The Law, the Sabbath, and Christianity

​

Oftentimes Seventh-day Adventists are confronted with various criticisms as to why they continue to keep Saturday Sabbath in opposition to the standard of practically all other Christian churches. When Biblical support is summoned, it is usually in the form of Old Testament (OT) texts that contemporary non-Adventists shun as legalistic or Jewish oriented. Not wanting to sound like judgmental, self-righteous Pharisees, Adventists sometimes swing too far in opposite directions making Sabbath-keeping either a like-it-or-lump-it experience or a day that getting-too-uptight-about is certainly not God-oriented. Sometimes, Sabbath isn’t rationally discussed among Christians for the simple reason that no one is even sure what it means to "keep" the day holy.

​

What I’d like to produce in this essay is Biblical evidence substantiating Sabbath adherence outside of the Israelite system. We need not fear that ambiguous texts should counter the scriptural traditions inherent in anyone’s doctrines, but instead, by searching and studying, we can stand firm on the shoulders of all our reformist forefathers and maintain God’s truth in a logical fashion. I hope that this is a simple task and easily understood, for it is Satan’s success in making things more complicated and confusing than they ought to be in our comprehension of God’s word.

​

Many Sunday-keeping churches like to produce particular statements from Paul to support their doctrinal position that Jesus’ death put an end to the law and all its requirements. Obviously these texts have produced difficulties enough for some former Sabbatarians who accept that Paul actually was referring to the issues surrounding the seventh day. An assumed abrogation of the fourth commandment has followed from this position among Christians. This places Sabbath-keeping as singularly divorced from the moral demands of the other nine commandments (even though they are retained in conscience by the same Christians). The retention of the other nine moral obligations is apparently favored by somewhat literal re-iterations in the New Testament (NT), whereas Sabbath has no obvious NT precedent. Consequently, modern churches continue to follow the time-honored tradition of keeping Sunday as the NT day of worship.

​

The paradox of modern practice is evidenced by the diversity of thought considering the reasons why Christianity has deviated from OT observance. For example, the Roman Catholic Church claims a self-delineated authority for transferring the holiness of Sabbath to Sunday. And, according to some Catholic theologians, Protestant churches curiously acknowledge that same authority by their observance of the Church’s command rather than following the traditional sola scriptura principle that Luther set forth. Denying the historical precedent of Catholicism, Protestants, then, must seek novel arguments in defense of their tradition, often tending to isolate OT laws from NT practice altogether.

​

If we are to let the Bible be our sole guide, we must leave behind traditions if we are to fully comprehend what God expects in our lives. When examining NT scriptures for doctrine or obvious examples delineating Sunday-keeping, we are at a loss to find particular verses directing us to this juncture. Conversely, the purported lack of a specific NT command (though numerous examples are present) for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath is used to support modern practice. I say purported because there are convincing arguments (as commented upon in Samuele Bacchiochi’s The Sabbath Under Crossfire) that contradict this position, especially regarding the ubiquitous corruption of the Greek in Hebrews 4:9, which literally reads more correctly: "Therefore, Sabbath-keeping remains for the people of God."

​

Despite these apparent inconsistencies, contemporary preachers insist there are NT scriptures in favor of the first day, which they presume lend conviction to their tradition. These statements are geared more toward an attack on Saturday rather than substantiating Sunday-keeping. And there is certain ambiguity of the particular verses in question that seem, at times, to favor the abolition of Sabbath-keeping. However, these discussions require a priori arguments. Number one being a need for Biblical proof that the seventh-day Sabbath is nothing more than a Jewish feast day pointing to Jesus’ mission in some way, indicating it has no further application for believers nor special blessing as presented at creation. If that proof could actually be ascertained, Biblical precedent is still lacking for Sunday-keeping, which has no real significance other than its existence as a manmade ordinance; and the Catholic Church is its main procreator.

​

The familiar verses in Colossians 2:14-16, Galatians 4:10, Romans 14:5,6, Eph 2:15, that many use to absolve themselves from Sabbath obligations, have been dealt with extensively in Adventist literature, particularly by Samuele Bacchiochi in his treatises on the Sabbath. Bacchiochi’s (The Sabbath in the New Testament) discussions of "sabbaths, ordinances, and particular days" leave little doubt that Paul perceived ceremonial Sabbaths and special pagan days in a different light than the Sabbath of creation. I leave those interpretations for the reader to peruse, and propose in this essay a further examination of Biblical evidence for an understanding of God’s Sabbath command. However, I do wish to point out that modern Christianity has posed some significant Biblical arguments regarding the Sabbath, for any issues involving the Sabbath must necessarily include discussions about Paul’s statements regarding the law.

​

Historically Adventists, in many forums, have sought to separate the ceremonial aspects of the law from what they call the "moral" requirements of the law, using this dichotomy of thought to explain the words of Paul, especially regarding what exactly was abolished at the cross. This dichotomy is often a straw man argument doomed to failure. It can become, at times, a false foundation on which some have built a fortification against NT teachings eventually leading to a legalism that supercedes Jesus. In defending Sabbath-keeping, ultimately there is a danger of defending the law in terms of it as a means of salvation. We need always to be vigilant in any discussion to avoid that trap.

​

For example, Paul states in Rom 7:1-4 that we can not be married to two spouses. Many people attempt to reduce Paul’s discussion here to the moral issues of adultery. I propose, instead, that Paul is actually using the inherent sense of the law governing adultery as a way of explaining how one can not be espoused to faith in Jesus as one’s Savior and at the same time embrace self-righteousness by the works of the law.

​

The spouse of self-righteousness through law-keeping must die if we are to be married to faith in Jesus. Our loyalty to Jesus must not be corrupted with the concept that we can be saved by our own meticulous observation of the law (which is not something modern Christians of any type are apt to do anyway since the Levitical sacrifices and Jewish holydays are no longer recognized as mandatory). But there are other issues in the law, and in this chapter it is clearly the Ten Commandments that Paul makes specific references to, that are shown partially as a tool to define and condemn the sin in our lives. Therefore, we need Jesus to give us the righteousness we are unable to achieve.

