|
Believers today
continue to dispute whether the Sabbath is
required. The Sabbath was given to Israel as
a covenant sign, and Israel was commanded to
rest on the seventh day. We see elsewhere in
the Old Testament that covenants have signs,
so that the sign of the Noahic covenant is
the rainbow (Gen. 9:8-17) and the sign of
the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision (Gen. 17). The paradigm for the Sabbath was God’s
rest on the seventh day of creation (Gen. 2:1-3). So, too, Israel was called upon to
rest from work on the seventh day (Exod. 20:8-11; 31:12-17). What did it mean for
Israel not to work on the Sabbath? Figure 5
lists the kinds of activities that were
prohibited and permitted.
The Sabbath
was certainly a day for social concern, for
rest was mandated for all Israelites,
including their children, slaves, and even
animals (Deut. 5:14). It was also a day to
honor and worship the Lord. Special burnt
offerings were offered to the Lord on the
Sabbath (Num. 28:9-10). Psalm 92 is a
Sabbath song that voices praise to God for
his steadfast love and faithfulness. Israel
was called upon to observe the Sabbath in
remembrance of the Lord’s work in delivering
them as slaves from Egyptian bondage (Deut. 5:15). Thus, the Sabbath is tied to Israel’s
covenant with the Lord, for it celebrates
her liberation from slavery. The Sabbath,
then, is the sign of the covenant between
the Lord and Israel (Exod. 31:12-17; Ezek. 20:12-17). The Lord promised great blessing
to those who observed the Sabbath (Isa. 56:2, 6; 58:13-14). Breaking the Sabbath
command was no trivial matter, for the death
penalty was inflicted upon those who
intentionally violated it (Exod. 31:14-15; 35:2; Num. 15:32-36), though collecting
manna on the Sabbath before the Mosaic law
was codified did not warrant such a
punishment (Exod. 16:22-30). Israel
regularly violated the Sabbath—the sign of
the covenant—and this is one of the reasons
the people were sent into exile (Jer. 17:21-27; Ezek. 20:12-24).
During the
Second Temple period, views of the Sabbath
continued to develop. It is not my purpose
here to conduct a complete study. Rather, a
number of illustrations will be provided to
illustrate how seriously Jews took the
Sabbath. The Sabbath was a day of feasting
and therefore a day when fasting was not
appropriate (Jdt. 8:6; 1 Macc. 1:39, 45).
Initially, the Hasmoneans refused to fight
on the Sabbath, but after they were defeated
in battle, they changed their minds and
began to fight on the Sabbath (1 Macc.
2:32-41; cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities
12.274, 276-277). The author of Jubilees
propounds a rigorous view of the Sabbath
(Jubilees 50:6-13). He emphasizes that no
work should be done, specifying a number of
tasks that are prohibited (50:12-13).
Fasting is prohibited since the Sabbath is a
day for feasting (50:10, 12). Sexual
relations with one’s wife also are
prohibited (50:8), though offering the
sacrifices ordained in the law are permitted
(50:10). Those who violate the Sabbath
prescriptions should die (50:7, 13). The
Sabbath is eternal, and even the angels keep
it (2:17-24). Indeed, the angels kept the
Sabbath in heaven before it was established
on earth (2:30). All Jewish authors concur
that God commanded Israel to literally rest,
though it is not surprising that Philo
thinks of it as well in terms of resting in
God (Sobriety, 1:174) and in terms of having
thoughts of God that are fitting (Special
Laws, 2:260). Philo also explains the number
seven symbolically (Moses, 2:210).
The Qumran community was quite strict
regarding Sabbath observance, maintaining
that the right interpretation must be
followed (CD 6:18; 10:14- 23). Even if an
animal falls into a pit it should not be
helped on the Sabbath (CD 11:13-14),
something Jesus assumes is permissible when
talking to the Pharisees (Matt. 12:11). In
the Mishnah thirty-nine different types of
work are prohibited on the Sabbath (m.
Shabbat 7:2).
