Why Do Christians Celebrate Sunday Instead of Saturday? (A Response to Seventh-day Adventists) #

By Metropolitan Innokenty (Usov)

Preface #

Only that faith or church is true and salvific which was founded by Christ Himself and the Apostles and which continues uninterruptedly until the last days. All other faiths, confessions, churches, sects, or religious societies are nothing but delusions or human inventions, even if they are based on Holy Scripture, no matter how good they may appear or how virtuous their members and followers may be.

Among such human inventions is the sect of the Adventists. This sect was brought into existence by a certain Miller in 1844 in America. Thus, as of today (1930), it is not even ninety years old. Regardless of whether Miller was a good or bad person, the faith he invented—Adventism—is not a divine institution but simply a human fabrication. From this fact alone, it is clear that Adventism is not a true and salvific faith, but a false and soul-destroying one. However, there are additional reasons that compel us to recognize it as such. Adventists uphold a multitude of various errors or heresies, some of which are so monstrous as to be shocking.

In addition to the errors common to all Protestant denominations and sects, Adventists also maintain unique heresies specific to them alone. What they share with Protestantizing sects is that they have accepted only one book from historical Christianity—the Bible—while rejecting with hatred everything else that Christianity or the Church has preserved since apostolic times. This includes prayers, hymns, divine services, liturgical rites and ceremonies, the holy sacraments, the God-ordained priesthood, all conciliar canons and decrees, veneration of saints, prayers for the departed; they have rejected all books and teachings of the holy fathers, and much more.

Calling all these things human inventions and insisting that they accept nothing beyond the Bible, Adventists nevertheless possess an innumerable collection of books, pamphlets, brochures, and leaflets of their own creation, which they consider almost as authoritative as the Bible itself.

At the very least, anyone who does not follow their writings (which are, in truth, human inventions) and who understands the Bible differently from their interpretations is not considered a member of their sect. They seek to impose these interpretations and writings on all of Christianity and the whole world, declaring that anyone who does not believe and follow them will perish.

This error is characteristic of all Protestant sects and denominations. However, Adventists hold certain specific errors or heresies of their own:

I.

Like atheists, they deny that a human being has a soul, recognizing only the body. They regard the soul as being merely the blood of both animals and humans. In certain passages of the Bible to which they refer, it is indeed said that in animals, “the soul is in the blood,” but nowhere is this said about human beings.

Regarding man and the human soul, Christ said: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). With these words, He clearly indicated that the soul is immortal.

However, according to the Adventist understanding, Christ’s words would have to be rendered thus: “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the blood: but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both blood and body in hell.” But Christ could never have spoken such nonsense.

This absurdity belongs entirely to the Adventists as their exclusive property. According to their doctrine, a human being has the same kind of soul as a wolf, a crow, a snake, a bedbug, or any other speechless creature—that is, no soul at all.

This is a terrible delusion, one that no heretics, not even the most pagan nations since the creation of the world, have ever held. It is a belief shared only by atheists, to whom Adventists prove to be enthusiastic, irreplaceable, and moreover, free collaborators in the work of dismantling, corrupting, and destroying the Christian religion.

II.

Denying that man has a soul and considering people to be soulless beasts, Adventists are utterly inconsistent in acknowledging the resurrection of the dead. According to their belief, only human bodies will be resurrected, as they believe that people now exist solely as bodies without souls.

They even acknowledge two resurrections of the dead: the first, when Christ will resurrect only Adventists—those who observe the Sabbath—and they will reign on earth for a thousand years, enjoying all earthly blessings, in a manner similar to how Muslims expect to delight in their Islamic paradise.

III.

Then, after a thousand years have passed, Christ will again come to earth and resurrect all other sinners who did not observe the Sabbath—only to immediately kill them and utterly annihilate them so that they will not suffer.

Thus, Adventists do not acknowledge the eternity of punishment, contrary to the words of Jesus Christ Himself: “…and these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46).

IV.

Adventists adhere to the heresy of the ancient heretics known as Chiliasts, who also believed in a millennial kingdom on earth and were therefore condemned as heretics. The term Chiliast means “millennialist.” Like them, Adventists base their belief in a thousand-year reign on the Book of Revelation alone, for in no other book of Holy Scripture is there a single word about a millennial reign.

