Sabbath in the Bible Part 2

Part 2 Continued

Hosea

Two minor prophets joined their voices to the Sabbath message. Hosea speaks of the cessation of the ceremonial figures. (Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons,and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

The message of Hosea complements that of Isaiah 1:13 . Because the ceremonies of the faith have been used as a cover for moral and social injustice, they are to betaken away in punishment, and Israel is to be left bare, vulnerable and visible in her unfaithfulness. The Sabbath is a central issue in this matter, simply because it contains both the moral and social elements and the ceremonial ones.Here again there is a striking parallel today. Just as ancient Israel failed to keep in mind the social justice that the Sabbath implied, while all the time maintaining the sacrifices and ceremonies, so too Sabbath-keepers today are strong to contend for the specific day and the Sabbath as a sign of obedience,but generally fail to recognize the Sabbath as a witness to constant human dependence on Yahuwah for life and nourishment and as a practical safeguard to human and animal rights by limiting the powers of superiors.
Amos

This social and moral aspect of the Sabbath, so neglected by ancient Sabbath-keepers, is also mentioned by Amos. (Amo 8:5) Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?

The prophets greatly enhance our understanding of the Sabbath. The first issue the prophets approach is the ceremonial observance of the Sabbath as a form of hypocrisy among those who used it to cloak social injustice. Isaiah, Hosea and Amos emphasis that point. Jeremiah focuses on the Sabbath as a sign of Yahuwah's covenant with Israel. Jeremiah brings more detail into proper Sabbath observance and shows how its neglect helped to cause the Babylonian Captivity. Ezekiel emphasizes the role of the Sabbath as a sign of the special covenant between Yahuwah and Israel. At the same time he shows how neglect of the Sabbath causes idolatry, inability to distinguish between holy and unholy, clean and unclean, and social injustice before the law. He predicts the restitution of the ceremonial aspect of Sabbath observance in the second temple. Isaiah goes on to show that the Sabbath blessings belong to the Gentile convert as well as to Israel, and how Sabbath-keeping is a greater treasure than even the greatest treasure in Middle Eastern thought, offspring. Isaiah points out that the Sabbath is not a burden, but a delight, and he predicts its restitution after the Captivity and in the view of many in the earth made new.
The Sabbath and the Gospels

The Sabbath is mentioned more often in the Gospels than in the books of Moses. Had it been the intention of Yahushua to do away with the Sabbath, he could have said so, instead of engaging in so many discussions of the details of proper Sabbath observance. But the purpose of the Gospels, in regard to the Sabbath, is not to abrogate it, but to teach us how to observe it better.

The expression the Law and the Gospel is an old one and often heard. But more often than not, it is spoken with the intention of separating and contrasting the two, rather than keeping them together as one. If, as many Christians seem to contend, the Gospel supersedes and does away with the law, then the so-called Old Testament need never have been preserved in the Bible at all. But the reality is that Yahuwah has preserved the Bible among Christians, both testaments. That fact should alert us to the fallacy of separating the law from the Gospel. The one is the foundation of the other, and the second is the illumination of the former. Indeed, Christ said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law,or the prophets." Matthew 5:17 .

The Sabbath is first mentioned in the Gospels in Matthew 12. (Mat 12:1) At that time Yahushua went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. (Mat 12:2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day. (Mat 12:3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; (Mat 12:4) How he entered into the house of Yahuwah, and did eat the shew bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? (Mat 12:5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? (Mat 12:6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (Mat 12:7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. (Mat12: For the Son of man is Master even of the Sabbath day.

This story is repeated in Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5. A number of issues should be noted. First of all, by one interpretation of law, as long as the grain was not removed from the field, there was no breaking of the Sabbath by harvesting and eating it. Thus by Rabbinical method itself, the accusation of Sabbath-breaking may fall. Secondly, the lack of hospitality on the part of the very people who raised the criticism was a breach of law. The disciples were forced to gather food in order not to break the Sabbath by fasting. The critics themselves had placed them in this situation of a double bind for hostile purposes.

