Ya'nar#1
February 20th, 2004, 01:11 PM
SABBATH CHANGE IN THE EARLY CENTURIES
Contrary to the beliefs of most Christians today, the change of the seventh day Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week, happened very gradually over several centuries. The official change was made by Pope Sylvester in the 4th century. This evidence will be shown later in this article. But it will be demonstrated here that this change did not occur until AFTER the apostles had died, beginning around the year 155 A.D., with the yearly change of the celebration of the resurrection, from the sixteenth day of Nisan (Jewish reckoning for Firstfruits, a type of resurrection celebration), to a fixed date each year which fell on a Sunday.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
(As quoted from the Appendix of “Dateline Sunday” by Warren L. Johns)
“Although Sunday laws [called “blue laws”] blossomed into their intolerant maturity during the American colonial times, they date from a much earlier period. Over sixteen centuries ago, in A.D. 321, a political opportunist named Constantine proclaimed certain constraints on Sunday activity.
. . . Emperor Constantine “did not formerly renounce heathenism, and did not receive baptism until, in 337, he was laid upon the bed of death.” Milman describes Constantine as “outwardly, and even zealously pagan” up to 313 and subsequent to 326 as one whose mind “appears to have relapsed in some degree to its imperfectly unpaganized Christianity. His conduct became ambiguous as before, floating between decided bias in favour of Christianity, and an apparent design to harmonise with it some of the less offensive parts of Heathensim.”
Even “his coins bore on the one side the letters of the name of Christ; on the other the figures of the Sun-god, and the inscription, “Sol Invictus,” as he could not bear to relinquish the patronage of the bright luminary which represented to him, as to Augustus and to Julian, his own guardian deity.”
THE BACKGROUND
. . . Political turbulence and unrest greeted Constantine when he ascended the throne. The throne itself was shaky enough, and barbarian hordes threatened invasion. The iron monarchy slowly rusted though until his death in A.D. 337 the emperor attempted every way possible to restore stability and strength.
Paganism predominated. Not more than “a twentieth part of the subjects of the empire had enlisted themselves under the banner of the Cross before the important conversion of Constantine.” Nonetheless, Christians were a vocal and influential minority which held a certain appeal for Constantine. A union of church and state existed, in which religion played a subordinate, departmental role. Constantine directly concerned himself with religious affairs, only as a lesser segment of his political sphere. However, he was “the first representative of the imposing idea of a Christian theocracy, or of that system of policy which assumes all subjects to be Christians, connects civil and religious rights, and regards church and state as the two arms of one and the same divine government on earth . . . Christianity appeared to him, as it proved in fact, the only efficient power for the political reformation of the empire, from which the ancient spirit of Rome was fast departing.”
Constantine’s political motives were showing when he strove “not so much for the cause of God, as for the gratification of his own ambition and love of power.”
The "VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN"
In a quest for additional devises of unity, Constantine noted the significance attached to the first day of the week by Christian and pagan alike. Many Christians had for a long time attached the “Lord’s Day” label to the first day of the week and marked it for a weekly festival in celebration of Christ’s resurrection. The Mithraists worshiped the sun as a deity, so the day of the sun was sacred to them also. Constantine found it politically expedient, therefore, to please these two diverse segments of his realm by honoring the “venerable day of the sun” through governmental edict in which “he expresses himself, perhaps with reference at once to the sun-god, Apollo, and of Christ, the true Sun of righteousness; to his pagan and his Christian subjects.”
“The retention of the old pagan name of “Dies Solis,” or “Sunday,” for the weekly Christian festival, is, in a great measure, owing to the union of Pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects, Pagan and Christian alike, as the “venerable day of the Sun.” His celebrated decree has been justly called “a new era in the history of the Lord’s Day.” It was his mode of harmonizing the Christian and Pagan elements of the Empire under one common institution.”
At a time when forces were already at work which would tear the empire into shreds, the first Sunday law did provide a common denominator of unity. The law, promulgated on March 7, A.D. 321, ordered:
“Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen rest on the venerable day of the sun, but let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields, since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain or the planting of vines, hence the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest provisions of heaven be lost.”
Although the law carried religious overtones, it could hardly be called “Christian.” The edict did not invoke the “Lord’s Day.” The day after the Sunday proclamation, Constantine revealed his pagan inclinations in a decree calling for consultation with “soothsayers” when “the palace or other public works shall be struck by lightning.”
The Sunday law exempted the rural Roman. It carried no criminal penalties on its face. But, mild as it seemed, it set a precedent for a succession of political and theological conflicts which were to mark sixteen subsequent centuries. Constantine himself found five more occasions, ranging from a law concerning the emancipation of slaves on Sunday to provision for the celebration of Easter, to enhance the legal status of the day.
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Christian church leaders assembled for the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 at the call of Constantine. The “venerable day of the sun” edict issued four years previously had not solved the doctrinal battle between churches of the East and the West with regard to Sunday and Easter observance.
. . . The attention of the church now focused on a battle from within—the necessity for interpretation and formulation of church dogma. Of concern to all was the establishment of a proper memorial to mark the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Churches in the West favored the observance of Sunday as the day of resurrection. Churches of the East emphasized the significance of the crucifixion on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan, irrespective of the day of the week.
What were the backgrounds for the disputations at Nicaea?
Some church historians claim that early in the second century Sixtus, bishop of Rome, had called for observance of the resurrection on Sunday. Another tradition claims that while Pius I was bishop of Rome, his brother Hermes went so far as to claim that an angel had instructed the church to commemorate yearly the resurrection on the first day [Sunday].
EAST versus WEST
Christians in the East and in the West differed on the matter. When Anicetus was bishop, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, paid him a visit in Rome. This encounter, described by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, took place in an atmosphere of calm and respect:
“When the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little difference among themselves likewise respecting other matters, they immediately were reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it [the 16th day of Nisan as the memorial of Christ’s resurrection], because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated; and neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe [Sunday, the first day of the week each year], who said that he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him.”
