This chapter further analyzes the historical foundations of
the Sabbatarian’s rejection of Sunday observance and a return to Sabbath-keeping.
First is the analysis of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the assertions of the
SDA Foundress Ellen Gould White. Second is the
scrutiny of the new historical assertions of SDA’s foremost historian
Samuele Bacchiochi. The great irony is the fact that Ellen G. White’s
assertions will be debunked by sda’S best historian Samuele Bacchiocchi himself
as false and erroneous. Although Bacchiocchi may be sincerely correcting the
SDA founder who wrote a century ago, the impact is truly devastating to the Seventh-Day
Adventist or Sabbatarian cause, maybe without him truly realizing it. It means
that SDA’s respected Foundress was WRONG in the first place. Yet, the work of
Bacchiocchi will also be scrutinized by non-SDA historians, based on the
objective facts of historical documents. Third, this chapter also presents the
Sabbatarian attempts to make Christian Sunday observance as of pagan origin is
proven false by the authoritative research of Ferguson, a world authority on early
Christian history.
This researcher presents without any alteration
what has been found in a Biblical website internet information www.bible.ca/sabbath.htm on Seventh-Day Adventism.
1. Analysis of the Historical Arguments of SDA Foundress Ellen G. White
Analysis of the errors reported by SDA Theologian, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph.D.
Great Controversy chapters 3, 4, 15, 25, and 35
This article is an analysis of the errors found in Ellen White's Great Controversy as reported by retired professor of theology and church history, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. These errors were reported in Dr. Bacchiocchi's electronic newsletter, Endtime Issues, which is sent via e-mail primarily to Adventists, but also to some non-Adventist subscribers. The issue we will be examining is from Endtime Issues number 87, "A Reply to Criticisms Part I 'The Use of Ellen White's Writings in Interpreting Scripture'" (August 1, 2002).
Dr. Bacchiocchi has done the SDA church a great
service in exposing a number of serious historical errors in Ellen White's Great
Controversy. In his newsletter, Dr. Bacchiocchi, former professor at Andrews University, describes himself as a
"committed Adventist" with a "deep respect" for Ellen
White's writings. Despite this, he has chosen to break ranks with the SDA's and
Ellen White, by proposing a different interpretation of the 1260-day prophecy.
In so doing, he exposed a number of errors in The Great Controversy. We
will be examining those errors below:
Was the Papacy Established in 538 A.D.?
In the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy
Mrs. White wrote:
"The
1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in
A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798." (p. 266)
"This period, as stated in the preceding chapters,
began with the establishment of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in
1798. At that time, when the papacy was abolished and the pope was made captive
by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the
prediction was fulfilled, 'He that leadeth into captivity shall go into
captivity." (p. 439)
And in the 1911 edition the words have been somewhat
modified:
"The
1260 years of papal supremacy began in A. D. 538, and would terminate in
1798." (page 266)
"This period, as stated in preceding chapters,
began with the supremacy of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in
1798. At that time, the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal
power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled,' He that
leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.'" (p. 439)
In his newsletter Dr. Bacchiochi points out that the papacy
was not established in 538 A.D.:
In my
dissertation [From Sabbath to Sunday] I have shown that the development
of the papal primacy began already in the second century, when the Pope
exercised his ecumenical authority by imposing on Christian churches at large
Easter-Sunday, weekly Sunday, and by condemning various movements like the
Montanists.
Dr. Bacchiocchi is certainly not the first Adventist historian
to question the 538 date. For years Adventist historians and theologians have
searched in vain for any evidence that anything significant happened to the
papacy in 538. To this point in time, nothing has been found. However, one
thing is certain: the papacy was not established in 538.
When did the supremacy of the papacy begin? Dr.
Bacchiochhi writes:
The
development of the "supremacy of the papacy" began long before 538.
In his book on The History of the Christian Church--which has served for
many years as the standard text book for church history classes-Williston Walker devotes chapter 6
to the "Growth of the Papacy" during the fourth and fifth centuries.
He points out that during this period there were influential popes like Damasus
(366-384), Innocent I (402-417), and Leo I, called "the Great"
(440-461), who greatly advanced both the spiritual and temporal power of the
papacy.
