Seventh Day Adventists produce some pretty compelling arguments for keeping the Jewish custom of sabbath observance. They base the argument on their interpretation of Revelation 1:10. Among other claims they make, they say that the Catholic Church in 360 A. D. usurped God’s clear commandment and that the Pope is the culprit. It’s the Whore of Babylon’s diabolical plot to make all the people in the world do bad things. Their references are solid, and their argument is compelling. The only remaining question is: IS IT TRUE?

The Speaker-Director is Mark Finley, himself a former Catholic, from It Is Written International Television. His Associate Speaker is Shawn Boonstra. These Seventh Day Adventists have presented an argument from the Bible for confirming Saturday as the Lord’s Day for all time. Their references are solid, and their argument is compelling. The only remaining question is: IS IT TRUE?

In other words, does the New Testament really truly equate two related ideas and make them synonymous: SABBATH and THE LORD’S DAY?

The New Testament does use the term SABBATH, and even shows the Lord Jesus and His followers faithfully observing it, as Mark Finley notes, “as was His custom,” for example:

The New Testament also refers, in English translation, to THE LORD’S DAY, but in two distinct senses. It is important to understand these two senses, since they have only one translation in English, but two distinct expressions in the original Greek. The two expressions in the original Greek are kuriou hemera and kuriake hemera.

The first sense in the original Greek is a literal translation directly out of the Hebrew words YOM YHWH — the end of all things and the beginning of the new creation and of the REIGN OF GOD: the DAY OF THE LORD in the original Greek of the New Testament is translated Kuriou hemera — THE LORD’S DAY, properly speaking. This Greek expression, Kuriou hemera, is used only in the following six places in the New Testament. The list given below is extant — there are no other usages of the term THE LORD’S DAY, properly speaking, in Greek anyplace else in the New Testament:

You can readily see that YOM YHWH, Kuriou hemera, and THE LORD’S DAY are terms best translated as The Day of God or even God’s Day — the real, actual, and true meaning of the words in Hebrew. These words refer to that day at the end of time when Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. It is the day that He will come in His Glory, His parousia (another Greek word there!).

The second expression in the original Greek that is rendered by English translators THE LORD’S DAY is a set of words found together in only one place in the entire New Testament — and nowhere in the Old Testament (Septuagint):

It is this usage of the term The Lord’s Day that our Seventh Day Adventist friends argue should instead be translated by the word Sabbath. The problem with their argument is etymology. In this case, etymology IS important. The adjectivial form of the Greek word for Lord — Kuriak-os, -e, -on — is an interesting word used in only one other place in the entire Bible:

The use of the term The Lord’s Supper in the Bible is unique to Saint Paul — and even he uses it only this one time.

Saint Paul only seems to coin a new phrase here — Kuriakon Deipnon. What is the Bible telling us by this? The Bible is telling us that the Apostles often use terms that are brand new only to the unwitting reader, but are nonetheless already well-known and well-understood by their intended audiences. Saint Paul does not write out explicitly what he means by Kuriakon Deipnon because he knows that everybody in his intended audience — the Corinthian church — already knows what he means.

Saint Paul’s intended audience at Corinth also shares with him a wide gamut, a veritable host, of internal subjective mental associations concerning Kuriakon Deipnon. This is why, in 1 Corinthians 11:20, they know the Apostle is paying them no compliment! From the verses proximate to the quoted text, it is very clear that the Corinthians are not praiseworthy for the way they are engaging in Kuriakon Deipnon.

It is clear, too, that Saint Paul is not being sarcastic about the way the Corinthians engage dinners that are NOT the Kuriakon Deipnon. In fact, what he seems to be saying is that the Kuriakon Deipnon is not supposed to be engaged the way that an ordinary supper is engaged. Precisely in this lies Saint Paul’s criticism. The Corinthians are treating the Kuriakon Deipnon like any common ordinary supper.

From this, we can deduce that the Kuriakon Deipnon is supposed to be special, reserved, different - one strongly suspects from the context, sacral, sacred, sacramental. Saint Paul uses the word Kuriakon to distinguish this supper from all other suppers. Something peculiar to and unique to the Kuriakon Deipnon happens every time it is engaged.

