The Twisting of Scripture to Validate Sunday as the Sabbath
by Stan LaBruna
In the first article in this series, Which Day Is The True Sabbath?, we saw that the day we know
as Saturday was established by God as the Sabbath and that His commandment concerning the
Sabbath has never been abrogated. We also saw that in 321 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine
issued an edict declaring Sunday to be the Christian Sabbath. That man does not have the authority
to override God is obvious, but Satan, through his human disciples, has deceived the whole world
(Rev 12:9).
When we don't allow God's Spirit to lead us, we are led by our own hearts which are deceitful
by nature (Jer 17:9). Even the hearts of believers will revert to the natural on those occasions when
they are not following the Spirit. In the carnal mode, the heart is endlessly creative in finding
excuses not to obey God's law and the commandment concerning the Sabbath is no exception.
Let's look at the scriptures traditionally used to validate Sunday as the Sabbath and see if they really
do validate Sunday:
The strongest argument for keeping Sunday as the Sabbath comes from Colossians 2:16-17
which says: "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to
a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come;
but the substance belongs to Christ" (NASB). Sunday-keepers argue that since we have the
"substance" or reality of Christ, we can dispense with those things that foreshadowed His redemptive
work on the cross. A Sabbatarian Christian can turn that argument around and say since we have
the reality of Christ, we can dispense with Sunday, Christmas and Easter. But rather than going
down that road, lets put Colossians 2:16-17 back into context and start our reading at the beginning
of chapter two:
Paul tells us it is his desire that the brethren come to a "full assurance of understanding, result-
ing in a true knowledge of God's mystery" (vs 2) and he warns us not to be led astray "through
philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary
principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (vs 8). So right at the outset, we see that
we are about to embark on a comparison of God's ways with the ways of the world. In verses
16 and 17 he tells us not to let ourselves be judged for our food or drink or observance of the
Sabbath or holy days. Then in verse 18 he elaborates, telling us, "Let no one keep defrauding
[deceiving] you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels, taking his
stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind." He continues in verse 19
to tell us such a person has lost his connection to the "head". The head, of course, is Christ. "If you
have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the
world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!'
(which all refer to things destined to perish with use) - in accordance with the commandments and
teaching of men?" ( vss 20-22). At this point, it should be noted that the Sabbath or any other point
in God's law cannot be characterized as "elementary principles of the world" or "the commandments
and teachings of men". "These are matters [the teachings of men] which have, to be sure, the
appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body,
but are of no value against fleshly indulgence" (vs 23). This last verse refers to stoics who imposed
a rigorous self-discipline on themselves and had a form of godliness, but denied the power thereof
(2 Tim 3:5).
The Colossian Christians, who were keeping the Sabbath and other laws of God, were under
criticism from self-righteous stoics and also from certain self-promoting brethren who worshipped
angels and had no use for the Law of God. The latter group, most likely, were also formerly stoics
who brought much of their pagan philosophy into the Church. So we see, when we read the entire
chapter of Colossians 2, and allow the Scripture to interpret itself, rather than put our own inter-
pretation on it, we come to a very different understanding.
Romans 14:5 is often quoted out of context to support the idea that believers can choose any
day of the week they want as the Sabbath. What is actually being discussed here is dietary matters
and days of fasting. Let's begin our reading at verse 1 and see for ourselves what this piece of
scripture says: "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judg-
ment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats
vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and
the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are
you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for
the Lord is able to make him stand" (Rom 14:1-4, NASB). When this was written a considerable
portion of the meat available in the public marketplace was from animals offered to idols. Some
"weak in faith" for their conscience sake would not eat meat at all because they had no way of
knowing for sure if an animal had been offered to an idol. Others being strong in the faith, and
knowing the idol was nothing, ate "all things" (i.e., their diet included meat). (Compare vss 1
through 3 to 1 Cor 10:25-29.) In verse 4, Paul goes on to tell us that believers (both vegetarians
and meat eaters) should not judge each other because both stand before God in accordance with
their consciences.
