The New Testament Theology Of The Sabbath: Christ, the Change of the Day, and the Name of the Day

By Richard C. Barcellos

Richard C. Barcellos, Ph.D., is Lecturer in New Testament Studies and Administrative Assistant to the Dean, Midwest Center for Theological Studies (www.mctsowensboro.org; www.mctsowensboro.org/blog), Heritage Baptist Church, Owensboro, KY.

In a previous article, we have seen that the Old Testament prophesied both the abrogation of the Old Covenant’s Sabbaths (Hos. 2:11) and the perpetuity of Sabbath-keeping under the New Covenant (Isa. 56:2, 4, 6 and Jer. 31:33).[1] Isaiah, of course, prophesied the transformation of the people of God, the house of God, the burnt offerings, the sacrifices, the altar, and the Sabbath under the New Covenant.[2] But what does the New Covenant’s Sabbath look like? On what day should it be observed if, in fact, the New Covenant’s Sabbath constitutes a specific day? And, assuming that it constitutes a specific day of the week, what should we call that day? In what follows I will attempt to answer these and other questions by treating the following subjects: (1) Christ and the Sabbath Day; (2) The Change of the Day; and (3) The Name of the Day.

Christ and the Sabbath Day

Our Lord discussed the Sabbath on several occasions during his earthly ministry (Matt. 12:1-21; Mark 2:23-3:6; 6:1-6; Luke 4:16-22, 31-37, 38-41; 6:1-5; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; John 5:5-18; 7:21-24; 9:1ff., 13-16). We previously examined Mark 2:27-28 and saw that Christ taught that the Sabbath predated the Jews and was made for man.[3] We also saw that his claims of lordship over the Sabbath assume its abiding validity during the interadvental days of the New Covenant. For sake of space, we will examine one other passage that deals with Christ’s earthly ministry and the Sabbath. The observations drawn from this text (Matt. 12:1-14) are similar to ones that we could draw from other texts. Jesus was very consistent when dealing with the Sabbath.

1. Observations on Matthew 12:1-14

Here we read: “Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (12:1). The Pharisees replied, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” (12:2). Jesus then offers two examples from the Old Testament: “David … and those who were with him” (12:3) and “the priests in the temple” (12:5). Concerning the priests, he says, “Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (12:5). Whatever the priests were doing, the Pharisees’ logic implied it was a violation of the Sabbath. Their logic taught that the priests, David, and Christ’s disciples were profaning the Sabbath. But Jesus says the priests “are blameless” (12:5). Then he quotes Hos. 6:6, saying, “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (12:7). Jesus pronounces his disciples “guiltless” on the basis of these examples and this text. In the next incident recorded in Matthew 12, seeing a man with a withered hand, the Pharisees ask Jesus, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (12:10). Jesus answers that “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath,” arguing that healing on the Sabbath is as lawful as an act of preserving the life of a sheep (12:10-12). These actions, according to Christ, were lawful on the Sabbath according to Old Testament law.

2. Conclusions from the Gospel Records

A detailed examination of all the passages in the Gospels where Christ treats the issue of the Sabbath will show that he never predicted its abolition and that he never profaned it. In fact, he could not profane it, nor advocate its profanation by others, without sinning. He was born under the law not to profane it, but to keep it (Gal. 4:5). If Christ violated the Sabbath, then he sinned and could not be a suitable Savior for others nor could he possess perfect righteousness to impute to others. Instead, by his teaching and example he advocated works of necessity (Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5), mercy (Matt. 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 4:31-41; 6:6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; Jn. 5:8-10; 7:23; 9:13-16), and piety (Matt. 12:9; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16; 6:6; John 7:22-23) on the Sabbath, but he never violated the Sabbath, advocated its violation by others, or prophesied its demise.

The Change of the Day

In order to establish the change of the day from the seventh day to the first day, we will examine the fact that the New Testament Christians met on the first day, note that Christ rose from the dead on the first day, examine the prominence of the first day immediately subsequent to Christ’s resurrection, and identify the reason for first day meetings. This will show that the change of the day is rooted in the epoch-changing event of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1. The fact of first day corporate meetings in the New Testament

Acts 20:7

“Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” Here Luke tells us that the disciples in Troas met “on the first day of the week” and conducted activities with special religious significance. Some understand the breaking of bread as the Lord’s Supper. Paul spoke to them, surely teaching them biblical truths (i.e., apostolic doctrine). They met on the first day of the week and had fellowship around spiritual matters. This text echoes aspects of the conduct of the early church, as recorded in Acts 2:42. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” It is of interest to note that Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16), yet he stayed seven days in Troas (Acts 20:6) and did not leave until the day after the one described in 20:7. He left on Monday.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2

“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.” Here the Corinthians are told to do something that Paul also had ordered the churches of Galatia to do. This is clear apostolic sanction for first day meetings. We are not told why the first day meetings were ordered, we are merely told that they were ordered. We must not pass this observation without further thought.

