10 MAIN REASONS THAT DISCREDIT THE OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY
(1) No Command of Christ or of the Apostles. There is no commandment of Christ or of the apostles regarding a weekly-Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday celebration of Christ’s resurrection. We have commands in the New Testament regarding baptism (Matt 28:19-20), the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:24-25; 1 Cor 11:23-26) and foot-washing (John 13:14-15), but we find no commands or even suggestions to commemorate Christ’s Resurrection on a weekly Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday.
Since Sunday would be a “novelty”, a new principle of worship, especially as it would be the substitution of such an inbred tradition in the national and religious culture of the Jewish people, as was the case of the Sabbath, any change in that practice would undoubtedly prompt commentaries, specific instructions justifying the alterations, particularly as the first converts to the Christian religion proceeded from Judaism and were “zealous of the law”(Acts 21:20). However, nothing is found in the whole New Testament concerning such change, nor any debates discussing the subject.
Seventh-day Sabbath remained valid and in force along with all the other Decalogue’s commandments after the cross. A proof of that is the testimony of Luke, writing 30 years after the Resurrection event, describing the action of the holy women, followers of Christ, as they prepared “spices and ointments” to apply on His body. They worked actively on their tasks, but “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).
For Luke, then, who declares to have looked for detailed information about everything related to Christ’s experience (Luke 1:1-4), the rest day “according to the commandment” was the seventh-day Sabbath. He refers to the following day simply as “the first day of the week”, without attributing to it any special qualifications (see Luke 24:1).
The same Luke reports in the Acts of the Apostles how during the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), as the judaizers problem was dealt with, no norms were set against the Sabbath observance (Acts 15:20), a demonstration that such instruction was unnecessary. All observed it regularly and there was no need to give instruction regarding it. Paul, on a Sabbath day, when there was no synagogue in a certain location, went to the side of a river for a time of prayer (Acts 16:13). In Corinth he spent one year and a half preaching every Sabbath and never remembered to tell those who met there to change their day of worship to Sunday (Acts 18:1-4, 11) even when only the gentiles remained, as the Jews left.
(2) Jesus Made no Attempt to Institute a Memorial of His Resurrection. If Jesus wished the day of His resurrection to become a memorial day of rest and worship, He would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to establish such a memorial. It is important to note that divine institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, Lord’s Supper, all trace their origin to a divine act that established them. But on the day of His resurrection Christ performed no act to institute a memorial of His resurrection.
If we think it through, both Christ’s death and resurrection are equally important events, foundational to the Christian faith. Both could deserve a special day for their celebration. If the Resurrection was supposed to be celebrated regularly on a special day, given its importance, why not the Savior’s death? So, we have two exceptional historical landmarks for a Christian—the death and the resurrection of Christ. Which would deserve a memorial day? Possibly both, but the Scriptures don’t establish that. Nothing is implied that any change occurred in the text of the divine law because of any of these events.
If Jesus intended to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, most likely He would have told the women and the disciples when He arose: “Come apart and celebrate My Resurrection!” Instead He told them, “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee” (Matt 28:10), and to the disciples, “Go . . . make disciples . . . baptizing them” (Matt 28:19). None of the utterances of the risen Savior reveal any intention to memorialize His Resurrection by making Sunday the new day of rest and worship.
The reason is that our Savior wanted His followers to view His Resurrection as an existential reality to be experienced daily by living victoriously by the power of His Resurrection, rather than a liturgical/religious event to be celebrated on Sunday.
Paul expressed the hope to “know him and the power of his resurrection” (Phil 3:10), but he never mentions his desire to celebrate Christ’s Resurrection on Sunday or Easter-Sunday.
(3) Sunday Is Never Called “Day of the Resurrection.” Sunday is never called in the New Testament as “Day of the Resurrection.” It is consistently designated “First day of the week.” The references to Sunday as day of the resurrection first appear in the early part of the fourth century, specifically in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. By that time Sunday had become associated with the resurrection and consequently was referred to as “Day of the Resurrection.” But this development occurred several centuries after the beginning of Christianity.
