Seventh-day Sabbath Questions And Answers

[Protestant101]

I am interested in studying in depth what the truth is about the seventh-day “Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” (see Ex.20, Deut.5).

First, I would appreciate knowing in detail what catholics do teach and have historically taught about this subject.

Can you tell me anything about the first Pope who formalized Sunday-keeping/observance, when he did this, why he did it, and where I can read whatever he wrote?

I am sure many questions/comments will ensue; but I will try to focus first on my initial questions.

 

[Atreyu]

I am interested in studying in depth what the truth is about the seventh-day “Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” (see Ex.20, Deut.5).

First, I would appreciate knowing in detail what catholics do teach and have historically taught about this subject.

Can you tell me anything about the first Pope who formalized Sunday-keeping/observance, when he did this, why he did it, and where I can read whatever he wrote?

I am sure many questions/comments will ensue; but I will try to focus first on my initial questions.

Saturday is the sabbath. It has always been the sabbath and it will always be the sabbath. As I understand it, Catholics teach that Sunday - as the eigth day, and the day on which our Lord rose from the dead - is termed the Lord’s day. It wasn’t a pope that first taught that we should worship on the Sunday instead of the Saturday, but the apostles themselves. I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of evidence in the Acts of the Apostles that they did this.

In worshipping on the Sunday, Catholics can keep the third Commandment - ie fulfil the sabbath obligation as it were.

 

[Atreyu]

You can read up on the Catechism if you wish on the subject, I would suggest numbers 2168-2173 here, and 2174-2188 here, and 2189-2195 here.

 

[Protestant101]

You can read up on the Catechism if you wish on the subject, I would suggest numbers 2168-2173 here, and 2174-2188 here, and 2189-2195 here.

Hey, thanks. I appreciate this. I think, if I understand the gist of these CCC references; Catholicism is saying they didn’t actually change the sabbath, per se; rather, preferring to just say they changed “the observance” of the day. Am I correct on that point?

I don’t get why Catholocism would have authority to make such a change in the observance of the day. To me, the whole essence of the commandment is tied up within the “seventh-day” concepts mentioned in the Bible. The 6 different meeting the Apostles had on Sunday don’t actually say anything about changing the day, or changing the observance thereof.

I do realize that, as Catholics prefer to teach it, the first time anyone formally recognized and taught, orally, and in writing, about the change to Sunday, it did not come from a Pope. I was more asking which Pope first gave official recommendation, in writing, to this change? For eg., did the very first Pope write about it? if not, who did this first? I would like to read what he wrote and when he wrote it.

 

[Atreyu]

Hey, thanks. I appreciate this. I think, if I understand the gist of these CCC references; Catholicism is saying they didn’t actually change the sabbath, per se; rather, preferring to just say they changed “the observance” of the day. Am I correct on that point?

I think so.

I don’t get why Catholocism would have authority to make such a change in the observance of the day.

It has authority passed to the apostles by Jesus to make such a change. It is not a change in doctrine, but a change in practice. If the apostles decided it would be better to worship on Sunday than Saturday, who are we to argue with them?

To me, the whole essence of the commandment is tied up within the “seventh-day” concepts mentioned in the Bible. The 6 different meeting the Apostles had on Sunday don’t actually say anything about changing the day, or changing the observance thereof.

So what evidence is there that the apostles actually kept worshipping on Saturdays, rather than Sundays? As for the “seventh-day” concepts, I would say that the “eigth-day” concepts trump that somewhat.

I do realize that, as Catholics prefer to teach it, the first time anyone formally recognized and taught, orally, and in writing, about the change to Sunday, it did not come from a Pope. I was more asking which Pope first gave official recommendation, in writing, to this change? For eg., did the very first Pope write about it? if not, who did this first? I would like to read what he wrote and when he wrote it.