However, Revelation is a book in which not everything can be understood literally—whether regarding persons or time periods. If everything in this book were taken literally, one would have to believe that Christ has the appearance of a lamb and that He has seven horns (Rev. 5:6).

All the more so, the mention of a thousand years should not be taken literally, for Holy Scripture explicitly states: “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8). Remarkably, this statement was given precisely to clarify the understanding of prophecies and divine promises.

V.

The most striking distinction between Adventists and all Christian churches, confessions, and sects is that they observe the Sabbath instead of Sunday. They utterly despise the observance of Sunday, calling it the “mark of the Antichrist,” the “image of the beast,” i.e., the Antichrist (Final Message No. 1), an institution of the devil himself, and other blasphemous names. In the book The Great Controversy, they write: “By means of two great errors—the immortality of the soul and the sacredness of Sunday—Satan leads the people astray” (p. 257, The Great Controversy).

Thus, in their effort to undermine and destroy Christianity, Adventists prove to be invaluable allies and assistants to the well-known enemies of the faith who also observe the Sabbath.

In addition to this, one must keep in mind that Adventism is the most aggressive sect in the world. Its preachers and book distributors penetrate every corner of the earth, converting people from all churches and sects to their faith. Their literature, books, and pamphlets are distributed by the millions.

Despite its recent origins, by 1920 Adventism already had more than two million followers. At present, their numbers must have reached at least three million, if not more.

Why do Adventists so zealously seek to convert people to their sect? Because the leaders of Adventism have a material interest in increasing the number of their followers. Every Adventist is required to contribute one-tenth of their income to the Adventist treasury.

Now consider: if each Adventist were to give just one leu or franc per year to the leaders of Adventism, that would amount to a total of three million lei. But in reality, they contribute much more than that. If each one contributes one hundred lei, then the total reaches three hundred million lei per year. And if each one gives a thousand, the sum rises to three billion.

No industrial or commercial enterprise yields such colossal profits as Adventism—moreover, without the slightest capital investment or risk. It is no coincidence that Adventism was invented not by anyone else, but by an American. Americans are always practical. Both Miller and the later leaders of Adventism have managed to turn religion into a more profitable and lucrative business than any other enterprise.

To the leaders of Adventism, every Adventist is nothing more than a walking moneybox from which they annually extract a tenth of its contents with precise regularity. This is why the leaders of Adventism so fiercely promote their faith.

Among all the errors of this sect, their observance of the Sabbath renders them the greatest and most consequential service.

Almost all their other errors can be held privately, without leaving the church or sect to which one belongs. The author of these lines has personally encountered Orthodox believers who believed in the millennial reign yet remained in the Orthodox Church. Similar individuals, holding various errors, can surely be found among Catholics, Baptists, and others. In ancient times, even one (or perhaps more) of the holy fathers held the opinion of a millennial reign.

But if someone begins to observe the Sabbath while rejecting Sunday as a diabolical institution, they can no longer belong to any other sect or confession but must inevitably join either the Adventists or the Jews.

This is precisely why Adventists so zealously strive to persuade everyone to observe the Sabbath—so that they might be drawn into their ranks and required to pay them a tenth of their income or earnings.

The Apostles did not demand a tithe from those they converted to Christianity, but accepted only voluntary offerings. Even today, all Christian confessions and sects are generally supported in this manner.

Adventism, on the other hand, exploits people’s religious feelings, transforming religion into the most profitable business. It is a disgrace to all of Christianity and a shame to all of humanity. To keep a clear conscience, everyone must resist this powerful evil. Otherwise, all of Christianity and every form of religion may be harmed or even perish. The devil is watchful. His servants, the forces of hell… do not sleep.

Adventists have written extensively against the observance of Sunday and in defense of the Old Testament Sabbath, which, in their opinion, all Christians must observe in the New Testament era. Their opponents, on the other hand, have also written much against the observance of the Sabbath by Christians and in favor of Sunday—but often without clarity and far from sufficiently.

For this reason, the present work on the aforementioned topics is far from unnecessary. It is valuable not only as an antidote to Adventism but is essential for every Christian who wishes to have a conscious understanding of their faith—to know why they observe Sunday rather than any other day of the week.

