There is no good to be had in avoiding a question some people might have, which it is only natural for a Christian or potential Christian to consider: Should we rest on the 7th day, which is almost universally held to be Saturday?

Or to jump out of chronological sequence and move to the days of Moses, should we keep the 4th commandment and honor the Sabbath as God's commanded holy day of rest?

No matter how much you study this issue, it just keeps coming out the same; you certainly have no scriptural authority or mandate to replace Saturday with Sunday. Even some of the greatest early fathers of the Catholic church openly admitted as much - justifying Sunday as Lord's Day on the strength of the Popes authority as a change God approved of.  Sunday as the Lord's day is strictly an invention of man.

In 321 A.D. Roman Emperor Constantine, a politician through and through, began to try to merge the Christians and the Pagans so that they might fall, to the degree possible, under the common umbrella of those who would be loyal to him. One of the compromises he made was to legitimize Christianity while simultaneously making it more palatable to the pagan.

The result was that Christianity began to assume a growing respectability in the Roman Empire, but there was pressure and laws were enacted to shift the worship day from Saturday (God's Sabbath) to Sunday (the Roman's 'venerable day of the Sun', which related to worshipping their false Sun god) There is reference to Jesus as the 'Sun of Righteousness' in the scripture, and this was employed to some degree in putting a good face on the matter. And it was pointed out that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, making Sunday a pretty special day - or at least that particular Sunday. Anyway, that seems to be where the shift in days originated. Even earlier, in the late 2nd century, Bishops of Rome such as Sixtus convinced Christians to celebrate a Resurrection Day on a certain Sunday in the Spring of the year. At first it remained only an annual celebration.

But it nearly coincided with an annual pagan festival held by Roman sun worshippers. These pagans thought of every Sunday as the Sun's day - the weekly day honoring their Sun god.  It was probably handy to have the Christian Holiday coincide with the pagan holiday.  There would be less disruption to work, you could sort of celebrate with your pagan neighbor, etc. The two holidays could just sort of blend together over time.  Maybe their kids would have a piece of lamb dedicated to Jesus while at your house, and then your kid could have a piece of beef from a cow sacrificed to the sun, over at their house.  See the problem?  Now you're eating food sacrificed to false Gods!  Just to be polite and fit in with the neighbors. 

In about 200 A.D another Roman Christian bishop - Victor - made this annual Spring celebration of the Resurrection mandatory, threatening to eject uncooperative bishops. So then it soon came to be that while most Christian churches in the world celebrated the Lord's day each Sabbath, the Roman Christians didn't - switching to Sunday. Some Egyptian Christian churches followed suit, as Rome had much influence over all things Egyptian at about this time. The church of Alexandria Egypt is one such example.

In 321 A.D. Constantine enacted a law that said work should cease on Sunday within the cities, though it could continue on farms and in agricultural areas. So in one stroke Constantine mandated observance of Sunday as a day of rest, and also made it more difficult for a Sabbath keeping farmer to justify resting on the Sabbath since he couldn't go into town on Sunday and sell his wares (because Sunday was now Constantine's rest day), and if he rested on Saturday also, then almost 30% of his week was lost to him.  It was starting to be inconvenient to keep the Sabbath. Very inconvenient.

Now, it can be and has been asserted that the Pope was given authority to replace a law of God with a new law, if that Pope was given the assignment to do so by God. And this was what is stated to have happened at the Council of Laodocia where by Papal decree Sunday worship was legitamized.

But - and this is a gigantic allowance - it must be realized that if the Pope is allowed to change a law of God based merely on his claiming that God directed him to do so, then you have just given that Pope power and authority beyond and above the very scriptures themselves. It now takes no more than the Pope's direction to alter, substitute, or eradicate any the directions which were given by God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit to the Christian church.

Here's a danger with that. It is somewhat universally accepted that a man cannot be convicted of a crime based merely on the accusation of only a single other man. It takes two or more witnesses to establish a matter. So then, how could we have arrived at a situation where God's testimony can be overridden by the utterance of a mere Pope, one single man, yet a man who has murdered can walk away a free man (barring other evidence) even though a witness claims to have seen the murder occur? If the murderer denies having done the act then it is one man's word against another. But if God says Sabbath and the Pope says Sunday, then the Pope walks away a winner? What madness!

