Nailing Down the Sabbath (1 of 2)

Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; He took it away, nailing it to the cross!—Col. 2:14

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Roman church castle in Wittenberg, Germany, he was making a very vital and important statement not to be taken lightly. I would like to think that he got his idea from Paul. Paul, likewise, said the Sabbath (even the entire Mosaic covenant), was “nailed to the cross”! Paul’s statement is a graphic portrayal of all that Christ has done for us; in liberating us from our hard taskmaster, the law of Moses. And yet for all this we still have those in the Church today saying to us, "Away with you, to our traditions, doctrines and commandments of men we will hold." To downplay the seriousness of all this by binding upon men’s consciences the observance of all of these OT ceremonies, is in essence, to trample under foot the work of Christ and, in practice, to crucify Him all over again, insulting and bringing disgrace even to the Spirit of grace.

One really wonders: What is all the controversy about regarding the Sabbath? Paul clearly articulated in Col. 2:16:

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (ASV).

Note: “Sabbath” is translated with the plural “Sabbaths” in some translations, and we'll explain why in a moment.

In Gal. 4:9-10 Paul likewise writes:

…how is it that you go back again to the poor and feeble first things, desiring to be servants to them again? You keep days, and months, and fixed times, and years (BBE).

In Rom. 14:4-6 Paul also says:

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord (NIV).

And finally, Heb. 4:3, 6, 8-10 claims:

For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but...those who heard did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed enter that rest....It still remains that some will enter that rest....For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his (NIV). [1]

The basic controversy centered around the subject of keeping the fourth commandment (the Sabbath) is based entirely upon ones assessment of Paul’s words in Col. 2:16 noted above. This, in a nutshell, is basically the just of it! And to be quite frank, Paul’s words in this verse should really settle the matter once-and-for-all for us. And if they haven’t, then I think they will by the time you are done reading this article.

Once one has a proper biblical perspective of what Paul is truly saying to us, then many of the other arguments and questions that follow upon the heels of this statement of his all become self-refuting.

Of course, the argument doesn’t just stop with Col. 2:16; it should, but it doesn’t. On the heels of this verse come some other very important arguments, such as:

1) Whether or not the "Sabbaths” (plural) can be understood as being the same as the “Sabbath” (singular).

2) Whether or not the Sabbath can be categorized as the “unchanging moral law of God,” and if there is such a thing as “the unchanging moral law of God”? And what is to be considered as one’s "moral duty" to God anyway? We will define what it means to be “morally” right before God. Clearly, some things that are considered “morally” right to do and imbedded into our conscience, don’t change. But on the other hand, outward actions or conduct that may have been “morally” right to do at one time for Israel, may not be morally right or “correct” for us to do any more!

For example, the author of Hebrews says that, “with a change of the priesthood, came a change in the law" (Heb. 7:12). It was the Jews “moral duty” before God in the OT to maintain the priesthood as prescribed by God in His law; but this is not the case any longer. One’s moral duty to God on all of that has changed. The so-called “unchanging moral law of God” on this matter has indeed been supplanted with a new law and way of doing things as set forth by Christ. And we will also study this concept of what is to be considered as “morally” right or wrong for us to do now before God.

3) Some have even gone so far as to make an argument around the word “which,” in Paul’s phrase, “which are a shadow of things to come” (v. 17), and have said that this one little word can only be referring to the “festival” rest-days, but not to the seventh-day Sabbath. Is this statement true? As we will come to find out, it is not true.

4) Then there are a few verses in the OT that seemingly indicate to some that the Sabbath (and even the New Moons and Festivals), are to be observed immediately after the resurrection; and even on into the future in what many call “the future millennial reign of Christ here on the earth.” For them, these ceremonies will continue to be literally observed “as a memorial” that will look back to the finished work of Christ. And as incredulous as all of this may sound, such people even believe in a future rebuilt temple by Christ on the earth during this millennial period with the reinstitution of the Levitical priesthood (Ezk. 43:18-44:1-31); a continuation of the animal sacrifices which Ezekiel says in chapter 45 will (if one is to consistently interpret all of this "literally") make an actual “atonement” for sin; and also the admittance into this temple of only those Jews (and “no foreigners”) who are circumcised, both spiritually and physically in their flesh (44:9).

Is this taking one step forward, and two steps backwards, or what? Is this a return to Judaism, or what? What else can you call it? Such practices would indeed be taking “two steps backwards”; and such practices would indeed be “a return to Judaism.” But just as Peter’s heavenly vision of being told to eat unclean animals was only to be understood “in type” of what he was to be understood spiritually speaking, so was Ezekiel’s vision of the grandeur's of a perfect future kingdom, temple, sacrifice and priesthood only to be fully realized in the perfect and complete work of Christ in His kingdom that is “not of this world” (Jhn. 18:36); in a temple “not made by hands” (Dan. 2:45; II Cor. 5:1); and in a people who are called “living stones, being built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (I Pet. 2:5). For God Himself has said,

See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in Him will never be put to shame. Now to you who believe, this Stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, ‘The Stone the builders rejected [instead of a literal temple] has become the Capstone,’ and, ‘A Stone that causes men to stumble and a Rock that makes them fall.’ They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy (I Pet. 2:7-10).