1. #

One day, a good acquaintance of mine, who belongs to the Adventist sect, came to visit me, and we began discussing religious matters. During our conversation, he asked me:

“Which day do you observe, and why?”

I replied:

“You are, of course, aware that I observe Sunday—the first day of the week. If you are interested in why I observe it, then please listen. I observe the first day of the week because on this day our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead, delivering us from the power of darkness. Furthermore, Christ’s resurrection is the most fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith, without which the entire Christian faith is in vain and worthless: ‘And we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not… And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins’ (1 Cor. 15:15–17). I also observe Sunday because it has been observed by all Christians from the days of the Apostles until the present.”

The Adventist responded:

“Allow me to disillusion you about everything you have just said. You do not observe Sunday for the reasons you have stated. The observance of the first day of the week was established by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, who issued a decree commanding that this day be observed as the ‘venerable day of the sun,’ as it is stated in his decree: ‘All judges and craftsmen shall cease work on the venerable day of the sun. Farmers, however, may freely engage in field labor on this day, for it often happens that agricultural work or vineyard tending cannot be postponed. It should not be allowed that the harvest, given by divine Providence, be lost because of this’ (See History of the Sabbath by Andreev, p. 325; Church History by Schreck, vol. 5, p. 96; Biblical Readings on the True Faith, p. 128, published in Riga, 1909).”

I asked the Adventist:

“Are you saying that before Constantine the Great, Christians did not observe Sunday but some other day?”

“Yes,” he replied. “Before him, all Christians observed not Sunday, but the Sabbath. This emperor, who was half-Christian and half-pagan, established the observance of the first day of the week. From that time onward, Sunday was observed, and the observance of the seventh day, the Sabbath, was abandoned.”

I asked him:

“Surely you have direct proof that from apostolic times until Constantine the Great, all Christians observed not Sunday but the Sabbath?”

“Yes,” he answered, “there is such evidence. The fourth commandment of God’s law explicitly commands the observance of the seventh day of the week—the Sabbath.”

I objected:

“That is not direct proof of which day all Christians observed before Emperor Constantine. That is precisely the issue at hand—how the early Christians understood and fulfilled the fourth commandment: by observing the Sabbath or by observing Sunday. A direct proof would be if you could cite evidence from a church writer or any other author who lived before Constantine, testifying that Christians at that time actually observed the Sabbath.”

The Adventist said, “But at that time, there were true Christians, and therefore they could not have observed any other day but the Sabbath, in accordance with the fourth commandment.”

I asked, “Do you have any testimonies from writers of that time proving that Christians then observed the Sabbath?”

“No,” the Adventist replied, “but it is self-evident that Christians at that time observed the Sabbath.”

I remarked, “To put it plainly, you expect all of us, your opponents—all modern Christians—to rely solely on your word, without any proof on your part, and without any reasoning on ours, that this was how things were in history or in the past life of the Church. But no one in their right mind will rely on mere words alone in such matters. Provide evidence, and then we will believe. If you cannot provide it, then you are speaking a manifest falsehood, asserting a deliberate lie.

But let us, for the sake of argument, take you at your word and agree that all Christians before Constantine the Great observed not Sunday but the Sabbath. What follows from this? Here is what follows: this emperor issues a decree to observe the first day of the week—the ‘venerable day of the sun’—and every single Christian immediately abandons the Sabbath and begins observing Sunday instead. What is astonishing is that this was done not only by Christians under Constantine’s rule but also by those outside his jurisdiction, such as those in Persia, Abyssinia, and Germany. Moreover, not only the Orthodox, but also schismatics and heretics—Donatists, Novatians, Marcionites, and others—adopted this practice.

And yet, there was not the slightest protest from anywhere or anyone. I will not even ask you about this, for I already know that you cannot provide a single testimony of anyone writing a protest or an objection against Constantine’s decree establishing the observance of the first day of the week. What is most remarkable is that this decree did not abolish the Sabbath or forbid its observance. In fact, the word ‘Sabbath’ is not even mentioned in it. Thus, both by its letter and by its meaning, Christians had the right to observe the Sabbath while also being required to observe Sunday. They could observe the Sabbath on religious grounds and the first day of the week in obedience to the imperial decree.

