Did the Pope or the Catholic church change the Sabbath to Sunday?

In my continuing conversation with my friend, he asked if the Council of Nicea can be trusted when they were the ones that changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

Two things I’d like to note:

1. The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine claims that The Roman Catholic church is responsible for “changing” the sanctity of Sabbath to Sunday. But that is not the case.. But when the Catholic church claims something, does not make it so.

First, it should be noted that the council of Nicea took place at AD 325. But there were early records of Christians fellowshipping on Sundays even before the council of Nicea.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS about A.D. 100 – “Wherefore, also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.”

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS: Church life in the 2nd Century: – “On the day of the resurrection of the Lord–that is, the Lord’s Day–assemble yourself together without fail, giving thanks to God and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ.”

IRENEAEUS: A.D. 155-202 – “The Mystery of the Lord’s Resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord’s Day, and on this alone should we observe the breaking off of the Paschal Feast.”

These are just some of the many early records written by early church fathers indicating the practice of worshipping together on the first day of the week.

Secondly, we understand the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church — that they claim to be the final authority — therefore the “claiming” the “changing”. But it is worthy to note that they never named a Pope that ordered the change. And nowhere in church history that a Pope was known to have ordered this very important change. I am led to believe that the Roman Catholic church claimed the “change” of “worship day” from Saturday to Sunday without real basis to the claim.

Of course, I adhere to the New Covenant Theology, and by that, I mean that the day isn’t an issue to me anymore. Jesus is my Sabbath not Saturday nor Sunday. But that’s another story.

2. The Roman bishops — which would later lead the Roman Catholic Church — did not have jurisdiction over everyone else at the council during the convening of the Nicean council.. While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

Why is this important to note? Because this canon indicated that the Roman church is not in existence yet during the council contrary to charges popularized by Arians (on the issue of the Trinity) and Adventists (when charging the Roman Catholic church for moving the sanctity of the Sabbath to Sunday and changing the “arrangements” of the 10 Commandments). During that time, the Bishop of Rome was simply considered by the Nicene council as an ordinary member of the council. Therefore, we can conclude that the charge that the Trinity is a Roman Catholic concept “forced” by the Pope and that the Sabbath was moved by the Roman Catholic Church is simply isn’t true.

Conclusion: The council of Nicea simply legitimize and formalize what the early Christians had been doing. They were convening on Sundays already during that time. No “change” were made.

What really happened at the Council of Nicea?

I have a Christian friend who I learned turned agnostic recently. He claims that the Council of Nicea held in 325 A.D. was called by pagan Emperor Constantine to “make Jesus as God” to lure the Christians to his side.

What really happened at Nicea?. In a nutshell, during the early 4th century, the church is being plagued by heretics like Arius who claims that Jesus is of a different substance than God the Father, therefore, making him a “creature”. Constantine convened that council to preserve the unity of his empire. By that time the national religion was already Christianity.

A creed was passed by the participants of the council to protect the body of Christ, which reads:

We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made….

It is also worth noticing that the division was from two camps: those who believe that Jesus’ deity is lesser than the Father those who believe that Jesus’ deity is the same as the Father. It was on the how and what of Christ’s divinity not whether he is God or not.

Why is this very important to me? Because Jesus himself made some radical claims. In the book of John, he always claims he is the Son of God, which in Jewish terminologies at that time translates him as God. In John 14:1-3, he said “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life…” Not only did he claim that he is THE way and not A way, he continued by saying “… NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me.” How can he be redundant as that if not he is saying a very important claim.

It was C.S. Lewis who said that Jesus, in claiming these, can either be a lunatic — he’s just out of his mind — , a deceiver — he’s just playing around — or a Saviour — he must be really telling the truth. We can only choose one how we want to see him.

I’ll say that I am convinced that he’s telling the truth. And why is this important to me? Because a mere relationship with a higher being cannot save as doing good things cannot save. And if Jesus is to be believed, we can only receive the offer of salvaiton through a relationship with Jesus, no other way. It was apostle Paul who said, “…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.“. It was making Jesus as your Lord and Savior that counts.