You mean, did Peter write about it? Not that I know of. But I don’t really understand why you would want something like this. It seems to me that the constant historical witness of the early church was that they all worshipped on Sunday. So why would a pope need to write about it? There is no dispute. Anyway, here is something by Justin Martyr, writing early in the second century:
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
First Apology chapter 67.

 

[thistle]

Hey, thanks. I appreciate this. I think, if I understand the gist of these CCC references; Catholicism is saying they didn’t actually change the sabbath, per se; rather, preferring to just say they changed “the observance” of the day. Am I correct on that point?

I don’t get why Catholocism would have authority to make such a change in the observance of the day. To me, the whole essence of the commandment is tied up within the “seventh-day” concepts mentioned in the Bible. The 6 different meeting the Apostles had on Sunday don’t actually say anything about changing the day, or changing the observance thereof.

I do realize that, as Catholics prefer to teach it, the first time anyone formally recognized and taught, orally, and in writing, about the change to Sunday, it did not come from a Pope. I was more asking which Pope first gave official recommendation, in writing, to this change? For eg., did the very first Pope write about it? if not, who did this first? I would like to read what he wrote and when he wrote it.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902fea1.asp
catholic.com/library/sabbath_or_sunday.asp

 

[demerzel85]

Refer to: scripturecatholic.com/sunday_worship.html

 

[Zooey]

Strictly speaking, there is no sabbath anymore…Not for Christians. The sabbath was part of the Mosaic law. (Still is, for Jews, but that is another thread).
Christians are to observe, through worship, the “Lord’s Day”–ie, the day that Jesus Christ arose from the dead. That was/is the day* after* the sabbath…Which is to say, Sunday.

 

[FCEGM]

I am interested in studying in depth what the truth is about the seventh-day “Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” (see Ex.20, Deut.5).

First, I would appreciate knowing in detail what catholics do teach and have historically taught about this subject.

Can you tell me anything about the first Pope who formalized Sunday-keeping/observance, when he did this, why he did it, and where I can read whatever he wrote?

I am sure many questions/comments will ensue; but I will try to focus first on my initial questions.

David, in doing your research you have (or will have) come across the charge made by “Sabbath-keepers” against the Catholic Church that it doesn’t honor the Ten Commandments in it’s non-observance of the “Biblical Sabbath”. What such a charge overlooks is that we are no longer bound by the Law, of which the 10 Commandments are a part. If we are bound by the 10 Commandments as written, then we must also be subject to the specific punishments prescribed in the OT for breaking each Commandment. Yet, we are not. Thus, we are not bound by the 10 Commandments themselves (which are legal requirements), but by the righteousness (perfected in the Person of Christ) that lies behind each of the 10 Commandments. And so, by selecting Sunday as its day of worship, the Church holds to the righteousness of the Commandment while being free from the Law of the Commandment itself. Further, no Christians of the early Church kept the Sabbath observance. On Saturdays, the earliest Christians lived and worshipped as Jews, evangelizing their Jewish brethren in the synagogues (a work). Their “day of rest,” the day on which they gathered to pray and worship among themselves exclusively was the following day, the Lord’s Day: Sunday.

This first site is for the late John Paul II’s encyclical, *Dies Domini *(on the proper keeping of the Lord’s Day):

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html

This second site specifically addresses the “Seventh-Day observers” with links to fundamental articles on the subject:

diesdomini.com/

 

[Protestant101]

David, in doing your research you have (or will have) come across the charge made by “Sabbath-keepers” against the Catholic Church that it doesn’t honor the Ten Commandments in it’s non-observance of the “Biblical Sabbath”. What such a charge overlooks is that we are no longer bound by the Law, of which the 10 Commandments are a part. If we are bound by the 10 Commandments as written, then we must also be subject to the specific punishments prescribed in the OT for breaking each Commandment. Yet, we are not. Thus, we are not bound by the 10 Commandments themselves (which are legal requirements), but by the righteousness (perfected in the Person of Christ) that lies behind each of the 10 Commandments. And so, by selecting Sunday as its day of worship, the Church holds to the righteousness of the Commandment while being free from the Law of the Commandment itself. Further, no Christians of the early Church kept the Sabbath observance. On Saturdays, the earliest Christians lived and worshipped as Jews, evangelizing their Jewish brethren in the synagogues (a work). Their “day of rest,” the day on which they gathered to pray and worship among themselves exclusively was the following day, the Lord’s Day: Sunday.

