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:
- Who wrote the book from which the passage is taken
- To whom and for whom it was written
- What reasons led the author to write it
- What he intended to say—what he wanted to defend, prove, and what he wished to refute
- 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.”
4.
The Adventist said, “But I have yet another testimony from the New Testament that clearly states Christians will observe the Sabbath until the end of the world. Christ Himself said, ‘But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day’ (Matt. 24:20).”
“How do you understand this command of Jesus Christ?” I asked.
“I understand it exactly as it is written,” my opponent replied. “That is, before the end of the world, there will be wars and turmoil. Because of these dangers, Christians will have to flee to preserve their lives and save others from death. But if this happens on the Sabbath, they must not flee. Otherwise, they would break the Sabbath. If they do not flee but stay where they are, they will be killed by their enemies. That is why Christ commanded them to pray that they do not find themselves in such an impossible situation.”
“You present Christ as being more zealous for the Sabbath than even the scribes and Pharisees,” I responded. “Among the Jews, it was permitted to flee on the Sabbath to preserve one’s life. The books of the Maccabees recount how, during the Maccabean wars, an enemy attacked a Jewish detachment on the Sabbath. The Jews, in order not to break the Sabbath, did not take up arms to defend themselves against the enemy, and the entire detachment was massacred to the last man.
“Then the high priest and the leaders of the people reasoned that if all the Jews observed the Sabbath in this way, their enemies would slaughter them all without suffering any losses. Therefore, they decided that it was permissible to fight even on the Sabbath. This was long before the birth of Christ.
“And surely you understand that during a battle, one must both pursue the enemy and retreat from them over an indefinite distance. Would Christ really have forbidden fleeing on the Sabbath even in the face of mortal danger?
“When His disciples broke the Sabbath by plucking ears of grain and rubbing them in their hands to satisfy their hunger, He not only did not condemn them but justified them, pointing to a similar violation of God’s law by the prophet David. He said, ‘The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath’ (Mark 2:23–28).
“If He justified breaking the Sabbath for the sake of hunger, how could He have forbidden fleeing on the Sabbath for the sake of preserving one’s life?
“So even if Christians did observe the Sabbath, they would have full right to flee on that day in the case of mortal danger. The Sabbath served as an external obstacle to flight—otherwise, Christ would not have mentioned it, and He would have said nothing about it at all.
“How and why was the Sabbath an external obstacle? I will explain further. But for now, let me draw your attention to the fact that if we understand Christ’s warning about fleeing on the Sabbath in the way that you do, then His words would mean this:
“‘If you, My followers, are threatened with mortal danger, but if this happens on the Sabbath, do not dare to flee, do not dare to break the Sabbath. Let you all perish. Let them torment you, crucify you on crosses, let them slaughter you all to the last man—just so long as the Sabbath is observed. Therefore, pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath.'”
“If that were the meaning, then truly it would not be the Sabbath for man, but man for the Sabbath. Can Christ’s instruction to His disciples about fleeing on the Sabbath really be understood in this way?”
“Then how do you believe it should be understood?” the Adventist asked.
“I believe it should be understood as I have already stated—that the Sabbath would be an external obstacle to Christ’s disciples in the same way as winter, which is why Christ mentioned them together,” I answered.
“But how could the Sabbath be an external obstacle?” my opponent asked.
I replied, “Here is how. Christ’s instruction to His disciples to pray that their flight would not happen on the Sabbath does not refer to the end times but to the destruction of Jerusalem.
“In Jerusalem, ever since the time of Nehemiah, who rebuilt the city, the city gates were shut for the entire Sabbath day (Neh. 13:19), and no one could enter or leave.
“Meanwhile, the flight of Christ’s followers was to be extremely urgent. So much so that if one was ‘on the housetop,’ which we would understand as being in the courtyard, they were to flee from that very place where they first heard the alarm. For these were to be days of vengeance and wrath upon the Jewish people.
“But if this happened on the Sabbath, they would not be able to escape from Jerusalem because its gates would be locked, and they would inevitably perish along with everyone else in the city.
“And that is exactly what happened.
“Remembering the instruction of the Savior, His followers prayed that their flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath. And their prayer was heard. The time of their escape from Jerusalem did not occur in winter or on the Sabbath.
“All the Christians who were in the city were able to leave it freely and take refuge in safe places, so that not a single Christian perished when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem.
“Everyone who remained in the city, however, was utterly destroyed—many were slaughtered, many were thrown to wild beasts, and a portion was sold into slavery.
“This is why and for what purpose Christ commanded His disciples to pray that their escape before the siege of Jerusalem would not take place in winter or on the Sabbath—not to ensure that Christians observed the Sabbath or would continue to observe it until the end of the world.”
5.
“But I have direct evidence,” the Adventist said, “that the followers of Christ observed the Sabbath. In the Gospel of Luke, it says that when the myrrh-bearing women, after Nicodemus and Joseph laid Jesus Christ in the tomb, returned to the city on Friday evening, they ‘prepared spices and ointments, and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment’ (Luke 23:56)—obviously referring to the Fourth Commandment. Isn’t it clear that the followers of the Savior observed the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath? Therefore, we are also obliged to observe it.”
I said to the Adventist, “How do you have the conscience to cite such facts as proof that we Christians are obligated to observe the Sabbath? Do you not know that this event—the myrrh-bearing women ‘resting on the Sabbath according to the commandment’—occurred before the Resurrection of Christ, when the Old Covenant was still fully in effect?
“Should the myrrh-bearing women have observed Sunday instead of the Sabbath before the Resurrection of Christ? At that time, not only the myrrh-bearing women but also the Apostles, as well as all the Jews, observed only the Sabbath. Not only did they observe the Sabbath, but they also considered the entire Mosaic Law obligatory for themselves—circumcision, new moon celebrations, purifications, blood sacrifices, all Jewish feasts, and so on.”
“Jesus Christ never observed Sunday instead of the Sabbath,” the Adventist interrupted me.
“Stop making good people laugh,” I said to him. “How could Christ have celebrated His own Resurrection before He rose from the dead? At that time, no one had the right to observe any day in place of the Sabbath.”
6.
“I will tell you even more,” I said. “Even after Christ’s resurrection and ascension into heaven, and after the descent of the Holy Spirit, some of the Apostles and Jewish believers in Christ continued to observe the entire Mosaic Law, including circumcision, sacrifices, new moons, Sabbaths, and other rituals.
“But that is not all. Jewish Christians insisted that all Christians from among the Gentiles should also accept and observe the entire Mosaic Law. It took great effort from the Apostle Paul and his supporters to at least ensure that Gentile Christians were not required to follow the Mosaic Law. Almost all of Paul’s epistles are filled with arguments against the zealots of the Mosaic Law.
“As for Jewish Christians, there is no question about it—they were completely free to observe the Mosaic Law, and they did so. The Apostolic Council decreed only that Gentile Christians were not to be obligated to observe the Mosaic Law.
“Even after this decision, the Apostle Paul himself underwent purification according to the law and offered the prescribed sacrifice (Acts 21:20–27).
“So why do you cite the fact that the myrrh-bearing women observed the Sabbath before Christ’s resurrection as proof that we Christians must observe it, when even after the descent of the Holy Spirit, Jewish Christians continued practicing circumcision, observing the Sabbath and all other Old Testament festivals, and offering blood sacrifices for purification?
“The attitude of the earliest Christians toward the Mosaic Law was as follows: Jewish Christians observed the entire law while also following all the ordinances of the Christian Church.
“Although in the New Testament, circumcision was replaced with baptism (Col. 2:11–13), they practiced both baptism and circumcision. They had the sacrament of the Eucharist, and they also offered animal sacrifices. They observed the new moons and all the Old Testament feasts, as well as the Christian feasts—such as the Nativity of Christ and Pentecost.
“They observed both the Sabbath and Sunday: the Sabbath as Jews and Sunday as Christians.
“There is a reference to this in an ancient Christian document known as the Apostolic Constitutions, which, of course, was not written by the Apostles but was composed shortly after their time.
“Christians from among the Gentiles, however, did not observe the Mosaic Law at all. They did not practice circumcision, ritual purifications, sacrifices, new moons, Sabbaths, or any other Jewish festivals. They followed only the ordinances of the Christian Church: baptism, the Eucharist, Sunday observance, and so forth.
