By: General James Green with Master Sgt. Amos River
Introduction
BY the grace of our Lord I will attempt to express my findings on this great topic—great, because of the thick subject matter to be studied; and great, because of the need to know what we Christians should believe. I have drawn information from both older and newer resources. Indeed I was unaware in times past of certain truths I now know, and so I will do my best to clarify those points in light of what I myself have learned.
My focus here is not to prove whether or not a specific day is the weekly sabbath. My focus here is to answer the question of whether or not we Christians are obligated in any way to observe a specific day. Here at the ACMTC Headquarters, it is quite foolish for us to observe either Saturday or Sunday as the sabbath since we live in a community. Yes! we physically live together in an Ekklesia, and this allows us to meet together EVERY DAY—even five to six times a day—for prayer, singing, teaching, preaching; and we continually pool our efforts for Spirit-led good works unto the Lord. You might call us Seven-day Adventists in contrast to those who call themselves Seventh-day Adventists.
SDA’s and Messianic Jews
THE Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church is a large Sabbatarian (sabbath-keeping) denomination that now has many offshoots. The SDAs are emphatic that Saturday is the ONLY true weekly sabbath day. They claim that the Roman Catholic Church, under the edict of Constantine, changed the weekly sabbath from Saturday (the seventh day of the week) to Sunday (the first day of the week). I know many Roman Catholic leaders actually claim that this is correct. Nevertheless, I ask, “Is Saturday or Sunday sabbath-keeping really commanded for the New Testament believer?” I reply with an emphatic “NO!” Follow along and you will understand why.
The Messianic Jewish movement, another Sabbatarian movement, has also been expanding in recent years. Unfortunately, Messianic Jews are trying to keep alive what Christ Jesus put to death. Many Protestant churches are in the same category, either confusing the Old Testament weekly sabbath with the “Lord’s Day” or simply commanding that Christ did not fulfill the weekly sabbath. People are confused.
The true Biblical view on the weekly sabbath shows us that Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,” was not substituted for the (Jewish) weekly sabbath, which was Saturday (i.e., Friday night to Saturday night). However, this does not change the fact that Christ abolished the obligatory observance of the weekly sabbath. Also, the free observance of the first day of the week, Sunday, is based upon (1) the consecration of that day by our Lord’s Resurrection, (2) the sanction of apostolic usage, and (3) the early Church’s acceptance of it. However, take heed to this very important note: NEITHER GOD NOR THE EARLY CHURCH LEADERS EVER INTENDED SUNDAY TO TAKE OVER THE FULFILLED WEEKLY SABBATH OR BECOME A NEW WEEKLY SABBATH. The Lord’s Day was to be observed in the spirit of loyal Christian freedom rather than in a rigid, stoic way, as unto a system of exacting statutes.
Many trustworthy Bible scholars have made it abundantly clear that during the first three centuries the Lord’s Day was never confounded with the weekly sabbath but was carefully distinguished from it; and that it was only after the third century, and even then only gradually, that the Christian and Jewish institutions were confused, and that tendencies towards modern Sabbatarianism began.
Under No Obligation1
MY main texts in this lesson will be Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 4:9-11, and Romans 14:5. I have read numerous Sabbatarian commentaries on these passages. How they reeked of legalistic bondage! I hope to provide some clarity on these Scriptures.
The apostle Paul directly mentions the weekly sabbath in Colossians 2: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon, or a sabbath day [some versions read “sabbath days” or “sabbaths”], which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.” Paul inferentially speaks of the weekly sabbath in Galatians 4:9-11, where the observance of “days, and months, and times, and years” is described as a return to the “weak and beggarly elements.” In Romans 14:5, Paul tells us that regarding a particular day—for oneself; not for salvation, but as a personal choice—is a matter of indifference: “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). The context of these three passages clearly includes the weekly sabbath, which was one of many Jewish ceremonial observances and included such activities as special animal sacrifices. Without question, a Christian is not obligated to observe the weekly seventh-day sabbath, new moons, feast days, or Sabbatical (Jubilee) years; for the issue of “observing days” is now a matter of indifference, at most.
The early Church Fathers frequently referred to the Jewish sabbath in the same context as circumcision; thus treating it as a temporary ordinance which had already run its course.2 [My references throughout this article to the “Church Fathers” or “early Church Fathers” is a reference to those Christian leaders who lived (primarily) in the first, second, and third centuries A.D.] Certainly, let us never forget our “father” Abraham, who walked with God long ago. Abraham, who is “the father of all them that believe” (Romans 4:11), was justified without observing the weekly sabbath. And we are too.
B.W. Johnson, in his People’s New Testament explanatory notes on Colossians 2, says, “As the law was nailed to the cross (v. 14), let not man compel you to keep its ordinances. …In reference to a holy day, such as the Passover, Pentecost, …new moon—the monthly observances (Num. 28:11)…the Jewish Sabbath, had passed away with the law. …Shadow of things to come—the body, or substance, which casts the shadow is Christ. We are to pay no attention to the shadow since He has come, but to observe what we find in Him and the Gospel” (p. 231).
Christ is the substance and the Old Testament Law is not. Galatians 3 tells us a lot about the Old Testament Law. Read verses 24 and 25: “Wherefore the law WAS our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A SCHOOLMASTER.” Verse 28 really pinpoints the whole issue: “There is neither Jew nor Greek. . . for ye are ALL ONE in Christ Jesus.” Therefore, everything that pertains to the Judaic system, may no longer be lifted above as a “bronze serpent,” so to speak, for all to look unto. We now look to Christ Jesus, the substance.
“Abraham, who is ‘the father of all them that believe’ (Romans 4:11), was justified without observing the weekly sabbath. And we are too.”
God chose the Jews for a purpose and gave them certain ordinances for a season. That season ended at the Cross. Even during that season, God never intended to glorify the Jews but gave them certain peculiarities such as the seventh-day sabbath in order to test them (Exodus 16:4ff), bring to remembrance the mighty deeds He did for them (Deuteronomy 5:15), and typify the Messianic reality (Hebrews 4). Thus the weekly sabbath observance arose with Moses and ended in Christ Jesus, the Messiah. Foolishly, the Messianic Jewish movement places the Jewish race on a spiritual pedestal by upholding the Jewish holy days. That is sick! I find a spirit of racial pride in their movement. It is a spirit that elevates the “Jewish” Christian above the “Gentile” Christian.
Let me assure you, once the Judaizers get excited, they promote weekly sabbath-keeping as merely one of many “mandatory” Jewish ordinances. Before you know it, they will be slaughtering sheep on altars in their Messianic synagogues! Listen, people: Christ Jesus died for us. We who are born again have entered His New Covenant, a “better covenant”than the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:6). ALL Jewish ceremonies/shadows/types, including the seventh-day sabbath, are fulfilled in Christ Jesus.
