Copyright © 1998, 2001 by Anthony Coore
INTRODUCTION
The majority of professing Christians does not observe the seventh day Sabbath. Most would probably consider the matter to be inconsequential. Yet the subject continues to be a thorny one. Every so often, the issue rears its head, and debates ensue. Unfortunately poor arguments have been advanced for both sides, which only give more ammunition to each.
This study will attempt to demonstrate with sound reasoning based on the Bible, why the Sabbath remains applicable to Christians. The major arguments commonly used to justify neglecting the Sabbath commandment will be examined and answered. The question of how to keep the Sabbath will not be dealt with directly, as that is a different issue from whether it is to be kept.
If you do not keep the Sabbath, ask yourself why. Maybe you have not given the question much thought before. Considering that God commanded ancient Israel to keep the Sabbath, and that the penalty for disobeying this instruction was death, one should at least understand why one does not follow this instruction.
If you are one who has given some thought to the matter, and do not believe God expects His people to be obeying this command now, then take this as a challenge to read this paper in its entirety and to reconsider your position.
Before proceeding, if you do not keep the Sabbath, try to think of all the reasons why you do not. Then go through this study, re-examine your reasons, and answer honestly whether your reasons are valid.
Put away your biases now, and commit yourself to accepting the plain truth of the Bible.
(Note: All scriptures quoted are from the KJV, unless otherwise stated).
THE SABBATH IN EXODUS 20
Let us start with Exodus 20. Here the commandments are given. The fourth one pertains to the Sabbath day.
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (vs 8).
Now which day is the Sabbath day?
“Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates” (vs 9).
Although this says the “seventh day”, some try to argue that it just means one day in seven. This interpretation is untenable however, as verse 11 dispels any ambiguity.
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it”. (vs 11)
The Sabbath day then is not just any one day in seven, but the day that God rested on.
Let us take a look at the Genesis account.
Gen 2:2-3:
“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. 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”.
So we see it was specifically the seventh day of the week that God blessed and sanctified.
Now then, is the command to keep this day holy still binding? Numerous arguments have been advanced to show that it is not. We will examine some of these, but first let us look back at the scriptures quoted above.
Notice this vital point made in both Ex 20 and Gen 2. The reason God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day (ie. the seventh day) is that He rested on it. Also observe from Ex 20:11, that the seventh day at that point in time (ie. during Moses’ time), was still holy.
Some try to make the ridiculous argument that only the first seventh day was holy, and the others following were not. But we see that even in Moses’ time the seventh day was still holy, and the reason for it being holy is that God had rested on the seventh day and consequently blessed it and hallowed it. 1
Note that the argument here is not simply that God at one time sanctified the seventh day. The point to pay close attention to is that the seventh day was holy during Moses’ time because it was made holy from the beginning.
So is the seventh day still holy? The answer should be obvious. Has the history of the creation week changed? Has the fact that God rested on the seventh day changed? No! So if this was the reason why the Sabbath was holy in Moses’ time, thousands of years after the sanctifying of the day, then what makes this reason invalid today? Clearly the seventh day will remain holy so long as the following scripture remains true:
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Ex 20:11).
Therefore, unless the history of the creation week has changed or the weekly cycle has ceased, the seventh day remains holy.
Would one who genuinely loves God not give any care to the holy things of God? Would one who seeks to worship God in spirit and truth deliberately defile what God has made holy? Certainly not! Knowing then that the seventh day is holy, one who loves God will seek to keep this day holy.
The matter of whether the Sabbath day is to be kept is then a simple matter. If one loves God, one will not deliberately desecrate what God has sanctified. That the seventh day is holy is irrefutable. It was no doubt holy in Moses’ time, and the reason for its sanctity then, was based on what God did the seventh day of the creation week, as highlighted above. That reason given is just as valid today.
Forget all arguments against the Sabbath for a while, and try to understand the points made so far.
SYMBOLISM OF THE SABBATH
Does the Sabbath signify anything? Is there more to it than it just being a weekly day of rest?
There is indeed awesome significance to the Sabbath. As we have seen before, God rested the seventh day, consequently blessing and sanctifying it. But what was the significance of this? Let us return to Genesis chapter 2 to find out.
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 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”.
Here we see that the seventh day marked the completion of the physical creation. Thus God blessed the day and sanctified it (ie. set it apart for holy use). So by recognising that this day has been set apart by God, one is made aware that this day signifies completion.2
Though the physical creation has been completed, the purpose for it has not yet been fulfilled. There is a spiritual creation taking place. When this is complete, then the purpose for the physical will then be fulfilled. Man was not made to just remain human for eternity. Indeed the whole creation groans waiting earnestly for the manifestation of the sons of God (Rom 8:18-23). (To understand more about the spiritual creation taking place, and the purpose of man, request the article, The Destiny of Man!). The fact that we change with time shows that we have not yet been perfected, or completed. But by keeping the seventh day holy each week, we are reminded that there is an end, a time when all shall be fulfilled. This weekly reminder shows that there is coming a time when man shall be perfected, when he no longer will be susceptible to sin and corruption, but will be immutable, having permanently entered into everlasting rest with God. We will soon see that this is borne out in the third and fourth chapters of the book of Hebrews.
Hebrews 4 and the Sabbath
There are some who make the argument that the Sabbath has fulfilled its meaning and is therefore no longer required to be kept. The claim made is that the Sabbath rest pointed to the rest in Christ that Christians now have. Scriptures like Matthew 11:28-30 and Heb 4:3 are cited to support this. But such an argument is not consistent with scripture.
It has been shown that the seventh day was set apart to mark completion. The rest we obtain now by exercising faith in Christ is only a foretaste of the everlasting rest to come. The rest in Christ now can be lost if one leaves the faith. The ultimate rest once achieved cannot be lost. The fact that Christians still need to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 3:18) shows that we have not yet reached our final state, which means that the present rest in Christ is not what the Sabbath ultimately points to.
Let us take a look at Matt 11:28-30 and Heb 4:3
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt 11:28-30).
“For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world” (Heb 4:3).
It is true that once we accept Christ, we are given rest. But is this what the Sabbath day ultimately points to? There is nothing in these scriptures which suggests that this is all that it points to. Does the Sabbath foreshadow the start or the end of our salvation? As shown before, it ultimately pictures the end, or completion.
In fact the same chapter of Hebrews referred to above supports this understanding.
To understand the context, let us start from chapter 3.
“Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus” (vs 1).
