_files/image002.jpg)
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
_files/image003.gif){kind=small}
|
S |
ome Christian churches conduct their weekly worship
services on the seventh day of the week, which the Old and New Testaments call
the Sabbath. Some teach that Christians should observe the seventh day as a day
of rest, as required in the Old Testament. Most Christian churches, however,
meet for worship on Sunday, and do not require a specific day of rest.
Didn’t Jesus keep the Sabbath? Christians need to
know whether God wants his people to observe the Sabbath. We need to learn what
the Bible really says. As we will see, the New Testament treats the
Sabbath in a significantly different way than the Old Testament does. Let us
now look at answers to questions often asked about this subject.
Part 1: The Books of Moses
On
the seventh day of creation,
God rested. Is this when he made the Sabbath?
Genesis
tells us the following:
1) God created the world in six days.
2) By the seventh day, creation was complete.
3) God rested [Hebrew: sabbatized] on the seventh day.
4) He blessed the seventh day and made it holy (Genesis 2:2-3).
However,
there are several things that Genesis does not tell us, and we should carefully
note these:
1)
It does not say that humans rested.
2)
It does not say that humans were told to follow God’s example.
3)
It does not say that humans were told to rest.
4)
It does not say that God taught Adam and Eve on the Sabbath.
5)
It does not say that God created the Sabbath.
6)
It does not say that humans kept the Sabbath.
Creation
week was unique. We do not expect God’s activity on the first day to be
repeated on every first day. What he did on the fourth day does not affect
subsequent Wednesdays. And what he did on the seventh day of creation — cease
from creation — is not repeated every week thereafter. He ceased only once.1
Humans
are not able to imitate God’s activity. Humans cannot create for six days.
Therefore, they cannot cease from creation on the seventh. They cannot imitate
everything God did. If humans were told to imitate one specific aspect of
creation week, rest, we are told nothing about it in Genesis. Scripture records
various commands given to Adam and Eve, but there is no hint of a Sabbath
command either before or after they sinned.2
Moreover,
even if every seventh day were holy, we are not told anything about how it was
to be kept.3 The way in which Israel was commanded to keep holy time
is not necessarily how the patriarchs would have kept holy time.4
God’s end-of-creation rest could provide a pattern for a Sabbath command
centuries later, just as it provided a pattern for the sabbatical year, but the
pattern does not prove that the Sabbath command itself existed before Moses.
Since
the Church strives to teach the whole counsel of God, we cannot base our
Sabbath doctrine on speculations about creation ordinances or assumptions about
pre-Mosaic worship practices. Genesis does not command the seventh day to be
observed in any particular way. The Bible does not say that the Sabbath command
existed before Moses.
Nevertheless,
some seventh-day and first-day sabbatarian scholars think that the overall
impression of Scripture is that the Sabbath existed ever since the seventh day
of creation. They are of course free to keep the Sabbath. However, we cannot
use an implied or inferred “creation ordinance” as proof of what God’s people
are required to do today. We cannot use Genesis to prove that everyone must
abide by this rule or else be thrown into the lake of fire. If we are to
require Christians to rest on the Sabbath, we must base our doctrine on other
passages of Scripture.
If
we alone were involved, we could perhaps decide to keep the Sabbath “just in
case.” But when we as a Church are given the responsibility of teaching others
what is required, we must be careful not to add burdens that Christ does not
require. If we require too much, we will have to answer for it in the day of
judgment. Therefore, we must study the matter thoroughly.
The Sabbath was commanded in Exodus 16, before the old covenant was made. Does
this mean that it remained in force even after the old covenant ended?
We
cannot assume that every command given before Sinai is still in force simply because
it was given before the old covenant was made. Sacrifices were instituted
before Moses. Circumcision was commanded for Israelites before Moses, but it is
not required for Christians today, except in a spiritually transformed way.
Likewise,
various other pre-Sinai commands are no longer in force under the new covenant.
We do not select lambs on the 10th of Abib or smear their blood on our
doorposts. We do not consecrate to the Lord every firstborn male. We do not
gather food each day, gathering twice as much on the sixth day. We do not stay
in our tents on the seventh day.
When
the early church met to decide whether gentile converts should keep the “law of
Moses” (Acts 15:5), pre-Sinai commands given through Moses would have been
considered part of the “law of Moses.” The Torah of Moses included not just
sacrifices, but all the other regulations that Moses wrote about, whether
before Sinai or after.5 “The law of Moses” is not required for
Christians today. Peter said that those regulations were an unbearable yoke
(Acts 15:10) and were not required for gentiles (verses 28-29).
In
Paul’s analysis, too, Exodus 16 would not be considered binding on Christians.
Exodus 16, just like other parts of the law of Moses, was added 430 or more
years after the promise had been given to Abraham and therefore it did not
affect the promise (Galatians 3:17). Judaizers wanted the Galatian Christians
to keep not only ceremonial laws, but the “whole law” (Galatians 5:3). The
entire Torah went with circumcision.6
Some
pre-Sinai laws are still valid, of course, as can be demonstrated from New
Testament scriptures. But other pre-Sinai laws are not. We cannot use Exodus 16
to prove anything about Christian requirements today. If the Sabbath is still
required, we need to demonstrate it from other scriptures.
In
Exodus 16, Moses told the people that the seventh day would be a day of rest, a
holy rest day (verse 23). Nothing in the account implies that the seventh day
was holy before this.7 The Lord, through Moses, gave some new instructions
in conjunction with the manna that the Lord was giving the Israelites. He told
them to cook all their food in advance (verse 23) and not to travel away from
their tents (verse 29).
Simply
because these Sabbath commands were given before Sinai does not mean that they
are required today. Paul’s point in Galatians 3 is that obligations given after
Genesis 15 do not apply to the covenant of promise, which Christians have
inherited. Circumcision also shows that the antiquity of a law does not prove
its continuity into the new covenant.
When
God declared the seventh
day holy, did that mean that he was present in that day?
God
is present in every day. He is present in every place. God is holy, but
holiness does not necessarily indicate the presence of God in any extraordinary
way. The Levites were holy, the sacrifices were holy, the temple utensils were
holy, etc., but that holiness doesn’t mean that God’s presence was in these
things. Rather, holiness means that the things were set apart for specific
uses. God specified how the Sabbath was to be used. He never said that he is
“present” in that particular day.
Today,
Christ is present among his people in a special way whenever two or three are
gathered in his name. He has promised to be with us always, even to the end of
the age (Matthew 18:20; 28:20).
God made the seventh day of every week holy (Exodus 16:23). If God makes something
holy, does it remain holy forever?
No.
In the Old Testament, various locations were holy — the ground around the burning
bush, the ground covered by the holy of holies in the various tabernacle
locations, and an area on the temple mount, but we have no reason to believe
that the soil in such places is still holy. The showbread was holy, but a human
need could cause it to become usable for ordinary purposes.
The
Levites were once holy, having a special role in worship, but they no longer
have that special status. After the Exodus, the Israelite firstborn male
children and animals were holy (Exodus 13:1-2), but they are no longer holy, at
least not in the same way. The jubilee year (Leviticus 25:12) is no longer
holy. In the temple, the holy of holies was holy, but its holy role was negated
at the death of Christ, when the veil was torn in two. Jesus said that the time
had come for worship to be disassociated from holy places (John 4:21-24).8
In
the Old Testament, people, times and places were declared holy, but such things
can also become ordinary — all according to whether God designates them for his
special use.9 We cannot assume that the Sabbath is still holy simply
because it once was. If we are to teach it as a requirement, we must have
evidence that God still separates the day and tells his people to use that
specific day in a specific way.
The
fourth commandment begins with “remember.” Doesn’t this indicate that the Sabbath existed long before
Sinai?
No.
It need not have any historical reference at all, and it certainly does not
require an ancient one. It could simply be a reference to Exodus 16, or it
could be saying that the Sabbath should be remembered in the future. When God
made a covenant with Noah, he promised to remember it (Genesis 9:15). He was
not referring to anything in the distant past, but something that he had done
that very same day.
Are the Ten Commandments a permanently valid “core” of God’s spiritual law? Do all
10 stay together as an eternal law?
All
of God’s words are authoritative. However, God has communicated a lot of words
to humans that are not requirements today. Many God-given laws are obsolete. He
spoke the law of circumcision just as much as he spoke the law of the Sabbath.
God himself commanded that the firstborn males be set aside for him — he
himself commanded the building of altars. To discern which of his laws are
still valid, we have to seek the whole counsel of God and rightly divide the
word of truth.
The
old covenant was glorious, but the new covenant is much more glorious and has
made the old fade away (2 Corinthians 3). The Ten Commandments were, and still
are, a glorious package of laws, but the new covenant has superseded that
package. Although the covenant was inscribed by the finger of God in stone, it
is obsolete.
Hebrews
8:6 tells us that the new covenant has been established, and verse 13 tells us
that the old covenant is obsolete. Exodus 34:28 tells us that the old covenant
was composed of the Ten Commandments. However, if all Ten Commandments are
still in force in the same way, how can it be said that the old package is
obsolete? We should expect a difference — a difference between the Abrahamic
covenant and the Sinaitic covenant, a difference between the Sinaitic covenant
and the Christian covenant. Most of the
commandments are repeated in the New Testament, but the Sabbath is not. The New
Testament doesn’t criticize anyone for breaking the Sabbath. [All 9 of the 10 commandments are repeated in
the Epistles, but the fourth isn’t. I
have found nine of the ten commandments repeated in the Epistles of Paul, but
no direct command that the fourth be kept.
In Acts, we do find Paul and his company resting on the Sabbath, and
preaching in Jewish synagogues during the Sabbath. Emphasis and this observation mine, pfb.]
The
old covenant, as a collection of laws, applied only until the Messiah came
(Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 9:10). The laws were perfectly appropriate for
The
old covenant was a mixture of moral, civil and ceremonial laws. A moral law may
be in the midst of ceremonial rules, and vice versa. Although we can categorize
those laws according to function, Scripture does not. The only time that the
Ten Commandments are given a special status or name, they are called the old
covenant (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13).
The
New Testament does not distinguish the Ten Commandments from any other group of
laws. It does not give them any particular name or give them any special
status. New Testament writers may quote some of the Ten and another law from
elsewhere in the Pentateuch (Romans 13:9; Matthew 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; James
2:8-11), without any indication that the Ten are any more authoritative than
other laws. In fact, the greatest commandments are not in the Ten (Matthew
22:36-40). If there is any consistent grouping in the New Testament, it is the
last six commandments — the first four are not quoted with the others. We
cannot assume that all 10 must remain together.
The
Ten Commandments contain some temporary portions as well as some timeless
truths. They were given in the context of physical salvation — they begin with
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of
Also
within the Ten Commandments, God says that he punishes “the children for the
sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”
(verse 5). This applies to the physical blessings and curses of the old
covenant, but it does not apply to the spiritual blessings of the new covenant.
Today, God does not punish children for the sins of their parents.
These
show that portions of the Ten Commandments are appropriate to
Is the Sabbath Commandment a moral law or a ceremonial law?
Sabbatarians
commonly assert that all the Ten Commandments are in the category of moral law,
but there is no biblical proof for this assumption. The term “moral law” comes
from theologians who attempt to categorize Old Testament laws according to
their primary purpose.
In
general, civil laws concern details of how humans interact as a society.
Ceremonial laws concern specifics of worship (for example, specifying that the
heifer must be red, or that the priest must touch the right big toe). Moral
laws concern more fundamental aspects of our relationships with God and humans,
the way we get along with each other. Many theologians say that Old Testament
moral laws have continuing validity.
The
Sabbath command touches on our relationship with God as well as our
relationship with humans. It tells us that we should not require our servants
to work seven days a week, so in that sense it is moral, concerning
interpersonal relationships. The law ensured that servants had time to rest and
worship. However, from a human standpoint, one day of the week would be just as
good as any other for resting. The requirement that the day of rest
specifically be the seventh day of the week is not an interpersonal matter. It
was specified by God and was a worship detail.
