Constantine, Sol, and the Sabbath

[mrphilosophias]

I Was doing research on Sol yesterday and learned that Constantine passed a law which made Sunday the day of rest, as opposed to Saturday. Can someone please explain this to me. Thanks!

 

[tabycat]

Constantine did not change the day from Satureday to Sunday, it was the Catholic Church that did. In Acts and Paul’s Letters both mention gathering on the first day of the week.

 

[ahs]

I Was doing research on Sol yesterday and learned that…

Before finishing the rest of the sentence, one must consider the source and its reliability and credibility. What was the source?

Tabycat is pointing you to a source which is believed by ALL Christians to be reliable…the Bible…which directly contradicts what you “learned” form the other source. 'Nuff said.

 

[1ke]

I Was doing research on Sol yesterday and learned that Constantine passed a law which made Sunday the day of rest, as opposed to Saturday. Can someone please explain this to me. Thanks!

I am not really sure what your question is.

Saturday was never a day of rest in the Roman Empire. So I don’t believe he could have made Sunday a day of rest “instead of” Saturday. Romans had many festival days, but I do not know if they had a specific weekly day of rest until much later in the Empire when the Christian day of worship entered into the secular rhythm of time and business.

 

[Farsight001]

I Was doing research on Sol yesterday and learned that Constantine passed a law which made Sunday the day of rest, as opposed to Saturday. Can someone please explain this to me. Thanks!

I’ve heard it before. Its a myth. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. Also, don’t call it research. Research is quite a bit more intensive than that.

 

[sharpag]

Constantine did officially make Sunday a day in which no official business could be conducted. This was related to both the cult of Sol Invictus and Christianity as Sunday was often associated as both Sol’s day (literally Sun-day) and the Lord’s day. I did a research project on Constantine’s Triumphal Arch built after Milvian Bridge and part of my research touched on this issue. Christians were beginning to talk about Christ in a way that would appeal to pagans and the idea of a head god associated with the sun. Ambrose of Milan went so far as to call Christ, “our new sun.” It was a move that would appeal to both Christians and to pagans.

Did Constantine make Sunday the Christian Sabbath as opposed to Saturday? He did not make it the sabbath at all but merely a pan-holy day in which no official business was to be conducted. Christians began to worship on Sundays as the religion was beginning to sever its ties to Judaism. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (which keeps some Jewish customs) still maintains Saturday as a holy day and still conducts religious ceremonies on Saturday as well as Sunday. Generally speaking the move of worshiping on Sunday and not Saturday has more to do with Pauline theology than with anything Constantine did.

 

[mrphilosophias]

Constantine did officially make Sunday a day in which no official business could be conducted. This was related to both the cult of Sol Invictus and Christianity as Sunday was often associated as both Sol’s day (literally Sun-day) and the Lord’s day. I did a research project on Constantine’s Triumphal Arch built after Milvian Bridge and part of my research touched on this issue. Christians were beginning to talk about Christ in a way that would appeal to pagans and the idea of a head god associated with the sun. Ambrose of Milan went so far as to call Christ, “our new sun.” It was a move that would appeal to both Christians and to pagans.

Did Constantine make Sunday the Christian Sabbath as opposed to Saturday? He did not make it the sabbath at all but merely a pan-holy day in which no official business was to be conducted. Christians began to worship on Sundays as the religion was beginning to sever its ties to Judaism. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (which keeps some Jewish customs) still maintains Saturday as a holy day and still conducts religious ceremonies on Saturday as well as Sunday. Generally speaking the move of worshiping on Sunday and not Saturday has more to do with Pauline theology than with anything Constantine did.

This clarifies things for me-thank you!

 

[mrphilosophias]

I was researching Sol Invictus specifically when I came across this information initially.

This is from Wikipedia(Sol Invictus):

On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.

I guess I am conflating Constantine being a Catholic Emperor with this being a religious decree. Furthermore I am conflating this point with the question why we celebrate the Lords day as opposed to the Sabbath as instructed in the 10 commandments, and by the Lord. I will look into this some more, and maybe make another thread about why we celebrate the Lords day(Sunday) as the Sabbath instead of Saturday.

