Sabbath-Day Observance (Worship) (Part 3)
Where is the Command?
The letter writer, who thinks Christians ought to keep the Sabbath—despite the fact that no New Testament Scripture contains those succinct words, Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy—argues that we have no Scripture commanding Christians to meet on the first day of the week. What do the Scriptures teach on this important topic?
Worshiping our Creator and walking according to His commands has always been in the mind of God concerning people's responses to Him. Commands were given in the Garden of Eden. Later, under the Law of Moses, Israel had hundreds of commands to keep (more than 600, it is estimated). Some of these relate to priests; some concern offerings for various purposes; still others pertain to morals and ethics. The New Testament contains far fewer commands regarding worship; it often deals with the heart.
In fact, Jesus told the woman at the well: "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). Truth is revealed to us in the New Testament, and Christians must worship according to it. But our attitude, the spirit in which we worship, is equally important. Therefore, what does God expect of us? He did reveal truth, didn't He?
God expects us to pray: Jesus taught His disciples how to pray (Matt. 6:9-15); Paul commands us to pray "without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17). Nothing is said relevant to a specific time to pray, but we do know that in Corinth, they prayed as the church—or in the assembly when they met (1 Cor. 14:15).
The same is true with singing (1 Cor. 14:15; Heb. 2:12). We sing in the assembly, although we can also sing numerous other times outside the assembly; the important thing is that our hearts are involved in the words we express (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).
Preaching the Word of God is always part of the assembly, also, even though it can be done any other time as well. In the first century, the message could come directly from God. Paul made the point to the Corinthians that prophecy was better than speaking in tongues because people could understand it (1 Cor. 14).
Giving is another expression of worship, and it can be done any time (Gal. 6:10), but it is also tied to the assembly. Paul explains that giving must be purposed, not grudgingly, but rather cheerfully (2 Cor. 9:7). Many had purposed to give for a special contribution, and here Paul said to do so on the first day of the week…. If this command had nothing to do with the assembly of the saints, then what difference did it make what day of the week they set it aside (1 Cor. 16:1-2)?
Probably the reason for setting aside the special contribution on the first day of the week was that it was the same day they would be setting aside their regular contribution for the congregation. Undoubtedly, some would say, "Oh, but that's just an assumption." There is more to come on that point, but just imagine what Sabbatarians would make out of it if Paul had said to set it aside on the Sabbath! They would have regarded it as concrete, irrefutable proof that Christians were meeting on the Sabbath still.
What about the Lord's Supper? Is there a command in connection with it? Yes. Jesus took the bread and told His disciples to eat of it, saying they should do so in remembrance of Him (1 Cor. 11:24). He also told them to drink the cup in remembrance of Him (v. 25). Did He tell them when to do so? Nothing is said about the time they were to honor Him when He introduced the concept to them. It does involve all of them, however; so, it was designed to be in the assembly—not as an individual practice.
What day do we have as a command to observe the Lord's death? Or what day do we find the observance as an example in conjunction with that original command? First, we ought to consider from where the church in the first century received their commands and practices. The answer comes as early as Acts 2:41-42. The three thousand who were baptized on Pentecost "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers." No, the day is not specified for "the breaking of bread," but one must realize that Luke wrote nearly three decades later—and Christians certainly knew on what day of the week they were meeting. It was not a matter about which they needed to be informed.
We do know, however, that brethren had a specific time to meet. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:17: "…you come together not for the better but for the worse." The reason for that introductory comment is that they were not taking the Lord's Supper properly, but there was a day for doing so. In verse 18, Paul also mentions that they came together as a church. Verse 20 also mentions that they "came together in one place" to eat the Lord's Supper, but they had so abused it that Paul says they were not doing so. Now what day was this meeting? One might rightly conclude, in light of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, that it was the first day of the week.
And that is corroborated by Acts 20:7. Paul wanted to meet with the church at Troas, but he had to wait seven days until they met on the first day of the week. Their purpose for meeting was "to break bread." Thus, Jesus had given a command to remember His body and blood, and brethren met in Corinth and Troas to do that very thing on the first day of the week. The examples show when the command was to be kept. This is the best evidence, but it is not all of it.
