Jerusalem and the
Origin of Sunday

Though the three New Testament references commonly quoted to substantiate an apostolic origin of Sunday observance belong to the geographic area of the Greek-speaking Christian communities of Greece (1Corinthians 16:2) or Asia Minor (Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10), there is a marked tendency in recent studies to attribute to the Apostolic community of Jerusalem the initiative and responsibility for the abandonment of the Sabbath and the institution of Sunday worship. J. Daniélou affirms, for instance, that "the institution of Sunday goes back to the very first community and is a purely Christian creation." (1) In another study, the same author declares that "the custom of gathering together on this day [i.e. Sunday] appears in the very week following the Resurrection, when we find the Apostles gathered in the Cenacle. Sunday is the continuation of this weekly reunion." (2)

C. S. Mosna concludes his investigation on the origin of Sunday worship stating, "We can conclude without doubt that Sunday was born in the primitive community of Jerusalem before than in the Pauline community." (3) W. Rordorf similarly claims that

"several arguments can be cogently advanced for the opinion that the Christian observance of Sunday is a genuinely Christian creation which reaches back into the oldest period of the primitive community and even to the intention of the risen Lord himself." (4)

It is also assumed that since the events of the resurrection and/or appearances of Jesus occurred and were experienced in Jerusalem on Sunday, therefore it must be there that the Apostles first instituted Sunday worship to commemorate these very events by a distinctive Christian day and with a unique Christian liturgy. Moreover it is presumed that a change in the day of worship, and its subsequent adoption by many Christians everywhere, could only have been accomplished by the apostolic authority exercised in Jerusalem, the Mother Church of Christendom. (9) The principle implied in this observation is valid indeed, and is one we need to bear in mind in our quest for the genesis of Sunday observance. Christians at large would hardly have accepted the injunction to change the day of their weekly worship or the date of their annual Passover celebration from any one church, except from the one that enjoyed universal and undisputed position of leadership. The Passover controversy, as we shall see, provides a most fitting example.

Another significant argument is the alleged necessity that was immediately felt by the earliest Christians in Jerusalem to have a special time and place for their worship, since it is claimed, they "no longer felt at home in the Jewish Sabbath worship." (10) C. S. Mosna reasons, for instance, that the Apostles instituted Sunday "long before Paul might think about its institution," since "the first Christians found themselves in the necessity to have a special day of worship because the content of the Sabbath was by then insufficient to the exigencies of the new faith." (11) W. Rordorf expresses the same conviction in similar words when he says that "the practical necessity for a regular time of worship in the Christian communities does therefore point to a pre-Pauline origin for the observance of Sunday." (12)

Eusebius’ (ca. A.D. 260-340) account of the Ebionites — a Jewish-Christian sect of early Christianity — is submitted by several scholars as an additional evidence for an apostolic origin of Sunday. The historian reports that the liberal wing of the Ebionites "observed the Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s day as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour." (13) The contention is that these Jewish Christians retained the original Sunday practice of the Jerusalem Church, since they would hardly have borrowed it from the Gentile Church after they broke away from it. (14)

These arguments appear persuasive indeed, but their validity must be tested in the light of the historic information provided by the New Testament and by the early patristic literature regarding the ethnic composition and the theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church. This we shall now investigate, extending our inquiry to A.D. 135, that is, up to the time of the destruction of the city by Hadrian. At that time, as we shall see, both city and the Church there underwent radical changes caused by the Emperor’s edict of expulsion of Jews and Jewish Christians. This struck the final blow, not only to the Jewish aspiration of national independence from the Romans, but also to the position of leadership of the Jerusalem Church. In fact, subsequently the role of the Church there was too insignificant to be able to influence the rest of Christendom.

The Jerusalem Church in the New Testament

What information does the New Testament provide regarding the attitude of the Jerusalem Church toward Jewish worship services and liturgical calendar? Does it suggest, as some hold, that the Church "no longer felt at home in the Jewish Sabbath worship: therefore it had to assemble by itself and at a special time"? (15) We shall endeavor to answer these questions by considering first the place and time of the earliest Christian gatherings, and secondly the ethnic composition and theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church.

