Hello;
I am taking heat over on the other Sabbath thread because I hold to a "looser" view than some.
But below I have included a rather long (sorry) report I wrote to my own church about the Sabbath.
I am a sovereign grace baptist but sadly my groups is influenced by Reisenger and others who hold to "New Covenant Theology" often denying that the Sabbath exists any longer. Beware of New Covenant Theology; it infects many baptists who are calvinists.
So I compiled the best arguments I knew and fashioned them into a report for my home church and a man from a nearby church who was struggling over these issues.
Thanks to Richard Barcellos who helped me, and also the help of my pastor.
Please read and consider. Also check out the Founders Conference from 2005 (I think) that featured a discussion of New Covenant Theology. These are very good resources and I can look them up and have them sent to you if you are interested.
ROMANS 14 AND COLOSSIANS 2:
NO ABROGATION OF THE WEEKLY SABBATH:
1689 Confession
22.7._____
As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.
( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )
The problem:
The Ten Commandments contains the injunction to keep the Sabbath in the 4th Commandment. Romans 14 and Colossians 2, however, both seem to indicate that one day is as another – that there is no distinction in any day. These verses seem to abrogate this necessity of physically keeping a day (instead we are to trust in Christ, who is our Rest). Do these two verses, Colossians 2 and Romans 14, disprove those who treat the first day of the week as “The Lord’s Day” and who treat the Sabbath Principle as perpetual?
The texts:
Romans 14:
2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Colossians 2:
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16Let 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:
Trusting in Christ, our Rest, is of utmost importance and without this we can keep no Sabbath truly. There is, however, still one day in seven during this present age in which we are to keep the Lord’s Day and gather to worship.
Below are reasons why these two contested verses do not show the abrogation of the weekly Sabbath.
Reason one: The Sabbath was a creation ordinance.
Marriage and family, work and dominion were all given as “Creation Mandates” in the first chapters of Genesis. These mandates are binding upon all creation, for all time. These practices are continual in this age and are ordained by God.
The Sabbath was among these creation ordinances. God was our great model in this. He created the world in six days for the very purpose of illumining the Sabbath to us by example; for no other reason is there for God not creating all worlds within a single instant. This Sabbath Principle is binding on all peoples for all time. It was part of the implanted moral law written on the heart of Adam before the Fall.
The Sabbath, rooted in creation, is binding upon all peoples for all of history. This is shown even during the giving of the Decalogue, which was a “republication” of that moral law to Adam- but now unto Israel - to show them the nature of God and their inability to be holy apart from Him. The Sabbath Commandment at Sinai is directly based upon God’s creative model.
The reason for the Sabbath was not merely His redemptive dealings with Israel but His purposes in creation for all mankind for all ages. God did not make the Sabbath only for Himself. God did not make it only for Israel; but the Sabbath was made for all of man (Mark 2:27).
It is hard to believe that there was not a designated day of worship prior to Sinai. How did the ancients worship? How did God teach our first parents?
It appears that there was an awareness of the Sabbath before the 4th Commandment was given. The Sabbath was formalized at Sinai, but appeared from Creation onward. Why else did God say, concerning the Manna in the desert, "Six days you shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none." (Exodus 16:26 RSV)? Why else were the children of Israel told to “Remember” the Sabbath? They were not told to learn it from scratch, but to “remember” it.
Yes, even the Sabbath was part of that moral law implanted in Adam from the beginning and now horribly defaced by the Fall.
The Sabbath is written on the heart of man? Jungle tribes and the Sabbath?
The moral law is eternal and was written on the heart of Adam. Since the Fall, that inward law has been defaced, but not totally vanished. Therefore, in all the seed of Adam (the whole human race) there is a religiosity that resembles the covenant of works in all natural religion.
This brings up a very interesting concept: if the Sabbath was part of the moral law shouldn’t all men have dim reminders of the Sabbath principle by their unguided natural religion?
Shouldn't there be anthropological data demonstrating that tribes had a day of rest - testifying to that natural/but distorted law within? Shouldn't we see a simple and somewhat distorted Sabbath principle among many heathen nations? They know that to kill, steal, and lie is wrong in most cases; but do they naturally know not to profane the Sabbath?
If the Sabbath is not ceremonial, but is part of God’s moral law then we should expect such a universal, though distorted, knowledge of the Sabbath.
Two answers:
First, those tribes which have no evidence of the Sabbath are sunken low in all areas of righteousness. They generally have a disregard for all of God’s law found naturally in the conscience. If they are lacking in an echo of the Sabbath principle it is not because the Sabbath is not engraved in all men’s hearts. It is because they lack in all areas of morality that are engraven in natural man’s conscious – defaced but not erased by the Fall of man.
