The Christian Sabbath

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Apr 1, 1909

The Christian Sabbath

ONE is often astonished to find what vitality there is in an absolutely untenable argument which has been invented to bolster up a weak cause. Assertions which have no foundation in fact, and which have been disproved over and over again, are yet repeated with the utmost assurance, and are accepted as bona fide proof by those who are seeking excuses for a practise already determined upon, rather than making an earnest search after truth.

We have been reminded of this by the reappearance of the argument in behalf of the Sunday sabbath based upon the claim of an incorrect translation of Matt. 28: 1. A leaflet which has recently fallen into our hands asserts with great positiveness Scriptural authority for the change of the Sabbath, and declares that a proper rendering of the Greek text would show as much authority in the New Testament for the so-called Christian sabbath as is found in the Old Testament for the seventh-day Sabbath. We will permit this writer to speak for himself:—

If the Scriptures had been properly translated, there need never have been any confusion concerning the proper Christian sabbath, and it seems perfectly inexcusable that the translators should have put the word week as a translation for the Greek word sabbath in so many places. In summing up, in brief, the proofs that the first day of the week is the Christian sabbath, we may notice the following points:—

1. In all the places in the New Testament where our common version reads, “The first day of the week,” the Greek has it, “The first-day sabbath,” and there is no more reason why the word week should be used as a translation of the word sabbath than why the word January should be used for it. In Matt. 28: 1, where the translation reads, “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” the Greek reads, “In the end of the Sabbath, as it was getting dusk, toward the first-day sabbath, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher,” the Greek words being mian sabbaton. From this we see most positively that the Holy Spirit himself settled the first-day sabbath as over against the last-day Sabbath of the Jewish age. People often ask, Is there no real Scriptural proof for changing the Sabbath from the last day of the week to the first day of the week? I answer, We have abundant and positive proof; for the Holy Spirit in this passage refers to the last-day sabbath of the Jews, and then the first-day sabbath, the day of Christ’s resurrection, and he calls the first day sabbath just as positively as the last day sabbath. Also in Mark 16: 1, 2, where we read, “When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher,” Greek mian sabbaton. Here again the translators made the terrible blunder of translating the word sabbath by the word week. We see here that the Holy Spirit referred to the Jewish sabbath, and says that it was past, and then just as emphatically speaks of the first-day sabbath, recognizing it as the Christian sabbath, and as truly the sabbath of the New Testament as the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Old Testament.

It will be charitable to assume that the one who makes this argument is not intentionally deceiving the people, but to one who is acquainted with the Greek text his claims are most astonishing, and indicate such an ignorance of the most elementary principles of the Greek language as to render his efforts to improve upon the translation of the Scriptures not only absurd, but absolutely ludicrous.

This whole question has been well canvassed by those who defend the observance of the first day of the week as the sabbath, but whose scholarship and honesty compel them to bear the plainest kind of testimony against any effort to pervert the texts in question into a testimony in favor of the alleged Christian sabbath. A correspondent of the Bible Record, whose attention had evidently been called to the argument based upon the unwarranted translation of Matt. 28: 1, asked the editor of that magazine this question:—

Is it allowable to translate the Greek of Matt. 28: 1, opse de sabbaton, te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton, “at the end of the sabbaths as it began to dawn toward the first of the sabbaths”? It seems to me as if we might, and it would be quite an argument in favor of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, because the resurrection morning stood between the two classes of sabbaths.

This letter was submitted to Dr. Walter Quincy Scott, one of the instructors in the Bible Teachers’ Training-school, of New York City, of which Dr. Wilbert W. White is the president, who made this reply:—

NEW YORK, Sept. 8, 1904.

MY DEAR DR. WHITE: Your correspondent asks, “Is it allowable to translate the Greek of Matt. 28: 1, opse de sabbaton, te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton, ‘At the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the sabbaths’?”

Such a rendering is impossible.

1. Mian is feminine, and sabbaton is neuter. Mian agrees with hameran understood.

Your inquirer remarks on this point (as made by writer in Sunday School Times), “Neither do they [mian and sabbaton] agree in number.” Of course not; a substantive followed by a partitive genitive can not agree with it numerically.

2. It seems idle to add anything to the foregoing grammatical prohibition of the rendering proposed. But I may add that mian sabbaton is a Hebraism corresponding to the rabbinical designation of the days of the week. They called each day of the festal week a “sabbath,” and indicated each day by its proper ordinal prefixed to “sabbath.”

And in Greek, eis is commonly used (as here) instead of protos.

The Septuagint and New Testament alike use ta sabbata in sense of singular—“the Sabbath day,” and also in the meaning “week.” Mian sabbaton in Matt. 28: 1 can not mean anything else than the “first day of the week.” The Revised Version correctly translates the verse.