In Galatians 4:9-10, Paul asked, “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.” The Galatians were once in bondage to “them which by nature are no gods” (v. 8), yet Christ Jesus set them free to serve Him. Later on, certain of them began to fall prey to the Judaizers’ teachings, which began to carry these Galatian Christians into another form of bondage. Paul addressed this issue wisely: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one [Ishmael] by a bondmaid, the other [Isaac]by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the TWO COVENANTS; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free . . . Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise . . . So then, brethren WE ARE NOT CHILDREN OF THE BONDWOMAN, but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and BE NOT ENTANGLED AGAIN WITH THE YOKE OF BONDAGE [that is, DO NOT RETURN TO THE OBSERVANCE OF DAYS, MONTHS, TIMES, AND YEARS]”(Galatians 4:21-5:1).
“Let me assure you, once the Judaizers get excited, they promote weekly sabbath-keeping as merely one of many ‘mandatory’ Jewish ordinances. Before you know it, they will be slaughtering sheep on altars in their Messianic synagogues!”
William Barclay, in his Letters to the Colossians, states, “[The Gnostics/Judaizers] observed yearly feasts and monthly new moons and weekly Sabbaths . . . They identified religion with ritual. Paul’s criticism of this stress on days is clear . . . ‘you have been rescued from all this tyranny of legal rules. Why do you want to enslave yourself all over again? Why do you want to go back to Jewish legalism and abandon Christian freedom?’” (pp. 144-145).
The keeping of days, months, times, or years is not the sign that we are God’s people. We show that we are God’s people through FAITH in Christ Jesus (Hebrews 10:38-39), through the love of the brethren (Romans 13:8), by practicing water baptism and the Lord’s supper (Mark 16:16; Luke 22:19-20), and by doing the good works Christ Jesus commands us to do (James 1:22; 2:18; John 14:15).
Jesus’ Custom
JESUS’ custom was to preach and teach in the synagogues and in the temple on the sabbath days (Luke 4:16, 31). Why? It is simple. He intended to minister truth unto the Jews who were under the Old Testament Law. When Jesus rose from the dead and went back into Heaven, His disciples continued to follow His example by entering the synagogues and the Temple to teach the Gospel. For the early Christians, entering a synagogue on the sabbath was a missionary opportunity, not a demonstration of allegiance to fulfilled ceremonial customs.
The first-century believers met in houses daily to break bread and have fellowship (Acts 2:46-47). They did not keep the Old Testament weekly sabbath but rather adhered to Christ Jesus’ teaching that “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Enslavement to the weekly sabbath was never God’s intention, not even for the Jews to whom God gave it. And we Christians do not even need the weekly sabbath because we can meet together every day and “rest” in the Spirit as we labor for our King (Hebrews 4).
“…everything that pertains to the Judaic system, may no longer be lifted above as a ‘bronze serpent,’ so to speak, for all to look unto. We now look to Christ Jesus, the substance.”
Paul Makes Matters Clear
AS I briefly mentioned before, Paul instructed the believers that some may esteem one day as special while others may not. It is a matter of indifference (Romans 14:3-19). Paul was primarily writing to Gentiles and most of them did not understand God’s covenants. Some of them, including some Jewish converts, did not fully comprehend how the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ Jesus. In turn, they had embraced certain false notions and foolishly thought that the Jewish weekly sabbath and other Judaic peculiarities were still binding. Paul was correcting their ignorance.
Do you recall when Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-21)? He withstood Peter’s apparent favoritism for Jews and Judaism. He declared this chief point: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the FAITH of Jesus Christ” (v. 16). The Judaizers, whom Peter was sympathizing with, demanded that Gentile Christians be circumcised. They classified circumcision as essential to a right relationship with God. How absurd! Yet can you see that to glorify any fulfilled stipulation of the Old Covenant is to be absurd? Keeping the Jewish weekly sabbath cannot justify one soul any more than physical circumcision can make the heart pure in faith.
The Apostolic Council
ACTS 15:28-29 plainly reveals the truth. The council of Christian elders met at Jerusalem to discuss issues pertaining to the Law of Moses, and they concluded these points: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” Notice: There is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF THE JEWISH WEEKLY SABBATH! Without question, the Christian leaders would not have left weekly sabbath-keeping up for individual interpretation, particularly since the Gentile Christians would not have known anything about the Jewish weekly sabbath. If keeping the sabbath was so vitally important, this would have been the golden opportunity to clarify that point. However, as we see, the leaders made no mention of the sabbath. If their silence shows that they were leaving room for interpretation, then we can rightly say that most everyone already knew the shadow-nature of the Jewish weekly sabbath, and that it was now obsolete since Christ, the substance, had come. Again, I repeat, let no one say that the leaders assumed everyone to be sabbath keepers, for such an assumption would be foolishly presumptuous. No, the leaders were not presumptuous. They were so careful to instruct the new believers that they not only sent epistles of instruction (v. 23) but sent trusted messengers to personally inform the people on those listed issues that were important (vv. 25-27).
The Lord’s Day
THE Seventh-day Adventists’ most distinctive doctrine is the vehement promotion of the Jewish weekly sabbath. We have already been discussing the fact that the weekly sabbath was Jewish—given only for a season—so I will not further comment on that point in this section. Here I will address the SDA’s doctrine that the Jewish weekly sabbath is the same as “the Lord’s Day.” Mark 2:28 and Revelation 1:10 combined, are the two main “proof texts” for the SDA agenda. SDAs claim that since Jesus said He is “Lord also of the sabbath,” then the “Lord’s Day” must be the seventh-day sabbath. Dr. Walter Martin examines this teaching3:
“The weakness of their [i.e., the SDA’s] position is that they base their argument on an English translation instead of on the Greek originals. When one reads the second chapter of Mark and the first chapter of Revelation in Greek, he sees that there is no such interpretation inherent in the grammatical structure. The Greek of Mark clearly indicates that Christ did not mean that the Sabbath was His possession [which SDAs would like to establish]; rather, He was saying that as Lord of all, He could do as He pleased on the Sabbath. The Greek is most explicit here. Nothing could be clearer from both the context and the grammar. In Rev. 1:10 the Greek is not the genitive of possession, which it would have to be in order to make te-kuriake (the Lord’s) agree with hemera (day). John did not mean that the Lord’s Day was the Lord’s possession, but rather that it was the day dedicated to Him by the early church, not in accordance with Mosaic Law, but in obedience to our Lord’s commandment of love.”
Explicitly stated: THE JEWISH WEEKLY SABBATH AND THE LORD’S DAY CANNOT BE LINKED AS ONE! They are different days.
QUICK REVIEW
So far we have learned
(1) that Christians are not obligated to observe the weekly sabbath, which was the seventh day (i.e., Saturday).
(2) that Sunday is not the weekly sabbath nor is it a replacement for the weekly sabbath.
(3) that Christians are not obligated to observe Sunday as a holy day.
(4) that we are justified in Christ Jesus without the observance of the weekly sabbath.