Concerning
worship, our relationship with God needs time. The Sabbath was made for human
benefit, not because God’s holiness needed it. In the old covenant, a specific
time was required for work, and a specific time required for rest.10
But in the new covenant, the basis of our relationship with God is faith, not a
specific time. Time is still necessary, but the new agreement that God has
given us specifies neither day nor frequency nor length of time.
The
general worship value of the Sabbath command remains — humans need time to
worship. But we should not assume that the specific details commanded
(cessation of work specifically on the seventh day) are essential
characteristics of a relationship with our Creator.11 Day and night
will eventually cease (Revelation 21:25), but our relationship with God will
remain forever. The Sabbath is not an essential or permanent part of that
relationship. God himself does not keep the Sabbath. It is not part of his
character. Therefore, it does not play a direct role in our spiritual
transformation to become conformed to his image. The Sabbath is not an end in
itself — it is only a means to an end.
What
we teach as commands cannot be based on assumptions about the Ten Commandments
(that they are all moral, or that they must remain together as a package). Our
doctrine about the Sabbath must be based on scriptural statements.
In
ancient Israel,
Sabbath-breakers were stoned to death (Exodus 31:14; 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36).
Does this severe penalty show the importance of the Sabbath, that it is not
just a ritual?
Exodus
31:14 shows that “cutting off” was the same severity of punishment as execution
(see also Leviticus 20:2-3). People who violated the Sinaitic covenant could
not be considered part of the covenant people — they had to be banished or
executed. Numbers 15:30-31 says that any blatant, willful sin should be
punished by cutting the person off from his people. This was immediately
illustrated by the case of the man who was gathering sticks on a Sabbath. His
rebellion was defiant, and that is why he had to be stoned. He was deliberately
rejecting the covenant.
Violations
of the moral law were not the only covenant violations with severe punishments,
however — covenant violations also concerned worship rituals such as using a
sacred recipe for incense (Exodus 30:33), an unclean person eating some of the
fellowship offering (Leviticus 7:20-21), sacrificing an animal in the wrong
place (Leviticus 17:4), going too near the tabernacle at certain times (Numbers
1:51) and prophets who claimed divine authority but whose predictions failed
(Deuteronomy 18:20-22). All such were to be cut off or killed. The severity of
the punishment is not proof that those particular laws continue to be in force
in the new covenant.
The Sabbath is a perpetual covenant showing that the Creator is the One who
makes his people holy (Exodus 31:13-17). Should Christians today keep this
perpetual covenant as a sign that they are the Creator’s people?
The
Sabbath was given for several purposes. Exodus 31 describes one of them: The
Sabbath was designated as a sign between the Israelites and God so the
Israelites would know that God made them holy. It reminded the Israelites that
God had set them apart for his purpose. However, their holiness depended on
their obedience to the old covenant (Exodus 19:5-6; Deuteronomy 28:9). Thus the
Sabbath covenant sign was dependent on the old covenant.
However,
Exodus 31 does not say that God sanctifies only Israelites, or only those who
keep the Sabbath. It leaves open the possibility that God might make other
people holy or give them some other indicator of being sanctified. God is free
to work with whomever he wants, in whatever way he wants.
God
worked with Israel as a physical nation, and he told them to observe the
Sabbath as a sign between them and him forever (verses 16-17). However,
circumcision was given as a similar sign, required for Abraham and his
descendants, a reminder of the perpetual covenant between God and the people
(Genesis 17:10-14). But the sign is not required for the church — the New
Testament gives a different sign.
Circumcision,
like the Sabbath, was designated as a perpetual covenant in itself (Genesis
17:13b; Exodus 31:16b). The weekly showbread was also a perpetual covenant
(Leviticus 24:8). But all these have been rendered obsolete by the
establishment of the new covenant.
In
the old covenant community, circumcision was the rite that marked the entrance
of a person into the covenant, and the Sabbath was a regular reminder of
participation in the covenant. In the new covenant, entry is marked by faith
and baptism, and our acceptance of the new covenant is repeated regularly when
we partake of the bread and wine in commemoration of our Savior. Those are the
New Testament covenantal rites.
Baptism
symbolizes being united with Jesus in his death and rising to a new life in him
(Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12). This is our re-creation, the beginning of our
new life. The Lord’s Supper symbolizes our participation with Christ (1
Corinthians 10:16). He is the living bread, the sustenance of our new life.
Thus we look to Christ, not to Abraham and the Exodus. In the new covenant,
Christ is our point of reference.
The
New Testament shows that God works with everyone on the basis of faith, not
external conformity to a perpetual covenant (Romans 4:9-10). Even the
circumcision covenant, given to Abraham himself, cannot annul the promise given
to him because of his faith. Laws added after that promise (including the
covenant of circumcision, the old covenant, the Sabbath covenant and the
showbread covenant) cannot annul God’s promise (Galatians 3:17). If there are
other reasons to require Sabbath-keeping, then Christians should, of course, be
willing to keep the Sabbath. But the Exodus 31 covenant is not binding on
Christ’s new covenant people.12
The
Sabbath covenant between God and Israel showed that God had separated his
people from other nations. This indicates that the Sabbath was not given to the
gentiles. But today, God does not physically separate his people from others,
and he does not have laws separating Jews from gentiles (Ephesians 2:11-18).
The distinguishing characteristics emphasized in the New Testament are
spiritual — faith and love — rather than physical, geographic or temporal.
We
can’t assume that perpetual covenants for Israelites automatically apply to the
church today. Exodus 31 is interesting historically, but we cannot base our
Sabbath doctrine on it. If we are to claim that Sabbath-keeping is required for
salvation, we need more substantial evidence.
Didn’t
God give Israel
his laws so they would teach the gentiles to obey those same laws (Deuteronomy
5:5-7; Acts 7:38)?
God
gave Israel numerous laws that gentiles are not required to obey today —
sacrifices, purification rituals, dedicating firstborn children, etc. Although
those rituals were a good example to Israel’s neighbors, they are not required
now. We must look elsewhere in the Bible to see which laws have continuing
validity and which do not.
We
cannot assume that “old covenant laws are still valid unless specifically
rescinded in the new” — the new covenant has made the old covenant obsolete,
and the old laws have been set aside. Moreover, as we shall see, the New
Testament presents a dramatically different approach to the Sabbath than the
old covenant did.
Part 2: The Writings and the Prophets
The Israelites were punished for breaking the Sabbath (Nehemiah
13:17-18; Jeremiah 17:27). They were promised blessings for keeping the Sabbath
(verses 21-26). Doesn’t this show the importance of the Sabbath?
It
shows the importance of the Sabbath in the old covenant system. As a sign, and
as part of the tablets of the covenant, it showed covenant allegiance. The
Israelites broke all aspects of the covenant, and they were punished with the
curses that were attached to the covenant (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28).
Their
disobedience regarding the Sabbath, as well as their disobedience in worship
rituals, was an external sign of their unbelief. The blessings were physical,
and the curses were physical, characteristic of the old covenant but not of the
new.
The
Jews were punished again in A.D. 70, but Sabbath-breaking was not the reason.
Their primary sin in the first century was the rejection of the Messiah, who
was far more important than the Sabbath. They had rejected the new covenant.
Jesus was the “test commandment” of the first century. Faith in Christ is now
the requirement on which our salvation and eternity depends.
In
brief, God punished the Israelites for Sabbath-breaking because the Sabbath was
a requirement for the time they lived in, for the covenant they lived under.
But that cannot prove that the physical details of the Sabbath are still
required in a new age.
The Sabbath was a blessing for both Jews and gentiles (Isaiah
56:2-8). Doesn’t that show that both Jews and gentiles should keep it today?
Isaiah
predicted that God, through the Suffering Servant, the Messiah, would establish
a new covenant with his people (42:6-7; 49:8-10; 54:9-10; 55:1-3). However, in
describing this new relationship, Isaiah also described old covenant customs
that in some cases apply only figuratively to the new covenant. In Isaiah 56:7,
for example, he said that gentiles will offer burnt offerings and sacrifices at
God’s house.
Isaiah’s
main point is that God not only cares for Israelites, but also for gentiles.
God’s house will become a place for all nationalities, and he will gather
gentiles as well as Israelites (verse 8). Eunuchs, who were excluded from the temple
in the old covenant (Deuteronomy 23:1), would also be accepted. The terms of
relationship between God and humans would be changed, and a new covenant would
be made.
God’s
house would “be called a house of prayer for all nations.” Jesus quoted this scripture
in Mark 11:17, but the real fulfillment of the prophecy is not in the physical
temple, but in flesh in which the Spirit lives. Both Jews and gentiles are
invited into God’s household, the church. The physical details of Isaiah’s
prophecy — physical offerings and a physical temple — are not required for
Christians today. If we interpret these physical details according to spiritual
counterparts, may we not interpret Sabbath-keeping in a spiritual way, too?
Is
the Sabbath a physical detail, like offerings, or is it a permanent and
intrinsic part of a proper relationship with God? Neither view should be
assumed, and this passage does not give us enough information to decide. We
must turn to the new covenant to understand how the Sabbath applies to Christians.
The Sabbath is a delight and honorable (Isaiah 58:13). Wouldn’t
it be wrong to call it burdensome and give up its benefits?
Isaiah
58 is a call to repentance. Isaiah is declaring to the house of Jacob their
sins and rebellion (verse 1). Although the Israelites had an external
appearance of worship (e.g., fasting), they did it for selfish reasons (verses
2-5). Although they claimed to worship God, they did not obey his more
important ethical laws: justice, liberty and charity (verses 6-7).13
If
the Israelites did the weightier matters of the law, then God would be
responsive to them (verses 8-11). He would give physical blessings to the
nation (verses 11-12).
And
the same is true of the Sabbath. If the people were obedient to the covenant
they were under, if they kept it without complaint, if they used God’s day the
way God wanted them to, then God would bless them physically.
Isaiah
58 is appropriate to old covenant conditions, and it does not necessarily tell
us anything about new covenant requirements. We cannot assume that the
requirements are the same. All the old covenant laws were good, but their value
was temporary. They were designed to lead us to Christ, and they applied until
he came. The laws had benefits, but it is permissible for us to give them up
after we are led to something better, and we cannot teach as requirement
something that is actually optional.
Peter
was inspired to say that the law of Moses was “a yoke that neither we nor our
fathers have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). Peter did not specify which
aspects of the law were the most burdensome, but it is clear that the old
covenant package was stricter, in external regulations, than the new covenant
is. We must look to the new covenant to see whether 1) it tells us to look to
the old covenant for worship days or 2) whether it gives new instructions
regarding worship days and customs.
Prophecies describe a worship of God that includes the Sabbath
(Isaiah 66:23; Ezekiel 44:24). Does this show that the Sabbath is a permanent
aspect of God’s law?
The
prophets described an ideal time in which all peoples worshipped God. To
effectively convey this concept to an old covenant nation, the prophets
described old covenant forms of worship, including new moon observances (Isaiah
66:23; Ezekiel 46:3) and sacrifices in the temple (Zechariah 14:20-21; Ezekiel
20:40; 45:17; 46:4). They also describe discrimination against uncircumcised
peoples (Ezekiel 44:9; Isaiah 52:1-2) and avoidance of ritual uncleanness
(Ezekiel 44:25-27). [Comment: Isaiah
66:23 does show the Sabbath command re-instated after the 2nd coming
of Jesus Christ, just as Zechariah 14:16-20 shows the Feast of Tabernacles
commanded for all nations to observe, along with the whole sacrificial system
after the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. In Leviticus 23 (verses 1-3) the Sabbath
command is the first Holy Day mentioned, and in Leviticus 23:34-44 the Feast of
Tabernacles is the last group of Holy Days mentioned and commanded. So we see in Isaiah 66:23 and Zechariah
14:16-20, the entire Old Covenant law system re-instated, including the
sacrificial system. Many Christian
theologians recognize this, and cannot figure out why Jesus will re-instate
this system of law, but most of them have to admit, this is the way it will be
during the Millennial reign of Jesus and the saints on earth. So what we see is that the civil, religious
and spiritual law of God as given to Israel will be the same that Jesus
establishes over the nations after his 2nd coming, for their
physical and spiritual benefit. The Old
Covenant system was a system designed both for the spiritual and physical
governance of a nation and a church.