We must go even further. Everybody (including Jews) knows that on the night before Jesus died, He engaged in a supper with His Apostles. It is the re-presentation of this supper that St. Paul is referring to as The Lord’s Supper. Only a few verses later, we read:

The context of the supper Jesus shared with His Apostles was the Jewish Passover. Without going into all the particulars, Jews celebrate Passover for eight days. Among observant orthodox Jews, we notice that every supper can be a sacral occasion, but especially their gatherings for supper on Friday night - the beginning of Sabbath. So on Friday nights, as too throughout the eight days of Passover, a Jewish supper is a very special - one might say again, sacral - time.

Before engaging in a Sabbath seder observant Jews purify themselves by pouring fresh water over their hands. It is a simple physical gesture — verbal or mental expressions of repentance and contrition are not explicitly part of the purification ritual. St. Paul, though, warns the Corinthians to purify themselves spiritually to remove all stain of sin from their souls before engaging in the Lord’s Supper. It is precisely this lack of penitence and contrition on the part of the Corinthians that is the source of St. Paul’s ire:

Hence, Saint Paul is also using the word Kuriakon to distinguish this supper in which Christians engage from the sacral suppers of the Jews. Otherwise, he would have called it a seder (or perhaps, ’aruchah [e. g., Proverbs 15:17] or mishteh [e. g., Esther 5:5]). In other words, St. Paul is saying that the Kuriakon Deipnon is sacral, sacred, and sacramental in a way that is different from a Sabbath seder - and emphatically more so than a common ordinary supper.

The commentator on the Greek text [page 687] in the note at the bottom of the page correctly avers that there is really, actually, and truly NO EQUIVALENT ENGLISH WORD that correctly translates the Greek word kuriakos.

First of all, the word is an adjective, not the genitive case of the word Lord in Greek — that is the word kuriou, Lord’s properly speaking, from the nominative kurios, Lord. For that reason, kuriakos cannot be translated Lord’s simply and without qualification. In Homer’s epic poems the Iliad and the Odyssey, and in secular sources contemporaneous with the life of Jesus and the Apostles, the word kuriakos is best translated by the English adjective imperial or, perhaps, royal. For example, the terminology often used in the secular official correspondence of the Roman Empire is kuriake dogma — imperial decree.

Second of all, it is clear from the context that both St. John and St. Paul are using the term kuriakos in a way that is very distinct from the secular use of the term. Their understanding (internal, subjective mental associations) of the term is best inferred from other Scriptural sources that exist — and from the writings of contemporaneous witnesses who died cruel deaths as martyrs of Jesus Christ for the sake of, and because of, those internal, subjective mental associations.

Finally, the term kuriakos used by both St. John and St. Paul means pertaining, peculiarly reserved to, specifically associated with, or properly and exclusively belonging to — THE LORD JESUS. Figure it out — check out the definition of any adjective in the English language with the aid of a dictionary. This is the standard terminology used to define an adjective derived from a noun! Kuriakos might be translated Lord’s, but only as long as we understand Lord’s in this special and reserved sense.

Incidentally, our Orthodox brothers and sisters call their churches Ekklesiai Kuriakai. The building in which they worship they call an Oikia Kuriake. From this very terminology come the words Kirk in Scottish, Kirche in German, and Church in English. The Orthodox, especially the Greeks, are very close to the Greek language of the New Testament. To the Orthodox the term we have been discussing and used by St. John, Hemera Kuriake, means Church Day. Ask one. And that is what they call the day that we call Sunday.

All the data above greatly helps us in our understanding. It remains to be answered which day does St. John have in mind — the day that unreservedly pertains to and belongs to the Lord Jesus, specifically, peculiarly, and exclusively. This question we will address in a little bit. For now, suffice it to say that St. John clearly and definitely does not identify The Lord’s Day with the sabbath.

