Calling the First Day of the Week, Sunday?

We in the English-speaking world have been saddled with calling the first day of the week 'sun-day'. We got this name originally from Egyptian astrology which named the days of the week according to which planet (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon) was 'dominant' during the first hour of any day of the week (Catholic Encyclopaedia).

Rome took up this idea in the first and second centuries (AD) and then the Germanic peoples took the 7-day week but assigned new names for some to fit with their own gods.  English has derived its week day names chiefly from this source.

Sun-day known as 'the first day of the week' by the Jews (Matt 28.1; Mk 16.2,9; Lu 24.1; Jn 20.1,19; 1 Cor 16.1,2), became known after the Resurrection as the Lord's Day (Acts 20.7; Rev 1.10).

Of course, Sabbatarianism disputes the fact that sun-day has become the Lord's Day claiming that the Roman Pope changed the day from the seventh day to the first day.  Although the Roman church claims that the papacy has existed continuously since St Peter it is clear that even if that were the case, the Bishop of Rome's office changed markedly between the first century and later centuries where the titles and power of the pope increased in grandeur (e.g., vicar of Christ title).

However, the Didache (a teaching manual of early Christianity c. AD 50-160) directs that Christians meet together on 'the Lord's Day'. Other early church fathers (pseudo-Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian) also testify that the first day of the week is the Lord's Day and deserving of respect because Jesus Christ was resurrected on that day.

It was be a good thing if Christians reclaimed this day within their own circles by again calling it The Lord's Day as many other Christians have done throughout the centuries. The almost universal use of the word 'sun-day' for the first day is further evidence of the power of the secular mindset in Australian society.

As to those Christ-believers who keep the Jewish Sabbath (Seventh-Day Adventists, Messianic Jews), I have no particular quarrel as long as they grant to Lord's Day observers the same freedom of conscience as I am happy to extend to them. 

What Does Believing in Jesus mean according to John?

It is generally agreed by commentators that believing in Jesus as the Son of God plays a large role in the message of the gospel according to St John (Jn 1.12; 1.50; etc; Jn 20.31).

Interestingly however, on at least three occasions, believing in Jesus is held up to question in the gospel account. The first one I'd wager is not often preached on although its jarring note is consonant with some of what has already happened.

It's the passage found in Jn 2.23-25 : a number believed 'in His name' when they saw the signs that Jesus did. Nothing wrong with that; after all, the whole point of the gospel account is said to be a record of the signs, 'that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God' (Jn 20.31).

And yet, Jesus does not commit himself to these disciples in John 2 'because he knew all men and had no need that anyone testify of man, for he knew what was in man' (Jn 2.24f). What is going on here?

Other observers also have found that Jesus' non-committal behaviour grabs their attention and have proposed various interpretations. We don't like to think of Jesus being non-committal do we?

These believers (Jn 2) have trusted in Jesus but He does not entrust himself to them. I think I can only say that Jesus saw something lacking in their faith.

We see this lack again in the feeding of the five thousand story (Jn 6.1-14). The people who ate the bread and fish also testified that Jesus was 'truly the Prophet who is to come into the world' (Jn 6.14). But they wanted to make him king so he eludes them. Later he questions their faith and they can ask for a sign even though these are the same people who had been fed by Jesus (Jn 6.26)!

In John chapter 8, which opens with the woman taken in adultery (in the KJV) and leads to a sharp disagreement with the Pharisees (Jn 8.13-18). Than at v. 30 the text says, 'As He spoke these words [with the offended Jews], many believed in Him'. Jesus addresses some important words to them (Jn 8.31-32) about the attribute of true disciples (abiding or continuing in Jesus' Word).

However, now a question arises as to the identification of the 'They' at the beginning of verse 33; are these Jesus' new believers or are they the Pharisees?

I think the rest of the chapter is a disagreement Jesus had with those 'who believed' as set out in v. 30f. (I appreciate this interpretation is contrary to all of the classic commentator's views on the passage which causes me to concede that I may be wrong.) I would argue this position on two grounds:

Verse 31 says, Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him etc; verse 33, they answered him, 'We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage'. It seems at least to me that the 'they' is more naturally understood grammatically as the same group. Second, it's not as if such disagreement or ambivalence between 'believers' and Jesus had not happened before or after this. (Even after Jesus' resurrection with the resurrected Christ standing before the apostolic band, St Matthew records, 'some doubted' (Matt 28.16f). Admittedly, this doesn't occur in John's account.)