​

If we consider further the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:7, he identifies the ten commandment law as "the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones." Then in verse 9 he calls that ministration of condemnation: glory. In verse 11 he continues, "if that which is done away was glorious, . . . etc," and he makes a conclusion. The point, though, is that something here was done away with. Contemporary Christians have a solid argument against Adventists who try to shuffle their spiritual feet and say that it was the ceremonial law that Paul was talking about. It is clear that the ceremonial law (if one wishes to separate it out) was never written in stone (though Deut 27:2 might be argued as a solitary verse opposing this view); and so, realistically, it was the ten commandments that were recorded over and over as the covenant written in stone. It is in reference to the stones and their glory that Paul remarks that "something" was done away with. In addition, the ceremonial laws are not the ministers of death and condemnation, but rather the tools that reveal the restorative and redemptive acts of Christ, in type, that free us from death and condemnation. A strong argument could be made, however, that the whole sacrificial system could be termed the ministration of death based simply on its application.

​

Obviously, though, the Ten Commandments minister to death and condemnation in the sense that they are the law that defines sin (Rom 4:15), and we are assured that the wages of sin is death. Paul says in Rom7:7 "I had not known sin, but by the law." The Ten Commandments issue the standard to which we fail, by which sin is defined, and becomes the "law of death" from which Christ delivers us. But the "something" that has been done away with is not the standard itself; rather it is the resulting condemnation of the law’s demands from which He delivers us. The very virtue of its condemning nature keeps it in stone as a reference for us all to realize our condition. That is why it is called the law of death, because it condemns the sin in us. If righteousness were of the law only, then no one could be saved. This is how Paul recognizes that the ministration of death is abolished; because life is given in Jesus for He took that death upon Himself.

​

Colossians 2:14 must be understood in this light. Jesus has blotted out the "written decree that was against us." What is this decree? It is the law that says we are sinners and that the sinner shall die. It is the ten commandment law again that points out our sin. Even as 1 John 3:4 states "sin is the transgression of the law." Is this law only for the Jew? Paul states emphatically in Rom 3:19 "We know that what things soever the law says, it says to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and the world may become guilty before God." Though the law was given through the Israelite economy, it seems the condemnation of the law does not appear limited to the Jew. The law was given to define sin for the whole world, and the whole world falls under the law’s condemnation because of transgression. Just as the priesthood of Jesus and His atonement as defined in the law are not solely for the Jew. Salvation and the promises given to Moses come to the whole world through Jesus.

​

There is no justification (nor is there a need) to try to separate the ceremonial from the moral law in the Torah. Paul understood that the whole law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The stone tablets to point out our sin and need of a Savior, and the ceremonial laws to explain His ministry, sacrifice, and prophetic roles. We need to understand that all scripture must bring us to Jesus, and that in our relationship with Him we "establish the law", for it is the definer of all righteousness for life in Jesus. The righteousness of the law (Gal3:21), a law ordained to give life (Rom 7:10-12), can never be abolished. What is done away with is the condemnation of our unrighteousness as defined by that law. Self-righteousness through the law, as Paul points out in Phil 3:9, can not be found in ourselves (a point clearly made in Rom 7:15-21), but only in Jesus; for the righteousness of the law (Rom 10:5) is described by Moses, "that the man who does these thing shall live by them." But we as sinners have failed to do them, and so we all have need of Jesus. Therefore our faith in Jesus abolishes the condemnation of our own failure to live according to the law.

​

How this "freedom" from death (not freedom from the law’s standards), by faith in Jesus, is interpreted as a freedom to continue to disobey God is an astounding argument. For it is Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, intercession, and kingship that restore us to an obedient relationship with God the Father: a relationship that is free from the condemnation and, more notably, our continued transgression of the law (1John 3:4-9). Jesus wants to form a new contract with us, whereby He places His laws into our hearts and our minds (Heb10:16). Sabbath-keeping is part of that law, not as a means of self-righteousness, but as an expression of our faith (James 2:18) doing the works that God has commanded. Even as Paul says in Rom 2:13, that it is the doers of the law whose faith will be justified by God. What was once the "law of death" now becomes the "law of liberty" (James 1:25) because Jesus brings us to love God’s ways and delivers us from our own sinful nature to which we were once enslaved. This is not a mystical act that takes place in some ethereal notebook: it is a reality of change in the life and character of those who follow Christ.

​

So let us discuss the Sabbath issue in light of God’s word. It is unmistakably clear in OT teachings that from the beginning of creation God has established the sanctity of the seventh day by His word: Gen 2:2,3 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." Why this particular verse is ignored by teachers of NT theology escapes me, but their arguments against Sabbath observance propose many differing concepts including: the Sabbath as a symbol of resting in God’s creation for the last 6,000 years; the Sabbath as a symbol of salvation in Jesus; the principle of "one-in-seven" (meaning that God never intended a particular day, only a weekly rest for man; despite the specific wording of the passage).

​

It seems somewhat significant that the Genesis account of the creation of this planet is written with a specific design in the mind of its writer. The traditional belief, that Moses composed the first five books of Scripture, has strong implications as to the important concepts he emphasized. For instance, we note that the first six days of creation are described as having an evening and a morning, leading us to observe the Biblical day as beginning with sunset and ending with the same. It is a reflection of light coming out of the darkness purely on the basis of God's presence and His word. After all, we are assured that God is light.

​

What happens on the seventh day is equally intriguing, as we understand humankind's beginnings take place sometime on the sixth day. After their immediate creation it is evident that God's presence is a reality for Adam and Eve. Though the sun may set due to the earth's rotation, and the stars be in the sky as that period of darkness should begin, it is important to note that the evening of the seventh day is not noted by Moses. This day essentially lacks an evening and morning by standard definition of sunset and sunrise since God, Himself, is the light for Adam and Eve. Indeed, the light surrounding God far outshines any artificial light in His presence. "For there shall be no night there . . . for the Lord God giveth them light . . ." (Rev.22: 5). Just as the sun’s brightness obliterates the sight of stars that exist in the sky during the day, the light of God’s presence with our first parents eliminated the evening of the seventh day.

