Sabbath-Day Observance (Invalid Argumentation) (Part 2)

Fleeing Jerusalem

Here is another example of an “argument” that is based on an assumption. The letter writer, in an attempt to make the Sabbath day binding on Christians, writes: “In Matt. 24:20, Jesus tells the disciples to “pray that your flight not be in the winter, neither on the Sabbath.” She then asks, “Why would this be a problem if they were no longer keeping the Sabbath?” This question highlights the problem with making assumptions. She assumes that Christians would not want to flee because they would violate the Sabbath day.

In the first place, Israel decided during the Maccabean revolt that they would fight on the Sabbath—or be slaughtered as they already had been in a recent battle. Therefore, fleeing on the Sabbath would not be a problem since it would constitute a form of self-defense. But more importantly (and it is hard to imagine that anyone who had been in Bible classes very long would not have heard it), it is the case that the gates to the city of Jerusalem were shut from 6:00 p.m. Friday evening to 6:00 p.m. Saturday evening, which would make it difficult for Christians to flee. This is the difficulty of arguing via assumption. A reasonable explanation ruins the claims that were carelessly made.

Sabbath Rest

Two other miscellaneous sentences make one think that the letter writer just grabbed anything she could find that had the word Sabbath connected to it and tried to make a point with it. She cites, for example, Hebrews 4:9 as saying there remains a rest for the people of God. Uh, yes. Doesn’t Paul confirm that those who have been persecuted shall receive rest when Jesus returns (2 Thess. 1:7)? So, what’s the point? She points out that in the Greek the word is Sabbath. Well, that is not actually so.

The Greek word for Sabbath is sabbaton [Strong’s #4521]. It is used 68 times in the New Testament and is usually translated “Sabbath.” The word in Hebrews 4:9, which any lexicon points out, is a derivative of 4521 is sabbatismos [Strong’s #4520)]. It is used only here in the New Testament and is translated as “rest” or “Sabbath rest” by most translations.

The context shows that the writer is not speaking of the Sabbath day which would include rest, but a time of rest, period. A different Greek word [#2663] translated “rest,” is also used in the text. It is found only 9 times in the New Testament; 8 of those are in Hebrews; 6 out of those 8 are in Hebrews 4 (1, 3 [twice], 5, 10, and 11. The thought actually begins, however, with God swearing Israel would not enter His rest (meaning the Promised Land of Canaan) in Hebrews 3:11, which is followed by the encouragement to exhort one another lest Christians be deceived by sin (3:12-13).

We are warned not to harden our hearts as in “the rebellion” (3:15). Who rebelled? Israel, when she came out of Egypt (3:16). God was angry with His people for 40 years, and their corpses fell in the wilderness (3:17). They did not enter the Promised Land because of their unbelief (3:18-19). Therefore, a promise remained for entering His rest (4:1). Christians who remain faithful get to enter into that rest (4:3).

At this point the writer recalls that God entered into His rest (from His creative works) on the seventh day, but He swore that Israel would not enter into His rest (4:5). So, Israel was supposed to enter God’s rest, but they did not because of unbelief and disobedience. (4:6). If Joshua had given Israel rest, then God would not have afterward spoken of another day (4:8). Therefore, that rest remains for the people of God. It is here in verse 9 that the word for “sabbath-rest” is used.

Verse 10 clarifies the discussion: “For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.” It should be clear to everyone that the Sabbath-rest here is heaven itself, which is promised to faithful saints. The thought closes with an exhortation for all to be diligent to enter that rest lest “anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience” (4:11). Israel came out of Egypt but were denied rest because of their unbelief. Let Christians not make the same mistake they did.

None of this text has anything to do with keeping the Sabbath day—either in Israel or under the Christian system. Sabbatarians are so desperate to find support for their error they will try to appropriate any verse or passage for their argument—even when it is clear that they are grasping at straws.

“From Sabbath to Sabbath”

The letter writer thinks she has found a supportive passage from Isaiah 66:22-23 because it says “from Sabbath to Sabbath all flesh shall come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” What translation this rendering comes from is unknown. The King James, the New King James, and the American Standard all have “from one Sabbath to another.” The RSV, the ESV, and the NAS have “from Sabbath to Sabbath,” but they use says—not saith. However, that is a minor point.

