DARK DAY MINISTRIES

Sabbatismos

by Richard Storey

July 30, 2012

A treatise on the doctrine of the Sabbath under the better and eternal Covenant in Christ's blood. The very best of the arguments for the Sabbatarian positions are debunked and the Spiritual-Sabbatarian (or Non / Anti-Sabbatarian) position is affirmed from Scripture.

Contents of Sabbatismos

p.2 Title, introduction and typical Non-Sabbatarian position presented

p.5 The Sabbath is a perpetual creation ordinance and a natural law or moral law

binding on all men

- p.5 Is the Sabbath a creation ordinance?

- p.11 Is the Sabbath a universal moral law?

p.17 Hebrews 4:9 teaches that we are to keep a Sabbath

p.19 Christ said that we are not to break the least commandment

p.21 Christ said there would be a Sabbath at the end of the world (Mt 24:20)

p.22 The Old Testament prophesies of Sabbath continuation under the Gospel

p.24 Eighth day ceremonies in the Old Testament prefigured the change of the

Sabbath to the first day

p.25 There was a transition period from the seventh day Sabbath to the first day.

p.26 The origins of either form of Sabbatarianism

p.29 The fruits of Sabbatarianism

p.29 Conclusion

p.31 Appendix - Some other questions

Why did God rest on the seventh day at all?

Didn't Noah keep the Sabbath in Genesis 8:10 & 12?

Didn't Origen of the early church teach that we must not do any servile work on the Lord's

Day, calling it the 'Christian Sabbath'?

Didn't Archelaus of the early church keep the seventh day Sabbath and write that all Christians should?

Doesn't Revelation 14:12 teach that the saints keep the commandments of God?

Sabbatismos - the Sabbath under the Gospel

by Richard Storey (30/07/12)

In this study, I will be examining the Sabbath under the New, better and eternal Covenant of Christ; I will also need to examine the Law (or old covenant) and its place with respect to the Gospel (or New Covenant). There are three views regarding the Sabbath: Seventh-day Sabbatarianism which teaches that the Sabbath continues on the seventh day of the week and has done so since creation; First-day Sabbatarianism which teaches that Christ, having established the new creation and now resting from His work, changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week; and Anti-Sabbatarianism or Non-Sabbatarianism which teaches that the Sabbath was a shadow of Christ and the rest from all works that we have in Him. I personally hold to Anti-Sabbatarianism though I prefer the term Non-Sabbatarian of the two; yet neither adequately expresses the belief that we have an eternal Sabbath to come and that we enter into the peace and eternal life of it now, in Jesus Christ. By God's grace, I will refute the very best of the argumentation for either form of Sabbatarianism and present the argument for Non-Sabbatarianism.

Before I do so, I would very briefly like to explain that nothing has caused me as much grief in my walk with Christ as this very topic. I was, at one time, a legalistic Seventh-day Sabbatarian; I grievously could not be convinced of the First-day Sabbatarian position by dear brethren whom I love. I only ever found any true spiritual rest in Christ, not in any day; I longed to be free from the thunder of the law upon my soul for never knowing whether I was truly doing as God would have me do. But now I know that Christ has set me free from all of my works, both good and bad and I believe this is the New Testament teaching regarding the Sabbath.

I will start by stating the typical argument presented by most Non-Sabbatarians. This argument, when well-stated, is perfectly adequate, but it is not nearly as thorough as it should be as it does not deal with the many questions and conflictions in the mind of the Sabbatarian. I will, therefore, go on to deal with the major and minor arguments presented by Sabbatarians of either sort.

Here is the typical Non-Sabbatarian position outlined:

The Greek word for 'sabbath days' here is 'sabbaton' which elsewhere in Scripture is used to refer to the weekly Sabbath; for example:

At no other instance in the Bible is this word used to represent anything other than the weekly Sabbath, yet, in this verse in Colossians, Sabbatarians would have us take it to mean something completely different. The Sabbatarian would state that the word is used here in the plural sense and that it is referring to all of the ceremonial sabbaths but not the weekly Sabbath. Whereas the learned Dr. Gill, who was himself a Sabbatarian, says this of the verse:

'[S]ome copies read in the singular number, "or of the Sabbath"; which were all peculiar to the Jews, were never binding on the Gentiles, and to which believers in Christ, be they who they will, are by no means obliged; nor ought they to observe them, the one any more than the other; and should they be imposed upon them, they ought to reject them...'

