Are Christians Commanded to Keep the Sabbath?

Farmer leaving his crop for gleaners and beasties on the Sabbath year?

Are Christians Commanded to Keep

The Sabbath Day?

By Charles Church

Introduction:

While 7th day sabatarians have always had a following, it appears to this writer that there has been of late a growing advocacy and following confessing this teaching, such as to compel a dissenting response from among those of the contrary view. And while there are many who hold to the Jewish 7th day Sabbath who are far from compelling our appreciation for their piety and stability in confessing the gospel of the Lord Jesus, yet there are those who bear the name of Christian worthily, and who are not intended to be disparaged of their general character as fellow-believers on the Lord Jesus on account of their advocacy of what is otherwise considered a flaw in their understanding or character in adopting such a doctrine, and this even though the error in many instances is substantial. This writing is committed to their careful and unbiased consideration, being dedicated to the hope that all the Lord’s people would be “of the same mind and of the same judgment”. (ICor.1:10)

Typical Biblical Arguments Advanced in Support of a 7th Day Sabbath

Let us first examine the biblical arguments advanced by the advocates of the 7th day Sabbatarian position.

1. That the duty is a creation ordinance, being instituted at creation, and commanded to be practiced from that time onward, and not just from the time of Moses.

2. That the duty is commanded in the 4th Commandment of the law of God.

3. That Jesus warned Christians of the New Testament era to pray that their flight be “not on the Sabbath day”, thus implying its continuation into the New Testament era.

4. That Isaiah refers to people keeping the Sabbath day in what can only be deemed as the final and eternal state, thus indicating its perpetuity from creation into eternity.

5. That all the places in the New Testament where believers are said to meet on the “first day of the week” are really references to the Sabbath, and that Jesus rose from the dead on the Sabbath day, not on the first day of the week.

6. The Sabbath was a thing ordered in nature…. it was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, thus demonstrating its perpetuity, as man’s nature has nothing changed.

In Reply

Let us next provide an answer to these claims in this same order.

1. That the duty is a creation ordinance, being instituted at creation, and practiced before the time of Moses.

We find in Gen 2 the following 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.” (Gen. 2:2-3) This is the warrant which is appealed to in order to establish the claim that it has been a duty from creation onward for all men to rest on the seventh day, or the Sabbath day. In reply let us advert to a rather unavoidable observation: The verse says nothing at all about men resting, or of God imposing a mandate that they should rest after his example in this text. If such an obligation exists the text itself has to say so. In the absence of such a positive commandment there exists no warrant whatever for the conclusion which it is called upon to establish. No amount of human desire for such a warrant can take the place of the words of God which alone may authorize such an obligation.

Is it objected that, though the thing itself is not commanded to men, yet it is implied in God’s example to them. But it is not by implication nor by inference that we reach the obligations of positive institutions in the church of God. God does not command people with implications, as He is not ambiguous, nor has He allowed His will to be imposed upon by the caprice of men by leaving it thus opened to their whim. If God did not command it expressly, the obligation cannot exist. (It should be noted that while positive institutions in the church can never be reached by inference, yet general moral duties can be. Thus we reach the conclusion that gouging is theft, as it necessarily constitutes that sin. But we cannot reach the conclusion that men are obliged to be baptized, or take the Lord’s supper, for instance, unless there exists a positive command for them to do so; which in these two cases there is. And the Sabbath would similarly constitute a positive institution in the church, and not just a bare moral directive, yet is it not commanded at this time, but thousands of years later.) If God had intended that a Sabbath rest for man were in this place commanded upon the basis of His own rest, He was more than capable of stating this overtly, as He did when He made this exact command in the 4th commandment in Exodus 20, and not leaving it up to inference or implication.

Furthermore, even if such a practice could be warranted by mere inference and implication, there is no such implication in the text that there existed some obligation for men to rest on that day. It says that God hallowed the Sabbath day, because on it he rested. How do we get from here to a universal duty to all men to rest on that day because God hallowed it for this reason? Lastly, it is highly unlikely that we even know which day is indeed the seventh day. Early human history is quite obscure, and even in modern times the calendar has been changed. If that be the case, it appears dubious that men may precisely observe the Sabbath today, based upon the fact that men were supposedly commanded to observe it then, and at that time could.

Also appealed to for this purpose is Exodus 16:22-26 “And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, 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 seethe 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 today; 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 say, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.”

