Seventh-day Adventist: Observing Sabbath

This report aims to conduct an in-depth analysis of the theological issues surrounding the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church’s emphasis on observing the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) and the widely accepted practice of Sunday observance within mainstream Protestantism. Specifically, it seeks to investigate the meaning and function of Sabbath and Sunday observance within their respective communities and how these relate to the New Testament, particularly the theological thought of the Apostle Paul.

The core theological framework for this analysis is the 'New Perspective on Paul' (NPP), a scholarly movement that has brought significant shifts in Pauline studies since the latter half of the 20th century. The NPP re-examines the historical and social context of 1st-century Judaism and early Christianity, reassessing traditional understandings of Paul’s letters, especially concerning the Law, justification, and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. This report focuses particularly on the NPP’s view that Paul’s "works of the law" are understood as "boundary markers" that signify Jewish ethnic identity and distinguish them from Gentiles, applying this perspective to analyze the Sabbath/Sunday issue.

However, the scope of this report is strictly limited to the NPP’s illumination of the Sabbath/Sunday issue. Various other theological disputes exist between the SDA Church and mainstream Protestantism, including the role and authority of Ellen G. White, the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment believed to have begun after 1844, the doctrine of soul annihilation (or conditional immortality), and the role of the Law in salvation. Due to these differences, mainstream Protestant denominations often classify the SDA Church as a cult or sect.¹ The critical perspectives of mainstream Protestantism on these other doctrines will be briefly introduced later in the report, but a detailed theological analysis and evaluation of each doctrine are beyond the scope of this report.

The reasons for adopting the NPP as the core methodology for analyzing the Sabbath/Sunday issue in this report are as follows:

First, the NPP offers significant theological reflection on the sharp dichotomy often emphasized in traditional Protestant theology, particularly within the legacy of the Reformation, between 'Law' (works) and 'faith' (grace).⁸ Under the influence of the Reformation, especially Luther’s theology, Paul was often understood as viewing the Law as an attempt at human meritocracy, contrasting it with salvation by grace through faith. However, NPP scholars, through meticulous study of 1st-century Jewish literature and social context, argue that Judaism at the time was not simply a religion seeking salvation through works but rather exhibited 'Covenantal Nomism,' striving to live by the Law within God’s gracious covenant relationship.⁹ This understanding necessitates a reinterpretation of the relationship between Law and faith (or grace) not as mutually exclusive opposition but as a more complex and dynamic relationship. This provides a useful perspective for analyzing the debate between the SDA emphasis on the Law (Sabbath) and the grace (faith)-centric view of mainstream Protestantism. The NPP is considered one of the most authoritative scholarly achievements attempting to correct this dichotomous misunderstanding of Law and faith and return to a biblical perspective.

Second, the NPP provides a framework to effectively analyze the core issues of the Sabbath/Sunday debate by offering a new interpretation of the 'works of the law' that Paul criticized. The NPP argues that 'works of the law' do not primarily refer to the moral merit an individual accumulates to attain salvation, but rather to specific legal provisions that served as social and religious markers defining the unique identity of the Jewish people and setting boundaries with Gentiles – 'boundary markers'.¹⁰ Key examples of these boundary markers include circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance.¹⁰ According to this view, Paul’s main reason for criticizing 'works of the law' was that, combined with ethnic exclusivity, they created barriers between Jewish and Gentile believers who were meant to be united in Christ through faith. This NPP analytical framework allows for an in-depth exploration of whether Sabbath (Saturday) observance or Sunday keeping functions beyond mere religious practice as 'boundary markers' shaping community identity and defining relationships with other groups, and how such functions can be evaluated from the perspective of Pauline theology.

Third, the NPP is a scholarly movement advocated and developed by world-renowned New Testament scholars such as E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright, and it has firmly established itself as one of the most important and influential discussions in contemporary Pauline studies and the field of New Testament scholarship.⁸ Therefore, applying the NPP perspective adds scholarly depth and objectivity to the analysis of this report. (However, while acknowledging the existence of various critical views on the NPP itself, this report intentionally excludes such critical discussions to maintain a clear focus, consistently using the core arguments of the NPP as the analytical framework.)

This report is structured as follows: First, it details the core arguments of the NPP that form the basis of the analysis, particularly the reinterpretation of 1st-century Judaism, the meaning of 'works of the law,' and the understanding of justification. Next, applying this NPP perspective, it analyzes and theologically evaluates the SDA Sabbath doctrine and the mainstream Protestant practice of Sunday observance. Following this, it briefly summarizes other SDA-related theological issues beyond the scope of this report and the critical views of mainstream Protestantism on them. Finally, it synthesizes the entire analysis to draw conclusions and presents the implications of an NPP reflection on the Sabbath/Sunday issue.

