What About the Sabbath Day (Part 2)?

This article continues to examine the sincere beliefs of a woman who thinks that the Sabbath day ought to be observed by Christians today even though the New Testament does not contain even one command along those lines. She cites several examples of Paul preaching in the synagogues on the Sabbath, but she wrongly assumes that Christians were meeting with the Jews there. The reason Paul preached in the synagogues was that the Jews met there every Sabbath, and they gave Paul the opportunity to speak to them, which he took full advantage of. He did not preach to them because Christians were meeting with them; in many locales the gospel had not even been preached yet—until he was afforded the opportunity.

For example, in Acts 17:1-2, which is underlined by the author of this letter under review, there is no mention of Christians. Paul took advantage of the meeting of the Jews held in a synagogue on the Sabbath day. He preached Christ, and some believed (v. 4). Envy caused the Jews to then persecute Paul and the church. This occurrence does not in any way corroborate the misrepresentation of the letter writer. Neither do any of the other verses cited.

Paul Kept the Law?

The next claim is simply incredulous. “We know that Paul continued to keep the law (Acts 21:17-26).” In this passage, Paul had to be talked into observing one custom in the Law in order to demonstrate to the Jews that he was not opposed to the Law. His public keeping of this one aspect of the Law, which would be visible to the Jews, does not authorize anyone to conclude that he kept the entire Law because it is evident that he did not. Did he keep the Jewish Passover? Then why did he write that Christ is our Passover (1 Cor. 5: 7)? And why did he say that the law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14)?

Yes, he did believe everything in the Law and the prophets (Acts 25:8)—particularly the fulfilment of Jesus with respect to what was foretold. And so do we, but we do not regard the Law as something we obey, since it has been taken out of the way and replaced by the new covenant of Jesus Christ (Heb. 8:6-7). The letter writer has not come to terms with the fact that no one can be under both covenants at the same time. She is either under the covenant that God made with Israel or under the new testament of Jesus Christ. And the new covenant does not include a Sabbath-day observance.

Paul “never taught against the law (Acts 25:8) or the customs of the fathers (Acts 28:17).” For those who know the New Testament, this claim is ludicrous. Paul claimed he had not offended against the Law of the Jews nor the temple. What did he mean? He was making a defense of his actions when he came to Jerusalem and was nearly killed by the mob. They had seen him in the city with a Gentile and assumed he had brought him into the temple, which he had not done (see Acts 21:28-29 for this explanation). Therefore, Paul had not defiled the temple. Nor had he spoken against the Law on that occasion, but was actually following a portion of it.

This defense was true and accurate, but it does not mean that Paul never spoke or wrote about the Law being done away with. Has the writer of the letter never read the books of Galatians or Romans? Paul wrote in no uncertain terms that anyone who tries to justify himself by the Law has fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4)!

And how about Galatians 2:21, in which Paul asks, “if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” Paul also asked, “And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution?” (Gal. 5:11). Paul was constantly persecuted by the Jews for not requiring the Law to be kept and for preaching Jesus and His new covenant. To claim otherwise is to ignore a significant part of the New Testament.

In Acts 28:17, Paul is still making a defense against the charges made against him in Jerusalem. While there, he did nothing against the Jews or their customs; in fact, he had joined in one of them. These facts concerning what happened in Jerusalem cannot negate what he taught in Galatians or Romans or other books of the New Testament. The Law of Moses was no longer in effect (Col. 2:14; Heb 8:6-7); we have a better covenant, established on better promises.

Establishing Authority

The writer of the letter cites as authority “examples, direct commands, and necessary inferences.” (Most brethren have substituted implication for necessary inference.) She wrote that restoration ought to be our goal. True. She does not seem to recognize that we cannot restore what was not there. Brethren did not observe the Sabbath; therefore, we cannot restore the Sabbath. None of the verses cited in this letter are an example of, nor imply that Christians should observe the Sabbath day, which God gave to Israel. Paul wrote that whatever we do in word or deed must be done in the name of Christ (Col. 3:17). Neither Jesus nor His disciples commanded keeping the Sabbath after the cross, when the new covenant came into effect.