(4) The Sunday-Resurrection Presupposes Work, not Rest and Worship. The Sunday-Resurrection presupposes work, rather than rest and worship, because it does not mark the completion of Christ’s earthly ministry which ended on a Friday afternoon when the Savior said: “It is finished” (John 19:30), and then rested in the tomb according to the commandment. Instead, the Resurrection marks the beginning of Christ’s new intercessory ministry (Acts 1:8; 2:33), which, like the first day of creation, presupposes work rather than rest.
(5) The Lord’s Supper was not Celebrated on Sunday in Honor of the Resurrection. Historically we know that Christians could not celebrate the Lord’s Supper on a regular basis on Sunday evening, because such gatherings were prohibited by the Roman hetariae law—a law that outlawed all types of communal fellowship meals held in the evening. The Roman government was afraid that such evening gatherings could become an occasion for political plotting.
To avoid the search of the Roman police, Christian changed regularly the time and place of the Lord’s Supper celebration. Eventually, they moved the service from the evening to the morning. This explains why Paul is very specific on the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, but he is indefinite on the question of the time of the assembly. Note that four times he repeats the same phrase: “When you come together” (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34). The phrase implies indefinite time, most likely because there was no set day for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
If, as some scholars contend, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated on Sunday evening, as part of the Lord’s Day worship, Paul could hardly have failed to mention the sacredness of the time in which they gathered. This would have strengthened his plea for a more worshipful attitude during the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The failure of Paul to mention “Sunday” as the time of the gathering or to use the adjective “Lord’s-kuriakê” to characterize the day as “the Lord’s Day,” (as he did it with reference to the Lord’s Supper), shows that the apostle did not attach any religious significance to Sunday.
(6) The Lord’s Supper Commemorates Christ’s Sacrifice, not His Resurrection. Many Christians today view their Lord’s Supper as the core of Sunday worship in honor of Christ’s resurrection. But in the Apostolic Church, the Lord’s Supper was not celebrated on Sunday, as we have just seen, and was not connected with the Resurrection. Paul, for instance, who claims to transmit what “he received from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23), explicitly states that the rite commemorated not Christ’s resurrection, but His sacrifice and Second Coming (“You proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).
Similarly, Passover, celebrated today by many Christians on Easter Sunday, was observed during apostolic times, not on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection, but according to the biblical date of Nisan 14, primarily as a memorial of Christ’s suffering and death. Contrary to what many people believe, Easter-Sunday was unknown in the Apostolic Church. It was introduced and promoted by the Church of Rome in the second century in order to show separation and differentiation from the Jewish Passover. The result was the well-known Passover controversy, which eventually led Bishop Victor of Rome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (about A. D. 191) for refusing to adopt Easter-Sunday. These indications show that Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week, did not influence the Apostolic Church to adopt the weekly Sunday and the annual Easter-Sunday to commemorate such an event.
(7) The Resurrection is not the Dominant Reason for Sundaykeeping in Earliest Documents. The earliest explicit references to Sundaykeeping are found in the writings of Barnabas (about A. D. 135) and Justin Martyr (about A.D. 150). Both writers do mention the Resurrection but only as the second of two reasons, important but not predominant. Barnabas’ first theological motivation for Sunday keeping is eschatological, namely, that Sunday as “the eight day” represents “the beginning of another world.” The notion of Sunday as “the eighth day,” was later abandoned because it is senseless to speak of “the eighth day” in a seven days week. Justin’s first reason for the Christians’ assembly on Dies Solis—the Day of the Sun, is the inauguration of creation: “Sunday is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter, created the world.” These reasons were eventually abandoned in favor of the Resurrection which became the primary reason for Sunday observance.