This first site is for the late John Paul II’s encyclical, *Dies Domini *(on the proper keeping of the Lord’s Day):

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html

This second site specifically addresses the “Seventh-Day observers” with links to fundamental articles on the subject:

diesdomini.com/

Thankyou. I will check out these links. I am not so sure though about your comment re not keeping the ten commandments part of the law, just because we are not now under the former “punishments” of the law. I would be interested to hear more on that. Can you tell me exactly what scripture passages you are referring to re the punishments part here? I would like to see the context of them. Can you tell me also, since we are no longer “under the law” why we are not now allowed to steal, commit adultery, etc.? I am sure that no Christians would support violation of the seventh, or any other commandment. Are you just making some sort of exception for the fourth commandment re the seventh-day sabbath? Why would God make such good laws, and then cancel them later?

 

[FCEGM]

Thankyou. I will check out these links. I am not so sure though about your comment re not keeping the ten commandments part of the law, just because we are not now under the former “punishments” of the law. I would be interested to hear more on that. Can you tell me exactly what scripture passages you are referring to re the punishments part here? I would like to see the context of them. Can you tell me also, since we are no longer “under the law” why we are not now allowed to steal, commit adultery, etc.? I am sure that no Christians would support violation of the seventh, or any other commandment. Are you just making some sort of exception for the fourth commandment re the seventh-day sabbath? Why would God make such good laws, and then cancel them later?

You to have missed my distinction, David. I do not say that Christians are allowed to steal, commit adultery, etc… God forbid! Those things are terrible sins; but, there is a difference between being bound to do something (or not to do something) as a matter of law, versus being bound to do something (or not to do something) as a matter of a Covenant of Love. For example, it is wrong for a man to cheat on his wife. Now, until very recently, in many American states, it was actually a criminal offense to commit adultery - a violation of the law. Still today, if a woman divorces her husband for adultery, the Law will award her for damages, etc. But, should a man avoid cheating on his wife just because of these laws? Of course not. A man should not cheat on his wife because he loves her and has a covenant of love with her. See the distinction?

It is one thing to be in a Covenant based on Law (the Old Covenant) but quite another thing to be in a Covenant based on Love (the New Covenant). In both Covenants, adultery – to continue the example - is forbidden. But, in the Old Covenant, one avoided committing adultery because it was a violation of the Law that subjected you to punishments (remember the attempted stoning of the woman caught in adultery and the Lord’s intervention?). In the New Covenant, one avoids adultery because it violates the Covenant of Love between you and Jesus Christ, and outside of that Covenant of Love there is no salvation for you or anyone. This is an important distinction, because it personalizes our Covenant with God. We do not do righteous things merely because we’re scared of the Law and its punishments and so do what the Law demands. Rather, we do righteous things because we are in a Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ, and we do not want to ruin this Covenant (this “friendship” or love relationship) with Him. This is why St. Paul, in Romans 3:28, says that Christians are saved “by faith and not by the works of the Law.”