The claim is made, usually with a great sense of triumph, that this passage demonstrates that the Sabbath was practiced and was therefore considered obligatory before the giving of the ten commandments, which took place another 2-4 weeks afterward, thus warranting the conclusion that the Sabbath was therefore practiced from creation. The fact is adverted to that the 4th commandment, as stated in Exodus 20 begins by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day”, implying that it was already in practice, and needed to be continued, not that it was something wholly new and unknown to the Israelites. The answer to both of these is simple: The Sabbath was practiced by the Israelites before the giving of the ten commandments…. approximately 2-4 weeks before… not since creation. If Exodus twenty’s reference to “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” is indeed an admonition to regard a previous practice or command at all, it must be then a reference to the command given in Exodus 16, as there is no previous command to keep it anywhere in all of the bible. More likely is that it is simply commanded to remember to keep it holy, as it says, and not to merely remember to keep it like as they already had been and knew of. Accordingly a lengthy explanation of its duties is provided immediately following, hardly an evidence that they had understood and practiced it from creation onward. The duty is enlarged upon unlike any other commandment of the ten, giving the distinct impression that it was a thing relatively new to them, whose duties were not yet well comprehended, else he could simply have said, “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy” and left it at that, like as he did with the other commandments. To get technical, the 4^th commandment takes up nearly one third of the words of the ten commandments, (98 out of 313), and takes up nearly ¼ of its verses, (4 out of 17). Why did it need such an explanation if it was indeed being practiced since creation? It was barely explained in Ex.16, and needed to be more fully explained, and therefore was.

And to this agree the words of Nehemiah: “Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they should go. Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant: And gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and promisedst them that they should go in to possess the land which thou hadst sworn to give them.” (Nehemiah 9:14) This passage states expressly that God “made known” to them the “holy Sabbath” at the time of Sinai, precisely as claimed. (Heb. Caused them to know.) If it was a thing understood and practiced from creation onward, how is God going to “make it known” to a people who ostensibly had been observing it for thousands of years? How can you “cause someone to know” what they already knew? That would be some cause indeed.

Agreeing with these facts are the words of Ezekiel 20:10-13 which reads: “Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.” Ezekiel here demonstrates in corroboration with Nehemiah’s testimony that the Sabbath was a thing revealed as a commandment in the wilderness at the time of the exodus. Both of these witnesses constitute certain proof that the Sabbath was not known or practiced before the command was given in Exodus 16 and 20, quite simply because they both say that exact thing explicitly. Both also remonstrate that the children of Israel had not kept this commandment, but had egregiously violated it, which brings yet another point. Why is it that every time the people of God are reproved for not keeping the Sabbath it is always after the time that this commandment was given, and always makes reference to this commandment? Did the whole earth keep this commandment perfectly up to that point? Considering the depravity of humanity, that hardly seems like a likely scenario.

The assumption that Exodus 16 constitutes some sort of proof that the Sabbath had always been practiced from creation is just that: assumption. The people noticed that there had been twice as much manna available to be gathered on the sixth day as on the other days, and so they came and told Moses, who delivered to them the commandment of the Lord to keep the Sabbath day as a day of rest from labor. If they had been practicing the Sabbath rest since creation, would not the issue of there being twice as much manna have been obvious so as to require no explanation? Just how does this prove that it was before kept, or was obligatory from creation? This is the place that the command originated, and every other place appealed to as examples simply contain no imperative grammar in them whatever…. it was spoken of, but not commanded, and no amount of grammatical imputation can constitute themselves as the words of God.

The wording of the command in Exodus 20 will also be appealed to: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it”. (Ex.20:8-11) This makes explicit reference to the Sabbath being hallowed at creation, and cites this fact as a ground of its then present obligation; from whence it is inferred by sabbatarians that the duty must be co-extensive with its ground of obligation, and therefore have been obligatory from creation. That the obligation of keeping the Sabbath as a day free from manual labor is a thing founded upon God’s rest at creation is not denied. It explicitly says it was. What is denied is that it was, for that reason, necessarily obligatory from that time onward. What is denied is that the duty in this case must be co-extensive with its ground of obligation. God is God….. he can rest on that day, and hallow it, and not command men to observe it thus for 10,000 years if He wants to, and then command them to do so on this basis. What is inconsistent or improbable about that? God’s covenantal dealings with man are manifestly progressive and unfolding and frequently change. This fact constitutes no proof that every new obligation revealed to men had no ground for its existence until the time of its revelation. Passover was commanded in respect to an event that was hundreds of years in the future. The Sabbath, hundreds of years in the past. And again… mere inference is insufficient ground upon which to establish positive institutions in the church. If there was no command then there was no obligation. Mark also the point that a multitude of commands were commanded to the children of Israel which were grounded on their deliverance from Egypt, and which they have no present obligation to obey at all, as they have been rescinded in the gospel. The Passover, for instance, with its sacrifices, etc.. Here you have an explicit example of a duty which is not coextensive with its ground of obligation, God abrogating it under the gospel dispensation. (Col.2, Acts 15) And it makes no difference, so far as the argument being claimed, that a duty must be coextensive with its ground of obligation, whether the ground precedes the obligation, as in the case of the God resting on the seventh day and then commanding a rest to be observed thousands of years later, or whether the obligation expires while its stated ground abides, as in the case of the gospel superceding Levitical rites…… in either case it demonstrates that the obligation does not have to be coextensive with its ground.