It is no small matter for the Apostle Paul to give orders to the churches concerning first day meetings. Apostolic authority is binding for all churches. When Paul gave orders to the churches, his orders were the orders of Christ himself. John 16:13-14 contains a promise from Christ of inspired truth to complete the revelation of the Father’s will. Jesus said: “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak; and he will tell you things to come. He will glorify me, for he will take of what is mine and declare it.” This promise refers primarily to the apostolate (Eph. 2:20).

Acts 16:4 similarly mentions “the decrees to keep,” i.e., authoritative decisions universally binding on all the churches “which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.” Ephesians 2:20 says that the church was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” First Corinthians 4:17 says, “For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.” What Paul taught elsewhere was binding on the Corinthians. In 1 Cor. 7:17, Paul says, “But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.” Paul had authority to ordain the same things in all the churches. First Corinthians 11:2 says, “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Apostolic traditions were binding on the Corinthians (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15).

So for Paul to give orders to the churches means that whatever he ordered was binding on them. Apostolic authority carried with it the authority of Christ himself. The apostles were the revelatory organs through which Christ completed the revealed will of his Father. As the old saying goes, “The Apostle of the man is as the man himself.” The ordering of first day meetings, then, is the will of Christ for his people.

2. The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week

The first day is the day “after the Sabbath…the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1,19), “when the Sabbath was past” (Mark 16:1). Several passages testify of Christ’s first day resurrection (Matt. 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-23).

Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead, and indeed he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him. Behold, I have told you.” So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word. (Mt. 28:1-8)

The other Gospel passages mentioned above depict the same account. Jesus rose from the dead early on the first day of the week (Mark 16:2,9). Five times the Gospels mention this fact (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1,19). Sam Waldron comments on this unique phenomenon, suggesting a reason why:

Is this five-fold re-occurrence of the phrase “the first day of the week” merely an interesting detail or is it of religious significance? The singular importance of this repeated reference to the first day of the week may be seen by asking the question, How many times are days of the week mentioned by their number in the New Testament? The answer is not once. The third day after Christ’s death is mentioned. The Lord’s Day is also mentioned. The preparation day for the Sabbath is mentioned. Yet, there is no other reference to a day of the week by its number in the entire New Testament. This being the case it is difficult to think that the mention of “the first day of the week” five times by the evangelists is incidental. We are constrained to think that it has religious significance. But what is that significance? It appears to be recorded to show the origin of the church’s practice of observing the first day. There is no other natural explanation of this peculiar insistence on the “first day of the week” in the resurrection account.[4]

Based on Matt. 12:40, some have questioned Christ’s resurrection occurring on the first day of the week, opting for a Wednesday burial to account for it.[5] This seems to discount the clear data proving he rose from the dead on the first day. But what about Matt. 12:40? There Jesus said, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” In John 2:19, speaking of his physical body (cf., 2:21), Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John treats the crucifixion of our Lord in John 19, where he says, “Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover.” This is the day that Christ was crucified and died. The day after this Preparation Day is the Sabbath. “Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath…, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away” (John 19:31). In other words, Jesus died on Friday, the day prior to the Jewish Sabbath.[6] If Jesus died on Friday, then how can he rise from the dead on Sunday, since Matt. 12:40 says, “so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”? How do we reconcile this with the ample evidence of his first day (Sunday) resurrection? D.A. Carson offers this explanation:

Jonah spent “three days and three nights” in the fish (Jonah 1:17). But if the normal sequence of Passion Week is correct (see on 26:17-30), Jesus was in the tomb only about thirty-six hours. Since they included parts of three days, by Jewish reckoning Jesus was buried “three days” or, to put it another way, he rose “on the third day” (16:21). But this does not cover more than two nights. Some advocate a Wednesday crucifixion date (see on 26:17); but though that allows for “three days and three nights,” it runs into difficulty with “on the third day.” In rabbinical thought a day and a night make an onah, and a part of an onah is as the whole (…1 Sam 30:12-13; 2 Chron 10:5, 12; Esth 4:16; 5:1). Thus according to Jewish tradition, “three days and three nights” need mean no more than “three days” or the combination of any part of three separate days.[7]

A consideration of all the data proves that Jesus died on Friday and rose on the first day of the week—Sunday.