"One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person
must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and
and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the
Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God" (vss 5,6). If one reads verse 5 out of context, it
is possible to get the impression that each believer has the freedom to choose which day to keep
as the Sabbath. However, in verse 6, we see those observing the day are compared to those
eating. So then, he who does not "observe" a day (i.e., does not regard it as something special)
eats on that day. Conversely, he who regards a particular day as something special, fasts on that
day. What believers have the freedom to choose is days of personal fasting, not alternative or
personal sabbath days. Additionally, I should mention that the weekly Sabbath is not normally
associated with fasting. To suggest that believers have the freedom to choose an alternative
Day of Atonement would be to do even more violence to this scripture.
The decision that came out of the Council of Jerusalem is often used to support the idea that
Gentiles are excused from keeping the Sabbath. However, if you read the story carefully, and
without preconceived notions, you come to a different conclusion. The original issue that provoked
the convening of the council was whether or not Gentile believers had to be circumcised. Whether
or not Gentiles were required to keep the Sabbath was a question that was never raised. The
"decision" that came out of the council was primarily a practical guideline for distinguishing be-
tween God's actual Law and the Pharisaical nonsense that unfortunately was regarded as "law"
by some. How can I say that the council's decision was a guideline and not a new read on the
Law? Simply this: "For I, the Lord, do not change" (Mal 3:6). Basically, what the Council's decision
told the Gentile believers was this: If someone comes to you with a "law" that requires you to do
or abstain from from something, and it doesn't edify you, promote purity of living or spiritual
growth, then it is not a law of God and you are not required to do it (Acts 15:28, 29). Surprisingly,
the issue of circumcision wasn't even addressed in the Council's decision, although it is dealt with
elsewhere in Scripture. The Council did not deal with the issue of circumcision because they were
focused on the bigger issue of what is Law and what isn't. It was taken for granted that Gentiles
were excused from circumcision because that was a sign of the covenant between God and
Abraham, but the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between God and His people, and that includes
the believing Gentiles and they are not excused from that.
"This is the day which the Lord has made; Let us rejoice and be glad in it." Some think this
passage from Psalm 118:24 somehow validates a Sunday-Sabbath, but when the Lord inspired it
there was no dispute as to which day is the Sabbath.
Also some feel the phrase "the Lord's Day" or "the Day of the Lord" validates Sunday, but these
phrases don't refer to a specific day of the week. What they actually refer to is the Second Coming
and the events that precede it. They are used in the same way we would say "in the day" or
"in that day" when referring to a past or future time period. For proof of this compare 1 Thess 5:2
with Rev 1:10 & 16:14. Also see Isa 2:2, 3 and 1 Cor 5:5.
1 Corinthians 16:1-4 mentions a collection that was taken on the first day of the week.
Advocates for Sunday consider this to be a collection of tithes that was taken as part of a Sunday
service. In actuality, it was a special collection made for the brethren in Jerusalem who were
suffering under a famine (Acts 11:27-30). Similar collections are mentioned in Romans 15:25-27
and the 9th chapter of 2 Corinthians.
Acts 20:7 says, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,
Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until
midnight." Some consider this verse as evidence that first century Christians were already keeping
Sunday as the Sabbath. What it actually was, was a Sabbath service that continued on into the
early hours of Sunday. Some confusion does enter in here because of the modern way days are
reckoned. God's way of reckoning days is from sundown to sundown. The first chapter of Genesis
tells us, "And the evening and the morning were the first day" and "the evening and the morning
were the second day" and so on throughout the week. So at sundown one day ends and another
begins. Remember that Roman beast from Daniel 7 we mentioned in the first article that took it
upon itself to change times and laws. He reckons days from midnight to midnight. The modern
way of ending and starting days at midnight comes from ancient Rome. Today's English Version
of the Bible renders Acts 20:7 like this: "On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellow-
ship meal. Paul spoke to the people, and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to
leave the next day."