History
Seventh-Day Adventists like to quote some alleged pope as saying that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship, but history corroborates Acts 20:7. According to Ignatius of Antioch (who died about A.D. 110), those who became Christians were "no longer observing the Sabbath but living according to the Lord's day…" (Magnesians 9).
Justin Martyr (who died about A.D. 165) wrote: "And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a city or rural district…. We all make our assembly in common on the day of the Sun, since it is the first day, on which God changed the darkness and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. … That we do not live according to the Law, nor are we circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers, nor do we observe the Sabbath day as you do."
Greek Grammar
An argument was made by the letter writer that in two Interlinears the translation for Acts 20:7 was "on one of the Sabbaths." What does it matter when 100 other Interlinears have "on the first day of the week"? One could also look at 100 translations and find only one or two that would use the Sabbath for Acts 20:7. All that this brand of cherry-picking proves is that occasionally some scholar opts for a translation that 99 others would say is incorrect.
One by Jay Green is cited. It may have been an early edition of his that is being referred to. However, in the fourth edition for Green's Interlinear (from 1996, ninth printing, March of 2007), published not long before his death, he has "on the first day of the week." He points out that it is literally "in and the one of the Sabbaths." The first day of the Sabbath week is Sunday.
The Greek construction found in Acts 20:7 is: En.de ta mia ton Sabbaton. Literally, it is: "In and the first of the Sabbaths" (Sabbath being in the possessive [genitive] plural. Luke wrote both Luke and Acts. Consider the translation of Luke 24:1, in which the Greek is ta.de mia ton Sabbaton. The phrase is the same except for the missing en. All translations render this as "the first day of the week—including Green. Perhaps Green disagreed with himself or an earlier version of his work. It matters not, however; here is the point.
The vast majority of Greek scholars (98% or 99%) agree that Acts 20:7 should read, "On the first day of the week"; 100% agree that Luke 24:1 should be, "On the first day of the week." Anyone trying to make this the Sabbath day is simply grasping for straws. The Greek does not support the idea, history teaches otherwise, and most importantly, the New Testament teaches that brethren met to remember the Lord's body and blood on the first day of the week. This is also the day they gave their offering.
The Sabbath?
Now, where is the evidence that Christians worshiped on the Sabbath day? Pointing out that Paul went into the synagogues is not sufficient. In connection with this point, the letter writer says: "You made an assumption when you said the reason Paul went to the synagogues to preach to the Jews." Once again, here is Acts 9:20: "Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God." Exactly what part of the verse is an assumption? The assumption is that Paul went in a Jewish synagogue to engage in Christian worship—which they would not have allowed.
Acts 13
Of course, there was a church in Acts 13; it met at Antioch (13:1). This church sent out Paul and Barnabas "for the work to which I have called them" (v. 2). Paul preached this lengthy sermon in a place called Antioch of Pisidia. Paul went into the synagogue on the Sabbath and sat down (v. 14). No mention is made of any Christians being present. After the reading of the Law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue asked if Paul or those with him had anything to say. Paul then spoke (13:15-16). It is an assumption to conclude that Christians (besides Paul and those with him) were present. In fact, the text does not even hint that Christians normally met with them or were there on this occasion.
Synagogue
The letter writer is correct in what I said about the word synagogue not being used after the Book of Acts until Revelation. I should have added, however, "in the English." The word synagogue does appear in the Greek—once, in James 2:2. The reason nobody translates it as synagogue is that they know it referred to a Christian assembly. Actually, the American Standard did use synagogue there, but no one has copied them. When Jerome translated the Vulgate, he used the word meeting. This is nothing more than a meaningless quibble. None of the epistles mentions a command for Christians to meet on the Sabbath day.
Keeping the Law
In answer to the claim that keeping the Law would mean enforcing the penalties in the Law, the letter writer imagines that grace removes those penalties. If that is her view, fine, but where does the New Testament say that grace removes all those penalties? Grace does not do away with punishment—or else everyone would be saved (universalism). The Book of Hebrews teaches: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (10:31) and "For our God is a consuming fire" (12:29). The New Testament contains plenty of other passages concerning punishment for sin (2 Thess. 1:6-10). It is a tremendous assumption that we can borrow teaching from the Old Testament but ignore the penalties for violating those laws. Punishment for violating the Sabbath day was death (Num. 15:32-36). Does the letter writer really want to insist that this text be followed today?