This shows that the writer is addressing believers. Keep this in mind.
Verse 6 brings out a critical point to note about the context.
“But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end”.
Enduring to the end is what the writer is emphasising.
Verse 14 also makes this clear.
“For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end“.
The example of the Israelites that came out of Egypt is used as a warning to Christians (vs 7-19). That generation that came out of Egypt was not allowed to enter the promised rest, a reference to the promised land, because of unbelief (vs 19).
We now come to chapter four.
“Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it” (vs 1).
This shows that there is still a promise left for us of entering God’s rest, and that we should be careful that we do not miss out on it.
Verse 3 shows that we who believe, experience the rest to an extent now.
“For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world” (vs 3).
This rest being referred to, was established from the foundation of the world, when God rested on the seventh day from all His work (vs 4). By faith, we are able to experience this rest now. But this is only a foretaste; we can lose this rest. Only by enduring to the end do we permanently enter the rest that the Sabbath day points to. This is why the writer emphasises enduring to the end (3: 6,18).
Now ancient Israel did not enter God’s rest, as verse 5 shows.
“And again in this place he said, ‘They shall never enter my rest'”. (vs 5, RSV)
This means then that the rest is still left to be entered by some. Verse 6 confirms this.
“Since therefore it remains for some to enter it…”
This is why David says so many years after the Exodus from Egypt, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (vs 7). For the rest is still yet to be entered. Joshua did not give them the rest being spoken of here (vs 8).
Joshua 21:44 does say that God gave Israel rest. But that rest was not the ultimate rest- the rest the Sabbath day pictures. Otherwise God would not have spoken so long after through David of another day (vs 8). Hence there is still a rest for God’s people to enter (vs 9).
“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God”.
Now up until now, the Greek word used for rest has been katapausis. But in this one instance here, the word sabbatismos is used for “rest”. This word is used only once in the New Testament. From extra-biblical sources where this same word is used, it means literal Sabbath-keeping.
The RSV renders verse 9 as follows:
“So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God”.
Though the writer uses a different word for rest here, he is still speaking about the same rest that some are still to enter. By using the word sabbatismos, the writer is showing that the rest that remains to be entered into, is the same rest that the literal Sabbath day ultimately points to. So he is in effect saying that the rest that the Sabbath day foreshadows, is still unfulfilled.
“For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (vs 10).
When we do enter the ultimate rest which the Sabbath points to, we would have ceased from our labours as God did from his. We would have done the work of God and inherited the promise.
As Revelation 14:13 says:
“And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them”.
Encouraging the believers to remain faithful to the end, so that they can receive the promise of the rest, the writer says:
“Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (vs 11). (Notice the rest spoken of here is a future rest.)
That rest spoken of here, is the same rest of verse 10, which is the same rest that verse 9 (sabbatismos) alludes to. This confirms that a future rest remains to be entered into, and that the Sabbath does ultimately point to this rest.
What we see is that, though believers experience rest now to an extent, there is still a rest to come at the end of our salvation. The Sabbath day then, foreshadows not just the beginning of our salvation, but also, and more importantly, the end. Therefore, until Christ finishes the work He has begun in us, the Sabbath day will still be relevant to us.
ARGUMENTS COMMONLY USED BY NON-SABBATARIANS
We have so far seen that there is a biblical basis for Sabbath keeping. We have also seen that the argument that the Sabbath has been fulfilled and so no longer is required to be kept is incorrect. Let us now examine some more of the arguments for Sabbath-breaking.
The Old Covenant Has Ended
The argument here is that the Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant. Since the Old Covenant has apparently ended, and the New Covenant has begun, the Sabbath command is no longer relevant unless it has been restated in the New Covenant.
Those who use this argument admit that nine of the ten commandments are still valid for Christians today. The reason they give for them being valid is not that they were given back in the Old Testament, but that they have been restated somewhere in the epistles of the New Testament. They were supposedly abolished when the Old Covenant ended, but they were brought back under the New Covenant. The only one of the ten not believed to have been brought back is the one to keep the Sabbath.
This argument, though widely used, is terribly flawed. This will become apparent when we take a look at what Scripture has to say about the covenants. But first let us understand what a covenant is.
A covenant is simply an agreement. For example the Old Covenant (OC) was an agreement that God made with the nation of Israel. Israel agreed to keep God’s law, and God agreed to bless Israel in specific ways if they kept the law. The ten commandments were sometimes referred to as the covenant (eg. Ex 34:28), as they were central to the agreement. But the covenant itself encompassed the entire law, and was really the agreement that God made with Israel.
Let us now take a look at what the Scripture has to say about the New Covenant (NC). The writer to the Hebrews had some insightful comments to say about this matter.
Heb 8
6 But now hath he [Jesus] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Here we see that the NC differs from the OC in at least the promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
This shows that there was a problem with the OC. Was the problem with the law? The answer to this question is found in the writer’s quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
So the problem was with the people, not with the law. But what was the actual problem?
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
This shows that the NC is significantly different from the OC. But it also answers the question of what the problem was with the OC. As it says, it was the fact that the people who agreed to the terms of the covenant, did not continue in it. So what was to be different with the NC? What was to be the NC?
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
From this we can see two fundamental aspects of the NC.
1. The laws were now going to be written in the hearts of the people
2. Forgiveness is promised.
Notice that in the description of the NC, there is no mention of a different set of laws. And this really should be of no surprise, as the problem was not with the law, but with the people. God’s solution to the problem is not to change the laws, but rather to change the hearts of the people. God knew from the time He gave the law that there was a problem with the hearts of the people. Just after the giving of the ten commandments, God says,
“O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” (Deut 5:29).
Once again, we see that the problem was not with the commandments, but with the people.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
What is the writer’s point in explaining that the OC is ready to vanish? Is he indicating that the whole package of laws is become/becoming obsolete? This cannot be what he is getting at, since the passage he just finished quoting from Jeremiah, shows that God is going to write His laws in the hearts. The key to understanding his point is found in the second aspect of the NC. That is, the forgiveness of sin. The point of showing that the OC is passing away, is to support his argument that the administration which looked forward to the cleansing of sin, is no longer operational. For since the NC carries the promise that God will no more remember the people’s sins, then there is no more need to offer up sacrifices daily for sin. Neither is there any more requirement to undergo the various washings for purification.
How can we be sure that this is the writer’s point?
