Genesis 2:2 says God rested on the seventh day after finishing His work, and Hebrews 4:9–11 speaks of a Sabbath rest for the people of God. Meanwhile, Jesus says in John 9:4, *“We must work the works of Him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.”* How do these concepts relate? Is “rest” purely eschatological, or is there a present spiritual rest for believers? And how should this impact how we understand the timing and urgency of Christian labor?

According to Colossians, there appears to be some disagreement amongst the first century church on *whether* to keep the Sabbath: > Colossians 2:16 > > Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a **Sabbath day**. Did the first century church keep the Sabbath? And if so which day was it on? The Jewish Saturday or the new Christian Sunday?

Why is Sunday observed as holy day, instead of Saturday, as it was in times of Jesus and before? I've looked up Wikipedia, and remember some story about a Roman Emperor (3rd century?) installing that. But, looking it up again, I cannot find this any more. Obviously, this has to do on how to count the days of the week, resting on the seventh day. --- It was proposed that https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/52287/64221 would answer this question, but, no. Though it sheds some light, the question there is focused on "when", mine is on "why".

Leviticus 23 introduces several appointed festivals/holy convocations. The chapter starts with: > The Lord said to Moses, > > 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my **appointed festivals**, the appointed festivals of the Lord, which you are to proclaim as **sacred assemblies**. - Lev 23:1-2 (NIV) Then the festivals / holy convocations are enumerated: 1. **The weekly Sabbath** (Lev 23:3) 2. The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:4-8) 3. Offering the Firstfruits (Lev 23:9-14) 4. The Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15-22) 5. The Festival of Trumpets (Lev 23:23-25) 6. The Day of Atonement (Lev 23:26-32) 7. The Festival of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-44) Similarly, in Numbers 28 and 29 we find a similar list: 1. Daily Offerings (Num 28:1-8) 2. **Sabbath Offerings** (Num 28:9-10) 3. Monthly Offerings (a.k.a. New Moons) (Num 28:11-15) 4. The Passover (Num 28:16-25) 5. The Festival of Weeks (Num 28:26-31) 6. The Festival of Trumpets (Num 29:1-6) 7. The Day of Atonement (Num 29:7-11) 8. The Festival of Tabernacles (Num 29:12-40) It's not rare to come across Christians who claim that the weekly sabbath (Lev 23:3, Num 28:9-10) is still in effect, while all the other festivals and holy convocations are not (e.g. (https://sdarm.org/publications/periodicals/sbl/en/2009/1/11) , (https://naturesanswer.com/topic/colossians-2%3A16-sabbath-2283ef) , (https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/isthesabbathaceremoniallawormorallaw.html) , (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q16.htm)) . What is the biblical basis for that claim? ________________________________ As requested in the comments, I'll briefly summarize the core ideas presented by some of these sites: 1. This [site](https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/isthesabbathaceremoniallawormorallaw.html) (and this follow-up [publication](https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/wasthesabbathabolished.html) on the same site) basically claims that the weekly sabbath belongs to the moral law, whereas the remaining feasts and holy convocations belong to the ceremonial law, and therefore they conclude that the weekly sabbath still stands but the others are abolished because they were "shadows". 2. This [site](http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q16.htm) essentially says the same thing: it talks about the concepts of "ceremonial law" and "moral law", claims that the weekly sabbath in particular is "moral" rather than "ceremonial", and, thus, concludes that the weekly sabbath is still in effect.

**God Names**
It is often heard from Seventh Day Adventists that they give a reason for not worshipping on Sunday because "it carries the name of the Sun god." But is this reasoning a valid one for deciding to worship on Saturday? A study of the names of the week confuses this logic. Sunday may (or may not) be the name of a sun god, but Saturday was named after the god/planet, Saturn! And in northern Europe the rest of the days of the week do also reflect the names of ancient gods: Woden (Wednesday), Thor (Thursday), Frei Friday) etc. Would this mean worship would not be allowed on those days? And in Hispanic countries, the weekend days are called "Sabado, Domingo". That is 'sabbath" and "the LORD'S DAY"! So in Spanish, what we call Sunday in English, is referred to, when translated, as *a day belonging to the Lord* ***for worship.*** [And many cultures do set aside that day for worship.] So would simply a name of the week in just a few languages be one legitimate or valid reason enough "to accept or reject" worshipping on that day?