If Saint John in Revelation 1:10 meant “Sabbath,” he would most certainly have used that exact word — after all, he uses it very often in his own Gospel, doesn’t he? Eleven times, in fact (5:9, 5:10, 5:16, 5:18, 7:22, twice in 7:23, 9:14, 9:16, and twice in 19:31). Moreover, the word “Sabbath” is used often elsewhere throughout the New Testament — as the speakers from It Is Written International Television have noted in their talks.

St. John does not mean sabbath. He introduces the term Kuriake Hemera for the first time in Revelation 1:10 — a terminology used nowhere else in the entire Bible, but obviously a turn of phrase already totally familiar to his intended audience. He clearly intends to distinguish The Lord’s Day from The Jewish Sabbath — just as St. Paul intends to distinguish The Lord’s Supper from The Jewish Seder.

St. John uses the word kuriakos for the same reason that St. Paul does. After all, the Bible is its own best interpreter, isn’t it? The Kuriake Hemera is sacral, sacred, and sacramental in a way that is different from a sabbath — and emphatically more so than a common ordinary day. St. John is unequivocally stating that The Lord’s Day is most definitely NOT the sabbath — nor may it be engaged in the same way as one.

So, rather than a Biblical source supporting observance of the sabbath, Revelation 1:10 is quite the opposite, as it turns out. Interesting.

KURIOU HEMERA and KURIAKE HEMERA. Two different terms for THE LORD’S DAY, two different ideas, two different meanings — and neither is associated with, or equated to, the word sabbath. It looks like we better go back to the drawing boards on this one, folks.

For the heart cannot rejoice in what the mind MUST reject as false.

In the first part, we proved that the Seventh Day Adventist position on the observance by Christians of Sabbath is unsubstantiated. The word sabbath is not clearly related in the New Testament to the term The Lord’s Day at all. For example, the term sabbath is used in Saint John’s Gospel eleven times. If, in Revelation 1:10 Saint John had wished to specify sabbath — as the Seventh Day Adventists claim he did — he would easily have done so. It was a term with which he was clearly already very well acquainted.

Instead, Saint John coins a term that is used nowhere else in the entire Bible, a term that in English is rendered The Lord’s Day. You will see below that Saint John’s martyred disciple, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, spells out explicitly exactly which day of the week the Apostle meant. At this point, suffice it to say that we have shown that St. John definitely means some other day of the week EXCEPT the sabbath.

In the first part, we felt satisfied when we showed reasonably that the Seventh Day Adventist advocacy of Christian sabbath observance finds no warrant in Scripture. We made no attempt to present a position of our own. That is because reasonable men have no need of proving their own position — indeed, reasonable men have no need of even holding a position. They only need to show that another position is, in se, unreasonable.

This has been done. Sabbath and The Lord’s Day do not mean the same thing, as we have shown in Part 1.

Part 2 of this essay does take a position, however. That is in order to address another position that the Seventh Day Adventists state. They claim that, at some unnamed time AFTER the Apostolic Age, the Catholic Church “changed” the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. They strongly suggest that it was the Pope who was the culprit.

We showed that it is clear from the contexts that both St. John (Revelation 1:10) and St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:20) are using the Greek term kuriakos in a way that is very distinct from the contemporaneous secular use of the term. We showed that the Apostles’ use of the term kuriakos is meant by them to distinguish the new Christian traditions and practices introduced by the Apostles from the traditions and practices of the Jews. Their understanding (internal, subjective mental associations) of the term is best inferred from other Scriptural sources that exist, and from the writings of contemporaneous witnesses who died cruel deaths as martyrs of Jesus Christ for the sake of, and because of, those internal, subjective mental associations.

We treat, first, of the Scriptural evidence.

Saint Luke and Saint Paul are both certain that their readers are already familiar with the new custom. So familiar, in fact, that neither of them feels it necessary to write it out explicitly. The new tradition is: on the FIRST day of EVERY week, the faithful are COMMANDED to gather together in common solemn assembly. St. Paul is using the imperative voice in the text from 1 Corinthians cited above.

Seventh Day Adventists do not obey Saint Paul’s command. They do not gather in solemn assembly, or for any other purpose, on the first day of every week.

