14. Sabbath in the Epistles

In the last chapter we studied about Paul and his companions as they went to Jewish synagogues to preach Christ. We found that in every instance their Sabbath activities were in connection with Jewish services. In contrast, this chapter deals with letters written to Christian churches. We will now study three key verses that relate to the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16, 17; Galatians 4:10, 11; Romans 14:5, 6), examine Paul’s method of evangelism, and then consider “the missing controversy.”

Colossians 2:16, 17

Therefore let no one 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.

Unlike the references to the Sabbath in the book of Acts, this passage is a direct teaching on the subject of the Sabbath. In this verse Paul includes the Sabbath with other old covenant ritual convocations such as new moon celebrations and festivals. This verse has been vigorously debated and the debate often centers on three key areas. (1) What does Paul mean by “Sabbath day”? Is he referring to the weekly Sabbath, the seven seasonal sabbaths such as the Passover, etc., or is he addressing the problem of Sabbath perversion? (2) What are the “elementary principles” Paul mentions in Colossians 2:8, 20? Is he referring to a rudiment of some syncretistic heresy that the Colossians had fallen into or is he referring to old covenant convocations or perhaps both? (3) How are we to understand “Let no man judge you” (Col. 2:16)? Were certain members of the Colossian church keeping certain celebrations while others judged them? Or were the ones practicing the celebrations judging the ones who did not?

Let us first study the context, then we will define “elementary principles” and “Sabbath day(s)” and then draw some conclusions regarding the ones who were judging and how all of this relates to our study of the Sabbath.

Local context

A quick scan of Colossians 2:8–23 will help us in our interpretation.

See to it that no one take you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore let no one 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. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast the Head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

In Colossians 2 Paul is writing about the completeness of Christ and His sacrifice. In verse 8 Paul begins by warning his readers against several things which can take them away from this completeness and thus make them captive to discouragement and loss.

“Elementary principles of the world”

See to it that no one take you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Col. 2:8).

What does Paul mean by the “elementary principles of the world”? Notice how he uses this term (identical in Greek) elsewhere.

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elementary things of the world. But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (Gal. 4:1–5).

In the above passage Paul says that before the coming of Christ the Jews were “held in bondage under the elementary things of the world.” He explains what he means by this term when he says that God sent forth His Son to redeem “those who were under the Law.” Here Paul includes old covenant law in his definition of the “elementary things of the world”.

In Hebrews 5 this term is also used. Here again “the elementary principles” are “the oracles of God”—the old covenant writings. In explaining how Christ is a better High Priest than the priests of the old covenant the writer says:

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food (Heb. 5:12).

In Colossians 2:20,21 Paul speaks about dying to the elementary principles of the world.

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”

In Romans 7 Paul writes,

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God (Rom. 7:4).

In Colossians Paul speaks of dying with Christ to the elementary principles of the world; in Romans He speaks of dying to the law through Christ. Again Paul uses “elementary principles” in connection with the old covenant law.

Since Paul on several occasions includes old covenant law in his definition of the “elementary principles,” we can and should use this meaning in Colossians unless the context forbids it. The Colossian heresy doubtless included more than this, but old covenant teachings certainly formed a significant part of it.

You are complete in Christ

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority (Col. 2:9,10).

This is Paul’s central argument. He courageously defends the position that Jesus alone is the testing truth for salvation. He is forthright in stating that the believer in Christ is complete. This is the truth he is defending against those who are saying, “Yes, Paul, Jesus is the truth, but ‘It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses’!” (Acts 15:5) Remember, that the reason circumcision is often mentioned is that it served as the entrance sign into the old covenant community. It stood for all old covenant law.

Circumcision transformed into baptism

And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of you flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions (Col. 2:11−13).

In these passages Paul takes the old covenant sign of circumcision and shows how Christ symbolically fulfilled this concept and then links circumcision with baptism. This is no accident! As circumcision was the entrance sign into the old covenant community for the sons of Israel, so baptism is the entrance sign into the new covenant community.

Circumcision not only served as the entrance sign to the old covenant, Paul shows how it also pointed forward to Christ, yet it does not continue as a sign in the new covenant. Rather, in the new covenant, circumcision is transformed into baptism which replaces circumcision as the entrance sign of the covenant. This shows that when ritual law meets its fulfillment it no longer serves a useful purpose.

Decree nailed to the cross

Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him (Col. 2:14,15).

What was the “certificate of debt” or the “decrees” which were nailed to the cross? In context, Paul has been speaking about the old covenant. Was the old covenant “against us”? We should remember from our study of the old covenant that one of its functions was to act as a “testimony” against Israel if they sinned.

Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you (Deut. 31:26).

The cursings associated with the broken law and the ability of the law to condemn were both taken away when Christ was nailed to the cross.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us…(Gal 3:13).

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1).