Peter is saying here that a non-literal “stone” is being laid “in Zion.” It is the “foundation stone” upon which a non-literal city or temple of God is being built. This “Stone,” and even all the “stones” (v. 5) are not being placed in a physical locale anymore called “Zion.” Zion “in type” was a picture of a fortified place, citadel and refuge for God’s people. In fact “Zion,” the “temple,” and even “the city of Jerusalem” were ALL physical “types” and “shadows” of the place of God’s true dwelling place, which is in His people. He is our “strong tower,” He is our “temple,” and He is our city of “refuge,” all of which He is both the architect and the builder. Even “the mountain” on which these edifices resided takes on a “spiritual” meaning and connotation in the writings of the apostles.

For example, of Abraham it is said that “he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God”…and that everyone such as himself, “were longing for a better country—a heavenly one!…He has prepared a city for them” (Heb. 13: 10, 16). And Paul says to the Galatians, “Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present [physical] city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother” (4:25-26). Every child of God is born via the work (or “labor”) and ministry of Christ's bride, the Church; and all by a supernatural act of God at that. We are all “joint-heirs” partaking in a “joint” effort between us and God. This is the only way that we can make any sense out of Paul's words below, when he says,

For it is written: ‘Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband (Gal. 4:27).

“Jerusalem” isn’t any longer a physical locale, it is a people. They are a “city [a people] set on a hill” for everyone to behold. Even the term “city,” by definition, describes the inhabitants of a city collectively, as in the statement: “the entire city mourned his death.” So it is not hard to imagine “a city” as denoting the people, rather than just to all the houses and buildings in that city. In fact, John even describes her as “the bride, the wife of the lamb” (Rev. 21:9-10), so this completely agrees with what Paul says about the Jerusalem that is “from above” in Galatians. She is all those who are “born from above.” Even the name “Jerusalem” means “city of peace.” And we are that city, “the inhabitants” wherein God’s peace resides. We are a people of peace. Peace resides within God’s people, and they bring that peace to others as well.

Even of “Zion” it is said in the OT that “this one and that one was born in her, and the Most High himself will establish her” (Psm. 87:5). What does all this mean? We are talking about more than just a literal fortress, citadel or city here. It means here exactly what Paul was describing of the spiritual Jerusalem above. Where did Paul get all of this from? From out of the OT, of course! And the Psalmist continues to write, “He has set his foundation on the holy mountain; the Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. Glorious things are said of you, O city of God: Selah [lit., ‘think about it’]. I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me—Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush—and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion’….The Lord will write in the register of the peoples [the Lamb’s book of life]: ‘This one was born in Zion.’ Selah [again, “think about it”]. As they make music they will sing, ‘All my fountains are in you’” (vv. 1-4, 6-7).

His “foundation,” His “holy mountain,” the “gates,” “fountains,” and even “Zion” itself all takes on a whole new meaning here. How do we know this? By the fact that even the Gentiles are said to be “born in her.” This is not something to be understood "naturally" in the Israelites, this is the spiritual Israel that Paul talked about in Romans and Galatians. They are all those who are born “from above,” in other words, born from heaven by God. This is a supernatural event. They are all Christ's kingdom people who are born from above. They all those who walk, talk, and live in a kingdom that He said is “not of this world” (Jhn. 19:36) and comes “not with observation,” but is “within” us (Lke. 17:20-21). If Jesus was referring to physically seeing Him at that time in their midst, then then that too would have been something to be seen as a physical "observation." On the contrary, Christ's kingdom is a kingdom that is “hidden” from the natural seeing eyes of man (Mat. 13:33, 44), as even the “hidden” manna in the jar. It is a kingdom of which no one will ever be able to “see” or “enter” unless they are born-again from above (Jhn. 3:3, 5). Again, it is a kingdom not about physical or literal meat and drink, but a kingdom of righteousness, peace, and joy (cf. Rom. 14:17).

Elsewhere Paul said that we “are God’s building” (I Cor. 3:9), and that “in Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in Him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit” (Eph. 2:21-22).

The writer of Hebrews also declares,

You have not come to a mountain that can be TOUCHED…But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God…to the church of the firstborn [ones], whose names are written in heaven…Therefore since we have received a kingdom that cannot be [physically] shaken, let us be thankful (Heb. 12:18, 22-23, 28).