In a letter to the emperor, written about A.D. 155, Justin Martyr supported the views of Anicetus. What had started as merely an ANNUAL observance and continued as such until the time of Sixtus, had eventually become a WEEKLY “assemblage” for the reading of “the memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets.” Then a leader gave admonition and “exhorts to the imitation of these good things.” Justin referred to prayers offered and voluntary offerings collected for orphans and widows. He continued:
“Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day in which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you for your consideration.”
[READER PLEASE TAKE NOTE: Nowhere does Justin Martyr cite either Biblical evidence or apostolic authority for the change of the celebration of the resurrection of Christ, from the 16th day of Nisan, Jewish reckoning, to Sunday each week. In fact, the historical record testifies clearly that Polycarp “always observed it [16th day of Nisan, which is the day the Lord commanded the Jews to celebrate the "sheaf of the Firstfruits"--two days after Passover, the 14th day of Nisan] with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated”. So here we have evidence that the apostles DID NOT SANCTION the change in the celebration of the resurrection, which, as we will show, eventually gave rise to the celebration of Sunday each week in place of God’s holy Sabbath.]
The above information was taken from, “The First Apology of Justin,” Chapter 67. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Edition, Vol. 1, pp. 185, 186. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899)
But the amiable spirit that pervaded the meeting of Anicetus and Polycarp faded. Late in the second century, Victor, bishop of the church in Rome, sought to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia for their failure to agree on observing the resurrection on Sunday.
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus and a chief object of Victor’s pronouncement, defended his position by citing the example of Philip and John (two of the twelve apostles), Polycarp, “who was a bishop and martyr,” Traseas (also a “bishop and a martyr”) from Eumenia, Sagaris of Laodicea, Papirius, and Melito—all of whom “observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. Moreover, I, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, [do] according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed . . .
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, embraced the theology of the West and maintained that the “mystery of the resurrection of our Lord” should be observed “only on the day of the Lord.” But, “in the name of those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided,” he admonished Victor “not to cut off whole churches of God, who observed the tradition of an ancient custom.”
CHURCH FOUNDATION SHAKEN
. . . While the Easter observance controversy was at its height, the church organization structure was embryonic at best. There was not as yet a firmly codified New Testament Scripture to use as a test for doctrine. Thus the Church was susceptible to the dynamic influence of the Roman church leadership.
Where Sixtus, Anicetus, Pius, and Victor had favored the Sunday resurrection festival during the second century, Sylvester, who had the ear of Constantine, helped bring victory to the Western theologians. Sylvester urged the changing of the calendar names for the days of the week, so that the seventh day be called “Sabbath,” and the first day, the “Lord’s Day.” As early as the third century the church had referred to Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,” to be observed concurrently with the Sabbath, since “we have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord’s day of the resurrection.”
VICTORY FOR THE WEST
The subsequent involvement of Constantine opened the door to final victory for the Western point of view. In 314 the Council of Arles ruled that all Christians must keep the same day for Easter. Eleven years later the Council of Nicaea fixed Sunday as that day. Thus Sunday resurrection observance came into its own as an integral component of Christian church doctrine, while the celebration of the crucifixion on the 14th day of Nisan went into eclipse. This left the church with two significant weekly worship events: the “Sabbath” memorial of creation, on the seventh day; and the “Lord’s Day” resurrection observance on the first day.
However, already certain aspects of traditional Sabbath-observance were under attack. The focus of theological conflict now shifted to the elevation of one observance and the concurrent decline of the other. Just as the arm of the state had reached into the Easter controversy, government continued to strengthen the dominant position of Sunday observance long after Constantine’s historic proclamation of A.D. 321.
Actually, Constantine relaxed some aspects of his law in July of that same year, 321:
“As it seemed unworthy of the day of the sun, honored for its own sacredness, to be used in litigations and baneful disputes of parties, so it is grateful and pleasant on that day for sacred vows to be fulfilled. And, therefore let all have the liberty on the festive day of emancipating and manumitting slaves, and besides these things let not public acts be forbidden.”
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE STRENGTHENED
But in the century that followed, a succession of decrees was issued which commanded soldiers to worship on Sunday; freed Christians from tax collection on Sunday; forbade circus spectacles, horse races, and theatrical shows; and prohibited Sunday lawsuits.
Although some Christians had called Sunday the “Lord’s Day” possibly as early as the second century, the terminology did not appear in Roman law until late in the fourth century, when it was connected to Sunday observance in a decree of the three co-emperors Gratanus, Valentinianus, and Theodosius:
“On the day of the sun, properly called the Lord’s day by our ancestors, let there be a cessation of lawsuits, business, and indictments; let no one exact a debt due either the state or an individual; let there be no cognizance of disputes, not even by arbitrators, whether appointed by the courts or voluntarily chosen. And let him not only be adjudged notorious, but also impious who shall turn aside from an institute and rite of holy religion.”
Earlier, in 380, Theodosius had established Christianity as the official religion of the empire; now the union of church and state was absolute. Emperors were free to punish religious heretics, for under a monolithic church-state power, theological dissent could also be interpreted as a criminal act against the state.
In A.D. 538 the Third Council of Orleans forbade rural work such as “plowing, cultivating vines, reaping, mowing, threshing, etc.” and promised punishment to violators “as the ecclesiastical powers may determine.” The Second Council of Macon in A.D. 585 threatened advocates with the loss of their “privilege of pleading the cause” if done on the “Lord’s Day,” and the countryman was to be “soundly beaten with whips” if he placed a “yoke on the neck of his cattle” on the Lord’s Day. The A.D. 813 Council of Mayence under Charlemagne decreed that “Lord’s Days shall be observed with all due veneration, and that all servile work shall be abstained from, and that buying and selling may be less likely to happen.”
