THE CONSTANTINE CONSPIRACY
“One of the reforms by the Council of Nicea (headed by Constantine) legislated the switch of the day of Christain worship from Saturday to Sunday as the day dedicated to the worship of the sun.”
—Sid Roth, Messianic Vision
[ Note: The following article was mostly derived from a study by Robert A. Morey called Is Sunday the “Christian Sabbath”? ]
Sabbatarianism
SOME OF YOU may not understand what we mean when we speak of “Sabbatarianism”. Basically, the Sabbatarians’ foundational argument goes like this:
“The weekly sabbath was instituted by God at Creation as a ‘Creation ordinance’ for all mankind—‘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’ (Gen. 2:2-3). The observance of the weekly sabbath was also later commanded within the Ten Commandments, showing clearly that sabbath observance is a moral law—one of the Ten—and God’s moral laws never change. Therefore, as a ‘Creation ordinance’ and a moral law, knowing that such things are not special to the Jews nor ‘pass away’ with the coming of the New Covenant, we know that Christians are obligated and will always be obligated to observe the weekly sabbath.”
Among the Sabbatarians are groups like the Seventh Day Adventists, most Messianic Jewish groups, other “Seventh Day” groups like Seventh Day Baptists, certain “holiness” denominations, other Protestant groups and some Roman Catholics. Even many “mainline” denominations teach something similar to the above argument. Of course, after this point, Sabbatarian groups diverge and argue about what day—Saturday or Sunday—is the true sabbath for today, and then they’ll argue over how to properly observe the weekly sabbath. But what we want to know is, are we really obligated to the observance of a weekly sabbath at all? And to answer this, let us begin by addressing the two major lies stated in the above “foundational argument” that constitute the essential cornerstones of Sabbatarianism’s weekly sabbath doctrines.
Creation Ordinance
LIE #1—“The weekly sabbath was instituted by God at Creation as a ‘Creation ordinance’ for all mankind…”
A CREATION ORDINANCE is an activity, institution, or commandment that God established at the beginning of time, during the Creation Week, as a universal standard or regulation. Heterosexual marriage between two adults—the only acceptable form of marriage—is one such ordinance (Genesis 2:24 cf. Matthew 19:4-6).
Sabbatarians claim that the weekly sabbath commandment is a Creation ordinance in order to define it as a universal mandate for all men. But as we will see, they have absolutely no Scriptural backing for their claim.
GENESIS 2
SABBATARIANS claim that the weekly sabbath commandment is a Creation ordinance that was established by the sanctification of the seventh day of the Creation Week. Let us examine Genesis 2:2-3, their “proof text”: “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.” Notice the following facts:
- This is an account of what God did during the Creation Week. It is not a record of any God-given activity, institution, or commandment.
- It says that God “sanctified”—blessed, set apart, hallowed—the seventh day because of what He had done and not because of what He wanted man to do.
- This is the only text in the Creation account that refers at all to the seventh day. Until the account of Moses (Exodus 16), we read nothing about a God-given sabbath commandment, we read nothing about a precept that binds man to specially observe one day in seven, and we never once read about an example of even one man keeping the weekly sabbath.
Biblically, all historical passages that speak of the weekly sabbath commandment are references to Moses and mount Sinai (e.g., Nehemiah 9:13-14). There is not one passage in the entire Bible that calls our attention to a sabbath commandment established at Creation. Besides, you must think of this: Man was created on the sixth day; therefore, how could Adam and Eve observe a proper sabbath when God’s seventh day was only their second day, and their seventh day would fall on God’s fifth day in the next cycle? If God wanted men to observe a proper weekly sabbath from the very beginning, He would have created man on the first day.
A PATTERN?
SOME claim that God’s sanctification of the seventh day is an example or pattern set forth for all men to follow. However, there are a couple specific reasons why we cannot accept that claim.
First, as stated before, the text is recalling what God did and not what God asked any man to do. We cannot undermine this fact and make it seem like God was asking man to do something.
Heterosexual marriage between two adults is clearly a Creation ordinance for man in regards to marriage. Jesus Himself confirmed that fact (Matthew 19:4-6). Not surprisingly, Jesus NEVER confirmed the observance of the weekly sabbath as a Creation ordinance.1 Neither did the Apostles. In fact, we read quite the opposite.2 So the Sabbatarian is left with a doctrine that the Holy Spirit did not inspire men to write about. But God would not expect us to observe the weekly sabbath commandment as a Creation ordinance if He never revealed that it was a Creation ordinance! The Sabbatarian viewpoint on this issue is so ridiculous, it is self-refuting.
The Lord wants us to clearly know our obligations unto Him. If there was something about the weekly sabbath within the Creation account that God wanted all men to regard with such an exaggerated, religious reverence like that of the Sabbatarians, then God would not have left the seventh-day Creation account as it is—without one iota of support for a universal weekly sabbath commandment.
Second, if a man did apply Genesis 2:1-3 as a pattern for natural life, then as soon as he decided to apply it, he would work for six days . . . and then never work again! For Genesis 2:3 says that God “rested from all His work” of creating, and Hebrews 4:10 confirms that God has been “resting” even until this very day.
Genesis ends each day’s Creation account with the phrase “And the evening and the morning were the first [or second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth] day” (1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). This statement shows a definite closure—that the events and activities of the day were completed. Interestingly, the account for the seventh day is the only account that does not end with this statement about “the evening and the morning.” Thus the seventh day, in one sense, is shown to have no closure. This is not a mistake. It is an example of Divine inspiration. The Lord inspired Moses to make this distinction in order to signify the eternal nature of His “rest.” And therein, by leaving out the statement of natural closure, the Lord made clear that the hallowing of the seventh day is not a pattern for the natural realm, but rather it serves as a type of the heavenly New Covenant “rest” that all true believers may enter into by laboring against unbelief through living the life of faith (Hebrews 4:11). If you want to talk about the sanctification of the seventh day as a pattern, then you must speak of it typically as the example of our spiritual life in Christ Jesus. We “cease from our own works”—our own efforts to be “good” apart from Christ; our own efforts to merit salvation; our own self-image; our vain ambitions, pride, religiosity; our own talents—and we enter into Christ Jesus, walk in His standard, and fulfill the calling He has ordained for us. In Him we find that perpetual spiritual rest.
EXODUS 20
THE Genesis account cannot be used to promote the weekly sabbath as a Creation ordinance. In response to that fact, Sabbatarians link Genesis 2:2-3 to Exodus 20:8-11. By referencing Exodus 20:8-11, Sabbatarians refer to the weekly sabbath as “a memorial of the Creation,” and this definition is used to emphasize that the weekly sabbath is a Creation ordinance.
Exodus 20:8-11 is a portion of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses. The text states, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 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 . . . 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.” Here God made a parallel between what He wanted the Jews to do and what He had done during the Creation Week. This parallel actually stands against the Sabbatarian viewpoint, because God confirms that He is the one who worked six days and He is the one who rested on the seventh day. Man was not involved.