This is precisely what Jews do today in many countries: they observe the Sabbath for religious reasons and Sunday because it is recognized as a state holiday. Similarly, we Christians observe civil holidays without neglecting our religious ones. Yet, according to your claim, ancient Christians suddenly abandoned the Sabbath and began observing Sunday merely because of the emperor’s decree, even though they were not required to abandon the Sabbath at all. What does this indicate?

It indicates that the ancient Christians regarded the Sabbath as unnecessary, superfluous, and burdensome. They were eager to be rid of it at the first suitable opportunity. If the early Christians abandoned the Sabbath without any coercion—voluntarily, in fact—then we must take the same approach. We should follow the example of the early Christians, whom you yourself acknowledge as true Christians.”

The Adventist responded, “I see that you are simply mocking me.”

“I am not mocking you,” I replied, “but you are mocking yourself. You put yourself in a most ridiculous position by claiming that all the early Christians observed the Sabbath in accordance with the fourth commandment and then abandoned it because of an imperial decree that did not even require them to do so. However, if Constantine’s decree is properly understood, there is nothing absurd or ridiculous about it.”

“And how should it be properly understood?” the Adventist asked.

I answered, “It should be understood as follows: all Christians before Constantine the Great observed not the Sabbath, but Sunday.”

“And how do you prove this?” my opponent asked.

I replied, “The holy fathers and teachers of the Church, who lived long before Constantine the Great, explicitly state that Christians observe Sunday and hold divine services on that day. Saint Justin Martyr, in his Apology (his defense of Christians addressed to the Roman Emperor of his time), writes this. So does Tertullian, a church teacher, in a similar Apology defending Christians.

There are also other proofs that Christians observed Sunday before the time of Constantine. And, as the Savior Himself said, ‘That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’ (Matt. 18:16).”

“Then why,” the Adventist asked, “did Emperor Constantine issue a decree establishing Sunday observance?”

I replied, “He issued it not for Christians, not for the Church—he had no right to do so. Constantine never allowed himself to interfere in Christian religious matters, not even in minor issues such as the day of observance. At that time, for example, Christians did not all celebrate Pascha on the same day. Eastern Christians observed it at the same time as the Jews, while Western Christians celebrated it on the Sunday following the Jewish Passover or after the spring full moon.

By the way, this fact alone already proves that Christians observed Sunday even before Constantine. And what did he do? Did he issue a decree mandating a single date for Pascha? No, he left the decision to the First Ecumenical Council (325 AD), which then ruled that Pascha should be observed on a Sunday.

Constantine’s decree about observing Sunday was directed at state institutions and all his subjects, including pagans and Jews. And if you want to know why he issued it, then listen.

In the Roman Empire, paganism was the dominant religion, both before and during Constantine’s reign, and for a long time after him. Naturally, all official state holidays were also pagan, because the vast majority of the empire’s population followed the pagan religion.

After recognizing Christianity as a legal religion in 313 AD and granting it imperial protection, Constantine deemed it necessary to include Christian holidays among the empire’s official holidays. And what was the first and most obvious Christian holiday? It was the one that Christians observed every week. Since they observed the first day of the week—Sunday—he issued the aforementioned decree, making it an official state holiday.

Had Christians at that time observed the Sabbath or any other day instead of Sunday, then that would have been the day he included among the state holidays. There was no reason for Constantine to declare as a state holiday a day that Christians did not observe.

To impose on them the observance of a different day than the one they had previously observed (as Adventists falsely claim, without any evidence) would have been an act of sheer madness. It would have stirred up and provoked all Christians against him—without any necessity and for no clear purpose.

As a wise statesman and a shrewd politician, Emperor Constantine valued the loyalty and love of his Christian subjects and knew how to win their favor. Therefore, he included in the list of state holidays the very day that Christians were already observing.

And by doing so, he easily gained their goodwill, affection, and loyalty. From all this, it is clear that Constantine’s decree regarding Sunday observance actually serves as evidence that Christians had already been observing this day before him. The decree itself was issued in response to the Christian practice of observing Sunday, not the other way around.”