Instead of complaining about not having a kingdom like all the other kingdoms of this world that can be literally "shaken," LET US BE THANKFUL! Instead of being worldly and carnally minded, let us become spiritually minded, as Christ surely was and taught us to be so. Do not set your minds on what is physical, earthly, temporal and carnal. Jesus will have none of that! Fix your minds on that which is more real, and which is spiritual and eternal; and where neither moth nor rust does corrupt and where neither thieves can break through and steal. Hebrews says, “There remains a Sabbath-rest to the people of God.” Let us not labor for the meat that perishes, but for the meat that gives “rest” to our souls. Jesus is our Sabbath-rest. It is no longer about observing a natural, typical, physical rest anymore, but about observing the spiritual Antitypical rest found in Jesus Christ! The reality of all that which was only "typical" and a "shadow," has now arrived upon us.

I’ve said all that to say this: There is more to all of these past physical requirements and structures than meets the physical eye. It isn’t about literally observing or doing these things anymore in an outward manner; it’s about living them in an inward manner. It is Christ in us, and us in Him. It is not about letters written in stone, it’s about being living epistles. The ten commandments are being lived out, or “fleshed-out” in our hearts right before our eyes. Do YOU "see" that?

Need we really have to say anymore? You sure wouldn’t think so! The weekly seventh-day Sabbath, along with the entire Mosaic Law, has been nailed to the cross according to Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15! For most of us, all of this settles the matter; and it should! But unfortunately, for some, it is not so simple as that. And in order to try and impose upon many Christians the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath (or even a Sunday Sabbath), they have said that the “Sabbath” mentioned in Colossians is not speaking of the Saturday Sabbath, but only those rest-days in the festivals or in the annual Sabbaths. And while they affirm that the law of Moses in Col. 2:14 is “nailed to the cross,” this is only true in the sense that it does not "justify" us before God; but, nevertheless, it is still a standard whereby all New Testament believers are to live by. But then you would have to say to all such people who believe like this, “What about the Festivals and New Moons?” Are they also not to be understood as justifying us, yet still no less to be observed by us? As you can see, this argument is self-refuting. And it is exactly for this reason that some even say that all of these things should still be practiced by us, yet do not "justify" us. This is the stand that the denomination called "The Church of Christ" takes.

There have even been those within Christian circles that have attempted to reconstruct all the moral and civil laws in the Mosaic Law and make them somehow applicable as the Christian's standard of living now in this life. And this idea is commonly referred to as, "Christian Reconstructionism." But we will not deal with that topic here.

Now the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is at no point more sharply drawn than in the question of the observance of the Sabbath vs. the Lord’s Day (or, “the first day of the week”). And the question goes far deeper than just the observance, or the manner of observance, of such a day. It is the fundamental question of whether the New Covenant is to reign supreme in place of the Old Covenant, or whether it is to be, unnecessarily at times, commingled with the Law of Moses.

For its solution, the question demands more than a superficial answer. The choice of a particular day and the manner of its observance is a challenge as to one’s mental adjustment to the whole New Covenant revelation. To call the Saturday Sabbath or the Lord’s Day the “Christian Sabbath” is a misnomer. And the very use of the term indicates an inexcusable inattention to the terms of our New Covenant under Christ, and an unchallenged freedom of the mind and of the heart that is willing to sacrifice the realities that are found in Christ, for a typological ceremony. It is not primarily or foremost a question of interpretation; for many it is a matter of personal sentiment, prejudice, ignorance and even peer pressure that causes them to blindly override the very foundation of what is to be understood as rightly dividing the Word of Truth here.

My wife and I were faced with this dilemma many years ago when we were not welcomed to be standing members in a Reformed Baptist church, due to the fact we did not believe that the fourth commandment as a formal ceremony was binding upon the Christian. We were accepting of them, but they were not accepting of us—at least not enough to allow us to become members of their church. And by not being “members” we were also not allowed to partake of communion with them. We could have succumbed to the peer pressure in order to have been accepted by them, or we could choose to hold to our beliefs on what we believed the Bible was clearly telling us with regards to all of this. We chose the latter. And to say the least, things just didn’t work out for us there.

Now the observance of these two days, the “the Sabbath” and “the Lord’s Day,” are two great events that are absolutely unrelated to one another. The former was a typical “sign” of a covenantal relationship between God and the Israelites under the law of Moses, pointing forward to our rest in Christ. The latter is in celebration of the day in which Christ was resurrected. There is nothing “typical” about it. We just do it in commemoration of that great event.

Before the New Covenant was enacted, Christ was a “minister of the circumcision”; He was “made under the law”; and He lived and acted as one who was under that law of Moses. The Old Covenant did not pass away at His birth or during His ministry. It passed away upon His death and resurrection. During Christ’s days of ministry here on earth He recognized, kept, and enforced all of the laws—including the tithe and the Sabbath, etc.—as an integral part of the entire Mosaic system; and He encouraged His disciples to do likewise while it was still in force (Mat. 23:1-5).

