Is the Sabbath Binding on Christians Today?

John MacArthur wrote the following article which is quoted almost is its entirety here. It was originally posted on this site:

I will be responding to each point that Dr. MacArthur makes which will hopefully help readers understand why his argument is, at best, weak.

Is the Sabbath Binding on Christians Today?

by John MacArthur

Rebutted by Sean Daily

It is believed that the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses’ law that prefigured Christ. Here are the reasons we hold this view.

>Nowhere in Scriptures is the Law divided up into parts. While arbitrarily dividing it may be useful for discussion purposes, to go the next step and declare that what man calls ceremonial has become null and void is breaking that very Law. Deut. 12:32 “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.”

1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4, 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word “Sabbath?” He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.

   > The Sabbath is in view in this passage, but the passage never says, “which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come.” The passage is contrasting God’s Holy Festivals and Laws with man made “rules . . . [things] destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.” The Sabbath is not “man made” nor is it “based on human commands and teachings” but God instituted; so Paul’s mentioning that “these things are destined to perish” can not be referring to the Sabbath which is a “shadow” of the Messiah. Paul’s use of shadow is not negative, but a positive. These God given days and Laws are a shadow of the Messiah who is the body, while the man made “rules” are destined to perish. If Paul called the Sabbath a man made rule, he would have been a heretic, and if he declared it null and void, he would have broken the command of Deut 12:32 and would have been run out on the proverbial rail. If he said the Sabbath was no longer important, he would have contradicted the Law, the Prophets, and every Jew and Gentile’s current belief.
   

2. The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

   > Saying we are now under the New Covenant and no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant again divides the indivisible, and contradicts the passage of the New Covenant which is found in Jeremiah 31. Clearly it is the “Torah” that is written on the heart, and by “Torah” Jeremiah is speaking specifically of the Law’s given through Moses.
   > An additional note on dividing the Covenant into parts. Even an elementary study of a covenant would confirm that it is a single agreement with stipulations. The agreement, “We will do everything the Lord has said” is the covenant agreement by the Israelites in Ex. 24. The stipulations are all of the laws and ways to live in that covenant. Throwing out parts of the stipulations would be similar to having a signed contract, which after codifying it, one party decides to cross off sections and no longer abide by those sections. If that were to happen, the whole contract would be broken, since it is one unit with many parts. One must either abide by the whole thing, or throw out the whole thing. There is no middle ground.

3. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.

   > It is quite disappointing to have someone of Dr MacArthur’s stature propose such an argument. An argument from silence is baseless and does not even deserve a response.

4. In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

   > Of course just because a group got together to meet on a particular day does not indicate in anyway that these people meet on that day regularly, nor does it mean that they abandoned the Sabbath. If this is the best passage he can find to make his point that the Sabbath has been abandoned, then he really has no support here. Also, since MacArthur is willing to use the “argument from silence” above, then we also can use the “argument from silence” as well. Never does Paul, nor any New Testament writer declare that the Sabbath is no longer binding.

5. Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.

   > And why would God command Gentile nations, who were not in covenant with him, to follow covenant stipulations. It makes no logical sense to make this point unless you a) want to prove that the Sabbath is not a “moral” Law, as if there were any declaration in the Scriptures that ever delineates between moral and non moral law; or b) you genuinely do not believe that Gentiles are grafted into the covenant with God and therefore none of the Laws of Moses would apply. I assume he is trying to make point ‘a’, for making point ‘b’ seems somewhat absurd. Again, I draw your attention to the first mention of the “New Covenant” in scripture where the covenant agreement is changed from “we will do it” to “I [the LORD] will write the Torah on your heart and in your mind.” (Jer. 31). The stipulations are not different, only our relationship to them.

6. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

   > As is the case for just about all of the commands found in the Mosaic Laws including most of the so called “moral” laws. This argument is obviously baseless and again, a disappointment to see such a man use it. (Maybe he uses it because certain Sabbatarians try to assert this point and MacArthur is simply batting away their assertions by pointing out the obvious? I hope that is the reason.)

7. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.

   > Nor did they include almost all of the commands within the Law. Here is a good place for me to point out an historical fact. In the first century times in which Paul is living and speaking, not one Jew nor Gentile disputed the Sabbath being the seventh day, nor did any single person whether Jew or Gentile ever assert that any day other than the seventh day would be the Sabbath. Paul never brings it up because there would be no point in doing so. It was not a point of contention or disagreement in his day. The seventh day was a day of rest as spelled out in the Law and no one had a problem with it, nor disputed it. They certainly disputed how one should live on that day, but not which day it was nor whether it should be observed. It is not until the church fathers of the second century that we have any indication that there was an issue about what day to worship.

8. The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.

   > Again, see #7. And let’s not forget that the Gentiles had access to the only Scriptures available to Paul or them, that being what we Christians refer to as the Old Testament which is littered with Sabbath commands and rebukes for breaking it. Should the Sabbath have been nullified, one would think Paul would make that point quite clear, but he does just the opposite (see Col. 2, a passage Dr. MacArthur unbelievably tries to use to make his point that the Sabbath is done away with.)

9. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).