The place of Christian gatherings

The meeting places most frequently mentioned in the book of Acts are the temple, the synagogue, and private houses (once, a gathering in the open air). (16) In Acts 2:46 the report that Christians were "attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes" suggests a possible distinction between the public evangelistic preaching and private fellowship gatherings. However in chapter 5:42 it says that "every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as Christ." This would imply that no formal distinction existed between public evangelistic meetings and the private fellowship gatherings. (17) The picture that emerges from Acts is indeed of an intense communal life of the new converts who "with one accord" (Acts 1:14) would often gather to share their faith both publicly in the temple, under Solomon’s portico, or in the synagogues, as well as privately in houses. (18) But presumably a difference did exist between these two types of gatherings. In the temple and synagogue the primitive community could proclaim the Gospel (Acts 3:11 f.; 5:12 f.) as well as participate in the prayer (Acts 3:1; 22:17; 2:46-47) and instruction from the Scriptures. In the private meetings, on the other hand, believers could receive personal instruction from the Apostle (Acts 6:42; 1:14) as well as express their bond of fellowship by partaking together of food and of the Lord’s Supper. (19)

The private gatherings of the primitive community, though designed to express more freely and fully the content of their faith in the risen Lord, are not presented as conflicting with the services of the temple and synagogue but rather as complementing them. Ralph P. Martin remarks that "in the early days of the Church’s life, there seems to have been no desire to leave the parent religion—at least as far as the outward practice of the faith was concerned." (20) The author points out that "the earliest Christian Church looked like a party within the Jewish fold" and was explicitly designated as the "sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). The same word "sect—hairesis" is used in Acts to describe both the Christian party (Acts 24:5, 14; 28:22) and the official Jewish parties of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) and Pharisees (Acts 15:5; 26:5). Therefore, Martin concludes that "there was nothing, on the face of it, which would strike strange about the congregating of like-minded Jews as a band of Nazarenes." (21)

Some scholars even suggest that externally the primitive community may at first have resembled a special synagogue, since according to the Mishnah it only required ten male Jews to form a synagogue anywhere. (22) Christ’s followers, it says in Acts 1:14, "with one accord devoted themselves to prayer (proseuke)." The Greek term employed here is the one that designates the regular "prayer-assembly" of the synagogue (cf. Acts 16:13, 16). The use of a synagogal appellation to describe the devotional gathering of the first believers suggests the possibility that Christian gatherings could have been regarded as a type of synagogue meeting.

It is a fact that the synagogue is the place of worship most frequently mentioned. We have found this to be true in Christ’s ministry since he taught and worshiped in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Mark 1:21-28; 3:1-6; 6:2; Matthew 4:23; Luke 4:15, 16-30,31 ff., 44; 6:6; 13:10-17; John 6:59; 18:20). Similarly in Acts, the record of Christian attendance at the synagogue is most impressive. Paul met in the synagogue regularly with "Jews and Greeks" (Acts 18:4,19; 13:5, 14,42,44; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17), and even Apollo, when he arrived at Ephesus, met with the believers at Ephesus in the synagogue (Acts 18:24-26). C. W. Dugmore, to whom we are indebted for an exhaustive study on the influence of the synagogue upon the Christian service, shows persuasively that the "synagogue did influence both the form of service and the times at which Christians met together for public prayer in the first four centuries of our era to a much greater extent than has sometimes been recognized." (23)

Did the acceptance of the Messiah as Lord and Savior create an immediate exigency to adopt a new place and time of worship in order to give expression to the new Faith? It is easy and tempting to interpret the fragmentary record of the Jerusalem Church in the light of the later separation which occurred between the Church and the Synagogue. This effort may be motivated by the commendable desire to minimize the attachment of the Jerusalem Church to the Jewish religious customs and thus defend the uniqueness of content and expression of the Christian faith right from its inception. While such objectives may be praiseworthy, they hardly justify an inaccurate reconstruction of the early worship customs of the Jerusalem Church.

