THE BIBLICAL SABBATH,
STILL VALID TODAY
A) INTRODUCTION.
B) BIBLICAL SABBATH OBSERVED BEFORE SINAI.
C) THE HISTORICAL SABBATH.
D) OUR LORD’S OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
E) SABBATH OBSERVANCE BY KEY PLAYERS.
F) OUR DAYS OF THE WEEK NAMES.
G) FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK TEXTS EXPOSED.
H) WHY WE SHOULD NOT OBSERVE THE BIBLICAL SABBATH.
I) BIBLICAL SABBATH OBSERVANCE.
J) THE FIVE BIBLICAL LAWS.
K) TO YOUR OBJECTIONS.
L) SOME ARGUE THAT THE SABBATH DAY WAS LOST IN HISTORY.
M) THE CHANGED CALENDAR ARGUMENT.
N) HOSEA 2:11.
O) MATTHEW 5:17 = “but to fulfil.”
P) ACTS 20:7 = “first day of the week.”
Q) ROMANS 6:14 = “not under the Law.”
R) ROMANS 14:5-6 = “one day above another.”
S) FIRST CORINTHIANS 16:2 = “first day of the week.”
T) SECOND CORINTHIANS 3:3-17 = “done away.”
U) GALATIANS 4:8-10 = Ye observe days.”
V) EPHESIANS 2:15 & COLOSSIANS 2:14-16 = BIBLICAL ORDINANCES.
W) COLOSSIANS 2:14-16 = “let no man judge you.”
X) REVELATION 1:10 = “the Lord’s day.”
A) INTRODUCTION
The Biblical Sabbath can be explained quickly and easily. I challenge any of my readers to go to Mark 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man[kind],” and prove any other time frame than “in the beginning,” when mankind was made on day six (Gen. 1:27-31). The Greek word for “man” in Jesus’ statement is “G444; anthropos,” which literally means, “mankind.” Therefore, any argument that the Biblical Sabbath was made for just the Jews, or that it was changed or abolished is false, as long as mankind exists. Plus, in the next verse, verse 28, continuing along with Christ’s statement, Jesus claims to be “Lord also of the Sabbath.” So if you want to argue with me, that’s fine. But don’t find yourself arguing with our Lord Himself.
In fact, Jesus Himself established the Biblical Sabbath as being still active in 70 A.D., which is well after our Lord’s death, in Matthew 24:20, when He states, “pray ye that your flight be not. . . on the Sabbath day.” And verse 21 also gives us the time frame of during the “great tribulation,” which is just before our Lord’s Second Coming.
Lastly, according to Isaiah 66:23, which the time frame is when all the saints are redeemed and in Heaven, all will be “worshipping” our Lord “from on Sabbath to another.” In other words, we will be observing the Biblical Sabbath throughout eternity.
I contend that if mankind had kept the Biblical Sabbath Holy (or even a committed Sunday Sabbath), the “Theory of Evolution,” with its ridiculous time periods (constantly changing), would not have taken a foothold in the Christian Church.
If the Biblical Sabbath was kept as God created It (Gen. 2:2), just as He Commanded It (Exo. 20:8-11), just as He blessed it (Gen. 2:3), and just as He sanctified It (Gen. 2:3); just as He made It Holy (Exo. 20:11); just as He made it as a Holy gathering (Lev. 23:3), millions of years does not fit a seven-day creation week. And by the way, according to Numbers 23:20 and First Chronicles 17:27, anything that God “blesses,” He “cannot reverse it” and “it shall be blessed for ever.” Compare with Psalm 89:34.
It is contended by Sunday keeping Christians that the Biblical Sabbath was changed, and more importantly, was observed by the early Church. Yet no texts are given to show that God Commanded, blessed, or made Sunday Holy (Sanctified).
That “the early Christian Church kept Sunday Holy (is a lie), here is the truth in history:
“In the year 135 [a.d.] Jerusalem was sacked and the Roman emperor Hadrian prohibited Sabbath worship throughout the Roman empire. [Note: He was sick of Jewish rebellions]. Hadrian also prohibited anyone of Jewish descent from living in Jerusalem. A new Christian community was recruited for Jerusalem from other nations, and the biships of Jerusalem until the mid-third century bore Greek and Roman names. Thus, after 135, even the Jerusalem church worshiped on Sundays. Hadrian’s prohibition against Sabbath worship spelled the end of the Sabbath-or-Sunday problem for the early Church. Another council was not necessary.
“Anti-Sabbath theoloty goes back to the time of the Roman emperor Hadrian, who promulgated anti-Jewish legislation in 135 A.D. that categorically prohibited the practice of Judaism in general and Sabbath keeping in particular. His aim was to liquidate Judaism at a time when the JHews were experiencing resurgent Messianic expectations that exploded in violent uprisings in various parts of the empire, especially Palestine.
“In the year 321 the emperor Constantine made a new edict known as the Sunday decree. ‘All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable Day of the Sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by Heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish.’
“At the time this law was instituted Sunday worship had been universally practiced in the church for at least 170 years. The significance of the law, however, was that in sanctioning Sunday as a day of rest the emperor implicitly recognized Christianity as the state religion.”
It is also known that Constantine referred to Sunday as, “The Day Of The Sun,” according to Roman Catholic tradition.
In an interesting way of looking at the issue of whether or not the Biblical Sabbath is to be kept today, let’s look at it the way Jesus spelled it out. In Matthew 19:7-8, Jesus is challenged as to why divorce is acceptable. He tells them that since the beginning it was not so. Thus, what we learn is that prior to sin, divorce was not allowed. Some will argue that labor was not in existence either, but that is the wrong way of looking at it. Adam was told to dress the garden (Gen. 2:15). But after sin God gave labor as a way to diminish the temptations of sin.
Therefore, if we can establish the Sabbath as being active before sin (Mark 2:27), then it is still valid today. Well, consider Genesis 2:3, where God “blesses” it and “sanctifies” it, because He “rested,” or better, because He observed it Himself. Plus, according to Mark 2:27, the Sabbath was made for all mankind. See also Ecclesiastes 12:13 for this principle. “It is a rule in grammar that a noun unlimited by an adjective is to be taken in its broadest sense,” Dudley M. Canright, as in “man,” meaning “all mankind.”
It should be admitted that Genesis, Chapters One and Two, are all about God and what He sets up as the standards for mankind; just as demonstrated with the marriage contract. Therefore, just as in the beginning for it and labor, so it is true for the Sabbath institution.
Critics then bring up that there is no “evening and morning” on the seventh day, therefore, the day never ended. Seriously? You must also reason using that logic that the seventh day also never began! See Hebrews 4:10.
Critics will then argue that God never ceased from working. However, the Scriptures are clear that God “finished,” Genesis 2:1, His work which He had made.
By attempting to do away with the physical Sabbath of “rest,” one must realize there is no “rest” in sin. Thus, by canceling the Sabbath and the spiritual rest achieved in it, as described in Hebrews, Chapter 4,its meaning is then lost. Therefore, the critics lose both the day and the “rest” that God would bless them with and any connection with Him on that day. See Exodus 3:14. To any critics I will say, don’t be like those in Jeremiah 6:16, who refuse God’s gift of “rest.” See also Isaiah 28:12 and Amos 8:5.
The next critical argument is that the word “Sabbath” is not mentioned in the Book of Genesis. Therefore, no one was keeping it holy. Consider Genesis 26:5 and tell Christians which “Commandments” and “Statutes” that Abraham “obeyed.” If we go to Genesis 1:14, we see that God appointed specific “seasons,” the literal Hebrew being “H4150; mo’ed,” meaning, appointed “times.” That should be pretty clear that the Sabbath Commandment describes a specific time. So, as we can see, the Hebrew is different than the normally thought of English word for “seasons,” meaning “certain indefinite time periods (such as Fall or Spring).” Thus, God NEVER had the intention that all days were the same. He specifically put the sun, moon, and stars in the sky in order for mankind to recognize when God wanted to commune with us every Seventh-Day Sabbath.
The Biblical Sabbath is kept by Sabbath keepers (keepers of God’s Law). By contrast, the Biblical Sabbath keeps, or better, makes holy (sanctified and blessed; Gen. 2:3; “hollowed,” Exo. 20:11),
According to Jeremiah 22:24, a “signet” (ring) has on it a name, title, and territory. And according to Exodus 20:11, the Sabbath of the Lord has a Name, Title, and Territory; with Ezekiel 20:12 telling us that the Sabbath can and will “sanctify” God’s people.
In the army, many a soldier is given an M16 rifle and must learn to take it apart and put it back together without incident. There is a pin that is called the “Sabbath Pin.” Why? Because it holds the firing chamber and all the adjacent parts around it together. If you should lose that little pin, the rifle will not work. My point is, the Biblical Sabbath is what holds the other Nine Commandments together. Let me demonstrate.
B) BIBLICAL SABBATH OBSERVED BEFORE SINAI
That the Biblical Sabbath Day was being observed before Mount Sinai; which is in Exodus, Chapter 20, let’s take a look at Exodus, Chapter 5, specifically verse 5. Here we find that Pharaoh was upset with Moses for him making the Jews “rest,” i.e., literal translation from Strong’s, “H7673,” is “Shabath.” And last I checked, Chapter 5 comes before Chapter 20. SPECIFICALLY, the “Egyptian Translation” of Exodus 5:5 reads, “Ye do make them to keep Sabbath.”
If we then go to Moses’ reiteration of the Ten Commandments to Israel before his death in Deuteronomy, Chapter 5, specifically verse 15, we learn that while Israel was in Egypt under slavery, they were not keeping holy the God Commanded Seventh-Day Sabbath until Moses instructed them to do so in Exodus 5:5. “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God Commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” Deuteronomy 5:15. Note the word “Commanded.”
Most argue that the Hebrew word used in Exodus 5:5, that is “Shabath,” simply means, “decease.” In other words, their argument is that Moses simply had them “rest” from their work and not “rest” because of the Ten Commandment Biblically Commanded Sabbath Law of God. I will grant you that “Shabath” most assuredly normally means “cease from what you are doing,” as in Genesis 8:22; Job 32:31; Jeremiah 31:36, and many other texts. In fact, of the 70 times the word is used in Scripture, only 13 times does it refer directly to the Seventh-Day Sabbath Commandment of God. Meaning it can. Let’s consider the times and context.
Let’s be reasonable. If Moses had “made” the Israelites to “cease” from their labors -- as is suggested from the false explanation to discount the fact that this is referring to the Seventh-Day Biblical Sabbath Commandment of God -- then why does Pharaoh then command them to “make brick[s],” Exodus 5:7, with less “straw,” Exodus 5:11, if Moses had gotten the Israelites to “cease” from all labor that Pharaoh had assigned them? Who cares what Pharaoh wants if Moses is more powerful in making the Jews “rest” from all their labors? Wouldn’t Pharaoh, being Pharaoh, just force them back to work? Silly argument indeed. Obviously, they still had to labor for Pharaoh and their “taskmasters,” Exodus 5:11, for Pharaoh made sure of that. Therefore, the more honest conclusion is that Moses was having them observe the Biblical Sabbath Commandment Law.
Consider also, in Exodus, Chapter 16, yes, Chapter 16 comes before Chapter 20, “some of the people [went out to gather manna] on the seventh day,” verse 27. And how did God [Jesus] feel about that? Here is verse 28, “And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep My Commandments and My Laws?” God cannot blame them for not keeping a Law that was not instituted yet, or else you worship a God Who cannot be trusted to communicate what He wants us to be obedient to.
Finally, that the Sabbath will be keep Holy by true worshipers and believers even in the last days of this earth’s history, here is Matthew 24:20-21:
“[20] But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day:
[21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
Clearly, no honest thologine will argue that this time period Christ is referring to has already passed sometime in the Old Testament. And still speeking of futuristic events, God invites all believers to be a part of His kingdom and worship on the Sabbath day (see Isa. 56:6) in Heaven. The Biblical fact that the Seventh-Day Sabbath will be keep universally and in Heaven forever is given in Isaiah 66:22-23:
“[22] For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make [FUTURE TENSE], shall remain before Me, saith the LORD [SAYS WHO?], so shall your seed and your name remain.
[23] And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another [HERE IT STATES IT VERY CLEARLY], shall all flesh [NOT JUST JEWS] come to worship before Me [WHAT DO THEY DO? They “come to worship?”], saith the LORD [ACCORDING TO WHO?].