The Scriptures also say that Christ is the “Lord of the Sabbath,” and that by virtue of such a position, He had the right to abolish it if He so pleased. But true to the Law, Christ did recognize its important place and obligation in relation to Israel until the Old Covenant would be terminated upon His death.

The Mosaic Law, as a whole, as a covenant, is no longer binding upon the New Covenant believer. Its administration, in its entirety, has passed away. It is no longer a covenant that binds us. Only the terms and conditions mandated under our New Covenant are those things that bind us today. But that is NOT to say we are antinomian either. On the contrary, we are NOT without law unto God, but under law to Christ (I Cor. 9:21). Christ now defines for us what is or isn't to be practiced by us before God; Christ is the Law Giver and the Law Changer. By becoming dead to the laws of Moses, we are now married to another husband with new rules, laws and commandments. Paul says it this way,

Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God (Rom. 7:1-4).

Nine of the ten commandments from the former covenantal relationship under Moses have been reissued, while the fourth command has been dissolved—at least as an “outward” observance. But have no doubt about it, we still keep the fourth commandment as a "rest" that is now realized in the heart, just as all of the other nine commandments are now realized in us, in our heart. As such, they are no longer outward commands and observances to be practiced, per se, but inward observances that live and come from the heart.

Consideration at length might also be given to the many vital changes made to the laws under the former old covenantal relationship, as opposed to those now under our new covenantal relationship, such as: circumcision, animal sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, the temple, the kingdom, and the like. But unlike the Sabbath question, all of these other ceremonies do not pose as much of a problem for most Christians to let go of (except for maybe the concept of “the kingdom”); while the Sabbath, on the other hand, looms larger than life for some as an essential part of their reasonable worship before God. Therefore it requires more attention. And so that is the purpose of this article.

As mentioned earlier, we are going to study several things with regards to the subject of the Sabbath:

I. First of all, we will discuss some invalid arguments posed by others. 

II. Secondly, we will discuss the difference between the “Sabbath” (singular) verses the “Sabbaths” (plural), if any. 

III. Thirdly, we will discuss what “Sabbath” (or "Sabbaths") Paul is referring to in Col. 2:16. 

IV. Fourthly, we will discuss whether or not the Sabbath is nailed to the cross only with regards to our salvation? 

V. And fifthly, we will discuss some miscellaneous verses surrounding this subject.

I. Some Invalid Arguments Posed by Others

I will not spend a lot of time discussing each of these. They are all pretty much self-refuting. Some of them even seem downright silly, as you will see. Nevertheless, I mention them just in case someone throws them your way and you will not be completely taken by surprise by them. In fact, any argument attacking the validity of the Sabbath’s abrogation, really shouldn’t even be considered as an argument in light of what Paul says in Col. 2:16. And as we shall soon see, Paul's statement is rooted and grounded in the OT Scriptures which absolutely affirm that the Sabbath he is referring to is indeed the seventh-day Sabbath. This one statement by Paul in Col. 2:16 really settles the matter on the whole issue. And one could go right to those statements in the OT where Paul got his actual statement from, bypassing all of these other arguments, and have a clear and final answer on all of this. I only wish it were that simple. But for now, let us just evaluate some of these arguments for arguments sake.

The first argument is from those who hold that its continual observance is based upon the premise that it was instituted before the laws of Moses in the book of Genesis, which is really no argument at all.

In the book of Genesis, there are no real concrete directions from God that the 7th day in which He rested on, had to be observed by man. It just says, God rested! And another point to consider concerning God’s rest on the 7th day of Creation is the fact that all real commandments or laws always have punishments associated with them for disobedience. If there are no penalties, then such commands lack any force. Where in the book of Genesis does anyone see any penalties for not resting on the 7th day of the week? There are none! Had the Sabbath been a command, then punishment must have been connected with its disobedience, just as breaking the clear command to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden was to result in death for disobedience. Yet nothing in Genesis shows any retribution for Sabbath breaking. And “where there is no law," Paul says, "there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). And though we are told that Abraham obeyed God’s “voice,” “charge,” “commandments,” “statutes” and “laws” in Gen. 26:5 (KJV), the Sabbath was not within the scope of those "words" or "commandments" from God. Observe these "words" carefully:

• God’s “voice” told Abraham to leave his country for another land, and Abraham obeyed the voice of God (Genesis 12:1–4).

• Isaac “charged” Jacob not to marry any Canaanite woman (Genesis 28:1), as Abraham formerly followed God’s “charges” in the same thing (Genesis 24:1–4).

• God “commanded” Abraham to walk in the ways of justice and judgment (Genesis 18:19); and he kept those commands.

• God’s “statutes” concerning the building of altars and the sacrificing of animals were obeyed by Abraham (Genesis 12:7; 22:9).

• God also gave a “law” to Abraham that he and all his children were to be circumcised (Genesis 17:9–14), and he diligently performed that law.

