Saturday Or Sunday

. . .then by your statements, it would be the same ass that carried your "black jesus", why aren't you worshipping the ass as well?

That's right Horus, do us a favour and beat it!

Many Sunday observers argue that the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week dates back to Jesus and His apostles. They assert that Sunday observance replaced the seventh-day Sabbath for most Christians as early as the first century A.D. and became a fixed custom by the mid-second century. Therefore, they urge that all Christians today should regard the seventh-day Sabbath as a Jewish institution that should not be observed. Since Sunday was the first day of creation week (Gen. 1:5) and the day on which Christ rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-9), it should be observed as a day of Christian worship and rejoicing in accordance with the custom of the early Christian fathers. In fact, Sunday keepers argue that observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is a highly legalistic custom that is thoroughly consistent with those Jewish ceremonial practices abolished when Jesus died on the cross.

This theory raises a whole series of questions in regard to the teaching of the New Testament and the testimony of history. Did Jesus change the day from the seventh to the first day of the week? Did the apostles urge that Sunday be observed as a memorial of the resurrection of Christ? Did they themselves observe Sunday as a special day of worship? Was first-day worship a substitute for Sabbath worship for most Christians as early as the second century A.D.? Was the Sabbath regarded by early Christians as a purely Jewish institution with no significance for followers of Christ? What does history have to teach us regarding the reason for the change of the day from the seventh to the first day of the week? These questions are vital for Christians today! If it happens to be unscriptural and unhistorical that Sunday observance was initiated by Christ and the apostles, those who argue so strenuously for it today are supporting a non-Christian practice. If Jesus and the apostles observed the seventh-day Sabbath, and Sunday keeping crept into the Christian Church over a period of centuries as pagan ideas and practices became more and more acceptable, those who reject the Sabbath today are spurning one of Christ's commandments and are, therefore, in grave danger of being rejected by God.

To be a Christian is to believe and act as Jesus did (John 14:15; Rev. 3:21; 12:17; 14:12). To profess faith in Christ while rejecting aspects of His teaching and refusing to live and worship as He instructed is to be guilty of serious sin. "Whoever says, 'I have come to know him,' but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, 'I abide in him,' ought to walk just as he walked" (1 John 2:4-6).

We will begin with the Scriptures and then turn to history for the answers to the questions we are asking. A much more complete discussion of the Sabbath-Sunday question can be found in the book edited by Kenneth A. Strand, The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, DC.: Review and Herald, 1982).



DID JESUS AND THE APOSTLES CHANGE THE DAY OF WORSHIP FROM THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH TO SUNDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK?

The word Sunday or Saturday are not found in the Bible. In the New Testament the first day of the week is mentioned eight times. In none of the eight instances is the first day said to be a day of worship, never is it said to be the Christian substitute for the Old Testament Sabbath, and never do the texts suggest that the first day of the week should be regarded as a memorial of Christ's resurrection. Let us briefly consider each of the eight New Testament passages that mention the first day of the week.

Matthew 28:1, "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake. . . ." Jesus was crucified on Friday. He rested in the tomb over the Sabbath and rose early on Sunday morning. The verse indicates that the women disciples returned to the tomb at the very first opportunity after the death and burial of Jesus. Because the Sabbath came so soon after His burial, they could not approach the tomb again until after sundown on Sabbath evening. (The Sabbath began at sundown on the sixth day and ended at sundown on the seventh day; compare Lev. 23:32; Neh. 13:19; Mark 1:21, 32) Early Sunday morning was the most convenient time for them to visit the tomb.

Mark 16:1, 2, "When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb." Mark records the same events as Matthew with the additional information that the women visited the tomb early on the Sunday morning for the express purpose of anointing Jesus' body with spices.

Mark 16:9, "Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons." This verse simply records that, after His resurrection early on the Sunday morning, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

Luke 23:54 ­ 24:1, "It [the day of Jesus' death and burial] was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared."

The Sabbath came a few hours after Jesus' death on the cross. The women disciples "rested the sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56, KJV). Then very early in the morning of the first day they visited the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus. The fact that they observed the Sabbath rest is sufficient indication that Jesus had never attempted to change the day or to suggest that after His death the first day would replace the Sabbath. Writing years after the event, Luke gave not the slightest hint that, even though the women disciples of Jesus observed the Sabbath, such a practice was no longer expected of Christians. He simply recorded that the Sabbath day "according to the commandment," which Jesus' followers were careful to observe, was the day after the crucifixion day (Friday), and before the resurrection day (Sunday).