I do not believe the
Sabbath is required for believers now that
the new covenant has arrived in the person
of Jesus Christ. I should say, first of all,
that it is not my purpose to reiterate what
I wrote about the Sabbath in the Gospels
since the Sabbath texts were investigated
there. Here it is my purpose to pull the
threads together in terms of the validity of
the Sabbath for today. Strictly speaking,
Jesus does not clearly abolish the Sabbath,
nor does he violate its stipulations. Yet
the focus on regulations that is evident in
Jubilees, Qumran, and in the Mishnah is
absent in Jesus’ teaching. He reminded his
hearers that “the Sabbath was made for man,
not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Some
sectors of Judaism clearly had lost this
perspective, so that the Sabbath had lost
its humane dimension. They were so consumed
with rules that they had forgotten mercy
(Matt. 12:7). Jesus was grieved at the
hardness of the Pharisees’ hearts, for they
lacked love for those suffering (Mark 3:5).
Jesus’ observance of the Sabbath does
not constitute strong evidence for its
continuation in the new covenant. His
observance of the Sabbath makes excellent
sense, for he lived under the Old Testament
law. He was “born under the law” as Paul
says (Gal. 4:4). On the other hand, a
careful reading of the Gospel accounts
intimates that the Sabbath will not continue
to play a significant role. Jesus proclaims
as the Son of Man that he is the “lord even
of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). The Sabbath
does not rule over him, but he rules over
the Sabbath. He is the new David, the
Messiah, to whom the Sabbath and all the Old
Testament Scriptures point (Matt. 12:3-4).
Indeed, Jesus even claimed in John 5:17 that
he, like his Father, works on the Sabbath.
Working on the Sabbath, of course, is what
the Old Testament prohibits, but Jesus
claimed that he must work on the Sabbath
since he is equal with God (John 5:18).
It is interesting to consider here the
standpoint of the ruler of the synagogue in
Luke 13:10-17. He argued that Jesus should
heal on the other six days of the week and
not on the Sabbath. On one level this advice
seems quite reasonable, especially if the
strict views of the Sabbath that were common
in Judaism were correct. What is striking is
that Jesus deliberately healed on the
Sabbath. Healing is what he “ought” (dei) to
do on the Sabbath day (Luke 13:16). It seems
that he did so to demonstrate his
superiority to the Sabbath and to hint that
it is not in force forever. There may be a
suggestion in Luke 4:16-21 that Jesus
fulfills the Jubilee of the Old Testament
(Lev. 25). The rest and joy anticipated in
Jubilee is fulfilled in him, and hence the
rest and feasting of the Sabbath find their
climax in Jesus.
We would expect the
Sabbath to no longer be in force since it
was the covenant sign of the Mosaic
covenant, and, as I have argued elsewhere in
this book, it is clear that believers are no
longer under the Sinai covenant. Therefore,
they are no longer bound by the sign of the
covenant either. The Sabbath, as a covenant
sign, celebrated Israel’s deliverance from
Egypt, but the Exodus points forward,
according to New Testament writers, to
redemption in Christ. Believers in Christ
were not freed from Egypt, and hence the
covenant sign of Israel does not apply to
them.
It is clear in Paul’s letters
that the Sabbath is not binding upon
believers. In Colossians Paul identifies the
Sabbath as a shadow along with requirements
regarding foods, festivals, and the new moon
(Col. 2:16-17). The Sabbath, in other words,
points to Christ and is fulfilled in him.
The word for “shadow” (skia) that Paul uses
to describe the Sabbath is the same term the
author of Hebrews used to describe Old
Testament sacrifices. The law is only a
“shadow (skia) of the good things to come
instead of the true form of these realities”
(Heb. 10:1). The argument is remarkably
similar to what we see in Colossians: both
contrast elements of the law as a shadow
with the “substance” (sōma, Col. 2:17) or
the “form” (eikona, Heb. 10:1) found in
Christ. Paul does not denigrate the Sabbath.
He salutes its place in salvation history,
for, like the Old Testament sacrifices,
though not in precisely the same way, it
prepared the way for Christ. I know of no
one who thinks Old Testament sacrifices
should be instituted today; and when we
compare what Paul says about the Sabbath
with such sacrifices, it seems right to
conclude that he thinks the Sabbath is no
longer binding.