The context verifies this. From the previous chapter we can see this same thread. See 7:27 for example. Then if we read on into chapter 9, we see the same thought being elaborated on. See verses 6-10 especially. For brevity, only verses 9-10 will be quoted here.
“Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation”. (Heb 9:9-10).
Continue reading through chapters 9 and 10, and observe that the writer continues to develop this train of thought. But for the absolute confirmation, note the following.
“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” (Heb 10:14-18)
The writer quotes again the prophecy of the NC for the sake of making the point that there is no more need to offer up sacrifices for sin. So it is plain that in showing that the OC was passing away, the writer is making his case for the passing away of the requirement to perform rituals of purification, such as sacrifices for sin.
Points we can glean from what is said of the NC in the book of Hebrews are
- The laws are to be written in the hearts
- God promises forgiveness of sins
- Sacrifice for sins consequently becomes obsolete
Clearly the passing of the OC is not the passing of the entire package of laws. On the contrary, under the NC, the laws are written in the heart. (The indication from comparing Deut 5:6-21,29 with Jer 31:31-34 is that it is at least the ten commandments that are written in the heart). What we do see however, is that it is the administration of purification (sacrifice for sin, meat and drink offerings, various washings) that has been fulfilled.
To insist that a law must be restated somewhere in the epistles of the New Testament books, is to miss the point of the NC. For the NC is not concerned with giving a whole new package of laws to be written on paper, but it is concerned with the writing of the laws in the heart. If the laws are written in the heart, why look for it to be restated on paper? Indeed, if the NC was simply a new set of laws written on paper, then the problem of the people not keeping the laws would still exist, since they still would not have the heart to keep them.
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” (2 Cor 3:3)
As we saw in Hebrews, we see again in 2 Cor. – the heart is where it’s at.
The law written on stone or paper was not efficacious in producing a righteous life. Without an internal transformation, the people could not keep the law. This inevitably led to them coming under the condemnation of the law. In that sense the OC was an administration of death (2 Cor 3:6-7).
But the administration of death has ended for those under the NC, as God washes away sins, and also because the law is now on the inside. The righteousness of the law can now be fulfilled in the believer. Since the law is on the inside, it is wrong to insist that a law must be restated on paper for it to be applicable to the Christian.
The foregoing analysis is nothing less than a deathblow to the main argument used by anti-Sabbatarians. Let us now give this argument a decent burial. Consider the following.
If the commandments were really abolished and needed to be restated to be valid, then Paul and James were obviously ignorant of this.
Ephesians 6:1-3 “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth”.
Here Paul quotes the fifth commandment, not to make it valid, but to back up what he was saying. Also, he says that it is the first commandment with promise. Clearly he is talking in the context of the ten commandments. But that would not make sense if they were nailed to the cross. (Where would he get the idea that it is the first one with promise?)
1 Timothy 1:8-10 “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers [ie. those who do not obey, ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’],
for manslayers [ie. those who do not obey, ‘Thou shalt not kill’],
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [ie. those who do not obey, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’],
for menstealers [ie. those who do not obey, ‘Thou shalt not steal’],
for liars, for perjured persons [ie. those who don’t obey, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’],
and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine”.
Paul shows here that the law points out sin and convicts the sinner. Clearly the law spoken of here, is the same law given back in the Old Testament. He was not restating it to make it valid, but rather he was showing its usefulness or validity.
James 2:10-12 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty”.
Again, James does not reference two of the ten commandments to make them now binding, but to show that breaking even one constitutes sin. In fact, from reading James here, one would be led to believe that all ten commandments are still binding!
From these texts, it is clear that the notion of a restatement necessary for a commandment to be valid, was foreign to the leading men of the church.
One should also note that the law against bestiality is not specifically restated in the New Testament. Does this mean that there is now nothing wrong with bestiality?
But let us consider whether the ending of the Old Covenant could really abrogate the validity of the sabbath for the people of God.
Was it the Old Covenant that made the seventh day holy? The answer is a resounding no!
Recall the reason given in Exodus 20:11 as to why the Sabbath is holy. The reason has nothing to do with the introduction of the Old Covenant. How does the ending of the Old Covenant nullify the fact that God sanctified the seventh day, having rested on it? Clearly it doesn’t. And if the seventh day is still holy, then the commandment to observe it is still binding. Those who love God do not need to see a restatement, because they will not want to desecrate what is holy. This is the working of the law in the heart.
We can conclude therefore that the passing of the Old Covenant had no effect on the validity of the Sabbath law.
Given Only To Israel
Some attempt to excuse themselves from Sabbath-keeping by pointing out that the command to keep the Sabbath holy was only given to Israel. Exodus 31 is sometimes used to support this, for it shows that the Sabbath was given as a sign between God and Israel. Deuteronomy 5 is also cited.
This excuse is invalid however. All the law was given to Israel only. Which other nation did God call and give the commandments to? Does this mean that the Gentiles that God is calling now do not need to obey the other commandments? Of course not! So the fact that God only gave the Sabbath command to Israel is not a sufficient reason to break the command.
God gave His laws, including the Sabbath, to Israel, because He was making them His people. He therefore had to show them what He expected of them, how He wanted them to worship and serve Him. The Sabbath became a sign because God was making Israel His people. The sign therefore applies to any who would be a part of God’s people. Gentiles then that become part of God’s people, are also required to obey His laws. As the scripture says, “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God” (Lev 24:22). So the excuse that God only commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath will only work for one who does not worship the God of Israel, and does not seek to.
What about Deuteronomy 5:15?
“And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day”.
First notice that this has nothing to do with why the Sabbath is holy. This scripture gives a reason for why God commanded Israel to keep it. But does this scripture imply that the command is only applicable to Israel? No. On the contrary, it applies to any who become part of God’s people. For the whole point of reminding Israel of their great deliverance from slavery by God’s mighty hand, is to emphasise the fact that they now belonged to God. It is because of this that God commanded them of all people, to keep His sabbath day. The Sabbath then is a sign between God and His chosen people.
Furthermore, Jesus said that any who commits sin is a servant of sin (John 8:34). Christians however have been delivered from the bondage of sin, by “a mighty hand” (God’s work through Christ) and have become the people of God. Therefore the reason given in Deut 5:15 for why God commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath, definitely applies to Christians.
Notice Isaiah 56:2-6
“Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son of the stranger [Gentile], that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger [Gentiles], that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant…”
Evidently, Gentiles who want to worship God are required to keep the Sabbath.