John 20:1, "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb." Mary Magdalene visited the tomb early the first day of the week. Nothing is said of Sunday as a day of worship or rest.

John 20:19, "When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.'"

On the evening of the first day of the week the disciples were assembled behind locked doors "for fear of the Jews." Jesus appeared to them at that time. The passage does not say that henceforth Sunday was to be the day for worship. Since it was the evening of the first day of the week that Jesus appeared to the disciples, it was after sundown. According to Jewish reckoning this was actually the beginning of the second day (Monday; compare Gen. 1:5, . A week later when Thomas happened to be present, Jesus met with the disciples again (verse 26). But, writing years later, John records nothing regarding Sunday as a day of Christian worship. John's narrative gives no warrant for regarding Sunday as a substitute for the Sabbath or as a day to be distinguished by Christians above any other day of the week. And there is no indication in the passage that Sunday should henceforth be observed as a memorial of Christ's resurrection.

Acts 20:7, "On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight."

Since the meeting was held at night on the first day of the week, it may have been Saturday night. According to Jewish reckoning, the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began at sundown of the seventh day. If it were Sunday evening, the event gives no suggestion that Sunday should be observed as a day of worship. The following verses record that Paul preached a sermon on Thursday. The next day after the meeting recorded in Acts 20:7 (Monday), Paul and his party set sail for Mitylene (Acts 20:13, 14). The following day (Tuesday) they arrived opposite Chios (verse 15). The next day (Wednesday) they passed Samos (verse 15), and the day after that (Thursday) they arrived at Miletus (verse 15). The elders of the church of Ephesus met Paul at Miletus, and he preached to them (Acts 20:16-36). Because a Christian service was held on Thursday, do we conclude that Thursday is a day for regular Christian worship replacing the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath? A religious service on Sunday, Thursday, or any other day certainly did not make that day a replacement for the seventh-day Sabbath or a day of regular Christian worship and rest. There is no special significance in the disciples breaking bread at this first-day meeting, for they broke bread "daily" (Acts 2:46). We are not told that it was a Lord's Supper celebration, nor are we told that henceforth Sunday should be the day for this service to be conducted. To read Sunday sacredness or Sunday observance into Acts 20:7 is to do violence to the text.

1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints: you should follow the directions I gave the churches of Galatia. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save whatever extra you earn, so that collections need not be taken when I come. And when I arrive, I will send any whom you approve with letters to take your gift to Jerusalem."

These verses may be literally translated from the Greek as follows: "And concerning the collection for the saints, as I instructed the churches of Galatia, so also you do. On the first day of the week let each of you place (or 'lay') by himself, storing up whatever he might be prospered, so that when I come there might be no collections." (Italics supplied.) The phrase "by himself" (par' heauto), followed by the participle "storing up" or "saving" (thesaupizon), rules out the possibility that this is a reference to an offering taken up in a worship service. The Christian believer was to check his accounts on Sunday and put by at home the money that he wished to give to Paul for the support of the church. When Paul arrived, then the offerings of each individual would be collected.

None of these eight New Testament references to the first day of the week (Sunday), provides any evidence that Jesus or His disciples changed the day of worship from the seventh to the first day. Nor is the first day of the week represented as a time to memorialize the resurrection of Christ. Whatever special significance was given to Sunday in the later history of the church, it had no basis in the teaching or practice of Jesus and His apostles.

As pointed out in the previous chapter, Jesus instructed His disciples to observe the Sabbath after His death (Matt. 24:20). Jesus' instruction was incorporated into His interpretation of Daniel 8 (compare Matthew 24:15 ff.). Daniel predicted that the work of the little horn power would continue until the setting up of God's kingdom (Dan. 8:25). Hence, Jesus' instruction to flee from the little horn power was not confined to Christians at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Toward the end of time, during the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21, of which earlier tribulations were a type or preview, God's people will be obliged to flee again. Jesus' instruction that we pray that our flight will not be on the Sabbath day emphasizes His will that we engage in only those activities on the Sabbath that are consistent with worship and spiritual rest.

