Reasons Why the Weekly Sabbath in Scripture Appears Ceremonial in Nature

The Reformed Baptist position on the Sabbath, as I understand it, asserts that the requirements for keeping the weekly Sabbath as given in the Old Testament are still in effect even under the new covenant, only the day that is to be regarded as the Sabbath has been moved from the seventh day of the week to the first. It appears to me, from my exposure to this view, and its arguments, that this assertion is built primarily on two pillars. First, the Sabbath command was, in effect, given at creation, and thus, being a creation ordinance, was not confined to simply those under the old covenant, which was not yet instituted, but rather, was directed toward a much broader scope, that is, those ‘under’ creation, as it were. This range is no doubt inclusive of all men at all times in all places. As marriage, or the responsibility to work, and subdue the earth, etc., is to all men at all times in all places, even so is the Sabbath, since it is also with these a creation ordinance. Second, the Lord God has set apart the Ten Commandments and has clearly given them special significance above every other mentioning of the law. These particular commands, say they, are the summation of the moral law, and being moral, they are based on God’s character, and not simply on the requirements of a covenant, and since his character does not change, neither therefore does the requirements of His moral law. Therefore, these ten commands are seen to transcend the old covenant on this basis also, being equally in effect before the old covenant, as well as during and after the old covenant, that is to say, during the new covenant also. Therefore, as it has never been right to murder, and never will be, even so it has never been right to break the Sabbath, and never will be.

Now, in considering this, I would certainly grant that if these points are indeed accurate, then the Sabbath command is most certainly moral, and if the Sabbath command is moral, then indeed it is applicable even today not only to those under the new covenant, but also to all men at all times in all places. However, I would offer that if we let scripture interpret scripture, applying a consistent hermeneutic thereto, we will find that the view expressed above is not accurate, being built wholly on inference, and that the Sabbath command, by a good number of scriptural indications, more closely resembles those ordinances that are ceremonial in nature rather than those moral in nature, and thus, it ought therefore to be regarded as such. Now those commands that are ceremonial in nature were a shadow, or a representation, of all that is summed up in Jesus Christ; not only of who He is, but of what He would accomplish, and the nature of our position in Him. Being but a shadow, they are no longer necessary as commands in that the body which cast the shadow has been revealed, has accomplished His work, and we now stand complete in Him. Therefore, the assertion, then, is that rather then a similarity to the commands ‘subdue the earth’, or ‘thou shalt not murder’, it is more appropriate to speak of the Sabbath in the following manner – as the Passover, or cleanliness laws, or temple requirements, were only in force as commands to those under the old covenant, being but shadows and types, and are no longer necessary as such under the new, even so it is with the Sabbath. Now, in expounding this position, I want to first consider those indications in scripture that would lead me to regard the weekly Sabbath as ceremonial in nature, and then, having provided that basis, offer a response to the arguments laid out in favor of the Reformed Baptist position. So then, concerning those indications that lead me to consider the Sabbath command as ceremonial in nature, consider the following points.

First, the Sabbath is called a sign between God, and the people of Israel, ‘Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations…It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever’ (Exo. 31:13-17), and again, ‘Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them’ (Eze. 20:12, 20). The word translated sign means a signal, and it is translated elsewhere as token, miracle, mark and ensign. A signal presupposes at least two entities, either groups or individuals, or some combination of both, and it is an emblem, or an event, or some form of indication between those involved entities, meant ultimately to communicate something either from one to another, as is generally the situation, or, in the case of a covenant, between those involved therein. The word is explicitly applied in reference to a covenant, that is, as a sign of a covenant, on two occasions in scripture (translated as ‘token’ in the KJV in both of those instances). The rainbow is considered the token of the covenant God made with Noah and every living creature that was with him (Gen. 9:12-13, 17, ‘this is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations’), and circumcision is called the token of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:11, ‘Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you’). I would further assert, and many would agree (including reformed Baptists, see Second London Confession, Article 29, Paragraph 1), even though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, that baptism is the sign of the new covenant. This position will simply be assumed going forward for the sake of the argument since it is something on which both parties agree. Besides, even if one has an issue with this understanding of Baptism, a comparison can still be made scripturally with the sign of circumcision as will be seen below. I only mention Baptism because more examples will generally serve to further substantiate a position.

Now in these three instances wherein a sign is observed in connection with a covenant (besides the Sabbath, which we will come to), the rainbow is distinct in at least one way, that is, there is no command therewith given to man to be fulfilled (not that the covenant with Noah contains no commands, but that the sign of that covenant is not comprised of any). The other two signs contain some duty which man must perform. In fact, the sign itself is a command intended for, and to be obeyed by, all of those who have interest in the covenant. To those outside of the covenant, however, the command is not binding upon them at all, and, insofar as the meaning of the sign is concerned, it would be irrelevant to them as well. Therefore, these commands, that is, circumcision and baptism, are ceremonial in nature since they are only to be applied to those under their respective covenants. In other words, for one who believes in Christ, to neglect baptism is sin indeed, for as a member of the new covenant, this command is given to him to obey. However, if one does not believe, then for this one to neglect baptism is nothing to be accounted of with him. This would not be laid to his charge as sin for, being yet outside of the covenant, this command is not even given to him to obey. Therefore, Jesus could say, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned‘ (Mk. 16:16). For the one who believes not, baptism is not even an issue to be noted. The same could be said of circumcision as well (Ge. 17:9-14). Only those males born or ‘bought’ into Abraham’s ‘house’, and ultimately into the house of his seed to whom the promise was given, were required to be circumcised. Any such male that failed to meet that requirement was to be ‘cut off from his people‘ (Ge. 17:14). Yet the scriptures nowhere lay any such stipulation upon a male that was not under the covenant made with Abraham. Circumcision is not even an issue to be raised in such a case.

So then, with this in mind, I come to the Sabbath day, and the awareness that it is called by God ‘a sign between me and the children of Israel forever’ (Ex. 31:17). Now the text merely says ‘sign’ and not actually ‘sign of the covenant’, but I would offer that this ‘sign’ spoken of here is none other than just that, the sign of the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai, that is, the old covenant. I say this for two reasons. First, the scriptures are clear that the ten commandments, the tables of stone, were in fact a covenant between God and the nation of Israel (Ex. 34:28; De. 4:13; 9:9, 11; 1 Ki. 8:9; 2 Chr. 5:10). It stands to reason than that if God employed a sign when establishing a covenant with man in other instances as noted above, that is, with Noah, Abraham, and the new covenant, then He would likely employ a sign when He established a covenant with Israel under Moses. Hence, it is certainly reasonable to understand this from the text when we see that God defines for Moses a sign between Him and the children of Israel in such close proximity to the establishment of said covenant. Second, the language employed with this use of the word ‘sign’ is the same as that employed elsewhere when the word is explicitly used as a sign or token of a covenant (Ge. 9:12, 17; 17:11). In those places, and only those places interestingly, it speaks of the sign being between the covenanting parties (Ge. 9:12, ‘…which I make between me and you and every living creature‘; Ge. 17:10-11, ‘…between me and you and thy seed after thee‘). It is with this same covenantal language (‘between me and you’) that we also find the word ‘sign’ used here when God speaks of the Sabbath, saying it is ‘a sign between me and the children of Israel forever’ (Ex. 31:17; also, Ez. 20:12, 20). Such similar language used in connection with the same word (‘sign’) would indicate that it is of a similar application in each case. All of this together, then, as noted above, leads me to conclude that the Sabbath is indeed the sign of the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai, and thus, it is like circumcision and baptism in this respect.

Therefore, given these thoughts, and desiring to understand the mind of God regarding the Sabbath, it would be both reasonable and biblically responsible to consider such in light of the other commands God has given as a sign of a covenant. Isn’t this the very essence of comparing scripture with scripture to understand its meaning? I’m not suggesting that this is the only endeavor I undertake to understand the Sabbath, but it is certainly one that should be considered. Now in doing so, I would observe that if the nature of this sign is consistent with the nature of the other signs, if its purpose and objects with respect to the covenant are the same as the purpose and objects of the other signs with their respective covenants, then consistency would clearly suggest that as the other signs had reference only to those under their respective covenant, so also should this sign have reference only to such. If we recognize that the other signs are undoubtedly ceremonial in nature, then again, consistency will indicate that this sign is ceremonial in nature as well. The Sabbath then, under this construct and understanding, and consistent with the other signs of a covenant that we observe in scripture, would be ceremonial in nature and only have reference to those under the covenant to which it is a sign, that is, the old covenant.

Further, in addition to all of this, it would even simply stand to reason that if a command is given as a sign of a covenant, then it would not be something that is at one and the same time required of all those outside of the covenant as well. After all, the idea of a sign between the covenant members, and especially the language employed with that sign, ‘between me and you’, clearly seems to indicate some measure of peculiarity, some amount of distinction, some significance between only them. Yet if this same command is required of all of those outside of the covenant as well, it would seem to nullify any measure of distinction and make it rather difficult to understand what is the point and significance of ‘between me and you’. More importantly, and as already noted, this is in fact the pattern I observe with the other commands given as signs in connection with their respective covenants, that is, circumcision and baptism. In any case, given the fact that the Sabbath is called by God ‘a sign between me and the children of Israel forever‘ (Ex. 31:17), and comparing such a notion to similar constructs in scripture, there is certainly an indication thereby that this command is ceremonial in nature.

Before proceeding to my second point, I want to consider one other thought in connection with this observation that the Sabbath is the sign of the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai. I think the notion that this command was only between God and Israel, which the idea of the sign seems to insinuate, is further reinforced when we consider the reasoning behind the fourth command as it is rendered in the Deuteronomy version of the Ten Commandments. In that passage, the reason for observing the Sabbath command is stated as follows, ‘remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day’ (De. 5:15). Given the reason for the command in this passage, there is only one nation on the face of the earth to which it could even be addressed. It is that same nation to which God had said the Sabbath would be a sign between Him and them. Of course, it will immediately be objected, and I fully recognize, that the reasoning behind the Sabbath command as it is rendered in the Exodus passage is clearly different, and certainly something more universal so to speak – ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy’ (Ex. 20:11). Now here the reason for the law is based on the experience of the lawgiver, and not the experience of the recipient, and therefore, on this foundation the command could be addressed to everyone. Yet in all of this we must recognize that there were not two ‘Ten Commandments’ given. These two texts describe the very same event. Exodus is the record of when God spoke the Ten Commandments to Israel, and Deuteronomy is Moses rehearsing for Israel the very same event that occurred in Exodus. Thus, we have two God-breathed, Holy Ghost inspired accounts of what the Lord said (Ex. 20:1; De. 5:4-5) when He spoke to Israel the Ten Commandments, both agreeing almost word for word and differing in no way substantially on all the commands save one, that is, the Sabbath command. This is certainly not accidental, nor do I think it is incidental, but rather, like all the word of God, it is instructive.

How are we then to interpret this difference? No lover of God’s word would suggest that these two texts conflict and set one against the other. Besides, the two reasons given for the Sabbath command are not contrary to one another – just different. Neither should we hold to one passage and ignore the other. No part of God’s word should be overlooked or disregarded. What ought to be done is to understand the texts with that interpretation that best comprehends all the apparent discrepant passages involved, and yet does not contradict any other portion of scripture. For instance, in preaching the gospel, Peter conditions the forgiveness of sins upon repentance in Ac. 3:19, yet in Ac. 10:43 he conditions it upon faith. We don’t exclude either text, but rather, acknowledge that men are called to repentance and faith for the forgiveness of sins.

So then, given the original two texts at hand under this point, should we not comprehend both passages when trying to ascertain the basis for the Sabbath command? We simply cannot ignore one or the other, and we would be hard pressed to show that one text is more significant than the other. Both passages give a reason for why the Sabbath command was given, and both passages should be comprehended in our understanding of it. Thus, according to the texts that speak to it, the Sabbath command was given because ‘in six days the Lord made heaven and earth…and rested on the seventh day’ (Ex. 20:11) and because ‘thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and…the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm’ (De. 5:15). With this being the basis for that ordinance, having derived it from both texts as we ought, it would appear that there is only one group of people to whom it could even rightly be addressed. It is that group whose God made heaven and earth in six days, resting on the seventh (Ex. 20), and who were themselves brought ought of Egypt by His mighty and stretched out arm (De. 5). There is, of course, only one nation that rightfully fits that description, and it is that nation to whom God gave the Sabbath as a sign between Him and them, and their generations after them (Ex. 31:13).

Second, it would seem that if the command to keep the Sabbath was indeed moral in nature as the other ordinances given in the Ten Commandments, I would be able to find an instance in scripture wherein the heathen, that is, those outside of the covenants of God, are accused or condemned for their lack of obedience to this particular command. I can find an instance of this with each of the other nine laws given in the Ten Commandments. Consider the following…

1. ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’ (Ex. 20:3), with 2 Tim. 3:4; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:20; etc.
2. ‘Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth…’ (Ex. 20:4), with Rom. 1:23.
3. ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain…’ (Ex. 20:7), with Mt. 15:19; 2 Tim. 3:2. 
4. ‘Honor thy father and thy mother…’ (Ex. 20:12), Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2.
5. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Ex. 20:13) with Mt. 15:19; Rom. 1:29; Gal. 5:21; etc.
6. ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Ex. 20:14) with Mt. 15:19; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19; etc.
7. ‘Thou shalt not steal’ (Ex.20:15) with Mt. 15:19; 1 Cor. 6:10
8. ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor’ (Ex. 20:16) with Mt. 15:19; Rev. 21:8; etc.
9. ‘Thou shalt not covet…’ (Ex. 20:17) with Rom. 1:29; 2 Tim. 3:2.

Whenever I find in scripture a list of particular sins mentioned by name that in essence define the wicked (Mt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21-22; Ro. 1:29-32; 1 Co. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:2-4, etc.), or those that are strangers to God’s covenants, I never once find that a lack of Sabbath observance is among them. In fact, I never find anyone outside of the old covenant, which was established with Israel at Sinai, whether it is before or after that covenant, or whether it be the heathen or the people of God, who are either expressly given the Sabbath command or are reproved for violating it. I only find direct commands thereunto, or reproof and condemnation for the neglect thereof, issued to the nation of Israel under the old covenant. This is certainly interesting considering what was noted above concerning the Sabbath being a sign ‘between me and thee’. It was noted there that such language, and even precedent from similar constructs in scripture, would seem to indicate that such a command would only be issued to Israel, and even so, I find no occasion in all the Word of God where this notion is deviated from. At the very least it is not disproved on this account, and more than that, I would offer that it further substantiates the position, serving to reinforce what seems to clearly be intended in the idea of a sign ‘between me and thee’.

Now it should be noted here that the Reformed Baptist position on the Sabbath does recognize some aspects of the command to be positive, that is, something in addition to general revelation, or, that which requires special revelation to be known (‘positive, moral, and perpetual command’). Some would suggest that though the command is clearly moral, yet this positive portion is essentially ceremonial in nature, as all that we recognize to be ceremonial does indeed require special revelation to be known by man, and others would say that it is simply positive and yet still moral. In any case, the idea that time ought to be set aside to worship God, and that at a social level since we are social creatures, and that He has the right to determine that time, is moral, or, known from the light and law of nature. The revelation that it is one day in seven, and that being the seventh day, is positive, or, known only from special revelation. So says this position as I understand it. It is then suggested from this that the heathen would not be condemned for violating the Sabbath, since the set day is a positive portion of the command, and they would therefore not have known it since they had not been given such special revelation. This, however, still seems to come up short as an acceptable explanation.

Laying the positive particulars aside, even if I only look for what is said to be moral with the Sabbath ordinance, I would offer that we don’t find the heathen anywhere condemned in scripture for something as general as neglecting to set aside a portion of time to meet for worship. They are certainly condemned for violating the other nine moral commands. We would plainly assert that those laws (not the actual giving of them at Sinai, but the moral uprightness that they demand) are known to the heathen through general revelation and they are therefore accountable for their disobedience to them. So then when I come to the Sabbath command, and I consider just the moral essence defined above, which would on that basis be known to the heathen from the light of nature and would not require any special revelation in order for them to comprehend right from wrong on the matter, making them thereby accountable for their disobedience to it, would it not be reasonable to think I might find some similar condemnation for their neglect as I do with the other nine laws? Yet, as noted above, even with the positive aspects of the command laid aside and looking only for what is called moral in it, there is simply no clear correlation to this ordinance from among the things we see the heathen condemned for in scripture. Besides, this attempt at an explanation does nothing to account for why the people of God outside of the old covenant, who would have been aware of special revelation to a varying degree, are not commanded or reproved regarding the Sabbath ordinance either.

Third, and I think this is perhaps the most powerful argument for this position, the Lord Jesus Himself gives certain indications that He regarded the Sabbath as ceremonial in nature in Mt. 12:1-8. In this text, the Pharisees accuse the Lord’s disciples of violating the Sabbath, because on it they plucked ears of corn and began to eat them. The Lord Jesus, however, ultimately rebukes the Pharisees as being those who ‘condemned the guiltless’ (Mt. 12:7). In the case He makes against their accusation, I want to note three things in particular, all of which, as noted above, indicate that He understood the Sabbath to be a ceremonial command.