(5) that the observance of days is now a matter of indifference, at most.
(6) that God gave the weekly sabbath commandment specifically to the ancient Jews.
(7) that Christ Jesus is the substance that the sabbath foreshadowed.
(8) that the keeping of days, months, times, or years is not the sign that we are God’s people.
(9) that the Apostles’ words and actions show the discontinuity of the weekly sabbath commandment.
(10) that the Lord’s Day is not the seventh day sabbath.
At this point, it seems best to further address the whole Saturday vs. Sunday controversy.
“Pagan” Sunday Replaced Saturday?
HERE we will briefly address two issues: 1. The observance of Sunday is not pagan, but a non-obligatory expression of love. 2. The Lord’s Day neither usurped the Saturday sabbath nor became a new sabbath. “The view that the Christians’ Lord’s Day or Sunday is but the Christian Sabbath deliberately transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week does not indeed find categoric expression till a much later period [i.e., after the mid-fourth century].” 4 “For the first three centuries of the Christian era the first day of the week was never confounded with the sabbath; the confusion of the Jewish and Christian institutions was due to declension from apostolic teaching.” 5
In honor of the Lord’s resurrection, under the New Testament command to meet together frequently, the early Church leaders chose Sunday as the chief day for regular gatherings. It was in love of Christ Jesus that they saw Sunday, the day of His triumphant resurrection, as an honorable day for gathering in His name. And, of course, we know the early Church gathered together on every other day as well. There was nothing pagan about their gatherings or the days on which they chose to gather.
The Lord’s Day did not usurp the seventh-day sabbath because it did not need to. The seventh-day sabbath was already fulfilled. Therefore, any supposed claims made by Constantine, or any other Roman Catholic authority, are meaningless. Furthermore, no one may suggest that the early Church usurped God by discontinuing weekly sabbath observance, for it was God whofulfilled the seventh-day sabbath. The Church merely recognized that fact and did not try to reincarnate the observance of it.
Here are just a few interesting quotes to support the already established Biblical facts:
Ignatius, the third Bishop of Antioch, wrote this in AD 107 (very shortly after one of his leaders, the Apostle John, wrote the book of Revelation):
“Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish Law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace….If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death…let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]” (“The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 62-63).
Justin Martyr wrote his first Apology in the middle of the second century.Under the title “Weekly Worship of the Christians,” in chapter 67, he stated,
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray . . . But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day [of the week] on which God…made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration” (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 185-186).
[Note: At this point in history, in Justin’s day, Christians were still essentially unified in doctrine and practice. There was absolutely NO DISAGREEMENT about the fulfillment of the weekly sabbath commandment or about the non-obligatory but respected observance of the Lord’s Day, Sunday. This was less than a century from the time of the Apostles.]
Bardesanes, Edessa (AD 180)
“Wherever we be, all of us are called by the one name of the Messiah, namely Christians, and upon one day, which is the first day of the week, we assemble ourselves together…” (Bardesanes, Book of the Laws of Countries).
Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea (AD 270)
“Our regard for the Lord’s resurrection which took place on the Lord’s Day will lead us to celebrate it” (Anatolius, chapter 10).
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (AD 306)
“But on the Lord’s Day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it, he rose again” (Peter, 15th canon).
Notice that all these quotes were taken from early Christian sources that predate the Roman Catholic Church by centuries and decades. Clearly, the Lord’s Day did not usurp the weekly sabbath and it did not become a new weekly sabbath. Also, it is clear that neither a Roman Catholic council nor any other pagan source originated the observance of the Resurrection Day—Sunday, the Lord’s Day.
The Old Covenant
THE Old Covenant is defined within the five books of Moses, which are collectively named “the Pentateuch” or “Torah.” The Old Covenant was given specifically to the ancient Jews thru the mediation of Moses. It included many universal laws, such as moral laws, and also many special temporary ordinances given specifically to the children of Israel, such as sabbath-keeping and other ceremonial convocations. Christ Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant.6 Thus all temporary ordinances are abolished in Him, with their substance found in Him; all universal laws remain, being expanded and broadened in the New Testament (see more on this in the article What Remains Since We Passed from the Old Covenant to the New?).7 Galatians 3:24 plainly tells us that the Old Covenant Law WAS (past tense) our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ Jesus.
Moral Laws and the Ten Commandments
MANY Sabbatarians refer to the Ten Commandments collectively as “The Moral Law”. They do this to categorize the weekly sabbath commandment as a moral law and therefore promulgate that the sabbath commandment must remain binding for Christians since Christians still abide by God’s moral laws (the New Testament even expands them).8
Now, first of all, there isn’t one verse in the entire Bible that refers to the Ten Commandments collectively as “The Moral Law”. It isn’t even insinuated. That title is imaginary and misleading.
Second of all, we know the Fourth Commandment is ceremonial: even the Torah itself classifies it as a ceremonial convocation (Lev 23:2-3). That right there immediately discredits the Sabbatarian claim that the Decalogue is purely a set of moral laws. (More on this issue of the sabbath commandment not being moral as we go along!)
The New Testament sheds light on all Ten Commandments: nine of the Ten are expanded and broadened in the New Testament, and still apply as such; one, the Fourth Commandment, is clearly defined as a “shadow” ordinance which was fulfilled in Christ (Col 2:16-17).
So we do not actually “throw out” the Fourth Commandment but learn from it now by principle, yet without being required to literally observe it, since it is fulfilled; and, as a note, we do not “throw out” the rest of the Decalogue, like some teach, for God’s moral laws are expounded upon and expanded in the New Testament.
We must learn to read and apply the Decalogue (and even the entire Old Testament) in light of the New Testament.
A NOTE ON MORALITY: For certain, all men are expected to abide by God’s basic moral laws. The Scriptures loudly testify to this fact from Genesis to Revelation, and it is demonstrated by God’s attitude toward the ignorant pagan people of the world. Ignorant pagans, by definition, have no knowledge of God’s special revelations; yet ignorant pagans have an inherent standard of morality—the basic knowledge of right and wrong; the knowledge that there is a difference between the Creator and created things (Romans 1). Keeping that in mind, we can better understand why God would hold the ignorant pagans accountable for their sins (see Amos 1, et al.). God requires the ignorant pagans to follow His basic moral laws, because He has put it in man to have a conscience and know right from wrong, regardless of race or knowledge of special revelation. (And don’t you find it interesting that THERE ISN’T EVEN ONE ACCOUNT in Scripture wherein we find God reprimanding ignorant pagans for not keeping the sabbath?)
THE ISSUE OF “COMMANDMENTS”: Many Sabbatarians use 1 John 2:3-4, 3:22-24, and 5:2-3 as “proof texts” on our need to practice sabbath-keeping. The key word they point to is “commandments”, claiming that this refers to the Ten Commandments especially, which includes the weekly sabbath commandment.
