Conclusion on the Sabbath
Aug 13th, 2007 by Nathan White
This will be the last post on the Sabbath for the time being. It has been a fruitful discussion so far, and I appreciate all the feedback I received, but it is time to move on to different studies.
Today’s post will be a summary on my convictions, and why I believe Sabbath-breaking is still a sin that both unbelievers and believers continue to break today.
Therefore, here are a few things which I consider to be facts of biblical teaching (and experience):
Fact 1: The creation account has implicit commands for man to obey, though not explicitly stated in the original account.
- Both Jesus and the apostles appealed to the creation account as binding (a historical narrative) in teaching on marriage.
- It is a fallacy to argue that the Sabbath isn’t explicitly given as a command in the creation account, when other commands aren’t explicit but are still binding.
Fact 2: There are no ceremonial commands in the creation account (before sin entered the world).
- Clearly, creation was perfect and there was no need for types, shadows, or the prefiguring of Christ –the Savior necessitated by sin.
Fact 3: Where the Sabbath command is explicitly given, in the 10 Commandments, it is surrounded by moral commands.
- There is no dispute that the other 9 commands are moral.
- There is no dispute that the New Testament teaches, either implicitly or explicitly, the other 9 commands for the Christian today.
Fact 4: When Jeremiah (31:33) and other passages speak of writing God’s law on the heart of the New Covenant believer, the law spoken of is clearly the 10 commandments, widely recognized as the eternal moral law of God.
- The 10 Commandments were the only portion of the Mosaic law written by the finger of God.
- 2 Cor 3:3 parallels the law written on stone as the law written on the New Covenant heart.
- The law is the same law, it’s just internal instead of external.
- The other 9 commands, though written on our heart, do still require our obedience to them, as does the Sabbath –i.e: Though it was all fulfilled in Christ, we still obey out of love, as we were saved so as to walk in His commands.
Fact 5: When the Sabbath command is first given to Israel, the creation account is recalled to bring authority to the binding nature of the command (Ex 20:11).
- Thus, the Sabbath was being repeated in the Mosaic law, not created. It is not a Mosaic command only, even though it was used in the Mosaic law, and was given as a sign of the covenant.
Fact 6: When the Sabbath command is repeated in the New Testament, the creation account is appealed to as well.
- Jesus, in administering the proper perspective on the Sabbath, appealed to the creation account in saying that it was created for man.
- The writer of Hebrews points to the creation account (Heb 4:4) in encouraging believers to endure until the end, until that day when we reach our final Sabbath rest, just as Jesus Christ has reached the final Sabbath rest.
Fact 7: Since both the Old Testament and New Testament instruction on the Sabbath point to the creation account, which was before sin and before the ceremonies that have been fulfilled in Christ, the Sabbath is a moral and binding law upon all believers and unbelievers alike.
Fact 8: The 3 proof texts usually given to try and prove the abrogation of the Sabbath (Col 2:16, Rom 14:5, and Galatians 4:10) all deal with temporary/ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law that have passed away in Christ.
- Since, as we have seen above, the Sabbath command is not a strictly Mosaic or ceremonial law, being that it is given at creation and even sustained in the law/NT by the creation account, these verses have no application to whether the Sabbath is binding on the New Testament believer.
- Even further, a proper understanding of each context will reveal that the particular Sabbath day of the week is never the emphasis or application of the three texts.
- Creation, Moses in appealing to creation, Jesus in Mark 2 appealing to creation, and the writer of Hebrews in chapter 4 all indicate that the Sabbath is rooted in creation/God’s moral law, and is not a part of the Mosaic code of ceremonies, which are of course being specifically addressed in the 3 proof texts above.
Fact 9: In the creation account, the pattern of ‘6 days labor – 1 day of rest’ is set forth, and the Sabbath blessed, while the particular day of Saturday is never singled out as the only possible day in which the command was eternally given.
- To use a similar example: the Sabbath years of the OT law are to be observed every seventh year, and were not dependant on the calendar, but rather the pattern of 6 – 1.
- In creation, the 7th day of the week (whichever weekly calendar used in the garden) is never explicitly given, but rather a pattern of 6 days – 1 day.
Fact 9: Revelation 1:10 has the Apostle John speaking of a particular day as ‘the Lord’s Day’, indicating a special significance to that particular day.
- Since the Lord clearly rose on the first day of the week, it is generally not disputed which day this Revelation text refers to (Sunday).
- Since Jesus referred to Himself as ‘Lord of the Sabbath’, the correlation and change from Saturday to Sunday should be clear to the studious observer. Sunday is the Lord’s day - Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.