First, the Lord Jesus comprehends the Sabbath as being among that which is called ‘sacrifice’, something the scriptures clearly seem to regard as ceremonial in nature. That He refers to the Sabbath as such is seen by how He sums up the reason for the Pharisees’ faulty accusation against His disciples. He declares to them that they ‘condemned the guiltless‘ because they lacked a proper understanding of what is meant by the phrase, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ (Mt. 12:7; from Hos. 6:6). In other words, the reason they were incorrect in their assessment of the disciples’ actions is because they should have applied the correct understanding of this phrase to that very situation. The Sabbath, then, is comprehended by Christ under the idea of sacrifice.

In developing this point, let me establish why I believe the term ‘sacrifice’ is expressive of something ceremonial in nature, and in so doing emphasize that the Sabbath must then be ceremonial if it is comprehended under that term. First, we certainly recognize that the various sacrifices themselves instituted under the old covenant were ceremonial and not moral, seeing as how they were but shadows and types, having met their fulfillment in Christ, and are now no longer required by God to be observed. Simply on this basis it would stand to reason that something referred to under such terminology is ceremonial. Second, the Lord Jesus, in His applications of the phrase, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice‘, clearly extends what is comprehended under the idea of ‘sacrifice’ to include other aspects of the law (besides the sacrifices) that were undoubtedly ceremonial in nature and intended as shadows and types. In the text at hand, He regards the showbread in the temple under that term, and in Mt. 9:11-13, the other passage where Christ uses this phrase, I would offer that He has in view the laws concerning clean and unclean, even though what He is addressing is a distortion that the Pharisees had made of those laws. In any case, these other ceremonial components are included under the term because they are in principle the same. Thus, if Christ included the Sabbath also under the idea of ‘sacrifice’, consistency would seem to indicate that it was for the same reason, that is, it was ceremonial in nature and among that which is considered to be shadows and types.

Third, the nature of ‘sacrifice’, and all that is comprehended under it, clearly seems to be ceremonial in nature when we consider how it is spoken of in 1 Sam. 15:22, ‘…to obey is better then sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams’ (see also Pr. 21:3). In fact, I would offer that it could only be ceremonial for this to be said of it, because this expression could not be applied to something moral in nature, that is, something based off the righteous character of God. To maintain a moral command is obedience. It is essentially the very definition thereof. Concerning such moral commands as ‘thou shalt not kill’, or ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’, or ‘thou shalt not steal’, we would never say concerning the moral uprightness that they uphold, ‘to obey is better than innocence, purity or truth’, for these are among the things that actually define what obedience is. It is not a matter of obedience being better than these things, for it even is these very things. Therefore, in that obedience (‘to obey’) is better than ‘sacrifice’, we may observe thereby that it must not then be the equivalent of ‘sacrifice’, or synonymous therewith, and thus ‘sacrifice’ cannot be moral, else it would be equivalent, but rather, ceremonial.

I would offer that a principle that springs from this whole passage is that one could accomplish or maintain that which is comprehended under ‘sacrifice’, and yet still be disobedient before God (indeed, had they offered those sheep that were saved alive from the slaughter of the Amalekites, that would have presented just such a scenario). I would suggest that this is possible because such commands do not ultimately address what proceeds up out of the heart, but rather are comprised of tangibles, such as locations, or times, or procedures, or items, all of which serve a purpose indeed and should be rightly accomplished, yet a purpose notwithstanding, the specifics regarding the locations, or times, or procedures, or items can be fully complied with, and thus the command upheld, even though what proceeds up out of the heart is not right in the sight of God (hence the principle behind such texts as Pr. 21:27; Is. 1:13-14; 66:3; Am. 5:21). Such is the nature of sacrifice, and for this reason a moral command would not be lined up under it. Thus, the text at hand only further compounds the notion that if Christ comprehended the Sabbath under the term ‘sacrifice’, then He clearly understood it to be ceremonial in nature.

Fourth, like the previous point, the nature of ‘sacrifice’ clearly seems to be ceremonial when we consider the meaning that Christ intends with the phrase, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice‘. Note that Christ is not saying here (nor Hosea for that matter, from which the quote is taken) that God has no desire for ‘sacrifice’. He instituted the commands that are comprehended therein, and the scriptures clearly speak of occasions where He takes delight in those who rightly accomplish them. Rather, this is an expression of priority, or degree, as is evidenced by the parallel portion of this phrase from its original context, ‘and the knowledge of God more then burnt offerings‘ (Hos. 6:6). Both times that Christ uses this phrase, He clearly seems to be indicating that since God desires mercy over sacrifice, then it follows that if ever the particulars of sacrifice or ceremony were to conflict with an occasion in which mercy could properly be applied, then mercy should rightfully have the priority in such situations and be exercised rather than sacrifice. In other words, if at any time there is an immediate occasion wherein the opportunity to alleviate some distress or burden in a man’s circumstance, be it his body or his soul, would otherwise be prohibited by maintaining the particulars of sacrifice, or ceremony, then sacrifice should be temporarily laid aside so that mercy can be extended to relieve the burden or adversity. Mercy, then, has priority over sacrifice. This is at least how Christ made use of the phrase.

However, could such an expression ever be applied to something that is moral in nature? As it concerns ‘sacrifice’ on this occasion, Christ essentially says ‘I will have…not sacrifice’. The upholding of it would be laid aside so that mercy could be extended. If we comprehend something moral under the idea of sacrifice here, are we then prepared to say that there is in fact an occasion that would prompt God to effectively say ‘I will have…not morality’? That is precisely what we would be saying if we line up something moral under sacrifice in this text based on the application that Christ makes of it. Wouldn’t this be contrary to His very character and ways? Can we produce even one other occasion in all the word of God where such a notion is expressly stated in some form, acted upon in some way, or even simply implied? Or consider some of those commands clearly moral in nature that were alluded to above – murder, adultery or bearing false witness. Is there any occasion where God would ever say of the moral uprightness that they uphold, ‘I will have mercy and not innocence, purity, or truth’? Does He ever allow these things to simply be laid aside? Certainly not! It is never God’s will that a moral command be laid aside. It is never proper, be it a distressful situation or otherwise, to put aside an ordinance that is moral in nature. In fact, in Hebrews, this is commended as a clear demonstration of faith when one, despite great adversity and distress, maintains obedience to their God nevertheless. Indeed, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice‘ is a phrase not appropriate for a moral command, but only that which is ceremonial, and that Christ comprehends the Sabbath under such demonstrates that He understood it to be ceremonial in nature.

Second, The Lord Jesus effectively equates the Sabbath with an undisputedly ceremonial command. He does this by making use of a parallel example, one that He clearly likens to the scenario at hand with His disciples and the Sabbath, which refers to something that is most assuredly ceremonial in nature, that is, the showbread in the house of God. The comparison seems to be as follows – David and his men, being hungry, are like unto the disciples who also were hungry, and David’s eating the showbread in the house of God is like unto the disciples plucking ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day. The clear import of our Savior’s words here makes an obvious comparison between the Sabbath and the showbread, for it is a violation of the law regarding these two entities that is under consideration. That He draws such a parallel, and ultimately answers both scenarios under one response (Mt. 12:7), greatly shows that in the mind of Christ the laws regarding the Sabbath and the showbread were of a similar nature. Now the showbread was no doubt a ceremonial element, and thus it would clearly seem to follow that the Sabbath, consistent with the parallel that Christ draws, is a ceremonial element as well.

Third, the Lord Jesus plainly states that there are occasions where one can profane the Sabbath and yet be blameless, something that could never be said of a moral command. This is clearly delineated when He proceeds to give another parallel example by which it may be observed that His disciples were indeed guiltless for plucking ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day. In this instance, He says that the priests in the temple, on the Sabbath day, ‘…profane the Sabbath, and are blameless’ (v.5). The priests, by doing their required temple duties on the Sabbath day, do actually profane it, according to Christ, and yet are blameless nevertheless. He does not say that the things these priests do are actually an exception to the Sabbath command, so that there is no breach of the ordinance at all, and it remains undisturbed, but rather, He says quite plainly that they desecrate it! They violate the command and yet are blameless.

That this is the intent is reinforced by the preceding parallel example, which is meant, along with this example, to drive home the same point. In that example, concerning David and his men eating the showbread, the Lord Jesus says that it ‘was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests‘ (v. 4). He does not provide an exception here with David, or change the law in any way, for He plainly asserts that what David and his men did was ‘not lawful‘, and He moreover affirms that the showbread was ‘only for the priests‘. Further, as noticed above, the reason they are blameless in both cases noted, and in the case at hand with His disciples, is stated in verse 7, when the Lord Jesus says, ‘…I will have mercy, and not sacrifice’ (v.7). Now if mercy is what is supplied, then this would also presuppose a breach.

I find this to be important because where else in scripture, regarding any other command clearly moral in nature, does God allow someone to violate that command, and yet be blameless? It would stand to reason that such a scenario might arise with a ceremonial command. After all, we see from the phrase, ‘…to obey is better then sacrifice‘, that obedience and ‘sacrifice’ are not equivalents. If, therefore, as noted above, we may find occasions where obedience is lacking though ‘sacrifice’ is maintained, it would certainly make sense that we would also find the inverse, that is to say, occasions where obedience is maintained but sacrifice is lacking. Not so, however, with a moral command, for these are a witness to God’s righteousness (Rom. 3:21), and by them we therefore discern and understand His holy nature. A violation of one of them is essentially the definition of sin itself (1 Jn. 3:4). Is a man guiltless who walks contrary to the very nature of the maker of heaven and earth? Search the scriptures and see if there is even one occasion where someone violates a command clearly moral in nature and is called blameless nonetheless. If there were such a case, it would make one wonder what was the necessity for Christ’s sacrifice. Indeed, we see by the necessity of the work of Christ that with the violation of a moral command holiness demands a payment, and mercy in that case must have an acceptable sacrifice provided, and even then, it is so that forgiveness may be extended, and not simply a matter of one being guiltless. Therefore, something that could be violated, and yet the violator is guiltless by simply an extension of mercy, does not apply to a moral command. This position would only be extended to a command ceremonial in nature, and therefore, that the Sabbath is concluded by Christ under such a construct demonstrates further still that He regarded it in such a way.

I perceive that a rebuttal to this would be to say that what the Lord Jesus actually means is that the priests in the temple appear to profane the Sabbath, but do not actually do so. In actuality, says this position, the things described by the Lord Jesus are works of necessity, and are demonstrated to be allowable by texts such as this one. Now I would not dispute that the actions of the priests in the temple on the Sabbath were allowable, for the Lord Jesus concludes that they were guiltless, but the idea that the Sabbath was not actually profaned nonetheless appears inconsistent with the text for a couple of reasons that have already been noted. First, the parallel example given (David and the showbread), which is meant to be similar to this one, clearly seems to intend a violation and not just an appearance of such. Being related, if the former is not merely an appearance, we have no reason to think that the latter is. Second, to read this meaning into the text appears inconsistent with the reason Christ gives as to why they were blameless, that is, ‘I will have mercy, and not sacrifice’. If in fact the priests did not actually profane the Sabbath, because such deeds were excluded from the Sabbath command, being works of necessity, then they would be blameless because there is simply no breach of the command at all. What would be the point of bringing up the idea of ‘mercy, and not sacrifice’? This example would have nothing to do with having mercy in place of sacrifice, for there is actually, according to this view, no sacrifice at stake here since all that is required is wholly maintained. Thus, for the Lord Jesus to sum this example up under the principle stated reveals that what the priests did on the Sabbath did actually violate the Sabbath command just as He so plainly said, yet mercy was provided such that they were blameless nonetheless.

Fourth, and again this is back to the primary sequence of why the Sabbath should be regarded as ceremonial in nature, Paul so clearly refers to it as such in Colossians, where it is written, ‘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’ (Col. 2:16-17). What he is addressing here is also addressed elsewhere in his epistles (Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:9-11), and those texts could rightly be considered as well, but I will confine myself to this one passage since it expressly mentions ‘Sabbaths’ and therefore offers the greatest clarity in this regard. In fact, the clarity here is to such an extent that the burden of proof clearly lies with those who would say that the meaning of the text is not according to what it seems to explicitly state at face value. After all, here we have ‘Sabbaths’, which simply put would seem to intend any and all Sabbaths given that the term is plural and there is certainly no measure of distinction expressed, mentioned in a list with other components of the old covenant that are clearly ceremonial, and all of which are summed up as being but a ‘shadow of things to come’, which shadow we know was taken away that the image which cast the shadow might be established (Heb. 10:1-9).

Further, Paul’s purpose in this text is to inform the recipients thereof, whether they observe the elements noted or not, to ‘let no man therefore judge you’ with respect to any of them, something that would not be said regarding the observance of a moral command. Let me briefly clarify this latter point. The phrase, ‘let no man…judge you‘, is not, in this case, an exhortation to literally stop a man from passing judgment on one’s actions. We are not called to that, and men will in fact do this very thing. Rather, one is not to let the judgments of another man concerning the observation of the things noted lay a burden on their conscience. However, as already noted, Paul would never intend such a point concerning a moral command. Indeed, if I clearly fail to observe one of those commands, and one declares to me the error of my way, then by all means I should let such a judgment lay a burden on my conscience, and such a burden that I flee to Christ in repentance, seeking forgiveness. Thus, by all these accounts, this text clearly seems to affirm the notion that the Sabbath is ceremonial in nature.

Now it is often countered that the weekly Sabbath, being a creation ordinance (based on an implication) and part of the ten commandments, and consequently a moral command (also an implication), is not merely a shadow of things to come, and therefore not intended by Paul under the term ‘Sabbaths’. Proponents of this position would offer that the ‘Sabbaths’ referred to here are a reference to the Sabbath years, and those Sabbaths associated with the various feasts. Thus, in their estimation, this text is not applicable to the weekly Sabbaths. However, I would suggest that this notion is greatly suspect for several reasons. First, it is generally acknowledged as solid hermeneutics that in understanding the scriptures teaching on a matter, when we come to an apparent discrepancy between texts, we should, among other things, let the clearer text define or clarify the more obscure, and give precedent to a New Testament principle or precept over that of the old. However, when faced with an apparent discrepancy between what amounts to implications concerning the Sabbath derived from Old Testament passages and a direct teaching on the matter from the new, it would appear that the position noted handles the seeming inconsistency in quite the opposite manner. The implications that are derived from the Old Testament are maintained, and some explanation is sought after in order to ‘clarify’ what clearly appears to be direct teaching on the subject in the New Testament. Shouldn’t this be the other way around? Derived implications do not afford greater clarity than direct teaching on a matter, and in general New Testament teaching ought to clarify the old, and not vice versa. Thus, generally speaking, what is directly spoken of in the New Testament ought to be maintained and then guide and inform us in what we can and cannot derive from the old.

Second, the scriptures certainly don’t seem to indicate any material difference between Sabbaths such that we can delineate some variance in their nature or importance. At the very least any such difference is not explicitly defined. In fact, a noted difference here would have to be yet another implication. Yet, besides the fact that a difference is not plainly stated, which by itself isn’t really saying a whole lot, we see that the scriptures, in speaking of the various Sabbath days at least, comprehend them together as a group on numerous occasions (1 Chr. 23:31; 2 Chr. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Eze. 45:17; Hos. 2:11; Lam. 2:6; also, indirectly, Isa. 1:13). In fact, each of the various Sabbaths – the weekly Sabbath, those associated with the feasts, and the Sabbath year – are all even referred to by the same expression, ‘Sabbath of rest’, on separate occasions (Ex. 31:15; 35:2; Lev. 16:31; 23:3, 32; 25:4). All of this certainly suggests an equality and a similarity between them. I’ll grant that this doesn’t prove that argument outright, but it does reasonably point to the conclusion that they are considered together, and referred to by the same terminology, because in principle they are the same.

Furthermore, in Leviticus 23, the Lord details to Moses the various feasts that Israel was to observe, noting thereby not only the feasts as the text bears out, but also those holy times that were appointed by Him for Israel to observe. We see quite plainly that the weekly Sabbath is among those on this list. Here again we see it grouped with other holy days, and as such, we observe no priority or special notice affixed. It is simply one item, if you will, on this list, albeit a more frequently occurring one, but still simply one nevertheless. Thus, even here, when we observe the Sabbath mentioned with other holy days in scripture, and even in a more detailed manner on this occasion, which would certainly afford an opportunity for some principle difference to be articulated in some way either by a degree of added importance attached or some difference in treatment, we simply find nothing therein to justify what the said position implies.