Regarding this new tradition, Saint Paul tells the Colossians explicitly (as above) that the sabbath observances were festivals of the Jews that were vague symbolic prophesies about the new tradition — which itself is the real article, the full article. The Christian gatherings on the first day of the week (Sunday) have substance — the sabbaths (Saturdays) were mere featureless shadows in comparison.

Seventh Day Adventists insist that St. Paul is not saying to abolish the seventh day observance of the sabbath — only converting it somehow into a Christian observance. If that were true, though, St. Paul would be saying the same thing about everything else in the clause shared by the word “sabbaths” — food, drink, new moons, festivals, etc. Why do our Adventist brothers and sisters NOT “baptize” the keeping of Kosher, the Semitic naming of months and the days of the week, the Jewish timing of months (not to mention of days and years), and the celebration of all the Old Testament festivals — as their interpretation of Saint Paul requires them to do? It is because Seventh Day Adventists are not consistent. They are also desperate. They are desperate because they are backed into a corner. Interpreting the clause containing “sabbaths” consistently would require them to abandon the most distinctive teaching of their religion.

We Catholics are not obliged to interpret St. Paul inconsistently, even if our Adventist brothers and sisters do. Hence, Saint Luke and Saint Paul place the observance of the sabbath in exactly the same league with observance of the rite of circumcision, a rite and sign the Apostles abolished:

Saint Paul, Saint John, Saint Luke and, agreeing with them, the Apostolic Fathers compare the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision. The Apostolic Fathers demonstrate that if the Apostles abolished circumcision (Galatians 5:1-6 above), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished by them. This matter will be treated in depth in the discussion of the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon below. The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.

The Didache is a document that originated in the Roman church, before the martyrdoms of St. Peter and St. Paul in 65 A. D. under Emperor Nero, or no later than shortly afterward.

This answers the Seventh Day Adventist charge that the Catholic Church “changed” the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Barnabas was one of the Apostles, and companion of St. Paul. Later, St. Mark the Evangelist accompanied him on his missionary journeys. The text from his letter supports an interpretation of the texts from the Scriptural Witness section (above). That interpretation is: from the earliest days of the Church, Sunday was the day on which Christians gathered in solemn assembly for the Liturgy of the Lord (cf. Acts 13:1-4). Sunday worship enjoyed the sanction of the Apostles themselves.

St. Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch after Saint Peter, and Saint Peter’s disciple, to boot. St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp also studied together under Saint John. The martyr attests that he was ordained by both Apostles by the imposition of hands. St. Peter appointed him to be Bishop of Antioch, to succeed himself after Saint Evodius, the first Bishop of Antioch after Saint Peter.

Ignatius of Antioch stands as a witness that the Christians taught by St. John and by St. Peter were accustomed to referring to Sunday as the Lord’s Day — obviously taught to do so by the Apostles themselves:

This then is the key that unlocks precisely what St. John means by the new term he has coined in Revelation 1:10, Kuriake Hemera — the term means Sunday. This, according to his own disciple!

To Saint Ignatius, Saint John’s and Saint Peter’s disciple, Sunday is a day of festival and rejoicing, so much so that:

The custom of the Apostles’ own disciples is quite clear, and these disciples’ writings give irrefutable witness and testimony to the teaching preached by the Apostles. Sunday supplants and replaces Saturday as the Christian day of worship — but does that mean that the terms sabbath and day of worship are synonymous? Read on to find out what I mean.

Saint Irenaeus was the disciple of Saint Polycarp of Smyrna. As mentioned previously in our discussion of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Polycarp was a disciple of Saint John the Apostle. Saint Irenaeus is, hence, in the first generation after the Apostles.

