Sabbath and the Early Christians, Part 4

Sabbath and the Early Christians, Part 4

According to the 1647’s Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689’s London Baptist Confession of Faith, Sabbath observance is a positive, moral, and perpetual command binding all men in all ages but then says from Creation to Christ it was on the Seventh Day but changed into the First Day of the week from Christ to Consummation.

“As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week, and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day ; and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath”

If Sabbath observance as they say is a positive, moral, and perpetual command then it is that important and must have found a place of prominence among the early Christian writers. Not to say that their letters are infallible, nevertheless, let us test this claim by doing a brief survey of what the following ancient writers taught about the Sabbath and perhaps the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant.

Ignatius of Antioch (50 – 108 AD)
Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD)
Tertullian (160 – 220 AD)
John Chrysostom (349 – 407 AD)
Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD)

Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture quote is from the New International Version 2016. And all quotes from the ancient writers is taken from the New Advent, a Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia.

Part 4 – John Chrysostom (349 – 407 AD)

John Chrysostom was a well known Church leader who ministered from Constantinople, which was at this time the Capital City of the Roman Empire before it became the Byzantine Empire and then much later the Ottoman Empire. His writings are available online in New Advent, Roman Catholic Encylopedia the number of which is at 36. But don’t underestimate this number, for instance his Homily on Matthew is actually a collection of 90 homilies, his Homily in Acts is a collection of 55 homilies, just to give an idea that each number is a nesting doll of more writings.

According to this prolific ecclesiastical writer there are three laws, the (1) natural law which he also referred to as the unwritten law, the (2) written law, or the Old Testament that was given only to the Jews, which has carnal commandments in them like circumcision, the Sabbath-keeping, sacrifices and purification, and the third, (3) the law of action, which makes either laws profitable only if they are acted or adhered upon.

“‘For when the Gentiles’, he says, ‘which have not the Law.’ What Law, say? The written one. ‘Do by nature the things of the Law.’ Of what Law? Of that by works. These having not the Law. What Law? The written one. ‘Are a law unto themselves.’ How so? By using the natural law. ‘Who show the work of the Law.’ Of what law? Of that by actions. For that which is by writing lies outside; but this is within, the natural one, and the other is in actions. And one the writing proclaims; and another, nature; and another, actions. Of this third there is need, for the sake of which also those two exist, both the natural and the written. And if this be not present they are of no good, but even very great harm. “

Homily 6 on Romans 2:25

“This then is why, next to Isaiah, who confessedly aimed at them, he brought in David; that he might show that these things also belonged to the same subject. For what need was there, he means, that a prophet who was sent for your correction should accuse other people. For neither was the Law given to any else than you. And for what reason did he not say, we know that whatever things the prophet says, but whatever things the Law says? It is because Paul uses to call the whole Old Testament the Law. And in another place he says, ‘Do ye not hear the Law, that Abraham had two sons?’ And here he calls the Psalm the Law when he says, ‘We know that whatever things the Law says, it says to them who are under the Law.‘”

Homily 7 on Romans 3:19

With regards to the natural law, he said it was implanted in man from the beginning so God did not have to give reasons for them, they are self-taught, unlike the carnal commands that were given only temporarily, God gave the reasons for keeping it but was eventually set aside.

“For this reason, here dismissing this subject; and having given to the laborious and studious an opportunity, by what has been said, of going over likewise the other parts of Creation; we shall now direct our discourse to another point which is itself also demonstrative of God’s providence. What then is this second point? It is, that when God formed man, he implanted within him from the beginning a natural law. And what then was this natural law? He gave utterance to conscience within us; and made the knowledge of good things, and of those which are the contrary, to be self-taught. For we have no need to learn that fornication is an evil thing, and that chastity is a good thing, but we know this from the first. And that you may learn that we know this from the first, the Lawgiver, when He afterwards gave laws, and said, You shall not kill, did not add, since murder is an evil thing, but simply said, You shall not kill; for He merely prohibited the sin, without teaching. How was it then when He said, You shall not kill, that He did not add, because murder is a wicked thing. The reason was, that conscience had taught this beforehand; and He speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when He speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of consciences He not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, He gave commandment respecting the Sabbath; On the seventh day you shall do no work; He subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? Because on the seventh day God rested from all His works which He had begun to make. And again; Because thou were a servant in the land of Egypt. For what purpose then I ask did He add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one; and for this reason it was abolished afterwards. But those which are necessary and uphold our life, are the following; You shall not kill; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal. On this account then He adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition.”