Third, and this largely springs from many of the same texts considered in the point above, comparing scripture with scripture almost demands that we understand the ‘Sabbaths’ spoken of here in this passage as the weekly Sabbath. Certainly, comparing scripture is a practice that we ought to employ in trying to ascertain the proper meaning of a text, for by this means we effectively let the scriptures define and interpret themselves rather than imposing our notions upon it. Now with regards to the text at hand, there are several places in God’s word that speak of the new moon and the Sabbath together as this passage does (2 Ki. 4:23; Isa. 1:13; 66;23; Eze. 46:1; Amo. 8:5), and in all those places, we would understand the Sabbaths being referred to as the weekly Sabbath, or at the very least encompassing it. Moreover, as noted above in the previous point, we have several other passages (1 Chr. 23:31; 2 Chr. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Eze. 45:17; Hos. 2:11) that either maintain the same pattern of feasts (holy days), new moons and Sabbaths that is laid out in the text here under consideration, or simply the pattern in reverse, that is, Sabbaths, new moons, feasts. Interestingly, most of these texts in the Septuagint contain the very same words used in Col. 2:16. Once again, it is indisputably recognized that the Sabbaths in those passages are referring to the weekly Sabbath. In fact, it is reasonable to propose that the ‘Sabbaths’ in those related Old Testament texts meant only the weekly Sabbath since those Sabbaths associated with the various feasts would likely have been comprehended under that term. In addition to this, it has been suggested by many, and I think rightfully so, that this pattern of feasts, new moons and Sabbaths is meant to be an expression of the annual (or seasonal), monthly and weekly observations or holy days that were to be maintained by Israel. This also would suggest a pattern that would point to the idea of the weekly Sabbath under that term. In any case, ‘Sabbaths’ in those Old Testament passages, at the very least, included the weekly Sabbath.

Further, the plurality of the term here in the text at hand is no issue as some like to make it. Besides the fact that the Sabbath is on a few occasions plural in the Greek even when the context indicates a use that would be singular, we also observe that all those latter set of texts noted above use the term as plural. Plurality in those cases does not necessarily indicate more than one type of Sabbath, but rather, it may very well be the idea of ‘from Sabbath to Sabbath’, or all the Sabbath observances from week to week comprehended therein. I would suggest that this same idea is seen quite clearly with the ‘new moons’. Would anyone suggest that plurality there indicates more than one type of new moon? Certainly not. This indicates all the new moon celebrations from month to month comprehended together, and hence, the plurality of the term. It is therefore clearly reasonable to assess that this is the pattern for the plurality of the term ‘Sabbaths’ on those occasions, given the plurality of ‘new moons’, and considering that the Sabbaths associated with the feasts were likely comprehended under that term. In any case, the weekly Sabbath is included under ‘Sabbaths’ in those Old Testament texts, and the plurality of the term is clearly no bar to this understanding. Neither, then, should it be any bar to this understanding here in Colossians.

Thus, given all these thoughts, one has to wonder how we can responsibly desire to know the meaning of this text in Colossians and not let the clarity of numerous other similar passages, indeed, even almost identical expressions, inform our understanding of it. Clearly if on all those occasions the weekly Sabbath is intended in the idea of feasts, new moons and Sabbaths, and I purpose to compare scripture with scripture so that it may define and interpret itself, then I ought to understand the weekly Sabbath to be intended in this use of the phrase as well. It seems to me unreasonable at best to suggest that Paul either did not have these Old Testament expressions in view when he wrote the text at hand, or, that he (or the Holy Ghost for that matter, who is the true author of all these expressions) had them in view but intended something different by it.

Before proceeding, it should be mentioned here that many who hold the position noted above do not dispute the solid conclusion that the weekly Sabbath is intended in Col. 2:16. They will grant that point, but then suggest that what Paul had in view was the weekly seventh day Sabbath, and not what is effectively the first day Sabbath, that is, the Lord’s day, or, as they suppose, the Christian Sabbath. Now I would agree with the notion that Paul is not referring to the Lord’s Day in this text, but then again, I would also suggest that neither Paul, nor any of the New Testament writers, nor even the early church fathers for that matter, regarded the Lord’s Day as a Sabbath. Asserting that a required Sabbath is still in force such that we ought to impress it upon the consciences of others, and allow it to in fact bind our consciences, even if the Sabbath is established upon another day of the week, seems to clearly violate the point of this text. Besides the fact that there is simply no solid indication in all of scripture that the Sabbath was moved to another day of the week to begin with (this is built on yet another implication in an already long line of such), maintaining this position provides an application that directly opposes, or contradicts, what Paul clearly affirms here. We would effectively be saying that, contrary to what Paul wrote, we should in fact let a man judge us in respect of a Sabbath, just not the wrong Sabbath. However, the text doesn’t even remotely suggest this. It is simply ‘Sabbaths’, and not the day on which they fall, that is the issue. Besides, if we intend to suggest that there is an exception to what is expressly written such that we would advocate for an occasion on which we can walk contrary to the text, one would think that the exception would be built on some other passage that clearly defines it. Yet we have no occasion in all of scripture where the Lord’s Day is called a Sabbath, or Sabbath demands are applied to it, or the people of God are reproved for neglecting those demands on that day, or, for that matter, as noted above, where the Sabbath was ever moved at all to begin with.

In addition to all of this, it should at least be noted that if Paul did intend to instruct his hearers not to regard any Sabbath at all, then it’s hard to see how he could have said it concisely any better than he did in this passage. However, if in fact he intended that they still keep a Sabbath, just not the wrong Sabbath, and considering that he was trying to give them clarity and instruction on things of this very nature given the clear indication of Jewish old covenant influences, then his words here in that case seem almost amazingly ambiguous. I wouldn’t make too much of that latter point, only to say that it does make one wonder.

Answer to the Common Reasons Given that the Weekly Sabbath is Moral

So then, having considered some reasons why the Sabbath command appears ceremonial in nature, I want to look at the pillars upon which the opposing arguments are built. First, I want to consider the notion that the Sabbath command was instituted at creation, and as such, is a creation ordinance, and therefore binding upon all men at all times and in all places. This is no doubt a primary argument for this point of view, yet normally primary arguments for a position are what they are because they hold the highest level of clarity for that position. If this is so with regards to the Sabbath, then it must be concluded that this position is greatly lacking in clarity! An ordinance is a law or decree, and thus a creation ordinance is a law or decree given at creation. The text in Gen. 2:2-3 says that God ‘…blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it’, but nowhere does it say that he gave the observance of it as a command to anyone, man included. Is it unreasonable to think that one might object to this view of the Sabbath as a creation ordinance when there is indeed no law or decree here given at all with regards to the Sabbath? At best, a law or decree given to man in this text must be implied, or reasonably inferred, for it is clearly not directly given.

The implication that is derived from this passage by this position seems to be according to the following line of thought. If God sanctified the day, who is it that He sanctified it unto? He wouldn’t have sanctified it unto Himself, for this would make no sense, and He wouldn’t have sanctified it unto the angels, and so therefore He must have sanctified it unto man. If this be the case, then as far back as creation man has had an obligation to keep the Sabbath. However, I would offer that this implication, though it is not unreasonable, is not necessarily accurate, and that there is another way to understand this text that is more consistent not only with the passage itself, but with all that we know of the Sabbath in scripture. Consider three points in this regard.

First, when did it become a requirement that we understand fully something that God has done? If the Lord says ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways…For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts’ (Is. 55:8-9), is it not reasonable to think that there will be some things that God will do that we simply may not understand? Could God have sanctified the day unto Himself, so that he would purpose to have some special regard for it? He sets apart the godly man for Himself (Ps. 4:3); can He not also do so with a day if He so desires? This certainly doesn’t propose something contradictory to Himself or suggest a violation of His attributes. To rule out the possibility simply because we don’t understand why He would do so does not seem justifiable. This is clearly not adequate grounds to develop a particular doctrine (again, Is. 55:8-9). What would my doctrine of the Trinity be if I developed it based on what made sense to me? I suggest that it would not be the right doctrine. Now I’m not saying that God did sanctify the day unto Himself, only that our inability to clearly comprehend why He would do so does not invalidate the possibility.

Second, the conclusion that is established by the noted implication would be certainly strengthened, and really even substantiated, if there could be found in scripture, before the advent of God’s covenant dealing with the people of Israel (at which point no one disputes that the Sabbath was an obligation at least to that nation), even one occasion where we find someone observing the Sabbath, being told to observe it, or reproved for the neglect of its observation. However, we simply do not find any such occasion, at least not with any measure of clarity. This is interesting too, because the idea of alters and sacrifices, something that would be another positive aspect of the worship of God, seems to be clearly known and practiced by those who called upon His name at that time. Why then would this aspect of His worship, that is, the Sabbath, be not even mentioned? Now I would grant that it’s ultimately not required to be mentioned for this implication to be true, and thus this point doesn’t disprove the notion defined above, but it is interesting to note nevertheless, and further demonstrates how fully this position is built on implication and deduction alone, and not on any such substance as an actual precept or pattern found in scripture in that era from Adam to Moses as it were, which era would most powerfully demonstrate the accuracy of said implication.

Third, it is quite possible that God blessed and sanctified the day here for the very purpose of establishing this pattern that He would provide as a sign of the covenant that He would make with Israel at Sinai. In effect, He sanctified this day for their observation long before it was actually set into practice. This is certainly not an unreasonable concept as it concerns God and His purposes, for we know that it is written, ‘Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world‘ (Ac. 15:18). This being the case, it is quite reasonable to suggest that He would have provisioned the day at the beginning for its use in time to come according to His already established purposes, especially when the use in time to come would refer to the beginning.

Further, if it be so that ‘one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2 Pt. 3:8), and we recognize by such a phrase that time is not an issue, nor of consequence, nor at all a binding factor, to the Lord our God, then it is not difficult to understand how the use in time to come, though it be many generations to us, is nothing to be accounted of with Him, but is ‘as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night’ (Ps. 90:4). The time interval between Adam and Moses would be a significant factor to man, as men are bound by time and it is of consequence to them, but the creation text doesn’t say that it was revealed to men at that time, nor that it was given to them as an obligation. The noted implication supplies that fact, not the text. If we stick to simply what is written, and do not supply that detail, then this point is all the more plausible in that the only one with whom this time interval has to do is in fact the Lord, and for Him to sanctify the day at a defined moment for a use and purpose that He would then define at a moment generations later is all as if He did on consecutive days, or even as if He did it together.

In addition to what is noted concerning the insignificance of the time interval with God, we can even establish this point by noting its similarity with various other instances mentioned in scripture wherein someone or something is set apart for some purpose long before the intended purpose is brought to pass in time (some of the ideas here I learned from Bunyan’s work on the Sabbath, although I do not agree with the conclusions he draws on the subject). For instance, it is written, ‘when the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel‘ (De. 32:8). The ‘bounds of the people‘, and presumably therein the inheritance of Israel, was set apart long before it was actually realized in time by man. If land was established according to the number of His people generations before it came to pass, it is certainly not unreasonable to suggest that a day would be established for them in the same manner, especially given the fact that this day would be the very sign of the covenant He would make with those people.

Further, the scriptures say of Jesus Christ, ‘…whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world‘ (Jn. 10:36). He was set apart for the very purpose of coming into the world to be the salvation of His people long before it was brought to pass in time. Indeed, if Christ is called ‘the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world‘ (Rev. 13:8), which is expressive of the origin and certainty of God’s purposes, then we can be sure that He was set apart from that time for the purpose noted, though the fulfillment in time was ages apart. I would offer that the same could even be said of His ‘brethren’, of whom He is the firstborn (Rom. 8:29), and who were chosen ‘in Him before the foundation of the world‘ that they ‘should be holy and without blame before Him in love‘ (Eph. 1:4). Though in God’s decrees all these things are as certain as if they were already accomplished, yet in time the choosing thereunto and the actual application thereof are ages apart.

Even so, to suggest that God would have sanctified the day for a purpose yet to be brought to pass is not only far from irrational, I would offer that it is even the preferred position. The premise itself has precedent as just noted, and is certainly consistent with the wisdom, immutability, and eternality of God. It does not contradict anything that is expressly written concerning the Sabbath either in the creation account, or anywhere else in scripture that touches on the matter. It does not require that I supply a command at creation by way of implication that the creation text does not supply, nor can it be substantiated by any precept or precedent from Adam to Moses. In fact, it would even help to explain what might otherwise be considered a strange silence on the matter in that era given the presence of other positive aspects of the worship of God. Further, it would present no inconsistency with any of the original points noted above wherein the Sabbath appears to be ceremonial in nature since it does not necessitate a conclusion regarding such that declares it to be moral. In any case, I firmly believe that I should adjust my view to fit the text and not adjust the text to fit my view or my ability to fully understand. Given what is written, and desiring neither to take away from it, nor add thereto, I would suggest that this latter view better fits the text.

This takes me to the second primary reason that the Sabbath is considered to be moral in nature, that is, because it is contained in the Ten Commandments. Though of these two pillars this occurs second chronologically and in its appearance in scripture, and is therefore noted second here, yet with regards to the force of the testimony provided to this argument, this reason, in my estimation, is clearly not second, but is the weightier of the two, and in the minds of most who hold this position, the principle reason for regarding the Sabbath as a moral command. This is certainly reasonable. After all, the other nine laws in the Ten Commandments are definitely understood to be moral in nature, and so it stands to reason that the Sabbath ordinance is as well. In addition, it is noted that the Ten Commandments clearly have a sense of prominence and special significance above every other mentioning of the Mosaic laws in that they alone were written by the finger of God upon tables of stone and were placed in the Ark of the Covenant, and this prominence is principally ascribed to the notion that they are in fact, so it is said, the moral law of God. Thus, again it is reasoned that the Sabbath, being contained therein, is moral in nature.

Further, this latter notion, if it were indeed correct, would also lend support to the first pillar noted, for, being the moral law of God, as they suppose, we know that the uprightness defined therein is based off of the righteous character of God (Rom. 3:21), and therefore, has always been ‘holy, and just, and good‘ (Rom. 7:12), and will always continue to be so, seeing as how our God is ‘the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever‘ (Heb. 13:8). Moreover, the sense of this moral uprightness is clearly impressed upon the consciences of all men (Rom. 2:14-15), and is, I believe, among that light which ‘lighteth every man that cometh into the world‘ (Jn. 1:9). This being so, even at creation, with Adam, the uprightness of these moral laws was impressed upon the heart, and borne out in the conscience, and therefore, the Sabbath being among them, as they assert, the sense of the moral rightness of this command would have been present with him. Thus, it would appear that this would make an actual creation ordinance more plausible since it would really be an affirmation of what was already impressed upon the heart.

Now there are a couple of small problems for this position to be addressed, which they do provide an answer for. First, the Sabbath command expressed in the Ten Commandments is a requirement to rest from routine servile labor. Surely, though, we would not suggest that rest is a moral obligation impressed on the conscience. It is, in reality, a physical necessity. Much like meat and drink are physical necessities, even so is rest. Second, since a moral law is based on God’s righteous, unchanging character, as noted above, we would not expect then that such a law would change. A moral law has always been right, it is in fact right even now, and it will always be right. However, this position must get to a Sabbath that is observed on the first day of the week and not the Seventh, and therefore, must allow for a change, and yet still maintain that the ordinance is moral in nature.

These issues are dealt with, as I understand it, and as was alluded to earlier, by suggesting that what is actually moral in the Sabbath command is the obligation to set aside time to worship God in community. It is rest for the purpose of worship, and corporate worship at that. This, being moral as they assert, is inherently known to a man by the light of nature. The actual day, however, that is to be set aside for worship is said to be a positive aspect of the law, that is to say, an aspect that requires special revelation to be known. Like other positive elements with regards to the worship of God, such as laws concerning the priests or the temple, they are not necessarily based off of the righteous nature of God, but rather, are often times a representation of His acts and purposes, and are based off of His own counsels and prerogative. As His acts are further revealed and His purposes accomplished among men, we see Him change that which is positive accordingly, and all the while in doing so remain entirely consistent with His holy nature. Thus, the Sabbath is regarded in this way as having a component that is moral, and a component that is positive, and thus changeable, thereby satisfying the issues noted above.

In answering this position, this second pillar, as it were, there are a couple lines of thought that I would take up. First, though many refer to the Ten Commandments as ‘the moral law’, this is not what the scriptures call them. I don’t mean to say that the scriptures do not call them anything in particular, as if to attack the idea of supplying a phrase to define a scriptural concept, such as we do with terms like ‘trinity’, or ‘inerrancy’. No, rather, I mean to say that the scriptures do call them something, and it is not ‘the moral law’. The word of God clearly, and on several occasions, refer to the Ten Commandments as a covenant, that is, the words of the covenant that God made ‘with the children of Israel when they came out of the land of Egypt‘ (Ex. 34:28; De. 4:13; 1 Ki. 8:9; 2 Chr. 5:10). They are even referred to as the ‘tables of the covenant‘, and that even in the New Testament by the writer of Hebrews (De. 9:9, 11, 15; Heb. 9:4). I would submit that this point is further accentuated by Moses when he says to Israel, regarding the Ten Commandments, ‘the Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day‘ (De. 5:2-3). Whatever else one wants to make of the Ten Commandments, which is really another discussion altogether in its own right, at least the fact that they are a covenant made with Israel is expressly, and therefore without doubt, established by the Word of God.