Some argue, however,
that “Sabbath” in Colossians 2:16 does not
refer to the weekly Sabbaths but only to
sabbatical years. But this is a rather
desperate expedient, for the most prominent
day in the Jewish calendar was the weekly
Sabbath. We know from secular sources that
it was the observance of the weekly Sabbath
that attracted the attention of Gentiles
(Juvenal, Satires 14.96-106; Tacitus,
Histories 5.4). Perhaps sabbatical years are
included here, but the weekly Sabbath should
not be excluded, for it would naturally come
to the mind of both Jewish and Gentile
readers. What Paul says here is remarkable,
for he lumps the Sabbath together with food
laws, festivals like Passover, and new
moons. All of these constitute shadows that
anticipate the coming of Christ. Very few
Christians think we must observe food laws,
Passover, and new moons. But if this is the
case, then it is difficult to see why the
Sabbath should be observed since it is
placed together with these other matters.
Another crucial text on the Sabbath is
Romans 14:5: “One person esteems one day as
better than another, while another esteems
all days alike. Each one should be fully
convinced in his own mind.” In Romans 14:1-15:6 Paul mainly discusses food that
some—almost certainly those influenced by
Old Testament food laws—think is defiled.
Paul clearly teaches, in contrast to
Leviticus 11:1-44 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21,
that all foods are clean (Rom. 14:14, 20)
since a new era of redemptive history has
dawned. In other words, Paul sides
theologically with the strong in the
argument, believing that all foods are
clean. He is concerned, however, that the
strong avoid injuring and damaging the weak.
The strong must respect the opinions of the
weak (Rom. 14:1) and avoid arguments with
them. Apparently the weak were not insisting
that food laws and the observance of days
were necessary for salvation, for if that
were the case they would be proclaiming
another gospel (cf. Gal. 1:8-9; 2:3-5; 4:10; 5:2-6), and Paul would not tolerate their
viewpoint. Probably the weak believed that
one would be a stronger Christian if one
kept food laws and observed days. The danger
for the weak was that they would judge the
strong (Rom. 14:3-4), and the danger for the
strong was that they would despise the weak
(Rom. 14:3, 10). In any case, the strong
seem to have had the upper hand in the Roman
congregations, for Paul was particularly
concerned that they not damage the weak.
Nevertheless, a crucial point must not
be overlooked. Even though Paul watches out
for the consciences of the weak, he holds
the viewpoint of the strong on both food
laws and days. John Barclay rightly argues
that Paul subtly (or not so discreetly!)
undermines the theological standpoint of the
weak since he argues that what one eats and
what days one observes are a matter of no
concern. [1] The Old Testament, on the other
hand, is clear on the matter. The foods one
eats and the days one observes are ordained
by God. He has given clear commands on both
of these issues. Hence, Paul’s argument is
that such laws are no longer valid since
believers are not under the Mosaic covenant.
Indeed, the freedom to believe that all days
are alike surely includes the Sabbath, for
the Sabbath naturally would spring to the
mind of Jewish readers since they kept the
Sabbath weekly.
Paul has no quarrel
with those who desire to set aside the
Sabbath as a special day, as long as they do
not require it for salvation or insist that
other believers agree with them. Those who
esteem the Sabbath as a special day are to
be honored for their point of view and
should not be despised or ridiculed. Others,
however, consider every day to be the same.
They do not think that any day is more
special than another. Those who think this
way are not to be judged as unspiritual.
Indeed, there is no doubt that Paul held
this opinion, since he was strong in faith
instead of being weak. It is crucial to
notice what is being said here. If the
notion that every day of the week is the
same is acceptable, and if it is Paul’s
opinion as well, then it follows that
Sabbath regulations are no longer binding.
The strong must not impose their convictions
on the weak and should be charitable to
those who hold a different opinion, but Paul
clearly has undermined the authority of the
Sabbath in principle, for he does not care
whether someone observes one day as special.
He leaves it entirely up to one’s personal
opinion. But if the Sabbath of the Old
Testament were still in force, Paul could
never say this, for the Old Testament makes
incredibly strong statements about those who
violate the Sabbath, and the death penalty
is even required in some instances. Paul is
living under a different dispensation, that
is, a different covenant, for now he says it
does not matter whether one observes one day
out of seven as a Sabbath.
