quote:

---

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/29.106.html

Christianity Today, September 2003

Editor's Bookshelf: 'Normalizing' Jewish Believers
How should Christianity's Jewish heritage change how Gentiles relate to their faith?
Oskar Skarsaune, interviewed by David Neff | posted 09/15/2003

How should Gentile Christians relate to their faith differently in light of how profoundly our Jewish heritage shaped it?

Gentile Christians usually think about Gentile Christianity as the normative and normal type of Christian faith and practice. And accordingly we tend to think about the life and the practice of Jewish believers as something special, something that deviates from Christianity. Reading my book may serve to correct that perspective.

You say that many early Christians, despite some anti-Semitic remarks, had an essentially positive regard for things Jewish. How do we know that?

It's mainly an inference, but it is a very direct inference. For example, John Chrysostom says that members of his own Christian community socialized with Jews, visited Jews during their festivals, preferred the local rabbi to the local bishop in matters of marriage, taking of oaths and so on. So, it's quite direct evidence.

There are also some Christian editorial interpolations in Jewish works, such as the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, which are very direct in their hope for end-time restoration of Israel and the salvation of the Jewish people.

Before Constantine, Christian worship followed the synagogue pattern of word and prayer. After Constantine, the Temple pattern of priest and sacrifice became the norm. What did we lose in that transition?

We lost the priesthood of all believers. After Constantine, the ordained ministry served in a kind of intermediary function between Christ and his community. The immediacy of the priesthood of all believers was weakened before Constantine, but afterward, it gets lost.

The whole notion of the Eucharist as a sacrifice pushes in the same direction. Because if there is a sacrifice, there have to be priests bringing the sacrifice. And that is the business of the ordained ministry rather than the general priesthood of all believers.

You devote a number of pages to explaining why Christians worshiped on the First Day. You don't say much their attitude to the Seventh Day. Why?

Christians (and it seems Christians universally) celebrated the first day of the week as the day of the Resurrection. Jesus rising from the dead on the first day of the week was such a groundbreaking event, such a foundational event for belief in Jesus. And that novelty of the first day of the week being the most important day in the week arising in a Jewish context is in itself a very strong indication of the historical reality of the resurrection.

With regard to the Sabbath, we have to distinguish between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. The early Christians (both Jewish believers and Gentile believers) regarded the Sabbath as special for Israel. It was part of the national heritage of the Jewish people. Observance of Sabbath was rarely taken over by Gentile believers.

Remember also that they did not, in the beginning, transfer the Sabbath commandment to Sunday. That happened after Constantine, definitely.

So they celebrated Sunday as their day of worship while at the same time having Sunday as a normal workday. The inconvenience of that is another indication of how important the first day of the week actually was to them.

Why are you writing a history of Jewish believers in Jesus?

Basically because I was asked to do it by the Caspari Center in Jerusalem. They serve the messianic community in Israel. And they found out that no such history has ever been written on a large scale and in a connected fashion from the beginning until now. I accepted to do it because it interests me a lot.

What readership do you hope it will find?

I hope, of course, that Jewish believers themselves will find this interesting. As with all other believers, it is important to know one's heritage and to see that we are not something that came late in history. And for some periods of this history, the question of how earlier Jewish believers expressed their Jewish identity could be of great interest for Jewish believers today.

What insight do you gain from looking at church history from this angle?

When you look, for example, at a theological author in the first five centuries, more or less, it's always assumed that this author was a Gentile believer unless proved otherwise. The burden of proof is always on the scholar who claims that this could possibly be a Jewish believer.

I think we are going to, in some sense, normalize the Jewish believers as important members of the church and important contributors to church history.

Today some Jewish believers keep a very high Jewish profile and emphasize that they are Jewish. They bind together in messianic communities. At the same time, there are a lot of Jewish believers who are Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, so to speak, mainline church believers.

Our hunch is that this was very much the same situation in the old church. There may have been Jewish believers who were not making a big deal of their being Jewish and were simply members of mixed communities with both Jewish and Gentile believers.

We have this picture in the list of greetings of Paul in Romans 16. Obviously he is greeting some Jewish and many Gentile believers without making any distinction between them. They were probably living rather peacefully together in a mixed community. This category of Jewish believers is not very conspicuous precisely because they didn't wave their Jewish flags all the time.