God was setting Israel apart from the pagans. He wanted them to be identified with Him. Therefore, He told them to work for six days and then observe the seventh day sabbath because that was the pattern of His Creation Week. No, I am not saying that the Creation Week is a universal pattern for all men to observe. I am saying that God wanted ancient Israel, the people under the Old Covenant, to follow the pattern of it.
By the way God had Moses explain the 6:1-day cycle, it is certain that the Jews were not already keeping such a cycle. In fact, God’s orders for a 6:1-day cycle may have seemed superfluous to the Jews; but to God, those orders were one more way to separate the Jews from the ways of the pagan nations round about (cf. Deuteronomy 12:29-32).
By having Israel observe the pattern of the Creation Week, God also taught the people about who He is. He is not just another local deity. He is the very God of all creation. He made the world and all that is in it—He did it in six literal days and then “rested” on the seventh day.
Finally, remember that God made the entire Old Testament point towards Christ (Christ was the crowning point of the Old Testament, being the fulfillment of prophecy, of shadows and types; the Messiah, who is the focal point of God’s whole plan of redemption and reconciliation, of which the Scriptures are the storybook). God had the Jews observe the pattern of the Creation Week to make them foreshadow how we must cease from our own “works” and enter into God’s spiritual “rest” in Christ (see Heb. 4).
DEUTERONOMY 5
I find it interesting that the Sabbatarians always quote the Exodus 20 rendition of the sabbath ordinance but often neglect the Deuteronomy 5 explanation of the same ordinance. I am not surprised at this, though, because Deuteronomy 5 does not mention the Creation Week.
Instead of mentioning the Creation Week, Deuteronomy 5 mentions the Exodus from Egypt. “Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt 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 . . . 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” (vv. 12-15). God reminded the Jews that they had been slaves in Egypt and that it was only His divine hand that rescued them. He wanted them to remember that. Therefore, to ensure that they would not forget such a great deliverance, and to ensure that they would not forget their Deliverer, God commanded the Jews to observe the weekly sabbath. This makes the weekly sabbath a memorial of the Exodus; so once again, we find nothing about it being a Creation ordinance.
EXODUS 31
EXODUS 31 reveals one of the main purposes of the weekly sabbath commandment—sabbath-keeping was a sign. “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying . . . Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you . . . It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever . . . And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God” (vv. 12-18). Explicitly, sabbath-keeping was a sign “between me [God] and you [the Jews under the Old Covenant].” Nothing is said about sabbath-keeping being a Creation ordinance. Instead, we see that God gave the weekly sabbath commandment to Moses and the Jews under the Old Covenant as a sign, just as God gave Abraham the covenant of physical circumcision as a sign. And like physical circumcision, as an Old Covenant sign, the weekly sabbath typified a New Covenant reality in Christ Jesus. Sabbath-keeping was the shadow while Christ is the substance.3 That means sabbath-keeping was only meant to last as long as the Old Covenant.
In conclusion, we only see the weekly sabbath commandment connected to its proper context—the Old Covenant. And we know the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ.4
EXODUS 16
IN order to uphold the idea that the weekly sabbath commandment is a Creation ordinance, Sabbatarians use Exodus 16 as an example of pre-Sinai sabbath-keeping. “Since sabbath-keeping was enjoined before Sinai,” they explain, “then it must not be limited to the Old Covenant which was given at Sinai, and this gives support to the weekly sabbath’s status as a Creation ordinance.” In addition, based upon a faulty interpretation of Exodus 16, many Sabbatarians refer to sabbath-keeping as the “first test” in the wilderness. “Since it was the ‘first test,’” they say, “it must be a special commandment.”
Now let us examine the Scriptures.
The Israelites had just been delivered from Egyptian bondage, they had passed miraculously through the Red Sea, and they had come “unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai” (16:1). As they neglected to think upon the awesomeness of their Deliverer, the people complained about their hunger. God gave His response. “Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily. …[And in the morning, when the manna (bread) appeared, Moses told the Israelites,] This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating . . . And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning. Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank . . . And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread . . . [And Moses told the rulers of the congregation,] This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seeth that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. And Moses said, Eat that to day, for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days . . . So the people rested on the seventh day” (vv. 4, 5, 16, 19, 20, 22-29).
Notice the following:
First—Since the people had just been complaining about their empty bellies, God wanted to “prove them” or “test them” with food. He was not trying to commemorate Creation or teach the people about a Creation ordinance.
God instructed the Jews to not “leave of it [the manna (bread)] till the morning. Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank.” Then God gave special instructions for the sixth day: “…lay up for you [some manna (bread)] to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.” What was the point of it all? Well, God wanted to see if the people would trust Him enough to obey Him despite their carnal lusts. Would they trust God day to day to be their Provider? God would provide. And since God made the manna to last for only one day, they had to trust God daily. Also, they had to trust God that the extra portion of manna which they stored on the sixth day, would still be fine on the seventh day. Thus the issuing of this pre-Sinai sabbath commandment was designed to test the Jews’ food-lust against their trust in God.
Second—This account is a parallel to Exodus 12. God told Moses to have the Jews observe the Passover feast while they were still in Egypt (Exodus 12)—long before they arrived at Sinai—and then He included the observance of Passover in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 23:4-8). No one would say that keeping the Passover is a Creation ordinance simply because God enjoined the observance of it before giving the Law at Sinai. In addition, take the example of animal sacrifices. God required animal sacrifices centuries and centuries before Moses and then He included animal sacrifices in the Law of Moses, but offering animal sacrifices is certainly not a Creation ordinance. Really, common sense tells us that there is no automatic connection between being a pre-Sinai ordinance and being a Creation ordinance.
Third—Sabbatarians make a moot point in saying that sabbath-keeping may be separated from the Law of Moses, for it does not make sabbath-keeping a Creation ordinance, it does not separate sabbath-keeping from the mediation of Moses, and it does not change the fact that sabbath-keeping is merely a type and shadow of the New Covenant reality in Christ.
Finally, let us observe that this so-named “first test” in the wilderness was not, in fact, the first test. The “first test,” after the Red Sea deliverance, is found in Exodus 15. “So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur…And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink? And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD shewed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them, and said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.”
God often places us in difficult positions so that we may learn to cry out to Him. As the people entered the wilderness, God tested them with thirst to see if they would lift their hearts up to Him, saying, “O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is; to see thy power and thy glory” (Psalm 63:1-2). The Lord will often use a lack of carnal satisfaction to drive His people into Himself. Unfortunately, the Israelites focused on their circumstances rather than on their God; but God in His mercy hearkened to the voice of Moses.
Exodus 15 is a parallel to Exodus 16. One account is no more special than the other. In both accounts,
(1) God used the carnal appetite to test His people to see if they would look to Him and obey Him (15:24-26 cf. 16:2-4).
(2) God was trying to emphasize that He is the one who smote the Egyptians and brought the Israelites out from bondage (15:26 cf. 16:4-6).
(3) God wanted to demonstrate that He is able to provide for His people (15:25-27 cf. 16:11-12).
