Objection:
The Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday following Christ’s resurrection. One of the strong pieces of evidence for this change is that Christ consistently met with His disciples on Sundays after His resurrection. Additionally, the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples on a Sunday, further supporting this belief.
Answer:
Who changed the day? We are asked to believe that Christ did so. However, we cannot be content to presume on such an important matter as a weekly holy day. We do not have to suppose about the holiness of the seventh day of the week; we have a clear command often repeated throughout the writings of the prophets, ensuring that no one might be in doubt and that those who tend toward forgetfulness might be reminded. This understanding remains consistent up to the time of Christ. Yet, we find no command for Sunday observance in the New Testament.
Why do we have to believe that, suddenly, after Christ’s time, people no longer needed a clear command regarding the observance of a holy day or reminders of that command? What justification is there for thinking that followers of God in the Christian Era would conclude, without explicit guidance, that (1) the command to keep the seventh day had been revoked and (2) a new command for keeping the first day was now in effect?
Only one text in the New Testament mentions the abolition of Sabbath days (Colossians 2:16). Still, upon closer examination, we find that this text does not refer to the weekly Sabbath, as many respected Sunday-keeping Bible commentators acknowledge. Furthermore, no New Testament scripture explicitly commands Sunday observance. Despite this, we are asked to accept that the seventh day Sabbath was abolished at the cross and that Sunday replaced it as the weekly holy day!
As we examine this objection and those that follow, we’ll see that the case for Sunday sacredness in the New Testament is based on assumptions, deductions from weak premises, and wishful thinking. Let the facts speak for themselves.
We are asked to believe (1) that after the resurrection, Christ consistently met with His disciples on Sunday and (2) that this provides undeniable proof that He changed the weekly holy day from the seventh to the first day of the week.
Only six passages in the New Testament mention the first day of the week in connection with Christ’s life: Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; and John 20:1, 19. (John 20:26 is often thought to refer to Sunday and will be discussed later.)
The four Gospel writers penned their narratives anywhere from twenty to thirty years, up to nearly seventy years, after Christ’s ascension. Throughout their writings, these New Testament authors refer to the seventh day as “the Sabbath,” with no indication that this weekly holy day had been abolished or was in the process of being abolished. Furthermore, when they mention the first day of the week, they do not suggest that it possessed or acquired any sanctity. That is rather peculiar if, as Sunday advocates confidently claim, Sunday began to be recognized as the Christian holy day immediately after the resurrection.
From examining the six texts, we discover the following facts:
- Each time Sunday is referred to, it is called “the first day of the week.” No title of holiness or anything suggesting holiness is used.
- There are no statements from Christ concerning His meetings with the disciples that indicate any special significance should be attached to the first day of the week.
- The reason the disciples were together on the resurrection day was not to hold a religious service to institute Sunday worship but because they were “in fear of the Jews” (John 20:19).
- Three of the four Gospel writers clearly state that the Sabbath had ended when the first day of the week began.
- Therefore, the true significance of the first day of the week mentioned in the resurrection account appears to be the Gospel writers’ intention to provide an accurate historical record of the events surrounding the crucifixion and to demonstrate that Christ’s declaration of His resurrection on the third day was fulfilled.
In addition to His meetings with the disciples and certain women on the resurrection day mentioned in the six “first day” texts, what other visits recorded specify the date of His appearance? There are two:
- The day of the ascension, which occurred “forty days” after the resurrection (Acts 1:3, 9). If the resurrection day is Sunday, then Ascension Day must be Thursday. Churches that observe Ascension Day do so on a Thursday.
- A meeting held a week after the resurrection day. The timing is stated: “And after eight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, ‘Peace be unto you'” (John 20:26). Many theologians agree that “after eight days” is a Jewish idiom meaning a week. That indicates Christ met with His disciples on the second Sunday after His resurrection.
Accepting this view, we find evidence of Christ’s meeting with His disciples on only two Sundays. The first meeting on Sunday does not provide significant proof; there’s no reason for Him to wait until after the resurrection to meet them. Therefore, any arguments regarding Christ’s change of the day of worship must rely on this second appearance.
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown present a favorable case for recognizing Sunday as the day of significance in their Bible commentary:
“They [the disciples] probably met every day during the preceding week, but their Lord designedly reserved His second appearance among them till the recurrence of His resurrection day, that He might thus inaugurate the delightful sanctities of THE LORD’S DAY (Rev 1:10).” — Commentary on John 20:26.