Lastly, let us advert to this command as it is stated in Deuteronomy 5, where the ten commandments are listed a second time: “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, not any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 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.” (Deut.5:12-15) Thus we have it: Why did God command the Israelites to keep the Sabbath day in Exodus 16? In reference to His own rest when He ceased from His work of creation, yes…. BUT, so far as it concerned themselves, it was given to them to observe as a commandment when they themselves were brought forth from the bondage of slavery, and ceased thus from their own work….. many thousands of years after creation.

Exodus 31:17 might also be appealed to for this reason, as it likewise appeals to God’s rest at creation, stating of the Sabbath that “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.” But let us ask the question: Who does the verse say that the Sabbath was a sign between? The Lord, and the children of Israel, right? Did the children of Israel exist from creation? Not hardly. So here we have the exact claim substantiated…. that the duty of keeping the Sabbath was thousands of years after the event upon which it is grounded, and indeed, could not have been any other way, as it was made between God and a people who didn’t exist at the time of its stated ground of obligation.

2. That the duty is commanded in the 4th Commandment of the law of God.

Some seek to evade this argument with the claim that the ten commandments are not binding on the New Testament believer. This is an error. In a great many places in the New Testament it is made perfectly clear that while man cannot be justified by the law, and that while the law has been abolished therefore for any such purpose, and that the believer in Jesus is perfectly dead to it so far as its condemnation, yet as a rule of duty expressing God’s will it remains wholly intact, and is esteemed thus constantly in the New Testament. It is the New Testament which testifies that “Sin is the transgression of the law”. If we have, then, no obligation to obey God’s law as a rule of duty, then it is unavoidable that we are wholly free to sin, than which a greater error could not be imposed upon the purity of New Testament doctrine. Everywhere the ten commandments are cited in the new testament they are cited as wholly obligatory, and in other places its principles are appealed to as wholly binding on the practice of New Testament believers, such as in ICor.7:39, ICor.9:8-10, ICor.14:34, Eph.6:1-3, or others. To follow the point further would be a diversion from the subject under consideration.

It should be pointed out that the appeal to the Sabbath’s inclusion in the ten commandments is likely the sabbatarian’s strongest argument. The law of God is God’s perfect will expressed to every generation of men. It is a complete revelation of man’s duty, and every sin that a man may commit may be assessed a breech of one of the ten commandments. So, then, their argument is this: If it is indeed binding as an authoritative moral directive, and in it we are commanded to observe a day of rest, then how can anyone teach that no such duty exists? It appears likely that the apparent strength of this argument is what drives many to advocate that the law is now wholly past in every respect, and not just that it’s condemnation has been taken away, but that it is still true, else it were now impotent to condemn, and so lead men to Christ. However, it is not such a hard nut to crack. Let the following arguments be reviewed:

1. It is not a mere prejudice against the Sabbath which makes men examine the bible more minutely as to the present validity of its obligation. There are verses in the bible which outright state that it is no longer valid. Namely, Col.2, Rom.14, and Heb.4. These will be dealt with in more detail later, but are alluded to here merely to point out that it is not a bare predilection against the point that motivates men to examine this relationship more closely. Colossians 2 instructs believers to let no one judge them in respect to the Sabbath day which are a “shadow of things to come”. Rom. 14 says that “one man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind”…. strange words indeed were it one of the ten commandments that one day were indeed commanded by God to be esteemed above another. And Heb. 4 teaches that the Sabbath was a thing typical and which pointed to, and was fulfilled by Christ. These things are rather clearly spoken in these places, and warrant the examination we now make concerning the claim that the 4th commandment requires to be observed in New Testament times.