The frequent references to the temple, the synagogue, prayer and preaching, suggest that Christian worship arose not as an ex novo institution but rather as a continuation and re-interpretation of the Jewish religious services. Peter and John, for instance, after the Pentecost experience, go up to the temple at the hour of prayer (Acts 3:1). Attendance at the temple and at the synagogue still continues, though complementary private meetings are conducted. Similarly the language of the Jewish worship—sacrifice, offering, priest, elder—remains in use. It is obvious that all of these were reinterpreted in the light of their Messianic fulfillment—of the Christ-event. There is no hint however that their new faith caused the immediate abandonment of the regular worship places of the Jews.

The Time of Christian Gatherings

We need now to consider the time of the worship services of the Jerusalem Church. Did the first Christians respect and use the Jewish liturgical calendar or did they purposely reject it, choosing rather new days and dates for their weekly and annual festivities? Oscar Cullmann maintains that the gatherings of the earliest Christians

"took place daily (Acts 2:46; 5:42; see also Luke 24:53). The Sabbath too may still have been observed here and there. However ... already in the earliest times the primitive Christian service created for itself a specifically Christian setting in which one day was specifically marked out as the day for the Church services—the Lord’s Day. That is not the Jewish Sabbath but in deliberate distinction from Judaism, the first Christians selected the first day of the week, since on this day Christ had risen from the dead, and on this day he had appeared to the disciples gathered together for a meal." (24)

According to our author—a position widely supported by many scholars—the gatherings of the primitive community occurred daily, sporadically on the Sabbath and regularly on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection and the appearances of Christ. We need not take time to consider again the claim of a regular Sunday observance in the earliest days of the Church, since in our previous chapters we have established that such a thesis rests basically on three misconstrued New Testament passages and on theological motivations absent in the apostolic literature.

Regarding the daily gatherings, Luke in at least three instances refers to the Apostles and/or believers who "daily—kath’hemera—pasan hemeran" (Acts 2:46; 5:42; cf. Luke 24:53) came together for instruction and fellowship. It is possible that in the enthusiasm of Pentecost, for some time the believers did gather daily around the Apostles, but obviously only the Apostles could sustain a continuous daily program of teaching in the temple and in the homes (Acts 5:42). As H. Riesenfeld aptly remarks, "for those who were not Apostles this must be an hyperbole." (25) These daily gatherings were undoubtedly evangelistic in nature, designed to proclaim the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. Possibly new converts participated in these meetings, but there is no indication that the whole community was expected to participate in daily services.

The Sabbath, according to O. Cullmann, representative of a popular view, was observed "here and there" but since the earliest times the Church chose the first day of the week as the new day of worship "in deliberate distinction from Judaism." (26) In a later chapter we will have occasion to show that the exigency to differentiate from the Jews did indeed contribute substantially to the adoption of Sunday observance in the place of the Sabbath. But this is a later development which did not occur in the early days of the Jerusalem Church.

C.S. Mosna reasons that the Christians in Jerusalem detached themselves very early from the temple and synagogue because of the persecution from the religious leaders: "After the stoning of Stephen, they are searched in the houses (Acts 8:3) and the persecution contributed to isolate them from the Jews and their practices (Acts 9:2)." (27) There is no doubt that Jewish persecutions contributed in time to isolate Christians from Jewish religious services and customs, but as will be shown below, such a break did not take place so drastically or so immediately. Paul, for instance, after the martyrdom of Stephen, went searching for Christians in the synagogues of Damascus (Acts 9:2; cf. 22:19), presumably because they still met there. In his later ministry the Apostle himself "as was his custom" (Acts 17:2) met regularly on the Sabbath in synagogues or open air, not only with the Jews (Acts 13:14; 17:2; 18:4) but also with the Gentiles (Acts 13:44; 16:13, 18:4). This was possible because no radical separation had yet occurred from Jewish places and times of gatherings.

It should also be observed that the first Jewish persecution reported in Acts 6-8 was apparently directed not against the whole Church but primarily against the "Hellenists." These, according to recent researches, were a non conformist group of Jewish Christians seemingly quite different from the main body of the Church. (28) This is suggested by Acts 8:1 where it is reported that when "a great persecution arose against the Church in Jerusalem . . . they were scattered . . . except the apostles." The fact that the Apostles were allowed to remain in the city proves, as noted by O. Cullmann, "that the whole community did not share in the very peculiar and bold ideas of this group [i.e. Hellenists]." (29) However, it should be mentioned to the credit of the Hellenists that their bold and vocal missionary activity resulted in the evangelization of Samaria (Acts 8:1-40).