STATE SPONSORED RELIGION PRECEDES DECLINE
Increased public clamor for a state-sponsored religion accompanies a decline in social morality. The anemic spiritual condition of a nation’s religious experience is tacitly admitted where the church looks to government to codify religious practice.
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent headlong plunge of civilized social order into an age of stagnation is mute testimony that a monolithic church-state government failed to saved either the purity of the church or the political power of the state.
In succeeding centuries the pattern continued. Whenever the Christian church united with the secular government, Sunday laws blossomed as the tangible symbol of this alliance. The dissenter felt the sting of intolerance as new penalties were added. There was no alternative to “ultimate truth.” “Error” had to be eliminated, by persecution if necessary. The independent church functioning freely within the independent state did not exist.
HOW HAVE WE COME TO THE SUNDAY-SABBATH?
In order to complete our understanding of just how it is we have come to these modern times with our Christian eyes virtually “blind” to the truth of how we can regard Sunday as the Sabbath, we must first go back to the year A.D. 1054:
The road from Rome to Constantinople seemed long and treacherous to Cardinal Humbert, bishop of Candida Silva. Threatening clouds of doctrinal dissension hung low over the cardinal and his two companions, Frederick, deacon at Rome, and Peter, bishop of Amalfi, as they began their journey. These churchmen carried with them a stern directive from Leo IX, bishop of Rome, to Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople. Leo demanded that the Greek Church give immediate recognition and obedience to the authoritative declarations of the pope.
A letter from Michael Cerularius, written to Leo the previous year, had inspired this firm action. Cerularius had challenged doctrinal interpretations fostered by Roman church leaders. Specifically, he argued with the Roman custom of fasting on the seventh-day Sabbath. This was more than a simple disagreement in interpretation of disputed doctrine. Traditional strongholds of church authority were suffering a frontal attack, and no one realized the gravity of the battle better than Pope Leo.
Cerularius and his Eastern followers argued thus: Since the councils of the church had attacked the custom of fasting on the Sabbath, and since there was no mandate for the custom either from apostolic practice or from the Bible, the whim of a Roman bishop was insufficient justification for such a radical departure from established belief. He later declared, “We are commanded also to honor the Sabbath equally with the Lord’s [Day], and keep and not to work on it.”
The Western Church rejected both the challenge to its leadership and the doctrinal thesis upon which it was based. Humbert’s Roman advocate accused the Greeks of following the example of the Hebrews:
“[They keep] holiday on the [7th day] Sabbath by neither plowing nor reaping, and by reason of custom do not work, but they hold a festivity and a dinner and their menservants, maidservants, cattle, and beasts of burden rest . . . They certainly observe the Sabbath, and you observe, they dine, and always break the fast, on the Sabbath . . . They have a twofold reason for observing the Sabbath, obviously (1) by reason of the precept of Moses, and (2) because the disciples were saddened and heavy on this day on account of the death of the Lord, whom they did not believe to be about to be resurrected. Wherefore, because you observe the Sabbath with the Jews, and with us the Lord’s day, you appear by such observance to imitate the sect of the Nazarenes, who in this manner accept Christianity that they might not give up Judaism.”
Humbert strongly denounced the Eastern attitude, and as positively justified Western practice. He cited the “compassionate regard for the Lord in suffering and death” by the Latin Church’s rejoicing in the “resurrection on the Lord’s Day, when concern much troubled the Jews as they were seeking to corrupt the guards of the sepulcher by means of money. Wherefore we, holding unto the present time the apostolic tradition concerning the Sabbath, and desiring to hold unto the end, are careful to subscribe to that which our ancient and venerable fathers declared and confirmed.”
[B][Now remember, reader, that when Catholics use the term “apostolic tradition” they are referring to their belief in “apostolic succession” –which is NOT talking about the behavior of Christ’s apostles, but the beliefs and practices of the papal see, who followed long AFTER the apostles. It is due to this doctrine of the “apostolic succession” that Catholics believe the pope has the right to change or alter what God has deemed “inspiration” in the Bible. It is through this power that the Catholic Church changed the holy seventh day Sabbath to Sunday.]
At this juncture in the treatise, Humbert pointed to the leadership of Sylvester, bishop of Rome and contemporary of Constantine. He cited Sylvester as having declared:
“In every Lord’s Day on account of the resurrection is to be kept in joy of Christians, then every Sabbath day of the burial is to be estimated in execration of the Jews. For all the disciples of the Lord had a lamentation on the Sabbath, bewailing the buried Lord, and gladness for the exulting Jews. But for the fasting apostles sadness reigned. Let us, therefore, be sad with the saddened on account of the burial of the Lord, if we would rejoice with them on account of the resurrection of the Lord. For it is not proper that we should observe an account of Jewish custom, the subversions of the foods and ceremonies of the Jews.”
[Question: Is it any wonder God’s holy Sabbath has come to be looked upon by Christian’s as a despicable day to be shunned? Ask Christians today about the Ten Commandments, and they will generally tell you that all are to be observed –except one. “The Sabbath is no longer in force, for it belonged to the Jews,” they will say, mimicking the very words spoken by those whose greatest desire was to obliterate the day God sanctified. And like the Jewish leaders in Christ's day, they burdened God's holy day down with fasting, while at the same time celebrating the 1st day of the week.]
The issue between East and West was not primarily theological. Rather, it had become a conflict over the authority exercised by the bishop of Rome. It was here that the churches of the East refused to yield.
Cerularius resented the pope’s demands that his decrees be recognized as THE AUTHORITY of the church. A public debate on June 24, 1054, between Humbert and Nicetas only widened the breach. Finally, on the morning of July 16, the papal legates in Constantinople publicly attacked the position of Cerularius at the church of St. Sophia and presented to the church the pope’s written excommunication of the churches of the East. Local church leaders retaliated by publicly destroying the papal pronouncement.
