Having considered the frontal attack upon the Bible seventh-day Sabbath, the direct cause of the change that established the first day of the week as the counterfeit holy day through ecclesiastico-political means, we have now to discuss the flank attack upon God's rest day, the indirect philosophical-intellectual cause of the substitution. On the surface, the latter may not seem to have the same importance as a reason for the change in days, as the former, but it may be said to be more subtle and insidious.
This false philosophy that did violence to the fourth commandment of the decalogue appears in the New Testament in two phases. Judaism brought about the first phase through an overstressing of the seventh-day Sabbath by ceremonialism and a misplaced emphasis upon the keeping of the Mosaic law. We see this plainly in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. (See Eph. 2:11-17; Col. 2:13-17.) As Shakespeare might put it, the Jews had come to "out-Sabbath the Sabbath." The spirit of the day was suffocated by the thick blanket of form, The result could only be the Master's corrective, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:27. While this phase did not strengthen God's day among the Christians, tending to leave the Sabbath in too distinctive a Judaistic mold to fit it into the spirit of Christianity, it did leave the true Sabbath day untouched, it did bow before the divine command, it did recognize it as the product of divine revelation.
Greek Emphasis Upon Mind
The second phase of the false philosophy, that boded no good for God's rest day, was no minor Judaistic form or ceremonialism, but a major element that minimized, yes, unSabbatized the Sabbath through real and deliberate thought process. No matter what the fault of the Jews, it must be laid to their credit that they did approach, through divine inspiration and revelation, the purpose of the world and life in the right way. They began with God, accepted Him a priori, deductively, and saw the world and the universe in proper relation to Him. With them, the "fear of Jehovah" was "the beginning of wisdom." Prov. 9:1o. With them God was the center and circumference of all wisdom and knowledge, as the book of Proverbs abundantly testifies. This theistic view—that everything begins and ends with God—is the Jews' great and profound contribution to the world's thought and life.
But the Greeks, who furnished the background of the world's extra-Jewish philosophy in New Testament and early Christian times, had a different approach to the universe and world problem. To them mind, reason, was the summum bonum. They began with human thought, and saw the world and the universe only in relation to it. If the Jews saw the world and life in the light of God's will and purpose, the Greeks saw all things in the light of man's understanding. Theirs was the a posteriori method, the inductive approach through human intellect.
Are we not here reminded of the Greek natural philosophers, such as Thales and Empedocles, who endeavored to interpret the universe in terms of man's deductions? Do we not recall that Socrates taught that man could liberate himself only by shaking off false conceptions, that he summed up all life in reason and intelligence? This philosophy Plato later further emphasized in his well-known "idea." To be ignorant, according to Greek philosophy, was to be bad; to be intelligent was to be good.
This sinister emphasis on human mind and reason constitutes the second phase of that false philosophy which opposed itself to God's day of rest. In New Testament times, and even before, this Hellenistic emphasis on mind blossomed forth in a system called Gnosticism, the word coming from the Greek word gnosis, which means knowledge. If we would reach God, Gnosticism taught, it is fundamental that we do it through knowledge. Paul at once recognized how menacing this attitude was to true religion, that such exaggeration of mind and reason would minimize—yes, destroy—the gospel. He knew only too well that "knowledge [gnosis] puffeth up." 1 Cor. 8:1.
We can thus understand Paul's charge to Timothy, "O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge [gnosis] which is falsely so called." I Tim. 6:20. (See also Col. 2:8.) He knew well that men are saved not by Hellenistic mind but by Christian faith. He understood clearly that even though Christian Gnosticism accepted the function of faith, its subtle stress upon knowledge vitiated this needful faith. If emphasis in religion is essential, the great apostle truly knew it must be placed upon faith, not upon human reason. (See Rom. 1: 16, 17.) Faith, and faith alone, he comprehended, could accomplish human soteriology, or salvation through Jesus Christ. Himself an educated man, Paul knew the value of education, but he also knew that it was not fundamental to human redemption. (See Cor. 1-3.)
With Gnosticism's overemphasis on mind, it is not difficult to see its underemphasis on matter and the physical. If mind was essentially the good, it was reasoned that matter was essentially the evil. The result was a strong antipathy to the Old Testament teachings that spoke of the creation of matter by God. The transcendent Gnostic God of pure thought could not possibly be conceived as having .anything to do with matter. He was too holy, majestic, and sublime to deal with mat ter. The outcome of this kind of philosophy was anti-Judaistic feeling, an attitude of contempt for the Jews and their Old Testament "materialistic" teachings.
We have but to read the epistles of Ignatius and Barnabas to see this sentiment on the part of the early church fathers. Nor was this anti-Judaistic feeling diminished by the proselyting success of Jewish missionaries, who spread their Judaistic doctrines throughout the ancient world—whose synagogues in early Christian times were spread from Britain in the West to beyond the Euphrates in the East.
Inevitable Clash With Sabbath
But what, it may be asked, has all this to do with the change of the Sabbath? It has much to do with it. "Through faith," Paul tells us in Romans 3:31, "we establish the law." The Hellenistic Gnostic stress on knowledge could tend only, as it did, to weaken the emphasis on faith. It could result only, as it did, in confidence in the reasoning of men, instead of confidence in and obedience to the command of God. As the Sabbath is the fourth commandment of the law, it is easy to see from this shifting of emphasis how the day was changed.
"And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power : that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Cor. 2 :1-5.
Greek Gnostic opposition to the Old Testament teachings and to the Old Testament God of creation, in its exaggerated championing of mind and reason and knowledge, would naturally bring it into clash with the seventh-day Sabbath, established as the memorial of creation. Denounce the Old Testament, and you of course denounce the particular and definite day the Old Testament law commands. Remove all idea of creation from the day of rest, and you have easily paved the way for the setting up of another day of worship and rest which has no connection with the creative work of God.
In this discussion I have attempted to do no more than briefly sketch some of the factors that brought about the change in the Sabbath. It is hoped the study may stimulate further research and investigation on the part of our workers in getting the full background of Sunday observance.
