What Day is the Sabbath? Do we still need to keep it?

Theology
101

Keys, plural, represent authority of/over something.

If one, say, is a jailer with authority over a jail, they have keys–they have the authority to open and close the doors of the jail. Keys, plural, because the symbolism is one of having the authority to open/close doors. In Revelation 1:18 Jesus says He died, but is alive forever, He has “the keys of Hades and of death” meaning He has overcome death and hell, He is the One with victory and authority–death and hell has no power over Him, He has power over them.

Likewise when Jesus says He gives to Peter (not exclusively to Peter, as He echoes the same thing He said to Peter to the other Apostles in Matthew 18:18, and also in John 20:21-23) the Keys of the kingdom, to bind/loose (open/close) it is about Christ as the One with authority, and by giving those Keys He is giving that authority to His Church (via Peter/the Apostles).

Keys symbolically represent authority. Jesus as the King, means His is the kingdom–i.e. the royal power and authority as King–and to give the keys of the kingdom is to share His Kingly-authority with the one(s) He shares it with. I.e. His Church. It is, of course, within a specific context here: the authority to declare forgiveness “whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven them” and retain “whoever’s sins you retain are retained”. I can’t go around saying “I forgive you” or “I don’t forgive you” as though I have this authority (I don’t) but through the Apostles it is vested to the Church, and the Church historically therefore has designated certain people as ministers–servants–to exercise the Keys; that is why pastors historically are vested by the Church to preach, to teach, to administer the Sacraments (not in a sacerdotal way, but vocationally and ministerially). In order that, for the good order of Christian life and community, responsible men are trusted with these things (it’s why we see in St. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus rigorous criteria about who is to be vetted as a pastor–bishop, presbyter, deacon, etc) Pastors, in this way, are continuing in the apostolic ministry, by holding firm to the apostolic teaching, passing on that teaching through preaching, comforting the Faithful with the Good News of Jesus and calling the Faithful to obedience godly lives and repentance by preaching God’s Commandments, by proclaiming the word (we should remember that for most of Christian history there was no such thing as mass-produced books, and most people were illiterate, and so the ordinary way the majority of Christians encountered and experienced the Bible was when Scripture was read out loud at Christian worship). So pastors were expected to be shepherds, councilors, preachers, teachers, and defenders of the faith for those entrusted to their spiritual care–very much an apostolic work especially after the time the apostles had died and passed on the torch to the next generation–to the pastors of the churches.

102

Theo…

Nice read. I appreciate your thoughts. I’m reading an amplified version of what you said before with additional commentary about the traditional role of “pastor”.

I’m not reading much clarity on why “keys” is plural some places, and singular in others. Is there significance to the deviation?

I have TONS of thoughts on your defense of traditional roles within the church, but maybe another time, and another topic.

KP

103

Doing a word search for “key”, what I notice is that in the singular “key” seems to be used in the same way “keys” are. Isaiah 22:22 for example. The language of Isaiah 22:22 is then echoed in Revelation 3:7 where the Lord is the One who is the Son of David (in the total fulfillment of what was said to Eliakim by Isaiah) and thus as Messiah has the key, the authority; and He opens the door and none may shut it.

So I’m not sure if there is some principle we can find that renders “key” and “keys” as significantly different–key and keys are used to denote authority.

104

You raise a good point, and you are halfway there, but you have stopped just short of what the text is actually revealing.

Yes, both “key” and “keys” denote authority.
But you assume that because both involve authority, the singular and plural forms are interchangeable.
They are not.
In Scripture, number always matters, especially when symbols are being used in prophetic, typological, or apocalyptic texts.

Let us start where you began: Isaiah 22:22.

“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Isa_22:22)

The Hebrew word here is מַפְתֵּחַ (maphteach), a singular noun from the root פָּתַח (pāthach, to open).
Eliakim is given the key, singular, because it denotes exclusive jurisdiction over the house.
This was a stewardship office, the Asher al-Habayith, second only to the king (cf. 1Ki_4:6, Isa_22:15), managing access to the royal chambers.
This is why the key is placed on his shoulder, symbolic of bearing authority (cf. Isa_9:6).

Now fast forward to Revelation 3:7:

“These are the words of the Holy One, the True One, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.” (Rev_3:7)

The Greek here is τὴν κλεῖν Δαυείδ — ten klein Dauid — feminine singular accusative of κλείς (kleis, key).
It mirrors the Isaiah passage exactly because Christ is the fulfillment of that steward office, not as servant but as Son (Heb_3:6).

So yes, the singular key in Isaiah and Revelation points to exclusive messianic authority.

