Early Christianity and the Sabbath-Epistle to Diognetus

[crhoades]

Would like to get your thoughts on this. Was reading the epistle to Diognetus a while ago and ran into this section comparing the early Christians to the Jews. Ran across the bold portion about the Sabbath below and stopped. I thought: maybe early Christians didn’t observe it but then I kept reading about that we shouldn’t do anything good on the Sabbath day. So in my mind that says that the Jews had bastardized the true meaning of the Sabbath and also that the early Christians did observe it. He did not dismiss the Sabbath but rather properly put it into its place. To me this parallels the Colossians 2 passage below as well as Romans 14 as an early commentary on it almost. Do you think I’m off base? Thoughts? Seen this before?
{Disclaimer-not wanting to get into a huge Sabbath debate about the whole early church. Just trying to dissect this one passage and see if I'm drawing proper conclusions from it.}


From The Epistle to Diognetus
3. And next I suppose that you are especially anxious to hear why Christians do not worship in the same way as the [Page 539] Jews. (2) The Jews indeed, insofar as they abstain from the kind of worship described above, rightly claim to worship the one God of the universe and to think of him as Master; but insofar as they offer this worship to him in the same way as those already described, they are altogether mistaken. (3) For whereas the Greeks provide an example of their stupidity by offering things to senseless and deaf images, the Jews, thinking that they are offering these things to God as if he were in need of them, could rightly consider it folly rather than worship. (4) For he who made the heaven and the earth and all that is in them, and provides us all with what we need, cannot himself need any of the things that he himself provides to those who imagine that they are giving to him. (5) In any case, those who imagine that they are offering sacrifices to him by means of blood and fat and whole burnt offerings and are honoring him with these tokens of respect do not seem to me to be the least bit different from those who show the same respect to deaf images: the latter make offerings to things unable to receive the honor, while the former think they offer it to the One who is in need of nothing.

4. But with regard to their qualms about meats, and superstition concerning the Sabbath, and pride in circumcision, and hypocrisy about fasting and new moons, I doubt that you need to learn from me that they are ridiculous and not worth discussing. (2) For is it not unlawful to accept some of the things created by God for human use as created good but to refuse others as useless and superfluous? (3) And is it not impious to slander God, as though he forbids us to do any good thing on the Sabbath day? (4) And is it not also ridiculous to take pride in the mutilation of the flesh as a sign of election, as though they were especially beloved by God because of this? (5) And as for the way they watch the stars and the moon, so as to observe months and days, and to make distinctions between the changing seasons ordained by God, making some into feasts and others into times of mourning according to their own inclinations, who would regard this as an example of godliness and not much more of a lack of understanding? (6) So then, I think you have been sufficiently instructed to realize that the Christians are right to keep their distance from the thoughtlessness and deception common to both groups and from the fussiness and [Page 541] pride of the Jews. But as for the mystery of the Christian’s own religion, do not expect to be able to learn this from man.

[1]Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (528). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

 

[Davidius]

Would like to get your thoughts on this. Was reading the epistle to Diognetus a while ago and ran into this section comparing the early Christians to the Jews. Ran across the bold portion about the Sabbath below and stopped. I thought: maybe early Christians didn’t observe it but then I kept reading about that we shouldn’t do anything good on the Sabbath day. So in my mind that says that the Jews had bastardized the true meaning of the Sabbath and also that the early Christians did observe it. He did not dismiss the Sabbath but rather properly put it into its place. To me this parallels the Colossians 2 passage below as well as Romans 14 as an early commentary on it almost. Do you think I’m off base? Thoughts? Seen this before?
{Disclaimer-not wanting to get into a huge Sabbath debate about the whole early church. Just trying to dissect this one passage and see if I'm drawing proper conclusions from it.}



4. But with regard to their qualms about meats, and superstition concerning the Sabbath, and pride in circumcision, and hypocrisy about fasting and new moons, I doubt that you need to learn from me that they are ridiculous and not worth discussing. (2) For is it not unlawful to accept some of the things created by God for human use as created good but to refuse others as useless and superfluous? (3) And is it not impious to slander God, as though he forbids us to do any good thing on the Sabbath day? (4) And is it not also ridiculous to take pride in the mutilation of the flesh as a sign of election, as though they were especially beloved by God because of this? (5) And as for the way they watch the stars and the moon, so as to observe months and days, and to make distinctions between the changing seasons ordained by God, making some into feasts and others into times of mourning according to their own inclinations, who would regard this as an example of godliness and not much more of a lack of understanding? (6) So then, I think you have been sufficiently instructed to realize that the Christians are right to keep their distance from the thoughtlessness and deception common to both groups and from the fussiness and [Page 541] pride of the Jews. But as for the mystery of the Christian’s own religion, do not expect to be able to learn this from man.

He's not claiming that God forbids us to do good things on the Sabbath. He says "And is it not pious to slander God, as if he..." He's saying that slandering God is impious, and one of the ways to slander God is by forbidding the doing of "good things" on the Sabbath. It sounds like he's referring to people like the Pharisees, who called it a violation of the Sabbath ordinance when Jesus was healing individuals.

The remark about Sabbath superstitions doesn't mean he was against keeping the Sabbath. What I mean is, he wasn't calling it superstitious to keep the Sabbath in general. He was against overdoing it and restricting what could be done in the Sabbath in unbiblical ways. The whole passage has to do with adding to the worship of God and he's just mentioning one way it can be done, namely, thinking that it's breaking the Sabbath to pull your ox out of the ditch.

Whether or not Early Christians observed the Sabbath in the way that modern Sabbatarians do doesn't seem like it can be derived from this text. And it only sounds like he's against Pharisaical observation, not necessarily a biblical one. But who knows? Maybe he would've consider Sabbatarianism superstitious.