For example, the last Pope mentioned, Leo I, known as
"Leo the Great," greatly increased the political prestige of the papacy
by threatening with hell fire Attila the Hun, when he was approaching Rome in 451 with his
terrifying soldiers. Attila obeyed the Pope and withdrew beyond the Danube. Later Pope Leo secured concessions from the
Vandals when they took Rome
in 452. He is called "Leo the Great" for advancing and consolidating
the power of the papacy.
The development of the supremacy of the papacy is a
gradual process that can hardly be dated from 538. The process began already in the second century as
the primacy of Bishop of Rome was widely recognized and accepted.
Dr. Bacchoicchi goes on to point out that the papacy did not
achieve temporal sovereignty until 756 when the pope acquired the territories
of Central Italy. The papacy controlled these
territories until 1870 when the king of Sardinia
took over the papal territories.
Now that we have established that the 538 date
corresponds to nothing significant in history, what about the ending date of
the 1260-day prophecy? Was the papacy abolished in 1798? On page 579 of the
1888 Great Controversy Ellen White writes:
"The
infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in
1798."
And in the 1911 edition:
"The
infliction of the deadly wound points to the downfall of the papacy in
1798."
While 1798 is a day of some significance for the papacy, it
certainly does not indicate the "abolition" or even the
"downfall" of the papacy. When Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner by the
French General Berthier, the papacy suffered humiliation, but it would be a
gross exaggeration to describe this event as the "downfall" of the
papacy.
In his newsletter Dr. Bacchiocchi explains what
happened after the pope was captured in 1798:
The
imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia
and Austria.
Both nations decided to join forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical
throne in Rome.
When the French government was confronted with this new coalition and with
popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence,
in France,
where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799.
The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the
"abolishment" or "the downfall of the Papacy." It was
simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI
was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after
his death, the Cardinals met in Venice
on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of
Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor.
The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the
Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to
the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the
extent of the Papal authority in France.
The following years marked, not the downfall, but the
resurgence of papal authority,
especially under the Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX
promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. ...
The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the
convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869. It had a remarkable
large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the
Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly
enhanced the authority of the Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to
1798 the downfall of the papacy.
Anyone who has studied Christian history can quickly see that
the dates of 538 and 1798 do not accurately represent the period of papal
supremacy. The Bishop of Rome was consolidating power centuries before 538, and
the papacy continued to grow and thrive even after the temporary setback of
1798. These dates were concocted by Adventists because they were convenient.
These dates fit nicely into the prophetic jigsaw puzzle they were building. The
dates were picked because they fit in the puzzle, not because they actually
delineated the years of papal supremacy.
The Origin of Sunday
On pages 52-53 of The Great Controversy Mrs.
White wrote:
"In
the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians.
They were jealous for the honor of God, and believing that His law is
immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts."
Notice here that the word "centuries" is plural.
This indicates that for a minimum of two centuries the Sabbath was observed by
"all Christians." Mrs. White seems to have believed that all
Christians observed the Sabbath until "the early part of the fourth
century [when] the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public
festival throughout the Roman Empire."
(p. 53)
Dr. Bacchiocchi writes in his newsletter:
What
is problematic is the impression many people get from EGW's statements that the
Sabbath was observed "by all Christians . . . in the first centuries"
until "the early part of the fourth century [when] the emperor Constantine
issued a decree making Sunday a public holiday." (pp. 52-53) ...
The earliest documents mentioning Sunday worship go
back to Barnabas in 135 and Justin Martyr in 150. Thus, it is evident that
Sunday worship was already established by the middle of the second century.
This means that to be historically accurate the term "centuries"
should be changed to the singular "century."
Sunday and the Power of the State
Yet another inaccuracy is found in chapter 25 of The
Great Controversy. Ellen White claims that the change of the Sabbath to
Sunday was accomplished by the Pope with the "power of the state":
"It
was on behalf of Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims; and its
first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday
as 'the Lord's Day.'" (page 447)
She makes another similar statement later in the book:
"Royal
edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were
the steps by which the pagan festival [day of the Sun] attained its position of
honor in the Christian world." (page 574)
Before we read Dr. Bacchoicchi's assessment of these quotes,
let me remind the reader that Dr. Bacchiocchi is widely regarded as the SDA
theologian who is certainly the most knowledgeable person in the entire church
on church history pertaining to Sabbath-Sunday issues. There is simply no one
in the church more qualified to assess Ellen White's statements than Dr.
