(1) Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." This is the first place in the Bible where "the first day of the week" is mentioned. Matthew wrote these words, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, several years after the New Testament Church came into being. The text says that late on the Sabbath day it was drawing TOWARD the first day of the week. The Sabbath was still the day BEFORE the first day of the week -- still the seventh day of the week.

(2) Mark 16:2, "And very early in the morning THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." So this text proves the same thing as the one above -- that the first day of the week was not at that the time of the Sabbath, but the day after the Sabbath. The Sabbath, then, still was the seventh day of the week.

(3) Mark 16:9, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils." This text speaks of Jesus' appearance to Mary Magdalene later the same day, -- the day AFTER the Sabbath. Nothing here calls the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath, we must admit. Nothing here calls it "The Lord's Day." Nothing here hallows Sunday or says God made it holy. Nothing here commands us to observe it. Nothing here sets it apart as a memorial of the Resurrection, or for any purpose. No command or example of rest on this day -- no authority for observing Sunday here.

(4) Luke 24:1, "Now UPON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing their spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." This text tells the same event recorded by Matthew and Mark, and it shows that on THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK these women came to do the work of a common week-day, after having rested the Sabbath day "according to the Commandment." For we have already read in the verse just before this, "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Shall we say these women did not yet know the commandment was abolished? No, we cannot, for this statement was not made by the women, but inspired by the Holy Ghost, written by Luke years after the Christian church was established. Therefore if the Holy Ghost then inspired the direct statement that the "resting" of these women on the Sabbath day was according to the commandment, would not this statement be possible had the commandment been abolished? This text, then, establishes Sunday as a common work day, three days after the crucifixion, and it further establishes that at that time Luke wrote this, the command to rest on the Sabbath had not been abolished.

(5) John 20:1, "THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre." Again, John wrote this many years (some scholars say an est. 63 years after the crucifixion) describing the same visit to the tomb.

(6) John 20:19, "Then the same day at evening, being THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." Let us examine this carefully, for some claim this was a religious service called for the purpose of celebrating the Resurrection. But notice this is the same first day of the week that followed the Sabbath. It was Jesus' first opportunity to appear to His disciples. For three and a half years He had been constantly with them, on all days of the week. His meeting with them, of itself, could not establish any day as a new Sabbath or religious meeting. Again, were they assembled to celebrate the Resurrection, thus establishing Sunday as the Christian Sabbath in honor of the Resurrection? The text says they were assembled "for fear of the Jews." The Jews had just taken and crucified their Master. They were afraid. The doors were shut because of their fear -- probably bolted. Why were they assembled? "for fear of the Jews" and also because they all lived together in this upper room, Acts 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.  Moreover, they could not have assembled to celebrate the Resurrection for they did not even believe that Jesus was risen (Mark 16:12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. 14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. Nothing in this text calls this day "Sabbath," or "Lord's Day," or any sacred title. Nothing here sets it apart, makes it holy. No authority here for changing a command of God!

(7) Acts 20:7, "And upon THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when the disciples came together to "*break" bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together." Here, at last, we find a religious meeting on the first day of the week, but it was not just a Sunday meeting, notice Paul continued his speech until midnight - "And there were many LIGHTS in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together."  Therefore if Paul was still keeping the Sabbath by resting on the 7th day or Saturday, we can conclude that after sunset on Saturday, Paul and the other lit the lamps and then had supper together. Paul then preached all the way to sunrise on the 1st day or Sunday then he left and went on his way; again showing that Paul didn't consider the Sunday to be a day of rest and he walked to his next destination. With this said, I have no problem with the fact that Paul was teaching on Sunday and that they ate a "common" meal as it was Paul's custom to preach in a synagogue each Sabbath to the Jews. With this said, many believe that Paul was teaching these folks on the Sabbath (Saturday) where they broke bread and he taught them all that day.  However, because Paul was such a strong orator, and because he was leaving them the next day, he kept right on talking into the night where they had to light lanterns and that young man eventually fell asleep and almost died. These people teach that you need to remember at that time (before the calendar was changed by the Catholic church) the first day of the week did not begin at midnight, as it does today; it began at sunset.  All Biblical days begin and end at sunset. Throughout the Roman world at that time, and for a few hundred years afterward, days began and ended at sunset. Therefore they say this meeting also took place during the hours we now call Saturday night or the" first day of the week."  I tend to agree with the first view that this was a "religious" meeting but only because Paul wanted to be in a Hebrew synagogue and then "rest" with family and friends on the prior day or Sat. However with either view, this verse is still not teaching us to stop observing the Sabbath day of rest. Moreover I have no problem with folks wanting to get together after the day of rest to meet with one another and worship the Lord, if fact it would be great if we could do this everyday.