Other hang-ups

According to Paul one way the Christians at Colossae could lose the precious freedom of being complete in Christ was to place themselves back under old covenant law. In Colossians 2:18–23 he speaks of other ways they could do the same thing. Here he mentions such things as worship of angels, self-made religion, self-abasement, severe treatment of the body, etc., all of no value. Paul may have reference here to certain strict sects of Judaism, such as the Essenes, who practiced extreme self-discipline, or perhaps to certain pre-gnostic influences that were invading the Colossian church.

Sabbath days

The word for Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 is plural in Greek and could be translated “Sabbath days.” However, the fact that it is plural does not mean it cannot have a singular meaning. For example, in all the following passages the word “Sabbath” is plural in Greek but the context requires a singular meaning.

“Jesus went on the Sabbath through the grainfields” (Mt. 12:1), “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good?” (Lk. 6:9), “On the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a river side” (Acts 16:13).

In these verses it is clear that the Greek word for “Sabbath days” must be translated with a singular meaning. One cannot, therefore, say that because in Colossians 2:16, 17 the word for Sabbath is plural in Greek it must therefore not refer to the seventh-day Sabbath. In many other New Testament references the plural Greek word for Sabbath is translated as the seventh-day Sabbath.

Weekly or seasonal Sabbaths?

Is the Sabbath day mentioned in verse 16 the seventh-day Sabbath or does it refer to the yearly, seasonal Sabbaths?

Therefore, let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day (Col. 2:16).

From the local context it is evident that the items in Colossians 2:16 are derived from the old covenant, but we cannot, from the local context, make a definitive conclusion whether or not the Sabbath is the weekly Sabbath or the yearly seasonal feasts such as Passover, the Day of Atonement, etc. However, the Old Testament usages of the terms listed in Colossians 2:16 (food, drink, festival, new moon, and Sabbath) make it clear beyond question that the weekly Sabbath is here in view.

Old Testament context

In the chapter, “Shadows of Hope”, We discovered that when these ritual laws of the old covenant were mentioned together, the seasonal feasts are not called “sabbaths”, with one exception,¹ leaving the word “Sabbath” for the seventh-day Sabbath to avoid confusion. We also saw that when the old covenant convocations such as Sabbaths, new moons, festivals (yearly feasts), etc., were mentioned, they were usually listed in either ascending or descending order.

days
months
seasons
or
seasons
months
days

The following references are all the verses from the Old Testament which use the term Sabbath and two or more of the key terms mentioned in Colossians 2:16. In each verse you can readily see “Sabbath” refers to the weekly Sabbath, not the seasonal, yearly sabbath festivals.

Several of the following passages employ a typical Hebrew literary device known as parallelism. Note how the new moon is equated with the weekly Sabbath.

Why will you go to him today? It is neither new moon nor sabbath.” (2 Ki. 4:23).

Thus says the LORD God, “The gate on the inner court facing east shall be shut the six working days; but it shall be opened on the sabbath day, and opened on the day of the new moon…The people of the land shall also worship the doorway of that gate before the LORD on the sabbaths and on the new moons. And burnt offerings which the prince shall offer to the LORD on the sabbath day shall be six lambs…the grain offering with the lambs…a hin of oil…and on the day of the new moon…six lambs, a grain offering…a hin of oil…” (Ez. 46:1, 3–7).

When will the new moon be over so that we may buy grain, and the sabbath, that we may open the wheat market? (Amos 8:5).

“And it shall be from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath, all mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the Lord (Isa. 66:23).

In the following quotations carefully note that the seven yearly sabbaths are seldom called “sabbaths” but are known by other terms such as “annual feasts,” “fixed festivals,” etc.

…and to offer all burnt offerings to the LORD, on the sabbaths, the new moons and the fixed festivals in the number set by the ordinance concerning them, continually before the LORD (1 Chron. 23:31).

…to burn fragrant incense before Him, and to set out the showbread continually, and to offer burnt offerings morning and evening, on sabbaths and on new moons and on the appointed feasts of the LORD our God, this being required forever in Israel (2 Chron. 2:4).

Then Solomon offered burnt offerings to the LORD according to the daily rule, offering them up by the commandment of Moses, for the sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts—the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of weeks, and the feast of tabernacles (2 Chron. 8:12,13).

He also appointed the king’s portion of his goods for the burnt offerings, namely, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths and for the new moons and for the fixed festivals, as it is written in the law of the LORD (2 Chron 31:3).

…for the continual burnt offering, the sabbaths, the new moon, for the appointed times…(Neh. 10:33).

Bring your worthless offerings no longer, their incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, they have become a burden to Me (Isa. 1:13,14).

Note the close parallel between the following two references and that of Colossians 2:16.

I will also put an end to all her gaiety, her feasts, her new moons, her sabbaths and all her festal assemblies (Hos. 2:11).

And it shall be the prince’s part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings [food], and the drink offerings [drink], at the feasts [festival], on the new moons, and on the sabbaths, at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel (Ez. 45:17).