Sabbatarian arguments 3: Mark 2:27, “Sabbath was made for man” means “for mankind”

The common sabbatarian understanding of this text is “Sabbath was given for all mankind“, therefore all of mankind should observe it not just the Jews. I have 2 reasons to believe otherwise.

1) This interpretation goes contrary to the Jewish understanding that Sabbath was given only to the nation of Israel.

2) The context. When you read the context of this verse (beginning at verse 23), you will notice that this interpretation is out of placed. Jesus and his disciples on Sabbath were plucking grains. Then the Pharisees accused them of breaking the Sabbath. Then Jesus gave some old testament instances, then declared the “the sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath”. Why would Jesus suddenly mean that Sabbath was made for mankind? It seems out of placed.

New Living Translation (and other contemporary versions) rendered it wonderfully. “Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath.’” Jesus was actually saying, “Hey, don’t let the sabbath control you, it is supposed to be for your benefit.”

So if that’s the case, it now goes with the context. Jesus seems to be breaking the Sabbath, as the Pharisees noted. Therefore, Jesus corrected their view and told them that their neck hurts for being so stiff. They should see the Sabbath benefiting them and not the other way around.

(Arnold Gamboa, 08-02-2005)

Sabbatarian arguments 2: Col. 2:16′s sabbath is not the seventh-day, weekly sabbath

I believe that Paul is talking about the weekly sabbath in Col. 2:16 for the main reason that he used the same language that the other old testament writers used.

In the old testament, whenever the old covenant convocations are mentioned, it is either listed in ascending or descending order. Such as:

days
months
seasons

or

seasons
months
days

Here are some of the examples:

“for the offerings on the Sabbaths , New Moon festivals and appointed feasts; for the holy offerings; for sin offerings to make atonement for Israel; and for all the duties of the house of our God.” Neh. 10:33 (ascending)

“I will stop all her celebrations:
her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts” Hosea 2:11 (descending)

“It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel…” Eze 45:17

There’re about 13 other occurances like this. It’s just too many to mention.

Notice the similarity of Col. 2:16.

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” (descending)

I have all the reason to believe that Paul used the same language that the old testament writers used, therefore, Col. 2:16 pertains to the weekly Sabbath contrary to Adventist claims that it isn’t.

(by Arnold Gamboa, 08-02-2005)

Sabbatarian arguments 1: Sabbath established back in creation

It was Robert Brinsmead, a former Adventist theologian who said, “Dogmatic assertion requires better support than inference”. There were no mention of Sabbath in Genesis, more so in creation. There were no mention how Adam and Eve observed the Sabbath, if there was. So, asserting that Sabbath was established on creation requires a better proof than just merely assuming it is. (In the first place, common sense may ask, how will Adam and Eve observe the same kind of Sabbath that the Israelites observed when they have not sinned yet at that time — no work, all worship)

There is in fact, I believe, more in creation than the Sabbath given at Sinai. Notice this. Each of the six days of creation are said to have a beginning and an ending:

1. And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.—Gen. 1:5.
2. And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.—Gen. 18.
3. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.—Gen. 113.
4. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.—Gen. 1 19
5. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.—Gen 1:23
6. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.—Gen. 1:31

Why is not the same said about the seventh day? Why is every day said to end except the seventh? The work of creation was absolutely finished on the sixth day (Gen. 2:1). And because God’s work was designed to endure forever, might not the rest also have been designed to endure forever?

I believe that the Sabbath established by God at creation is not the same sabbath observed by the Jews, moreso the kind of sabbath being observed by sabbatarians in our times. The Sabbath that God established at creation is the rest that lasts forever. It is the kind of rest that Adam and Eve observed — the unending close relationship with the Creator.

After the fall, God gave the Israelites a “reflection” of the Sabbath he established at creation. That’s the reason why there was a mention of creation in the forth commandment. (Interestingly, the rewritten 10 Commandments at Deut 5 does not mention creation as part of the fourth commandment (v. 12) ). It is actually pointing backwards to creation (the real rest) and pointing forward to the cross (the rest restored). That’s why it is called a “shadow of the things to come. but the reality is found in Jesus Christ” (Col. 2:16,17).

(By Arnold Gamboa, 08-02-2005)