With that aside, my true concern, which I did not spell out in the original post, is that Constantine was advocating idolatry with his praise and association with Sol Invictus in addition to our Lord, by associating Sol Invictus with the Lord’s day. Not only this but the coinage which bore his image continued to be associated with Sol until 326-well after his conversion experience. Furthermore his patronage to Sol in artwork and architecture also raises suspicion of idolatry in my mind.

Some have suggested this was an act of evangelization or diplomacy - a way to reach out to the pagans and perhaps baptize their ‘false god’ thus giving their mythos new meaning in Christ, or give pagans and Christians a sort of common foundation to ameliorate socio-religious tension. Something doesn’t make sense about this story however, because I don’t think the word Son & Sun (Sol) are homophones in Greek or Latin, and doesn’t God consider Sun worship to be an abominable practice?

Ezekiel 8:3 NAB
1 Spirit lifted me up in the air and brought me in divine visions to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the north gate, where stood the statue of jealousy which stirs up jealousy.
5
2 He said to me: Son of man, look toward the north! I looked toward the north and saw northward of the gate the altar of the statue of jealousy.
6
Son of man, he asked me, do you see what they are doing? Do you see the great abominations that the house of Israel is practicing here, so that I must depart from my sanctuary? But you shall see still greater abominations!
7
Then he brought me to the entrance of the court, where I saw there was a hole in the wall.
8
Son of man, he ordered, dig through the wall. I dug through the wall and saw a door.
9
Enter, he said to me, and see the abominable evils which they are doing here.
10
3 I entered and saw that all around upon the wall were pictured the figures of all kinds of creeping things and loathsome beasts (all the idols of the house of Israel).
11
Before these stood seventy of the elders of the house of Israel, among whom stood Jaazaniah, son of Shaphan, each of them with his censer in his hand, and the fragrance of the incense was rising upward.
12
Then he said to me: Do you see, son of man, what each of these elders of the house of Israel is doing in his idol room? They think: “The LORD cannot see us; the LORD has forsaken the land.”
13
He continued: You shall see still greater abominations that they are practicing.
14
4 Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the temple, and I saw sitting there the women who were weeping for Tammuz.
15
Then he said to me: Do you see this, son of man? You shall see other abominations, greater than these!
16
5 Then he brought me into the inner court of the LORD’S house, and there at the door of the LORD’S temple, between the vestibule and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the LORD’S temple and their faces toward the east; they were bowing down to the sun.

By the Church honoring Constantine are we not in effect approving those works which he did officially? Was the homage that Constantine paid to Sol through coin, decree, and art idolatry? Wouldn’t this constitute a grave sin? It doesn’t seem like action befitting a man whom I had always been led to believe was a hero in the annuls of Church history.

And I must admit I was a bit offended by Farsight, but in all fairness I guess my question was a little ambiguous. Be assured I do my research, and please don’t just dismiss this as myth, because from what I gather it isn’t.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to answer. I’m really interested in learning how the Greek or Roman words became conflated as homophones…

 

[ahs]

I think you are arguing “guilt by similarity”. First, Christians began worship on Sunday in the first century…immediately when Christianity began. Fast forward nearly 300 years to Constantine and he declares no work on this day. If you have studied Constantine, then you know he was sympathetic to Christian worhship at the very least. He ended persecution which was leading to the martyrdom of many Christians. And so now he says their day of worship is a day of rest, and coinicidentally it is also a day of rest and worhsip for pagans. Does this make Christians guilty of idolatry because we worship on the same day?

Was God guilty of paganism for making the manna round, like the sun…similar to “Sol”? Is God guilty of paganism for having Moses erect a statue of a serpant in the desert, or allowing the statues to stand in Solomon’s Temple, even though the pagans worshiped statues? Are modern day Christians guilty of paganism for using wedding rings in our Marriage cermonies like the pagans did? Are Christmas trees a form of pagan worship since pagans worshiped trees? Or, if you want to take it to its ridiculous conclusion, since pagans worshiped with water ritual, was water baptism a form of pagan worship for John the Baptist…and did Christ allow this pagan rite when His Apostels Baptized? Are we guilty of water-worship when we take a bath?

By the Church honoring Constantine are we not in effect approving those works which he did officially?