Some argue
against what is defended here by appealing
to the creation order. As noted above, the
Sabbath for Israel is patterned after God’s
creation of the world in seven days. What is
instructive, however, is that the New
Testament never appeals to Creation to
defend the Sabbath. Jesus appealed to the
creation order to support his view that
marriage is between one man and one woman
for life (Mark 10:2-12). Paul grounded his
opposition to women teaching or exercising
authority over men in the creation order (1 Tim. 2:12-13), and homosexuality is
prohibited because it is contrary to nature
(Rom.1:26-27), in essence, to God’s
intention when he created men and women.
Similarly, those who ban believers from
eating certain foods and from marriage are
wrong because both food and marriage are
rooted in God’s good creation (1 Tim. 4:3-5). We see nothing similar with the
Sabbath. Never does the New Testament ground
it in the created order. Instead, we have
very clear verses that say it is a “shadow”
and that it does not matter whether
believers observe it. So, how do we explain
the appeal to creation with reference to the
Sabbath? It is probably best to see creation
as an analogy instead of as a ground. The
Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant,
and since the covenant has passed away, so
has the covenant sign.
Now it does
not follow from this that the Sabbath has no
significance for believers. It is a shadow,
as Paul said, of the substance that is now
ours in Christ. The Sabbath’s role as a
shadow is best explicated by Hebrews, even
if Hebrews does not use the word for
“shadow” in terms of the Sabbath. The author
of Hebrews sees the Sabbath as foreshadowing
the eschatological rest of the people of God
(Heb. 4:1-10). A “Sabbath rest” still awaits
God’s people (v. 9), and it will be
fulfilled on the final day when believers
rest from earthly labors. The Sabbath, then,
points to the final rest of the people of
God. But since there is an
already-but-not-yet character to what
Hebrews says about rest, should believers
continue to practice the Sabbath as long as
they are in the not-yet?
[2] I would answer
in the negative, for the evidence we have in
the New Testament points in the contrary
direction. We remember that the Sabbath is
placed together with food laws and new moons
and Passover in Colossians 2:16, but there
is no reason to think that we should observe
food laws, Passover, and new moons before
the consummation. Paul’s argument is that
believers now belong to the age to come and
the requirements of the old covenant are no
longer binding.
Does the Lord’s Day,
that is, Christians worshiping on the first
day of the week, constitute a fulfillment of
the Sabbath? The references to the Lord’s
Day in the New Testament are sparse. In
Troas believers gathered “on the first day
of the week . . . to break bread” and they
heard a long message from Paul (Acts 20:7).
Paul commands the Corinthians to set aside
money for the poor “on the first day of
every week” (1 Cor. 16:2). John heard a loud
voice speaking to him “on the Lord’s day”
(Rev. 1:10). These scattered hints suggest
that the early Christians at some point
began to worship on the first day of the
week. The practice probably has its roots in
the resurrection of Jesus, for he appeared
to his disciples “the first day of the week”
(John 20:19). All the Synoptics emphasize
that Jesus rose on the first day of the
week, i.e., Sunday: “very early on the first
day of the week” (Mark 16:2; cf. Matt. 28:1;
Luke 24:1). The fact that each of the
Gospels stresses that Jesus was raised on
the first day of the week is striking. But
we have no indication that the Lord’s Day
functions as a fulfillment of the Sabbath.
It is likely that gathering together on the
Lord’s Day stems from the earliest church,
for we see no debate on the issue in church
history, which is quite unlikely if the
practice originated in Gentile churches
outside Israel. By way of contrast, we think
of the intense debate in the first few
centuries on the date of Easter. No such
debate exists regarding the Lord’s Day.
The early roots of the Lord’s Day are
verified by the universal practice of the
Lord’s Day in Gentile churches in the second
century. [3] It is not surprising that many
Jewish Christians continued to observe the
Sabbath as well. One segment of the Ebionites practiced the Lord’s Day and the
Sabbath. Their observance of both is
instructive, for it shows that the Lord’s
Day was not viewed as the fulfillment of the
Sabbath but as a separate day.
Most
of the early church fathers did not practice
or defend literal Sabbath observance (cf.
Diognetus 4:1) but interpreted the Sabbath
eschatologically and spiritually. They did
not see the Lord’s Day as a replacement of
the Sabbath but as a unique day. For
instance, in the Epistle of Barnabas, the
Sabbaths of Israel are contrasted with “the
eighth day” (15:8), and the latter is
described as “a beginning of another world.”