My common sense tells me that there must be many such churches, but I'm having a hard time finding concrete examples on the web where this is officially stated in their doctrinal statement of faith. Does anyone know concrete examples that can be backed up with references? _______ Note: by "keeping the Sabbath" I mean from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, according to Exodus 20:8-11 (ESV)'s instructions: > 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Isaiah 58:13-14 (ESV) sheds more light on this commandment: > 13 “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89124/50422

My grandparents are devout Catholics in the Midwest. They are fairly involved in their local church, however if they are away they will go to any close church. This much is fine, and I admire them for their faith and dedication. As they were born and raised in small Midwest towns during the 1940s, I believe that their dedication to this has to do with their interpretation of "remember the sabbath day" to mean that they need a church and priest. Where I have concerns is that, last Sunday, the roads were icy enough that they were having trouble safely driving and walking. This is boosted by both of them reaching critical memory issues, and my grandmother not eating enough and relying on a walker. As such, I am concerned for their safety, and want to give them an alternative if the roads are too dangerous for them. Since they are devout, I am looking for something in Catholic doctrine that defines whether or not a priest or physical church is necessary for worship. A preferred or additional verse would include some prioritization of your own health. EDIT: Thank you for the answers! I didn't realize that Mass was a compulsory idea since I come from a Protestant background. I'll see if my grandparent's friends aren't willing to pick them up. God Bless!

Since we know that Yeshua was born during the time of Herod, and Herod died shortly after the lunar eclipse on January 10th, 1 BC, we can use this as a reference point for the birth and death of Yeshua. In Matthew 12:40, Yeshua mentions being in the grave for "three days and three nights," just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish. Celebrating from Friday to Sunday does not fulfill this timeframe. Yeshua, adhering to Torah, would have begun his ministry at the age of 30, around 31 AD. He was crucified the next Passover. Why follow a timeline known to be incorrect? The death of Christ aligns with Passover, allowing us to accurately date and celebrate His sacrifice on Passover each year. In 31 AD, Passover fell on a Wednesday, and Yeshua was crucified that day. He rose early on Saturday morning (the Sabbath), fulfilling the "three days and three nights" prophecy. The Council of Laodicea shifted the focus away from the Sabbath, a commandment unrelated to the "New" Covenant but still a commandment. Dismissing one of the Ten Commandments makes little sense. Avoiding shared observances with Jews is not a valid reason. Celebrating with symbols like bunnies and eggs, or Christmas trees, mixes pagan traditions with Christian observances, deviating from the Word of God and adhering to human traditions instead of scripture. Both Christmas and Easter are man-made holidays. According to Genesis 1, a new day begins at sunset, a principle that should remain unchanged as God's Law is eternal. --- The question is why is the tradition of Easter "Friday to Sunday" when passover is on a wednesday?

Revelation 14:12 (KJV) > 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they **that keep the commandments of God**, and the faith of Jesus. I've seen [Sabbatarians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatarianism) bring up this verse of Revelation as evidence that true Christians should keep the commandments of God, including the Sabbath commandment ([Exodus 20:8-11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV)) . In fact, in a [related question](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/40100/38524) posted on Hermeneutics.SE, the most upvoted answers tend to agree that Revelation 14:12 **at least** includes the 10 commandments (but possibly more). If that's true, then the Sabbatarian has a solid point here. How do non-Sabbatarians interpret Revelation 14:12?

> **[Exodus 20:9–11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A9%E2%80%9311&version=ESV)** (ESV)
> Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is > a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, > or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female > servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. > For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that > is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed > the Sabbath day and made it holy. What is an **overview of Protestant views on the Sabbath**? (Caveat: I'm not interested in the Seventh Day Adventist position.)

In **Genesis 2:2-3** we are told: > **2** And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. > **3** And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Limiting the scope of the question — setting aside what it means that the seventh day of the week was "blessed" and "sanctified" by God — and focusing narrowly on the "longitudinal" impact of these verses, what is the biblically sound interpretation? I was able to think of three possible options here (if you can think of another, please include it in your answer): 1. the **only** day that was blessed was the actual “historical” first Sabbath (with no other Sabbaths meant to enjoy the blessing that was given to that original /first and only/ seventh day); 2. every subsequent seventh day was blessed from the original Sabbath **until** a later point in time when that blessing was **removed** or **modified** by another divine decree (e.g., transferred to another day or limited in its scope to the ethnic Jews). 3. **all** subsequent Sabbaths were blessed; What biblically based arguments do the various denominations give for their interpretation of this scripture?