However, it’s important to note that this statement indicates that the disciples were not specifically choosing Sunday for their meeting, which is a crucial admission. The record does not indicate an organized meeting. Comparing verse twenty-six with verse nineteen leads us to conclude that the disciples were likely gathered behind closed doors out of fear for their safety, not for a specific Sunday celebration. The text does not imply that Jesus deliberately chose to appear to them on Sunday to “inaugurate” the Lord’s Day; no phrases or words in the passage suggest this idea.
The text does provide some insight into why He appeared at this particular time, but that reason has nothing to do with Sunday being a sacred day. We read, “And after eight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them.” John explicitly mentions Thomas’ absence from the upper room on resurrection Sunday, highlighting his skepticism. (John 20:24-26) Thomas may have been absent for several days following the resurrection, but he was “with them” in the upper room on this particular day. According to John, Christ’s visit “after eight days” was to speak with Thomas. Naturally, He chose a time when Thomas was present. Beyond this, we cannot infer anything else from the record. Thus, the idea of this meeting having Sunday-inaugurating significance fades away.
It is true that He met with His disciples at other times, but these meetings were not dated. Some may argue—though without evidence—that these meetings took place on Sunday. To address this, let us examine the third time Christ appeared to His disciples after His resurrection (John 21:1-14). In this account, the disciples were fishing, which indicates that they considered fishing appropriate on that day, whatever it may have been. The record does not suggest that Christ rebuked them for fishing; instead, He instructed them how to catch more fish! Sunday advocates often overlook this “third time that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was risen from the dead.” They tend to focus instead on His first appearance, which can be understood as His desire to reassure them of His resurrection, and on His second appearance, which occurred because Thomas was present. They do not discuss other appearances, as none can be definitively associated with Sunday or used to support the theory that Christ initiated Sunday worship.
Next, we should consider the supposed proof for the sacredness of Sunday based on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Some theologians who advocate Sunday observance are uncertain whether Pentecost even fell on a Sunday that year, which weakens the argument for Sunday worship. Although we believe Pentecost did occur on a Sunday that year, the Biblical record does not explicitly state this. It simply informs us that “when the day of Pentecost was fully come,” the Holy Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1). If the apostolic writer saw any significance in the outpouring for Sunday keeping, he would have at least indicated that it took place on the first day of the week, even if he did not comment on the sacredness of Sunday that is said to follow the divine outpouring.
An objector may argue that every reader of the book of Acts knew Pentecost fell on a Sunday that year, allowing them to draw their own conclusions about the connection between this divine outpouring and the first day of the week. However, this logic suggests that Acts 2:1 is not an inspired reference to Sunday sacredness or even a mention of the specific day of the week; instead, the reader must rely on their own knowledge and make their own deductions. This approach does not provide a clear “Thus says the Lord” for Sunday observance.
Furthermore, would every reader of the book of Acts know that Pentecost was on a Sunday that year? Luke wrote Acts around AD 63, approximately thirty years after the Pentecostal event. The annual Jewish festivals, including Pentecost, occur on different days of the week each year, similar to how our Patriot Day is observed. Not everyone today, a generation after the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, knows what day of the week that happened on September 11, 2001. Likewise, a reader of Acts, written a generation after Christ, would not necessarily know what day of the week Pentecost fell on during the year of Christ’s ascension.
The wording of Luke suggests that he wants readers to recognize not that the Holy Spirit was poured out on a specific day of the week, but rather that it occurred “when the day of Pentecost was fully come.” The event’s timing connects to the fulfillment of certain aspects of Christ’s first advent in relation to Jewish services. For instance, “Christ our Passover” (1 Corinthians 5:7) fulfilled the Passover service and was sacrificed on the exact day the Passover lamb was slain, the fourteenth day of the first month (Exodus 12:1-6). The offering of the first fruits on the sixteenth day of the first month was fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection on that day, known as the first fruits of those who sleep (Leviticus 23:5-11; 1 Corinthians 15:20-23). Thus, when the day of Pentecost was fully come, a further typical service was fulfilled (Leviticus 23:15-21). If we are to draw any conclusion from the timing of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it is that Luke is illustrating Christ as the great antitype of the Jewish services. No further deductions appear warranted based on the narrative’s text.