Some suggest that this group of Christian Hellenists (Greek speaking Jews) "publicly claimed for themselves Jesus’ own freedom with regard to the Sabbath" (30) and adopted Sunday observance. Even granting such an assumption which rests on gratuitous conjectures, it should be observed that these Hellenists represented only a radical group that was early detached from the mother Church where the Apostles resided. Inasmuch as they were not the spokesmen of the Church, they could hardly have enjoined the Church at large to accept a new day of worship. Moreover, if indeed Sunday observance was one of the distinguishing marks of their religious practices, this would have stirred a sharp controversy within the Church, especially in view of their "vocal" missionary activity. (31) But no echo of such a polemic can be detected in Acts. At the Jerusalem council, for instance, Sabbath observance was not among the issues of the day. In fact, we now shall consider overwhelming indications of its regular observance, particularly in the ultra-conservative Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem.

The Theological Orientation of the Jerusalem Church

A study of the ethnic composition and theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church provides perhaps the most significant data by which to test the validity of the thesis claiming Jerusalem as the birthplace of Sunday observance. The Church originated in the city around the nucleus of the twelve Apostles. Since these as well as their first converts were, as well stated by T. W. Manson, "Jews by birth and upbringing.. . it is a priori probable that they would bring into the new community some at least of the religious usages to which they had long been accustomed." (32)

Luke reports that among the many Jewish converts, there were a great many of the priests who "were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7). F. A. Regan well notes that "Luke gives no hint that their conversion in any way conflicted with the adherence to the Old Law." (33) In fact, possibly, as suggested by B.Bagatti, "they naturally continued to exercise their ministry." (34) Their ministry may well have been needed, in view of the fact that, as Luke relates, there were many thousands . among the Jews of those who believed" (Acts 21:20). It seems plausible to identify these converted priests with the "Elders" who assisted James and the Apostles in the administration of the Church (Acts 15:4,22,23; 16:4; 20:17,18). F. F. Bruce advances the hypothesis that "there may have been seventy of them, constituting a sort of Nazarene Sanhedrin, with James as their president." (35) This information provided by Luke reveals that the Jerusalem Church not only was composed mostly of Jewish converts but possibly was even administered by ex-priests according to the familiar Jewish model of the Sanhedrin. Their basic attitude toward Jewish religious observances is best expressed by Luke’s terse statement, "they are all zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). (36)

The choice and exaltation of James provides further confirmation of the "Jewish" theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church. Why was James "the Lord’s Brother" (Galatians 1:19) and not an Apostle chosen to be the leader of the Church? Apparently in the choice of a leader for the Church, the blood factor was regarded as more important than any previous relationship with Christ. This reason, already implicit in the references of Luke and Paul (37) to James, is explicitly brought out in several later works of Judaeo-Christian origin.

Hegesippus, a second century Jewish convert native of Palestine, and various anonymous authors who produced works such as The Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Gospel of Thomas, the divers Apocalypses of James and the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, highly exalt the figure of James. (38) In these works James is glorified as the legitimate representative of Christ, (39) as the real brother of Christ to whom he first appeared, (40) as the head of the Church, (41) as the one "for whose sake heaven and earth came into being," (42) as the priest who alone "was allowed to enter the Sanctuary . . . to implore divine pardon for the people," as the son of a priest and as "a saint from his mother’s womb." (43) It appears therefore that in the eyes of Judaeo-Christians, as well summarized by B. Bagatti,

"James ... was superior to Peter and Paul, because he was a descendant of David, of the same blood as Jesus, and therefore the legitimate representative of the sacerdotal race; and finally he had observed the law to the point of heroism. No other apostle could claim such prerogatives." (44)

While this exaltation of James represents a later development, motivated apparently by the necessity to enhance the position of the Jerusalem Church at a time when she had faded into obscurity, the fact remains that James was seemingly chosen because he could claim blood relation to Christ and thus fulfill the role of a legitimate Christian "high-priest." This reveals how Jewish-oriented the new Christian "priesthood" and leadership really were in the city. More enlightening still for our investigation into the possible origin of Sunday observance in Jerusalem is the basic attitude of James and his party toward Jewish legal obligations.