The fact that these hearers in John 8 are not abiding in Christ's Word is evidence that their belief is apparently on the surface. They had believed but that alone is not sufficient to argue that these 'believers' would not have disputed with Jesus as to their ancestry.

It seems that they resented the fact that called that they could be themselves in bondage. 'We like all the things you've been saying Jesus but we don't like to be said to have been in bondage. This implies that we are not Abraham's children.' Interesting that this chapter finishes with a climactic discussion on the topic of Abraham (Jn 8.52-59) and concludes with Jesus saying, 'before Abraham was, I AM' (v. 58).

However, should I be wrong about Jesus' interlocutors from verse 33 and onwards, the point remains that believing in Jesus means, at least in part, acceptance and obedience to His Word and continuance in His teaching. These are absolutely essential to true belief in Jesus as the Son of God.

OUT OF CONTEXT!

I don't know how often I've seen or heard the words of Jesus 'the truth shall set you free' quoted out of context. They are sometimes even used by those who have no commitment to Christ at all but even Christians forget or neglect to look carefully at the background in which the words occurs.

The words quoted are lifted out of a long conversation (Jn 8.30-59) Jesus had with those 'who believed him' (v. 31). And for at least two reasons, they are often misapplied.

First, these words were primarily directed to those 'who believed him'. In other words, a group of budding disciples of Jesus. They had listened to his words in the preceding interaction with the Pharisees (Jn 8.13-29) and these led them to believe in Him (v. 30).

The quoted words are preceded by Jesus saying to these new believers, If you abide in My word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free (Jn 8.31-32). If you abide in My word are critical words because they qualify what comes next. If any fail to abide, to continue in, to hold fast to what Jesus taught then then they don't come to know the truth that brings freedom.

Blessed Are You Who Have Not Seen

In John 20.29, Jesus says, 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'. Seeing Jesus would be a wonderful experience but it's given only to a relative few in number.

Peter also says to his readers, 'whom having not seen, you love' (1 Pet 1.8). Why are we promised blessing but don't share in the blessing of seeing the Lord?

One preacher I've just heard declaiming on Rom 10.8-21 says a fascinating and helpful thing about the Christian faith. He says that most faiths (the notable exceptions being the Abrahamic faiths) require the use of a god in tangible form for worshippers to see something. The Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christianity emphasise the fact that God speaks with the corresponding theme that we are invited and commanded to listen.

Some years ago, Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) wrote He is There and He is not Silent (1972). Apart from all of Schaeffer's other achievements, the emphasis he makes upon the speaking God is important.

And it's important because it presumes that the most singular part of our faith is the ability to hear what God is saying to us both individually and corporately.

The preacher talked also about the four soils in Jesus' parable about the Sower (Matt 13.3-23): the pathway areas, the rocky ground, the thorny ground, and the good soil. The parable is more about the four places that the soil lands than the Sower or the seed as such. In the first case, the 'heart' of the listener to the Word 'does not understand it' and it is snatched away 'by the wicked one'; in the second, the heart first receives it 'with joy' but when the inevitable trials and tribulations come his lack of a 'root in himself' means that 'he stumbles'. In the third heart, the thorns are the 'cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches' which choke the Word and the person 'is not fruitful'.

But the heart the receives the Word on good ground are those who receive it, understand it and are fruitful.

Good Friday's Death to Resurrection Day Morn

We can imagine that it was hard for the disciples after Jesus' humiliating death on Good Friday. The mood of disappointment and grief that hung over the disciple band is well caught in Luke's portrayal of the two disciples (Luke 24.13-35) on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus.

I think we would have been no better than they were in their despondency and spiritual blindness.

This 3-day period was an important time but for them they could only think that his death spelled the END.

And of course it did but not in the way they thought.

Jesus' coming into the world did mean the END; it meant the END of sin and death, of the old age.


Acknowledgement to http://visualtheology.blogspot.com.au/2011_04_01_archive.html for the graphic I have used even though I have taken what was a visual regarding Lazarus' death and reminded us that from the disciples' point of view Jesus' death appeared to end in similar despair during the 3-day travail.