Before Humbert completed his return journey to Rome, he received a communiqué from the emperor urging him to make one more attempt at church unity. But the damage had been done. Subsequent attempts at reconciliation failed, and more than nine centuries of separation between Christians of East and West followed. Seventh-day Sabbath observance went into virtual eclipse, as the majority of Christians believed Sunday had been sanctioned as the essential day for Christian worship. Ultimately Christian thought went the full circle and attached the “Sabbath” title to Sunday, the first day of the week.
Exactly Which Pope Made The Change
From Sabbath To Sunday Rest?
The following information amply demonstrates that a pope did indeed declare a change from Saturday Sabbath rest to the keeping of Sunday as the weekly day of rest:
Pope Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.)
Decrees the Transfer of Sabbath Rest to Sunday:
Rabanus Maurus (776-856), abbot of Fulda and later archbishop of Mainz, Germany, was rated one of the greatest theologians of his age and probably the most cultured man of his time, and exceptionally learned in patristics. Besides, he was a zealous defender of the papacy and its teachings. In one of his works, he says,
Pope Sylvester instructed the clergy to keep the feriae. And, indeed, from an old custom he called the first day [of the week] the "Lord's [day]," on which the light was made in the beginning and also the resurrection of Christ is celebrated.6
Rabanus Maurus does not mean to say that Sylvester was the first man who referred to the days of the week as feriae or who first started the observance of Sunday among Christians. He means that, according to the testimony of Roman Catholic writers, Sylvester confirmed those practices and made them official insofar as his church was concerned. Hence Rabanus says elsewhere in his writings:
Pope Sylvester first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days [of the week], which they previously called after the name of their gods, that is, [the day] of the Sun, [the day] of the Moon, [the day] of Mars, [the day] of Mercury, [the day] of Jupiter, [the day] of Venus, [the day] of Saturn, they should call feriae thereafter, that is the first feria, the second feria, the third feria, the fourth feria, the fifth feria, the sixth feria, because that in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said concerning each day: on the first, "Let there be light:; on the second, "Let there be a firmament"; on the third, "Let the earth bring forth verdure"; etc. But he [Sylvester] ordered [them] to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, [to call] the first feria the "Lord's day," because on it the Lord rose [from the dead], Moreover, the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day [Sunday], in order that on that day we should rest from worldly works for the praise of God.7
Note particularly, he says that "the same pope [Sylvester I] decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day [Sunday]."8 According to this statement, he was the first bishop to introduce the idea that the divinely appointed rest of the Sabbath day should be transferred to the first day of the week. This is significant, especially in view of the fact that it was during Sylvester's pontificate that the emperor of Rome [Constantine] issued the first civil laws compelling men to rest from secular labor on Sunday, and that Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, was the first theologian on record to present arguments, allegedly from the Scriptures, that Christ did transfer the rest of the Sabbath day to Sunday.
6 Rabanus Maurus, Liber de Computo (A book Concerning Computation), Chap. XXVII ("Concerning Festivals"), as translated by the writer from the Latin text in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Vol. CVII, col. 682.
7 ------------, De Clericorum Institutione (Concerning the Instruction of the Clergymen), Book II, Chap. XLVI, as translated by the writer from the Latin text in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Vol. CVII, col. 361.
8 The wording in the Latin text reads: "Statuit autem idem papa ut otium Sabbati magis in diem Dominicam transferretur, ut ea die a terrenis operibus ad laudandum Deum vacaremus."
Source: Sabbath and Sunday in Early Christianity, by Robert L. Odom, © 1977 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association (An Adventist publishing house), pages 247-248.
1765. Week, Names of Days, Decreed Changed by Pope Sylvester (314–335) From Name of Gods
Source: Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione (On the Institution of the Clergy), bk. 2, chap. 46, in MPL, Vol. 107, col. 361. Trans. from the Latin by Frank H. Yost. Used by permission of Mrs. Frank H. Yost.
Sylvester the pope first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days, which before they called according to the names of their own gods, that is (the day) of the sun, of the moon, of Mars, of Mercury, of Venus, of Saturn, they should call feria (day of celebration), that is, first feria, second feria, third feria, fourth feria, fifth feria, sixth feria, because in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God had said for each day: first, "Let there be light"; second, "Let there be the firmament"; third, "Let the earth produce living plants", etc. But the Sabbath he commanded they call by the ancient name of the law, and the first feria the Lord’s day, because the Lord rose on that day. Moreover the same pope ordered that the rest (otium) of the Sabbath would better be transferred to the Lord’s day, so that we should leave that day free of worldly works in order to praise God.
Source: Bible Student's Source Book (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 9), edited by Don F. Neufeld and Julia Neuffer, published and © 1962 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association (An Adventist publishing house), Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 62-9139, entry #1765, page 1078.
Now the above quotes are, as noted, from Migne's Patrologia Latina (MPL), a well known scholarly compilation of the writings of Latin Fathers, a work of 221 volumes, which can be searched online to confirm the Latin sentence quoted in footnote 8 above, in which Rabanus Maurus attributes the change to Sunday rest to Pope Sylvester I. Patrologia Latina was first published from 1844 to 1855.So while some Roman Catholics were suggesting on the internet that Adventists simply could not prove that a Pope made a change to Sunday, other Roman Catholics were openly proclaiming that Pope Sylvester I had done the deed!
It should also be noted that Pope Sylvester did not invent Sunday worship, and neither did Emperor Constantine, and Adventists do not make that claim. But, it is evident to everyone that a change did happen to keeping Sunday instead of the Saturday Sabbath. Adventists have been well aware that celebrating the resurrection on Sundays predates the 4th century, though there is no biblical proof that the Apostles ever sanctioned a change of the Sabbath to Sunday or practiced it themselves.” -- Michael Schiefler (www.biblelight.com)
May God Bless!
