Objection #2: Jesus did away with the Sabbath commandment.
Many Christians today claim that the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ, which according to them means that we don’t have to keep it anymore—at least not in the literal sense that the Bible describes. It is believed that Yeshua brought the Sabbath to a higher meaning in the New Covenant, which somehow annuls its practical application. Let’s take a look at a few New Testament passages that are commonly used to support this theory.
Matthew 12:1-2
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”
Did Yeshua condone His disciples breaking the Sabbath in this passage? If so, wouldn’t these verses demonstrate that the practical application of the Sabbath is fading away and it’s not that important anymore in the New Testament?
First of all, as we’ve already seen, Yeshua completely affirms the validity of the Sabbath as part of the Torah in Matthew 5:17-20. Why would He condone His disciples breaking the Sabbath shortly after He affirmed it? Secondly, this dispute between Yeshua and the Pharisees was not about whether or not to keep the Sabbath; it was about how to keep the Sabbath. Yeshua’s disciples were breaking the Sabbath only according to the Pharisees’ interpretation. The Bible never prohibits plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath. So Yeshua proclaimed his disciples “innocent” of wrongdoing (Matthew 12:7) and rebuked the Pharisees for completely missing the entire point of the Sabbath in their strict interpretations.
Colossians 2:16-17
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Is this passage saying that anyone who teaches obedience to the fourth commandment is a judgmental legalist who emphasizes the “shadow” over the substance? Who are these judgmental people that Paul is warning against?
If we look earlier in the passage at Colossians 2:8 we see that Paul is warning the Colossian believers about those who are trying to lead them astray through deception and “human tradition.” But the Sabbath is not a “human tradition.” Moreover, these false teachings are said to be in opposition to the teachings of the Messiah, but the Messiah affirms and teaches Torah. Indeed, Paul himself affirms the validity of the Torah as part of “all Scripture” in 2 Timothy 3:16. As Tim Hegg explains, a more likely explanation is that these false teachers were judging the Colossian believers for how they kept the Sabbath:
The point is that the false teachers are judging the Colossian believers in regard to their halachah in observing the Torah commandments relating to food, drink, festivals, new moons, and the Sabbath. The false teachers are telling the Colossians that unless they observe the commandments in strict adherence to their particular halachah, they are not actually keeping the commandments at all and will therefore fall under the judgment of God. It is the common Christian interpretation of these verses that Paul had taught the Colossian believers to disregard the Torah regulations of kosher foods and appointed times, and that the false teachers were trying to persuade them that these were necessary. But that interpretation neither fits the wider teaching of Paul nor the immediate context. The false teachers are suggesting that the Colossians are failing to observe the commandments as they had determined they should be observed, not that the Colossians had entirely neglected the commandments.
It’s important to note what Paul does not say. He doesn’t say that the Sabbath is abolished or no longer literally applicable in the New Covenant. He was merely warning the Colossian believers against false teachers judging them with regard to how they observe certain commandments.
Romans 14:5
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Many Christians assume that Paul is referring to the Sabbath in this passage, but the Sabbath is never explicitly mentioned anywhere in the book of Romans. Since the text is unclear on the type of “day” being addressed in this passage, it is not necessary to conclude that Paul must be referring to the Sabbath. Furthermore, the context of this verse is in regards to “opinions” or “disputable matters” (verse 1). Surely in Scripture, the fourth commandment is never regarded as merely a matter of opinion.
So what exactly is Paul talking about when he says we must be fully convinced in our own minds when it comes to sacred days? Greek scholar J.K. McKee offers this explanation:
Few consider the possibility that “eats” in 14:3 could be helping to introduce the sacred days specified in 14:5. When this is taken into consideration, we see that there were, in fact, various fixed days for fasting on the Jewish religious calendar, such as those remembering the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple. I would submit that when “he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God” (14:6b, NASU), is discussing optional fast days, as opposed to eating meat—the second part of Paul’s argument on disputable matters. Just as it would be inappropriate to judge fellow Believers who only eat vegetables, so would it also be inappropriate to judge fellow Believers who might observe special fast days for reasons that are very important to them.
So the “opinions” over which days to hold sacred could have had to do with fast days, which would seem to fit better with the context. In either case, it’s clear that this passage cannot be used to support the idea that the Sabbath is no longer important.