​

Because Moses has described the seventh day in a manner that does not speak of an evening and a morning, many Christians have taken this to indicate that the Sabbath of creation week is not the same Sabbath that God emphasized to Moses at Sinai, but instead represents a day without end. In other words, they refer to it as the day of humankind in Jesus; ignoring the fact that God chose the seventh day to specify His intimacy with humanity and that the Light of His presence on that first Sabbath is especially significant. And we need to appreciate that Moses was familiar with things that God sanctified, since he devotes the entire book of Leviticus to the subject of sanctified things. Can Moses be incorrect about the concept of the Sabbath's holiness? Moses, who wrote Genesis, writes ad infinitum about things that God considered "holy" and we must assume he is calling his Jewish congregation to the universal and holy origin of the Sabbath command.

​

It can be expected that Moses had an intelligent perspective on those directives of God. Afterall, he is called a prophet of God and we might conclude his account was not only informed, but also inspired. To confuse the issue of the Sabbath, as is noted in his reference to the creation week, with some secularized one-in-seven principle, is to ignore Moses’ direct dialogue with and revelation from God in support of all things named "holy" by the Creator Himself.

​

There is no indication in scripture that things deemed holy by God can be diminished from their sanctity through any human effort (though sin is certainly a means by which humanity corrupts everything blessed, including the Sabbath). For instance, the sanctity of God’s holy name has not (apparently) been brought into question by modern Christians, even though to respect God’s name stems from directives stated specifically in the law. Are we legalists, then, for respecting the name of our Lord? Why should respecting the day, which He blessed and sanctified, be less important? One could argue, correctly, (and no doubt some have) that Jesus has the right to redefine OT concepts of holiness; and the Sabbath can be changed by His dictum. Yet the Savior is quoted in Mt 5:17,18: "I came not to abolish the Law . . . until heaven and earth pass away . . . (nothing) . . . shall pass from the law." Yet, despite the words of Jesus, many continue to make the argument that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross, being a command only for the Jews; even disregarding Jesus’ other statements, which are in direct opposition to this line of thinking. For example, he states precisely in Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man." It is certainly not a Jew-exclusive comment. The Catholic Church skirts this whole issue by simply declaring their authority to change comes from their succession of divine right.

​

In spite of the above scriptures, Sunday supporters argue that the Sabbath was a mark solely for the covenant relationship with Israel and they demand scriptural evidence of Sabbath-keeping either by the patriarchs before Sinai or by Christians after the resurrection. Smugly, they feel secure in the fact that the scripture fails to mention that Abraham, for instance, kept Sabbath (though the scriptures never state directly that Moses did either, despite his commands about it. I say this only to point out that the absence of an issue doesn’t necessarily negate it). This position does, however, disregard the future implications of God’s statement in Gen 18:19: "For I know him (Abraham), that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD . . . that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." (KJV).

​

Since the children of Israel are Abraham’s children, does it seem logical that the patriarch would command his children regarding the way of the Lord in some doctrine different than what God would repeat to them either at Sinai or from creation? For in reference to His relationship with Abraham (Exod 3:15) "God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations," thus establishing, by word, His permanent connection to and His covenant with Abraham as He speaks to the children of Israel. A covenant, as Paul points out in Gal 3:16, that is unchanged by the introduction of the law in its written form at Sinai.

​

In fact, regarding the perpetuity of the law, in Romans 5:13 Paul argues that death spread to all men because of sin, and sin is not imputed when there is no law (also Romans 4:15). Yet we understand that death reigned before Sinai, indicating the law, though not in written form, existed prior to Sinai. Otherwise, sin, condemnation, and death would not have reigned since Adam’s transgression. Even Paul admits (Rom 2:13-15) that it is not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law that shall be justified. This is not to contradict his own position that we are saved by faith, but in recognition of the fact that the law has always defined sin and that the faithful live according to God’s word as an expression of the Holy Spirit’s work in us by His placing the law in our hearts. As Paul says (Rom 3:31), "Do we make void the law by faith? God forbid: we establish (Greek: abide by) the law!"

​

The covenant with Abraham is noted at Sinai when God reiterates in Exod 19:5 "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant (see also Exod 6:4), then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine." Does God point out His sovereignty over the whole earth? Was the covenant He made with Abraham for the whole earth? (righteousness by faith in Jesus is for the believing Jew as well as the non-Jew, is it not?) Had God made some other covenant for salvation at this point? The answer seems clear that the only prior covenant for salvation was the covenant He made with Abraham.

​

We need to recognize, however, that in Deut 5:3 Moses states that "the LORD made not this covenant with our fathers" (which includes Abraham), so that Sinai was not the same covenant. And indeed the contract was different. It was a contract based on adherence to symbols typifying the saving grace of Jesus and His Priesthood, and a morality designated by literal interpretation of God’s law.

​

In many ways it was a contract with death (i.e. the death of countless animals and the recognition that sin brings death) that needed to be overturned by the defining nature of the living Christ. It proposed the important question of God’s grace vs. the condemnation of our sins. Grace obviously exists; but it is necessitated by the failure of humanity. There is no need of grace where there is no sin. And there is no hope of salvation for transgressors of the law without grace. Yet if God could rid us of His standards there would be no sin, and we’d have no need for Jesus. Herein is the failure of the contract of law alone. But herein is also the strength of the hope that the law promises: that Jesus is indeed the answer to all the questions the law in its written form proposes.

​

Paul clarifies some of these points in Gal 3:16-21 when he speaks of the covenant given to Abraham and he outlines the whole issue of the gospel message, which is the issue of righteousness (by faith) in the presence of God. The law (including the Sabbath) at Sinai can never be against the promises of God nor the covenant made with Abraham. Paul argues that, indeed, that very law could have given life and the righteousness attained by Abraham’s faith for it defined what Abraham already knew. The problem of the law alone is the small factor he concludes about humanity in verse 22. Paul’s conclusion is that sin (which 1 John 3:4 points out succinctly as the transgression of the law) has destroyed righteousness. And it is apparent that the law ultimately defines what righteousness is, emphasizing, also, that it has no power in itself to create right living.

​

This factor, no doubt, explains in one way why God found it necessary to put His law in written form and "add it" to His covenant with Abraham: because even the patriarch’s faith alone is ill-defined. That is to say, his referring to his faith alone can never explain what Abraham knew about God and what he followed in daily living. Nor can Abraham’s faith predict what qualities in his life would be emulated and taught by future generations. Therefore it seems logical that God would have to establish in writing His expectations of humanity, so that what Abraham knew about Jesus would not be lost to his descendents because of the propensity of sin to corrupt even what Abraham taught.