Homily 12 on the Statues

“By saying this he sets aside all things bodily. For the circumcision is outwardly, and the sabbaths and the sacrifices and purifications: all of which he hints in a single word, when he says, ‘For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly.’ But since much was made of the circumcision, inasmuch as even the sabbath gave way to it, he has good reason for aiming more especially against it. But when he has said ‘in the spirit’ he thereafter paves the way for the conversation of the Church, and introduces the faith. For it too is in the heart and spirit and has its praise of God.”

Homily 6 on Romans 2:29:

He said that there were times Jesus repealed Sabbath-keeping directly during his ministry but mostly he was subtle because he did not want to alarm the Jews. He also said that the disciples were not expected to keep the Sabbath, he even enacts his disciple to do the abrogation.

“But why could He have led them away from it, who foreknew all, unless it had been His will that the Sabbath should be broken? It was His will indeed, but not simply so; wherefore He never breaks it without a cause, but giving reasonable excuses: that He might at once bring the law to an end, and not startle them. But there are occasions on which He even repeals it directly, and not with circumstance: as when He anoints with the clay the eyes of the blind man; as when He says, ‘My Father works hitherto, and I work.’ And He does so, by this to glorify His own Father, by the other to soothe the infirmity of the Jews.”

Homily 39 on Matthew 12:1

“For on this account we see that even when He was abrogating the sabbath, He did not as of set purpose bring in such His legislation, but He puts together many and various pleas of defense. Now if, when He was about to cause one commandment to cease, He used so much reserve in His language, that He might not startle the hearers; much more, when adding to the law, entire as it was, another entire code of laws, did He require much management and attention, not to alarm those who were then hearing Him. For this same cause, neither do we find Him teaching everywhere clearly concerning His own Godhead. For if His adding to the law was sure to perplex them so greatly, much more His declaring Himself God.”

Homily 16 on Matthew 5:17

“Do you see that His discourse is addressed to the Jews, and that He is speaking of the ills that should overtake them? For the apostles surely were not to keep the Sabbath day, neither to be there, when Vespasian did those things. For indeed the most part of them were already departed this life. And if any was left, he was dwelling then in other parts of the world.”

Homily 76 on Matthew 24:20-21

“But see when. When He had cleansed the leper, when He had repealed the Sabbath, when He had shown Himself King of earth and sea, when He had made laws, when He had remitted sins, when He had raised dead men, when He had afforded them many proofs of His Godhead, then He discourses of meats. For indeed all the religion of the Jews is comprised in this; if you take this away, you have even taken away all. For hereby He signifies, that circumcision too must be abrogated. But of Himself He does not prominently introduce this (forasmuch as that was older than the other commandments, and had higher estimation), but He enacts it by His disciples. For so great a thing was it, that even the disciples after so long a time being minded to do it away, first practise it, and so put it down.”

Homily 51 on Matthew 15:1

“And to explain what this is, he subjoins, the enmity in His flesh having abolished, the law of commandments. How so? In that He was slain and dissolved the enmity therein. And not in this way only but also by keeping it. But what then, if we are released from the former transgression, and yet are again compelled to keep it? Then were the case the same over again, whereas He has destroyed the very law itself. For he says, Having abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances. Oh! amazing loving-kindness! He gave us a law that we should keep it, and when we kept it not, and ought to have been punished, He even abrogated the law itself. As if a man, who, having committed a child to a schoolmaster, if he should turn out disobedient, should set him at liberty even from the schoolmaster, and take him away. How great loving-kindness were this!”

Homily 5 on Ephesians 2:11-12

He said Christ did not destroy the law instead he fulfilled it in three ways: (1) by not transgressing it, (2) by performing what it says he would do, and (3) by filling it full or by adding to to make it perfect.