So, have we been led into Sabbatarianism? Absolutely not. We have just seen, once again, that the Sabbatarian viewpoint is quite definitely wrong.
“REMEMBER”
EXODUS 20:8 says, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Sabbatarians claim that the word “remember” proves that the weekly sabbath commandment was observed before Moses and therefore supports the idea that sabbath-keeping is a Creation ordinance. They say, “How could the Jews ‘remember’ the weekly sabbath unless they had previously observed it?” That question is misleading, for
(1) there is nothing special in the word “remember” that makes it mean “recall what has always been in existence.”
(2) the Jews had previously observed the weekly sabbath—in the wilderness before reaching Sinai; but they only did that because God gave Moses the orders for them to do so (Exodus 16). If we take “remember” to mean “recall” in the sense of “recall something done in the past,” then the Jews could have “remembered” their sabbath-keeping in the wilderness. Yet even this does not place sabbath-keeping before Moses, and it certainly does not define sabbath-keeping as a Creation ordinance.
The noteworthy Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon gives the following definition for “remember” (zachar): “to observe or commemorate” a certain day. Therefore, “Remember the sabbath day” literally means “Observe the sabbath day from now on—don’t forget to commemorate it.”
The Sabbatarians ask tricky questions to make it seem like there is no way around their claims. But as you can see, a simple examination of the Scriptures, mixed with a little Spirit-led common sense, shows their claims to be falsehoods.
—————————
ENDNOTES for “Creation Ordinance”
1 Jesus repeatedly compared and grouped the weekly sabbath to ceremonial Old Covenant ordinances. He connected it to the law concerning shewbread (Matthew 12:1-4; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5), the Levitical priestly duties (Matthew 12:5-8), and circumcision (John 7:19-24). He also demonstrated that, as a mere ceremonial ordinance, the weekly sabbath was always subservient to Spirit-led obediences and acts of mercy (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10; 13:10-16; 14:1-5; John 5:9-18; 9:5-16); and notably, it was subservient even to other ceremonial laws (John 7:19-24).
2 See Romans 14, Colossians 2, et al.
3 Study Colossians 2.
4 See Matthew 5:17-18, e.g., and the book of Hebrews.
* * *
A Moral Law
LIE #2—“The observance of the weekly sabbath… commanded within the Ten Commandments…is a moral law…”
SABBATARIANS believe that the weekly sabbath commandment is a universal moral law—it was instituted for all men, in all cultures, for all time (and eternity). They base a good portion of that idea on the view that sabbath-keeping is a Creation ordinance, meaning that it was established at the beginning of time during the Creation Week. Well, we have already seen that sabbath-keeping was not a Creation ordinance. The Scriptures have made that clear. Indeed the Bible reveals the weekly sabbath commandment to be nothing more than an Old Covenant ceremonial ordinance.
What do we mean by “an Old Covenant ceremonial ordinance”? By “Old Covenant” we mean it was a law that was given only to the Jews under the Old Covenant. By “ceremonial” we mean it was a sign, a commemoration of an event, and a shadow of things to come, which shows that it was only instituted for a season. Therefore, it was neither universal nor moral in nature.
LEVITICUS 23
LEVITICUS 23 is most explicit. After reading through the chapter, one should never again think of the weekly sabbath as anything more than an Old Covenant ceremonial convocation.
Leviticus 23 begins, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings” (vv. 1-3). A “holy convocation” is simply a sacred assembly or a calling together. It is ceremonial by nature and often involves the performance of special duties. The seventh-day sabbath was a weekly convocation wherein the people were called to cease from their normal labors and dedicate the day to the Lord for His purposes. Special sacrifices were an obligatory part of the weekly sabbath ritual. “And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof: this is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering and his drink offering” (Numbers 28:9-10). As you can see, these special sacrifices were in addition to the “continual burnt offering and his drink offering,” which means they were special offerings and did not take the place of the regular offerings.
The weekly sabbath was not the only sabbath. Back in Leviticus 23, after the Lord commanded the observance of the weekly sabbath convocation, He commanded the observance of the yearly feasts and sabbath convocations. These convocations were said to be “beside the [weekly] sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the LORD” (v. 38). Therefore the yearly convocations were celebrated in conjunction with the weekly sabbath convocations, and the convocation offerings did not take the place of the regular offerings but were given in addition to them.
With the exception of the weekly sabbath, Sabbatarians have no problem referring to all the sabbaths as ceremonial ordinances. Yet Leviticus makes it obvious that the weekly sabbath is a ceremonial convocation just like the others.
The rest of the Bible matches perfectly with Leviticus. Old Testament writers consistently speak of the weekly sabbath in ceremonial terms as they do with the other sabbaths (see Exodus 20:8-11, 31:12-18; Deuteronomy 5:12-15; I Chronicles 23:31; II Chronicles 2:4, 8:13, 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33; Isaiah 1:10-14, 56:4-7; Ezekiel 20:12-24, 45:17; Hosea 2:11; et al.). The New Testament writers do the same (see Colossians 2:16, Hebrews 4, et al.). How obvious is the truth of the Word!
THE WORD “BESIDE”
SABBATARIANS try hard to differentiate between the weekly sabbath and the other sabbaths. In doing so, they come up with some really absurd interpretations of Scripture. For example, some Sabbatarians have come up with a wild, completely un-Biblical interpretation of the word “beside” in Leviticus 23:38. When the text says, “These are the [yearly] feasts of the LORD…beside the [weekly] sabbaths of the LORD” (vv. 37-38), they interpret it to mean that the yearly convocations (sabbaths) are of a completely different nature than the weekly convocations (sabbaths) mentioned in the same chapter. More specifically, it is the word “beside” that instantly (miraculously?) sets apart the weekly sabbath convocation from the entire context and, by some unknown means, supports its status as a moral law. So the yearly convocations are said to be ceremonial but the weekly convocations are not. In that case, the word “beside” should be rendered “which are of a completely different nature than.” I really hope this sounds ridiculous to you.
Leviticus 23 clearly defines the weekly sabbath in ceremonial terms, calling it a “holy convocation” which was ordained for its set time—every seventh day. The chapter also covers the other “holy convocations” which were ordained for their set times—every year. In verse 38, God proclaimed that these yearly convocations were to be celebrated in addition to (“beside”) the weekly sabbath convocations, and so the required sacrifices for the yearly convocations did not take the place of those offered every seventh day but were given in addition to (“beside”) them. It’s as simple as that.
The Sabbatarians are really grasping for a “proof text” here. Actually, it’s pathetic. Look again at verse 38. It says, “beside the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings.” Are those type of gifts, vows, and freewill offerings also non-ceremonial in nature? Are they moral in nature too? Elsewhere, “the burnt offering of every sabbath” is said to be “beside the continual burnt offering and his drink offering” (Numbers 28:10). Is the weekly burnt offering of a different nature than the continual burnt offering? Is it a non-ceremonial observance? Is it special and moral in nature? Is it founded upon a Creation ordinance? Come on, folks, this is really foolish.