The record of the book of Acts (chapters 13, 16­,18) establishes that the apostles consistently kept the Sabbath day as a time for worship and fellowship. This observance was not merely a means of meeting the Jews in the synagogue on their Sabbath day. In Philippi, Paul and his companions met for worship by the riverside. Luke says, "On the sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed [or "thought" or "assumed" : Greek nomizo] there was a place for prayer. . . ." (Acts 16:13). The apostles selected a place by the river that they thought would be appropriate for their Sabbath worship service, and there they prayed and witnessed for their Lord.

Jesus and the apostles kept the seventh-day Sabbath and instructed others to do likewise.

DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REJECT THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH?
Despite the evidence that Jesus kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16) and encouraged His followers to do the same (Matt. 24:20), and despite the evidence that Paul customarily observed the Sabbath (Acts 13, 16, 17, 18), some Bible students focus on certain passages in Paul's writings as supposed evidence that he sought to do away with the seventh-day Sabbath. The two passages that are usually presented are Romans 14:5, 6 and Colossians 2:13-17.

The Romans passage in context reads as follows:

"Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. 2. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. 3. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. 4. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. 6. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God" (Rom. 14:1-6).

The above reference isn't suggesting that the importance that God placed on the seventh-day sabbath be lessened in any manner, because in truth and reality it had nothing to do with the seventh-day sabbath that is found in God's ten commandments. The above reference had to do with the jewish festival days that were themselves different types of sabbaths. It was these days that jewish christians argued about as to which one of those days carried more significance, even though they were more or less shadows, or types of the kind of ministry of Christ. Like the rite of circumcision, these sabbaths were still being pushed as being significant by overzealous jewish christians as opposed to the gentile christians whom they saught to influence.

The truth is the observance of sunday crept in christian circles because of the overriding pagan practises. The Sun god was honored on the first day of the week, and that day was dedicated by the Roman pagans. When Constantine the pagan sought political power his strategy during the 4th century was to win the hearts of everyone including christians. What better way to unite the fragile state of Rome than to marry paganism with christianity. Smart politician wasn't he?

Constantine eventually regulated in 321 AD that no work should be done on Sunday, except work involving those of the farmers and agriculturists.

We now summarize this article by reiterating that Jesus and the apostles observed the seventh-day Sabbath. There is no evidence in the New Testament for Sunday as a day of rest and worship. The New Testament nowhere invites or instructs Christians to observe Sunday as a memorial of Christ's resurrection. The apostle Paul did not attempt to abolish the seventh-day Sabbath. He consistently observed it. The Sabbath was neglected and depreciated in second-century Rome and Alexandria. Sabbath observance was progressively replaced by Sunday observance in the centuries that followed. But time and tradition to not abolish the law of God. Jesus said, "Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19).

@Bobbyaf,


The apostle James would certainly not have asked Christians to be yoked by the stringent Law of the Sabbath with all of its stipulations and then make room for what you call "exemptions".


My premise is simple enough: you cannot change even one stroke or tittle of the stipulations of the Sabbath Law and regard it as no longer applicable - that would be both hypocritical, scandalous and rebellious. Since you have been arguing for the Sabbath Law, you should aim to keep it in exactly as the Law prescribes; and not re-design it to suit any 21st century whims.


I'm not the one arguing for the Sabbath Law or making excuses for it. Rather, you've severally offered excuses for those 'professionals' who go to work to make money for their pockets under the guise of 'emergent' cases. My reasoning has been consistent from the onset:

    1) I warned that it was needless to reharsh a well-rounded debate from another thread since you've been unable to answer the germane questions raised there;

    2) If you must argue for the Law of the Sabbath, then you would have to adhere to its stipulations and make no excuses for the convenient and selective practices of the SDA;

    3) If you're arguing for a Sabbath Law in Genesis, then provide the verse in Genesis where God gave such a Law to Adam and Eve; for it is indeed senseless to apply the Mosaic Law that was given several centuries later on people that came before that Law;

    4) The Sabbath Law was not made for Christians.