Your correspondent will find ample scholarly notes in Lange’s “Matthew,” by Schaff.

Yours very truly,

WALTER QUINCY SCOTT.

This letter from Dr. Scott, which most effectually disposes of the foolish claim, growing out of a pitiable ignorance of Greek, that the translators of the Authorized and Revised Versions of the New Testament “made the terrible blunder” charged up against them, was printed in the Bible Record for January, 1905. Another Greek scholar, himself a professor in a theological seminary, took up the matter again in the issue of the Bible Record for May, 1905, in a letter from which we quote:—

Editor of the Bible Record.

DEAR SIR: The query in the issue of January, 1905, as to “Sabbath or Sabbaths” seems to call for a further warning. The querist asks if Matt. 28: 1, opse de sabbaton, te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton, may not be rendered, At the end of the [Jewish seventh-day] sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the [Christian first-day] sabbaths. The superb negative answer given should be heralded far and wide. People of excellent intention and deep piety, but with little knowledge, are making such an interpretation in fortifying themselves against “Saturday-keepers.” I own two books, and have read two others, in which each writer claims to have made the great discovery of said translation, and has based his book thereon.

These good men had only a rusted smattering of classical Greek, and in their zeal without knowledge they stumbled upon this rendering, with a carelessness that few students of a month would make. “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” And more than that, acquaintance with classical Greek is not enough for the reading of the New Testament Greek. One must have large acquaintance with the grammar and the lexicon of the Greek Old Testament, and behind that, as the key to many of its peculiarities and mysteries, of the Hebrew Old Testament also.

Thus by the testimony of two scholarly men, neither of whom can be accused of being biased in favor of the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, it is clearly established that, as any man capable of rendering simple Greek into English knows, the present reading of Matt. 28: 1 as found in the Authorized and Revised Versions of the New Testament is correct. All who are unwilling to sacrifice the truth even for an argument which will justify their practise ought, after reading these statements, forever to discard the claim that a proper translation of the text in question would furnish a sound Scriptural argument in behalf of the Sunday sabbath.

As being pertinent to this discussion, we note a letter which appeared in the Homiletic Review for January, 1909, and quote from the first paragraph:—

As to the Christian sabbath, we have none if the question is determined by the language of the New Testament as given by the translators. The translators (all of them) of the New Testament have murdered the Christian sabbath, if there is such a sabbath in the Greek New Testament. For depending on the English translation we know nothing of a Christian sabbath. The expression, “The first day of the week,” has nothing in it of a sabbatic character. If the word sabbaton means “week,” then, in the Greek we have no Christian sabbath, and mankind is without a sabbath. But if sabbaton does mean “sabbath,” what a great mistake has been made in rendering sabbaton “week.” Perhaps the destruction of the Christian sabbath came about through the erroneous conception of the Jewish sabbath. Considering Saturday, the day before resurrection day, as the Jewish sabbath, and as the seventh day of the week, would naturally cause one to think that resurrection day was “the first day of the week,” but then, why should mia ton sabbaton be so rendered, when by such an act the Christian sabbath was destroyed? The question is, Why? If sabbaton means “week,” where do we get any sabbatic character for resurrection day?

We find ourselves quite in accord with some of the statements made by this correspondent. It is not only true that “depending on the English translation, we know nothing of a Christian sabbath [Sunday],” but it is equally true that depending on the Greek text, “we know nothing of a Christian sabbath [Sunday].” The fourth commandment plainly states that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and there is no statement in Holy Writ which either modifies or annuls the fact so plainly declared.

The reason why mia ton sabbaton should be rendered “the first day of the week” is because that is the proper English equivalent of these Greek words. Translators of the Bible did not give a perverted translation of the text in order to furnish a warrant for an unscriptural religious observance.

The last inquiry of this correspondent is quite to the point: “If sabbaton means ‘week,’ where do we get any sabbatic character for resurrection day?” But sabbaton does mean “week” when used in such an expression as mia ton sabbaton, as we have shown on good testimony. We therefore repeat the question, “Where do we get any sabbatic character for resurrection day?” Where, indeed? The day has no such character. Only the Creator can give a sabbatic character to any day. Such a character he has given to the seventh day of the week, but never to the first day of the week. The more carefully the Scriptures are examined, whether it be in the English translation or in the original languages, the plainer will this fact appear.

Devious are the paths of error; straight are the ways of truth; it is unnecessary to resort to improper translations, to unwarranted inferences, or to verbal quibbles in order to establish on a solid foundation the Sabbath of the Lord, the only Christian sabbath.