In the book of Genesis Abraham kept God’s voice, charge, commands, statutes and laws. But those commandments and laws which Abraham observed were not the Ten Commands given to Israel during the time of Moses. To say so, is to do a great injustice to the scriptural revelation that is given to us. There is not even a hint in Genesis that the codified Ten Commandments as a legal document was binding or in force before Sinai.

First of all, it should be noted that the Sabbath as a ceremony was clearly “commanded” to be observed by the covenant community of Israel. And in no uncertain terms God said it was to be a “sign” of Israel's covenantal relationship between them and Him (cf. Ex. 31:12-18; Ezk. 20:20). In Ezekiel, God specifically states that after having led Israel out of Egypt that He “gave them” at that time His “decrees and made known to them My laws,” and that, “also I gave them My Sabbaths as a sign between us” (20:10-12). Note that none of this was ever given to them before this time, but only afterward. Additionally, in Exodus 20:8 when God tells them to “remember” the Sabbath, He wasn't pointing back to creation but to just four chapters earlier where He had first mandated them to keep the Sabbath when He poured down manna from heaven (Ex. 16). Clearly, the Lord was not pointing them back to Himself resting on the seventh day, as some in the church erroneously claim today He is saying; even though this was no less used by the Lord in Ex. 20:11 and 31:17b as an analogy or example for “them alone” to follow out of strict adherence to a new “command” that was solely for them in their particular "covenant" with God. Before Sinai, such a covenantal relationship with this attending “sign” was never established with Israel or with their “forefathers,” as the Lord declares for us in Deuteronomy 5:2-3: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today."

Noah had his covenantal “sign.” Abraham had his covenantal “sign.” And Israel retained Abraham’s “sign,” along with God giving them a new “sign” of their new covenantal relationship with Him under the Mosaic Law. Now under our new covenant, these physical “signs” (of circumcision and rest) have been spiritually realized in us; with us now being given our own new covenantal “sign” of water baptism which symbolizes our inward spiritual cleansing in Christ.

Additionally, if the Sabbath was being observed before the Law and constitutes a valid argument for us to keep it as well, then why not continue offering “burnt offerings” as did Job, Noah or Abraham? Or even observe the rite of circumcision? These were all observed "before" the law as well. Surely no one would similarly argue that these are to be observed today, unless one were an unsaved Jew.

Secondly, the argument by some that the subject of “the Sabbath” in Colossians, Galatians and most likely in Romans has to do only with regards to one being justified before God, and not with what follows thereafter, is also an invalid argument. If that were the case, then by such logic we should also keep the festivals and New Moons, or actually watch what we eat and drink. Of course, no one would care to go that far with this argument. So then, why bring it up? It is because a lot of Christians simply do not think through what they are saying or what is being taught to them.

One could even get a similar impression in Acts 15, where circumcision is said to not be required for salvation! But was the silence of what they were required to do afterward an argument for continuing its practice once saved? Of course not! Actually, the “silence” of it either before or after salvation is speaking volumes to us of it not being mandated for us to do any longer. And the further rules that were imposed upon them were peculiar to them and for their sustained witness for Christ. For example, fornication is something that all believers are to abstain from, but evidently it was something that these Gentiles had to be particularly warned about. Additionally, we know that Paul had Timothy circumcised in order to win some Jews over to Christ (Acts 16:3), but would not impose such a rite upon Titus (Gal. 2:3), proving that it didn't really matter one way or the other. Paul had always said, “circumcision is nothing, and neither is uncircumcision; but a new creature in Christ” is what it is all about.

Thirdly, another argument that Sabbatarians claim is that the Scriptures indicate that it was to be a “perpetual” observance in Ex. 31:16-17. But they overlook the fact that the Scriptures also say “circumcision” is to be “a perpetual covenant” in Gen. 17:17. Why is it that Christians keep “overlooking” all these things? Martin Lloyd Jones said it was “because Christians are too lazy to study.” Lethargy and complacency has won the day with many bible believing Christians in the church. And one of the greatest springboards for deception, is ignorance.

The writer of Hebrews indicates to us that the eternal realities, to which these natural rudimentary elements were but types, can only be seen to have a continuing validity by their fulfillment in and through Christ. Even David was told that there would be a son on his throne “forever.” And no one of any right mind would doubt that this too was realized in Christ when He sat down as King on David's throne, not only over the earth, but over the heavens as well; ruling above all and over all.