“Over time, even Jewish Christians gradually abandoned the Jewish laws of the Old Testament, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem and its central sanctuary—the Temple—when it became impossible to observe even half of the Mosaic Law. Eventually, all these laws, including Sabbath observance, completely disappeared from among Christians and from the Church of Christ.
“In the entire Church, only purely Christian ordinances, laws, and festivals remained.
“But this did not happen immediately. In ancient times, there were heretics who observed the Sabbath. They were called Sabbatians. History shows that they were an insignificant sect and existed for only a short time.
“Saint John Chrysostom (born in 347 AD, died in 407 AD) testifies that in his time, there were still Christians who practiced circumcision, observed the Sabbath, ate unleavened bread, and adhered to other Jewish customs.
“‘These things they do,’ he says, ‘cutting themselves off from grace’ (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles), that is, from the New Covenant and from Christianity.
“Clearly, these were the remnants of Jewish Christians who were allowed to continue following the Mosaic Law.”
7.
That Christians from among the Gentiles were not obligated to observe and did not observe the Law of Moses is evident from both the Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. This book recounts that when disturbances and disputes arose in the Church over the question of whether Gentile Christians should observe the Law of Moses, a council was convened in Jerusalem. After lengthy and thorough deliberations, it was unanimously decided that Gentile Christians should not be bound by the Law of Moses—this “yoke,” which, as the Apostle Peter said, “neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10).
The decree of this apostolic council, which was sent to the Gentile Christians, was as follows:
“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ‘Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law’ (the Old Testament law, including, of course, the Sabbath), to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul… For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden (neither sacrifices, nor new moons, nor Sabbaths, nor anything else of the Mosaic Law) than these necessary things: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, and that ye do not unto others what ye would not have done unto yourselves. If ye keep yourselves from these, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” (Acts 15:24–25, 28–29).
As you can see, the decision made no exceptions for anything in the Old Testament. Everything was abolished for Gentile Christians, except for what is explicitly listed in the decree; there is not a single mention of the Sabbath.
The Adventist objected: “If the decree of the apostolic council does not mention the Sabbath, then the Acts of the Apostles does. For example, the Apostle James, the chairman of this council, said: ‘For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day’ (Acts 15:21). This means that Christians observed the Sabbath, and so we must observe it as well.”
I replied: “Are you not ashamed to cite such a passage as proof that the Sabbath was observed by the apostles and must be observed by us? The Apostle James was not speaking about Christians but about Jews who did not believe in Christ, saying that they have been preaching the Law of Moses ‘from ancient generations.’ Christianity had only just appeared at that time. And the Jews read this law every Sabbath in their synagogues. But Christians had no synagogues of their own.”
If you read the excerpt from the speech of the Apostle James in connection with his preceding words, it becomes clear that he was speaking about the abrogation of the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath. He said:
“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets… Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood, and that they do not unto others what they would not have done unto themselves. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” (Acts 15:14–15, 19–21).
The meaning of all this is as follows: At the conclusion of the council’s deliberations, the Apostle James, as chairman, proposed a resolution—to write to the Gentile Christians, instructing them not to observe the Law of Moses but to adhere only to what was prescribed by this very council, namely, to abstain from certain things. If the council did not adopt his resolution, James implied, then their opponents—the advocates of observing the whole Law of Moses—would prevail over them. For they had the advantage that “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,” and so on.
The resolution proposed by Chairman James was adopted unanimously by the council, and it was in this sense that the decree was written to the Gentile Christians. It is clear that everything from the Law of Moses that was not mentioned in this decree of the apostolic council was abolished for Gentile Christians and for the New Testament Church of Christ—without exception, including sacrifices and the Sabbath.
The Adventist said, “So, according to you, even the Ten Commandments are abolished? After all, they are not mentioned in the decree of the apostolic council.”
“Yes,” I replied, “those among the Ten Commandments that are not confirmed in the books of the New Testament have been abolished and must be modified.”
“And which commandments are not confirmed in the New Testament?” my interlocutor asked.
“The second and the fourth, the one concerning the observance of the Sabbath,” I replied. “Not only are they absent from the decree of the apostolic council, but neither the Gospels nor the Epistles mention them at all.”
“But the apostles did not mention the Sabbath in their conciliar decree because it was self-evident that even Gentile Christians were to observe it,” said the Adventist.
I replied, “The Sabbath is the least ‘self-evident’ of all, even for the Jewish people. That is why no other commandment has been given such a lengthy explanation of the reason for its observance as the commandment concerning the Sabbath. For the commandments that are truly self-evident, no justification is given—only a straightforward command: ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Each of these commandments consists of a single phrase. This is because even Gentiles understood that stealing, murdering, and committing fornication were sinful and shameful acts. But the commandment concerning the day of observance is not self-evident to anyone without special explanation. And if the apostles did not mention it in their conciliar decision, it means that they abolished it along with the other Old Testament festivals.”
“Do you have any other evidence from the New Testament in favor of the Sabbath?” I asked the Adventist in conclusion.
“No,” he answered, “I have nothing more.”
“Then your case is weak,” I said, “if, apart from the four passages you cited, you have nothing else. After all, these passages have no real evidentiary force to prove that Christians are obligated to observe the Sabbath.”
The Adventist countered, “But neither can you find anything in Scripture against Sabbath observance. If you can, show that the Sabbath was indeed abolished in the New Testament—that it should not be observed and that ordinary work may be done on it as on any other day of the week.”
“I am glad to show all this,” I replied. “The Gospel repeatedly states that Jesus Christ Himself broke the Sabbath.”
The Adventist objected, “But Christ broke it only to do good works, to heal the sick, which in itself was not a violation of the holiness of the Sabbath. This was merely an accusation from His enemies, driven by hatred and envy. Or, to put it another way, it was slander against Jesus Christ, who never violated the Sabbath nor commanded others to violate it.”
“Yes, in some cases, Christ’s enemies accused Him of healing the sick on the Sabbath,” I agreed with the Adventist. “For example, He healed the man born blind on the Sabbath (John 9), the man with the withered hand (Luke 6:6–11), and the woman who had been bent over for eighteen years. In these instances, the accusations against Jesus Christ for breaking the Sabbath were unjust, for even on the Sabbath one ought to do good rather than evil (Luke 6:9). That is why Christ called His accusers hypocrites. But these are not the cases I have in mind when I say that Christ broke the Sabbath. I am referring to instances where He truly broke it or commanded others to do so—which, in essence, is the same thing.”
“What cases are those?” asked the Adventist.
“These,” I replied. “On the Sabbath day, as He (Christ) was passing through the grain fields, His disciples began to pluck the ears of grain and eat, rubbing them in their hands” (Luke 6:1). “When the Pharisees saw it, they said unto Him: Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day” (Matthew 12:2).
In this case, the Pharisees were in the right. Therefore, Christ did not accuse them of hypocrisy. The disciples were indeed guilty of breaking the Sabbath. And He justified them only by pointing to a similar violation of God’s Law committed by the prophet David and those with him when they ate the showbread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat.
For the future, He declared how one ought to regard the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27), meaning that each person has the right to disregard it at his own discretion. And concerning Himself, He said, “The Son of Man (that is, Christ) is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). And just as any master or owner of something has the right to change, abolish, replace, or entirely eliminate it, so too could Christ abolish the Sabbath. And indeed, He did so in the following manner.
When healing the long-crippled man at the Sheep Gate pool, He said to him: “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked. And the same day was the Sabbath. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured: It is the Sabbath day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He answered them: He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. Then asked they him: What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? And he that was healed wist not who it was, for Jesus had conveyed Himself away, a multitude being in that place” (John 5:8–14).
Here, it cannot be said that the Jews were upholding the Sabbath out of envy or hatred toward Jesus, as in some other cases. For they did not know who had commanded the healed man to break the Sabbath. They were simply opposing whoever had commanded this violation of the Law, whoever he might be. In this case, there was a direct transgression of the Sabbath, a direct violation of the Fourth Commandment.
God had strictly forbidden carrying burdens on the Sabbath day. Yet Christ commanded the healed man to carry his bed.