Saint Irenaeus refutes another claim relating to observance of the sabbath that Seventh Day Adventists make. They claim that sabbath observance is commanded by God from the beginning verses of the book of Genesis, and so applies universally to the whole human race for all time:

But there is NO commandment given to mankind in the above verses. Try to find ANY use of the imperative voice there. You won’t, not even implicitly. The verses simply state a fact. God could have issued a commandment here, as He unequivocally does in the preceding verses, where He tells mankind:

but He does not. Hence, this verse the Seventh Day Adventists quote in order to prove that God gave the commandment to mankind to universally observe the sabbath says nothing of the kind. IN FACT the very commandment God gives mankind as a test of love and fidelity in the book of Genesis has nothing to do with the sabbath:

Now, THAT is a commandment. Later in Genesis, we learn that God is going to re-create the human race, choosing Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives for the job. After destroying mankind in the flood, God makes a covenant with Noah and the new human race that will derive from him:

Once again, God has the opportunity to command universal observance of the sabbath from Noah and all his descendants, but He does not.

One of Noah’s sons is Shem, from whom the Semites are derived, including Abraham. When God makes a covenant with Abraham, He enjoins on him the commandment to circumcise all the males among his descendants:

and once again, we see that God could have commanded sabbath observance from Abraham and all of his descendants, but He did not.

The first mention of the word SABBATH in the Bible and a commandment concerning its observance actually is not until:

The scene is the journey to Mount Horeb, ostensibly several thousands of years after the Fall, thousands of years after Noah, nearly five centuries since Abraham. This is the first time that God gives any commandment regarding the observance of the sabbath. It is given to the Israelites — before the giving of the Decalogue, before the Sinai Covenant — NOT to the Gentiles.

Just like with Adam, Noah, and Abraham before them, God initiates a covenant with the Israelites through the intermediation of Moses at Mount Horeb, or Sinai. In delivering the Decalogue to Moses, God literally sets in stone an injunction that permanently obliges the obedience of the Israelites and their descendants:

Timing is everything. The observance of Saturdays as a day of repose is for the Israelites — and is a commandment that did not oblige Adam, Noah, not even Abraham. Even the descendants of Abraham before the Sinai Covenant were not obligated, as Saint Irenaeus astutely observes:

Timing of the covenants is of paramount importance in understanding WHY the Seventh Day Adventist position is logically and reasonably wrong and incoherent. Further along in this essay, St. John Chrysostom does a good job of explaining why the Sinai Covenant commandments about honoring one’s parents, murder, stealing, lying, and coveting are implicit in human nature — man is made in the image and likeness of God. That is why I am leaving a discussion of this topic until we examine the writings of John Chrysostom. The main point is that God gives no covenant commandment concerning sabbath observance before the Sinai Covenant — and, hence, sabbath observance does not oblige the predecessors of the Israelites, and neither does it obligate their descendants. The New Covenant in Christ’s Blood is a separate issue. Those who follow Jesus Christ into the New Covenant likewise have obligations, just as all the preceding covenants God made with mankind carry their respective obligations, too. The only question is: did Jesus Christ command His followers to continue the Jewish observance of the sabbath?

Explicitly, Jesus never anywhere in the New Testament is quoted as commanding His followers to observe the sabbath. This immediately kills the Seventh Day Adventist argument. Seventh Day Adventists are Sola Scripturists (you might want to read the accompanying essay on this topic on my Theology Page). Like other Protestants, they assume that if a doctrine is not explicit in the Bible, then it is a man-made doctrine. Man-made doctrines, of course, do not oblige the faith of a believer. Since Jesus or one of the Apostles did not explicitly command the continuation of sabbath observance, no believer can be obligated to observe the sabbath. So the Sola Scriptura argument goes.

Catholics, of course, do not worry about Sola Scriptura in the development of doctrine — Sola Scriptura is nowhere found in the Bible, either! Instead, we look to what the Church has always taught, even before there was a New Testament. The New Testament itself is a development that grew out of that teaching. There is ample evidence in the New Testament to draw out the conclusion deduced by the Fathers. Simply stated, if circumcision is abolished, so is sabbath observance. And the argument is NOT complicated. Actually, it is quite straightforward. And it draws on what Jesus said and taught, to boot!