Samuele Bacchiocchi’s attempt to make “Sabbaths” refer to “week-days” is a desperate and futile attempt to avoid the clear implications of this Scripture.²

It is significant that in 59 of 60 occurrences in the NT, Adventists affirm that the [words “Sabbath”] refer to the weekly Sabbath, but in the 60th occurrence they maintain it does not, although all grammatical authors contradict this.³

Conclusions

The evidence is weighted overwhelmingly in favor of interpret- ing “Sabbath day” in Colossians 2:16 as the weekly seventh-day Sabbath for the following reasons:

First, in the immediate context of Colossians (2:11−13), Paul shows that Jesus symbolically fulfilled the one other sign of the old covenant, circumcision. Elsewhere (Gal. 5:1−6) Paul clearly states that this sign of the old covenant no longer applies to Christians, and he asserts that those who do practice it for religious reasons have fallen from grace! Logic would lead us to believe that if one of the signs of the old covenant was symbolically fulfilled by Christ and no longer applies, it is very likely the other sign of the old covenant (the seventh-day Sabbath) was also symbolically fulfilled by Christ and would no longer apply as a required practice. We will deal more fully with the symbolic fulfillment of the Sabbath and the continuing sign of the new covenant in later chapters.

Second, in the Old Testament references which list the terms used in Colossians 2:16, “Sabbath(s)”, with one possible exception,⁴ refers to the weekly Sabbath.

Third, when these terms are listed they are usually listed in either ascending or descending order. Thus, in Colossians 2:16 we find “festival (season), new moon (month), sabbath (day).” Since Paul is making use of an established sequence of terms from the Old Testament, one would expect the meaning to be the same.

Fourth, in the Old Testament references which list the terms found in Colossians 2:16, the yearly sabbaths (Passover, Tabernacles, etc.) are seldom called “sabbaths” but usually called “fixed festivals,” “appointed feasts,” “annual feasts,” etc. While some of the yearly “appointed feasts” are elsewhere said to be “a sabbath of rest” (Lev. 23), they are not called by the term “sabbaths,” probably to avoid confusion with the weekly Sabbath. The only exception is Leviticus 16:32 where the Day of Atonement is said to be “a sabbath of solemn rest for you.” For this reason the term “festival” in Colossians 2:16 refers to the annual “sabbaths,” leaving the word “Sabbath day” for the weekly Sabbath.

Fifth, in the old covenant listing of the appointed times of the Lord, the seventh-day Sabbath is closely associated with new moons and the other items mentioned in Colossians 2:16 such as “food” and “drink.”

Sixth, to hold that “Sabbath(s)” in Colossians 2:16 must refer to yearly Sabbaths is contrary to the weight of evidence. It is also contrary to the immediate context where Paul is writing about the other sign of the old covenant: circumcision.

Seventh, it makes Paul’s writing redundant. One must interpret “festivals” as the yearly sabbaths, and then turn around and also interpret “Sabbath day” as the yearly sabbaths.

Eighth, it destroys the natural order which is so apparent in the other biblical listings of these terms. It is contrary to the unity of the old covenant, where everything in the old covenant is related to everything else within the old covenant.

We must conclude, then, that the Sabbath mentioned in Colossians 2:16 is indeed the seventh-day Sabbath.

Readers who wish to evaluate that latest attempt by Seventh-day Adventists to “prove” that Colossians 2:16 refers to the weekly Sabbath are encouraged to read “Does the Letter of Colossians Refer to the Sabbath?—A Response to Ron du Preez” By Jerry A. Gladson, PhD in the Appendix.

Let no one judge you…

To which group in Colossae did Paul write, “Let no one judge you”? From the context of Colossians it is my conclusion that the ones doing the judging were the very ones who were practicing the old covenant convocations and certain aberrations of Christianity. Therefore Paul says to those who were being urged to practice these things,

…let no one 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. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self- abasement…(Col. 2:16–18).

Some have argued that the “Sabbaths” in Colossians 2:16 were perversions of the weekly Sabbath⁵ or were part of a syncretistic heresy.⁶ However, the evidence is weighted heavily against these arguments for several reasons. First, if the problem in Colossae was a perversion of the weekly Sabbath and Paul was seeking to correct this perversion he certainly missed his opportunity, for he never mentions anything about Sabbath reformation either here or in any of his epistles to young Christian churches. Second, Paul states in the local context (Col. 2:17) that these old covenant convocations (festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths) were a shadow of things to come. It is clear he has reference to these convocations as pointing forward to Christ. If Paul were directing his comments to a perversion or to some syncretistic heresy he could not at the same time call it a shadow of Christ.

Implications

If we accept that the seventh-day Sabbath is intended by Paul in Colossians 2:16, then what is he saying and how does this affect those who continue to observe the seventh-day Sabbath as a necessary Christian duty?

First, Paul’s comments regarding the other convocations of the old covenant, such as new moon celebrations and the annual feasts, also apply to the seventh-day Sabbath. He, like the old covenant writers, considered all these convocations as inseparable. They were all ritual laws pointing forward to Christ. This is especially true since in verse 17 he says that these are a mere shadow and he makes no distinction between the first two terms and the third. The Greek, referring back to the three terms, literally reads, “which things are a shadow,” linking them inseparably together.