E. P. Sanders, who provided the practical starting point for the NPP discussion, strongly argued in his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) that 1st-century Palestinian Judaism was not the Pelagian legalistic religion often depicted in traditional Protestant theology, seeking to 'earn' salvation through works by its own strength.⁹ Through extensive analysis of contemporary Jewish literature (Qumran texts, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, etc.), Sanders concluded that the basic religious structure of Judaism was based on the belief that God graciously chose Israel and made a covenant with them (getting in by grace), and law observance was the people’s response to 'staying in' this covenant relationship (staying in by obedience).⁹ Sanders termed this religious pattern of Judaism 'Covenantal Nomism'.¹¹

From the perspective of Covenantal Nomism, Jews believed they became the covenant people through God’s unconditional grace and election, and the Law was understood as God’s gift presenting the way to maintain this covenant relationship and live appropriately as God’s people.⁹ Law observance was not about accumulating merit to earn salvation but an expression of gratitude and obedience for the already given covenantal grace. Furthermore, the Law included provisions like atonement sacrifices, offering a way to restore the relationship through repentance and remain within the covenant even when it was broken due to human weakness.¹¹ Therefore, Sanders' core argument was that 1st-century Judaism was fundamentally a 'religion of grace,' and the Law functioned within this structure of grace.⁹

This reinterpretation of 1st-century Judaism has significant implications for the study of Pauline theology. If the Judaism Paul confronted was not a legalistic religion pursuing salvation by works, then the 'Law' or 'works of the law' that Paul so strongly criticized cannot be interpreted solely as 'the pursuit of human merit.' This raises fundamental questions about what Paul’s point of contention was, what he was truly fighting against, and opens up possibilities for new interpretations of Paul’s letters.

Building on Sanders' reinterpretation of Judaism, NPP scholars like James Dunn sought to newly define the meaning of the phrase 'works of the law' (Greek: ἔργα νόμου, erga nomou), which repeatedly appears as a target of criticism in Paul’s letters, especially Galatians and Romans. Traditional Protestant interpretation has mainly understood this phrase to refer to all kinds of good deeds or moral efforts humans perform to be justified before God.⁸ That is, Paul’s declaration that "by works of the law no human being will be justified" (Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16) was interpreted to mean that human works can never lead to salvation.

However, Dunn and other NPP scholars argue that 'works of the law' does not have such a comprehensive meaning but refers more specifically and restrictively to certain provisions of the Law that played a crucial role in distinguishing Jews from Gentiles and maintaining the unique identity of the Jewish people in 1st-century Jewish society.¹² These specific provisions functioned as 'boundary markers' or 'identity markers/badges' of the Jewish community, with prominent examples being circumcision, dietary laws (Kashrut), and Sabbath observance.¹⁰ These regulations, beyond being mere personal religious practices, performed a social function of distinguishing the Jewish people from surrounding Gentile nations and visibly demonstrating their sense of chosenness and unique status as the covenant people.¹⁰

From this perspective, the core reason Paul criticized 'works of the law' was not because they represented human effort for salvation, but because, combined with Jewish ethnocentrism, they erected unnecessary barriers for Gentile believers who had become God’s new people through faith in Christ, excluding them from the community or relegating them to a secondary status.¹² In other words, Paul strongly opposed the claim that Gentile believers must become like Jews—be circumcised, follow Jewish dietary laws, and observe the Sabbath—to be saved and become fully God’s people.¹⁹ This is well illustrated by Paul’s fierce criticism in Galatians of Peter’s withdrawal from eating with Gentile believers in Antioch out of fear of Jewish believers from Jerusalem (Gal 2:11-14). For Paul, enforcing these 'boundary markers' was an act of rebuilding the wall between Jews and Gentiles that had been torn down by the cross of Christ, distorting the truth of the gospel that unites all in Christ through faith alone (cf. Eph 2:14-16).

Therefore, the NPP shifts the focus of the debate over 'works of the law' from the traditional individual soteriological framework of 'works vs. faith' to a communal, ecclesiological framework of 'Jew vs. Gentile.' Paul’s primary concern was not 'how can an individual be saved by good works?' but 'who are God’s people?' and 'how can Jews and Gentiles form one new community in Christ without discrimination?'.¹¹ 'Works of the law' were directly linked to the issue of defining and maintaining the boundaries of this community, and Paul criticized them because he saw them as hindering the universality and inclusivity of the gospel.

The NPP also presents a different perspective on justification (義認), a core theme of Pauline theology, compared to the traditional Protestant understanding. The Reformation tradition, particularly the Lutheran interpretation, has primarily understood justification as a forensic concept, emphasizing God’s act of legally declaring a sinner 'righteous' by forgiving their sins and imputing (imputation) Christ’s righteousness to them.⁸ In this view, justification mainly focuses on resolving the problem of past sins and securing an individual’s salvation status.