No…we simply are not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. By looking to Peter as the first among the Apostels, are we approving his rejection of Christ priot to the Crucifixion? No, we are simply separating out the good from the bad and honoring the good.

 

[pablope]

I was researching Sol Invictus specifically when I came across this information initially.

This is from Wikipedia(Sol Invictus):

I guess I am conflating Constantine being a Catholic Emperor with this being a religious decree. Furthermore I am conflating this point with the question why we celebrate the Lords day as opposed to the Sabbath as instructed in the 10 commandments, and by the Lord. I will look into this some more, and maybe make another thread about why we celebrate the Lords day(Sunday) as the Sabbath instead of Saturday.

With that aside, my true concern, which I did not spell out in the original post, is that Constantine was advocating idolatry with his praise and association with Sol Invictus in addition to our Lord, by associating Sol Invictus with the Lord’s day. Not only this but the coinage which bore his image continued to be associated with Sol until 326-well after his conversion experience. Furthermore his patronage to Sol in artwork and architecture also raises suspicion of idolatry in my mind.

And I must admit I was a bit offended by Farsight, but in all fairness I guess my question was a little ambiguous. Be assured I do my research, and please don’t just dismiss this as myth, because from what I gather it isn’t.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to answer. I’m really interested in learning how the Greek or Roman words became conflated as homophones…

Perhaps…you should read this book:

newprotestants.com/2babylons.htm

ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html

        As Christians, we don’t reject prayer just because pagans pray to their gods. We don’t reject water baptism just because ancient tribes plunged into water as a religious ritual. We don’t reject the Bible just because pagans believe their writings are holy or sacred.

        The Bible mentions things like kneeling in prayer, raising hands, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in the temple, pillars in front of the temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, cities of refuge, bring forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horsed of fire, and the offering of first fruits. Yet, at one time or another, similar things were known among pagans. Does this make the Bible pagan? Of course not!

**If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 78:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14) Pagans worshipped the sun; the Lord is called the “Sun of Righteousness” (Mal. 4:2), Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshipped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13:21-22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).**Hislop says, for example, that the “round” wafer used in the Roman Catholic mass came from Egyptian paganism. For this he cites a statement in Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians (vol. 5, 353,365) about the use of thin round cakes on their altars. When I checked Wilkinson’s work, however, he also said the Egyptians used oval and triangular cakes; folded cakes; cakes shaped like leaves, animals, and a crocodile’s head; and so on. Hislop failed to even mention this.

        While condemning round communion wafers as images of the sun-god Baal, Hislop fails to mention that the very manna given by the Lord was round. "Upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing…And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat" (Exod. 16:14-15, KJV, emphasis added). round is not necessarily pagan.

        Hislop taught that Tammuz (whom he says was Nimrod) was born on December 25, and this is the origin of the date on which Christmas is observed. Yet his supposed proof for this is taken out of context. Having taught that Isis and her infant son Horus were the Egyptian version of Semiramis and her son Tammuz he cites a reference that the son of Isis was born "about the time of the winter solstice." When we actually look up the reference he gives for this (Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, vol. 4, 405), the son of Isis who was born "about the time of the winter solstice was not Horus, her older son, but Harpocrates. The reference also explains this was a premature birth, causing him to be lame, and that the Egyptians celebrated the feast of his mother’s delivery in spring. Taken in context, this has nothing to do with a December celebration or with Christmas as it is known today.

        In another appeal to Wilkinson, Hislop says that a Lent of 40 days was observed in Egypt. But when we look up the reference, Wilkinson says Egyptian fasts "lasted for seven to forty-two days, and sometimes even a longer period: during which time they abstained entirely from animal food, from herbs and vegetables, and above all from the indulgence of the passions" (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians vol. 1, 278) with as much credibility, we could say they fasted 7 days, 10 days, 12 days, or 42 days. Hislop’s claim appears to have validity only because he used partial information.

