(Cf. Dwight Nelson’s incorporation of Bacchiocchi’s Research (video) for his Net ‘98 presentation here -which, most oddly, but quite reflective enough, is actually the first and only time I have seen/heard an SDA evangelist present these more accurate information in their series in regards to the Historical change of the Sabbath.)
-The typical, manifestly now, more than less, old-time arguments for Sunday Sacredness from supposed 8+1 verses/passages* in the New Testament are detailedly addressed by Stephen Bohr in: The Bible or Tradition #8: Sunday's Shaky Foundation
-The summary Sabbath-to-Sunday historical snippet by Jim Staley of the Passion For Truth Ministry (messages archive), following his Sabbath vs. Sunday Debate (hosted by Joseph Farah). See his full “And He Rested” Sabbath presentation.
-See testimonies by Christians of various denominations about their conversion to Seventh Day Sabbath Worship within this testimonial post.
However, in this blog post, I’ll not only be addressing the arguments head on, but may also correctively and/or advancingly differ on the prior arguments given in defences of the common/typical Seventh Day (Saturday) Sabbath. (My answers are not in bold blocs.)
As explained here, God literally took a actually necessary day off from resuming His creative works in another galaxy that Sunday.
Indeed, succinctly stated here, Paul’s entire point in Heb 4:1-11ff is that the restorative rest that God wanted to provide this world (cf. Heb 4:3) did not end with: (1) the Sabbath (Heb 4:4); nor (2) the security of a granted territorial kingdom for His Israel (Heb 4:3, 5) but the fullest rest provided by His Messiah (Matt 11:28-30); which, when it would be implemented, would have its fullest implication not by rejecting what priorly was, but by, pointedly Spiritually expanding it to its fullest “righteousness” application. (Isa 42:21; Matt 5:17-20)...And thus, Jesus, nor His “good word” Gospel, did not (1) abolish the Seventh Day Sabbath and its rest, but showed that God had always meant for it to be, especially socio-economically beneficially extended to anyone in need; nor (2) made it that the reach and benefit of God Kingdom would be limited to a territorial space, as in OT times. His Kingdom was not only to influentially benefit the rest of the dark world (Isa 60), but, as history full substantiated, it has been its (truly) Judeo-Christians principles, (which are actually now steadily variously being rejected) which has been of the greatest benefit to the rest of the world, wherever they were observed). So Christ’s Gospel “Rest” was to be a complement of the prior “Rests” which God had been working to give His people starting from OT times (Heb 4:9) not by working outside of those Sabbath Day & National “rests” but by furthering them by anchoring them upon their always intended and included Spiritual implications. And in fact, Paul is also emphasizing that on top of the rest provided by the Sabbath, and God’s Nation/Kingdom, there was now to also be a salvational rest; -one which complements the OT works of the ceremonial law. So contrary to the conflating exegesis of most Christians for Heb 4, the Sabbath Day was not being abolished there, just as the Israel Kingdom of God concept also was not. They rather, and already had been, Spiritually expanded (and not in the dual Babylonian heresies of: ‘Sabbatically physically resting everyday (or any other day)’ or, moreover forcedly so: ‘making all nations, rather than people in all nations, become part of God’s NT Israel’), and so was to be this salvational rest, which evidently many, particularly of the “Hebrew” Christians, were still not full trusting in, still relying on ceremonial (i.e., not good works (Eph 2:8-10; Jam 2:14-26) works to warrant one’s justification|salvation. (Cf. Gal 2:15-21ff; Rom 3:19-31ff).
Historical fact is that early, post Apostolic Church, Christians went on to set up a tradition in the Church by specially honoring Sunday for the Resurrection (which was known as “the Lord’s” i.e., ‘belonging/due to the Lord’ and not actually “the Lord’s Day”, and then by what was deem a validating necessity, in order to help differentiate themselves from Jews, that “traditional honoring” was elevated to a holy/(Christian) Sabbath status, and it is actually to that, indeed, “change” early during the days of the Church Fathers, that the (Modern) Roman Catholic Church, which genericly regards that period when the Christian Church was not (sub-)divided (which was right up to at least ca. 431 A.D. -cf. here), as being part of the “Catholic Church” era, pompously states, -as samply cited in here [27:09-39:16ff] and here [01:32:54-01:36:09] (also here [08:01-11:41] and here [10:17-11:17]) that: ‘it itself had established that “tradition” and made that change in God’s Sabbath Law.’