This being so, a couple of thoughts spring to mind. First, the special significance afforded the Ten Commandments over any other mentioning of the Mosaic laws, that is, that they alone were written by the finger of God upon tables of stone and placed in the Ark of the Covenant, could readily be ascribed to the notion that they were in fact the foundation and basis of that covenant. As such, I would offer that they were, in effect, a summary expression of all the other ordinances that God commanded Moses, and thus that covenant is principally defined by them, not only by the matter contained therein, that is, the commands laid down, but also by the manner in which they were given, that is, written in stone upon a mount that quaked in the midst of fire and blackness and darkness and tempest, etc. (Heb. 12:18-21). Most of those who would insist that the Ten Commandments are in fact ‘the moral law’ of God do still acknowledge that they are also, in addition, a covenant made with the children of Israel, and even these will generally recognize that the rest of the commands issued to Moses under the old covenant were a fleshing out, as it were, of what is concisely stated in the Decalogue. So then, it is certainly reasonable to suggest that since the Ten Commandments form the basis, foundation, and summary of the entire old covenant, it is for this reason that they are afforded a sense of prominence and special significance over any other mentioning of the Mosaic laws.

Second, given that the Ten Commandments are a covenant made with Israel at Sinai, not that they were the only words defining the covenant, but that they were the basis and summary of all the words contained therein, and given that the Sabbath is the sign of that very covenant, it is certainly quite reasonable to suggest that the foundational expression of the covenant would in fact contain the sign thereof. After all, the sign of a covenant itself is in effect a summary communication of, at the very least, the covenant existence between entities and their involvement therein, and perhaps also even an expression to some degree concerning the nature of their involvement. It is a representation of the covenant, and to such an extent that on one occasion the scriptures even refer to the covenant by its sign (Ac. 7:8, ‘covenant of circumcision’), and on other occasions, the sign is essentially called the covenant (Gen. 17:13; Ex. 31:16). I would further advocate that it is something of this principle, or at the very least an indication of the significance placed upon the sign, that is behind those texts in which the covenant made with Israel is spoken of, or the context clearly encompasses that occasion in which the Ten Commandments were delivered, and yet only the Sabbath command is particularly notated (Neh. 9:13-14; Isa. 56:4,6; Eze. 20:10-21).

If the Sabbath were simply a moral law like the other nine commands in the Decalogue, what is the purpose for it being singularly mentioned on these occasions? Certainly no one would suggest that it has greater significance as a moral law on that basis. One might propose that the author simply referred to that command by way of example, but three authors on three different occasions all choosing the same command as a sample expression? This does not seem likely, nor does it seem responsible with a similarity found in scripture. I would think that even if one were intent on calling the fourth command a moral law among ‘the moral law’, that one would have to reasonably concede that the Sabbath, at least on some other basis besides simply being moral, has a measure of added significance to it that distinguishes it from the other nine. This added significance, I would offer, is due to the very truth noted above, that the Sabbath is the sign of that covenant to which it is a part. Thus, with the significance afforded the sign, it is certainly reasonable that it would be found among the core expression of the covenant.

Furthermore, I would suggest that to some extent that last statement can even be observed. When we consider those commands that are given as a sign of a covenant, that is, circumcision, baptism, and the Sabbath, we find that they certainly were not issued off in a corner as it were, and kept segregated from those commands that were moral in nature, but were mentioned with them, seeing as how they were the very representation of the covenant that contained those moral responsibilities. When God spoke of His covenant with Abraham, He said, ‘walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee‘ (Ge. 17:1-2), which commands are clearly of moral import, and then as He defines the covenant, He makes known to him the command of circumcision (Ge. 17:9-10), which would only have application to the one who has interest in the covenant. So it is also with the first message preached after the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Apostles. Peter tells those who inquired as to what they should do in response to his preaching, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ…’ (Ac. 2:38). Here again, the sign of the covenant (in this case, the new covenant) is mentioned along with what is morally required by the covenant. It should be no surprise, then, and in fact, I would suggest that it might even be expected, that we would find the sign of the covenant made with Israel when they came out of Egypt mentioned in the tables of that very covenant.

I would offer, therefore, that this is the reason we find the Sabbath command mentioned in the Ten Commandments. It is the sign of the covenant that God made with Israel when they came out of Egypt, and the Ten Commandments are that covenant. Both of those observations, the covenant, and the sign thereof, are expressly stated in scripture. Thus, this is not only a reasonable understanding of why the Sabbath is contained in the Decalogue, it is also derived from what is plainly stated, and, as noted above, is consistent with the position and significance that God affords the signs of a covenant with regards to their respective covenant. This also does not necessitate the Sabbath being a moral command. The stipulation that all the ordinances in the Ten Commandments be moral is not derived from the text, but rather, I would say, imposed upon it. As a sign of the covenant, and being included therein for that purpose, there is no reason we can not apply to it what is consistent with the nature of the other signs of a covenant, at least those that are commands. Thus, as such, it has reference to only those in the covenant as do the other signs of a covenant, and therefore would be ceremonial in nature as are the other signs of a covenant, yet it is included in the tables of stone because they are precisely that covenant of which it is a sign.

I would suggest that this is the better understanding of these things. I can arrive at this position without going beyond what the scriptures expressly call the Ten Commandments, which I would submit is a good thing. It makes the Sabbath command, being a sign of a covenant, consistent with the other signs of a covenant which we observe in scripture that are in fact a command. It would certainly harmonize with what is an otherwise baffling silence in the entirety of God’s word concerning the obligation for those outside of the old covenant to keep the Sabbath. They are never told to keep it, nor are they condemned for the neglect of it, because, being ceremonial rather than moral, it was not given to them to keep. It would clearly explain why the Lord Jesus would comprehend the Sabbath under the term ‘sacrifice’, and why He would compare it to an ordinance indisputably ceremonial in nature. Further, it would also explain why Paul would include the Sabbath among that which is ‘a shadow of things to come‘. Going beyond what is expressly written and asserting that the Decalogue is ‘the moral law’ also, or asserting that it is simply that and nothing else, affirming thereby that the fourth command is moral in nature, is to put the Sabbath out of joint, as it were, with the points noted above.

Before proceeding, let me clarify that I recognize the value of using a term or phrase that is not otherwise explicitly found in scripture, such as ‘trinity’, or ‘inerrancy’, or even, ‘the moral law’, to define a truth or principle that clearly is found therein. Further, I firmly believe that there is in fact a moral law that men inherently comprehend by means of general revelation. I have no quarrel with these points. Rather, I am suggesting that declaring the Ten Commandments as a whole to be an expression of this very moral law is going above and beyond what the scriptures clearly state them to be. I would offer that what is moral, that is to say, what is based off of the righteous nature of God and impressed upon men at creation, is summarily contained within the Ten Commandments, comprising the greater part of it, being clearly, concisely and specially revealed at that time in a covenant made with the children of Israel, and yet as a covenant, there is an element of the whole that relates only to that aspect of it, the Sabbath being that very element. Therefore, the whole of the Ten Commandments are not moral, but a covenant, with a covenant only element contained therein that is typical in other covenants that God established with men, and thus going beyond what the scriptures say of it and declaring the whole of it to be moral introduces an element of error that is evidenced by those texts which put the Sabbath in a different light then the imposed construct demands. If we recognize what is moral in the Ten Commandments, and yet do not make the tables of the covenant to be more than what the scriptures say they are, then we avoid this altogether.

This brings me to the second line of thought that I would take up against this second ‘pillar’ alluded to earlier. As noted above, one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that rest from servile labor, which is what the Sabbath command particularly enjoins in the Decalogue, is a moral obligation. Clearly this would be a problem if one is going to assert that the Sabbath is a moral law. This is addressed, however, by emphasizing that the ‘rest’ commanded was for the purpose of worship. Worship is the principle point of the command, and thus, what is actually moral with the Sabbath ordinance is the obligation to set aside time to worship God in community. This, so it is said, is the moral essence of that command and ultimately why it is a moral law among ‘the moral law’.

In response to this, let me say first that no one who even remotely has a genuine interest in the things of God would argue against the moral obligation that the creature has to worship the creator (I think the whole of this is bound up in the first command). Further, I would certainly not dispute that we are social creatures (not good that man should be alone, two are better then one), and that as such we should worship God in community. This is greatly established in scripture by both precept and precedent. Further still, if the creature is going to worship the creator corporately, or individually for that matter, then obviously time must be allotted for that very purpose. To some extent I would suggest that this latter point really goes without saying, much like it would not need to be specifically mentioned that one must continue the breathing process while they worship, but in any case, I wouldn’t dispute any of those notions. 

However, to suggest that this is what the Sabbath command is ultimately about, and to break it down to the moral principle espoused above, seems to deal loosely with the ordinance itself when considering how the scriptures portray it, particularly with regards to how it is expressed in the Decalogue. The point of the fourth command in the Ten Commandments is that the children of Israel, on the seventh day, were to cease from their routine labors accomplished on the other six days and set apart that day by resting thereon. Now I wouldn’t deny that the best use one could make of such time would be to occupy themselves with the things of God, and seeing as how the pattern for the rest was established after His example, it would stand to reason that their thoughts on that day should be toward Him. However, though the rest required by the Sabbath ordinance would have provided the opportunity for worship, nevertheless, I would offer that the principal emphasis and idea of the Sabbath in scripture is not worship, but rest. Rest was the primary point of the command, and not simply a means by which one could attain the primary point. I would say this for the following reasons.

First, as already noted, both accounts of the Ten Commandments plainly reveal only this. If the Decalogue is in fact the moral law, and setting aside time for worship in community is the moral principle of its fourth command, how is it that what is moral in the command is not even mentioned in the moral law?! This not only seems unlikely, but the sense of this is all the more compounded when we note that the command is expounded upon to a degree such that more description is given to this particular law then any other, providing all the more opportunity to express the supposed moral principal. Yet with everything that is stated, there is not any indication whatsoever of worship, much less worship in community. The idea of rest is all that is mentioned. Again, though a cessation from routine servile labor would afford a great opportunity for worship, it is the cessation from that labor that is the point of the command, at least in how it is expressed in the Ten Commandments anyway.

Second, when we consider how the command is expounded upon, and note therein that even one’s ox, ass, and cattle (Ex. 20:10; De. 5:14; see also, Ex. 23:12) were to rest, surely we would not advocate that rest for worship is intended with them. Only a cessation of labor would make sense in such a case. Yet the text doesn’t seem to indicate any distinction with what is meant by rest between one’s household and one’s cattle, for they are spoken of together, ‘thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates’ (Ex. 20:10). Surely those with a living soul and made in the image of God could improve the time in a way more pleasing to Him then the beasts, but the point of the command was a cessation of routine servile labor for a man, his household, and his livestock, not the improvement that could be made thereupon.

Third, when we consider the basis for the command as it is expressed in the Exodus account (Ex. 20:11; also Ex. 31:17), the creation blueprint if you will, that is, that God created everything in six days and on the seventh day He rested, we would certainly not suggest that He worshipped. On the seventh day He ceased from His labors on the other six days, and therefore He commands His people on the seventh day to cease from their labors accomplished on the other six days as it were. Rest, or a cessation of labor, not worship, is the blueprint provided from creation.

Fourth, as noted earlier, often the scriptures even use the phrase, ‘Sabbath of rest’ to refer to either the weekly Sabbath, the Sabbath years, or a Sabbath associated with one of the prescribed feasts (Ex. 31:15; 35:2; Lev. 16:31; 23:3, 32; 25:4). In using this phrase with regards to all the various Sabbaths, it would indicate thereby something of a constant, or a consistent emphasis throughout. This, being a common denominator as it were, would seem to indicate what the principal idea is. Not to belabor the point, but, that constant, that consistent emphasis, that common denominator, is not worship, but rest (‘Sabbath of rest’).

Fifth, and proceeding out of the previous point, when we consider the Sabbath year, knowing that it is among that which is called a ‘Sabbath of rest’, sharing in the consistent emphasis and core idea of the various Sabbaths, it is very reasonable to suggest that only the idea of rest would be understood thereby. The purpose of the Sabbath years that were to be observed every seventh year was so that the land could rest, that is to say, be allowed a cessation of the whole sowing and harvesting process that occurred the other six years. Certainly, we would not insinuate some measure of worship required of the land, but must recognize that only rest, or a cessation from its regular use, is all that was intended. Now I recognize that what would be expected on the Sabbath of a man, who is made in the image of God, would certainly differ from what is expected of his land and grapevines, and I’m not attempting here to ascertain what man’s responsibility would be by way of comparison. Rather, the point being made is that the most fundamental component of a Sabbath, what it is at its most basic level, and therefore what is always found therein, is not worship, as can be seen by the Sabbath years, but rest. Even when we consider a Sabbath day on which a holy convocation was to be observed, rest is still a component thereof. Rest, or a cessation of labor, will always be included because it is the principle point and purpose of any of the Sabbaths.

Sixth, the penalty affixed for a violation of the Sabbath, which was death, is always said, or observed, to be conditioned upon one who works on that day (Ex. 31:14-15; 35:2; Num. 15:32-36). The critical issue was not whether they worshipped properly, or whether they worshipped at all, but whether they disregarded the requirement to cease from routine labor. This was the point of the command, and thus a disregard for that principle was a violation thereof and drew out the penalty. How they approached the day, and the degree to which they honored the Lord therein is a subject of admonishment and exhortation (Is. 58:13), but an actual violation of the Sabbath command itself that elicited the penalty was a matter of whether they ceased from labor.

Seventh, if the Sabbath is ultimately about time for worship, rest being simply to facilitate such, and the temple was in fact the principle place of worship in that administration, then it would seem perplexing indeed that Christ would say the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath when they go about those duties, since those duties are actually the accomplishing of what this position says the Sabbath is really for. Wouldn’t it be clearly evident and simply understood that such works would complement, and even fulfill, the Sabbath? There wouldn’t seem to be any conflict at all in such a case, apparent, or otherwise. Yet Christ clearly states that they profane the Sabbath as they go about their duties. Though they are blameless nevertheless, the point and principle of the Sabbath command is not upheld by them in those actions. Some, as noted already, would advocate that Christ only meant that they appear to profane the Sabbath (but the text doesn’t plainly state this), but even then, in such a case, if it were in fact clearly understood that Sabbath rest was ultimately for the purpose of worship, how is there even an appearance of such when they actually accomplish by their duties the very point of the command? They would uphold the Sabbath by their deeds in that case rather than profane it, but Christ says they profane it. If, however, the point and principle of the Sabbath is rest, or a cessation of labor, then clearly there is a profaning of the Sabbath as Christ plainly said, or at least an appearance thereof.

Eighth, once again, if the Sabbath as a moral law is ultimately about worship, and that is its principle point and purpose, then the expression ‘the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath’ (Mk. 2:27) doesn’t seem to equate. What part of worship was made for man, and, would we say that a moral law was made for him? Something moral is so because it is based off the righteous nature of God regardless of man. If man were never created, it would be moral nonetheless. Further, would we suggest that man was not made for worship, or for that which is moral? I would offer that he is in fact made precisely for these things, that is to say, they are, above all, his intended function and disposition. If, however, the Sabbath is principally about rest, which is something needful for man’s continued physical upkeep, then this phrase is completely understandable. Man was not made for rest, for even before the fall he was given the responsibility to dress and keep the garden, but the Sabbath rest was made for him, as a help, and a provision of what is needful for him to effectively continue in what he is given to do. If, as he rests, he also refreshes his soul in the Lord, he does wisely; but at the very least he will rest physically, as will his livestock, and his servants, and the stranger within his gates who may have no interest in the Lord.

Ninth, even in the New Testament, by the writer of Hebrews, the Sabbath is plainly associated with rest (Heb. 4:1-11). The sense of this is all the more compounded in his reference thereunto when we consider that the writer, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, clearly makes a connection between the Sabbath rest and the rest that Israel was to be given when they inherited the promised land (Heb. 4:4-5). Not only is the latter occasion plainly called ‘rest’ elsewhere in scripture in addition to how it is evidently asserted here (De. 3:20; 12:9-10; 25:19; Jos. 1:13, 15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1), we also have no indication that anything besides rest is intended thereby. It is simply that component of the Lord’s blessing that is being expressed. As they would obtain and enjoy a plenteous bounty by inheriting a land ‘flowing with milk and honey‘ (Ex. 3:8, etc.) wherein they would acquire cities which they built not and vineyards which they planted not (De. 6:10-11; Jos. 24:13), so also, they would enjoy a rest, that is to say, they would settle down, and enjoy peace and quiet, dwelling in safety from all of their enemies round about (De. 12:10, etc.). Now with this blessing of rest and inheritance, there was also no doubt an obligation and a responsibility to not forget the Lord therein, but to fear Him, and to serve Him, and to worship Him only (De. 6:12-15), but all these things are addressed in their own right on numerous occasions and are not what the rest was particularly expressive of. Indeed, the rest itself was a part of the blessing imparted to Israel, and it is this matter of rest, and not worship, in which the Sabbath and the Canaan inheritance are connected in the passage at hand. Once again, even by this means, and even in the New Testament, the Sabbath is seen to be about rest.