2. If the Sabbath is typical, then we must ask the question, “Is it possible for one of the Ten Commandments to contain a merely typical meaning?” Wouldn’t this be wholly contrary to the entire nature of the Ten Commandments? But what if the bible itself esteems some of the Ten Commandments thus? Then the objection is to argue against express principles of scripture. Does the bible anywhere treat any aspect of the Ten Commandments as being typical? We have already mentioned one place, and let us now consider it. Hebrews 4.

“1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

6. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

7. Again, he limiteth 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.

8. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

9. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God

10. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.”

The way Reformed and Adventist people argue in favor of the perpetuity of the Sabbath from such a text reminds me of Arminius arguing in favor of Arminianism from Romans chapter 9. One thing is perfectly plain from the text….. the Sabbath had its fulfillment, not in God’s rest at creation, not when the Jews were delivered out of slavery in Egypt and brought into the promised land, but when Jesus Christ delivered men from the slavery of sin, and afforded them rest from works for salvation, of which all the others were merely shadows and types. It is important to understand that the word “Sabbath” does not mean “seventh” but means “rest”. Thus all this talk about rest in Hebrews 4 is talk about what the real Sabbath is. Thus when Paul says, “We which have believed do enter into rest”, he is saying that believing is the New Testament Sabbath. He goes on from here to describe how all the other things in which people had supposed the true rest, or Sabbath, to consist were not ultimately what was intended by the Sabbath. His whole argument consists in quoting David in Psalm 95 where David makes the statement, “If they shall enter into my rest”. Paul, (the presumed author of Hebrews), makes the stark conclusion on the basis of this statement that the real Sabbath, or rest, had not yet been entered into…. that neither did they of early times understand it, nor they of Joshua’s time when he brought them into the promised land to rest, nor they even of David’s time even, whence he concludes that its real meaning was that of resting from our works in the merits and atonement of the Lord Jesus, the new creature ceasing thus from his works, as the creator did at his finishing the old creation. When he says, for instance in verse 9, that “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God”, the very word “rest” is the word Sabbath in the Hebrew, or it could be translated “sabbatism”… or a Sabbath keeping. There remaineth therefore a Sabbath keeping for the people of God…. ceasing from our works by believing in Jesus. Plainly, this deals with the Sabbath as a figurative thing…. and yet it is one of the Ten Commandments!

Secondly, is Eph. 6:1-3….

“1. Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

2. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)

3. That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth”.

The reason that this passage is pertinent to our discussion is because it quotes one of the Ten Commandments, manifestly changing it in a rather conspicuous particular in order to accommodate it to New Testament theology, as it had previously made reference to a thing that was wholly figurative, and typical, and which had passed away in New Testament times. The original read that we should honor father and mother “that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee”. That land was given specifically to the Jewish nation. That nation had disowned their Messiah, and its identity and privileges given to a nation that would bring forth the fruits thereof…. the church. Mat.25 But this nation had been promised no real estate, but something far better: real estate in eternity. But in eternity there will be no “mother or father” nor infants, nor adolescents. These are factors specifically pertaining to our pilgrimage here on the earth. Neither will there be death in that place, so long life is not any question at all. Thus the promise annexed to the commandment is merely pertinent to our time here on earth, not to our promised destiny, as it had been when previously related. Thus in the ten commandments, again, we find elements of figurative language. Now the argument is this: if we may find it thus here, then it cannot be accused of error to claim it elsewhere merely upon the ground that the ten commandments may contain no typical or figurative elements in them.

Thirdly, is Col.2:16-17: “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.” Would anyone speak of the first, fifth, or seventh commandments as being “shadows” of a reality which was revealed in the New Testament? But the New Testament speaks of the Sabbath as being this very thing. If the bible teaches that the Sabbath was a “shadow” at all, then it is without all contradiction a thing that is typical, and figurative of some New Testament principle or truth, and yet who will deny that this passage has overtly taught this very thing?

So is all that to say that we don’t have to keep the 4th commandment? By no means. If you break this commandment you will be eternally cast into hell. The only question is: How do we keep this commandment? By resting from physical works as a means of maintaining physical life, or by resting from moral works as a means of obtaining spiritual life? Hebrews 4 declares for the latter. And who will say that neglecting such a rest is done away? God forbid. The law is established by the gospel. Rom.3:30

3. That Jesus warned Christians of the New Testament era to pray that their flight be “not on the Sabbath day”, thus implying its continuation into the New Testament era.