​

Yet, predictably, God’s establishment of truth in a written and visual form created the alternate problem of self-righteousness based on a legalistic observance of those rules and ceremonies. At the time of Noah the world had lost sight of God through the avenues of the oral tradition; why should the written tradition foster any different results? Again, we discover that only Jesus’ life, death, and intercession resolve the whole matter by truly defining the living way regardless of the success and failure of God’s most trusted followers and whatever can be written on paper or stone.

​

Whether the law exists in written or unwritten form really matters not. Sin is the transgression of God’s word whether in Eden, at Sinai, or today; and salvation requires the action of the God who has defined the sin in our lives. It is why Abraham also could only be justified by faith; for he was shown to be a transgressor of God’s word in need of a Redeemer. And it should be obvious that sin existed since Adam, as did the need for grace. The law, however, finally put all things into writing so that every lying mouth (Romans 3:19) should remain shut as to the truth of God’s ways, as a testimony against humankind’s corruption, and as a tool for understanding the reality of Jesus. We must always remember, though, that the law has no power to change us into the type of creation that is in harmony with God. Again, only the living Christ can empower us to become righteous.

​

It seems clear that God chose Abraham because of the patriarch’s commitment to Him and His law. Directly after mentioning the Abrahamic covenant to Moses, God (in Ex 19 & 20) outlines His definitions of righteous living in a manner forever denying humankind the opportunity to misunderstand or misspeak. The act of God writing in stone His "Words" carries no uncertain permanence and universality about those definitions; and the Sabbath sits at the center of those requirements identifying itself with God as the Creator of the whole earth, not just as the Establisher of Israel. Did the patriarchs keep Sabbath before Sinai? How could they do otherwise? It was an injunction placed on the day from creation week by God’s word, noted in its particularity by the same Moses who wrote down the laws spoken to him from God’s own hand and mouth.

​

As for Jesus’ relationship to the law, He expands the definitions of the law by fulfilling the righteousness of it in the example of His obedience. His life does not abolish love, morality, or the requirements of the law. Rather, His way and His words abolish both the legalism (used by many to actually supplant the love and respect for God and neighbor inherent in the law's instruction) and condemned sinfulness of humanity. Even as Isa 42:21 stated, He would "magnify the law and make it honorable." It is by virtue of Jesus’ life that our bondage to death, guilt, and self-righteous pride are overcome, and that through Him that very law is honored by us. Doesn’t sound like the prophet foresaw an abrogation in these words.

​

If we establish the law, as Paul states, then we recognize it as the definer of right-living. Sabbath-keeping follows as part of that inalterable standard and consequently should exist in practice before the law arrived as a written document: a fact that seems quite evident from the reading of Exod 16:23 "And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning." This occurrence happens in the desert before the children of Israel come to Sinai.

​

If the Sabbath is solely an issue of the law at Sinai, as contemporary preachers claim, why then does God make it a sudden test of faith over the manna before He has even given an indication of the Sabbath in a covenant relationship yet-to-be? It seems clear that people were already aware of God’s creation Sabbath long before Sinai. Otherwise God could not have said, (Exod 16:28) "unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" Why would God have said this to Moses if this were an entirely new concept (and especially with Sinai still future)?

​

Even earlier in the book of Exodus we are given an indication of Sabbath-keeping encouraged by Moses and Aaron. A perusal of Exodus chapter 5 provides a comment of Pharaoh (Exod 5:5) "And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens." The comment indicates that Moses and Aaron have made the people rest from their work. Remember that the word Moses uses for rest is derived from the same Hebrew word for Sabbath.

​

It would seem futile and out of character for Moses and Aaron to encourage the people to refrain from following the pharaoh’s commands except in the case of doing God’s will. To incite a work stoppage would only create more tension, and these men were under God’s instructions, not their own authority. What other rationale for resting from work could Moses or Aaron justify to Pharaoh and the Egyptian community (or even before God, whose commands they were following), unless they were encouraging the people to observe the Sabbath day?

​

The verses clearly state no decline in the making of bricks, only a particular observation of the Pharaoh regarding specific "idleness" (as he called it). The Israelites certainly would have understood the importance of the Sabbath and the necessity of its rest by the tradition handed down to them from their patriarch: Abraham. We note their adherence to Pharaoh in the making of bricks (Ex.5:10-21); so it seems apparent they did not halt working altogether. And what non-God-focused perspective could have developed an initiative for a rest day apart from the Sabbath command?

​

Admittedly, the passage doesn’t directly state the issue was over Sabbath-keeping. But it is not possible to reason that the Israelites could have permanently refrained from work without the reality of punishment by the Pharaoh. Notice his reaction to their shabat. He increased their work, likely as a means of pulling them further away from the worship of Yahweh. Consider the fact that Yahweh’s commands were already apparent to the king: the LORD’s authority was already the major issue. If the Israelites were just being encouraged to rest in defiance of Pharaoh’s commands, outside of religious reasons, it seems the spiritual issues of worshipping the true God would have been lost to political perspectives (and Moses would have been inciting subversive acts without God’s instruction). But the whole issue of Yahweh’s sovereignty has already been introduced to Pharaoh, so "resting" (according to God’s command) takes on a significant worship perspective in the eyes of both the Israelites and the Pharaoh. It boiled down to God’s command to keep the Sabbath vs. the commandment of human authority to work on His holy day. This makes the incident another integral part of the religious conflict Pharaoh was at odds with rather than interpreting the action (or inaction) of the Israelites as merely a secular strike. The episode strongly infers that Sabbath-keeping was practiced as early as this point in the narrative and was a concept well understood and accepted by the Hebrew community. Does it seem logical that the Israelites would establish some new practice that would place them at odds with Egypt? I think not; and since Moses uses the Hebrew word directly associated with the Day, what more evidence does one need to make the connection?

​

If one accepts the presupposition, then, that Sabbath-keeping is not a covenant sign specifically for the Jews, but indeed is an outward expression identifying God’s people of faith throughout all ages, then the early Christians should also have maintained the Sabbath in their weekly worship of the Creator. The book of Acts is the only NT book that historically outlines the lifestyles of those apostolic believers, and this essay concludes with an in-depth exploration of that manuscript for evidence of Sabbath-keeping vs. Sunday-keeping.