First, the Fathers observe that the terms of a later covenant cannot be used to sanction the ancestors, nor their descendants if they are not party to the later covenant. For example, circumcision applied to Abraham and his descendants (including Ishmael and his descendants). But failure to circumcize could not oblige Noah and his descendants, except those of his descendants who were also descendants of Abraham. The eating of blood could not oblige the descendants of Adam, except those of his descendants who were also descendants of Noah. Likewise, sabbath observance could not oblige anyone except the Israelites and their descendants.

Second, a later covenant did not abolish the provisions of a prior covenant. God said He would never again destroy the world by a flood, and He continues this provision of the Noachic Covenant all the way down to our day, even to the end of the world. By the same token, the profound respect for the image of the divine nature inscribed in human flesh and the preëminent dignity inherent in marriage, the primordial sacrament, is obligatory on ALL the descendants of Adam - that means, EVERYBODY, no exceptions - again, deriving from the mysterious divine image inscribed there. Israelites were obliged by the provision of circumcision enjoined on Abraham and his descendants. This led to an interesting provision of oral tradition surrounding the Law of Moses: to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinai Covenant could be broken. In order to circumcise a baby boy on the eighth day after his birth, the sabbath observance could be dispensed — that is, broken:

So, the importance of ritual circumcision preceded, in time and in law, the third commandment given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, which obliges observance of the sabbath. Jesus is saying that the third commandment, like circumcision, does not spring from a requirement of natural law, which arises from human nature — made as it is in the image and likeness of God. For this reason, natural law, the oral tradition of the Jews permitted them to water and feed their livestock on the sabbath, rescue a trapped animal on the sabbath, or, in Jesus’ case, to heal the sick on the sabbath. It even permitted the Jewish priests to engage in any Temple related service, including the rite of circumcision, on the sabbath.

Why is the precedence of circumcision over and against the Sinai Covenant’s requirement of strict sabbath observance by Jews so important to our discussion? Because the Apostles, as related by the Bible itself, abolished circumcision of the Abrahamic Covenant and most of the provisions governing the Jewish observance of the Sinai Covenant:

So it was, indeed, the Apostles — led in this episode by Peter and James — who abolished the sabbath observance — and also circumcision, kosher dietary laws, as well as “feasts and festivals, and new moons . . . ” (Colossians 2:16-17, which led off this discussion in the first place). A careful reading of the entire fifteenth chapter of St. Luke’s Acts of the Apostles will show that this is no simple glossing over — it really is true. Even if the Apostles did not intend at first to abolish sabbath observance, the Holy Spirit nonetheless guided the course of their deliberations — and the scripting of the Apostles’ decree. And the decree definitely excludes sabbath observance from the list of “necessary things.” If the Holy Spirit had meant to include sabbath observance in the list of “necessary things,” you can bet it would have been there — regardless of the Apostles’ original intentions.

This is definitely NOT something that most Seventh Day Adventists are prepared to discuss, not even those with a modicum of theological training. But we must advance the discussion just a little further.

First, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was convened originally with only one question on the agenda: need Christian men subject themselves to the Abrahamic Covenant rite of circumcision (Acts 15:1 and Acts 15:5)?

Second, it was in fact, the Pharisees (yes, there were numerous Pharisees in the Church that Christ founded) who insisted that the agenda be expanded to consider subjecting all Christians to EVERY provision of the Sinai Covenant (Acts 15:5). This can only be viewed as the movement of the Holy Spirit.

Third, what the Council accomplished under the guidance of the Holy Spirit actually makes sense to human reason. If you are going to abolish a provision of the Abrahamic Covenant — circumcision — which takes logical, chronological, and legal priority over and against the strict obligations of the Sinai Covenant — a rite for which the oral tradition of the Jews allowed the Sinai Covenant sabbath laws to be dispensed — then it only makes sense to abolish (for the most part) the obligations of the Sinai Covenant, too. That is why sabbath observance, among other things, got abolished by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Finally, we return to the question of natural law — a law that arises from the fact that all men are made in God’s image and likeness. The natural law impels us to worship God. Abolishing Jewish sabbath observance most definitely could not erase this requirement of natural law — any more than abolishing most of the provisions of the Sinai Covenant could be construed as sanctioning neglect of one’s parents, murder, theft, lying, and coveting. So also, worship is due to God because it arises from natural law. Beginning with the sacrifice of Abel, continuing with the sacrifice of Noah on Mount Ararat, on to the sacrifice of Abraham our father in faith, and then the Levitical sacrifices prescribed by the Sinai Covenant, and finally, in this last age, the perfect sacrifice of God’s own Son — which St. John’s Revelation shows as continuing in perpetuity in the Great Liturgy — in all ages, past and to come, man worships God. The impulse is in our nature. The satisfaction of that impulse makes us godlike.