What the present Worldwide Church of God fails to take this into
consideration, but other worthy theologians have done so. pfb]
But
neither circumcision nor sacrifices are religious requirements in this age.
Moreover, another prophecy indicates that the day-night cycle will cease
(Revelation 21:25), implying that there will be no more Sabbaths.
Prophecies
(whether New Testament or Old Testament, whether about Sabbaths or sacrifices
or circumcision) are not a reliable source of proof regarding Christian
practice. Our doctrines must be based on scriptures that are applicable to the
age we live in. [Comment: This is true.
Prophecies concerning the Millennial age do not apply to now. Romans 14 specifies that days of worship are
up to the sole choice of the individual.
Don’t like the days of worship your church keeps, you are free to go
elsewhere to a fellowship that observes the days of worship you prefer. pfb]
<small>Part 3: Jesus and the Sabbath</small>
Jesus kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16). Was he teaching us how to observe the Sabbath
properly so we could follow his example (1 John 2:6)?
Jesus
lived sinlessly under the old covenant requirements (Hebrews 4:15). He was born
under the law, while the old covenant was still in force (Galatians 4:4). He
observed old covenant customs such as participating in the sacrifice of
Passover lambs, tithing to the Levites, telling cleansed people to make
offerings as prescribed by Moses, and he observed cultural customs such as
Hanukkah.
Because
of Jesus’ historical context, Christians should be careful about using his
example in specific cultural circumstances. We do not have to follow his
custom, for example, of going to synagogues.
[But as
Jesus
never told anyone to keep the Sabbath. Although we are told various things that
he did on the Sabbath, we are never told that he rested. According to the
Gospels, what he did and taught on the Sabbath was consistently liberal. Let us
examine the Gospels to see what the writers were inspired to preserve about
Jesus’ teachings regarding the Sabbath.
Matthew
12:1-12:
“Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry
and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw
this, they said to him, ‘Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the
Sabbath.’”
We
know that Jesus did not sin. He did not break the Sabbath, and presumably he
did not permit his disciples to break the Sabbath, either. We must conclude
that the Pharisees were wrong. However, Exodus 16:29 told people to stay in the
camp on the Sabbath and not to pick up food off the ground. Exodus 34:21 says
that the Sabbath applied to harvest season.
The
Pharisees could claim good scriptural support for prohibiting grain-picking on
the Sabbath. But their strictness was excessive — the old covenant rules were
not meant to be blanket prohibitions of all activity. But Jesus did not try to
argue that his disciples were abiding by the biblical law and violating only
the pharisaic tradition. Rather, Jesus went to the Bible to show that the
biblical law itself can sometimes be set aside.
The
Pharisees were not interpreting the Scriptures in the right way. Jesus pointed
out this out by mentioning the example of David: “Haven’t you read what David
did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he
and his companions ate the consecrated bread — which was not lawful for them to
do, but only for the priests” (verses 3-4).
The
law said that showbread was holy and was to be eaten, without exception, by
priests. And yet David did it and was presumed innocent. It was not lawful
according to the letter of the law,14 and yet it was permitted in
the purpose of God’s spiritual law. Jesus’ point here regarding the Sabbath is
that the letter of the law is not a reliable guide to holiness. People should
be judged on the heart, not on superficial actions.
Jesus
gave another example in verses 5-6: “Haven’t you read in the Law that on the
Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I
tell you that one greater than the temple is here.” Jesus says that the priests
“desecrate” the Sabbath day. They are, according to the letter of the Sabbath
law, doing something that is not lawful. But yet their work was permitted
because it was temple work. Something was more important than the Sabbath, and
that something was the temple. The temple and its sacrificial rites were more
important than the Sabbath and superseded it.
Jesus,
however, is more important than the temple and its sacrifices. The logical
conclusion is that he is also more important than the Sabbath. Even before his
death and resurrection, he was more important than the Sabbath.15
The
Pharisees, instead of worrying about a little activity on a holy day, ought to
have been concerned with how they were treating the Holy One of Israel, who was
standing before them. They should have worshipped him instead of looking to old
covenant holy places and instead of using old covenant holy times to judge the
Giver of those times. The Sabbath was holy only because God had designated it
so, and here was God himself. They should have accepted without question
whatever he did, and they should have followed his example!
Jesus
then summarized his argument about the Sabbath and about his own identity: “If
you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would
not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”
(verses 7-8).
Jesus
is telling the Pharisees that love for humans is more important than sticking
to worship rituals. Holy bread can be given to ordinary people when they are
hungry. Holy time can be used in an ordinary way when people are hungry. If the
Pharisees had understood the intent of the law, they would not have been
criticizing the disciples. They would have been merciful, not judgmental.
Jesus
ends the discussion with his claim to be Lord of the Sabbath — someone who had
more authority than the God-given Sabbath did. It is not just that Jesus
claimed to have a more accurate understanding of how the day should be kept —
he claimed to be more important than the day itself. It was a stupendous claim,
and it is no surprise that some Pharisees thought he blasphemed and deserved to
die (verse 14).
Jesus’
next activity gives a practical demonstration not only of his authority over
the Sabbath, but also the proper use for the Sabbath in the old covenant.
“Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a
shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him,
‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?’” (verses 9-10). The Pharisees seem to be
baiting Jesus, confronting him with a situation to test him. Healing was one of
the types of work they said was unlawful.
But
Jesus again pointed out the hypocrisy in their approach. They would rescue a
sheep on the Sabbath (verse 11) — thus even a sheep was more important than
resting on the Sabbath — and yet they were so strict that they didn’t allow
human needs, whether hunger or healing, to be taken care of on the Sabbath.
Their rules were a terrible distortion of what the Sabbath should have been.
“How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do
good on the Sabbath” (verse 12). This is what Jesus taught about the Sabbath.
Don’t worry about prohibiting work — be more concerned about doing good.
So
Jesus healed the man, and the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus. They thought the
holy day was more important than the One who had made it holy.
Mark
1:21-22
— “They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the
synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because
he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.” This
verse doesn’t tell us much about the Sabbath, merely that Jesus happened to
teach on this day. Presumably he taught on other days of the week, in other
locations, but this is the day on which he could teach in a synagogue.
The
passage says that Jesus taught with authority. He also cast out demons with
authority (verses 23-26), and the people were amazed at his authority (verse
27). Luke 4:31-37 is a parallel account.
Mark
2:23-3:6
is parallel to Matthew 12:1-12. Mark does not include the comments about sheep
and mercy, but he makes a similar point by saying, “The Sabbath was made for
man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Several unsubstantiated claims have
been made about verse 27. Let’s note what it says and what it does not say.
First,
it says that the Sabbath was made for humans. It was given to serve their needs
and to benefit them. Actually, all of God’s laws, even the laws of sacrifice,
were given for human good. All the old covenant laws were designed to lead
people to Christ. They were made to benefit humans. But their value has been
eclipsed in Christ. God has given us something better.
Jesus
did not say when the Sabbath came into existence. Nothing in the context
indicates that Jesus was alluding to creation week.16 We cannot
assume that something made for humans necessarily had to be made immediately
after humans were. For example, we could also say that the festivals were made
for human benefit, and the rite of circumcision was instituted for human
benefit. Christ was crucified for us. All these show that the word “for” is not
precise enough to conclude, from this verse, when the Sabbath originated.
Also,
Jesus did not say that the Sabbath was made for both gentiles and Jews — this
is not in the context. When Jesus used the word “man” in Mark 2:27, he was
using it in a general sense, without any reference to Jews specifically or to
gentiles specifically. Most first-century Jews did not believe that gentiles
had to keep the Sabbath,17 and Jesus was not addressing this
question. We should not ask questions that are beyond the context of the
passage.18
The
verse simply says that the Sabbath was made to benefit humans. We cannot assume
that it was made at creation, nor that it hasn’t been superseded by a better
blessing in the new covenant. Since the Sabbath was made for human benefit, the
Son of Man has authority over it (verse 28). He is more important than the
Sabbath. Our relationship with God is based on faith in him, not in old
covenant institutions.
In
the Sabbath healing that follows, Mark again is slightly different than
Matthew. Particularly striking is the emotion of Jesus: “He looked around at
them in anger...deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts” (Mark 3:5). Jesus
was angry at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who were so much more concerned
about the holiness of a day than about the well-being of humans. They were
really more concerned with self than with God, for they were failing to do what
God himself would do.
Luke
4:15-30 —
“He taught in their synagogues, and
everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on
the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up
to read.” Jesus taught in the synagogues on the Sabbaths. Considering the
historical context, there is nothing unusual about that.
What
is more significant is what Jesus taught: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to
proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to
release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (verses
18-19).
Jesus
used the Sabbath, in his preaching and in his miracles, to deliver poor people
from bondage. His ministry was like a jubilee year. He preached the good news
that the Lord’s favor was on the people. He gave physical sight to a few, but
spiritual sight to many. He did not release anyone from physical prisons, but
freed many from spiritual captivity (through casting out demons and through
forgiving sins). Although many people appreciated his ministry, many others did
not.
In
Nazareth, people were offended at who Jesus was. They recognized that he had
wisdom, and that he could do miracles, but they also thought of him as an
ordinary villager (Mark 6:2-3). How could a carpenter, the son of a carpenter,
have such authority?
They
could not believe that Jesus was more than an ordinary human, and Jesus said
that it was a typical situation: “No prophet is accepted in his hometown” (Luke
4:24). And after Jesus reminded the people that God often sent his prophets to
non-Israelites, the people were furious and tried to kill him (verses 25-29).
Although
these incidents occurred on a Sabbath, there is little here about the Sabbath
itself. There is more about who Jesus is and what he preached. He preached
liberty and salvation.
Jesus
simply means that he has authority over the day. This is demonstrated by the
healing that follows in all three Synoptic accounts. The miracle demonstrated
not only Jesus’ ministry of liberation, but also his authority over the
Sabbath, since he could perform such miracles on the Sabbath.
Luke
13:10-17 —
Unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke includes two more
stories of Sabbath healings, and these provide further information to us
regarding Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath. “On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching
in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a
spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at
all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, `Woman, you are
set free from your infirmity.’ Then he put his hands on her, and immediately
she straightened up and praised God” (verses 10-13).
By
using the words “set free” or “loose,” Jesus was emphasizing liberation rather
than healing. This also provided the context for the comparison Jesus soon
made.
The
synagogue ruler (most synagogues were run by Pharisees) complained, saying that
healing was a work that could be done on the other six days and was not
appropriate for the Sabbath (verse 14). “The Lord answered him, ‘You hypocrites!
Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and
lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of
Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the
Sabbath day from what bound her?’” (verses 15-16).
Since
humans are more valuable than animals, and animals can be loosed on the Sabbath
— an ordinary, daily, mundane task — then humans can be loosed on the Sabbath,
too. The pharisaic rules about the Sabbath were not designed to benefit humans.
Instead,
the rules served the self-righteous attitudes of the Pharisees. The Pharisees
would prefer to see the woman labor with her infirmity rather than see the
labor of healing. They were binding unnecessary obligations on the people, and
Jesus said that the people should be “set free” or “loosed” on the Sabbath day.
Luke’s readers may have extended this principle even further than would have
been possible in a Palestinian setting.