So then, as stated at the outset, the general idea and emphasis of the Sabbath in scripture, of any Sabbath, and its principle point and purpose, is rest. Though worship may be accomplished during such time, and though it may even be called for and expected in some cases, yet the Sabbath itself, its core and ever-present component, is a cessation. It is only this that is consistent with every mention of the Sabbath in scripture, because it is this that the Sabbath is ultimately about. Therefore, it does not seem faithful to the text to stress and emphasize that worship is the primary point of the Sabbath. That notion is not consistent with every mention of the Sabbath in God’s word; indeed, it is even inconsistent with many of them, because that is not the Sabbath’s point and purpose. That is not its core component, nor is that what it is ultimately about. Thus, if a cessation is the essence of the Sabbath in scripture, and rest is ultimately what is being commanded, as the scriptures expressly state on numerous occasions and clearly indicate when addressing the Sabbath throughout, then the Sabbath would not appear to be a moral law, since rest is not a moral obligation.

So it is, then, how I primarily come by the position noted at the very beginning, that is, that the weekly Sabbath command is ceremonial in nature. In summary, it was meant as a sign of the covenant that God made with Israel when they came out of Egypt. It is for that reason that we find it being first expressly revealed to man on that occasion. Like the other signs of a covenant, they have only to do with those who are included in the covenant, and as such, are ceremonial in nature. The sense of this is all the more compounded when we recognize that in all of scripture, neither the heathen, nor the people of God outside of the old covenant, are either expressly commanded to keep the Sabbath, or reproved for their neglect of it. The sense of this is compounded further still when we see the Lord Jesus refer to the Sabbath under that which is called ‘sacrifice’, even applying it in a way consistent with that term, which term is otherwise clearly recognized as representing that which is ceremonial in nature; He compares the Sabbath command to an indisputably recognized ceremonial law in the showbread; and He speaks of the Sabbath as being violated on certain occasions while the violators are blameless nonetheless, which cannot otherwise be found concerning a moral law. The sense of this is compounded yet further still, and in fact, the position is stated quite plainly, when we see that Paul sums up the Sabbath as being among those things which were a ‘shadow of things to come‘, which is, once again, indisputably recognized to be expressive of that which is ceremonial in nature.

Further, there is no bar to this understanding due to the creation account, or to the Sabbaths inclusion in the Ten Commandments. I would suggest that any bar is built only off implication and nothing from the text directly. There is no command given to man at creation within the creation account, nor is there any precept or pattern observed prior to Moses that would substantiate such a command. Those who hold this view supply the command to the text by way of implication. Why resolve to an implication that opposes those portions of scripture noted above, when the revealed vastness of God’s eternality and wisdom, and the precedent of things set apart long before they were brought to pass in time, provides an explanation to the text that neither opposes any part of scripture nor goes beyond what is written therein? Unless this could be sufficiently answered from the word of God, I would not resolve to that implication. I would certainly not overturn the clear meanings of various New Testament texts for something that I ultimately read into a passage, and even that, an Old Testament passage.

Further still, the Sabbath being a moral law because of its inclusion in the Ten Commandments is also built off the implication that the Decalogue, as a whole, is more then what the scriptures expressly call them. They are plainly said to be a covenant made with Israel, not the ‘moral law’. In fact, I would even suggest that declaring the Sabbath to be principally for worship in community is a further implication to make the original ‘moral law’ implication more plausible, since the command’s clearly stated purpose and emphasis of rest would not appear to fit in the moral law. In addition to all of this, as if all these implications were not enough, there is yet even one more required in moving the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first, which notion simply has no clear basis in scripture.

I would suggest that the latter two implications become necessary because the first one is amiss to begin with. Why would I resolve to call the Ten Commandments something more than what the scriptures call them if my addition forces a conclusion that opposes those texts noted above, especially given the clarity of them? If I do not make the Decalogue, as a whole, into more then what it is said to be, then I oppose no part of God’s word, for this does not preclude me from recognizing most of its commands to be moral in nature, which truth can be substantiated from other parts of scripture in how they are applied even to the heathen, but neither does it force me to call the Sabbath moral, which cannot be substantiated by that very same means. It also harmonizes greatly with those points noted above because, being the tables of the covenant, as the scriptures call them, we would expect that the Sabbath, the sign of that very covenant, would in fact be included therein, and like the other signs of a covenant that we observe, we would expect it would only have application to those who have interest in the covenant, that is to say, it would be ceremonial. This would also then explain why Christ would call and apply the Sabbath under that which is ‘sacrifice’, and why Paul would comprehend it as being among that which is a ‘shadow of things to come’. Further, this understanding does not then require me to emphasize the Sabbath to be principally about worship, when the scriptures plainly and overwhelmingly emphasize it to be about rest, because I do not need to stress something moral with it in order to fit it into ‘the moral law’. Finally, given all these points, there is certainly no reason to imply a move of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day, which has no clear or solid basis in scripture, since, being a shadow, it finds its fulfillment in Christ and is now no longer obligatory for the people of God to observe. Thus, for these reasons I would offer that the weekly Sabbath command was ceremonial in nature, and ought to be applied as such, and that this understanding of the ordinance best fits the text of scripture.

What is Signified by the Sabbath as a Shadow and Type

Having, in my estimation, established that point, and knowing therefore that the Sabbath is a ‘shadow of things to come‘, it would seem incomplete without briefly considering something of that which cast the shadow. Now the text from which this phrase is taken expressly reveals that the body which cast the shadow ‘is of Christ‘, which suggests that every ceremonial element is a representation of Him in some way, either of who He is, of what He would accomplish, or the position of His people in Him. However, each of those ceremonial elements individually considered are not all representative of the same component of that body which cast the shadow. For instance, David is a shadow of the kingship of Christ, but not of His priesthood. We see a measure of that in the office of the high priest. What, then, is the Sabbath representative of in Christ? It being a shadow, and Christ being the body which cast it, we can generally speaking say that Christ is our Sabbath, but how so in particular? I would offer quite plainly, that He is our rest, and only those who have ceased from their labors are in Him.

I want to briefly elaborate on this, but before I do, let me consider for a moment a point that I made earlier for a different purpose, but has significance here under this light. I noted that it seems inaccurate, to put it mildly, to emphasize that the Sabbath is about worship in community when the scriptures not only overwhelmingly portray it to be about rest, both in quantity and clarity of content, but also speak of it on occasions where only the idea of rest, or a cessation, would make sense. I suggested that this emphasis springs from the desire to provide some moral basis to the Sabbath command, since rest is not understood to be a moral obligation and thus a command to rest would not appear moral in nature. There I was arguing against the idea of forcing a primary focus on the command which is not according to that which the scriptures provide, but here I want to simply accentuate that I believe this notion really does in fact miss the point of the ordinance altogether. The Sabbath is not supposed to be about worship, but about rest, for as such it is expressive, or a shadow, of that portion of the mercies which we ultimately find in Christ now, and will enjoy to a fuller extent in eternity.

I would base the establishment of this on Hebrews 4:1-11. In this passage there are two different Old Testament rests that are referred to, and the author seems to mention them interchangeably. I noted something of this earlier, but he clearly refers to the Sabbath rest, or at least the basis for that rest (v. 3-4, 9-10), as well as the rest that Israel was to enjoy when they inherited the Promise Land (v. 3, 5-6, 8), and he seems to make a connection between the two. We see this in three places. First, in v. 3, when he uses a phrase that clearly refers to the Canaan rest, ‘As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest‘, and then defines the ‘my rest‘ as being that which God established in time, ‘from the foundation of the world‘. As we see in the clarification that the author provides in the following two verses, the works that were finished was the work of creation, and he is defining the establishment, and basis, for the ‘my rest‘ that He was calling His people into, as being from the beginning when God rested on the seventh day. I would suggest that the author prefaces the latter phrase with ‘although‘ because he intends to clarify that, though God’s people were called to enter His rest, which might presuppose a start to it, or a beginning, by virtue of entering, yet nevertheless that rest was already established (‘the works were finished‘) from creation. I believe he means to show that when God rested in the beginning, He ultimately intended that His people share in that very rest, and thus He calls them to His rest (‘enter into my rest ‘) in time to come as it concerns His people inheriting the Promise Land. In any case, the Sabbath basis and the Canaan rest are clearly interchanged.

Second, in vs. 4-5, wherein the author is simply clarifying what he stated in v. 3, we see him lay out the meaning in the same order with which I just summarized the preceding verse. Thus, again, though God’s rest was established in the beginning, ‘for he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works‘ (v. 4), yet it is this very rest that He calls His people to share in, and so it is said ‘in this place again, if they shall enter into my rest‘ (v. 5). In both instances, that is, in v. 3, and the clarification thereof in vs. 4-5, we see the author of this text (the Holy Ghost being the true author) refer to that rest which is clearly the basis for the Sabbath rest as being the same rest that Israel was to enter into in the Promise Land. They both are considered ‘my rest‘, or, from our perspective, God’s rest. Third, in vs. 8-10, when he shows that the rest that Joshua had obtained for Israel, which was none other then the Canaan inheritance, was not ultimately the true fulfillment of ‘my rest‘ that God’s people would obtain (v. 8), he then calls this true fulfillment, of which the Canaan rest was but a type, a ‘Sabbath rest’ (v. 9). That he intends the Sabbath rest is even accentuated by the following verse where he speaks of one ceasing from his own works, which would be clearly associated with that rest, and not the rest that Joshua obtained which is typically defined as rest from their enemies round about. Thus, we see that a Sabbath rest is the fulfillment of the Canaan type, because they are expressive of the same thing, that is, ‘my rest‘, which has its root in the creation account.

        Therefore, seeing that the basis for the Sabbath rest is also in fact the basis and foundation for the Canaan rest and that these two components are comprehended together as ‘my rest‘, I would also observe, as was just alluded too, how that the author demonstrates that the true fulfillment of ‘my rest‘ was yet to be obtained insofar as the Canaan rest was concerned. This is seen in vs. 6-9, where he clearly makes the point that if, long after Joshua had given the Israelites rest to some degree, the Psalmist speaks of entering a rest (Ps. 95:7-11), then by virtue of this exhortation at such a time there must still be a rest to be obtained by the people of God that is beyond what Joshua obtained (Heb. 4:6-9). This should not be surprising though. In fact, it ought to be expected, since this is the point of almost all the examples that the author presents in this letter to the Hebrews. He speaks of Christ and the New Covenant in His blood as being better then Moses, the High Priests, the tabernacle with its utensils, and the sacrifices of bulls and goats, etc. This is in fact an emphasis in all the New Testament, where we see that ‘a greater than Jonas is here‘, and ‘a greater than Solomon is here‘ (Mt. 12:41-42), and, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, there is a great many things written therein that are, in fact, concerning the Lord Jesus (Lk. 24:27; Ac. 3:24). Indeed, of all those things that were but shadows and types, we know that the scriptures state expressly that it was Christ that cast the shadow (Col. 2:17). It would clearly stand to reason then, and would only be consistent with so many other components of the Old Testament that were intended as types, that the true fulfillment of ‘my rest‘ would not be found under Joshua in the Promise Land, but would be realized in Christ and the New Covenant in His blood.

Further still, I would also observe that the context seems to indicate that this rest is obtained even now, by faith, ‘For we which have believed do enter into rest‘ (Heb. 4:3), and again, ‘For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His’ (Heb. 4:10). Now some would suggest that when this passage refers to the rest that remains for the people of God, it does not have in view the gospel rest, that is, the rest found in Christ even now, but only the believer’s eternal rest in glory. This would be principally established by a similar expression found in Rev. 14:13, and, even weightier, by the conclusion of the matter here in the context where it is written, ‘Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief’ (Heb. 4:11). I certainly don’t think that this notion is without any merit. However, I would offer that what is in view is indeed the gospel rest, or at the very least it encompasses both the gospel and the eternal, not as two rests, but as the rest that we find in Christ even now, which culminates in eternity. Let me briefly establish why I would advocate that position.

First, simply put, because the first two texts noted above (v. 3, 10) do seem to indicate that the rest is entered into even now. Even if the latter verse (v. 11) is referring to the eternal rest, it would not nullify the apparent expression of a present gospel rest under the reasonable construct advocated above. Second, the whole point of the entire passage, including the latter portion of the previous chapter, is that the people of God enter His rest by faith, not by death (which is the point of Rev. 14:13). Not only is that assertion plainly stated in v. 3, but it is clearly implied by the inverse, ‘they could not enter in because of unbelief‘ (Heb. 3:19, also, 3:18; 4:6). Now if unbelief is the cause for not entering, then belief is the cause for entering. Thus, it is by faith, which is to be exercised even now, and is in fact the point of the author’s numerous exhortations and warnings in the context (Heb. 3:12-14; Heb. 4:1,11). Indeed, the passage doesn’t speak at all of death or resurrection, but rather the whole discourse is built off this phrase, ‘Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts…‘ (Heb. 3:7-8).

Furthermore, in this regard, the author seems to clearly make a comparison between those of old under Moses and Joshua, and those to whom he presently wrote under the New Covenant, by declaring that a promise of entering His rest is extended to those presently as it was to those formerly (Heb. 4:1-2), even declaring that ‘unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them’ (Heb. 4:2), and in warning that there must not be found in those presently an evil heart of unbelief as there was in those formerly (Heb. 3:12; 4:1, 11). It would stand to reason then, given such a comparison, that if the promised rest was really and truly entered into by those who had believed formerly, within the confines of the nature of that covenant under which they lived, as indeed it was seeing as how Joshua did obtain for them a rest, then so it would be that the promised rest would be really and truly entered into by those who do believe presently, within the confines of the nature of that covenant under which they live, wherein a greater then Joshua obtains for them a rest.

In addition, the point of the comparison doesn’t seem to be simply for the sake of providing an example, though it does serve that purpose indeed, but rather, to show that a rest, which was obtained formerly in some measure under Joshua, does still remain presently for the people of God. In this sense, the comparison serves as something of a connection developed through this promise of rest between those formerly and those presently. However, if we maintain that the rest remaining is the rest in glory, then there seems to be no point in providing a connection at all, seeing as how those formerly who had obtained the Canaan rest, would have afterward died and gone on to that eternal rest apparently spoken of irrespective of those presently. If, however, what is in view is the gospel rest being foreshadowed by the Canaan rest, then a connection between those formerly and those presently is clearly understandable.

Third, all of the other Old Testament figures and components that the author of Hebrews conveys in his epistle are intended to demonstrate Christ, that is, either who He is, what He would accomplish, or the position of His people in Him; so it would stand to reason that the Canaan rest is not an exception. In fact, as was already noted, as it concerns all of that which is comprehended under a shadow of things to come, the scriptures even expressly state that ‘the body is of Christ‘ (Col. 2:17). He is the one that everything comprehended under ‘shadow’ was pointing to. All of it was but a silhouette of Him. It is not eternity, or some component of the world to come, that casts the shadow, nor is the shadow representative of those things. Now one might say that the eternal rest is the result of the work of Christ and is therefore comprehended under Him and His accomplishments. I would certainly agree to this notion, yet nonetheless, the eternal rest is not the only rest that the scriptures speak of in Christ and, seeing as how He is the point of the shadow, it would stand to reason that all of that which is a rest in Him ought to be comprehended thereby. As noted above, this rest begins upon being in Him, and culminates in eternity. In fact, as it concerns all the shadows and types, I would advocate that each of the blessings and benefits which they were expressive of are realized by those who are in Him upon being in Him, and this position is obtained by grace through faith before the eternal rest is entered into.

Even now, we are blessed ‘with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ‘ (Eph. 1:3), and the numerous Old Testament types were in fact expressive of those many blessings. Indeed, that which was the point and purpose of each of the various aspects of the shadow is experienced now in a spiritual way by those who are in the body that cast the shadow, because they find their fulfillment therein. In fact, unless the Canaan rest were an exception, I cannot think of any Old Testament shadow or type that is not expressive of some blessing experienced even now by those who are in Christ. In that He is a prophet, priest, and king, being better than Moses, Aaron and David, or that He is the sacrificial lamb, or the High Priest, or the Manna that God’s people fed on in the wilderness, or the mercy seat, etc., the spiritual reality found in Christ of each of these things benefit His people, and produce fruit in them, even now, while they still dwell in the land of the living, walking by faith and not yet by sight. We have no indication whatsoever that the Canaan rest is intended to be a singular exception to this clear pattern. Indeed, I would offer that it is not an exception, but rather, given what is plainly stated (Col. 2:17), taken together with what is clearly established by so many other similar examples, such indications would demand an understanding of the Canaan rest as being that which does in fact find it’s fulfillment in Christ, and as such is beneficial to all of those who are in Him upon being in Him.