Indeed, as the Bible clearly teaches, binding requirements which are to be implemented in a covenant/testament, must all be stated/made before the death of the testator, and not after. (Heb 9:15-22) Jesus did indeed to this in regards to the new covenant ‘sealing/ratifying it with His own blood’ (Matt 26:27-28|1 Cor 11:25 = Heb 9:18-20|Exod 24:1-8), but that was only after having set out, throughout His prior 3 years of ministering what would still be intactly binding and in effect, and what would not, in/for this New Covenant. So Jesus did this stipulating in regard to major Jewish Economy Institutions such as, e.g., the Temple (John 4:20-24; cf. 2:19-22; Matt 23:38; Acts 6:13-14); and sacrifices/ceremonies related the forgiveness sins (e.g., Mark 2:5-12; Matt 26:28; cf. John 1:29, 36), but in regards to the likewise major institution of the Seventh Day Sabbath, He did not ‘transfer its keeping to Sunday’ or ‘permit frivolous/personal/secular laborious work to be done on it’, but instead, and at the great peril of His own life and ministry, (e.g. John 5:16-18 =(recorded/reported) Sabbath Healing #3, with 4 more done afterwards [see the chronological listing of the 7 at the beginning]; -see their escalation in Healing #4 in Matt 12:13-16|Mark 3:5-6|Luke 6:10-11], thus showing how important this covenantal task was, -(indeed with Jesus not even taking such risk for the keeping of certain (pilgrimage) feasts (John 7:1-9)), He recursively/repeatedly kept deliberately acting in ‘good-doing ministry/healings’ to reform (not replace) it, and that, pointedly in regards to its downtrodden/ignored (also OT existing (Isa 58)) Full/Spiritual significance!!
All of the “grasping at (vacuous) straws” (by MacArthur here) in order to attempt to give a Biblical/Theological justification for Sunday Sacredness reminds me of the defiance of Luther to those who wanted to put him to death for not going by their various man-made, and Scripture voiding, traditions, namely: ‘show me clearly from the Bible, and not men’s reasonings, that the Fourth Commandment has been changed by God’, otherwise, I too will continue to obey what God has clearly and enduringly said!!
if the seventh day was also designed by God to put fear in the heart because of the violation of His holy Law.......here was another day. This was not a day to celebrate creation or to celebrate sin...or the sinfulness of sin,
This, made-to-be quasi-conundrum adversarial development in Christianity here is all akin to some University Students claiming that learning can only be done through ad hoc lab experiments and field demonstration (=‘led only by the Spirit’) vs. other students who claim that learning can only be done through classroom work (=laws/standards, doctrines, counsels). The actual Truth rather is, (as stated at the end of this Note), that both approach are valid, but only when each is fully infused with the other. I.e. Lab/Field work must reflect the established laws and principles taught in the classroom, -lest some serious, even catastrophic results occur; while having only book-knowledge without any proven/working demonstration is of no practical/tangible value or benefit. So both a “right-minded Spirit” and “right-guiding laws” are needed for this Higher Learning to achieve its intended objective.
* Indeed, that Canon [=Church Council Resolution] #29 only banned Christians from resting from work on Saturday, to instead do so (only) on Sunday. It was probably the fact that Christians were, since the edict of Constantin, having two days of work-rest (the precursor to our modern weekend), that, through that added ‘total work rest day’, not as much work was being accomplished. And also, even with that Resolution to transfer the Sabbath’s Rest to Sunday, as seen in the other arrived at Canons of that council, namely Canons #16, #49, #51 Christians were actually not prohibited from observing the Sabbath as a Holy/Worship Day. Indeed to the contrary. It was just that the Church did not want them to also rest from work on that day....most likely out of, as it usually “worshipfully” (cf. the Ezek 8:16-17 fourth/“last straw” “abomination” in this post) is, economic production detriment reasons. So clearly the Seventh Day Sabbath was also being kept by Christians up to, and through then, thereby showing that it was not at all changed by the Apostles and Apostolic Church.