It would really be nice for you to open your eyes to the truth that Jesus did not ask the SDA to make exemptions to the Law of the Sabbath. You have been knotting yourself by your contradictions and offering fine sounding cliches to circumvent the stipulations of the same Law you cannot keep and still asking others to keep. Obedience to the Law is on God's prescriptions - not on your terms or that of the SDA.


I thank God for that verse. And here are a few for those who make excuses and exemptions for the Law they cannot keep:

"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?. . . Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Matt. 15:3 & 6)

"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:9)


For your sake, I hope you see that Matt. 5:19 speaks to your own case? You can keep the Law of the Sabbath if you want to; but if you make exemptions in order to break it in the least, not only do you make yourself 'least' in the Kingdom of heaven, but you also constitute yourself a rebel against that same Law by excusing its prescriptions or stipulations.

Have you not made exemptions in your previous rejoinders in order that ye may keep your SDA tradition? 

Regards.

@ Thesilent1

I read your contribution and there are several things you mentioned that I have not come to grips with. You have categorised the plan of salvation into dispensations as it affected different peoples in different times.

I am of the understanding that the "grace of God hath appeared to all men" according to Paul's letter to Titus. Grace and law were and are inseperable sets of principles during the course of history up to the very present. This is really the crux of the matter. Once persons see the connection between sin, law and grace then a large part of the confusion will have evaporated.

Before sin manifested there was no need for grace, but sin could not have been defined without the principle of the  law as Paul rightly teaches in Romans 7:7,  What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

How different was Paul from Adam and Eve in terms of being saved from sin through grace? No one is different as far as being saved from sin is concerned. So, patriarchs, jews, christians, or whoever have all sinned and come short of God's glory, and all were subject to only one brand of salvation through God's grace.

The OT doesn't say much about the moral law as it existed in principle before sin manifested, and not much was said about it either during the period of the patriarchs, except of course up to the time when Moses recieved it on Mount Sinai. Hence persons assume that there could not have been a law per se, but in reality and for all practical purposes there had to be a set of principles that would define for both Adam and Eve, and all the others who came after them, as to what constituted sin. Sin does not operate in a vacuum, and can only be committed when another set of principles are trangressed. For example why would the Genesis account relate Abel's death as the first murder if there were not a principle against taking one's life? So even though the account didn't mention it the 10 commandments in another era did. It defined it in words for the first time.

Sin as far as God was concerned was not a mere picking of the forbidden fruit. Their act of sin costs the Son of God His life. Their sinning had to do with disobeying a direct command from their Creator. Before Eve could have picked that fruit she had to think about the reasons Satan gave her for wanting to disobey a direct command. She had to have desired or coveted the forbidden fruit based on the ideas that Lucifer placed in her head. Since the fruit was forbidden her act of picking it made her a thief. She stole what was expressly forbidden. The fact that she placed Lucifer's ideas above God's brings into sharp focus the command of placing another god before the Creator God.  The fact that Adam placed his wife before God made him guilty also of placing another god before the Creator God. And that is why the apostle James reminds us that if we break one we are guilty of all. There is a common thread that runs through the divine law.

Now how does the sabbath come into the picture of all of this? From the very beginning God had sanctified the seventh day after the six days of creation to be a holy day. The word "the" in Genesis 2:3 suggests a specific day, and not just any day. According to the Genesis account God had set apart for holy use the seventh-day sabbath, because that is exactly what the word sanctified means. Now, why would God sanctify a day immediately after creation, and not include Adam and Eve to be apart of that rest, based on what was later said in Exudus 20:8-11 as to why God set aside the day from the first place. Lets see the account:

8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Have you noticed the phrase "for in six days, "? This was the reason given why God intends for His people to also rest. In other words God wants us to rest in order to celebrate with Him His act of creating. Each time His people rest, including peoples from all dispensations, in accordance with His request, we commemorate His act of Creatorship, and pay Him due recognition. Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all races. They began mankind and all those who follow them are called mankind.

Jesus comes along in the NT and tries to redefine the true purpose of the sabbath, and made a profound statement like this, You and I kow that the word "man" is used generically to mean mankind which includes not just males, but females.