Fourth, as was alluded to above, the scriptures even speak, both directly and indirectly, of a rest in Christ, and thus, given this light, any sense of a present rest in the text at hand would seem then to be indicative of this very rest. Consider some of those references to the gospel rest found in Christ. Most notably, and certainly most clearly, the Lord Jesus says, ‘Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls‘ (Mt. 11:28-29). The prophet Isaiah, when speaking of the ‘root of Jesse’, in whom the Gentiles will trust (Is. 11:1, 10), who is none other than Jesus Christ (Rom. 15:8-12), declaring the nature of His kingdom wherein ‘the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them…’ (Is. 11:6-9), sums up the whole by asserting ‘His rest shall be glorious’ (Is. 11:10).

Further, knowing that the Canaan rest was principally defined as rest from Israel’s ‘enemies round about’ (De. 12:10; 25:19; Jos. 21:44; 23:1), wherein they dwelt in peace and safety from an enemy that had been subdued and overcome, I would offer that there is some reference to this in what Christ came to accomplish as declared by Zacharias (Lk. 1:71-75). The things that are spoken of in this text were prophesied of old (Lk. 1:70), yet they are not a prophecy still, but a declaration of that which would be accomplished by the ‘horn of salvation‘ raised up in the house of David (Lk. 1:69). From this expression of the Canaan rest (from ‘enemies round about‘), I would also offer that the notion of peace, as well as refuge or safety to some degree, carries with it this idea of rest. Though rest is perhaps not synonymous with peace, it is at least a component thereof, and thus, those texts which speak of the peace that we enjoy in Christ (Is. 9:6; 32:15-18, esp. v. 18, where we see ‘peaceable habitation‘ synonymous with ‘quiet resting places‘; Ez. 34:25; Jn. 14:27; 16:33; Ph. 4:7; Col. 3:15, etc.) are also by extension indicative of the gospel rest. I would also add that, in my estimation, this peace which passes all understanding even in the midst of a world of tribulation is illustrated to some degree by means of rest when we find Christ asleep in the boat that is being tossed on the waves.

So it is then, that for all these reasons it would appear that the rest remaining for the people of God beyond what Joshua had obtained is the rest they find in Christ and His completed work, even now, upon faith in Him. This is consistent with the expressions of a present rest found in the text, with the emphasis on faith found in the immediate context, with the emphasis on the superiority of Christ to all the Old Testament types found in the broader context of the book of Hebrews, and in keeping with the sense of a gospel rest to be found in Christ as expressed in the scriptures at large. Further, as noted already, even with the expression of an apparent future rest found in the latter verse of the text at hand, this presents no bar nor inconsistency to understanding a present rest as the author’s intent in those places where he speaks of it as present. This would simply be consistent with many other spiritual blessings that we enjoy now, and will know more fully hereafter.

Even now Christ reigns (Ps. 2:6; 110:1), having been given ‘the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession‘ (Ps. 2:8), and yet, it is revealed that not all enemies are wholly subdued, for ‘He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death‘ (1 Cor. 15:24-26). We know Him, and are taught of Him, and enjoy fellowship with our savior, and yet, ‘we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face‘ (1 Cor. 13:12; also, 1 Jn. 3:2), where we will know even as we are known. We rejoice with joy unspeakable, and have been given abundant life, and yet, these things are at this time accompanied with tribulation and pain, but it will then be that ‘God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain‘ (Rev. 21:4). This is even similar to the sense in which the scriptures speak of salvation and redemption. We have been saved (Eph. 2:8) and are in fact redeemed (Gal. 3:13; Col. 1:14) even now, and yet, there is a sense also in which our salvation is near (Rom. 13:11; also, 1 Pt. 1:5-9) and we are awaiting redemption (Rom. 8:23). Thus, I say again, that the understanding of a spiritual rest found in Christ now, which will be experienced all the more hereafter, is simply consistent with so many other blessings which are experienced in a spiritual way now, and will also be realized all the more in body and soul hereafter.

Before proceeding, let me interject here that, in my estimation, and as others have noted, the exhortation given to labor, or strive, or give diligence ‘to enter into that rest‘ (v.11) is actually not speaking at all of a future rest, but is akin to those texts that tell us to ‘work out our own salvation with fear and trembling‘ (Ph. 2:12), and, ‘Strive to enter in at the strait gate‘ (Lk. 13:24), and again, ‘give diligence to make your calling and election sure‘ (2 Pt. 1:10). We would not suggest that salvation is only entered into after expending the effort noted in each of those texts, for it is obtained by grace through faith without works, yet, given the capacity and the intensity of all that opposes that faith, those things mentioned will of necessity proceed up out of it, being thereby among its observable marks. It is an expression of our faith, which is otherwise a matter of the heart and thus something only the Lord would look on, by means of that which is visible as it were, and thus something that we may observe, examine and discern thereby, and, by this account, is according to the principle that James expressed, ‘I will show (observable, visible) thee my faith by my works‘ (Jam. 2:18, in parenthesis mine).

Therefore, I would suggest that the labor, or striving, or diligence given ‘to enter into that rest‘ is an expression of what will be required of our faith in order to stay our minds and fix our hearts upon Him who gives us peace and rest and calms our fears. After all, it will no doubt be a torrent, plenteous and powerful, that will oppose this rest by prompting us with threats or condemnation or accusation, or in any way otherwise telling our hearts to fear, or fret, or shrink back, or cower, or give up. Indeed, the faith that opposes all of this will of necessity make a diligent use of the means of grace whereby it will be maintained. In any case, though, the point is that the author’s exhortation to labor is still an expression of our faith, only from that perspective noted above by which his hearers could observe it, and examine it, so that they could discern thereby that they were continuing in it. In fact, the very next phrase, which is a warning against the contrary to the exhortation at hand, is even called unbelief, ‘lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief‘ (v. 11). If the contrary is unbelief, then the maintaining thereof is belief. Indeed, the exhortation throughout this entire passage is that his hearers would maintain their faith, warning against ‘departing from the living God‘, and being ‘hardened through the deceitfulness of sin‘, and in any case, holding ‘the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end‘ (Heb. 3:12-14, also, v. 14; 4:1). I believe it is this steadfastness in faith that is being referred to by labor, or strive, or give diligence. Seeing as how the author opens this particular passage with that exhortation to his hearers, and continues that emphasis throughout, it is only reasonable that he concludes the passage with a summary expression of it.

 So then, I would offer here, as the sum of all the thoughts herein given on this text in Hebrews, that if what is regarded as ‘My rest’, which was established on the seventh day at creation as the text makes clear, ultimately finds its fulfillment in Christ, then all of what is established on that rest is comprehended therein. If that statement were correct, and it is at the very least reasonable, then this would obviously include the Sabbath command, for that is no doubt established on that very same foundation (Ex. 20:11; 31:17). I would put this notion forward, that is, that the Sabbath is to be comprehended within ‘My rest’, on the following basis. First, because the weekly Sabbath is even referred to as the ‘Sabbath of the Lord’, and ‘My Sabbaths’. Second, because the rest that remains, which is the fulfillment of that rest which Joshua had obtained, and is therefore in this lineage of ‘My rest‘ that extends from creation, is called a ‘Sabbath rest’. Certainly, the concept of a Sabbath rest being encompassed in this expression of ‘My rest‘ is thus indicated thereby. Third, this interlacing, if you will, of the Canaan rest and the Sabbath rest that the text does seem to portray (Heb. 4:8-9), wherein they share not only the same idea of rest, but are also derived from the same creation event, makes it reasonable to suggest then that they share in the same ‘shadow and type’ nature, and do meet with the same fulfillment and finality as a precept or promise. Fourth, the scriptures defining of the Sabbath as being among that which is a ‘shadow of things to come‘ (Col. 2:17) even harmonizes with the notion put forward. Anything that gives way to a final expression in Christ, such as the Canaan rest, must of necessity be a shadow, for that which is moral, insofar as a command is concerned anyway, would never give way, and thus, to suggest that the Sabbath rest is like the Canaan rest in this respect, there would need to be an indication that it is in fact a shadow, which the scriptures do even plainly provide.

Therefore, again, this is all to say that the Sabbath rest and the Canaan rest were both an expression of ‘My rest’, and as such, both find their fulfillment, their antitype, their finality as a promise or precept, in Jesus Christ, and, as with all of the shadows and types, are therefore no longer necessary seeing as how the truest expression of what they represented has come. Now this might raise the question, why would there be two expressions of ‘My rest’? I would offer in response, that each illustrates a different component of the gospel rest. Let me interject here, before proceeding to explain this position, that the idea of multiple illustrations certainly has precedent as it concerns the shadows and types. Christ is represented by numerous of Old Testament figures, each illustrating a different component of who He is – Moses as prophet, Aaron as priest, David as king, Solomon as the son of David who would build the temple, etc. Each of these individually considered illustrate only some measure of Christ in His offices and accomplishments, and thus multiple illustrations give a fuller revelation. The same could be said of the offerings. The burnt offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, etc. all illustrated individually some component of what Christ accomplished in the offering of Himself for the sin of His people.

Even so, the Canaan rest and the Sabbath rest each illustrate a component of the gospel rest found in Christ. I would offer that the former illustrates that rest with respect to those enemies of the soul round about, in which such things as the despair of sin’s rigorous dominion, the fear of death and the grave’s impending victory, the guilt that arises from a violated law’s just condemnation, and those worries and terrors that arise from various adversities that press in, are subdued and conquered by Christ so that His people do dwell spiritually in peace and quiet and safety with regards to them. This is not to say that they will have no trouble in the flesh, and that they will have no tribulation in the world, and that they will have no amount of sorrow and suffering to endure, but rather, that in Christ the spirit will nevertheless dwell in a ‘peaceable habitation’ and ‘quiet resting places’ despite those adversities, even experiencing in their midst deliverance from guilt, worry, fear and despair. This is the perfect peace that does indeed pass all understanding (Is. 26:3; Ph. 4:7). I would suggest that it is largely owing to this that Paul could write, ‘we are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed’ (2 Cor. 4:8-9). It is in this way that though God’s people suffer through ‘tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword’, that they are nevertheless more than conquerors through Him that loved them (Rom. 8:35-37). I think this idea of rest is beautifully articulated in the second verse of one of my favorite hymns – ‘Like a River Glorious’ (‘Stayed upon Jehovah’).

Hidden in the hollow of His blessed hand

Never foe can follow, never traitor stand;

Not a surge of worry, not a shade of care,

Not a blast of hurry touch the spirit there.

Stayed upon Jehovah, hearts are fully blessed

Finding, as He promised, perfect peace and rest.

I would offer that the latter rest, that is, the Sabbath rest, has not so much to do with that which is round about, but rather illustrates the state of the soul that will truly enter this rest, that is, the repose and the cessation of one’s own efforts as that one wholly relies upon God and rests in His perfect work. This, I would tender, is the blessing that Abraham had found – that ‘to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness’; and the blessedness of the man that David described ‘unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works’ (Rom. 4:5-6). This is how Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes, and why Israel stumbled at the gospel seeing as how they went about to establish their own righteousness and consequently did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God (Rom. 10:3-4), that is to say, they continued about in dependence upon their own works and efforts and labors, and did not wholly rely upon and rest in God’s perfect and completed work. In this respect, they should have ceased from their own works and believed on Christ, entering thereby into God’s rest by faith. Indeed, I would offer that those numerous texts that speak of salvation and justification by faith and not by the works of the law (Rom. 11:6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Ph. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5), where one’s efforts must be left off if they are to obtain this justification, and where one ceases from his own labors to rest by faith in the perfect and completed work of Christ, is the truth that the Sabbath was intended to signify.

Consider for a moment those things on which the Old Covenant weekly Sabbath was established, that is, the creation of the world in six days after which God rested on the seventh (Ex. 20:11), and the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (De. 5:15). Not only were both of these works wholly accomplished by the Lord Himself, but they were fully and completely accomplished by Him as well. Clearly He did not have man’s help in creating the world, for man wasn’t created until the end of it, but rather, He stretched forth the heavens alone and spread abroad the earth by Himself (Is. 44:24), and having done so, He ‘saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good’, and ‘thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them’ (Ge. 1:31, 2:1). So it was in Egypt as well, where Israel dwelt in severe bondage, that the Lord Himself did fully and completely deliver them from the Egyptians. Certainly no man assisted the Lord with any measure of power or might in bringing about this deliverance, for He accomplished it with His mighty hand, and by His outstretched arm (Ex. 3:20; 6:6; 7:5; 9:15), and indeed, I would offer that of all the deliverances spoken of in the Old Testament scriptures, there are none so momentous as this where such obvious displays of God’s power and direct intervention were repeatedly performed and witnessed by so great a number of people such that, even as Israel entered the promised land, the tale of these events, and their being ascribed to the God of Israel, preceded them (Ex. 15:14-16; Num. 14:15; Jos. 2:10; 9:9). Furthermore, He accomplished this deliverance fully and completely, so that He would say to the Israelites, before overthrowing the Egyptians in the sea, ‘ye shall see them again no more forever’ (Ex. 14:13).

Thus it was that the Israelites rested on the weekly Sabbath upon the basis of these works of creation and deliverance that were solely and completely accomplished by the Lord. Even so, as the antitype, or shadow, so also is the reality in Christ, where those under the new covenant do rest in Him upon the basis of His work, the source of their new creation and deliverance, which was solely and completely accomplished by Him. He perfectly fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law, and indeed, as the heavens and earth were finished, so He also finished His work (Jn. 19:30), and as Moses declared the Lord to be his salvation immediately after the overthrow of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, so He is become our salvation (Lk. 2:30) by the deliverance He has wrought. I would offer that this truth was even signified to a degree by how the weekly Sabbath was referred to. Though the command was given to Israel to keep, and they were to observe a rest (Sabbath), yet nevertheless it was not called their Sabbath, but rather, the ‘Sabbath of the Lord’ (Ex. 20:10; Lev. 23:3; De. 5:14) and referred to by Him as ‘My Sabbaths’ (Ex. 31:13; Is. 56:4; Ez. 20:12). This was not simply because He issued the command, otherwise any of the Sabbaths could have been referred to in this way, and this expression clearly seems to be reserved only for the weekly Sabbath. Nor did God take a rest because He was exhausted from His work, or it was required for His upkeep – no indeed, not at the beginning, nor on a weekly basis. Rather, I would offer that His rest was a satisfaction and delight in His finished work, and the weekly Sabbath was called His Sabbath because it was not only that satisfaction and delight which established the rest, but also that which Israel was to share in as they rested. Even so, it is God’s satisfaction and delight in Christ’s finished work that not only establishes the spiritual rest that believers find in Him, but is also that which they share in as they do rest. Again, as it was with the shadow, so it is with the body that cast the shadow.

Consider also the nature of the cessation commanded in the Old Covenant weekly Sabbath. Was there not, inherent in the command, some measure of an abandonment of one’s own provision? In order to enter upon the Sabbath of the Lord, one was to leave off those works by which he provided for his own; works that would otherwise be of significant import to his provision and well being (the yearly Sabbath would have provided a similar principle given its seven increment cycle). Even so, if we are to enter into Christ, who is our Sabbath, we also must leave off those works by which we strive to provide our own righteousness, even counting them but dung; works that would otherwise have significant import to that end under an economy of law (Ph. 3:4-8). Furthermore, I would even suggest that inherent in this idea of an abandonment of one’s own provision to enter upon the Sabbath of the Lord, is a corresponding intimation that one depend upon Him to make up that which they left off. This would clearly be accentuated in the Sabbath year where the Lord even expressly deals with the anticipated concern for provision and promises to abundantly supply more than enough to compensate for that which they did not obtain due to their cessation (Lev. 25:20-22). Though this principle would not be as discernable with regards to the weekly Sabbath, seeing as how the rest was but one day, I would offer that it is intimated to a degree by contraposition, that is to say, given that one does require a measure of upkeep (Mt. 6:31-32), if the examples of the Sabbath’s violation generally consisted of those who went about their efforts to further provide that upkeep (Ex. 16:27-28; Num. 15:32-35; Neh. 13:15-18), and this was the disposition of disobedient Israel, then obedience with regards to the Sabbath is that one cease from those efforts for his provision and depend upon another source for that upkeep which is still nevertheless required, namely, the Lord God Almighty, seeing as how it was His Sabbath for which they made the cessation. Perhaps this was the principle point of the Sabbath year command, to accentuate this element of dependence upon God in ceasing from our own works by drawing out the duration of the cessation in order to ensure the issue, since it might not be otherwise as distinguishable on a weekly basis with only a day of rest. In any case, as they needed a provision, so do we also spiritually, that is, we need a righteousness; and as they ceased from their own efforts for that provision, and in doing so depended upon God to supply what was necessary with regards to it, so we also cease from our own righteousness, and in doing so depend upon Christ to supply what is necessary with regards to it, that is to say, to supply His righteousness, which was the work that He finished.