        If we based claims on partial information, we could even prove from the Bible there is not God: "…’There is no God’" (Ps. 14:1). When the entire statement is read, however, it has a different meaning: "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’"

 

[mrphilosophias]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. The historical record seems to indicate that Constantine was fond of associating himself with Sol Invictus, and honoring Sol on money, with holidays, and with artwork. This happened after his conversion in 313(?). I am not simply conflating similarities or coincidences between pagan ideas and practices and those of the early Christian, but pointing to what seems to be clear decrees and homages to this idol Sol, and asking- why is this not considered pagan idolatry, and if he was an idolater, then why is he held in such high regard in the tradition of the Church? We do owe him much that he made it legal to be a Christian and stopped the official persecution of our brethren, so this is to his credit. However, should we simply turn a blind eye to the fact that Constantine seemed to be fond of honoring idols?

 

[ahs]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. The historical record seems to indicate that Constantine was fond of associating himself with Sol Invictus, and honoring Sol on money, with holidays, and with artwork. This happened after his conversion in 313(?).

If he kept doing those things, and those things are signs of pagan worship, is it proper to say he converted?

I am not simply conflating similarities or coincidences between pagan ideas and practices and those of the early Christian, but pointing to what seems to be clear decrees and homages to this idol Sol, and asking- why is this not considered pagan idolatry, and if he was an idolater, then why is he held in such high regard in the tradition of the Church?

Do you think that we cannot praise his action of protecting Christian worhsip because he himself held pagan practices?

We do owe him much that he made it legal to be a Christian and stopped the official persecution of our brethren, so this is to his credit. However, should we simply turn a blind eye to the fact that Constantine seemed to be fond of honoring idols?

Who has turned a blind eye? Has the Church ever said that it is okay for Constantine to worship idols? To my knowledge, the Church never stated such and has never changed its Doctrine on false worship.

 

[mrphilosophias]

from what I understand he is considered a saint in the Byzantine Church.

 

[sharpag]

If he kept doing those things, and those things are signs of pagan worship, is it proper to say he converted?

He may not have officially converted until just before his death when he was baptized by the Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicodemia. There are a couple of reasons or possibilities as to why this happened and a definitive answer is unlikely. First, the issue of what to do when someone had sinned after baptism had not been resolved. Certain members of the Church felt that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. So many people often put off their baptism until they were deathly ill. This makes the exact date of Constantine’s conversion rather difficult. The vision of the Chi Rho before the battle of Milvian Bridge is often referred to as the time of his conversion. However, Constantine then built his triumphal arch with pagan images and images of Sol in particular. When I was researching this arch I argued that the inscription and the manner in which the images were used signaled a shift for Constantine by which he was beginning to associate with a Stoic conception of Sol that he could later use to claim he had always been Christian after Milvian Bridge in spite of the pagan images.

Constantine probably converted to Christianity as an Arian. It makes sense when one considers he was probably Henotheistic (belief in a Supreme God with lesser divinities) regarding his worship of Sol. Roman Emperors had also viewed themselves as divine to a certain degree.

Constantine became a Christian when Christianity was beginning to define what it meant to be Christian. We should thank Constantine for calling the Council of Nicaea but realize like most Saints he was not perfect and may have harbored pagan or Arian tendencies at times.

 

[mrphilosophias]

He may not have officially converted until just before his death when he was baptized by the Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicodemia. There are a couple of reasons or possibilities as to why this happened and a definitive answer is unlikely. First, the issue of what to do when someone had sinned after baptism had not been resolved. Certain members of the Church felt that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. So many people often put off their baptism until they were deathly ill. This makes the exact date of Constantine’s conversion rather difficult. The vision of the Chi Rho before the battle of Milvian Bridge is often referred to as the time of his conversion. However, Constantine then built his triumphal arch with pagan images and images of Sol in particular. When I was researching this arch I argued that the inscription and the manner in which the images were used signaled a shift for Constantine by which he was beginning to associate with a Stoic conception of Sol that he could later use to claim he had always been Christian after Milvian Bridge in spite of the pagan images.

Constantine probably converted to Christianity as an Arian. It makes sense when one considers he was probably Henotheistic (belief in a Supreme God with lesser divinities) regarding his worship of Sol. Roman Emperors had also viewed themselves as divine to a certain degree.

Constantine became a Christian when Christianity was beginning to define what it meant to be Christian. We should thank Constantine for calling the Council of Nicaea but realize like most Saints he was not perfect and may have harbored pagan or Arian tendencies at times.

Thank you for your well thought out and informed reply!

 

[sharpag]

Thank you for your well thought out and informed reply!

No problem, glad to help!