Bacchiocchi. Here is his assessment:
Both
statements just cited are inaccurate, because the secular power of the state
did not influence or compel Christians to adopt Sunday during the second and
third centuries. At that time the Roman emperors were rather hostile toward
Christianity. They were more interested to suppress Christianity than to support
church leaders in their promotion of Sunday worship. The bishop of Rome could not have
resorted to "the power of the state to compel the observance of Sunday as
'the Lord's Day.'" Eventually, beginning with the fourth century, some
Roman emperors actively supported the agenda of the church, but this was long
after the establishment of Sunday observance.
In my dissertation FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY I have shown
that the Bishop of Rome did indeed pioneer the change in the day of worship,
but he did it without the help of the Roman government. What precipitated the
need to change the Sabbath to Sunday, was the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath
legislation promulgated in 135 by the Emperor Hadrian.
After suppressing the Second Jewish revolt, known as
the Barkokoba revolt (132-135), which caused many casualties, the Emperor
Hadrian decided to deal with the Jewish problem in a radical way by suppressing
the Jewish religion. Hitler was determined to liquidate the Jews as a people
and Hadrian was committed to suppress Judaism as a religion. To accomplish this
objective Hadrian outlawed in 135 the Jewish religion in general and
Sabbathkeeping in particular.
It was at this critical moment that the Bishop of Rome
took the initiative to change the Sabbath to Sunday in order to show to the
Roman government the Christians' separation from the Jews and their
identification with the cycles of the Roman society. But, at this time the
Bishop of Rome could not call upon "the power of the state to compel the
observance of Sunday as the 'Lord's Day,'" because in the eyes of the
Romans Christianity was still a suspect religion to be suppressed, rather than
to be supported.
It is clear from Dr. Bacchiochi's assessment that the pope
did not resort to the power of the state, as Mrs. White wrote. Rather, the
Roman Bishop instituted Sunday worship without any assistance from the state.
Sabbath Condemned by Ecumenical Councils?
Mrs. White wrote of "vast councils" that
supposedly attempted to "press down" the Sabbath in order to exalt
Sunday in its place. She writes:
"Vast
councils were held from time to time, in which the dignitaries of the church
were convened from all the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which
God had instituted was pressed down a little lower, while the Sunday was
correspondently exalted." (page 53)
There were seven councils held (Nicaea
I in 325, Constantinople I in 381, Ephesus in
431, Chalcedon
in 451, Constantinople II in 553, Constantinople III in 680, and Nicaea II in
787). However, Mrs. White seems to have been ignorant of their content. Dr.
Bacchiocchi writes:
The
problem is with the second part of the statement which speaks of the Sabbath as
being "pressed down a little lower" in almost every general council.
In all my reading of the seven ecumenical councils, I have not found a
reference to the Sabbath/Sunday question being debated in such councils.
Presumably the reason is that Sunday observance was no longer a debated
question- it had become widely accepted by Christians.
How could the Sabbath have been "pressed down" a
little lower in these councils when it was not even discussed? This is simply
another case of Mrs. White inventing history in her writings, and then claiming
it was inspiration from God!
Inacuracies Regarding the Waldenses
Mrs. White would have us believe the Waldenses
observed the Sabbath:
"Through
ages of darkness and apostasy there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image
worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath. Under the fiercest
tempests of oppositions they maintained their faith." (page 65)
"Some of whom [Waldenses] were observers of
the Sabbath." (page 577)
Dr. Bacchiocchi has probably done more research on the
Sabbath than any living human. Did he find evidence that some of the Waldenses
observed the Sabbath?
I
spent several hours searching for an answer in the two scholarly volumes Storia
dei Valdesi--(History of the Waldenses), authored by Amedeo Molnar and
Augusto Hugon. These two books were published in 1974 by the Claudiana, which is
the official Italian Waldensian publishing house. They are regarded as the most
comprehensive history of the Waldenses. To my regret I found no allusion
whatsoever to Sabbathkeeping among the Waldenses.
