ha’ Kodesh or Ruach Elohim—and are enabled to gain a glimpse of God’s ultimate plan of redemption embedded within His sovereign (and consequently hidden) will. Without the fourth and ultimate level of interpretation, revealed by the ministry of the Holy Spirit (who guides us into all—that is, ultimate—truth), we will be like those chained to a wall in Plato’s famous cave who are able to see only passing shadows of things as they move across the opposite wall, and not the things in themselves (The Republic).

While interpretation at the simple and hinted levels is available to any reasonably intelligent person willing to make the effort to investigate and understand, such is often not the case at the symbolic or allegorical level. And at the Spiritual or Mystical level, we are entirely dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit to illumine us with the reality of which all others are but passing shadows (John 3:8). But again, this level of interpretation will in no way do violence to the previous levels. It is not a case of one level being true—or truer—than any other is. All levels are true in their context, one building upon the other. If the Spiritual or Mystical level is true, it is axiomatic that the Simple and Hinted levels are also true, else God would be doing violence to and causing confusion by His own Word—an impossibility!

SOLI DEO GLORIA