We place the Holy Scriptures at the mercy and interpretation of a single human, the Pope, and which human being is not susceptible to being misled by the Evil One? It would, however, be not so harmful, so long as the single man in question is infallible. And there is a doctrine of Papal infallibility officially held by the Catholic Church. It holds that the Pope will be correct in what he speaks or pronounces because God will always ensure that he is correct. But, that entire notion can quickly be shown as a false one by reviewing a few centuries worth of Papal decisions and pronouncements. So, you end up, all considered, with God's laws having been altered by Popes, and these Popes can easily be shown to have been in error at various times throughout history in certain other matters.

Now it is wrong to pick on Roman Catholics and I don't mean to do so. Many of God's greatest deeds were done through that Church. But this denomination holds that the Pope can alter God's laws if God divinely tells the Pope to do so. I feel compelled personally to object to that reasoning, as both an unwitnessed and an unsubstantiated transfer of power from God to the Pope. Peter was told by Jesus to care for and lead his sheep. Peter was not told to reinvent God's utterances. So, just as Reuben (one of 12 sons of Israel) lost his place of leadership for taking upon himself the rights held only by his father (he slept with his father's concubine Bilhah, who was the mother of Reuben's own half brothers Dan and Naphtali) ) I suspect that the Catholic church of Rome, which was basically Peter's church, lost it's rights to it's place of leadership because of trying to change times and dates set by God the Father as if it were somehow a Catholic right to do so rather than a right belonging strictly to God the Father.

Should any reasonable Christian hold that Jesus Himself should feel that He needed to demonstrate confirmation of His authority to explain how he fulfilled scripture, but a Pope doesn't need any such confirmation to literally change God's laws? The Son of God feels it needful and right to authenticate His identity and authority but a Pope has no such need? Clearly that is a ludicrous notion. That actually gives Popes a magnitude of authority which even Jesus did not try to claim, though He could rightfully have done so!

There are a few little hints in the scriptures about this Sabbath question, I think. I'm speculating, and you may not agree. But consider this, just as food for thought. It concerns types, or foreshadowings, if you prefer:

First, the one previously mentioned: of Jacob's twelve sons, Rueben was the oldest and should have received the rights of the first born. But Rueben apparently slept with his father Jacob's concubine when Jacob was gone away on a trip. Genesis 49:4  This was Bilhah, Rachael's handmaid and the mother of Reuben's younger half-brothers Dan and Naphtali. Reuben, who was the first born, lost his rights to the double portion because of this. He lost his place as First son. But it was the fourth son, Judah, who was elevated into Reubens place. The fourth was preferred after the first lost it's deserved place. Did the Sabbath - the 4th commandment - take on the mantle as identifying those who belonged to God once the Jewish people started worshipping false Gods, being untrue to their own God (the God who had made them special among all the peoples of the Earth) and even denying the Messiah sent to them? Did they decide to ignore Jesus, refuse to recognize Him or His rights to assume His place of leadership among them? Did the Jewish priests and scribes decide to take the place of Jesus like Reuben got it into his head to take a place reserved for his Father?

Peter was mentioned in some of the Gospels first among all of the Apostles. And Jesus definately seems to have placed him in charge of keeping his sheep, telling him three times at one point to take care of His sheep. But Peter was not called the one 'Jesus loved'. That was John, usually the 4th mentioned among the apostles. The fourth was preferred over the first in this regard See John 21; 15-24.

The early church seems to have observed the Sabbath, but it was the Roman church - Peter's church - which put itself into God's role in so far as changing the times of worship from Saturday to Sunday, doing so initially during the 2nd through the 4th century A.D. It took upon itself what had been reserved to the Father- the right to make laws. In fact, it overrode God's stated law concerning rest on the Sabbath. It did something similar to what Reuben did - it took for itself something which had been reserved for the Father.

So, which law says we should rest on the Sabbath? The 4th law. The 4th of the ten commandments. But there are actually two other commandments. One is to 'Love God with your heart, your strength, and your soul'. The other is 'to love your neighbor as yourself'. So there are 12 commandments in a way. The last two are summations of the first 10, however. Does God love that 4th law in the same way that he loved the (usually) 4th listed Apostle in Gospels, the Apostle John? Do you remember how John was referred to as one that might tarry until Jesus returned? (John 21: 15-24) Is the 4th commandment the law that He loves, as John was the Apostle whom He loves? Does he expect our observance of the Sabbath to tarry until he returns?

What about this, just to reach a little: Noah was a preacher of righteousness, the scriptures say. So Noah would probably have preached to keep the Sabbath, as it was one of the great laws since the time of Adam. It was a law that must surely have been observed from the time of Adam until the flood by at least a few - by at least Noah and probably his family. The Bible says Noah was a righteous man. A man blameless in his time. A man who walked with God. And Noah's was the little family chosen to be preserved through the destruction of the planet by water.