Common sense tells us that the perpetuity of physical circumcision in the Old Testament is seen to be realized in the New Testament in the spiritual circumcision “of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter” (Rom. 2:29). In fact, the "perpetuity" of anything physical in the OT is only to be understood in the realization of their spiritual counterpart and reality for which they were but only a shadow and a type. This was true in the terminology regarding “the Passover” in Ex. 12:14; of “incense” in Ex. 30:8; of “burnt offerings” in Ex. 29:42; of the “atonement” in Ex. 30:10; of “washing of hands and feet” in Ex. 30:21; of “meat offerings” in Lev. 6:18; of “firstfruits” in Lev. 23:14; of “oil for lamps” in Lev. 24:3; of the “feast of Pentecost” in Lev. 23:21; of “the feast of Tabernacles” in Lev. 23:41; and of the “priesthood” in Ex. 40:15. The fact that any further need for these types has ceased to be applicable for us, should help to prove (and even instruct us) that the Sabbath likewise has ceased to be mandatory for us to do. How is this so? It is due to the fact that in every case where the term “perpetual” is linked with these types and shadows in the OT, those ordinances have ceased to be binding any longer upon the NT believer. They are all “signposts” pointing to the heavenly realities from which all those “shadows” were cast. The perpetuity of all of those types and shadows is realized in the spiritual reality of the antitype. And that “antitype” is Christ and His body, the Church—who are His tithe, firstfruits and firstborn-ones; the remnant, portion and holy seed that belongs unto Him. All of these natural things pointed to the many-faceted spiritual realities that are found in Christ and His Church.

Fourthly, some have made the argument that the “Sabbath days” spoken about in Colossians are the festival rest-days, because the seventh-day Sabbath only pointed back to the creation account and not forward to Christ, and therefore it cannot point both ways. But why not? How can one say for sure that the Sabbath could not point “both ways”? Let us consider the Passover for one moment. It was a memorial of Israel’s past deliverance from bondage in Egypt under Pharaoh (Ex. 12:11-17), and yet it was also a type or shadow of our deliverance from our bondage to sin under Satan by Christ who is now our Passover (I Cor. 5:7). Regardless, Heb. 4:1-11 indicates that God’s rest on the seventh day of creation pointed forward to another day, beyond literal Sabbath-keeping, to when man would rest from his own physical works to be saved, as God rested from His own physical works; and thus enter God’s rest of which all of that signified (v. 9).

Fifthly, another argument that some Sabbatarians try to make is around the false and ungrammatical construction of the relative pronoun “which” in the phrase in Col. 2:16: “which are a shadow of things to come…”

D. M. Canright says here with regards to all of this:

[Seventh-day] Adventists try to exclude the weekly Jewish Sabbath from the text. They make the pronoun which refer only to “the Sabbath days,” making it read, “Those Sabbath days which are a shadow.” This they say, implies that there are other Sabbaths which are not a shadow, that is, the seventh day. But the Greek word for “Sabbath days” is, Sabbaton, genitive plural, while the word for “which” is a, ha, nominative plural, neuter. Hence which cannot agree with Sabbath days, as any scholar knows. “Which are a shadow” relates to the whole list given in verse 16, viz., meats, drinks, feast days, new moons and Sabbaths. The revised version renders it, “a feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow.” Not simply the Sabbath alone, but all these together were a shadow. Hence the phrase, “which are a shadow,” applies to each item in verse 16. (Seventh Day Adventism: Renounced, p. 295).

Sixthly, believe it or not (this is one of the more “silly” arguments) some Sabbatarians have even attempted to make the argument that when the OT speaks of Israel’s Sabbaths as “her Sabbaths” that these Sabbaths are the festival Sabbaths and not “the Lord’s” seventh-day Sabbath. This argument is likewise self-refuting.

From one point of view these Saturday Sabbaths were “Israel’s” Sabbaths (they were not imposed upon any other nation), and from another point of view they were “the Lord’s” Sabbaths—i.e., they came from Him. They were given from Him, to them. The Saturday Sabbath was God’s because He had commanded and appointed it; but it was “hers” (or Israel's) because they were given strictly to Israel as a nation to observe.

Similarly, of the temple we read: “My house” in Isa. 56:7, whereas it is “your house” in Mat. 23:38. Of the sacrifices we read: “the sacrifices of the Lord” in Lev. 10:13 and “My offering, and bread for My sacrifices” in Num. 28:2; whereas it is “your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes” in Deut. 12:6. Of the law we read: “My law” in Jer. 6:19, whereas in Jhn. 10:34 it is “your law”. Of the feasts and the Sabbath we read: “The Lord’s Passover” in Ex. 12:11, “the feast of the Lord” in Lev. 23:4, “the Sabbaths of the Lord” in Lev. 23:38, and “My feasts” and “My Sabbaths” in Lev. 23:2 and Ex. 31:13. Whereas in Hos. 2:11, it is “her feast days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths.” There is no conflict of interest here. The Lord’s Sabbaths are Israel’s Sabbaths, and vice-versa.

And as a side bar to this above argument, it is also argued by these people that the weekly Sabbath was never associated with meats, drinks, feast days or with any other types as seems to be the case in Col. 2:16. But this argument too is unfounded. The weekly Sabbath is classified in the OT repeatedly right along beside all of the other ceremonial rites, types and shadows.