 

[crhoades]

It doesn't look like he's claiming that God forbids us to do good things on the Sabbath. He says "And is it not pious to slander God, as if he..." He's saying that slandering God is impious, and one of the ways to slander God is by forbidding the doing of "good things" on the Sabbath. It sounds like he's referring to people like the Pharisees, who called it a violation of the Sabbath ordinance when Jesus was healing individuals.

The remark about Sabbath superstitions doesn't mean he was against keeping the Sabbath. He was against overdoing it and restricting what could be done in the Sabbath in unbiblical ways. The whole passage has to do with adding to the worship of God and he's just mentioning one way it can be done, namely, thinking that it's breaking the Sabbath to pull your ox out of the ditch.

Exactly what I was thinking-not sure if you were agreeing with me or trying to make sense out of the jumble of what I wrote.

But would you agree that if he was defending the Christian faith to a gentile/pagan and trying to disassociate himself with the wrong practices of the Jews and he disagreed with the Sabbath principle continuing he wouldn't have said what he did but instead said that all days were the same? In other words,, by clearing up the Sabbath issue it is by default saying that Christians still observed the Sabbath but observed it correctly and not like the pharisees.

At the end of the day I think this passage goes against modern day people who use passages like Romans 14 and Colossians 2 in saying that the early church did not observe the continuing validity of the Sabbath but instead bolsters the modern Puritan view of the Sabbath as contained in the WCF and catechisms.

 

[Davidius]

Exactly what I was thinking-not sure if you were agreeing with me or trying to make sense out of the jumble of what I wrote.

Yes, definitely in agreement! Althought it might've been a little of both of those.

But would you agree that if he was defending the Christian faith to a gentile/pagan and trying to disassociate himself with the wrong practices of the Jews and he disagreed with the Sabbath principle continuing he wouldn't have said what he did but instead said that all days were the same? In other words,, by clearing up the Sabbath issue it is by default saying that Christians still observed the Sabbath but observed it correctly and not like the pharisees.

I made a little addendum (must've been while you were writing) to my first reply that has to do with this. It's definitely possible that this is the case although it may not be a terribly strong argument since he spends only a couple sentences on false Sabbath-keeping and doesn't really give his own view, in my opinion. But like you said, perhaps we can infer from the fact that he only denounced superstitious Sabbath-keeping and not Sabbath-keeping in general that Christians still observed correctly.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The author has at least the following passages in mind as he writes:
1) Acts 17
2) {Mt. 12:12-Mk.3:4-Lk.6:9} 1 or all 3 -- doing good on the Sabbath
3) Col. 2
4) 1 Cor. 10:25-30
and probably 5) Heb. 10:6, 8 -- burnt offerings
(I don't see any allusions to Rom 14, but I may have missed something)

We can infer the following, without drawing too much from the passage:
1) Jewish Sabbath regulations were considered supersitious behavior -- which is in keeping with Jesus' teachings regarding the Sabbath.

2) That there was such a day of the week that the Christians knew as "the Sabbath".

This passage will not tell us that the Christians had another day of the week they recognized as their Sabbath. (I think they did.) But obviously the disagreement that had begun with Jesus correcting the Pharisees over Sabbath practice was still ongoing between Christian and Jewish community at this date. If the Sabbath day was meaningless to the Christian church, how would it be that they would both retain its name and still consider it a day most worthy of well-doing? Jesus teaching (Mt. 12:12, etc.) must be taken as informing the believers Sabbath attitudes.

Those who argue against a Christian Sabbath clearly do not understand the close connection between the early church practices (on all manner of things) and Jesus' explicit teachings, as mediated through the apostolic witness. The only legitimate question is "Has the day-of-the-week been changed?" which we non-Seventh-Day-Adventists affirm. (But at least they understand there is a Sabbath.)

The 1st day is the day Jesus began meeting with his disciples weekly, bodily up until the day he ascended. He set the new pattern, and so we continue to meet with him spiritually on the 1st day ever since.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I concur with David and Bruce: this passage speaks against Pharisaical legalism, or superstitious (Jewish) Sabbath-observance.

Dg. 4.1 & 3 seems to be speaking against deisidaimonia, or superstitious veneration of the Sabbath ["only extreme danger to human life can cause the Sabbath law to be suspended: Synes., Ep. 4 p. 162b, c"]. This is what Plutarch also speaks against concerning the Jews, not to mention our Lord in Matt. 12.12, etc.

Dg. 4.1 & 2 seems to be speaking against ceremonial dietary restrictions which were abolished for God's people as seen in Acts 10.

Dg. 4.5 seems to be speaking against Pharisaical marking of Sabbath times, Gal. 4.10. [Note 1: 'Cp. Gal. iv.10 of the Judaising Christians: "Ye observe days and months, and times and years." The verb "observe" there is the same as the substantive "observance" here. The jews fixed the beginning of the Sabbath and others days from the rising of the stars. One star meant still day; two stars twilight; three, night. A man working on Friday evening after three stars were visible was guilty of Sabbath-breaking. For the moon, cp. Preaching of Peter (loc. cit.): "If the moon appear not, they keep not the Sabbath called the first, nor the new moon, nor the unleavened bread, nor the feat (i.e. Pentecost), nor the great day" (i.e. of Atonement). The Syriac text of Aristides (Apol. ch. xiv) connects these practices with angelolatry: "Their service is to angels and not to God, in that they observe Sabbaths, and new moons, and the passover, and the great feast, and the fasts, and circumcision, and cleanness of meats -- which things not even thus have they perfectly observed."' -- The Epistle to Diognetus, p. 60 by Rev. L.B. Radford (1908)]