3. The prominence of the first day immediately subsequent to Christ’s resurrection

• Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.… But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.”…And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held him by the feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” (Matt. 28:1,5-6,9-10) 
• Now when he rose early in the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (Mark 16:9) 
• After that, he appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. (Mark 16:12) 
• Afterward he appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table” (Mark 16:14) 
• Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. (Luke 24:1-2) 
• Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus himself drew near and went with them. (Luke 24:13-15) 
• Now as they said these things, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” (Luke 24:36)

These post-resurrection appearances of Christ all happened on the first day of the week. Waldron comments on this phenomenon:

1. We note first the phrase in John 20:26, “eight days later”. Since the Jews counted inclusively, this eighth day was the first day of the week. John is careful to include these details of time because they point to his Lord’s Day theology (Rev. 1:10). In fact, four of the eight New Testament references to the first or Lord’s Day are in the Johannine literature of the New Testament (John 20:1,19,26; Rev. 1:10). John 20:26 increases strikingly in its significance when it is compared with John 21:14. There the appearance beside the Sea of Tiberias is said to be “the third time that Jesus was manifested to His disciples.” This statement is, of course, problematic and must be qualified in some fashion. Whatever its specific meaning, it clearly marks the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus of John 20:19, 20:26, and 21:1 as unique and distinct. There were no intervening appearances of like character. Probably the meaning is that Jesus between these three appearances did not appear to a large group of disciples (Apostles). This means, of course, that between the first and eighth days of John 20 there were no like appearances to the disciples. This fact must have had a psychological effect upon the gathered disciples which would have clearly marked the first day of the week as of special significance for their resurrected Lord.
2. Acts 2:1f. is also significant because the day of Pentecost occurred upon the first day of the week (Lev. 23:15-21). Pentecost, it is interesting to note was a day upon which no laborious work was to be done. Thus, it was in a sense a Sabbath. At any rate, the two constitutive events of the New Covenant and New Creation (the resurrection of Christ and the Pentecostal giving of the Spirit) both occurred on the first day of the week. Surely the disciples of Christ could not have overlooked or failed to ponder these facts.[8]

Though these observations of themselves do not prove that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath, taken together with the many other things we have seen, they show that something is very unique about the first day of the week even after Christ rose from the dead.

4. The reason for first day meetings in the New Testament

Though it does not state the reason for first day meetings in explicit terms, the New Testament does present enough evidence to provide an answer. The reason for first day meetings can be none other than the fact and implications of Christ’s resurrection. The resurrection, the pivotal, epoch-changing event in redemptive history, becomes the theological and redemptive-historical basis for first day meetings in the New Testament. It is seen as an epoch-changing event—the beginning of the new creation. It is also seen as the day in which Christ ceased from his redemptive labors (Heb. 4:9-10).

The resurrection as an epoch-changing event

The resurrection is seen as an epoch-changing event in the New Testament–the beginning of the new creation. Believers are united to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection through faith.

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. (Rom. 6:3-6) 

In him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col. 2:11-12)

Union with Christ brings believers into the orbit of redemptive privilege. They may know “the power of his resurrection” (Phil. 3:10) because they are united to him through faith. God “made us alive together with Christ…, and raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:5-6). Being in Christ unites us to him, making us citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20).

Union with Christ also involves existence in two ages at once–this age (the old creation) and the age to come (the new creation). The age to come is the age of the resurrection.

And Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

Christ’s resurrection is the first bodily resurrection of the age to come because it was “the firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:20).

