Sunday, the First Day of the Week a Myth?

Does the word myth bother you? The Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary defines myth in this way:

1. a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
b: parable, allegory

2. a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
b: an unfounded or false notion

3. a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence4: the whole body of myths

It is the second definition that I want to concentrate on.

The idea that the first day of the week in the first century was Sunday is a popular belief that has grown up around the idea that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday morning and hence became the reason for the Church's meeting on Sunday in celebration of this event. But this is an unfounded notion.

We could also classify the Sunday morning resurrection of Jesus in the category of myth. NOT THE RESURRECTION ITSELF, JUST THE TRADITIONAL TIME OF THE EVENT. The Scriptures nowhere mention, or even hint that it was Sunday when this resurrection event occurred. Stop and listen, do you hear the crowds coming with their torches and pitchforks? You may say, "The Bible says that he rose on the morning of the first day of the week. If that isn't clear enough, then what is?"

My response would be, "Where?". What the Bible does declare is that the morning of the first day of the week was the time of discovering that the tomb was empty. Actually, Jesus was raised from the dead on the first day of the week, but not in the morning, not on Sunday, but actually rose from the dead at the end of the weekly Sabbath. According to the Jewish calendar, when the Sabbath ended, the Jewish first day of the week began. The beginning of the Jewish day was sunset, not sunrise.

I know that seems to make his time in the tomb even shorter that it already was. But not really. That only holds true if you still buy into the Friday to Sunday scenario. Let me explode another myth here. The crucifixion did not occur on a Friday, but a Wednesday. According to the Jewish calendar, Passover in the year of Jesus' death (A.D.30) would have been observed on a Tuesday night. This is not a debatable opinion, but fact.

I can hear the questions swirling around in your head. The problem we have with these issues, is that we are dealing with a myth, built upon a myth, upon another myth. It is like when you tell one lie, then you have to invent another lie to cover the first lie, and on and on you go, building a whole reality based on lies.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves just a bit. Allow me at this point to cut to the chase. Our problem here is the practice of eisegesis. You say, "WHAT?" Eisegesis is a Greek phrase meaning, to read into. We are reading back (eisegesis) into this phrase of "first day of the week" a meaning that was not in existence at the time. We are assuming a meaning for a first century idea, that in reality didn't come into existence until much later. We should be practicing exegesis. Exegesis means, to read out of. We should read out of the text what is there, instead of reading into the text what is not there.

For those that may need a refresher, allow me to restate some basic truths here.

• Jesus and his disciples were Jewish.
• The culture in which they lived was Jewish.
• All of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish, except for one (Luke).
• The recipients of their writings were Jews and those Gentiles who had been engrafted into this Jewish expression of Faith (see Rom. 9-11).

So having stated this, what we have is Jewish believers writing to Jewish believers and those Gentiles who had believed upon Jesus as the promised Messiah. In the first century, what we now call Christianity was still a very Judaic faith and was considered a sect of Judaism. The split between the Messianics (Christians) and the Rabbinics (Pharisaic Judaism) did not happen until after the second Jewish revolt against Rome in A.D. 135.

What we are dealing with today is centuries of anti-Jewish attitudes within the Church and a centuries-long program to eradicate any semblance of its Hebraic roots.

In the first century and as it is today, the Jewish weekly calendar consisted of seven days. Of those seven days, only one had an actual name, Shabbat (Sabbath). The other six days were counted by their relationship to this one day. (The original language phrases for first day of the week in Greek is mia sabbaton and in Hebrew is echad shabbat.)

What will help in our understanding of this, is to recognize that the word, Shabbat (Sabbath), also had the meaning of 'week'. So when we read the phrase "first day of the week" in the Bible, it is actually saying, first of the sabbath cycle. The second day of the week would be called, second of the sabbath cycle and on through the rest of the week. The Jewish weekly calendar knew nothing of the named days of the week as we know them now. It is this Jewish calendar that the Biblical record is based upon, not the Roman one.

But let's consider for the sake of argument this question. "What if they were using the Roman calendar, instead of the Jewish calendar?".

It is a little known fact, that the Romans first adopted the seven-day week in the first century and that they borrowed it not from the Jews, but from the Egyptians. Some sources place this adoption of the seven-day week around the mid-first century. But whether it was in the mid-first century or earlier in the first century, is of little consequence to our purposes here.

What is of importance is that this weekly calendar that the Romans borrowed from the Egyptians, did not have Sunday as the first day of the week. In this first century Roman calendar, Saturn's Day was the first day of the week, followed by the Sun's Day.

The Scriptures require that evidence be established by the mouth of two or three witnesses. So here are 2-3 witnesses to the fact that Saturday was the first day of the week in the Roman calendar, not Sunday.