The Adventist asked, “Where is it said that God forbade carrying burdens on the Sabbath?”
I replied, “In the book of the prophet Jeremiah it is written: ‘Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day… But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched'” (Jeremiah 17:21–22, 27).
With such terrible threats, God forbade carrying burdens on the Sabbath anywhere—neither bringing them out of one’s house, nor carrying them in the streets, nor bringing them through the gates of Jerusalem.
That is why the Jews always observed this command so strictly and would not allow any burden to be carried on the Sabbath. In the book of Nehemiah, who lived after the Babylonian captivity, we read: “And I commanded my servants that they should not bring in any burden on the Sabbath day” (Nehemiah 13:19). From this, it is clear that by commanding the healed man to carry his bed on the Sabbath, Christ explicitly instructed him to break the Sabbath and to work on it in every way. For carrying a bed through the streets is not a good deed but ordinary weekday labor, a direct violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath. And by permitting this one type of work, which had been forbidden by God Himself, Christ implicitly allowed every other kind of work—even when there was no necessity for it.
There was no need for the healed man to carry his bed on the Sabbath. He could have returned for it another day, or, if he feared leaving it unattended, he could have remained nearby until evening. After all, the Sabbath ended at sunset. Christ commanded the healed man to break it so openly and without any necessity. This is self-evident.
When the Jews learned who had healed the paralytic and commanded him to take up his bed and carry it, they “persecuted Jesus, and sought to slay Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath day” (John 5:16). Perhaps they did not succeed in killing Him then only because Adventists had not yet existed. You would surely have helped the Jews kill Christ, as a clear Sabbath-breaker, a violator of the Fourth Commandment.
“And therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18).
The evangelist did not place these two accusations against Jesus Christ together without reason: one, that He had broken the Sabbath, and the other, that He had made Himself equal to God the Father. This was to show that the accusation of violating the Sabbath was not slander—just as it was not slander to say that He made Himself equal to God the Father. If one were to claim that the accusation of Christ breaking the Sabbath was slander, then one would also have to claim that His making Himself equal to God the Father was slander.
All the foregoing leads to one of two conclusions:
- If one considers the Sabbath to be inviolable, holding the Fourth Commandment regarding it to be in full force, then one must inevitably acknowledge Jesus Christ as a violator of the Sabbath, a transgressor of the Fourth Commandment of God’s Law, or a great sinner—which is a horrifying thought. In that case, we must renounce Him and cease to be Christians.
- If one acknowledges Christ as the Lord God, who had the authority to break the Sabbath and to command others to do so, who had the power to abolish it as its rightful Master, then one must necessarily regard the Sabbath as non-binding for us, an unnecessary thing, and all regulations concerning it as likewise nullified.
For Christians, there is no third option regarding the Sabbath!
Those who observe the Sabbath, by that very fact, accuse and condemn Christ as a transgressor of God’s Law, as a sinner. But those who acknowledge Christ as God must reject the Sabbath, for He Himself abolished it.
9.
One may bring further evidence from Scripture against the Sabbath. For example, even in the Old Testament, the Lord God declared: “Your new moons and your Sabbaths, your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them” (Isaiah 1:13). So even if the New Testament had required the observance of the Sabbath, and we Christians had erred in celebrating the Resurrection instead, this would not be such a grave mistake that it would condemn all Christians to damnation—millions, even billions of Christians who have lived, are living, and will live—despite their fervent faith in God, their sincere love for Him, their virtues, and all that Christ established for our salvation.
But in the New Testament, it is not the Sabbath that is to be observed, but the Resurrection, as will be made clear in our further discussion.
The Adventist objected: “Well, you certainly found something to cite against the Sabbath. But this passage does not refer to the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, but to Sabbaths in the plural. The Jews had, in addition to the weekly Sabbath, other Sabbaths, such as the Jubilee, which was celebrated once every seven years, and another Sabbath that was observed once every fifty years. It is about these Sabbaths that God said He could not endure them. Moreover, this was not said against the Sabbaths themselves, but against the sins, lawlessness, and iniquities of the people, for they defiled the Sabbaths and all their sacred assemblies with their wicked deeds. That is why God could not endure them. This is so obvious that I am surprised you even cited this passage about the Sabbaths.”
I replied: “In part, you have spoken the truth, and in part, falsehood. You spoke the truth in saying that God did not hate the new moons, Sabbaths, and other Old Testament ordinances in themselves, but because of the evil deeds of the people.
But you spoke falsehood in claiming that this passage refers only to some seven-year Sabbaths and not to the weekly Sabbath. If we interpret God’s words according to your view, then their meaning would be as follows: ‘I cannot endure your new moons and Sabbaths because of your wicked deeds, which you commit on these holy days—except for the weekly Sabbath. On that day, no matter what iniquities you commit, I will tolerate it—or, to put it plainly, I will tolerate you.’
Thus, according to your view, God permitted evildoing on the weekly Sabbath but forbade it only on other Sabbaths. But clearly, God forbade sin on all days, and especially on feast days and the Sabbath. Therefore, by ‘Sabbath,’ He meant both the weekly Sabbaths and, most likely, primarily them. For in its proper sense, ‘Sabbath’ refers to the weekly Sabbath, while the other Sabbaths derived their name from it and are called ‘Sabbaths’ only figuratively—just as the peacemakers are called ‘sons of God’ (Matthew 5:9). That is why, wherever Scripture speaks of ‘the Sabbath’ or ‘Sabbaths’ without specifying which kind, it should be understood as referring to the seventh day of the week.
In the book of Exodus, ‘Sabbaths’ is used in the plural, yet it refers to the seventh day of the week: ‘Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep’ (saith the Lord)… ‘Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord’ (Exodus 31:13, 15). However, there are also passages where ‘Sabbath’ appears in the singular but refers not to the seventh day of the week, but to other festivals (Leviticus 23).”
Your interpretation—that if “Sabbaths” is mentioned in the plural, it must refer to certain other Sabbaths and not the seventh day of the week—is nothing more than a convenient evasion.
In the passage I cited from the prophet Isaiah, both the weekly Sabbath and the monthly festival, the new moons, are mentioned in the plural. Yet there were no other kinds of new moons apart from the monthly ones. It is clear that if “new moons” refers to the monthly festival, then “Sabbaths” must refer to the weekly festival. They are both spoken of in the plural because there were many of them throughout the year—thirteen new moons and fifty-two Sabbaths.
I cited the passage from Isaiah, which states that Sabbaths, like new moons, are intolerable to God—not to prove that they were not to be observed in the Old Testament, but to show that the Sabbath should not be given the exceptional significance that you Adventists ascribe to it. You act as though without observing the Sabbath and literally fulfilling the Fourth Commandment, all Christians will perish—as if neither faith in Christ, nor love for God and neighbor, nor anything else could save them. On the contrary, if someone commits evil deeds, the Sabbath will not save him, no matter how strictly he observes it.
10.
Scripture speaks of the Sabbath in the singular as well, showing that it is unnecessary for Christians and is on the same level as new moons and other Old Testament ordinances. The holy Apostle Paul, foreseeing that people would later arise who would insist on observing the Sabbath and even argue over whether it was mentioned in the singular or plural, wrote the following in his Epistle to the Colossians:
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16–17).
Just as a shadow cannot be eaten, cannot be used to sew clothing, and is generally useless, so too is the Sabbath unnecessary for Christians. That is why the Apostle Paul so decisively cast out the Sabbath from the Church and threw it into the same heap as the new moons, various Jewish festivals—like the feast of booths, Purim—and other Old Testament relics, recognizing them all as mere shadows, empty and useless things for Christians.
And from this heap, which after eighteen hundred years had already sufficiently rotted, Mr. Miller took only the Sabbath, treating it as an essential and most salvific observance for Christians. And you, Adventists, as his followers, cling to it as if it were the most precious relic, striving with all your might to force all Christians to accept and observe it. Otherwise, you claim, all Christians will perish.
But in doing so, you Adventists are acting inconsistently and incorrectly. If you observe the Sabbath, then you should also observe the new moons and all the other Jewish festivals, as well as fully keep the Law of Moses. After all, the Apostle Paul placed the Sabbath on the same level as all other Jewish customs. If you consider the observance of new moons and other Jewish festivals to be sinful, then you must also consider the observance of the Sabbath to be sinful.