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at his coming. (1 Cor. 15:20-23)

Christ’s resurrection was the first of similar resurrections to come. But being “the firstfruits,” it is not totally other than those that follow. It is different in time; but it is part of the same resurrection. It is part of the same harvest; just the first of the much greater harvest to come. Richard Gaffin, commenting on “firstfruits” says:

The word is not simply an indication of temporal priority. Rather it brings into view Christ’s resurrection as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection-harvest, the initial portion of the whole. His resurrection is the representative beginning of the resurrection of believers. In other words, the term seems deliberately chosen to make evident the organic connection between the two resurrections. In the context, Paul’s “thesis” over against his opponents is that the resurrection of Jesus has the bodily resurrection of “those who sleep” as its necessary consequence. His resurrection is not simply a guarantee; it is a pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event. In fact, on the basis of this verse it can be said that Paul views the two resurrections not so much as two events but as two episodes of the same event.[9]

Christ’s resurrection is the most powerful sign of the presence of the age to come. His resurrected body took on qualities it did not possess prior to the resurrection (Rom. 1:4). It was an age to come body, existing in this age for a brief time on the earth and now in heaven. In Christ’s resurrection, then, we see the age to come eclipsing this age. This is why Paul says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). This is not only true of personal renovation but also a state of existence in the new creation brought in by Christ. In Gal. 6:15, Paul says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.” The age to come has eclipsed this age with the resurrection of Christ. Hebrews 6:5 says that some “have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” “The great realities of the age to come have in some sense broken into and become operative in this age.”[10] Waldron’s comments are helpful at this point:

The New Testament teaches, therefore, that there is a new creation in Christ (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10). The idea of new creation is frequently associated with Christ’s resurrection (cf. Eph. 2:10 with 2:5,7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10 with Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 1:15-18). By union with Christ in His death, the old man is destroyed. By union with Christ in His resurrection, the new man is created. When He rose again He became the firstborn of God’s new creation. As He was the beginning of the old creation, so He is now the beginning of the new (Rev. 3:14). Thus, the memorial of Christ’s resurrection is of necessity a memorial of the new creation. Thus, the Lord’s Day like the Sabbath and unlike any other religious observance points to both creation and redemption.[11]

Christ’s resurrection is the apex of all of God’s redemptive work on the earth. It is an epoch-changing event. It ushers in the new creation in part. In one sense, it effects everything. But how does it effect the Sabbath under the New Covenant? Does it mark the end of all Sabbaths for the people of God? Or does it function as the first creation did in relation to the first Sabbath? Does it function as the basis for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day because it is the day Christ rested from his redemptive labor? Surely, no greater, more unique event could be asked for to change the day of the Sabbath.

The resurrection as the day in which Christ ceased from his redemptive labors

The resurrection is also seen as the day in which Christ ceased from his redemptive labors. At Heb. 4:9-10, we read, “There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered his rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from his.” We must, of course, seek to understand the context of Heb. 4:9-10 to understand its meaning. Hebrews 4:1-8 says:

Therefore, since a promise remains of entering his rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as he has said: “So I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works”; and again in this place: “They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again he designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day.

The “rest” of vv. 1, 3, 5, 6 (“it”), and 8 is the state of “rest” that all believers enter through faith which is experienced in part in this age and in full in the age to come. It is God’s eternal rest, which he entered into on the seventh day of creation, experienced by all who trust in Christ. Hebrews 4:9-10 comes immediately after discussing the eternal rest that some have entered and others are yet to enter.

The word translated “rest” at Heb. 4:9 is σαββατισμός. This is its only use in the New Testament. A verbal form of it is used in the LXX at Exod. 16:30, referring to what the Jews did on the seventh day (i.e., they sabbatized or rested on the seventh day). Commenting on σαββατισμός, Robert Martin says:

I think that it is of interest that “in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath,” i.e., not “a Sabbath rest” as a state that is entered into but “a Sabbath-keeping” as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word’s morphology, for the suffix -μος indicates an action and not just a state. This at least suggests that if the writer of Hebrews meant only “a Sabbath rest,” i.e., “a Sabbath state” to be entered into, he could have continued to use κατάπαυσις, for he had already established the referent of that word as God’s own Sabbath rest which is to be entered into by faith (cf., 4:1,3,4,11). The word σαββατισμός suggests a Sabbath action, i.e., “a Sabbath-keeping.”[12]

In every other instance where the English word “rest” is used in the context of this passage (Heb. 3:11,18; 4:1,3,5,11) another word, κατάπαυσις, is used, referring to the eschatological rest of the eternal state. Why then does the author use σαββατισμός in v. 9? Joseph Pipa suggests:

The uniqueness of the word suggests a deliberate, theological purpose. He selects or coins sabbatismos because, in addition to referring to spiritual rest, it suggests as well an observance of that rest by a ‘Sabbath-keeping’. Because the promised rest lies ahead for the New Covenant people, they are to strive to enter the future rest. Yet as they do so, they anticipate it by continuing to keep the Sabbath.[13]

“The people of God” in v. 9 refers to the New Covenant people of God (cf., 1 Pet. 2:10, “who once were not a people but are now the people of God”). The New Covenant people of God have a Sabbath to keep. But why does there remain a Sabbath-keeping for the New Covenant people of God? Because the not-yet eternal rest of God in the eternal state is future. So as the old Sabbath both looked back to creation and forward to an eternal rest, so the New Covenant Sabbath looks back to the inauguration of the new creation and forward to an eternal rest.