Interestingly, Yahushua does not accuse the critics, but offers a Scriptural antecedent for their behavior on the Sabbath, the example of David. By interpreting this Scripture in this way, Yahushua took advantage of the opportunity to affirm his messianic authority as the son of David, and his divinely appointed role in the interpretation and implementation of Scripture. He thus denies the authority of Rabbinical method, replacing it with messianic authority. His interpretation is specifically not in accordance with the rules of Rabbinical interpretation. It is authoritative instead.

This affirmation of messianic authority on the part of Yahushua comes to a pinnacle in the final verse. This passage really says little about Sabbath observance as such. The subject of the episode is messianic authority. Still, the sentence in Mark 2:28 gives pause. (Mar 2:27) And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

While the sentence primarily condemns the implication behind Pharisaical thought,that the Sabbath was a value in itself to be served by human action, another idea rises from the beginning of the sentence. The Sabbath was made for man. That is, the Sabbath was not made for Jews, but for all humankind. Furthermore,the Sabbath is a divine creation, a gift of grace, for humankind. The way one relates to the gift reveals what one thinks of the Giver.

The second story appears in Matthew 12:9-14. (Mat 12:9) And when he was departed thence, he went in to their synagogue: (Matthew 12:10) And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying,Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him. (Matthew 12:12) And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a piton the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? (Matthew 12:12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days. (Matthew 12:13) Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. (Matthew 12:14) Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

This story is repeated in Mark 3:1-6 and Luke 6:6-11 . It is far different in character from the preceding. Here Yahushua affirms that healing is lawful by reference to a Rabbinical verdict. There was Rabbinical disagreement on the issue of whether an animal fallen into a pit could be rescued without breaking the Sabbath. Some Rabbis affirm that it is lawful. Yahushua's answer was completely within the Rabbinical context. What is implicit in the story is Yahushua's acceptance of the validity of Sabbath law. While those who would abrogate the Sabbath generally believe that the abrogation took place after the crucifixion and in function of the death of Christ, they still often appeal to the Gospel texts referring to a pre-crucifixion era to support abrogation. This is a clear exegetical error. If in fact the Sabbath can be shown to have been abrogated before the crucifixion, then the Christian argument of its abrogation as a shadow of things to come must also fall.

For the Sabbath-keeper this story is important in affirming that actions of mercy are appropriate to the Sabbath.

The next text to occur is (Matthew 24:20) But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.

Sabbath-keepers refer to this text as proving that the intention of Christ is to affirm Sabbath-keeping after his resurrection, at a time when most Christians claim the Sabbath is abrogated as a shadow of things to come, which are fulfilled in the crucifixion. The response to this argument is that the command merely acknowledges the situation in Jewish-dominated Palestine just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The Sabbath-keeping of the Jews would make it hard for the presumed non-Sabbath-keeping followers of Christ to flee. There are several problems with this argument, most prominent of which being that there is no evidence of non-Sabbath observance among the followers of Christ at that time. Even after the rise of Sunday observance near the beginning of the second century according to Mozna and Bacchiocchi, Sabbath was still observed by all Christians (Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity, Biblical Perspectives, 1977). Therefore, the prophecy had to refer to a Sabbath-keeping community. If Yahushua intended that his death should abrogate Sabbath-keeping, he lost the opportunity of telling his followers to stop observing the Sabbath, as it might facilitate their flight from Jerusalem. Instead, he affirmed their Sabbath observance.

Whether or not the command is relevant to later generations, the affirmation of Sabbath observance by his followers as late as C.E. 70 reduces the argument that it was abrogated by his death to exegetical error, failure to harmonize all relevant textual evidence. Matthew 24:20 is proof positive that Yahushua did not accept the idea that Sabbath observance came to an end at the cross. It establishes a precedent that requires us to find a harmonizing exegesis of Colossians 2:16,17 , and failing that to deny canonicity to the epistle to the Colossians.It is far preferable to accept Sabbath observance and interpret Colossians in harmony with Matthew if at all possible.