The Adventist responded: “You misunderstand the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come. The Apostle Paul is speaking about the ceremonial Sabbaths in the Law of rites, which were merely shadows, not about the Sabbath of the moral law—that is, not about the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, but about the Sabbaths mentioned in the book of Leviticus, such as the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, and other festivals (Leviticus 16:31; 23:3, 32). These, too, are called Sabbaths.”
I replied: “Why do you distort the clear meaning of the Apostle Paul’s teaching regarding Jewish festivals and the Sabbath, both of which he calls a shadow? If he had mentioned only the Sabbath and not the festivals, then one might, with some strain, argue that by ‘Sabbath’ he meant the various Jewish ceremonial holidays—the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, and so on.
But the great Apostle, as if foreseeing this very deception, mentioned Jewish festivals separately and the Sabbath separately. He wrote:
‘Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ’ (Colossians 2:16–17).
How can you shamelessly interpret this passage as though ‘holy day’ refers to festivals in general, and ‘Sabbath’ refers to those same festivals? What kind of person do you take the Apostle Paul for if you attribute such nonsense to him?
Moreover, I must draw your attention to the fact that nowhere in Scripture is it said that the Old Testament Law is divided into moral and ceremonial laws, with the first being unchangeable and the second changeable. This division was invented by men, and not so long ago. You Adventists have turned it into a convenient loophole for yourselves: whatever you dislike, you call the ‘ceremonial law’ and claim it has been abolished and no longer needs to be observed. But whatever suits you, you call the ‘moral law’ and insist that God Himself requires its strict observance.”
In the Old Testament, one can find not just two, but at least a dozen different laws, if not more:
- The moral law;
- The ceremonial law;
- The judicial law;
- The duties of the priesthood;
- The family law;
- The civil law;
- The law concerning feasts;
- The land law;
- The law concerning women;
- The law concerning diseases, and so on.
For studying the Bible, such classifications may be useful, but for actual observance, they are useless. No matter how many categories one divides the law into, all of them are stated to be unconditionally binding. They are declared eternal: not only the Ten Commandments but also circumcision (Genesis 17:7), the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, and other holidays (Leviticus 16:31; 23:21, 31, 41). Sacrifices and the entirety of the Law are also declared binding under a curse for anyone who does not observe them (Deuteronomy 27:26).
On the one hand, we see this, but on the other, the Apostle Paul considers the entire Mosaic Law to be abolished—or rather, replaced by the New Testament and faith in Christ. He makes no exception for the Ten Commandments or for what you call the “moral law.” He declares that the Law has died for us, and we are freed from it just as a wife is freed from her marital obligations upon the death of her husband and is free to marry another. Likewise, with the death of the Old Law, we have accepted the New—the faith in Christ, the grace of God, the New Testament. And this replaces the Law for us (Romans 7:1–6).
The Adventist objected: “But the Ten Commandments are not subject to either abolition or modification. Therefore, the Apostle Paul could not have been referring to the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment when he called it a shadow.”
I asked, “And if someone were to modify any of these commandments, even to improve them, what would be the consequence?”
“He would not partake of the tree of life,” the Adventist replied.
I continued: “Yet Christ Himself modified the Sixth and Seventh Commandments, refining them—even though they seemed to require no refinement. He said:
‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time (on the tablets): “Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.” But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, “Raca” (empty-headed), shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, “Thou fool,” shall be in danger of hell fire…
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart’ (Matthew 5:21–28).”
“So according to you,” I replied, “Christ Himself will not partake of the tree of life, will not inherit eternal life or the Kingdom of Heaven? Because He modified some of the Ten Commandments.
But that is not all. He placed the Ten Commandments on the same level as judicial laws, or, in your words, as part of the ceremonial law. After revising these commandments, He immediately proceeded to revise the laws on marriage, oaths, and retribution—’an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ (Matthew 5:31–40). And as for the commandment about the Sabbath, He explicitly commanded its violation, instructing the man healed at the pool to perform ordinary weekday labor on the Sabbath, as well as in other cases, as we have already discussed.
For this reason, the Apostle Paul had every justification to treat the Sabbath in the same way as all the other Jewish festivals, calling them all a shadow—things that no longer exist and are unnecessary.”
The Adventist said, “You keep interpreting that the entire Old Law has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. But Christ, on the contrary, confirms the Law of the Prophets and the commandments. He explicitly said:
‘Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 5:17–19).
Therefore, the commandment regarding the Sabbath must also be observed. What do you say to this?”
I replied, “Christ indeed came not to violate or transgress anything in the Old Law, and He did not transgress it. He received circumcision, He ate unleavened bread, He went to Jerusalem for the festivals. And as for the Ten Commandments, there is no question—He fulfilled everything that the Old Testament Law required. But that does not mean that we Christians are likewise obligated to literally observe the entire Old Testament.
Neither should we take literally that ‘not one jot or one tittle’ of the Law should remain unfulfilled, and that anyone who breaks even a minor commandment of the Old Law is guilty. Otherwise, taken literally, even the Savior Himself would be guilty, since He altered some commandments. We would also have to condemn the Apostle Paul, who repeatedly stated that the Old Law is not binding for Christians.
If we were to follow this literal interpretation, then circumcision would still be required, only unleavened bread would be permitted for Passover, all Jewish festivals—including the Sabbath—would have to be observed, blood sacrifices would have to be offered, and so on.
But Christ’s words must not be understood literally. Rather, they mean that the entire Old Testament, with all its statutes and commandments, was merely a shadow or a foreshadowing of the coming New Testament, in which we now live. In it, they are fulfilled in their true form.
For example, in the Old Testament, there was a Temple divided into three parts; and in our churches in the New Testament, we also have three parts—corresponding to the Holy of Holies, we have the altar, while the remaining two sections are for the people.
In the Old Testament, the priesthood was according to the order of Aaron, structured in three hierarchical ranks: high priest, priests, and Levites. In the New Testament, the priesthood follows the order of Melchizedek and also consists of three ranks: bishop, priests, and deacons.
Then, lambs, calves, and other animals were sacrificed to God; now, an unbloody sacrifice is offered in the form of bread and wine—the Body and Blood of Christ. Then, bloody sacrifices could only be offered in Jerusalem; now, the unbloody sacrifice is offered all over the world.
In the Old Testament, there were cherubim before whom people prayed; in the New Testament, we have images of Christ God and His saints. In the Old Testament, there was circumcision; in the New Testament, there is baptism. In the Old Testament, anointing with oil was performed only for priests and kings; in the New Testament, all Christians are anointed, for the Savior has made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.
In the Old Testament, there was the Sabbath; in the New Testament, there is the Resurrection. In the Old Testament, it was said: ‘Thou shalt not kill’; in the New Testament, even anger is forbidden. In the Old Testament, it was said: ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’; in the New Testament, even looking at a woman with lust is condemned—and so on and so forth.
These comparisons could go on endlessly. To put it briefly: by fulfilling the entire New Testament, by observing all the Church’s ordinances, we fulfill the entire Old Testament, which was a foreshadowing of the New.
Most importantly, we must fulfill it through love for God and neighbor. For in these two commandments, the entire Law and the Prophets are contained, as the Savior Himself said. And the Apostle John confirms, ‘He that loveth God and his neighbor hath fulfilled the whole law.’
The relationship between the Old and New Testaments can be illustrated with a simple analogy. Imagine a tree—an apple tree. The root and trunk represent the Old Testament, while the leaves and fruit represent the New. It is the apples that are to be eaten.
But if someone were to eat the roots instead of the apples, he would only harm his health. Likewise, one who clings to the Old Testament law harms his own soul.
On the other hand, if someone were to claim that the roots of the apple tree are unnecessary and that we only need the pure and tasty apples, and he were to start exposing and destroying the roots, he would be committing a great offense—he would destroy the entire tree and its fruits along with it.
The New Testament is nourished by the Old, just as fruit is nourished by the roots. But this does not mean that we should live by the Old Testament—should feed on the roots. The entire meaning of the apple tree is found in its fruit. The entire meaning of the Old Testament is found in the New. By fulfilling the latter, we also fulfill the former.”