Also, we have an Old Testament precedent to interpret Colossians 2:16 as representing yearly feasts, the monthly new moons and the weekly Sabbath; look at how the same language is used in Ezekiel and Hosea:

Indeed, the early church unanimously interpreted this verse in the same manner. Here are some quotes to reveal their understanding of the Sabbath in the New

Testament:

Now, in the New Testament, even after Christ's resurrection, the seventh day Sabbath is still referred to as the Sabbath but, as we see in Acts, this was purely a time for proselytising the Jews:

Nowhere do we see that the Sabbath is anything more than this in the New Testament, much less do we see that it was changed to the first day of the week. Indeed, the final and only other time it is mentioned in the New Testament is in the Epistle to the Colossians, as we have read. Certainly, in Paul's epistles we do not read of any person exhorted for not keeping the Sabbath correctly; amidst the atrocious behaviour of the Corinthians, for instance, is it conceivable that they happened to be

exemplary Sabbatarians?

The arguments I have just presented are as far as most Non-Sabbatarians would normally take things and you can tell that, though well-intentioned, they have never had to personally and spiritually grapple with the issue of the Sabbath; they have not been greatly grieved on the matter, battling with both sides of the argument for fear of walking sinfully in the dear love and Spirit of Christ, for fear of grieving the Holy Spirit. Therefore, for the love of the brethren and a desire to see Sabbatarians set

free in Christ and to recognise that He is the rest for our souls from the covenants of the Old Testament, I shall endeavour to tackle the main arguments presented by Sabbatarians:

- The Sabbath is a perpetual creation ordinance and a natural law or moral law binding on all men

- Hebrews 4:9 teaches that we are to keep a Sabbath

- Christ said that we are not to break the least commandment

- Christ said there would be a Sabbath at the end of the world (Matthew 24:20)

- The Old Testament prophesies of Sabbath continuation under the Gospel

- Eighth day ceremonies in the Old Testament prefigured the change of the

Sabbath to the first day

- There was a transition period from the seventh day Sabbath to the first day.

Then I shall discuss the origins of either form of Sabbatarianism before drawing to a

conclusion.

The argument goes something like this: 'In Genesis, we see the start of everything: agriculture, language, work, marriage and family and all human endeavour (Genesis 1:28, 2:8 & 24); worship is also one of the things we see established and, as God sanctified and blessed the seventh day, worship and/or rest on this day is therefore a perpetual ordinance for all men. After all, didn't the Lord say:

Well, let's firstly examine what we see in Genesis. In order to logically conclude, with no presuppositions, that Sabbath-keeping was a creation ordinance, we should have at least one implicit example of any of the following: A commandment given to man to keep a seven day week; a commandment given to keep one of those days as a Sabbath; or an individual recognising one of these commandments.

Yet, in Genesis, what do we see?

Now, only God rested on this day. Not that God needs rest; we see that truly God does continue to work in a certain sense on the Sabbath -

Notice that in the commandment itself we see that the Lord blessed the day because He personally rested from His own creative work:

it. (emphasis added)

Are we given any indication then to suggest that there are those who were to rest with God prior Moses?

Many suggest that, as the words 'in process of time' can also mean 'at the end of days', this therefore means Cain and Abel brought sacrifices at the end of the week. Sabbatarian Dr. Gill writes honestly of the words to reveal the unscripturalness of such an interpretation: 'Or "at the end of days"; which some understand of the end of seven days, at the end of the week, or on the seventh day, which they suppose to be the sabbath day, these sons of Adam brought their offerings to the Lord: but this proceeds upon an hypothesis not sufficiently established, that the seventh day sabbath was now appointed to be observed in a religious way; rather, according to Aben Ezra, it was at the end of the year; So "after days" in Judges 11:4 is meant after a year; and which we there render, as here, "in process of time".'

The plain reading of the text declares that no one else was doing any creating, only God, and God alone was resting; furthermore, God did not start creating again the following week but rested completely, just as Christ now rests perpetually from His finished work in the new creation:

So there is no precedent or implication of a weekly holyday for men in Genesis; in fact the only thing we can ascertain from other verses in Scripture is that the weekly Sabbath was introduced to men with the Law given to Moses.

We know that the Law was given to Moses and the children of Israel 430 years after Abraham:

And we see that the Sabbath was introduced with that Law:

And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant...

This Law with the commandment of the Sabbath was not given prior to Moses:

The famous Puritan John Milton, a Non-Sabbatarian, wrote this of the matter: 'That the Israelites had not so much as heard of the Sabbath before this time, seems to be confirmed by several passages of the prophets.

And this is the first sign of its institution amongst men; note that even if 'remember', in the fourth commandment of Exodus 20:8, were to mean to recall something in the past, it could only ever be referring back to this test-run of the Sabbath which the Lord conducted.