The Adventist then asked, “But why did Constantine, in his decree about observing the first day of the week, call it ‘the venerable day of the sun’ rather than ‘Sunday’? Pagans regarded the sun as a god. So, by observing the ‘day of the sun,’ you are worshiping a pagan god. Therefore, you are not Christians but pagans.”

I said, “You Adventists should be ashamed if you do not even know—or pretend not to know—why the first day of the week is called the ‘day of the sun’ in the decree under discussion. The reason is simple: that was its name in the official Latin language of the time. If Emperor Constantine had called it anything else, such as ‘the Lord’s Resurrection,’ no one would have understood him.

We do not observe the Resurrection in honor of a pagan sun god, but in glory of Christ’s Resurrection, to the glory of God. That is why we call it ‘the Lord’s Day’ and not ‘the day of the sun.’ But the issue is not in the name. For example, in Romanian, as well as in several other languages, the days of the week are still named after pagan gods: Monday is the ‘day of the moon,’ Tuesday is Mars’ day, Wednesday is Mercury’s day, and Friday is Venus’ day. But can anyone accuse them of worshiping these gods simply because of the names?

Even we Russians (and not only we) call the months by the names of pagan gods: January is named after the god Janus, February after the god Februus, March after the god Mars, May after the goddess Maia, and so on. To ridicule the name of something is merely to expose one’s own ignorance and crudeness. A name, no matter what it may be, is neither good nor evil in itself—it is entirely indifferent.

As I have already told you, we do not observe Sunday because of Constantine’s decree. We observe it because on that day our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and for this reason, all Christians have observed it from the days of the Apostles until now.”*

2. #

At this, the Adventist mockingly replied, “Indeed, you observe Sunday instead of the Sabbath not because of Constantine’s decree, but because it was established by the Pope of Rome—that beast, the last Antichrist, who abolished the observance of the Sabbath. You follow him, you have taken on his image and mark, or his seal—some on their foreheads, some on their right hands. This image and seal is the observance of Sunday.”

“At least now you are speaking with one voice,” I noted. “Before, it was impossible to understand you. First, you asserted that Emperor Constantine abolished the Sabbath and instituted Sunday observance. Then you claimed that it was not he, but the Pope of Rome who did this. So when are you telling the truth, and when are you lying?

If we examine this carefully, we will see that in both cases, you are asserting a deliberate falsehood. We have already established that Constantine’s decree did not abolish the Sabbath or introduce the observance of Sunday. Now, let us see whether the Pope did this.

First of all, I ask you: which Pope specifically abolished the observance of the Sabbath and established the observance of Sunday?”

“The Pope in general,” the Adventist replied, with evident displeasure.

“Please, do not make people laugh,” I told him. “From apostolic times to the present, there has not been just one Pope, but dozens. Which one of them did what you accuse the Pope of doing? Name him. And then tell me: in what year did he do this? By what decree or order?”

“I do not know,” the Adventist answered.

I replied, “Neither do you know, nor do your Adventist writings say anything about it. They only make baseless claims that the Pope of Rome abolished the Sabbath and introduced Sunday observance. But an unfounded assertion without evidence is called a falsehood that contradicts the truth.

That it was not the Pope of Rome who abolished the Sabbath and established Sunday observance, but that this practice dates from the days of the Apostles, is evident from all we have already discussed and will become even clearer as our conversation continues.

For now, I will point out that if all Christians had observed the Sabbath, and the Pope had abolished it and commanded them to observe Sunday, this would have caused tremendous unrest and turmoil in the Church and would have inevitably led to its division into two parts: some observing the Sabbath, others Sunday. A fierce polemic would have ensued between the two sides, and thousands of books would have been written both for and against Sunday observance.

But in reality, history records no such event.

One must also keep in mind that the Pope of Rome had authority only over the Western Church. The Eastern Churches were never subject to him; they were governed by their own four patriarchs. If the Pope had presumed to order Christians to observe a different day than the one they had previously observed, the independent Eastern Churches would not have obeyed him. And even in the West, it is doubtful that everyone would have submitted without protest.

This is easy to prove with historical examples.