(8) Nothing Indicates that in the Establishment of the New Covenant There Was Any Change in the Terms of the Biblical Rest Day Commandment. Nothing is said that when God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant (New Testament) there occurs an alteration in the terms of these laws, so that Sunday replaces the seventh-day Sabbath (Heb. 8:6-10). Since this passage is an ipsis literis reproduction of Jeremiah 31:31-33, when the promise of a new covenant was firstly made to Israel due to the captivity they would face because of their sins (and one of the reasons for their punishment was exactly their negligence regarding the Sabbath commandment—see Jer. 17:19-27), it is understood that these “My laws” referred to in Hebrews are the same that always pertained to those eternal and moral principles expressed in the Decalogue.
The ceremonial part of that law ended on the cross, and the primary readers of the Hebrews epistle (as well as its author) knew that, for when it was firstly received by them the Temple’s veil had already been rent from top to bottom, ending those rites that pointed to Christ and His sacrifice. And if there were any doubts about it, the tenor of the epistle itself would solve the problem, for chapters 7-10 define exactly the end of these ceremonies, while stressing that the divine law is written on the hearts of the true children of God—in its moral aspects and other ethical and hygienic principles, without the ceremonial prefigurations (see Eph. 2:15).
(9) The Roman Catholic Church Presents Itself as the Author of the Change in the Rest Day from the Seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday. Several documents of the Roman Catholic Church assert that it was the responsible for that alteration, as can be exemplified by some official statements of that church, such as:
“The Catholic Church . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” – The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
“You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify”.—James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.
Another Catholic document confirms it:
“Ques. How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?
“Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church”. – Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (same in the Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. By Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p. 67.
(10) The Seventh-day Sabbath Will Be Restored in the New Earth When Sin Is Extirpated From the Universe. If some alteration in the terms of the divine day of rest had occurred, this would be reflected in prophecies regarding the future world, when the prophet declares that “in the new heavens and new earth” all the residents will come to “worship before Me, says the Lord” on the Sabbath day (Isa. 66:22, 23). Isaiah’s prophecy has to do specifically with the New Earth regime, as indicated by the context. When no more sin or sinners will exist in this new environment where “dwelleth righteousness” (2 Ped. 3:13) ALL the commandments of the divine law will be respected, and since “the Sabbath was made because of man” (Mar. 2:27), it will proceed in the holy regime of the New Earth, not Sunday, as would be the case if any change had occurred.
The well reputed French version of Louis Segond thus reads: “. . . à chaque sabbat, toute chair viendra se prosterner devant moi, dit l‘Éternel” [every Sabbath day all flesh will come to prostrate before Me, says the Eternal One]. This is also reflected in the contemporary language Bible published in Brazil, in the Portuguese language: “. . . em todos os sábados pessoas de todas as nações virão me adorar no Templo” [on every Sabbath day people from all nations will come to adore me in the Temple].
CONCLUSION: The 10 reasons listed above suffice to discredit the claim that Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week caused the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday. The truth is that initially the resurrection was celebrated existentially rather than liturgically, that is, by a victorious way of life rather than by a special day of worship.
__________
Note: This article is an adaptation of the text “Seven Main Reasons That Discredit the Sunday Observance”, by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, with the addition of three more reasons and several paragraphs to the seven reasons presented in the original text.
I don’t know where to start. Just about all 10 reasons you or the late Samuele bring up are totally wrong.
What day was Pentecost on? It was clearly on a Sunday, and that was the day that the Christian church was born. There are scores of references where the early church spoke of the first day of the week as being the Lord’s Day.
But the fact that the church was born on Pentecost that was a Sunday is the biggest argument for the church to worship on the Lord’s Day.
The New Covenant does not require any special holy days. The entire old covenant is fulfilled. The Sabbath was clearly part of the old order.
If the main argument proving that the Church adopted Sunday instead of the 7th-day Sabbath is the event of the Pentecost, then you have NO argument valid for that. There is no indication, no minimum hint of that, and no reason at all for God to change the “memorial of Creation” because of Pentecost, or even the Resurrection. The creation continues deserving this remembering of its Creator even in the Earth made new (Isa. 66:22, 23).
The Psalmist says that “The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein. His work is honourable and glorious: and his righteousness endureth for ever. He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the LORD is gracious and full of compassion”—Psalm 111:2-4.