In conclusion (and you should not need the rest of this article other than the interesting points I make about how and why the Biblical Sabbath was changed or abolished), since the Law of God is as unchangeable as He is, any revision of the Law of God (Ten Commandments to be specific) that is done by mankind is considered to be a violation of God’s written by His Own finger Law (Exodus 31:18 & Deuteronomy 9:10). And Jesus Came to save us from our sins, not in them.
C) THE HISTORICAL SABBATH
In my opinion, the most decisive factor, which influenced the change of the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday, is the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated by the Emperor Hadrian, in 135 A.D. Hadrianpromulgated this repressive anti-Jewish legislation after three years of bloody fighting (132-135 A.D.) in order to crush the Jewish revolt, known as the “Barkokeba Revolt.”
Hadrian’s Roman legions suffered many casualties. And when the Emperor finally captured Jerusalem, he decided to deal with the Jewish problem in a radical way. He slaughtered thousands of Jews, and took thousands of them as slaves to Rome. He made Jerusalem into a Roman colony, calling it, “Aelia Capitolina.” He forbade Jews and Jewish Christians from ever entering the city of Rome. And more important still, for our investigation, Hadrian outlawed the practice of the Jewish religion in general, and of Sabbath-keeping in particular, throughout the empire.
Another indication that the Seventh-Day Biblical Sabbath was still being observed in Hadrian’s day by the early Christian Church is found in this edict: “The deified Vespasian Augustus attacked the Jews on the day of Saturn, a day on which it is sinful for them to do any business, and so defeated them.” From “Sextus Julius Frontinus, Strategems,” Book 2.
That the Seventh-Day Sabbath was kept until at least sometime after 200 A.D. is clearly seen from the following history. In a well-known passage, Philo writes: “There is not a single people to which the custom of Sabbath observance has not spread,” “Against Apion,” 2, page 39. Tertullian, an influential Church leader (about 200 A. D.) reproaches the pagans for having adopted the Jewish custom of resting on the Sabbath. He writes: “You have selected one day [Saturday] in preference to other days as the day on which you do not take a bath or you postpone it until the evening, and on which you devote yourselves to leisure and abstain from revelry. In so doing you are turning from your own religion to a foreign religion, for the Sabbath and cena pura [special supper] are Jewish Ceremonial observances.” “Ad Nationes,” 1:13.
From Socrates Scholasticus, “Ecclesiastical History,” Book 5, Chapter 22, we read: “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [of the Lord’s Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition [anti-Semitism], have ceased to do this.”
It was not until Constantine, in around 320 A.D., when he became a supposed “Christian,” he adopted the sun worshiper’s day of Sunday as the new day of rest; since at that time in history, most, if not all nations, wanted to disassociate themselves from anything Jewish. In 325 A.D., Pope Sylvester officially named Sunday as “the Lord’s Day.” And in 338 A.D., Eusebius, the court bishop of Constantine, wrote, “All things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath (the seventh day of the week) we (Constantine, Eusebius, and other bishops) have transferred to the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week) as more appropriately belonging to it.”
That the Roman Catholic church changed the Biblically Commanded Sabbath to their man commanded Sunday (first day of the week) and still claims the power to do so, is obvious to the most casual researcher. Also, all her daughters (Protestants) are obedient to her. See my Bible Study: “CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS.” This is a must see.
Question: The Biblical Sabbath, Created by God, Commanded by God, Blessed by God, Sanctified by God, made Holy by God; and Observed by God Himself, was changed or abolished when He died on the cross, right?
Answer: “If the Law of God could have been changed or abolished then Christ need not have come to a fallen world to suffer the consequence of man’s transgression.” 2SP:218. “I saw that it was impossible for God to alter or change His Law, to save lost, perishing man; therefore He suffered His beloved Son to die for man’s transgression.” 1SG:27; 1SP:48. “If the Law could be changed, man might have been saved without the Sacrifice of Christ; but the fact that it was necessary for Christ to give His life for the fallen race, proves that the Law of God will not release the sinner from Its claims upon him.” PP:70.
Keeping the correct day Holy is a test of allegiance as to whom you will obey -- God or man (Satan).
D) OUR LORD’S OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH
CONSIDER THIS: The First Coming of our Lord did not change God’s Law of Sabbath keeping. Of the 54 occurrences in the Gospels and the Book of Acts (9 times in Matthew, 10 in Mark, 17 in Luke, 9 in John, and 9 in Acts), our Lord and His followers only show how to properly observe the day in which God created as a day in which Jesus was specifically to be “worshiped;” while setting aside all other earthly duties.
Our Savior taught that the Sabbath is a day “to do good,” Matthew 12:12; a day to show “mercy,” Matthew 12:8; a day “to save life,” Mark 3:4; a day to “liberate” people from their physical and spiritual bonds, Luke 13:12 & 16; and a day that was made for mankind’s benefit, Mark 2:27.
Four times in Scripture the Sabbath is mentioned as a “sign” (Hebrew, H226, meaning “mark; sign; signal”) between God and man that man may know and acknowledge that God is the Lord of the Sabbath: Exodus 31:13 & 17; Ezekiel 20:12 & 20 (compare with Deu. 6:8). Therefore, to attempt to “cancel” or “change” the Biblical Sabbath Day, is to attempt to change the character of our Lord and make Him something that He is not. Just as a parent of any child has determined parental character by the laws they set for their household, so our Lord’s character is established by the Laws He has set for His people. And just as any parent, our Lord has set up this Seventh-Day Sabbath Rest as a blessing for mankind, not a restrictive devise.
E) SABBATH OBSERVANCE BY KEY PLAYERS
By Jesus: Matthew 4:23; 5:17; 12:8 & 12; Mark 1:21-28; 2:28; 3:1-6; 6:2; Luke 4:15-16; 6:5; 16:30-31, 44; 6:6; 13:10-17; John 6:59; 18:20; James 5:4.
By Paul: Acts 13:5 & 14 & 42 & 44; 14:1; 16:13; 17:2 & 10 & 17; 18:4 & 19; 28:17.
By Barnabas: Acts 13:42-43.
By Peter and John: Acts 3:1.
By Apollo: Acts 18:24-26.
By Everyone Who Went To The Synagogues On The Sabbath Day: Acts 15:21.
By James: Acts 15:21; James 5:4.
Paul himself, in Acts 24:14 & 25:8 & 28:17, states that he in no way had offended in any appearance any of the Jewish Laws. This would mean that he was keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath himself. Moreover, the Book of Acts alone gives us a record of Paul having 84 meetings upon the Sabbath Day (see Acts 13:14 & 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4 & 11). In addition, the Sabbath is mentioned 59 times in the New Testament, bearing the same respect that it had in the Old Testament, i.e., “the Sabbath Day.”
The council at Jerusalem and its decisions, mentioned three times (Acts 15:20 & 29; 21:25) with slight variations, provide critical insight into the attitude of the Jerusalem Church toward “Jewish” (or are they God’s) Laws. Several points are noteworthy.
The exemption from circumcision was granted (Acts 15:24). The non-exemption from pollutions or eating of things offered to idols, and from what was strangled, and from the consuming of flesh with the blood (Acts 15:20). This excessive concern of the Jerusalem Church hardly allows us to imagine that a weightier matter such as the God ordained, God Commanded, Seventh-Day Sabbath observance had been unanimously abrogated. The mere fact that the Sabbath is not even brought up as being in controversy (although mentioned and therefore could have been brought into the debate; Acts 15:21) shows that no contentions about the Biblical Seventh Day Sabbath Day were going on at this time in history. And James, our Lord’s brother, who was head of that assembly, continued to keep the Biblical Sabbath himself (see James 5:4 where he calls Christ, “Lord of the Sabbath”).
What Luke is telling us here, is that in Acts 15:21, James is telling the objectional Jews that these newly Holy Spirit filled Gentiles (the reason for this Jerusalem council in the first place was to discuss what should be done with these Gentiles, since they were receiving the Holy Spirit just as much as were the Jewish believers in Jesus), were going to learn more about Jewish teachings, Laws, and God sanctioned customs, when they went to study with their (now) Jewish brethren “in the synagogues every Sabbath Day,” Acts 15:21.
IN SUMMERY: God Rested, Sanctified, and Blessed the seventh day (Genesis 2:2-3); Commanded it to be observed, for It was made Holy (Exodus 20:8-11); and Created it to be observed (Ezekiel 20:12 & 20; Mark 2:27). In enacting the Sabbath Day, our God did Six (6) things in order for It to be recognized as an institution to be observed by all. Looking at it again, He:
1) Blessed It (Genesis 2:3).
2) Sanctified It (Genesis 2:3).
3) Commanded It To Be Observed (Exodus 20:8-11; 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:12-15 [Daniel 7:25]).
4) Created It To Be Observed As A “sign” Of Allegiance (Ezekiel 20:12 & 20; Mark 2:27).
5) Made It Holy (Exodus 20:11).
6) GOD Himself Rested On It (Genesis 2:2).
Just a NOTE on the [BRACKETED] Scripture of Daniel 7:25. This is where the replacement of the Biblical Sabbath is commanded by man to be changed to Sunday.
Here is my point and our Lord’s. If you can find anywhere in Scripture where these SIX (6) things, let alone even ONE of them, can be placed on the setting up of Sunday as the newly established worship day of the week, chosen by our Lord, then, and only then, should we consider it (Sunday) to be so Commanded by God, thus replacing the true Biblical Sabbath.
F) OUR DAYS OF THE WEEK NAMES
Sunday originally was known as “The Day of Mithra.” The names of the week in the English language are no mystery. They came from the Roman and Anglo-Saxon gods:
Sunday was the day of the Roman god of the sun;
Monday the day of the Roman god of the moon;
Tuesday, named after the Roman god Tiw;
Wednesday, the Roman god Woden;
Thursday, the Roman god Thor;
Friday, the Roman God Frigg;
and Saturday, (became) was named after the Roman god Saturn.
Soon, Sunday, by the power of the Roman Catholic church then came to be called by the religious world, “The Day of the Lord;” then, “The Lord’s Day.” In Romanism, it became known as “The Dominical Day,” or “The Sunday,” or “The Lord’s Day.” This became an abuse of Revelation 1:10.
G) FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK TEXTS EXPOSED
First of all, the argument is that since Christ rose upon the “First Day Of The Week,” and since the Disciples gathered together upon the “First Day Of The Week,” Sunday is now changed to be the 4th Commandment.
Matthew 28:1 & Mark 16:9 & Luke 24:1: This takes place after observing the Scriptural Commanded Sabbath. No change to Sunday worship here.
John 20:19: “the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews.” If they were afraid of “the Jews” attacking them, this would not take place on the Torah observing “Jews” Sabbath. In fact, the verse previous (18) tells us that this took place on the same day our Lord was raised. Are we now to assume that Sunday worship began on the very day when Christ arose (see Mark 16:9)? And according to Mark 16:11 & 13, they didn’t even believe Mary Magdalene’s report of their risen Lord. Reference with Mark 16:14.
Acts 20:7: Getting together for a meal and “preaching” by Paul hardly warrants a change of the Biblical Sabbath; which might not have gone over so well and mention would have been recorded of their upheaval. The Greek for the word “week” in this text is “G4521; Sabbaton,” meaning literally it should have been translated as, “the first day after Sabbath.” Therefore, this in Roman time, midnight to midnight, would be Saturday night. But in Biblical time, “evening to evening,” this is Sunday night.
The meeting then went on into the late night and “Eutyehus” falls out of the window. Then, verse 11 tells us at the “break of day,” still Sunday, Paul “departed.” Now either we need to add another day in between verse 11 and verse 15, you decided. Then, in verse 15, “the next day,” that now being Monday, he went to “Chios.” Then, “the next day,” which would now be Tuesday, Paul and his companions “came to “Miletus.” Then, still in verse 15, “the next day,” which would be Wednesday, they “came to Miletus.” Then, according to Acts 20:17, Paul “called for the elders of the Church” for a meeting on what is now still Wednesday (or Thursday if you added a day). Therefore, we should also change the Biblical Sabbath day to Sunday and Wednesday, since having a meeting is the legitimate excuse to do so.