However the following verses describe the "Lord's Supper" - 1 Cor 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.  Therefore I conclude that they were not taking the "Lords Supper" or Communion but only eating common meals. A growing controversy is now dividing some churches of Christ is whether or not Acts 20: 7 is to be viewed as general in terms of meeting(s) or exclusive, authorizing only one meeting on the Lord’s Day. Some would insist on wording this, "Authorizing one meeting in which the Lord’s Supper is observed."  When I read Acts 20: 7, I simply see the verse teaching that the disciples at Troas came together on the First Day of the week to break bread. The circumstance of Acts 20: 7 probably involved one meeting at Troas that Sunday. However, no details are supplied. I do not, though, see any intention or indication that their were two separate meals , i.e., a common meal and also the "Lord's Supper."  But again, even if they had eaten the Lord's Supper, i.e., Communion once or even twice, the Bible still didn't say for us to stop observing God's day of rest on the seventh day of each week. Nowhere in Acts nor the NT does it say, as many claim today, that the disciples always held communion every first day of the week. Acts 20 says nothing about anything being done every first day of the week. It relates the events of this one particular first day of the week, only. It is not speaking of any customs, but of the events occurring as Paul and his companions concluded their seven-day visit in passing by this town.

One more point I forgot to mention on whether the disciples ate one or two meals that day, try re-reading Acts 20 but this time could Luke have of implied that because of Paul's long-winded message they actually didn't eat until after the young man passed out? 7On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” 11Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted. - Luke didn't say "and Paul broke bread again", he said they "came together to break bread...and...Paul spoke to the people.......; maybe they never ate before Paul started teaching?

Notice Acts 2:46. The disciples, "continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread (i.e., daily eating) from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness." Here again "breaking bread" means eating a meal. Not on the first day of the week, but DAILY. So in order for the Catholic and Protestant churches of today to claim that this one meeting with Paul and the disciples proved that we should observe the Sabbath (and take Communion) on Sunday instead of Sat, they would also need to observe the following:

1. They would also need to have church services daily
2. They would need to also have church services not only up till midnight but even to the next morning.

Again, when Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out of fright. But "Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, "This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing. Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health -- And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat," Acts 27:33-35. Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry. The truth is, nowhere in the Bible is the expression "breaking of bread," or "to break bread," used to signify observance of the Lord's Supper. In all those texts it means, simply, eating a meal. So, when we read in Acts 20:7, 11, "the disciples came together to break," and how Paul had "broken bread and eaten," we know by Scripture interpretation it referred only to eating food as a meal, not to a Communion service.

We come now to the 8th and last place where the term "first day of the week" occurs in the Bible.

(8) I Corinthians 16:2, "Upon the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK let everyone of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him."

Often we see this text printed on the little offering envelopes in the pews of popular churches, and we have been told that this text sets THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK as the time for taking up the church collection for the carrying on of God's work, paying the minister, etc. Let us begin with the first verse and really catch the true intended meaning of this verse. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order of the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." This speaks of a collection -- but for whom -- for what purpose? Note: It was not for the preacher -- not for evangelism -- but "the collection for the saints." The poor saints at Jerusalem were suffering from drought and famine and from persecution from the Jews as they were no longer paying Corbin or the Temple Tax. They needed, not money, but food. Notice Paul had given similar instruction to other churches. Now observe his instruction to the Romans: "But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia (where the Corinthian Church was located) to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem . . . When, therefore, I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain," Romans 15:25-28. Now turn back to I Corinthians 16. Paul is speaking concerning a collection FOR THE SAINTS. Upon the first day of the week each one of them is instructed to do what? Look at it! Does it say drop a coin in the collection plate at a church service? Not at all! It says "let everyone of you lay by him in store." Note: lay by or store up by himself -- at home. Not lay by at the church house -- lay by him -- at home.

Now why?

"that there be no gatherings when I come." Men gather fruit out of the orchard -- they gather vegetables out of the ground, to be stored up. But putting coins in a collection plate at church, or handing in your tithe-envelope could not be called a "gathering", but an offering or collection. Notice further: "And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they (more than one) shall go with me," verses 3-4. Apparently it was going to require several men to carry this collection, gathered and stored up, to Jerusalem. If it were tithe or offering for the minister or the spread of the Gospel, Paul could have carried the money alone. So, once again, the last and final text in the Bible where we find "the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK" mentioned, it is a WORK DAY -- a day for gathering fruit and food out of the orchards and the fields and gardens, and storing it up. It was to be the FIRST labor of the week, hence the first day of the week, as soon as the Sabbath was past!