But here is where you missed the mark:

Matthew 16:19 does not say “key.” It says “keys,” plural, and that difference is the whole point.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” (Mat_16:19)

Greek: δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς — future active indicative of δίδωμι (to give), plus τὰς κλεῖς, tas kleis — accusative feminine plural of κλείς (key).
It is plural, and not by accident.

So what gives?

Christ alone has the key of David (singular), meaning sovereign authority over salvation history.
But He delegates keys (plural) to Peter, which implies a representative stewardial authority rather than supreme sovereignty.

Just as Joseph had Pharaoh’s ring (Gen_41:42), but not Pharaoh’s throne.
Just as Eliakim had David’s key, but only as steward, while the king himself still ruled.

In Matthew 16, the plural keys reflect multiple dimensions of delegated authority:

Binding and loosing, legal-ecclesial categories rooted in rabbinic halakhah.

Doctrinal stewardship, a role later echoed in apostolic succession (cf. Act_15:7–11).

Judicial and evangelistic access, seen in Acts, where Peter opens the gospel first to Jews (Acts 2), then to Gentiles (Acts 10), in exact fulfillment of Christ’s commission.

Compare also Matthew 23:13:

“You shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”

This is not metaphorical. The keys control access — proclamation, doctrine, judgment — not in arbitrary human fashion, but under the King’s decree.

So no, “key” and “keys” are not interchangeable.
They are layered.

The key of David, singular, speaks of the Messiah’s sovereign authority (Isa_22:22, Rev_3:7).
The keys of the kingdom, plural, speak of delegated apostolic authority to mediate, proclaim, and bind or loose within covenantal boundaries (Mat_16:19).

To collapse the plural into the singular is to flatten the typology and miss the distinction between ownership and stewardship.

Christ holds the key. No one else does.
Peter is given the keys, but only as servant in the house.

And finally, remember what Jesus said in Luke 11:52:

“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”

There again, key, singular, because true knowledge of God is one, and it belongs to Christ.

So do not blur the lines.
Let the singular remain singular.
Let the plural speak for itself.

There is one King.
And there are many servants.

The key opens the throne room.
The keys open the gates for others.

Both speak of authority.
But one is original, the other derivative.
One is Messianic.
The other is apostolic.

Shalom.

J.

1 Like
105

I suspect that we should probably move this side-conversation elsewhere so we don’t continue to clog this up. I’ve created a new topic and am responding to your post here, over there.

106

Very nice job here. Well done.

1 Like
107

How do I respond to others @KPuff? Just hitting the reply button?

Johann.

108

Not exactly sure what you are asking, but each post comes with its own “Reply” button., I f you use that button (grey, at the bottom ot the specific post) you will be replying to that post specifically. The platform will track it. If you use the blue “Reply” button at the bottom menu, in line with [“Share”, “Bookmark”, “Flag”, “Mark Unread”, “Reply”], you will be replying to the entire post, not directly to a previous post. is this what you are asking?
KP

109

I only have a “grey” reply button brother, but thank you for the response.

Wait—I see it now!

God bless.

J.

110

Woo Hoo! Woo Hoo! (trying to satisfy the 20 character poilce)

111

Beg your pardon? Trying to satisfy the 20 character POILCE?

What’s with the “Woo Hoo?”

J.

112

I was celebrating with you, but this post-box will not take a message less than 20 characters, so I said it twice.

1 Like
113

My apologies brother, I’m learning something new–didn’t know about the 20 characters,

Johann.

114

Blockquote [rstrats]![|24x24]
“Acts 20:7 NET…On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul began to speak to the people, and because he intended to leave the next day, he extended his message until midnight.”

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first.

This was a havdalah service. In the Jewish way of telling time, the “first day of the week” starts at sundown on the seventh day. It is a brief ceremony (now) to mark the end of the sabbath and the beginning of the work week. A good clue that this was after dark was that Paul preached to midnight. Do you think he REALLY started at 8 or 9 am on Sunday? The text also says he was planning on traveling in the morning. Travel was prohibited on Sabbath and was dangerous at night. So he leaves at first light on Sunday morning.

115

Before one can answer this question, I think one needs to understand the purpose of the sabbath.

116

For centuries, the question of Sabbath has stood at the center of one of the greatest controversies in church history. What began as a command given directly by Chukwu (God) in Genesis — to rest on the seventh day — was later overturned, not by Christ, nor by His apostles, but by human decree. The Constantine Scandal refers to the historic shift in the 4th century when Emperor Constantine, influenced by both political necessity and emerging church authority, declared Sunday to be the official day of Christian rest and worship, replacing the seventh-day Sabbath established by God Himself.