Those who avoid keeping the Sabbath, claiming it was only for Israel, actually trap themselves. For the New Testament shows that Gentiles who have been sanctified by God become part of Israel (see Rom 2:29, Rom 11:17, Gal 3:29). The church is actually called the Israel of God (Gal 6:16).
Once again recall the reason why the Sabbath is holy. The reason given in Exodus 20:11 has nothing to do with the nation of Israel. Before there ever was a nation of Israel, God had already done what He did on the seventh day of the creation week, to make it holy.
Now would a Gentile who wants to truly worship God, not care how he treats the Sabbath, knowing that it is holy? Certainly not! Therefore it does not really matter that God only commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath. It applies to any person that God calls to worship in spirit and truth.
Is It Not True That Gentiles In The Early Church Were Non-Sabbatarians?
Many people have the conception that the Gentile Christians of the early church did not keep the Sabbath. Consequently Paul’s writings are generally interpreted to fit such a view. It is therefore important that we understand the truth of the matter.
Contrary to popular belief, Gentiles did keep the Sabbath. There are several facts we can note to show this.
The early Gentile converts were God-fearers, and God-fearers kept the Sabbath. Acts 10:2 and 13:26 are evidence that the early Gentile converts were God-fearers. Verse 42 of the same Acts 13 is an indicator that these God-fearers kept the Sabbath. Isaiah 56, which was quoted earlier, also shows that God fearing Gentiles would have been keeping the Sabbath. In addition to these scriptures, Acts 17:1-4, Acts 17:10-12, Acts 18:4, all show that the very early Gentiles who became Christians, were already keeping the Sabbath before they were even converted.
Paul stressed on unity among Jews and Gentiles. Paul said, “There is neither Jew nor Greek”, as Christians “are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). He also said, “For through him we both [Jew and Gentile] have access by one spirit unto the Father. Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph 2:18-19). He even rebuked Peter for separating himself from the Gentiles (Gal 2:11-14). Now it is a fact that the Christian Jews continued to keep the Sabbath. With this in mind, and considering Paul’s emphasis on unity, it is only natural that the Gentiles that came into the church would meet with the Jews each Sabbath. The Gentiles would only have been separating themselves from their Jewish brethren, had they refused to keep the Sabbath along with them.
The historical record attests to the fact that the early church kept the Sabbath. Sabbath-keeping continued for centuries in the Christian church, even among the Gentiles. Observe the following:3
ITALY AND EAST-C 4th
“It was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the west…For in the Church of Millaine (Milan);…it seems the Saturday was held in a farre esteeme… Not that the Easterne Churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Iudaisme (Judaism); but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus (Jesus) Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.” “History of the Sabbath” (original spelling retained), Part 2, par. 5, pp.73, 74. London: 1636. Dr. Heylyn.
ORIENT AND MOST OF WORLD
“The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day…It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival…Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same.” “Antiquities of the Christian Church,” Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.
With these points in mind, we must admit that Gentiles in the early church kept the Sabbath.
Did Not Jesus Break The Sabbath?
This question is at least preposterous. Nevertheless, some do teach that Jesus broke the Sabbath and so Christians do not need to keep it.
First of all, understand that Jesus was born under the law (Gal 4:4). This means that He had to fulfill the requirements of the law. Otherwise He would have sinned, for transgressing the law is sin (James 2:9). We know Jesus did not sin (Heb 4:15). Therefore He never broke the Sabbath.
But didn’t the Pharisees criticise Him for breaking the Sabbath? What about when He allowed His disciples to pick corn on the Sabbath, or the times that He healed on the Sabbath?
The Pharisees certainly criticised Him for some of the things He did on the Sabbaths. But search the law yourself and find which law Jesus broke in regard to the Sabbath. Nowhere does the law prohibit healing on the Sabbath. Regarding picking corn on the Sabbath, the law does forbid harvesting, but the disciples were not harvesting. They were simply getting something to eat because they were hungry (Matt 12:1).
The Pharisees criticised Jesus because Jesus broke the man-made Sabbath regulations. The Pharisees had added hundreds of laws to what God gave concerning the Sabbath. These laws made the Sabbath become a burden. Jesus disregarded those commandments of men to put the Sabbath in its proper perspective. It was supposed to be a delight, and it was meant to benefit us (the Sabbath was made for man, Mk 2:27). Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28). This simply means that Jesus has the right to determine how to keep the intent of the command, even if it means breaking the letter at times. (There is no record that Jesus ever did break the letter in regard to the Sabbath though).
We conclude then that Jesus did not break the commandment to keep the Sabbath.
Resurrection On Sunday
Many Christians believe that Sunday superseded the role of the Sabbath because Jesus rose on the first day of the week. Scripture however does not support this belief. There is no biblical evidence that the early church ever marked any day to celebrate the resurrection of the Lord Christ.
In any case, so what if Jesus rose on the first day of the week? Does that make the first day holy? If so, which scripture shows this?
Even if the first day of the week was made holy by that miraculous event, would that cause the Sabbath to lose its sanctity? How does Jesus’ resurrection, whichever day, change the fact that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day? It does not. Therefore even if one maintains that Sunday became sacred with the miracle of the resurrection, one cannot use this as a reason to not keep the seventh day holy.
Saved By Grace And Not By Works
In discussions about whether Christians should keep the Sabbath, the fact that we are saved by grace and not by works, is frequently brought up to somehow defend not keeping the Sabbath. It is true that one is saved by God’s grace, and not by one’s own works. However, this fact cannot help justify Sabbath-breaking.
Grace is not license to sin (Rom 6:1-2, Jude 4). It is like saying that we do not need to honour our parents, because we are saved by grace. Clearly ridiculous!
Keeping the Sabbath does not make one righteous, and neither does honouring our parents. But Sabbath-keeping and obedience to parents are manifestations of one who is righteous. Now only those who abide in the grace of God, by abiding in Christ, are righteous in God’s sight, as there is no unrighteousness in Christ. Those made righteous in Christ, will have Christ living His life in them (Gal 2:20, Rom 8:9). Therefore the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in them (Rom 8:4). In as much as Sabbath-keeping is a righteous requirement of the law, he who has Christ living in him, will be led to keep the Sabbath. So in fact being saved by grace results in commandment keeping, including Sabbath-keeping.