Go through the Bible and apply the Sabbatarian interpretation of the word “beside” to every occurrence of the word and you will end up with insanity. I am astounded to think people actually believe this particular Sabbatarian argument. How desperate! The argument is so ludicrous, it’s almost not worth mentioning. However, since a Sabbatarian once quoted Leviticus 23:38 to me as validation that the weekly sabbath is a moral law, I thought it was appropriate to at least briefly mention it.
EXODUS 31:12-17
NOT only is the weekly sabbath a ceremonial convocation, it is also a ceremonial covenantal sign. Exodus 31 makes this clear: “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations . . . Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever.” Signs, by nature, are temporary. Specifically, being an Old Covenant sign, the weekly sabbath typified a New Covenant reality in Christ Jesus. That means sabbath-keeping was only meant to last as long as the Old Covenant; and that, in itself, reveals that the Fourth Commandment was never meant to be a universal moral law.
OBVIOUSLY NOT A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW
ANYONE who reads the Bible should have no doubt about the weekly sabbath’s nature. The Fourth Commandment speaks for itself. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). This is a command to regularly observe a day, and the New Testament indisputably reveals that the observance of days is not a universal moral obligation. In fact, in the light of Christ, the observance of days is considered bondage to “weak and beggarly elements.”1
This explains why God has never condemned the pagans for breaking the sabbath or neglecting to keep the sabbath, while He has definitely condemned them for every possible moral sin.2 Sabbath-keeping was only for the Jews under the Old Covenant, and so they were the only ones throughout history who had a ceremonial duty to keep it. Obviously, the weekly sabbath commandment was never a universal moral law.
SCIENTIFIC “PROOFS”?
SABBATARIANS often put forth “proofs” from so-called “science.” They say things like, “We are mentally and physically bound to a seven day (or eight day) cycle, according to these scientifically verified studies. Therefore the weekly sabbath commandment must be a universal moral law.”
First of all, their reports are not verified by scientific truths. Real scientific studies dispel their claims. Second of all, and most importantly, we know their reports are false, no matter what, because they do not match up with the testimony of Scripture. So-called “science” is not the judge of God’s Word. God’s Word is the judge of all science. It is a fact that real science always agrees with the Word of God.
The truth is simple. If we want to know about the weekly sabbath, we must verify how the Bible defines it. And as we have plainly seen, the Bible shows the weekly sabbath commandment to be a ceremonial ordinance.
“PROOF TEXTS” THAT PROVE NOTHING
IF we would just accept the plain evidence in the Scriptures, we would have no problem understanding that the weekly sabbath is ceremonial in nature. With any doctrine, the problem comes when we try to make the Scriptures agree with our viewpoints instead of letting our viewpoints be shaped by the facts of Scripture.
Here is where the Sabbatarians err. Since they won’t accept the obvious facts, they search throughout the Word, looking for anything that might at least appear like it supports their doctrines. Consequently, they take many words and verses out of context in order to make a point. For example, some Sabbatarians say the word “man” in Mark 2:27 is referring to “mankind” rather than just the ancient Jews. They say this to bind us all to sabbath-keeping. The verse says, “And He said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.”
Understanding the above verse in its context, we know that Jesus was not trying to make the point that all men are bound to sabbath-keeping. Actually, Jesus was refuting disproportionate views of the sabbath that gave sabbath-keeping a higher status than it deserved. Besides, we know the rest of Scripture does not support the Sabbatarian view, for the Bible plainly shows that the weekly sabbath commandment was instituted as a ceremonial sign for those Jews under the Old Covenant; so, as far as a literal commandment is concerned, the sabbath was made for “man,” meaning the ancient Jews.
There is, however, one sense in which we may say that the weekly sabbath was made for “man” meaning “mankind.” That is, after the weekly sabbath’s fulfillment, we ALL may glean principles from the weekly sabbath commandment through a proper understanding of its shadow-nature (cf. Hebrews 4). All men, though not bound to the literal weekly observance of it, may learn more about God and the life in Christ Jesus by studying it and applying the spiritual principles of it. (Of course, we don’t need the Sabbatarian interpretation of Mark 2:27 to arrive at this conclusion.) So the Sabbatarians’ point is a moot point. Mark 2:27 does not bind everyone to the literal observance of the weekly sabbath, even if the Sabbatarian interpretation of the word “man” was correct.
Mark 2 is just one of many texts that Sabbatarians twist and isolate to “prove” a point, and yet they prove no point. This teaches us two main things:
1. You shouldn’t support doctrines with “proof texts” that don’t prove anything.
2. You shouldn’t take a word out of context and try to prove a point that contradicts the rest of Scripture.
THE SIGN IN THE CENTER
EVEN after all the facts, some people may still say, “Okay, the weekly sabbath commandment is a ceremonial law, but why was it included in the Decalogue?” A simple answer would be, “Because God put it there.” Honestly, that’s all that matters. Yet the Scriptures do provide us with more to say.
God gave the weekly sabbath as the covenantal sign of the Old Covenant (Exodus 31:12-18). That is why He included it in the Decalogue, for the Decalogue was the very center of the covenant and was even called “the covenant” and “the tables of the covenant.” 3
Seeing that sabbath-keeping was the covenantal sign, it makes sense that God placed it within “the covenant”; it makes even more sense that He specifically established it as the Fourth Commandment. Commandments 1-3 related directly to God. Commandments 5-10 related directly to the Jews. The Fourth Commandment sat in the middle, showing that it was the covenantal sign between God and the Jews.
Why did God set it up this way? Well, He wanted the Jews to understand what He was doing. Therefore, He structured the Decalogue to be a picture of His covenant relationship with the children of Israel.
Interestingly, it was common in those days for a covenantal sign to be included within a covenant. In the covenant treaties of the Great Kings in the ancient Near East, a king would give a ceremony in the midst of a treaty to be observed by the vassal (slave). This ceremony was the vassal’s ceremonial sign of covenantal obedience to the king.4
God knew what He was doing. It makes perfect sense. God wanted the Jews to understand Him, and so He not only gave them a picture of their covenant relationship but He did it in a way that was familiar to them.
CONCLUSION
THE Bible makes it clear that the weekly sabbath commandment is not a universal moral law. The weekly sabbath was simply an Old Covenant convocation, a sign, and therefore it had a ceremonial nature just like all the other sabbaths which were fulfilled in Christ. Thank God that His Word is so plain and true.
—————————
ENDNOTES for “A Moral Law”
1 Galatians 4:10. See also Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16. For detailed explanations of these Scriptures, see The Sabbath booklet.
2 See Genesis 18-19, the entire book of Proverbs, Ezekiel 27, Amos 1, Romans 1, et al.
3 See Deuteronomy 4:10-14; 9:8-9, 15 cf. 4:23; 5:2 ff; 17:2-3. See also I Kings 8:6-21 cf. II Chronicles 5:10; 6:11.
4 See Meredith Kline, The Treaty of the Great King (Eerdmans, 1963), pp. 27-44.
* * *
Our Conclusion So Far…
is parodied off the end of the Sabbatarians’ foundational argument and goes like this:
“Therefore, the weekly sabbath NOT being a ‘Creation ordinance’ NOR a moral law, but an Old Covenant CEREMONIAL law, knowing that such a law WAS special to the Jews and WAS FULFILLED with the coming of the New Covenant, we know that Christians are NOT obligated NOR EVER WILL BE obligated to the observance of the weekly sabbath.”