The other texts where mention is made of the first day of the week are quite EMBARASSING to the purpose of proving Sunday as a special day for the early Christians. Acts 20:7 and its context show that Paul spoke to the local congregation on a Saturday evening (as the New English Bible and many other versions put it), then continued speaking until midnight, after resolving an incident with someone there who had fallen from the window, etc.
In the passage’s sequence it is indicated that when the morrow broke, Paul left for a long trip, walking to another town, instead of remaining for “Sunday school” or equivalent with the believers in Troas! Then he had no special scruples for Sunday as a special day.
Besides, the name of the day is, in the Greek original, simply mia twn sabbatwn, which literally means, “the first since the Sabbath”, denoting the Jewish reckoning of time. That is enough to indicate that they had no special title for that day--nothing of a “Lord’s day” related to the 1st day of the week. That, remember, around 30 years AFTER the Resurrection.
Paul also mentions the mia twn sabbatwn around the same 30 years period AFTER the Resurrection in 1 Cor. 16:2 as he recommends that the believers there gather an offering to the poor people in Jerusalem, and that would be at each one’s house. There is no hint that this meant a regular meeting they supposedly had every Sunday, as so many allege, jumping into a wrong conclusion, which confirms what someone even started a topic to discuss--people hear what they WANT to hear.
Besides, the name of the day is, in the Greek original, simply mia twn sabbatwn, which literally means, “the first since the Sabbath”, denoting the Jewish reckoning of time. That is enough to indicate that they had no special title for that day--nothing of a “Lord’s day” related to the 1st day of the week. That, remember, around 30 years AFTER the Resurrection.
Actually, that is not a literal translation of the Greek. It does not say “sabbath” singular, but rather “sabbaths” plural. So would you have it read “the first since the sabbaths”???
The most strictly literal translation you could have would be, ”in the one of the sabbaths.” (BTW, that word “the” [the definite article ho in the Greek] is how we can be absolutely certain that it is referring to “the” first (mia--literally “one") day of the week, and not a sabbath day.) It simply means “the first day of the week” (which is how our English translations translate it). The word sabbaton was not just used for the “sabbath” day, but was also used for the word “week.” In fact, it is the only word used in the NT for “week.” It does not in any way indicate that the sabbath day was still being observed.
Well, if it doesn’t indicate that the Sabbath day was still observed, much less that could be a proof of the adoption of Sunday by the Christian community, because why would the New Testament writers hesitate to call the day by its honored name--Lord’s day?
And there are all the other aspects of the question that I pointed out and were not dealt with.
Well, if it doesn’t indicate that the Sabbath day was still observed, much less that could be a proof of the adoption of Sunday by the Christian community, because why would the New Testament writers hesitate to call the day by its honored name--Lord’s day?
I don’t think anyone has claimed that the term “Lord’s Day” was ever used before the latter part of the first century.
Here are a couple of videos from youtube by Tim Conway that are very good explaining the New Covenant view of the Sabbath, and I would like to get your opinion on these. It doesn’t take very long to watch these, but they are very much to the point:
Yes, I went through the entire videos, and what I noticed was the great amount of obsfucation regarding the TRUE meaning of what the Bible really says regarding the theme.
Let’s examine briefly the main flaws of this pastor’s anti-Sabbatarian arguments:
* He builds his anti-Sabattarian theology basically on an ISOLATED text--Col. 2:16-17. The text is simply distorted in its real meaning.
* He utilizes arguments from silence many times, like the allegation that the Sabbath was never mentioned by Paul as a commandment to the Church.
But Paul never said anything about the 3rd commandment either (not to take God’s name in vain), and never said anything regarding not to use sculpted images of Church’s saints (he mentions only idols, and always referring to pagan deities). Besides, there is no mention from Paul (or any other NT writer) against consulting the dead ones (in a clear repetition of Deut. 18:9-12 and Isa. 8:19, 20), no reference to not allowing brother and sister to get married, nothing about the practice of bestiality. . . Then, should we conclude that these ‘omitted’ rules are past, and a Christian can now take God’s name in vain, use sculpted image of Church’s saints in his/her worship, allow marriage between brother and sister, look for having communication with his dead dear ones, allow the practice of bestiality?!