In ancient times, there was a case where the Eastern Churches in Asia Minor observed Pascha (in memory of Christ’s Resurrection) on the March full moon, regardless of what day of the week it fell on. The Western Churches, however, celebrated it on the Sunday following the March full moon. The Pope of Rome, Victor, who reigned shortly after the Apostles, issued a decree that the Eastern Christians should also observe Pascha on Sunday. (This itself serves as proof that Christians were already observing Sunday weekly rather than the Sabbath at that time.)

But they did not obey him.

So he excommunicated them from the Church.

However, this caused such a storm of indignation, such a scandal, that the Pope was forced to revoke his excommunication.

Now, imagine the even greater turmoil, strife, and unrest that would have arisen if any Pope had abolished the observance of the Sabbath—what you consider to be the Fourth Commandment of God’s Law—and established the observance of a day that had never been celebrated before, Sunday. Such an action would have inevitably led to the Pope retracting his decree.

And if he had not, it would have resulted in the Church’s division into two factions: one observing the Sabbath and the other observing Sunday.

In 1054, not over such a matter, but over a far less significant issue, when the Pope of Rome excommunicated the Eastern Churches through his legates and refused to revoke it, this led to the Great Schism, dividing the Church into the Western and Eastern branches—a division that continues to this day.

Not long ago, the Pope of Rome reformed the calendar. And what happened? The Eastern Churches not only refused to accept his reform but declared it an error or even a heresy. Even within the Roman Catholic Church itself, this reform caused unrest and turmoil among the Pope’s own followers for over a hundred and fifty years.

And yet, when—according to you—he changed the weekly day of worship, abolishing the Sabbath and replacing it with Sunday, no one so much as raised a finger to resist such lawlessness.

So, according to Adventists, all Christians worldwide observed the Sabbath, and then suddenly, one unknown Pope, at an unknown time, without issuing any decree or epistle—perhaps just by speaking a word, or even merely thinking it—caused everyone to stop observing the Sabbath and start observing Sunday.

And all Christians, both those under the Pope’s jurisdiction and those outside it, both Orthodox and heretics, suddenly, without any resistance, abandoned the Sabbath and began observing the first day of the week, Sunday.

You call the Pope of Rome the last Antichrist, yet you attribute to him divine powers—indeed, even greater than divine.

Christ Himself, despite all His teaching and miracles, could not convince even the small region of Galilee, nor the small Jewish people, to listen to Him in all things and accept His teaching.

But here, you claim that the Pope, without teaching, without issuing decrees, without working miracles—merely by speaking or even thinking—abolished the Fourth Commandment and replaced the Sabbath with Sunday. And the entire Christian world, consisting of hundreds of millions of believers, obeyed him and continues to obey him, fulfilling what you consider his godless will. What an incredible ‘miracle’ this would be!”

“You say that you accept only one book—the Bible—and that is why you observe the Sabbath. But there are hundreds of millions of Christians who, like you, accept only the Bible and yet observe not the Sabbath, but Sunday. These include Lutherans, Protestants, Calvinists, Methodists, Molokans, Baptists, and others.

“It is said that there are now several hundred such sects. Are all these sects and all the Christians, past and present, fools who understand nothing of Holy Scripture, while only Miller and you, his followers—the Adventists who observe the Sabbath—are the ones with understanding? Or is it rather the opposite?”

3. #

The Adventist responded, “I do not care what day modern so-called Christians observe, nor what day Christians from the time of the Apostles to Emperor Constantine observed, nor who abolished the Sabbath and introduced Sunday observance—whether it was the emperor, the pope, or simply the early Christians themselves who abandoned the Sabbath and began observing Sunday. This should not concern us at all. What should matter to us is what the Lord God Himself commanded regarding observance. And He commands in the Fourth Commandment as follows:

“‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.’ (Exod. 20:9–11)

“‘God must be obeyed rather than men,’ as it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. In Holy Scripture, the observance of the Sabbath is repeatedly confirmed with severe threats and curses, and terrible punishments were prescribed for its violators. When a man gathered firewood on the Sabbath, he was stoned to death. Scripture also states that the Sabbath will be observed forever.”

I asked, “In which books is this stated—those of the Old Testament or the New Testament?”