Second, he tells the Christians they should allow no one to judge them regarding the Sabbath. The context makes it clear that Paul is against those who are trying to force the Colossians to keep the Sabbath and other old covenant convocations. They are to allow no one to make them feel guilty for not observing these.

Third, the observance of the Sabbath and other ceremonies in old covenant times was meant to point forward to Christ. They were a mere shadow of what was to come. As a shadow they lose their significance in the presence of the reality to which they pointed. We saw this principle worked out with Jesus and the Pharisees. The ritual laws of Sabbath were designed to point forward to Christ who brings true rest and redemption. Yet when these ritual laws were understood by the Pharisees to be required moral laws, they actually kept the Jewish leaders from accepting their Messiah!

Fourth—and here is the heart of Paul’s argument in Colossians 2—any practice which seeks to add to the completeness the believer already has in Christ only undermines that relationship and the believer’s assurance. “…Things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:17). The Greek literally reads, “but the body is of the Christ.” Christ, and Christ alone, is the “body” in which dwells our complete righteousness. Anytime the Christian seeks to add to that “body of righteousness,” he is saying that Christ’s righteousness is insufficient and he undermines his own standing with God. The good news of the gospel is that we are complete in Him!

Galatians 4:9–11

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

To understand these verses correctly we must again see them in their context. The central issue in the book of Galatians is the old covenant law and its relationship to righteousness for the Christian. There were some in the Galatian church who were teaching that Christians must observe the old covenant law.

Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you listen to the law (Gal. 4:21)?

Paul’s answer to these false teachers is very clear. We will discuss more fully Paul’s argument in relationship to the law in subsequent chapters; nevertheless for now note his clear, powerful statements regarding old covenant law.

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (Gal. 3:24,25).

Paul likens the law to a tutor and then in the next verse says we are no longer under a tutor. Christians are no longer under old covenant law. Nothing could be stated more clearly.

With this context clearly in mind, look again at our passage.

Days, months, seasons, and years

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain (Gal. 4:9–11).

Notice that Paul again uses the term “elemental things.” This is a term he uses elsewhere to refer to old covenant law. What were the days, months, seasons and years? The central issue in the church of Galatia was the law and its relationship to righteousness for the Christian. Paul’s opponents were seeking to persuade the Galatians to observe the law. This is what Paul is fighting. He shows that the observance of the law as a requirement puts one under a curse for any failure to keep it perfectly. In the context of what was taking place in Galatia and with what we have learned from our study of Colossians 2:16, it should be clear that some of the Galatians had been persuaded by the Judaizers to observe the convocations of the old covenant. These days, months, seasons and years can be nothing other than Sabbaths (days), the new moon celebrations (months), the annual feasts (seasons) and sabbatical years (years). Notice these are listed in ascending order as they often are in the Old Testament record.

There are some who attempt to say that the problem with the Galatian teachers was not that they were teaching against the rituals of the old covenant law, rather they were “motivated by superstitious beliefs in astral influences”⁷ and were teaching “the perverted use of cultic observations”.⁸ This, I believe is without foundation. If one reads through the whole book of Galatians at one time, it becomes patently evident that Paul is, indeed, dealing with Judaizers who were promoting the rituals of old covenant law. Paul does, however, equate the false gospel of the Judaizers with witchcraft and in that sense, even paganism.

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified (Gal. 3:1)?

The reason for this is that the false gospel of Christ plus works of the law denies the very heart of the Gospel and places Christianity on the same level as Christless Judaism, even paganism. Because Christ and the Father are One, when the Jews rejected Christ, they in essence, rejected the Father as well.

…he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me (Lk. 10:16).

Conclusion

We have a clear reference to the seventh-day Sabbath in this passage for the following four reasons. (1) The context of the book of Galatians, including chapter 4, is dealing with those “who want to be under law.” (2) Paul’s use of “elemental things” usually, if not always, refers to that which is contained in the old covenant.⁹ (3) The Galatians were observing days, months, seasons, and years, thus placing themselves back under old covenant law. (4) These convocations are listed in ascending order.

Implications

If we accept that the seventh-day Sabbath is here in view, what are the implications? There are many of deep significance. For the Christian, the Sabbath is “weak and worthless” (v. 9). This fits in perfectly with the other ritual laws of the old covenant which were a shadow of Christ. For the Christian the Sabbath is enslaving (v. 9). Some Sabbath-keepers would disagree strongly with this. However, those who have tried to observe the Sabbath according to biblical guidelines know that it is nearly impossible to keep the Sabbath. For the Christian, the observance of the Sabbath may undermine his standing in Christ. “I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain” (v. 11). For the Christian the Sabbath should be treated just like the new moons, the annual feasts, and the sabbatical years of Judaism—not required or expected practice for new covenant Christians.