On what day is the New Covenant people’s Sabbath day? Hebrews 4:10 says, “For he who has entered his rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from his.” It is clear from the context that God entered his rest on the seventh day of creation (Heb. 4:4; cf., Gen. 2:2-3). Who is the author referring to in v. 10, when he says, “For he who has entered his rest”? Some refer this to the believer who has “ceased from his works” (Heb. 4:10b). But this interpretation would compare God’s ceasing from his work of creation and being refreshed by it (Gen. 1:31, “Then God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good.” and Exod. 31:17, “and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed”) with the believer’s ceasing from his unrighteous works of sin and resting in God’s salvation rest. When God ceased from his work of creation, it was not because it was bad but because it was “very good.” He was refreshed, that is, he took delight in what he had done. God’s ceasing from his work of creation and his subsequent rest does not compare with the believer’s ceasing from sinful works and taking rest in God. Believers don’t cease from their work and call it “very good.” They are not “refreshed” as they look back at their sinful works. This kind of rest finds no parallel with God’s rest. John Owen comments:

But now, if those mentioned be the works here intended, men cannot so rest from them as God did from his; but they cease from them with a detestation of them as far as they are sinful, and joy for their deliverance from them as far as they are sorrowful. Now, this is not to rest as God rested. Again, when are men supposed to rest from these works? It cannot be in this world, for here we rest not at all from temptations, sufferings, and sorrows; and for that mortification of sin of which we attain unto, we are to fight continually, “resisting even unto blood,” It must therefore be in heaven that they so rest; and this is affirmed accordingly.[14]

The text presents a parallel between “he who has entered his rest” and “has himself also ceased from his works” and God, who ceased from his work of creation. The words “he who has entered his rest” and “has himself also ceased from his works” cannot apply to believers. It destroys the parallel. The writer is speaking of an individual (“he…himself…his”) who has entered God’s rest as God has entered his rest. Owen says, “A single person is here expressed; on whose account the things mentioned are asserted. And of this change of phrase there can be no reason be given, but only to signify the introduction of a singular person.”[15] To maintain the parallel, it must be an individual “who has entered his rest” and “ceased from his works as God did from his.” The only individual who can fit this parallel is Jesus Christ, who entered God’s rest (Christ is God) as our representative and “ceased from his works” when he rose from the dead. Owen says:

There is a direct parallel in the whole verse between the works of the old creation and those of the new, which the apostle is openly comparing together. 1. For the authors of them: Of the one it is said to be God,–“As God did from his;” that is, the Creator: of the other, “He,” αὐτὸς; ‘who is that of whom we speak,’ saith our apostle, ‘verse 13,’—for in these words he makes also a transition to the person of Christ… 2. The works of the one and the other are expressed. The works of the Creator are, ἰδια ἐργα, “his works;” “his own works,” the works of the old creation. And there are the works of him of whom he speaks, τά ἐργα αύτοῦ, “his works;” those which he wrought in like manner as God did his own at the beginning–that is, the work of building his church. For these works must answer each other, and have the same respect unto their authors or workers. They must be good and complete in their kind, and such as rest and refreshment may be taken in as well as upon. To compare the sins of the sufferings of men with the works of God, our apostle did not intend. 3. There is the rest of the one and the other. And these must also have their proportion to one another. Now God rested from his own works of creation,—(1.) By ceasing from creating, only continuing all things by his power in their order, and propagating them to his glory. (2.) By his respect unto them or refreshment in them, as those which set forth his praise and satisfied his glorious design. And so also must he rest who is here spoken of. (1.) He must cease from working in the like kind. He must suffer no more, die no more, but only continue the work of his grace, in the preservation of the new creature, and orderly increase and propagation of it by the Spirit. (2.) In his delight and satisfaction which he taketh in his works, which Jesus Christ hath to the utmost. “He sees of the travail of his soul, and is satisfied,” and is in possession of that “glory which was set before him” whilst he was at his work.[16]