Consider further still those Sabbaths that are related to the various feasts and holy days. These Sabbaths were not necessarily connected to the previous six days, at least not with respect to labor as the weekly Sabbath was (‘six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work’), and thus, what is indicated above concerning provision, and the cessation of our labor for it, does not seem to be the emphasis here. Rather, these Sabbaths, irrespective of the labor on previous days, stood in connection with those times in which Israel, generally speaking, made an approach to God, on occasion with all of their males (Ex. 23:14-17; De. 16:16), and on occasion by the high priest thereof (Lev. 16 – Day of Atonement), and with some memorial, or remembrance, or measure of worship, in view, but always with some offering or sacrifice (Lev. 23:37). Yet even in this ‘holy day’ construct, the emphasis of these Sabbaths was a cessation of labor. In fact, most often when used in connection with the feasts, the word Sabbath is omitted and simply referred to by the phrase ‘ye shall do no servile work’ (Lev. 23:7-8, 21, 25, 35-36; Num. 28:18, 25-26; 29:1, 12, 35). In their approach to God, on that basis thereof in which a sacrifice is offered, there was no place found for their own labors. It wasn’t even to simply be an accompaniment, as if their labor along side their sacrifice and offerings would prove to be efficacious toward that purpose, by enhancing the sacrifice in some manner, or serving to induce some amount of acceptability with God. No indeed, but rather, as the altar that had a tool lifted upon it would be polluted (Ex. 20:25), so their own labors, alongside of the sacrifice, far from providing an enhancement, would only serve to pollute their approach. Even so, the basis for our approach to God, and the foundation of our fellowship and devotion to Him, is based only upon the sacrifice and offering of the Lord Jesus Christ, and can never be based upon our own works, labors, and efforts, seeing as how they are but filthy rags (Is. 64:6). They are not even to be an accompaniment in this respect, as if our works along side the sacrifice of Christ could ever be efficacious at all toward that purpose, by enhancing His sacrifice in some manner, or serving to induce some amount of acceptability with God. No indeed, but rather, far from providing an enhancement, they would only serve to pollute the approach.

Thus it is then, the manner in which I would offer that the Sabbath, all of the Sabbaths, were a shadow of Christ. Indeed, as already noted, the cessation of our labor is the principal illustration not only of the holy day Sabbaths, but of the weekly and annual Sabbaths as well. This is why the scriptures consistently and clearly portray them to be about rest, or a cessation – because it is in this way a shadow of Christ as Paul declares it to be. Rest is not only the common denominator in all of them, but the constant and explicit emphasis of them as well, because it is the cessation of our own labor, and a rest in Christ’s finished work, that is being pointed to in each of their applications. Moreover, I would suggest here that it would certainly stand to reason that such an illustration as this would be made. After all, ceasing from our own works to rest in His completed work is quite a significant component of the gospel to say the least, and yet, in what other Old Testament element is this signified? If not here, then where? As was alluded to above, we know that there was not to be a tool used in building an alter to the Lord, which would indeed indicate that man’s ability and work was not to be included in our approach to God, yet this seems quite a small component within the scope of the whole old covenant economy when considering how significant the truth is being illustrated. For something so significant, it would stand to reason that the antitype would be significant as well. Indeed, I would offer that the significance of the Sabbath in that economy is in fact quite commensurate with the significance of that which it illustrates in Christ in this economy of grace.

I would also suggest here that even the Sabbath’s place in the Decalogue seems appropriate to the illustration. The law, which is summarily defined by the Ten Commandments, was ‘our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ’ (Gal. 3:24). If there had been a law laid down which could have given life, then truly righteousness would have been by the law (Gal. 3:21), but alas, the law, which is ‘holy, and just, and good’ (Rom. 7:12), and a witness to God’s righteousness (Rom. 3:21), does in my case demonstrate my unrighteousness, for it reveals as sin that which is inherent in me such that, ‘when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died’ (Rom. 7: 9). Hence, though the law is righteous (Rom. 9:31), yet I cannot obtain righteousness thereby, and so it is intended, as stated at the outset, to bring us unto Christ, that we might obtain a righteousness from God by faith (Ph. 3:9).

Now Jeremiah, speaking of the New Covenant long before it came to pass in time, defines it thusly, ‘I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10; 10:16). Yet the question must asked, if the nature of the law is as Paul defines it to be, and it no doubt is, then, does not this definition of the New Covenant still leave me without a righteousness, seeing as how that cannot be obtained by the law? Sin would still revive and I die whether the law is written in stone or on the heart. After all, it’s not the medium on which the commandment is delivered that is the issue, but rather, the actual commandment itself. Whether ‘thou shalt not covet’ is written in stone, or on the heart, my lust is still present with me, and it still shows my lust to be sin, and as such, it still shows that I cannot obtain righteousness thereby. It would seem that we must supply a gospel understanding to this text in Jeremiah in order for it to be complete, unless, of course, there is already the shadow of a gospel understanding supplied within the law, even at its very core, that is, within the summary and foundation of it written in stone, such that we find its adherents ceasing from their labors to rest in the finished work of God. Then the prophet’s words about the New Covenant, spoken in the Old Covenant language that he knew, could stand on their own as it were, seeing as how the shadows of the old give way to the realities of the new, and the Sabbath written on our hearts is the cessation of our labors for a righteousness, to rest in the finished work of Christ. Thus those in the new covenant do love and practice righteousness seeing as how the law is written in their heart, and yet, by that very same notion, understanding the reality of the Sabbath component which was a shadow therein, they at the same time do not rely upon that righteousness, but in this respect, have ceased from their labors for it to rest in the finished work of Christ. This, I would offer, is the proper understanding of the Sabbath in scripture.

Thoughts on the Lord’s Day

So then, having presented those reasons why I believe the scriptures do show the Sabbath to be ceremonial in nature, and having expressed particularly how, being ceremonial, it is a shadow of Christ, I want to briefly express why I believe that the Lord’s Day, or the first day of the week, ought not to be regarded as a Sabbath itself. To a large degree this has already been addressed. The claim that the Sabbath is moral provides the authority to assert the force of the command outside of the old covenant economy, and this is the principal grounds upon which the Lord’s Day is considered to be a Sabbath. In showing, as I think I have, that this assertion is built only on faulty inference that proves to contradict other clearer revelation, and that in each case where inference is supplied there is a better explanation from scripture that does not contradict any portion of God’s word, this assertion then ought to be cast off as unbiblical, thereby removing the principle basis for calling the Lord’s Day a Sabbath. In this sense my original premise regarding the Lord’s Day has already been addressed…

The first thought on the Lord’s Day I would offer is this, that despite all I’ve written concerning the Sabbath being but an Old Covenant component, I would not therefore suggest that the Lord’s Day has no connection with it. There are certain Old Covenant components that have a corresponding New Covenant counterpart, not because the latter is the fulfillment of the former, seeing as how Christ is the fulfillment thereof, nor because the latter is the mere continuation of the former, since they do also have distinct characteristics from one another, but because their fundamental nature and capacity is the same and, in that fundamental capacity which they share they have been given a distinct and notable purpose in their respective covenants. Those components I’m principally referring to are the initiatory sign of the covenant (circumcision and baptism), the covenant meal (Passover and the Lord’s Supper), and the covenant day (Sabbath and the Lord’s Day). Each of these pairs has a similar defining essence – sign, meal, and day – and it is by that essence that they are notable within their respective covenant, yet within each pair there are particular distinctions beyond the basic principle thereof so that the latter is not simply a continuation as noted above, but better defined as a counterpart. I would offer then that it is in this way that the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath are connected.

As their was a notable day that had to do with their God to the Old Covenant member, so also there is a notable day that has to do with their God to the New Covenant member as well; and as the frequency of that Old Covenant day was once a week, so the frequency of the New Covenant day as seen by Apostolic example is once a week as well. This is the fundamental nature, or the defining essence, that the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day share, and it is for this reason that I would offer that they are counterparts in their respective covenants. They were both a weekly notable day that had to do with the Lord. I say weekly, of course, because their occurrence was once a week. I say ‘notable day’, because the blessed man, in either covenant, will meditate in God’s word and offer up prayers, and by these means commune with His God, every day. This he ought to do, and one day in particular isn’t noteworthy over any other in this respect. However, in addition to this, there is a day of note, that not only this blessed man recognizes, but also his covenant community with him, in which there are other responsibilities arising out of the covenant with his God that he undertakes on that particular day. Moreover, this latter phrase is why I say, ‘that had to do with the Lord’, because apart from the covenant with his God we have no reason to think that he would otherwise order his day according to the manner and purpose defined in scripture. Thus it is that I say again, they were both a weekly notable day that had to do with the Lord within their respective covenants.

The second thought I would offer on the Lord’s Day, given all that was noted above regarding the ceremonial nature of the Sabbath, and notwithstanding the points of similarity noted in the first thought, but rather in conjunction therewith and even hinted at therein, is this, that with the proposed connection that the Lord’s Day shares with the Sabbath, it does not necessarily follow that Sabbath particulars can then be ascribed to that day, nor do we have scriptural authority on the basis of this connection to make that assertion. I would offer this thought for two reasons. First, because one is never at liberty to simply add to or diminish from any part of God’s word (Rev. 22:18-19; De. 4:2; 12:32). Not only do we not have the authority to relieve someone from any of the responsibilities of the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day, but we also do not have the authority to lay added responsibilities upon the consciences of men regarding those days as well. The relief or the adding thereto must come from some scriptural authority.

This, of course, is why the assertion that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance and a moral command is critical to the Sabbatarian position, because it would provide the scriptural authority to apply the Sabbath demands outside of the Old Covenant community, thereby laying the foundation for ascribing Sabbath particulars to the Lord’s Day (although there is still no scriptural authority to move the day from the seventh day to the first, and the seventh day is a clearly revealed component of both the creation account and the Sabbath’s expression in the Decalogue). If there was some other clearer scriptural authority applying Sabbath demands to the Lord’s Day, either by precept or pattern, then the Sabbatarian would no doubt use it, and there likely would be no discussion of this nature to be had; but there is not, and thus the points above are pressed to substantiate the position. However, if it has been sufficiently demonstrated above that the Sabbath was neither a creation ordinance nor a moral command, but rather a ceremonial component of the Old Covenant, as I think that it was, then it would stand to reason that one who hold’s that position would suggest that there is therefore no scriptural authority to apply Sabbath demands to the Lord’s Day. I am not at liberty to add to God’s word with regards to it.

The second reason I would offer this thought is because it would present an approach to the Lord’s Day that is consistent with the other two counterparts noted above. I would contend, based upon the principles of the previous reason, and most would agree, that we have no authority to ascribe Passover particulars to the Lord’s Supper, or Circumcision particulars to Baptism, nor does it follow that a germ of similarity between those respective pairs necessitates the further application of similarities between them. So also then, consistent with this approach, we have no authority to ascribe Sabbath particulars to the Lord’s Day, nor does any such construct necessarily follow from a fundamental similarity between them. Those points of similarity noted in the first thought on the Lord’s Day are consistent with this premise, for they were not particulars that were derived from one and then ascribed to the other, but rather, they were consistencies with each that are otherwise discernable apart from the other within their own respective covenant. In other words, I don’t need the Sabbath to show that the Lord’s Day was once a week, and vice-versa, nor do I need the Sabbath to show that new covenant members collectively undertook certain responsibilities on that day in obedience to their God, and vice-versa. Those particulars were revealed in each respective covenant. There is no necessity or right to ascribe anything beyond that to either day based on the other. Indeed, this is consistent, at least with the Baptist approach and even in a good measure with the paedo-baptist approach, to the other two counterparts noted above.

The third thought I would offer on the Lord’s Day, and that which is really a complement to the second thought, is this, that those particulars which can and should be ascribed to that day ought to be primarily found in the New Testament. It is a New Covenant component, and thus it should be principally defined by New Testament revelation. Again, this is generally the posture taken with the other two counterparts noted above, for with those we primarily understand the practice of each covenant’s counterparts with that covenant’s respective revelation. In fact, with Reformed Baptists, not only is this the posture as it concerns baptism, but it is also even the emphasis, seeing as how it is the principle line of argument raised against the paedo-baptist position. Thus, we primarily understand the practice of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, both New Covenant counterparts, based on New Testament revelation. Even though there is a special sign and meal in the old covenant economy, yet it is called ‘old’ because it vanishes away (Heb. 8:13) giving place to the new, and thus, the new revelation primarily defines the New Covenant component, and not that which pertains to the vanished element of the vanished covenant (the revelation has not vanished, only the obligation that pertains to those covenantal elements). So it is in this manner also, I would offer, that we ought to understand the Sabbath and Lord’s Day counterparts as well. We should principally understand those practices which make up the Lord’s Day based on New Testament revelation, and not from that which pertains to a vanished element of a vanished covenant.

In this endeavor, we would, of course, consider those passages that expressly speak of either the Lord’s Day or the first day of the week (Jn. 20:19; Ac. 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). Therein we find the apostolic church assembling (Jn. 20:19; Ac. 20:7), breaking bread (Ac. 20:7), preaching (Ac. 20:7), giving (Gal. 16:2), and being ‘in the Spirit’ (Rev. 1:10). This would constitute the barest sense of their activity on that day. Beyond this, we might rightfully consider, in comparing scripture with scripture, any other New Testament passage, whether historical or didactic, that either addresses or refers to any of those things noted above. In addition, I would offer that we might also rightfully consider, by the same principle, any passage that refers to the church, either local or universal, since that word even means ‘a called out assembly’, and thus would have in view the assembled whole, or any of those passages that intend something of that assembling, such as ‘one another’, or ‘we’ and ‘us’, where those plural pronouns are used in that context. By all of this we might derive several other components that made up their activity on the Lord’s Day, such as worship (Ph. 3:3), fellowship and prayer (Ac. 2:42), the use of psalms and hymns in some measure (Col. 3:16), an ordered and edifying use of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:26ff), etc. This provides a sense of that new covenant counterpart derived from New Testament revelation, just as we would affirm ought to be done with the other counterparts noted above.

The fourth thought I would offer on the Lord’s Day, given the contents of the third, is this, that in the New Testament text, there is simply no indication whatsoever that the New Testament church practiced a Sabbath rest on that day. As noted in the third thought above, there are several things revealed as to what their practice was on the first day of the week, and a number of things that may be inferred by parallel texts, but none of those passages, parallel or otherwise, provide any indication of a Sabbath rest being observed. I find no hint therein of such, whether by the expression of apostolic example or any insinuation of said example that might arise from what is revealed in the church’s practice, nor by a direct decree laid down, or even the insinuation of said decree such as by a warning levied against the omission of it. Indeed, even if I broaden my view to include every New Testament text, whether it be parallel or not, I find nothing of a Sabbath demand, whether by pattern or precept, being laid on the conscience of the New Covenant believer, nor do I even find a reference to anyone adhering to anything called a Sabbath, or at least anything given those qualities, outside of the seventh day Sabbath. Of course Christ would have kept that Sabbath because He was made under the law in order to fulfill every ‘jot and tittle’ of its demands, and some would have taken the mind of Paul and became a Jew to the Jews that they might win them (1 Cor. 9:20), but these were particular applications, and, as already noted, would have been expressive of the seventh day Sabbath anyway. There is no basis, at least not from the New Testament text, to supply a Sabbath requirement to the Lord’s Day practices. Any such requirement must be brought to the text by inference, as is the case with nearly every other point in the Christian Sabbath position.

This is all the more interesting in light of a couple considerations. First, it’s not that the New Testament scriptures simply don’t talk about the Sabbath, or that they only mention it on a few occasions, and that’s why we don’t find the command expressed to New Covenant believers, nor see any reference to it with regards to their practice. No, rather, they mention the Sabbath on plenty of occasions. Yet in every case, they are only ever addressing the weekly seventh day Sabbath, and there is never any use of the term outside of that understanding. They speak freely of it in this way, without any need to clarify whether Jewish or Christian, seventh day or first, and this despite the fact that a first day Sabbath would have been a jarring transition to the believing Jew, and any Sabbath at all would have been a significant adjustment to the believing Gentile, all of whom would have therefore benefited from a careful use of the term. Add to this the fact that there seemed to be a strong Judaizing presence in the early church, who, seeking to bring everything into an old covenant conformity, would have likely confused the term by their efforts, thereby providing all the more a need for clarity. Yet in the face of all this, the New Testament writers only use the term one way, and that without any explanation. It is fair to say, based strictly off what is written and not from anything inferred, that the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, only know and speak of one weekly Sabbath, and that is that which was observed on the seventh day as commanded in the Decalogue, and established by the pattern laid down at creation.