Second, it is a profound anthropological truth that most all religions have echoes of the Sabbath, expressed in various holy days - dim reminders of the Sabbath that was first written upon Adam’s heart. Muslims worship on Fridays. Druids have days of observance for the moon. Hindus have a multitude of “holy days.” These are all “pagan Sabbaths.”
All of these “holy days” are results of that "natural" attempt of man to appease the internal and marred/though ever-present Sabbath principle that was implanted in Adam, republished at Sinai and placed inside of believers in the New Covenant.
Reason two: When “sabbaths” are mentioned in Colossians 2 this is a technical term that describes the ceremonial Sabbaths – not the weekly Sabbath: 1. Feast days, 2.New moons, and 3.Sabbaths:
New Covenant Theology adherents often put forth Colossians 2:16 as a proof against the abiding obligation to maintain a “Christian Sabbath” – called “The Lord’s Day” in the New Testament. After all, both Romans 14 and Colossians 2 tell us not to honor one day above another. Therefore, the first day of the week has no special place among our worship. It seems pretty cut and dried, right?
Wrong! Colossians 2 and Romans 14 are not adequate proofs to prove the abrogation of the 4th Commandment. The sabbaths spoken of in Colossian 2 are part of the ceremonial law and not the moral law.
The Jewish ceremonial calendar had many New Moon and sabbaths other than the weekly Sabbath. Colossian 2 speaks of these special ceremonial “holy days” - not the weekly Sabbath, which is part of the Decalogue (God’s summary of his moral law).
This is vital! The phrase used in Colossians 2:16, “feast days…new moons…sabbaths,” is a technical phrase. It is a specific phrase relating to the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant. It is specifically used in the OT, to designate specific ceremonial events - and is nowhere used in reference to the weekly Sabbath. By using this phrase in Colossians 2, Paul is clearly referring to the ceremonial Sabbaths and not the Sabbath that is commanded in the Decalogue.
Hosea 2:11, clearly referring to the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant, contains this same three-part formulation of “feast days, new moons…sabbaths” that is also found in Colossian 2:16. This three-part phrase refers to the special feast and Sabbath days in the Jewish calendar. It is not referring to the weekly Sabbath. Likewise, I Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33, and Isaiah 1:13-14 all contain this common phrase, again clearly referring to ceremonial law and not the weekly Sabbath.
A Jewish Rabbi, such as Paul, would know this phrase well, and would be intimately familiar with its ceremonial connotations. The weekly Sabbath is not being removed here, but only the ceremonial system of feasts and holy days.
Plural sabbaths
Paul’s very grammar in Colossians 2:16 shows that he is not speaking of the abrogation of the Sabbath. In Colossians 2:16, Paul uses the plural in reference to “sabbaths.” He does not refer to the weekly Sabbath (singular), but many sabbaths (plural). Paul is referring to ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly Sabbath.
Why wasn’t Paul clearer? If he meant yearly or ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly Sabbath why didn’t he specify this?
Probably because he didn’t feel that he had to! He was being clear to his first-century audience by 1. his use of a well-known technical phrase (feast days, new moons and sabbaths), 2. his use of the plural for sabbaths, 3. his context of speaking – asserting that the ceremonial aspects of the old covenant are being done away with (i.e. and focusing on this ceremonial aspect of the law specifically).
Paul saw no need to say, “Remember, I am not speaking of the weekly Sabbath here.”
Receiving one that is “weak” in the faith versus receiving a sinful one:
Many appeal to Romans 14 to show that all days are alike and no weekly Sabbath exists. One man treats all days alike, another regards a day. Paul commands to receive the one who is weak in faith.
It is curious that this cannot refer to moral law, lest Paul would then need to modify his words so that a “sinful” one may be received. There is a difference in being weak in conscience and sinful. What is being talked about then must be ceremonial days. Paul is not white-washing sin here!
Moral law cannot be the object of Paul’s discussion. In Romans 14, Galatians 4 and Colossians 2, ceremonial days are being addressed and Paul is speaking on the subject of those who are trying to impose Jewish feast days and holy days upon believers. The weekly Sabbath, rooted in the Decalogue – which is a summary of God’s moral Self, cannot be the object of Romans 14 or Colossians 2.
Reason three: Those who deny that the 4th Commandment is perpetual distort all sound principles of hermeneutics:
The denial of the 4th Commandment is not the most serious issue at stake. Those who deny the Sabbath’s perpetuity based upon Romans 14 and Colossians 2 hold to even bigger hermeneutical flaws. The basic exegetical assumptions of these men (usually identifying themselves as followers of New Covenant Theology, hereafter referred to as NCT) is faulty.
It is a faulty hermeneutic that denies that the Decalogue is always referred to as a unit. It is everywhere spoken of as a unit. When Christ gave His two great commandments He was merely summarizing the two Tables of the Law – as a unit. When James speaks of breaking one point of the law as being equal to breaking the whole law –he was referring to the Decalogue, considered as a unit.