The major consideration is that Isaiah 66:22-23 describes the Christian system as God’s perfect worship. “Aha!” we can almost hear the opposition exclaim. “So, you admit the Sabbath belongs in Christianity.” No. God is using correct worship under the Law to symbolize perfect worship under the new covenant. If it were Isaiah’s purpose to describe Christian worship, he would have included the Lord’s Supper and singing without musical accompaniment. Isaiah uses Old Testament symbols to reveal New Testament truth.

A second flaw in the theory is that no New Testament passage ever says, “This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 66:22-23.” Certainly, nothing is said of the Sabbath day as a command to Christians, let alone someone attempting to apply this Scripture to a day Christians have never been obligated to keep. The concept of the new heavens and the new earth is also used in Revelation to describe the final system of heaven itself. So, under the Law, the phrase applies to the better system of Christianity, and under Christianity it applies to the ultimate system in eternity.

A third consideration also invalidates the interpretation that the Sabbath is part of the Christian system. Anyone who wants to have the Sabbath as part of Christianity must also observe the new moon celebrations from the Old Testament because the same text says, “And it shall be from one New Moon to another, and one Sabbath to another….” (Isa. 66:23). You cannot have one without the other. If the Sabbath is part of the Christian system, so is the New Moon. Yet in Colossians 2:16-17 Paul writes:

So let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

This is exactly what the Judaizing teachers were trying to accomplish in the church; they would judge those who ate things forbidden under the law—likewise if they did not keep the feast of the new moon (Ps. 81:3) or the Sabbath day. Paul points out that these things practiced under the law were only a shadow of the Christian system. New Testament Christianity is the real, the genuine, the substance rather than the shadow. None of those things under the Law are part of Christianity.

Ananias

Once again, the Sabbath-promoting letter writer tries to argue by asking questions rather than citing evidence. Perhaps she thinks that if she asks enough questions, it will make up for a total lack of evidence. She asks about Ananias, that if he was a devout Jew and had a good report among the Jews, how could he not be a Sabbath-keeper? Below is what Paul said about him:

Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there, came to me… (Acts 22: 12-13a).

Exactly how do these words prove Ananias kept the Sabbath? Might Presbyterians not speak well of a Baptist, Catholic, or an Episcopalian if he were spiritually devout? Might Christians not speak well of a Muslim if he had a spotless character? It would not mean he worshipped with us. The idea that Ananias worshipped in the synagogue and kept the Sabbath day is nothing more than an assumption.

What else does the text say about him? Ananias told Paul to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Not much else is added in Acts 9:10-17, except that Ananias protested to God how much harm Paul had done to the saints in Jerusalem—and that he was sent by the chief priests to do the same in Damascus.

The text does not say why he was highly regarded among the Jews, but we could ask questions, also. Is it possible that Ananias never tried to teach the Jews the same plan of salvation he taught Paul? If so, why did they speak well of him? We do not know, but it does not constitute a valid argument to base a position on facts not in evidence. Anyone can ask interesting questions.

“What day would he be attending worship and where?” The text is as silent about that as it is about the eunuch once he returned to Ethiopia. However, Paul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus (Acts 9:19). The writer also asked your congenial editor if he believes that Ananias and the other disciples would allow Paul to go alone into the synagogues to preach the gospel? Who knows? All that the text says is: “Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Why introduce endless questions that cannot be Scripturally answered?

Christians in the Synagogue

The writer’s husband found a quote in Barnes’ Notes that comments thus on Acts 22:19.

It was customary for those who were converted to Christianity still to meet with the Jews in their synagogues, and to join with them in their worship.

Barnes often writes some very interesting things and shares valuable information and insights. However, all commentaries are written by men, and the reader must look for two things concerning what they teach. One involves Scriptures that will corroborate what he wrote. The second is his citing a resource to prove that what he said was true. In this instance, Barnes cited neither. Therefore, his accuracy cannot be verified.

Once the church began, there was a period of transition for Jewish Christians where some confusion existed, as shown by the problem with the Judaizing teachers, culminating in the decision rendered in Acts 15. Some Christians may have met in synagogues—but probably not after Paul preached in them (Acts 9:20). The church enjoyed good favor from the Jews—for a while (Acts 2:46). But that soon changed.

We do not know how many Christians, if any, might have met with the Jews, nor would we know their motives. Paul’s motive was evangelism—to take advantage of his Jewish heritage to preach Christ to his fellow Jews. He always preached in the synagogues first. He found Lydia by the riverside at the time of prayer (Acts 16:12-15). She and those with her were baptized and became Christians; Paul’s strategy worked.