Second, Paul even addresses the subject of observing days on a few occasions (Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16-17). Most recognize that in each of those passages he was dealing with the new covenant conscience regarding old covenant components, and not simply other pagan rituals and observances when he speaks of meats and days in particular. One would think therefore, that the new covenant believer’s obligation with regards to the Sabbath, if there actually was one, would at least be referred to on at least one of those occasions, if not directly addressed outright. However, despite a scenario that would seem to call for Sabbath clarification as noted above, and despite the fact that He is covering a topic that would encompass the Sabbath, and despite the fact that his intent is to provide clarity with regards to their responsibility concerning old covenant components, yet nevertheless, he still makes no hint therein of a Sabbath requirement. Not only does he provide no indication of a demand or constraint, he seems to portray the very opposite, for in every case, he never demands anything of one’s conscience with regards to observing days beyond the total liberty thereof. He either urges them to understand and enjoy that liberty they have therewith or allows for a variance in one’s belief on the position accompanied with charity, all of which indicates no mandated requirement to the believer and certainly in no way intimates something moral being addressed.

It was noted above concerning the Colossians text that if there was a new covenant believer’s obligation with regards to the Sabbath, Paul’s words there, and the rather inexplicable generality of them where it would seem something more particular would be in order, seem almost to be misleading. I would offer here that something of the same could be said of the other two passages referenced. When Paul stands in doubt of the Galatians because of their adherence to Old Covenant components, it seems baffling indeed that he would word it in the manner in which he does, that is, ‘Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years’ (Gal. 4:10). His doubt here, coupled with that expression, would seem to clearly imply that he would have them do no such thing, or abandon that course, when in fact he would have them observe days, just not the wrong days in that respect. It might be offered that the doubt here is primarily due to the fact that they thought by their observations that they could be perfected by the flesh. Whether this be the case or not, it would still seem odd that he would decry with such a broad stroke something that they are apparently morally obligated to without providing any qualification regarding that obligation (such as he does in 1 Cor. 9:21). Or with the Romans passage, how could Paul allow for a position in which one ‘esteemeth every day alike’, and express the acceptableness of that one’s position by writing ‘he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it’, if in fact there is a moral obligation to keep the right Sabbath Day holy, that is to say, set apart. That obligation is the essence of esteeming one day above another, and, if we’re morally required to do so, then who could ever rightly hold such a position that Paul speaks of. Again, his language here, in such a case, being so broad where it should be rather defined, would certainly seem to be confusing.

If this generality were found once, we might have reason to lightly dismiss any explanation of it. Being found three times, however, is certainly weightier, much like two or three witnesses are clearly weightier than one, for consistencies in three primarily serve to cast out any falsehood or incorrect perception that could proceed from one, and the agreement of their testimony, like a threefold cord, is all the more stronger. So it is that the manner in which Paul handles the subject of observing days on these three separate occasions, with the generality thereof and the consistent expression of liberty, serve to establish that such is not an unintended perception being derived there from, but rather indicates all the more that this was his intentional and deliberate stance on the matter. He saw no need to clarify a first or seventh day Sabbath, and with respect to the observance of days, he advocated liberty of conscience, either directly, or by presenting that position as the one stronger in faith.

Now I know that some will dismiss this as being inconsequential, and even pretend (in my estimation) that it is irrelevant. Furthermore, I will even grant that it is not of such consequence so as to prove a point, and that an argument from silence can usually only be pressed so far (although, truth be told, Col. 2:16 hardly appears to be a matter of silence, but I digress). Nevertheless, I do think that it ought to reasonably be acknowledged that it is unusual to say the least for there to be a practice in the early church, and one having a component that is unique to the New Covenant, that is not so much as even referred to in the New Testament scriptures. Even many things that would have no fundamental change between the covenants, such as rejoicing, praise, singing, or giving, etc., we at least find some mention in the New Testament scripture. How is it that a Sabbath observance, which would have undergone a simple yet significant change, is not so much as even mentioned therein with respect to the church of Jesus Christ? This question is all the more pressing in light of how important some Sabbatarians have made this inferred command. If their position was in fact the mind of the apostles, and they ascribed a comparable significance to the day, then it seems inconceivable indeed that there would be no reference to a first day Sabbath, or that the Sabbath in general would be dealt with by Paul in the manner in which he treats of it.

All of this, the generality and the liberty, and that on a number of occasions, do clearly militate against the idea that the Sabbath needs a particular understanding of Jewish or Christian, seventh day or first, and that there is a moral requirement attached thereto. It may not disprove this point outright, but it certainly lends no support to it, and, in my estimation, it goes so far as to call the position into question. On the other hand, it is fully consistent with the ceremonial understanding of the Sabbath that has already been presented. In other words, if that understanding were correct, then the manner in which Paul handles the observance of days is entirely fitting, and there would seem to be nothing confusing about the text at all, even when simply taken at the face value of what is written without the need to supply some inferred phrase or concept for the sake of clarity. It would present a treatment that is consistent with other ceremonial aspects of the law, such as meats and circumcision (in the broader context of the Galatians passage), where Paul not only lays no burden on the conscience of the believer with regards to those aspects, but even stresses liberty therewith, and yet, because of liberty, allows for a measure of charitable disparity concerning them.

So then, as stated at the outset of this thought, there is no indication in the New Testament text that a Sabbath rest was ever applied to the first day of the week. It is certainly never commanded, it is not so much as even referred to, and when Paul does deal with the Sabbath, or the broader principle of observing days that would encompass it, he not only provides no intimation of any such requirement, but he treats of it on par with other ceremonial elements of the old covenant, and is content to leave it at that. This would stand to reason though, if what was said above were correct regarding the primary purpose of the Sabbath being rest, and its principal illustration as such being the cessation of our labor to share in His rest founded upon His finished work. If this were the case, as I obviously submit that it is, then there would be no need for a Sabbath rest to the New Covenant believer anymore then there is a need still for the sacrifices, for the body has come and accomplished all that these signified, and therefore the shadow is no longer necessary. The Old Covenant member believed indeed, but His understanding of Christ and His accomplishments was established by these shadows and types, and the expression of His faith was in the keeping of them, but not so with the New Covenant believer who has these images clarified and fulfilled in Christ. It’s not that Christ dismisses the requirements of the Sabbath, or the sacrifices, or the temple, etc. No indeed, for we cannot share in God’s rest by means of our labors nor can they even be mixed therewith, and blood still must be shed because of our sins, and only a worthy and consecrated mediator may rightly enter His presence, but ah, Christ has really and truly accomplished all that is needful in each of these things, and thus He becomes their fulfillment to us. One’s dependence upon Him, one’s part in Him, is the keeping of all these things, and thus there is no other demand to the New Covenant believer to keep a Sabbath, or offer an animal sacrifice, or to go up to the Temple, etc.

Before proceeding, I would like to interject a clarification here. Because rest is not commanded with the Lord’s Day, this does not mean that a regular, periodic rest is not greatly advantageous to an individual. Further, if a rest from normal obligations and responsibilities could be made to coincide with the Lord’s Day, it would leave one free to better pursue those things that he undertakes with his covenant community on that day. However, because a periodic rest is advantageous in general, and may even prove to be conducive to Lord’s Day activities, this does not give us the authority on that basis to bind one’s conscience regarding that rest. There were other ceremonial elements in the old covenant that were also advantageous to an individual when considered just as a physical practice, and yet, despite their usefulness, the scriptures do not bind the new covenant believer’s conscience regarding them. Indeed, it does not appear that God laid statutes upon a man simply to burden him with tedious procedures and restrictions, but rather, in the greatness of His wisdom provided types and figures by these commands regarding physical things that were at one and the same time helpful to the man’s physical state. They were but shadows, and so they vanished away, but while they were in use, they were helpful to the observer of them. Briefly consider some of these things.

It is my understanding that those meats that were rendered unclean by old covenant law did pose a greater risk to the health of an individual if consumed without proper preparation, and thus, abiding by those laws would have assisted to some degree in the preservation of their well-being. The various laws regarding clean and unclean utensils and clothing, etc, and the washings that were to remedy things unclean, provided the basis for a level of hygiene that was no doubt beneficial to the health of an individual. Consider circumcision also. Even in today’s world, where it seems that every practice found in the bible is assaulted in some way, it is acknowledged that circumcision does help to reduce the likelihood of certain ailments not only in the male, but even to a degree in his female partner as well. Moreover, it is generally recognized, as I understand it, that the circumcision procedure is best accomplished on an infant rather than simply waiting even to just childhood, since the likelihood of adverse side effects and consequences prove to be reduced thereby. Consider also the cleanliness laws regarding the female’s cycle. In an agrarian society, where a greater number of children would ultimately prove to be profitable, which is evidenced by the obvious desire for children expressed in scripture and the clear recognition that they were a blessing, those said laws would have allowed for a man and his wife to come together at a time most conducive to conception on the female’s part, and this after an abstention that would have likely provided a significant inducement for them to do so. In all these things, there was some measure of profit to the physical state of the one who observed them.

It should be no surprise therefore; indeed, it might even be expected, that the Lord would provide a sign of the covenant that he made with Israel that would also prove useful to their physical well-being. Leave it to the wisdom of God to establish by the Sabbath a clear figure of the gospel of Jesus Christ, where His people ceased from their labors to share in His ‘finished work’ rest, in which the same Sabbath was also at one and the same time a practice that was beneficial to their person as an opportunity for refreshment and the re-establishing of strength, resolve, engaging thoughts, etc. However, just as it is true that the usefulness of those other ceremonial elements noted above do not give us the authority to bind men’s consciences with regards to them, so it is true that the usefulness of the Sabbath rest does not provide an authority thereby to do the same with regards to it. As circumcision, and the abstaining of certain meats, and practices of cleanliness, might still prove helpful to an individual under the new covenant if observed, yet nevertheless, they were but shadows that vanished away, and the usefulness of them was not an indication of their continuity, but an expression of the goodness of God borne out in those commands towards those who observed them. Even so, we ought to conclude the Sabbath rest in the same way. This would be consistent with its ceremonial nature, and in accordance with the manner in which Paul treats of it in the New Testament.

The fifth thought I would offer on the Lord’s Day, and that which really goes hand in hand with the fourth thought, being to some degree even alluded to therein, and really just another angle of the same, is this, that the New Testament does not place a special regard on the Lord’s Day, or the first day of the week, or any other day for that matter, as a day per se. The day is not called holy in any place, nor is it guarded or cordoned off by any regulations or prohibitions governing its use, nor do we see any rebuke or warning for the lack thereof, nor find any example that would clearly communicate any such intent with respect to the day. Moreover, in addition to this silence concerning a ‘holy day’ in the New Testament, we have a much more direct and positive indication that there was no such regard required in Rom. 14:5-6, alluded to in the previous thought, wherein Paul expresses the acceptableness of one who esteems every day alike. Not only is such a posture acceptable in this passage, but it is also even presented as the position that is stronger in faith.

Now many seek to temper the expression in this Romans text by suggesting that Paul is only referring here to the seventh day Sabbath and the various feast days in the old covenant system, and not, say they, to the Lord’s Day. In doing so, they essentially remove the liberty component that is evident in the passage as it concerns the first day of the week and assert that one indeed ought to have a regard for it. In effect, they confine Paul’s words here to a certain use, but with regards to the application of the Lord’s Day, they undo his words and assert quite the opposite, maintaining that it would be wrong to esteem the first day like every other day. According to them, such a posture would certainly not be acceptable, much less “stronger’’ in faith. However, though they bring this distinction to the passage and lay such upon it (as they lay so many other things upon the scriptures with regards to the Sabbath), the context certainly doesn’t seem to provide for it.

I say this for a couple of reasons. First, the wording better fits a scenario in which the author intends an expression that comprehends any and all days. In other words, if Paul actually wanted to communicate to his hearers that they have no obligation to maintain any holy day at all, it’s hard to conceive of how he could have expressed such any better than what is written. He doesn’t mention or hint of any particular day (such as the Sabbath or feast days), lest one confine his comments to that day, but defines a broad principle that would have application to any day that one might think to have a religious regard for. Conversely, as noted above, if he intended only the seventh day Sabbath and feast days and did not mean for them to apply his words to the first day Sabbath so called, but rather maintain a regard for that day, then it’s hard to conceive of how he could have been any more confusing by what is written. Confusing, I say, and that from a text whereby he means to clarify their requirements with regards to the observance of holy days. Second, when we compare his treatment of days with the other example of their liberty that is laid out in the immediate context, that is to say, the eating of meats, we wouldn’t apply any restriction to Paul’s words on that basis. Most that come to this text understand him to be indicating any and all meats when addressing the liberty they enjoy therewith. It stands to reason then, when he makes a parallel use of days, and even expresses the two examples of liberty side by side with similar terminology, that he intends the same understanding with regards to both, that is to say, he intends any and all days as well.

I’ll grant, however, that this does beg the question, if the early church met regularly on the first day of the week, such that it came to be known as the Lord’s Day at least by the time that John wrote Revelation, then wouldn’t this indicate that they regarded a day weekly? Further, the force of this question seems to be strengthened all the more when considering the first thought above regarding the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day as counterparts in their respective covenants. The short answer I would provide to this (a long answer would be its own discussion) is that the New Testament does not anywhere lay a special emphasis on a day per se as was noted above, but lays the emphasis on the assembly, and thus the day is not the focus of the regard, but the assembly, and the purpose of the day is about the assembly. Therefore, Paul could allow for one who considered everyday alike, not regarding one day as holy in distinction from others as was commanded with the Sabbath, and yet still expect that one not to forsake the assembling of themselves together on the set day in which they did so. This is because, as was just noted, the day was not the particular regard, but the assembly, and the day was meant to facilitate the regard, not to be the regard.

I would offer that it is for this reason that when the ‘first day’ is mentioned in the New Testament, we ever only find it simply referenced in the text, and never made the point thereof. I’ll grant that it is consistently referenced, and therefore not simply incidental, but the point of those texts are that they assembled, or some purpose accomplished in their assembling. Indeed, the day is only mentioned in the context of the assembly (even 1 Cor. 16:2, where it could be construed that they were to lay aside individually, yet the purpose was so that there would be no great effort required for a collection when Paul came, which does imply the assembly and would be a purpose for the same).

I would suggest also that even the mentioning of the Lord’s Day by John doesn’t undo the connection it has to the assembly. I’ll grant that it doesn’t directly lend support to that notion seeing as how John was by himself. However, his being ‘in the Spirit’ is something that we do see associated with the assembly, from the original outpouring thereof at Pentecost, to the place that was shaken where they met, to the explanation of the right use of the gifts of the Spirit in the congregation. Thus, it would appear that on the Lord’s Day he endeavored for that which he would have otherwise enjoyed in the assembly on that day. So it might be sensibly reasoned. In any case, he was by himself only because of the circumstance of his exile, and not for any apparent desire for solitude. Given the great emphasis in his epistles upon a love for the brethren, we have every reason to think that if he could have been in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day in a Christian assembly, that he would surely have done so.

Even John’s designation of ‘Lord’s day’ provides a slight hint of a distinction with the Sabbath concerning a regard for the day, or, at the very least, it doesn’t positively show itself to be of the same regard. There isn’t a direct expression of ‘Lord’s day’ in the Old Testament scriptures when referring to the Sabbath that might be used as a comparison, but there is an occasion when the Lord Himself refers to the day as being His, which provides a commensurate expression. He refers to the Sabbath in that instance as ‘My holy day’. There He clearly displays the holiness and the regard for the day in that covenant economy. John, on the other hand, does not refer to the day as holy, but simply says ‘Lord’s Day’. Now it might be argued that he simply chose not to use the term in this passage, and that may very well be the case, which is why I said this was but a slight hint. However, it is worth pointing out that between the two covenants, the day ascribed to the Lord is clearly called holy in the old, but not so in the new. Whether we attribute that to the coincidental choice of words or no, this nevertheless proves to be another New Testament passage where the context seems ripe to clarify a Christian Sabbath, or unquestionably demonstrate a regard for the day, and yet once again it just doesn’t plainly do so.

I would offer that there is no regard communicated because there is no regard intended. I believe that in the New Testament the possessive is used in the phrase ‘Lord’s day’, not to denote a regard for the day or for some holiness thereof, nor that the time associated with that day belonged to the Lord, all of which was the case with the Sabbath and why it therefore would be called a ‘holy day’; but because the Lord and savior Jesus Christ was raised on that day, and thus it is called after Him in remembrance and recognition of His triumph over death and the grave thereon. It is ascribed to Him because of His accomplishment on it. This notion would provide an acceptable reason for the use of the possessive concerning the day and would also accord with Paul’s words in Rom. 14:5-6. There is certainly nothing in the immediate context of John’s words here in Revelation, nor in any other portion of the entire New Testament, that would plainly refute this understanding.

Thus, as stated at the outset of this thought, we do not see in the New Testament a regard for the first day being laid upon the consciences of believers, nor do we see it called holy in any place, or even remotely referred to as such in some fashion, nor do we even find an example of one showing such regard for the day, or some rebuke for the lack thereof. Moreover, consistent with all of this, we even find Paul expressing the acceptableness of one who regards every day alike, all of which is in complete contrast to the treatment the Sabbath received in the old covenant, both in the quantity and severity of the expressed regard…