Objection 47: The phrase “the first day of the week” in Matthew 28:1 should be translated “the first of the Sabbaths,” or “one of the Sabbath.” This proper translation indicates that the apostle spoke of the resurrection Sunday as the first of a new order of Sabbaths.
Most English translations of Matthew 28:1 read something like this:
“After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.” (NIV)
The Greek word here translated “week” is actually sabbaton. The objector believes the text should be translated more like this, “at the dawn of the first Sabbath,” signifying that the solemnity of the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday at the Resurrection. The basic premise is that the Greek word sabbaton— translated “week” in Matthew 28:1 and in parallel passages—should be rendered “Sabbath.”
The Greek word sabbaton occurs in the New Testament sixty-eight times, and is translated “Sabbath” fifty-nine times, and “week” nine times. These nine references are Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 18:12; 24:1; John 20:1,19; Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 16:2.
To someone reading the English translation, it may come as a surprise that both “week” and “Sabbath” should be translated from the same word in the Greek, which is what gives a superficial plausibility to the objector's claim. But a double or triple meaning is not peculiar to this instance. In English, as earlier noted, the word “day” can refer to the light portion of a day, the entire twenty-four hour period, and even a vague, indefinite period corresponding to contemporary times, as in “the present day” or “in this day and age.” The context determines the exact meaning of the word “day.” So also with sabbaton.
Happily, this matter is not in any serious dispute. Scholars are in agreement as to the correctness of translating sabbaton as "week" in Mat. 28:1, as well as in the other eight instances. The explanation is straightforward: The Jews sometimes called a week a “sabbath,” and although there is a Greek word for “week,” hebdomas, the New Testament writers do not use that word. Instead, they follow the Jewish custom of calling a week a “Sabbath.” The rabbis would speak of the “first day of the sabbath,” the “second day of the sabbath,” etc. with only the seventh day being the actual Sabbath day. Any competent scholar can explain this, and the following statements are typical:
Authorities Agree as to the Double Value of Sabbaton "WEEK (Hebrew, 'shabua',' plural 'shabu'im,' 'shabu'ot'; ... New Testament Greek, sabbaton, sabbata): A division of time comprising seven days, thus explaining the Hebrew name." - The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 12, p. 481,. art.: “Week.”
"The expression hebdomas [a Greek word for "week"] is not found in the New Testament, but rather sabbaton (e.g., Luke 18:12) or sabbata (e.g., Matt. 28:1) is used in the sense of it." - Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (ed. 1891), vol. 4, 13.2484, art. "Week."
“Of the two Hebrew names for 'week' one is derived from the number seven, and the other is identical with 'Sabbath,' the day which completes the Jewish week. The New Testament takes over the latter word, and makes a Greek noun of it.”—Hastings' Bible Dictionary (ed. 1924), p. 936, art. "Time."
“The Hebrew shabhua', used in the Old Testament for 'week,' is derived from shebha', the word for seven. As the seventh day was a day of rest, or Sabbath (Hebrew, shabbath), this word came to be used for 'week,' as appears in the New Testament (shabbaton,-ta), indicating the period from Sabbath to Sabbath (Matt. 28:1). The same usage is implied in the Old Testament (Lev. 23:15; 25:8).” - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. 1915), vol. 5, p. 2982, art. "Time."
"The plural sabbata ... means a week as well as a Sabbath or Sabbaths (comp. Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; and Matt. 28:1). ... Sabbata in the second clause [of Matt. 28:1] certainly means 'week' and not the Sabbath day."—John Peter Lance, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, translated by Philip Schaff, in Comments on Matthew 28:1.
Luke 18:12, which is one of the nine texts in which the Greek word sabbaton is translated "week," is a choice illustration of where sabbaton must be translated "week" in order to make sense. The Pharisee declared in his prayer, "I fast twice in the week." It would have been pointless for him to say that he fasted twice in the Sabbath day. There would be no mark of distinction in refraining from eating between breakfast and dinner and between dinner and supper. Doubtless even the publican did that. Only when translated "week" does the passage even make sense.
The Sabbath objector tries diligently to break the force of this passage by declaring that Luke 18:12 should read, "I fast two Sabbaths," that is, two of the fixed Sabbaths in the year. But the Greek will not permit this. The word dis, the word the objector wants to translate as “two” is an adverb, and cannot properly be translated that way. The word sabbatou, is in the singular number, which is never translated by the plural form “Sabbaths.”
The second part of the objector's contention is based on the fact that in the Greek the word “day” is not found in the phrase "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1. But competent Sunday-keeping Greek scholars admit that you simply cannot do what the objector wants to do:
"This widely heralded Klondike discovery as to mian sabbaton turns out to be only the glitter of fool's gold. It rests upon the profoundest ignoring or ignorance of a law of syntax fundamental to inflected speech, and especially of the usage and influence of the Aramaic tongue, which was the vernacular of Jesus and His apostles. Must syntax die that the Sabbath [Sunday] may live?
"Let these affirmations [of the theory] be traversed: '4. No Greek word for "day" occurs in any of the passages [that is, in Matthew 28:1 and parallel passages].' Made for simple readers of English, that statement lacks candor. Said word is there, latent, to a much greater degree than it is in our phrase, 'The twenty-fifth of the month.' Upon being asked, 'The twenty-fifth what?' The veriest child instantly replies, 'Day.' But stronger yet is the case in hand. The adjectival word miart is in the feminine gender, and an immutable law requires adjective modifiers to agree with their nouns in gender. Sabbaffin is of the neuter gender, and out of the question. What feminine Greek word is latent in this phrase, and yet so patent as to reflect upon this adjectival numeral its feminine hue? Plainly the feminine word hemera, 'day,' as analogously it is found in Mark 14:12, prote hemera ton azumon, 'the first day of unleavened bread.' Boldly to aver that 'no Greek word for "day" occurs in any of the passages,' is to blind the simple English reader to the fact that an inflected language, by its numerous genders and cases, can indicate the presence and force of latent words to an extent undreamed of in English....”
"As a vital or corroboratory part of any argument for the sanctifying of the Lord's day [Sunday], this travestied exegesis, instead of being a monumental discovery, is but a monumental blunder. Thereby our foes will have us in derision. —Dr. Wilbur Fletcher Steele, “Must Syntax Die That the Sabbath May Live?" in The Methodist Review (New York), May-June, 1899.
Since Sunday-keeping theologians have so thoroughly exposed this specious argument, it is hardly necessary for me to add anything, except perhaps the following note.
Note: A brief word about arguments related to translation from the biblical Greek into English. This type of objection often has to be met by lay Adventists who have not had the opportunity to study the original languages, or may not have access to the standard commentaries (which typically reveal the falsity of the claim that some different translation should be given than that found in the well-known translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NIV, etc.).
What, then, is the layman to do when he is confronted with such an argument? Become confused and withdraw from the field? Not at all. Instead, he should reply that the translations of the Bible into the English language are the product of the united endeavors of a large number of the most learned Greek scholars ever gathered together, and that the special pleading of someone—typically someone with no scholarly standing—who is trying to win a doctrinal argument by changing the accepted translation is no reason to reject the finest Greek scholarship of the last four centuries. That is all the answer that is needed, and will appeal to the reason of any unprejudiced person.
Of course, this does not mean that a clearer understanding of a word or a passage cannot sometimes be obtained by reference to the original language, as is well illustrated in the matter of the original terms for “soul” and “spirit.” But calling attention to the widely accepted meaning of the words of the original language is an altogether different thing from an agenda-driven mis-translation that ignores known facts or violates universally accepted rules of grammar.