AMEN! So, the weekly sabbath commandment is neither a Creation ordinance nor a moral law. How liberating from religious lies!
Now that the Sabbatarians’ essential cornerstones are gone (and basically the whole foundational argument has collapsed!), let’s take a look at all their typical minor arguments (false interpretations of Scripture) and see if they still hold water.
* * *
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF ROMANS 14:5
Scripture: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (KJV). “One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike [sacred]. Let every one be fully convinced (satisfied) in his own mind” (AMP).
Sabbatarians: “Romans 14:5 is talking about ceremonial observances (the observance of ceremonial days), so it cannot be talking about the weekly sabbath since the weekly sabbath commandment is a moral law and part of the Ten Commandments.”
Our Reply:
BY their own mouth they support our facts since many of them admit that Romans 14:5 alone does away with the idea that Christians are obligated to the observance of days. Of course, they make one exception—the weekly sabbath day—and they base their exception on their foundational argument—that the weekly sabbath is a moral commandment (one of the Ten) and not a ceremonial one. Their foundational argument is all they have to stand on here. Conclusion? There is nothing left for them to stand on.
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF GALATIANS 4:9-11
Scripture: “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.”
Sabbatarians: “These verses refer only to ceremonial things which alone are ‘the weak and beggarly elements’, not moral commandments like the weekly sabbath commandment of the Ten Commandments.”
Our Reply:
CERTAINLY, these verses are referring to ceremonial things, and that gives us another text against Sabbatarianism, because we have shown that weekly sabbath-keeping is a ceremonial thing. See, with no foundational argument, the Sabbatarians end up speaking against themselves, validating the contrary to their misguided claims.
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF COLOSSIANS 2:16-17
Scripture: “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: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
Sabbatarians: “Like Romans 14:5, these verses are only talking about ceremonial things—the ceremonial sabbaths, which are different than the weekly sabbath. The weekly sabbath is a universal moral commandment, not one of the ceremonial sabbaths which were simply ‘a shadow of things to come’.”
Our Reply:
AGAIN they prove our point. They say that all sabbaths referred to in this verse were merely “a shadow of things to come”. Of course, they take out the weekly sabbath, on the basis of their foundational argument that says it is not like the other sabbaths because it is moral and not ceremonial. It’s the same old argument based on nothing. Their foundation is defeated, so they have absolutely nothing to stand on here.
NOTE #1: Many Sabbatarians and others will say that the New Testament says nothing specifically about the weekly sabbath in relation to the New Testament (and therefore we must simply go by its status in the Old Testament). This is a lie. Colossians 2:16-17 is very clear about the weekly sabbath, even mentioning it specifically by name—it’s just that people don’t want to accept what the Bible says. In General Jim’s sabbath article, “Is It Binding?”, he clearly points out this fact: “…out of the 60 occurrences of this word [sabbaton, rendered ‘the sabbath days’ in Colossians 2:16], the Seventh-day Adventists affirm that it is referring to the weekly sabbath in 59 of those 60 occurrences; but in the single remaining occurrence [Colossians 2:16] they insist that it does not refer to the weekly sabbath, even though all honest grammatical authorities contradict them.” That just shows how dishonest or deceived the Sabbatarians really are.
Our conclusion? The New Testament UNDOUBTEDLY speaks specifically of the weekly sabbath in relation to Christianity, calling it “a shadow” of things which have now come in the substance of Christ.
NOTE #2: The writers of the New Testament use verse structures and word configurations in Galatians 4 and Colossians 2 that intentionally match specific Old Testament texts which undoubtedly refer to the weekly sabbath. (I first saw this illustration on an anti-Sabbatarian website and thought it was pretty enlightening.) See the following texts in comparison:
EXAMPLE #1
“Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years”(Galatians 4:10).
—This is parallel to:
“The Levites were…to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts” (I Chronicles 23:27-31).
—Paralleled words are:
1.days and sabbaths 2. months and new moons3. times, years and set feasts
EXAMPLE #2
“Let no man therefore judge you…in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days” (Colossians 2:16).
—This is parallel to:
“And it shall be the prince’s part to give…offerings…in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths” (Ezekiel 45:17).
—Paralleled words are:
1. an holyday and the feasts 2. new moon and new moons 3. sabbath days and sabbaths
ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDING SCRIPTURES:
1. “Behold I [Solomon] build an house to the name of the LORD my God . . . for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God”(II Chronicles 2:4).
2. “[Hezekiah] appointed also the king’s portion of his substance . . . [for] the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the LORD” (II Chronicles 31:3).
3. “I [the LORD] will also cause all her [Israel’s] mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths” (Hosea 2:11).
No one can deny that the weekly sabbath is included in I Chronicles 23:31, Ezekiel 45:17, II Chronicles 2:4 and 31:3, and Hosea 2:11. Even Sabbatarians don’t deny this. So what would make them deny that Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10 include the weekly sabbath? There is no good reason, except ignorance. Here again, as we continue to read the Bible and compare Scripture with Scripture, we see that there is only evidence against Sabbatarianism and NONE for it.
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 4
Key Scripture: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God” (v. 9).
Some Sabbatarians: “Here the Bible plainly states that ‘There remaineth therefore a rest (sabbath)’ for God’s people in the New Testament.”
Our Reply:
SOME Sabbatarians will quote this verse as proof that the weekly sabbath commandment remains binding in the New Testament. Yet if we read Hebrews chapters 3-4, we find that the Scriptures definitely do NOT support that argument.
In the case of God’s “rest” here in Hebrews, the key point is that God’s “rest” is not described as a once-a-week “rest” in accordance with the Fourth Commandment of the Ten Commandments. Rather, God’s “rest” is depicted as an ongoing spiritual reality that can either be missed through unbelief or entered into by faith.
A Rest Remains
UNBELIEF vs. BELIEF
“HARDEN not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation . . . So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest. …And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. 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. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest . . . There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. …Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief . . . let us hold fast our profession . . . Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (3:8-19; 4:1, 9-16). Here we notice that
(1) a hard heart of unbelief will keep one from entering God’s “rest.”
(2) the first generation who came out of Egypt was unbelieving and therefore did not enter into God’s “rest.” Actually, they missed God’s will in two ways: they missed the chance to enter natural Canaan (Numbers 14), which was a type or shadow of God’s eternal “rest” (Hebrews 11:8-10); and they missed the chance to enter the heavenly Canaan wherein is the reality of God’s eternal “rest.”