--Ya'nar :Princess:
Contrary to the beliefs of most Christians today, the change of the seventh day Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week, happened very gradually over several centuries. The official change was made by Pope Sylvester in the 4th century. This evidence will be shown later in this article. But it will be demonstrated here that this change did not occur until AFTER the apostles had died, beginning around the year 155 A.D., with the yearly change of the celebration of the resurrection, from the sixteenth day of Nisan (Jewish reckoning for Firstfruits, a type of resurrection celebration), to a fixed date each year which fell on a Sunday.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
(As quoted from the Appendix of “Dateline Sunday” by Warren L. Johns)
“Although Sunday laws [called “blue laws”] blossomed into their intolerant maturity during the American colonial times, they date from a much earlier period. Over sixteen centuries ago, in A.D. 321, a political opportunist named Constantine proclaimed certain constraints on Sunday activity.
. . . Emperor Constantine “did not formerly renounce heathenism, and did not receive baptism until, in 337, he was laid upon the bed of death.” Milman describes Constantine as “outwardly, and even zealously pagan” up to 313 and subsequent to 326 as one whose mind “appears to have relapsed in some degree to its imperfectly unpaganized Christianity. His conduct became ambiguous as before, floating between decided bias in favour of Christianity, and an apparent design to harmonise with it some of the less offensive parts of Heathensim.”
Even “his coins bore on the one side the letters of the name of Christ; on the other the figures of the Sun-god, and the inscription, “Sol Invictus,” as he could not bear to relinquish the patronage of the bright luminary which represented to him, as to Augustus and to Julian, his own guardian deity.”
THE BACKGROUND
. . . Political turbulence and unrest greeted Constantine when he ascended the throne. The throne itself was shaky enough, and barbarian hordes threatened invasion. The iron monarchy slowly rusted though until his death in A.D. 337 the emperor attempted every way possible to restore stability and strength.
Paganism predominated. Not more than “a twentieth part of the subjects of the empire had enlisted themselves under the banner of the Cross before the important conversion of Constantine.” Nonetheless, Christians were a vocal and influential minority which held a certain appeal for Constantine. A union of church and state existed, in which religion played a subordinate, departmental role. Constantine directly concerned himself with religious affairs, only as a lesser segment of his political sphere. However, he was “the first representative of the imposing idea of a Christian theocracy, or of that system of policy which assumes all subjects to be Christians, connects civil and religious rights, and regards church and state as the two arms of one and the same divine government on earth . . . Christianity appeared to him, as it proved in fact, the only efficient power for the political reformation of the empire, from which the ancient spirit of Rome was fast departing.”
Constantine’s political motives were showing when he strove “not so much for the cause of God, as for the gratification of his own ambition and love of power.”
The "VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN"
In a quest for additional devises of unity, Constantine noted the significance attached to the first day of the week by Christian and pagan alike. Many Christians had for a long time attached the “Lord’s Day” label to the first day of the week and marked it for a weekly festival in celebration of Christ’s resurrection. The Mithraists worshiped the sun as a deity, so the day of the sun was sacred to them also. Constantine found it politically expedient, therefore, to please these two diverse segments of his realm by honoring the “venerable day of the sun” through governmental edict in which “he expresses himself, perhaps with reference at once to the sun-god, Apollo, and of Christ, the true Sun of righteousness; to his pagan and his Christian subjects.”
“The retention of the old pagan name of “Dies Solis,” or “Sunday,” for the weekly Christian festival, is, in a great measure, owing to the union of Pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects, Pagan and Christian alike, as the “venerable day of the Sun.” His celebrated decree has been justly called “a new era in the history of the Lord’s Day.” It was his mode of harmonizing the Christian and Pagan elements of the Empire under one common institution.”
At a time when forces were already at work which would tear the empire into shreds, the first Sunday law did provide a common denominator of unity. The law, promulgated on March 7, A.D. 321, ordered:
“Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen rest on the venerable day of the sun, but let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields, since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain or the planting of vines, hence the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest provisions of heaven be lost.”
Although the law carried religious overtones, it could hardly be called “Christian.” The edict did not invoke the “Lord’s Day.” The day after the Sunday proclamation, Constantine revealed his pagan inclinations in a decree calling for consultation with “soothsayers” when “the palace or other public works shall be struck by lightning.”
The Sunday law exempted the rural Roman. It carried no criminal penalties on its face. But, mild as it seemed, it set a precedent for a succession of political and theological conflicts which were to mark sixteen subsequent centuries. Constantine himself found five more occasions, ranging from a law concerning the emancipation of slaves on Sunday to provision for the celebration of Easter, to enhance the legal status of the day.
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Christian church leaders assembled for the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 at the call of Constantine. The “venerable day of the sun” edict issued four years previously had not solved the doctrinal battle between churches of the East and the West with regard to Sunday and Easter observance.
. . . The attention of the church now focused on a battle from within—the necessity for interpretation and formulation of church dogma. Of concern to all was the establishment of a proper memorial to mark the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Churches in the West favored the observance of Sunday as the day of resurrection. Churches of the East emphasized the significance of the crucifixion on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan, irrespective of the day of the week.
What were the backgrounds for the disputations at Nicaea?
Some church historians claim that early in the second century Sixtus, bishop of Rome, had called for observance of the resurrection on Sunday. Another tradition claims that while Pius I was bishop of Rome, his brother Hermes went so far as to claim that an angel had instructed the church to commemorate yearly the resurrection on the first day [Sunday].
EAST versus WEST
Christians in the East and in the West differed on the matter. When Anicetus was bishop, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, paid him a visit in Rome. This encounter, described by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, took place in an atmosphere of calm and respect:
“When the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little difference among themselves likewise respecting other matters, they immediately were reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it [the 16th day of Nisan as the memorial of Christ’s resurrection], because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated; and neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe [Sunday, the first day of the week each year], who said that he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him.”