Scripture does not even indicate that they were forced to work on an instituted Sabbath day; this is purely imagination. In fact, all we are told is that Pharaoh's efforts had the opposite effect to those intended:

Yet, we are supposed to imagine that some underlying storyline of Hebrews being forced to break the Sabbath is occurring during all this with God making absolutely no mention of it, nothing even implied.

What we are told explicitly is that the Sabbath is established at the giving of the Law of Moses and no amount of picture-painting around the Scriptures can detract from it. Yet Sabbatarians will usually respond to these facts by desperately contending that Moses had called for the people to observe the Sabbath during the oppressive tyranny of Pharaoh:

'The word rest here in Hebrew,' they declare, 'is "shawbath" and has the same root as the word for the Sabbath - "Shabbath".' This is ridiculous when we consider that this word simply means to cease and is used in Genesis to mean just that:

I defy any Sabbatarian to declare just as boldly that the seasons are breaking the fourth commandment.

Furthermore, the early church certainly did not hold to the idea that the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, revealing this doctrine's late and sandy foundation:

Even the Jews themselves did not hold to the doctrine of the Sabbath being a universal creation ordinance; in the Book of Jubilees 2:31 (160-100B.C.), we read: '[God] allowed no other people or peoples to keep the Sabbath on this day, except Israel only; to it alone he granted to eat and drink and keep the Sabbath on it'. Visiting strangers and the converted Gentile patriarchs are of course exceptions and viewed with the Sabbath being applied as a national or civil law.

Historically, if there were a seven day week and/or worship on one of those days were issued to man at the creation, then we would see evidence of this in the ancient cultures, as we do for the other events of Genesis and the Books of Moses, but we do not.

Historically, we can see that some ancient cultures, such as the Babylonians, were able to establish that, according to the patterns of the moon, a seven day week is the most obvious division of time.  Interestingly, they also held certain rest days, one of which was on the full moon of the month which they called 'sabbatu'.  But, all this was unique to those cultures in the ancient Near-East; the rest of the ancient world had all manner of ancient weekly systems with as much as twenty days in various cultures.  Therefore, it cannot be a creation ordinance as there is no evidence of this.

Scientifically, there is nothing in nature to indicate that man should rest for a 24 hour period as a matter of morality. Certainly, the argument presented that there is some sort of biological clock in man or animals which requires one day's rest out of seven is bogus. In fact it is physically impossible to keep the Sabbath in certain parts of this planet and therefore it cannot be universally applied.

Here, the main argument typically presented is this: 'Jesus said:

Let us look at circumcision as an example. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant:

If it is not immoral, then why was God ready to kill when Moses had not circumcised his child?

The Sabbath was written on those two tablets of stone because it was the sign of that Mosaic covenant, the breaking of which is completely immoral. In this regard alone, that it was the sign of that covenant, can it be considered a moral commandment. Yet it was one only intended for the nation of Israel, as we have seen. Otherwise, the Sabbath is entirely distinct from the other 9 moral commandments:

- it does not reflect God's moral character, nor that imparted to man who is made in His image;

- it cannot be revealed by general or natural revelation but requires test-runs to establish it in man's mind (Exodus 16);

- it was not established from creation;

- it should be unchangeable or immutable (not changing from one day to another);

- it was not binding on all men but Israel only;

- it was subservient to a ceremonial law:

- it is not a moral absolute which cannot be broken under any circumstances; the Lord Jesus says:

'Wait a moment,' the Sabbatarian will interject, 'Rahab the harlot lied about the spies to hide them and we see that killing is fine during war in the Scriptures, so this doesn't apply to all of the other 9 commandments either.'

Actually, the commandment regarding lying is as follows:

The famous Puritan commentator Matthew Henry comments concisely on this verse and the Hebrew word for 'kill':

As the Lord says regarding the morality of these two commandments:

For these reasons, murder and bearing false witness against another cannot be considered to be breakable in any circumstance as we see the Sabbath is and as ceremonial laws are. These reasons alone place the Sabbath commandment outside of the category of a moral commandment, were it not for its being the seal of the covenant.

More than this though, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself distinguishes the Sabbath commandment from the others on the tables of stone. We have already read the verse concerning the Sabbath having been made for man, but let us read the rest of it:

Which of the other of the 9 commandments can this be said of? Let us examine them all:

Can we say that men were made to have one God? Yes, Adam was made in God's

image and for His glory.

Can we say that men were made to have no idols? Yes, man was made upright and dwelt in God's presence with no idols.

Can we say that men were made to call upon the name of the Lord? Yes, man was created in God's presence and they did not commune in vain as we see in the first few chapters of Genesis.

Can we say that men were created to honour their parents and all authority over them? Yes, as the apostle says:

Therefore, it is a matter of morality and indeed it reflects a character of godliness:

Can we say that men were not created to kill each other? Yes.