(3) we must “labor…to enter into that rest” which is said to “remaineth…to the people of God.” Our “labor” is obviously not to gather an army of literally “armed” soldiers and force our way into an earthly Canaan’s land in order that we may know some sort of natural “rest.” No, we must “labor…to enter into that rest” of God by diligently holding fast our profession of faith in Christ Jesus (4:14)—by maintaining “the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (3:14). And if we become weak in faith, which we are all prone to do, we are admonished to “labor” by boldly approaching “the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (4:16)—lest we fall into unbelief in our hearts at any moment, on any given day, and remain there, and fail to enter into God’s spiritual “rest” in Christ Jesus the Lord.
CREATION WEEK “REST”
“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. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief…Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (4:3-4, 10). By this text we realize that
(1) the true Christians who have believed do enter into God’s “rest.”
(2) God’s “rest” is ONGOING—God has been “resting” from His “works” since the foundation of the world. It is that ongoing heavenly “rest” of His that we must enter into. So a once-a-week sabbath, an earthly, carnal observance of a day, is not at all what the writer of Hebrews is referring to.
(3) we must “labour…to enter…rest.” Unlike the natural “rest” that many Sabbatarians indulge in on their laborless weekly sabbath days, the ongoing spiritual “rest” in Christ Jesus is something we must “labor” to enter into and remain in. As said above, we must work hard (as we beg God!) to hold fast our profession of faith and confidence in Christ Jesus (4:14 cf. 3:6, 14 and Philippians 2:12-13, et al.); and if we find ourselves weak, we must “labor” by seeking the Lord diligently for help (4:16).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TODAY?
MANY Sabbatarians further confuse the Hebrews text by saying that the word “Today” in chapters three and four, refers to the seventh-day weekly sabbath. A simple reading of the text shows that the Sabbatarian claim is obviously not true.
“Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. . . Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief . . . But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day. . . For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (3:7-14). Here “Today” explicitly refers to “this present time when salvation is still available.” The weekly sabbath commandment is neither mentioned nor suggested. The seventh day of Creation is mentioned in 4:4, but it is used as a reference point to show when God began “resting” from His “works” and is not used to validate a continued literal observance of the Fourth Commandment or equate every seventh day with “Today.” In fact, it would not even make sense to substitute “the seventh day” or “on the seventh day” for “Today.” Try it! Besides, the overarching issue here is not some special admonition about the continuity of the weekly sabbath commandment. The issue is a warning against unbelief in reference to our eternal “rest” in Christ Jesus. And, in point of fact, the greater context, even Hebrews as a whole, is a warning against returning to all Old Covenant systems and ordinances, including an earthly temple (3:1-6 cf. 4:16, et al.), an earthly priesthood (4:14-5:10, et al.), and all things that functioned as mere shadows of things to come, like the weekly sabbath (8:5-6, 9:9-10, et al.).
We must not harden our hearts “Today”—at any moment, on any day. Hebrews 3:13 contains our “daily” orders for “Today”: “exhort one another daily…To day.” While salvation is still available and while we may still hear the beckoning of the Holy Spirit—“while it is called To day”—we must “exhort one another daily” to keep the faith and hold fast our confidence in Christ Jesus in order that “we are made partakers of Christ.”
“Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein . . . Again, he limiteth [i.e., “appoints, marks out, sets the boundaries for”]a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus1had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God” (4:7-9). Praise God! His “rest” is yet available for those who will believe. He mentions “a certain day” and“another day”which are synonymous terms for “Today”,and we have already defined “Today” as a general “time” (i.e., “at this time”). Conclusively, then, we know that God has “appointed”, “marked out”, and “set the boundaries for” a given period of time wherein men may yet enter into His “rest”. This time does not start and stop with the beginning and ending of every seventh day. Men may “labor” to enter into God and His “rest” every day of the week.
The phrase “saying in David” is a reference to Psalm 95. This Psalm is a direct parallel to the content in Hebrews 3-4: it speaks of God, even Christ, the “rock of our salvation” (v. 1 cf. Hebrews 3:1 ff); it refers us back to Creation (vv. 4-6 cf. Hebrews 3:3-4, 4:3-4); and it mentions those in the wilderness before Canaan who hardened their hearts and failed to enter God’s “rest” (vv. 8-11 cf. Hebrews 3:7-11, 15-19; 4:7). Importantly, Psalm 95, like Hebrews 3-4, has nothing to do with the continuity of the weekly sabbath commandment.
Jesus said, “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” (Matthew 11:28-29).
“There remaineth therefore a rest—in Christ—to the people of God.”
—————————
ENDNOTE for “A Rest Remains”
1 The King James Version translates “Iesous” (Gk.) in Hebrews 4:8 as “Jesus”, while many other translations render it “Joshua.” Regardless, whether it says “Jesus did not give them rest” or “Joshua did not give them rest,” the point is that the people (before the time of David) did not enter God’s “rest”.
* * *
FALSE INTERPRETATIONS OF JESUS’ EXAMPLE
Sabbatarian claim #1: “Jesus’ example of sabbath-keeping shows how the weekly sabbath is a moral obligation for all mankind.”
Our Reply:
WE already know, by proven facts above, that the weekly sabbath cannot be a moral obligation but is undoubtedly ceremonial. Now, why would Jesus’ observance of it, automatically change its nature to something moral? What Scripture are the Sabbatarians using to justify that logic? That reasoning goes against all the teaching of Scripture on the sabbath; so just by that fact, it cannot be true.
Jesus’ example is not going to alter the truths of God’s Word. Their claim is just tricky reasoning, used to confuse people, and they may sound good since they spew out their claim as a fact—and someone who is ignorant may find it reasonable—but even a simple Biblical understanding of the weekly sabbath is enough to dismantle their claim.
Don’t forget, “God sent forth his Son…MADE UNDER THE LAW, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5). The Messiah was foreordained to be subject to the Old Law in order to fulfill His mission (cf. Matthew 5:17, 11:13; Luke 16:16). Notice we emphasize the “His”—it is not our mission. Jesus came unto the Jews, but now we are commanded to “Go ye into all the world.” Jesus went unto Jerusalem, teaching and prophesying in the Temple, but now Jerusalem is no longer as it was, the Temple is even destroyed, and today we are taught that we are His Temple. Jesus did a lot of things, being the Messiah, being “made under the law”, that we are not called to do as New Testament believers.
When Jesus came, the New Way of Life was not yet made—He was making it; and in order to make that way, He had to cut the path from the Old to the New. The New, as we know, does not include sabbath-keeping.
Be careful, be very careful, that you don’t go backwards on that path that He cut for us to go forwards. And be careful that you don’t re-image the nature of ceremonial Jewish rites just because Jesus may have given them service by means of His calling as the Jewish Messiah.
Sabbatarian claim #2: (This one is a different twist that some Sabbatarians believe—) “True, the weekly sabbath is a ceremonial rite, yet it is a mandatory rite, an eternal ceremonial rite, that all Christians must maintain; this is proven by Jesus’ example of sabbath-keeping.”