The final reference to the Sabbath in the first Gospel is (Matthew 28:1) In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.

While some readers of the Bible make much of the Greek in this and similar texts, the KJV translation is essentially correct. The word for week actually means week in the context and the word for dawn, however, it is interpreted, does not affect the fact that the Sabbath is mentioned in passing and affirmed. Given that the disciples did not yet know of the resurrection, the Sabbatarian argument that this affirms the Sabbath after the crucifixion is weak.

A similar passage is found in Mark. (Mark 16:1) And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Mark also contains some passages dealing with the Sabbath that are not reflected in Matthew. The first is (Mark 1:21) And they went into Capernaum; and straight away on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. (Mark 1:22) And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. (Mark 1:23) And there was in their synagogue a man withan unclean spirit; and he cried out, (Mark 1:24) Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Yahushua of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of Yahuwah. (Mark 1:25) And Yahushua rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. (Mark 1:26) And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. (Mark 1:27) And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.

The Sabbath is mentioned only in passing in this passage. The focus of the passage is the Messianic authority of Yahushua, much in the same way as in the first Sabbath passage of Matthew. The Sabbath reform that Yahushua brings forward is seen by both Matthew and Mark to be intimately connected with his role and status as Messiah. The implication is that rejection of the Sabbath is to reject the Messiah himself. In fact, we see that in practice, for non-Sabbatarian Christianity often denies Yahushua, at least by making him the second person of the Trinity rather than the only-begotten son of Yahuwah or Christ. This same story is reflected in Luke 4:31-37 .

Mark 6:1-5 remarks on Yahushua visiting his home town on the Sabbath. More even than Matthew, Mark focuses on Yahushua' messianic authority in connexion with the Sabbath. In this passage Yahushua shows his power in his authoritative teaching. (Mark 6:2 ). And when the Sabbath day was come,he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

But he is met by the unbelief bred of familiarity. For this reason he did not do many miracles there, and at the same time avoided confrontation about healing on the Sabbath. This story perhaps refers to the same occasion as reported in (Luke 4:16) And he came to Nazareth,where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Yahushua' s interpretation of the haftarah reading as a prophecy of his own ministry was calculated to bring on the reaction that it did.

The Sabbath is mentioned only one more time in Mark, when Joseph of Arimathaea asked Pilate for the body of Yahushua. (Mark 15:42 ) And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is,the day before the Sabbath.

The same evening is mentioned in Luke (Luke 23:54 ) And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. (Luke 23:56 ) And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.

While it is no surprise that the Sabbath should be observed, it is perhaps significant that it is mentioned in the Gospel as a given, not as something strange. The expressions of John in some places show slightly more distancing.

While the focus of Matthew is on the discussion of Jewish interpretation of how the Sabbath should be kept, and the focus of Mark is on the Sabbath as an indicator of Yahushua' messianic authority, the focus of Luke is different still. Only in Luke do we find that all of the miracles of healing that Yahushua is reported to have initiated himself, without being asked, were performed on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is thus associated with Yahushua' acts of mercy. These differences in the synoptic Gospels reflect the differences generally among the three. Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels, Mark focuses of power and authority, and Luke focuses on mercy and social issues. It is to be expected that these differences of perception should be reflected in the Sabbath as well.

Some of these healings initiated by Yahushua on the Sabbath are mentioned only by Luke.The first such is (Luke 13:10 ) And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. (Luke 13:11 ) And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. (Luke 13:12 ) And when Yahushua saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her,Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. (Luke 13:13 ) And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified Yahuwah. (Luke 13:14 ) And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Yahushua had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day. (Luke 13:15 ) The Master then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? (Luke 13:16 ) And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? (Luke 13:17 ) And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

Here Yahushua returns to the argument of the ox in the pit, reflected in the Talmudic word the Mishna, book 4, Qama Bava 3:10. This appears to be the single most important Rabbinical argument that Yahushua uses to justify his acts of healing on the Sabbath. What is notable is that he engages in such discussion, thus affirming the obligation of the Sabbath by discussing how it should be observed. It is notable as well that he meets his critics on their own ground with their own methods.