And don’t forget to ignore that, “And Paul, as his manner was,” Acts 17:2, to go into the “Synagogue,” Acts 17:1, “every Sabbath,” Acts 18:4, and then use Acts 20:7 to prove it was changed to Sunday, is First (1), to ignore the Wednesday meeting, and Second (2) to fail to give credit to the Roman Catholic church for this change. If you were to check Acts 18:11, Paul taught on Sabbath in the Synagogue in Corinth for 78 Sabbaths. Let alone all the other cities he taught on the Sabbath day. IF there was a change of the Biblical Sabbath Commandment, somebody forgot to inform Paul.
Lastly, if you still are holding onto the “breaking” of “bread” as a conformation of any Biblical change of the Word of God, consider Acts 2:46, where every day, “they, continuing daily with one accord,” “broke bread.” Which day is the changed Sabbath Day now?
First Corinthians 16:2: Note that Paul asks them to not have “gatherings [of money] when” he “come[s].” And therefore, he suggests that as God has prospered them, they are to gather “Upon the first day of the week.” And according to the Biblical Sabbath instruction, no work was to be done on the Sabbath day. Thus, this “first day of the week” could not possibly be a change of the Biblically Commanded; Blessed; Made Holy; Sanctified; Sabbath Day. But rather, as the 4th Commandment confirms, it is the “first day of the week” to re-begin work upon.
Note also that this is the same sentence structure in the Greek as it was in Acts 20:7. Thus, the translation should read, “the first day after Sabbath [G4521; Sabbaton].” This thus, in Roman time is Saturday night. But in Biblical time, Sunday night. Therefore, these were in fellowship all Sabbath long. Then, when the Biblical Sabbath was over, now Paul directs them to “set aside” their “surplus in proportion to what you have. In other words, do not desecrate the Holy Sabbath day with earthly cares.
H) WHY WE SHOULD NOT OBSERVE THE BIBLICAL SABBATH
I would like to address any silly objections heard most often from those who would like to change, cancel, or simply not keep the Sabbath Holy. Since they can’t light a fire for cooking (misunderstood), or travel only so far on the Sabbath (Jewish tradition; not Biblical), and any other excuse that is used to “prove” that it is impossible to keep the Sabbath Holy. The silly excuse then comes in that we should not keep it because it cannot be kept. Because you cannot swim does not mean you should then not take a bath? Since God Commanded the Sabbath to be observed, don’t you think He would make provision enough in order for you to observe It? Did He not get the Israelites out of Egypt so they could observe It? Or are you like the Israelites, who could not get Egypt out of themselves?
First of all, the Parasitical Sabbath laws were not Biblical, as seen by Jesus constantly correcting them. And second, the not lighting of a fire, in order to cook food, quite the process in those days, was because preparation of the meal should have taken place on Friday, with a double portion, enough for the Sabbath day also.
I) BIBLICAL SABBATH OBSERVANCE
Commanded By God: Exodus 16:23-30; 20:8-11; 23:12; 31:13-17; 34:21; 35:2; Leviticus 23:3; Deuteronomy 5:12-15; (Hebrews 4:4; symbolized).
Observed The Seventh Day: Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 16:23-30; 20:8-11; 23:12; 31:13-17; 34:21; 35:2; Leviticus. 23:3; Deuteronomy 5:12-14; Hebrews 4:4 (symbolized).
Friday = Preparation Day: Exodus 16:22-23; Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14 & 31 & 42.
Observed Even Unto Even: Genesis 1:5 & 8 & 13 & 19 & 23 & 31; Leviticus 23:32.
Begins Friday Evening At Sunset: Genesis 1:5 & 8 & 13 & 19 & 23 & 31; Nehemiah 13:19.
Ends Saturday Evening At Sunset: Matthew 8:16; 28:1; Mark 1:32; Luke 4:40; John 20:1.
No Secular Work: Exodus 5:5; 20:8-11; 23:12; 31:14-15; 34:21; 35:2; Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 5:12-14; Isaiah 58:13; Jeremiah 17:22; Amos 8:5.
Do Well On: Matthew 12:11-12; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; 13:15.
No Cooking On Sabbath: Exodus 35:3.
Bear No Burden On: Jeremiah 17:21-22 & 24; Nehemiah 13:15 & 19.
No Buying Or Selling: Nehemiah 10:31; 13:16-18.
Set Aside Your Normal Activities: Isaiah 58:13.
Why The Sabbath Was Made: Mark 2:27.
It Is OK To Eat On: Matthew 12:1-2; Acts 2:42 & 46.
Attend Church ON: Luke 4:16 & Acts 17:2.
Go Out Into Nature ON: Acts 16:13.
Pray On: Acts 16:13.
Prepare Food On Friday [Preparation Day] Not Sabbath: Exodus 16:22-30; Numbers 15:32-36.
Be Helpful ON In Times Of Emergencies: Matthew 12:11-12.
Perform Acts Of Healing ON: Mark 3:4-5; Luke 6:9-10; 13:15-16; 14:3-4; John 7:23 (DA:284-286).
Jesus Is Lord Of The Sabbath: Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5; Romans 9:29; James 5:4; Revelation 1:10.
High Sabbath: John 19:31.
Observed By The Apostles: Luke 23:56; Acts 13:14; 13:42 & 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4; Romans 9:29; James 5:4.
Even The Land Needs To Keep Sabbath: Second Chronicles 36:21.
To Be Observed During The Time Of Trouble (End Times): Matthew 24:20-21.
To Be Observed In Heaven: Isaiah 66:23. [See Also: Revelation 11:19; 15:5].
J) THE FIVE BIBLICAL LAWS
There are actually FIVE Laws in the Old Testament.
1) The Moral Law (the Ten Commandments);
2) The Dietary Law;
3) The Civil Law (many of which are even today used in modern society for law and order);
4) The Law of Nature (that we now have after sin); and;
5) The Sacrificial Law (Ceremonial). That the “ordinances” are not equal to certain laws, such as the Ten Commandments of God, can be easily determined.
Paul does not cancel the Law of not eating the blood with the flesh (Dietary Law; see Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Deuteronomy 12:16; Acts 15:20). It would appear that Paul was constantly having a problem with false teachers upon the diet question (see 1Ti. 4:3 as an example). Neither does he cancel the Holy Sabbath Law (which is a portion of the Moral Law; see Leviticus 23:37-38; Romans 14:5). Nor does he cancel the “life for life” Law (Civil Laws). And Nature (Law of Nature) still roles on as before (look outside your window). For “new moon,” or the first day of each month (if your window does not work), see Numbers 10:10; 28:11; First Samuel 20:5; Isaiah 66:23. The warning in Colossians 2:16 is not a condemnation or cancellation of the five mentioned practices per se, but of the authority of the false teachers (Colossians, Chapter 2, verses 4 & 8) to legislate as to the manner of their observance.
K) TO YOUR OBJECTIONS
It is argued that the Biblical Sabbath was canceled (for whatever reasoning). However, if we look at Galatians 3:15: “Though it be but a man’s covenant [Paul’s point being that even if it were only “but a man’s covenant,” but we know it is not, it is God’s Covenant that Paul is alluding to here], yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” Then we can go to Hebrews 9:17: “For a testament [literally, “a contract” or “covenant”] is of force after men are dead [in other words, once our Lord died nothing could be changed]: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth,” establishing whatever Laws of God were in effect at the cross, are also in effect after the death on the cross.
This should be so plain that the rest of these objections should not even have to be discussed. However, it is argued that Sunday worship originated with the First Century Church. The reason was to commemorate the observance of the resurrection of our Lord upon the First day of the week, i.e., Sunday. Two Biblically accurate testimonies attest to the fact that this is none other than a conjured-up idea.
The First is that the Jerusalem council (Acts, Chapter 15) makes no such mention or adoption of any changes to that effect. And it must be conceded that its main purpose for convening was to attempt to change things in regards to the then established Jewish laws on circumcision and diet (see Acts 15:1-2 & 5 & 20).
Second, and even more convincing, is Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem. The Apostle was informed by James and the elders, that thousands of converted Jews were “all zealous for the Law,” Acts 21:20. The same leaders then pressured Paul to prove to the people that he also “lived in observance of the [Jewish] law,” Acts 21:24, by undergoing a rite of purification at the Temple. In the light of this deep commitment to the observance of the Law, it is hardly conceivable that the Jerusalem Church would have abrogated one of its chief precepts, i.e., Sabbath keeping, and pioneered Sunday worship instead in front of these devout Jews. Else there would have been such a stink as that the Bible writers could have hardly been silent about it. Yet, in regards to the supposed change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, that is just what the Bible does not speak of, but rather is exceptionally silent about it; for it simply is not a teaching of The Word of God.
L) SOME ARGUE THAT THE SABBATH DAY WAS LOST IN HISTORY
“By calculating the eclipses, it can be proven that no time has been lost and the creation days were seven, divided into 24 hours each.” Dr. Hinkley, “The Watchman,” July 1926 [Hinkley was a well-known astronomer].
“The human race never lost the septenary [seven days] sequence of week days and that the Sabbath of these latter times comes down to us from Adam, though the ages, without a single lapse.” Dr. Totten, professor of astronomy at “Yale University.”
“Seven has been the ancient and honored number among the nations of the earth. They have measured their time by weeks from the beginning. The origin of this was the Sabbath of God, as Moses has given the reasons for it in his writings.” Dr. Lyman Coleman, deemed the oldest College professor in active service in America in 1880.
“There has been no change in our calendar in past centuries that has affected in any way the cycle of the week.” James Robertson, Director American Ephemeris, Navy Department, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C., March 12, 1932.
“It can be said with assurance that not a day has been lost since Creation, and all the calendar changes notwithstanding, there has been no break in the weekly cycle.” Dr. Frank Jeffries, Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and Research, Director of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England.
Let us cover those last two statements. The first change to the calendar occurred in 1582 A.D., and was decreed by Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585 A.D.). From this point forward the calendar became and has been known as the “Gregorian Calendar.” One hundred and seventy years later, in 1752 A.D., another change was made (see below).
Both of these changes involved dropping dates from the calendar to correct for previous errors in construction and computation in regards to the seasons; which is why we now have 29 days in February every four years to avoid this in the future.
Over the centuries, astronomers had come to greater precision in understanding how to compute and devise a more exact (solar) calendar. The Julian calendar lacked this precision. It was based on the belief that a solar year was exactly 365 1/4 days long. Hence, the calendar added one extra day every four years to the month of February. Astronomers learned in time that the solar year was actually 12 minutes and 14 seconds shorter than previously believed. This caused the spring equinox to fall backwards on the calendar until it eventually fell on March 11th instead of March 21st. This required that ten days be dropped from the calendar.
M) THE CHANGED CALENDAR ARGUMENT
One look at the Jewish community and Jews around the world and we can admit that none of them as a whole community or nation have ever all fallen asleep for a whole day, such that they would lose tract of “which day” the Biblical Sabbath Day of our Lord is on. However, this does not mean that the day has not been properly changed.
Bear in mind that dates were dropped (changed) from the month in October 1582, and not days from the week. The following diagram shows how this was done:
October 1582 A.D.
Sunday
Monday = The First of the month.
Tuesday = The Second of the month.
Wednesday = The Third of the month.
Thursday = The Fourth of the month.
Friday = The Fifteenth [HERE IS THE CHANGE] of the month.
Saturday = The Sixteenth of the month.
September - 1752 A.D.
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday = The First of the month.
Wednesday = The Second of the month.
Thursday = The Fourteenth [HERE IS THE CHANGE] of the month.
Friday = The Sixteenth of the month.
Bottom line: The first week of October went from Thursday, October 4th, to Friday, October 15th, and the first week of September went from Wednesday September 2nd, to Thursday, September 14th. The two Sabbaths on either side of this change were still seven days apart. The Sabbath remained unaffected and the weekly cycle was not broken. In other words, the days of the week have never been lost nor affected by any man-made changes.
N) BIBLE TEXTS USED FOR YOUR OBJECTIONS - HOSEA 2:11
Yes, the Sabbath observance was canceled for the Northern kingdom of Israel, because they were taken captive by the Assyrian nation which God allowed them to be conquered by; and therefore, they could not observe the Sabbath while in captivity. That did not stop the Southern kingdom from observing the Sabbath.
Therefore again, that in NO WAY cancels the Biblical observance of a God Commanded mandate.
O) MATTHEW 5:17 = “but to fulfil”
Since most false assumptions direct Christ’s statement of “fulfil” as a cancelation of the Ten Commandments, why is it they only attack the Sabbath Commandment?