Copyright © 2003 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
October 2003, Vol. 47, No. 10, Page 106



http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/29.106.html

---

• Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, on the original Structure of Christian Worship: Chapter 2 of Introduction to Liturgical Theology (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY; 2d ed. 1975) pp. 40-71; including "The Mystery of the Eighth Day". This latter section explains why the Church transcends the Sabbath (and why the Seventh Day Adventists and some 'messianic Jewish' movements preach a misunderstanding of the Sabbath).
  www.jbburnett.com/auctor/schmemann/schmemann_intro-2-origordo.pdf



• Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, "Theology and Eucharist": St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4, Winter 1961, pp. 10-23.
  www.jbburnett.com/auctor/schmemann/schmemann_euch&theol.pdf

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress

The whole Sabbath Day command has always confused me. Yes, it was a huge cultural aspect of Judaism, but since it is one of God's Ten Commandments, Gentile Christians are to observe it somehow, also. But, how are Gentile Christians supposed to observe it? Should we be stringent about not doing work like many Jewish sects do?

Gentile Christians usually worship God for about two, maybe three hours max on a Sunday morning (or Saturday night in some cases). What are we supposed to do with the rest of the day. The command requires a whole day devoted to God. Should we spend the whole day worshipping, praying, communing, fellowshipping, etc.? And NOT doing any work, i.e., housework, getting groceries, mowing the lawn, odd jobs around the house, etc.? Should we not watch or play sports or go to secular concerts and events, etc.? I mean, I don't believe God wants us to be all legalistic about it, but I wonder if we should be doing and not doing some of these things in order to truly obey this commandment in the spirit God intended.

---

• Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, on the original Structure of Christian Worship: Chapter 2 of Introduction to Liturgical Theology (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY; 2d ed. 1975) pp. 40-71; including "The Mystery of the Eighth Day". This latter section explains why the Church transcends the Sabbath (and why the Seventh Day Adventists and some 'messianic Jewish' movements preach a misunderstanding of the Sabbath).
  

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress

The whole Sabbath Day command has always confused me. Yes, it was a huge cultural aspect of Judaism, but since it is one of God's Ten Commandments, Gentile Christians are to observe it somehow, also. But, how are Gentile Christians supposed to observe it? Should we be stringent about not doing work like many Jewish sects do?

Gentile Christians usually worship God for about two, maybe three hours max on a Sunday morning (or Saturday night in some cases). What are we supposed to do with the rest of the day. The command requires a whole day devoted to God. Should we spend the whole day worshipping, praying, communing, fellowshipping, etc.? And NOT doing any work, i.e., housework, getting groceries, mowing the lawn, odd jobs around the house, etc.? Should we not watch or play sports or go to secular concerts and events, etc.? I mean, I don't believe God wants us to be all legalistic about it, but I wonder if we should be doing and not doing some of these things in order to truly obey this commandment in the spirit God intended.

---

That's what you would think. That Sunday was "the Christian Sabboth." BUT IT IS NOT!!!!

Sunday is the first day, but it is also very pointedly the EIGHTH DAY. That is, while it is in "this time" it is also where we can be confronted by the "time to come" (the eschaton). Sunday is the day of the Spirit--constituting the Church. Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox and Copts ALL pray that the Spirit make the bread and wine for us to be the Body and Blood of the God-man Jesus Christ. We are "born again, no longer fearing death -- we are citizens of a time to come. And ONE of us--Christ himself in our flesh--HAS attained it!!!!!!


A GREAT ESSAY ON THIS IS: www.jbburnett.com/auctor/schmemann/schmemann_intro-2-origordo.pdf

• Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, on the original Structure of Christian Worship: Chapter 2 of Introduction to Liturgical Theology (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY; 2d ed. 1975) pp. 40-71; including "The Mystery of the Eighth Day". This latter section explains why the Church transcends the Sabbath (and why the Seventh Day Adventists and some 'messianic Jewish' movements preach a misunderstanding of the Sabbath).
  

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress

Umm...I don't think you understood my question. Forget about what day the Sabbath should be on. Whether it's on a Saturday or a Sunday or any other day of the week is of no concern to me. What I'm asking is what we should and shouldn't do on that Sabbath day.