In Matt.24 Jesus prophesied of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. We now know that he referred to Titus coming with the Roman army and decimating the entire city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Thus it is argued that if it was expected or assumed that believers were still keeping the Sabbath so far into the New Testament era as 70 A.D. that this would be proof that it was intended to be perpetuated as a New Testament institution. But speaking of the two covenants in the book of Hebrews, Paul says: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”. (Heb.8:13) I reckon most people would agree that the New Testament church started on the day of Pentecost. But at what exact period did the Old Testament church cease? One might say, “At the cross, when the veil of the temple was rent in twain”. But Paul in the verse cited above clearly indicates that the matter involved a process, and was not instantaneous. So that the idea that because Jesus spoke of the Sabbath still being in practice in 70 AD somehow concludes that the Sabbath was an institution expected to be kept by the New Testament church is improperly deduced. It is based upon the assumption that the Old Testament worship was immediately cut off by God the minute Jesus died, or rose, or gave the Holy Spirit to the New Testament church. Paul’s witness renders that assumption invalid, and with it the conclusion based upon it. While it is true that, strictly speaking, when the veil of the temple was rent in twain, the Levitical priesthood no longer figured in God’s economy of redemption, “a new and better way” being provided in the gospel, yet it remains that God bore for some time with His people, before those who would not hear the Lord Jesus were “cut off”, according to Deut.18. But there came a time when it was said, “they please not God and are contrary to all men, wherefore wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (IThes.2:15-16) There came a time when to be a Jew was to be lost. But in the interim you had Jews that were children of God (Rom.9:1-6) whom God suffered with as His people, until He brought them to the blessed understanding of the gospel. Accordingly, you find Paul going into the synagogues on the Sabbath day to “reason with the Jews”, but when meeting with only believers it is said they met on “the first day of the week”. And never, no never, is this day said to be the Sabbath day, which is but a Roman Catholic error passed on to real Christians through the Reformed movement.

4. That Isaiah refers to people keeping the Sabbath day in what can only be deemed as the final and eternal state, thus indicating its perpetuity from creation into eternity.

Let us consider the text from Is.66:

“20. And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem siath the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.

21. And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.

22. For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

23. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

24. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” (Is. 66:20-24)

First let it be noted that it is no proof that the Sabbath is perpetually obligatory, simply on account of the claim that it has been and will be. Were it even true that the prophesy above is teaching that a literal Sabbath rest shall be observed in the eternal kingdom of God, then how does this prove that it was an imperative obligation in every previous era? The Sabbath was indeed obligatory during the Jewish dispensation. Let us suppose that it will indeed be obligatory in a future dispensation. How does this in any way or degree prove that it is obligatory in this dispensation? It is all presumption.

Secondly, the one who is prepared to take this literally has yet to learn some of the very fundamentals of biblical interpretation. I might with as much consistency claim that there will be Levites and Priests in the eternal state on the basis of this passage, as argue for the perpetuity of the Sabbath thereby. Most plainly the verse is to be taken figuratively. Verse 20 even begins with a figure… comparing the influx of believers into Jerusalem to the Jews bringing an offering in a clean vessel. In my opinion I think it refers to the Apostles bringing in the Gentiles to the church… “Jerusalem which is above”, making of them “a kingdom of priests” as Peter says, and that they would worship God in spirit and in truth, not on any special day, but perpetually… from one Sabbath to another. Right on through, in other words, without making the former distinction of days, and that they would look upon the carcasses of those Jews who rejected Messiah, and who were cast out both of covenant, and eventually of physical Jerusalem also.

Most won’t interpret it that way…. the point remains, however, that if one will make such a passage the grounds of perpetuating the Sabbath, then I will claim that it also perpetuates the whole Levitical Priesthood, as this is equally mentioned of such a time. But there is now, and will be there, but one ever-living Priest over the house of God, Jesus Christ…. and who will deny that?

Lastly, consider Col.2:16-17:

16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

In verse 17 we find the statement that the Sabbath is “a shadow of things to come.” If the Sabbath is a “shadow” of things to come, then it is a type, or figure, of things to come. Whatever is to be practiced in heaven in relation to the Sabbath it is merely an aspect that is prefigured by the actual keeping of a day without work. So if the actual keeping of the Sabbath was but a type or figure…. a “shadow” as compared to what shall be kept in heaven, then how can what is kept in heaven be the basis for keeping an actual Jewish day of rest in this era in between? And how can the shadow be precisely the same thing as the reality?