This is how one must understand the saying of the Savior—that not one jot of the Law will remain unfulfilled and that not even the smallest commandment should be broken. Not in the literal way that you interpret it, claiming that everything said in the Old Law about the Sabbath must be observed literally, regardless of circumstances. Your interpretation is all the more incorrect and unconvincing because even you do not observe all the commandments of God regarding the Sabbath.”
“What do you mean we do not observe them?” the Adventist protested. “Whoever does not keep everything that is written in the Law concerning the Sabbath will perish forever. That is why Adventists observe literally everything that God commanded about the Sabbath.”
I pointed out, “God commanded that anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death. And Adventists do not observe this—they do not kill those who work on the Sabbath. If they refrain from doing so out of fear of government authorities, then it means they fear men more than they fear God.
Yet they constantly repeat to others about the inconvenience of keeping the Sabbath, saying, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’ In reality, they prove to be more men-pleasers than God-pleasers. In other words, they are hypocrites—keeping the Law of the Sabbath only halfway, or perhaps even less, while violating it just as much or more.
That God truly commanded that anyone who performs any kind of work on the Sabbath should be put to death is written in the book of Exodus:
‘And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying… Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant…’ (Exodus 31:1–16).
The Israelites strictly observed this. Was it really such a great labor to gather sticks (or rather, fuel) in the wilderness? He was not cutting, sawing, or splitting wood—only gathering it. But when a man was found doing this on the Sabbath,
‘The Lord said unto Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses’ (Numbers 15:32–36).
Yet Adventists do not do this; they do not kill people for working on the Sabbath, contrary to God’s command and in violation of the eternal covenant.
Perhaps, however, they would kill, but power is not yet in their hands. When they do gain power, then they might well start executing all Sabbath violators. Therefore, anyone who values his own life and the safety of his loved ones must take care not to allow Adventists to gain power—not to elect them to parliament or any other public office.
Anything can be expected from these fanatical Sabbatarians, sworn enemies of the Resurrection, who fiercely hate everyone who celebrates this holy day and consider them followers of the Antichrist, bearing his mark and worshiping his image.”
To all this, the Adventist replied, “None of your words or arguments have any convincing power for me. The Sabbath must be observed in the New Testament just as it was in the Old. According to God’s promise, the saints will celebrate the Lord’s Sabbath—the day of eternal remembrance of the creation of the world—and on that day, they will especially worship God on the new earth. In the book of the prophet Isaiah, we read:
‘And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord’ (Isaiah 66:23).
What do you say to this?”
I answered, “But even you do not fulfill this prophecy. In the Old Testament, not only the weekly Sabbath was celebrated, but also the monthly festival, which was called the new moon (новомесячие). In the very passage you cited, both festivals are mentioned equally: ‘from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another.’
If, on this basis, you observe the weekly Sabbath, then you must also observe the monthly new moon festival. And if you do not observe the monthly festival, then you have no right to observe the weekly one. That is the logical outcome if one were to interpret your cited prophecy literally.
But to understand it literally is impossible, for it would result in complete absurdity. Can one take literally the preceding verse in this prophecy, which says:
‘And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord’ (Isaiah 66:20).
Has this ever happened or will it ever happen? Of course not. If it were to be taken literally, then Isaiah would either be speaking falsely or must be understood not literally but figuratively—as a symbolic expression. That is, the passage does not mean that people will be brought in chariots, on mules, or other animals to present offerings in present-day earthly Jerusalem, but rather that a countless multitude of Gentiles will convert to Christianity.
Likewise, the phrase ‘from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another’ must be understood to mean that all believers will continually turn to God in prayer—not that they will observe the Old Testament Jewish new moons and Sabbaths, which the Apostle Paul called a shadow, and which Jesus Christ Himself simply abolished by commanding the man healed at the pool to perform ordinary weekday labor on the Sabbath.”
11.
It is now necessary to explain why the Sabbath does not need to be observed in the New Testament and why Sunday should be celebrated instead.
First of all, one must ask: why was the Sabbath observed in the Old Testament?
It was observed because God, after six days of creation, rested on the seventh day from all His works. This is stated in the book of Genesis (2:7) and in Exodus (20:11). That is why the seventh day of the week was called the “Sabbath,” which in Russian means “rest” or “repose.”
If God had not rested on the seventh day from His works but had continued creating, then there would have been no reason to observe it as a holy day. And in fact, it later came to pass that the Lord God did work on the seventh day of the week, on the Sabbath. Because of this, the Sabbath lost its significance as a day of rest or a festival for us and became an ordinary working day like all the other days of the week.”
“When, then, and what kind of work did God do on the Sabbath?” asked the Adventist.
I replied, “Due to the well-known transgression of our forefather, all his descendants, after death, descended into Hades—both the sinful and the righteous. Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, David, Isaiah, and all others, upon dying, were confined in the prisons of Hades. They were, as it were, captives of the devil.
Then the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, to save the human race from the power of the devil, was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, lived among men as a man, taught righteousness, worked miracles, and finally was crucified on the Cross and died on Friday before evening. With His soul, or spirit, He descended into the underworld, into the prison of Hades. And there, throughout the entire Sabbath day, He worked—freeing from the captivity of Hades the souls of all the dead who had awaited His coming with faith and received His proclamation that He was the Savior of the world and had come to save them.”
The Adventist asked, “How can you prove that Christ, after His death, descended into Hades?”
I answered, “The holy Apostle Peter writes:
‘For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing…’ (1 Peter 3:18–20).”
“In what prison were the spirits of those who had once been disobedient to God’s longsuffering in the days of the righteous Noah?” my interlocutor asked.
“Obviously, not in a material, earthly prison, but in the immaterial prison of Hades. And if Christ descended to preach to them, then certainly He also descended to all the other souls or spirits of the dead.”
“But why, then, did the Apostle Peter not say that Christ descended to all spirits, but only mentioned those from the time of Noah?” my interlocutor asked.
“From the context of the passage I quoted,” I replied, “it is evident that the Apostle Peter mentioned the spirits in prison from the time of Noah only in passing, which shows that Christians at that time had no doubt that Christ had descended into Hades to all the spirits of the dead.
As is apparent, some people doubted, and perhaps even argued, about whether Christ had descended to the spirits of the disobedient from Noah’s time. The Apostle resolves this doubt by saying that He did indeed descend to preach to them as well.
If even ordinary people do nothing without reason or purpose, then how much more so does God act with purpose. What, then, is the significance of the fact that Christ did not die on Sunday, or on Thursday, or on any other day, but precisely on Friday evening, and remained dead throughout the Sabbath—not on Wednesday or Monday? This all happened even against the wishes of His enemies, who wanted to kill Him, but not during the feast of Passover, which fell on the Sabbath, but after it.
The reason is that the Jews then sacrificed the Passover lamb on Friday, which was a foreshadowing of Christ. Thus, the Sabbath itself remained the only day in which God did not work but rested from all His works.”
But mankind, through their sins, caused God to do His work on this day for their salvation. On this day, He descended into Hades and led out the souls or spirits of the departed, bringing them into paradise. Having completed this work, He rose from the dead. After this, the Sabbath ceased to be a day of rest for God, and consequently, for us as well—it became an ordinary working day, just like all the other days of the week.
12.
What happened on earth during this truly great Sabbath?
Something extraordinary and astounding took place among the people who had any connection to Jesus Christ. Annas and Caiaphas, along with all their Sadducees, the Pharisees, the scribes, and in general all the enemies of Christ, were celebrating a complete victory. At last, their one and only dangerous adversary—Jesus of Nazareth—was destroyed. He, who had continually pricked their eyes and conscience, who had drawn the people to Himself through His miraculous healings, who had preached some kind of heavenly kingdom, thereby hindering their plans to incite a national revolution to overthrow the hated yoke of Roman rule—He was now gone. He had stood in their way of restoring the Jewish kingdom in all its glory, greater than it had been under Solomon and David, where all nations would be subject to the Jews, and all people would serve them.