To carry over only 9 of the 10 commandments into the New Testament is a travesty! To separate out the 4th because “it seems ceremonial” or doesn’t seem to be repeated is not sound exegesis. Scripture always treats the Decalogue as one set, one unit.
It is also a faulty hermeneutic that asserts that a teaching must be repeated by the New Testament in order to be valid. The New Testament does not supplant the OT but only elucidates it. Moral law needs no repetition.
Paul draws a great amount of NT teaching directly from OT references. The NT was seen as exceedingly relevant and authoritative to the NT writers. Its authority is assumed without any special pleading or need for re-affirmation.
Reason four: There is still a special day for worship proclaimed in the NT - The Lord’s Day:
Those who assert that the Sabbath has been abrogated state that every day is now alike. Every day is the Lord’s.
Why then, if every day is to be counted alike (from Colossians 2 and Romans 14), is one day specifically designated as “The Lord’s Day” in the New Testament? It is specially marked out and designated with that title; a title which the rest of the week does not possess.
John was “in the Spirit” on this day (Revelation 1:10). Did John not get Paul’s memo about all days being alike?
It appears that one day IS, in fact, set apart as distinct and to be honored. Despite the abolishment of all other “holy days” intrinsic to the Judaic Old Covenant ceremonial system, the weekly Sabbath remains. It is hinged, not in ceremonial law which ceased, but in the Decalogue – that great summary of God’s moral law.
Every day is the Lord’s! There still remains, however, one day so marked out as special and called specifically “The Lord’s Day”.
If the Sabbath IS, in fact, eternal and perpetual, then how could the day change from Saturday to Sunday? If it can be changed, why can’t it be abrogated?
The Fourth Commandment says nothing about either Saturday or Sunday. It just lays down the pattern of six days of labor, followed by one day set apart for the Lord.
The OT civil administration of the Sabbath died with the civil state of Israel’s demise. Sabbath-breaking is no longer punishable by death. The OT ceremonial sabbaths died with the ceasing of the shadows in light of the full dawn of redemptive history in Christ. The moral law, however, that enshrined the Sabbath principle in the Decalogue is eternal and is binding for us even today – though its outward administration has changed in the course of redemptive history.
But why can’t I worship just as well on a Tuesday instead of a Sunday? It really doesn’t matter which day we worship on:
Why is this first day of the week given a separate and special name? If all days are the same and no day in particular matters for worship, why is the first day called “The Lord’s Day” if no special distinction exists?
Why did the early church meet and worship on the Lord’s Day? Could they have met on any other day regularly instead?
I believe that the example of the early church was not a mere occurrence based upon convenience or custom, but is a normative model for all Christians.
1 Corinthians 16:1-2;
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Paul tells the churches to gather their gifts on the first day of the week – the Lord’s Day.
In the very least, the collection of the saints, done assumedly in a gathered assembly (most likely worship) was commanded to be done on the first day of the week – called “The Lord’s Day” elsewhere. This is not just an example – this is clear apostolic command! This passage appears much more than just a description, but a prescription.
Acts 20:7 is not just a description of worship, but seems to assume obedience to a former prescription. Acts 20:7 states that when the disciples met together for the breaking of bread that this occurred on the Lord’s Day. The Lord’s Day was the normative day of worship. Meetings together were not haphazard or as occasion warranted but were regular, planned and for the purpose of worship.
In Acts 20:16 Paul seemed in a hurry to get to Jerusalem, yet he stayed 7 whole days on Troas (verse 6) before leaving on the next day – which was a Monday. Paul had stayed over for their Sunday worship.
What was the origin of Sunday worship anyway?
How did disparate groups in disparate places all gain the same tradition of Sunday worship? Was it out of convenience of meeting on Sunday? That seems highly improbable. It appears that this practice must have been laid out by the apostles. First Corinthians 11:2 has Paul telling his audience to keep the traditions that he has laid down for them. It appears that Sunday worship was one of these traditions – and is to be kept as special.
A peculiarity in the phrase “the first day of the week.”
There are five references to the fact that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week in the NT. Why so many? So what? Who cares what day it was?
If the day of the week did not matter, why even mention it all – much less five times?
How many days of the week were, in fact, mentioned in the New Testament? Aside from the preparation day for the Sabbath and the third day after Christ died, there is no mention of days of the week in the NT at all – except for “on the first day.”
The very peculiarity of this phrase, and the absence of like mentions of other days in the NT is very important! It is a strong proof that the first day of the week is set apart as special. It is to be treated as such by worshipping God, of doing works of mercy and charity, of worshipping together as a body, and of breaking bread.