No Bible Authority

So, finally, we find upon honest examination that NOT ONE of the texts speaking about "THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK" sets it apart as a "rest" day. Not one text makes it holy, calls it the Sabbath or by any other sacred title. In EVERY case, the first day of the week was a common work day.

Sometimes Revelation 1:10 is used as Bible authority for calling Sunday "The Lords Day." It says: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice." But this does not say the "first day of the week," or "Sunday."  But, if one wants to argue, and insist upon this text applying to some definite day of the week, he shall have to look elsewhere to see which day the Bible calls "The Lords Day." For this text does not designate ANY day of the week. However, Jesus did say "He was Lord of the Sabbath", and if He is Lord of that day, then it belongs to Him, and it is His day, and therefore the Sabbath is the Lord's Day, Mark 2:28. Isaiah 58:13 calls the Sabbath (the seventh day of the week) "MY HOLY DAY." 13 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the Lord’s holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, 14 then you will find your joy in the Lord," God is speaking. So the Sabbath is THE LORD'S DAY. In the original commandment, in Exodus 20:10, we read: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God." Not my day, or your day;  Sunday is my day, so is Tuesday, and every other weekday, for my labor and my own needs. But the seventh day is not mine -- it is the Lords. It belongs to Him, and He made it holy, and commanded us to keep it that way.

The true SABBATH of the NEW Testament

Now briefly let us look through the New Testament to find which day Paul kept, and taught Gentile converts to keep.

Notice which day Paul and Barnabus used for preaching to Gentiles:

(1) Acts 13:14-15, 42-44, "But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogueue on the Sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogueue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." Then Paul stood up, and spoke, preaching Christ to them. "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogueue, the gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." Now since Paul was preaching "the grace of God," (verse 43), here was his opportunity to straighten out these Gentiles, and explain that the Sabbath was done away. Why should he wait a whole week, in order to preach to THE GENTILES on THE NEXT SABBATH? If the day had now been changed to Sunday, why did not Paul tell them they would not have to wait a week, but the very next day, Sunday, was the proper day for this service? But notice what Paul did do . . . . "And the next SABBATH day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Here Paul waited a whole week, passing up a Sunday, in order to preach to the GENTILES upon the Sabbath day.

Gentiles met on SABBATH

(2) Acts 15:1-2, 5, 14-21. Study this whole passage carefully. Certain men had come down from Judaea to Antioch, teaching that the Gentile converts there must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved. Quite a dissention arose between them and Paul and Barnabus. So it was decided Paul and Barnabus would go to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about the question. At the conference at Jerusalem, James gave the decision. "Wherefore my sentence is," he pronounced, (verses 19-21), -- that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." He did not say they should not keep the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were not in question -- but only the Law of Moses, which was an all together a different law. He merely mentioned four prohibitions, and otherwise they did not need to observe the law of Moses.

But why write this sentence to them? Note: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogueues every Sabbath day," verse 21. Do you see it? Judaizing teachers were reading the Law of Moses and teaching people in the synagogueues every Sabbath day. The apostles were writing this decision concerning the Law of Moses, because Gentile converts were going to "church" on the Sabbath day and would hear this false teaching. In order to counteract it, and protect the Gentiles from it, the written message was sent. This shows that the Gentile converts had also started keeping the Sabbath day, and went to synagogueue/church on that day. The Apostles' letter did not reprove them for this Sabbath-keeping, or even mention it. Therefore this is something these Gentiles had started doing after they were converted under the teaching of Paul and Barnabus!

A Sabbath in Philippi

(3) Acts 16:12-15. Here we find Paul and Silas at Philippi. And "we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by the river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, . . . and when she was baptized . . . ." Here again Paul and his companions waited until the Sabbath, and then went to a place of worship, and preached, and this woman, probably a Gentile, was converted. The passage indicated it was the custom to meet there on the Sabbath, and that it was custom for Paul and his companions to go to a place of prayer and worship when the Sabbath day came.

New Living Translation (©2007)
On the Sabbath we went a little way outside the city to a riverbank, where we thought people would be meeting for prayer, and we sat down to speak with some women who had gathered there.

English Standard Version (©2001)
And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

International Standard Version (©2008)
On the Sabbath day we went out the city gate and walked along the river, where we thought there was a place of prayer. We sat down and began talking to the women who had gathered there.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
On the day of worship we went out of the city to a place along the river where we thought Jewish people gathered for prayer. We sat down and began talking to the women who had gathered there.

