Objection:
The phrase “the first day of the week” in Matthew 28:1 is more accurately rendered as “the first of the Sabbaths” or “one of the Sabbaths.” This translation suggests that the apostle referred to the resurrection Sunday as marking the beginning of a new order of Sabbaths.
Answer:
The central issue in the debate over this translation is whether the Greek word sabbaton, rendered as “week” in Matthew 28:1 and similar passages, should ever be translated that way. Some argue that sabbaton should always be translated as “Sabbath.” In the New Testament, sabbaton appears sixty-eight times: fifty-nine times as “Sabbath” and nine times as “week.” These nine instances are found in Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 18:12; 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 16:2.
English readers may be surprised that the same Greek word can mean both “week” and “Sabbath.” This ambiguity is at the heart of the Sabbath objector’s claim. However, such dual meanings are not unique to Greek. For example, in English, the word “day” can refer to a twelve-hour period, a full twenty-four-hour period, or even an indefinite span of time. The context determines the precise meaning of “day,” just as it does for sabbaton.
Importantly, there is no real disagreement among Greek scholars—both Jewish and Christian—about the validity of translating sabbaton as “week” in these passages. The following authoritative statements illustrate this consensus:
Authorities Agree on the Double Value of Sabbaton
“WEEK (Hebrew ‘shabua’,’ plural ‘shabu’im,’ ‘shabu’ot’; … New Testament Greek, sabbaton, sabbata): A division of time comprising seven days, thus explaining the Hebrew name.” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 12, p. 48 1,. art. “Week.”)
“The expression hebdomas [a Greek word for “week”] is not found in the New Testament, but rather sabbaton (e.g., Luke 18:12) or sabbata (e.g., Matt. 28:1), used, however, in the sense of it.” (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (ed. 1891), vol. 4, 13. 2484, art. “Week.”)
“Of the two Hebrew names for ‘week’ one is derived from the number seven, and the other is identical with ‘Sabbath,’ the day which completes the Jewish week. The New Testament takes over the latter word, and makes a Greek noun of it.” (Hastings’ Bible Dictionary (ed. 1924), p. 936, art. “Time.”)
“The Hebrew shabhua’, used in the Old Testament for ‘week,’ is derived from shebha’, the word for ‘seven.’ As the seventh day was a day of rest, or Sabbath (Hebrew, shabbath), this word came to be used for ‘week,’ as appears in the New Testament (shabbaton, -ta), indicating the period from Sabbath to Sabbath (Matt. 28: 1). The same usage is implied in the Old Testament (Lev. 23:15; 25:8).” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. 1915), vol. 5, p. 2982, art. “Time.”)
“The plural sabbata . . . means a week as well as a Sabbath or Sabbaths (comp. Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20A, 19; and Matt. 28:1). . . . Sabbata in the second clause [of Matt. 28:1] certainly means ‘week’ and not the Sabbath day.” (John Peter Lance, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, translated by Philip Schaff, Comments on Matthew 28:1.)
Luke 18:12, one of the nine passages where sabbaton is translated as “week,” serves as a clear example of why this rendering is necessary. The Pharisee states in his prayer, “I fast twice in the week [sabbatou].” It would not make sense for him to claim he fasted twice in the Sabbath, as there would be no meaningful distinction in skipping meals during a single Sabbath day. Even the publican would likely have done the same. Only when sabbatou is understood as “week” does the passage convey the intended meaning.
The Sabbath objector attempts to counter this argument by asserting that Luke 18:12 should read, “I fast two Sabbaths,” referring to two specific Sabbaths in the year. However, the Greek text does not support this interpretation. The word dis, translated as “twice,” functions as an adverb and cannot be rendered as “two.” Additionally, sabbatou, translated as “week,” appears in the singular form, which is never translated as the plural “Sabbaths” in English versions of the Bible.
The second part of the objector’s argument focuses on the absence of the word day in the Greek phrase “first day of the week.” In Matthew 28:1, the original phrase is mian sabbaton. Regarding its correct translation, eminent theologians and Greek scholars from Sunday-keeping denominations have weighed in. As early as 1899, a respected Sunday advocate refuted the claim for Sunday based on this revised translation of mian sabbaton, as shown in the following quotation:
“This widely heralded Klondike discovery as to mian sabbaton turns out to be only the glitter of fool’s gold. It rests upon the profoundest ignoring or ignorance of a law of syntax fundamental to inflected speech, and especially of the usage and influence of the Aramaic tongue, which was the vernacular of Jesus and His apostles. Must syntax die that the Sabbath [Sunday] may live?