Reason five: the glorious prophecies of the OT concern both the end of sabbaths and the eternality of the Sabbath:
Strangely enough, in OT prophecy there are prophecies that concern both the end of the sabbaths of the ceremonial law and also prophecies which speak of God’s eternal Sabbath continuing for endless ages. The OT prophesies that ceremonial sabbaths and feast days shall end. The OT also prophesies that the Sabbath will last forever.
How can this be? It must be granted that there is a distinction between various new moons and sabbaths and the weekly Sabbath – rooted in the Decalogue. This distinction must be admitted for Scripture to be reconciled with itself.
Already mentioned above, Hosea 2:11 speaks of the cessation of feast days, new moons and sabbaths. It is a prophecy of the abrogation of the ceremonial Sabbaths. The end of the old covenant is foreseen.
The moral law, however, is eternal. The Sabbath is prophesied as being likewise eternal. The perpetuity of the Sabbath to the endless ages is prophesied in Isaiah 56:1-8.
This 58th chapter of Isaiah speaks of Messiah and His day, when all peoples and nations may come to the Lord – which is this present Epoch! The continuation of the Sabbath occurs even during these inter-advental days of promise!
The only way for the authority of Scripture to survive both a prophecy of the end of the sabbaths and also a prophecy of the perpetuity of the Sabbath is for the Bible to be speaking of two distinct “sabbaths”. To have multiple ceremonial sabbaths cease, while the moral Sabbath remains is the only solution.
Paul lists “profane” persons as sinners to Timothy:
In 1 Tim. 1:8-11, we read a list of sins, which corresponds closely to transgressions of the Decalogue:
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kid-nappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
Paul is referring to transgressions of the Decalogue. In verses 9 and 10, he first lists the sins of the second table, and then the sins of the first table. Sins against the first 9 out of 10 commandments of the Decalogue are listed.
Is Sabbath-breaking covered in this list? Yes, by the word “profane.”
The word “profane” occurs in numerous places in the OT Septuagint to refer to Sabbath Breakers (Nehemiah 13:17; Ezekiel 20:13 and Isaiah 56:2). Even the NT mentions, like Matthew 12:5, those who “profane” the Sabbath.
Paul, in this passage, is marching through the Two Tables and listing sinners by concise labels, based upon the commandment which they transgress. The Sabbath transgression is noticeably listed. Those who break the Sabbath are listed by the concise summary of “profane.”
If the Sabbath has been abrogated, surely we cannot “profane” it!
SUMMARY:
The moral law was written on Adam’s heart. At the fall it was effaced and distorted but not totally removed. All of fallen society attempts to obey this law under a state similar to the covenant of works (hence the reason for so many Arminians). God “republished” this law under Moses to make clear man’s sin and inability by showing the nature of God more clearly. This giving of the Law was a gracious act and a step forward in the history of redemption. The New Covenant takes this law and again puts it within our hearts.
The one Covenant of Grace is made up of both the Old Covenant and New Covenant. The Old Covenant is not synonymous with the Decalogue. With the dawning of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant passed away – the ceremonial aspects – but not God’s moral law, which was summarized in the Decalogue, later summarized by Christ’s two great commands and later by James’ “law of love.”
The New Covenant is glorious indeed! There are many discontinuous elements in it. Let us not, however, make it more discontinuous than it is! God’s covenant of grace is a basic unity with discontinues elements; it is not basically discontinuous with some elements of sameness.
A FINAL WARNING:
Thank God most New Covenant theologians do not see the logical implications of their system.
In NCT, Christ is seen as “giving the church a new canon of moral conduct,” according to many NCT advocates. Christ is a new lawgiver, they assert, instead of the authoritative expositor of the Law. This not only distorts the law, but may eventually lead to an erosion of justification by faith and a very inferior view concerning the obedience of Christ.
The truth of Scripture is this: The righteousness that Adam had to live up to is the same standard of righteousness that we have to live up to. He had to follow the same law as we do. Of course, none of us do so naturally. Christ fulfills this standard of righteousness and merits it for us.
What if this standard of righteousness changes? What if the old standard is removed and a new “canon of moral conduct” is given to the church? What does this do to the doctrines of sin, righteousness and the work of Christ being judicially punished for the transgressions of the law on behalf of us?
If Christ was punished in our stead for not fulfilling the old standard of the law; so that we should now live, not by that old standard any longer, but by a new standard, does this not introduce grievous complications in the Gospel?
If there is a true contrast between our rule “under law” and our new rule “under grace” then this leads to serious implications even concerning the obedience of Christ – fulfilling all the law for His people (fulfilling a different law then that which is required of His people, apparently). The doctrine of the active obedience of Christ is destroyed!
A FINAL WORD: The 1689 Baptist Confession:
The moral law [Decalogue] doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation (19:5). 