Our Reply:
AGAIN, that Jesus lived by Old Testament standards is a fact which does not compel us to do the same since we now live after His fulfilled mission which moved us past the Old Testament and expanded us into the New. Thus to say, “I observe the sabbath because Jesus did,” whether you call it moral or ceremonial, is only to express ignorance on the nature of Jesus’ ministry.* Read it again: “God sent forth his Son…MADE UNDER THE LAW, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5). Also, read Colossians 2 again.
* Most people—even many Sabbatarians—don’t say, “I observe the Jewish Passover Feast because Jesus did.” Why? Because they know that ceremony was fulfilled in Christ and Jesus only observed it because He was a Jew under the Law. Why these same people don’t know that the weekly sabbath was fulfilled in Christ is beyond me! (I know it’s either because of ignorance, deceit, or intentional lying. There are no other options.)
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF THE APOSTLES’ EXAMPLE
Sabbatarian claim: “The Apostles frequently taught in the synagogues on the weekly sabbath day. This is evidence that the Apostles regarded the weekly sabbath as binding for the Christians.”
Our Reply:
THERE are a couple of serious problems with this viewpoint. First and foremost, have we forgotten that these same Apostles clearly taught that we are no longer under the Old Testament order and specifically that the weekly sabbath is a fulfilled ceremonial law? We have clearly shown this so far in these writings (e.g., see the above replies on Romans 14, Galatians 4, Colossians 2 and Hebrews 4, and read the entire book of Hebrews, et al.).
Second, realize that the Scriptures mention how the Apostles preached the Gospel in the synagogues on the sabbath but NEVER ONCE say that the Apostles or the early Christians practiced sabbath-keeping, “kept the sabbath day holy” or “observed the sabbath.” Christians simply went into the synagogues on that day to preach. Why did they preach in the synagogues on the weekly sabbath? They preached in the synagogues on the weekly sabbath day because the Jews gathered at the synagogues on that day and were accustomed to dialogue and Scriptural teaching on that day. The weekly sabbath day was the perfect day to missionize the Jews. Therefore, the fact that the Apostles and early Christians preached the Gospel in the synagogues on the weekly sabbath day is not proof that they were Sabbatarians but that they were dedicated missionaries to the Jews.
Don’t make a doctrine about the Apostles that contradicts the Apostles’ own teachings. That just looks really stupid, at best.
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF ACTS 1:12
Scripture: “Then returned they [i.e., the disciples] unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey.”
Sabbatarians: “This mention of ‘a sabbath day’s journey’ is evidence that the Christians were still regarding the sabbath as holy.”
Our Reply:
IN an effort to grasp at any possible proof for the weekly sabbath’s continuance, certain Sabbatarians point to Acts 1:12 and make a (very, very weak) case for the perpetuity of the weekly sabbath in the New Testament. Read the verse again. There is absolutely no command to keep the weekly sabbath nor is there any example of anyone keeping the weekly sabbath. All we see is a classic “Hebraism” (if we want to talk technically). Simply put, a “Hebraism” is a linguistic peculiarity to the Hebrew language, founded upon Hebrew culture. The Jews’ religious laws regulated their travel on the weekly sabbath, and so a measurement called “a sabbath day’s journey” was determined to qualify the farthest that one could travel on the seventh day (i.e., some say, about three-fifths of a mile). Therefore, the phrase “a sabbath day’s journey” merely signifies the passage of distance. Acts 1:12 has absolutely nothing to do with the continuity of a ceremonial commandment but rather informs us how far Jesus’ disciples had to travel from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem.
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 24:20
Scripture: “But pray ye that your flight [from Judea] be not…on the sabbath day.”
Sabbatarians: “This verse is within a prophecy, clearly referring to New Testament times—after Jesus’ resurrection—and therefore shows that the weekly sabbath must remain an obligation and should still be respected among Christians. Remember, Jesus is talking to His own disciples here, who would be the upcoming leaders of the New Testament Christian Body.”
Our Reply:
WHEN you pin them on this verse, Sabbatarians should admit that it is not at all a direct command to keep the weekly sabbath. “However,” they may say, “Jesus’ reference to the weekly sabbath day shows that He did not expect it to pass away.” Of course He didn’t—the Jews would still be around after He left!
Some commentators regard this verse as pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Others regard it as referring to the very end of this world. And others claim that it has more than one application and that it refers to both events or perhaps more. For the sake of this study, it makes no difference which “scholarly” perspective is right. We simply need to examine the context for a basic understanding of the principles it contains.
Read verses 15-21. Jesus admonished the believers to be ready to flee from Judea when they see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place. He warned them to take heed of any hindrances that may cause them additional struggle in their flight to the mountains. He named a few potential hindrances:
- considering “stuff” important—“let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.” Jesus warned those who may hesitate, look back, and not flee immediately because they want to bring “stuff” with them.
- pregnancy—“And woe unto them that are with child.” A pregnant woman would have a very cumbersome time trying to run off.
- young children—“And woe…to them that give suck in those days!” Infants take a lot of care and would make fleeing much more difficult.
- winter weather circumstances—“But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.” Bad weather complicates travel, especially when you’re on foot and without shelter.
- weekly sabbath-day circumstances—“But pray ye that your flight be not…on the sabbath day.” Travel on the weekly sabbath day would be very difficult for a couple of reasons. First, the religious Jews would try to hinder anyone from traveling very far, because by religious tradition they only allowed a certain amount of travel on the sabbath day. Also, those who lived in Jerusalem would have a very troublesome departure since the city gates were officially closed every weekly sabbath day.
Jesus was not making it known that the Christians would still be keeping the weekly sabbath day. He was looking ahead, knowing that the Jews would still be observing it, and He knew the potential problems that Christians would face because of that fact. Jesus made absolutely no insinuation about observing the day.
And this was not a warning about breaking the weekly sabbath, because Jesus always made it clear that ceremonial practices never overrode acts of mercy or necessity. To prove His point, Jesus taught us the example of David (contrasting it with the weekly sabbath issue; see Luke 6:1-5). David and his men needed food to preserve their lives, and they ate the hallowed shewbread, which was unlawful for them to do according to the Mosaic Law (Exodus 29:23, 32-33; Leviticus 24:9); yet Jesus declared that David’s actions were acceptable to God. In like manner, during a time of severe tribulation, like what is mentioned here in Matthew 24, it would certainly be permissible for anyone to flee to the mountains on the weekly sabbath day in order to preserve their life. Thus the warning about fleeing on the sabbath day has nothing to do with a concern about the potential profaning of the day or the breaking of a proper ritualistic observance of the day.
Jesus said, “pray ye that your flight be not…on the sabbath day.” Why? The very next verse says, “For then shall be great tribulation” (v. 21). The tribulation is what Jesus was concerned with, not “profaning the sabbath”. Jesus simply warned His disciples against a real difficulty they would face when trying to flee from Judea—Jewish territory—on a Jewish holy day.
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF “KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS”
Sabbatarians: “Jesus declared, ‘Keep My commandments,’ and this is a clear reference to the Ten Commandments (thus the sabbath commandment); at least, it must include the Ten Commandments.”