Scripture is unambiguous. Genesis 2:2–3 declares that on the seventh day God rested, blessed it, and sanctified it. The Sabbath was woven into creation before the giving of the Law at Sinai. Exodus 20:8–11 commands, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” rooting the command not in Jewish tradition, but in divine order. Jesus Himself affirmed the Sabbath in Mark 2:27: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Yet, despite these testimonies, the church centuries later abandoned this holy day.

The turning point came in AD 321 when Constantine, the Roman Emperor, issued his famous edict: “On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” Though often presented as a political move to unify pagans and Christians, the effect was seismic. This decree, reinforced by subsequent councils and papal authority, elevated Sunday — the day of pagan sun worship — as the “Christian” day of rest. Over time, this shift hardened into law, creating a system in which obedience to man’s command was placed above obedience to God’s Word.

The scandal lies not only in Constantine’s decree but in the Catholic Church’s acceptance and enforcement of it. By the Council of Laodicea (circa AD 363–364), the Church officially banned Sabbath observance, declaring that Christians must not “Judaize” by resting on Saturday. Instead, they were ordered to work on the Sabbath and honor Sunday as the holy day. This was no minor adjustment; it was a total reordering of God’s calendar, replacing divine law with human authority.

This act reveals the deeper issue: the struggle between divine command and institutional power. Daniel 7:25 prophesied of a system that would “think to change times and laws.” The shift from Sabbath to Sunday was not merely about convenience but about control. By altering God’s command, the church positioned itself as the final authority, claiming the power to bind and loose even what God Himself had sanctified.

The consequences were profound. Generations of Christians grew up unaware that the Sabbath was ever the seventh day, assuming Sunday had always been God’s will. This distortion shaped Western civilization, embedding into law, culture, and tradition the idea that man’s decree could stand above God’s Word. To this day, many defend Sunday as holy, not by Scripture, but by tradition handed down through centuries of church rulings.

Yet the truth remains unshaken. Nowhere in the New Testament does Christ or His apostles abolish the Sabbath or transfer its sanctity to Sunday. Instead, we see Paul teaching on the Sabbath in Acts 13 and 18, and early believers gathering on the seventh day. Jesus Himself kept the Sabbath, and His followers, even after His death, “rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56). The Constantine shift was not divine; it was human.

The Constantine Scandal challenges us to confront an uncomfortable truth: the church we inherited has often been shaped more by empire than by Christ. It calls us back to humility, to examine where we have allowed tradition to override Scripture, and to restore what God declared holy from the beginning. The Sabbath is not merely a day of rest; it is a covenantal sign between God and His people (Ezekiel 20:12). To disregard it is to disregard the Creator’s authority.

Today, as the world grows weary and fractured, the Sabbath stands as a gift of renewal — a weekly reminder that God, not man, holds ultimate authority. The Constantine Scandal is not just history; it is a warning. Whenever man replaces God’s Word with human law, the result is deception, confusion, and bondage. But when we return to God’s design, we find freedom, rest, and alignment with heaven.

The call is urgent. Will the church continue to uphold Constantine’s counterfeit, or will it return to the eternal covenant of the seventh-day Sabbath? The choice reveals not only our loyalty but our willingness to let God, not man, define what is holy.

117

Controversial, isn’t it @Officialcbcm ?

The Sabbath command in Scripture is always embedded in covenantal context, and the key to answering whether it was given to Gentiles is to trace its origin, its placement in Israel’s covenant life, and its fulfillment in Christ.

In Genesis 2:2–3, God rested on the seventh day, blessing it and sanctifying it. This was not given as a command to humanity at that time, but it does establish a pattern of divine rest. No patriarch before Sinai is said to observe a Sabbath. Job, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are never pictured keeping it.

The Sabbath becomes a covenantal sign with Israel at Sinai. In Exodus 20:8–11, it is anchored in creation, but in Deuteronomy 5:12–15, it is specifically tied to Israel’s redemption from Egypt. The Hebrew word ot (sign) is crucial. In Exodus 31:13, 17, God says “the Sabbath is a sign between me and you throughout your generations.” This covenant marker is never extended to the nations but marks out Israel’s special identity as God’s redeemed people. Gentiles were not commanded to keep the Sabbath unless they became proselytes and bound themselves to the Law (cf. Isaiah 56:3–6, where foreigners who join themselves to Yahweh and keep the Sabbath are included). Even there, Sabbath-keeping is covenantal participation, not a universal obligation.