New Covenant Sunday then is kind of like old....old Sabbath from Genesis. You remember God blessed the Sabbath day, made it a day of blessing to remember your Creator.
* While it is commonly claimed by SDA’s that this day is being reckoned according to the Jewish ‘evening-to-evening’ way, thus this supper meeting would fall on a Saturday evening, with Luke being a Gentile, and writing to a Roman, again Theophilus (Acts 1:1 -and not, as exegetically confusedly claimed here, ‘writing genericly to “friend(s) of God”’ (see in James 2:23)), it is more likely that he was, like John in John 20:19, also using a ‘sunrise-to-sunrise’ method. And so this meeting would fall on a Sunday Evening....And yet it is noteworthy that, according to the Jewish reckoning, which Paul and other believers may themselves be going by, this meeting would actually be considered to have been a Monday morning meeting.
The New Covenant is to now involved that God will not have to treat believers like little children in order to keep them faithful and “in-line”, but instead these “born for above” believers (John 3:3ff) will now, through God’s Spirit receivedly acting on their conscience, be naturally doing the righteous requirements and will of God which the Law was intending to inculcate (cf. Rom 2:12-16), as succinctly/basically summarily stated in the eternal and unchangeable Ten Commandments. Additional Laws, particularly the (ceremonial) Law of Moses, were only added because God then had to purify a people who had been steeped in paganism and were no longer innately aware of how to remain pure and Godly. Then in the New Testament, this task of ‘helping to keep believers pure’ was taken over by God’s Spirit working upon both Jews and Gentiles. (=Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:13-18ff).
That doesn't mean you can't enjoy some recreation, some fellowship and do some other things, it just means there's a day that God Himself has ordained for you to focus primarily on the glory of your salvation. Take every opportunity you can to fill it with worship and praise and fellowship and divine truth.
 See Staley’s 2002 ministry calling experience and (non-speaking) founding prophetic vision+dream which I “testingly” (1 Thess 5:19-22), interpretingly (cf. 1 Cor 12:10) see = Heb 5:9-10, 11-6:3; Eph 2:19-22; cf. Psa 11:3-7; I.e. God’s commissioned work to/through Staley for rebuilding His actual/full Apostolic/(New) Israel “Remnant” (Rev 12:17; 14:12) Church/“Temple” amongst non-SDA Christians (Pro 4:18), (indeed even a potential Ezek 9 “wiped out”-SDAs-replacing “(Benjamin in) Judah” (Rev 7:5a))*, - though everything, pointedly in the “Law of Moses”, which is a “Shadow” must be viewed and principally practised through that Christological prism (See the Bacchiocchi studies here & here)!! Christ is indeed to fully be the “Cornerstone” (Matt 21:42) of this New Covenant “Church/Temple” (John 2:19-22) or else we are building in vain (Luke 6:46-49)!!
* Cf. e.g. the credible claim of an ‘approval “wink”’. As a pertinent point of Spiritual|GC|Historical reference, when God started to raise up a “Judaic”-remnant for His Israel around 1844, He actually prophetically worked with Sunday-keeping and pork-eating followers in the Early/Pioneer Adventists (cf. Acts 10:44-48). And the later, gradually led them into fuller Biblical Truth (e.g., the Seventh Day Sabbath in late 1846 (LS 95-96) and health/wellness/diet reform in 1863 see here). So the growing PFT group is, as per my prophetic view/understanding, well ahead of that replacement agenda, with only the issue of fully seeing the Spiritual fulfillment of the Covenant “letters” (cf. 2 Cor 3:13-18), pointedly in the greater cosmic, prophetic implications.