We have studied Colossians 2 and Galatians 4; we now turn our attention to Romans 14.

Romans 14:5, 6

One man regards one day above another, another regards every day like. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord, and 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.

Are the “days” mentioned here Sabbath days? They probably are but the evidence is not as strong as it is for the passage in Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16.

A different method for a different church

The context of this passage is apparently quite different from that in both Galatians and Colossians. However, it may not be as different as it first appears. Rather, what is different may be the way Paul is dealing with the situation. Galatia and Colossae were both largely Gentile churches. It is apparent, however, that some of these believers in Galatia and Colossae had strong Jewish-centered backgrounds. Many of them probably were “God-worshippers” before they became Christians. We noticed in our study of Acts that Paul’s evangelistic method was first to go to the synagogue and preach until he was thrown out, then he witnessed to the Gentiles in the area. Because Paul followed this method it appears that many of the early Gentile converts to Christianity had strong old covenant backgrounds because they were often regular attendees at the Jewish synagogues before their conversion. This explains why, in writing to the Gentile churches, this old covenant background is so apparent.

When we come to the church at Rome, however, we have a different situation. In New Testament times more Jews lived in Rome than in Jerusalem. Thus, when Paul wrote to the church at Rome, he was writing to a church which, although it had many Gentile converts, had many members who were from the Hebrew race and were converts from Judaism.

Because of this Paul deals with nearly the same subject matter in the book of Romans—old covenant law—but uses a different method. His treatment of the old covenant law is much softer in Romans than in his letters to Gentile churches because many of his readers in Rome were Jewish nationals.

Diversity in the New Testament church

It appears that the New Testament church was not as uniform in its practices and beliefs as some would like to think. From Acts and the Epistles of Paul we can subdivide the New Testament church into five groups.

First, there were Jewish Christians who kept the old covenant laws and insisted that the Gentile Christians do the same.

Certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).

Second, there were those who felt the Jewish Christians had to keep the old covenant laws, but the Gentile converts did not.

You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs…But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided [at the Jerusalem Council] that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication (Acts 21:20,21,25).

Third, there were Gentile Christians who were seeking to keep the old covenant law. Paul wrote to these people in Colossae and Galatia.

Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law (Gal. 4:21)?

Fourth, there were Gentiles who did not keep the old covenant law.

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell (Acts 15:28, 29).

Fifth, Paul, himself, represents those who were free from old covenant law keeping, yet he had no problem observing the law when in the company of those who kept it if it would give him an opportunity to proclaim the gospel to these people.

And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law (1 Cor. 9:20,21).

All five of these groups can be found within the New Testament Christian church. They were all considered as “believers” but that does not mean they all had the right theology. Paul was in sharp disagreement with two groups, the first and third, but was much softer in his disagreement with the second group (Christians converted from Judaism) although his disagreement with them is decided and very clear.

The church at Rome

The church at Rome, as stated before, was a mixed group made up of many Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians. Doubtless there were many disputes between these two groups. We can understand Paul’s treatment of law and observances in the book of Romans only with an understanding of this background.

Let us now come back to the passage in Romans 14. Paul is writing to this mixed church in Rome telling them to quit judging one another. In this chapter he mentioned several points of argument: There were those who ate “all things” and others who ate “vegetables only” (v. 2). There were those who regarded some things as “unclean” and others who did not (vv. 14, 20). There were those who drank wine and others who did not (v. 21). There were those who regarded and observed one day above another, and others who regarded every day alike (vv. 5,6).

It should be noted that Paul’s position on several of these arguments is clear even if his approach is tactful and diplomatic. He is always on the side of Christian liberty and he is always against those who would force certain observances. It is the man who is “weak in faith” that eats vegetables only (v. 2). Paul says:

I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean…All things indeed are clean (Rom. 14:14,20).

Notice that Paul traces the cessation of the clean/unclean issue to Jesus’ teaching.

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. [“If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”] When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mk. 7:14–19).

The Jewish Christians, with their background in the old covenant, doubtless were the ones who considered some foods unclean (Lev. 11). Yet Paul clearly says “All things indeed are clean”¹⁰ (Rom. 14:20), showing his disagreement with those who would enforce old covenant law on Christians.

The “days” mentioned in this chapter, that some “regard” and “observe” over other days, are most likely Sabbath days, although the evidence is not conclusive. If, indeed, this passage does refer to Sabbath days then Paul simply says “let each man be fully convinced in His own mind” (v. 5). This is a much softer, answer than he gave to the Colossians and Galatians. And we can see why. There were many Jewish Christians in the Roman church to which Paul was writing who may have still been keeping many of the old covenant regulations.

It is of utmost importance to note the difference between the situation mentioned in Rome and that of Galatia. In Galatia the false teachers were saying that one must observe the old covenant rituals for salvation, thus compromising the gospel.¹¹ In Rome, however, some of the believers were passing judgment on each other’s “opinions” regarding a number of issues including the observance of “days.” The problem in Rome, then, was not one of a compromise of the gospel; rather it was diversity of opinions that caused disunity within the church.