Noah like most Hebrew names has a meaning. It means Rest or Hope. Rest? The Sabbath is for rest. Is there a connection at all. Will those who preserve faith in God's rest day - the Sabbath - be saved like the people who had faith in this man who's name means 'Rest'? Truthfully, I don't know. I just feel that the law of observing the Sabbath was not among those completed when Jesus came. John, writing Revelation at around 90 A.D. from Patmos says "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and ..." which tells us that John thought there was a "Lord's Day" long after Jesus had been crucified in around 30 A.D. But which day is the Lord's day? In Matthew 12:8 Jesus says, concerning Himself "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." So the Lord's Day is Sabbath. And in Luke 6:5 Jesus says concerning Himself "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." So, the Sabbath was a day that Jesus not only recognized, but also a day that He said that He was the Lord over. Again, Sabbath is decidedly the Lord's Day - from Jesus's own mouth.

Many groups, some in every century since Jesus, have determinedly worshipped on Saturday, believing it to be the Lord's day. The 7th Day Batists, the 7th Day Adventists, the Moravians, the English, Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish Sabbath keeping groups of the 16th century, certain Norwegian Christians under Catholic government in the 15th century, Bohemians in the 14th century, and Waldenses groups in that same Bohemian geographical area at that time and earlier in the 13th century. Some Welsh churches in the 12th entury A.D. were Sabbath meeters. Some 10th and 11th century Scotts were among Sabath keepers. Certain Bulgarian Christians of the 9th century kept Saturday worship. Belgians, people of India, even certain Chinese are mentioned as 8th century Sabbath respecting Christians. Many in Scotland and Ireland in the 7th and 6th centuries - many Celts in general - were inclined to worship on Saturday. Both St. Columba of Scotland and the earlier St. Patrick of Ireland taught Saturday as God's true Sabbath, and the day of rest, while offering some church functions on Sunday. In all of these centuries, the one enemy the Sabbath consistently faced were the Popes of Rome, eager for power and control of God's people and quite ready to coerce others into abandoning the Saturday Sabbath in those places where it hung on, despite having no shred of scriptural authority for doing so. Popes really do have a bad track record in many respects.

The old Roman Empire was broken into 10 parts upon it's disintegration, and the Popes were able to eliminate 3 major groups - the Herulii, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths- from among these 10 parts via various intrigues and political manipulations which resulted in those 3 peoples being largely destroyed. This does fit well with the vision Daniel had (Daniel Chapter 6) of a little horn, arising among the horns of a 10 horned beast, plucking up three large horns on the 10 horned beast by the roots. This little horn had eyes and was boastful. Truly it does fit well with the emergence of the Papacy among the remaining European nations of the fallen Roman Empire. At any rate, this little horn, whatever it's identity, is destined, also per Daniel Chap 6, to make war with the saints. It will also seek to alter times and dates. It will ultimately be subdued by the power of the Ancient of Days, at the time that He comes to take charge of His kingdom. My point is, it looks like it may be a bad thing to be on the Popes side. We'll see.  It depends on how you interpret Revelation and other such prophesy.  I am still working to interpret it correctly.   

Is the Sabbath day God's 'consolation covenant' with man, who seems to always place other God's (such as these usurping Popes) before Him, thus breaking the 1st and mightiest commandment? Does the fourth law currently suffice in God's eyes because man so often violates the 2nd law, making images or idols to place beside or even before God, thus violating God's second law? Does it replace the 3rd law, since we so very often break it in our culture, cursing out loud using God's name in our lives, our movies, our literature?

There were 4 of the 10 commandments that man was to observe for the sake of our Father, and 6 that we were to observe for the sake of our family and our neighbor. Of the 4 involving respect for the Father, only one is something we are to share together with Him. That is the Sabbath.

Is the Sabbath the next best choice for a people that simply will not have God and only God as the first priority in their life. Is it like when Jacob's son Judah was the substitute 'firstborn son' that he chose after having to displace Reuben, who tried to usurp for himself the place reserved for his father (Bilhah's bed)?

So, since the change from Sabbath was an invention of man, and clearly even Popes could not have legitimately claimed such authority as to unilaterally alter God's law, then the correct Sabbath was and still is Saturday, and there seems to be no plausible excuse not to honor Saturday as the holy day of rest.