Can we say that men were created to only have sexual relations within the ordinance which God has set? Yes. Dr. Gill notes, regarding the Lord's words to be fruitful and multiply in Genesis 1:28, 'marriage is an ordinance of God, instituted in paradise, and is honourable; and...procreation is a natural action...and may be performed without sin'. God made the world to be inhabited, as He declares:

he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited...

And we see that marriage predates ancient history; anthropologically, cultures have always had the concept of marriage and their consciences concerned with the matter. Therefore, we can say, yes, God made man to populate the earth but only through the means He established. Men were created to not commit adultery whether they themselves are married or not (Deuteronomy 22:22). See the tenth commandment to better understand how this applies to the conscience and therefore as a moral law.

Were men created to own their own possessions and not to take another's? Yes.

Were men created to speak the truth one with another? Yes.

Were men created to be content with such things as they have, with God's blessings and mercy? Yes. These are all 'right' as Paul would say and they are all matters that can burden

natural man's conscience.

Men know inside themselves that there must be a Creator and, in their darkened understanding, they know that it is wrong to curse that God. Even the most savage of tribes moved by God's Spirit at the hearing of His Word from missionaries have declared they knew their murders and adulteries were wrong in their dark hearts, but never do we see consciences naturally pricked regarding resting entirely from servile work on one day of a seven day week. It is not a natural phenomenon and therefore cannot be a universal, moral law. Indeed, it would require a test run, such as we see

This leads us to the next Sabbatarian argument...

This is why Thayer's Lexicon defines 'sabbatismos' as 'the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God'.

Matthew Poole writes of this verse that 'the Spirit concludes from his former proofs,

that there is a more excellent rest revealed to faith in the gospel, which is remaining,

future, and to come... A sabbatism, which is a state and season of a most glorious

rest, (see Hebrews 4:10), shall be enjoyed by sincere believers, the true Israel of

God...'

John Trapp writes that the sabbatismos is '[a] sabbatism, an eternal rest'.

John Calvin writes: 'He draws the conclusion, that there is a sabbathizing reserved for God's people, that is, a spiritual rest; to which God daily invites us... This is a definition of that perpetual Sabbath in which there is the highest felicity, when there will be a likeness between men and God, to whom they will be united.'

Matthew Henry calls this sabbatism '[a] rest of grace, and comfort, and holiness, in the gospel state. This is the rest wherewith the Lord Jesus, our Joshua, causes weary souls and awakened consciences to rest, and this is the refreshing. A rest in glory, the everlasting sabbatism of heaven...where the people of God shall enjoy the end of their faith and the object of all their desires.'

The vast majority of commentators, modern or old, regardless of doctrinal difference, are in agreement.

Truly, we can say that the context makes this point obvious and that, in the multitude of counsellors, it is safe to interpret this chapter likewise (Proverbs 11:14 & 24:6).

The real question which Hebrews 4 raises, however, is this: Has Christ given us rest for our souls or not? If He has then, according to verse 8, we cannot speak of another day. What does the Lord Jesus Himself say?

Now the rest for our souls here, which Christ says He will most certainly give His sheep, is the Greek word 'anapausis' which shares exactly the same root for the word 'rest' in Hebrews 4:8; the word in verse 8 is 'katapausis', as it is in verse 4 to describe God's rest on the seventh day:

These two words, the rest that Christ gives us and the rest spoken of in Hebrews 4, are different uses of the same foundational verb 'paus' which means to cease, particularly from work. Therefore, if Jesus Christ has given us rest, the Sabbath has been fulfilled in and by Him and, therefore, we cannot speak of another Sabbath day but we have already passed into eternal life and await our remaining eternal rest. We rest from all of our works, both good and bad, in Christ. I believe Dr. Gill puts it truthfully and eloquently when he comments that 'a truly sensible sinner enjoys no rest, but in Christ'.

Likewise, Robert Hawker when he notes that, 'though Joshua did bring the people into Canaan, yet this was only typical of a better rest, which remaineth for the people of God. Hence it is plain, by the Lord's speaking of another rest, this of Joshua's was not the one intended. Christ himself is indeed the rest wherewith the Lord causeth the weary to rest, and this is the refreshing... Reader! it will be your happiness, and mine, if, under divine teaching, we are come to Christ, as our rest; and from a knowledge of Him, are made sensible of his bountiful dealing with us, in the rest of salvation'.