The main reason traditional Christians take it as an article of faith that Sunday is the Sabbath
is because they believe Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. However this traditional belief runs
contrary to Scripture. Jesus said He would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights (Matt 12:38-40;
Jn 2:19-22), but you can't fit 3 days and 3 nights between a late Friday afternoon burial and an
early Sunday morning resurrection. Let's examine this tradition more closely, but first I need to
give you some background information about God's holy days:
It might surprise you to learn that although Passover is a commanded observance, it is not a
holy day. In Leviticus 23 God tells us specifically what days are holy days and how and when to
observe them. In connection with each holy day God specifically says this is "a holy convocation".
In connection with Passover there is no such statement. It is the day following Passover, the first
day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, that is the first of the annual holy days. The New Testament
confirms the distinction between Passover and the first day of the Feast. Matthew 26:1-5 tells us
the Sadducees and Pharisees had no problem with instigating Jesus' murder on the Passover which
was not a holy day, but they were careful not to do it on the first day of the Feast. Their thinking
was hypocritical and convoluted, but it shows they recognized a distinction between these two days.
In our day, the distinction between the two is often obscured for Gentiles because most modern
Jews have coalesced both these observances into one day. Now, with this understanding, let's take
that look at the circumstances of the resurrection:
There is no dispute that Jesus was crucified Passover day. John 19:31 tells us that day was also
considered the day of preparation for the high holy day. It is a common error amongst those not
familiar with God's holy days to confuse this day of preparation for the high holy day with the day of
preparation for the weekly Sabbath, which, of course, is Friday.
We know that when the women came to the tomb early Sunday morning they found it empty
(Jn 20:1). The Scripture does not say the resurrection took place on Sunday; it simply says that
the tomb was empty on Sunday. The Bible does tell us, however, the time of day Jesus was placed
in the grave and how long He would be there. He was crucified on Passover day and buried just
before sundown in accordance with the commandment (Deut 21:22, 23; Luke 23:54). As mentioned
earlier, the day of preparation the Bible references in connection with Jesus' burial was not the
weekly day of preparation, so that reference by itself does not tell us which day Jesus was buried.
However, if we do accept what the Bible tells us, we know He was resurrected the same time He
was buried (just before sundown) 3 twenty-four hour periods later. The sundown prior to Sunday
morning was Saturday night and calculating backwards 3 twenty-four hour periods (3 days and
3 nights) we come to sundown Wednesday night.
So ignoring tradition, and using the evidence of the Bible, we are able to deduce that Jesus'
burial was just before sundown on Wednesday and His resurrection was 3 days later, just before
sundown on the Sabbath (Saturday). Do you find it odd that our Messiah, who called Himself
"Lord of the Sabbath" , was resurrected on the Sabbath? Doesn't Hebrews 4 teach us that we
enter into a Sabbath-rest through faith in Christ?
Lastly, there are some in traditional Judaism and even Messianic Judaism that teach that
Gentiles are not required to keep the Sabbath. This belief is based on a rabbinic interpretation
of the covenant God made with Noah. According to this interpretation, God exempted Gentiles
from keeping the Sabbath when He made the covenant with Noah. When we read this account
(Gen 9: 1-17) for ourselves, we see that God told Noah he could eat animals if he didn't eat the
blood and He promised never to destroy the earth again with a flood, but this exemption simply
isn't there.
Do not be deceived by well-meaning, but misguided Jews. In the first article in this series we
saw that God actually encourages Gentiles to keep the Sabbath (Isa 56:2-7) and considers those
Gentiles who accept Him and the Son to be spiritual Jews (Rom 2:28, 29), grafted into His family
(Rom 11:1-36) and the spiritual children of Abraham (Gal 3:6-9). In the natural, when a family
adopts children, the adopted children are expected to follow the rules and regulations of the family
they are adopted into. It is the same with God's family. Our Father is not a respecter of persons
(Acts 10:34, 35).
Tradition does not trump the Word of God. Ignorance in these matters is covered by grace,
but knowledge brings accountability. "If you love Me, you will keep my Commandments" (Jn 14:15).