This argument is weak to the point of ridiculous. Sabbatarians often seem to resent the fact that the New Testament shows believers meeting on the first day of the week, the day Jesus rose from the dead, and meeting with the Jews on the Jewish Sabbath, the seventh day of the week. The testimony of scripture is so plain as to these points such as to show a little self-will, I feel, on the part of those of this opinion. Let us first consider Acts 20, and then I Cor. 16.

“And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:6-8)

Sabbatarians attempt to make the argument that Paul preached at this place on the Sabbath day. To accomplish this they make an arcane and convoluted argument attempting to number the days from the reference point of the “days of unleavened bread” mentioned in the text. Next they point out that the Greek does not say “First day of the week”, but “First of the Sabbath”, arguing from here that Paul really preached at the beginning of the Sabbath. In reply it need only be pointed out that the phrase “first of the Sabbath”, while indeed the wording in the Greek, is the way they numbered the days in those times….. i.e., Sunday was “the first of the Sabbath” or the first day from the Sabbath; Monday was the “second of the Sabbath”, and so on. All translators of any bible have translated this way, and they are not all a pack of ignoramuses that must be enlightened by such arguments. This is a thing well established in the bible itself, as we shall shortly see, and as well as in secular writings. And if this be the case, all their minute chronology from the days of unleavened bread to Paul preaching at Troas is but arguing against what the bible says. If the bible says that they met on the first day of the week, then to what point a convoluted argument to prove that it really meant to say some other day?

And that this is indeed the case let us consider Mt 28:1 which reads “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” So if the “first of the Sabbath” really means the beginning of the Sabbath, then let us rewrite this verse for the ignorant KJV translators: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the beginning of the Sabbath, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Not likely. It is quite worth noting, also, that this verse demonstrates that not only did the believers happen to meet on this day, but it was the day that they regularly met….. “upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread”….. i.e., not as in, They just happened to be meeting on Sunday, but that this was the day that they regularly met for worship.

And ICor.16:1-2:

“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” (ICor.16:1-2)

The sabbatarian here claims that the Corinthians were merely being commanded to set aside their money at home on a certain day, being merely commanded to “lay by him in store” on the first day of the week. They seem to here have forgotten that the first day of the week is the Sabbath day, (according to themselves), and not Sunday as they claim elsewhere. Anyway, to what purpose a commandment telling the believers what day was appropriate to set their money aside? As if it made one whit of difference what day they set it aside at home! Secondly, but notice the reason Paul gives for this practice…. “that there be no gatherings when I come”…. i.e., that there be no collection of funds when he comes. How would setting aside their money at home on Sunday avoid the necessity of a collection when Paul arrived? The only thing that would accomplish this objective is if they actually met on that day, and while gathered took the collection, which is quite obviously its meaning. And would they gather for the sole purpose of taking an offering, the very day after they supposedly had just met? Or would they take their offering on the day they were gathered anyway…. the very day before? Again…. obviously the latter. Did the disciples worship on Saturday, and then convene again on Sunday to take an offering? When men are willing to believe such things they but advertise their self-will.

Lastly, let us look at the question of what day Jesus rose from the dead upon. Sabbatarians are insistent and emphatic that it was not the first day of the week, was not on Sunday. O.K…. let us look at John chapter 20. “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then, immediately after Mary had seen her risen Lord we read that she “came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (Jn.20:1, &18-19) Need I add any comment? My Sabbath keeping friends will pardon me, but what but self-will, and blind attachment to religious human tradition could overcome such a witness to persevere in such a doctrine?

6. The Sabbath was a thing ordered in nature…. it was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, thus demonstrating its perpetuity, as man’s nature has nothing changed. If man ever needed a Sabbath for such a cause, he still does.