---

quote:

---

[On the mystery of the Eighth Day] <top>

For the early Church the Lord's Day was not a substitute for the sabbath; it was not (so to speak) its Christian equivalent. On the contrary the real nature and significance of this new day was defined in relation to the sabbath and to the concept of time connected with it. The key position of the sabbath (and all its related prescriptions) in the Old Testament law and Hebrew piety is well known. From whatever source the weekly cycle of time may have been acquired by Israel, its religious interpretation and experience was rooted in a specifically biblical theology of time. The Seventh Day, the day of complete rest, is a commemoration of the creation of the world, a participation in the rest of God after creation. This rest signifies and expresses the fullness, the completion, the 'goodness ' of the world, it is the eternal actualization of the word spoken about the world by God from the beginning: 'it is very good.' The sabbath sanctions the whole natural life of the world unfolding through the cycles of time, because it is the divinely instituted sign of the correspondence of the world to God's will and purpose. On this day the Law prescribes joy: 'thou shalt eat and drink and give thanks to Him who created all things,' since 'He who created all things honoured and sanctified the sabbath day and commanded that it should be so' (2 Macc. 15:2-4). Faithfulness to the sabbath was bound up with the ultimate mystical depths of the people of Israel, and only by understanding it as something for which men were prepared to die is it possible to comprehend the significance of the new day introduced by the Church.

The appearance of this new day is rooted in the expectation of salvation, in that striving toward the future and in those messianic hopes which were just as characteristic of the theology of the Old Covenant as the cult of the Law. If in the sabbath the Hebrew honours the Creator of the universe and His perfect Law, he knows too that within this world created by God hostile forces are rebelling against Him, that this world is spoiled by sin. The Law has been broken, man is sick, life is poisoned by sin. The time which is included in the weekly cycle is not only the time of a blessed and God-pleasing life, but also the time of a struggle between light and darkness, between God and all that has rebelled against Him. This is the time of the history of salvation which is founded in an eschatological. Realization– the Day of the Messiah. And again, no matter what may have been the original content and genesis of Hebrew Messianism and the apocalypticism connected with it, the important thing for us is that the time of the manifestation of Christianity coincided with the ultimate limit of intensity of these expectations, with their growth into a universal eschatological outlook. It was precisely in connection with or as a result of this eschatology that there arose the idea of the Lord's Day, the day of Messianic fulfilment, as the 'Eighth Day, 'overcoming' the week and leading outside of its boundaries.33 In the eschatological perspective of the struggle of God with 'the prince of this world' and the expectation of the new aeon, the week and its final unit– the sabbath– appear as signs of this fallen world, of the old aeon, of that which must be overcome with the advent of the Lord's Day. The Eighth Day is the day beyond the limits of the cycle outlined by the week and punctuated by the sabbath– this is the first day of the New Aeon, the figure of the time of the Messiah. 'And I have also established the eighth day,' we read in the book of Enoch, a characteristic example of late Hebrew apocalypticism, 'that the eighth day be the first after my creation, that in the beginning of the eighth (millennium) there be time without reckoning, everlasting, without years, months, weeks, days or hours.' The concept of the eighth day is connected with another idea characteristic of Jewish apocalypticism : the cosmic week of seven thousand years. Each week is thus a figure of all time, and all time, that is the whole of 'this age,' is one week. So then the eighth day and the eighth millennium are the beginning of the New Aeon not to be reckoned in time. This eighth day (coming after and standing outside the week) is also, therefore, the first day, the beginning of the world which has been saved and restored.