A
similar point is made in the next chapter. Luke 14:1-6 — “One Sabbath, when
Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully
watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the
Pharisees and experts in the law, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or
not?’” (verses 1-3). As in previous situations, the Pharisees had probably set
the situation up to test Jesus. Jesus knew their thoughts and handled the
situation so expertly that he left them speechless.
Jesus
healed the man, then asked, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a
well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?” (verse 5). Of
course, the Pharisees would rescue a child or beast on the Sabbath. Rescue was
permitted, so healing ought to be permitted, too.19
Consistently,
whether alleviating minor hunger or healing major pain, Jesus pointed out that
humanitarian needs took precedence over the Sabbath. The day was supposed to
benefit humans, not cause burdens for them.20
John
5:1-18
— The Gospel of John has some additional stories about Jesus’ Sabbath
activities, and they reinforce the emphases we have already seen. On the
Sabbath, Jesus healed a man who had been an invalid for 38 years. And he told
the man, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk” (verse 8). The Jews accused the
man of breaking the Sabbath because he was carrying his mat.
Why
did Jesus tell the man to carry his mat? There was no emergency, and the man
was certainly capable of coming back after the Sabbath to get his mat. Jesus
could have easily said, “You can carry your mat today if you want, but to avoid
offense, leave it here for now.” But Jesus was not that conservative. He wanted
to emphasize human freedom — not only the man’s freedom from his infirmity, but
also his freedom to do something on the Sabbath.
The
Jews criticized Jesus for what he was doing on the Sabbath, but Jesus provoked
them even further by boldly saying that he was indeed working on the Sabbath
and that he did so because he was like the Father! (verse 17). “For this reason
the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the
Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with
God” (verse 18). Jesus continued to equate himself with the Father (verses
19-27).
Jesus
did not try to defend his work, and the man’s work, as within the intent of the
law. Instead, he boldly described his activity on the Sabbath as “work.”
However, we know from Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus kept the Sabbath perfectly, even
within the parameters of old covenant law. Just as the priests could do God’s
work on the Sabbath, Jesus could, too.
However,
we today are not under the old covenant restrictions. Just what that means for
the Sabbath is not addressed in this passage. If we imitate our Savior, we
might conclude that we are allowed to work on the Sabbath. At least John does
nothing to prevent such a conclusion.
Jesus
alluded to this Sabbath healing, and the controversy it caused, in John
7:22-23. He pointed out the irony that the Jews did not allow healing on the Sabbath,
but they did allow circumcision. “If a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath
so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for
healing the whole man on the Sabbath?”
Work
could be done on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses would not be broken,
showing that the law of Moses commanding circumcision was considered more
important than the Sabbath restriction. The circumcision law was more important
than the strictness of the Sabbath law, just as the laws of temple ritual were.
The
Jews probably had no answer for Jesus. They could not refute what he said, and
that is one reason they tried to kill him. But the readers of John’s Gospel
would understand that circumcision, temple rituals and “the law of Moses” were
not required for gentile Christians. If important laws could be swept aside,
what does that imply for the lesser requirements of the Sabbath law?
In John
9,
Jesus made mud to heal a blind man (verses 1-7). “Now the day on which Jesus
had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath” (verse 14). All this
had a spiritual meaning, of course: Jesus is the light of the world, enabling
spiritually blind people to see the truth.
On
this Sabbath day, Jesus said, “As long as it is day, we must do the work of him
who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work” (verse 4). Work must be
done on the Sabbath, Jesus said.
The
Jews, of course, objected to Jesus’ work — and they objected to it being done
on the Sabbath. Making mud was against their law, and so was healing. They
judged Jesus according to their law, and they judged unrighteously. They
claimed to have the correct standard, but they were spiritually blind,
neglecting love, justice, mercy and faith (verse 41). They were looking at the
law instead of the Lawgiver as the standard of judgment.
Throughout
these Sabbath incidents, Jesus liberalized the standards. He repeatedly did
things that could have waited until sundown. He boldly claimed to have
authority to work on the Sabbath. That is one reason why many Christians
conclude that the Sabbath is no longer required. Other Christians, who are also
committed to God, conclude that they should keep the Sabbath, although not as
strictly as the Pharisees did. They are all welcome to their opinions provided
they do not judge others on this topic.
Every
Christian should be fully convinced, living every day to the Lord, seeking to
be led by the Holy Spirit. If people think that the day is required, then to
them it is required. If people think that they have freedom in this matter,
then Christ expects them to act responsibly with that freedom. Whatever is not
done in faith is sin.
Numerous
scriptures admonish us to follow the example of our Savior. In following his
example, however, we must distinguish between his activities that were based on
the historical situation he lived in (going to synagogues, for example), and
those activities that were based on timeless laws of interpersonal conduct and
worship in spirit and truth. We see some of these more important principles when
we notice the context in which the scriptures admonish us to do as he did:
We
are to serve one another, as he served his disciples (John 13:14-15). We are to
love as he loved us (John 13:34; 1 John 2:5-7; 2 John 5). We are to accept one
another, just as he accepted us (Romans 15:7). We are to be humble, as he was
(Philippians 2:5-7). We are to suffer without retaliation, as he did (1 Peter
2:19-23). We should make sacrifices for one another, just as he did for us (1
John 3:16).
Jesus
risked his life
by what he did on the Sabbath. Didn’t he do this for the purpose of showing his
disciples how to keep the Sabbath properly?
Jesus
criticized the Pharisees’ approach to various laws and rituals, including
ritual handwashing (Matthew 15:2), phylacteries (Matthew 23:5) and Corban rules
(Mark 7:11-13). In all these things, he antagonized the Pharisees and risked
his life.
But
these criticisms were not attempts to tell his disciples how to continue these
customs in a better way. In fact, Jesus’ criticisms helped the early church
realize that these customs were obsolete. Therefore, we cannot assume, when the
Gospels record Jesus criticizing the way something was done, that he wanted the
practice continued by the church in a better way.
Jesus
sometimes criticized the way the Pharisees approached customs that were good,
including almsgiving, prayer and fasting (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16). On these topics,
Jesus clearly taught his disciples to continue the practice (verses 3, 6, 17).
But
Jesus never taught his disciples to keep the Sabbath. We are told about work
that Jesus did on the Sabbath, but we are never told that he rested on the
Sabbath. He repeatedly noted that restrictive rules were violations of the
intent of the Sabbath — he taught that a focus on external details was
ineffective and incorrect. Those restrictions did not transform the heart.
Jesus
never broke the Sabbath, nor did he teach others to break the Sabbath. But
neither did he teach against circumcision and sacrifices. He could not while
the old covenant was still in force. He could point out administrative
problems, and present himself as the Lord, but it was not yet time to publicly
reject any particular law (see John 16:12-13).
But
the implications are there. When John describes Jesus as working on the
Sabbath, he does not feel compelled to explain that Christians cannot. When
Luke says that people are freed on the Sabbath, he does not feel compelled to
qualify what he said. Jesus’ example regarding the Sabbath is liberty, not
rules.
<small>Part 4: Paul and the Sabbath
Paul’s custom was to keep the Sabbath (Acts 13:14; 16:13; 17:2). Shouldn’t we
should follow his example in this (1 Corinthians 11:1)?
Paul,
like Jesus, customarily went to the synagogue. But why should we insist on
imitating one phrase of the sentence and ignore another part? Why should we
cite the example of “Sabbath” but not of “synagogue”? The fact that this was a
synagogue should alert us to the historical situation and should caution us
regarding specific customs. Paul went to the synagogue on the Sabbath because
that is when and where people were assembled to hear discussions of Scripture.
That is when and where he had an audience. He went to Jews first, and then to
gentiles, and the best way to preach to Jews would be to go to the synagogues
on the day Jews were there.21
Paul
sometimes kept other Jewish customs, too, such as circumcision, making vows and
participating in temple rituals. His example isn’t automatically authoritative.
If we imitate all the ways in which he lived like Jesus, we would have to be
celibate traveling preachers. We need to discern which details of their lives
were based on the culture they lived in, and which were based on Christianity,
and which were involved in both.
Paul
considered himself under the law of Christ, not under the law of the old
covenant (1 Corinthians 9:19-21). He was free to observe old covenant customs
when with Jews, and he was free to ignore them in other situations. Peter was
free to “live like a Gentile,” and Paul was, too (Galatians 2:14). Today, we
are to obey the commands of Jesus (Matthew 28:20), and Jesus never commanded
anyone to rest on the Sabbath.
In
Pisidian Antioch, Paul gave a controversial message in the synagogue: “Through
Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who
believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the
law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39).
The
Jews and proselytes asked Paul to speak to them the next Sabbath (verse 42),
and that is what Paul did. Paul did not try to change their Sabbath-keeping
custom. Large portions of the audience would have had to work the next six days
and would not have been able to assemble on Sunday. Also, it would be good for
them to think about and discuss Paul’s message for a week. Because Paul waited
a week, the entire city was able to hear about the controversy and therefore
came to hear him speak (verse 44).
In
the gentile cities of Lystra and Derbe, nothing is said about the Sabbath. Even
in Athens, where some Jews lived, nothing is said about the Sabbath. Instead,
Paul reasoned “in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be
there” (Acts 17:17). Daily preaching is a valid custom, too, if we wish to
follow the example set by Paul and Jesus.
Moses
was preached in the synagogues every Sabbath, James noted (Acts 15:21). But
James was not encouraging gentiles to attend synagogues! The converts needed to
hear about Christ, not about Moses. The Jerusalem conference rejected the view
of those who thought the gentiles had to keep the entire “law of Moses” (verse
5).
“We
should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (verse
19). Instead of requiring gentile Christians to keep the law of Moses, the
conference told them to abstain from blood, strangled things, idolatry and
fornication (verse 20). The council gave a lenient decree because stringent
requirements were being preached in the synagogues (verse 21). The Sabbath was
part of the law of Moses, just as much as circumcision was, but nothing was
said to make the Sabbath an exception, either by the council or by Luke, who
wrote many years later for gentile readers.
In
Corinth, Paul again started in the synagogue, and there he argued every Sabbath
(Acts 18:4). But soon Paul left the synagogue and began teaching next door
(verse 7). After this, nothing is said about the Sabbath, and Paul could have
taught every day of the week. Even as he made tents, he could discuss the
Scriptures with any who had time to listen.
In
Ephesus, Paul preached every day of the week for two years (Acts 19:9). This is
a valid custom, too.
On
his way back to Jerusalem, Paul stopped seven days in Troas (Acts 20:6). But we
do not hear anything about the Sabbath. What we hear is that the church (“we”)
waited until the first day of the week to come together and break bread, and
Paul preached after the Sabbath was over (verse 7). Why wait till then?
Apparently the first day of the week was the time that the believers could get
together. Although Paul was in a hurry (verse 16), he had to wait until the
first day of the week. This is a significant example, too.
In
short, we are never told that Paul rested on the Sabbath, or that he taught
anyone to rest on the Sabbath. What we are told is that he used the day as an
evangelistic opportunity, and that he could use any day of the week to preach
about the Savior. His example shows liberty, and nothing about
requirements.
Paul taught regularly on the Sabbath (Acts 18:1-11). Was he teaching the
gentiles to keep the Sabbath?
This
passage says only that he taught in the synagogues for a few Sabbaths — after
that, it does not say when he taught. Although it may have been on the Sabbath,
it may have been on other days, too, as it was in Athens and Ephesus. And the
passage says nothing about avoiding work on a particular day of the week.
The
book of Acts tells us what Paul did on a few Sabbaths and a few other days. If
we want to know what Paul himself taught about the Sabbath, we must turn to the
only place the word “Sabbath” is used in his epistles: Colossians 2:16-17: “Therefore do not let anyone
judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a
New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that
were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” [Comment: Paul taught
in almost all the synagogues of Asia Minor, if you read Acts carefully
(especially chapters 13-19). He’d go to
one, win multiple converts from both the Jews and God-fearers (Gentile
observing Jewish customs, Sabbaths and Holy Days, worshipping the “One True
God). Paul’s mission was really to the
Jews first, in every city that had a synagogue.