In the year A.D. 49-50 the leaders of the Christian Church met in Jerusalem to deliberate on the basic requirements to be fulfilled by Gentiles who accepted the Christian faith. The Council was occasioned by the dissension which arose in Antioch when certain agitators came to the Church there from Judea, teaching: "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved: " (Acts 15:1). These Judaizers apparently claimed to speak in the name of James, though he distinctly denied having authorized them to do this (Acts 15:24). To settle the dispute it was found necessary for Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to discuss the problem with the "apostles and elders" (Acts 15:3). At the meeting there was "much debate" (Acts 15:7) and discourses were made by Peter, Paul and Barnabas ‘(verses 7, 12). At the end James, who appears to have acted as the presiding officer, proposed that Gentiles who became Christians were to be exempted from circumcision, but they were to be notified

"to abstain from the pollution of idols and unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" (verses 20-21).

The proposal was approved by "the apostles and elders" (verse 22) and immediate measures were taken to ensure its implementation. The decision of the council, which is mentioned three times (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) with slight variations, provides some insight into the attitude of the Jerusalem Church toward the Jewish law. Several points are noteworthy.

The exemption from the circumcision was granted only "to the brethren who are of the Gentiles" (verse 23). No innovation occurred for the Jewish Christians, who still circumcised their children. This is indicated not only by the existence after the council of a circumcision party, apparently supported by James (Galatians 2:12), that constantly harassed the Gentile communities evangelized by Paul (Galatians 3:1; 5:12; 6:12; Philippians 3:2), but also by the explicit charge that "James and the elders" reported to Paul (approximately ten years later), namely: "You teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs" (Acts 21:22). The concern of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church for such a rumor (even at such late day, about A.D. 58) and their proposal to Paul to silence the accusation by undertaking a vow of purification at the temple (Acts 21:24), reveals how profoundly attached they still were to Jewish institutions like circumcision.

Moreover, the very provisions proposed by James and adopted by the Council indicate that the Gentiles were not granted indiscriminate freedom from the law. Of the four precepts of the decree, in fact, one is moral (abstention from Unchastity") and three are ceremonial (abstention "from pollution of idols and from what is strangled and from blood"—verse 20). This undue concern for ritual defilement and food laws is reflective indeed of the great respect which still prevailed for the ceremonial law. To avoid offending the prejudices of Jewish Christians, Gentile converts were to abstain from eating anything offered to idols and even from accepting or participating in a Gentile domestic feast where food with idolatrous associations might be served. They also were to follow the Jewish food laws by not eating the flesh of animals killed by strangulation. This excessive concern of James and of the Apostles (Acts 15:22) to respect Jewish scruples regarding food and association with the Gentiles, hardly allows us to imagine that a weightier matter such as Sabbath observance had been unanimously abrogated. (45)

But how can some interpret the silence of the Council on the Sabbath question as "the most eloquent proof that the observance of Sunday had been recognized by the entire apostolic Church and had been adopted by the Pauline Churches"? (46) That such a drastic change in the day of worship had been unanimously accomplished and accepted, without provoking dissension, is hard to believe in view of several factors. The prevailing attitude of the Jerusalem Church, as we have already noticed, was characterized by intransigent respect and observance of Jewish customs and institutions. In such a climate it was practically impossible to change the date of a millenarian institution like the Sabbath which was still highly respected.

The statement which James made to support his proposal is also significant in this regard: "for from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" (Acts 15:21). The connection between James’ proposal (verse 20) and this explanatory statement (verse 21) has been variously understood. Some take it as meaning that Jewish Christians need not fear that Gentile freedom would undermine the observance of the Mosaic laws, "being still read every Sabbath in the Christian synagogues or congregations. (47) Others understand the verse as meaning that since the precepts of the law of Moses were diligently taught every Sabbath, Gentile Christians must be careful not to offend the prejudices of their Jewish fellow believers. (48) Still others interpret it as meaning that the Gentiles would certainly not find the prohibition arbitrary or harsh since they were well acquainted with the Levitical regulations from their habitual attendance at the synagogue on the Sabbath. (49) F. F. Bruce thinks that James’ "observation was perhaps intended to calm the apprehensions of the Pharisaic party in the Jerusalem Church, in whose eyes it was specially important that the whole Torah should be taught among the Gentiles." (50)