Christ rose not on the sabbath, but on the first day of the week (mia sabbaton). The sabbath was the day of His rest, His 'en-sabbathment' in the tomb, the day which completed His task within the limits of the 'old aeon.' But the new life, the life which had begun to 'shine out of the tomb,' began on the first day of the week. This was the first day, the beginning of the risen life over which 'death has no dominion.' This day also became the day of the Eucharist as the 'confession of His resurrection,' the day of the communication to the Church of this risen life.34 And here it is quite remarkable that in early Christianity, up to and including the time of Basil the Great, this day was often called in fact 'the eighth day.' This means that the symbolism of Hebrew apocalypticism was adopted by Christians and became one of the theological 'keys' to their liturgical consciousness. There is no need to dwell especially on the first epistle of Peter, in which there seems to be a hint of the significance of the number eight (3:20-1). In the Gospel according to John, undoubtedly the most 'liturgical' of all the Gospels, the risen Christ appears after eight days (John 20:26). Later the 'mystery' of the eighth day is explained by Christian authors in application to the Eucharistic Day of the Lord, which points to a dear tradition. These numerous texts on the eighth day have been collected by J. Danielou.35 Their meaning is clear: Christ rose on the first day, i.e. on the day of the beginning of creation, because He restores creation after sin. But this day which concludes the history of salvation, the day of victory over the forces of evil, is also the eighth day, since it is the beginning of the New Aeon. 'So the day which was first,' writes St. Augustine, 'will be also the eighth, so that the first life might not be done away, but rather made eternal.'36 And even more clearly St. Basil the Great writes: 'The Lord's Day is great and glorious. The Scripture knows this day without evening, having no other day, a day without end; the psalmist called it the eighth day, since it is outside of time measured in weeks. Whether you call it a day or an age, it is all the same. If you call it an aeon, it is one, and not a part of a whole....'37 In this way the eighth day 'is defined in opposition to the week,' writes J. Danielou. 'The week is related to time. The eighth day is outside time. The week stands within the sequence of days, the eighth day has nothing coming after it, it is the 'last one.' The week involves multiplicity; the eighth day is one...'38

In the Church this first-eighth day (the Lord's Day: kyriake hemera) is the day of the Eucharist. The early Christian tradition bears uniform witness to this fact. The Eucharist has its day, Christians gather together on a statu die39– on an established day. We know that the 'Day of the Sun' was not a holy day of rest in either the Jewish or the Roman calendars. Nonetheless the Eucharist 'became so firmly connected with this day that nothing has ever been able or will be able to undermine this connection.'40 But then this is the whole point: though the Eucharist is celebrated on a statu die, though it has its own day and thus reveals a connection with and is set in the framework of time, still this day is not simply 'one out of many.' Everything that has been said above about the first and eighth day shows that this connection of the Eucharist with time emphasizes the eschatological nature of the Eucharist, the manifestation in it of the Lord's Day, the New Aeon. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of the Church. It is the parousia, the presence of the Risen and Glorified Lord in the midst of 'His own,' those who in Him constitute the Church and are already 'not of this world' but partakers of the new life of the New Aeon. The day of the Eucharist is the day of die 'actualization' or manifestation in time of the Day of the Lord as the Kingdom of Christ. The early Church did not connect either the idea of repose or the idea of a natural cycle of work and rest with the Eucharistic Day of the Lord. Constantine established this connection with his sanction of the Christian Sunday. For the Church the Lord's Day is the joyful day of the Kingdom. The Lord's Day signifies for her not the substitution of one form of reckoning time by another, the replacement of Saturday by Sunday, but a break into the 'New Aeon,' a participation in a time that is by nature totally different.

In this connection of the Eucharist with the Lord's Day, so well supported by evidence from the liturgical tradition of the early Church, we have therefore a confirmation of that eschatological theology of time of which we have been speaking. The eschatology of the new Christian cult does not mean the renunciation of time. There would have been no need for a fixed day (statu die) in a 'wholly world-renouncing' cult, it could be celebrated on any day and at any hour. Nor does this eschatology become related to time through the sanctification of one of the days of the week, like the sabbath in the Old Testament law. The 'Lord's Day' actualized in the Eucharist was not 'one of the ordinary sequence of days.' just as the Church herself while existing in 'this world' manifests a life which is 'not of this world,' so also the 'Lord's Day,' while it is actualized within time on a given day, manifests within this sequence that which is above time and belongs to another aeon. Just as the Church though 'not of this world' is present in this world for its salvation, so also the Sacrament of the Lord's Day, the Sacrament of the new aeon is joined with time in order that time itself might become the time of the Church, the time of salvation. It is precisely this fulfilment of time by the 'Eschaton,' by that which overcomes time and is above it and bears witness to its finitude and limitedness, which constitutes the sanctification of time.