Now why would anyone limit that word mankind to the jews? Why would God from before sin manifested itself, institute the sabbath, and set it aside as a holy day, and then wait for almost 3000 years after creation to specifically hand it to a bunch of hebrews in order for them to define its purpose, and to live out those purposes?  Why the hebrews? Could it be that through the hebrews God would re-inact its true purpose that was intended for all mankind, and that by entrusting them with His divine oracles they in turn would evangelise the pagan world who had lost all sight of a Creator-God? Is there a relationship betwen the creatorship of God and the sabbath?

To argue that Christ came to abolish the creation sabbath, as opposed to the other ceremonial sabbaths, and to establish another day to commemorate His resurrection is also vain and pointless. There has never been a commansd to celebrate His resurrection by utilising Sunday, nor has there ever been a command from Christ or His disciples to nullify His holy day. I challenge any one to honestly reveal one text that points to a change from sabbath to Sunday. Not one of the eight NT references to the 1st day of the week have  given any such command to keep that day in celebrating the resurrection.

My detractors know it, but are too afraid to confess it. Either that or they are still in darkness.

@Bobbyaf,

Although I'm very busy at the moment, I just had to come in here and make a few comments on your continued debate on this subject. You have been mixing up issues, and that is why you keep missing the point for that very reason. It is always safe to keep within the declarations of Scripture and not interpolate them with human reasoning (eisegesis). And here are a few of such interpolations:


The Bible never called Eve a "thief", nor accuse her of "stealing". Rather, the Word expressly declares her sin in simple terms as: "but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). This answers to what was recorded in Gen. 3:13 - "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."


That again is not what Scripture declares. Eve was nowhere accused of 'placing another god before the Creator God'; and to make it sound as if that were the case is to force one's own ideas into the divine declarative. You're trying to accuse Eve of issues that even God Himself never once accused her of.


Quite to the contrary, the Bible simply says that "Adam was not deceived" (1 Tim. 2:14). Adam simply disobeyed God's commandment; but that does not constitute a stretched meaning of his having placed his wife before God, or that he placed another god before the Creator God.

If one were to apply the same rule to your own case, would it be fair to say that you have placed another god before the Creator God by choosing to make exemptions to the Law of the Sabbath where the OT made no room for such exemptions? If it does not apply, why so? And if you can narrow the rule in your own case, why stretch it wider in applying it to Adam and Eve even though God did not once accuse them of what you just did?


In very simple terms, Scripture declares what God did on the seventh day - "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it HE had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Gen. 2:3). That should not be made to read that God expressly gave Adam and Eve a divine commandment of the Sabbath Law. I have not come across any Scripture that says God gave the Ten Commandments to Adam and Eve - and I've also repeatedly asked you to clearly proffer such a verse in Genesis. You have none for it in Genesis. Rather, God gave them only one commandment, and that was the only one they disobeyed - that of not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17).

When they sinned, neither Adam nor his wife Eve were once accused of being thieves or having stolen anything. While Eve was said to have transgressed; it is reported that Adam was NOT deceived (1 Tim. 2:14). Nowhere did God accuse them of having broken the Ten Commandments; so it is unreasonable to read one's biases into the express declarations of Scripture.

In Deuteronomy 5 when Moses reiterated the Ten Commandments, he specifically mentioned that the Law was given to Israel and to none else: "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." (vs. 2-3).

Again, the fact that the Sabbath Law was not given to other nations is emphasized in Deut. 4:6-8 -- "And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?"

When Moses in Exo. 20:8-11 gave the Sabbath Law to Israel, he explained its basis as pointing to God's sanctifying that Day after He had created the world. Not once did Moses hint that the Ten Commandments were given previously to anyone; nor did Moses explain any of the other 9 commandments on God's creative activity.

After the Ten Commandments were given, they were also explained in detail as to their stipulations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That is where the question of stipulations come into the pciture. And when you outline every precept of the Law or Ten Commandments, you will begin to see how utterly impossible it is for anyone to be justified by the Law - whether in the past, present or future (Rom. 3:28 & girl. 2:16).

@Bobbyaf,


You're such a comical character. Hear you "challenge" anyone to offer answers to your weak assumptions and yet YOU ran away from the 17 challenges I offered in the other thread. Even when you tried to play tennis with history in this thread, stimulus was on hand to set your misconceptions straight.

I haven't read so many people arguing for a "CHANGE" of sabbath observation from Saturday to Sunday. What we have consistently been speaking of here is that "the Sabbath Law was NOT made for Christians" - and rather not about what day it should be observed by Christians at all.