Do you have to rest?  We Christians are evangelists.  It was Jesus' teaching that one could do 'good' on the Sabbath.  So, He and His Apostles ate a little grain from the grainfields they passed, as they travelled along on their way to do good, even if it was the Sabbath.  Even in Mosaic Law, there were things which the Priests had to do while others rested. 

We might be able to take the position that all of the Old Testament was uprooted to make way for the New Testament.  But, the New Testament tells us to 'Honor God' as well as to 'Love Our Neighbor'.  If God personally wrote with His finger to treat the Sabbath Day differently, then that must be one expected behavior if we are to honor Him.  But, there are the 10 Commandments, and there is Mosaic Law.  Mosaic Law has been replaced by the New Covenant, instituted in Jesus' blood.  God Himself sent Jesus.  So, when we were told by Jesus that He brought a New Covenant, we do not disrespect God to follow it.  Still, some of God's sensibilities are outlined in the 10 Commandments....and we honor those, though we honor them like Priests.  Christian Priests.  So, if the Sabbath finds you evangelizing, good!  Evangelize.  But as for treating it the same as any ordinary day, we have to remember that at the very beginning of Genesis God made that day Holy.        

And there is no serious doubt that Saturday is the same day as the ancient Sabbath. I've read that over 100 languages actually have a name for their 7th day of the week - their 'Sabbath' or 'Saturday' - which actually sounds phonetically like either Sabbath of Saturday. If you believe in the Tower of Babel then that makes sense. I believe!

Protestant churches give the Popes a de facto nod of supremacy over Jesus by claiming that scriptural authority is the only true authority except pertaining to the 4th commandment, which the Popes have altered. I think they are in great error there, but only God can say how heavily to weight and interpret that error. For most of my Christian life I was not a Christian. Then I was a Sunday worshipper. Now I am a Sabbath believer, and that's my reasoning for it. I've looked at the scriptures used to defend Sunday, and those to defend Sabbath, and I see no real comparison in strength. Saturday clearly carries the scriptural seal of autenticity, and wins in my mind. Perhaps I'll see it differently some day, and if I do, then I'll change accordingly, if perhaps a little sheepishly.

But let me finish by saying that God has indisputably done many great deeds through numerous denominations of Christian chrches, many of whom were Sunday keepers and still are. He still does today.  I think you can be a church that is closer to the Biblical scriptures than another, but I don't believe in a super-church, or a church that is the 'one correct church among them all'.  That would give reason for pride, and God knows better than to give us a reason for pride.  Pride is one of our greatest weaknesses as humans, and it leads us to sin very quickly. 

Many people, Christians of good conscience, simply don't see it as I'm currently seeing it. Others do see it much this way, but prefer not to change. God will probably judge me much more harshly for my many sins than He will any other more devoted and obedient Christians that are merely confused on a point of their doctrine (if indeed it even does turn out that they are wrong, for God Himself decides what is right and wrong). So, while doctrine matters, the life you lead probably matters more once you are some sort of Christian believer.

In summary, Sabbath rest was Saturday rest as we would speak it in the English language today. It's apparently a law which is still in affect, like the rest of the 10 commandments. If you believe this way, the scriptures support your choice. If you prefer Sunday, you will be in agreement with a much, much larger group of Christians, but you will probably be wrong in your decision scripturally speaking. So, why do things wrong when it's unnecessary? God may not be very lenient on this point for all we know. It is placed higher on the list than murder, just as food for thought. And in Mosaic law there were reasons, such as war, which might justify killing people. But there was no leeway given for breaking Sabbath intentionally. Only to respond to an unforseen emergency, like your valuable family ox had gotten stuck in the mud and was going to dire if you didn't act quickly.  There is an example in scripture of a man caught gathering wood on the Sabbath who was stoned to death after the Jewish leaders consulted with God on the proper punishment.  So, I suspect that God expects us to take a serious view of His Sabbath. Pray about it!

Back to Science pretending to know history:  Who among us did not see a picture in our geology book where a rock of some sort sat upon a speciman plate with a caption that said something like "This  marble was formed 2 to 3 billion years ago."?  Good gracious - the very branch of science which specializes in rocks has no idea what sort of effect 1 billion years has upon a rock?  Was it three billion years ago or was it two?  That's a billion years difference, friends, and they have no faintest idea what affect a billion years has on a rock. Doesn't it follow that if we see a rock where the caption reads "This granite was formed approximately 1 billion years ago" then it is safe to assume that it might also have been formed yesterday?  That's a billion year difference, and we've established that they don't really know what affect a billion years has on a rock.