Pipa adds:

God the Son rested from His work of redemption on the first day of the week as a sign that His work had objectively been accomplished and nothing remained to be done. In the resurrection He entered into the joy of His work and confirmed that eternal life had been purchased (Isa. 53:10, 11; Heb. 12:2). By His example, the day changed.[17]

Just as God entered his rest on the seventh day of creation, thus becoming the Sabbath day by positive example, so Christ entered his rest on the first day, the day he rose from the dead, the day his redemptive work was accomplished, thus becoming the Sabbath day of the New Covenant people of God by positive example. Owen says, “Therefore did the Lord Christ enter into his rest, after he had finished and ceased from his works, ‘on the morning of the first day of the week,’ when he rose from the dead, the foundation of the new creation being laid and perfected.”[18]

Robert Lewis Dabney adds these closing words on this crucial passage:

This verse [Heb. 4:9] (with its context, which must be carefully read) teaches that, as there remains to believers under the Christian dispensation a hope of an eternal rest, so there remains to us an earthly Sabbath to foreshadow it. The points to be noticed in the explanation of the chapter are: That God has an eternal spiritual rest; that he invited Old Testament believers to share it; that it is something higher than Israel’s home in Canaan, because after Joshua had fully installed Israel in that rest, God’s rest is still held up as something future. The seventh day (verse 4) was the memorial of God’s rest, and was thus connected with it. It was under the old dispensation, as under the new, a spiritual faith which introduced into God’s rest, and it was unbelief which excluded from it. But as God’s rest was something higher than a home in Canaan, and was still offered in the ninety-fifth Psalm long after Joshua settled Israel in that rest, it follows (verse 9) that there still remains a sabbatism, or Sabbath-keeping, for God’s people under the new dispensation; and hence (verse 11) we ought to seek to enter into that spiritual rest of God, which is by faith. Now, let it be noted that the word for God’s “rest” throughout the passage is a different one from “Sabbath.” But the apostle’s inference is that because God still offers us his “rest” under the new dispensation, there remaineth to us a Sabbath-keeping under this dispensation. What does this mean? Is the sabbatism identically our “rest” in faith? But the seventh day was not identically that rest; it was the memorial and emblem of it. So now sabbatism is the memorial and emblem of the rest. Because the rest is ours, therefore the Sabbath-keeping is still ours; heaven and its earthly type belong equally to both dispensations.[19]

The Name of the Day: Revelation 1:10

In seeking to identify the name of the New Covenant’s Sabbath Day, we will examine Rev. 1:10. This verse also helps establish the change of the Sabbath under the New Covenant from the seventh day to the first day.

1. The context of Revelation 1:10

Note the context of Rev. 1:10. John had a vision of the resurrected and ascended Christ. In v. 5, John identifies Jesus Christ as “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” In v. 7, he says, “Behold, he is coming with clouds.” John acknowledges Christ’s resurrection and second coming in these verses. This implies that he has ascended. In vv. 9-11, he says:

I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” (Rev. 1:9-11)

2. The translation of the phrase “the Lord’s Day”

Note the translation of the particular phrase under consideration–“the Lord’s Day.” It is not translated “the day of the Lord” as in 2 Pet. 3:10, because it is a different construction and uses a different word for Lord. Second Peter 3:10 reads, ᾗ ἡμέρα κυρίου (“the day of the Lord”). The word κυρίου (“of the Lord,” a genitive masculine singular noun) comes from κύριος, a noun meaning “Lord.” In the context of 2 Peter 3, “the day of the Lord” clearly refers to the eschatological day of the Lord, “the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved” (2 Pet. 3:12). Peter is clearly referring to the last day, the day of the resurrection (John 6:40).

Revelation 1:10, however, reads, τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (“the Lord’s Day”). The word κυριακῇ (“Lord’s,” a dative feminine singular adjective, agreeing in case and gender with the noun ἡμέρᾳ, “day”) comes from κυριακός, an adjective meaning “belonging to the Lord.”[20] “Lord’s” is an adjective attributing a quality to the noun it is modifying (i.e., “day”). The Lord’s Day, therefore, is a day belonging to Jesus Christ as Lord.