“Of course, in the Old Testament,” the Adventist answered.

“In that case, everything you have cited is of no persuasion to us Christians,” I said. “In the books of the Old Testament, I can find threats and curses not only against those who do not observe the Sabbath but also against those who do not practice circumcision, who do not observe the new moons and other Jewish feasts, and so on. About these, and about sacrifices, it is also said that they will be eternal. And a terrible curse is pronounced on anyone who does not observe all these things. It is written, ‘Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them’ (Deut. 27:26).

“But the Law of Moses has no authority over Christians, as it has been abolished. To confirm this, one need only read the epistles of the Apostle Paul, especially Romans. I will cite just one passage:

“‘Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God… But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.’ (Rom. 7:4–5)

“For us Christians, it will only be convincing that the Sabbath must be observed if you can find this commandment in the Holy Scripture of the New Testament.”

The Adventist said, “I will show you from the books of the New Testament that Christians must observe only the Sabbath and no other day. The Apostle Paul writes in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ‘There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God’ (Heb. 4:9). Here it is clearly stated that for ’the people of God,’ meaning Christians, there still remains a Sabbath rest, or the seventh day of the week. Therefore, all Christians are obligated to observe it. How can you refute such clear testimony?”

I replied, “It is sinful to refute Holy Scripture. The texts of Holy Scripture must only be understood and interpreted correctly. But you misinterpret what you have read. There, by the phrase ‘people of God,’ it does not refer to Christians, but to the Jews, the Old Testament Israelite people. And by the word ‘Sabbath rest,’ it refers to Jesus Christ Himself, His works, His teaching, or the New Testament.”

“How can you prove this?” the Adventist asked.

“I do not need to prove anything here,” I answered. “As I have already said, we only need to correctly understand the passage of Holy Scripture that has been cited.”

“And what does it mean to understand it correctly?” the Adventist asked.

I replied, “To understand any passage of Holy Scripture correctly, and as accurately as possible, it is first necessary to determine:

1. Who wrote the book from which the passage is taken
2. To whom and for whom it was written
3. What reasons led the author to write it
4. What he intended to say—what he wanted to defend, prove, and what he wished to refute
5. To read the passage in context, meaning in connection with the text that comes before and after it

“Otherwise, one can fall into grave errors. For example, in the Psalms, we might find that the prophet David wrote, ‘There is no God,’ if we do not read the preceding words, which say that ’the fool hath said in his heart.’ In the Gospel, we might find it written that Christ performed miracles by the power of demons and that He had a devil in Him, if we do not read the preceding words stating that these things were spoken by His worst enemies, and so on.”

The Adventist replied, “I completely agree that only by following the conditions you have listed can one correctly understand any passage of Holy Scripture, as well as other writings, including secular works.”

“You have violated these very principles in your reading of the passage about the Sabbath rest,” I said. “Let us now apply these rules to the passage you have read. You read it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, addressed to Jews who had come to believe in Christ, that is, to Jewish Christians. The reasons that prompted the Apostle Paul to write this epistle are clearly evident from its content.

“As is well known, at that time many Jews were converting to Christianity—entire communities, families, and individuals were joining the faith.

“In the same society, even within the same families, there were Jewish Christians and Jews who had not accepted Christ. Naturally, heated debates about faith constantly arose among them. The Jewish Christians argued for the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, of the New Covenant over the Old.

“The non-Christian Jews, on the other hand, insisted on the superiority of the Old Covenant over the New. Unfortunately, the victory did not always belong to the Christians. As seen from the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Jews, in arguing for the superiority of the Old Covenant over the New, would say things like:

“‘We Jews received the Law on Mount Sinai through angels and the great prophet Moses, and then through other prophets.

“‘And you Christians—who gave you yours? We Jews have a magnificent temple in Jerusalem, a legitimate high priest according to the order of Aaron, who conducts solemn worship services and offers atoning sacrifices to God for the sins of individuals and the whole nation. We have the Sabbath, established by the Fourth Commandment of God’s Law, which we observe in great splendor.

“‘But you Christians—none of this is yours.’”