Arguments from silence are no good as proof or counterproof of anything.
* He utilizes an argument from the Greek which is not the main point in the interpretation of Col. 2:16, 17. There are other aspects to be taken into acount. Besides the “do not judge” IS NOT, that Sabbatarians should not judge the ones who disagreed with them, BUT, the historical contextual sense is that EXTREMISTS in the region of Colosse (those Paul was addressing) should not judge the Christians there for their drinking and eating, or the way they dedicated their holidays to the Lord. The ones to NOT BE JUDGED were those Christians, nothing to do with these Christians pointing out to others their error of not respecting God’s Bible-based Lord Day.
* He tries to “prove” things based on what he condemns at the beginning of his talk--jumping into conclusions without the necessary backing. He has no backing to “prove” that the early Christians adopted Sunday because of the REASONS he indicates--the ‘appearances’ of Jesus on the 1st day of the week. The funny fact is that the disciples not even knew He had resurrected, for they were meeting on that day in a closed room “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19), not in a religious meeting of Sunday keeping.
* He resorts to Rev. 1:10 trying to prove his Sunday theory, but why John, when writing his gospel, refers to Jesus’ Resurrection day merely as “first day of the week”, in the Jewish mode of speaking (mia twn sabbatwn), which shows the time reckoning of the Jews? Revelation and the Gospel were written by John within a short difference of time. Scholars say that the time span between both writings was about 4/5 years, at the most.
* He speaks of the “spiritual sense” of the Sabbath commandment, but FORGETS to indicate any other “spiritual sense” to any of the other NINE commandments. Why only the 4th is singled out to be reinterpreted “spiritually”?
* He errs in some ridiculous arguments, like that of Exo. 16:29, about not leaving the place on the Sabbath day. Doesn’t he know that the Israelites on the Sabbath were supposed to participate of a Holy Convocation (Lev. 23:3)? How could they participate of a public meeting without leaving their homes, in a time when there was no Internet, nor radio or TV?
* Another of his gross errors--to say there was a LIMIT for jorneying on the Sabbath established in God’s law. But, then, he quotes the book of ACTS! Well, where does the law in the Old Testament ever say anything about LIMITS TO WALK ON THE SABBATH DAY?! This man mixes up the TRADITION of the elders with God’s instructions.
* He takes Jesus’ statement of “rest for your souls” in Matt. 11:28, 29 and changes the meaning of SPIRITUAL REST to physical rest. The “spirit” of the Sabbath keeping is that of Isa. 58:13, 14, if he doesn’t know that. . .
* He tries to “prove” that the new Sabbath day is “lighter” in its fulfillment by Christians, according to this New Testament “spirit’’, but WHERE does the New Testament ever say anything about: a) Sunday having been really adopted by the early church in substitution of the 7th-day Sabbath; b) this “new Lord’s day” to be kept in a lighter mode, when people can watch secular TV, go shopping, do whatever they please (since they have gone to church “fulfilling their ‘obligation’")? The fact is that this “Lord’s day” is turned into a MY OWN DAY, when I have more free time to do whatever it pleases to me! Let’s stick to WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, as he repeatedly stressed.
* He misses the point completely refering to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), giving the impression that there was no rules to keep the Sabbath, when the rules decided about were regarding those things NOT TO BE PRACTICED, rather than rules to be followed. And the point many people miss is that THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION AGAINST the keeping of the Sabbath, which shows that there was no doubt regarding that principle in the minds of those early Christians, no need to emphasize something they practiced and had no doubts about.
Now, I suggest that you also examine the discussion I had in another Internet site, in the English section of the Foro Adventista (mostly in Spanish). That is a retribution for the favor you made me in indicating these videos. That is the link where you will find the discussion titled “Ratzlaff & Co. Play the ‘One-Note Anti-Sabbatarian Samba’”:
Actually, I also disagree with Dale Ratzlaff’s approach to this issue.