In order to better understand what our Lord really meant by “fulfil,” let’s discover Isaiah 42:21: “ The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will magnify the Law, and make it honourable.” This was one of Christ’s main purposes in His ministry on earth; to “magnify” His Law. “If you love Me, keep My Commandments.” John 14:15.
Therefore, He did not “come to destroy the Law” of God. Can you imagine how upset the Pharisees would really have gotten had they thought He was getting rid of more than just the Sabbath Commandment? Luke 16:17 states: “And it is easier for Heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail.”
Finally, this is a total misunderstanding of “fulfil” meaning the cancelation of something. Let’s compare Jesus’ Own Words of this text with Matthew 3:15: “And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered Him.” If “fulfil” out of our Lords Own mouth means to cancel “righteousness,” I really don’t understand God’s Word. Thus, ‘fulfil” means to “do/keep” God’s “Law” and “righteousness.” “That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us,” Romans 8:4.
P) ACTS 20:7 = “first day of the week”
An objection would be Acts 20:7: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”
The literal Greek works out to be, “Upon one day after Sabbath,” for the Greek for “week” is, “G4521; Sabbaton.”
The most difficult part of this text is understanding that this “first day of the week,” would have been, in our modern day of reckoning, Saturday night; because days change at “midnight” in our time of reckoning. But the correct Biblical view for a day change is that of being at sunset, as it should be understood here; for we must think as a Jew in Paul’s time and Luke’s writing of it; even though Luke was a Gentile and some argue that he would have used Roman timing, i.e., “midnight” to “midnight.” But that would be inconsistent with Paul’s preaching habits upon the Sabbath (discussed below).
That this was Saturday night, in Roman timing, and what would be considered in Jewish timing as Sunday night, as the “first day of the week” (for this would be after sunset on Saturday), can be easily seen by using Biblical language, letting the Bible explain Itself. In other words, let’s read John 20:19: “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week.” Is this not clear now? Therefore, this is why Luke could state, “on the morrow,” and we must still think of “on the morrow” as being Saturday evening; or better Sunday evening in Biblical timing.
Therefore, the actual meeting together was on the Biblical Sabbath Day, ending at sunset, which would then be Sunday night. Remember, Biblical time goes from sunset to sunset. Genesis, Chapter One: “And the evening and the morning were the …..day.” Or another way to think of it, which is the literal Hebrew: “And the darkness and the light were [was] the _____ day.”
In regards to the question of whether or not this was the first early Christian Sunday keeping gathering, is whether this first-day meeting represents regular Christian practice, or whether it happened to fall on the “first day of the week,” only because of Paul’s visit. The context clearly indicates that it was a special farewell gathering occasioned by the departure of Paul, as opposed to a regular Sunday-worship custom, which some argue that it then became. If you still believe that, at least start your Sunday worship on what would be Saturday night at sunset, which Biblically is the beginning of Sunday; the first day of the week, to Sunday night at sunset, which is the beginning of Monday, Biblically speaking.
Let us NOT build a new doctrine here. In fact, if you are going to build a new doctrine on changing the Biblical Sabbath Day to Sunday because Paul here “break[s] bread” upon “the first day of the week,” then you are going to have to also have a new Sabbath Day on Sunday (see below; better Monday by your false reckoning), because Paul again “had broken bread,” in verse 11 – WHICH WOULD BE ON MONDAY. Based upon your new doctrine of changing the Biblical Sabbath Law because of the “breaking of bread,” you now need to keep holy two days; Sunday and Monday; if you are going to use this verse to justify your claims.
Let’s look at your other reasoning for the changing of the Biblical Sabbath. That a “meeting” took place where they “broke bread.” Well, let’s look at Acts 20, verse Seven. Remember, this is now Monday night. Then we come to Verse Eleven, where they “brake bread” again early on Monday morning. Therefore, our new Sabbath day is both or either on Sunday, or Monday, or both; because we now “break bread” on both days, or pick a new day for your new Sabbath Un-Biblical day. But wait, then we come to Verse 15, and Paul “sails” “the next day,” which would be Tuesday, to “Chios.” Then, “the next day,” which would be Wednesday, he “arrives at Samos.” And then “the next day,” which would be Thursday, he “came to Miletus. Then, in verses 17 & 18, Paul “calls [for the elders of the Church” at “Ephesus,” where “they were come to him” for a meeting. Thus, we should change the Biblical Sabbath to Thursday, because a “meeting” took place on that day.
The fact that the “breaking of bread” (the supposed reason for the get together) took place after “midnight” (see Acts, Chapter 20, verse 7, then verse 11) suggests that Paul talked a long time (“continued his speech until midnight,” verse 7). Notice however, that Paul did not talk “a long while,” verse 11, until after “midnight,” or his interested audience kept things going (attested to by Eutychus falling asleep), or the events of bringing Eutychus back to life kept the evening meeting until after “midnight.” Either way, the fact that such an unusual time (late evening or early morning, i.e., after “midnight”) for the “breaking of bread,” suggests rather more of an extraordinary occasion than a habitual custom. It also suggests that the main reason for even recording this event was because of the miracle of the raising of Eutychus back to life, and not a change of God’s Holy Sabbath Day Law.
Thus, it would appear that the gathering was really taking place upon the Biblical Sabbath Day, before sunset, with a planned evening meal to follow it. This would prove that Paul was actually “preaching” on the Biblical Sabbath Day. Another possible real reason for this hurried meeting in Troas, was because it would be Paul’s last chance to speak to the believers here, for he was on his way back to Jerusalem. And from what Paul says in verse 25, we know that he knew this would be the last time he expected to be in that part of the world. Thus, Paul was not setting a president for Sunday keeping. If anything, he was just being courteous enough to give the believers in Troas one last instruction on the Sabbath Day before his departure.
In another objection: In regards to the phrase “to break bread,” this does not necessarily designate the Lord’s Supper as Sunday Keeper’s would like to insert here. It is only a common Jewish designation for having a meal (using the same author, see Luke 9:16; 22:19; Acts 2:42; 27:35). In the Second Century, the phrase began to become a technical expression for the Lord’s Supper, but at this particular time in history it was not so, and it is un-Biblical to suggest that it was.
The expression “to break bread,” Greek, “klasai arton,” deserves even closer attention, since it has taken upon itself many promoters of The Lord’s Supper. The act of breaking in pieces a loaf of bread by the host marks the opening action of a meal. In most European cultures, the same function is fulfilled by the host wishing “Buon appetite -- Good Appetite,” to the guest. This ritual gives permission to all to begin eating. Thus, whenever the Bible uses the expression, “to break bread,” or the “breaking of bread,” it is merely describing the beginning of a meal, not a decisive action of a change of history. Commentators are really stretching here in order to establish a Roman Catholic / Pagan worship of Sunday.
The common meaning or usage of “to break bread” in the New Testament is in fact, when breaking it down, we find we have the verb “to break,” in Greek, “klao,” followed by the noun “bread,” Greek, “artos.” In nine of those times, it refers to Christ’s act of “breaking bread” when feeding the multitude, when partaking of the Last Supper, and when eating with His disciples after His Resurrection (Matthew 14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Mark 8:6; 9:19; 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30; 24:35). Twice it describes Paul’s commencing and partaking of a meal (Acts 20:11; 27:35); twice it describes the actual breaking of the bread at the Lord’s Supper (First Corinthians 10:16; 11:24); and twice it is used as a general reference to the disciples, or believers “breaking bread” together (Acts 2:46; 20:7).
My point is, that in none of these instances is the Lord’s Supper explicitly or technically designated or termed as “the breaking of bread” in order to designate the beginning of a new or old Sabbath. Furthermore, “the breaking of bread” was followed by a meal, i.e., “had broken bread, and eaten,” Acts 20:11, or better the literal translation, “having eaten,” Greek, “geusamenos.” In fact, Luke uses this same verb in three other instances with the explicit meaning of satisfying hunger (Acts 10:10; 23:14; Luke 14:24), and it is NEVER used to change a historical event.
To make a GIANT leap to the un-Biblical assumption that God’s Holy Sabbath Day was changed to Sunday because of a meeting that had bread broken upon that occasion, is pushing too hard to form a new doctrine. Many texts state that it was Paul’s (and our Lord’s) “custom” to meet on Saturday, God’s original, un-borrowed, un-derived, Sabbath Day. Here are the texts for Paul: “as was his custom,” for three weeks at Thessalonica (see Acts 17:2-3), and for eighteen months at Corinth (see Acts 18:4 & 11), and for other periods in other places (see Acts 13:14 & 42 & 44; 16:13); and for our Lord Jesus (see Luke 4:16 and others).
Therefore, a consideration of the whole narrative provides no support for the view that Paul held this meeting specifically because it was the “first day of the week.” The correct way to view this passage would be that the meeting was held on Sabbath, which ran over into the “first day of the week [evening fell],” and not because it was a change of the Biblically Commanded Sabbath day to Sunday. Rather, this meeting was held because Paul was “ready to depart.” One is on very shaky ground to assume a verse teaches the changing of one of God’s original Commandments, especially when the verse makes no specific mention of such.
Concerning the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, Paul repeatedly states to the same people group, i.e., the Corinthians, “When you come together” [see First Corinthians 11:18 & 20 & 33 & 34. Search also the word “often”], they were to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Thus, he is clear when it is the time and placement of the Lord’s Supper celebration, separate from a regular meal. By contrast, Paul makes no such statement here.
Think about it seriously for a moment. Had Jesus wanted to “change” His Biblical Sabbath from Saturday to “the first day of the week,” don’t you think He would have been as clear about it as He was in enacting the Bible Sabbath in the first place? And had Jesus wanted to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, don’t you think, even imagine, that He would have told those people He appeared to after His resurrection to observe it as the new Sabbath Commandment? But none of those utterances of our risen Savior reveal any intent to memorialize the day of His Resurrection by making it the NEW Christian day of rest and [sun] worship.
Biblical institutions such as the Sabbath, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, all trace their origin to a Divine act that established them. But there is no such Divine act for the institution of a weekly Sunday or an annual Easter Sunday memorial of the Resurrection. Can you find one, two, or better, the Biblical established by, “two or three witnesses,” Matthew 18:16 (our LORD speaking)? See also Second Corinthians 13:1; First Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28.
The silence of the New Testament on this matter is very important since ALL of Its Books were written many years after Christ’s death and resurrection. If Christ or the apostles had enjoined the observance of Sunday as a memorial of the resurrection, then we should find in the New Testament some indications of such a commandment and of its observance. Instead, we find no trace of any commandment regarding the celebration of the Resurrection on a weekly Sunday, or annual Easter Sunday. Only the originator of that doctrine can be found by its “mother,” the Roman Catholic church.
Thus, Sunday is never called, as an example, the “Day of the Resurrection,” or any such metaphor in the New Testament. By contrast, it is consistently called the “first day of the week.” Paul prays that he may know “the power of the resurrection,” Philippians 3:10; NOT, “The Day Of His Resurrection.” The first reference to Sunday as the “Day of the Resurrection” occurs in the Fourth Century in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. The obvious reason for this late appearance is that in the earliest Centuries, Sunday was not viewed as the weekly memorial of the resurrection.
Lastly, let’s do a little exercise. According to Acts 20:7, we have a meeting upon “the first day of the week.” According to Sunday keeper logic, any time there is a major “meeting,” that day should be worshiped. Let’s stay in the same Chapter. When we get to verse 15, we have “the next day,” meaning Monday. Then we go future in verse 15, where we have “the following day,” meaning Tuesday. And even further into verse 15, we have “The next day,” meaning Wednesday, where Paul ends up in “Miletus.” And according to verse 17, Paul “called for the elders of the Church” in Miletus, where he has a major meeting. Thus, Wednesday is also or the true new Sabbath Day.
Q) ROMANS 6:14 = “not under the Law”
The statement “for ye are not under the Law,” means, “under the condemnation of God’s Law.” And contained in the statement is surmised that there is a Law in existence. According to Romans 6:1: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin [sins Biblical definition is the transgression of God’s Law, 1Jo. 3:4], that grace may abound?” Continue in the path of “sin” and you will eventually chase “grace” away. Just ask the Israelites.