The same argument is pressed in the following chapter, in regard to another healing initiated by Yahushua and thus showing the Sabbath as an icon of mercy. (Luke14:1 ) And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day,that they watched him. (Luke 14:2 ) And,behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. (Luke14:3) And Yahushua answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? (Luk14:4 ) And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; (Luke 14:5) And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day? (Luke 14:6) And they could not answer him again to these things.

The Sabbath issue in John differs from that in the synoptics in a similar way to the differences in the usage of the term son of Yahuwah. In the synoptic the term son of Yahuwah is merely an equivalent for the term Christ or Messiah. In John this concept is enlarged to focus on Yahushua as life-giver. The accusations of claiming deity found in John are associated with accusations of Sabbath-breaking. In response, the concept of Yahushua as life-giver is associated with the Sabbath healings.

This association of ideas is already apparent in the first event in John. (John 5:9) And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked:and on the same day was the Sabbath.... (John 5:10) The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.... (John 5:16) And therefore did the Jews persecute Yahuhsua, and sought to slay him, because he had done these thing son the Sabbath day.... (John 5:18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that Yahuwah was his Father, making himself equal with Yahuwah.

The text states the two accusations, of claiming deity and Sabbath-breaking,outright. Strangely, rather than focusing on the ministry and message of Yahushua,who presents his role as Christ to bring life and victory over death on the Sabbath, most Christian commentators actually accept the accusation against Yahushua as true, and present him as a Sabbath-breaker and claiming to be Yahuwah, Almighty. One can hardly see this as other than defamation and blasphemy as well as failure to penetrate the message of Yahushua as expressed by John. Why the claims of hostile witnesses should be accepted in exegesis but not in other contexts is a mystery.

According to John, Yahushua uses a different argument to justify the acts of healing mercy on the Sabbath. (John 7:22) Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. (John 7:23) If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me,because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?

Instead of the ox-in-the-pit argument based on Rabbinical discussion, he appeals directly to the harmonizing of Torah law. This actually constitutes an argument directed at the Sadducees, who denied the oral law. Thus the Gospels portray Yahushua as defending his Sabbath actions by using both Pharisean Rabbinical arguments and Sadducean Torah arguments.

But John astutely brings forward another type of Sabbath action on the part of Yahushua (John 9:14) And it was the Sabbath day when Yahushua made the clay, and opened his eyes.... (John 9:16) Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of Yahuwah, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

Many Gospel narratives show Yahushua's critics trying to trap him with sophistry. Yahushua always turns the tables with an astute answer. John 9 presents Yahushua using the Sabbath to cause division among his critics. Again, the thoughtless reader is tempted to take the hostile accusation against Yahushua at face value. He thus misses the thrust of the conflict between Yahushua and his critics, and how wisely Yahushua is able to deal with them.

The final mention of the Sabbath in the Gospels is John's remark on the crucifixion. (John 19:31) The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

In sum, the Gospels show Yahushua interacting on the issue of the Sabbath. He never abrogates the Sabbath. He enters into detailed discussion with his critics on how the Sabbath should be observed. He justifies his practice of mercy on the Sabbath by using both Rabbinical and Sadducean methods, thus turning the table son his accusers. He establishes his messianic authority by his Sabbath action sin both teaching and healing, and finally affirms his messianic role as life-giver through his Sabbath reform.
The Sabbath: Acts and the Epistles

In contrast to the Gospels, the book of Acts mentions the Sabbath only in passing,without entering into the issue of Sabbath theology and practice. The Sabbath is a mere assumption in the book of Acts. Given the rather complex structure of the Sabbath as presented in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels, rather complex discussion would be required for dismantling it. It is so entwined with the central issues of the Gospel itself, that to abandon it would require the invention of a completely new Gospel system. That is, in fact, what non-Sabbatarian Christians do.