“And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments” (I Jn 2:3). We are to keep God’s commandments, but we are not to keep God’s commandments in the Old Covenant as though we never entered the New Covenant. Otherwise, what use is there for a New Covenant, anyway? What use is the substance in Christ if we are just going to hold on to the shadows? What use is fulfillment in Christ if we are just going to leave things unfulfilled, as though Christ never came?Friends, that doesn’t even make sense to obey Old Covenant commandments without the light of the New. Obey all of God’s commandments, but do it the right way, in light of the New Covenant.
If we love God, we will live holy lives under the New Testament order, eschewing evil and following Jesus’ high standards of morality, of which the fulfilled weekly sabbath commandment, a ceremonial ordinance, is not a part.
Christians are not under the bondage of the Old Covenant ordinances but the Law of Liberty in Christ Jesus the Lord. Do not miss what I am saying here. LIBERTY IS NOT LICENSE TO SIN! Freedom in Christ means freedom to produce the fruits of the Spirit through a Spirit-led and Spirit-lived life.
Christ Jesus has freed the believer from the prisonhouse of sin by placing him in a position of liberty. The transforming power of the cross provides the believer’s deliverance from the curse of the Law, sin, and self (Galatians 1:4, 2:20, 3:13, 4:4-5, 5:24, 6:14). Thank you, Lord Jesus!
Back Under the Curse
MANY Sabbatarians state emphatically that we must observe the seventh-day sabbath or go to Hell. Others state that we must obey not only the sabbath commandment but all the other fulfilled ordinances. Friends, Christ Jesus became the curse for us—not so we can justify ourselves by our observance to fulfilled rites! Sabbatarians are willfully placing themselves back under the curse, making sabbath-keeping a requisite for salvation. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4).
Generally, SDAs claim that only the ceremonial and certain “civil” aspects of the Old Covenant Law have passed away—but, as we know, they don’t classify sabbath-keeping as ceremonial. I do not see how anyone who has read the Pentateuch can miss the weekly sabbath’s ceremonial nature. Is not the offering of animal sacrifices a ceremonial act? Yes, it is. And not only did God command the Jews to offer the normal daily burnt offerings on the weekly sabbath, but He also commanded them to offer special burnt offerings particularly for the weekly sabbath day (see Numbers 28:9-10). Those sacrifices were intimately and specially connected to the weekly sabbath commandment. Again, I ask, “Will you Sabbatarians soon return to the offering of animal sacrifices? Why obey only a few of the sabbath regulations?”
Going to church on Saturday or Sunday is nowhere near as important as serving ONE God every day. Let us remember the more important life principles: we must not worship idols; we must not use God’s name in vain; we must respect our Christian parents, and be faithful in marriage; we must not murder, steal, lie, or covet. These are reiterated and expanded in the New Testament. How can we miss these important elements and chase after the lesser things, even the things which have passed away? Why can’t we receive the Substance instead of the shadow?
Sabbatarians will drag you into slavery with their nonsense. Those Old Covenant worshipers will lead you into logical absurdities. Just stay in Christ Jesus.
Shadow vs. Substance
COLOSSIANS 2:16 plainly tells us that new moons and sabbaths are but shadows and that the Messiah is the body or substance of those shadows. One Messianic Jew wrote, “The fact that these things are shadows or symbols is no reason to discard them.” Here we have it! This Sabbatarian is unique because he actually admits that the sabbath was merely a shadow, but he still makes excuses to keep it around. He still wants to make it obligatory for the Christian. He wants to push the Old Covenant system, given to the children of Israel, upon the New Testament Christians.
The same Messianic Jew wrote about the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which he also observes. The Torah told the Israelites to get all leaven out of their houses and to stop eating leaven for one week. The man admits that like all holy days (let me include the weekly sabbath), this is meant to teach us a spiritual lesson to reinforce our faith. He knows the New Testament “purging of leaven” is the purging from our hearts that “leaven of malice and wickedness,” and it is to live a clean life of “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (I Cor. 5:7-13). Still he claims that the Lord wants Christians to literally keep the ceremonial feast as well as applying the spiritual side of it. He does say we would be foolish to keep the externals without purging the inner “leaven.” That is nice, but he is missing the point. Friends, this is just a good example of what Paul was dealing with: men who keep the Old Covenant, who observe fulfilled shadows and types, and teach that others must do the same. That is simply not Christian. The New Testament does not teach us to live that way.
Colossians 2:16—Only Ceremonies?
THE SDAs maintain that since the Greek word “sabbaton” (Colossians 2:16) is in the plural, it is referring to ceremonial sabbaths (plural) and not the weekly sabbath (singular). Ceremonial feast days, they say, were the shadows of things to come. That sounds good to some people. However, there are two main refutations against the SDA viewpoint.
First, the plural “sabbaths” would not exclude the weekly sabbath. Leviticus 23 and many other portions of Scripture group the weekly sabbath with the other sabbaths. The weekly sabbath was merely one of many sabbath “convocations.” Even SDAs will quote the numerous Old Testament passages that use “sabbaths” and say that these references include the weekly sabbath, but for some reason, when it comes to Colossians 2:16, the plural “sabbaths” changes meaning.9
Second, the best New Testament scholars render “sabbaton” in Colossians 2:16 as “a sabbath” or “a sabbath day,” singular, not plural. “[Sabbata,] the plural form, was transliterated from the Aramaic word, which was mistaken for a plural; hence the singular, sabbaton, was formed from it.”10 Dr. Vine wrote, “In the Epistles the only direct mentions [of the sabbath] are in Col. 2:16, ‘a sabbath day,’ R.V., where it is listed among things that were ‘a shadow of the things to come.’”11 Mr. Vincent supplements Dr. Vine’s definition: “Sabbath days (sabbaton), the weekly festivals revised correctly as day, the plural being used for the singular (see Lk. 4:31; Acts 20:7. The plural is only once used in the N.T. of more than a single day—Acts 17:2). In the Old Testament, the same enumeration of sacred seasons [including the weekly sabbath] occurs in I Chron. 23:31; II Chron. 2:4; II Chron. 31:3; Ezek 45:17; and Hosea 2:11.”12
What we see is that the singular “a sabbath (day)” accords with the use of the word (sabbaton) all thru the New Testament. In fact, out of the 60 occurrences of this word, 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 they insist that it does not refer to the weekly sabbath, even though all honest grammatical authorities contradict them.
Albert Barns is one man whom the Adventists love to quote. Dean H. Alford, a renowned Biblical exegete, a man whom the Adventists also love to quote, critiqued Barns’ commentary on Colossians 2: “‘Let no one therefore judge you . . . in respect of feasts or new moons, or Sabbaths’ (i.e. yearly, monthly, or weekly celebrations). The relative may refer either to the aggregate of the observances mentioned, i.e., the Sabbath. Or it may refer to ALL.” 13 What he is saying is that Colossians 2 either refers to the weekly sabbath alone, or it refers to ALL the sabbaths, including the weekly sabbath. Either way, the weekly sabbath is inferred.