In contrast, NPP scholars understand justification not merely as forgiveness of past sins or a forensic declaration but as a more comprehensive and multidimensional concept. In the NPP, justification is seen to encompass the relational dimension of restoring the broken relationship with God, the covenantal or ecclesiological dimension where God accepts the person as a member of His covenant people community, and the eschatological dimension of being finally vindicated (vindication) before God at the last judgment.¹¹

Scholars like N. T. Wright particularly emphasize the covenantal and eschatological dimensions of justification. For them, justification is an expression of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling His promise to Abraham—to bless all nations through his seed (Gen 12:3)—in Jesus Christ.¹¹ God declares and recognizes those who have faith in Christ, regardless of their ethnic background (Jew or Gentile) or law observance, as the true descendants of Abraham and His covenant people. This is present justification (initial justification).¹⁴ Therefore, justification is a declaration defining who belongs to God’s people, carrying strong ecclesiological implications of integrating humanity, once divided into Jews and Gentiles, into one new family, the church, in Christ.¹¹

Furthermore, Wright and others argue that Paul speaks not only of present justification by faith but also of future justification (final justification or vindication) that will occur at the final judgment.¹¹ Passages like Romans 2:13 ("For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified") or 2 Corinthians 5:10 ("For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil") suggest that the final judgment will be based on our entire lives, i.e., our deeds. The NPP interprets this not as salvation by works, but meaning that true faith necessarily bears the fruit of a life of obedience and good works in the power of the Holy Spirit, and God will confirm the genuineness of that faith through the whole life on the last day and finally vindicate it as 'righteous'.¹¹ That is, present justification is given by faith, but future final justification is based on the fruit of life produced by that faith.

This understanding also demands a reconsideration of the concept of 'faith' (Greek: πίστις, pistis) itself. The NPP tends to understand faith not merely as intellectual assent to or passive acceptance of Jesus Christ, but as an active concept encompassing deep trust in God and Christ, faithfulness to that relationship, and a whole-person response of obedience and commitment to God’s call.¹⁰

In conclusion, the NPP’s doctrine of justification looks beyond the traditional forensic model to integrally view the relational, covenantal, ecclesiological, and eschatological dimensions. It organically connects the beginning (present) and completion (future) of salvation, individual and communal dimensions, and attempts to understand the relationship between 'faith' and 'works (obedience)' not in a simple dichotomy but in a continuity where true faith inevitably leads to a life of obedience.

As its name suggests, the SDA Church emphasizes the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) as a core identity and practice of the church. The SDA Sabbath doctrine has the following theological foundations and characteristics:

Analyzing the SDA Sabbath doctrine from the NPP perspective reveals both positive aspects and points requiring critical reflection.

Most mainstream Protestant denominations observe Sunday as a day of worship and rest, calling it 'Sunday' or the 'Lord’s Day.' The theological and historical background of this practice is as follows:

The NPP concept of 'boundary markers' provides a useful framework for analyzing how the practices of a specific religious group can function not only to strengthen internal cohesion but also as mechanisms to exclude and discriminate against external groups. This analysis can be applied equally to the SDA practice of Sabbath observance and the mainstream Protestant practice of Sunday keeping.

It is re-emphasized that the core analysis of this report focuses on comparing and analyzing the SDA practice of Sabbath observance and the mainstream Protestant practice of Sunday keeping through the lens of the NPP, centered on the concept of 'boundary markers.' However, the theological debate between the SDA Church and mainstream Protestantism is not limited to the Sabbath/Sunday issue; significant differences exist across several core areas of Christian faith. These differences deeply affect mutual perception and relationship-setting, particularly forming the background for mainstream Protestant denominations classifying the SDA Church as a 'cult' or 'heresy.'

Beyond the Sabbath/Sunday issue, the main theological criticisms raised by mainstream Protestantism against the SDA Church are as follows. This summary aims to introduce the critical perspective of mainstream Protestantism, not to provide a detailed evaluation of SDA doctrines.

In conclusion, the debate between the SDA Church and mainstream Protestantism is rooted in deep theological differences concerning fundamental Christian doctrines, extending beyond the mere question of Sabbath versus Sunday. Mainstream Protestantism’s designation of the SDA Church as heretical is the result of a comprehensive judgment on these complex doctrinal differences, and the Sabbath controversy represents one facet of this broader theological conflict.

This report applied the perspective of the 'New Perspective on Paul' (NPP), which has significantly influenced Pauline studies since the latter half of the 20th century, particularly the concept of understanding 'works of the law' as 'boundary markers' distinguishing Jewish people from Gentiles, to theologically analyze the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church’s doctrine of Sabbath (Saturday) observance and the mainstream Protestant practice of Sunday keeping. The NPP shows that 1st-century Judaism exhibited 'Covenantal Nomism' and that Paul did not reject the Law itself but criticized it when, combined with ethnic exclusivity, it functioned as a 'boundary marker' hindering the unity of the community that should be one in Christ through faith.

Through this NPP analytical framework, the following conclusions regarding the Sabbath/Sunday issue can be reached:

It is once again clarified that the conclusions drawn in this report are the result of analyzing the limited topic of the Sabbath/Sunday issue through the specific theological perspective of the NPP. Theological evaluation of other SDA doctrines (authority of Ellen G. White, Investigative Judgment, view of the soul, etc.) was not the subject of analysis in this report. Therefore, the conclusions of this report do not represent a comprehensive theological judgment on the SDA Church as a whole.

The table below summarizes the NPP analysis results of this report.