​

It is important to recognize the historical evidence from the first and second centuries (c.e.), about which Samuele Bacchiochi (From Sabbath to Sunday) has so aptly written, to grasp what transpired following the apostolic age regarding Sabbath worship. Bacchiochi solidly argues that the major influence for keeping Sunday developed out of Rome sometime in the 2nd Century c.e., a directive that came to be supported by the early (so-called) fathers of the church. I will not dwell on those issues here as Bacchiochi has thoroughly examined them.

​

Regardless of what any 2nd century writers proposed, however, there is no evidence that the apostles changed the Sabbath worship. That is what is Biblically apparent from the following. For example, it is reasonable to argue that, in Acts 15, had the Sabbath been changed, the Jewish believers of the time would have made some protest. James’ remark in Acts 15:21 strongly suggests that the apostles kept Sabbath. Had there been a push from Paul or others against Sabbath worship, that first church council surely would have been the time for anyone to speak up and discuss the point. Certainly the issue over circumcision was creating a big problem. How then could Sabbath-keeping have been abolished without some mention at that council? I think it is clear from this and what follows that Sunday worship has 2nd century origins not upheld by apostolic example.

​

Luke, the physician, writes in Luke 1:3,4: ". . . it seemed fitting for me as well . . . to write it out for you . . . Theophilus; so that you might know about the things you have been taught." Luke continues his history to "most excellent Theophilus" in the book of Acts. What we know of Luke comes from brief commentaries by Paul in his epistles. Factors important to this discussion are noted in Col. 4:10,14 where Paul states that Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus are his only fellow workers who are from the circumcision. Luke is mentioned apart from them. It would seem reasonable to accept the premise that Luke was a Gentile believer since the early believers who came out of the Jewish faith were those referred to as "the circumcision".

​

It was the legalists out of the "circumcision" that continually plagued the early church with concepts of adherence to Jewish customs, many scriptural, as necessary for salvation. It is for these reasons that the biggest misconceptions in interpreting Paul’s references to the law and its relationship to salvation have arisen. It is obvious from even a cursory reading of NT writings, outside the gospels, that there were those Jewish believers who continued to emphasize traditional conventions from the Torah as expressions of righteousness necessary for salvation. The circumcision of Gentile believers was one such focus insisted upon as signifying the entry of the non-Jew into the covenant made with God, even as far back as Abraham.

​

The earliest church council, noted in Acts 15, discussed the issue at length and determined circumcision was neither necessary for salvation nor as a requirement for the identification of believers. In verse 5 of that chapter there is some insistence that Gentiles also "observe the Law of Moses." Part of the argument against the Jewish believers was made by Peter where he says in verse 10&11: "Why do you put God to the test . . . we believe we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus." Modern Christianity uses this argument as significant evidence that believers are not "under the law" as Paul points out, but under grace. It is a strong argument developed from this standpoint that impacts on the "non-obligation" of Sabbath-keeping since it is considered part of the Law of Moses.

​

What needs to be understood is that the NT term "the Law of Moses" encompasses what is known as the "Torah", or essentially the scriptures of the first five books of the Bible. Two important factors should be pointed out at this time. The first is that Jewish traditions and interpretations of Moses’ writings during apostolic times did not necessarily reflect those issues that God outlined in the OT for believers, despite the significance of the covenant He made with Israel. This point is obvious from the fact that the majority of Jews did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah of the(ir) scriptures; so that any arguments generalized against the law through interpretation of NT writings must understand that Jewish applications for that specific terminology are not, by definition, expositive of God’s intentions regarding His own word.

​

The second issue involves the concept of righteousness before God. The Law and its directives presented in Jewish thought as a God-given means of righteousness for salvation must not be confused with the intended purpose of that same Biblical law, which was (in re-iteration) to teach:

​

(the key instruction on how to live) what is our right relationship to God, to humanity, and to ourselves;
(the key harshness of the law) that we have failed to achieve those relationships (sinned), and in doing so have separated ourselves from God and His promises, thus falling under the curse of the law and in need of redemption from the wages of sin;
(the key point of the Abrahamic covenant) that the sacrifice of Jesus is our only hope in gaining the promises of the inheritance, by faith in His word and His works;
(the key illustrations for understanding Jesus outside the prophets) that the priestly ministry of Jesus on our behalf is defined in certain symbols and terms in the sanctuary service through which we come to know Him, how we may come to God through Him, and what changes must occur within us as evidence of our faith.​

Luke writes the book of Acts at least three decades after Jesus’ death. Paul’s life is coming to an end in a Roman jail and most of the Apostles’ evangelistic teachings have been established at this point. If apostolic indoctrination for new believers was to do away with everything in the law, including the Sabbath, we should be able to determine that fact in Luke’s history. Luke, as a Gentile convert, would have no reason to uphold concepts from the "Law of Moses" for, according to modern Christian teaching, observance of the law would nullify grace. There would be no reason to suspect a Gentile believer would be subject to "Jewish customs" since the covenant law they lived by was done away with at the cross. Right?

Well, let’s allow the author to speak for himself and Gentile believers of his time. Did they throw away the law and all its contents, as modern Christians like to teach, or was it the concept of righteousness by works of the law that was discounted, or was it the ceremonial alone that was discarded? The answer to these questions tell us that either early believers respected the law and continued to follow its guidance (not as a means of self-righteousness, but as an expression of their relationship with Jesus in understanding the right way to live), or they lived a life in grace defined by none of the OT parameters but dependent totally on the traditions of the hierarchy of the church (as lead by the Holy Spirit?), or as is today’s custom: according to the individual’s experience.

Thirty years after Jesus was crucified, Luke tells the story of the Savior’s birth in the second chapter of his gospel. He refers to the purification period of Mary, describing to Theophilus, no doubt another Gentile believer, the episode was according to the law of Moses (Luke2:22). The explanation might seem necessary to a non-Jew of that time, unfamiliar with OT customs. Read on, however, in the next two verses where Luke refers to the same Levitical instructions in unexpected terminology. Rather than refer to a bygone set of traditions under the definition of Moses’ law, Luke refers to the dedication of Jesus according to "the Law of the Lord". And I’d like to note here that the typical NT title for Jesus is: the Lord. Is Luke reminding us that the law was given by the hand of Jesus?