Thanks also for your thorough responses to the video. I also don’t agree entirely with the videos, but I thought the second video clarified some points better.
I want to continue this discussion and answer some points you made when I get time. I go back to work for my long week on, before I get the next week off. But I will try to answer some in the mean time.
I like your spirit of dialogue and deeper research, rather than the mere lambasting and label attribution of other people here who clearly are dominated by prejudice.
I think the second video is where we find the worst things of this Pastor’s exposition, as I mentioned above--the absurd interpretation of Exo.16:29, the “journey of a Sabbath” misunderstanding and other mistakes.
But there is a positive fact in this pastor’s approach to the Sabbath question: at least he accepts that the 10 Commandments are still in force for the Christian community. What I am used to see are pastors and lay people advocating the total “abolition of the law”, arguing that the 10 Commandments are a simple set of rules that were part of the entire “legal package” of Israel, everything abolished on the cross. Then, based on 1 Cor. 9:21 they allege that the new law to be the pattern of the Christian life is the “law of Christ”. But Paul says that rhetorically and doen’t elaborate about that law. Then, reading Gal. 6:2 we find what the “law of Christ “ is all about--showing solidarity to my neighbor. But that is associated with the love to God above all (Mat. 22:36-40; 1 John 5:1-3). So, the “law of Christ” is that of the “golden rule”, for to love your neighbor genuinely you have first to love God, so that you recognize that your neighbor is your brother or sister.
By the way, Jesus even shows that loving God is PRIORITY. In Mat. 10:37 He says: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”.
Then, the point to be discussed IS NOT the validity of the 10 Commandments as the Moral Law, still in force for the Christian community (a truth that has been OFICIALLY recognized along the centuries by Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Anglicans, in their confessional documents, and more recenty in works published by Pentecostals, like the Assembly of God). Not even the validity of the 4th commandment in God’s law should be the focus of the discussion.
The point to be discussed should not be IF there is a commandment regarding the dedication of a weekly day to the Lord, rather WHICH should be that day--the 7th-day Sabbath, Sunday or any other day that best fits the believer’s agenda (or that of his/her employer).
Finally I would remember bro. Samuele Bacchiocchi’s milestone research within the Vatican itself, demonstrating in a definitive way what the real origins of Sunday are. I haven’t seen any convincing refutations to his From Sabbath to Sunday.
The entire Old Testament has value for instructing Christians, including the Decalogue and including the Sabbath commandment (This may differ from Dale Ratzlaff’s view)
The New Testament must interpret the Old Testament. The New Testament interprets the full meaning of the Decalogue, as well as the entire sacrificial system. All these things had their fulfillment in Christ.
The Sabbath command which was at the heart of the Decalogue is reinterpreted in the New Testament to be a symbol of our completed salvation by resting from our own works 24/7 and trusting Christ for our salvation.
You easily dismiss Colossians 2:16,17 as being some obscure isolated passage in the NT which doesn’t mean what it says:
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 1
-------
What else could Paul mean by this? By definition since the word sabbaton is plural, this means all Sabbaths, including 7th day Sabbaths. This triad of New moons, Sabbaths, and festivals are mentioned together as a unit in many places in the OT.
You quoted from Isaiah 66 in your initial post:
22 “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD. 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.
----------------------
Does the above passage really correspond to what is described in Revelation regarding the New Earth where there will be no night? If there will be no night, then there will be no Sabbath to be marked by Friday sundown. There will be no New moon celebration if there is no night.
To be consistent Azenito, you wold have to advocate the keeping of New Moons.
Let’s now look at Leviticus 23 This chapter contains the strongest evidence that the 7th day Sabbath was part of the ceremonial feast system and there is even typological evidence pointing to Sunday observance.
Leviticus 23:1-3:
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my appointed festivals, the appointed festivals of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.