And how was this adversary, Jesus of Nazareth, eliminated? He was destroyed forever, and in the most shameful manner imaginable. And how quickly, unexpectedly, and easily it had all come about! In just half a day, Jesus’ entire mission was undone: within half a day, He was arrested, condemned, and crucified. Every circumstance had aligned in their favor and against Christ. Even one of His own disciples, Judas Iscariot, had become His betrayer, rendering them an invaluable service. His other disciples had scattered. How could they not celebrate and rejoice? They were beside themselves with happiness, congratulating one another on such a well-executed affair. They rubbed their hands in satisfaction, leaped for joy, made jokes, laughed, and roared with laughter. Never before had they celebrated a Sabbath as they did this one. Words cannot describe the triumph and merriment of Christ’s enemies on that day.
Meanwhile, the mood among Christ’s followers on this Sabbath was the complete opposite of that of His enemies. The eleven disciples were seized by unbearable sorrow; their souls were weighed down by terrible anguish, despair, and grief. Their throats tightened, and tears flowed uncontrollably. These courageous men wept and lamented bitterly (Mark 16:10), just as the Savior Himself had foretold (John 16:20). They were in utter desolation. This Man, whom they had acknowledged as the Christ, whom they had believed to be God, who was supposed to establish both a heavenly and an earthly kingdom—this One on whom they had placed all their hopes and built so many expectations—had so unexpectedly and undeservedly failed them, disgracing them before the whole world. Not only had He perished Himself in the shameful death of the cross, but He had also led them to ruin.
And yet, He had not been a deceiver. He had been mighty in word and deed before God and all the people (Luke 24:19). With just a word, He had worked extraordinary miracles, healed the sick, and even raised the dead. They could not recall a single wrongful act or even an unworthy word from Him. If one could not rely on such a Man, then on whom could they rely?
All was lost. Everything had crumbled to the ground. Now, He lay in a tomb, lifeless, decaying. They had not even had time to properly anoint and embalm Him, for the sun was setting and the Sabbath was beginning. They saw no light ahead, no reason for hope.
Not once did it even cross the minds of the eleven disciples that Christ would rise again. Even on the following day, when Mary Magdalene announced to them that He had risen and that she had seen Him herself, they did not believe her (Mark 16:11). When all the myrrh-bearing women later came and told them about Christ’s resurrection, they were even more hardened in their disbelief. To them, this news seemed like idle talk, sheer nonsense, unworthy of attention (Luke 24:11). When, at last, two of their own fellow disciples came and testified that they had seen the risen Christ, they still did not believe (Mark 16:13). So foreign was the thought to them that Christ would rise.
No matter how much they thought about it, they could see no way out of their unbearable predicament. There was no relief, no comfort in sight.
Every hope had been crushed, every faith lost. They could barely eat or drink, and perhaps they did not eat or drink at all. They could not sleep. An indescribable restlessness overtook them, and they could find no peace. They feared for their own lives and trembled at the thought of being captured by the Jews, tortured, and crucified, just as Christ had been—though, as is evident, His enemies had no intention of touching them. Had the Jews wished to arrest them, no locks or doors would have saved them. But they were so distraught that they had lost all sense of reason. It is impossible to imagine or describe the torments and suffering they endured on that truly dreadful and sorrowful Sabbath.
Thus, for Christ’s apostles, the Sabbath became not a day of rest, but a day of extreme distress; not a day of celebration, but a day of weeping and lamentation; not a day of joy and gladness, but a day of unbearable grief and sorrow. The Sabbath became a day of darkness and despair, a day of horror and hopelessness, a day when faith, hope, and love perished—a day when evil triumphed over good, when Christ’s enemies mocked and blasphemed against God.
Naturally, after all this, the disciples could no longer remember the Sabbath without shuddering in shame, let alone celebrate it. They trembled at the thought of their own cowardice, at how quickly they had lost faith in their Teacher, Christ, and at how blindly they had failed to understand His plan for the salvation of mankind, even though He had explained everything to them clearly and plainly. They were ashamed that they had lost all hope in Christ and faith in Him, that they had fallen into the depths of indescribable despair, thinking that He was gone forever—and that they, too, were lost.”
13.
But at last, the dreadful Old Testament Sabbath had passed. The first day of the week had arrived—the radiant day of Christ’s Resurrection—and everything changed for the better, so much so that no one had expected or even imagined it.
At the beginning of this day, the disciples were still tormented by the agonizing experiences of the Sabbath. They continued to weep and lament in hopeless sorrow (Mark 16:10). But one after another, messengers came to them, proclaiming that Christ had risen and that they themselves had seen Him alive. The apostles, though they did not believe at first, began to feel their unbelief soften; a glimmer of hope appeared in their hearts, and the heaviness upon their souls lessened. And finally, the Risen Christ Himself appeared to them.
While they were sitting behind locked doors, He suddenly stood in their midst without opening the doors and said, “Peace be unto you!”
This so astonished them, so completely caught them off guard, that they could not believe their own eyes and ears. “They were startled and frightened, and thought that they saw a spirit” (Luke 24:37).
Christ, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself.” To further convince them, He invited them to touch Him, saying, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But from the overwhelming joy they still could not believe, and they marveled (Luke 24:38–41).
It was truly beneficial for the disciples that they did not immediately believe in Christ’s Resurrection. The transition from the bottomless sorrow and despair of the Sabbath to the inexpressible joy of Christ’s Resurrection, from the cold, deathly despair of the Sabbath to the warmth of renewed hope, faith, and love, was too abrupt. Under such circumstances, it often happens that people suffer health disorders, mental instability, or even die from the shock. So it seems that even nature itself made it so that they would not immediately believe in Christ’s Resurrection when He appeared to them—so that the joy would come gradually, allowing them to bear it.
To finally convince the disciples that it was truly He, Christ asked if they had anything to eat. They gave Him a piece of broiled fish and honeycomb, and He took it and ate before them. Then He spoke to them from the Scriptures, explaining that it was necessary for Him to suffer and to enter into His glory. Then He “opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45).
The Evangelist John adds further that Christ said to them, “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.” And when He had said this, “He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).
When the disciples were thus completely convinced of the reality of Christ’s Resurrection and had received the Holy Spirit, their joy knew no bounds. They did not know how to express the indescribable bliss that filled their souls. They congratulated one another, embraced, kissed, and wept—but now not from sorrow, but from joy and exultation. It became clearer than the sun to them that Jesus truly was the Messiah, the Christ, that they had not been deceived in Him, and that He would save not only Israel but all mankind.
On the first day of the week, Christ not only rose Himself, but He also resurrected His disciples—He raised up His followers, their souls, their faith, their hope, and their love. Now, nothing could shake their faith in Christ, and no one could take away from them the joy of Christ’s Resurrection, which He had so plainly and definitively foretold before His Passion:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament (on Friday and Saturday), but the world (My enemies and yours) shall rejoice; and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy (on the first day of the week)… And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again (when I rise), and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. And in that day (on the day of the Resurrection) ye shall ask Me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16:20, 22–24).
Do you see? Christ said that on the day of His Resurrection, the disciples would be filled with unspeakable joy, and on that day their prayers would be especially heard by God—therefore, they were to dedicate it to prayer.
The apostles undoubtedly did this. On that day, they offered prayers, delivered sermons from the prophecies, which they now understood—in other words, they conducted divine services.
But Christ also said that they must continue to do this on the Sunday to come. He again emphasized this day to them: “In that day, ye shall ask in My name” (John 16:26).
He did not say, “on those days,” but rather, “on that day”—meaning that on the specific day when He rose and appeared to them, they would continue to pray to God, and He would hear their prayers and fulfill their requests. First, He said, “On that day, ye shall ask the Father,” and then He reaffirmed, “On that day, ye shall ask”—clearly indicating that the day on which He rose and appeared to them was to be repeated, and that their prayer to God on that day must also be repeated.
The Lord repeatedly set apart this day, the day of Resurrection, and later, as we shall see, the apostles followed this as well.
Now let us see what happened on this day among the enemies of Christ.