Though the above interpretations apply James’ remark to different people (Gentile Christian, Jewish Christian, both, and the Pharisaic party) they all recognize that both in his proposal and in its justification James reaffirms the binding nature of the Mosaic law which was customarily preached and read every Sabbath in the synagogues. The manifestation of such an excessive respect by the Council for the Mosaic ceremonial law, and James’ explicit reference to the customary reading and preaching from it on the Sabbath in the synagogues, exclude categorically the hypothesis that the Sabbath had already been replaced by Sunday.

The last visit of Paul to Jerusalem (A.D. 58-60), to which we alluded earlier, further evidences the commitment of the Jerusalem Church to the observance of the law. Luke’s mention that Paul "was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost" (Acts 20:16) and that they had spent the days of "Unleavened Bread" at Philippi (Acts 20:6), indicates that Christians still regulated their lives by the normative Jewish liturgical calendar. More enlightening, however, is the account of what happened in Jerusalem itself. James and the Elders, after Paul had "related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry" (Acts 21:19), reported to Paul:

"You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed: they are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs" (Acts 21:20, 21).

The profound loyalty of the leadership of the Jerusalem Church to Jewish religious traditions is self-evident. Not only James and the elders informed Paul that the many thousands of Jewish members of their Church were "all zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20), but they even confronted the Apostle with the rumor that he dissuaded Jewish believers from practicing ancestral customs such as the circumcision handed down by Moses. Wishing to believe that their misgivings were unfounded (and indeed there is no evidence for their truth), James and the elders proposed that Paul discredit the malicious accusation and prove that he himself "lived in observance of the law" (Acts 21:24) by undergoing a purification rite at the temple together with four Church members who apparently had contracted ceremonial defilement. By this, it was felt, the multitude of Jerusalem believers as well as the rest of the population in the city could see for themselves that the Apostle still conformed to the law of Moses.

This concern of the leadership of the Church to reassure the Jewish believers in Palestine of Paul’s respect for ancestral customs suggests, as noted by R. C. H. Lenski, on the one hand, that members had suffered possibly because of false rumors regarding Paul, and on the other hand that "they still retained their Jewish way of living, circumcised their children, ate kosher, kept the Sabbath, etc." (51) This undoubtedly facilitated the conversion of "many thousands" (Acts 21:20) of Jews, inasmuch as the acceptance of the Gospel did not require significant changes in their life style.

This excessive attachment of the Jerusalem Church to Jewish religious customs may perhaps perplex the Christian who regards the Mother Church of Christendom as the ideal model of his religious life. One must not forget, however, that Christianity sprang up out of the roots and trunk of Judaism. The early Jewish converts viewed the acceptance of Christ not as the destruction of their religious framework, but as the fulfillment of their Messianic expectations which enhanced their religious life with a new dimension. The process of separating the shadow from the reality, the transitory from the permanent, was gradual and not without difficulty.

Paul’s conduct also deserves consideration. Did he violate his conviction by accepting the proposal to purify himself at the temple? It hardly seems so since, for instance, he was not ashamed to mention the incident when defending himself before Felix (Acts 24:17, 18). Some suggest in fact that since the Apostle had earlier assumed a Nazarite vow on his own initiative (Acts 18:18) at Cenchreae, he was already planning to offer sacrifice at the temple to complete his vow. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that there is no reference to Paul’s taking a vow in Jerusalem. (52) Furthermore, as F. J. A. Hort remarks, "the time spoken of appears too short for him to begin and complete a vow. (53) It seems plausible to assume therefore that Paul had purposely planned to bring to his "nation alms and offerings" (Acts 24:17) to draw the Jewish and Gentile wings of the Church closer together. (54) To accomplish this objective, he evidently felt that he needed to provide also a tangible demonstration of his personal loyalty to law and customs. This concern of the Apostle to reassure the Jewish believers of his respect for the law reveals not only the loyalty of the latter to Jewish religious customs, but also Paul’s unwillingness to offend his Jewish brethren on such matters (if a question of principle was not involved). This attitude of the Apostle suffices to discredit any attempt to attribute to him the responsibility for the abrogation of the Sabbath and introduction of Sunday observance.