In a letter to the emperor, written about A.D. 155, Justin Martyr supported the views of Anicetus. What had started as merely an ANNUAL observance and continued as such until the time of Sixtus, had eventually become a WEEKLY “assemblage” for the reading of “the memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets.” Then a leader gave admonition and “exhorts to the imitation of these good things.” Justin referred to prayers offered and voluntary offerings collected for orphans and widows. He continued:
“Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day in which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you for your consideration.”
[READER PLEASE TAKE NOTE: Nowhere does Justin Martyr cite either Biblical evidence or apostolic authority for the change of the celebration of the resurrection of Christ, from the 16th day of Nisan, Jewish reckoning, to Sunday each week. In fact, the historical record testifies clearly that Polycarp “always observed it [16th day of Nisan, which is the day the Lord commanded the Jews to celebrate the "sheaf of the Firstfruits"--two days after Passover, the 14th day of Nisan] with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated”. So here we have evidence that the apostles DID NOT SANCTION the change in the celebration of the resurrection, which, as we will show, eventually gave rise to the celebration of Sunday each week in place of God’s holy Sabbath.]
The above information was taken from, “The First Apology of Justin,” Chapter 67. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Edition, Vol. 1, pp. 185, 186. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899)
But the amiable spirit that pervaded the meeting of Anicetus and Polycarp faded. Late in the second century, Victor, bishop of the church in Rome, sought to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia for their failure to agree on observing the resurrection on Sunday.
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus and a chief object of Victor’s pronouncement, defended his position by citing the example of Philip and John (two of the twelve apostles), Polycarp, “who was a bishop and martyr,” Traseas (also a “bishop and a martyr”) from Eumenia, Sagaris of Laodicea, Papirius, and Melito—all of whom “observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. Moreover, I, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, [do] according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed . . .
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, embraced the theology of the West and maintained that the “mystery of the resurrection of our Lord” should be observed “only on the day of the Lord.” But, “in the name of those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided,” he admonished Victor “not to cut off whole churches of God, who observed the tradition of an ancient custom.”
CHURCH FOUNDATION SHAKEN
. . . While the Easter observance controversy was at its height, the church organization structure was embryonic at best. There was not as yet a firmly codified New Testament Scripture to use as a test for doctrine. Thus the Church was susceptible to the dynamic influence of the Roman church leadership.
Where Sixtus, Anicetus, Pius, and Victor had favored the Sunday resurrection festival during the second century, Sylvester, who had the ear of Constantine, helped bring victory to the Western theologians. Sylvester urged the changing of the calendar names for the days of the week, so that the seventh day be called “Sabbath,” and the first day, the “Lord’s Day.” As early as the third century the church had referred to Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,” to be observed concurrently with the Sabbath, since “we have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord’s day of the resurrection.”
VICTORY FOR THE WEST
The subsequent involvement of Constantine opened the door to final victory for the Western point of view. In 314 the Council of Arles ruled that all Christians must keep the same day for Easter. Eleven years later the Council of Nicaea fixed Sunday as that day. Thus Sunday resurrection observance came into its own as an integral component of Christian church doctrine, while the celebration of the crucifixion on the 14th day of Nisan went into eclipse. This left the church with two significant weekly worship events: the “Sabbath” memorial of creation, on the seventh day; and the “Lord’s Day” resurrection observance on the first day.
However, already certain aspects of traditional Sabbath-observance were under attack. The focus of theological conflict now shifted to the elevation of one observance and the concurrent decline of the other. Just as the arm of the state had reached into the Easter controversy, government continued to strengthen the dominant position of Sunday observance long after Constantine’s historic proclamation of A.D. 321.
Actually, Constantine relaxed some aspects of his law in July of that same year, 321:
“As it seemed unworthy of the day of the sun, honored for its own sacredness, to be used in litigations and baneful disputes of parties, so it is grateful and pleasant on that day for sacred vows to be fulfilled. And, therefore let all have the liberty on the festive day of emancipating and manumitting slaves, and besides these things let not public acts be forbidden.”
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE STRENGTHENED
But in the century that followed, a succession of decrees was issued which commanded soldiers to worship on Sunday; freed Christians from tax collection on Sunday; forbade circus spectacles, horse races, and theatrical shows; and prohibited Sunday lawsuits.
Although some Christians had called Sunday the “Lord’s Day” possibly as early as the second century, the terminology did not appear in Roman law until late in the fourth century, when it was connected to Sunday observance in a decree of the three co-emperors Gratanus, Valentinianus, and Theodosius:
“On the day of the sun, properly called the Lord’s day by our ancestors, let there be a cessation of lawsuits, business, and indictments; let no one exact a debt due either the state or an individual; let there be no cognizance of disputes, not even by arbitrators, whether appointed by the courts or voluntarily chosen. And let him not only be adjudged notorious, but also impious who shall turn aside from an institute and rite of holy religion.”
Earlier, in 380, Theodosius had established Christianity as the official religion of the empire; now the union of church and state was absolute. Emperors were free to punish religious heretics, for under a monolithic church-state power, theological dissent could also be interpreted as a criminal act against the state.
In A.D. 538 the Third Council of Orleans forbade rural work such as “plowing, cultivating vines, reaping, mowing, threshing, etc.” and promised punishment to violators “as the ecclesiastical powers may determine.” The Second Council of Macon in A.D. 585 threatened advocates with the loss of their “privilege of pleading the cause” if done on the “Lord’s Day,” and the countryman was to be “soundly beaten with whips” if he placed a “yoke on the neck of his cattle” on the Lord’s Day. The A.D. 813 Council of Mayence under Charlemagne decreed that “Lord’s Days shall be observed with all due veneration, and that all servile work shall be abstained from, and that buying and selling may be less likely to happen.”