He’d get kicked out of one, go to another. In Acts 24 the Jewish leaders were so upset
at what Paul had done repeatedly throughout their synagogues in the Diaspora
that they hired a Jewish lawyer to try to have Paul condemned before Felix the
Roman governor. It states in Act 24:5,
“For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition among all
the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the
Nazarenes…” In actuality, Paul had split
most of their synagogues in half, drawing away many Jews and most of the
God-fearers to follow Jesus Christ. The
early Christian church that was created by God’s blessing on Paul’s evangelism
was primarily a Judeo-Christian church in Asia Minor until close to 300AD. These Judeo-Christian churches in Asia Minor
kept the Sabbath and Holy Days out of custom and for what they stood for, fully
understanding the freedoms they had in the New Covenant. See http://www.unityinchrist.com/history2/index3.htm pfb]
Paul
begins his analysis of the Sabbath with a “therefore.” That word should alert
us to back up and examine the context. It is because Christ has triumphed in
the cross (verse 15) that Christians should not let people judge them regarding
the Sabbath. Christ’s death on the cross had changed something about the
Sabbath. In Colosse, the Sabbath had no connection with temple rituals. The
only way it could be observed is by abstaining from work and assembling for
worship. But Christ’s death had changed something about the Christians’
approach to the Sabbath. Christians were not to be judged by anyone regarding
the Sabbath.
The
Sabbath, festivals, new moons and the entire Jewish calendar were a “shadow” of
things to come. They were foreshadows — predictive shadows symbolizing things
to come. Grammatically, it is ambiguous as to whether those things have already
taken place, or whether some are future. For Christian practice, it does not
matter, since Paul’s conclusion is that we should not let others judge us with
regard to the Sabbath.
Whether
we keep it or whether we do not, we should not let others judge us over this
issue. Whether we keep the Sabbath or not, we should not let others make us
feel guilty regarding the Sabbath. We should not let others make us think that
we will lose our salvation if we don’t comply with their ideas. The Sabbath is
neither forbidden nor required. That is why the Worldwide Church of God
welcomes Sabbath-keepers as well as non-Sabbath-keepers. [Not in reality. Theoretically, yes, in practice no, WCG
forced almost all their congregations to switch to Sunday/Christmas/Easter.
pfb]
The
contrast between “shadow” and “reality” is found also in Hebrews 10:1 — the
sacrificial laws were a shadow of the good things that were coming (same Greek
word and tense as in Colossians 2:17), not the reality. Just as the sacrifices
were shadows that pointed to Christ and were superseded by him, the old
covenant worship days were also shadows that pointed to Christ.22
Now
that he has come, the days are no longer standards by which we are judged. The
proper standard is Jesus Christ. At the last judgment, the definitive question
will not be about days, but about faith in Jesus Christ. His coming has made an
enormous difference in the way God’s people should worship in spirit and in
truth.
Paul
did not teach gentile Christians to keep the Sabbath. He actually told them
that the Sabbath was not an area in which we should be judged. As he told the
Roman church, which contained both Jews and gentiles, “One man considers one
day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one
should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5).23
Paul
did not think it necessary to tell these people that one particular day is
sacred or superior. He left it to individual conviction. How could Paul take
such an indifferent attitude to the concept of special days? Apparently
something significant had happened — the most significant event in history: the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Because of that event, days are no longer a matter
for judging behavior.
Paul’s
main point is that one Christian should not judge another regarding any
supposedly better days: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his
own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make
him stand” (verse 4). “Each of us will give an account of himself to God,” Paul
writes in verse 12.
But
does this mean that we should live in fear of the last judgment, keeping the
Sabbath “just in case,” observing new moons “just in case,” and other
restrictions “just in case”? Certainly, if a person does these things
reverently, “to the Lord,” they may be acceptable, helpful habits. But they
cannot be made requirements on other Christians. Paul’s conclusion is clear:
“Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your
mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way” (verse
13). For every obstacle we put in front of people, we will be judged. When
teaching requirements, we must be cautious.
It
is good to be obedient, but we must not think that our obedience earns anything
toward salvation. Paul warned the Galatian Christians strongly that faith in
Christ was sufficient for salvation. Faith leads us to walk by the Spirit, and
that means a life-style of love, joy and peace, etc. Faith does not mean a
superstitious observance of circumcision or old covenant laws “just in case”
they are also necessary.
We
are called to faith — confident that the sacrifice of Christ cleanses us from
all sin — not to fearful bondage to religious traditions and human rules. Such
rules may appear to be religious and they may have the form of godliness, but
they do not have the power to transform the heart, which is the focus of
Christianity. In fact, rules can become more important to some people than
having love for neighbor. The rules can deceive people into thinking that they
are right with God merely by keeping the rules. At least that’s what they did
with some Pharisees.
The
Galatians had been gentiles in pagan religions before they were saved by faith
in Christ. But Judaizing heretics were apparently teaching them that, although
they had started with Christ, they needed to complete their salvation with
circumcision and a commitment to the old covenant (Galatians 5:3). Such a
teaching must be cursed and condemned! It makes Christ of no value (verse 2).
The
old covenant law was slavery, Paul said (Galatians 4:24-25; 5:1; note also the
“we” in 4:3), just as paganism was (Galatians 4:8). The Galatian Christians had
gone from one childish slavery (paganism, with its many external rules) to
another (the old covenant, with its external rules)!
When
the Judaizers taught “days and months and seasons and years” (verse 10), it is
likely that they taught the Jewish calendar with its days, lunar months,
festival seasons and sabbatical years. Such external requirements were “weak
and miserable principles”24 (verse 9), since they can never earn us
salvation, nor are they required after we are given salvation. Christians may
keep such days if they want (as many Jewish Christians did), but they should
not teach that such days are required under the new covenant. [Comment: Most of the early Church was Jewish
Christian until around 250AD, when Jewish-Christian evangelism caused the
Gentile population in Asia Minor to virtually explode. See http://www.unityinchrist.com/LegacyOfLove.htm
to see how this was accomplished. Also
within the past 38 years, since 1970, the an amazing revival has taken
place. God through the Holy Spirit has
revived the long dead Jewish branch of the body of Christ, Messianic Jewish
believers now being an estimated 500,000 strong around the world. They all keep the Sabbath and Holy Days,
believing the prophetic meaning for those days, and they believe pretty much
what we were taught by Mr. Armstrong about the prophetic meaning of Holy
Days. Let’s be honest folks, Sabbath and
Holy Days for what they represent, have far more meaning for some who prefer
them—Jews and Sabbatarians alike. They
don’t make us holier, just help us understand God’s plan of salvation for man a
little bit better. This article is very
valid, and has a strong warning for those who think Sabbath and Holy Day
observance make us holier merely by their observance. Use this article as a strong caution against
that type of thinking and attitude. pfb]
How
could Paul be so indifferent to something that had been a commandment? Because
something more significant than the old covenant has come — something more
important than manna has given us life. The old covenant worship days were
shadows or silhouettes, just as the sacrifices were, and now the Reality has
come (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10:1-2). The law — the entire old covenant —
was in force until Christ came (Galatians 3:25; Hebrews 9:10).
The
old covenant was an administration appropriate to a carnal nation. The new
covenant is administered in a different way. God’s law is the same, but it is
administered in different ways at different times for different peoples and
different purposes.
We
must recognize the continuing validity of God’s law — but we must recognize
that the New Testament gives us a more complete picture than the Old Testament
does. We must interpret old laws from the perspective of the new situation
Jesus Christ brought. The spiritual purpose of the Sabbath is still valid, but
the spiritual purpose is not in the avoidance of work on a specific day. The
spiritual purpose is to point us to Christ. Now that we have come to Christ,
the pointer is of such diminished importance that (whether we understand its
function or not) Paul can say that it is not a matter on which Christians
should be judged.
The
Sabbath pointed an unconverted nation to its Creator. It gave them frequent
reminders of him, just as the temple and its sacrifices did. But now that the
Creator is living in us, we do not need pointers in the same way. Just as we
abide by the spiritual purpose of circumcision through repentance and
forgiveness — completely ignoring the physical details the old rite demanded —
we abide by the spiritual purpose of the Sabbath when we have faith in Christ.
We
can see that a little more clearly in Hebrews 4, which we will analyze below,
but the conclusion is made necessary simply by Paul’s indifferent attitude
toward old covenant days. Something so significant has happened that the weekly
Sabbath is no longer a matter on which God’s people are to be judged.
However,
the practical aspects of the Sabbath are still practical. We still need time to
worship, and we need time devoted to God. If we work seven days a week, we will
most likely drift away from God and starve ourselves spiritually.
We
must not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, not only for our own
benefit but also for the benefit of the entire community of faith. “Let us
consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not
give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us
encourage one another — and all the more as you see the Day approaching”
(Hebrews 10:24-25). We should come to church services prepared to encourage
others, to give words of praise and thanks to the Lord.
Christians
should not use liberty for self-destruction. They should not take their liberty
to excess. Most of us recognize that there is great value in setting aside a
day for worship, a day in which we do not allow secular duties to intrude, a
day for building family cohesion and building the community of faith.
We
need to set boundaries for ourselves. This is good for our spiritual growth,
and we should not recklessly abandon such valuable customs. But we realize that
the New Testament does not specify when this ought to be done, nor exactly how
much time it must involve. Therefore, we cannot demand that others must do
precisely as we do, and thereby judge them regarding the Sabbath. Christ gives
liberty not for selfish pleasures, but for service to others (Galatians 5:13).
We must be grateful for our freedom and use it to build others up, not to put
stumbling blocks in their way. We must not allow our freedom to become
offensive to others.
In
summary, all the Sabbatarian arguments are faulty. We cannot prove that the
Sabbath existed or was commanded before Moses. We cannot prove that it is valid
simply because it is part of the Ten Commandments. We cannot prove that it is
important for Christians simply because it was important for ancient Israel. We
cannot prove that Jesus commanded it or that Paul commanded it. Instead, we see
that Jesus consistently argued for more liberty, and Paul said that we should
not judge others regarding worship days.
Of
course, there is no New Testament verse that says the Sabbath is now obsolete.
Instead, there are verses that say the entire old covenant law is obsolete. The
law of Moses is not required. The Sabbath is repeatedly likened to things now
obsolete: temple sacrifices, circumcision, showbread, a shadow. It is not a
basis for judging one another, and it must not be taught as a necessary
addition to Christ. Therefore, many Christians conclude that the Sabbath is not
required.
If
the Sabbath were a requirement, it would be astonishing that the New Testament
never mentions such an important command. It has space for all sorts of other
commands, including holy kisses, but no occasion to command the Sabbath.
Sweeping statements are made regarding the old covenant law, but never does
anyone say, “except the Sabbath.” If the Sabbath is essential, it is
astonishing that no one is ever criticized for ignoring it.
Paul
dealt with numerous problems of Christian living, and he lists numerous sins
that can keep people out of the kingdom of God, but he never mentions the
Sabbath. In describing sins of the gentiles (Romans 1), he says nothing about
the Sabbath. He says plenty about faith and love, magnifying the real purpose
of God’s law, but the Sabbath is simply not commanded. Nor is it credible to
claim that the entire New Testament was purposely written in such a way that
only the “wise” would understand the most important command.
Instead,
the Sabbath is an indifferent matter. People are free to rest on that day if
they do it to the Lord. People are free to use the day in other ways, too, if
they are living to the Lord. They may even work on the day if they have faith
that Christ has indeed given them that freedom. Let everyone be fully
convinced, for whatever is not of faith is sin. Nor does the New Testament tell
us that any other day of the week ought to be a day of rest. Believers are free
to meet on the seventh day of the week, or on any other day. Paul preached on
every day of the week.