Barnabas says that “we keep the eighth day”
(which is Sunday), for it is “the day also
on which Jesus rose again from the dead”
(15:9). The Lord’s Day was not viewed as a
day in which believers abstained from work,
as was the case with the Sabbath. Instead,
it was a day in which most believers were
required to work, but they took time in the
day to meet together in order to worship the
Lord. [4] The contrast between the Sabbath
and the Lord’s Day is clear in Ignatius,
when he says, “If, therefore, those who were
brought up in the ancient order of things
have come to the possession of a new hope,
no longer observing the Sabbath, but living
in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on
which also our life has sprung up again by
Him and by His death” (To the Magnesians
9:1). Ignatius, writing about A.D. 110,
specifically contrasts the Sabbath with the
Lord’s Day, showing that he did not believe
the latter replaced the former.
[5] Bauckham
argues that the idea that the Lord’s day
replaced the Sabbath is post-Constantinian.
Luther saw rest as necessary but did not tie
it to Sunday. [6] A stricter interpretation
of the Sabbath became more common with the
Puritans, along with the Seventh-Day
Baptists and later the Seventh-day
Adventists. [7]
SUMMARY
Believers are not obligated to observe the
Sabbath. The Sabbath was the sign of the
Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and the
Sabbath as the covenant sign are no longer
applicable now that the new covenant of
Jesus Christ has come. Believers are called
upon to honor and respect those who think
the Sabbath is still mandatory for
believers. But if one argues that the
Sabbath is required for salvation, such a
teaching is contrary to the gospel and
should be resisted forcefully. In any case,
Paul makes it clear in both Romans 14:5 and
Colossians 2:16-17 that the Sabbath has
passed away now that Christ has come. It is
wise naturally for believers to rest, and
hence one principle that could be derived
from the Sabbath is that believers should
regularly rest. But the New Testament does
not specify when that rest should take
place, nor does it set forth a period of
time when that rest should occur. We must
remember that the early Christians were
required to work on Sundays. They worshiped
the Lord on the Lord’s Day, the day of
Jesus’ resurrection, but the early
Christians did not believe the Lord’s Day
fulfilled or replaced the Sabbath. The
Sabbath pointed toward eschatological rest
in Christ, which believers enjoy in part now
and will enjoy fully on the Last Day.
 |
Footnotes
1. John M. G. Barclay, “‘Do We Undermine the
Law?’ A Study of Romans 14.1-15.6,” in Paul
and the Mosaic Law, WUNT 89 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1996), 287-308.
2. So Richard B.
Gaffin, Jr., “A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits
the People of God,” in Pressing Toward the
Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ed.
Charles G. Dennison and Richard C. Gamble
(Philadelphia: The Committee for the
Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church, 1986), 33-51. Gaffin argues that the
rest is only eschatological. I support
Andrew Lincoln’s view that it is of an
already-but-not-yet character (Andrew T.
Lincoln, “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in
the New Testament,” in From Sabbath to
Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and
Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 197-220).
3. For a detailed discussion of some of the
issues raised here, see R. J. Bauckham, “The
Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day:
A Biblical, Historical, and Theological
Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 221-50; idem,
“Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic
Church,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day,
257-69.
4. So Bauckham, “Sabbath and
Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church,” 274.
5. Cf. the concluding comments of Bauckham,
“The Lord’s Day,” 240.
6. Martin Luther,
“How Christians Should Regard Moses,” in
Luther’s Works, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament,
ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (general editor) and
E. Theodore Bachman (Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 165.
7.
Bauckham’s survey of history is immensely
valuable. See Bauckham, “Sabbath and Sunday
in the Post-Apostolic Church,” 251-98; idem,
“Sabbath and Sunday in the Medieval Church
in the West,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day,
299-309; idem, “Sabbath and Sunday in the
Protestant Tradition,” in From Sabbath to
Lord’s Day, 311-41.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taken
from 40 Questions on Christians and Biblical
Law © copyright 2010 by Thomas R. Schreiner.
Published by Kregel Publications, Grand
Rapids, MI. Used by permission of the
publisher. All rights reserved.
|
