Discussing the Law and the Sabbath Questions

[Azenilto Brito]

10 Reasons Why the Sabbath is Not a Ceremonial Precept

1st. - Because it was instituted BEFORE the entrance of sin in the world (Gen. 2:2, 3; Exo. 20:8-11 and Mar. 2:27). The ceremonies represent an arrangement from AFTER sin showed up and served to provide its atonement by its symbolic value, pointing ahead to the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin from the World” (John 1:29).

2nd. - Because the Creation story stresses that God RESTED [ceased His activities of the creation week, for the Divinity doesn’t get tired] on that first Sabbath day, thus leaving an example for the being He had created (Gen. 2:3; Exo. 20:11). No ceremonial precept acquires such relevance in God’s consideration.
 
3rd. - Because the Creation story stresses that God BLESSED that first Sabbath day as a special mark of His approval and continuous physical, mental and spiritual benefit to those who observe it, a promise presented in many occasions throughout the Bible, as in Isaiah 56: 3-8; 58: 13, 14. Such divine blessing on the Sabbath is reminded in the commandment’s text (Exo. 20:11). There is no ceremonial precept that receives such consideration.

4th. - Because the Creation story stressed that God SANCTIFIED that first Sabbath, separating it as a memorial of His work as Creator, which is confirmed in the commandment’s text (Exo. 20:8-11). The word “sanctify” means “separate something to be consecrated to God”. Since God is already absolutely holy, to whom did He sanctify [separated] the Sabbath, but for His human creatures? It would make no sense to establish a memorial for an event at a time so far removed regarding it.
 
5th. - Because as He pronounced solemnly the moral law of the Ten Commandments at the Sinai mountain at the ears of the people of Israel, God included naturally the Sabbath as its 4th commandment and didn’t do the same with any of the ceremonial precepts. And as He concluded, the text says that He “added nothing more” (Deu. 5:22). Whoever adds ceremonial precepts to the Decalogue is going against what God did.

6th. - Because at the conclusion of His proclamation, God wrote those words on two stone tables, which Moses placed within the ark (Deu. 10:5). He didn’t write on those tables ANY CEREMONIAL PRECEPT. All that had ceremonial character was dictated to Moses for being recorded in books (scrolls) in another occasion.

7th. - Because God chose the Sabbath as a special sign between Himself and His chosen people (Exo. 31:17 and Eze. 20:12, 20). He wouldn’t choose for that objective a ceremonial commandment that would be abolished in the future, for His plan was that Israel always remained His chosen people and His witnesses among Earth dwellers.

8th. - Because Jesus reinforced the concept that the Sabbath was a divine institution, established “because of man” (Mar. 2:27), so that it served man in the physical, mental and spiritual aspects. No ceremonial commandment deserved such a treatment.
 
9th. - Because Jesus, Who is the Holy Lord and Creator (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2), gave the example of Sabbath observance (Luke 4:16) and revealed preoccupation as to its correct observance, discussing with the religious leaders about His acts of healing on that day, explaining that what He did on the Sabbath day was “lawful” (Mat. 12:12). The tenor of Christ’s discussions with the Jewish leaders was not IF they should observe the Sabbath, nor WHEN they should observe the Sabbath, but HOW to do it, in the appropriate spirit. He never revealed the same preoccupation regarding any ceremonial precept.

10th. - Because despite the ceremonies having ceased on the cross and a long discussion on their meaning is found in the New Testament, especially in Hebrews 7 to 10, the 4th commandment is never discussed as having a ceremonial character. On the contrary, in the epistle to the Hebrews itself, the Sabbath receives special treatment in the chapters 3 and 4 where it is never referred to as having ceased.

[Azenilto Brito]

10 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING ROMANS 14:5, 6

1 - Since Jesus said that “the Sabbath was established because of man” (Mar. 2:27), why did Paul feel the he had a right to turn it into an optional principle?

2 - Since when did this optional mentality for the observance of the “Lord’s day” begin? From the Resurrection time? From the writing of the epistle to the Romans in AD 56-58?

3 - Why is it that in Galatians 4:9-11 Paul doesn’t allow for any day to be observed, while in Romans 14:5, 6 he leaves it up to each one to have a day or no day to observe? Wouldn’t that seem a clear contradiction on the part of the Apostle?
 
4 - What either Biblical or historical proof is there that among the early Christians there was this criterion of each one observing the day that best served his interest (or that of his employer), some observing Sunday, others Monday, even others Tuesday, besides observers of Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, as well as the adherents of the “nodayism”?
 
5 - In what day did they gather for worship and fellowship? Or else, were there services every day, according to the options of days to observe?

6 - And how about the adherents of the “nodayism”? How did they act in the face of the Hebrews 10:25 recommendation, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing”?

7 - When did the Christians depart from the “any day/no day” criterion to adopt Sunday officially and collectively?

8 - If any day was equally good, why does John, in Revelation 1:10, speak of a specific “Lord’s day”? Was it his private “Lord’s day”, according to his decision?

9 - Where is it said that, with the transfer of the Old to the New Covenant, as God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept His New Covenant [New Testament] (Hebrews 8:6-10), He records the principle of a day of rest setting a different day for each one?

10 - If any day is equally good, why shouldn’t we stick to that which is clearly established in the divine law--the seventh-day Sabbath--instead of remaining under this ambiguity, being God a God or order, not confusion?

[Sarita]

Thank you, brother!
Blessings,

Sarita 

[Azenilto Brito]

10 QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LAW OF GOD/LAW OF CHRIST

Jesus said: “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30)

1 - Where does the Bible say, in a direct, clear, straightforward way, that “the law of Christ” took the place of the “law of God” for the Christians?