Now, as for the Ten Commandments themselves, as I said, we are not bound by them as a matter of law. Rather, we are bound by the righteousness behind these Commandments, which is the Righteousness of the Person of Jesus Christ, Who we are called to be like in all things. What this means is that we need to go beyond the mere letter of the Ten Commandments so as to keep the righteousness behind these (legal) Commandments perfectly. Jesus Himself tells us this in Matthew 5, where He says, in regard to adultery, for example (Matt 5:27-28):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Likewise, in regard to the Commandment against murder (Matthew 5:21-23), Jesus says:

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But, I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother ‘Raqa’ * will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”

continued. . .*

 

[FCEGM]

Jesus says other, similar things in this same passage. But, the teaching is clear: Under the Mosaic Law, people were forbidden to commit adultery and murder. However, Jesus (in the New Covenant) requires us to go further than that, for, under the Old Covenant, people would only keep the letter of these Laws and not go any deeper than that - because nothing required that they do so. For example, the Commandment “Thou shall not kill” was limited to the legal wording of the Commandment. According to the Pharisees, as long as one kept the specific legal conditions of the Commandment, one was “righteous before God.” Jesus denies this. For the Lord Jesus, the mere letter of the Law is not enough because, while the Commandment says, “Thou shall not kill,” it does not mean that you are righteous if you just beat a man within an inch of his life, just as long as you do not actually kill him. That was never God’s intention at all. Rather, the Commandment goes much deeper than that and Christians are obligated (by their Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ) to keep the Commandment much deeper than that. However, non-Christian Jews are not. They are only bound by the specific wording of the Commandment; that is, they are bound by the letter of the law, and on a mere basis of law. Christians are bound by the righteousness of Christ Himself (to Whom the Law points) because of their Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ. See the distinction?

Now, it should be pointed out that Jesus is not saying that looking at a woman lustfully or calling your brother a fool is the very same thing as physically cheating on your wife or physically killing your brother, for the latter sins are far more serious than the former. Rather, the Lord’s point is that we are called to a righteousness and a perfection that is so high that, not only would we never commit adultery or murder, but we would not even harbor lustful or unjustly violent thoughts in our hearts; that is, we are called to avoid even those things, for the sake of our love of Jesus and our desire to be perfect as He is perfect. Again, do you see the distinction?

And this is what Jesus means when, at the beginning of the passage in Matthew 5, He says …

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. …I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

In other words, the Law must be kept in a way that is greater than a mere legal observance of the Commandments. It must be exceeded by the example of Him Who embodies the Righteousness behind the Law: Jesus Christ. This is why Christians are not bound by the Law, but by the New Covenant of grace and love in Jesus Christ. Sunday, is the day the fulfillment of the New Covenant in Love – not in Law - (and an anticipation of the day of the coming of the Lord of Love in glory) when the Divine Food that binds us to this Covenant is received by those united in the fullness of His Church.

Adventists, with their strong fixation on the OT, have adopted a very legal-minded attitude toward obeying God that is far more Jewish than it is Christian. But, again, we in the New Covenant are not a people of “law,” but a people of grace who live in a Covenant based on Love. No “law” binds you or any Christian to Jesus Christ; rather, you are bound to Him by a Covenant of Faith and Love, and you obey Him because of that Covenant of Faith and Love (per Hebrews 5:9, Romans 16:26, etc). Obedience does not have to be based on Law. Obedience can be based on faith and love, and the latter is the nature of the New Covenant in Christ. This is the Good News of the Gospel, and the Adventists are largely blind to it.

 

[Protestant101]

Jesus says other, similar things in this same passage. But, the teaching is clear: Under the Mosaic Law, people were forbidden to commit adultery and murder. However, Jesus (in the New Covenant) requires us to go further than that, for, under the Old Covenant, people would only keep the letter of these Laws and not go any deeper than that - because nothing required that they do so. For example, the Commandment “Thou shall not kill” was limited to the legal wording of the Commandment. According to the Pharisees, as long as one kept the specific legal conditions of the Commandment, one was “righteous before God.” Jesus denies this. For the Lord Jesus, the mere letter of the Law is not enough because, while the Commandment says, “Thou shall not kill,” it does not mean that you are righteous if you just beat a man within an inch of his life, just as long as you do not actually kill him. That was never God’s intention at all. Rather, the Commandment goes much deeper than that and Christians are obligated (by their Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ) to keep the Commandment much deeper than that. However, non-Christian Jews are not. They are only bound by the specific wording of the Commandment; that is, they are bound by the letter of the law, and on a mere basis of law. Christians are bound by the righteousness of Christ Himself (to Whom the Law points) because of their Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ. See the distinction?