-----------
So what is the first appointed festival that is mentioned at the very top? Well keep reading:
The Sabbath
3 “‘There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the LORD.
The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
4 “‘These are the LORD’s appointed festivals, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times: 5 The LORD’s Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 6 On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD’s Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. 7 On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. 8 For seven days present a food offering to the LORD. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.’”
-------------
So, Azenito, why isn’t the Passover just as valid to keep today as the 7th day Sabbath?
Now here is a very interesting section describing the Offering of the First Fruits:
Offering the Firstfruits
9 The LORD said to Moses, 10 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. 11 He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. (That would be Sunday) 12 On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb a year old without defect, 13 together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah[a] of the finest flour mixed with olive oil—a food offering presented to the LORD, a pleasing aroma—and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin of wine. 14 You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.
------------------
So the Firstfruits ceremony and sacrifices took place on the 8th day or the first day of the week. The Firstfruits is a type of Christ’s resurrection as in 1 Corinthians 15: 20-25:
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
---------
What could be clearer than this? The Firstfruits pointed to Christ and the Levitical ceremony occured on a Sunday as noted above. This is strong typological evidence that we are to celebrate the Lord’s day on the day Christ as Firstfruits rose from the grave guaranteeing our justification and salvation.
The next festival is the feast of weeks which is also Pentecost in Leviticus 23
15 “‘From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering, count off seven full weeks. 16 Count off fifty days up to the day after the seventh Sabbath, and then present an offering of new grain to the LORD.
The feast of Pentecost ended on a Sunday, and it was on this feast day that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the church in Acts. The Christian church was empowered by the Holy Spirit on a Sunday.
So, the above shows that Colossians 2: 16,17 ties together the whole sacrificial system spoken of in Leviticus 23, and it was proven in Leviticus 23 to include the 7th day Sabbath right at the top of the feasts of the Lord.
I know very well all this exegetical gymnastics to justify the NON compliance with a clear command from God, which is never disputed regarding any of NINE of these 10 Commandments. Only the Sabbath is reinterpreted according to the New Testament. But Paul quotes the 5th commandment to the Gentile Ephesians (Eph. 6:1-3) just changing a little bit the promise--instead of long life in the promised land of Canaan, now it is applied to the eternal life on the New Earth.
Jesus put to rest any anti-Sabbatarian arguments in Mark 2:27, 28. He clearly shows that “the Sabbath was made FOR man-anthropós”, which means that same man who leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife--the universal man, not the Jewish man (see Matt. 19:5, 6).
He speaks of THE Sabbath, not A Sabbath. It is not generic, but specific. In the second part of the verse He adds: “. . . and not man {was created} because of the Sabbath”. In these words we have Christ’s association of both man’s and the Sabbath’s creation at the beginning (Gen. 2:2, 3), being the Sabbath created to be a benefit and blessing to the universal man.
That the idea is UNIVERSAL MAN is reinforced by the fact that if the anti-Sabbatarian had their way, they would thus translate the text: “. .. and not the Jewish man {was created} because of the Sabbath”. Impossible! God did not create the Jewish man, but anthropós, the universal man. The fact that later on he became Jewish, Babilonian, French, American, Brazilian are other factors.
In verse 28 we have Jesus confirming: “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath”. Now, this text is a tremendous embarassment to anti-Sabbatarians, for some come to the point of alleging that Jesus states being “Lord of the Sabbath” to mean that He can do whatever He wishes on that day--including its violation! Now, this tortuous reasoning doesn’t take into account the fact that Jesus is Lord of THE ENTIRE LAW, thus could He also blaspheme against God, practice idolatry, lying, adultery, coveting, etc., etc?. . .
Of course Jesus is saying that He had AUTHORITY to define the way the Sabbath should be kept, not IF it was supposed to be kept, nor WHEN that should be. The purpose of His words is to CORRECT the true meaning of the Sabbath, distorted by the Jewish leadership. They also distorted the meaning of the 5th Commandment, when it seemed expedient to them (Mark 7:9-12).