At the first light of dawn on this first day of the week, terrified and trembling soldiers rushed to Annas and Caiaphas, telling them what they had seen and heard: that an angel had descended from heaven, rolled away the stone from the tomb of Jesus, and announced to the myrrh-bearing women that Christ had risen. This news had a staggering effect on the Jewish high priests—they were utterly dumbfounded and did not know what to do. Their Sabbath triumph and joy were suddenly replaced by an unspeakable, soul-crushing anguish and sorrow.
All their faith—or rather, their unbelief—collapsed in an instant. Annas and Caiaphas, as devout Sadducees, did not believe in the existence of angels or human souls, nor in the resurrection of the dead. And now it turned out that all of it was real. Angels did exist; the resurrection had truly occurred. And the witnesses were none other than the soldiers themselves. It would have been better for them if they had never stationed those guards at Christ’s tomb—then there would have been no witnesses to the appearance of angels and the resurrection.
Not knowing how to get out of this predicament, Annas and Caiaphas hastily convened a council. But they did not invite the Pharisees, who believed in the existence of souls, angels, and the resurrection—they called only the elders, fellow Sadducees who shared their unbelief. After deliberating, they decided to bribe the soldiers so that they would say: “While we slept at night, the disciples of Christ came and stole His body.”
They did not even consider how self-contradictory this false testimony was. For if the soldiers had truly been asleep, how could they have seen that Christ’s disciples came and stole His body? And if they had indeed seen the theft and even identified those who had done it, then they had clearly not been asleep. In that case, how could they have allowed such a thing to happen?
But the enemies of Christ were so shaken by the news of His Resurrection that they had lost all reason. Their grief, their despair, their realization that all their efforts had crumbled, that Christ was truly the Messiah, and that He had indeed risen—this tormented them without end. Their boundless anguish was made worse by the fact that there was no way to undo what had happened. They could not convince the disciples that Christ had not risen, and they knew that this news would spread, and that many Jews—especially among the Pharisees—would come to believe in Christ. This robbed them of peace and tormented them unbearably.
The roles were now reversed: the Jewish enemies of Christ were in sorrow and despair, while the disciples rejoiced and celebrated.
The day of Christ’s Resurrection became the day of triumph for His disciples over their adversaries, the day of victory of light over darkness, of truth over falsehood, of good over evil, of paradise over Hades, of life over death, of God over the devil and all His enemies.
The day of Resurrection became an object of hatred for Christ’s enemies and an object of reverence and love for His followers.
The apostles of Christ continued to rejoice and exult, proclaiming to everyone that Christ had risen and that they had seen Him with their own eyes. But the Apostle Thomas remained skeptical, showing himself to be a man of a practical and rational mind, demanding tangible proof.
He told the apostles who had seen Christ that it was not enough for them to have seen and heard Him. He needed to touch Him to be absolutely sure that it was indeed Christ, risen from the dead. Naturally, Thomas’s doubt sowed a seed of uncertainty even in the hearts of the apostles who had seen the risen Christ. “Could it be that we were mistaken?” they may have thought.
With each passing day, this doubt grew. Monday passed—Christ did not appear. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday went by, and still, He did not appear. Saturday came—still no Christ. “Perhaps it was not really Christ,” they wondered. “Perhaps it was a spirit or a vision?”
And so, the memories of the previous dreadful Sabbath, with all its unbearable suffering, involuntarily resurfaced.
Disappointment and sorrow again filled their souls, though not with the same intensity as on the previous Sabbath.
Then came the first day of the week. Christ’s disciples gathered together, undoubtedly recalling the events of the past Sunday—how the risen Christ had appeared to them, what each of them had thought and felt at that moment. The memories were vivid and sweet. Without a doubt, they began to hope that Christ would appear to them again on this day. And their hope was fulfilled.
As on the previous Sunday, Christ suddenly stood in their midst and said, “Peace be unto you.” Then, turning to Thomas, He invited him to touch His wounds.
In joy, Thomas cried out, “My Lord and my God!”
It is reasonable to assume that the other disciples also touched Him, so that there would remain no shadow of doubt that it was truly the risen Jesus Christ standing before them. The Apostle John the Theologian, in his first epistle, speaks on behalf of all the apostles:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 John 1:1).
When Christ’s disciples became irrevocably convinced of the reality of His Resurrection, the joy of the previous Sunday was repeated for them with even greater strength. They had now experienced a second resurrection of the soul. Now, nothing and no one could dissuade them from what they had tangibly confirmed with their own senses. Neither angels nor men, neither principalities nor powers, neither depth nor height, neither the present nor the future, neither suffering nor death, nor anything else could shake their faith in the Risen Christ or separate them from the love of the Risen God, who had raised them up along with all humanity.
This great and joyous day, as beautiful as paradise itself, as radiant as heaven, the day of Christ’s Resurrection, could never be forgotten by the disciples. Even more so, since the Lord continued to mark it by His all-good providence over His Church and all of Christianity. Thus, it was on the Sunday of the Lord that He gave a revelation to His disciple John the Theologian concerning the future destiny of the Church. At the beginning of the Apocalypse, this apostle writes:
“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10),
and he received a revelation from God concerning everything that would take place until the end of the world.
14.
Naturally, the apostles always remembered this day—the first day of the week, the day of salvation for them, so clearly and mercifully distinguished by God Himself. They remembered Sunday in order to sanctify it. For six days they worked and carried out their daily tasks. But the Sunday, they dedicated to serving the Lord their God.
They did not spend this day in idleness, laziness, or doing nothing, but devoted it to good works, acts of mercy and charity, prayer, and divine worship. Thus, the Apostle Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians:
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Corinthians 16:1–2).
The Adventist objected: “The Apostle Paul does not write that Sunday should be celebrated. And even if he mentions a collection, he speaks of doing it in homes, not in churches.”
To this, I responded: “Nevertheless, he clearly indicates that this is a day that should be dedicated to charity and, of course, to the performance of other good deeds. And this is precisely what a holy day is—a day of rest, of which Christ Himself said, ‘It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath’” (Luke 6:9).
And why did the apostle instruct that charitable donations should be set aside at home rather than in the church? This is quite understandable. After all, these collections were not for local needs but for the poor living in Jerusalem.
Why, then, one must ask, did the Apostle Paul establish that they should set aside their charitable offerings not on Monday, nor on Thursday, nor on the Sabbath, but on the first day of the week?
In support of observing the Sabbath and against the observance of Sunday, you stated that from the time of the apostles until Constantine the Great, all Christians observed the Sabbath. However, you were unable to prove this. You claimed that Emperor Constantine issued a decree commanding the observance of Sunday and that only then did Christians begin to observe this day.
On our part, we have demonstrated that Christians had been celebrating Sunday long before that, and that the decree itself was issued precisely because Christians were already observing this day. It was enacted as a governmental act, intended for state institutions, in order to incorporate the Christian weekly feast into the list of official state holidays.
You also asserted that the Pope of Rome abolished the observance of the Sabbath and established the observance of Sunday. Yet you were unable to prove even which pope allegedly did this, or when.
You then turned to the Old Testament, which commands the observance of the Sabbath. However, we showed that this is unconvincing for us as Christians, since similar statutes were made regarding other Jewish laws, such as circumcision, sacrifices, and other rites.
From the New Testament, you cited four pieces of evidence in favor of Sabbath observance:
The first was the statement that “there remaineth therefore a Sabbath-rest for the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9). We demonstrated that the “people of God” in this passage refers to the Jewish people, for whom even after entering the Promised Land, a Sabbath-rest remained—namely, Christ Himself, the true rest, or Sabbath, into whom they were to enter, just as we, who believe in Christ, now enter into Him.
The second was Christ’s statement that His disciples should pray that their flight would not take place in winter or on the Sabbath (Matthew 24:20). We proved that this was not a prohibition against fleeing from mortal danger but was said because the gates of Jerusalem were shut on the Sabbath, and no one was allowed to leave the city. If their time to flee occurred on the Sabbath, then all those inside—Christ’s followers—would be unable to escape and would inevitably perish.
The other two arguments you presented in favor of the Sabbath are so weak and insignificant that they are hardly worth mentioning. These were that the myrrh-bearing women rested on the Sabbath before Christ’s Resurrection, and that the Law of Moses was read in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath.