But if the connection of the Eucharist with a 'fixed day' and the nature of this day as the 'Lord's Day' point to a definite theology of time, and if they confirm our first hypothesis concerning the early Christian rule of prayer, they do not yet prove the existence in the early Church of what we have defined as the liturgy of time, i.e. of a form of worship distinct from the Sunday Eucharistic assembly and immediately connected with the natural cycles of time. We have already said that the opinions of historians differ as to the origin of this form of worship, which will occupy such a large place in the liturgical. life of the Church in the following epoch. We have also expressed our conviction that to the extent that the 'liturgical dualism' of Judeo-Christianity represented something essential and basic in the Church's faith, it had to be preserved in one form or another after Christianity's final break with Judaism. Are we now able to point out the facts which support this hypothesis?

Let us note first of all that the disagreements of historians on this point are to be explained frequently by an inadequate grasp of the question itself. Until quite recently the attention of liturgiologists has been concentrated almost exclusively on questions connected with the history of the sacramental Christian cult– the Eucharist and Baptism. The other aspects of the liturgical life of the early Church have been left in shadow. Their study is only just beginning: 'too many problems remain unresolved, too many hypotheses unproved.'41 From the purely historical point of view, therefore, every unconditional 'yes' or 'no' in this matter of the early existence of a Christian liturgy of time must be regarded as premature. Yet even on the basis of the material which has been gathered and studied so far the inadequacy of the hypothesis which insists on the late and specifically monastic origin of the liturgy of the daily cycle is becoming more and more evident. As we shall see shortly, the opinion concerning the post-Constantine origin of the idea of the 'yearly cycle' is also untenable.

We must be able to furnish unanimous evidence from pre-Nicene tests for the hours of prayer, for the connection of prayer with definite times of day. And in fact in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians we read: 'We must do all things in order . . . at fixed times ... not haphazardly and not without order, but at definite times and hours .'42 Three hours of prayer are indicated in the Didache,43 by Tertullian,44 by Cyprian of Carthage,45 by Origen,46 in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus.47 'We should pray in the early morning,' writes Cyprian, 'that by means of our morning prayer the resurrection of the Lord might be recalled; also at the setting of the sun and in the evening we should pray again....' The tradition of hours and times of prayer can certainly be accepted as a tradition common to the whole of the early Church. We know that some historians of worship explain this tradition as referring to private prayer rather than to prayer in the Church. But even this would indicate a definite interest in prayer within time, an understanding of time as the necessary 'framework' of prayer. Quite early we find a reference (in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus) to the theological significance of these hours and times. Therefore if we have nothing more in the tradition of the pre-Nicene Church than these prescriptions to say prayers at fixed hours, this would be enough to infer the subsequent development of the daily cycle of worship. Nor would this be a 'liturgical revolution,' but simply the development and ordering of the early tradition.

In fact we can go further. First, the texts which are usually used to defend the exclusively private nature of the prayer of hours and times very plainly show that this prayer could and actually did have an ecclesiological character, was offered in the assemblies of the community. Thus, in the Apostolic Tradition, immediately following the prescriptions to pray each morning, it is said : 'but if there is instruction by the word (catecizacio) let every one prefer to attend that, since when he has said prayer in the assembly, he will be able to avoid the evil of the day. 48 We do not know whether these assemblies with 'instruction by the word' and prayer were daily occurrences. But if we take into account the whole spirit and 'ethos' of the early Church, this prayer will have to be defined as 'ecclesio-centric,' having its basis in the experience of the assembly or communion of the ecclesia and at the same time being directed to this end.49 'Strive to be together as often as possible,' writes St. Ignatius of Antioch50; and St. Cyprian of Carthage echoes his words : 'The Lord of unity did not command that prayer be offered to Him individually and in private.'51 Origen,52 Tertullian,53 and others54 insist on the value of being 'together as often as possible,' in the assembly of common prayer and fellowship. We repeat that it is impossible to rnake categorical assertions about a regular daily worship on the basis of these texts alone. But they do point, first of all, to a firm tradition of times of prayer in the early Church, and second, to the existence of assemblies (although perhaps not in all places) devoted to prayer and sermons. Finally, they point to the acceptance of this prayer of the Church as something necessary, and indeed superior to private prayer. They point therefore to the inclusion of this form of worship in the lex orandi of the Church.