So, what shape does Christian worship take that distinguishes it from sabbath observance? Do you remember from the beginning of this discussion that St. Paul stated that sabbath observance was a featureless shadow compared with the real substance that is Christian worship? The sabbaths were mere shadows because, as Jesus said, “I am come to fulfill, not to abolish, the Law and the Prophets.” [Matthew 5:17]. Christian worship, worship in Spirit and in Truth, fulfills and makes explicit what was only implicit in the old law. True, true — we worship by subsuming ourselves into the Great Liturgy, perpetually ongoing in heaven, but brought to earth by the action of the High Priest, Jesus Christ, in every Mass. The Liturgy is the source and summit of Christian life. This is all certainly true. But there is a second way in which Christian worship fulfills and makes explicit what was only implicit in the old law, too.

The sabbath of Christians is perpetual and ongoing, moment to moment — from the moment of Baptism and never ending, especially not when death ushers us into the real life of the Great and Perpetural Liturgy of heaven. BECAUSE the Great Liturgy of the book of Revelation never ends, OUR sabbath likewise never ends. Now that we are in Christ, no longer do we live, but Christ lives in us [Galatians 2:20] — and that life of Christ in us is His grace [Acts 15:11; Galatians 2:21]. And this life, this grace, the true and perfect sabbath of Christ — repose, happiness, bliss, joy, harmony, peace — never ends. This is what makes the Seventh Day Adventist fussing and fuming over sabbath observance massively incoherent to a Catholic. The outer Judaic rite is abolished [it is NOT one of the “necessary things” of Acts 15:20, 29], in order that what was only a dream-like type of the perfect, true, and beautiful could be revealed — fulfilled and perfected. The outer Judaic rite is abolished, and in its place stands the perfect, true, and beautiful REAL ARTICLE shining forth with all the splendid glory of that first Easter morning. It is no wonder that it is that morning we commemorate in perpetuity on every Sunday, instead of the shadowy insubstantial type that sabbath observance represents. But our real sabbath is not Sunday. Our real sabbath is the life of Christ in us. Whereas the Jews sought the sabbath observance that they might occasionally repose in God, in Christians the real sabbath is fulfilled, and God comes to perpetually repose in us! Always and forever, unceasingly, with never a break from moment to moment — perpetual sabbath — by merit of our BAPTISM.

Are you surprised that I have said that we enter into the true sabbath of the Lord through our baptism? Well, let’s figure it out. It is actually very simple. Friday, the Day of Preparation, encompasses the Passion of the Lord. Sunday, the first and eighth day, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead, encompasses Easter, the overthrow and usurping of death. But, ah, Saturday, the sabbath, encompasses the very day on which the corpse of our Lord rested in a true state of death in the bosom of the earth. And of what is the burial by immersion in water more than a mere sign, but the real article? Read for yourselves:

and it is PRECISELY in this context that the Apostle Paul, just a few verses later, summarizes brilliantly with the statement that began this discussion —

namely, they find their fulfillment, completion, and perfection in baptism, upon rising from the waters of which we are infused with the very life, the grace, of God Himself! And, to repeat, this very Life of God, His Grace in us, is ongoing and moment to moment forever. Hence, The sabbath of Christians is perpetual and ongoing, no longer the ephemeral and fleeting once-a-week observance of the Mosaic Law.

Justin the Philosopher, of Rome, testifies that he was a disciple of the Apostle Saint John while the former studied philosophy in Ephesus in his youth.