Fact 10: Hebrews 4 speaks of Christ entering the final Sabbath rest, resting from His works just as God did from His, and of course Jesus entered into this rest on the first day of the week (Sunday).
Fact 11: We have scriptural examples of the early church meeting on Sunday for corporate worship, which by all accounts should be indicative of the Sabbath foundation they were building upon.
- Outside of the Sabbath principle, there is no pattern of weekly worship given in the New Testament.
- Without the Sabbath principle we have nothing but legalism to instruct us to meet on a regular basis.
Fact 12: The ‘Son of Man’, is Lord of the Sabbath, which is an eschatological name for Christ which entails His reign over His kingdom.
- Christ has the authority to change the Mosaic Sabbath of Saturday to the New Covenant Sabbath of Sunday.
- We are under His Lordship and His reign, right now, and He never repealed the Sabbath command despite multiple opportunities to do so.
Fact 13: The final Sabbath is still yet future, and thus the command has not been repealed before the reality has come.
Fact 14: The majority of historic Christianity has held to Sunday as being the Christian Sabbath –including some of the greatest Fathers to our Reformed faith.
Fact 15: Praise God, most Christians today speak louder with their actions, in obeying the Sabbath, than they do with their words, in denying the perpetuity of the Sabbath.
- The law is written on the heart of every true Christian, and more times that not, the Sabbath command is at least partially obeyed by the vast majority of Christians today.
- Sincere believers, devoted to serving Christ through faith, generally dedicate serious worship, communion, study, prayer, and rest to the Lord on Sunday, rather than spending the day pursuing financial gains and personal pleasure.
That is just a little taste of my position on the Sabbath. It will have to do for now, but I will be happy to answer any questions if they come up.
It isn’t easy stepping forward with a relatively unpopular and often-ridiculed position in this day and age, especially when it entails me affirming that it is a sin against the Son of Man Himself to break the Sabbath. But I must speak the convictions I see clearly set forth in God’s perfect and holy Word, and I can only pray for the Spirit’s illumination into all who come across these words.

best summary I’ve seen on this issue, Nate.
-Thanks for this post!
That was great work that you did on this. Will you ever talk or write about then what that means to believers? Meaning what can one do and what one can not do on the Sabbath. What then are the implications to Christians that have to wrok on Sunday? Could you go to football games?
Would like to see you complete this study with that stuff.
magnus
Nathan,
This is extremely well written and particularly so in Facts 5 & 8…it is crucially important to see Sabbath, Work and Marriage as being Creation ordinances with permanent effect.
Magnus, to answer many of your questions regarding the use of the Sabbath I reccomend Joseph Pipa’s book “TheLord’s Day”. It may just be a turn of phrase in your comment, but for too many Christians (I say this not to be picky against you personally or your comment, at least you’re asking the question which is commendable!) Sabbath keeping is all about questions about what they can or cannot do….that’s starting at the wrong end….we need to ask the question “What does God POSITIVELY require of me in my Sabbath keeping?”…and I suggest that if we did what God required of us as perhaps espoused in the Larger Catechism, we would not have time for Sabbath-breaking activities.
As to Christians who work on the Sabbath, well the confessions and the majority of Sabbath keeping Christians have believed that it is legitimate only to do works of mercy and necessity on the Sabbath. All other works except in more extreme circumstances should be ceased.
Again..I reccomend Pipa’s book on this part of the subject.
JP
one more thing i would like to get your thoughts on.
II Corinthians 3:7 where Paul was talking about the Law engraved on stones, referring to the 10 commandments i would think.
could one not use that to build the case for not observing the Sabbath now. Seeing as in Rom 13:8-10 he list some of the 10 but not all and not the Sabbath?
Magnus
Magnus,
I think Romans 13 deals just with the second table of the Law, the man-ward, not the God-ward, so I don’t think it directly bears on the subject one way or the other.
My immediate response on the Corinthians text is that we need to take in the whole context and especially compare verse 2 and verse 7…the law as written on stone could never be kept unto salvation….but the regenerate have it now written on their hearts by the Spirit..and now they can keep. The letter kills but the Spirit makes alive. Again I think the context is not really primarily arguing for or against full law keeping, but merely (importantly) pointing out that dependence on law keeping for salvation could never save, where as depending on Christ (v4) certainly will.
I’ll have a wee think more about it though. In summary I think contextually both these texts are not directly related to the subject. But it’s good to think these things through.
JP