So, Jesus has stated that:

1. The Law, i.e. the entire old Mosaic covenant, will not pass away until it is fulfilled.

3. Jesus has come to fulfil, i.e. keep, that Law as well as the prophecies.

In light of this, to state that 'the least' commandment from the old covenant must be kept by a Christian is to wed the Christian back to the Law, to return him back to the schoolmaster from whom he has been discharged -

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Notice that 'the least' commandment cannot be referring to any of the ten commandments but is referring to the minutiae of the Law as laid out in the Torah, thus Christ refers to the jots and tittles of it. And what does the New Testament have to say regarding the Law?

The better Covenant teaches us that the entirety of the old covenant has passed away and that we are under a completely New Covenant with a completely different priesthood and therefore a brand new set of precepts; better still, we are led directly by God's very Spirit working in our hearts and correcting us as a Father (Hebrews 12:5-11).

If you can show me the New Testament precept for Sabbath-keeping then I should hate to sin against it.

The line of reasoning here is that:

1. Matthew 24:20 is referring to the second coming of Christ; and

2. There would be a continuation of the Sabbath amongst Christians after Christ's resurrection and ascension into heaven.

Firstly, Matthew 24:20 is not referring to the second coming but to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I shall not argue this point here as it is irrelevant to the conclusion that we reach. Suffice it to say that Christ is asked two questions by His disciples in Matthew 24:

And our Lord Jesus answers both questions in the chapter: the first, regarding 'these things', i.e. the destruction of the temple which He has prophesied of in the previous verse, and the second question, regarding His second coming. Nevertheless, the point is that a continuation of the Sabbath for Christians after Christ's ascension is assumed from verse 20. Yet, this is not what we are told in the context:

But, in any event, the Jews, including our Lord, observed a lunar calendar, not the solar calendar established in western civilisation by the Roman Empire, which we now use; even if the Sabbath were to continue to the end of the world, Sabbatarians are potentially resting on the wrong day. If calendars can change, then they are admitting that the Sabbath can arbitrarily be changed also; we can just invent different calendars for ourselves and worship or rest whenever we want.

Here are the verses quoted to affirm that Sabbatarianism was prophesied as New Testament practice:

If we are to interpret this as being a literal Sabbath then we must also interpret the following verses as teaching that, in the New Covenant, we Gentiles are literally to bring sacrifices upon an altar to the holy mountain:

These verses in Revelation certainly put to silence any literal interpretation of the verses we have read in Isaiah. But more than this, one cannot consistently interpret the Sabbath as being a literal continuation of the Sabbath day from these verses in Isaiah, for then one would have to do so with the holydays of the new moon and this is something which the Sabbatarian interpretation of Colossians 2:16 simply does not allow. The only logical conclusion left is: the Sabbath day was a shadow of Christ and the Sabbath expressed in Isaiah cannot be interpreted otherwise.

Another supposed prophecy put forward by the First-day Sabbatarians is from Psalm

118:

They state that this 'day which the LORD hath made' is clearly referring to the Sabbath having been changed to the first day of the week, when Christ rose from the dead and when He ascended into heaven for us. But the Sabbath is nowhere mentioned or implied in this Psalm. Christ speaks of this Psalm as referring to the establishment of His church:

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The 'day' spoken of here can only be interpreted, according to other Scriptures, as the day of salvation, that acceptable time or acceptable year spoken of by the prophets when prophesying of the Messiah's coming kingdom and the light that would go to the Gentiles:

There is nothing but a desperate presupposition that could bring someone to read of some Sabbath change in these verses.

The next argument unique to First-day Sabbatarianism is that certain celebrations which took place on the eighth day, i.e. the first day of the week or the day after the Sabbath, were a shadow of the Sabbath change from the seventh day to the first. Circumcision took place on the eighth day for instance:

There is one huge problem with interpreting these as foreshadowing a Sabbath change. It is not that, for the Sabbath to be a moral law, it must be unchanging or immutable, as we have already seen. It is, again, the interpretation that such Sabbatarians will hold to regarding the very first verses we examined in this study:

If these special sabbaths and feasts which fall on the first day of the week are shadows of anything, we are told explicitly in the New Testament that they are shadows of Christ. According to the Holy Spirit, they are not shadows of a future festival or of a Sabbath change. This is a glaring contradiction.

The final argument unique to First-day Sabbatarianism is that the reason the seventh day Sabbath is still called the Sabbath by the Holy Spirit in Acts, and by Christ in Matthew 24, is because there was some mystical transitional period and, at the fulfilment of this, it would then have become apparent to Christians and acceptable for the Holy Spirit to call the first day of the week 'the Sabbath'.