R) ROMANS 14:5-6 = “one day above another”
The “day[s]” Paul is discussing here is not the God Commanded Seventh-Day Sabbath, thus canceling It. Or else he would have had an even more terrible uprising of the Jewish community against him. And such an uprising would have been recorded in God’s Word; for we have other Jewish uprisings faithfully recorded. Most Biblical commentators agree that Paul is discussing the Jewish “Feast Days,” and not the Biblical Sabbath.
The bottom line is, that no particular day is specified and accredited to Paul’s line of discussion towards canceling the well Biblically established Sabbath. To believe so is to be way out of line for even the most liberal of Bible commentators and surface readers. If we stay in context (shouldn’t we?), fasting is the subject being discussed here; and when it should be done (see verses 2 & 3 & 6).
Consider that it was inevitable that among the Jewish Christians there would arise questions as to the propriety of keeping certain “days” holy. Under the Ceremonial Law the Jews were to keep seven annual Sabbaths (see Leviticus, Chapter 23), called “Feasts.” Paul himself attended a number of these “feasts” after his conversion (Acts 21:20-27) according to the stipulations of the “Torah” (Num. 6:1-21). Placed under these circumstances, it appeared best, as in these texts case, to allow the various elements of the Jewish Ceremonial Law to gradually disappear, as the Jewish mind and conscience became enlightened.
That there is no question as to the Apostle’s respect toward those Old Testament institutions which still had value for Christians, is seen in the fact that he worshiped on the Holy Sabbath Day with New Testament “Jews and Greek,” (see Acts 17:1 & 10 & 17; 18:4 & 19); and he spent the days of “Unleavened Bread” at Philippi (Acts 20:16); and he also was hastening to be at Jerusalem in order to celebrate the Day of Pentecost there (Acts 20:16); and he assumed a Nasserite vow on his own initiative at Cenchrea (Acts 18:18); and he purified himself in order to prove that he lived according to the observances and practices of God’s Law (Acts 21:24); as he also had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) because of his belief that the Jews would cause an uproar if he did not, although he himself felt that this was not necessary (Gal. 6:15). Again, no mention of any Jewish uprising for Paul thinking to change the Fourth Commandment of God under any circumstances is recorded in Scripture.
We must ask ourselves: In the context of Chapter 14, is Paul here arguing a twofold position? In regard to the “weak,” verse 1, Jewish Christians, is he granting them freedom to observe the Law any way they want, including the weekly Sabbath? Or, on the other hand, is he granting to the strong (found in verse 3) Gentile Christians absolute freedom from any observance of the Law, particularly from the weekly Sabbath observance? Can we legitimately be drawn to this conclusion in the Book of Romans, Chapter 14? In actuality, nowhere in Scripture, nor the Mosaic Law, is prescribed a strict vegetarianism, or a preference for fasting days. Nor is there a total release from all Dietary Laws and non-fasting. Nor is the discussion AT ALL centered or even about the weekly occurring Seventh-Day Sabbath of the Scriptures.
What is apparent is the assertion of sectarian Judaism and their human principles and superstitions, differing convictions and practices, traditions, etcetera, that were being hard-pressed as obligatory upon new believers; especially Gentile believers. THIS IS in reality what Paul is asking his flock to be free from.
Any failure to distinguish between Paul’s concept of God’s Law as being, “holy and just and good” (see Rom. 3:31; 7:12 & 14 & 22), and of God’s Law as a system of salvation apart from Christ (which he strongly rejects), is apparently the cause of this much misapplied use of this verse (false teaching) as to Paul’s attitude toward God’s Holy Sabbath Day.
On the other part of this context of verses, that the Mosaic Law is not at stake in Romans, Chapter 14, is indicated by the term “koinos-common,” which is used in verse 14, to designate “unclean” food. This term is radically different from the word “akathartos,” meaning, “impure, unclean,” as used in Leviticus, Chapter 11 (Septuagint), to designate unlawful foods.
This suggests that the dispute was not over meat, which was unlawful according to the Mosaic Law, but about meat which, per se, was lawful to eat, but because of its association with idol worship (1Co. 8:1-13) was regarded by some as “koinos-common,” that is, to be avoided by Christians.
Paul, however, views himself as “strong” (“we who are strong,” Rom. 15:1); thus, he could not have been thinking of Sabbath-keeping when he speaks of the preference over days. Support for this conclusion is also provided by Paul’s advice: “Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind,” Romans 14:5. It is difficult to see how Paul could reduce the observance of the Biblical Sabbath to a matter of personal conviction without ever explaining the reason for it.
This is especially surprising since he labors at great length to explain why circumcision was not binding upon the Gentiles, while he NEVER is involved with a discussion as to stop observing the Seventh-Day Sabbath which was “Commanded,” “Blessed,” and “Sanctified” (made Holy), by God (Gen. 2:3). If Paul taught his Gentile converts to regard Sabbath-keeping as a personal matter, Jewish-Christians readily would have attacked his audacity for setting aside the Sabbath Law; just as they did regarding circumcision (Acts 21:21).
The fact that there is no hint of any such controversy in the New Testament indicates that Paul NEVER discouraged Sabbath-keeping. The preference over days in Romans, Chapter 14, presumably had to do with fast days rather than feast days, since the context deals with abstinence from meat and wine (Rom 14:2 & 6 & 21). Support for this view is provided by an early Christian document, called “Didache” (Chapter 8, dated about 100 A. D.), which enjoins Christians to fast on Wednesday and Friday rather than on Monday and Thursday like the Jews. Paul refuses to deliberate on private matters such as fasting on certain days of the week, because he recognizes that different people can perform in different ways and at different times with spiritual exercises.
The important thing for Paul is to “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another,” Romans 14:19. If the conflict in the Roman Church had been over the observance of holy days, the problem would have been even more manifest than the one over diet. After all, eating habits are a private matter, but Sabbath-keeping is a public, religious exercise of the entire community. Any disagreement on the latter would have been not only noticeable, but also inflammatory. How can I stress this point anymore clearly for you?
S) FIRST CORINTHIANS 16:2: “FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK”
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16:2: “Upon the first day of the week” = Here is an excerpt from my Bible Study: “SABBATH STILL VALID TODAY.”
The Greek for “Upon the first day of the week” is, “G2596; kata; G3391; mia; G4521; sabbaton,” which should be literally translated as, as the “ISV” version has it, “After the Sabbath ends.” This should dispel any Sunday concepts being applied to this text. But I digress to what follows.
Important to consider, is why this collect that Paul is asking the Corinthians to take part in along with the Galatians (verse 1) that he had already asked. According to Acts 11:28, Agabus prophesied “a great famine,” and Paul, along with “the disciples. . . determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea.” Acts 11:29. This could also include the Romans 15:26 instruction, for the “poor in Jerusalem.” In Romans it mentions “Macedonia,” just as it does in First Corinthians 16:5. Thus, we could be speaking of the same coming (future) event. See also Second Corinthians 8:1-3, that even though the Macedonian Church was having the same issues of “deep poverty,” they gave freely.
Thus, Paul is not specifically setting up a new exclusive policy that is to replace the Biblical Sabbath. The Greek word for “in store” is “G2343; thesaurizo,” and is a direct translation of the Hebrew word “owtsar,” which is translated in the “LXX,” as “storehouse” as it is in Malachi 3:10. Therefore, Paul was most definitely admonishing the Corinthian believers to adhere to the tithing system: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,” Malachi 3:10. Plus, “lay by him in store,” if you check, most, if not all Bible commentators, all agree that Paul is teaching the believers that they were to be “storing” their tithes in their own houses; not in the Synagogue or Church, or any other type of assembly.
Therefore, a better translation would be, “every first day from the Sabbath.” Thus, this lets us conclude that Paul is referring to the week by the Jewish designation, or “first day from the Sabbath,” and is not referring to the prevailing pagan name “dies solis” -- “Day of the Sun.” Rather, he reveals that he taught his Gentile converts to regulate their lives by the Jewish calendar. Please note also that there is nothing in the text to suggest any public assemblies, inasmuch as the setting aside of funds was to be done “by him[self],” “par’heauto,” verse 2.
After learning the context, or possible context of First Corinthians 16:2, to then jump to the conclusion that Paul is saying to the Corinthian brethren that he is now changing the Biblical Sabbath to the first day of the week is totally ridiculous. Please evaluate where the Sabbath is mentioned in this verse and also show where the first day of the week is now “blessed; sanctified; commanded; or made holly,” which was the requirement for the Fourth Commandment or changing thereof. Also, then Jesus Christ would have to Come down AGAIN and die for this new Commandment as a form of ratification.
We understand that Malachi 3:10 states, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse.” The “when” is what we would like to know. Therefore, notice that the word “day” is a supplied word and does not belong in the text. A literal understanding would be any first days of the week.
Thus, Paul’s mention of the “first day” as a day to set aside one’s funds is motivated more by practical grounds than theological reasons. To wait until the end of the week, or of the month, to set aside one’s contributions or savings is contrary to sound budgetary practices, since by then one finds empty pockets and empty bank accounts. In other words, pay your Tithe first and your bills later, or else you might end up not paying your tithe.
On the other hand, if, on “the first day of the week,” before planning any expenditures, believers set aside what they plan to give, i.e., Tithe and Offerings, the remaining funds will be so distributed as to meet all the basic necessities (since, as I have personally experienced, if I don’t pay my Tithe first, I will be in danger of not paying it at all). The text, therefore, proposes a valuable weekly plan to ensure a substantial and orderly contribution to our Lord and on behalf of the poor brethren of Jerusalem. To extract more meaning from the text would be to distort it and to take away from its valuable Biblical principles that one can put into one’s own life values for Tithing.
Finally, in reality, Paul suggests the “first day of the week be when you “work” out your gift, so as not to be doing this “work” on the Biblical Sabbath day. In fact, what “day” did the Corinthians Church worship upon? According to Acts 18:1-5, specifically verse 4, “every Sabbath” day; NOT every “first day of the week.”
16:11: “Let no man therefore despise him” = This, as you know, is improper English. The “therefore” should always come first, such that you should not read any further until you have understood the previous. Thus, it should read: “Therefore, let no man despise him.”
16:22: “anathema” = This word means, “A thing devoted to destruction; accursed.”
“maranatha” = This word means, “Our Lord Come.”
T) SECOND CORINTHIANS 3:3-17: DONE AWAY WITH
3:3-16: “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God; not in Tables of Stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart” = The KEY to understanding this passage is found in verse three, where Paul sets the groundwork for a Spirit filled life. God’s Law is no longer to be just understood by reading the “tables of stone” (verse 3), but it must become a part of our new birth and be written on the “fleshy tables of the heart,” verse 3. He supports this with verses 6 and 8, concluding the matter in verse 17. This is what the “new covenant” is all about (Jer. 31:31-33; Gal. 4:22-24; Heb. 8:8-10; 10:16).
In verse 6, the points are, “the letter [Ten Commandments; which point out our sins] killeth.” By contrast, “the Spirit giveth life.” This is explained in John 6:63: It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.”
In verse 7, we see that the Ten Commandments, “engraven in stones, [is] was glorious,” in other words, not written on their hearts, but still “glorious,” don’t miss the important word in this text, that being, “the ministration,” or administration of how God’s Law was presented, i.e., not wanting to be put into their hearts. This is why “the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory” of being in the presence of God and his Holy Law reflected on Moses’ face. We can see this demonstrated by going to John 1:17, “For the Law was given by Moses, butgrace and truth [the Ten Commandments put into your heart] came by Jesus Christ.
The ministration of the Law, “written and engraved in stone,” verse 7, was a “ministration of” death, verse 9, for without Christ, the transgressor was left under Its curse with no hope of pardon. The Law of Itself had no glory. However, if the promised Savior, revealed in the types and shadows of the Ceremonial Law, made that Law “glorious,” how much more must the Moral Law be “glorious,” when Christ was revealed, giving His life to fulfill the requirements of that Law, or else Christ need not to have died, for the Law that has no enforcing power need not be satisfied; but since He did die, that means God’s Law still exists and operates towards the sinner.
The “ministration,” verses 7-9, of “a” law and “the” Law are two different things. If a man steals, then the Law of God condemns him. The “ministration,” verses 7 & 8, of the Law is apprehending the thief and seeing that the penalty of the Law is visited upon him.
In verses 7-9, we learn that they teach that one ministration with its glory is done away, and another ministration of more glory has taken its place. However, the ministration, or rather, the Administrator (God) is NOT “done away,” since God is still administrating. And since this is the case, then there IS a Law to which He is still an Administrator of. And that is, attempting to put His Law into your heart.