STATE SPONSORED RELIGION PRECEDES DECLINE
Increased public clamor for a state-sponsored religion accompanies a decline in social morality. The anemic spiritual condition of a nation’s religious experience is tacitly admitted where the church looks to government to codify religious practice.
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent headlong plunge of civilized social order into an age of stagnation is mute testimony that a monolithic church-state government failed to saved either the purity of the church or the political power of the state.
In succeeding centuries the pattern continued. Whenever the Christian church united with the secular government, Sunday laws blossomed as the tangible symbol of this alliance. The dissenter felt the sting of intolerance as new penalties were added. There was no alternative to “ultimate truth.” “Error” had to be eliminated, by persecution if necessary. The independent church functioning freely within the independent state did not exist.
HOW HAVE WE COME TO THE SUNDAY-SABBATH?
In order to complete our understanding of just how it is we have come to these modern times with our Christian eyes virtually “blind” to the truth of how we can regard Sunday as the Sabbath, we must first go back to the year A.D. 1054:
The road from Rome to Constantinople seemed long and treacherous to Cardinal Humbert, bishop of Candida Silva. Threatening clouds of doctrinal dissension hung low over the cardinal and his two companions, Frederick, deacon at Rome, and Peter, bishop of Amalfi, as they began their journey. These churchmen carried with them a stern directive from Leo IX, bishop of Rome, to Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople. Leo demanded that the Greek Church give immediate recognition and obedience to the authoritative declarations of the pope.
A letter from Michael Cerularius, written to Leo the previous year, had inspired this firm action. Cerularius had challenged doctrinal interpretations fostered by Roman church leaders. Specifically, he argued with the Roman custom of fasting on the seventh-day Sabbath. This was more than a simple disagreement in interpretation of disputed doctrine. Traditional strongholds of church authority were suffering a frontal attack, and no one realized the gravity of the battle better than Pope Leo.
Cerularius and his Eastern followers argued thus: Since the councils of the church had attacked the custom of fasting on the Sabbath, and since there was no mandate for the custom either from apostolic practice or from the Bible, the whim of a Roman bishop was insufficient justification for such a radical departure from established belief. He later declared, “We are commanded also to honor the Sabbath equally with the Lord’s [Day], and keep and not to work on it.”
The Western Church rejected both the challenge to its leadership and the doctrinal thesis upon which it was based. Humbert’s Roman advocate accused the Greeks of following the example of the Hebrews:
“[They keep] holiday on the [7th day] Sabbath by neither plowing nor reaping, and by reason of custom do not work, but they hold a festivity and a dinner and their menservants, maidservants, cattle, and beasts of burden rest . . . They certainly observe the Sabbath, and you observe, they dine, and always break the fast, on the Sabbath . . . They have a twofold reason for observing the Sabbath, obviously (1) by reason of the precept of Moses, and (2) because the disciples were saddened and heavy on this day on account of the death of the Lord, whom they did not believe to be about to be resurrected. Wherefore, because you observe the Sabbath with the Jews, and with us the Lord’s day, you appear by such observance to imitate the sect of the Nazarenes, who in this manner accept Christianity that they might not give up Judaism.”
Humbert strongly denounced the Eastern attitude, and as positively justified Western practice. He cited the “compassionate regard for the Lord in suffering and death” by the Latin Church’s rejoicing in the “resurrection on the Lord’s Day, when concern much troubled the Jews as they were seeking to corrupt the guards of the sepulcher by means of money. Wherefore we, holding unto the present time the apostolic tradition concerning the Sabbath, and desiring to hold unto the end, are careful to subscribe to that which our ancient and venerable fathers declared and confirmed.”
[B][Now remember, reader, that when Catholics use the term “apostolic tradition” they are referring to their belief in “apostolic succession” –which is NOT talking about the behavior of Christ’s apostles, but the beliefs and practices of the papal see, who followed long AFTER the apostles. It is due to this doctrine of the “apostolic succession” that Catholics believe the pope has the right to change or alter what God has deemed “inspiration” in the Bible. It is through this power that the Catholic Church changed the holy seventh day Sabbath to Sunday.]
At this juncture in the treatise, Humbert pointed to the leadership of Sylvester, bishop of Rome and contemporary of Constantine. He cited Sylvester as having declared:
“In every Lord’s Day on account of the resurrection is to be kept in joy of Christians, then every Sabbath day of the burial is to be estimated in execration of the Jews. For all the disciples of the Lord had a lamentation on the Sabbath, bewailing the buried Lord, and gladness for the exulting Jews. But for the fasting apostles sadness reigned. Let us, therefore, be sad with the saddened on account of the burial of the Lord, if we would rejoice with them on account of the resurrection of the Lord. For it is not proper that we should observe an account of Jewish custom, the subversions of the foods and ceremonies of the Jews.”
[Question: Is it any wonder God’s holy Sabbath has come to be looked upon by Christian’s as a despicable day to be shunned? Ask Christians today about the Ten Commandments, and they will generally tell you that all are to be observed –except one. “The Sabbath is no longer in force, for it belonged to the Jews,” they will say, mimicking the very words spoken by those whose greatest desire was to obliterate the day God sanctified. And like the Jewish leaders in Christ's day, they burdened God's holy day down with fasting, while at the same time celebrating the 1st day of the week.]
The issue between East and West was not primarily theological. Rather, it had become a conflict over the authority exercised by the bishop of Rome. It was here that the churches of the East refused to yield.
Cerularius resented the pope’s demands that his decrees be recognized as THE AUTHORITY of the church. A public debate on June 24, 1054, between Humbert and Nicetas only widened the breach. Finally, on the morning of July 16, the papal legates in Constantinople publicly attacked the position of Cerularius at the church of St. Sophia and presented to the church the pope’s written excommunication of the churches of the East. Local church leaders retaliated by publicly destroying the papal pronouncement.