Comparative liturgics, whose principles and method were developed so brilliantly by Baumstark, has delivered an even more serious blow to the hypothesis of the monastic origin of the daily cycle. This study has shown that the epoch of the development of the daily cycle after Constantine was marked by a rivalry and even conflict between two types of daily service: 'corporate' and 'monastic' in Baumstark's terminology. We will have occasion to dwell on this rivalry in greater detail in the following chapter. Here it is sufficient to say that this fact clearly demonstrates the preservation in the Church of daily services and a daily cycle which were not only distinct from their monastic types, but even appeared before the rise of monasticism. But what is still more important, there can be no doubt about the connection between the daily services of the 'corporate type with synagogue worship, about their structural dependency on Jewish daily worship. C. W. Dugmore devoted a special work to die study of this dependency, and has demonstrated the synagogical structure of the two basic services of the daily cycle– Vespers and Matins. On the days when the Eucharist was celebrated the daily service (on the pattern of the synagogue worship) preceded the Eucharist, as its first part (missa catechumenorum), while on other days it constituted an independent service, assigned usually to definite hours of the day.55 In the third century, as is evident even from the very partial texts which reflect this epoch, Vespers and Matins 'already occupied their present honoured position in the cycle of daffy services.'56 The existence of these daily services, devoted (according to Tertullian) 'to common prayer... to the reading of Divine Scripture, to exhortations and instructions,' explains the cause and manner of combining the synagogue 'synaxis' with the Eucharist. Srawley's answer– 'it just happened'– acquires greater significance.

In any case the universal acceptance in all Ordos of the cycle of Vespers and Matins as liturgical services, i.e. as presupposing an assembly of the Church (cf. the participation in these services of the bishop, the presbyters and deacons, in the Apostolic Constitution), and consequently as existing apart from the purely monastic services (Compline, etc.), confirms the theory that they belong to the Church's liturgical tradition, to the Church's lex orandi, The clearly synagogical elements which have been preserved in them even down to the present day– in spite of extensive monastic reworking– also point to their early inclusion in this lex orandi.

So then the liturgy of time which we saw already embodied and expressed in the liturgical dualism of Judeo-Christianity, and later in the cycle of the eschatological 'Day of the Lord,' is also confirmed by the preservation by the 'Gentile Church' of the worship of the daily cycle. From the very beginning the Church's liturgical tradition included the idea of the day as a liturgical unit, in which definite hours and times– evening, morning and night– should be devoted to prayer; and not just to private prayer, but also to prayer in the Church. It may be supposed that not all believers had the opportunity to gather twice each day, and that from the beginning it was a minority which participated in these services. Tertullian's distinction between coetus and congregationes is possibly a reference to this situation; also the exhortations to attend these assemblies which we find, for example, in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the Order, But this does not alter the ecclesiological, liturgical character of these services. The Church is praying 'in order to surround God with common prayers as with an army, gathered together in a single place....'57 This idea of the praying Church, ecclesia orans, clearly corresponds to the whole spirit of early Christian ecclesiology, to the liturgical piety of the pre-Nicene Church.

---

quote:

---

Christ rose not on the sabbath, but on the first day of the week (mia sabbaton). The sabbath was the day of His rest, His 'en-sabbathment' in the tomb, the day which completed His task within the limits of the 'old aeon.' But the new life, the life which had begun to 'shine out of the tomb,' began on the first day of the week. This was the first day, the beginning of the risen life over which 'death has no dominion.' This day also became the day of the Eucharist as the 'confession of His resurrection,' the day of the communication to the Church of this risen life.34 And here it is quite remarkable that in early Christianity, up to and including the time of Basil the Great, this day was often called in fact 'the eighth day.' This means that the symbolism of Hebrew apocalypticism was adopted by Christians and became one of the theological 'keys' to their liturgical consciousness. There is no need to dwell especially on the first epistle of Peter, in which there seems to be a hint of the significance of the number eight (3:20-1). In the Gospel according to John, undoubtedly the most 'liturgical' of all the Gospels, the risen Christ appears after eight days (John 20:26). Later the 'mystery' of the eighth day is explained by Christian authors in application to the Eucharistic Day of the Lord, which points to a dear tradition. These numerous texts on the eighth day have been collected by J. Danielou.35 Their meaning is clear: Christ rose on the first day, i.e. on the day of the beginning of creation, because He restores creation after sin. But this day which concludes the history of salvation, the day of victory over the forces of evil, is also the eighth day, since it is the beginning of the New Aeon. 'So the day which was first,' writes St. Augustine, 'will be also the eighth, so that the first life might not be done away, but rather made eternal.'36 And even more clearly St. Basil the Great writes: 'The Lord's Day is great and glorious. The Scripture knows this day without evening, having no other day, a day without end; the psalmist called it the eighth day, since it is outside of time measured in weeks. Whether you call it a day or an age, it is all the same. If you call it an aeon, it is one, and not a part of a whole....'37 In this way the eighth day 'is defined in opposition to the week,' writes J. Danielou. 'The week is related to time. The eighth day is outside time. The week stands within the sequence of days, the eighth day has nothing coming after it, it is the 'last one.' The week involves multiplicity; the eighth day is one...'38