Thus, verse 9 teaches us along the same lines: “For if the [ad]ministration of condemnation be glory,” the administering of the Ten Commandments, NOT the Ten Commandments, “much more doth the [ad]ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.” Paul is just pointing out one system verses another system. One where God’s Law was external and on stony hearts. Then one where God’s Law is internalized into one’s heart.
It must be remembered that since most of the Jews of Paul’s time, including the Judaizers now troubling the Church at Corinth, considered the sacrificial system instituted by Moses essential to salvation. Thus, Paul appropriately characterized the entire system as a “ministration of death,” or a “ministration of condemnation,” verse 9, and as lifeless, because, as Paul was attempting to point out, Jew and Gentile alike must find life in Christ, for in Him alone is there salvation (Acts 4:12).
Which is the conclusion of verse 10. “The glory that excelleth,” in the Law in one’s heart. Only the Moral Law of God’s Ten Commandments could fulfill this requirement. And although the Jews of verses 13-15 could not foresee the abolishing of the sacrificial system, because they still cannot see Christ in its atonement, God’s Ten Commandments always “excelleth,” verse 10, over the Ceremonial Law, and the Ten Commandments “remaineth,” verse 11, of the two Laws. Therefore, the glory that shone on the face of Moses (verse 13) was a reflection of the righteousness of Christ in the Law of God.
Now we can correctly assess verse 11, in that the first system of administration did not place God’s Law into their hearts, and is “done away” when one put God’s Law into his/her heart. However, both are/were “glorious,” in that one needs to revere God by starting with a knowledge of His Commandments, until one put them into their heart.
Thus, verse 13’s, “that which is abolished,” is the old way of seeing God’s Law. The Greek for “abolished” is, “katargeo, G2673,” and is use by Paul in Romans 3:31, which states, “Do we ten make void [G2673] the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law.” Why would the same author make such a statement if he were attempting to tell the Corinthians that God’s Law was “abolished?”
God’s Law Itself would have no glory, only that in It Christ is embodied. It has no power to save. It is lusterless only as in It Christ is represented as full of righteousness and truth; and His character is discerned in It. It was seeing the object of that which was to be “done away” (types and shadows, i.e., the Ceremonial Law), seeing Christ as revealed in the Law, which illumined the face of Moses.
Whereas, verse 14 tells us that the Jews still cannot find Jesus in God’s Law. Can you? Or do you, like Satan, want to get rid of God’s Holy Law so you can have your own way? You can make this “vail [be] is done away,” how? By “Christ.”
Notice that the “vail,” verses 14 & 15, is “upon their heart,” verse 15, where God wants His Law employed.
But in verse 16, “the vail shall be taken away,” “when it [you] shall turn to the Lord.”
Thus, Pauls point is that how God’s Law is “administered” is what he is stressing. It is the lawbreaker that keeps God’s Law of Love on the condemning “tables of stone.” Seeing Christ in the Law of God is what the Jews could not comprehend (verses 14 & 16).
This section of God’s Word would be better understood if “testament,” in the Hebrew, “diatheke,” meaning a “contract,” or “agreement,” would have been translated as “covenant,” in verses 6 & 14. Over and over we see that the man that wrote this passage also wrote the Book of Romans (see Rom. 2:13; 3:31; 7:16 & 22 & 25; 8:4, 7; 13:9) where Paul in no way cancels the Law of God. Therefore, why would he instruct the Corinthians with a different message here?
The bottom line is that these verses do not condemn God’s Moral Law, but rather the futility of having it written on “tables of stone,” as with the Old Covenant, while the New Covenant is “written on the fleshly tables of the heart,” verse 3. Also, the contrast between “letter” and “spirit” in Scripture is peculiar to the apostle Paul (see Rom. 2:27-29; 7:6). The one is outward, the other inward. Both Jews and Christians are in danger of stressing the “letter” to the exclusion of the “spirit.”
The Moral Law was never a type or a shadow. It existed before man’s creation (else Satan did not sin; see 1Jo. 3:8), and will endure as long as God’s throne remains. God could not change nor alter one precept of His Law in order to save man (else Christ need not to have been sacrificed); for the Law is the foundation of His government. The glory of Christ is revealed in the Law. The obvious reason is because God’s Law is nothing more than a transcript of His character. It is unchangeable, unalterable, infinite and eternal. In order for man to be saved, and for the honor of the Law to be maintained, it was necessary for the Son of God to offer Himself as a Sacrifice for sin.
Christ’s death shows the immutability of His Law. Man was to be placed where he could keep God’s Law and be accepted through the merits of the Redeemer, and by His Sacrifice, “glory” was shed upon the Law of God. Then the “glory” of that which is NOT to be “done away,” verse 11, i.e., God’s Law of Ten Commandments, His standard of righteousness, was plainly seen by all who saw to the end of that which WAS “done away,” verse 7, the Ceremonial Law, given to Moses, who represents the sacrificial system of Law.
U) GALATIANS 4:8-10 = Ye observe days”
In regards to those who jump on this section for the cancellation of the Seventh Day Sabbath Law of God, it must be realized that Paul here is not giving a dissertation to Jews. Anyone who reads the Epistle to the Galatians must know that this audience was not Jewish.
Thus, the Galatians would not have been returning to the “Ceremonial Law,” nor is this passage refering to the Biblically Commanded by God Seventh-Day Sabbath. Rather, Paul would be refering to the Galatians backsliding back into the sort of heathenism they were accustomed to.
In their heathenism, the Galatians had nothing whatsoever to do with the Jews. And Paul reminds the Galatians, in verse 8, that they had been converted from heathenism (something that the Jews could not be accused of, adding weight to the above statement). At one time they “knew not God,” but served “them which. . . are no gods,” verse 8. Unfortunately, they were now slipping back again to the “weak and beggarly; elements,” verse 9, of that old life. Then Paul described clearly the ways in which they were compromising with the former heathen “elements.” “Ye observe days and months and times and years,” verse 10, of their old gods, placing them in “bondage” to them again.
How strange it is for people at this point to insert the idea that Paul is here referring to the “Jewish” Sabbath, “Created,” “Sanctified,” “Blessed,” “Made Holy,” observed by God,” and “Commanded by God,” before there was a Jew (see Gen. 2:1-3). This insane idea blinds them to the true worship of God in that, “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exo. 20:10) binds us to Him, because “it is a sign between” God and us, “that ye may know” and worship the true God (Exo. 31:13).
But let us see if Paul is talking about pagan superstitious days or Jewish holy days? A careful analysis of the context leaves no doubt that Paul is talking about pagan superstitious days. The Apostle reminds the Galatians that in their pre-Christian days they “were in bondage under the elements of the world,” Galatians 4:3. The “elements of the world,” Greek, “stoikeia tou kosmou,” have nothing to do with the Old Covenant of God, since the Mosaic Law was unknown to the Galatians in their pagan days. Most scholars interpret “the elements” as the basic “elements” of this world, such as the earth, water, air, fire, or pagan astral gods who were credited with controlling human destiny. Thus, the context clearly indicates that Paul rebukes the Galatians for turning back to their pagan days by reverting to their pagan calendar and pagan gods “which are not gods,” verse 8. Again, the issue is not their adoption of Jewish Holy Days; but their return to observing pagan superstitious days.
V) EPHESIANS 2:15 & COLOSSIANS 2:14-16: BIBLICAL ORDINANCES
Colossians 2:16: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat [offerings], or in drink [offerings], or in respect of an holyday [Greek; “G1859;” meaning “Feast day”], or of new moon [when a month begins], or of the Sabbath [When the Sabbath fell upon the ceremonial] days = Let us be aware that Paul is actually quoting Ezekiel 45:17 in Colossians 2:16. And if you believe that Ezekiel is canceling or referring to the Biblical Seventh-Day Sabbath, nobody can convince you different from your un-Biblical arguments. Ezekiel is speaking of the Festival (ordinance) Sabbaths. These offerings were in place in order “to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.” Ezekiel 45:17. Ezekiel clearly sets forth the ceremonial Sabbaths from the Weekly Sabbath. Better explained by seeing Chapter 46 of Ezekiel. The Seventh-Day Sabbath was NEVER considered to be an “ordinance.”
Colossians 2:14 discusses something that is “contrary to us.” And just what is/was “contrary to us?” According to Ephesians 2:15 it was “the Law of Commandments contained in ordinances.” And that Law was placed “in the side of the Ark of the Covenant. . . [to be] a witness against thee,” as explained in Deuteronomy 31:26. The weekly Seventh-Day Sabbath was placed in (Deu. 10:2) the “Ark of the Covenant,” not “in the side of” it. In other words, the sacrificial system; which at this point (Christ already being sacrificed, satisfying the Sacrificial Lamb), Paul is explaining, was fulfilled/canceled when Christ died. Hebrews 9:12 explains that Christ now ministers in the Heavenly Sanctuary for us with His shed blood; instead of the animals sacrificed in the ceremonies of the earthly Sanctuary contained in ordinances.
The entire context of Colossians 2:16 is about the “ordinances.” Therefore, the judging of “meat” offerings, and “drink” offerings, and “feast days” kept, and “new moon” sightings in order to begin the “Feast Day” observances, and the “High Sabbath” celebrations when the Biblical Sabbath fell upon the prescribed “Feast Day” celebrations, are now no longer to be observed, because Christ has come, died, and fulfilled that “Ceremonial Law,” thus, making any judgment for no longer observing them in error.
The “ordinances,” were canceled; NEVER the Ten Commandment Law of God. However, you may say that the “ordinances” refer to the Ten Commandments of God. Let’s stay in context with what Paul is talking about. If you go to Colossians 2:20, Paul tells you that “if ye be dead with Christ,” you are dead to “the rudiments of the world,” or else you are “subject to [the world’s] ordinances,” which Paul explains what that is in verse 22, which is “the commandments and doctrines of men.”
Therefore, if you stay in context with what Paul is truly discussing and teaching here, you can learn that Paul does not want his Corinthian brethren to be trapped into the world’s standards, laws, and customs.
Wherefore, the real question that people are asking when discussing “ordinances” is: “Do ‘ordinances’ equal, or are they the same as the Ten Commandment Law of God?” Bear in mind that the “feast days” are understood to be “an ordinance,” Exodus 12:14. Nowhere, not anywhere, will you find the Seventh-Day Sabbath of the Bible listed as an “ordinance.”
That the “ordinances” spoken of here (both in Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14-17) ARE different from the Ten Commandments of God, we can go to Second Chronicles 33:8 (see also Deuteronomy 4:13): “. . . so that they will take heed to do all that I have Commanded them, according to the whole Law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.” Here we can see that we have:
(1) The “Law” of God’s Ten Commandments;
(2) The “statutes,” which are the civil enactment’s prescribed by God;
(3) And the “ordinances,” which comprise the Ceremonial (Sanctuary) services. Notice that all are spoken of as separate entities in these two clarifying verses.
Therefore, our question should be, “What is being canceled here?” Is Paul condemning abstinence from food and drink, festivals, new moons and Sabbaths, as well as the use of sacred days and seasons? Or is he warning against the wrong use made of such restraining Laws? Is he canceling practices or principles?
Most Scholars agree that in mentioning “feast, new moon, and Sabbaths,” Paul is not alluding to any or all of the eight Old Testament passages (see Numbers 28:1-29:40; First Chronicles 23:31; Second Chronicles 2:4; 8:12-13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33; Ezekiel 45:17; and Hosea 2:11). Thus, even a casual reading clearly shows that the emphasis is not on the feasts themselves, but upon the sacrifices associated with the Feasts, which corresponds to the Sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross; thus meaning that those sacrifices that prefigured the Sacrifice of our Lord are no longer needed; if indeed you believe He has already come to fulfil those representations of Himself. In fact, all of the other seven texts derived from Numbers 28:1-29 & 40, which contains a list of the various meat, grain, and drink offerings to be offered throughout the festival calendar year, are different from the Ceremonial (Sanctuary) services.
Since this is the case, isn’t it natural to conclude that Colossians 2:16 is also dealing with the same issues? Hebrews 9:10 even clarifies this concept by stating: “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” In other words, until the Sacrifice of Messiah.
Another piece of evidence for the above argument is the Hebrews 10:1-10 passage. This section bears a very close thematic and linguistic parallel to Colossians 2:16-17. What the Book of Hebrews is discussing is the Physical “body of Jesus Christ,” verse 10, and makes reference to the festal calendar of Israel (verses 1 & 3). The important focus of Paul is on the “shadow of. . . things that were to Come [Messiah],” Colossians 2:16; Hebrews 10:1.
Only aspects of the Law of Moses [God’s Law] could show us Jesus, as opposed to the Ten Commandment Law showing us Jesus. In other words, the Law of Moses (Ceremonial portion only) was a shadow to what Jesus would do. While the Ten Commands are the very character of Jesus [God] Himself. Given such impressive parallels, Hebrews 10:1-10 becomes an invaluable benchmark against which we can test any interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17.
This, as you know, is improper English in Colossians 2:16. The “therefore” should always come first, such that you should not read any further until you have understood the previous section. Thus, it should read: “Therefore, let no man judge you,” in regards to the previous instruction about no longer observing the “ordinances” that you are now to be no longer keeping.
In fact, if I were to read this in its true English form, and not spiritually understand it, the sentence would really be saying, “Don’t let anyone tell you that you are wrong in celebrating any of these the way you want to.” Funny how nobody notices this line of thinking (because that is not the spiritual meaning), as surface readers should conclude. Therefore, the judging of “meat” offerings, and “drink” offerings, and “feast days” kept, and “new moon” sightings in order to begin the “Feast Day” observances, and the “High Sabbath” celebrations when the Biblical Sabbath fell upon the prescribed “Feast Day” celebrations, are now no longer to be observed, because Christ has come, died, and fulfilled that “Ceremonial Law,” thus, making any judgment for no longer observing them in error.
Hebrews, Chapter 10, is a prolonged contrast between the sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the physical body of Christ. Paul asserts two things:
(1) The sacrifices were a “shadow” of the sacrifice of Jesus;
(2) The sacrifice of Jesus abolishes the Old Testament sacrificial system (verse 9), since believers know that Messiah has been sacrificed.
Therefore, as does Hebrews, Chapter 10, so does Colossians 2:16-17 refer to offerings and sacrifices, i.e., “ordinances,” (Sanctuary services) and not God’s Ten Commandment Law, else we need to go get our “Bullocks” and start sacrificing right away.
Staying with Colossians 2:14-17 (since this is the most used section of God’s Word to attack any reference to continuing to observe one of God’s Ten Commandments), the Second wrong assumption (the First being that the Ten Commandments of God, or more appropriately the Sabbath Commandment was canceled), is that the Old Covenant was “against us.” If that were true, God would be guilty of establishing a Covenant that was against His people. By contrast, what was against the people was not the Covenant, which is God’s commitment to save us, but the Hebrews then, and our sins now, which where/are exposed by the Law (see James 1:23-25). In other words, when you break God’s Law, It becomes “against us.” When obedient to It, It becomes “for us.”
However, it must also be ascertained and understood that throughout the entire Book of Colossians, Paul NEVER once uses the word “Law.” Interesting, right? Check it out for yourself. Therefore, to JUMP to the conclusion that Paul is even discussing God’s “Law” is a quantum leap in doctrine.
Consequently, the meaning of “cheirographon,” which occurs only once in Scripture (in Colossians 2:14), has been clarified by recent studies on the usage of the term in apocalyptic and rabbinic literature (see Samuele Bacchiocchi, “From Sabbath to Sunday.” “A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity,” [Rome, 1977], Appendix, pages 349-350), as a term that is used to denote the “record book of sins,” or a “certificate of sin-indebtedness,” but not the moral or Ceremonial Law. This view is supported also by the clause, “and this he has removed out of the middle,” Colossians 2:14. By the phrase “the middle” is and was meant, “the position occupied at the center of the court or assembly by the accusing witness.”
In the context of the Book of Colossians, the accusing witness then, is the “record Book of sins,” which God in Christ will erase and remove out of the court; which by the way, shows us both that the Ten Commandment Law is not canceled, but is non-operative against those whose sins are erased. Therefore, the legal basis of the “record Book of sins” was/is “the binding statutes,” or “regulations” (“tois dogmasin”). Meaning they are in effect only when in disobedience to them. Meaning again, they are still operative. By contrast, what God DID destroy on the Cross was not the legal ground (God’s Law) for our entanglement into sin, but the written “record” of our sins. Glory Halleluiah!
By destroying the evidence of our sins, God also “disarmed the principalities and powers,” Colossians 2:15, since it is no longer possible for them to accuse those who have been forgiven. Therefore, we can conclude that the document “nailed to the Cross” is not the “Law,” in general, nor the “Bible Sabbath,” in particular, but rather “the record” of our sins. Any attempt to read into this text a reference to the Ten Commandment Law or the Sabbath Law in particular, lacks contextual and linguistic support. IN FACT, if the Law of God could be canceled or changed then Jesus need not to have died upon the cross.
To your main point: The FACT that “a Sabbath” is mentioned definitely cancels the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue, RIGHT? It must be remembered that Paul is not warning the Colossians against the observances of all the practices mentioned in the Colossians 2:14-17 passage as such, but against “anyone” who passes judgment on how to eat, drink, or observe certain sacred times and manners. The Biblical FACT that Paul is addressing festival Sabbath’s, and not the weekly Biblical Sabbath, should be well noticed, as most Bible scholars agree on this point.
Once again, the legal basis of the record of sins was “the binding statutes, regulations [“tois dogmasin”].” Therefore, what God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground (God’s Moral Law of Ten Commandments) for our entanglement in sin, but the written record of our sins. The function of the metaphor of the nailing to the Cross the record of our sins is simply to reassure believers of the totality of God’s forgiveness. Therefore, “a shadow of things to come,” Colossians 2:17, is a clear reference to the “ordinances” which expired and were fulfilled in the life and death of Christ. Thus, we can see that the weekly “Sabbath” is not the “Sabbath” that is being discussed in verse 16.
Now let us get specific about God’s Holy Sabbath Day. In regards to “Sabbath Days,” verse 16, the word “days” is a supplied word and not in the original. The reason it is supplied is that the translators wanted to clarify that the original Greek word “Sabbaton” should be translated in its plural form here. In other words, they could have (should have) translated it as “Sabbaths,” but felt more clarity was necessary of the plurality of this word. A great example of this explanation and usage is found in Matthew 12:5, where, on two occasions “Sabbaton” is used in the same sentence, but is plural in one placement and singular in the other.
Let’s look at Matthew 12:5 together: “Or have ye not read in the Law, how that on the Sabbath Days [plural] the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath [singular], and are blameless?” In reality, they could have translated the first occurrence in the singular form and had the sentence still make sense and be translated correctly (they also could have translated both in the plural form but it is clearer in the singular). But they obviously felt that its plural form was needed and more correct.
The bottom line is that the Greek word “Sabbaton” can be used in its plurality form or singular form depending upon the context. The actual meaning of the word is “the interval between two Sabbaths, that is, the plural in all applications,” to the extent that it is the weekly occurrence of the Seventh-Day Sabbath. This is confirmed by seeing Acts 17:2, in which “Sabbath Days” is proceeded by the word “three,” making the Greek word “Sabbaton” plural. But it is only plural to the extent that it is talking about the “interval” between “Sabbaths,” which it could have (should have) been translated as. As a side note, the Aramaic translation for “Sabbaths” in this passage is “Sabbathah,” which is also a plural form of “Sabbath.”
Now with this explanation behind us, does this mean that Paul is here canceling the observance of the weekly “Sabbath” day in the Book of Colossians? The actual sense of what Paul is referring to (staying with the context of “ordinances,” the context of Colossians 2:14-17), is found in First Chronicles 23:31: “And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord in the Sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order Commanded unto them, continually before the Lord.” The Hebrew word for “Sabbaths” here is “Shabbath,” which is the exact meaning of our Greek word, in that it is referring to, and its meaning is, “the intermission, that is, (specifically) between the weekly Sabbath.”
We have the same concept in regards to Paul’s discussion of the ordinances of our Lord in Second Chronicles 2:4 (see also Second Chronicles 31:3): “and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the Lord our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel.” Let’s bring in Ezekiel 45:17 at this point: “And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the Sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.”
What Paul is telling his Colossian believers here was already prophesied by Hosea in his Book, Chapter 2, and verse 11: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” There we have it. Here is where Paul was going. He is showing them and his Jewish brothers that the ordinance of “Sabbaths,” occurring in their “intervals,” were and are canceled, “contained in ordinances.” But to insert that the Seventh-Day Biblical Sabbath, contained in the Decalogue (God’s Holy Ten Commandments), is being discussed here, is to push the text too far and to take it out of context. Just as it would be going too far to articulate that Hosea meant the weekly Seventh-Day Sabbath observance.
Consider seriously for a moment. Can you imagine the Jews of Paul’s day NOT stoning Paul to death if he had made reference to God’s Holy Sabbath Day being canceled, either then or future? Thus, the word “Sabbath” in the Old Testament is applied not only to the weekly Seventh-Day Sabbath, but also to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews; particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is doubtless reference to those days by Paul in this place, since he uses the plural form of “Sabbaths” here, instead of the singular number.
The reality is that the weekly Seventh-Day Sabbath rests upon a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of the creation made by God in six days. If we look at Leviticus, Chapter 23, we can clearly see how our Lord describes each “ordinance” to be observed, and then He makes something specifically and unequivocally clear. This clearness is found in verse 38, in how our Lord expressly distinguishes “the Sabbath of the Lord” (God’s Holy Seventh-Day Sabbath) from the other Ceremonial, or “ordinance” Sabbaths. And that phrase that distinguishes God’s Holy Sabbath from the other “ordinance,” Sabbaths, is, “Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Read this paragraph again if that does not set in. For a correct understanding of the Hebrew word “bad,” H905, meaning “beside[s],” meaning “separate from,” see Leviticus 9:17; Numbers 6:21; 16:49 & 28:24; Deuteronomy 19:9; and so many more.
It must be realized and remembered that every Jew and Christian of Paul’s time understood this very important distinction. The fact that our generation does not understand this distinction, or simply does not want to because of an agenda to cancel something they feel is “against them,” instead of what our Lord has promised as “a blessing” to them (keeping His Sabbath Holy), does not conceal its true meaning.
The Apostle’s conclusion is that they should be judged by no man; that they should not regard or submit to any man’s judgment as to the observance of the Ceremonial Law. Much of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses consisted in the distinction of meats and days. It appears by a reading of the Book of Romans, Chapter 14, that there were those who were for the keeping up of those distinctions. By contrast, here in the Book of Colossians, the apostle shows that since Christ has Come and has cancelled the Ceremonial Law (by type meeting antitype), that we ought not to keep these Ceremonial Laws anymore. Else, silly reasoning, go get your sacrificial “Bullock” because you believe the weekly Biblical Sabbath was canceled and not the Ceremonial sacrificial system.
“There are many who try to blend these two systems, using the texts that speak of the Ceremonial Law to prove that the Moral Law has been abolished; but this is a perversion of the Scriptures. The distinction between the two systems is broad and clear. The Ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His Sacrifice and His Priesthood. This Ritual Law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this Law that Christ ‘took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross.’ Colossians 2:14. But concerning the Law of Ten Commandments the Psalmist declares, ‘Forever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in Heaven.’ Psalm 119:89.” PP:365.
Nothing is mentioned in regards to canceling the Ten Commandments written by the very finger of God. The sacrificial offerings were deemed necessary by our God, because of the violation of the Law of God, and they were only canceled when type met antitype in the Sacrifice of Christ. In fact, the most telling evidence that the Law of God was not canceled is that our Lord did NOT have to be our Substitute for our violation of the same Law, if It was to be canceled anyway.
Therefore, WHAT WAS CANCELED, since we obviously know that Colossians 2:1-17 is talking about something being put away? What we find is that “the laws regulating the Jewish sacrifices and offerings ceased at the death of Christ.” 1SG:110. “Had they been obedient, and loved to keep God’s Commandments, the multitude of ceremonies and ordinances would not have been required.” 2T:607; 5T:667. Now that is quite a statement. Doesn’t that inspirer you to be better at observing God’s Holy Law?
The essence and principle of what I have just expressed is contained in Ephesians 2:15-16: “(15) Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the Law of Commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (16) And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Now we can see that the Ceremonial Laws are the ones that, being the antitype of Christ, were canceled and nailed to the cross; and NOT the Ten Commandments which are as eternal as God Himself Who gave Them.
Reviewing: What was nailed to the Cross was not the “Law,” i.e., “nomos,” but the “cheirographon,” a term which occurs only here in Colossians 2:14. Remembering that it is interesting to note that the term “Law” (Greek, “nomos”) does not appear a single time in the Book of Colossians. Therefore, to further emphasize the certainty and fullness of Divine forgiveness explicitly mentioned in verses 11-13, Paul utilizes a legal metaphor in verse 14, namely that of God as a judge Who blotted “out. . . and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross. . . the handwriting of ordinances,” is meaning and speaking of “handwriting” (Greek, “cheirographon”), which occurs only once here in Scripture, (mentioned earlier) has been clarified by recent studies on the usage of the term in apocalyptic and rabbinic literature. This term is used to denote the “record book of sins,” or a “certificate of sin-indebtedness,” but not the Moral or Ceremonial Laws.
Therefore, in reality, Paul is not discussing either the “Moral,” or the “Ceremonial” Law. In fact, by this daring metaphor, Paul affirms the completeness of God’s forgiveness. Through Christ, God has cancelled “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.” What God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground (His Moral Law) for our entanglement into sin, but the written record of our sins. By destroying the evidence of our sins, God also “spoiled (disarmed) principalities and powers,” Colossians 2:15, since it is no longer possible for anyone to accuse those who have been forgiven. Isn’t that great news? The legal basis of the record of sins was “the binding statutes, regulations [tois dogmasin].” Again. What God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground (Law) for our entanglement in sin, but the written record of our sins, i.e., “blotting out.”
Thus, looking upon the construction of the Hebrew word “cheirographon,” we can conclude that the attempts to read into Colossians 2:14 either the Ceremonial Law, or both the Moral and Ceremonial Laws, are unfounded for at least two reasons. FIRST: Because in the whole of the Epistle the word “Law [nomos]” is not used at all. SECOND: Because these interpretations detract from the immediate argument constructed from verse 13, which was designed to prove the fullness of God’s forgiveness. What was nailed to the Cross was not the “Law [nomos]” but the “cheirographon [record].” Once again I state, that its meaning has been clarified by its occurrences in apocalyptic literature, where “cheirographon” is used to designate the “record-book of sin,” or “the certificate of sin-indebtedness,” but NEVER the Moral or Ceremonial Laws.
One should not fail to see through this powerful metaphor of Paul’s emphasis upon the “Blotting out,” of sins and how he reaffirms the completeness of God’s forgiveness provided through Christ on the cross. This is the context and crux of the message of the Book of Colossians. That the accusing witness, “handwriting of ordinances [“cheirographon”],” is erased and removed, “Blotting [it] out,” from the court. Thus, by this daring metaphor, Paul affirms that through Christ, God has destroyed the evidence of our sins, and also “spoiled principalities and powers,” Colossians 2:15, which functioned as the evidence “against us” and “which was contrary to us.” We can then conclude that Colossians 2:14 reaffirms the essence of the Gospel, in that the Good News that is being proclaimed here about the record of our guilt and sins was nailed to His cross.
W) COLOSSIANS 2:14-16 = “let no man judge you”
2:14: “contrary to us” = Colossians 2:14 discusses something that is “contrary to us.” And just what is/was “contrary to us?” According to Ephesians 2:15 it was “the Law of Commandments contained in ordinances.” And that Law was placed “in the side of the Ark of the Covenant. . . [to be] a witness against thee,” as explained in Deuteronomy 31:26. The weekly Seventh-Day Sabbath was placed in (Deu. 10:2) the “Ark of the Covenant,” not “in the side of” it. In other words, the sacrificial system; which at this point (Christ already being sacrificed, satisfying the Sacrificial Lamb), Paul is explaining, was fulfilled/canceled when Christ died. Hebrews 9:12 explains that Christ now ministers in the Heavenly Sanctuary for us with His shed blood; instead of the animals sacrificed in the ceremonies of the earthly Sanctuary contained in ordinances.
2:14-17: “ordinances” = The “ordinances,” were canceled; NEVER the Ten Commandment Law of God. However, you may say that the “ordinances” refer to the Ten Commandments of God. Let’s stay in context with what Paul is talking about. If you go to verse 20, Paul tells you that “if ye be dead with Christ,” you are dead to “the rudiments of the world,” or else you are “subject to [the world’s] ordinances,” which Paul explains what that is in verse 22, which is “the commandments and doctrines of men.”
Therefore, if you stay in context with what Paul is truly discussing and teaching here, you can learn that Paul does not want his Corinthian brethren to be trapped into the world’s standards, laws, and customs.
2:15: “triumphing over them in it” = The “it” is referring to the cross. Because of our Lord’s sacrifice upon the cross, Christ “triumphs” over “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us,” verse 14.
2:16: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat [offerings], or in drink [offerings], or in respect of an holyday [Greek; “G1859;” meaning “Feast day”], or of new moon [when a month begins], or of the Sabbath [When the Sabbath fell upon the ceremonial] days = Let us be aware that Paul is actually quoting Ezekiel 45:17 in Colossians 2:16. And if you believe that Ezekiel is canceling or referring to the Biblical Seventh-Day Sabbath, nobody can convince you different from your un-Biblical arguments. Ezekiel is speaking of the Festival (ordinance) Sabbaths. These offerings were in place in order “to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.” Ezekiel 45:17. Ezekiel clearly sets forth the ceremonial Sabbaths from the Weekly Sabbath. Better explained by seeing Chapter 46 of Ezekiel. The Seventh-Day Sabbath was NEVER considered to be an “ordinance.”
Therefore, let us not ignore the context (“context, context, context”) of this passage; which is “reconciliation” towards God. We find it in Ezekiel 45:17 and Colossians 2:13, “having forgiven you all trespasses.” How? By “Blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us,” Colossians 2:14, etcetera.
This, as you know, is improper English in Colossians 2:16. The “therefore” should always come first, such that you should not read any further until you have understood the previous section. Thus, it should read: “Therefore, let no man judge you,” in regards to the previous instruction about no longer observing the “ordinances” that you are now to be no longer keeping.
In fact, if I were to read this in its true English form, and not spiritually understand it, the sentence would really be saying, “Don’t let anyone tell you that you are wrong in celebrating any of these the way you want to.” Funny how nobody notices this line of thinking (because that is not the spiritual meaning), as surface readers should conclude. Therefore, the judging of “meat” offerings, and “drink” offerings, and “feast days” kept, and “new moon” sightings in order to begin the “Feast Day” observances, and the “High Sabbath” celebrations when the Biblical Sabbath fell upon the prescribed “Feast Day” celebrations, are now no longer to be observed, because Christ has come, died, and fulfilled that “Ceremonial Law,” thus, making any judgment for no longer observing them in error.
“Sabbath” = The Biblical FACT that Paul is addressing festival Sabbath’s and not the weekly Commanded Biblical Sabbath should be well noticed (as most Biblical scholars agree upon this point). The proof is in the pudding, as they say, when compared to Ezekiel 45:17, of which Paul is quoting.
In Colossians 2:14 we have the phrase, “handwriting of ordinances,” which literally means, a “certificate of death.” Therefore, how is it that God’s Law is a ministration of death? Because in It, It points out sin and sin brings death (Rom. 6:23). By contrast, Gods Law is not “against us,” nor “contrary to us,” but sin is. Therefore, it is not God’s Law of “ordinances” that, although was active for its purpose, that was the problem. It is our sin.
In Colossians 2:16 it is argued that the “Sabbath” mentioned here is the weekly Biblical Sabbath, which was a “shadow” to be done away with. The same Biblical verbiage is used in Hebrews 10:1. Let’s compare. “For the Law having a shadow of good things to come,” continuing on, those “sacrifices” could not deal with the sin problem. They only pointed to the true “Sacrifice” for sin, Jesus Christ. Thus, any “Sabbath” day, ceremonial or as an “ordinance,” was ultimately only a “shadow” pointing to the Biblically Commanded weekly Sabbath day.
The moral Law of Ten Commandments which were placed upon stone, are now understood to to be transferred to one’s own heart (Jer. 31:31-33).
X) REVELATION 1:10 = “the Lord’s day”
This should be so clear that John, a Jew living in the First Century, and an apostle of Jesus, would consider that “The Lord’s Day” was Saturday, and no other day could fulfill that duty or place.
The equation of Sunday with the expression “Lord’s day” is not based on internal evidences of the Book of Revelation, or of the rest of the New Testament, but on three Second Century patristic testimonies. They are namely, “Didache,”14:1, Ignatius’, in his work, “Epistle to the Magnesians,” 9:1, and the Roman Catholic invention, in the “Apocryphal” book, “The Gospel of Peter,” pages 35 & 50. Of the three however, only in “The Gospel of Peter,” written toward the end of the Second Century, is Sunday unmistakably designated by the technical term “Lord’s – kuriake,” day. In two different verses it reads: “Now in the night in which the Lord’s Day (He “kuriake”) dawned . . . there rang out a loud voice in Heaven.” “The Gospel of Peter,” page 35; “Early in the morning of the Lord’s Day (“tes kuriakes”) Mary Magdalene . . . came to the sepulcher,” The Gospel of Peter,” pages 50-51. Thus, we can see clearly the early signs of Roman Catholicism (Satan) at work.
It is noteworthy that while in the genuine Gospels, Mary Magdalene and the other women went to the sepulcher “early on the first day of the week” (see Mark 16:2; cf. Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). By contrast, in the “Apocryphal, The Gospel of Peter,” it states that they went “early in the morning of the Lord’s Day.” The use of the new designation “Lord’s Day,” instead of “first day of the week,” clearly indicates that by the end of the Second Century, Roman Catholic “Christians” referred to Sunday as “the Lord’s Day.”
The latter usage however, cannot be legitimately read back into Revelation 1:10. A major reason is that if Sunday had already received the new appellation of “the Lord’s Day” by the end of the First Century, when both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were written, we would expect this new name for Sunday to be used consistently in both works; especially since they were apparently produced by the same author at approximately the same time and in the same geographical area.
If the new designation “Lord’s Day” already existed by the end of the First Century, and expressed the meaning and nature of the NEW Christian Sunday worship, John would not have had reasons to use the Jewish phrase “first day of the week” in his Gospel. Therefore, the fact that the expression “Lord’s Day” occurs in John’s apocalyptic Book, but not in his Gospel, where the “first day” is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the Resurrection (see John 20:1), and the appearances of Jesus (see John 20:19 & 26), suggests that the “Lord’s day [small “d”]” of Revelation 1:10 can hardly refer to Sunday, only in the sense that Roman Catholics had influence upon the Christian world of yesterday and today.
A final important consideration that discredits the claim that Sunday was called “Lord’s Day” in the “sense of the Easter proclamation,” is the fact that the Book of Revelation is addressed to the “seven Churches” of Asia Minor who did not observe Easter-Sunday. Instead, they observed Passover by the Biblical date of Nisan 14.
History observes that Polycrates, Bishop of the province of Asia Minor, convened a council of the Church leaders of Asia Minor (about 191 A.D.) to discuss the summon received from Bishop Victor of Rome to adopt Easter-Sunday. The unanimous decision of the Asian bishops was to reject Easter-Sunday and to retain the Biblical dating of Passover. See Samuele Bacchiocchi, “From Sabbath to Sunday.” “A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity.”
In the light of these facts, it would be paradoxical if the Apostle John, who, according to Polycrates, kept Passover by the fixed date of Nisan 14, and who wrote to Christians in Asia Minor, who like him did not observe Easter-Sunday, would have used the phrase, “Lord’s Day” to express his Easter faith in the Risen Lord. Cardinal Jean Danielou, a respected Catholic scholar, timidly acknowledges this fact when he writes: “In the Apocalypse (1:10), when Easter takes place on the 14 Nisan, the word [Lord’s Day] does not perhaps mean Sunday.”
That the only day that John knew as the “Lord’s Day” by the end of the First Century when he wrote the Book of Revelation, is the Biblical Seventh-Day Sabbath (Saturday) is clear. And this is the only day of which our Lord proclaims Himself to be “Lord [kupios]” of: “For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath,” Matthew 12:8; Romans 9:29; James 5:4.