“With such claims and arguments, the Jews disturbed and confused the Jewish converts to Christianity, who often did not know how to respond. Many of them renounced their Christian faith and returned to Judaism. Naturally, the Apostle Paul could not tolerate this, so he wrote to the Jewish Christians the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’ to strengthen them in the Christian faith.

“In this epistle, he thoroughly proves the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old. He writes that the old law was given by God through prophets and angels, but the New Covenant was given through the Son of God Himself, who is incomparably greater than prophets and angels. He further states that the Jews have a temple in Jerusalem—an earthly, man-made structure—while Christians have an uncreated temple in heaven.

“The Jews have a high priest according to the order of Aaron, a mortal and sinful man, but Christians have a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek—Jesus Christ, who is immortal and sinless.

“The Jewish high priest offers sacrifices of animals, whose blood purifies externally but does not save from sin. But the Christian high priest, Christ, offered Himself as a sacrifice and by His own blood saved humanity from sin.

“In contrast to the Old Testament Jewish Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week, the Apostle Paul sets forth the Christian Sabbath—faith in Christ, in whom we find rest.

“Now let us read the passage you cited, together with the preceding and following verses, and then it will become clear what kind of Sabbath rest the Apostle Paul is speaking about.

“But before doing so, I must make one more note—that in this passage, the translation is very poor.”

“You mean incorrect?” the Adventist asked.

“Yes, if you like, then incorrect,” I replied.

“What is the inaccuracy?” he asked.

“It is this,” I said. “According to the principles of translation, every term or name of a specific object should either be left in the original everywhere or translated consistently into the target language. If a word is left untranslated in one place but translated in another, the translation becomes unclear and can lead to misunderstandings, disputes, and errors—which is exactly what has happened here.

“You know that ‘Sabbath’ is a Hebrew word, don’t you? In Russian, it means ‘rest.’”

“Of course, I know,” the Adventist answered.

“Well then,” I continued, “the translator of the Epistle to the Hebrews into Russian translated the Hebrew word ‘Sabbath’ as ‘rest’ everywhere before and after the passage you cited. Only in the verse you read did he leave it untranslated, writing ‘Sabbath rest’ instead of simply ‘rest.’

“He should have either left ‘Sabbath’ untranslated throughout or translated it consistently, replacing ‘Sabbath rest’ with ‘rest.’ Then it would be clear to everyone what kind of Sabbath rest the Apostle Paul was speaking about.

“Now, I will read the relevant passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews, but wherever the word ‘Sabbath’ is translated as ‘rest,’ I will read it in the original as ‘Sabbath.’”

Pointing out that the prophet Moses, whom the Jews so highly exalted and revered, was merely a “servant of God,” the Apostle Paul writes:

“‘But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

“‘Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

“‘Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

“‘So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest (into my Sabbath).’ (Heb. 3:6–11)

“‘Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest (into his Sabbath), any of you should seem to come short of it.

“‘For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

“‘For we which have believed do enter into rest (into his Sabbath), as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest (into my Sabbath): although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

“‘For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

“‘And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest (into my Sabbath).

“‘Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein (into the Sabbath), and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief.

“‘Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time; as it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

“‘For if Jesus had given them rest (Sabbath), then would he not afterward have spoken of another day?

“‘There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

“‘For he that is entered into his rest (into his Sabbath), he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

“‘Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest (that Sabbath), lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.’” (Heb. 3:6–19)

“The meaning of this passage is as follows: Though the Jews were commanded by the Fourth Commandment to observe the seventh day—the Sabbath—there remained yet another Sabbath, about which God said, ‘I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter into my Sabbath.’

“The Jews argued that this referred to their entry into the Promised Land under Joshua. But the Apostle Paul refutes this, stating that if Joshua had given them the Sabbath rest, then why did David, long after him, still speak of another day, another Sabbath, warning them not to harden their hearts and fail to enter this Sabbath, as their ancestors had in the wilderness?

“Therefore, even after Joshua and the entry into the Promised Land, ’there remaineth a rest to the people of God.’ And what is this Sabbath rest? Faith in Christ, in whom we find our true rest.

“This, then, is the Christian Sabbath—Christ Himself, faith in Christ, His works and teachings, the entire dispensation of our salvation, the New Covenant.”

source