“Therefore, since Christ in the first place was not of the sacredotal tribe, and next, the things which He was about to introduce were a sort of addition, not however lessening, but enhancing virtue; He knowing beforehand that both these circumstances would trouble them, before He wrote in their mind those wondrous laws, casts out that which was sure to be harboring there. And what was it that was harboring there, and making an obstacle?”

Homily 16 on Matthew 5:17

“For His sayings were no repeal of the former, but a drawing out, and filling up of them. Thus, not to kill, is not annulled by the saying, Be not angry, but rather is filled up and put in greater security: and so of all the others.”

Homily 16 on Matthew 5:17

“And observe also here, how He commends the old law, by making a comparison between it and the other; which kind of thing implies it to be of the same tribe and kindred. For more and less, is in the same kind. He does not, you see, find fault with the old law, but will have it made stricter. Whereas, had it been evil, He would not have required more of it; He would not have made it more perfect, but would have cast it out.“

Homily 16 on Matthew 5:20

“And if it be more imperfect than the new, neither does this imply it to be evil: since upon this principle the new law itself will be in the very same case. Because in truth our knowledge of this, when compared with that which is to come, is a sort of partial and imperfect thing, and is done away on the coming of that other. For when, says He, ‘that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part shall be done away’: even as it befell the old law through the new. Yet we are not to blame the new law for this, though that also gives place on our attaining unto the Kingdom: for then, says He, ‘that which is in part shall be done away’: but for all this we call it great.”

Homily 16 on Matthew 5:20

This means Christians now have a new law, the law of Christ, which is the result of Christ completing and developing the old law which is now set aside not just by declaration but in actuality, not just in words but in reality.

“Now what he says is this. This very thing they cannot see, that it is brought to an end, because they believe not Christ. For if it be brought to an end by Christ, as in truth it is brought to an end, and this the Law said by anticipation, how will they who receive not Christ that has done away the Law, be able to see that the Law is done away? And being incapable of seeing this, it is very plain that even of the Law itself which asserted these things, they know not the power nor the full glory. ‘And where,’ says one, ‘did it say this that it is done away in Christ.’ It did not say it merely, but also showed it by what was done. And first indeed by shutting up its sacrifices and its whole ritual in one place, the Temple, and afterwards destroying this. For had He not meant to bring these to an end and the whole of the Law concerning them, He would have done one or other of two things; either not destroyed the Temple, or having destroyed it, not forbidden to sacrifice elsewhere. But, as it is, the whole world and even Jerusalem itself He has made forbidden ground for such religious rites; having allowed and appointed for them only the Temple. Then having destroyed this itself afterwards He showed completely even by what was done that the things of the Law are brought to an end by Christ; for the Temple also Christ destroyed. But if you will see in words as well how the Law is done away in Christ, hear the Lawgiver himself speaking thus; A Prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you of your brethren, like me; Him shall you hear in all things whatsoever He shall command you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed. Do you see how the Law showed that it is done away in Christ? For this Prophet, that is, Christ according to the flesh, Whom Moses commanded them to hear, made to cease both sabbath and circumcision and all the other things. And David too, showing the very same thing, said concerning Christ, You are a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron. Wherefore also Paul, giving a clear interpretation of this, says, ‘The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law.’ And in another place also he says again, ‘Sacrifice and offering you would not. In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had had no pleasure: then said I, Lo, I come.’ And other testimonies far more numerous than these may be adduced out of the Old Testament, showing how the Law is done away by Christ. So that when you shall have forsaken the Law, you shall then see the Law clearly; but so long as you hold by it and believest not Christ, you know not even the Law itself. Wherefore also he added, to establish this very thing more clearly.”

Homily 7 on 2 Corinthians 3:14

With regards to the new relationship of Gentile believers with the Jews, he said they did not become Jews, rather, they both entered into a another condition, sort of a blending together of something new, something higher, the “one new man”.

“Observe thou, that it is not that the Gentile has become a Jew, but that both the one and the other are entered into another condition. It was not with a view of merely making this last other than he was, but rather, in order to create the two anew. And well does he on all occasions employ the word create, and does not say change, in order to point out the power of what was done, and that even though the creation be invisible, yet it is no less a creation than that is, and that we ought not henceforward start away from this, as from natural things.”