Conclusion To Arguments Commonly Used By Non-Sabbatarians
We have so far examined some of the typical non-Sabbatarian arguments, and we see that none justifies Sabbath-breaking. None negates the fact that the seventh day was made holy, and none gives any reason to believe the seventh day is no longer holy. Besides these arguments put forward by the non-Sabbatarians, certain scriptures are usually quoted to supposedly prove that Christians are not obligated to keep the Sabbath. These scriptures will be examined in the next section.
COMMON PROOF-TEXTS
Having seen that the arguments generally used to evade Sabbath-keeping are invalid, let us now examine the common proof-texts used to support the non-Sabbatarian view. But let us approach these scriptures with an open mind, and let us not come with the preconceived idea that Gentile Christians did not observe the Sabbath, as we have already seen that such is not the case. Also bear in mind the reason for why the seventh day was made holy, and see if there is any reason given in these texts that would negate the sanctity of the seventh day.
GALATIANS 4:9-11
“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain”.
This scripture is often used to justify not keeping the Sabbath. It is believed that verse 10 is referring to the days and periods that God commanded the Israelites to observe (Lev 23), and that Paul is criticising the Galatians for observing them. This seems to be a correct assessment of which periods of time are being referred to, but it will be demonstrated that this scripture cannot justify Sabbath-breaking. 4
First of all, is there anything inherently wrong with observing the Sabbath? Is there anything wrong with observing the Festivals that God ordained? The honest answer to both questions is no. For Paul himself, and the apostles, observed “Jewish” festivals (Acts 2:1, 1 Cor 16:8). So why would Paul now be against the observance of these days and times?
You might say they were Jews, so it was okay for them. Fine. But is there anything wrong with a Gentile observing the Sabbath or the Festivals of God? It should be obvious that the answer is no. (Zechariah 14:16-19 shows that after the return of Christ even Gentiles will have to keep the Feast of Tabernacles). If there is nothing wrong with these observances, then it means Paul is not condemning the mere observance. Clearly Paul is concerned with something deeper.
Now consider this:
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (Gal 5:2).
Now notice Acts 16:3
“Him [Timothy] would Paul have to go forth with him: and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek”.
Does this mean then, that Christ did not profit Timothy? Of course not. Paul only circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews which were in those quarters”. In Galatians 5, Paul makes his statement in verse 2 in the context of being justified by the law (see vs 4). Getting circumcised to achieve right standing with God is wrong. So it is not that circumcision is wrong in itself. It is the motive for circumcision that Paul is concerned with.
Likewise in Gal 4:10, it is the motivation that Paul is criticizing, and not the observance of various periods of time. It is the belief that these observances could justify or make one righteous that Paul is condemning.
You might reason that the Galatians did not observe these days and seasons at first, but then began observing them because certain Judaisers insisted that these days must be kept. So then, when Paul discovers that they were now keeping these days, he criticizes them for adopting these practices because they did not have to, and the fact that they were now observing them was evidence that they were trying to use the law for justification. So you would agree that it is the motivation Paul is against, but still maintain that this scripture shows these observances to be unnecessary.
That is a fairly decent argument, though it is driven by the preconceived or misconceived idea that the Galatian Christians did not observe those days until the false teachers influenced them. This is not necessarily so, as will be shown shortly. If they were however observing the periods before, then this argument would not be valid. What is known from the context is that they began using these days as a means of obtaining righteousness. It is quite possible that they were keeping them all along, and then began to think that they could be used to obtain right standing with God.
It does seem though, that the Galatians had started doing additional practices, which indicated to Paul that they were trying to gain justification by works, or in other words, “desiring to be under the law”. Verse 10 tends to give the impression that these additional practices were the observance of certain periods, like Sabbath days and other holy days. This however is a misunderstanding. An examination of the Greek (the language from which the New Testament was translated) word used for “observe” helps to clarify matters a bit.
The word is paratereo. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, it means to note insidiously or scrupulously. Young’s Analytical Commentary to the Bible says it means to “watch intensely or amiss”. The word is used a total of six times in the New Testament. Five times it is translated as “watched” and once as “observe”. Let us look at the instances in which it is used.
Mark 3:2 “And they watched [paratereo] him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him”.
Luke 6:7 “And the scribes and Pharisees watched [paratereo] him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him”.
Luke 14:1 “And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day, that they watched [paratereo] him”.
Luke 20:20 “And they watched [paratereo] him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor”.
Acts 9:24 “But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched [paratereo] the gates day and night to kill him”.
Notice from these examples that there was something wrong with the way the watching or observing took place. The word used in these instances clearly means a scrupulous watching. Apparently it is the wrong motive that causes it to be done scrupulously.
The use of it in Galatians 4:10 is no different. The Galatians were beginning to misuse these periods by attempting to gain right standing with God. So we see then, that it is a scrupulous observance inspired by a wrong motive that Paul is against.
As said above, it is evident that the Galatians had started doing additional practices, which indicated to Paul that they desired to be under the law. Now that paratereo is understood, verse 10 gives a different impression. Rather than indicate that the additional practices adopted were the Sabbath days, it indicates that what was adopted were practices associated with these periods of time, which now made their observances of these times scrupulous and wrongly based.
Apparently the Galatians were observing these periods, and then due to the influence of false teachers, they started scrupulously observing them by adopting various ordinances, thinking that such ordinances were necessary for justification.
We must conclude then, that Galatians 4:10 does not justify Sabbath-breaking.
ROMANS 14:5-6
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it…”
Just reading this text, and with the preconceived idea that Sabbath keeping is not important, it is not hard to see how one could conclude that it does not matter if one keeps it or not. However, if one is going to use this text to justify Sabbath-breaking, then one must be absolutely sure that it is addressing the Sabbath. Notice that the Sabbath is not explicitly mentioned in the verses quoted, the chapter, or even anywhere else in the letter. Could it be possible that these verses are not referring to the Sabbath?
Consider the following scenario. In a certain family, there are two brothers. One believes Tuesday is better than the other days of the week to sing a certain hymn. After all, his grandfather, who is now dead, was considered a righteous man, and he used to make sure to sing that hymn on Tuesdays. His father also carries on the tradition of singing that hymn on Tuesdays. Though it has never been taught that Tuesday is the best day to sing this hymn, this one of the brothers believes this song should definitely be sung on Tuesdays. It is fine to not sing, or to sing, this hymn on the other days. But Tuesdays it should be sung.
The other brother has no problem in carrying on the tradition, though he sees nothing wrong if one does not sing the hymn on Tuesdays. Clearly then, one man esteems one day above another, and another esteems every day alike. And truly each should be persuaded in his own mind, so that none sears his conscience.