Even science has confirmed that the regimen of one day of rest within a week is important to good mental and physical health. Many anti-Sabbatarians want to get rid of the Sabbath principle, but fail miserably in offering something better. Some dismiss totally the principle itself, denying that such commandment is still in force at any length--no day at all required from a Christian to dedicate to God. I would say that the MAJORITY of so-called Christians think like that. The reason for this opinion reflects the TOTAL FAILURE of religious people to prove their Sunday case--no way of proving through the Bible and the Bible only that Sunday replaced the 7th-day Sabbath by any authority from God, or His Apostles, no matter how much exegetical and eisegetical gymnastics they apply.
In the face of this total lack of proof, they prefer to have it the easy way--to transform a commandment into a suggestion. No obligation of dedicating 24 hours to the Lord at all, in the new “Christian freedom” era. The Lord’s Day became each one’s day, no more a holy day, but a mere holiday, as any other when the person just go to church for having some few hours of worship and fellowship, then is free to do whatever he/she wishes. That is MODERN CHRISTIANITY, when Evangelicals simply follow not only the Roman Catholic Church’s tradition but also its practice.
Finally, I don’t recognize any of the anti-Sabbatarian, pro-Sunday, arguments posted thus far as rebuttal to the 10 reasons for not observing Sunday instead of the 7th-day Sabbath as was posted in the initial thread of this topic.
Something I find interesting. What did John mean when he said he was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day? (Rev. 1:10) John was there when Jesus said that He was Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28 and Math 12:8). The Lord’s Day is the Sabbath, according to the NT. It was only much later that this term was attempted to apply to Sunday, but according to the Bible the Lord’s Day would be Saturday. A little inconvenient truth…
Ah gee, I vowed I was done with this site but just like Michael Corleone says, “Just when I think I’m out...they pull me back in!”
Whether you agree with the Sabbath or not, the bottom line is that there is no biblical precedent to have church, honor Sunday as the Sabbath or have Sunday established as a ritualistic observance.It isn’t there unless you do desperate proof texting. Going to church on Sunday is simply an ecclesiastical tradition based on the belief that Christ rose on Sunday so if we’re going to get together, it might as be on that day.
If you want to believe the Sabbath was abrogated then I believe one could come to that conclusion biblically (if you stretch it, but that is my opinion).
However, to go and replace the Sabbath with Sunday either as a Sabbath observance or because ‘the disciples met for church on Sunday’, is false.
If you abandon the Sabbath, there is nothing left to replace it. You can go to church on Tuesday if you want. As Bacchiocchi says, Christ’s resurrection was not a liturgical celebration but an existential reality lived out in the life of the Christian.
As for the reference to the ‘Lord’s Day’, more than likely John was speaking of the proverbial ‘day of the Lord’ that He was taken into vision to and neither Sabbath or Sunday.
The kuriakê hemera, or ‘Lord’s day’ in Rev. 1:10 is interpreted differently by scholars as meaning--a) the 7th-day Sabbath; b) Sunday; c) The final and terrible “day of the Lord”, as anticipated so often by the prophets of Israel.
The fact is that Sunday couldn’t be, because had John in mind that day, he wouldn’t simply use the expression mía twn sabbatwn, first day of the week, indicating the Jewish reckoning of time when refering specifically to the day Jesus was resurrected. He would honor the day with that special title, which he did not at all.
And the Revelation book was written in a short timespan regarding the gospel, probably no more than 5 years, according to Bible students. So, the fact that he refers to the day without this special title when describing the Resurrection event is a problem to Sunday advocates.
Somebody mentioned the fact that in the Greek calendar, they refer to Sunday as kuriakê hemera, the same language of Rev. 1:10. But that is equivalent to the Latin Domini dies, for the Greek, so proud of their New Testament language, wouldn’t employ Latin for nominating their week days. Now, the interesting fact is how this same Greek calendar refers to Friday--it is something like ‘parakeue’--which is the Greek word for preparation. It is the day of preparation, as we read in Luke 23:56. Preparation for the Sabbath. . .