This word is used twice in the New Testament: here in Rev. 1:10 and in 1 Cor. 11:20 (see below). According to G. K. Beale, it “is never used of the ‘Day of the Lord’ in the LXX, NT, or early fathers.”[21] Beale also says that “the phrase is clearly and consistently used of Sunday from the second half of the second century on.”[22] In both of its New Testament usages it refers to something belonging to the Lord Jesus as resurrected and ascended. Here in Rev. 1:10, therefore, John is referring to a day that belongs to the Lord Jesus as resurrected and ascended. The Lord’s Day is a day which belongs peculiarly to Christ as the resurrected Lord who is in heaven.

3. The grammatical relations of “the Lord’s Day” in the New Testament

Note the grammatical relations this phrase has in the New Testament. The closest grammatical relation this phrase has in the New Testament is found in 1 Cor. 11:20. As stated above, the word κυριακός (an adjective meaning “belonging to the Lord” or “Lord’s”) is used twice in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:20 and Rev. 1:10). In 1 Cor. 11:20, we read, “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον). The word κυριακὸν (“Lord’s,” an accusative neuter singular adjective, agreeing in case and gender with the noun δεῖπνον, “Supper”) comes from the same adjective John uses in Rev. 1:10. The Lord’s Supper is a supper which belongs to the Lord Jesus in a peculiar manner. He instituted it and regulates it (1 Cor. 11:23ff.; Matt. 26:26ff.). It is a memorial meal commemorating and proclaiming his death (1 Cor. 11:24-26). Though all suppers come from the Lord, not all suppers are “the Lord’s.” And, though all days come from the Lord, not all days are “the Lord’s.” There is both a distinction of suppers and a distinction of days in the New Testament. Just as the Lord’s Supper has peculiar religious significance for Christians, so does the Lord’s Day. All suppers are not alike, neither are all days alike. Both the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Day are Jesus Christ’s in a unique manner. And both get their names after he rises from the dead and ascends into heaven (see below for the significance of this).

4. The theological parallels of “the Lord’s Day”

Note the theological parallels that this phrase, “the Lord’s Day,” has in conjunction with “the Lord’s Supper” and the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant had a memorial day and a memorial meal. The memorial day was the Old Covenant’s weekly Sabbath. It commemorated both creation (Exod. 20:11) and redemption (Deut. 5:15). The weekly Sabbath was God’s because he instituted it by his example of resting after the work of creation and he regulated it (Gen. 2:2-3; Exod. 20:8-11; 31:13, “my Sabbath”; Isa. 58:13, “the Sabbath…my holy day…the holy day of the Lord”). So the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, is Christ’s day. It is his because he instituted it by his resurrection, which was the day he “entered his rest” and “also ceased from his works as God did from his” (Heb. 4:10). It is the Christian Sabbath, bearing the marks of Christ’s lordship over it and reflecting his redemptive accomplishment and inauguration of the new creation in the resurrection.

The Old Covenant also had a memorial meal.[23] The Passover was a memorial meal, reminding the ancient Israelites of God’s deliverance of them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 12; 34:25; Leviticus 9; Deuteronomy 16). Just as the Old Covenant’s Passover was a memorial meal commemorating redemption, and just as the Old Covenant’s weekly Sabbath commemorated both creation and redemption, so the New Covenant’s Lord’s Supper commemorates redemption (i.e., Christ’s death) and the New Covenant’s Lord’s Day commemorates creation (i.e., new creation) and redemption (i.e., Christ’s resurrection, the consummation of his work). Murray says:

The two pivotal events in this accomplishment [i.e., the accomplishment of redemption] are the death and resurrection of Christ and the two memorial ordinances of the New Testament institution are the Lord’s supper and the Lord’s day, the one memorializing Jesus’ death and the other his resurrection.[24]

5. The parallels between “the Lord’s Day” and God’s authority and the Sabbath under the Old Covenant

Note the parallel that this phrase has with God’s authority and the Sabbath under the Old Covenant. We have seen the Old Testament call the Sabbath God’s (Exod. 20:8-11; 31:13, “my Sabbath”; Isa. 58:13, “the Sabbath…my holy day…the holy day of the Lord”). It was his due to example, institution, and legislation. We have also seen Christ claim to be Lord of the Sabbath and that lordship exercised during the entirety of the interadvental days of the New Covenant (Mark 2:27). Here in Rev. 1:10, one day is marked out as belonging peculiarly to Christ as the resurrected Lord. Just as the Old Covenant’s Sabbath was God’s due to creation and redemption, so the New Covenant’s Sabbath, the Lord’s Day, is Christ’s due to creation and redemption. Just as the Old Covenant’s Sabbath was God’s due to example, institution, and legislation, so the New Covenant’s Sabbath is Christ’s due to example, institution, and legislation.