Alford comments further on verse 17: “The blessings of the Christian covenant: these are the substance, and the Jewish ordinances the type of resemblance, as the shadow is of the living moon . . . The fact of an obligatory rest of one day, whether the 7th or the 1st, would have been directly in the teeth of his assertion here; the holding of such would have been still to retain the shadow, while we possess the substance.”
From a grammatical standpoint, if the Seventh-day Adventists insist that the Greek word in Colossians 2:16 refers strictly to ceremonial sabbaths, they run up against a conflict since the same word is used in passages that they would loudly claim as referring to the weekly sabbath alone. Furthermore, as Alford so carefully points out, if “sabbaths,” plural, be allowed, then IT MUST INCLUDE ALL SABBATHS! On the other hand, if the Adventists admit that the word in Colossians 2:16 is rightly rendered “a sabbath day,” then they are aligning the word with its basically exclusive use throughout the rest of the New Testament, namely, its use for the weekly sabbath. Yet by such a confession they would be totally undone. Every road they travel on will lead them to give up their error, if they will.
Another noteworthy New Testament Bible scholar is Dr. J. B. Lightfoot. In his commentary on Colossians, p.225, he wrote the following: “The word ‘sabbata’ is derived from the Aramaic ‘shabbatha’ (as distinguished from the Heb.), and accordingly preserves the Aramaic termination of a. Hence it was naturally declined as a plural noun, ‘sabbata,’ ‘sabbaton.’ The New Testament ‘sabbata’ is only once used distinctively as more than a single day, and there the plurality of meaning is brought out by the attached numeral (Acts 17:2).”
When the Adventists quote from the scholars whom they claim to trust, why do they not see the implications of what the scholars are teaching? The Adventists must be surprised to know that the scholars say that we cannot hold on to the shadow and the substance at the same time. The Jewish shabath (sabbath), part of the “handwriting of ordinances which was contrary to us,” has altogether found its complete fulfillment in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank God! Amen.
Look up Numbers 28 and 29. Here you will find a list of those “ordinances” referred to in Colossians 2:16-17, including the weekly sabbath, which is grouped together with burnt offerings and new moons. All the ordinances such as the offerings, feasts, and the weekly sabbath, were the shadow (sika), which became obsolete with the coming of the substance (soma) of the Messianic reality. Why, then, would the seventh-day sabbath be retained? Sabbath-keeping is more than superfluous—it is utterly pointless, and dangerous.
Bias, Racism, Legalism
SEVENTH-DAY Adventists interpret the Scriptures to fit their preformatted theological views, just as the Messianic Jewish groups interpret the Scriptures to fit their predisposed racial biases. Both groups ignore the theological, prophetical, and grammatical contexts. They certainly refrain from any comparative textual analysis (proper hermeneutics). To make Paul support their views, they choose to practice eisegesis (reading meanings into the text) instead of exegesis (gleaning meaning from out of the text). It is dishonesty at best.
“Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years” (Galatians 4:10). In the Liberty Commentary on the New Testament, page 490, it says the following in reference to Galatians 4, verse 10: “The Greek present middle implies that they are continually observing for themselves, for their own benefit, some of the requirements of Judaism. They were in the process of launching into legalism and were scrupulously observing with meticulous care certain rules with the belief that such practice would gain merit.” Some sabbath-day keepers, especially the Messianic Jews, go so far as to wear Old Testament garments, perform (supposed) Jewish dances in their services, and speak Hebrew as much as possible (since, they claim, it is the language of God’s true people). Listen folks, let it be known that your spiritual gymnastics will gain you no merit in the Kingdom of God.
The Liberty Commentary editors also make mention of Colossians 2, verse 16: “‘Let no man therefore judge you…’ That means, sit in judgment, take you to task, decide for you, criticizing and condemning. Paul is encouraging the Colossians not to be enslaved by legalism, ritualism, rites, and ceremonies” (p. 566). When the purpose of the shadow is completed, observing the shadow becomes an act of ritualism void of any command, which easily leads to legalism since the observer is adding unnecessary burdens to himself and can then readily become dependent upon his “pious” rites rather than Christ’s righteous sacrifice. Moreover, the observer of dead rites will find himself soon accusing those who do not do as he does.
When we obey what Jesus commands us to do, we clearly see Him as our Lord; but when we add to what He has asked of us, we easily rest in our own imagined self-righteousness. Should I now offer animal sacrifices to Jesus? Should I entertain the shadow in the presence of the substance? Would that credit me with some special merit? People, think of all the logical absurdities that would take place if we all clung to dead rituals.
* * *
Paul’s Evangelistic Agenda
DID the Apostle Paul teach sabbath observance by his example? John L. McKenzie, in his Dictionary of the Bible, page 752, states that “The five synagogue meetings were used by Paul as opportunities to present the gospel to Jewish audiences (Acts 13:14, 42-44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4). …Judaizing Christians attempted to impose the Sabbath observance upon Gentile Christians; Paul affirms that no one may be called to account for Sabbath observance (Col. 2:16).” This makes perfect sense. Paul did not teach sabbath observance by his example, but rather, he showed his zeal for missionizing the Jews by entering their synagogues on their holy day.
The First Day of the Week
HOW can we miss the comprehensive allusions to Sunday, the first day of the week? Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday and conspicuously appeared to his friends and disciples on the same day. The disciples received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Sunday, and Christians of the first few centuries willingly gathered on Sunday to take part in the Lord’s Supper and honor Christ Jesus’ victory over death.
Two facts must be reconfirmed here: (1) Sunday, the first day of the week, was never a substitute for the weekly sabbath day but was an entirely different day altogether—the Lord’s Day. (2) The Lord’s Day was unique and early Christians did recognize it as such, but no one ever made it an absolute obligation—a salvation requirement—for Christians to observe it. That is, the early Christian Fathers strongly suggested that Christians recognize Sunday’s special character as a means to promote unity and the assembling of the brethren, but they never commanded that each Christian must, at the threat of losing his salvation, observe it as a holy day.
“The notion of a formal substitution by apostolic authority of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) for the Jewish Sabbath . . . the transference to it perhaps in a spiritualized form of the Sabbath obligation established by promulgation of the 4th commandment has no basis whatever, either in Holy Scripture or in Christian antiquity.” 14 “Although it [Sunday] was in primitive times and differently called the Lord’s Day or Sunday, yet it was never denominated the Sabbath; a name constantly appropriated to Saturday, or the Seventh Day, both by sacred and ecclesiastical writers.” 15 “The day for synagogue worship was the 7th day of the week, Saturday (Matt. 12:9,10; Acts 13:14). The Apostolic Christian Church from the beginning held assemblies for worship on the 1st day of the week, which was the day on which Christ arose from the dead.” 16
Interestingly enough, the Seventh-day Adventists use the above quotes in an attempt to prove that Sunday is not the sabbath . . . AND THAT IS GOOD! Sunday is not the sabbath. I have no contention with that fact. However, what the Adventists fail to realize is that by quoting these references, they are proving my point that the Lord’s Day is not Saturday, as they claim, but has always been Sunday. So their use of these quotes is self-defeating.