This idea is nowhere implied in Scripture, but the First-day Sabbatarian argues that it is; they reason that, just as we see the Passover feast changed to the Lord's Supper and Jewish ceremonies like circumcision conducted and certain foods abstained from to avoid offending the consciences of Jewish brethren, so too there was clearly a change from the seventh day Sabbath to the first day. We are given no Scriptures to even imply that such a controversy took place in the New Testament, which most certainly would have done if the Jews were told that their Sabbath was to be changed. The other transitions listed by the First-day Sabbatarian are all clearly and explicitly established in the New Testament but as for a Sabbath change, we hear nothing from Paul but that it was fulfilled in Christ (Colossians 2:17). Nonetheless, let us entertain the idea that there was a transition period for a Sabbath change.

So then, when we look sensibly and realistically at history, do we see some transition period taking place?

But, returning to the transition period theory put forward by First-day Sabbatarians, what we find is that the Lord's Day, the first day of the week, was only viewed for the purposes of conducting New Testament ordinances by the early church. We see that this is the extent to which the New Testament shows the practice of the early church. The Lord's Supper and tithing were conducted on the Lord's Day; certain significance is given to the first day of the week by the church, certainly as the Lord's resurrection, His appearing specifically on that day to the disciples, His ascension into heaven and Pentecost all occurred on that day.

The Lord's Day was seen correctly by the early church as a New Testament pattern for the keeping of ordinances. However, when Constantine brought about the un- Biblical mingling of church and state, many heresies began to arise and leaven the churches and rather than remain independent and refute the heresies through writing and preaching, councils began to look to the Emperor to give the final word across the Empire as to which side of the doctrinal debate would be tolerated legally. This of course, along with the heresies themselves, made the way for the rise of the Antichrist.

With church and state mixed, the state of course looked to the Old Testament Theocracy for its civil laws. This is all of course entirely repugnant to the New Testament church order as established by the apostles.

However, this was not the case with all and it did not last for long as most of the Reformers began to follow Aquinas' line of reasoning rather than God's Word. What very soon developed was a legalistic attitude towards the Lord's Day and the imposition of the fourth commandment from the Mosaic Law on the New Covenant. We see this particularly with the Puritans in England and Scotland who later developed strict laws regarding what had been coined 'the Christian Sabbath'. This led to a slight division between the strict 'Puritan Sabbath' which one sees enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 'Continental Sabbath' of the Heidelberg Catechism which does not expressly forbid recreational activities; although, in practice, the tendency was towards a legalistic, almost Judaising, observance in both camps.

So where exactly is the pedigree for this doctrine that there was a change of the Sabbath over a transition period? There is no pedigree; in fact, when we look at the historical facts, we see that Sabbatarianism is rather part and pillar of popery, having been founded upon the diabolical union of church with state and the false doctrines of popish philosophy, leaving a terrible hangover in the minds of the Reformers who were all, of course, ex-Romanist priests.

Are we to believe that, upon this ungodly mess, the Sabbath was finally changed after many centuries at the whim of the Puritans? I cannot abide such a doctrine in light of all this.

Dr. Gill, as we have stated, was a First-day Sabbatarian, yet he is nonetheless brought to recognise these truths in his commentary on Romans 14:5: '[O]ne that is strong in faith, and has a greater degree of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of evangelical liberty, knows that the distinction of days, as well as of meats, is taken away, since the word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us, Christ the passover is sacrificed for us, the firstfruits of the Spirit have been received, and light by the church from the sun of righteousness, and Christ the true sabbath and rest is come; and therefore, being firmly persuaded there is no more holiness in days than there is in places, has the same regard for one day as another. The difference between these two lay here, the weak brother regarded a day for the sake of a day, as having by a positive law, he supposed to be in force, a superiority to another, and he regarded worship for the sake of this day; the stronger brother, though he also observed a day for divine worship, which is the Lord's day, since there must be some time for it as well as place, yet he observed the day for the sake of worship, and not worship for the sake of the day...'

As a Sabbatarian, I found that an un-Christian form a legalism was nurtured in my heart as I began to develop my own arbitrary rules of how one might keep the Sabbath under the grace of the New and better Covenant. Indeed, it seems that without any indication of any rules in the New Testament, a certain anarchy reigns as to how Christians keep their Sabbath, with the rules differing from church to church in a purely arbitrary manner. Some cook, some do not; some drive a car and some realise that to do so is to cause an ignition in the car's engine and is therefore lighting a fire on the Sabbath. There is even inconsistency as to the timing of the Sabbath; many Sabbatarians do not keep their Sabbath from sundown to sundown as it was established by God, supposedly as a creation ordinance (Leviticus 23:32), or from sunrise, when the Lord's tomb was found empty. Christian liberty is apparently allowed in the matter with no New Testament principles to indicate any Sabbath regulations at all. And when one desires to have a set of authoritative rules on how to keep the Sabbath, one is typically directed to the words of men in the Westminster Confession of Faith or other.