Christ’s lordship is connected to his resurrection in many places in the New Testament.

Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, Till I make your enemies your footstool.’ Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:30-36) 

Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which he promised before through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1:1-4) 

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted him and given him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:5-11)

As we have seen, the resurrection is the theological/redemptive-historical basis for first day meetings by the New Testament Christians. These connections between Christ’s lordship and resurrection support our observations above that the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, is, therefore, his day.

The Lord’s Day, according to Rev. 1:10 and the informing theology of other pertinent portions of Scripture, refers to the first day of the week—our Sunday. It is Christ’s day as the seventh day from creation to the resurrection was God’s day. It is Christ’s because of his lordship as the resurrected Son of Man. It is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. It is commemorative of the new creation and soteriological redemption (i.e., his resurrection, which signifies the presence of the new creation). It looks forward to the age of the full harvest and the fullness of the Spirit.

Conclusion

We have surveyed the Old and New Testaments. We applied the biblical-theological method of investigation which allows a doctrine to be presented in its various redemptive-historical contexts and developed according to the progressive and organic unfolding of Scripture. It should be obvious by now that this issue, as with others, cannot be decided upon one proof text for or against. Each text comes in a wider context in the book it appears in and, in its widest sense, a canonical context. We have sought to display the doctrine of the Sabbath in its broadest context, which is the entire canon of Scripture, from old creation to new creation to consummation. We agree with Geerhardus Vos, when he says:

It must be remembered that the Sabbath, though a world-aged observance, has passed through the various phases of the development of redemption, remaining the same in essence but modified as to its form, as the new state of affairs at each point might require. The Sabbath is not only the most venerable, it is likewise the most living of all the sacramental realities of our religion. It has faithfully accompanied the people of God on their march though the ages.[25]

Having said this, we must not be blind to objections which arise concerning this issue. Some of the objections have specific texts (cf., the texts mentioned by Vos in the footnote below.) which strengthen their appearance and should and must be dealt with. But that is beyond our purpose in this article and may be taken up in a future article.

Notes

1. See Richard C. Barcellos, “The Old Testament Theology of the Sabbath: Creation, Old Covenant and Old Testament Prophecy,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 3.2 (July 2006), 27-50.
2. Ibid., 44.
3. Ibid., 32-35.
4. Samuel E. Waldron, Lectures on the Lord’s Day, unpublished.
5. See D.A. Carson, Matthew, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 296.
6. See Ibid., 531-532 for a discussion of this issue.
7. Ibid., 296.
8. Waldron, Lord’s Day.
9. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987), 34-35.
10. Samuel E. Waldron, The End Times Made Simple (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 49.
11. Waldron, Lord’s Day.
12. Robert P. Martin, “The Remaining Sabbath for the People of God,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review I.2 (July 2004), 5-6.
13. Joseph A. Pipa, The Lord’s Day (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1997), 117.
14. John Owen, The Works of John Owen (reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 20:332.
15. Ibid., 20:333.
16. Ibid., 20:333-334.
17. Pipa, Lord’s Day, 123.
18. Owen, 20:335.
19. R.L. Dabney, Discussions of Robert L. Dabney (reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 1:535.
20. H. Bietenhard, “Lord” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 2:518.
21. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 203.
22. Ibid. Beale later denies any reference to the Sabbath in Rev. 1:10, though without elaboration.
23. The Passover was instituted prior to the inauguration of the Old Covenant (Ex. 12) and was incorporated into and legislated by the Old Covenant (Ex. 34:25; Lev. 9; Deut. 16). The same is true of the Sabbath (Gen. 2:3; Ex. 16 and 20).
24. John Murray, Epistle to the Romans, II (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, re. 1984), 258.
25. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1948), 139. Vos acknowledges emphatically that we have been released from any typical elements connected to the Sabbath in the Old Testament, “but not from the Sabbath as instituted at Creation. In light of this we must interpret certain New Testament statements such as Rom. 14.5, 6; Gal. 4.10, 11; Col. 2.16, 17.” Ibid., 143.