Homily 5 on Ephesians

He views the written law as an old, weak, and imperfect because it only deals with carnal things, it could not reach the soul. Man is made of flesh that’s why he is unable to benefit from it. However he also said that the goal of the law is to justify man by faith, but it couldn’t do it alone. Only faith has the power to do it, so faith is not contrary to the law but rather it perfects the law.

“What is, ‘of a carnal commandment‘? Circumcise the flesh, it says; anoint the flesh; wash the flesh; purify the flesh; shave the flesh; bind upon the flesh; cherish the flesh; rest as to the flesh. And again its blessings, what are they? Long life for the flesh; milk and honey for the flesh; peace for the flesh; luxury for the flesh. From this law Aaron received the priesthood; Melchisedec however not so.”

Homily 13 on Hebrews 7:11-14

“What is ‘a disannulling’? A casting out. A ‘disannulling’ is a disannulling of things which are of force. So that he implied, that it [once] was of force, but henceforward was of no account, since it accomplished nothing. Was the Law then of no use? It was indeed of use; and of great use: but to make men perfect it was of no use. For in this respect he says, ‘The Law made nothing perfect.’ All were figures, all shadows; circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. There fore they could not reach through the soul, wherefore they pass away and gradually withdraw. ‘But the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw near unto God.'”

Homily 13 on Hebrews 7:19

“What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. ‘For all,’ it says, ‘have sinned’: but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified. The intention then of the Law it did establish, and what all its enactments aim after, this has it brought to a consummation. Consequently it has not disannulled, but perfected it. Here then three points he has demonstrated; first, that without the Law it is possible to be justified; next, that this the Law could not effect; and, that faith is not opposed to the Law. For since the chief cause of perplexity to the Jews was this, that the faith seemed to be in opposition to it, he shows more than the Jew wishes, that so far from being contrary, it is even in close alliance and cooperation with it, which was what they especially longed to hear proved.”

Homily 7 on Romans 3:31

He also says that the disciples taught the Jewish believers to abandon the law because faith alone is sufficient. But there were Jews who were trying to add the law, which is already past in its season, to faith. He said that this action is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. He reasoned that it is impractical to keep both of them together because the law voids faith, overthrows the Gospel, and endangers those who do so. However, if you keep faith alone, you have not only established law but also unhindered the promise but if you keep even just a portion of the law, you are obligated to keep all commandments therein.

“You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord, and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and do you still grovel in the Law? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Wherefore do you keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews? Is it that you fear the Law and abandonment of its letter? But you would not entertain this fear, did you not disparage faith as weak, and by itself powerless to save. A fear to omit the sabbath plainly shows that you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little by little shut out. If you keep the sabbath, why not also be circumcised? And if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices? If the Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all. If omitting one part makes you fear condemnation, this fear attaches equally to all the parts.”

Homily 2 on Galatians 2:17

“From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach (the Jewish believers) also to abandon the Law.”

Homily 32 on Acts 25:1

“The Jewish tenets were fables in two ways, because they were imitations, and because the thing was past its season, for such things become fables at last. For when a thing ought not to be done, and being done, is injurious, it is a fable even as it is useless. As then those ought not to be regarded, so neither ought these. For this is not being sound. For if you believe the Faith, why do you add other things, as if the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why do you enslave yourself by subjection to the Law? Have you no confidence in what you believe? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.”

Homily 3 on Titus 1:14

“He had shown that faith is necessary, that it is older than circumcision, that it is more mighty than the Law, that it establishes the Law. For if all sinned, it was necessary: if one being uncircumcised was justified, it is older: if the knowledge of sin is by the Law and yet it was without the Law made evident, it is more mighty: if it has testimony borne to it by the Law, and establishes the Law, it is not opposed to it, but friendly and allied to it. Again, he shows upon other grounds too that it was not even possible by the Law to attain to the inheritance, and after having matched it with the circumcision, and gained it the victory, he brings it besides into contrast with the Law in these words, For if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void. To prevent them anyone from saying that one may have faith and also keep up the Law, he shows this to be impracticable. For he that clings to the Law, as if of saving force, does disparagement to faith’s power; and so he says, faith is made void, that is, there is no need of salvation by grace.”