An additional insight that is worthy of our attention has been suggested by Douglas R. de Lacey. He shows that some of the early Greek manuscripts have the word “for” in verse 5. “For one man regards one day above another…” If one permits the “for” to have its full force

We need only allow that the “days” issue had arisen earlier in the history of the Roman church, and had already been solved. And it is not improbable that in such a cosmopolitan milieu this should have been the case. Paul will then be saying to the church that just as they accept differing practices over “days” so also they should entertain differing practices over “meats.” It is then easy to see why “days” form no further part of the discussion.12

This interpretation does not change the conclusion. For Paul the Christians in Rome were free to decide for themselves regarding the value of observing certain “days”. It was not a matter of salvation but one of personal preference. In choosing their preferences, however, for the sake of Christian love and unity, they were not to judge each other.

Conclusions

The “days” in Romans 14 probably refer to the Sabbath but we cannot be dogmatic in this conclusion.

Implications

If one concludes that Paul is here referring to Sabbath days, what are the implications? Again, there are several. Sabbath observance is a matter of personal conviction. Church unity is more important than arguments over the Sabbath. Paul did not believe Sabbath observance, or nonobservance, was important in itself. There is evidence that Jewish Christians in Rome were the ones who were observing the Sabbath, while the Gentile Christians there regarded “every day alike.”

Paul’s method of evangelism

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow-partaker of it (1 Cor. 9:19–23).

Paul’s fundamental evangelistic method was to adapt his customs—even his religious practices—to those for whom he was working as long as this did not compromise the simplicity of the gospel of salvation in Christ alone plus nothing. This method, I believe, gives considerable insight as to why we find Paul doing certain things which would otherwise seem to contradict his own teaching.

Paul made some very straight and strong statements about Christians who received circumcision; however, he circumcised one of his Christian helpers.

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace (Gal. 5:2–4).

Paul is unyielding when it comes to compromising the gospel. He will not allow anything to be added to faith in Christ alone. Yet when the purity of gospel is not the issue, Paul was very flexible in allowing and even promoting following old covenant observance when to do so would further the spread of the gospel. Note the different approach Paul took in the reference below.

Paul wanted this man [Timothy] to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek (Acts 16:3).

Paul was not teaching one thing and doing another; rather, he was following a basic principle: do all things for the sake of the gospel. In essence what Paul said to the Galatians was that if they were circumcised for religious reasons as a gospel requirement, it was an exercise in futility without giving the slightest advantage in regard to their relationship with Christ. Required circumcision for Christians implied that Christ’s grace was insufficient for salvation. When Paul had Timothy circumcised it was not for religious reasons and it was not part of his gospel message, rather it was because of the prejudice of the Jews who were in those parts.

The same principles are at work on several other occasions in Paul’s life. He told the Galatians not to observe days, months, seasons and years—the holy times of the old covenant—yet we see him “hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:16). On another occasion Paul “had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow” (Acts 18:18). When returning to Jerusalem after his last missionary journey Paul and some of his friends

…went into the Jewish temple, giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until sacrifice was offered for each one of them (Acts 21:23–26).

Doubtless, Paul underwent these purification rites so that he could enter the Jewish gatherings in the temple and there witness to the gospel of Christ. It seems that Paul bent over backward to please the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, as well as in other parts of the world. Yet at the same time, he stood firmly on the premise that to observe the old covenant ceremonies as a salvation requirement was contrary to the Christian gospel.

Paul instructed his pastors in training to

…shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless (Tit. 3:9).

Paul’s method of evangelism explains why he went to the synagogues on the Sabbath. He was not “keeping the Sabbath” for religious reasons, rather he says,

…to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law (1 Cor. 9:20).

Paul’s method of evangelism and his instruction to the young Gentile churches seem at times to be contradictory. Yet upon careful study we see that he was guided in both by the new covenant law of love. He would allow nothing to separate the believer from the completeness he already had in Christ. Therefore we have his strong warnings against the continued practice of old covenant convocations. However, his genuine love for his Jewish kinsmen caused him to comply with old covenant practices when to do so would further the interests of the gospel. Here we see an illustration of how workable the new covenant really is. Rather than being governed by large numbers of specific rules, as in the old covenant, Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit in applying the principle of love to God and love to man in different ways for different situations.

How does this relate to our study of the Sabbath? From these principles we must conclude that to observe the Sabbath for religious reasons as a necessary Christian duty, or as a requirement of salvation, seriously undermines one’s standing in Christ. For Paul this would be another gospel of a different type, completely separate from the true gospel and should be vigorously confronted. At the same time one is free to observe the Sabbath with those who are prejudiced regarding the Sabbath if that observance furthers the spread of the gospel.