Dr. Bacchiocchi is not the first Adventist to search for
evidence of the Waldenses keeping the Sabbath. The only thing they have found
are some documents which refer to the Waldenses by their nickname,
"insabbati." Unfortunately for Mrs. White, the term has nothing to do
with the Sabbath. It refers to the sandals the Waldenses were known to wear.
The Latin word for sandals is sabbatum. Thus, the Waldenses were
insabbati--"sandal wearers."
The Waldensian representative in Italy was
recently contacted and asked if the Waldenses ever kept the Sabbath. Here is
his response:
The
Waldensians did not keep the Sabbath and were not guardians of the
"Sabbath Truth" as you call it. ... We can therefore say very clearly
that the Waldensians were not Seventh-day Sabbath keepers and they were not
persecuted for keeping Saturday as the Sabbath! (click here to read the entire letter)
Apparently Mrs. White wanted to have a line of
unbroken Sabbath-keeping, from the time of the apostles, to the Waldenses in
the mountains, all the way through to the time of the Seventh-day Adventists.
Unfortunately, such a continuum does not exist. Sunday-keeping began much
earlier than Mrs. White realized, and the Waldenses never kept the Sabbath at
all.
Another inaccurate statement Mrs. White made about the
Waldenses is:
"Behind
the lofty bulwarks of the mountains . .. the Waldenses found a hiding place.
Here the light of truth was kept burning amid the darkness of the Middle Ages.
Here for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the
ancient faith." (pp. 65-66)
The Waldensian movement was established by Peter Valdes
around 1176. The Waldenses were not excommunicated from the church until 1184.
Therefore, the move to the mountains could not have taken place until after
1184, and the persecution of the Waldenses had subsided by the late 1600's, so
it would be impossible for the Waldenses to have kept the light of truth
burning for "a thousand years" during the Middle Ages. 500 years is a
more likely number.
Was this book traced on her heart by
inspiration as she claimed?Or did she invent history as she wrote it? You decide!
2. Analysis of SDA’s foremost Historian Samuele Bacchiocchi
In
this second segment of historical analysis, Samuele Bacchiochi, who debunked
his SDA Foundress’ historical allegations, will have his own historical writing
himself be the subject of scrutiny of non-SDA historians. This analysis is not
based on his person but on the truthfulness of falsity of his historical
conclusions. Bacchiocchi’s book, entitled FROM
SABBATH TO SUNDAY, published in Rome as his doctoral dissertation in
Pontifical Gregorian University, and from thence circulated throughout the
world, is totally demolished by the book entiled FROM SABBATH TO LORD’S DAY, edited by
one of the Evangelical church’s leading theologian D.A Carson.
Since this researcher has analysed many of
the Sabbatarian historical arguments in the previous chapter, and at the beginning
of this chapter has presented as is, what has been found in Bacchiocchi’s
fraternal correction of his SDA Foundress, the arguments found in D.A Carson’s
book is presented as it is. This gives any reader the firsthand experience of
the impact of the demolition of the whole corpus of historical blunder, whether
done intentionally or intentionally, one has to decide for the sake of truth.
Source:
www.bible.ca
Introduction:
Bacchiocchi boasts
being the first non-Catholic to graduate from the Pontifical
Gregorian University
in Rome. (A
Roman Catholic institution) It is interesting that Bacchiocchi chose to have
his work so strongly associated with an institution the Seventh-day Adventist
church views as "The beast of Revelation". Of course the reason is
obvious. It is critical to the Seventh-day Adventist church that they establish
that the Roman Catholic Pope changed the sabbath as Ellen G. White, the
Adventist's in-house "inspired prophet" stated. So Bacchiocchi
desperately needs to establish that the Pope did change the sabbath to Sunday
because without this link, White is proven a false prophet. Coupled with the
Catholic Church's delight to have a Protestant "prove" that the
Catholic church had universal power in 140 A.D. is a "marriage made in
heaven"!!! It is interesting that the Seventh-day Adventist church
condemns almost every other claim the Roman Catholic church makes,
EXCEPT for the changing of the sabbath to Sunday!