“Let these affirmations [of the theory] be traversed: ‘4. No Greek word for “day” occurs in any of the passages [that is, in Matthew 28:1 and parallel passages].’ Made for simple readers of English, that statement lacks candor. Said word is there, latent, to a much greater degree than it is in our phrase, ‘The twenty-fifth of the month.’ Upon being asked, ‘The twenty-fifth what?’ The veriest child instantly replies, ‘Day.’ But stronger yet is the case in hand. The adjectival word mian is in the feminine gender, and an immutable law requires adjective modifiers to agree with their nouns in gender. Sabbatōn is of the neuter gender, and out of the question. What feminine Greek word is latent in this phrase, and yet so patent as to reflect upon this adjectival numeral its feminine hue? Plainly the feminine word hēmera, ‘day,’ as analogously it is found in Mark 14:12, prōtē hēmera tōn azumōn, ‘the first day of unleavened bread.’ Boldly to aver that ‘no Greek word for “day” occurs in any of the passages,’ is to blind the simple English reader to the fact that an inflected language, by its numerous genders and cases, can indicate the presence and force of latent words to an extent undreamed of in English. . . .
“As a vital or corroboratory part of any argument for the sanctifying of the Lord’s day, this travestied exegesis, instead of being a monumental discovery, is but a monumental blunder. Thereby our foes will have us in derision.” (Dr. Wilbur Fletcher Stefle, “Must Syntax Die That the Sabbath May Live?” in the Methodist Review (New York), May-June, 1899.)
In 1931, an inquiry regarding mian sabbaton was submitted to The Expositor, a widely circulated preachers’ journal. During this period, The Expositor featured a question-and-answer column called “Expositions,” authored by Prof. A. T. Robertson, D.D., a leading authority on Biblical Greek and the author of several influential works, including an exhaustive grammar. Professor Robertson served for many years as the chair of New Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The following is the question and answer from that exchange:
“DEAR DR. ROBERTSON: Can it be proven, beyond doubt, that ‘the first day of the week’ is the proper rendition of ‘mia sabbatōn’ (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1,19; Acts 20:7; and 1 Cor. 16:2), instead of ‘one of the Sabbaths,’ as Mr. Knoch’s Concordant Version reads? The Concordant Version reads ‘first Sabbath’ (Mark 16:9) instead of the first day of the week.’
“J. D. PHILLIPS,
“Editor of The Truth,
“Littlefield, Texas”
After making some pointed remarks about the Concordant Version, Dr. Robertson then presents his answer:
“Now about the case of sabbaton in the New Testament. It is the singular, the transliteration of the Hebrew word Shabbath, which was used for the seventh day of the week, as in John 5:9. The plural, sabbata, is a transliteration of the Aramaic shabbatha.
Curiously enough, the Jews used the plural form in two ways. One way was for a single Sabbath, like the singular sabbaton. So in Josephus (We call the seventh day Sabbath). Precisely this usage occurs in the New Testament, as in Luke 4:16, ‘on the Sabbath day,’ en te hemera ton sabbaton. So also Acts 13:14; 16:13, just like Exodus 20:8; 35:3, etc. So also in Matthew 12:1; 5:10-12, tois sabbasin, ‘on the Sabbath,’ though plural, Mark 1:21; Luke 4:31, etc.
But the word sabbaton, in the singular, was used also for the week which began [ended*] with the Sabbath. So in Mark 16:9 we have proi prote sabbatou, ‘early on the first day of the week.’ Here proi is an adverb, but prote is a feminine adjective, locative, singular, agreeing with hemera (day) understood, while sabbatou is neuter gender, genitive, singular, so that it is impossible to render this, ‘early on the first Sabbath.’ See also Luke 18:12.
But the plural sabbata is also used for the week, as in Luke 24:1. In the preceding verse the singular occurs, to sabbaton, ‘they spent the Sabbath.’ The very next words in verse 1 are, te de mia ton sabbaton, ‘on the first day of the week.’ There we have mia used as an ordinal like prote, as is common in the Koine. The same use of both mia for ‘first’ and the plural sabbata for ‘week,’ we find in Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7.” – The Expositor, August, 1931.
* ‘Began’ should read “ended.” This correction of the typographical error was made by Dr. Robertson in The Expositor, October 1931.
Since theologians who support Sunday observance have so thoroughly refuted the false-translation argument, there is little more that needs to be said.
NOTE—When facing arguments that claim certain Bible passages should be translated differently than they appear in well-known versions, it’s natural to feel unsure how to respond—especially for those of us who haven’t studied the original languages or don’t have access to extensive commentaries. These sorts of objections are becoming more common as more people share and discuss biblical truth.
So what can a layperson do when confronted by this kind of challenge? There’s no need to be unsettled or back away. A simple, honest response is best: Trusted English translations like the King James Version were produced by teams of highly qualified scholars, working carefully together. It’s reasonable to rely on their collective judgment, rather than be swayed by the opinion of a single individual today who may have little or no background in the ancient languages.
That approach is usually all that’s needed—it’s practical, sensible advice that will resonate with fair-minded people. Of course, sometimes a deeper look at the original language can bring added clarity to a passage, as is the case with certain words like “soul” and “spirit.” But there’s a big difference between thoughtfully considering alternate meanings supported by established scholarship and inventing new translations that ignore the basic rules of the original languages.