Additionally, you cited the prophecy from Isaiah stating that on the new earth, from month to month and from Sabbath to Sabbath, worship would be offered to the Lord. However, we demonstrated that this cannot be taken literally and that you yourselves do not fulfill it, since you do not observe the new moons. Instead, this passage signifies that people will continually turn to God in prayer.
Furthermore, we proved that while you demand that all observe the Sabbath and threaten apocalyptic punishments upon those who do not, you yourselves do not fulfill all of God’s commandments concerning the Sabbath. You do not put to death those who work on the Sabbath, thereby violating God’s own commandment that requires execution for Sabbath-breakers. This means that you yourselves do not believe in what you preach, nor do you practice what you teach.
Thus, these are all the arguments you have put forth in favor of Sabbath observance and against the observance of Sunday. These same arguments are also presented in Adventist writings on this subject.
On our part, we have presented the following arguments against the observance of the Sabbath by Christians.
- Even in the Old Testament, the Lord God could not bear the observance of the Sabbath when evil deeds were committed on that day. From this, it is evident that the Sabbath is not the sacred and salvific institution you claim it to be, insisting that all of Christianity will perish if it does not observe this day—a day that, in certain cases known to God, was unbearable even to Him.
- The disciples of the Savior violated the Sabbath by plucking ears of grain and rubbing them with their hands; Christ justified them.
- He said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, thereby clearly permitting each person to disregard it at their own discretion.
- Concerning Himself, He explicitly declared that “the Son of Man (Christ) is Lord even of the Sabbath,” and therefore He may treat it as He pleases, just as we treat that over which we are masters.
- As the rightful Lord and Master over the Sabbath, Jesus Christ indeed abolished it, commanding the paralytic whom He had healed to carry his bed through the city, something that was strictly forbidden by God Himself in the Old Testament.
- The holy Apostle Paul regarded the Sabbath as a shadow, meaning an empty thing, an object of no significance, useless and unprofitable.
- The seventh day of the week, the Sabbath, the day of God’s rest, ceased to be such after He, on that day, descended in spirit into hell and released from its prisons the souls of the dead, then established them in paradise.
- For Christ’s followers, while He lay in the tomb, the Sabbath was a day of sorrow and mourning, a day of terror and despair, a day of weeping and lamentation, not a day of rest, but one of extreme distress and unbearable spiritual anguish.
- For Christ’s enemies, however, that Sabbath was a day of unspeakable delight, a day of frenzied joy, of wild exultation and triumph that they had killed Christ, subjected Him to the most disgraceful death, crucified Him between two of the most notorious and wicked men, as if He were their leader.
- After all this, the Sabbath became a symbol of the triumph of falsehood over truth, of evil over good, a symbol of the victory of death over life, of hell over paradise, a symbol of the mockery of God by His enemies.
That is why we Christians must not and do not observe the Sabbath or the seventh day of the week.
And we do observe and must observe the first day of the week, or Sunday, for the following reasons:
- On this day, our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and by His Resurrection, He granted life to the world and saved the human race. For this reason, the day is called the Lord’s Day, or Resurrection.
- On this Sunday, Christ appeared to the myrrh-bearing women, to the eleven disciples, and to His other followers, and they became convinced of the reality of His Resurrection from the dead.
- On Sunday, Christ commissioned His disciples to preach the Gospel to the whole world, saying: “As the Father hath sent Me, so send I you.”
- On Sunday, the Lord bestowed upon His disciples the Holy Spirit and the authority to bind and loose sins, as it is written: “He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.’” (John 20:23).
- Having been assured of the reality of Christ’s Resurrection, having received the Holy Spirit, the authority to bind and loose sins, and the commission to preach the Gospel, the disciples on that day—Sunday—were filled with indescribable joy and gladness. And this joy no one could take from them, as the Savior had foretold. The weeping of the Sabbath was transformed into the rejoicing of Sunday.
- Christ also foretold that on that day, the Lord’s Day, His disciples would ask God in His name, and whatever they asked, God would hear and fulfill their request, making it clear that Sunday should be dedicated to prayer, since on this day, prayer is especially acceptable to God.
- For Christ’s enemies, however, that Sunday was a day of extraordinary anxiety and distress, a day of inexpressible grief and anguish when they learned from the soldiers that Christ had risen. Their Sabbath joy turned to lamentation, their celebration to weeping, their triumph to shame.
- The Resurrection thus became a day of the triumph of truth over falsehood, of good over evil, a day of victory of light over darkness, of life over death, of God over the devil and all His enemies. This day truly became the day of God’s rest from all His works accomplished for the salvation of mankind—the New Testament Sabbath, which replaced the Old Testament one, in which the Lord had labored, delivering souls from the prisons of hell.
- This is why the Lord continued to mark the Lord’s Day with special manifestations of His providence. On the following Sunday, He again appeared to His disciples and tangibly assured Thomas and all the others that He had indeed risen from the dead. On this day, Thomas and the other disciples wholeheartedly acknowledged Him as their Lord and God.
- On the Lord’s Day, God gave revelation to His beloved disciple, John the Theologian, concerning the future destiny of the Church and the entire world.
- The disciples of Christ, therefore, remembered the Lord’s Day and dedicated it to the service of God, works of mercy, and acts of charity, setting aside from their own means according to their ability for the poor, even for those living far away from them.
- Naturally, they also dedicated Sunday to prayer, gathering in communal assemblies for the breaking of bread, that is, for divine worship.
- The apostles preached nothing as persistently as the Resurrection of Christ. Paul even states that without faith in Christ’s Resurrection, the Christian faith cannot exist, and therefore, believers in Christ must remember and celebrate this greatest and most salvific event.
- For this reason, all Christians, from the time of the apostles until our own day, have observed Sunday, rather than any other day.
- The Resurrection—the first day of the week—became the day on which God truly rested from all His works that He had accomplished. For six days, He created the visible world; on the seventh day, the Sabbath, He labored for the salvation of the human race by leading the souls of the dead out of hell. And only on the eighth day (which is also the first), God rested from all His works, rising from the dead. On this day, He granted peace to both the living and the dead. The Resurrection—the first and also the eighth day—became the true day of rest for God and mankind, the New Testament Sabbath.
- The Resurrection of Christ is the pledge of the future resurrection of all the dead: if Christ has risen, then all who have died shall also rise. By celebrating Christ’s Resurrection, we strengthen our faith in the future universal resurrection, after which the eternal day of the Lord shall come, an everlasting joy, an eternal feast, an eternal rest, an everlasting Sabbath, prefigured by the present New Testament Sabbath—Sunday—established by the very Resurrection of Jesus Christ in place of the Old Testament Sabbath, which He abolished.
This is why we, as Christians, celebrate the Resurrection not only every week but also with special solemnity each year on the very day of Christ’s Resurrection—Holy Pascha—greeting one another with a kiss and proclaiming: Christ Resurrected! Truly, He is risen!
Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered, and let the enemies of the radiant Resurrection of Christ, the adherents of the gloomy Old Testament Sabbath, who caused such dreadful suffering to His disciples, flee before Him.
From everything stated above, it is clear that on our side—the side of those who celebrate not the Sabbath but the Resurrection—stands the entire Christian world, all Christians who have lived from apostolic times to our own day; on our side are all the saints of God: the martyrs, the hieromartyrs, the holy hierarchs, the venerable fathers, and others. On our side are the holy apostles, led by the Apostle Paul, who declared the Sabbath to be a shadow, a thing that no longer exists for Christians. On our side is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who violated the Sabbath, commanded others to violate it, and thereby abolished it as its rightful Lord and Master.
And who stands on the side of our opponents, the Adventists, who celebrate not the Resurrection but the Sabbath?
Here they are: the entire modern Jewish world—both the Karaites and the Talmudists; all the Jews who have lived from the time of Christ until the present day; and a small, insignificant faction of heretics. On their side are all the enemies of Christ, those who persecuted Him for breaking the Sabbath, and at their head stands the devil himself, who incited them to this evil deed and ultimately achieved his goal—bringing about Christ’s crucifixion.
Dear reader! Dear listeners! With whom do you wish to stand after death, after the dread judgment, in the life of the age to come, in the life eternal and unending?
Consider this carefully and answer, in all honesty, both to yourself and to others.
January 31, 1930
– Old Believer Bishop Innokenty