Bacchiocchi
teaches Christians changed the Sabbath in 135AD:
Samuele Bacchiocchi,
the Seventh-day Adventist’s top scholar wrote in an E-mail message to the
"Free Catholic Mailing List" catholic@american.edu on 8 Feb 1997 and
said: "I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday.
She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and
it was largely through the efforts of Constantine
that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My
research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN?
which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of
Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A. D. 135."
Today,
Adventist's have contradicted their inspired founder E.G. White who claimed the
pope changed the sabbbath. argument (corrected the inspired prophet) Listen to
what Seventh-day Adventists now teach in their public "Revelation
Seminars":
- "Sundaykeeping was introduced into the Christian Church rather innocently, and its first advocates never dreamed that it would take the place of the seventh-day Sabbath of God. Sundaykeeping had its origin in Rome during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian in the second century. Hadrian persecuted the Jews in Rome incessantly. In an attempt to separate themselves from the Jews and avoid being persecuted with them, these early Roman Christians began keeping Sunday in addition to the Sabbath." "Now That's Clear, Schreven, p97, 1994)
Three wrong
guesses, you’re out!
The so called
"inspired prophet" Ellen White originally claimed the Pope started
"Sunday worship" White later changed her mind and said the Emperor
Constantine introduced "Sunday worship" in 325 AD. Today, Adventists
blame the interaction of Sunday worship on Christians in 135 AD and not the
Pope or Constantine!
Guess #1:
the Pope introduced Sunday worship.
The
Roman Catholic Pope DID NOT change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday
as Sabbath keepers falsely teach. Yes Catholics do claim they changed the
Sabbath, but they also claim that Peter was the first pope! Sabbath Keepers
reject the Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope, so they are in grave
error for accepting the Catholic claim that the pope changed the Sabbath to
Sunday!
Guess #2: It
was Constantine
in 325 AD.
Constantine (325 AD) DID NOT change the Sabbath from
Saturday to Sunday as Sabbath keepers falsely teach. Christians
never kept the Sabbath from the apostolic age (33 AD) through the time of Constantine (325AD). Constantine merely made
the first "Sunday closure law", since it had already been the day
Christians worship for 300 years!
Today’s
guess #3: Christians in 135 AD.
The historical claims of Samuele
Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist, refuted. Bacchiocchi is likely the top
Seventh-day Adventist historian in the world. His search for the origin of
"first day worship" has led him to reject the traditional position of
his church, and his founding prophet, Ellen G. White who claimed "Sunday
keeping" began with Constantine
in 325 AD. His view, which is increasingly being adopted by the Seventh-day
Adventist church, is that Christians in 135 AD were first to worship on the
first day of the week.
The truth:
Apostles in 33 AD introduced Sunday worship.
SAMUELE
BACCHIOCCHI REFUTED
A.
"From Sabbath To Lord's Day" By D.A.
Carson Editor; R.J. Bauckham, author Pages 270-273 (This book is a thorough and
brilliant refutation of Bacchiocchi's speculations.)
"A number of
scholars have in the past argued that Christian Sunday observance originated in
the second century. The most recent and fullest version of this thesis is that
of S. Bacchiocchi. We have referred to some aspects of his argument in chapter
8, but we must here debate his principal contentions with regard to the second
century. His thesis depends on four main arguments:"
Bacchiocchi's
first argument refuted:
"(1) Sunday could
not have originated in Palestinian Jewish Christianity since Jewish Christians
in Palestine
continued to keep the Sabbath. This argument depends on Bacchiocchi's
assumption that Sunday originated as a Christian Sabbath, a day of worship and
rest, and therefore an alternative to the Jewish Sabbath. We have argued above
that this assumption is invalid and that there is reason to suppose that
Christian worship on Sunday goes back to early Palestinian Christianity not as
alternative but as additional to the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Those
Ebionites who, according to Eusebius, observed both the Sabbath and Sunday may
well represent the practice of the early Palestinian church. Those others who,
in Eusebius' time did not worship on Sunday may have been the descendants of
groups that abandoned the distinctively Christian Sunday worship in the period
after A.D. 70 when Palestinian Jewish Christians came under great pressure from
the synagogues to conform on pain of excommunication."