What the martyr is referring to “God enjoined you [Jews] to keep the Sabbath . . .” is precisely this. Genesis 2:2-3 actually is a simple statement of a fact, “And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all His work which He had done in creation.”

NOTICE there is absolutely NO commandment imposed on the human race at this time concerning the observance of the Sabbath in these verses. The first mention of the word SABBATH and a commandment concerning its observance in the Bible actually is not until Exodus 16:23 — “[Moses] said to them, ‘This is what the LORD has commanded: “Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay by to be kept till the morning.”’” The scene is the journey to Mount Horeb, ostensibly several thousands of years after the Fall.

This is the first time that God gives any commandment regarding the observance of the sabbath — and it is given to the Israelites, not the Gentiles.

We repeat. What Tertullian is referring to “and unobservant of the Sabbath” is precisely this. Genesis 2:2-3 actually is no more than a simple statement of a fact, “And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all His work which He had done in creation.”

We repeat, NOTICE there is absolutely NO commandment imposed on the human race at this time concerning the observance of the Sabbath in these verses. The first mention of the word SABBATH in the Bible is actually at Exodus 16:23 — “[Moses] said to them, ‘This is what the LORD has commanded: “Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay by to be kept till the morning.”’” The scene is the journey to Mount Horeb, ostensibly several thousands of years after the Fall. This is the first time that God gives any commandment regarding the observance of the sabbath — and it is given to the Israelites, not the Gentiles.

Again, the first time there is a commandment regarding the sabbath does not come in the time of the early saints of the Old Testament, but thousands of years later as the Israelites were travelling to Mount Horeb after the flight from Egypt — a commandment given to the Israelites, and not to the Gentiles.

The Preamble notes that this is a purely local synod of bishops: “The holy synod which assembled at Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, from divers regions of Asia, do set forth the ecclesiastical definitions which are hereunder annexed.” The Pope did not preside over this synod, neither did he call nor convene it. It states clearly the Apostolic teaching which the assembled bishops had received, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[FINALLY, a Johnny-come-lately]

There you have it. We have shown that the charge that, at some unnamed time AFTER the Apostolic Age, the Catholic Church “changed” the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday is spurious. The charge ignores historical facts. The charge relies on half-truths, innuendo, and logical fallacies. The Apostles themselves made the change that Seventh Day Adventists condemn. Their hand-picked successors and their disciples merely practiced what the Apostles preached — from the very beginning. The Pope, in his capacity as guardian, trustee, and confirmer of the truth, merely observes the facts and pronounces an impartial, but definitive, judgment about what they mean — two centuries AFTER St. Augustine.

In other words, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church merely affirms the Tradition handed down from the Apostles themselves — long, long, long after many others (and those quoted in this necessarily very brief essay are by no means extant and complete) have said the same thing, because the same Apostles handed it down to them, too.

The point is NOT that Catholics consider the writings of the early martyrs and the successors of the Apostles to be Scripture — we don’t. The point is that their writings are direct and true witnesses to what they received from the Apostles. All Christians honor the martyrs — and Christians of all denominations claim the martyrs for their very own. These martyrs died for the sake of the ideas they have expressed above.

The writings of the successors of the Apostles, dating from the earliest Christian centuries, while seen as truthful and reliable witnesses of what they were taught by the Apostles, cannot and should not be seen in a less favorable light than the specious reasoning and teachings of William Miller in 1844 and the “visionary” Ellen White after 1849. In fact, the Apostles’ hand-picked successors should be more greatly honored, since they are historically much closer to the original sources. Miller and White stand exposed as representatives of a post-modernist school of historical deconstruction of the most egregious kind.

From the first generation, all Christians, the Apostles too, have observed Sunday as The Lord’s Day. The Seventh Day Adventists follow their own new teaching, instituted by William Miller only in 1844 and “confirmed” by the “visions” of Ellen White after Miller’s death in 1849.

For the heart cannot rejoice in what the mind MUST reject as false.

To God and to His Christ, Who was, and Who is, and Who is to come, be all glory, praise, honor, and thanksgiving, now and forever. Amen!