The early Romans, who developed and made popular the Julian calendar, used Saturday as the first day of the week. As the worshiping of the Sun increased, the Sun's day (Sunday) advanced from position of the second day to the first day of the week (and Saturday became the seventh day). It was not until Christianity took hold throughout Europe that most calendars marked Sunday as the first day of the week. [resource]

Another witness tells us,

The names of the days are in some cases derived from Teutonic deities or, such as in Romance languages, from Roman deities. The early Romans, around the first century, used Saturday as the first day of the week. As the worshiping of the Sun increased, the Sun's day (Sunday) advanced from position of the second day to the first day of the week (and Saturday became the seventh day). [resource]

And a third witness testifies,

A second century change in the Roman calendar also suggests the influence of Sun worship on the Christian choice of Sunday as the new Sabbath. The seven-day week was first adopted by the Roman Empire in the first century A.D. At that time the days of the week were named after the planets (as they still are). Saturn's day (Saturday) was originally the first day of the week. The Sun's day (Sunday) was originally the second day of the week. Under the influence of Sun worship, however, a change occurred in the second century: the Sun's day became the first day of the week, the most honored position. [Bacchiocchi, Samuel, "How It Came About: From Sabbath to Sunday", Biblical Archeology Review, (Sept.-Oct., 1978), 39.]

There is more to be said about this topic and others inside my latest book, Redigging The Wells Of Our Fathers. Inside, I uncover the original wells from which the First Century Church drank from, only to be covered over by the later Church Fathers and Church councils. To give you an idea what I investigate and uncover in this potentially explosive book, here are some of the chapter titles:

• * Brief Historical Overview - I trace the history and the causes of why Christianity was kicked out of Judaism and why Christianity began to distance itself from its Judaic roots.
• * A New Day - In this chapter I deal with what I have covered in part in the above article.
• * A Sunday Resurrection? - I show how when Jesus said He would be in the grave for 3 days and nights, He meant just that. No matter how you slice it or what mathematics you use, a Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is not 3 days and nights and never will be. I show how the Scriptures demonstrate that Jesus was in the grave exactly 3 days and 3 nights according to the Jewish calendar.
• * A New Administration - The Church has moved away from the original design of leadership that Jesus established and ordered. We have instituted exactly the kind of heirarchial domination that Jesus specially warned against. Learn what Jesus originally intended instead of what you are made to serve under.
• * A New Theology - The early Church Fathers and councils had a difficult time understanding the concept of the relationship of God and His Messiah. So they fell back on the only basis for which they had to understand, a Platonic world-view. I will uncover what was the First Century Hebraic understanding of the relationship of God and His Messiah. It is this theology that the New Testament is based upon, not the later councils of men.
• * Jesus, Our Covenant Man - This chapter shows how the whole of our relationship to God is based upon who Jesus is and what he did on the cross. It reveals who the New Covenant is really with.
• * And there is more - The Prophetic Apostasy - Dating The Passover of His Passion - The Image of God - Constantine's Easter Letter - Apostle/Shelka.

This 168 page book is full of information that is necessary for any serious student of the Bible. As I have said before, "Tradition must be challenged. If it stands up to investigated truth, then so be it; if not, then it must be tossed aside, and the true put back in its rightful place."

Redigging the Wells of our Fathers is not a book you can read through just once. The first time you read it, you won't be able to put it down because you will be wondering, "What else have I been misinformed about by the church?" So you will want to do the first read-through just to get an overview of the scope of the book. Then the second time you can spend more time really thinking about what Larry is saying. This book requires a lot of thought and careful consideration. You will return to it again and again. And those are the best kinds of books--the ones who become like old friends.

While reading this book, I found myself experiencing the gamut of emotions: relief, frustration, anger, joy, and vindication. Several times I thought, "I knew it! I knew something was wrong. I just didn't know what to do about it." Larry covers a lot of ground--the Jewish roots of our faith, the schemes and abuses of the church through its history, the true body of Christ, the real meaning of the Passover, and more.

But the most remarkable thing about this book is Larry's explanation of the New Covanant. I had been brought up in the faith, studied the Bible conscientiously throughout my adult years, and considered carefully the fundamental teachings and claims of Christ. But never before reading Larry's book had I heard the New Covenant explained so beautifully. That chapter alone is worth the price of the book. Thank you, Larry!

Jody Stephenson, Author of Faltering Toward Perfection

---

This is an excellent book for any serious theological student. The historical research concerning the subject of the development of church doctrine (or the departure from the jewish roots), is precise, concise, and to the point, just like I like to study. I would recommend this book to biblical colleges and seminaries for subject matter study or extra reading.

I believe this book could be an aid in helping to complete the Reformation started by Martin Luther. It also is scriptural in the sense of Isaiah 58's promise of "rebuilding the old waste places". "My people perish for the lack of knowledge" - we need truth and knowledge like this book offers! There is so much meat of truth in this book I have to read a while, digest, and come back for more. This book will be a reference book for my library that I know I will use continually. Well done Larry.

Delbert Cronister, Associate Pastor Crescent Assembly of God.

---

Order Redigging The Wells Of Our Fathers Today ($14.95 Paperback / $10.00 PDF Download) You may read excerpts from my book at www.rediggingthewells.com