Bacchiocchi's
second argument refuted:
"(2) Bacchiocchi's
second argument is that the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath occurred in
the early second century as a result of antiJewish feeling in the church Roman
antiSemitism here combined with the desire of Christians to distinguish
themselves from Jews in view of the Emperor Hadrian's antagonism to Jews and
Jewish practices. This desire to differentiate Christianity from Judaism
Bacchiocchi traces in Ignatius, PseudoBarnabas and Justin, and finds to have
been especially prominent in the church at Rome. Accordingly it is in Rome that he
locates the origin of Christian Sunday observance along with the origin of the
Sunday Easter (in place of the Passover) and of the practice of fasting on the
Sabbath, which was intended to prevent Christians from venerating the Sabbath
and to enhance the status of Sunday."
"In his
description of the "antiJudaism of differentiation" in second
century Christianity, Bacchiocchi has highlighted an important factor in secondcentury
Christian attitudes to the Sabbath, to which we have already drawn attention.
It was no doubt a complex phenomenon, incorporating the Pauline theological
concern for the freedom of Gentile Christians from the law, along with the
desire for the practical advantages of dissociation from Judaism in the eyes of
the Roman authorities, and also an element of sheer antiSemitism, which was
rife in the Roman world. These factors certainly inspired some secondcentury
Christian writers to speak of the Jewish Sabbath with contempt. It is, however,
important to add that in the controversy with Gnosticism catholic Christianity
refused to abandon its continuity with the Old Testament. Marcion's distinction
between the evil God of the Jews, who gave the Sabbath commandment, and the
Christian God revealed in Jesus was repudiated by the church."
"AntiJudaism
played its part in second century Christian polemic against Jewish Sabbath
observance, but it does not follow that it motivated the introduction of
Christian Sunday worship. For we have already argued that Sunday worship dates
back to the first century, while few secondcentury writers compare and
contrast the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. Derogatory discussions of
the Jewish Sabbath do not usually refer to the Christian Sunday. If Sunday were
a recent substitute for the Jewish Sabbath, we should expect far more
discussion of the superiority of Sunday to the Sabbath."
Bacchiocchi's
third argument refuted:
"(3) Bacchiocchi argues
that the successful substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath in the secondcentury
church can be explained by the primacy of the church of Rome. It was the
preeminent authority of the bishop of Rome
that influenced the entire church to adopt this new practice."
"This is probably
the weakest of Bacchiocchi's arguments, but it is essential to his thesis. Only
this assertion of the primacy of Rome
can begin to explain how a custom originating in the early second century could
have become as universal in the Christian church as Sunday worship did."
"Against
Bacchiocchi's argument, it must be said that the evidence he presents for the
authority of the church of Rome in the second century is not convincing. The
church of Rome had great prestige, but the kind of jurisdictional authority his
thesis presupposes is anachronistic in the second century. No church of that
period had sufficient authority to change the weekly day of worship throughout
Christendom. Furthermore, Bacchiocchi's other two examples of liturgical change
in the second century, the Sunday Easter and fasting on the Sabbath, do not, as
he thinks, support his ease, but rather highlight its weakness. Whether or not
Bacchiocchi is correct in locating the origin of the Sunday Easter in early
secondcentury Rome, it is quite clear that the
see of Rome did
not have the authority to impose it on the rest of the church. It was not until
the end of the second century that bishop Victor of Rome attempted to convert
the Quartodeciman churches to the observance of the Sunday Easter, and his
attempt encountered stubborn resistance in Asia.
Similarly, the church of Rome was singularly unsuccessful in promoting the
practice of fasting on the Sabbath. As Bacchiocchi himself admits, as late as
the fifth century it was still confined to the church of Rome itself and a few
other western churches. Both in the case of the Sunday Easter and in the case
of the Sabbath fast, the surviving historical records indicate considerable
debate and controversy in the churches."