The missing controversy

There is yet another strong evidence that Paul in his ministry to the Gentile churches did not promote the keeping of the Sabbath. It is clear from the Gospels and Jewish history that the Jews of New Testament times had built up numerous rules to keep from breaking the biblical Sabbath laws. Sabbath rules were legion and varied from one rabbi to the next. One was not to travel beyond 2000 cubits from his lodging. No sexual intercourse was permitted on the Sabbath. Better food was to be served on the Sabbath than on other days. No fasting was allowed on the Sabbath. One could not prepare, or eat anything prepared on the Sabbath. One could not carry an object from his home into a public area on the Sabbath. The Essenes even said that defecation was a work prohibited on the Sabbath. A tailor was not to carry a needle on the Sabbath. A householder was not to reach out of his house and place something in the hand of a poor person on the Sabbath.¹³

Sometimes we laugh at all the rules the Jews made regarding the Sabbath. However, having come from a background where we tried to keep the biblical laws for the Sabbath, I can recall countless hours discussing what was appropriate and what was not appropriate Sabbath keeping.

When I was a boy, my mother did not cook or wash the dishes on the Sabbath. However, for Sabbath dinner she did reheat the food she had prepared the day before. When we began to use frozen vegetables she found that it was no more “work” to take frozen peas and cook them than it was to reheat the ones which were cooked the day before plus they tasted much better and were probably better for us. I remember the discussion we had in making this transition. However, we never did face the fact that even making a fire on the Sabbath was wrong!¹⁴ If we did, would it have been wrong to build a fire in a wood stove? What if you kept coals overnight so you did not have to light a match, would that be building a fire? And what about a modern gas cook-top which lights with a turn of the knob. Is that building a fire?

When we took long trips we tried not to travel on the Sabbath. However, we often took short trips in the car on Sabbath afternoon to “enjoy nature.” I remember on several occasions we compromised and decided to “enjoy nature” at the same time we “traveled.” However, when we did this, we always would gas up on Friday night and drive until the gas tank was about empty. We would then find a place to observe the rest of the Sabbath. As soon as the sun was down, we would gas up and continue our trip.

When I was pastoring in the Seventh-day Adventist church I remember a lady who was baptized and joined our church. I studied with her the biblical principles of Sabbath keeping and encouraged her to follow them. Sometime later she called me and said that her husband did not like her keeping the Sabbath because she was not making the beds on Sabbath morning. I assured her that making the beds was acceptable Sabbath keeping. I had, in our previous study, instructed her that she should not use the sacred hours of the Sabbath to do her house-work, such as washing clothes, etc. In interpreting my instruction, coupled with the biblical rules for Sabbath keeping, she felt that there was more “work” in making a bed than there was in washing clothes in an automatic washing machine. I was hard pressed to defend my definition of what was “work” and what was right and what was wrong to do on the Sabbath.

The late Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist theologian, in his book, The Sabbath in the New Testament, has some twenty-one pages devoted to modern Sabbath observance. In these pages he asks many questions about Sabbath keeping and then gives his interpretation. For example: (1) “…holding of weddings on the Sabbath should be discouraged.”¹⁵ (2) “As a general rule, however, it is advisable to avoid conducting funerals on the Sabbath, since they disrupt the spirit of rest, joy, and celebration of the Sabbath.”^16,17 (3) “A distinction must be made between essential services rendered on the Sabbath in a Seventh-day Adventist institution and those rendered in a non-SDA institution.” The reason for this, says Dr. Bacchiocchi, is that in a non-SDA institution, such as a fire station, the Sabbath keeper might be asked to do routine maintenance work which would not be accepted Sabbath observance.¹⁸ (4) “Purchasing goods or services on the Sabbath, such as eating out in restaurants, will turn the mind of the believer away from the sacredness of the Sabbath to the secularism and materialism of the world.”¹⁹ (5) Dr. Bacchiocchi states that “Historically, Seventh-day Adventists have endeavored to follow the principle of sunset reckoning [to mark the beginning and end of Sabbath] even in the Arctic regions by broadening the meaning of ‘sunset’ to include, for example, the end of twilight, the diminishing of light, the moment when the sun is closest to the horizon.”²⁰ Having said this, however, he then argues for Sabbath to be reckoned in arctic regions using equatorial sunset time, 6 p.m. to 6 p.m.²¹

I include these few examples, from the Jews of Christ’s day, from my own experience and the counsel of Dr. Bacchiocchi, not because they are unusual or wrong, for I believe this counsel is good and necessary for those who keep the Sabbath. The point I want to underline is that when one really sets out to observe the Sabbath according to biblical guidelines there are hundreds of “gray areas” that must be addressed. Anyone who has seriously tried to keep the Sabbath according to biblical guidelines knows this from experience.