Now, it should be pointed out that Jesus is not saying that looking at a woman lustfully or calling your brother a fool is the very same thing as physically cheating on your wife or physically killing your brother, for the latter sins are far more serious than the former. Rather, the Lord’s point is that we are called to a righteousness and a perfection that is so high that, not only would we never commit adultery or murder, but we would not even harbor lustful or unjustly violent thoughts in our hearts; that is, we are called to avoid even those things, for the sake of our love of Jesus and our desire to be perfect as He is perfect. Again, do you see the distinction?

And this is what Jesus means when, at the beginning of the passage in Matthew 5, He says …

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. …I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

In other words, the Law must be kept in a way that is greater than a mere legal observance of the Commandments. It must be exceeded by the example of Him Who embodies the Righteousness behind the Law: Jesus Christ. This is why Christians are not bound by the Law, but by the New Covenant of grace and love in Jesus Christ. Sunday, is the day the fulfillment of the New Covenant in Love – not in Law - (and an anticipation of the day of the coming of the Lord of Love in glory) when the Divine Food that binds us to this Covenant is received by those united in the fullness of His Church.

Adventists, with their strong fixation on the OT, have adopted a very legal-minded attitude toward obeying God that is far more Jewish than it is Christian. But, again, we in the New Covenant are not a people of “law,” but a people of grace who live in a Covenant based on Love. No “law” binds you or any Christian to Jesus Christ; rather, you are bound to Him by a Covenant of Faith and Love, and you obey Him because of that Covenant of Faith and Love (per Hebrews 5:9, Romans 16:26, etc). Obedience does not have to be based on Law. Obedience can be based on faith and love, and the latter is the nature of the New Covenant in Christ. This is the Good News of the Gospel, and the Adventists are largely blind to it.

You are right about the Grace. But, what is that Grace for? Why do we need it?

 

[FCEGM]

You are right about the Grace. But, what is that Grace for? Why do we need it?

We need it to have eternal life with God. His grace manifests His merciful love for those He makes partakers of the divine nature. We need it in order to be raised to divine communion with the Most Holy Trinity.

 

[SPH1]

I am interested in studying in depth what the truth is about the seventh-day “Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” (see Ex.20, Deut.5).

First, I would appreciate knowing in detail what catholics do teach and have historically taught about this subject.

I understand that the Sabbath was part of the ceremonial law, no longer binding.

Can you tell me anything about the first Pope who formalized Sunday-keeping/observance, when he did this, why he did it, and where I can read whatever he wrote?

This begs the question, as if Sunday observance only first began due to some Papal decree. (Adopting the SDA version of history.) Sunday observance was wide-spread throughout the whole Church from the begining.

 

[John_Taylor]

…To me, the whole essence of the commandment is tied up within the “seventh-day” concepts mentioned in the Bible…

Hello Protestant101…something to think about is that the specific “day” which is to be observed as “THE Seventh Day” is not intrinsic to the Sabbath Command. In other words, as far as we can tell from the Natural Law and/or from God’s Written Revelations to us, any “seventh day” following six days of labor would have sufficed.

The argument among Sabbath Keepers is that “Saturday” is the only day that suffices…but how do we know when “saturday” arrives? While it may be assumed (based on a ‘tradition’ which cannot be verified by any independant ‘scriptural’ critera) that Saturday in Israel is the “true seventh day”…whether or not the day we observe as “saturday” on the opposite side of the earth from Israel is the same “seventh day” simply cannot be demonstrated for nowhere in Scripture has God revealed “the date line”.