Our Reply:
ALL the commandments in the Bible are the Lord’s, but remember, God has brought us into the New Covenant and the New Testament, so we cannot look at things purely from an Old Testament viewpoint.
The New Testament commandments deepened the Old Testament moral commandments, and the New Testament way in Christ Jesus has fulfilled Old Testament shadows and types. That means things are just not the same anymore. We must interpret all laws/commandments in light of the New Testament; if we don’t and simply stick to the “Old Way” of doing things, we’re actually disobeying Jesus’ New Testament commandments, because He came to usher in the New Order.
So, if you really want to obey ALL of God’s laws, then interpret all of Scripture in light of the New Testament and follow the progression of God’s revelation to man.
Acts 2:42 tells us, “And they [the new Christian converts] continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship.” The Apostles taught what Jesus and the Holy Ghost taught them, and we still have their doctrine: Romans 14, Galatians 4, Colossians 2, Hebrews 4, and so on. Sabbatarians actually DISOBEY Jesus by adhering to the weekly sabbath.
FALSE INTERPRETATION OF “FOR EVER”
Sabbatarians: “The Bible clearly states that the Lord established the weekly sabbath observance as ‘a sign . . . for ever’ (Exodus 31:17). This is sure proof that the sabbath commandment remains binding and always will.”
Our Reply:
REMEMBER, God also said this about circumcision: “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant“ (Genesis 17:13). He also said the same about ceremonial convocations and rites (Leviticus 23:14,21,31,41; 24:1-3; et al.). Yet we know the New Testament teaches that “[In Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands” (Colossians 2:11) and “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter” (Romans 2:28-29; see also Philippians 3:3).
Thus the sign of physical circumcision is fulfilled in Christ. Moreover, we know the New Testament teaches that all Old Testament ceremonial convocations and rites have been fulfilled in Christ (e.g., Colossians 2:16-17; esp. the book of Hebrews, et al.). Obviously there is more to this issue than Sabbatarians would like to think.
In the above (and other) passages, the word translated “everlasting” and “for ever” is the Hebrew word “olawm” (Strong’s #5769). This word can literally mean “eternal” or simply “lasting, long (time).” The standard Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon defines it as “long duration” and says “olawm” may sometimes mean “during a lifetime” (see, e.g., Deuteronomy 15:17 and I Samuel 27:12). The Greek equivalent of “olawm” is “aionios” (Strong’s #166), which likewise may mean a literal “eternity” or simply “a long period of time”, even “long ago”, depending upon the context (see A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, third edition, BDAG).
So, when you see the word “for ever” (or some similar term) in English translations, you can’t assume that it always means a literal eternity. You must judge its meaning based on immediate context and the entire revelation of God. The context of Exodus 31 is dealing with the Old Covenant, which we already know is superceded by the New; and the New Testament (as we have already seen) teaches plainly about fulfilled ceremonies (shadows and types). Obviously, the words “for ever” in Exodus 31:17 simply mean “for a long time”, and we may specifically add “for a long time—until the time of Christ Jesus!”
THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS the prevalent sub-arguments of Sabbatarianism. Now I just want to make a couple more points before I end.
A note on DANIEL 7:25
Scripture: “And he [the ‘little horn’ power] shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws…”
Sabbatarian claim #1: “Daniel 7:25 is specifically referring to the changing of the weekly sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. The ‘little horn’ power will ‘think to change times,’ and the only eternal moral law that is subject to ‘time’ is the Fourth Commandment. Constantine was the culprit, the ‘little horn’ power, who legislated the weekly sabbath to be Sunday rather than Saturday.”
Our Reply:
SOME Sabbatarians always talk about this verse and act like it is a “prove-all” to show how the devil has sought to alter God’s “moral law” of sabbath-keeping. First of all, no matter what they say, the Sabbatarians are making an assumption to interpret “times” as though it is referring to the weekly sabbath. Second of all, the Sabbatarians are basing their interpretation on a completely wrong foundation since their whole argument is contingent upon the belief that the weekly sabbath is an unchangeable “moral” law. So, they are really making a meaningless statement when they utter their cliche about the weekly sabbath commandment being “the only eternal moral law that is subject to ‘time’”, because the weekly sabbath is not an eternal moral law.
Furthermore, for the Sabbatarians to claim that Constantine changed the weekly sabbath day is for them to prove how ignorant they are about Biblical doctrine and early Church history. Think: In order for Constantine to really change a Christian doctrine that ordered seventh-day Sabbatarianism, there would need to be a Christian doctrine that ordered seventh-day Sabbatarianism, but there was no such doctrine, so there was no Christian sabbath to change. Thus it does not matter what Constantine enacted concerning Saturday or Sunday in reference to any “sabbath”, because the Christians were not observing a weekly sabbath (see General Jim’s sabbath articles for more information on the Early Church and Sunday).
Sabbatarian claim #2: (This claim is made by Lunar Calendar Sabbatarians, as I call them—) “The changing of ‘times’ has to do with the changing of the calendar. The ‘little horn’ power was the Roman emperor Julius Caesar, who instituted a calendar that was not based upon the cycles of the moon. This was a direct violation of God’s established order for reckoning time, and thus was (in part) a violation of weekly sabbath and new moon observances.”
Our Reply:
HERE again we butt heads with a moot point. Our response here is simple. Whatever calendar one goes by, the fact remains that God has instituted the New Covenant order which does not include weekly sabbath-keeping. That fact is obvious and irrefutable.
CONCLUSION ON DANIEL 7:25
SURE, one could read meanings into Daniel 7:25 and spite the rest of the Bible, but that would only prove one’s ignorance, or worse.
The words in Daniel 7:25 are obscure. The word “times” means “seasons” or “appointed occasions”. The word “law(s)” means “decree, statute, a royal edict (of man or God).” The obscurity has provided for men to promote a diverse amount of interpretations on the text. Nevertheless, as is the case with all Old Testament texts, we know that any inference to Mosaic rituals or the Mosaic Law itself would be an inference that may have had a literal significance before the time of Christ but now must be interpreted in light of the New Covenant which is fully in order.
To claim that one verse supports a doctrine that contradicts the whole of Scripture is to claim an obvious error. The Bible teaches that the weekly sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus the Lord, and Daniel 7:25 gives no support to the contrary.
Remember, it is said that “A ‘proof text’ without context is an index of lies.”
A note on CALENDAR-SPECIFIC SABBATARIANISM
I want to briefly make mention of this little Sabbatarian side-group.
Some Sabbatarians have unfortunately spent years researching the Jews’ methods of sabbath-keeping and have put forth lengthy arguments for fixed-date, rotating day, weekly sabbaths that are determined by studying the fixed dates of yearly feast days. And I have already mentioned Lunar Calendar Sabbatarians who say all Christians must properly keep the weekly sabbath by following the cycles of the moon. I mention these groups just to say that their doctrines are meaningless, even if they base everything on correct ancient Jewish practices, for whatever system the Jews had for sabbath-keeping is a system that no longer remains—we are no longer under the Old Covenant as it was, but we live in the Light of the New one.