My dear readers, do not believe the SDAs’ claim that Constantine, or any Roman Catholic authority, initiated the observance of worship on Sunday. The early Christians had been meeting on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, long before Constantine or the Roman Church was even thought of.
At this point in our study, let me present more testimonies from the writings of early Church Fathers.
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS: Church life in the 2nd Century: or Didache (AD 90), Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book XXX, HOW WE OUGHT TO ASSEMBLE TOGETHER, AND TO CELEBRATE THE FESTIVAL DAY OF OUR SAVIOUR’S RESURRECTION
“On the day of the resurrection of the Lord—that is, the Lord’s Day—assemble yourself together without fail, giving thanks to God and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ.”
Gospel of Peter (AD 150), Fragment IX 39
[35] “Now in the night whereon the Lord’s day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, [36] there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend thence, shining with (lit. having) a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulchre. [37] And that stone which had been set on the door rolled away of itself and went back to the side, and the sepulchre was opened and both of the young men entered in.”
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (lived AD 200-258)
“The Lord’s Day is both the first and the eighth day.”
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 300)
“The day of his [Christ’s] light…was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day…”
Eusebius (ca. AD 315)
“The Churches throughout the rest of the world observe the practice that has prevailed from the Apostolic tradition until the present time so that it would not be proper to terminate our first day as any other day but the resurrection day of our Saviour. Hence there were synods and convocations of our bishops on this question and they unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree which they communicated to churches in all places—that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other than the Lord’s Day.”
How can the seventh-day sabbath-keepers see all the sound evidence and plain testimonies of the first Christians and yet remain seventh-day sabbath-keepers? As we have clearly seen, the early believers met on Sundays, not Saturdays; and it was the Christians, not the Roman Catholic Church, who made Sunday the common day to honor the Lord Jesus. Certainly, the Lord’s Day is not the seventh day, nor is it some kind of new sabbath day. The Lord’s day is Sunday, the first day of the week, a day that Christians have always set aside for worshiping Jesus.
Discord and Pride
I have noticed how the diverse groups of sabbath keepers are in discord. They uphold each other on some basics, but the specifics of sabbath-keeping present a mind-storm to any modern seeker. Sabbath-keeping makes for chaos since the question “How far is too far?” is not answered. How far is too far for you Sabbatarians? What more burdens will you add to your repertoire? Once you start steering people into Old Covenant stipulations, you will find yourself with curious souls who will wonder about the limits of re-instating Old Covenant practices. All this is causing much confusion in the Sabbatarian camps.
Recently I read a good, short article. The author said, “God’s New Testament Israel is not those who have Abraham’s blood in their veins but those who have Abraham’s faith in their hearts.” AMEN! The article did not specifically mention the sabbath, but it was tackling the underlying issue on “Who is God’s true Israel?” That question relates closely to the sabbath controversy, for it asks, “Are those of Jewish descent God’s true people?” and “Are Jewish customs, even those that God gave to them, eternally special?” If everything Jewish is eternally special and binding, then observing the sabbath command would be a proper thing to do. Surely we now see Christian Jews who want to retain the “shadows” as superior, and it is such individuals who are pushing the Sabbatarian doctrines, which in fact have no place in the New Covenant, being fulfilled. We know that one’s Jewish blood and fulfilled customs will not provide salvation any more than one’s “Gentile” blood and pagan customs. “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love” (Galatians 5:6).
Of course God gave the ancient Jews His oracles, and that was to their benefit (Romans 3:1-2); yet it did not mean that they were better than anyone else, nor did it automatically make them better than anyone else (vv. 9-10 ff).
Those special Old Covenant ordinances given to the Jews still teach us principles that we may apply, though the literal requirements themselves have been fulfilled. As I have stated before, we of the New Covenant now live in the light of New Covenant revelation brought thru Christ.
Be it known unto all of us, the New Testament people of God are those who have been born-again. “Jesus answered . . . Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Being born again places us, through faith in Jesus Christ, into the Family of God as the sons of God. “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. …There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And IF YE BE CHRIST’S, THEN ARE YE ABRAHAM’S SEED, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:26-29). We are God’s living stones, His new temple, a holy priesthood. “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:5). Some Messianic Jews will preach nearly the same facts, but underlying everything is Jewish pride. Listen, I am not spiritually dull. I can sense people’s subtle messages. One thing I can say is that the Messianic Sabbatarians leave me with the eerie feeling that we “Gentile” Christians are mere second-class citizens in God’s Kingdom, while Jewish Christians are “the cream of the crop,” as if Jewish blood holds more merit than “Gentile” blood.
Let it be known that the natural Jews of the natural nation of Israel, were called of God for a purpose—not because of their inherent greatness, but simply by divine command. However, they failed that purpose, rejected their Messiah (Luke 13:34-35), and then begged for a perpetual curse to be laid upon their own generations (Matthew 27:25).
Boasting about being a Jew is no better than boasting about being any nationality. Every human should be ashamed of his natural ancestry and should want to distance himself as much as possible from all ties to the same. Jews should distance themselves from the fulfilled ordinances of the past just as “Gentiles” should distance themselves from all former practices. We all should move onward in the new life of Jesus Christ, who is the Lord of ALL men. And for the record, I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-sin.
Misinformation
SOMEONE sent me a tract called “Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions about Sunday.” A Messianic Jew wrote the tract. He starts out by saying, “The vast majority of Christian churches today teach the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week . . . yet it is generally known and freely admitted that the early church Christians observed the seventh day as the Sabbath.” Really? The words “generally known and freely admitted” form a catch phrase to make us think MOST people believe that the early Christians observed the seventh-day sabbath. Wait . . . that is nice to say, but where is the evidence to support such a bold claim? Quote for me, if you will, from the writings of the early Church Fathers—those of the first, second, third, and early fourth century—who carefully followed Christ and adhered to the Apostles’ doctrine.
“…Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.” Is that so? Well, who cares what the Roman Catholic Church has to say! All references deemed as “Roman Catholic sources” are inevitably from the mid- to late-fourth century and onward; truthfully, most quotes are from very late sources, unlike the quotes that I have already cited.
I know why he does not quote the early Church Fathers. The early Fathers “freely admitted” that the Jewish sabbath, which was Saturday, was fulfilled in Christ and was therefore no longer binding upon Christians. They also “freely admitted” that Christians upheld the first day of the week, Sunday, as a day of festivity and fellowship in celebration of the Resurrection. And the Church Fathers’ doctrine was “generally known” and taught BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church came into existence.