I'm from Brazil (we speak Portuguese language) and with help of translating tools I've translated the following paragraphs to ask my question. The question is related to Ellen White prophecies. > The time is not far distant when the test will come to **every soul**. The > **observance of the false sabbath** will be **urged upon us**. The contest > will be between the commandments of God and the commandments of men. > Those who have yielded step by step to worldly demands and conformed > to worldly customs will then yield to the powers that be, rather than > subject themselves to derision, insult, threatened imprisonment, and > death. At that time the gold will be separated from the dross. True > godliness will be clearly distinguished from the appearance and tinsel > of it. Many a star that we have admired for its brilliance will then > go out in darkness. Those who have assumed the ornaments of the > sanctuary, but are not clothed with Christ's righteousness, will then > appear in the shame of their own nakedness. (Prophets and Kings, p. 181) > 16, 17 (Daniel 3:1-18; see EGW on 1 John 2:18). History Will Be > Repeated—History will be repeated. False religion will be exalted. The > first day of the week, a common working day, possessing no sanctity > whatever, will be set up as was the image at Babylon. **All nations and > tongues and peoples will be commanded to worship this spurious** > **sabbath**. This is Satan's plan to make of no account the day instituted > by God, and given to the world as a memorial of creation. > > The decree enforcing the worship of this day is to go forth to all the > world. In a limited degree, it has already gone forth. In several > places the civil power is speaking with the voice of a dragon, just as > the heathen king spoke to the Hebrew captives. (EGW SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 976.8) Then all nations will be Christian before this decree, because it is not possible for them to impose something that only makes sense to Christian without being Christian. One side note about sabbath violation: it's only a violation if another day is worshiped in place of sabbath. If it's just a day for resting, then it is not a violation (not a worship). Another observation I'm making is: I'm calling Christian people in the broad sense (I'm not making any difference if they follow or not the 10 commandments perfectly). I'm assuming that if people that say that they believe in Jesus, then they are indeed Christian (even if they make mistakes about God's commandments). **"All nations and tongues and peoples will be commanded to worship this spurious sabbath.**" says "**all nations**" and **makes no exceptions**. And this worship of a false sabbath comes from a Christian point of view. If that worship comes from a catholic influence, then it is a Christian, and if it is enforced by the state (nation), it makes the nation Christian. Understand? One thing implies another. So this is the reason I'm trying to explain that all nations must be adopting the Christianity officially. That means democracy all around the world and no more states of muslim and any other religion? - No more North Korean dictators - China will officially adopt Christianity - No more muslim countries (today it is over 50) - etc... Another 2000 years to wait? Don't get me wrong, I believe in most prophecies of EGW, but it seems like will take time to see it happening.