2 - If now we just have the “law of Christ”, that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul still refer to the “law of God”, saying he had pleasure on it, and keept it in his mind, that the “inclination of the flesh” is not subject to the law of God, etc. (Rom. 7:22, 25; 8:7 e 8)? Why does he still refer to the “law of God”, “commandments of God”, things that would be past, instead of focusing only on the “law of Christ”?

3 - If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul enumerate the Decalogue’s commandments (“law of God”), prescribing them to the Christians as to be obeyed according to the principle of “love”, instead of speaking of the “law of Christ” (Rom. 13:8-10)?

4 - If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced the supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul remind the Ephesians of a commandment of the Decalogue (“law of God”) as still in force, instead of urging them to obey the same principle, applying it to a different code, related to the “law of Christ” (Eph. 6:1-3)?

5 - If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Paul say that now “what counts” is to obey the “commandments of God”, and not the “commandments of Christ” (1 Cor. 7:19)?

6 - If now we just have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does John speak of “law of God” and “law of Christ” interchangeably in his various epistles (see 1 John 2:7; 3:21-24; 4:7-12, 21)?

7 - If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does John in the book of Revelation say clearly that the faithful children of God are characterized as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12)? Why doesn’t he say that they “keep the commandments of Christ”?

8 - If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does Hebrews 8:6-10, dealing with the change of the Old to the New Covenant, refer to “My laws” (God’s), which are written on the hearts and minds of those who accept this New Covenant [New Testament], and not the “laws of Christ”?

9 - If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why does James mention the Decalogue’s commandments (“law of God”) as norms for the Christians, instead of concentrating attention on the “law of Christ” (James 2:10-12)?

10 - If now we have the “law of Christ” that replaced a supposedly obsolete “law of God”, why as John defines what sin is--transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)--he doesn’t specify that this applies now to the “law of Christ”?

Note.: The context of that verse doesn’t even speak of Christ, only of God. His primary readers would clearly identify the “law” as being God’s. The onus of the proof rests with whoever deny that.

[Azenilto Brito]

10 POINTS TO PONDER ON THE THEME OF GOD’S LAW AND THE SABBATH

1st. - God’s law is called “perfect” (Sal. 19:17), thus how could it be discarded as an inadequate “first law” to be replaced by a best one in the New Testament? Would God create an imperfect law for the Jews and a perfect one for the Christians?

2nd. - Jesus DIDN’T create a new, revolutionary code, in SUBTITUTION to the divine law of the Old Testament, since his “golden rule” is just a reiteration of what Moses had already said (compare Mat. 22:3-40 with Lev. 19:18 and Deu. 6:5). What He did was to highlight the deeper and ethical aspects of the law that had been lost sight of due to the bad instruction His hearers had got from the religious leaders of the Jewish nation. After all, it was always wrong to look at a woman with impure intentions (see Job 31:1) as well as to hate a neighbor (Lev. 19:17).

3rd. - A proof of that is what we read in Matthew 5:20--the key to understand Christ’s statements in His famous antithesis, “ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. . . But I say unto you. . .”:  “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

4th. - Another proof that Christ didn’t intend to REPLACE the principles of the law, besides His statements in Matthew 5:17, 18 that He hadn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, is that what He says in these verses is accompanied by His RECOMMENDATIONS regarding the most perfect obedience, taking into account the minimal details of such law (see vs. 19).

5th. - Also in Matthew 23:1-3 Jesus recommends to His hearers that they accept ALL that their religious leaders taught (not what they practiced). And one of the things they taught, even though corrupting the meaning of the commandment, was the faithful observance of the seventh-day Sabbath: Luke 13:14.

6th. - The expressions used by Paul of “law of the spirit of life” and “law of sin and death” don’t mean different laws, but different visions on the law. He employs the word “law” in Romans 7:25 as a “play on words”, for he is speaking on the operation of sin as a “law”, while significantly he also states: “I myself serve the law of God”. That would make no sense in case he understood that this law was annulled. But he also declared: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31).

7th. - Jesus Christ stated that “the Sabbath was made because of man, and not man because of the Sabbath” (Mar. 2:27). In that statement He confirms the universal character of the Sabbath and REINFORCES the need to keep the Sabbath commandment, which is, above all, a privilege of God’s children, while He condemned the distortions to the commandment practiced by the religious leaders of His time. Christ’s debates on the Sabbath didn’t have the objective of teaching that it was an abolished commandment to be no more obeyed (for that would be in opposition to His own words in Matthew 5:19), rather He showed the CORRECT spirit by which the Sabbath should be kept.
 
8th. - On the question of the “division of the laws” as “moral”, “ceremonial”, “civil”, etc., we find the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 7:19, where he speaks that “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God”. In that we see how he himself makes a “division” of the laws that were important, but are no more so, and commandments that must be fulfilled by God’s people.

9th. - Christian leaders along history always defined God’s law on this basis: as moral law (the Ten Commandments), ceremonial, civil laws, etc. The historic confessions of faith, creeds and catechisms of Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and even Roman Catholics, allow anyone to realize it.
 
10th. - Finally, there is the question of the change of Old Covenant for the New Covenant: There isn’t the least hint that in this process, as God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of this New Covenant (New Testament), He

a) leaves out the 4th commandment (of the Bible’s Decalogue, not of the falsified one in the Roman Catholic catechisms)
 
b) includes the 4th commandment, but changing the day of observance from the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week (Sunday)

OR

c) includes the 4h commandment, but as a vague, voluntary and variable principle, that can be fulfilled or not, or adopted according to the most convenient time for the believer (or his/her employer).
 
Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33 y Ezekiel 36:26 y 27. - By Prof. Azenilto G. Brito.

[Azenilto Brito]

10 REASONS WHY COLOSSIANS 2:16 DOES NOT TREAT THE WEEKLY SABBATH AS A CEREMONIAL PRECEPT

The text says: ”Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days”.

1 - Because the apostle Paul wouldn’t absolutely contradict the divine law which he recognized as valid and in force, as he exalted it as holy, just, good, spiritual, pleasurable and deign to have in mind, according also to what the psalmist had said: “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” (Romans 3:31; 7:12, 14, 22, 25; Psalm 19:7). And besides exalting the divine law, Paul recommended its faithful observance and utilization in a legitimate form (Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 6:1-3; 1 Cor. 19:17; 1 Tim. 1:8).

2 - Because Paul knew that “the Sabbath was made for man” (Mar. 2:27), for his physical and spiritual benefit since creation (Gen. 2:2, 3; Exo. 20:8-11), and being himself a man, it applied to him also. The Apostle would never have any intention to get rid of something that God established, and knew he didn’t have authority to cancel anything from the divine law.

3 - Because the ceremonial laws were instituted AFTER the entrance of sin, exactly as a form of compensating for it and to provide a means for its atonement. The Sabbath was not ceremonial because it was established BEFORE the Fall. By the way, the only two institutions that still persist in the world from before the entrance of sin are the Sabbath and marriage, both equally established for man (see Mark 2:27 and Mat. 19:5). Both are similarly the object of tremendous Satan’s attacks, in the first case through false theologies (promoting either the ancient dies solis--day of the Sun--of Roman paganism, turned into Sunday by the Catholic tradition, or the ambiguous adoption of the “anydayism/nodayism”). In the case of the second of the only institutions from before the Fall--marriage--through the growing wave of separations, divorces, marital unfaithfulness and, more recently, same-sex marriages.

4 - Because Paul himself reveals fidelity to the Sabbath observance. He went to the synagogues to preach on the Sabbaths, and when there was no synagogue in Philippi, he went to a quiet place by the river to pray. In another occasion he spent one and half year in Corinth and preached regularly on the Sabbaths, with never telling his hearers that from that time on they should observe Sunday (Acts 13:14, 15, 42-44; 16:13; 18:4-11). If he did not respect the Sabbath principle he couldn’t have moral authority to declare in his defense under “grievous” accusations by the Jews “Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, . . . have I offended anything at all . . .” (Acts 25:8).

5 - Because it is almost certain that Paul himself wrote Hebrews (or dictated the letter to a Christian scribe), addressing especially the Hebrew Christians. The epistle deals with the meaning of the ceremonial laws in chapters 7 to 10 and doesn’t include the Sabbath as something of ceremonial nature, rather it dedicates to the Sabbath a very special treatment in chapters 3 and 4. Hebrews was written by the year 64 AD and Paul illustrates the spiritual rest that Israel could have reached remembering the principle of the Sabbath, not Sunday, which would be expected if at that time Christians had adopted such day as their special day of observance. Besides, those who in Israel entered in the spiritual rest didn’t exempt themselves of observing the Sabbath, as those heroes described in the 11th chapter of Hebrews (see also Psalm 40:8).

6 - Because when illustrating this spiritual rest in Hebrews 3 and 4, Paul uses the Greek word katapausin for ‘rest’, but in chapter 4, vs. 9, he uses a different word and it is the only time that it appears in the whole Bible: sabbatismos. The Bibles in general bring a footnote showing the meaning of that word as “Sabbath rest”. The translator George Lamsa thus translates the text: “There remains an observance of the Sabbath day for the people of God”. Certainly the author of Hebrews wanted to show that his use of the Sabbath as symbolism throughout chapters 3 and 4 doesn’t mean that he was reinterpreting the Sabbath to annul it as a normal practice, recognized as a divine commandment.

7 - Because throughout the epistle to the Colossians Paul never uses the word “law”, since he is not dealing with the validity of the law, something he never had any doubts about  (see §§ 1 and 2, above). Scholars don’t have many details of which would be the heresy that disturbed the Colossian believers, which consisted in rules such as “touch not; taste not” (see Col. 2:21). He also recommends in the context of vs. 16: “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up y his fleshly mind” (vs. 18), which makes the problem of that strange Colossian heresy even more complex to be understood. However, what we know for sure is that Paul doesn’t tell the Colossians NOT TO observe the commandment, rather to not allow these heretical ones to pass judgment on their religious practices, especially their Sabbath observance.

8 - Because the context speaks of a “handwriting of ordinances” which were “against us”. But the Sabbath was made because of man”, certainly not a harmful ordinance, contrary to the children of God’s best interests. Also the Sabbath doesn’t point to the future as was the case of the symbolic ceremonies, rather basically to the past, to creation, for it is the memorial of the creative works of God [see Exo. 20:8-11 and Psalm 111:4].

9 - Because Christian scholars now understand that the cheirographon [“handwriting of ordinances”] is not the “ceremonial law”, as many think, but a report of sins “against us”. Paul in Colossians 2 discusses a local problem, and not a new notion of elimination of the principle of a day of rest. Such principle was always accepted by the Christian community along the centuries, according to what can be seen in their historical Confessions of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms.

10 - Because Evangelical specialists of the greatest authority and prestige always understood the Sabbath mentioned in Colossian as the festival ceremonial days of Israel, belonging to the “law of the commandments that consisted of ordinances”, that caused division among Jews and gentiles (Eph. 2:15). Grammatically, the fact that the word is in the plural doesn’t impede absolutely that it refer to the ceremonial Sabbaths (see Lev. 23:38’).