In the tract, the Messianic author cites the following from a Roman Catholic publication: “Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law (of Grace), that He Himself has explicitly substituted Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.” 17
The above quote states that “it is now commonly held that God simply gave His [Roman Catholic] Church the power to set aside whatever day or days . . . suitable as Holy Days.” First of all, God did not ordain the Roman Catholic Church. However, part of that quote, in principle, is true. That is, the early Christians—who were by no means Roman Catholics—chose voluntarily to worship on the first day of the week and not the seventh, because of Jesus’ resurrection; and this Lord’s Day observance was encouraged, but not commanded.
Though I would not use the above quotes to form my beliefs about the sabbath, I find it humorous that the quotes indirectly prove a few of the points I have already made: first, that no one can find any evidence in the Bible, or in any reliable early Christian literature, proving that God DIRECTLY (by a command) ordained Sunday as the obligatory day of worship in the New Covenant; second, that the Bible contains absolutely nothing about God changing the sabbath from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday).
The Messianic Jew who sent me the tract also sent his article entitled “Why I am not a Roman Catholic.” Well, it seems that he does not believe or trust the Roman Catholic Church’s claim that she is the ”One True Church” founded upon the Apostle Peter’s authority; yet he believes and trusts Roman Catholic claims concerning the sabbath and the Lord’s Day. He should be more discerning. The Roman Catholic Church did not establish anything but lies in order to make her power seem greater. It is foolish to blindly embrace her claims, particularly when reputable historical records show her claims to be false. I am very leery to believe any claims coming from filthy Papal lips, because I am not ignorant of the devices of Roman Catholicism.
Roman Catholics who claim that the Papacy changed the weekly sabbath from Saturday to Sunday have said that Protestants should not worship on Sunday because Sunday is a Roman Catholic institution. To worship on Sunday, they say, is to come under the authority of the Roman Church; therefore, since Protestants oppose the Roman Church, Protestants should observe the weekly sabbath on its original day, Saturday. Why would they say this? Well, first of all, orthodox Roman Catholics believe that all Protestant Christians are Hellbound. The very word “Protestant” is loathsome to them. Possibly, and probably, some of the Roman Catholic leaders know that the Saturday-Sunday issue is beside the point since the sabbath is fulfilled in Christ, but they have a malicious agenda to ensnare the Protestants, whom they despise, by suggesting that the Protestants return to an Old Covenant rite. Do you think that is far-fetched? The Roman Catholics have historically been known to behave in such ways.
Many Sabbatarians have never read the writings of the early Church Fathers. Those who have read them, discredit all the writings and/or consider them counterfeits without any good reason to do so. What sound criteria are they using to discredit all the Church Fathers’ writings? None! They are working through bias.
QUESTION: Sabbatarians, why do you trust the claims of known liars—Roman Catholic leaders—and yet refuse to accept the well-documented, preserved writings of the true early Church leaders and historians? Why do you reject the unanimous testimony of early history to accept Papal claims? Why do you constantly point out the innumerable lies that the Roman Catholic Church spews forth on every front but then accept her claims on this front? Furthermore, Sabbatarians, why do you ignore the truth? I suppose you ignore the facts since sabbath-keeping has become your security, and when someone challenges your “pet doctrine,” you find it hard to admit your error.
One last quote: “I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy.” 18 The Sabbatarians use this approach to scare Christians into keeping the seventh-day (Saturday) sabbath. It proves nothing. There are absolutely no commands in the New Testament that obligate Sunday or Saturday sabbath-keeping. The Sabbatarians say, “The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy [Roman] Catholic Church.” I say the Sabbatarians bow in reverent submission to the unsubstantiated claims of the Roman Catholic Church!
Protestant “Confessions”?
THE Messianic tract mentioned above lists quotes from several Baptists, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians. Supposedly, the quotes are “confessions” from Protestants that the seventh day is still the true sabbath and Sunday is not. Again, I emphatically declare that THIS SATURDAY-SUNDAY THING IS NOT EVEN THE ISSUE! Furthermore, let me say that all the “confessions” can be interpreted several ways.
The following is one of the “confessions.” “Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the Church came to keep the first day of the week…” Here the author admits that the New Testament Church worshiped on the first day of the week instead of the seventh day. That is fine. “…but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day.” 19 He is right. The Lord’s Day observance came about voluntarily to honor the risen Lord Jesus. Its observance was never commanded by Christ, the Apostles, or the early Church leaders (beyond an encouragement in Christian expediency). And in reference to the transferring of the seventh-day sabbath to the first day, such a transference did not need to be done, as we have said, since the sabbath was fulfilled. Also, the man rightly called the seventh day the “Jewish Sabbath”—it was only for natural Israel, and only for a season. To twist the man’s words into a Sabbatarian argument is dishonesty. The man was not arguing for Sabbatarianism but was stating the facts about Church history and the liberty we Christians have in Christ Jesus.
The rest of the “Protestant Confessions” are of a similar nature. I will not waste space reinterpreting them here. Just know that the Sabbatarian commentators twist such “confessions” to favor a biased point they are trying to make.
It is strange that the Sabbatarians can find plenty of late non-Biblical quotes to support their theories, but they never seem to mention any reputable non-Biblical sources from pre-Papal times. Maybe Sabbatarians are ignorant. Maybe they have an agenda.
More on the Lord’s Day
JAMES Hastings wrote that “the early church met for the purpose of worship daily (Acts 1:14; 2:46), and we find no intimation or allusion that any day was marked with more solemnity than others. But at a later period the ‘first day of the week’ [Sunday] is singled out from the rest and observed with special honour. The first occasion on which we meet with this is in I Corinthians 16:2, ‘upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store’ his contribution to the collection. Then in Acts 20:7 we notice the disciples of Troas gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread. By themselves, these two instances could not be pressed. But, in Rev. 1:10 there is a mention of ‘the Lord’s Day,’ which appears in the Didache 14:1, and in Ignatius (Ad. Mag. IX. 1). These all hung together with the fact recorded by all the evangelists that on the first day of the week Christ rose from the dead. The Resurrection of Christ was the foundation of Christian hope (I Cor. 15:17-19) and therefore the day of the resurrection was par excellence the Lord’s Day (see Ignatius, op. cit.; Ep. Barn. 15), and when it became impracticable for the ‘breaking of the bread’ to be celebrated daily, it was celebrated with careful regularity on this day (Did. 14:1; Pliny, Epp. X. 96, ‘stato die conuenire’). …[Certain Jewish Christians,] as we’ve seen, tried to push the Old Testament Sabbath off onto the New Testament Gentiles. But the Sabbath and method of its observance are especially distinguished from the Lord’s Day [cf. Ign., op. cit., ‘no longer sabbatizing, but living according to the Lord’s Day,’ and Ep. Barn., op. cit., ‘Sabbaths are not pleasing to God, therefore we observe the eighth day (Sunday) for rejoicing.’]. On the early history of the Christian Sunday, see esp. T. Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Hebenderalten Kirche, cap. vi.” 20
I have before me the unabridged 20thCentury Dictionary (Webster’s, 1904). This book is 6 ½ inches think and weighs 11 ½ pounds—it is packed with information. On the sabbath, it says this: “SABBATH . . . this was originally the seventh day of the week . . . But the Christian Church very early began, and still continues, to observe the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ on that day. Hence it is often called the Lord’s Day. The heathen nations in northern Europe dedicated this day to the sun, hence, Sunday. …The word Saturday came from the word Saturn [as Soeterdoeg, or soeternesdoeg, Soetern, from L. Saturnus, Saturn.]