I'm studying Reformed theology. In looking at a collection of Reformed creeds, I'm finding a repeated theme of dividing the Old Testament (OT) commandments into three types: - moral - ceremonial - judicial This classification to my knowledge has not been articulated in the Scriptures, but seems to have been started by the church fathers (and later formalized by Aquinas) in an effort to discern which of the requirements of the OT law were "binding" on Christians and which were "abrogated" by Jesus' death on the cross. Leaving out (for the purposes of my questions) the so called "judicial" commandments, I'm seeking to reconcile the historical Reformed theology within its own boundaries on its stance on the division between moral and ceremonial requirements of the law as pertaining to observing a weekly day of rest by Christians. The 4th Commandment of the Decalogue is usually classified as part of "ceremonial" law. For example, the Geneva Catechism, 1542 (quoted from Ligonier Ministries, “We Believe.” ) states regarding the 4th Commandment: > 168. M. But does he [God] forbid us any labour on that day [Saturday]? C. This commandment has a distinct and peculiar reason. In so far as the observation of rest was a part of the ceremonial law; it was abrogated at the coming of Christ. > 169. M. Do you say that this commandment respected the Jews only, and was therefore merely temporary? C. Yes, so far as it was ceremonial. In other words, "ceremonial" requirements seem to be equated with "abrogated" (non-binding on Christians) as opposed to "moral" requirements that are still binding. The Geneva Catechism doesn't spell out what nullifies the mandate of the 4th Commandment to observe the original Sabbath for Reformed Christians, but other Reformed confessions do. They seem to follow the interpretation of Paul's words (e.g., Romans 14:5, Galatians 4:10) that teaches that observation of days "as such" is contrary to Christian teaching. For example, the Second Helvetic Confession, 1566 (ibid.) states: > Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day or to any superstitions. For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself liked of God. However, as we read texts of other (later) Reformed creeds, we find that observation of days is not at all abrogated. For example, on one hand, when it comes to its views on the law of God writ large, the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646-47 still supports the classification/division of the OT commandments noted earlier (ibid.): > 2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. > 3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament. However, when addressing the 4th Commandment specifically, the Westminster Confession, 1646-47 (ibid.) states, emphasis supplied: > 7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, **moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages**, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him... In other words, while maintaining that portions of the Ten Commandment (i.e., the 4th Commandment) are "ceremonial," Westminster Confession (as well as the Savoy Declaration, 1658 and the Second London Baptist Confession, 1677/1689 that followed it) seems to seek to impose its mandate (albeit altering the day which they propose to be kept) on Christians. So the questions that I have are these: 1. Is Westminster's stance on the subject of 4th Commandment still an authoritative view in the Reformed churches? If not, what superseded it and how does it differ from Westminster on the subject? 2. If the 4th Commandment is considered to be "ceremonial," why would it be extended to Reformed Christians as "moral" and binding (even if applied to another day)? 3. If the 4th Commandment is viewed to be both "ceremonial" and "moral" at the same time (held to be teaching/binding Christians to observe one day per week, just not the original Sabbath), how are Paul's words (e.g., Romans 14:5 or Galatians 4:10) not taken to condemn observation of any other day as the Lord's Day in the same way they are taken to condemn observing the original Sabbath?

Can you tell me why is there 10 commandments for Christian's to follow but I was told by a JW neighbor when I asked about the sabbath being holy and meant that we stop doing all the other things we do like shopping on the remainder 6 days and that keeping the sabbath day holy meant besides worshiping that we need not shop nor allow others living with us do so, that I was told doesn't apply. Why is the sabbath only half adhered to?

I've gone past a mormon church near my house quite a few times now and I'm keen to give it a visit. However I am prevented by the fact that I can't find any website which lists their service times or any other related information. This got me wondering, what do mormons actually get up to? I'm not even sure that they actually have a Sunday (or other day) service which is comparable to mainstream evangelical churches. After a bit of research, I've discovered that mormons have a variety of liturgies and sacramental rituals which they perform in special circumstances, and it all seems rather secretive. What I'm wondering about, is if they have some sort of "anyone is welcome" regular meeting similar to mainstream protestants. If so, what happens during this meeting? For example does it follow the usual evangelical format of - song - bible reading - sermon - (optional) Communal confession - (optional) apostles/nicene creed - (optional) lords supper - song - announcements - conclusion - song - informal mingling, doughnuts and coffee/tea and biscuits"?

I've always heard examples of how the Sabbath is **not** broken, for instance, doing good to others, healing people, etc. However, I noticed that I've never heard examples of the opposite (how the Sabbath **can** be broken). What are illustrative examples of how the Sabbath can be broken according to Christians who hold to [Sabbatarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatarianism) ?