Does this mean that this esteeming of a “day above another” is referring to, or even has anything to do with, the Sabbath? Obviously not. From the context, it is clear that the regarding of a day above another is in the matter of singing a particular hymn. In fact, these two brothers could be Sabbath keepers and the statement that one esteems one day above another would still be true, and also would have nothing to do with Sabbath-keeping. Also note that Tuesday is arbitrary in the scenario; the seventh day could have been the particular day instead, and still the matter of esteeming a day above others, would not indicate that one man believes the Sabbath is to be kept and another believes it does not matter, for the whole issue is about the singing of a particular hymn.
With the above illustration in mind, one must at least concede that Paul’s statement by itself in verse 5, does not necessarily have anything to do with Sabbath-keeping, or whether the Sabbath should be observed. Therefore, if there is nothing more in the context to prove that Paul had Sabbath-keeping in mind, one cannot honestly use this text to support not keeping the Sabbath.
Let us examine the context then, to see if it is possible to ascertain what Paul had in mind.
“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (vs 1).
The RSV renders it as:
“As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions”.
So Paul is here dealing with matters of opinion. If something is an opinion, then it means that Scripture has not explicitly ruled on the issue. The next verse shows what the dubious disputations concerned.
“For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs” (vs 2).
Paul then says in verse 3:
“Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not: and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him”.
The concern is in the matters of eating. One believes one can eat anything (ie. meat and vegetables), while the “weak” believes in eating only vegetables.
Notice that there is no scripture that commands eating only vegetables, and neither is there any which says eating only vegetables is wrong. For whatever reason, some thought that the situation required that they abstain from meat. This was their opinion. Paul goes on to show that judgment in the situation was a personal matter. That is why he who eats should not pass judgment on the one who abstains and vice versa. God has accepted both.
Examine the entire chapter and see for yourself that Paul’s concern throughout this chapter is directly related to matters of eating or drinking. Notice that he mentions days only in passing. The mention of days is clearly in the context of eating and not eating.
“He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks” (vs 6).
Paul is not dealing with two separate issues here. He introduces the aspect of regarding days, but the matter he is discussing, is still eating and not eating. The remainder of the chapter makes this evident.
“I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (vs 14). 5“But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died” (vs 15).
“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but…” (vs 17).
(Notice here that he does not say anything about days. If his earlier mention of days was to be understood as another issue apart from the matter of eating and not eating, then it seems logical that he would have included days among “meat and drink”.)
“For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak… And he that doubteth is damned if he eat…” (vs 20-23).
We see that Paul does not mention days again, but that he does continue with the issue of “meat and drink”. His mention of days is clearly just in passing, and must be understood in the context of eating matters.
Exactly which days Paul was referring to, and exactly how one regarded the day, are not specified. But based on the context, the days quite likely were days which some thought best for eating meat, or perhaps for fasting or at least for abstaining from certain food.
This deduction is a possibility, not only because it fits the context, but also because the historical record shows that such views were held among Christians. The Didache (an early Christian resource dating from about the 2nd century C.E.) gives the following instruction to Christians:
“Don’t fast on the same day with hypocrites (Pharisees), for they fast on Monday and Thursday; but you must fast on Wednesday and Friday”.
Even now, many Christians maintain a tradition of not eating meat (usually with the exception of fish) on Fridays.
Another possibility is that in Rome, meat was being offered to idols on certain days. This would certainly be cause for some to abstain from meat on those days. It is not hard to see how this could give rise to the situation where some considered some days good for eating meat, and other days not so good, while others considered all days alike for eating or not eating meat. Comparing Rom 14 with 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:16-33, this becomes more a likelihood than a possibility.
With this in mind, it is easy to see that Paul’s mention of days could be totally unrelated to the Sabbath and the Festivals of God. This text therefore, cannot justify the non-Sabbatarian’s position.
Some might concede that this text is not specifically discussing the Sabbath, but wonder if the principle could not apply to the Sabbath days. Recall that what Paul is addressing falls in the category of “doubtful disputations” (or opinions). That means that the right or wrong of the matter was dependent on personal preference. Since the scripture gives explicit instructions to keep the Sabbath day and the Festivals of God, then whether we are to keep them is not dependent on personal preference. The matter of whether to keep the Sabbath therefore does not fall in the category of “doubtful disputations”. Aspects of how to keep the Sabbath might require personal judgment, but whether we are to keep it, scripture already dictates. The principle used in Rom 14 concerning days, then, cannot apply to the Sabbath, in regard to whether it is to be kept.
Those who use Rom 14 as a license to break the Sabbath, completely ignore the context that Paul is speaking in. Besides the contextual problems that arise from their position, other critical problems also surface. For example, how is it possible for Paul to relegate a practice so cherished by the Jews to an inconsequential matter, in just a couple passing comments, without giving an explanation, and at the same time not create a stir among the Jews? (Recall how much controversy arose when Paul taught the Gentiles that they did not have to be circumcised. Just see Acts 15 and Paul’s epistles for an understanding of how much trouble this issue caused.)
It is ludicrous in the least, to think that Paul who said, “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments is what matters” (1 Cor 7:19), could relegate the matter of keeping the Sabbath commandment to the same level as the matter of whether one should eat only vegetables (an issue Scripture gives no commandment on), without giving an explanation that would disannul the sanctity of the Sabbath. (If Paul is saying that it does not matter if one keeps the Sabbath, then what is his reason for saying this?)
Once again recall the reason given in Ex 20:11 for why the Sabbath is holy. The reason given is directly related to what God did at the Creation. If Paul ever taught that Christians need not obey the Sabbath commandment, he would have had to give an explanation that nullified the reason given in Ex 20 as to why the Sabbath day is holy. No such explanation exists in Scripture however.
COLOSSIANS 2:16
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days”.
As in the case of Rom 14, reading this text with the preconceived idea that Sabbath-keeping is not important, gives one the impression that this text supports such a notion. However, when examined closely, this text does no such thing.
Re-read the verse. Is Paul saying to let no one judge you in whether you keep those days? Notice it does not say that. There is at least one other way of understanding what he said.
Let us assume just for a moment, that the matter of whether the days in question should be kept, was a non-issue. Let us assume that Christians (both Jews and Gentiles), during this time, kept these days.
