After three articles discussing how Christians relate to the Sabbath today (see parts 1, 2, and 3), you’d think I’d have exhausted the topic. But not so! Despite the thoroughness of each article, I still went through during the editing process and cut out several topics that, while interesting, weren’t necessary for the point being made. For those who have enjoyed this topic I thought I’d throw out a few observations that weren’t addressed, but still worth considering.
Christ kept the Sabbath, so why don’t we?
In my research, a popular line of thinking I regularly came across was that if we want to follow our savior, we should do what He did. It’s a very worthwhile consideration, and I appreciate that Christ’s followers are devoted to Him in any way they can imagine. Interestingly, many even use a passage from the sermon on the mount to support the idea of keeping the Sabbath:
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)
The defense here is that Christ Himself says He didn’t erase the law. Likewise, He warns against anyone annulling the commandments. It seems pretty cut-and-dry, and that’s why I find it interesting that this passage is used to defend keeping the law. That’s because verse 20 is often omitted, and this is Christ wrapping up His entire point.
For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)
The Pharisees were the cream-of-the-crop when it came to following the law. Regularly to the point of excessiveness. Here, Christ is saying that not only is doing good and obeying the Law not enough to get people into Heaven, but their righteousness would have to exceed the level of people who were basically held in super-star status to the Jews.
Christ is using that measurement to explain why He came to fulfill the law. People thought Christ was there to wipe the law away, as though it served no purpose up to that point. Yet Christ is pointing out that He didn’t come to remove the requirements of the law, but to obey them completely. Because we couldn’t.
His listeners didn’t realize it at the time, but Christ had to do that in order to take our place at the cross. In order for us to be seen as righteous and blameless in God’s sight, Christ had to give us His perfection, living a perfect life and fulfilling every aspect of the Law of Moses so that God could look at us as though we had done it.
The reason Christ couldn’t wipe out the Law of Moses is that the Law was never meant to be a means of earning salvation, but to show the impossibility of us living rightly on our own. The Law had always been pointing to Jesus Christ, and its purpose for Christians ended with His sacrifice on the cross.
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me…. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. (John 5:39, 46)
The “or else” of the Law
When discussing whether we are required to keep any part of the law, it’s important to ask a question: what happens if I don’t? Before Christ, the “do this or else” of the Law was pretty clear. Either you died in faith like those in Hebrews 11, or you didn’t. Yet if the Law was meant to point to Christ, and we have Christ, what happens when we don’t keep that Law?
The only way it makes sense is if a person believes we can lose our salvation. That is beyond the scope of this article, but that’s the only consequence that makes sense. Yet if we lose our salvation every time we break the law, then we are in a near-constant state of being Hellbound. If we assume we’ve achieved such a level of righteousness that we don’t sin regularly, then we need to do a more thorough examination of our hearts, not just our actions.
In a way, it’s a bit of a paradox. The Law was created to show us our inability to please God on our own. Thus, Christ had to come and live that perfect life for us. Yet now, if we don’t keep that Law after being redeemed and declared righteous before God… do we need Christ again? If that’s the case, is there ever a time where we don’t need Christ? Christ was clear that keeping the law isn’t just about our outward actions, but the state of our hearts. If my salvation is dependent on a constant state of repenting for every time I break the Law (including lusting, being angry, etc), then eternal life is no more than a slim hope that I die within 5 seconds after I repent, before I’ve had time to pursue my sin nature over my perfect savior.
Festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths
Another contentious passage is found in Colossians.
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)
In this passage addressing the church’s insistence on keeping the Old Testament law, Paul reminds them that they are free from judgment regarding their diet or observing holy days. As I pointed out in part 3 of this series, those things were all meant to point to Christ. Seems pretty clear, so what’s the argument?
Many counter this passage by saying that Paul isn’t referring to the weekly Sabbath, otherwise He would have said “the Sabbath” as an echo to the commandment. Instead, Paul said a Sabbath day (or sometimes translated Sabbaths), referring to what’d we’d call “High Sabbaths.” This is often translated as “appointed feasts” or “holy convocations,” and are unique Sabbath festivals commanded to Israel, namely the feasts of:
- Passover
- Pentacost
- Atonement
- Trumpets
- Tabernacles
- Unleavened bread
This argument runs into 2 problems if we dig into the text a bit more.
The first problem is that Paul already covered his bases regarding these special festivals when naming “a festival, a new moon, or a Sabbath day.” If we read through this thorough list of feasts and festivals, we can only come to one conclusion: Paul’s readers would have clearly had these special High Sabbaths in mind when he reminded them they didn’t need to keep festivals. Thus, naming “a Sabbath day” wouldn’t have been redundant, but would have been referencing the weekly Sabbath.
This is further seen in the second problem. Consider the timing of each of these special days.
- Festivals are annual
- New moons are monthly (and are how Israel kept their calendars)
- Sabbaths are weekly
Paul, somewhat cleverly, starts big and goes small when reminding these believers that they aren’t bound to any special days. They didn’t have to keep the major feasts, the monthly sacrifices, or the weekly requirements.
More where that came from
That’s just a taste of some things that were removed. The “final article” (because we’ve heard that one before) in this series will cover a few more topics, including a very important one to keep in mind when we talk to those who still keep the Sabbath!
Want to read more? Check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.