I am looking for the first extant record of Sunday being referred to specifically as the "Sabbath" or "Christian Sabbath" I am not asking which day the early church gathered. I am not asking which day is the Christian Sabbath. I am not looking for evidence of the transfer of observance or meaning of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but for evidence of the transfer of title or label of "Sabbath" to Sunday. I am asking for the first record of Sunday being labeled the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Sabbath. ----- Context of my question: It is quite evident to me that in many early church writings that the idea of the Jewish Sabbath is actually rejected. Sunday was certainly a common day of gathering and to the Jewish believers the seventh day would still have possibly been thought of as the Sabbath day. But from Justin Martyr through the Council of Laodicea a Judaizing celebration of any Sabbath is discouraged and the true Sabbath is not any singular day, but as a status in Christ and an attitude of repentance and rest in Him. I understand many may even disagree with the above statements, but I tell you this so you can understand what kind of statement I am looking for and the question can be answered regardless. At some point in Christian theology someone labeled Sunday not just a day to gather or even a day to rest and enjoy **a** Sabbath, but someone labeled it as **the** Christian Sabbath. A true shift of the same Sabbath from the Jewish seventh day to a Christian first day. Also many may agree with me, even to the point that the idea of Sunday Sabbath seems foreign or wrong. This question remains agnostic on which is right and on what the source may have truly meant. Finding the earliest record would certainly impact answers to related questions, but all that is outside the bounds of this question. ----- When is Sunday first recorded as being labeled the Sabbath? Not just a day of rest or gathering or worship. ----- ## Contemporary examples **From About Christianity website:** > Today, many Christian traditions believe Sunday is the Christian Sabbath day. **Westminster Confession Chapter 21 Article 7:** > He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath. **A lengthily titled treatise on the Sabbath by John Owen says:** > And for a holy day of rest, ...he determined the observation of the first day of the week; ... > Now, as God’s rest, and his being refreshed in his work, on the seventh day of old, ... so the rest of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his being refreshed in and from his works, on the first day, is a sufficient indication of the precise day of rest to be observed under the dispensation of the new covenant, now confirmed and established (pp. 409-410). I'm not entirely sure that is how Owen meant it but that is how that part alone could be understood (the treatise is quite long, the above link is a summary with quotations). So perhaps this is a "missing link" of sorts in the direction of the earlier quotes.

We have in Exodus 20:8-11, the Third Commandment in which the Lord instructs Israel to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. The Commandment is elaborated to explain that just as God had rested after six days of Creation of the world, Israel would also need to rest on the 7th Day. Jesus gave a new definition to rest on the Sabbath by doing the work of compassion. As such, Christians would be obliged to do the work of charity and love towards the neighbor on a Sunday. But in practice, the observance of the Sabbath as a Holy Day is limited to attending the Mass, in so far as many Catholics are concerned. What does the Catholic Church teach about the observance of Sunday as a Holy Day?

In Acts 15 it is recorded that certain men from Judea had come to Antioch and were teaching the Gentile believers that, if they were not circumcised after the law of Moses, they could not be saved. Paul and Barnabbas strongly resisted them: > And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them ... - v. 1-2a They were sent/went to Jerusalem to sort out this very issue with the Apostles and elders there and, while reporting on all the things God had done through them amongst the Gentiles: > But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.- v. 5-6 After much disputing Peter spoke his piece, explaining how God had made no distinction between Jew and Gentile *in that both are purified by faith* and, in his discourse, he refers to the law of Moses as a yoke on the neck that no one can bear: > Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. - v. 10-11 Barnabas and Paul then give more testimony followed by the final summation and declaration on the matter by James, the leader of the Jerusalem council. The council then writes and sends a letter to the Gentile churches in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. They send this letter with Paul and Barnabas and also send along Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas as witnessess to verify that the letter is, in fact, from the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem: > And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that **certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment**: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. **For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication**: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. - Acts 15:23-29 How do those who insist that the 7th day Sabbath must be kept explain the complete absence of this command in a letter sent to the Gentile church for the express purpose of resolving the issue of which commands these believers should keep?

According to this pro-Sabbatarian source , Ignatius' statement, normally translated thus, is incorrect (emphasis mine): > If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, **no longer > observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives > after the Lord's day**, on which our life also > arose through Him and through His death > which some men deny -- a mystery whereby > we attained unto belief, and for this cause we > endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher.​ This translation contrasts observing Sabbaths with focusing on the Lord's Day. However, the Sabbatarian source linked to above says that "day" is not in the original (I take it that the translation above must believe it's implied), and that "those who had walked in ancient practices" were the Old Testament prophets. Since the Old Testament prophets *did*, in fact, keep the Sabbath, he says the translation above is incorrect and that the following translation is better (emphasis mine): > If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, **no longer > {Judaically} keeping sabbaths but according to the > Lord's way of life**...​ This would suggest that it isn't a contrast between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day but rather a contrast between observing the Sabbath Judaically (perhaps legalistically?) and observing the Sabbath according to the Lord's way. Which translation is better? Is it accurate that "those who had walked in ancient practices" are the Old Testament prophets (the assumption on which the second translation is based), or are they perhaps the first-century Christians/apostles observing the Lord's Day (which would favor the first translation)?