With this in mind, it is not hard to imagine that Paul is referring to how we celebrate these days, and not whether we do. If it is possible that Paul is referring to how, and not whether, these days are celebrated, then this text would not justify the non-Sabbatarian’s case. Let us therefore examine the context of Paul’s statement in verse 16, to understand what Paul is saying, and what he is not saying.
(A detailed analysis of the text will not be undertaken here, as it is possible to show that this text does not support the non-Sabbatarian’s case, without having to go into too much detail.)
The word “therefore” in verse 16, indicates that a conclusion is being made based on what has just been said. Let us understand the argument that Paul is making.
“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (vs 13-15).
It is because of all of this that Paul says to let no one judge us in the things mentioned in verse 16.
The non-Sabbatarians who use this text to justify Sabbath-breaking, argue that Paul is saying that the law was nailed to the cross, and consequently, laws concerning Sabbaths and holy days, are no longer relevant.
One problem with this is that Paul says nothing here about the law being nailed to the cross. He says it is the “handwriting of ordinances” that was nailed to the cross. Furthermore, the nature of the ordinances specific to the situation, in which the Colossians were being judged in, is identified in verse 21.
“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which are all to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?” (vs 20-22).
Notice that the ordinances the Colossians were being judged in were not about whether they should be keeping the Sabbath or not! These imposed ordinances were actually commandments of men. The commandments to keep the Sabbaths and holy days, are not commandments of men.
So if the judging taking place was not a matter of whether the Sabbath is to be kept, then what is the meaning of verse 16?
To understand what Paul is saying, we need to back up to at least verse 13.
“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses”.
Notice that Paul is making the point that we were dead, but are now made alive, since our sins have been forgiven. As our sins have been forgiven, “the handwriting of ordinances” has been blotted out completely. Our death sentence has been removed.
“And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it”.
These “principalities and powers” which held us condemned, have been disarmed, as our sins have now been forgiven.
The purpose for Paul saying all this, is to show that those in Christ are complete (see also vs 10) and have been cleansed from all sin, so therefore do not need to undergo any ritual of forgiveness or cleansing to bring us closer to God. Ordinances, whether man made or God ordained, that served the purpose of cleansing, forgiving or making one more acceptable to God, are now made obsolete by the death of Christ into which we are baptized. (Obviously baptism is not included in the obsolete ordinances). Faith in the sacrifice of Christ cleanses one from sin and makes one acceptable to God. Therefore we do not need to be subject to such ordinances.
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days” (vs 16).
Paul is not saying that the Sabbath and festivals are ordinances that no longer matter. We have already seen that it is the ordinances that are supposed to cleanse or forgive one, that are now unnecessary to keep. The Sabbath and festivals however were never ordinances of cleansing or forgiveness. We have also seen that the ordinances specific to the situation had to do with not touching, not tasting and not handling (vs 21).
Notice that such regulations are ascetic practices. It is absurd to think that anyone would encourage ascetism by imposing festival observances. The Sabbaths, holy days (excepting the Day of Atonement) and new moons were times of feasting (Neh 8:10-12, 1 Sam 20:5, 2 Chr 30:21-22).
What Paul is saying in verse 16, is that the Colossians should not let anyone impose on them certain ordinances relating to eating or drinking or Sabbath and festival observances. Apparently the ordinances being imposed were for the purpose of assisting in the cleansing of sin. Since one is completely clean or forgiven in Christ, then the imposed ordinances cannot effect a better state of being clean or forgiven.
Essentially, the concern in the Colossian church was not about whether the Sabbath and other feast days should be kept, but how they should be kept. Paul in effect tells the Colossians that they do not need to restrict their Sabbath and festival celebrations by being subject to ordinances such as “touch not, taste not, handle not”. (Incidentally, this shows that the Colossians were keeping the Sabbaths and holy days). None of these ordinances have any real value in cleansing sin, as the fullness is in Christ (vs 9,17).
“Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ” (vs 17).
The point here is that since the things referred to previously in verse 16 are a shadow (of what is to come) and Christ is the real substance, then the imposed ordinances cannot have any value in making one more godly, as they do not affect the real substance.
Verse 23 reaffirms this.
“These [touch not, taste not, handle not] have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh” (RSV).
We have examined Col 2:16, and if we are to be honest, then we must admit that the text in no way validates Sabbath-breaking. Interestingly, we can glean from this text that the Colossian Christians, who were mostly Gentiles, were in fact keeping the Sabbaths and other biblical festivals. For we have seen that they were being judged for how they kept them.
Once again recall the reason given in Ex 20 for why the Sabbath was said to be holy then. If Paul was really saying we do not need to keep the Sabbath, then what in his reasoning nullifies the reason given in Ex 20 for the sanctity of the Sabbath?
ACTS 15 and EPHESIANS 2
Non-Sabbatarians sometimes use these texts to support their arguments. A thorough explanation of these texts is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it can easily be shown that they cannot be justly used to validate Sabbath-breaking.
Let us first look at Acts 15
“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day” (vs 19-21).
The argument made by the non-Sabbatarian, is that the apostles are saying that circumcision and the law of Moses do not need to be kept, except for the four prohibitions mentioned here. Since the Sabbath is not mentioned in the requirements listed, then clearly Gentiles do not need to observe it.
The problem with this argument is that the commandments to honour our parents, and not take God’s name in vain are not mentioned either. Does this mean then that the Gentiles do not need to obey those commandments? Obviously not. Therefore, the absence of the command to keep the Sabbath in the requirements that the apostles decided on, does not imply that the Gentiles need not obey it.
Clearly the apostles had something more specific in mind, than the entire law, to which the Gentiles were exempted from. A detailed examination of the text, and a comparison with Acts 21, will reveal that the concern had to do with ritual purification. (Such an examination will not be carried out here however.) But the Sabbath was not given as a purification ritual.
Ephesians 2:15
“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace”.
This text is frequently cited to show that the law has been abolished, and hence the commandment to keep the Sabbath is made obsolete.
If this argument is true, then it would mean that the commandment to honour our parents is also obsolete. But that is not the case, for in the same letter, just a few chapters later, Paul quotes the commandment to honour our parents (Eph 6:1-3) when instructing children to obey their parents. He even says it is the first commandment with promise. If the commandments were really abolished, what sense does it make to quote one of them in his instruction to children?
The popular belief then that Eph 2:15 says that the commandments (or law) have been abolished is not right. Furthermore, if Paul had intended to say that the law or commandments were abolished, he could simply have said “the law”, or “the commandments”, instead of the complicated phrase, “the law of commandments contained in ordinances”.