See: A History of the International Date Line
at phys.uu.nl/~vgent/idl/idl.htm

Depending on where the date line is established, “Sundown Friday evening in Israel” can either be “sunrise Friday morning in North America” (if the seventh day occurs first in Israel) or “sunrise Saturday morning in North America” (if the seventh day occurs first in North America).

Assuming that Israel observes the “true” seventh day - how does mankind on the opposite side of the earth know whether their observance of the seventh day follows or precedes that of Israel?

Does our salvation by Grace from Christ depend upon getting this question right? If it does then how are we to infallibly obtain the information needed?

…and then there’s the problem of observing “THE Seventh day” by those people who live in the northern-most reaches of the earth where for months during the summer the sun never sets below the horizon and for months during the winter the sun never rises above the horizon. How are these people to know “when” the Sabbath rest is to be observed since from Scripture a day is measured from “sunset to sunset”?

See: The Sabbath on a Round Earth
churchofgodcarmichael.org/sabbath/Sabbath6.html

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[mercygate]

Since already in the New Testament, Christians were assembling on “the Lord’s day” to celebrate the Eucharist, it can hardly be attributed to a papal decree that the Catholic Church “changed the Sabbath.” As others have pointed out, Sunday was the day of Resurrection and the Day of Pentecost: Christ himself “changed” the day.

As for keeping the commandments: The commandments which fall under the divine natural and moral law are irrevocable. Scripture tells us (Sirach, Jeremiah, Paul) that these are written on the human heart long before Moses ever comes down from the mountain carrying tables of stone. The ceremonial law, i.e. the details of Sabbatarian and temple observance, are fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. No worship or rest surpasses that which is offered to him on the day of His choosing.

 

[John_Taylor]

… As for keeping the commandments: The commandments which fall under the divine natural and moral law are irrevocable. Scripture tells us (Sirach, Jeremiah, Paul) that these are written on the human heart long before Moses ever comes down from the mountain carrying tables of stone…

To Protestant101…this is the other point I always bring up when the Sabbath Command is framed around the necessity of observing it on “saturday”:

*Imagine that you were flying solo over an ocean when your plane developed engine trouble and you were forced to crash land onto a deserted island. For several days - you don’t know for how many days - but for several days you were unconscious. When you regain consciousness you literally do not know which day of the week it is.

But you have your Bible!

With your Bible as your only guide, how will you know when “Saturday” arrives such that you may faithfully observe the Sabbath Command “on Saturday”?*

The point is, “Saturday” is not intrinsic to the observance of the Sabbath Command…“Saturday” is not “written upon the heart of man” (see Romans 2:12-15) as are otherwise the “Ten Commandments”.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[servus]

I am interested in studying in depth what the truth is about the seventh-day “Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” (see Ex.20, Deut.5).

First, I would appreciate knowing in detail what catholics do teach and have historically taught about this subject.

Can you tell me anything about the first Pope who formalized Sunday-keeping/observance, when he did this, why he did it, and where I can read whatever he wrote?

I am sure many questions/comments will ensue; but I will try to focus first on my initial questions.

What is the truth about the Sabbath? God told us the complete truth about the Sabbath in the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11). Jesus did not break it or abolish it, but taught how it ought to be kept. Jesus also taught that the Sabbath was a blessing made for man (Luke 2:27-28), and Luke also writing 30 years after the Ressurrection says that they “rested the sabbath day, according to the commandment”. Paul gathered for Church services with both Jews, and with only Gentiles on the Sabbath day (Acts 13:42, 44). Paul and his companions held Sabbath prayer services when they were in Macedonia without a synagogue for miles (Acts 16:13). In Revelation we see repeated warnings to “keep God’s commandments” (12:17, 14:22, 22:14).