It is argued that “Christ did not destroy the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17-18). It is true that He came to fulfill the law, but when He did so, the Law’s purpose was completed. Will the writer try to tell us that she offers the sacrifices of Leviticus 1-5, keeps the Sabbath day, as defined in the Old Testament, and observes the Day of Atonement as well—not to mention living in booths during part of the year? Does she scrupulously observe Israel’s dietary laws? No one can select part of the Law, such as the Sabbath day, without taking all of the Law (Gal. 5:1-4). If one insists on part of the Law, she is debtor to do the whole Law. If she claims to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, including the commands of the Old Testament, then she must do all of the things mentioned above.

Do we worship the same way as the Jews did? No. Do we worship the way the Christians in the first century did? Absolutely! Has the writer never read about the woman at the well? Jesus said that a time would come when worshiping at Jerusalem would not matter. It would not be tied to a physical location. (Does this woman indeed fly to Jerusalem to keep the Passover every year?) True worshipers would worship the Father in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24)—regardless of their physical location on the planet.

The author makes another assumption with respect to Revelation 14:12, which teaches that the saints “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” She apparently thinks the commands of God from the Old Testament and “the faith of Jesus” refers to the New Testament. Where is the proof for that claim?

In fact, Paul said that the things he wrote were the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). He also said that both circumcision nor uncircumcision were nothing (how could he say such a thing?); what mattered were the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:19). John wrote: “Now by this we know Him, if we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:3). Therefore, why would anyone assume that Revelation 14:12 would refer to Old Testament commandments?

We cannot be restored without observing the Sabbath, insists the writer of the letter, citing several Old Testament verses, adding that we should remember 1 Corinthians 7:19—which was cited above! Contrary to the Law of Moses, it teaches that the circumcision does not matter!

Acts 20:7 and Interlinears

The lady says she used to believe that Acts 20:7 authorized the first day of the week, but she examined three Interlinear translations, and two of them translated mia ton Sabbaton as “on one of the Sabbaths.” So what? I have two Interlinears, and they both say “the first day of the week.” Why did she not identify those two Interlinears that have “Sabbath”? The KJV, NKJ, ASV, RSV, NIV, NAS, and ESV all have “the first day of the week.” The New English Bible translated it incorrectly as: “On the Saturday night, in our assembly for the breaking of the bread….” And we would not be surprised if the New English Interlinear was one that she consulted. However, they are at odds with 99% of other translators and authorities. One might also check a number of commentaries, and the vast majority of them would render it as “the first day of the week.”

The Pulpit Commentary comments on the phrase, the first day of the week: “This is an important evidence of the keeping of the Lord’s day by the Church as a day for their Church assemblies…” (18:2:143). Furthermore, the New English Bible is not consistent. They translated the same phrase by the same author (Luke) as “on the Sunday morning” in Luke 24:1. Why? Why is it “Sunday morning” in Luke 24:1 but “Saturday night” in Acts 20:7? The writer of the letter did not research this issue very thoroughly.

Who Changed the Day?

Following in the footsteps of the 7th-day Adventists, the correspondent claims “it was the Catholic Church who changed the day of worship from the sabbath [sic] day to Sunday.” These claims are frequently made, and sometimes various popes are quoted as claiming this to be the case. What does it matter what an uninspired pope says? He could claim anything he wants. If we don’t believe him when he claims to be infallible, then why would we believe him when he claims to have changed the day of worship?

The writer goes on to say that the evidence for the change can be found in “‘the Council of Laodicea, #29’ in the 4th century as a sign of their ecclesiastical authority.” The first problem is that the Catholic Church, with a pope as head, did not exist until 606 A.D. So, a council meeting about 365 A.D. may have been part of a growing apostasy, but it was not fully realized at this point.

The designation, #29, may refer to the 29th canon adopted in this meeting, which states:

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Nothing is said about changing the day. The perspective is one of not paying attention to Judaizing teachers (in the church) who might be trying to get Christians to go back to worshiping on the Sabbath. It may be that the correspondent is looking at some other document than this one.

She says that she is still studying the subject. In that case, maybe the comments made in response to her letter may be of value. If she finds anything false or slanted in any way, it would be kind of her to point it out.

The first day of the week holds a prominent position in the Scriptures. It was the day Jesus came forth from the dead. (Even the New English Bible has “Sunday morning” in Luke 24:1.) The church was established on this day (Pentecost). Brethren did meet on the first day—not only because of Acts 20:7 but also 1 Corinthians 11:18-29 and 16:2. Furthermore, history verifies what the Scriptures teach. Many quotations (much earlier than 365 A.D.) can be supplied that brethren met on the first day of the week. The evidence is sufficient.