Paul worked week-days, and kept the SABBATH

(4) Acts 18:1 After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogueue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. If we could but find one text in the New Testament giving as strong authority for Sunday observance as this one does for Sabbath-keeping, we should certainly have Bible authority for it.  Here Paul worked week-days, but went to church and taught Gentiles as well as Jews every Sabbath. Now the Commandment says; "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work," just as much as it says "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." There is just as much a command to work six days as there is to rest the seventh. And so if the day had been changed, Paul would have had to work Sabbaths, in order to go to church and preach every Sunday. But here he WORKED week days and went to church and preached every Sabbath -- not just on one particular occasion -- it says every Sabbath. He preached Christ, and the Gospel of the Kingdom. And when the Jews became offended and blasphemed, he turned away from the Jews altogether, and from then on preached to the Gentiles only, (verse 6), and he continued there a year and six months (verse 11), -- working week days -- preaching to Gentiles ONLY -- every Sabbath.  What MORE conclusive proof could we desire? What stronger Bible evidence than this, as to the true Sabbath of the New Testament? For a year and a half Paul continued working week-days -- six days -- including Sundays -- and preaching to Gentiles exclusively every Sabbath. Certainly it was his custom and manner! Certainly He could not have done this had the Sabbath been done away, or changed.

Paul commands Gentiles to keep the Sabbath

To these Gentile-born at Corinth, Paul commanded: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ," I Corinthians 11:1. And Paul "as his manner was (custom), went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures," Acts 17:2. It was his manner or his custom. Did Paul follow Jesus in this? Why, absolutely as we read:  Jesus, "as his custom was. . . went into the synagogueue on the Sabbath day," Luke 4:16.

It was Jesus' custom; Paul followed Him, and commanded the Gentile converts to follow him, even as he followed Christ

Argument: Christians do not keep the ten commandment law of Moses; this is not to say that Christians are free to steal, murder and commit adultery, just because the 10 commandments have been abolished. No! Christians are under a new law, a better Law, the law of Christ, (Gal 6:2) a better covenant (Heb 8:6-7). Paul stated, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." (1 Corinthians 14:37.) Apostle Peter said at the beginning of the establishment of the church, "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 'And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'" Thus we listen to Christ in all things and Moses in nothing.

Response: Here it appears this person does not have a problem with the "nine" Commandments of God as he/she understands the need to still "not murder", "not steal", etc. and etc., but isn't it puzzling that this same person as with 99% of all the "churches" today have a problem with only the 4th Commandment, i.e., the Sabbath?  We have read where most if not all the writers of the NT reference many of the original 10 Commandments so we can also assume they had no problems with those same 9, but why is the 4th such a big deal? First, we have to deal a few of their issues:

• Under a new Law - This would be the "Law of Grace" and it does not remove any of the original 10 Commandments; by Jesus' death and resurrection He will always "forgive" or grant "grace" for our sin (breaking of the law) IF we confess our sin (breaking of the law) and then IF we repent (not keep breaking the law again) then we are forgiven; however if we break a law again (sin) and we do not confess that it was a sin, and if we do not repent of that sin, we will not be forgiven (given grace.) Hebrews 10: 26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation,
• A better Law - The Law of Grace is a better Law then the Mosaic Law of blood sacrifices and rituals; as Jesus fulfilled all of them so we no longer need too keep the Mosaic Law.
• The Law of Christ - Jesus added laws, e.g., "even if a Man looks at a women with lust he is committing adultery." However Jesus didn't say to the women caught in adultery as an example: "I forgive you of your sin because I've done away with the Commandment dealing with adultery." Think about it, how or why would Jesus forgive this women for committing a sin (breaking the law against adultery) if it was no longer valid. Moreover, He said "and sin no more." She knew it was a sin and so did everyone else, thus that Commandment is still valid today. 
• A better Covenant - A new Covenant or a new Testament is saying the same thing written above regarding the "Law of Grace."
• The Lord's Commandments - Just because Jesus summed up all of the Commandments into saying "do unto others as you would have them do onto you" doesn't change the fact that He also said, "If you love me you'll keep my Commandments. Remember it was Jesus Christ who wrote with his own fingers in the sand/dirt when the women was accused of adultery and it was the same fingers that wrote the 10 Commandments in stone; His Word has never changed, his commandments can't change; however He can add to them.

Back to  All true believers are "spiritual" Israel, which is God's church, Abraham's promised seed:

Let's go deeper into understanding the controversial 4th Commandment

Intro