The text speaks of “new moons, feast days and Sabbaths”, which doesn’t mean that these Sabbaths can’t be the ceremonial ones, as were the “new moons”. Several theologians understood that the “Sabbaths” in Col. 2:16 would refer to the ceremonial ones, such as the Methodist Adam Clarke, the Presbyterians Albert Barnes and Charles Hodge, the Baptists Jamieson, Fausset & Brown and others. Such researchers present their arguments because they notice that if Paul annulled the principle of the day of rest, he would eliminate in the process Sunday itself, leaving nothing in its place, and they defend Sunday as being the Christian manner of observing the Sabbath commandment. - Study prepared by Azenilto G. Brito.

[Azenilto Brito]

10 Questions About the Sabbath for Anti-Sabbatarians to Think Seriously About

They don’t need to be answered.  Could be just for serious reflections . . . 

1 - Since Isaiah 56:2-8 and Mark 2:27 show that the Sabbath is not an institution only for the literal children of Israel, encompassing the foreigners and “every man”, how can be it denied that it is a moral, universal precept, that stems from the Creation of the world?

Note:  By the way, the only two institutions that still persist in the world since the entrance of sin are the Sabbath and marriage, both equally established for man (see Mar. 2:27 and Mat. 19:5). Both are equally the object of tremendous attacks from Satan, in the first case through the development of false theologies (promoting the ancient dies solis of Roman paganism, transformed into Sunday, or the ambiguous philosophy of the “anydayism/nodayism/everydayism”), and, in the second case, through the growing wave of separations, divorce, marital unfaithfulness and, more recently, same-sex marriages.

2 - Since the historical confessions of faith, creeds and catechisms of Protestant (and Catholic) Christendom admit that the Sabbath is a MORAL commandment, that comes from Eden, where did the interpretations that negate this come from?

Note: A clue would be to get information regarding a certain C. I. Scofield by the beginning of the 20th Century.

3 - Since those who found rest for their souls following Christ directly, when He inhabited among men, and didn’t for that reason dispense with the Sabbath (Luke 23:56), why should we act differently today, as Jesus came to save His people FROM their sins, and not WITH their sins (Mat. 1:21)?

Note:  We find the Bible’s definition of “sin” in 1 John 3:4: “Sin is the transgression of the law”.

4 - Since Paul along the entire epistle to the Colossians never utilizes the word “law”, doesn’t that allow us to see he is not teaching anything in Chapter 2 regarding the end of laws, but is speaking of another thing related to the attribution of guilt to forgiven sinners?

Note:  The “written code” (cheirographon, in the Greek --Col. 2:14) that was “against us” is not the “ceremonial law”, as some think, but the document that attributed guilt to a condemned man before a court.
 
5 - Since Paul as an Apostle never could have authority to abolish or alter any of God’s law, whatsoever, isn’t it clear enough that in Col. 2:16 he is not playing the role of a legislator who engages himself in altering the terms of God’s law?

Note:  The parallel language of vs. 16 and 18 makes it clear the reason of Paul’s admonition: “. . . do not let anyone to judge you. . .”, “. . . do not let anyone . . . disqualify you. . .”

6 - Since even considering the weekly Sabbath a shadow, but having an ample character that doesn’t imply its end (for it will continue in the New Earth--Isa. 66:22, 23), isn’t clear that the precept of the Sabbath differs contextually and conceptually from the ceremonial ordinances abolished on the cross (see Eph. 2:15)?

Note:  Remembering that God uttered it solemnly on the ears of the people, jointly with all moral norms and wrote it on the stone tables, a fact that would never apply to any ceremonial precept.

7 - Since God declared that the Sabbath is a sign established between He and His people (Exo. 31:17; Eze. 20:12, 20) and since it is never said that God replaced such sign for any other, what justification do the anti-Sabbatarians have to neglect this divine sign, while pretending to belong to God’s people?

Note:  To quote Eph. 1:13 as a “proof” that now there exists a new “sign” has no basis because the text doesn’t say that the Holy Spirit became that “sign”, and not even the noun “sign” occurs in the text. What is said is that the Holy Spirit seals the true believers, but the seal of the Spirit is reflected in the writing of God’s law on the hearts and minds of those who accept the New Covenant between God and His children (Heb. 8:6-10; Rom. 8:3, 4), which includes, and not excludes, the Sabbath commandment.

8 - Since the Roman Catholics allege that those who don’t want to utilize sculptured images in their acts of worship are not obliged to do so, while they complain against the Evangelicals’ insistence in criticizing them for their use of these images, those who say they are not against us keeping the Sabbath, but just asking to not bother them regarding such commandment, are not acting in exactly the same way?

Note:  To condemn the Catholics for their use of images, quoting a precept of the same code of law that contains the neglected Sabbath commandment, is not only inconsistent, but could even be an exercise in hypocrisy.
 
9 - Since Jesus discussed so many times with the Jewish leaders regarding the Sabbath question, not to disqualify the Sabbath, but to indicate the form it should be observed, and asserted being “the Lord of the Sabbath”--to show He had authority to correct them who corrupted the meaning of the divine commandments--shouldn’t we learn what Christ intended to teach us regarding the manner of observing correctly the “day of the Lord”?

Note: The Jewish leaders corrupted also the 5th commandment (Mark 7:9ff) and the tithe principle (Mat. 23:23). Jesus declared in Matthew 15:6 about them: “. . . nullify the word of God for the sake or your tradition”. Christ discussed with them not WHETHER they should keep the Sabbath, nor WHEN they should keep the Sabbath, but HOW they should keep it, in the right spirit.

10 - Since in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant, when God inscribes what is called “My laws” on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of this New Covenant [New Testament]  (Hebrews 8:6-10) nothing is said that He leaves out the commandment of the day of rest, nor that He transfers the sanctity of the seventh-day to the first day of the week (or that this principle became something vague, voluntary and variable), why should we resist this divine writing of that commandment in our minds and hearts, at the same time that we allege to fulfill God’s will, as the Psalmist said in the Psalm 40:8)?

Note:  Said text says, “I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart”.

[All Bible texts taken from the NIV]

[Azenilto Brito]

10 Main Reasons That Discredit the Observance of Sunday

       (1.) No Command of Christ or of the Apostles. There is no commandment of Christ or of the apostles regarding a weekly-Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday celebration of Christ’s resurrection. We have commands in the New Testament regarding baptism (Matt 28:19-20), the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:24-25; 1 Cor 11:23-26) and foot-washing (John 13:14-15), but we find no commands or even suggestions to commemorate Christ’s Resurrection on a weekly Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday.
       Since Sunday would be a “novelty”, a new principle of worship, especially as it would be the substitution of such an inbred tradition in the national and religious culture of the Jewish people, as was the case of the Sabbath, any change in that practice would undoubtedly prompt commentaries, specific instructions justifying the alterations, particularly as the first converts to the Christian religion proceeded from Judaism and were “zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20). However, nothing is found in the whole New Testament concerning such change, nor any debates discussing the subject.
       Seventh-day Sabbath remained valid and in force along with all the other Decalogue’s commandments after the cross. A proof of that is the testimony of Luke, writing 30 years after the Resurrection event, describing the action of the holy women, followers of Christ, as they prepared   “spices and ointments” to apply on His body. They worked actively on their tasks, but “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).
       For Luke, then, who declares to have looked for detailed information about everything related to Christ’s experience (Luke 1:1-4), the rest day “according to the commandment” was the seventh-day Sabbath. He refers to the following day simply as “the first day of the week”, without attributing to it any special qualifications (see Luke 24:1).
       The same Luke reports in the Acts of the Apostles how during the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), as the judaizers problem was dealt with, no norms were set against the Sabbath observance (Acts 15:20), a demonstration that such instruction was unnecessary. All observed it regularly and there was no need to give instruction regarding it. Paul, on a Sabbath day, when there was no synagogue in a certain location, went to the side of a river for a time of prayer (Acts 16:13). In Corinth he spent one year and a half preaching every Sabbath and never remembered to tell those who met there to change their day of worship to Sunday (Acts 18:1-4, 11) even when only the gentiles remained, as the Jews left.

       (2.) Jesus Made no Attempt to Institute a Memorial of His Resurrection. If Jesus wished the day of His resurrection to become a memorial day of rest and worship, He would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to establish such a memorial. It is important to note that divine institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, Lord’s Supper, all trace their origin to a divine act that established them. But on the day of His resurrection Christ performed no act to institute a memorial of His resurrection.
       If we think it through, both Christ’s death and resurrection are equally important events, foundational to the Christian faith. Both could deserve a special day for their celebration. If the Resurrection was supposed to be celebrated regularly on a special day, given its importance, why not the Savior’s death? So, we have two exceptional historical landmarks for a Christian--the death and the resurrection of Christ. Which would deserve a memorial day? Possibly both, but the Scriptures don’t establish that. Nothing is implied that any change occurred in the text of the divine law because of any of these events.
       If Jesus intended to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, most likely He would have told the women and the disciples when He arose: “Come apart and celebrate My Resurrection!” Instead He told them, “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee” (Matt 28:10), and to the disciples, “Go . . . make disciples . . . baptizing them” (Matt 28:19). None of the utterances of the risen Savior reveal any intention to memorialize His Resurrection by making Sunday the new day of rest and worship.
       The reason is that our Savior wanted His followers to view His Resurrection as an existential reality to be experienced daily by living victoriously by the power of His Resurrection, rather than a liturgical/religious event to be celebrated on Sunday. Paul expressed the hope to “know him and the power of his resurrection” (Phil 3:10), but he never mentions his desire to celebrate Christ’s Resurrection on Sunday or Easter-Sunday.

       (3.) Sunday Is Never Called “Day of the Resurrection.” Sunday is never called in the New Testament as “Day of the Resurrection.” It is consistently designated “First day of the week.” The references to Sunday as day of the resurrection first appear in the early part of the fourth century, specifically in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. By that time Sunday had become associated with the resurrection and consequently was referred to as “Day of the Resurrection.” But this development occurred several centuries after the beginning of Christianity.

       (4.) The Sunday-Resurrection Presupposes Work, not Rest and Worship. The Sunday-Resurrection presupposes work, rather than rest and worship, because it does not mark the completion of Christ’s earthly ministry which ended on a Friday afternoon when the Savior said: “It is finished” (John 19:30), and then rested in the tomb according to the commandment. Instead, the Resurrection marks the beginning of Christ’s new intercessory ministry (Acts 1:8; 2:33), which, like the first day of creation, presupposes work rather than rest.

       (5.) The Lord’s Supper was not Celebrated on Sunday in Honor of the Resurrection. Historically we know that Christians could not celebrate the Lord’s Supper on a regular basis on Sunday evening, because such gatherings were prohibited by the Roman hetariae law--a law that outlawed all types of communal fellowship meals held in the evening. The Roman government was afraid that such evening gatherings could become an occasion for political plotting.
       To avoid the search of the Roman police, Christian changed regularly the time and place of the Lord’s Supper celebration. Eventually, they moved the service from the evening to the morning. This explains why Paul is very specific on the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, but he is indefinite on the question of the time of the assembly. Note that four times he repeats the same phrase: “When you come together” (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34). The phrase implies indefinite time, most likely because there was no set day for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
       If, as some scholars contend, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated on Sunday evening, as part of the Lord’s Day worship, Paul could hardly have failed to mention the sacredness of the time in which they gathered. This would have strengthened his plea for a more worshipful attitude during the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The failure of Paul to mention “Sunday” as the time of the gathering or to use the adjective “Lord’s-kuriake” to characterize the day as “the Lord’s Day,” (as he did it with reference to the Lord’s Supper), shows that the apostle did not attach any religious significance to Sunday.
       
       (6.) The Lord’s Supper Commemorates Christ’s Sacrifice, not His Resurrection. Many Christians today view their Lord’s Supper as the core of Sunday worship in honor of Christ’s resurrection. But in the Apostolic Church, the Lord’s Supper was not celebrated on Sunday, as we have just seen, and was not connected with the Resurrection. Paul, for instance, who claims to transmit what “he received from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23), explicitly states that the rite commemorated not Christ’s resurrection, but His sacrifice and Second Coming (“You proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).
       Similarly, Passover, celebrated today by many Christians on Easter Sunday, was observed during apostolic times, not on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection, but according to the biblical date of Nisan 14, primarily as a memorial of Christ’s suffering and death. Contrary to what many people believe, Easter-Sunday was unknown in the Apostolic Church. It was introduced and promoted by the Church of Rome in the second century in order to show separation and differentiation from the Jewish Passover. The result was the well-known Passover controversy, which eventually led Bishop Victor of Rome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (about A. D. 191) for refusing to adopt Easter-Sunday. These indications show that Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week, did not influence the Apostolic Church to adopt the weekly Sunday and the annual Easter-Sunday to commemorate such an event.
 
       (7.) The Resurrection is not the Dominant Reason for Sundaykeeping in Earliest Documents. The earliest explicit references to Sundaykeeping are found in the writings of Barnabas (about A. D. 135) and Justin Martyr (about A.D. 150). Both writers do mention the Resurrection but only as the second of two reasons, important but not predominant. Barnabas’ first theological motivation for Sunday keeping is eschatological, namely, that Sunday as “the eight day” represents “the beginning of another world.” The notion of Sunday as “the eighth day,” was later abandoned because it is senseless to speak of “the eighth day” in a seven days week. Justin’s first reason for the Christians’ assembly on Dies Solis--the Day of the Sun, is the inauguration of creation: “Sunday is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter, created the world.” These reasons were eventually abandoned in favor of the Resurrection which became the primary reason for Sunday observance.

       (8.) Nothing Indicates that in the Establishment of the New Covenant There Was Any Change in the Terms of the Biblical Rest Day Commandment. Nothing is said that when God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant (New Testament) there occurs an alteration in the terms of these laws, so that Sunday replaces the seventh-day Sabbath (Heb. 8:6-10). Since this passage is an ipsis literis reproduction of Jeremiah 31:31-33, when the promise of a new covenant was firstly made to Israel due to the captivity they would face because of their sins (and one of the reasons for their punishment was exactly their negligence regarding the Sabbath commandment--see Jer. 17:19-27), it is understood that these “My laws” referred to in Hebrews are the same that always pertained to those eternal and moral principles expressed in the Decalogue.
      The ceremonial part of that law ended on the cross, and the primary readers of the Hebrews epistle (as well as its author) knew that, for when it was firstly received by them the Temple’s veil had already been rent from top to bottom, ending those rites that pointed to Christ and His sacrifice. And if there were any doubts about it, the tenor of the epistle itself would solve the problem, for chapters 7-10 define exactly the end of these ceremonies, while stressing that the divine law is written on the hearts of the true children of God--in its moral aspects and other ethical and hygienic principles, without the ceremonial prefigurations (see Eph. 2:15).

       (9.) The Roman Catholic Church Presents Itself as the Author of the Change in the Rest Day from the Seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday. Several documents of the Roman Catholic Church assert that it was the responsible for that alteration, as can be exemplified by some official statements of that church, such as:

       “The Catholic Church . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” - The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

       “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify”.--James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.

      Another Catholic document confirms it:

       “Ques. How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?

       “Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church”. - Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (same in the Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. By Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p. 67.

       (10.) The Seventh-day Sabbath Will Be Restored in the New Earth When Sin Is Extirpated From the Universe. If some alteration in the terms of the divine day of rest had occurred, this would be reflected in prophecies regarding the future world, when the prophet declares that  “in the new heavens and new earth” all the residents will come to “worship before Me, says the Lord” on the Sabbath day (Isa. 66:22, 23). Isaiah’s prophecy has to do specifically with the New Earth regime, as indicated by the context. When no more sin or sinners will exist in this new environment where “dwelleth righteousness” (2 Ped. 3:13) ALL the commandments of the divine law will be respected, and since “the Sabbath was made because of man” (Mar. 2:27), it will proceed in the holy regime of the New Earth, not Sunday, as would be the case if any change had occurred.
       The well reputed French version of Louis Segond thus reads: “. . . à chaque sabbat, toute chair viendra se prosterner devant moi, dit l’Éternel” [every Sabbath day all flesh will come to prostrate before Me, says the Eternal One]. This is also reflected in the contemporary language Bible published in Brazil, in the Portuguese language: “. . . em todos os sábados pessoas de todas as nações virão me adorar no Templo” [on every Sabbath day people from all nations will come to adore me in the Temple].

       CONCLUSION: The 10 reasons listed above suffice to discredit the claim that Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week caused the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday. The truth is that initially the resurrection was celebrated existentially rather than liturgically, that is, by a victorious way of life rather than by a special day of worship.
__________

Note: This article is an adaptation of the text “Seven Main Reasons That Discredit the Sunday Observance”, by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, with the addition of three more reasons and several paragraphs to the seven reasons presented in the original text, by  Prof. Azenilto G. Brito.

[Azenilto Brito]

10 Questions on the Theory of “Everydayism”

For reflection and possible answers by those who teach that there is no more “specific” Sabbath day to observe, just keep “every day”, or “any day”, to the Lord.

1 - Why didn’t Jesus say that every day was made for man, but highlighted only the Sabbath day in that sense (Mark 2:27)?

2 - Where is it clearly established in the Bible that to “make holy” a day to the Lord doesn’t mean to dedicate all the hours of the seventh day—“you shall not do any work”--to Him?

3 - If Acts 2:42-46 means that the early Christians were “everydayists” and attended church every day, why isn’t that rule followed by modern “everydayists” who go to church only a few days a week, or even once a week?

4 - Why is it taught that “everydayism” is a new Christian and New Testament-based concept, when Moses had already taught something even more advanced--the “every-moment-ism” in Deuteronomy 6:2ff?

5 - If Jesus Christ wished to downgrade the Sabbath in Matthew 12 (as some imply), wouldn’t He be despising one of the days, thus not being Himself an “everydayist”, but rather an oddly “sixdayist”?
 
6 - Why of all the 10 Commandments only the 4th went through that change (from the observance of the specific seventh day to the more user friendly “observance” of every day/any day) while the other commandments, belonging to the same code, remained undisturbed in the New Covenant?

7 - If any of all the days in a week is to be observed now, how come John, in the Revelation, knew nothing about that, for he speaks of a special day he dedicated to the Lord (Rev. 1:10)?

8 - Why do Christian men of the highest reputation and spiritual influence, as well as authorities in Theology, as Bible exegetes of the past, like Martin Luther, John Wesley, John Calvin, present the Sabbath principle as a day to be dedicated to the Lord according to the Bible commandment, leaving no hints pointing to its abolition or to the “everydayism” rule?
 
9 - Why do Christian men of the highest reputation and spiritual influence, as well as authorities in Theology and Bible expositors of the present time, such as John Davis, Billy Graham and James Kennedy, present the Sabbath principle as a day to be dedicated to the Lord according to the Bible commandment, not pointing absolutely to its abolition or to the “everydayism” rule?
 
10 - Why do Christian confessional documents of the highest authority, which for centuries establish doctrinal rules and practice for Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, etc., teach a day to be dedicated to the Lord based on the 4th commandment of the Decalogue, even tracing it back to Creation, rather than teaching “everydayism” (see, for example, the Westminster Confession or the Short Luther Catechism)?

Note: It is true that they reinterpret the 4th commandment as now applying to Sunday, but the important aspect in this discussion is that they thought of that day as a fulfillment of the commandment, not advocating the same ideas as some of those who imply that God’s law was somehow transformed from a Ten Commandments law to a “Law of Nine Commandments and One Suggestion”.
 

[Azenilto Brito]

10 Serious Difficulties For the Advocates of Either Sunday Keeping or the “Nodayism/Anydayism/Everydayism”

1 - Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man” without implying that it was a provisional institution to be cancelled some time later. He simply confirms the commandment as having a universal character. What, then, is the basis for the notion of the end of the Sabbath for the Christians?

2 - The most representative confessions of faith of the historical Christian churches (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist New Hampshire Confession), clearly confirm the Sabbath as a moral commandment derived from Creation for all men, in all times. The fact that they reinterpret such principle applying it to Sunday doesn’t reduce their enforcement of the 4th commandment as valid for Christians, which is much different from the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism that has characterized the discourse of the Evangelical world since the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. How do you justify the radical change in mentality as to the question of the day or rest in comparison to the historical thinking of the Protestant Christendom?

3 - Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Anglicans didn’t understood or understand things as defined by those of the semi-antinomian/dispensationalist line, who contradict the statements by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and many others Evangelical thinkers, both contemporary and past, especially the historical Confessions of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms of the Christian churches. All these Christian instructors, in harmony with the confessional documents of those churches they either founded, belonged to or still belong to, reiterate the Sabbath position as being a moral commandment that proceeds from Eden, for all men, in all times, including Pentecostal authors. The fact that they reinterpret such principle applying it to Sunday doesn’t reduce the strength of their setting apart the 4th commandment as valid and still in force for Christians, which is very different from the nodayism/anydayism/everydayism, which has characterized the discourse of the Evangelical world since the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. In the face of that historical reality, how do you justify the radical change in mentality vis-à-vis the question of the day of rest in contrast to the historical thinking of the Protestant Christendom?

Note: Luther, Calvin and Wesley sometimes were inconsistent and made comments disparaging the keeping of the 7th-day Sabbath as a biblical requirement. But they all admitted the validity of the 10 Commandaments as a rule for Christian conduct. They certainly found it difficult to explain why Sunday was the favored day to be kept when there is no such instruction in the Bible and came out with unconvincing excuses. They also raised unacceptable arguments to justify child baptism.

4 - The Evangelicals cannot define where the Bible establishes that the day of rest in the Christian era should be presently observed in a more “user friendly” way, with permission to buy and sell, watch games on TV, go to movies, theaters, mall, etc., with practically the only difference being that on their “Lord’s day” one stays some more time at the Church’s meetings. What biblical basis do you have to justify this change in the dedication of a day to the Lord?

5 - The Evangelicals cannot define why this supposed Christian Sabbath should be considered according to the Roman time reckoning, from midnight to midnight, instead of the Bible reckoning, from sunset to sunset, especially as the texts that deal with the first day of the week in the New Testament utilize the Jewish reckoning, not the Roman one. What biblical basis do you have to justify that change?

6 - It’s significant that the main meetings of worship, praise, preaching, altar calls in the Evangelical churches occur in their Sunday night meetings which, according to the Bible time reckoning, is already Monday, not Sunday! How do you justify that, at least those who still hold the idea that Sunday is a special day to dedicate to the Lord?
 
7 - Are the evangelicals able to define where, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, it is said that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He

- leaves out the 4th commandment of the Decalogue (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?

8 - Are the evangelicals able to define where, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, it is said that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He

- maintains the 4th commandment, but transferring the sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 e Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?

9 - Are the evangelicals able to define where it is said, in the passage from the Old to the New Alliance, that when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of His New Alliance [New Testament], He

- leaves the question of the day of rest as something vague, voluntary and variable, to be set individually, according to the conveniences of the believer (or his/her employer) (Basic Texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; 10:16; Jeremiah 31:31-33 e Ezekiel 36:26, 27)?

10 - Since in the biblical promise of the New Heavens and a New Earth, when there will be no more sin or sinners, the Sabbath will continue to be observed by the redeemed ones eternally (see Isaiah 66:22, 23), why shouldn’t we now dedicate to the Lord His holy day, as He Himself established in His law, which was not cancelled by faith, but confirmed (Rom. 3:31)?

[Azenilto Brito]

10 Questions Regarding the Supposed Limitation of the Gentile Christians to Obey Only the “Noachian Laws”, Not the 10 Commandments

Some serious reflections for our Messianic-Jew friends

1 - Can you indicate where did Yeshua ever imply that there are two law codes--one for the Christian Jews, and another for the Gentile Christians, inasmuch as He said to His followers, “If you love Me, keep My commandments”? Should only those Christians of Jewish origin love Him and keep His commandments?

2 - And how about when Yeshua summoned the disciples for the world evangelization task and recommended them to witness the Gospel message to the different nations and tribes of the Earth, teaching them “to observe all the things whatsoever I have commanded you”, would that be applicable only to Christians of Jewish origin? In case the answer is yes, then where are defined those things He commanded separately to be applied to the Gentile Christians?
 
3 - When Yeshua said specifically that the Sabbath was established “for man” (Mar. 2:27), since the word “man” in the original is anthropós--the same utilized in Matthew 19:5 as He spoke of the man who leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife--if the Sabbath is an obligation only to Christians of Jewish origin, does that mean that marriage applies only to Jews also?
 
4 - After all, the fact that in the 4 rules of the Jerusalem council there is no mention of the Sabbath as something the Gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29), how can it be alleged that the Gentiles were not bound to obey it, inasmuch as there is no instruction AGAINST the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, a topic that wasn’t even discussed in said council for not requiring such clarification: everyone observed it regularly (as, for instance, there was no discussion regarding the inconvenience of pronouncing God’s name in vain, something which needed no clarification)?
 
5 - After all, the fact that in the 4 rules of the Jerusalem council there is no mention to the dietary laws as something the Gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29), how can it be alleged that the Gentiles were not bound to obey them, inasmuch as there is no instruction AGAINST their observance, rather the REAFFIRMATION of the rule not to consume blood (cf. Lev. 3: 17; 7: 26; 17: 10; 19: 26; 1 Sam. 14:33?). Would the apostle repeat a rule of an “abolished law” to be obeyed by the Christian community--from Jewish and Gentile origin?

6 - Since the believers of the Jerusalem mother-church were ethnically Jews and “zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20) and they would never accept that they tinkered with the Sabbath commandment and the dietary laws without a vigorous contrary reaction--institutions that had tremendous importance in their religious and cultural life (as can be seen in their disputes on circumcision, exactly because it was an altered rule)--isn’t it very clear that both the Sabbath commandment and the dietary laws were not altered, for there are no discussion regarding any such changes?
 
7 - If we are to follow this strange rationale that the Gentile Christians should limit themselves to God’s “Noachian laws”, since there aren’t any clues in these NOACHIAN LAWS against disrespecting the parents and pronouncing God’s name in vain, are the Gentile Christians free to violate both these principles (see Genesis 9)?

8 - Where can it be demonstrated that the apostle Paul was aware of this limitation of the “Noachian laws” for the Gentile Christians, since he wrote to the Romans on their need of honoring all the Decalogue commandments naturally (Rom. 13:8-10), citing various of them as he took a part for the whole (see on vs. 9, “if there are any other commandments. . .”), and to the Ephesians he recommended “the first commandment with a promise” (Eph. 6:1-3), without clarifying that there were different rules (the “Noachian laws”) to the Gentiles that supposedly freed them from the Sabbath and the dietary laws, does that mean that these don’t need to respect their parents, as well as have permission to take God’s name in vain?
 
9 - Since the Bible information is that in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of ALL who accept the terms of that New Covenant [New Testament] (see Heb. 8:6-10), where are there any rules of following the “Noachian laws” for the Christian Gentiles, and “My laws” [God’s] for the Christians of Jewish descent?

10- Since the language of this New Covenant clearly indicates that God establishes that covenant  “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:8’, but the context indicates that it applies to ALL those who accept the gospel (see Hebrews 10:11ss, especially vs. 16), how can someone justify this supposed division of rules for the obedience of Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians?

[Azenilto Brito]

10 Reasons Why the Sabbath Is the Most Important Commandment of the Decalogue