 James Staley’s opponent in that debate, Chris Rosebrough, a Lutheran, makes his own post-debate commenting and further responding here on his radio show. Most of the, and as typical isolatively viewed (i.e., not in light of all of what the Bible/NT has to say on the subject), arguments have been addressed in this post, (including the indeed debate-losing concession/recognition by Rosebrough, (which he here chooses to silently/indifferently renege on), in regards to the clear, consistent and pervasive NT understanding and teaching that ‘(Gentiles) Christians also being part of God’s Israel for the New Covenant’; (see Staley’s stunningly Biblical, and foundationally deeper (i.e. than e.g., Asscherick’s or Wohlberg’s) exposition entitled “Identity Crisis” on ‘who God’s Israel actually is’.(I basically disagree with (all of) the typological ‘any 12’, ‘any 2’, ‘any 10+2’ = “all about Israel”’ claims made at the end [01:05:48-01:09:17]. And as Staley addendumly clarifies [01:10:33ff], “Gentiles” are not only limited to people who have Northern Ethnic/Bloodline-Israelite ancestry. Also it should be added that in Matt 10:5-6 that ““house” of Israel” would refer to ‘any non-dispersion, still Mosaic practicising, Israelites’. So it must be emphasized that since the Northern Israelites did indeed seamlessly become part of the Gentiles, that term “Gentiles” then inherently/effectively has an indiscriminate application to any non-((new) covenant)-Israelite.); -hence e.g., Exod 31:12-18; Isa 56:6 valid continuing pertinence/application, which debunks his ‘tactically/strategic’ main premise), but I’ll here duly succinctly respond to the quite shallow argument that he makes near the very end [01:24:57ff] which is that anyone who claims to be keeping the Sabbath today, actually is not because:
 Relatedly, in this 1995 presentation involving former “lifelong” SDA’s (Wallace & Carole Slattery), the host (Larry Wessels, Director of Christian Answers) tries to bring up [at 07:23-14:03] a rather novel, (supposedly) “exegetical”, argument that the “commandments” spoken of in Rev 12:17 is to be “exegetically” understood according to what John himself had (supposedly) narrowly understood it/them to be in his other writings. He then reads those supposed defining verses in 1 John 5:2-3 & 1 John 3:21-24. Well that claim/argument is easily debunked, and by actual exegesis, as succinctly summarized here:
-That all substantively applicably said in the related above 2 Notes on this issue, there also is the applicable technical component that, as actually stated in Eph 4:30: God (the Father) actually makes use of the Holy Spirit, i.e., as the concretely actualizing agent, “in/through whom” (Greek: en hoi) He substantively seals people in Biblical Belief & Faith: ‘so that they then cannot be (intellectually and/or “spiritualistically”) moved by Worldly/“Babylonianistic”/Satanic spurious claims, sly falsehoods and cunning deceptions around them.’ (LDE 219.4). And in doing this sealing,the God the Holy Spirit merely transmit what God the Father and the enjoinging God Son have already stated/revealed (=John 14:25-26; [cf. John 2:22]) or (inceptively) initiated/indicated, (=John 16:12-15), such as “God’s (Full) Sabbatical Truth”!
 The following is a factual and/or inferring/surmising timeline of key historical moments in the Church’s changing of the Sabbath, as well as its later rediscovery and its present “fullest” (=EW 33.2) understanding/presentation [Cf. this brief historical overview for concrete info on certain events]:
538 A.D. - Starting with the Third Council of Orleans, (France), the Catholic Church began passing a more stringent Sunday sacredness laws/edicts than what Constantine had priorly passed, by first removing the permission for farmers to do agricultural work on that day. (See here).
538+ A.D. The suppression of the Bible in the “Dark Ages” facilitate the eclipsing in the mind/knowledge of believers of the Biblicalness of the Seventh Day Sabbath...as well as the history of its gradual abandonment... (By today, this gradual, anti-Biblical transference is complete and most Christians spuriously think, or desperately want/need to think, that this change was made by the Christ|His Apostles|the Apostolic/Jerusalem Church)....
1054+ A.D. During the East-West Schism of the Church, the issue of Sabbath Observance was a major area of difference, with Roman Catholics (=Western Church) now pushing for the abandonment of also observing Saturday, and the Eastern Church aiming to maintain it, along with Sunday, as Holy Days. (See Arthur Maxwell, God Cares, Vol. 1, pp.137-141). (cf. Some historical accounts of unaltered/persisted Sabbath observance in Africa around that era here[24:45-34:48ff])
Over time, with the influence of the Western Church being more powerful, its stance against the Sabbath gradually won out, including, derivedly, through Protestant Reformers, including its former priest Martin Luther, who opted not to return to Sola Scriptura on this issue.