Christ’s pericope regarding the flight from Jerusalem is also significant in this regard. In Matthew, a Gospel addressed to Jewish—Christians, Christ’s admonition is reported thus: "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath" (24:20). In our earlier analysis of this text we concluded that the passage, as stated by E. Lohse, "offers an example of the keeping of the Sabbath by Jewish Christians." (55) This saying may well reflect the concern of the Jerusalem Church for the observance of the Sabbath not simply on account of its actual reference to the city, but especially because according to the tradition of the early Church the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Aramaic for the Jewish Christians of Palestine.

The foregoing analysis of the New Testament sources regarding the Jerusalem Church has firmly established that the primitive Christian community there was composed primarily of and administered by converted Jews who retained a deep attachment to Jewish religious customs such as Sabbath keeping. It is therefore impossible to assume that a new day of worship was introduced by the Jerusalem Church prior to the destruction of the city in A.D. 70. We might add that in view of the enormous influence exerted on the Church at large by the Jewish Christian leadership and membership, it would have been practically impossible for any Church anywhere to introduce Sunday observance prior to A.D. 70. W. D. Davies, a well-recognized specialist on early Christianity, concisely and sagaciously summarizes the religious situation of the time:

"Everywhere, especially in the East of the Roman Empire, there would be Jewish Christians whose outward way of life would not be markedly different from that of the Jews. They took for granted that the gospel was continuous with Judaism; for them the new covenant, which Jesus had set up at the Last Supper with his disciples and sealed by his death, did not mean that the covenant made between God and Israel was no longer in force. They still observed the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles; they also continued to be circumcised, to keep the weekly Sabbath and the Mosaic regulations concerning food. According to some scholars, they must have been so strong that right up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 they were the dominant element in the Christian movement." (56)

The Jerusalem Church After A.D. 70

The question may be raised at this point, is it possible that the Christian community of Jerusalem introduced Sunday worship in the place of Sabbath keeping after the exodus from the city which occurred prior to its destruction in A.D. 70? The historical significance of the Jewish-Christian abandonment of the city and migration to Pella (a Transjordan city in the northern region of Perea) must not be underestimated. J. Lebreton conveniently summarizes the importance of the event:

"The exodus had decisive consequences for the Church of Jerusalem: the last link was broken which bound the faithful to Judaism and to the Temple; down to the end they had loved its magnificent construction, its ceremonies and its memories; now there remained of it not a stone upon stone; God had weaned them from it. And this exodus finally alienated Jewish opinion from them; they had abandoned Jerusalem at the hour of its greatest tribulation; their faith was, then, not that of their nation, and they were seeking salvation elsewhere." (57)

Did the abandoning of the city by the Judaeo-Christian community result in their alienation also from Jewish institutions such as the Sabbath? F. A. Regan assumes this very position in his dissertation and suggests that the year A.D. 70 marks the decisive break between Sabbath and Sunday. He writes: "Can one point to any one event in particular, in which the decisive break occurred between the Sabbath and the day we call Sunday? A most likely date would probably be the year A.D. 70 with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem." (58)

Undoubtedly the exodus and the destruction of Jerusalem had decisive effects on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. There are however significant historical indications which exclude the possibility that already back in the year A.D. 70 or soon afterwards the Judaeo-Christians of Palestine broke away from Sabbath keeping and introduced Sunday observance. We shall briefly consider some of the more pertinent historical data.

The historians, Eusebius (ca. A.D. 260-340) and Epiphanius (ca. A.D. 315-403), both inform us that the Church of Jerusalem up to the siege of Hadrian (A.D. 135) consisted of converted Hebrews and was administered by 15 bishops from the "circumcision," that is, of Jewish extraction. (59) Their basic attitude seems to have been one of deep loyalty to Jewish religious customs. Eusebius, for instance, reports that both the conservative and the liberal wings of the Ebionites (a Judaeo-Christian group) were "zealous to insist on the literal observance of the Law." (60)