It seems unusual that Luke, a Gentile, would consider the OT customs of the Jews in such terminology if these "Laws of Moses" were done away with after Jesus’ death. It also seems obvious from the statement that Luke, and other Gentiles, continued to hold those laws in some esteem at least three decades after the resurrection of our Lord, particularly when we consider these writings to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Is Luke, a Pharisaical Jew, calling people to follow the Law as some means of righteousness before God? No. He’s a Gentile believer. His reference to the law of the Lord indicates an acknowledgement that these Divinely given ceremonial institutions respect the word of God in the way He has directed and defined our right relationship to Him throughout scripture.

Consider Luke’s references, then, to the Sabbath. Had the Sabbath been considered a bygone habit, meant only for the Jew, why then does Luke include the term so precisely in his gospel? In fact, he talks about the Sabbath almost 20 times without any qualifying explanation to Theophilus in terms of the day being the "Jewish" Sabbath, stating in one place (Luke 6:5) that Jesus calls Himself "Lord of the Sabbath". This title emphasizes the command found in Ex 20:20; because Yahweh is the God who created the Sabbath, and Jesus designates Himself in that role assuring His audience that His actions on the Sabbath are completely within the scope of the command He gave to Moses.

If Jesus intended to "destroy" the Sabbath, both He and Luke might have mentioned it. And Luke would surely have written an addendum to this passage to instruct Theophilus about that issue. Instead, Luke makes the Sabbath appear constant and contemporary in his account, pointing out only the legalistic sanctions of the Pharisees regarding the day. As Jesus identifies Himself intimately with the Sabbath, His direct statement offers no indication that the Sabbath lacks its permanent status.

The book of Acts is the primary source of NT behavior that defines how new believers related to the OT laws. In the very first chapter, Luke refers to a short trip taken from Olivet to Jerusalem stating to Theophilus that the distance was "a Sabbath’s day journey". Although we know nothing about him, it would seem from Luke’s account that Theophilus probably did not know the geography around Jerusalem. Luke, wanting to indicate how far Olivet was from Jerusalem, employs terminology that must be familiar to Theophilus at the time of the writing. All commentaries agree that Theophilus was likely a high-ranking (Luke 1:3 "most excellent Theophilus") Gentile convert to Christianity, traditionally ascribed to be from Antioch. Why would Luke make such a reference, about distance, to another Gentile if this term were simply a carryover from Jewish law? It makes sense that the custom must have continued into NT Christian thinking, and for the logical reason that Sabbath observance was a reality with specific concepts accepted by the Gentile converts. This point is not to support the observance of extra-Biblical Jewish customs or Rabbinical determinants for Sabbath-behavior, but only to point out how much of those customs continued to permeate the culture of NT believers who were not Jewish.

There is a certain recognition that Christians must have maintained the Sabbath as the day of rest, which God called them to observe, solely by the continued use of the phrase by Luke, who was not a Jew. It is an important point because of the further issues to be discussed regarding the ultimate importance of the Sabbath to the Jewish believers. Any change away from its observance would surely require comment in the NT church somewhere in Acts; especially considering that the term "Sabbath’s day journey" was common enough to be used (and apparently observed) by Gentile converts.

When Sunday-keepers look for NT indications of extra/contra-Sabbath worship as a foundation for example, they need to consider the issue as presented by Luke in Acts 2:46, where he indicates that believers met in people’s homes and in the temple breaking bread together "daily". If there is any single NT trend-defining account for a mode of worship other than Sabbath-keeping, and if there is a sola scriptura principle to follow in support of abrogating Sabbath and following apostolic example alone: here it is.

Why choose Sunday in direct conflict with the apostolic example of meeting everyday? According to this passage, the apostles met seven days for worship; nothing is mentioned about meeting only on the first day of the week. Why Sunday comes to be the preferred day is not Biblical from this passage or any other for that matter, although Acts 20:7 is typically used as an example of some precedent disregarding Luke’s comment that they broke bread every day. Yet, even in Acts 20, it is apparent from the account that the time they came together was what we would call Saturday night; not Sunday by any means. Luke mentions the fact that it was the evening of the first day, which would not be an uncommon meeting time for celebrating the close of the Sabbath.

In fact, we can weigh this single mention of the term "first day" against the whole of Acts where throughout Luke’s account we find numerous examples of Paul and his company meeting on the Sabbath (see Acts chapters 13, 16, 17, 18). Numerous Sunday supporting commentaries remark that those circumstances were not examples of Sabbath observance but were instances where Paul knew Jews would be gathered in the synagogues for teaching. This commentary ignores the obvious statements of the Gentiles in Acts 13:42 where they beseeched Paul to return the next Sabbath to teach them. If the apostles were condoning Sunday worship as a new day for gathering, why have these Gentiles asked to meet in the "Jewish" synagogue on the "Jewish" Sabbath rather than on the so-called approved "first day" of NT worship apart from the temples and customs of the Jews? Should not Paul, himself, have made that point to them? Should not Luke have been surprised, as a Gentile, that these non-Jews would not only have considered going into Jewish buildings and waiting until the next Sabbath, but were able to persuade Paul to continue a custom that he "supposedly" preached against? Especially since the next day was the "first day" and they could easily have met with him in his "new" worship environment. Yet verse 44 indicates they waited, and the whole city came out to hear him the next Sabbath.

If Paul were true to some "new" law, wouldn’t he have enlightened a Gentile city against "Judaizing" by discouraging them to attend the synagogues on the Sabbath? Wouldn’t he have accommodated the Gentiles, and taught them of (and on) the "new" day of worship? And if the argument is that Paul was preaching only in convenient buildings at convenient times, where he knew Jews would also gather to hear the word, why then would Luke bother to mention in Acts 16:13 that Paul not only met with Gentile women, but also away from the synagogues, along the river; and it was the Sabbath day? And why would Luke even mention that it was a Sabbath day unless the physician considered the Sabbath day as special not only for Paul, but for himself?