The first mention is in (Acts 1:12) Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey.

The second mention is (Acts 13:14) But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down.

This text is ambiguous, and should not be used to support or deny Sabbath-keeping on the part of the apostles at this period. Verse five would suggest by the expression "synagogue of the Jews" that the mere mention of the word synagogue does not imply a Jewish institution as opposed to a place of gathering for the followers of Christ. However, the following verses identify it as a Jewish place of gathering and show that Paul and his companion have come there,whether or not to participate in the Sabbath reading of the law, at least for the purpose of bringing the message of Christ to the Jews of that place. That situation neither establishes nor denies Sabbath observance.

the sabbath - paul preaching to multitude Paul includes a reference to the Sabbath in his discourse on this occasion, and while the general tone of the mention is positive, it is within the context of specifically Jewish practice and cannot be taken as a witness for or against Sabbath observance by the apostolic community. (Acts 13:27) For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

The tone in regard to the Sabbath as a Gentile practice is raised somewhat, however,later in the chapter. This text shows clearly that no Sunday gatherings were made at that time for the Gentile believers. They too gathered on the Sabbath. (Acts 13:42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath... (Acts 13:44) And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of Yahuwah.

The assumption that the Gentile believers would be present on the Sabbath to hear the reading of the law appears in Acts 15 as an argument for the imposition of no more than avoidance of things offered to idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood. The clear implication of the word "for" (gar) at the beginning of verse 21 is that if they were not listening to the reading of the law, then more should have been imposed on them. Furthermore, the word synagogue here clearly refers to the Jewish institution in regard to "old time", but is ambiguous in regard to the time at which it was spoken. It may well include the place of gathering for the followers of Christ, in which case we must assume that the liturgy at that period included the Torah lesson being read, perhaps in Greek or perhaps in the Palestinian fashion, in Hebrew with a translation or "targum" of each verse. (Acts 15:21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

Sabbatarians sometimes refer to the following verse as proof that the Sabbath was kept outside of Jewish institutions. This is based on the false premise that the word synagogue must always refer to a Jewish institution. That is simply not the case. Secondly, it is based on the false assumption that Jews who did not know Christ always had a building in which to gather on the Sabbath. That too is obviously not the case. This verse can well refer to an ordinary place of gathering for ordinary Jews. It does not support or deny Sabbath observance among Gentiles. (Acts 16:13) And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

The following verse can also be considered merely evidence of Paul's custom of joining the Jews on the Sabbath in order to preach Christ to them. (Acts 17:2 ) And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, however,the following verse includes Gentiles in the place of gathering and on the Sabbath. (Acts 18:4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Most of the book of Acts merely assumes the Sabbath within a Jewish context. Only a few passages suggest Sabbath observance on the part of Gentiles.

The epistles mention the word Sabbath in only one text. (Col. 2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: (Col. 2:17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Much has been made of this text as an abrogation of the weekly Sabbath, which is supposed, by the preceding passage, to have been "nailed to the cross." This interpretation neglects the exegetical principle in regard to New Testament writings to examine the Hebrew passages to which the subject makes reference. The New Testament is a great measure a book of commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures. Much weak exegesis is the result of failure to consider this vital fact. The five subjects mentioned in verse 16 are all gathered in only one place: Leviticus 23. There the animal sacrifices and the food and drink offerings appropriate to the weekly Sabbath, the first day of the month, and the annual feasts, are presented.