Does
Hebrews 4:9 command Christians to keep the Sabbath?
The epistle to the Hebrews may have been
written to Jewish believers who were still participating in the customs of
Judaism. The epistle explains that the old covenant is obsolete and its
regulations have been set aside. When the word sabbatismos is used in 4:9, it is not trying to affirm an old
covenant law.
Throughout the epistle, the Hebrew believers
are admonished that Jesus is much, much better than anything the old covenant
had. Jesus Christ is the main focus of the epistle. Tithing is mentioned, for
example, only because it shows the superiority of Christ over the Levitical
priests. Sabbatismos is also
mentioned, not as a point in itself, but because it illustrates something about
the superiority of faith in Christ.
Jesus is better than angels, better than
Moses, better than Aaron, better than all the rituals. He has superseded them
all, fulfilling the spiritual truths that they pictured, rendering their
physical performance unnecessary. Hebrews 4:9 does not command the continuation
of an old covenant practice.
Let us begin our analysis in Hebrews 3: “Fix
your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we
confess.... Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses”
(verses 1, 3). The epistle then quotes from Psalm 95, reminding the Hebrews
that their ancestors had hardened their hearts and been faithless and
disobedient under Moses’ leadership.
Don’t harden your hearts, the epistle
exhorts, echoing the point that had been made in Hebrews 2:1-3. The Hebrew
Christians were apparently being tempted to go back into Judaism, and the
epistle exhorts them to be faithful to the superiority of Jesus Christ. Listen
to what Jesus says (1:2; 2:1). Look to him, not to Moses, as our authority in
faith and practice. Look to him as our High Priest in heaven, not to the
Levitical priests in the temple, which are only shadows and copies of spiritual
truth (8:1-5; 10:1).
Do not turn away from the living God, the
epistle exhorts (3:12). Hold your faith in Christ firmly to the end (3:14). Do
not harden your hearts (3:15). We cannot please God if we do not have faith
(3:19; 11:6).
The epistle draws an analogy between the
Israelites entering the promised land and Christians entering the better
promise of the new covenant. This analogy is again designed to show the
superiority of Christ. When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they sent
spies into Canaan to see the land that the Lord would be giving them. However,
most of the Israelite spies were afraid of the Canaanites, and most of the
Israelites believed the spies instead of God. God therefore declared that they,
since they lacked faith and would not obey his order to invade Canaan, would
not enter the promised land: “They shall never enter my rest” (Numbers
14:26-29; Psalm 95:11; Hebrews 3:11). In this psalm, “rest” was a metaphor for
the old covenant promise, the land of Canaan.
The next generation of Israelites entered
the promised land under Joshua’s leadership. Nevertheless, even after they
entered the promised land, God continued to warn them, in the psalm, not to
harden their hearts lest they fail to enter God’s rest. So the psalm was
pointing toward a future rest (4:8). The promised land had been a physical type
or foreshadow of a spiritual rest that the Israelites had not yet entered.
The epistle to the Hebrews picks up the
message and continues it: Do not harden your hearts, and do not reject the
teaching of Jesus. Do not become unbelieving and disobedient, but continue
trusting in Jesus and obey him.
Christians have been given the new covenant,
with its better, spiritual promises. They participate in this new covenant
through faith in Jesus Christ. They enter God’s rest, his promise, by their
faith in Jesus Christ. “Now we who have believed enter that rest” (Hebrews 4:3)
— and that is the “rest” that the psalmist was talking about (verse 3b). Now,
because we have entered God’s rest, we must be “careful that none of you be found
to have fallen short of it” (verse 1).
The spiritual rest that the psalmist had
spoken of, the rest that God wants us to enter, has arrived in Jesus Christ.
And the way people might fall short is by abandoning their faith in Jesus
Christ. We must be careful that we do not lose faith and lose the rest that we
have already entered.
In Christ, we have rest. He has freed us
from the old covenant, which was a yoke too difficult to bear (Acts 15:10), and
has given us a new covenant, which is a yoke that is so much easier to bear
that it is called a “rest” (Matthew 11:28-30). When we are in Christ, we are in
spiritual rest. We have begun to experience the better promises of God.
God exhorts people to enter his rest — and
the place that Scripture talks about God resting is on the seventh day of
creation (Hebrews 4:4). We are invited to enter God’s end-of-creation rest by
believing in the Son of God. By faith, we have joined with God in his rest. By
faith, we have become new creations, created anew. We have been brought into
the kingdom of God.
Our re-creation is not yet complete, but we
have entered his rest. We have been reconciled and have fellowship with God
through our High Priest, just as Adam and Eve had fellowship with God before
they sinned. By faith in Christ, we enter God’s rest, as predicted by the
psalmist.
We have entered into God’s katapausin rest, the same type of rest
that he had on the very first seventh day.25 “Anyone who enters
God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his” (4:10). This
is far more significant than resting one day a week, because the epistle has
already noted that God’s “work has been finished since the creation of the
world” (4:3). God’s rest is an enduring rest, and the believer’s rest is, too.
As long as we have faith in Christ, no
matter what day of the week it is, we have entered God’s rest and we are
resting from our own work. Our own work cannot save us, but we are saved by
grace through faith in Christ. We enter God’s rest permanently through faith in
Christ. [ie, we have entered the reality
of the Sabbath rest of God and dwell in it 24/7. The physical Sabbath was merely a shadow
picture of this rest we now have by having Jesus and the Father in us by his
indwelling Holy Spirit. pfb]
“There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God”
(4:9). The writer is using a different word, but he is not referring to a
different rest. Both words are used as metaphors for salvation. As can be seen
by the word “then” or “therefore,” it is the same rest that is mentioned in
verse 8 — the “rest” of salvation.26
The writer of Hebrews is using the words for
rest as synonyms, one alluding to the creation rest and the other alluding to
its weekly commemoration, but both referring to the same rest that Christians
are to try to enter. It is the salvation rest that remains for Christians to
enter and to be careful not to fall short of through unbelief. We are exhorted
to enter this rest through faith (verses 11, 3).
Let us paraphrase the passage: God promised
a rest, but the first Israelites did not enter it because of unbelief and
disobedience. Joshua brought them into the land, but the Israelites were still
being exhorted to enter the promised rest. It was still future. Therefore,
since there is still a promise of rest, we must be careful that we do not fall
short of it. We who have faith in Christ enter the promised rest, which is
called God’s rest.
God rested at the end of creation, so this
is the divine rest, the supernatural rest, the spiritual promise that believers
enter. Although some people fell short of the promise, it still remains that
some will enter it. That’s why the psalmist was still exhorting people to hear
God’s voice and obey him.
If Joshua had fulfilled the promise, God
would not have inspired the psalmist to continue exhorting people about the
promised rest. Joshua’s entry into the promised land was an antetype of a
spiritual entry into a spiritual promise, a spiritual rest. The psalmist was
speaking about another day, a day in which people could enter the promise.
Therefore, there continues to be a spiritual rest for the people of God,
because anyone who enters God’s spiritual rest is able to cease from work, just
as God ceased from his creative works. Therefore, we should strive to enter
this spiritual promise, and not fall away through disobedience.
Why does the writer use the word sabbatismos? It clearly refers to the
weekly Sabbath, but it is being used figuratively. The author is telling us that this spiritual rest is what the weekly
Sabbath had pictured all along. [emphasis mine, pfb] The Sabbath was not only a reminder of the
end-of-creation rest and the Exodus, it also looked forward, prefiguring
something, as a predictive shadow of a coming reality, our spiritual rest. We
enter God’s rest by faith in Christ (verse 3), and by doing so, we enter the
rest that God entered when he completed his creation (verse 3b-4).
Our
salvation rest is a Sabbath-rest, a fulfillment of the spiritual meaning of the
Sabbath. [emphasis
mine, pfb] If the author wanted to
talk about the Sabbath day, he could have used the word for Sabbath. If he
wanted to talk about keeping a law, he could have said that, too. But he did
not use those words because he is not talking about the Sabbath day itself.
He is not saying whether it is necessary or
unnecessary — he is not dealing with that issue. Rather, he is saying that the
spiritual promise is a Sabbath-rest. Salvation is pictured by the Sabbath.
Whether the Sabbath should continue to be kept as a weekly picture is not being
discussed. The author is referring to salvation, the spiritual promised rest.
He speaks of only one predicted Sabbath-rest, not a weekly picture of it. He is
speaking figuratively of the kingdom of God. We enter our spiritual rest by
faith in Christ.
The writer is describing an analogy, and we
today often find analogies unconvincing. Even if there are parallels, we might
say, that doesn’t prove anything, and doesn’t prove that the Sabbath is no
longer required in its old covenant details. That’s true. Hebrews tells us what
the Sabbath pictures, but it does not address Christian behavior regarding the
Sabbath. For that, we must turn elsewhere, such as the statements of Paul we
have already examined.
In summary, Hebrews 4 is not exhorting us to
keep a weekly Sabbath, but to enter the rest of God by having faith in Christ.
We come to Christ, and he gives us rest.
We
should pray that we don’t have to flee on a Sabbath (Matthew
24:20). Does this show that Jesus’ disciples would be keeping the Sabbath?
This warning was given “to those who are in
Judea” (verse 16). It is preserved only in Matthew’s Gospel, probably written
to Jewish Christians. Jesus’ warning tells us more about practices in Judea
than it does about Christianity.
It is permissible to flee for one’s life on
the Sabbath. The reason it might be difficult to flee on the Sabbath, however,
is that non-Christians in Judea are keeping the Sabbath, not that the fleeing
Christians are. Perhaps the fleeing people keep the Sabbath or perhaps they do
not, but either way it might be difficult to flee when the people of Judea have
closed their shops, closed the city gates, etc. This verse does not prove that
the disciples would be keeping the Sabbath — only that it might be difficult to
flee on a Sabbath.
The
resurrection stories show that the Sabbath still existed after Jesus’
crucifixion. The women “rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment”
(Luke 23:56). Does this show that the Sabbath is still
commanded for Christians?
The Sabbath still exists. Hanukkah does,
too, but its existence does not prove that it has to be observed. When the
Gospels tell us that the resurrection was discovered “after the Sabbath, on the
first day of the week,” they are not telling us to keep the Sabbath any more
than they are telling us to keep the first day of the week. They are simply
telling us when this event occurred, using the term that was widely known at
the time.
The women rested on the Sabbath, but their
example does not tell us whether that commandment is still in effect. Today,
many Sabbatarians would consider it permissible to prepare a body for burial,
especially if the person had been dead for more than a day and there is no
refrigeration. Luke’s readers, whether they kept the Sabbath or not, might have
wondered why the women rested even though they were faced with this particular
need. Luke was inspired to tell his readers that the women rested because of
the commandment.
Luke used the word “commandment,” but that
does not prove that the commandment was required for Luke’s readers. Paul used
the word “commandments” to describe the rules that divided Jews from gentiles
(Ephesians 2:15), but the word does not imply that those commandments still had
validity for his readers.
Luke is simply using commonly understood
terms to explain why the women rested. He is not giving a command for his
readers to follow that example.
In
a similar way, the phrase “a Sabbath day’s walk” (Acts 1:12) does not imply
anything regarding the distance we may travel today on the Sabbath. The phrase
was simply a measurement of distance, just as “Sabbath” was the name of one day
of the week. The name does not imply continuing obligation for Christians.
The
Sabbath is a reminder of creation and it
points to salvation. God is re-creating us. However, our creation is not yet
complete. Should we therefore continue to keep the weekly Sabbath as a
celebration of salvation in Christ?
[Good idea. Why not?]
The Sabbath was indeed a memorial of
creation. And it foreshadowed and pointed to our salvation in Christ. And our
salvation is not yet complete. Nevertheless, Paul says that we are new
creations. John says that we have already been given eternal life, and that
eternal life is in Jesus Christ. We have been given the promised Holy Spirit,
guaranteeing the future promises. We do not yet have the fullness of salvation,
but we have enough. Paul can say that we should not let anyone judge us
regarding the Sabbath. The reality is Christ, and we have the reality, even if
it’s not yet in its fullness.
The sacrifices pictured our cleansing from
sin, and yet we see that we are not yet sinless. But that doesn’t mean that we
still need sacrifices. Although the last judgment has not yet been done, the
verdict has been declared for all who have faith. Circumcision pictured a
cleansed heart, and we are not yet perfect in our hearts, but the physical
symbol is not required. Likewise, although our re-creation is not yet complete,
even the beginning is sufficient to make old covenant practices unnecessary and
not a basis for judging others. Of course, we still have a practical need for
physical rest and worship times, but we cannot use the old covenant to demand
that everyone rest and worship at the same time that we do.
The Sabbath pointed to our renewal in
Christ, and in that spiritual meaning, the Sabbath is still required — just as
the spiritual meaning of circumcision is required, and the spiritual meaning of
the sacrifices is still valid. But the physical details of such laws are in a
different category.
That is why Paul could treat the question of
special days in such a take-it-or-leave-it way (Romans 14:5). If the people had
faith in Christ, if their entire lives were devoted to the Lord, then they were
already abiding by the purpose of sacred days. They were already experiencing
the holiness, righteousness, peace and joy that come with the kingdom of God,
in which God had placed them based on their faith in Christ. God’s own presence
is in the saints on a full-time basis.
The
Sabbath points to the re-creative, redemptive work of Christ, which is the most
important event of all history. Shouldn’t we commemorate this weekly?
The Bible tells us to commemorate Christ’s
redemption by means of bread and wine, not by a day of rest. Jesus make it
clear, in his controversies with the Pharisees, that it is wrong to add
requirements to God’s law and make things more difficult. We cannot teach as
requirement something that the Bible does not. It is good to commemorate
Christ’s salvation in weekly worship services, but we cannot insist that
everybody worship on the same day and time we do.
The early church kept the Sabbath.
Wasn’t it the influence of paganism that motivated some people to abandon it?
The earliest church was entirely Jewish, and
it continued the practice of circumcision and other old covenant customs, too.
It was only through time, discussion and the intervention of the Holy Spirit
that the church came to understand that Jewish customs should not be imposed on
others. Although gentiles were being grafted into Israel, figuratively
speaking, making them spiritual Israelites, they did not have to live like Jews
(Galatians 2:14). They did not have to obey all the rules that separated Jews
from gentiles.
However, it was not paganism that prompted
Paul to say that he was not under the old covenant law (1 Corinthians 9:19-21),
or that Christians did not have to keep “the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5, 28). And
it was not paganism that motivated Paul to say that days were not something to
judge each other about (Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16).
Many early Christian martyrs met for worship
on Sunday. That doesn’t prove that this was the only acceptable day of worship,
but their willingness to die for the faith is evidence that they were not compromisers.
They were not likely to give up essentials merely for convenience or to make
Christianity more attractive to pagans. In their lives and in their deaths, the
central issue was allegiance to Christ, not whether they abstained from work on
any particular day.
Although some early Christians kept the
Sabbath, many others did not, and allegations of paganism are designed more to
frighten people than to examine history objectively. Our doctrine must be based
on Scripture, not on ancient or modern history.
Many Christians have lost
their jobs because they kept the Sabbath, and God miraculously provided better
jobs. Doesn’t his blessing show the correctness of their behavior and God’s
approval of Sabbath-keeping?
God looks on the heart, on the attitude, and
he blesses his people even if their behavior is based on a misunderstanding. He
honors sincerity. If we do something with the conviction that God wants us to
do it, he is pleased with our willingness, and he often rewards such
sacrifices, but his rewards do not necessarily endorse our particular
understanding. [This is so true. We’re blessed according to our faith in
following what we perceive to be God’s will.
It is the faith God’s after, that pleases him. pfb]
Many
spiritual leaders kept the Sabbath, and we respect them. Wasn’t God inspiring
them, and shouldn’t we follow their example?
Many godly men and women have kept the
Sabbath and inspired others to follow their example — people like Stephen
Mumford, Ellen White and Herbert Armstrong. But other faithful Christians, such
as Peter Waldo [sorry, Peter Waldo was a Sabbath keeper], John Calvin and
William Miller, observed Sunday, and many Christians followed the example they
set. Such examples can be emotionally powerful to those who knew the people
personally or knew them through their writings, but the examples do not carry
as much weight with the general public.
When we preach to the public, we cannot ask
them to follow a human — we must point them directly to Christ. The example of
highly respected leaders, like any tradition, must be evaluated according to
the biblical testimony. It is Christ we must preach, as he is revealed in the
Old and New Testaments.
The Sabbath gives us rest
from our physical labors, giving us more time for worship, fellowship and good
works. It is a spiritually valuable time. Wouldn’t it be wrong to neglect it?
The old covenant specified exactly when and
how much time should be separated for the Lord. It specified when and how and
where to make sacrifices. These physical requirements helped keep the people
aware of God, reminding them of their need for reconciliation and fellowship
with him.
In the new covenant, however, we have been
given the fellowship with God that the old covenant customs pictured. The Holy
Spirit lives within us, helping us be aware of our relationship with God. The
Holy Spirit transforms our hearts, leading us to love the Lord and to desire to
spend time with him. It is good for us to spend time with the Lord and with his
people. Those who neglect worship time stunt their spiritual growth. [This is the heart of the whole matter. pfb]
However, we have no biblical authority to
mandate that everybody set aside the same time that we do. We encourage people
to set aside time for prayer, Bible study, fellowship and good works, but we
should not judge anyone regarding the days they keep. It is physically helpful
to rest from our labors. It is spiritually helpful to devote time each week to
the Lord, and we encourage people to do this, but we do not condemn those who
do not set aside a 24-hour block of time. Rather than relying on an external
discipline of rules, each Christian needs self-discipline to devote time to the
Lord for spiritual growth.
Devoting time to the Lord includes prayer,
study and worship services, of course. It can also include volunteer work in
humanitarian service, such as by helping out at a hospital. Since service is
one way to express true Christianity, service projects can rightly express the
spiritual purpose of a day of worship. This could even be done as a group, as a
congregational activity.
As a practical need, of course, we appoint a
day and time for worship. We encourage all who can to meet with us and worship
the Creator and Savior with us, but we do not condemn those who worship on
another day.
We should use the law in a lawful way — and
the new covenant, the law that Christians are now under, does not permit us to
dictate when and how much time other Christians should give to the Lord. It
does not permit us to bind heavy burdens on people and threaten them with the
lake of fire if they don’t comply with our understanding. The real law we must
be concerned about is the spiritual law, not the precise way the old covenant
was to be administered.
We want to uphold the law in the way that is
appropriate to the age after the coming of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The New
Testament gives hundreds of commands. It gives a high standard of conduct for
God’s redeemed people. It requires sacrifice and complete allegiance. It often
quotes Old Testament laws and amplifies them to the intents of the heart.
But it never commands Sabbath-keeping, and
it commands the church not to lay unauthorized restrictions on God’s people. We
should never let traditions annul the Word of God, and that includes traditions
about old covenant customs that were once authorized, but now are not
authorized.
We who are led by God’s Spirit want to obey
our Creator and Savior. We encourage obedience, piety, and sanctification. We
also emphasize that salvation is by grace through faith, and we accept as
Christian everyone who has faith in Christ.
Some Christians may continue to believe that
their Savior requires them to keep the Sabbath. We do not criticize them for
acting in accordance with their beliefs. We do not require people to change
what they do on the weekly Sabbath. We are saying that we should not judge one
another regarding this day. [I find this
statement not backed up by fact, as PTM ministries often slams what they term
“Armstrongism”, which is a veiled way of slamming the three or four other
Torah-observant Sabbatarian Churches of God out there. Time WCG put their money where there mouth is
on this one statement. To slam another
Christian church is against the unity in the body of Christ that Jesus so wants
to see, and he prayed about in John 17:1-26, his last prayer to the Father
before his crucifixion. pfb]
Paul did not preach that all law is done
away. He knew well that faith leads to obedience, and that love works within
the boundaries of law. But he treated the Sabbath as a matter of individual
conscience, not for enforced conformity. Why could he take such liberty with
the Sabbath law? Our conclusion is that he could approach the Sabbath in the
same way as he dealt with circumcision: He could take it or leave it. It was
not a requirement because faith in Christ superseded it. We should uphold
faith.
All who have faith in Jesus Christ are
already abiding by the intent of the Sabbath law. If we walk by the Spirit, we
are fulfilling the requirements of the law (Romans 8:5). We have come to Christ
and he has given us rest. All who believe have entered God’s rest. Although a
future rest yet remains, we have already entered into rest, and a specific day
of rest is no longer required even though rest itself is physically and
spiritually beneficial.
Our relationship with God depends on faith
in Christ, not on a specific block of time. Of course, this does not do away
with our practical need to give time to the Lord to pray, study, meditate, fast
and imitate Jesus’ life-style of good works to the needy and preaching the
gospel. If we allow secular things to occupy all our time, we will become
profane, like Esau, and grieve the Holy Spirit. There is a spiritual need for worship
time.
Christ exhorts his church to meet regularly
to encourage one another in faith and good works and to worship. Those who
remove themselves from the vine wither and die. Since God does not give a
complete spectrum of his gifts to any one person, we must use our gifts to help
one another grow in maturity. We must continue meeting together, and Christians
should make reasonable efforts to meet weekly with the fellowship God has
placed them in.
In summary, we enter God’s rest, the true
Sabbath, by having faith in Christ. Simultaneously, it is also through faith
that we are justified, regenerated, re-created, and adopted into the family of
God. These are all metaphors for salvation. The Christian Sabbath is the
regenerated life of faith in Jesus Christ, in whom every believer finds true
rest. The weekly seventh-day Sabbath, which was enjoined upon Israel in the Ten
Commandments, was a shadow that prefigured the true Reality to whom it pointed
— our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.27
1
In creation week, the seventh day (unlike the other six days) has no stated
ending. The physical creation continued to be complete (Hebrews 4:3b). God
might have taught Adam and Eve on the seventh day, but this teaching activity
would not be considered work in a Sabbatarian sense. However, God is now
working (John 5:17). One of his works is that of re-creation or redemption. God
may have resumed his creative work when Adam and Eve sinned and his redemptive,
re-creative work became necessary.
2
God fellowshipped with them on the sixth day, and presumably he did on the
seventh day, too, and every day thereafter. In Genesis, for humans, all days
were alike.
3
“Holy” does not mean “rest.” The entire jubilee year was holy (Leviticus
25:12), and it involved agricultural rest, but it did not require the cessation
of all labor. “Holy” simply means that something is set apart for a special
use. If God sanctified the seventh day of every week, he designated it for
special use.
But
we are not told how it was to be used. Humans could have used the day for
worship activities — but that is speculative, since we are told nothing about
seventh-day observance before Moses. For Adam and Eve, the seventh day of
creation was presumably a time for fellowship between God and humans. For
Israel, millennia later, the seventh day of every week was designated the day
for rest.
4
Abraham kept God’s requirements, commands, decrees and laws (Genesis 26:5), but
we cannot assume from what Israel was told to do later that Abraham sacrificed
all his firstborn male animals, or that he kept the annual festivals, or that
he did anything different on the seventh day of each week. The verse tells us
that Abraham was obedient, but it simply doesn’t tell us which statutes and
decrees were in effect in his day.
If
we claim that Abraham kept all the requirements of the old covenant, we imply
that the Abrahamic covenant was the same as the Sinaitic. The Abrahamic
covenant was based on faith; the Sinaitic covenant was based on the Ten
Commandments.
5
The “law of Moses” includes after-childbirth purification rituals (Luke 2:22),
circumcision (John 7:22-23), prophecies of the Messiah (Luke 24:44; Acts
28:23), the law about muzzling oxen (1 Corinthians 9:9) and laws punishable by
death (Hebrews 10:28). Thus it includes ceremonial laws, civil laws, prophecies
and general principles. Apparently everything that Moses wrote was considered
to be part of the “law of Moses.”
6
It has been claimed that Galatians 3:19 refers to sacrificial laws only and
that sacrifices were added to God’s law only after the people sinned. This is
erroneous.
·
First, the old covenant
itself made provision for sacrifices (Exodus 20:24; 23:18); they were not a
secondary provision.
·
Second, Paul, who was
trained as a rabbi, could have easily specified which aspect of the law he
meant if he meant only a portion. Instead, he meant “the whole law” (Galatians
5:2) — the law that contained both patriarchal stories (Galatians 4:21-22) and
civil penalties (Galatians 3:10). It was the Torah — everything Moses wrote
about.
·
Third, it is unlikely
that Judaizers would claim that Galatian Christians had to perform sacrifices.
7
Verse 28 says, “How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my
instructions?” After Moses told them about the Sabbath, some of the Israelites
refused to obey on one Sabbath. God was not referring to persistent
Sabbath-breaking, but to a persistent disobedience to any command he had given
the Israelites.
8
In both Testaments, God is holy, and holiness comes from him, but the way his
holiness affects people is different. The New Testament emphasis on holiness
concerns people and their behavior, not special things and places and times.
9
It is sometimes claimed that only God can make things holy, but this is not
true. Leviticus 27 describes how people may devote or consecrate things to the
Lord, and those things thereby become holy. In a similar way, people can devote
a day to the Lord (in a fast, for example), and the day thereby becomes holy
for them, designated for divine use. This does not affect the Sabbath, however,
since the Bible is clear that God made the Sabbath holy.
10
The way the command reads, work on six days is just as important as rest on the
seventh. The command is given in physical terms, not in spiritual. In the Old
Testament, rest was a much more prominent part of the Sabbath than worship was.
There was a “sacred assembly” on the Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3), but there is no
requirement that the people had to be at that assembly. Most Israelites would
have been unable to assemble at the tabernacle each week; they simply would
have rested at home.
11
The Sabbath command may be divided into specific details (which day of the
week, and what to do), the practical (we need rest), and the spiritual (we need
to have a relationship with God). The last aspect is the spirit of the law.
That’s the part that is eternally valid. And the practical is still practical —
love for neighbor means that an employer gives employees a day of rest. But the
new covenant does not specify which day this ought to be, nor does it say that
every culture ought to worship on the same day. And the new covenant does not
imply that we must look to the old covenant to see which day is proper.
12
Is the Sabbath still required for Israelite Christians but not for gentile
Christians? This may be addressed in three ways:
·
1) God saves Jews in the same way that he
saves gentiles (Acts 15:9, 11). All are saved by faith; the new covenant
applies to all. God does not require one group to keep different laws than the
others. Peter was allowed to live like a gentile (Galatians 2:14). With God,
there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female. The terms and
conditions of our relationship with God are the same. If the Sabbath is
required for one, it is required for all.
·
2) As the book of Hebrews explains, the old
covenant is obsolete, and that means it is obsolete for Hebrews.
·
3) The Jews’ relationship with God was like a
marriage, and a death has broken the obligations of that marriage. Paul used
that analogy, saying that Jews and Israelites have “died to the law through the
body of Christ” so that they might belong to the resurrected Christ (Romans
7:1-4). Figuratively speaking, both Israelites and gentiles are betrothed to
Christ, and the obligations of previous covenants do not apply to anyone,
whether Jew or gentile, who has died to the law through Christ. Christianity is
a new marriage, a new covenant. “We have been released from the law so that we
serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code”
(verse 6).
13
The people complained about new moons in the same way that they complained
about Sabbath restrictions (Amos 8:5). Although the Pentateuch does not forbid
commerce on new moons, apparently that is the way they were observed in Amos’
day.
The
people kept the days, but reluctantly. God criticized them most for social
injustice. Hosea 2:11 similarly includes new moons among the “appointed feasts”
being kept in Israel. Because injustice permeated the nation, God threatened to
stop all the hypocritical worship.
14
Jesus clearly said that David did something that was not lawful.
15
Christianity rejects both the temple and its sacrifices, although some Jewish
Christians continued participating in both while the temple still stood. Jesus
is more important than those rituals, and they are now obsolete. Jesus is more
important than the Sabbath, too, which implies that he has superseded it, just
as he superseded the rituals. In defending his Sabbath activities, Jesus put
the Sabbath in the same legal category as showbread, sacrifices, and the
physical temple, all of which are now obsolete.
16
In Mark 2:27 Jesus did not use the word for create — he used egeneto, which is usually translated
“became.” This word does not allude to the creation account (the Septuagint
does not use egeneto in Genesis
2:2-3), nor can any stress be put on the English word “made,” since it is not
in the Greek.
17
The rabbis taught that gentiles should observe laws that go back to Noah, and
the Sabbath was not part of the “Noachian” requirements (see the Jewish Encyclopedia or the Encyclopedia Judaica). Although the
number of Noachian laws and the prohibitions varied, the lists did not include
the Sabbath. The rabbis looked on the Sabbath, like circumcision, as something
that marked the Jewish people as different from other nations.
The
second-century B.C. book of Jubilees gave the view that seems to have been
common: “The Creator of all blessed it, but he did not sanctify any people or
nations to keep the sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. He
granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the sabbath
thereon upon the earth” (Jubilees 2:31, quoted from James Charlesworth, editor,
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [Doubleday,
1985], vol. 2, p. 58.).
Although
the Sabbath was patterned after the creation week, Deuteronomy 5:15 says that
the Sabbath was given to the Israelites because God had brought them out of
Egypt. That implies that it was not given to other nations. Gentiles did not
have a covenant relationship with God.
18
For example, some might ask: Was the Sabbath made to exalt God, or was it for
human benefit? If we use verse 27 to try to answer the question, we are using
it out of context and trying to read something into the text. In the same way,
we twist the context and intrude into the verse if we use it to answer
questions such as, Was the Sabbath made at creation? — or, Was the Sabbath made
for all humans or just for Israelites? These questions are inappropriate for
this verse. Jesus was saying that the Sabbath was made for humanitarian
benefit; he was not commenting on other questions.
19
Today, we call various emergencies “an ox in the ditch.” Jesus, however, was
not basing his argument on the urgency of the situation. The healing was a
humanitarian need, but not an emergency need. Jesus could justify his healing
activities equally well by referring to an ox in the ditch or to the ordinary
need of leading an animal to water. His point was not urgency, but simple need.
20
If Sabbath work actually dishonored God, then the Sabbath would have priority
over humans in need and oxen in pits, since correct worship of God is more
important than human lives and oxen. If absolute rest were essential to
worship, then Sabbath-keepers should let houses burn down, since that would
only be a monetary loss, and God’s honor is far more important than our
material goods. This indicates that the command to rest on a specific day is a
ceremonial matter rather than a moral one. God’s spiritual law does not have
any exceptions.
21
Gentile God-fearers would often attend synagogues on the Sabbath, but they did
not necessarily observe the day by abstaining from all work. Apparently the
rabbis did not expect noncircumcised people to observe the Sabbath. [Comment:
God-fearers was a classification which described Gentiles who had been
converted by Jewish evangelism during the period of the Maccabbees and later of
the existence of the One True God, as opposed to Greek polytheism. They worshipped on Jewish Sabbath and Holy
Days, but hadn’t taken to step to total conversion to Judaism.]
22
The Sabbath is a foreshadow of salvation in Christ. In this way, the most
important doctrine of the new covenant (Christ) is included within the Ten
Commandments.
23
If we think that Paul is referring to special fast days, we are reading things
into the text. The vegetarianism that Paul addressed was a daily life-style,
not a restriction placed only on certain days. When Paul wrote to the Roman church,
which contained both Jews and gentiles, and mentioned that some people think
certain days are better than others, many readers would conclude that he is
referring to Sabbaths in a gentle way.
[No, the Jews had been the original members, who had been present in
Jerusalem during the historic Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the 120,
and 3,000 Jews from all around the world were drawn to Jesus and salvation
through him. They were Torah-observant
Jews that were now Torah-observant Judeo-Christians, who then founded the
Church of God in Rome. Gentile believers
came later, friction over days of worship and dietary practices arose, and Paul
penned Romans 14 to address those issues, explaining the freedom we have in
those two areas, days of worship and dietary practice (which to the Jews came
from Leviticus 11). pfb]
24
The Greek word for “principles” is stoicheia,
which refers to elementary or basic things. Just as the law was a
disciplinarian that took young children to school (Galatians 3:24), it
contained rules appropriate for immature children. Paul says that “we
[including himself as a Jew and his readers as gentiles] were in slavery under
the basic principles of the world” (Galatians 4:3).
It was an
external approach to religion, having rules about what can be touched or eaten
(Colossians 2:20-21). Such regulations appear to be religious, but they do not
transform the heart, where real worship ought to be centered. [Recently it has been medically discovered
that the health laws of Leviticus 11 are valid.
I have had cancer in my family twice, my father died of colon cancer, my
sister recovered from breast cancer.
Both were given strict dietary lists of what to eat and not to eat. It looked like it came out of Leviticus
11! Thus, I personally think they are
medical dietary laws. Not spiritual,
simply health laws. pfb]
25
The Septuagint version uses the verb form of katapausin in Genesis 2:2.
26
Joshua, entering the promised land, did not give the people the spiritual rest
(katapausin) of God. That’s why the
psalmist, centuries later, spoke about another day. Therefore, verse 9 says,
for that reason, because the psalmist spoke of a future rest (katapausin), it logically follows that
there still remains a Sabbath-rest (sabbatismos)
for the people of God, and, verse 11, we should make every effort to enter that
rest (katapausin). However, if the sabbatismos rest were different than the
katapausin rest, then it would not
logically follow that the sabbatismos
remains simply because the psalmist talked about a katapausin.
Verse
10, which begins with “for,” also presents a logical connection between sabbatismos and katapausin. A sabbatismos
exists for Christians because they enter God’s katapausin. The logical connection would not exist if these were
two different rests.
The
equivalence of katapausin and sabbatismos can be further seen in the
parallel way they are used. In verse 1, he says that the promise of katapausin rest still stands. In verse
6, he says that it still remains (apoleipetai)
that some will enter the katapausin
rest. And in verse 9, he says that there remains (apoleipetai) a sabbatismos
rest for us.
27
Though physical Sabbath keeping (abstaining from work on the seventh day) is
not required for Christians, many congregations of the Worldwide Church of God
hold worship services on the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday). Here’s why:
·
It is our tradition.
Although our tradition was originally based on the erroneous belief that the
seventh-day Sabbath was required for salvation, there is no biblical reason why
we must change our day of worship even after discovering that our original
reason was mistaken.
·
Since many members have
arranged their work schedules to avoid Saturday work, Saturdays are the day on
which most members can meet regularly.
A minority of our members still believe that Christians should
assemble for worship on the Sabbath. Although the church teaches freedom
concerning the Sabbath, we also try to accommodate the worship needs of these
members.
Copyright 1995,
1998 Worldwide Church of God
[my
comments are in brackets [ ] and did not alter the presented copyrighted
text. I have emphasized some of their
text in bold, to emphasize what was being presented as accurate and important. This emphasis and comments are my own, not
intended as part of the copyrighted document, which rights I respect. This document was originally written and
produced by and/or under the authority of Joseph Tkach Sr. in 1995, a man I
highly respect. At the time of the
writing of this document, the Worldwide Church of God was observing both the 7th
Day Sabbath and Holy Days of Leviticus 23 on a purely voluntary basis. pbf]
<!--webbot bot="HitCounter"
endspan i-checksum="15684" --></big>