Paul clearly had something more specific in mind, than the entire law. As stated previously, the scope of this paper does not allow for a more detailed examination of this scripture. But for the purpose of this paper, it is sufficient to see that this scripture does not imply that the commandment to keep the Sabbath has been annulled (even as it does not imply that the commandment to honour our parents has been annulled).
Conclusion to Common Proof-Texts
We have now examined the common proof-texts used by non-Sabbatarians, and we can confidently say that none justifies Sabbath-breaking. In fact some seem to be in favour of the Sabbatarian’s position. Non-Sabbatarians then, seem to be left without foundation or support for their position regarding Sabbath- keeping.
SUMMARY
In this study we examined the Sabbath account in Ex 20, comparing it with Gen 2. What we saw from these scriptures are that:
- The seventh day of the week was made holy.
- The seventh day is the Sabbath day.
- It was still holy in the time of Moses.
- The reason for its sanctity in Moses’ time is the same reason given in the beginning, which is that God rested the seventh day, subsequently blessing and hallowing it. This reason is just as valid today as it was then.
- The Sabbath day marks completion.
Hebrews 4 was also examined and we saw there that there is a rest that the Sabbath day pictures, that Christians are to labour to enter.
Having analysed the major arguments and proof-texts to justify Sabbath-breaking, it is clear that none is successful in showing that the seventh day is no longer holy.
CONCLUSION
As the seventh day still exists, and it is still true that God did rest the seventh day, one must conclude that the seventh day is still holy. And if it is holy, then the one who loves the God who sanctified the day, will not want to desecrate it. Hence, any argument to support the position that Sabbath-keeping is unimportant, must deal with this!
Furthermore, as the Sabbath day marks completion, and pictures the rest that servants of God will attain when perfected, no more able to sin, its observance will always apply to all living servants of God who have yet to receive the end of their salvation.
Yes, Christians should keep the Sabbath day.
1. Some claim that the creation week was not a literal 7 day week, and try to make some argument out of this to suggest that literal Sabbath-keeping is not important. But whether the creation week was a literal seven day week, is irrelevant to the issue of whether we are to literally keep the Sabbath. For when the commandment is given in Ex 20, literal days are being spoken of, and the reason why the literal seventh day is holy is that the seventh day of the creation week was made holy. So the seventh day of our week is to be regarded as holy, whether or not the original seventh day was a literal day, as it is based on the first seventh day. Go Back
2. Incidentally, this is the reason for the omission of “and the evening and the morning were the seventh day”. The seven days being described are the seven days of the creation week. The seventh day marked the completion. It would not have made sense to include the phrase “and the evening and the morning were the seventh day”, as that would indicate an eighth day was coming. But the creation week lasted seven days and no more. Go Back
3. These quotations were taken from the History of the Sabbath home page, http://www.tagnet.org/llt/sabcen.htm, under 4th Century Sabbath Observance. Go Back
4. If you believe the “days, months, years” being referred to are pagan times, then you at least agree that this scripture does not support the non-Sabbatarian position. However, this understanding of which times are being spoken of, seems highly unlikely. The context of the entire letter is important. Paul is refuting the idea that justification can be obtained by keeping the law. It does not make sense for the Galatians to adopt pagan observances in an attempt to be justified by the law, or in desiring to be under the law (Gal 4:21).
When Paul says in vs. 9, “but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn again…”, he does not necessarily mean that whatever they practiced formerly is the same as what they were now espousing. Verse 9 simply means that they were returning to a form of religion just as unprofitable as what they had before, after coming to a superior state (that of being a son rather than a slave) and understanding. Also, verse 8 does not necessarily refer to a time when the Galatians were involved in pagan religions. Verse 8 refers to “beings that by nature are no gods”, to which the Galatians were in bondage to. Verse 9 calls these “beings” “weak and beggarly elemental spirits”. In verse 3, “elemental spirits” are also mentioned, and Paul puts himself among those who formerly were slaves to these “elemental spirits”, as he says “we”.
“So with us, when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe” (vs. 3 RSV).
We know Paul was never involved in any pagan religion, therefore when Paul refers to the Galatians’ former state in verse 8, he is not necessarily speaking of a time when the Galatians were involved in paganism.
Another point to note is that the early Gentile Christian converts were mostly God-fearers. It is quite possible then for verse 8 to be referring to the time when they were God-fearers, but still without Christ.
Why doesn’t Paul specifically say “Sabbaths” instead of the more general “days”? The text does not say why, but it is possible that the periods in question involved more than biblical observances. Maybe other Jewish festivals are also being referred to. Whatever the reason for Paul’s general terminology, we should acknowledge that the periods he referred to, most likely included the biblical observances. In any case, Paul is not condemning the observance of these times, as is made clear by the exposition of this text in the body of this paper. Go Back
5. Some have advanced the idea that Paul is discussing the issue of the law concerning clean and unclean meats, because verse 14 uses the word, “unclean” (Gk koinos) in relation to how some esteemed meat. The mention of days is then interpreted in the context of the law, which would seem to imply that Paul is indeed referring to the Sabbaths and festivals (Lev 23).
This position is untenable however. First of all, the Greek word translated as “unclean” in verse 14 simply means “common” or “defiled”. It is not the Greek word that would correspond to the Hebrew word used to describe unclean meat in the law. This word in verse 14 is also used in places such as Heb 10:29 and Mk 7:2. The situation regarding meat discussed here in Romans, is very similar to the situation among the Corinthian church concerning meat, which Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 8. There the concern is about meat sacrificed to idols. If meat was being offered to idols in Rome, then that would explain why some considered the meat to be “unclean”.
Second, Paul shows that the weak were abstaining from all meat, and eating only vegetables. If the concern was really over the law of clean and unclean meat, the “weak” would not have to abstain from all meat, as the law gives a variety of clean meats which are allowed to be eaten.
A third point to note, is that Paul also speaks of drinking wine in verse 21. The law does not forbid the drinking of wine in general.
The idea then that Paul is addressing matters relating to meat and days as specified in the law is contextually unsound. Go Back
This paper may be copied and given to others in its entirety. If you wish to copy subsections, you will require permission. You can request permission at the contact address below.
Comments to:
Email: acoore@gmail.com
This study taken from:
[…] (For a more thorough treatment of Hebrews 4, request the study, Should Christians Keep the Sabbath?). […]