Before Humbert completed his return journey to Rome, he received a communiqué from the emperor urging him to make one more attempt at church unity. But the damage had been done. Subsequent attempts at reconciliation failed, and more than nine centuries of separation between Christians of East and West followed. Seventh-day Sabbath observance went into virtual eclipse, as the majority of Christians believed Sunday had been sanctioned as the essential day for Christian worship. Ultimately Christian thought went the full circle and attached the “Sabbath” title to Sunday, the first day of the week.
Exactly Which Pope Made The Change
From Sabbath To Sunday Rest?
The following information amply demonstrates that a pope did indeed declare a change from Saturday Sabbath rest to the keeping of Sunday as the weekly day of rest:
Pope Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.)
Decrees the Transfer of Sabbath Rest to Sunday:
Rabanus Maurus (776-856), abbot of Fulda and later archbishop of Mainz, Germany, was rated one of the greatest theologians of his age and probably the most cultured man of his time, and exceptionally learned in patristics. Besides, he was a zealous defender of the papacy and its teachings. In one of his works, he says,
Pope Sylvester instructed the clergy to keep the feriae. And, indeed, from an old custom he called the first day [of the week] the "Lord's [day]," on which the light was made in the beginning and also the resurrection of Christ is celebrated.6
Rabanus Maurus does not mean to say that Sylvester was the first man who referred to the days of the week as feriae or who first started the observance of Sunday among Christians. He means that, according to the testimony of Roman Catholic writers, Sylvester confirmed those practices and made them official insofar as his church was concerned. Hence Rabanus says elsewhere in his writings:
Pope Sylvester first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days [of the week], which they previously called after the name of their gods, that is, [the day] of the Sun, [the day] of the Moon, [the day] of Mars, [the day] of Mercury, [the day] of Jupiter, [the day] of Venus, [the day] of Saturn, they should call feriae thereafter, that is the first feria, the second feria, the third feria, the fourth feria, the fifth feria, the sixth feria, because that in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said concerning each day: on the first, "Let there be light:; on the second, "Let there be a firmament"; on the third, "Let the earth bring forth verdure"; etc. But he [Sylvester] ordered [them] to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, [to call] the first feria the "Lord's day," because on it the Lord rose [from the dead], Moreover, the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day [Sunday], in order that on that day we should rest from worldly works for the praise of God.7
Note particularly, he says that "the same pope [Sylvester I] decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day [Sunday]."8 According to this statement, he was the first bishop to introduce the idea that the divinely appointed rest of the Sabbath day should be transferred to the first day of the week. This is significant, especially in view of the fact that it was during Sylvester's pontificate that the emperor of Rome [Constantine] issued the first civil laws compelling men to rest from secular labor on Sunday, and that Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, was the first theologian on record to present arguments, allegedly from the Scriptures, that Christ did transfer the rest of the Sabbath day to Sunday.
6 Rabanus Maurus, Liber de Computo (A book Concerning Computation), Chap. XXVII ("Concerning Festivals"), as translated by the writer from the Latin text in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Vol. CVII, col. 682.
7 ------------, De Clericorum Institutione (Concerning the Instruction of the Clergymen), Book II, Chap. XLVI, as translated by the writer from the Latin text in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Vol. CVII, col. 361.
8 The wording in the Latin text reads: "Statuit autem idem papa ut otium Sabbati magis in diem Dominicam transferretur, ut ea die a terrenis operibus ad laudandum Deum vacaremus."
Source: Sabbath and Sunday in Early Christianity, by Robert L. Odom, © 1977 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association (An Adventist publishing house), pages 247-248.
1765. Week, Names of Days, Decreed Changed by Pope Sylvester (314–335) From Name of Gods
Source: Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Institutione (On the Institution of the Clergy), bk. 2, chap. 46, in MPL, Vol. 107, col. 361. Trans. from the Latin by Frank H. Yost. Used by permission of Mrs. Frank H. Yost.
Sylvester the pope first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days, which before they called according to the names of their own gods, that is (the day) of the sun, of the moon, of Mars, of Mercury, of Venus, of Saturn, they should call feria (day of celebration), that is, first feria, second feria, third feria, fourth feria, fifth feria, sixth feria, because in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God had said for each day: first, "Let there be light"; second, "Let there be the firmament"; third, "Let the earth produce living plants", etc. But the Sabbath he commanded they call by the ancient name of the law, and the first feria the Lord’s day, because the Lord rose on that day. Moreover the same pope ordered that the rest (otium) of the Sabbath would better be transferred to the Lord’s day, so that we should leave that day free of worldly works in order to praise God.
Source: Bible Student's Source Book (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 9), edited by Don F. Neufeld and Julia Neuffer, published and © 1962 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association (An Adventist publishing house), Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 62-9139, entry #1765, page 1078.
Now the above quotes are, as noted, from Migne's Patrologia Latina (MPL), a well known scholarly compilation of the writings of Latin Fathers, a work of 221 volumes, which can be searched online to confirm the Latin sentence quoted in footnote 8 above, in which Rabanus Maurus attributes the change to Sunday rest to Pope Sylvester I. Patrologia Latina was first published from 1844 to 1855.So while some Roman Catholics were suggesting on the internet that Adventists simply could not prove that a Pope made a change to Sunday, other Roman Catholics were openly proclaiming that Pope Sylvester I had done the deed!
It should also be noted that Pope Sylvester did not invent Sunday worship, and neither did Emperor Constantine, and Adventists do not make that claim. But, it is evident to everyone that a change did happen to keeping Sunday instead of the Saturday Sabbath. Adventists have been well aware that celebrating the resurrection on Sundays predates the 4th century, though there is no biblical proof that the Apostles ever sanctioned a change of the Sabbath to Sunday or practiced it themselves.” -- Michael Schiefler (www.biblelight.com)
May God Bless!
--Ya'nar :Princess: