Introduction
The doctrine of sabbatarianism comes in two forms: Christian and cultic. In its Christian form, sabbatarianism teaches that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday. Thus the "Christian Sabbath" is on Sunday and not on Saturday. This was the position of the Puritans and the Pilgrims. They legislated various civil laws called "blue laws," which forced everyone to observe Sunday as a day of rest. It was illegal to conduct business on Sunday.
The Puritan view of the Sabbath was a radical departure from the theology of the European Reformers such as Calvin who believed that the Sabbath and all other Jewish ceremonial laws were fulfilled by Christ and were thus no longer in force.
In its cultic form, sabbatarianism claims that Saturday is the true Sabbath and that it is the only valid day of worship for Christians as well as for Jews. They do not believe that the Sabbath was changed by God from Saturday to Sunday.
Such cults as the World Wide Church of God, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, etc., claim that it was the Roman Catholic Church who changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. Some early Adventist writers went so far as to claim that anyone who went to church on Sunday had the mark of the beast on his forehead and would be destroyed on the Judgment Day.
While the Christian and cultic forms of sabbatarianism disagree on which day the Sabbath should be observed, they use the exact same arguments to prove that we should keep a Sabbath. Thus it does not really matter if we are dealing with followers of the Puritans or the Adventists, they will both argue that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, a moral law, etc. A refutation of the basic arguments which underlie all forms of sabbatarianism is the focus of this study.
The following treatment of the subject reveals that both views are erroneous. The Sabbath was swept away along with all the other ceremonial laws when the veil of the temple was ripped from top to bottom. We can no more keep the Sabbath today than offer animal sacrifices. Christ has come and all things are new.
Part I—The Sabbatarian Position Outlined
The utmost care has been taken to research Christian Sabbatarianism in order to give it a fair and positive presentation. The classic literature, such as the works of John Owen, have been carefully examined. The modern expositions of sabbatarianism such as John Murray were consulted. The following presentation of Christian sabbatarianism, therefore, is not a straw man. It is a factual exposition of the doctrine and the arguments given to support it.
The cultic writings of Ellen G. White, Herbert Armstrong, etc., have been carefully researched to document their arguments for sabbatarianism as well.
Sabbatarianism Stated
God instituted a seven-day week for all mankind and his domesticated animals. This was instituted at Creation and is to be observed in all ages by all men until the end of the world. A week composed of less or more than seven days is sinful and in violation of the will of the Creator.
In this seven-day week, man is to sanctify or set apart one day out of seven. This sanctification of one-seventh of his time is to be composed of:
2. Wholly giving oneself to the worship of God through the use of the public and private means of grace.
3. Abstaining from all activities which center in self-pleasure or recreation that tend to distract the mind from spiritual worship and contemplation. This includes sexual pleasure for married couples.
According to cultic sabbatarianism, the seventh day, i.e. Saturday, is the only day that God ever sanctified and appointed as a day of rest for all mankind. Sunday is a pagan day of worship and is not to be viewed as a Sabbath.
According to Christian Sabbatarianism, the Sabbath was appointed by God to be observed on the seventh day from Adam to Christ. But God Himself has now changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week, i.e., Sunday, from Christ’s resurrection to the end of the world. The Lord’s Day is now the Christian’s Sabbath.
The Sabbatarian Arguments Set Forth
1. God commanded Adam and Eve to keep one day out of seven as a Sabbath rest. This means that Sabbath-keeping is a "creation ordinance." As a creation ordinance, it is binding on the entire human race throughout all generations. The
Sabbath creation ordinance consists of three parts:
b. God commanded man to keep one day out of seven as a Sabbath.
c. God instilled into the very being of man and his animals a physical, psychological, spiritual and social need to observe a one day out of seven biological cycle within man and his animals. Thus the seventh day was observed as the Sabbath by man at creation.
2. In the Ten Commandments, God commanded Israel to keep one day out of seven as a Sabbath rest. Since the Sabbath command is in the Decalogue, it must be a "moral law." As such, it is binding on all mankind until the end of the world.
While the cultic Sabbatarian would restrict the fourth Commandment to the seventh day, the Christian Sabbatarian would state that the seventh day is not part of the moral law, but is a positive or ceremonial law. The day can be changed without breaking the fourth Commandment.
3. The Fourth Commandment begins with the word, "Remember." This proves that Moses was calling upon the Jews to remember what they already knew of and practiced, namely, the Sabbath. Moses was not introducing something new, but, rather, he was reminding them of the Sabbath-keeping which had been practiced since man was created.
4. Christ said, "The Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27). This means that the Sabbath is a moral law because it was made for man, i.e., mankind as a whole. The Greek word means all of humanity.
5. Hebrews 4:9 states that the Christian is still to observe a Sabbath day of rest.
6. The Sabbath was practiced before the Fourth Commandment was given (Exodus 16). Therefore it was observed since the Creation itself.
7. In Matthew 24:20, Christ prophesied that Christians would be observing the Sabbath even at the end of the world.
8. The silence of the New Testament as to the Christian’s obligation to keep the Sabbath proves that they were all keeping it.
a. Since it had been commanded in the Old Testament, and it is nowhere abrogated in the New Testament, it is still in effect.
b. The early church was Jewish and kept it automatically.
c. There were "pastoral reasons" for the silence.
The next article will begin "An Examination Of The Sabbatarian Arguments".
Part II—An Examination Of The Sabbatarian Arguments
THE "CREATION ORDINANCE" ARGUMENT
1. What is a "creation ordinance?" Answer: An activity or institution which God set up at Creation for all mankind to observe perpetually until the end of the world. Some of the obvious creation ordinances are activities such as work (Gen. 1:28; 2:15, 20) and the cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28) or institutions such as marriage (Gen. 2:8) and the family (Gen. 2:24).
2. What is needed exegetically to prove that Sabbath-keeping is a "creation ordinance?" Answer: To prove that Sabbath-keeping is a creation ordinance, you must find in the creation account itself one or more of the following things:
a. A command given to man to keep a seven-day week.
b. A command given to man to rest the seventh day.
c. An example of man resting the seventh day.
d. An explanation as to why man should rest on the seventh day.
The hard exegetical facts are that there is not a single command, example or explanation for Sabbath-keeping in the Creation account. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis 1-3 or elsewhere to warrant the assumption that Sabbath-keeping was a creation ordinance. This Sabbatarian argument is not based on Scripture.
3. "But isn’t the Sabbath creation ordinance found in Genesis 2:1-3?" Answer: No, the word "Sabbath" does not appear in the text. A Biblical-theological approach would show that Genesis 2:1-3 is Moses’ comment looking back to the creation period within the context of his own understanding of the Ten Commandments and not a reference to Adam’s understanding at the beginning of history.
It does not say in the text that "man" or "animals" sanctified the day or that they rested. It is a simple statement that God’s immediate creative acts were over. That God "rested" is clearly an anthropomorphic [i.e. attributing human characteristics to God] statement, for God does not get tired and hence does not need rest.
4. "But the seventh day is mentioned. Doesn’t this prove that it is a creation ordinance?" Answer: Not necessarily. Nudity and vegetarianism are also a part of the creation account. But who would claim these elements as creation ordinances just because they are mentioned? Besides, the seventh day was hallowed, not the first day after the Sabbath (Greek, mia sabbaton), which is Sunday.
5. "But doesn’t Genesis 2:1-3 serve as a pattern or model for us to follow?" Answer: We hope not. After God worked six days, He rested on the seventh day and He has been "resting" to this very time (Hebrews 4:10-11). God did not begin another cycle of six days’ work and one day of rest. Thus if man is to follow God’s example, then he would have to work six days at the beginning of his "career" and then rest until the end of his life!
At any rate, to prove that Sabbath-keeping is a creation ordinance, we must be shown an example of man’s keeping of it.
Since this is true for any other creation ordinance, why should Sabbath-keeping be exempt from this rule of faith?
Also, Adam would have never been able to observe a proper Sabbath because God’s seventh day was only Adam’s second day, whereas Adam’s seventh day was God’s fifth day. Which seventh day did Adam observe?
If Genesis 2:1-3 is a creation ordinance, then the seventh day is the permanent Sabbath, for the text does not say, "God sanctified one day out of seven," but, "God blesses and sanctified the seventh day." Christian Sabbatarians always overlook this fact.
All the Biblical passages, such as Nehemiah 9:5-38 (cf. vs. 13-14), which give us a summary of redemptive history, always place the beginning of the Sabbath with Moses and not Adam. If Sabbath-keeping began at creation, surely the Scripture would have placed it there when surveying the history of the world, but it does not.
There is no mention of a seven-day week as being commanded or observed in the Genesis account of creation. No example, command or precept can be given from Genesis 1-3. While a seven-day week appears later on in redemptive history, there is no evidence that Adam or Eve observed such a measurement of time.
6. "I was told that all ancient cultures followed a seven-day week. Is this true?" Answer: No, it is not true. Anthropology and archaeology have proven conclusively that various ancient cultures used different ways of measuring time (13-day week, 9-day week, etc.). If the Sabbath were a creation ordinance, surely it would have been observed by ancient cultures just as they observed all other valid creation ordinances. A true creation ordinance is universal, but Sabbath-keeping is not.
7. "But don’t men and animals have a natural seven-day cycle?" Answer: No, they don’t. Various psychological tests have also shown that there is no biological time rhythm or clock for a seven-day week in man or animals. Extensive tests have been done with isolated men and animals to see if there is a built-in time clock. The evidence is conclusive that neither man nor animals are Sabbath-keepers by nature or being.
Sabbath-keeping does not have anything to do with the psychological or physiological well-being of man. Men and animals normally rest in their work instead of from their work. The classic Sabbatarian argument which claimed that Sabbath-keeping is physically constituted in men and animals should be laid to rest forever.
(From Robert A. Morey, Is the Sabbath For Today? (Research and Education Foundation, 1995). Used by permission.)
THE "MORAL LAW" ARGUMENT
The comparison below illustrates the differences between moral laws and ceremonial laws which reveal that the Sabbath command is a ceremonial law. If the Sabbath has the attributes of a ceremonial law, is treated like a ceremonial law, and is listed with ceremonial laws, the only rational conclusion one can make is that it is a ceremonial law.
Ceremonial Law–It is not a reflection of God’s character. It is didactic in the prophetic sense of prefiguring the work of Christ.
Sabbath–It does not reflect some aspect of the moral character of God. It pointed backward to the creative work of God and pointed forward to the redemptive work of Christ.
Moral Law–It is an aspect of the image of God in man, i.e., part of man’s moral character as created by God. A moral law tells us how and in what ways we can bear God’s moral likeness. It is a part of man’s humanity. It makes man man.
Ceremonial Law–It is not a part of the image of God in man. It is not a part of man’s humanity. It is a tool used by God to teach man spiritual truth.
Sabbath–It is not a part of God’s image in man. It is not a part of man’s humanity. It is a tool to teach men spiritual truth.
Moral Law–General revelation from the creation and the conscience reveal a moral law. Special revelation is not needed to know a moral law. It will be anthropologically universal since it is rooted in man’s nature and conscience.
Ceremonial Law–General revelation from creation and conscience cannot give us ceremonial laws. They must be known by special revelation. There is nothing in God, man, or the world to indicate a ceremonial law.
Sabbath–Nine of the Ten Commandments are anthropologically universal. Only the Fourth Commandment depends on special revelation. There is nothing in God, man, or the world to indicate a seven-day week or one Sabbath-day out of seven days.
Moral Law–It is eternally true and it will never be done away with. It will be obeyed in the eternal state because man will always be in God’s image.
Ceremonial Law–It is instituted for a specific period of time and then it is fulfilled.
Sabbath–It began with Moses and was fulfilled by Christ. As a day of rest, it is not observed in Heaven now and neither will it be observed in the eternal state.
Moral Law–It is unchangeable and immutable because God’s character and the image of God in man cannot change.
Ceremonial Law–Ceremonial laws change from age to age, according to God’s appointment.
Sabbath– Christ, as the Lord of Sabbath fulfilled it and set it aside. Christian Sabbatarians admit that it changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week. It is thus neither unchangeable nor immutable.
Moral Law–It is universally binding on all men in all ages.
Ceremonial Law–It is binding only on those to whom it is given. Unusually, it is directed only to the people of God and not binding on the Gentiles.
Sabbath–It was binding only for Israel. No Gentiles were ever commanded or condemned concerning the Sabbath law. It was not universally binding on all men in all ages. It was a covenant sign to Israel.
Moral Law–A moral law always has precedence over a ceremonial law.
Ceremonial Law–It is always subservient to a moral law if any contradiction arises (i.e., David’s eating of the shewbread, Matt. 12:1-6)
Sabbath–The Sabbath command was subservient to moral laws (Matt. 12:9-12). It was subservient even to other ceremonial laws (John 7:22-23).
Moral Law–Since God’s character is harmonious, moral laws never contradict each other in that you must break one to obey the other.
Ceremonial Law–There will be conflict at times between moral and ceremonial laws.
Sabbath–There have been occasions when the Fourth Commandment was broken in order to keep the Sixth (Mark 2:23-28). It cannot, therefore, be a moral law.
Moral Law–A moral law is valid regardless of the situation because it is a moral absolute. We can never deal with it from the perspective of situational ethics. I Cor. 10:13 teaches that we never have to sin.
Ceremonial Law–Whether you obey or disobey a ceremonial law depends on the situation (Matt. 12:1-6)
Sabbath–The priests "broke" or desecrated the Sabbath. But because of the circumstance and the situation, they were declared innocent (Matt. 12:5). No moral law has "except" clauses. If the Sabbath is a moral law, why is it a situational law?
Moral Law– A consistent violation of moral law is inconsistent with a Christian profession and must be dealt with by church discipline, even unto excommunication.
Ceremonial Law– The punishment depends on the situation and circumstances surrounding the violation of a ceremonial law.
Sabbath– Sabbath-breaking depends on the situation. There are all sorts of "I had to" exceptions for breaking the Fourth Commandment. They are called "works of mercy, charity, or necessity." No moral laws have such exceptions.
Moral Law– A moral law does not assume man’s fall into sin. God’s and man’s nature at creation is sufficient to account for a moral law.
Ceremonial Law– It assumes the fall and prefigures redemption. Thus, it is eschatological in character.
Sabbath– The Sabbath was eschatological in that it pointed forward to the Messianic age of the rest of faith (Heb. 5). We cease trying to work for salvation and rest instead in Christ’s work.
One of the most telling reasons for rejecting the Sabbath as a moral law is that few modern Sabbatarians treat "violations" of the Fourth Commandment as constituting serious sin. You would be excommunicated for consistently breaking the other nine commandments. But to break the Fourth Commandment does not lead today to any church discipline. Indeed, we know of situations where the pastor is a strict Sabbatarian, but his fellow elders go out to eat on Sundays!
If it is a moral law, why is it not applied like one? Since the punishment for Sabbath-breaking was death in the Old Testament, on what grounds can anything less than excommunication be done to those who consistently "break" the Fourth Commandment today?
We might also add that what constitutes a "violation" of proper Sabbath-keeping is determined in a variety of ways and ends up in "do’s" and "don’ts" which are purely subjective and arbitrary. Thus what constitutes Sabbath-breaking in one church will be found to be unacceptable in another church.
"But," the Sabbatarian replies, "regardless of all you have said, [Sabbath-keeping] is still found in the Ten Commandments and this means it must be a moral law or it wouldn’t be found there." In reply, we must observe the following points:
I. Is everything in the Ten Commandments moral? Is there not a mixture of ceremonial and moral within the Decalogue itself?
Fifth Commandment—Obey your parents and "you will live long on the land which God has given to you." Who would say that living in the land of Israel is a moral law? Even the Puritans pointed this out as a ceremonial element in the Decalogue.
Fourth Commandment—"The seventh day is the Sabbath." Who, besides those who view Saturday as the Sabbath, would say that this is a moral law? Christian Sabbatarians such as Ezekiel Hopkins pointed out this ceremonial element.
II. Since Christian Sabbatarians admit that there is a mixture of moral and ceremonial law in the Decalogue, the fact that the Jews were commanded in the Decalogue to keep the seventh day as a Sabbath cannot prove it to be a moral law.
III. Archaeology helps us to understand why in the midst of the covenant Decalogue you find a ceremonial law. In the covenant treaties of the Great Kings in the Ancient Near East, a ceremony would be given in the midst of the treaty to act as a sign of covenantal obedience and submissiveness by the vassal slave to the conquering king.
The covenant servants could break the other parts of the covenant and find forgiveness. But if they forsook the ceremonial sign of covenantal obedience to the king, then the covenant as a whole was viewed as broken.
• The structure of the Decalogue is like the treaties of the Great Kings (Meredith Kline, The Treaty of the Great King (Eerdmans: 1963), pp. 27-44.)
• The Sabbath was the sign of Israel’s covenantal obedience and submission (Exodus 31:12-17; Isaiah 56:4-7; Deuteronomy 5:11).
• Once Israel abandoned the Sabbath, God abandoned them (Ezekiel 20:12, 20-24).
IV. The Ten Commandments as written by the hand of God were only ten short and brisk commands. People have always confused Moses’ exposition of these commands with the commands themselves. For example, the Tenth Commandment according to Paul in Romans 13:9 is, "You shall not covet." It was Moses who added several illustrations of the kinds of things we should not covet: house, wife, servants, etc. (Exodus 20:17). The Ten Commandments are as follows:
The Ten Commandments
You shall not have any other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself any idol.
You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain.
Observe the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness.
You shall not covet.
Moses would read the sentence and then expound upon it for the benefit of his hearers. For example, in Exodus 20:17, we read "You shall not covet." The same words are found in Deuteronomy 5:21.
But when Moses illustrates what kinds of thing we should not covet, the words are not the same. The following comparison reveals that some words were added or omitted, and the order is not the same. Obviously, Moses was not reading what God wrote on the tablets of stone.
Exodus 20:17— house, wife, male slave, female slave, ox, donkey
Deuteronomy 5:21— wife, house, field, male slave, ox, donkey
When it comes to the Fourth Commandment, the only words God wrote on the tablet of stone were, "Observe the Sabbath day." All the other words were from Moses who tried to explain to the people what the commandment meant.
For example, the Sabbath day is to be a day of rest. But who is to rest on that day? God did not say. Thus Moses had to illustrate who was to rest on that day.
That this is true is seen from the fact that when Moses illustrated in Exodus and in Deuteronomy who was to rest, the lists are not the same. He adds some words in Deuteronomy not found in Exodus.
Exodus— you, son, daughter, male slave, female slave, cattle, sojourner
Deuteronomy— you, son, daughter, male slave, female slave, ox, donkey, cattle, sojourner
The idea that Moses would add new words to what God had written with His own finger is absurd. Moses probably added oxen and donkeys to the list because some Jews had limited resting to only those animals specifically mentioned by Moses in Exodus 20. Thus they were making their oxen and donkeys work on the Sabbath but not their cattle.
When Moses tried to explain to the Jews why they should keep the Sabbath, he gives a different reason in Deuteronomy 5 than what he gave in Exodus 20. While in Exodus 20, Moses referred to the Creation week, in Deuteronomy 5 he omits any reference to the Creation week and instead refers to the Exodus out of Egypt. If God had written the words in Exodus 20 about the Creation week, Moses would not have substituted them with a reference to the Exodus. The following comparison reveals that the Creation reference was not part of the Ten Commandments but was Moses’ added commentary.
Deuteronomy 5:15—And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm, therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
What does this mean? The reference to the Creation week in Exodus 20 was not part of the original Ten Commandments. Thus it was not part of the "moral" law!
This insight pulls the rug out from beneath both Christian and cultic Sabbatarians. Most of their rhetoric is based upon the idea that the reference to the Creation week was part of the Ten Commandments. The fact that Moses omitted any reference to it in Deuteronomy 5 and substituted the Exodus instead forever dooms their argument.
These observations also refute the argument that since Moses referred to the Creation in Exodus 20, this means that the Sabbath began at the Creation. If this argument was valid, then since Moses only mentions the Exodus out of Egypt in Deuteronomy 5, we would have to conclude that the Sabbath began with the Exodus. But, in the context, Moses was not dating the inception of the Sabbath, but rather he was motivating people to obey it.
There are many other arguments which show that the Sabbath was a ceremonial law.
1. Old Testament and New Testament writers consistently place the Sabbath in the lists of the other ceremonial laws. No moral law is grouped or listed with ceremonial laws (I Chron. 23:31; II Chron. 2:4-8,13; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Ezek. 45:17; Hos. 2:11; Col. 2:16; Heb. 4).
2. How could God despise Sabbath-keeping and put an end to it if it were a moral law (Isa. 1:10-14; Hos. 2:11)?
3. If it is a moral law, why is it never repeated in the New Testament like the other nine commandments?
4. The author of Hebrews treats the Sabbath like all other ceremonial laws, i.e., as a type or shadow of Christ’s work of salvation (Heb. 4; cf. Col. 2:17).
5. Jesus clearly equated "Sabbath" with the ceremonial "sacrifice" in Matthew 12:7. Thus, He taught that it was a ceremonial law.
6. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was faced with a direct question which certainly bears on the Sabbath issue. "How much of Mosaic law should the Gentile Christians keep?"
If Sabbath-keeping was a moral law binding on Gentiles, then they would have included it in their decision. But they did not bind the Gentiles to obey the Sabbath. Thus it was only a ceremonial law fulfilled in Christ.
7. If it were a moral law, then the apostle Paul would never leave its observance up to Christian liberty as he taught in Colossians 2:16.
8. If Sabbath-keeping was binding on New Covenant believers as a part of the moral law, then why did the early Christians:
• work on Sundays without complaint;
• never call the "Lord’s Day" a "Sabbath";
• consistently teach that the Fourth Commandment was a ceremonial law fulfilled by Christ and as such no longer binding? Centuries went by before anyone talked about a "Christian Sabbath." Why? Where is the apostolic and historical pedigree for the Sabbatarian doctrine? It has no such pedigree.
9. It is geographically impossible for all men to keep the Sabbath. What would those in cold climates do without heat (Exo. 35:1-3)? In the far North where there are six months of day and six months of night, how can the Sabbath be kept? Is it not true that a moral law can be kept anywhere? But the Sabbath cannot be kept universally across this planet, which has days of different lengths. What will colonies on Mars or on space stations do about the Sabbath? These are issues the Sabbatarians will have to face in coming years, if the Lord tarries.
10. The Jewish Sabbath lasted from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. If the Fourth Commandment is still in effect as a creation ordinance, then why do Christian Sabbatarians not begin their Sabbath Saturday evening and end it Sunday evening? How can they brush aside the sundown" to "sundown" structure of the Old Covenant Sabbath?
11. It is economically impossible to shut down our modern industrial society every Sunday. If the steel mills turned off their furnaces one day out of the week, it would be impossible to produce steel, for it takes a week for them to heat up sufficiently to begin production (cf. Gary North, "The Economics of Sabbath Keeping," in The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 824-836).
(Used by permission of the author. Dr. Morey may be contacted through his website: www.faithdefenders.com)
THE "SABBATH MADE FOR MAN" ARGUMENT
The Sabbatarian Position—
Christ clearly taught that the Sabbath was a moral law in Mark 2:27 on two grounds:
1. The Sabbath was made for man, i.e., it is a moral law.
2. It was made for man, i.e., not for Jews only but mankind considered as a whole.
Examination Of This Argument—
1. An examination of the context (vs. 23-28) reveals that instead of seeking to establish the Sabbath as a moral law, Christ clearly equates it to the ceremonial law concerning the shewbread. The Pharisees made too much of the Sabbath and Christ now instructs them as to a proper view of the ceremonial nature of the Sabbath. Christ and His disciples could "break" the Sabbath just as David and his men could "break" the law about shewbread because both were ceremonial laws.
2. Christ’s statement, "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath," plainly reveals the ceremonial nature of the Sabbath. Ceremonial laws are "made for man," i.e., for man’s assistance, help, ignorance, etc. Thus Christ was teaching that just as the law regarding shewbread was "made for man" and could not be used against the health and welfare of people, so the Sabbath law was also "made for man." That is, it is no more a moral law than the law for shewbread. It is clear that the Pharisees had twisted the Sabbath all out of proportion and Jesus here puts it in proper perspective.
3. As to the argument that since Christ said "for man," instead of "for Israel," that this means "all mankind who ever lived or will live in all ages and places," we make the following observations:
a. An examination of the usage of the Greek word translated "man" reveals that it rarely means "all mankind." In fact, in many places, such as I Timothy 2:1, it is impossible to understand it as "all mankind."
b. Most Sunday Sabbatarians are strict Calvinists who go to great lengths, when discussing the atonement, to prove that this Greek word does not mean "all mankind." They rightly point this out in such places as Romans 5:18, I Timothy 2:4, Titus 2:11, etc.
It seems quite strange to us that the very same theologians who dogmatically state that "man" in Mark 2:27 must mean "all mankind," are equally strong in other passages as cited above that the word cannot mean "all mankind"!
THE HEBREWS 4:9 ARGUMENT
The Sabbatarian Position—
In this chapter the author clearly states that there remains for the Christian a Sabbath-day of rest.
Examination Of This Argument—
1. This argument’s greatest proponent was the Puritan, John Owen. But the exegetical evidence against his Sabbatarian position is so great that no classic commentator can be cited who agreed with his interpretation. Even some of the Puritans, such as John Brown, rejected Owen’s interpretation.
With almost all the classic commentaries and exegetes against the Sabbatarian position on Hebrews 4, this at once makes us suspicious of its validity.
2. A careful exegesis reveals that Hebrews 4 is teaching the exact opposite of the Sabbatarian position. The context is clear on the following points:
a. God’s "rest" in Hebrews 3:18 stands symbolically for the promised land. Because of unbelief, most of the generation died in the wilderness instead of entering His "rest" (3:16-19).
b. From this Old Testament example, the author now informs his audience that the promise of a greater "rest" stands before them (4: 1a).
c. This "rest" is of such a nature that:
• We can fall short of it (v. lb).
• We fall short if we do not believe the Gospel (v. 2).
• It is entered into by faith (v. 3).
d. This "rest" is now drawn from another Old Testament example: God’s Sabbath rest (v. 4).
e. The author combines God’s Sabbath rest with the "rest" of the promised land (v.5) and states that disobedience to the Gospel hinders anyone from entering "rest" (v. 6).
f. Even now in the age of salvation, the age of "Today" (v. 7; cf. II Cor. 6:2), God calls us to enter a "rest"; a rest like God’s Sabbath rest; a rest like that in Canaan (v. 9).
The only reason for putting the word "Sabbath rest" (Greek, sabbatismos, v. 9) instead of just "rest" as in the rest of the context is that the author had just used God’s "Sabbath" as an illustration or example.
g. The nature of the "rest" or "Sabbath rest" of verse 9 is explained in verses 10-11.
• Just as God ceased forever from His works, even so we are to cease from depending upon or trying to produce works to merit salvation. The works we produce are elsewhere called "dead works" (6:1).
• Let us enter the "rest of faith" in the Gospel and persevere to the end. We must not fall away into or rest upon dead works.
• The danger to which the author was addressing himself was apostasy, not which day was to be observed by Christians. The audience was tempted to return to Judaism. Thus the author exhorts them to persevere in the faith and he warns them of condemnation if they become disobedient to the Gospel.
That this is the theme of the entire book and the thrust of Chapter 4 is accepted by nearly all commentators. Why do the Sabbatarians ignore this broader and immediate context? The emphasis in Hebrews 4 is on a future rest that yet awaits all who persevere to the end in faith (cf. 10:38-39), and the author’s fear that by moving back under the Old Covenant they would fall short of that sabbatismos.
• The conclusion of the author’s argument is given in vs. 14-16. In order to enter God’s rest, we must "hold firmly to the faith" (v. 14) in Christ’s meritorious priestly atonement. Therefore, let us "approach the throne of grace with confidence" (v. 16) in view of Christ’s work for us.
CONCLUSION
Hebrews 4 is a passage which shows that God’s Sabbath and the Promised Land were an eschatological foreshadowing of the believer’s rest of faith in the Gospel of salvation, accomplished by the sealing of the New Covenant by the blood of Christ. Hebrews 4:9 does not say "Sabbath day" but rather "Sabbath-like rest" (sabbatismos). The context rules out the Sabbatarian interpretation, because the emphasis falls not on a day to be observed in this age, but on an eternal rest awaiting all who live by faith until the end (cf. 3:14).
THE "REMEMBER" ARGUMENT
The Sabbatarian Position—
The word "remember" in the Fourth Commandment points us to the past observance of the Sabbath since the creation.
Examination Of This Argument—
1. The Hebrew word zachar in Exodus 20:8 is in the Kal infinitive form and not in the imperative. The Brown, Driver and Briggs Lexicon does not place the word as found in Exodus 20:8 in the section under "recalling something or someone you already knew about" (sections 1-2). Rather, it means to recall to mind from now on, i.e., "to observe or commemorate" a certain day.
2. An examination of the Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance reveals that in many cases "remember" has the meaning of a future calling to mind. Thus, Moses was saying, "From now on, recall to mind and sanctify...."
3. When zachar is used for observing a ceremonial day, it is usually combined with and is synonymous with shamar, which means to observe or preserve (cf. Deut. 16:1,3).
THE EXODUS 16 ARGUMENT
The Sabbatarian Position—
The Sabbath was observed before Moses, starting with the Creation. This can be shown in Exodus 16 where the people started resting on the seventh day as a Sabbath before the Ten Commandments were given. Thus, it was already being observed by the people of God."
Examination of This Argument—
1. Exodus 16 is still during the lifetime of Moses. There is nothing to indicate a pre-Mosaic origin of the Sabbath in Exodus 16. This is further borne out when we remember the "sign" nature of the Sabbath in Israel’s covenant relationship with God.
2. On the contrary, the following points are clear:
a. It is doubtful that the Egyptians allowed the Jews a Sabbath day during their 400 years of bondage. Thus it was not the practice of the people of God to rest the seventh day when they were Egyptian slaves.
b. Special revelation is not needed for a moral law or for something already observed. If something is going to be introduced for the first time, there must be a special revelation and a training period so that the people can adapt to the new practice or ceremonial law.
c. In Exodus 16:4-5, God sets forth a new test for the people of God. He would give manna six days, with a double portion on the sixth day.
d. When the sixth day arrived, the people gathered a double portion. But they did not know why a double portion was given. It is obvious in verse 22 that the people asked Moses what a double portion meant.
e. Moses responds in verses 22-26 with his interpretation of the revelation/test given in verses 4-5: "Since God gives us a double portion on the sixth day, He does not plan to give us any manna on the seventh. It is a day of rest. So, cook up your extra manna to eat tomorrow and stay home."
f. Some of the people still did not understand this new test of a day of rest. Thus, they went out on the seventh day for manna but found none (v. 27).
g. Since the previous revelation of this new regulation had been ignored by many people, God once again revealed to Moses that this new test of obedience was to be strictly observed (vs. 28-29).
h. So, the people finally gave in to the new law and rested on the seventh day (v. 30).
CONCLUSION
An accurate exegesis of Exodus 16 reveals that the Lord was foreshadowing the Fourth Commandment by giving a new test or commandment in Exodus 16. The purpose of this incident was to introduce the people of God to a new concept and a new law which had not been previously known or observed. Consequently, this passage cannot be used as proof that Sabbath-keeping began at Creation.
THE MATTHEW 24:20 ARGUMENT
The Sabbatarian Position—
Christ prophesied that Christians would be observing the Sabbath even at the end of the world when He returns—"pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath day."
Examination of This Argument—
1. In verse 20 Christ is discussing what believers should do in A.D. 70 when Titus would come to destroy the Temple and Jerusalem. Jesus is not dealing here with the end of the world, but with the end of the Temple (vs. 1-2).
2. Jesus was simply saying, "Since the Jews forbid travel on their Sabbath, pray that you as Christians do not have to escape to the hills on that day, for the Jews will hinder you."
3. The "Sabbath" referred to in this verse is the Jewish Saturday-Sabbath and obviously has no reference to the "Lord’s Day." And it is certainly stretching the point to suggest that Christ had in view a time when the "Sabbath" would be transferred to Sunday.
4. Christ was simply referring to things which would hinder escape from Jerusalem’s destruction:
a. Greed for material possessions (vs. 17-18).
b. Pregnancy or nursing babies (v. 19).
c. Winter time (v. 20).
d. Jewish Sabbath (v. 20).
THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
The Sabbatarian Position—
The New Testament is silent about the Sabbath and this silence proves that they observed it. We do not need a command, example or precept in the New Testament to prove that the Sabbath is to be kept.
They go on to argue that:
• Since God had already commanded people to observe the Sabbath as a creation ordinance and as a moral law in the Old Testament, it is obviously still in force in the New Covenant age. Anything commanded in the Old Testament and not explicitly abrogated in the New is still in effect.
• The early church was Jewish and they kept the Sabbath, even though they changed it to the first day after the Sabbath. No one contested this practice or the change from the seventh to the first day. Thus it was never an issue of controversy to be mentioned in the New Testament.
• There were also "pastoral concerns" for not mentioning the Sabbath in the New Testament. Why would the New Testament writers bring up something which was already assumed? To be silent on the Sabbath would not cause controversy, but to discuss it would do so.
Examination of the Argument—
Many Sabbatarians readily admit that the New Testament neither repeats the Fourth Commandment nor applies it to Christians. Virtually all sides agree that there is a conspicuous silence in the New Testament about any present obligation of the Christian to observe the Sabbath. No rules or regulations are ever set forth for keeping the Sabbath. No examples of Christians keeping the Sabbath can be found. No one is ever disciplined for breaking the Sabbath. The only perceptual passages seem to abrogate the Sabbath (Col. 2:16-17). Why is the New Testament silent?
It is interesting to note that Baptists upbraid the Presbyterians for their use of the argument from silence to justify infant baptism and yet these same Baptists will often employ this same argument to defend sabbatarianism! The following comments refute the argument from silence.
1. The silence of the New Testament is crucial in this controversy. The fact that the other nine commandments are reinstated in the New Covenant as binding upon believers and only the Fourth Commandment is missing, cannot be brushed aside lightly. If this argument from silence is valid, why were the other nine reinstated and the Sabbath specifically stated to be a "shadow" (Col. 2:17)?
2. If "commanded in the Old and never abrogated in the New" means that an Old Testament law is still in effect today, it proves too much.
a. We do not have explicit verses in the New Testament where the ceremonial laws are abrogated one by one. If the Sabbatarian argument is true, then all the ceremonial laws never mentioned in the New Testament are still in effect! This puts us in impossible difficulties by binding believers’ consciences to many of the rules found in the Levitical Holiness code (cf. Lev. 11-12; 15:19-24).
b. Why are the Sabbath commands about all debts liquidated every seventh year and all land returning to the original owners every seventy years not observed by Sabbatarians? They are never specifically abrogated in the New Testament.
3. The plain truth is that the New Covenant is not to be like the Old Covenant according to Jeremiah 31:31-32. Notice especially these words: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers."
4. We should approach the New Testament with the assumption that whatever is not re-introduced and re-instated in the New Covenant is no longer in effect. Everything in the Old Testament has been abrogated in principle by Christ. Whatever the New Testament sets forth is what the New Testament believer is responsible to observe.
5. The argument from silence can be valid when it is used to demonstrate that in principle all ceremonial laws have been abrogated and if something is not reinstated, it is no longer binding. This is using silence in a Scriptural manner.
6. That the argument from silence can be used against the Sabbath can be seen from an exegesis of Hebrews 7:14. Here the author builds his argument for the unique priesthood of Christ on the silence of the Old Testament.
7. The early church was not made up exclusively of Jews or Jewish proselytes. The missionary labors of Paul and others brought in pagan converts. These Gentiles had no Jewish background and were never instructed to keep a Sabbath after becoming Christians.
8. The history of the early church clearly shows that they did not observe the Lord’s Day as a Sabbath or refer to the Fourth Commandment as binding on Christians. They taught that the Sabbath command was a ceremonial law fulfilled by Christ.
9. That the early Christian Jews could change the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day and not get involved in a controversy with the Jews or Judaizers is so foolish as to be self-refuting.
10. There were no "pastoral reasons" for the silence of the New Testament. The pastoral concerns of the apostle Paul led him to state clearly that the Sabbath was a "shadow" ordinance (Col. 2:17).
No one, therefore, can condemn you for not observing dietary laws, feast days or the weekly Sabbath (Col. 2:16). It is clear that Paul is dealing with the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath—and not the so-called "Christian Sabbath"—because he also speaks of dietary laws and "new moons." The New Testament, therefore, is not silent on the matter, but specifically indicates its passing away with the coming of Christ.
Conclusion
While the New Testament never re-institutes the Sabbath, it positively abrogates its significance as a day to be observed.
The Sabbath found its fulfillment in Christ who is the Lord of the Sabbath. Thus Paul declared it "nailed to the cross." Christ alone in His Word can bind the conscience of the child of God.
The practical fruits of sabbatarianism have historically led to many evils such as:
• Legalism: Church leaders making up arbitrary rules and regulations to govern the Sabbath.
• Anarchy: Each Sabbatarian sets forth his own rules of what can be and cannot be done on Sunday.
• Party spirit: It breeds pride and an air of superiority.
• It fosters a critical and judgmental spirit.
• It kills the joy of the Christian’s worship day by fostering a gloomy, morbid and even fearful attitude.
• It hurts families by forbidding laughter, play and, historically, even sexual relations between husband and wife.
• It has divided churches and split communities.
• It has brought about a state of bondage by taking away Christian liberty and imposing the "beggarly elements" from the Old Covenant upon the Christian’s conscience.
Part III—A Biblical-Theological Approach to the Sabbath
1. The Sabbath is a concept revealed in the context of the Mosaic covenant. Thus the Sabbath did not appear until Moses’ time.
The creation ordinance argument obscures the covenantal "sign" nature of the Sabbath. This is why Sabbatarians have yet to develop the distinctively covenantal character of the Sabbath as a test or sign of covenantal obedience to God (cf. Exod. 31:12-17; Isa. 56:4-7; Deut. 5:11).
2. When the concept of the Sabbath was first introduced, it only signified physical rest. It did not have any spiritual overtones at all (Exodus 16).
As the history of redemption unfolded, the concept of the Sabbath deepened in its meaning and began to have spiritual significance. The worship of God in private and public slowly became part of the Sabbath.
3. If the Sabbath had been instituted since the creation of man, it would have deepened beyond mere physical rest by the time of Exodus 16. Since the Sabbath did not develop spiritual overtones until the later prophets, this reveals that it could not have been observed from the beginning of history. The dynamic unfolding and deepening process of Biblical truth would not have been stagnant from Adam to Moses.
4. As the unfolding spiritual character of the Sabbath developed, it came to signify a day of "rest in God," a rest of faith in God and a day spent in the worship of God.
5. But the Pharisees in our Lord’s time externalized the Sabbath and made it a day of gloominess. They manifested a legalistic zeal and attention to the strict outward observance of the day. They sought to undo and to reverse the unfolding dynamic spiritual meaning of the day. They did not see that the Sabbath was essentially eschatological in nature and that it prefigured the Messianic age in which believers would rest from dead works by having a conscience void of offense due to Christ’s perfect work on the cross (Heb. 4:1-16, 10:1-25; Col. 2:14-17).
6. The Lord of the Sabbath has ushered in the age of the Sabbath. The shadow of a weekly Sabbath is no longer needed because that which it prefigured has come.
7. Weekly Sabbath-keeping is part of the Old Testament "promise" and has no place in the New Testament "fulfillment." Sabbath-keeping has served its purpose and, just as the scaffolding around a building is taken away once the building is completed, so the weekly Sabbath has been done away by Christ, the Master-Builder of the New Temple, which is the new Israel of God, the Church.
8. We look forward to a greater fulfillment of the Sabbath age. It pre-figures the saints’ rest in Heaven and the eternal state.
9. Sabbatarianism is retrogressive and reactionary. It tries to stop the unfolding dynamic of the eschatological character of the Sabbath. It attempts to turn back the hands of the clock of redemptive history by keeping the shadow and ignoring the reality which cast the shadow. Let us go on in faith and embrace the reality which cast the shadow of the weekly Sabbath.
Conclusion
The Sabbatarian position cannot stand up under close exegetical scrutiny. In its place we need to develop a practical theology of our corporate Gospel duties in the light of passages like Hebrews 10:25.
Part IV—A Brief Theology of Corporate Christian Worship
1. The "Lord’s Day" has historically been identified with Sunday, called in the New Testament "the first day of the week," which is the day Christ rose from the dead.
That this is true has been demonstrated to such a degree in debates against the Adventists by such writers as Walter Martin, that we will not here develop the argument (Walter Martin, The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism (Zondervan: 1965).
The fact that Sunday is specifically referred to in the New Testament as mia sabbaton (literally, "the first after the Sabbath") should raise serious questions about the wisdom of identifying Sabbath and Sunday. The New Testament clearly designates Sunday as a day other than the "Sabbath."
2. On Sunday morning, Christians historically have assembled for worship, fellowship, instruction and the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This is obvious from the post-resurrection appearances of Christ (all of which took place
on "the first after the Sabbath"), the data in the Book of Acts and the subsequent history of the early church.
3. What we are to do when we assemble is given in the New Testament by way of example and command. The examples and commands found in Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; I Corinthians 5:4; 11:2, 23ff.; 14:26; 16:2; and Hebrews 10:25. These passages delineate the essentials. We must attend the gathering together of the saints to hear preaching, participate in the ordinances, give offerings, and minister to each other in the context of the Body of Christ.
In the light of these New Testament teachings, there are several theological reasons (such as the first day being the time of the resurrection and Pentecost) for Christians preferring to meet on Sunday. But there are no Biblical directives which state that it is sin for the brethren to meet together some other day.
The truth is that the New Testament emphasizes our corporate duties, not a day on which those duties must be fulfilled. Sin is committed if these duties are not fulfilled in the Christian’s life, but there is no indication that sin is committed by fulfilling these duties on the "wrong" day.
4. If you faithfully fulfill your corporate New Covenant duties on the day of worship in the local church where you are a member, then you are free to do whatever God leads you to do. No one has the right to set up extra-Scriptural rules regarding what can and cannot be done on the worship day (Col. 2:16). Your conscience is to be under God and His Word and not in bondage to the traditions or laws of men.
5. Our assembling together should be a time of great joy and rejoicing, for Christ has ushered in the "Year of Jubilee" and has proclaimed liberty throughout the Earth. Our times together should be filled with joy and Christian fellowship. The resurrection of Christ signifies hope, life and joy. These things—not fear or gloom—should characterize our corporate gatherings.
6. Since Christian liberty (with reference to the observance or non-observance of days) is clearly to regulate such external matters, no Christian should judge another Christian in areas of personal freedom (Rom. 14:4-23; Col. 2:16; Gal. 5:1).
Part V—Sabbath-Keeping in Church History
1. The early Church did not see any relationship between the Lord’s Day and the Fourth Commandment. The Sabbath was viewed as a ceremonial law fulfilled in Christ (Phillip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, Vol. I, pp. 477-479; Vol. II, pp. 202-205; Vol. III. pp. 378-385).
2. The Middle Ages saw the union of church and state, beginning with Constantine. The Sabbath was introduced by theocratically-minded religious and civil leaders who drew civil laws from the Old Testament. Sabbatarianism had its greatest day in the scholastic period of Roman Catholic theology (R.A. Morey, Exclusive Psalmody, Research and Education Foundation, 1975, pp. 41-56).
3. The pre-Reformers and early Reformers threw out the medieval Catholic Sabbath and returned to the theology of the early church (Dr. Richard Gaffin, Calvin and the Sabbath, WTS thesis).
4. The Puritan period continued the tradition of church-state union and in this context the Sabbath was re-established in their seventeenth century theocracies. It was a return to scholastic Catholic thinking.
5. Today, only within the Reformed community is there any serious attempt to revive the Christian Sabbatarian position. To some, it has become a sacred cow or a theological shibboleth. At the same time, Reformation studies on the position of the early Reformers are reviving the Continental Reformed position which is the position of this author.
6. Cultic Sabbatarians often make seventh-day Sabbath-keeping essential for salvation. This reveals that they are preaching salvation by works instead of by grace. They like the Pharisees go about seeking to establish their own righteousness. Their judgment is just.
Conclusion
The Sabbath was a ceremonial law which pointed backward to Creation and forward to salvation by faith. It was ceremonial in nature, function and attributes. The Continental Reformed position is thus confirmed as the best understanding of the Biblical data.
Suggested Reading
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chap. 8, sec. 28-34.
From Sabbath To Lord’s Day, ed. D. A. Carson, (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1982).
Richard Gaffin, Calvin and the Sabbath, unpublished Th. M. thesis at Westminster Theological Seminary.
James Hessey, Sunday: Its Origin, History and Present Obligation (Cossell: London, 1889).
Gary North, "The Economics of Sabbath Keeping," in R. J. Rushdoony’s The Institutes of Biblical Law, (P & R: 1976) pp. 824-836.
Hiley Ward, Space-Age Sunday (Macmillan: 1960).
Robert Morey, An Examination of Exclusive Psalmody (New Life: 1974).
A new book is out that provides a very comprehensive review of this issue, I highly recommend it for folk on both sides of this topic. A review is posted here: defendingcontending.com/2014/04/09/the-sabbath-complete/
ReplyDelete