There is no evidence that the Apostles kept Sunday, or gathered regularly on that day for the Eucharist. In the Catechism of the CC, only an excerpt from the condensed version of Ignatius’ epistle to the magnesians is quoted as ‘evidence’ for Sunday observance, since the Scripture gives them no help in this matter. 3 verses are often used to support sunday keeping: Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, and Revelation 1:10. Acts 20:7 is an extra-ordinary farewell service for Paul. The meeting happened on evening of the first day of the week. The Apostles were all Jewish, therefore evening came before morning. Paul departed (ver. 7) sunday morning on his trip. He began by walking (ver. 13) Sunday morning 20 miles from Troas (ver. 6) to Assos (ver. 13), while his companions sailed in the ship to the same Assos, and took him in, from whence they went on to Mitylene. If sunday were the new rest day for the Apostles, why would Paul walk all day on it?
1 Cor. 16:2 Paul says “on the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come”. It has been said that Paul is telling them to give their tithe, therefore they must be at Church on the first day of the week. But it is not a tithe, it is a love offering for the poor saints at Jerusalem (ver. 3, Acts 11:29), and the Greek word Paul uses “thesaurizon” means to “store or to treasure up” as if for a later date. It is the same greek word, with a different verb ending that Paul uses in Romans 2:5 when he speaks of storing and treasuring up wrath until the day of judgement.

The final verse is Revelation 1:10 which says “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind the the voice of the a Great trumpet”. The Lord Jesus Himself makes it clear which day He is Lord of “The Sabbath was amde for man, not man for the Sabbath, therefore the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day” Mark 2:27-28, Matthew 12:8.

The origin of Sunday observance is as a festival not intended to replace the Sabbath, and happened between the 2nd and 3rd century, and the Catholic Church changed the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday between the 4th and the 6th century, see the Satholic Encyc. article “10 commandments”.

It is true that Adventists and other Chrisitans have a had time putting thier finger on the exact date when the change was made from Saturday to Sunday, there is a different answer from everyone we ask. If God made the change we could put our finger on the exact point. The truth about the Sabbath is plain and right under our nose.

Servus

 

[Zooey]

Hello Protestant101…something to think about is that the specific “day” which is to be observed as “THE Seventh Day” is not intrinsic to the Sabbath Command. In other words, as far as we can tell from the Natural Law and/or from God’s Written Revelations to us, any “seventh day” following six days of labor would have sufficed.

The argument among Sabbath Keepers is that “Saturday” is the only day that suffices…but how do we know when “saturday” arrives? While it may be assumed (based on a ‘tradition’ which cannot be verified by any independant ‘scriptural’ critera) that Saturday in Israel is the “true seventh day”…whether or not the day we observe as “saturday” on the opposite side of the earth from Israel is the same “seventh day” simply cannot be demonstrated for nowhere in Scripture has God revealed “the date line”.

See: A History of the International Date Line
at phys.uu.nl/~vgent/idl/idl.htm

Depending on where the date line is established, “Sundown Friday evening in Israel” can either be “sunrise Friday morning in North America” (if the seventh day occurs first in Israel) or “sunrise Saturday morning in North America” (if the seventh day occurs first in North America).

Assuming that Israel observes the “true” seventh day - how does mankind on the opposite side of the earth know whether their observance of the seventh day follows or precedes that of Israel?

Does our salvation by Grace from Christ depend upon getting this question right? If it does then how are we to infallibly obtain the information needed?

…and then there’s the problem of observing “THE Seventh day” by those people who live in the northern-most reaches of the earth where for months during the summer the sun never sets below the horizon and for months during the winter the sun never rises above the horizon. How are these people to know “when” the Sabbath rest is to be observed since from Scripture a day is measured from “sunset to sunset”?

See: The Sabbath on a Round Earth
churchofgodcarmichael.org/sabbath/Sabbath6.html

Keep the Faith
jmt

Excellent point here!!
This reminds me, too, of the fact that the calendar has been changed since Bible times anyway…So, we really have no way to figure when the day is that was Sabbath to start with! So, what is the problem??
The whole “sabbath” issue is, IMO, based on extreme leagalism…