---

quote:

---

For the early Church the Lord's Day was not a substitute for the sabbath; it was not (so to speak) its Christian equivalent. On the contrary the real nature and significance of this new day was defined in relation to the sabbath and to the concept of time connected with it. The key position of the sabbath (and all its related prescriptions) in the Old Testament law and Hebrew piety is well known. From whatever source the weekly cycle of time may have been acquired by Israel, its religious interpretation and experience was rooted in a specifically biblical theology of time. The Seventh Day, the day of complete rest, is a commemoration of the creation of the world, a participation in the rest of God after creation. This rest signifies and expresses the fullness, the completion, the 'goodness ' of the world, it is the eternal actualization of the word spoken about the world by God from the beginning: 'it is very good.' The sabbath sanctions the whole natural life of the world unfolding through the cycles of time, because it is the divinely instituted sign of the correspondence of the world to God's will and purpose. On this day the Law prescribes joy: 'thou shalt eat and drink and give thanks to Him who created all things,' since 'He who created all things honoured and sanctified the sabbath day and commanded that it should be so' (2 Macc. 15:2-4). Faithfulness to the sabbath was bound up with the ultimate mystical depths of the people of Israel, and only by understanding it as something for which men were prepared to die is it possible to comprehend the significance of the new day introduced by the Church.

---

quote:

---

The appearance of this new day is rooted in the expectation of salvation, in that striving toward the future and in those messianic hopes which were just as characteristic of the theology of the Old Covenant as the cult of the Law. If in the sabbath the Hebrew honours the Creator of the universe and His perfect Law, he knows too that within this world created by God hostile forces are rebelling against Him, that this world is spoiled by sin. The Law has been broken, man is sick, life is poisoned by sin. The time which is included in the weekly cycle is not only the time of a blessed and God-pleasing life, but also the time of a struggle between light and darkness, between God and all that has rebelled against Him. This is the time of the history of salvation which is founded in an eschatological. Realization– the Day of the Messiah. And again, no matter what may have been the original content and genesis of Hebrew Messianism and the apocalypticism connected with it, the important thing for us is that the time of the manifestation of Christianity coincided with the ultimate limit of intensity of these expectations, with their growth into a universal eschatological outlook. It was precisely in connection with or as a result of this eschatology that there arose the idea of the Lord's Day, the day of Messianic fulfilment, as the 'Eighth Day, 'overcoming' the week and leading outside of its boundaries.33 In the eschatological perspective of the struggle of God with 'the prince of this world' and the expectation of the new aeon, the week and its final unit– the sabbath– appear as signs of this fallen world, of the old aeon, of that which must be overcome with the advent of the Lord's Day. The Eighth Day is the day beyond the limits of the cycle outlined by the week and punctuated by the sabbath– this is the first day of the New Aeon, the figure of the time of the Messiah. 'And I have also established the eighth day,' we read in the book of Enoch, a characteristic example of late Hebrew apocalypticism, 'that the eighth day be the first after my creation, that in the beginning of the eighth (millennium) there be time without reckoning, everlasting, without years, months, weeks, days or hours.' The concept of the eighth day is connected with another idea characteristic of Jewish apocalypticism : the cosmic week of seven thousand years. Each week is thus a figure of all time, and all time, that is the whole of 'this age,' is one week. So then the eighth day and the eighth millennium are the beginning of the New Aeon not to be reckoned in time. This eighth day (coming after and standing outside the week) is also, therefore, the first day, the beginning of the world which has been saved and restored.

---