The prophets reinforce this Israel-specific function. In Ezekiel 20:12, 20, God says the Sabbath is a sign between Him and Israel, given so they would know He sanctifies them. The covenantal role is crystal clear. The Sabbath served as a boundary marker of Israel’s holiness.

When we move into the New Testament, we find no text that lays Sabbath observance on Gentile believers. In Acts 15, when the Jerusalem council ruled on what Gentiles must observe, the Sabbath is conspicuously absent. Paul rebukes those who impose days upon Gentiles in Colossians 2:16–17, saying such things are a shadow, but the substance belongs to Christ. Likewise in Romans 14:5, he says one man esteems one day above another while another esteems every day alike, and each must be convinced in his own mind. The Sabbath is not mandated but placed into the category of disputable matters.

The climax is found in Christ Himself. Matthew 11:28–30 flows into the Sabbath controversy of Matthew 12, showing that Jesus is the true rest. The author of Hebrews in Hebrews 4:9–10 declares that there remains a Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos) for the people of God, not as a literal seventh day but as the eschatological rest entered through faith in the crucified and risen Christ. The Sabbath pointed forward to Him, and now in Him the promise is fulfilled.

So the punchline is this. The Sabbath was never universally imposed upon Gentiles in Scripture. It was a covenant sign given to Israel, pointing beyond itself to the greater rest in Christ. Gentiles were welcomed into God’s covenant people not by taking on the yoke of Sabbath law but by faith in Christ crucified. To impose Sabbath law on Gentiles now is to miss the very thing to which the Sabbath pointed. The true rest has come, and His name is Jesus.

Just my 2 cents, for what’s it worth.

J.

2 Likes
119

amen
amen300×300 3.11 KB

Good stuff here. Well thought out, and well explained, with accuracy, humility, and with compassion. I appreciate this explanation in that it brings understanding to the words of Jesus in Marrk 2:27-28, Luke 6:5-11, John 7:22-24, and to the complaint of the Pharisees in John 9:16.

KP

1 Like
120

The claim that the observance of Sunday as the Christian day of worship originates with Constantine’s decree in the fourth century fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of the Sabbath in biblical theology and the testimony of the earliest Christian sources. A close reading of Scripture, coupled with the writings of the early Church Fathers, demonstrates that the shift from the Jewish Sabbath to the Lord’s Day (Sunday) was neither a later human corruption nor a pagan compromise, but the natural and apostolic development of the New Covenant centered upon the Resurrection of Christ.

First, the Sabbath in the Old Testament was a covenantal sign given particularly to Israel. Exodus 31:13 explicitly describes it as a sign “between me and you throughout your generations,” thus marking it as a distinct badge of the Mosaic covenant. Theologically, the Sabbath rest foreshadowed the greater rest to come in Christ. The Apostle Paul interprets these observances as “a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col 2:16–17). For Christians, the Sabbath command is not binding as a perpetual legal ordinance but as a type fulfilled in Christ Himself, who offers the definitive rest for the people of God (cf. Heb 4:9–10). To maintain the Mosaic Sabbath as binding upon Christians is to confuse shadow with substance.

Second, the New Testament itself witnesses to a distinctive Christian practice oriented around the first day of the week. In Acts 20:7, the community gathers “on the first day of the week… to break bread,” a phrase consistently associated with Eucharistic worship. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 16:2 speaks of Christians setting aside their offerings “on the first day of every week,” demonstrating a regular rhythm of assembly on Sunday. Moreover, the risen Christ appeared to His disciples on the first day (John 20:19), and again eight days later (John 20:26), thereby investing this day with resurrection significance. Far from being a fourth-century innovation, Sunday worship emerges from the apostolic pattern itself.

Third, the interpretation that Daniel 7:25 (“he shall think to change times and laws”) refers to the Catholic Church is exegetically unsound. The Fathers interpreted this passage as a prophecy of the Antichrist, not of the Church founded by Christ (Matt 16:18). To suggest that the Church “changed” divine law is to ignore the theological point that the Old Law was provisional and fulfilled in the New. The Church did not arrogate to herself the authority to alter God’s commands but faithfully recognized the eschatological reality that the Resurrection inaugurates a new creation, symbolized by the first day, which also became known as the “eighth day” — the day of eternity.

Finally, Constantine’s edict of 321 did not create the practice of Sunday worship. It merely provided civil recognition and legal reinforcement for what Christians had already observed for centuries. The Council of Laodicea’s concern was not with undermining God’s law but with discouraging Christians from reverting to Judaizing practices that obscured the uniqueness of the Resurrection.

1 Like
121

Amazing reply Brother @ILOVECHRIST, keep going.