For example, in Lev. 19:30 the Lord says, “Keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary [or temple].” In Lev. 23:38, named among “gifts,” “vows,” and “offerings” is the Saturday Sabbath. In Lev. 24:1-8, the Saturday Sabbath is in the same company with “oil,” “bread,” and “frankincense.” And in Num. 28:9-10, the Saturday Sabbath is in close association with the offerings of “lambs,” “meat,” and “drink” offerings, as well as “burnt offerings” (See also Lev. 23:2-6; Num. 28:2-11 and I Chr. 23:29-31).

Seventh, a last and final argument is that if Paul’s language does away with all holy days, then the Church is left with no holy days of her own. The answer to this argument is easy as well. First of all, there is a day to all Christians that is considered a more holier day than all the other days. It is the Lord’s Day on Sunday. Paul was just treating the old Jewish holy days that were in the law of Moses which included the seventh-day Sabbath. His language has no bearing on the NT institutions and sacraments that the Church wholeheartedly and repeatedly observes.

II. “The Sabbath” (singular) Verses “The Sabbaths” (plural)

Now there are those who also say that “the Sabbath days” (KJV), which is plural in number, is not the same as “the Sabbath,” which they say can only be singular in number, and therefore these Sabbaths are not the weekly Sabbath that is mentioned in Colossians 2:16. But this objection is absolutely and unequivocally without any merit; for as we shall see, the “plural” form is actually the form used when the “singular” Saturday Sabbath is repeatedly referred to throughout the Greek NT and in even in Greek Septuagint of the OT. And it is for this reason that it is translated as the singular seventh-day Sabbath in many of the more modern translations.

For example, in Exodus 31:13 the Lord says, “My Sabbaths [plural] shall you keep, for it [singular] is a sign between Me and you.” So here we see that in just one verse alone both the singular and the plural are used with regards to the seventh-day Sabbath. In Leviticus 19:3, the Lord says, “Keep My Sabbaths” [plural] with regards to the weekly Sabbath. Lev. 23:38 says, “Beside the Sabbaths [plural] of the Lord.” Beside what Sabbaths? The weekly Saturday Sabbaths. Isa. 56:2, 4 also says, “Blessed is the man that…keeps the Sabbath [sing.]…the eunuchs that keep My Sabbaths [plural].” Exodus 20:12 says, “I gave them My Sabbaths [plural] to be a sign.” And lastly, Mat. 12:5 says, “On the Sabbath days [plural] the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath [singular].” Again, both the singular and plural English translations are used repeatedly regarding the singular seventh-day Sabbath. Who can read this list, and not be impressed by the fact that the English translation of “the Sabbath days” in Col. 2:16, is just how it is mentioned everywhere else in Scripture with regards to the Saturday Sabbath?

The Greek word for the seventh-day Sabbath (sabbaton), used also here in Col. 2:16, occurs in the New Testament 60 times (see Strong's conc.). And even the Seventh-Day Adventists admittedly accept the fact that in 59 out of these 60 occurrences it means the weekly Saturday Sabbath, but in this 60th occurrence, in Col. 2:16, it means something else entirely—to the festival sabbaths. Now doesn't it seem strange to you how that the Greek plural form sabbaton can mean the weekly Saturday Sabbath in 59 places in the New Testament, but here in this one place in Colossians it doesn't mean this at all?

D. M. Canright, one of the founding teachers of the Seventh-Day Adventist organization, and who had taught them for roughly 28 years, renounced his belief in their teachings and wrote a book called Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced. He writes:

In the Greek, in which Paul wrote Col. 2:16, he uses not only the same word which is always used for the weekly Sabbath, but exactly the same form of the word used in the fourth commandment itself! I will give the Greek word for “Sabbath days” in Col. 2:16 and other texts where the same word and same form of the word, letter for letter, is used for the weekly Sabbath. Col. 2:16, “Let no man judge you in respect to the Sabbath days,” Greek, sabbaton, genitive plural.

In Ex. 20:8, 10, fourth commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day [Greek, sabbaton, genitive plural] to keep it holy”….Here it will be seen that Paul uses the same Greek word, letter for letter, that is used in the Decalogue in the Septuagint translation. Hence it surely meant the Sabbath day….So if the use of the plural in Col. 2 shows anything, it shows that the Sabbath of the Decalogue is meant.

Further, sabbaton, genitive plural, the form of the word used in Col. 2:16, is the one often used in other texts for the weekly Sabbath.