   > This passage can be viewed as speaking of God’s appointed times or pagan appointed times. Here is one of MacArthur’s stronger points, but unfortunately this article did not provide him the means by which to make his point so he simply states it as fact. I, like wise will not provide a conclusive statement given the space allowed, but will point you in the right direction.
   >In Gal. 4:9, Paul states that the Gentiles are “turning back to the weak and worthless elemental things.” Since the Gentiles are new to the faith, how can they “turn back” to the Law. It makes more sense that they were turning back to the Pagan Emperor worship days, or were tempted to do so. Also, Paul refers to these things as “weak and worthless” which does not fit his love and admiration for the Torah which he clearly says he is living in obedience to. (Acts 21:17-and on.)
   >Historically it is important to know that the Jews had a special privilege in the empire. They were not required to observe any of the pagan holidays or participate in the worship of the Emperor. Any one else, who was not a Jew, would be cast as an Atheist by Rome for not participating and be jailed, persecuted, and possibly even killed. In light of the dispute between Gentile followers of the Way and the Jews, especially those who did not accept Jesus as Messiah, the Gentiles stood a good chance of being tossed out of the synagogue (which eventually happens) and then being liable for failing to worship the Emperor (which they were) and persecuted (which they were.) If we lived in that time, we too would be tempted to say, “I’m going to the [pagan] festival and going through the motions, but my heart isn’t in it. I don’t really believe it.” Paul is telling them clearly not to follow that temptation.

10. In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).

    > “It is without historical foundation to presume that Paul’s mention of various days automatically refers to a choice between Sabbath and the first day of the week. It is without warrant to read the late practice of the medieval Church back into Paul’s day. When he was talking of days, and one observing one day over another, he cannot be referring to the much later Sabbath/Sunday debate.”¹
    “Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, indicates that this change had BEGUN to take place as early as about A.D. 115. Also, the Didache, a manual of church instruction written around A.D. 120, also directs Christians to come together on the Lord’s Day to worship.”² So again, the dispute of what day to worship on should not be placed back on Paul’s audience at Rome in the 50′s A.D.
    What is Paul speaking of? Two possibilities: 1) There is known to be at least three Jewish sects which calculated the date of Pentecost (Shavuot) differently as well as the date of First Fruits and even the day of Passover. 2) Paul is speaking of scheduled fast days, something that we see continues even into the 2nd and 3rd century with the Christians.
    See Tim Hegg’s commentary on Galatians for a more in depth study.

11. The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day Sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).

    > Early church fathers certainly did say what MacArthur claims, and any Sabbatarian who disputes it is stupid. The texts are available for anyone to read. Yet, these same texts also prove that many still followed the Law completely and followed the seventh day Sabbath.
    > There is a large amount of primary sources which prove that at the very least, Christians were following the seventh day Sabbath even past the fourth century, although they became increasingly persecuted by the Church for doing so.
    > There are many things the early church fathers said and believed that we cringe at today. They were ruthlessly anti-Jewish which strongly tainted their theology, and they all came from Greek backgrounds rather than Hebrew. However, with all of the nasty things they have said in their writings, we ought not to be too harsh on them. (Nor should we hold them up to the level of the Apostles, but rather we ought to respect them for their labors in the LORD.) Why not be harsh on them for where they erred? Because they lived in a different time where persecutions were rampant and disputes between followers of the Way and the Jewish synagogue became strained. The dating of the split between Christian and Jew into separate religions is not precise, but it certainly became codified between 90-100 C.E. when Gamaliel II excludes sectarians (including Christians) from the synagogues.
    >Also, I refer you back to #10, where we clearly see these same church fathers saying that the dispute did not begin until after A.D. 115.

12. Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord’s Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

    > Thankfully Dr MacArthur agrees that Sunday did not replace Saturday as the Sabbath, something that I can not find taught until after the Reformation period. He seems, however, in the second half of this statement to agree with those who say that our “work” from which we are resting from is our “work” in attempting to secure our salvation through our own works the way they did in the Old Testament days. The problem with this view, which may not be Dr. MacArthur’s view, is that the Old Testament never teaches a works based salvation. Also, the word translated “work” from which we were to rest from according to the Law has absolutely nothing to do with “spiritual labor” in any way.
    

In conclusion, there is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that during the life of Paul there was any person or sect which denied the seventh day Sabbath, nor do we see Paul or any New Testament writer even hint at abandoning the Sabbath. Contrary to all historical and archaeological evidence, the entire argument does not even begin until after all New Testament writings have been completed.

Should one want to argue for the worship of God on the Lord’s Day, he certainly can make his case, but to attempt to impose that idea onto the first century period in which the Christian church was emerging is anachronistic. And finally, for someone to persecute those who do observe the Sabbath, either overtly, or by turning their nose at them “theologically” contradicts even Dr. MacArthur’s view of Romans 14, and it would put that person in direct contradiction to Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and all of the rest.

I’ll finish with a compelling quote by Jules Isaac, “The Jewish rejection of Christ was triggered by the Christian rejection of the Law . . . . The Rejection of the Law was enough; to ask the Jewish people that they accept this rejection . . . was like asking them to tear out their heart. History records no example of such collective suicide.”³

Sean Daily.

1. “Galatians Commentary” by Tim Hegg, Page 156-60
2. “Our Father Abraham” by Marvin R Wilson, page 79
3. Cited in Jacques Doukhan, Drinking at the Sources (Mountain View, California: Mountain Press Publishing Association, 1981), p. 25

Advertisement