In Roman mythology, the god of agriculture, instructor of the people . . . the goddess of wealth; identified with the Greek Kronos” (emphasis added).
Beyond Sabbatarianism
ONCE you welcome a religious demon into your life, you cut the path for more to follow. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9). If you press hard into the worship of Sabbatarianism, you will soon find a multitude of Judaisms at the “doorstep” of your heart, wanting to make entrance and permanent residence in your soul.
Some Sabbatarians become so religious, they insist that the only way we can fully please the Lord is to speak and write in the original Paleo-Hebrew language. This is nonsense. Did the multitudes at Pentecost hear the Spirit speaking Paleo-Hebrew utterances through the disciples, or was it that “every man heard them speak in HIS OWN LANGUAGE” (Acts 2:6)? If the Holy Spirit, who is God, will miraculously speak through men with a multitude of divine utterances, then who are we to be more “spiritual” than He by suggesting that we all must only speak one language to please God?
I am not going to dwell on this stupid issue. My point in mentioning this is to show that Sabbatarianism leads one into the clutches of diverse religious delusions.
Restating the Facts and Concluding Remarks
WHAT have we learned? We know, most importantly, that we are under no Scriptural obligation to keep one day more holy than any other day (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-11; Romans 14:5); and we certainly know that we are justified by faith, just like our father Abraham, without observing the sabbath. For by the Scriptures we understand that the weekly sabbath, along with the other ceremonial sabbaths, is a shadow of the Messianic reality and substance we find in Christ. It was fulfilled in Christ, and the New Testament makes it clear that sabbath-keeping therefore no longer remains.
The weekly sabbath was given to Israel for specific reasons and for a specific period of time. In fact, all of the Old Law’s special ceremonial ordinances were only given to the Jews and only for a time. Therefore it is stupid for the Christian to return to the observance of days which passed away with the fulfilling of Jewish ordinances.
Jesus taught in the synagogues on the sabbath in order to evangelize the Jews, who were yet under the Old Covenant. (Remember, Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the prophecies concerning the Messiah.) The Apostles, like Jesus, taught in synagogues on the sabbath as a ministry outreach to Jews and not as a sign that Christians are still under obligation to the sabbath laws. Notably, the Apostle Paul taught that even the proper observance of a day was a matter of indifference, at best (Romans 14:5); and at the Apostolic Council (Acts 15), not one of the Apostles instituted a mandate for the continuity of sabbath-keeping.
Neither God nor the early Church leaders ever intended Sunday, the first day of the week, to become a new sabbath. Saturday was always the Jewish weekly sabbath, and Sunday was always the Lord’s Day. During the first three centuries, the early Church leaders never confounded the Lord’s Day with the weekly sabbath.
The Old Covenant is made up of universal laws (those which God expects all men to maintain, such as moral laws) and special ordinances given specifically and only to the people of Israel for a time until the coming of the Messiah. Those ordinances which were given only for a season were fulfilled in Christ, while the universal laws which were a part of the Old Covenant, remain, and were expanded/extended in the New Covenant. Now we view the Old Covenant in light of the New Covenant, and we must apply all things according to the light we have received in Christ. Nine of the Ten Commandments are explained in more broad terms in the New Covenant, while the weekly sabbath commandment is defined as fulfilled since we find our Sabbath in Christ Jesus.
Our liberty in Christ is not license to sin! On the other hand, “spiritual gymnastics” will not grant you any merit in the Kingdom of God. Being a particular race will not help you either, for all men are sinners in need of the Savior, Jesus Christ the Lord.
The Roman Catholic Church did not establish anything but lies in order to make her power seem greater. It is foolish to blindly embrace her claims, particularly when reputable historical records show her claims to be false.
Sabbatarianism ultimately consumes the soul with legalism. This kills the spirit-man, hardens the heart, “leavens the whole lump,” and swiftly damns the soul.
Without a doubt, it is our duty to serve the Lord Jesus Christ every day. Thank Jesus that we are free to do so! Now, dear reader, where do you stand? Are you bound in darkness? Have you returned again to a yoke of bondage? Are you a Sabbatarian? Will you not let Jesus Christ set you free to serve Him every day?
REPENT—TURN FROM SABBATARIANISM RIGHT NOW! LIVE FOR CHRIST IN THE BEAUTY OF HIS LIBERTY! AMEN.
* * * * * * * *
ENDNOTES
- Much of the following information comes from an article by Samuel R. Driver, D.D., Lutt. D., Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford.—Taken from the Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, (1911), pp. 317-323.
2. e.g. Justin, Tryph. 19, p. 236 E; 27, p. 245 B; Iren. IV. vvi. 2; Tertull. adv. Jud. C. 2; Hessey, p. 56 ff., 371 ff. [ed. 5, p. 47 ff., 281 ff.].
3. Kingdom of the Cults, p. 395.
4. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1899 ed., vol. 23, p. 654.
5. W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 312. (emphasis added)
6. See Matthew 5:17, cf. Jn 4:21-24; 2 Cor 3:6-11; Gal 3:24-25, 4:1-5; Col 2:10-17; the book of Hebrews, e.g., 9:8-15, et al.
7. See Matthew 5:17-48, for example, and Ephesians 6, verses 2-3.
8. This issue of the sabbath commandment being a moral law is central to Sabbatarianism. That’s why we have laid out so many facts in this booklet against that lie.
9. At best, what we are looking at here is bias—interpreting the Scriptures so as not to discredit a preconceived doctrine.
10. Op. cit., W.E. Vine, p. 311, under “Sabbath.”
11. Ibid, p. 312.
12. The New Testament Commentary on Colossians 2, p. 494. (emphasis added)
13. D.H. Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, pp. 1299-1300; see his commentary on Colossians, pp. 224-225.
14. Sir William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. 2, p. 182, article on the sabbath; (emphasis added).
15. Charles Buck, Theological Dictionary (1830), p. 537.
16. John D. Davis, Westminister Dictionary of the Bible (1898), p. 523.
17. John Laux, Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academics (1936), vol. 1, p. 51.
18. T. Enright, cited from a lecture at Hartford, Kansas (Feb. 18, 1884).
19. Harris F. Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p. 26.
20. Dictionary of the Bible (1911), vol. 1, p. 427, under the heading “CHURCH” and subtitle “The Regular Worship”; (emphasis added).