When we consider the issue of Sabbath worship in the first Century Christian community, we must consider Acts 15 as the focal point of major discussion, for it is in this chapter that the first world wide church council is noted. Christians, against Sabbath-keeping, are quick to point out their position early on in the chapter where Peter admonishes (vs. 10) the Pharisees who insisted (vs. 5) Gentiles be commanded to keep the Law of Moses. But the issue here has little to do with Sabbath-keeping. In fact, Sabbath observance will bear out scrutiny later in the chapter. The real issue of the conference is an issue that plagued the early Christians about which Paul had much to say in many of his epistles; and about which there is the major confusion how Paul viewed the law.

The issue of circumcision was an important ceremony of entrance into the Jewish/Abrahamic/Mosaic covenants. Many of the Jewish believers obviously felt circumcision was as necessary for Gentile converts as we believe baptism is for salvation. After all, had not God given the initial command to Abraham and Moses? Hadn’t God given the law also? Why would it not be viewed as a necessary part of the process?

The "certain men" mentioned in the 1st verse of Acts 15 were not just trouble makers, but were noted as Teachers of the Christian brethren, and were no doubt Jewish converts to Christianity who had some authority in the early church. Otherwise, Paul and Barnabas would not have found it necessary to go to Jerusalem to discuss the circumcision issue with the apostles. It also seems obvious that the term "the circumcision" became synonymous with "Jewish believers" in the writings of the NT; indicating how prevalent the practice remained among those converts. Vs. 7 states there was much dispute over the issue, demonstrating that there was not a consensus of opinion among believers at this point. (Rightly so, many Jewish believers felt it was a key factor since God had given the ceremony as a sign of His covenant. On the other hand, the issue, no doubt, was of particular concern to adult Gentile males who likely questioned what part their foreskins played in the plan of salvation).

After Peter spoke (and note how in Gal 2:11-14 Paul speaks of Peter’s own hypocrisy in withdrawing from intimate Gentile contact when Pharisee believers were around), Paul and Barnabas relate how God had given great signs of His approval on Gentile believers. James then, as the apparent leader, under inspiration acknowledges Gentiles as part of God’s plan and suggests (with final approval of the council) that circumcision does not play a necessary role in the plan of salvation. This chapter is where many contemporary Christians have noted that the "yoke of the law" was abolished, stating that people who continue to keep any part of the law are "tempting God" (as Peter pointed out). Yet notice in the letter to the Gentiles that, despite legalistic implications, the apostles have no problem commanding NT believers to observe other specifics in the law; specifics that practically every contemporary denomination ignores. (Every denomination, that is, except perhaps the Jehovah Witnesses; who paradoxically deny their members the right to life-sustaining blood transfusions, while they, like other Christians, ignore the blood of animals on their plates, killed to satisfy a taste for juicy hamburgers and steaks).

There is a tendency to look at the letter written to the Gentiles with the observation that nothing in the command mentions observing the sabbath. This might be expected from the apostles if their intent is to emphasize in complete doctrinal form what should be taken from the whole of the law as a NT injunction. One might even be tempted to accept that perspective as a sound argument, except for the fact that practically every NT epistle calls congregations to a great many other things mentioned in the law that are carryovers into practice and are not included in this particular letter. Love God/love thy neighbor, for example, are not isolated NT concepts, nor is the idea of circumcision of the heart. Certainly no Christian would condone murder, taking God’s name in vain, covetousness, lying, etc. even though the apostles fail to include these parameters of Christian living in the council’s letter. Yet in almost every NT epistle there is reference to some moral issue to be observed, and these are all values espoused in the writings of Moses under those very terms; as if Christians would find the description of these duties in the Ten Commandments of God somehow different. Since the Sabbath command falls under those words written in stone, it might be judicious to assume it simply was not under doctrinal discussion at the time. Obviously, it can not be known or proved from the text, even if it can be logically assumed.

So we must ask, then, how did the apostles, and Paul, view the Sabbath issue? It seems apparent, that had Paul or any of his contemporaries encouraged Gentiles to stop observing sabbath, or to observe another day in its place, an outcry from the Jewish converts would have far superceded any discussion about the circumcision issue. Yet we find no instance of a council debating the sabbath, no Jews following Paul around criticizing him for that teaching, and no indication that sabbath observance in any way, shape, or form, came under question. And I would propose that the Sabbath was a far more serious law for Jewish believers than circumcision ever was, since certain conditions of Sabbath breaking were punishable by death. Paul, in fact, speaks about his own responsibility in bringing to death (Acts 26:10) those who believed in the Way. How much more an issue would have been the opposition against any who proposed that the Sabbath was done away with. Jews and Jewish believers alike would never have stood by quietly had Paul taught the abrogation of the most sacred of days. Yet Luke is silent about that. In light of the lack of apparent conflict, how can anyone believe other than that Sabbath keeping was continued in the time of the apostles; especially when so many other, often lesser issues, are brought to the forefront?

In fact, notice James’ statement in Acts 15:20 where he indicates that the Pharisees and Jewish believers should not be concerned that their position on circumcision would lessen the teachings of the law. He indicates that the Gentiles were as free as the Jews to hear the scriptures being taught every Sabbath. If there were a time for James, Paul, or any of the apostles to discourage Sabbath-keeping, that was the time to speak up. Instead, we hear James own words endorsing the synagogue’s Sabbath-school as the time and place to hear the word expounded upon.

When we understand how important the OT doctrines were to NT believers, we begin to see how the circumcision issue could have created so many problems. So important that even after the council had decided the circumcision issue as non-essential to salvation, that it continued to pervade the churches. Paul, in no less than six of his NT epistles, refers to the issue of circumcision in doctrinal overtones, continually seeking to alert the communities to the important aspects of their faith. It seems more than apparent that there continued to be those who sought to subvert the council’s advise long after the council ended. Paul stood firm in his letters against the legalistic efforts of those who would draw members to circumcision as an act of necessity.

Even though Paul took such a strong position in his letters and in his beliefs, we note in Acts 16:3 that he went right back to the law, himself, by insisting on Timothy’s circumcision. I do not say that Paul believed it was necessary for Timothy’s salvation, but that he tried to keep any conflict from developing in the church over the issue of this convert whose father was known to be a Greek. I think Paul’s approach, in appeasing the Pharisee believers, indicated how strongly Paul persisted in respecting the teachings of the law, even if it were for nothing more than tradition’s sake. I suspect, however, it was a respect for the divine origin of the law, and for the purity of our relationship with Jesus that it represented, which motivated Paul to continue in his practices.