Furthermore, I found that Sabbatarianism nurtured a spirit of Pharisaic pride, superiority and a judgmental attitude in me. I found that the focus on a day caused me to be endeavouring to work to bring myself closer to God, closer to His favour by my own actions rather than ceasing from all my works in Christ as the New Testament calls me to do, knowing that I am only acceptable in God's sight through Him. I found that, for me, the Sabbath caused me to be wedded back to the Law after I had been wedded to Christ and, according to the Holy Spirit, I was therefore committing spiritual adultery (Romans 7:1-4).

I find that Sabbatarians of either persuasion are quick to expound views of a deeper, more spiritual Sabbath whereby all of one's being must be devoted to Christ on that day. The apostle Paul writes that we must do this always (2 Corinthians 10:5) but nonetheless the Sabbatarian will emphasise this point for a particular day and yet I have found them to unrepentantly discuss the football and all manner of worldliness on that day with no church discipline even dreamt of by any of the congregation. If a brother was harbouring hatred in his heart for another, there would, I pray, be an exhortation on the matter, but for the supposed spiritual Sabbath-breaking of this supposedly 'higher or greater Sabbath', there seems to be great inconsistency.

I cannot condemn because I was no different as a Sabbatarian.

To conclude, I feel I must express my love of the Lord's Day. I love to be with brethren and worship my God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I will not do any less than the New Testament directs for assembly on that Day, nor shall I call it or attribute to it anything more than the New Testament does. Moreover, to knowingly and openly do something contrary to the conscience of a nearby Sabbatarian may cause them to sin against their conscience and would, thus, be an offence to God. Therefore, Christian care and wisdom is needed (Romans 14:4-5).

For those who have yet to arrive at my conclusions, I would ask you to pray to almighty God as to why it is that, in the epistles, there is no reiteration of the Sabbath. Ask in prayer why it is that Paul does not rebuke the Corinthians for their obscene Sabbath-breaking. I personally find the answer to be so beautifully and clearly laid out at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. I will not quote extensively from this chapter but I invite all to prayerfully and carefully re-read the subject and conclusion of this Council, even the entire chapter, noting that, though the Sabbath is mentioned, it is only in passing. What an opportunity this would have been for the Holy Spirit to say something to the masses of raw Pagan Gentile converts regarding Sabbath-keeping. What the Spirit did say was far different.

James' conclusion in this chapter is widely overlooked but the truth of it is astonishingly beautiful:

James is quoting from Amos 9 to declare that God would personally build the tabernacle by His Spirit - this church, built upon the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is why Paul can conclude thus:

No, we are not under the Law; we are under Grace, Truth and the Gospel. There has been a complete change of the priesthood and a complete change of the Law; the old Law has been entirely abolished in Christ and so we must look to the better Covenant for our precepts, knowing that we are entirely led of God's Spirit, who is able to guide us into all truth, correct us and keep us from falling.

As for the Sabbath, why should we be surprised that Christ is the fulfilment of the Sabbath? The Sabbath was introduced with the manna from heaven, yet that was not the true bread from heaven; Christ is the true bread from heaven to give us eternal life and so too He is our rest from all our dead works.

Appendix - Some other questions

Why did God rest on the seventh day at all if the Sabbath day was only going to be significant as a day for the Hebrew people under the Mosaic covenant?

If we view Christ as the fulfillment of the Sabbath as Paul declares in Colossians -

Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

(This referring to the weekly Sabbath, as we see from parallel verses which set a precedent such as Ezekiel 45:17 and Hosea 2:11 etc.)

- we can then see that when God rested on the seventh day, this was because He 'created all things by Jesus Christ'. When He rested on the seventh day, this was a sign of the perfection of His creation before the fall and the perfection of the rest to come in the new creation in Christ. The number 7 is used throughout Scripture to represent perfection; this is why the seventh day would have been chosen by our Lord. The fact that God rests on this day which is a foreshadowing of Christ confirms to us that, truly, all things were made for Him (Colossians 1:16).

The Sabbath was then made known to Israel by Moses (not to all mankind from creation), according to Nehemiah 9:13-14. This then called for men to cease from works as God ceased from His work of creation. This, again, is an illustration of Christ, as these people are being called to cease from all their works, as we cease from all of our works (good or bad) in Christ.

To summarise:

Why did God make a Sabbath day? Because it is symbolic of Christ.

Why did it have to be the seventh day? Because seven is a sign of perfection and God (who declares the end from the beginning) had a perfect plan for His creation by Christ.

The opposing view is that God made man rest on the seventh day because there is something moral in the act of ceasing from servile work for 24 hours in a 7-day period. The first view makes more sense than the latter.

Didn't Noah keep the Sabbath in Genesis 8:10 & 12?