Much care is needed in interpreting the Pauline epistles. Peter, who lived at the time and knew the circumstances, still found them difficult to understand. Even the most skillful and knowledgeable of us today must realize that we can easily jump to false conclusions when it comes to Paul. We should therefore be careful about being dogmatic in our understanding of Paul.

paul writing epistles The Pauline epistles are generally addressed to specific ekklesia in view of specific problems that are not outlined in detail, but merely hinted at. All of us lack the essential background knowledge. Taking the Hebrew scriptural reference as a hint of what problem is being addressed here, we may make the following tentative assumption. There was a conflict in the ekklesia in regard to the food and drink offerings to be offered on the three categories of days also mentioned. Paul's response is to leave that issue to the conscience of the individual, whether or how to provide such offerings, since they are in any case merely shadows of things to come, which have already been fulfilled. That is the extent of the teaching, and to go beyond that is to read one's own bias into the text.

The text implies that the animal sacrifices, not being mentioned, are not a cause of dispute. They could only be offered in the temple in Jerusalem. No doubt some were saying the same for the food and drink offerings, and others were disagreeing. The text also implies that the people of this ekklesia were engaged in observing all of the festivals mentioned, including but not exclusively the Sabbath.Paul's remark gives no indication of whether such observance is right,superseded, wrong or necessary. He does not refer to that issue at all. He refers only to the issue of food and drink offerings on those days. He thinks they should not be a matter of conflict.

The word Sabbath does not occur elsewhere in the epistles, although some references to days may be relevant. The seventh day, in reference to the Sabbath, is appealed to in Hebrew 4 as a figure of the rest that remains for Israel in Christ. That passage does not deal with actual Sabbath observance at all,either positively or negatively.

In sum, Acts and the epistles give little new information on the Sabbath. As such,they provide no discussion warranting change. Furthermore, if they did teach that the Sabbath was abrogated and done away with, what would that prove? That would only prove that the epistles are in conflict with the Law and the Gospel. In that case, we should be constrained to reject them as non-canonical and spurious, as no divine revelation at all. As they stand, however, they can well be harmonized with the Gospel, which gives a vital, spiritual understanding of the Law in regard to the Sabbath.
The Sabbath: Think about it...

By a strange twist of illogic, those who oppose Sabbath observance often make accusations of legalism. Yet they themselves affirm all of the other moral principles of the law as binding on all and expect others to avoid adultery, murder, theft and the like. Why legalism is attached to one moral practice and not to another cannot be explained rationally. It is based on a mere prejudice, or on the misunderstanding that everything related to the Sabbath is ceremonial and a shadow of things to come, just because some things are. For them the Sabbath must include animal sacrifices, food and drink offerings, death sentence, and the renewing of shewbread, or then nothing at all. Such people do not even recognize the moral and social aspects of the Sabbath presented in the Decalogue, nor the Sabbath as a vehicle of divine mercy as presented in the Gospels. Actually, they are the legalists in regard to the Sabbath.

Sabbath observance does not weaken the importance of Paul's discourse on the law to the Galatians any more than avoidance of adultery and murder do. The same view on the Law and faith can be maintained by the Sabbath observer as by the monogamist and non-violent. The Sabbath as seen in the Bible fosters the concept and experience of salvation by faith through grace.

There are four major arguments against Sabbath observance proposed by Christians on the basis of the Sabbath. 1) There are direct commands for all of the other commandments of the Decalogue in the New Testament, but not for the Sabbath; 2) Yahushua broke the Sabbath and thus showed it to be abrogated; 3) The Sabbath consists entirely of ceremonial obligations which are shadows of things to come and "nailed to the cross"; 4) The text of the New Testament does not show the early ekklesia to have kept Sabbath. These as well as the four major arguments based on the Old Testament have all been adequately responded to here in some detail.

In sum, a Bible harmony of the passages in reference to the Sabbath is neither difficult nor in conflict with the Gospel. Rather, it contributes to the better understanding and implementation of the Gospel itself. It intimately integrates recognition of divine sovereignty, it illuminates Yahuwah as Creator and Provider, it limits the power of the powerful and alone among moral commandments transforms human society to one of justice and order from being under the law of the jungle. The Sabbath becomes the vehicle for the penetration of the Gospel of life and mercy into the world. Its neglect is one of the major factors for the limited influence of the Gospel of Christ in the world today.