We must thoughtfully consider the following facts. There is real need for the interpretation of the Sabbath laws for anyone who is going to keep the Sabbath. Just going to church on Saturday is not “keeping” the Sabbath. The New Testament milieu was one where there were differing interpretations regarding Sabbath observance among the various sects of Judaism. Jesus took issue with at least several of the Jewish interpretations of Sabbath keeping and from their perspective seemed to go out of His way to “break” the Sabbath. It is totally inconceivable that Paul, in forming, instruct- ing and nurturing young Gentile churches over a period of many years, would have said nothing about appropriate Sabbath observance. That the Gentiles knew many of the Jewish customs is evident from the New Testament.²² If Sabbath observance was a part of the theology and practice of the Gentile Christians they would have needed instruction on how to observe the Sabbath. The believers in Corinth asked many questions about Christian con- duct; why did they not include “How do we keep the Sabbath?” Coupled with the other evidence in this chapter, it is obvious that Sabbath keeping was not required, expected or even recommended in the Gentile Churches.

Chapter Summary

1. Unlike the book of Acts, the epistles contain explicit teaching regarding the Sabbath.
2. The evidence is heavily weighted in favor of understanding the “Sabbath day(s)” in Colossians 2:16 to be the seventh-day Sabbath.
3. There is strong evidence to believe that the “days” referred to in Galatians 4:10 refer to the seventh-day Sabbath.
4. There is evidence to believe that the “days” in Romans 14:5,6 refer to the seventh-day Sabbath.
5. In every instance in the epistles where there is teaching about the Sabbath, that teaching suggests that the Sabbath either undermines the Christian’s standing in Christ, or is nonessential.
6. The Sabbath is linked with other old covenant ritual laws and convocations.
7. The implications for the continued required observance of the Sabbath by Christians run from unimportant—probably for the believing Jew who wants to observe the Sabbath knowing that it is not part of Christian duty—to a dangerous undermining of one’s standing in Christ for the believing Gentile.
8. The Sabbath is described by such terms as: “a mere shadow,” “elemental things,” “weak,” and “worthless.”
9. The Sabbath is said to be enslaving.
10. The required observance of the Sabbath, and related oldcovenant convocations, made Paul “fear” that he had labored in vain because they were following a different and false gospel.
11. The required observance of the Sabbath by Christians seriously undermines the finished work of Christ.
12. It was Paul’s stated and practiced method of evangelism to adapt his practices in order to break down prejudice and by so doing win more people to Christ as long as these practices were seen to be optional and not a requirement of salvation.
13. The fact that the Epistles contain instruction on almost every conceivable topic relative to Christian conduct but are silent in regard to Sabbath observance indicates that Sabbath obser- vance was not required, expected or even recommended to the Gentile churches.

Endnotes

1. Lev. 23:32 where the Day of Atonement is said to be a “Sabbath of complete rest.”
2. “The fact that the Galatian list begins with “days” (hemeras, plural), suggests the possibility that the “sabbaths” in Colossians may also refer to week-days in general rather than to the seventh-day Sabbath in particular.” Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath in the New Testament, (Biblical Perspectives, Berrien Springs, MI, 1990), p. 117.
3. Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, (Bethany House, Bloomington, MN, 1997), pp. 465–467.
4. Lev.16:31.
5. “But what is clear is the fact that the Sabbath observance in the apostle’s mind is that connected with the perversion, not the fulfillment of the fourth commandment.” Desmond Ford, The Forgotten Day, p. 105.
6. “Christians presumably were led to believe that by submitting to these ascetic practices, they were not surrendering their faith in Christ, but rather they were receiving added protections and were assured of full access to the divine fullness. This bare outline suffices to show that the Sabbath is mentioned not in the context of a direct discussion on the nature of the law, but rather in the context of syncretistic beliefs and practices advocated by the Colossian “philosophers.”… Paul’s warning against the “regulations” of the false teachers, can hardly be interpreted as a condemnation of the Mosaic laws regarding food and festivals, since what the Apostle condemns is not the teachings of Moses but their perverted use by the Colossian false teachers. A precept is not nullified by the condemnation of its perversion.” Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath in the New Testament, p. 110.
7. Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath in the New Testament, p. 122. 
8. Ibid., p. 123.
9. “Elemental things” may include more than old covenant law, but in every instance the context makes it clear that old covenant law is included in this term.
10. Paul is dealing with “clean” and “unclean” from a religious, ritual purity point of view.
11. Gal. 1:6–9.
12. Douglas R. de Lacey, “The Sabbath/Sunday Question and the Law in the Pauline Corpus”, in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 182.
13. C. Rowland, “A Summary of Sabbath Observance in Judaism at the Beginning of the Christian Era”, in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 45–51.
14. You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath day. Ex. 35:3.
15. Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Sabbath in the New Testament, p. 217.
16. Ibid., p. 218.
17. Dr. Bacchiocchi’s funeral was held on Sabbath, December 27, 2009 in the Pioneer Memorial Church at Andrews University.
18. Ibid., p. 222. 
19. Ibid., p. 225. 
20. Ibid., p. 227. 
21. Ibid., p. 228.
22. See Jn. 4:8; Mk. 7:3; Acts 10:20; Acts 13:43; Acts 16:3; Acts 17:13; Acts 18:4; Acts 18:28; Acts 26:2; Gal. 2:13.