The 'Noah kept the Sabbath' argument holds no water (if you will excuse the pun). He was asked to bring seven clean animals into the ark, whereas two unclean animals. He might have thought seven a godly number. Also, certain ancient civilisations could determine that seven days was the best way to split the moon phases, as we have seen; he might even have been aware of this fact.

But, putting all speculation aside, God gave Noah one week until it would rain (Genesis 7:4); what was to stop Noah from dividing his time by seven days too in his experiments with the raven and the doves? None of this demands the conclusion of Sabbath-keeping; if so, why was he working with those birds on those days? He and his beasts should have been resting, not picking up sticks or olive leaves. There is nothing in this account to indicate that Sabbath-keeping was taking place; a foreshadowing of it or even the Sabbath as fulfilled by Christ in the new creation, perhaps. But to impose one's presuppositions on the motifs in Genesis is deeply flawed.

If the Sabbath were a creation ordinance, why would God declare the legislation of His Law throughout the Old Testament but simply leave such important matters as motifs, with only vague notions spoken to the people, in Genesis? There most certainly is legislation given in Genesis 9:6 and so why would God not have been explicit about this important matter also? Unless the Sabbath was not given until Moses as Nehemiah 9:13-14 tells us.

Didn't Origen of the early church teach that we must not do any servile work on the Lord's Day, calling it the 'Christian Sabbath'?

Yes, he did. In fact, we can pinpoint the teaching that no work was to be done of the Lord's Day to Origen alone and, yes, he is also thought to have coined the term 'Christian Sabbath'. He is apparently the only one to have interpreted things this way, prior to the Nicene council. The only reason I have not included him in this piece is because he was a gross heretic. As Schaff puts it, 'His predilection for Plato led him into many grand and fascinating errors.'29 He quite clearly misinterpreted his tutelage and the Scriptures, just as he did when he cut off his private parts, supposedly following the teachings of the Lord Jesus. To use him as the foundation for one's doctrines is sandy indeed and to use terminology he used for those doctrines is troubling. I do not personally consider him to be part of the body of Christ and, as his views on the Lord's Day do not appear to have been especially influential in his time, I do not consider him to be relevant.

The early church declared that the Lord's Day was to be kept according to the NT, assembling together on that day for worship and study of the Word of God, but not following Origen's interpretation.

Didn't Archelaus of the early church keep the seventh day Sabbath and write that all Christians should?

Many Seventh-day Sabbatarian websites will have copied a quote by 'Archaleus' (the name incorrectly spelled) from his Acts of the Disputation with Manes from the 3^rd century: 'Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself also Lord of the Sabbath.'30 Before we draw any conclusions, when Archelaus says that the Sabbath hasn't been plainly abolished, does he mean that it has been fulfilled in and by Christ and that we have our rest in Him or is he declaring that the seventh day Sabbath is to continue for Christians. Let's examine the context by reading the rest: 'And this, the law's relation to the Sabbath, was like the servant who has charge of the bridegroom's chamber, and who prepares the same with all carefulness, and does not suffer it to be disturbed or touched by any stranger, but keeps it intact against the time of the bridegroom's arrival; so that when he is come, the same may be used as it pleases himself, or as it is granted to those to use it whom he has bidden enter along with him. And the Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave His testimony to what we affirm, when He said with His heavenly voice, "Can ye make the children of the bride-chamber fast so long as the bridegroom is with them?" '.

(emphasis added)

Archelaus then goes on to compare the Sabbath with circumcision, stating that circumcision has also been fulfilled in Christ: 'And again, He did not actually reject circumcision; but we should rather say that He received in Himself and in our stead the cause of circumcision, relieving us by what He Himself endured, and not permitting us to have to suffer any pain to no purpose.'31

But to conclude, I think it better that Archelaus himself be allowed to explicitly declare what the Sabbath means to him, as well as how to spell his name: '[T]he legislator [God] desires also that every individual amongst us should be devoted unceasingly to this kind of work, even as God Himself is; and he enjoins us consequently to rest continuously from secular things, and to engage in no worldly sort of work whatsoever; and this is called our Sabbath.'32 (emphasis added)

For Archelaus, the Sabbath was a continuous rest from all worldliness, never ceasing to look to Christ, to walk in the Spirit, bringing every thought to Him.

Doesn't Revelation 14:12 teach that the saints keep the commandments of God?

Indeed it does, but the same John who was given and wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ understood that we are under a New Covenant in Him, with new laws and a new priesthood (Hebrews 7:12). This is why he used the same word for 'commandments' in Revelation 14:12 in 1 John 3:22-24 to declare to us what the commandments are in this better Covenant:

Footnotes

Donaldson, & A. Cleveland Coxe., Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.