"It therefore
seems extremely unlikely that already in the early second century the authority
of the Roman see was such that it could impose Sunday worship throughout the
church' superseding a universal practice of Sabbath observance handed clown
from the apostles, without leaving any trace of controversy or resistance in
the historical records. Bacchiocchi's own comparison with the Sunday Easter and
the Sabbath fast shows up the difficulty of his explanation of the origins of
Sunday worship. Like all attempts to date the origins of Sunday worship in the
second century, it fails to account for the universality of the custom. Unlike
the Sunday Easter and the Sabbath fast, Sunday worship was never, so far as the
evidence goes, disputed. There is no record of any Christian group (except the
extreme party of the Ebionites that did not observe Sunday, either in the
second century or in later centuries of the patristic era."
Bacchiocchi's
fourth argument refuted:
"(4) Bacchiocchi
argues that the reason why the church of Rome adopted Sunday as the Christian
day of worship, instead of the Sabbath, was that the pagan day of the sun, in
the planetary week, had already gained special significance in pagan sun cults,
and by adopting this day Christians were able to exploit the symbolism of God
or Christ as sun or light, which was already present in their own religious
tradition."
"Bacchiocchi here
underestimates the resistance to pagan customs in secondcentury Christianity.
The desire for differentiation from paganism had deeper Christian roots than
the secondcentury desire for differentiation from Judaism. It is true that,
from Justin onwards, the Fathers exploited the symbolism of the pagan title
"Sunday," but to have actually adopted the pagan day as the Christian
day of worship because it was prominent in the pagan sun cults would have been
a very bold step indeed. ~29 Even if the church of Rome had taken this step, it
becomes even more inexplicable that the rest of the church followed suit
without argument."
"Again Bacchiocchi
provides a parallel; the celebration of Christmas on 25 December derived from
the sun cult and was promoted by the church of Rome. But this parallel comes
from the postConstantinian church when pagan influence on Christian custom was
certainly increasing, and we should notice that the church of Rome was not
successful in imposing this innovation universally throughout the eastern
churches."
"We conclude that,
while Bacchiocchi has usefully stressed the importance of antiJudaism in
secondcentury opposition to Sabbath observance, he has not demonstrated the
second-century origins of the Christian Lord's Day. As we have shown in chapter
8) Christian Sunday worship did not originate as the Christian replacement for
the Jewish Sabbath, but as the new, specifically Christian day of worship even
before the Gentile mission and before the church's differentiation from
Judaism. As such it was already normal Christian practice at the beginning of
the second century."
"We are not here
concerned with the detail of Sunday worship, but the theory that justified the
practice. Second century writers were conscious that Sunday is the day of the
Lord's resurrection and made this the principal basis of Sunday observance. For
Ignatius, as we have seen, it was Jesus' resurrection from the dead on Sunday
that gave Sunday its value as the distinctive mark of Christianity over against
Judaism."
3.
"Encyclopedia of Early Christianity"
By Editor,
Everett Ferguson, Sunday, p873, (Ferguson
is a world authority on early Christian writings)
- "Various efforts have been made to find a preChristian origin for the Christian observance of Sunday:"
"(1) the pagan day
of the sun (although there was a day named for the sun, a day that assumed
special importance in the cult of Mithras, there remains no evidence of a
Sunday celebration in paganism);"
"(2) an
anti-Judaic reaction by Gentile Christians in the second century, aided by the
pagan solar theology (this hypothesis has difficulties with the New Testament
evidence and the consistent evidence of later sources);"
"(3) Jewish
sectarian influences represented by the solar calendar followed at Qumran (speculative, for a specific link is
lacking);"
"(4) the Jewish
Sabbath extended into the first day by Christians meeting on the Sabbath and
then "breaking bread" together in the evening (natural enough, but
the first evidence points to a Sunday evening rather than a Sabbath evening
meeting by Christians)."
- "Despite these theories, the Christian Sunday observance can best be explained from motives within Christianity itself. Sunday, or the first day of the week, was significant for Christians as the day of the week on which Jesus arose from the dead (Mark 16:2ff. and parallels; Ignatius, Magn. 9; Clement of Alexandria, Str. 7.12.76)." (Encyclopedia of early Christianity)
+++++++
This researcher is grateful to the persons
who spent their lives investigating the truth about the veracity of the
Christian religion and its practices. Error and falsity reign when good and
honest men do nothing.