We have before demonstrated that man spent thousands of years without this commandment… The fact, then, that it was “made for man” cannot concluded that it is perpetually obligatory, without charging God with neglect in not commanding it for so long a time. And if it was omitted then despite its benefit to man, then why cannot it be omitted now, despite its benefit to man? At issue is that God is not obliged to morally require every little thing that is of some benefit to man, else we should still have a great many dietary laws, and many more against junk food also. Besides that which is of benefit to man….. rest from labor…. can be done on any day, and still is to most people anyway, and with just as much benefit. What is wanting is a rigid prescription that this commandment must be kept in a physical way, when it prefigured a spiritual meaning, and when that spiritual meaning is what the commandment now enforces….. and this is a disappointment unto those who have a erring temperament, and who compass land and see to make proselytes of genuine and earnest believers to such a fruitless and neglectful cause. The Sabbath, as a commandment of God, was originally given in reference to the Jews deliverance from servitude to Pharaoh. Christians have been delivered from the world, that spiritual Egypt, and from its tyrannical master, Satan, that spiritual Pharaoh, and thus is this aspect of the Sabbath fulfilled in a spiritual reality, and not in a carnal type.

Scriptures Which Positively Abolish the Sabbath

We have already noticed one of these in Hebrews chapter 4. This might now be recalled to mind. I quote from the above entry on the subject: “The Sabbath had its fulfillment, not in God’s rest at creation, not when the Jews were delivered out of slavery in Egypt and brought into the promised land, but when Jesus Christ delivered men from the slavery of sin, and afforded them rest from works for salvation, of which all the others were merely shadows and types. It is important to understand that the word “Sabbath” does not mean “seventh” but means “rest”. Thus all this talk about rest in Hebrews 4 is talk about what the real Sabbath is. Thus when Paul says, “We which have believed do enter into rest”, he is saying that believing is the New Testament Sabbath. He goes on from here to describe how all the other things in which people had supposed the true rest, or Sabbath, to consist were not ultimately what was intended by the Sabbath. His whole argument consists in quoting David in Psalm 95 where David makes the statement, “If they shall enter into my rest”. Paul, (the presumed author of Hebrews), makes the stark conclusion on the basis of this statement that the real Sabbath, or rest, had not yet been entered into…. that neither did they of early times understand it, nor they of Joshua’s time when he brought them into the promised land to rest, nor they even of David’s time even, whence he concludes that its real meaning was that of resting from our works in the merits and atonement of the Lord Jesus, the new creature ceasing thus from his works, as the creator did at his finishing the old creation. When he says, for instance in verse 9, that “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God”, the very word “rest” is the word Sabbath in the Hebrew, or it could be translated “sabbatism”… or a Sabbath keeping. There remaineth therefore a Sabbath keeping for the people of God…. ceasing from our works by believing in Jesus.”

Secondly is Colossians 2:13-17

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

First let us notice the imposing fact that if verse 16 cannot be successfully neutralized it overthrows every argument that sabbatarians make at a blow, for it overtly abolishes the entire institution. For instance, could you imagine an apostle teaching, “Let no man therefore judge you whether you lie or not…. which was a shadow of things to come”, etc. If we are told to let no man judge us as it respects the keeping of the Sabbath, then there can be no obligation whatever to keep it. So let us consider the validity of the argument employed to neutralize this plain statement of scripture.

The argument is made that the word “Sabbath” here is in the plural…. hence is it translated “Sabbath days“, and not just “Sabbath”. This is said, therefore, to be, not a reference to the institution of the Sabbath, but a reference to certain specific Sabbath feast days and the like, such as the feast of tabernacles, the feast of weeks, etc., which were indeed purely ceremonial, and done away with in the gospel. But the institution of the Sabbath is said in no way to be intended by the passage. It was abolishing a Sabbath, not the Sabbath, it is said. I myself bought this line for some time. Then I was preaching my way through the ten commandments, and when coming to the fourth commandment it occurred tome that I could aptly demonstrate the truthfulness of this proposition by showing that all the other places where the plural form is used likewise only made reference to certain specific Sabbath celebrations, and not to the institution of the Sabbath, for if this could be demonstrated it would prove beyond question the validity of the proposition. I was in for quite a surprise. Because if it couldn’t be demonstrated it showed the whole proposition to be a fabulous invention, which is precisely what I found, emphatically. What I found was that not only was the proposition false, the exact opposite was usually the case….. when the plural was used it generally spoke of the institution of the Sabbath, and not of any particular day. The whole thing was a total falsehood, and a very lazy and irresponsible one at that.

Consider these other places where the plural is also used, and judge for yourself whether the argument has any validity:

Acts 17: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Were these all specific Sabbath days or Jewish feasts? Plainly not. Or Mat 12:1-8:

1 At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; , and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.

So was Jesus Lord only of specific Sabbath days? Or only of those Sabbath days which landed on certain Jewish feasts? Not very likely is it? Consider next, Mark 3:1:

1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.