Thus:

• Ex. 35:3 “Kindle no fire…upon the Sabbath day,” Greek sabbaton.
• Lev. 23:38. “Beside the Sabbath, sabbaton, of the Lord.”
• Lev. 24:8. “Every Sabbath, sabbaton, he shall set it in order.”
• Num. 15:32. “Gathered sticks on the Sabbath day,” sabbaton.
• Num. 28:9. “On the Sabbath, sabbaton, day two lambs.”
• Deut. 5:12. Fourth commandment again, “Keep the Sabbath, sabbaton, day."
• Isa. 58:13. “Turn away thy foot from the Sabbath,” sabbaton.
• Mat. 28:1. “In the end of the Sabbath,” sabbaton.
• Luke 4:16. “He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath, sabbaton, day.”
• Acts 13:14. “Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath, sabbaton, day.”
• Col. 2:16. “Let no man therefore judge you…in respect of the Sabbath, sabbaton, days” (Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced, pp. 284-285).

As noted earlier, also of interest is the fact that leading modern translations, following the best New Testament scholars, render Col. 2:16 as “a Sabbath” or “a Sabbath day,” and not “Sabbath days” as translated in the King James Version. These translations are: the NIV, NAS, ESV, ASV, RSV, ERV, Weymouth’s (WNT), World Eng. Bible (WEB), Good News trans. (GNT) and NCT.

W. E. Vine notes that the reason for these translations doing this, is that:

Sabbaton or sabbata, the latter the plural form, was transliterated from the Aramaic word which was mistaken for a plural; hence the singular sabbaton was formed from it….In the epistles the only direct mentions are in Colossians 2:16 “a Sabbath day” (RV), which rightly has the singular…where it is listed among things that were “a shadow of things to come”; (i.e., of the age introduced at Pentecost), and in Hebrews 4:4-11, where the perpetual sabbatismos is appointed for believers; ….For the first three centuries of the Christian era the first day of the week was never confounded with the Sabbath; the confusion of the Jewish and Christian institutions was due to declension from apostolic teaching (Vine’s Expos. Dict. of the New Testament, vol. 3, pp. 311-313).

Even J. B. Lightfoot, an acknowledged authority of the NT Greek, makes this insightful observation:

The word sabbata is derived from the Aramaic shabbatha (as distinguished from the Hebrew), and accordingly preserves the Aramaic termination of “a”. Hence it was naturally declined as a plural noun, sabbata, sabbaton. The New Testament sabbata is only once used distinctively as more than a single day, and there the plurality of meaning is brought out by the attached numeral (Acts 17:2). (As noted by D. H. Alford in his Commentary on Colossians, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub, n. d., p. 225).

W. Robertson Nicoll also writes about the Greek sabbaton here: “though plural in form here, means a single Sabbath day” (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 3, p. 531).

And Expositor’s Bible Commentary likewise remarks: “Sabbata, though plural, is regularly used in the NT in a singular sense—thus 'sabbath day' (NIV), not 'sabbath days' (KJV)." (vol. 11, p. 204).

Bagster’s Greek lexicon likewise agrees with Canright’s assessment: “the Jewish Sabbath, both in the singular and plural” (An Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978, p. 361).

Based upon the above observations, unfortunately Sabbatarians are also deprived of the support of their stalwart teacher Albert Barnes (also a Sabbatarian) who says that if Paul had “used the word in the singular number, ‘the sabbath,’ it would then of course have been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had ceased to be binding and that a [seventh-day] Sabbath was no longer to be observed” (Barnes’ Notes on the NT, vol. 12, p. 267). But as we have discovered, the Greek genitive plural “sabbaton” is indeed used throughout the New Testament (and even in the Greek Septuagint) for the singular Saturday Sabbath, and therefore all those who choose to side with Albert Barnes must acquiescence to the Sabbath here in Colossians as being none other than the seventh-day Sabbath. Clearly, Albert Barnes didn't have all the knowledge and insight that we now have today. And it could be possible that his strong position on keeping the seventh-day Sabbath even blinded him to seeing anything else. Deception does have a way of doing this to people. And while I admire much of what Barnes has to say on many other issues, I have to step back and take a stand against him with regards to this issue of the Sabbath. And the same goes for many "reformed" brethren as well. But I agree with them on more issues than I disagree with them on.

We have now seen that from a grammatical point of view, if the Sabbatarians are to insist that Col. 2:16 refers only to festival Sabbaths based upon a plural understanding of the Greek “Sabbaton,” then they are running against the entire testimony of the Greek New Testament and the Greek Septuagint which argues against such an idea. If all the Sabbatarians would be admitting to the corrections above of the revisers of the revised translations, and render Col. 2:16 “a Sabbath day” as it is to be correctly understood, then its use will certainly be seen to refer exclusively to the seventh-day Sabbath as one more of those ordinances which Paul had definitely said was nailed to the cross in verse 14. It is apparent from current Greek scholarship, and the texts cited above, that the use of the Greek “sabbaton” as used in the New Testament refutes any Sabbatarian’s argument that the “Sabbath days” in Colossians are only those rest-days that were observed during some of the festivals of the Lord or in the annual Sabbaths. (Click here for part 2)


Footnotes:

[1] For a further study and analysis of these verses in Hebrews 4, please click here.