Notice that Paul in Acts 18:18 takes a vow (Nazarite?) and shaves his head in accordance with the law in Numbers 6 regarding the purification of separation. How curious it is that modern Christians would like to relieve Paul and the apostles of any OT tradition, yet Paul is constant in following the law without apology to his own contemporaries or to ours. So much so, in fact, that he departs from evangelizing a congregation, importuning him to stay and teach more of the gospel in Ephesus (Acts 18:21), so that he can keep one of the feasts at Jerusalem.

It doesn’t sound like Paul was a man willing to suspend his OT practices, even at the expense of teaching the gospel. His influence on Luke is no doubt exhibited by Luke’s own words in Acts 20:6, where the physician writes how "we sailed . . . after the days of unleavened bread." The vocabulary of this converted Gentile here and in Acts 27:9 continues to echo the customs and beliefs of his teacher: Paul. Apparently Luke saw no inconsistency in the perpetuation of certain traditions of the law.

Verse 7, in Acts 20, is the only place in the whole of the book where there is mention of the first day of the week. Notice a number of issues in the account. Luke calls the day the first day of the week. Many Christians like to refer to Revelation 1:10, where John talks about the Lord’s day, as a precedent for the NT name for Sunday. Luke makes no such reference in his account. In fact, Paul refers to Sunday also as the first day of the week (1Cor 16:2) despite his use of the term (1Cor 11:20) the Lord’s supper for communion. I recognize that by the end of the second century, "the Lord’s Day" had become synonymous with Sunday, as had the term the "Lord’s supper" with communion; but it seems evident that the Sunday terminology was not popularized at the time of the apostles. Does this fact favor an argument for Sabbath keeping? Not necessarily, but it does seem to contradict any discussion that Sunday would have been called the Lord’s day as early as 65 c.e., thus making support for reverencing the first day less than likely during Paul’s time.

The second point of the account in Acts 20 is that the meeting took place upon the first day, indicating it was at the end of the Sabbath (Saturday evening). The Sabbath sundown was not an untypical time for a meeting. Luke makes a point that Paul was going to depart for Assos on foot in the morning. (This would put Paul on the road Sunday morning: an unusual time to leave if the "supposed" Sunday services were about to begin). In conjunction with Luke’s reference in the first chapter to a sabbath’s day journey, he likely was pointing out that Paul waited until Sabbath had ended before embarking on such a long trip. It has already been demonstrated how Paul continued to keep the law and, maintaining his practice, would not make such a journey on Sabbath. So it is easily understood why Luke would make mention of the episode in regards to a particular day.

This issue, of Paul respecting the law, becomes even more demonstrable when he arrives in Jerusalem (Acts 21: 17-24). Even James and the apostles are concerned about Jewish believers who think Paul is teaching all the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake the law because of the circumcision issue. Rather than do what contemporary Christians claim the apostles did to the law (supporting its abolition), they command Paul to show his support of the law by shaving his head and going through the purification process of the law.

The point I’m making is that Paul kept the law as evidence of his adherence to Biblical teaching, regardless of how he viewed salvation in Jesus. His actions are not contrary to the teaching of faith and grace in his epistles once we understand that his focus in those letters accompanies a constant need to defend against those who promoted circumcision as necessary for salvation. Paul says, himself, before King Agrippa (Acts 26:20) that he was sent to the Gentiles to teach them "that they should repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance." And what are these works? In 1Cor 7:19, Paul is as clear as any NT writer, "circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." (Rom 2:13) "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." And if we continue on in Rom 2, Paul is referring to the Ten-Commandment law of God, in the midst of which sits the Sabbath command. I have no doubt Paul felt that obedience to the Ten Commandments were some of the works by which our faith is judged.

The final statements of Paul in the book of Acts are noteworthy: In Acts 28:17, Paul recounts before the Jews at Rome, "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers . . .", echoing his former words before Festus (Acts 25:8): "Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple . . . have I offended any thing at all." Either Paul is lying, or those who say that Paul abrogated the Sabbath are lying, for it is absolutely impossible that Paul could have made this statement under oath if he had taught any thing against Sabbath-keeping in the presence of the Jewish people. And there is no accusation ever mentioned in the book of Acts that Paul did such a thing against Sabbath-keeping.

We have ample evidence that Paul was accused of speaking against circumcision as a means of righteousness, even though he had Timothy circumcised to avoid criticism. And Paul’s letters are full of doctrinal discussion about the issue of circumcision, indicating the importance of that subject and the fact that he had taught certain truths about how believers should perceive the law’s relationship to Jesus. But it is unthinkable if Paul had stopped keeping Sabbath, or had he taught Gentiles to stop keeping Sabbath, or most importantly, had he taught that Sunday was the new day of worship, that the Jews and Jewish believers would have kept silent about the whole thing, or that Luke could have failed to mention the fact considering how much trouble and attention circumcision was given in the early church.

The conclusion of the matter is that neither Paul nor the apostles could have stopped keeping the Sabbath, or that they taught an alternative day of worship. To do so would have brought the wrath of Jews and Jewish believers alike. Even if we do not make the apparent distinctions between what is ceremonial and what is moral, or about what is written in stone and what is or isn’t necessary for salvation, we can not deny the fact that there is no NT precedent whatsoever for the initiation of Sunday as a replacement for the Sabbath. Likewise, I think it is apparent that Paul could never have spoken against Sabbath-keeping without stirring up such a controversy with the Jewish believers that Luke could have omitted it from his writings. And there is such ample evidence that Paul kept even the less important issues of the law; so that there is no way he would have thrown the more important Sabbath commandment aside, seeing and acknowledging in his own writings the moral and permanent nature of those Ten Commandments as the definer of righteous living.

Was the Sabbath just for the Jews? It was made holy at creation. It was observed by the Israelites before the law at Sinai. It was the day hailed by the prophets. It was the day Jesus respected. It was the day the apostles continued to keep after the death of our Lord. It seems only in the second century did the day become officially a problem for the church to observe. Tradition speaks the rest of the story. If we are to be Bible believing Christians, we can not allow the traditions of men to subvert the clear texts of God’s word. Let us continue to keep the Sabbath that God made holy at creation, not as a means for righteousness, but as a sign of our faith and allegiance to Him who died for us and created us when He sanctified His Sabbath.