Homily 8 on Romans 4:14

“You see that it is not the Law only that faith establishes, but the promise of God also that it will not allow to fall to the ground. But the Law, on the other hand, by being kept to unseasonably, makes even the faith of none effect, and hinders the promise. By this he shows that faith, so far from being superfluous, is even necessary to that degree, that without it there is no being saved. For the Law works wrath, as all have transgressed it. But this does not even suffer wrath to arise at all: for ‘where no Law is’, he says, ‘there is no transgression.’ Do you see how he not only does away with sin after it has existed, but does not even allow it to be produced? And this is why he says ‘by grace.’ For what end? Not with a view to their being put to shame, but to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed. Here he lays down two blessings, both that the things given are sure, and also that they are ‘to all the seed,’ so gathering in those of the Gentiles, and showing that the Jews are without, if they contend against the faith. For this is a surer thing than that. For faith does you no hurt (be not contentious), but even now you are in danger from the Law.”

Homily 8 on Romans 4:16

He also speaks of three rests: (1) Creation Sabbath, (2) the Promised Land, and (3) the future Sabbath into the Kingdom of Heaven. He said this is the Sabbath-keeping for Christians (not Sunday-keeping) and for as long as this old world is here, there is hope for anyone to enter the kingdom of God that is to come. As for the weekly Sabbath, he said that it is already done away with.

“He says that ‘there’ are three rests: one, that of the Sabbath, in which God rested from His works; the second, that of Palestine, into which when the Jews had entered they would be at rest from their hardships and labors; the third, that which is Rest indeed, the kingdom of Heaven; which those who obtain, do indeed rest from their labors and troubles. Of these three then he makes mention here.”

Homily 6 on Hebrews 3:7-11

“For if they had received their Rest (he says) why does He again say to them, ‘Today if you will hear His voice harden not your hearts,’ as your fathers did? What other rest then is there, except the kingdom of Heaven, of which the Sabbath was an image and type?”

Homily 6 on Hebrews 3:7-11

“And well did he conclude the argument. For he said not rest but Sabbath-keeping; calling the kingdom Sabbath-keeping, by the appropriate name, and that which they rejoiced in and were attracted by. For as, on the Sabbath He commands to abstain from all evil things; and that those things only which relate to the Service of God should be done, which things the Priests were wont to accomplish, and whatsoever profits the soul, and nothing else; so also [will it be] then.”

Homily 6 on Hebrews 4:9

“‘Beware’, he says, ‘of the concision.’ The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the Law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath.”

Homily 10 on Philippians 3:1-3

With regards to the first day of the week, he calls it the Lord’s day, when the root and the beginning of our life takes place. He said it has rest and immunity for toils. Not to say that it is sort of Sabbath-keeping when the Jews have rest from their fleshly toils but because it is convenient and it has rest and immunity from toils. But take note however that they reckoned the span of a day from sunset to sunset, the first day of the week begins with Saturday evening and followed by Sunday morning the next day.

“‘On the first day of the week,’ that is, the Lord’s day, ‘let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper.’ Mark how he exhorts them even from the time: for indeed the day was enough to lead them to almsgiving. Wherefore ‘call to mind,’ says he, what ye attained to on this day: how all the unutterable blessings, and that which is the root and the beginning of our life took place on this day. But not in this regard only is the season convenient for a zealous benevolence, but also because it has rest and immunity from toils: the souls when released from labors becoming readier and apter to show pity.

Homily 43 on 1 Corinthians 16:2

“See how everything was subordinate to the preaching. It was also, it says, the Lord’s day. Not even during night-time was he silent, nay he discoursed the rather then, because of stillness. Mark how he both made a long discourse, and beyond the time of supper itself. But the Devil disturbed the feast — not that he prevailed, however — by plunging the hearer in sleep, and causing him to fall down.”

Homily 43 on Acts 22:1