I expected that you would rope yourself again with this issue of the first day. I'm glad for your sake that you mentioned it, so that I could point you back to the OT about what the first day represents!

Those who worship God based on the OT Law of the Sabbath have to recognize two things:

(a) their worship emphasizes creation - the OLD creation. It is for this reason that they should look unto Jesus, who brought in a better hope; so that through the Redemptive titles of His blood, we may now be called the children of God; and rightfully address God as FATHER. That is why when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we do it in remembrance of HIM ("this do in remembrance of ME" - 1 Cor. 11:24 & 25 ). We are not here speaking of remembering a day as Moses commanded Israel ("Remember the Sabbath day" - Exo. 20:8 ). This again should remind us of Paul's caution that Christians should not be judged in respect of these festivities: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, of the sabbath days" (Col. 2:16).

(b) sabbatarians would have to strictly follow the stipulations of the Sabbath Law and not make eexcuses for any EXEMPTIONS. The Law of the Sabbath made no room for exemptions of any kind; and to fail in this is also to throw the claims of the Sabbath behind their backs!

Jesus Christ being our divine rest Himself, our hope is no longer based on the law of the old life emphasizing the seventh day. Rather, God wants us to focus on the NEW creation, which has its basis on the FIRST DAY! That is why so many dear saints of  God who argue for an OT sabbath fail to see that even in the LAW, there was a sabbath of the FIRST DAY!! Surprised? Here, let me remind you:


The SABBATH of the FIRST Day!

"And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you" (Exo. 12:16).

Whatever happened on the SEVENTH day was also applicable on the FIRST day! And remember that this was first mentioned even before the Ten Commandments were given in Exodus 20!

"In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein." (Lev. 23:7 & 8 ).

"On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein. (Lev. 23:35 & 36).

Now, carefully observe that the first day is also the eighth day as is clear above. But what is the penalty of breaking the Sabbath? To excuse it under any exemptions meritted DEATH - ""Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day." (Exo 35:2 & 3).

Now, Bobbyaf, if you have been cooking or warming your food at all on the Sabbath days, you have long been asking for the stringent penalty of breaking the Sabbath - no excuses please! "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses" (Heb. 10:28 ).

But then, what is the point of outlining the rest of those two days - the FIRST and SEVENTH days? In simple terms, to demonstrate that God was inidcating that the True Rest was a matter of the first day! That is why you will find that, while the seventh day sabbath had elaborate stipulations and stringent punitive measures, the first day was simply a day of one loud activity" CELEBRATION!!

The first day was a day of feasting, a day for celebrations and blowing of trumpets! Look again at the Sabbath of the First Day -

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation". (Lev. 23:24)

As Christians, this is the celebration of a feast of deep significance:

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Cor. 5:7 &

The Bible says in Heb. 4:8 - "For if Jesus (i.e., Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. God had been indicating this "other day" - the FIRST DAY - as inidcative of the NEW creation and a day of victory and celebrations in His Son, Jesus Christ.

As Christians, we live to rejoice in the blessing of victory which God gave us in His Son; and we worship Him, not only as the Creator, but more so as our FATHER! We find our True Rest in God's holy Son, Jesus - and in Him and Him alone, we rejoice in hope of the fulfillment of the victory and blessing of the New creation and New Jerusalem.

The ritualistic observance of a seventh-day sabbath has no place in the glories of the NT. It is either sabbatarians keep the Sabbath Law on God's terms and make NO EXEMPTIONS for their failures; or they seek to understand the true Sabbath of the first day which we find fulfilled in Jesus Christ!

bari kade,

that was a nice contribution!

i hope we remember that we are not AGAINST each other but "iron sharpens iron" and so i am happy to see the various contributions to this

@thesilent1,


I am also happy to observe the various contributions - even yours as well. I am not against anybody; and my posts were made to both debate and discuss only one thing: The Sabbath Law was not made for Christians.

Sabbatarians often argue that Christians should be seventh-day believers - and they argue for their case as best they could.

In the same way, I offer my inputs as best I can to counter that idea; because I'm persuaded that the apostles would not have repeatedly treated the issue if it really didn't matter.

Cheers.