2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.

4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

Are any of these passages above only speaking of ceremonial feasts? If not, then there remains no biblical basis for which to make the claim that Col.2 is such a reference, and in the absence of such a reference, its teaching emphatically must be that the Sabbath is a thing entirely and wholly abolished by New Testament teaching.

This teaching doesn’t add up on another account also. Consider verse 16 again:

“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:”

If we are to interpret the words “Sabbath days” as being a reference to certain Sabbaths, like certain feasts, etc., then the apostle is being awfully redundant, as this is exactly what is signified by the words “an holyday, or of the new moon”…. precisely the sort of thing sabbatarians have in mind as to what is signified by the term “Sabbath days“.

Next let us consider Rom.14:5-6

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

This passage is devastating to the sabbatarian cause. “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” Problem is, that if the fourth commandment requires us to keep a Sabbath day of rest, then we are commanded of God to regard one day above another, which could never, therefore, be treated with the indifference with which the text contemplates that very question. If a failure to esteem the Sabbath day above another were a sin no man of God, much less and apostle of Christ, would ever speak on the manner of this text. Could you imagine the apostle teaching thus: “He that regardeth adultery a sin, regardeth it thus unto the Lord; he that regardeth it not a sin, to the Lord he doth thus regard it”. Therefore any attempt to make such a passage ring true to sabbatarian principles is grotesquely indifferent to the honour of the word of God, as though it could speak with such indifference regarding something which necessarily constituted a patent violation of a commandment of God. The bottom line is this: Sabbatarianism is the belief that we are obliged to esteem one day above another. The bible says that you are free to regard no such thing before the Lord. Sabbatarianism is therefore false.

And let the conclusion be noted, that while we are speaking of the seventh day Sabbath doctrine, this section applies equally to both seventh and first day Sabbatarians, as which day is irrelevant if there is no specific day at all, and I believe that these verses teach that conclusively.

Conclusion

The evidence which we have here contemplated render it conclusive that there is no obligation to “esteem one day above another” as is the very essence of the sabbatarian view. There are three passages which absolutely abolish it as a positive insitution in the church of God. The arguments advanced for its support are entirely false, and have no merit whatever. The doctrine then is mischievous and a human invention, as well as a distraction to real piety toward God, for whenever men advance a standard which is not supported from scripture, it is necessarily beneath that true standard scripture advances, and is therefore sin.

And if this obligation has passed away with the Jewish state and worship, then to attempt to enforce them as current obligations under the gospel is a sin the bible calls “Judiaizing”. This fact should be soberly considered by all its advocates, as Paul’s writings afford some of the strongest warnings against this sin which the bible affords.

That is not to say that everyone who keeps the Sabbath is a reprobate. If that is all there is to it, then their practice certainly falls under Rom. 14…. to the Lord they regard the day…. let them so regard it. But if they will try to bring the whole church under obligation to abolished Jewish laws that is a far different matter than merely practicing a thing one’s self, but involves itself in some degree at least of the sin of Judiazing the church of Christ, and this is something that no believer in Jesus should take lightly. I don’t say they are all lost who so practice… Barnabas did it… right? (Acts 15) But they are treading on dangerous ground, and should be apprised of their mistake. The Lord knoweth them that are His. But…. “let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” IITim.2

While it is true that there have been throughout history various groups which have been advocates of the sabbatarian view, yet in modern times this advocacy has come mainly from the followers of Ellen G. White, the force behind modern 7th Day Adventism. It is likely that most of the sabbatarian groups in existence today have been directly influenced from this quarter. While it would be expected that some liberal Methodist group or other should have women preachers and founders it is not a little startling that a group with conservative principles generally should be founded by a woman, and yet directed by her teachings. It is as though the bible had never said: “Let the women keep silence in the church: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (ICor.14:34) Or as though it had never said this: “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (ITim.2:12-14) And, as one would then expect, no church that was founded by a woman has ever been anything but heretical. While certainly many men have founded heretical sects, yet many have likewise founded godly and useful movements under the Spirit of God which bore lasting good fruit. That can be said for no woman. Mrs. White and her teachings have been a feminizing influence upon modern Christianity, and the anomaly is that her followers generally repudiate feminism!

When the New Testament church has such fire breathing threatenings against Judaizing it should not be a thing that the real followers of the Lord Jesus are able to take lightly, and this discussion of the subject is provided that it might provoke some thought to that end, to the Glory of Jesus Christ among His people in His church.