How, when and why was the Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday? Many Sunday observers argue that the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week dates back to Jesus and His apostles. They assert that Sunday observance replaced the seventh-day Sabbath for most Christians as early as the first century A.D. and became a fixed custom by the mid-second century. Therefore, they urge that all Christians today should regard the seventh-day Sabbath as a Jewish institution that should not be observed. Since Sunday was the first day of creation week (Gen. 1:5) and the day on which Christ rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-9), it should be observed as a day of Christian worship and rejoicing in accordance with the custom of the early Christian fathers. In fact, Sunday keepers argue that observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is a highly legalistic custom that is thoroughly consistent with those Jewish ceremonial practices abolished when Jesus died on the cross. This theory raises a whole series of questions in regard to the teaching of the New Testament and the testimony of history. Did Jesus change the day from the seventh to the first day of the week? Did the apostles urge that Sunday be observed as a memorial of the resurrection of Christ? Did they themselves observe Sunday as a special day of worship? Was first-day worship a substitute for Sabbath worship for most Christians as early as the second century A.D.? Was the Sabbath regarded by early Christians as a purely Jewish institution with no significance for followers of Christ? What does history have to teach us regarding the reason for the change of the day from the seventh to the first day of the week? These questions are vital for Christians today! If it happens to be unscriptural and unhistorical that Sunday observance was initiated by Christ and the apostles, those who argue so strenuously for it today are supporting a non-Christian practice. If Jesus and the apostles observed the seventh-day Sabbath, and Sunday keeping crept into the Christian Church over a period of centuries as pagan ideas and practices became more and more acceptable, those who reject the Sabbath today are spurning one of Christs commandments and are, therefore, in grave danger of being rejected by God. To be a Christian is to believe and act as Jesus did (John 14:15; Rev. 3:21; 12:17; 14:12). To profess faith in Christ while rejecting aspects of His teaching and refusing to live and worship as He instructed is to be guilty of serious sin. Whoever says, I have come to know him, but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, I abide in him, ought to walk just as he walked (1 John 2:4-6). We will begin with the Scriptures and then turn to history for the answers to the questions we are asking. A much more complete discussion of the Sabbath-Sunday question can be found in the book edited by Kenneth A. Strand, The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, DC.: Review and Herald, 1982). DID JESUS AND THE APOSTLES CHANGE THE DAY OF WORSHIP FROM THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH TO SUNDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK? The word Sunday is not found in the Bible. In the New Testament the first day of the week is mentioned eight times. In none of the eight instances is the first day said to be a day of worship, never is it said to be the Christian substitute for the Old Testament Sabbath, and never do the texts suggest that the first day of the week should be regarded as a memorial of Christs resurrection. Let us briefly consider each of the eight New Testament passages that mention the first day of the week. Matthew 28:1, After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake. . . . Jesus was crucified on Friday. He rested in the tomb over the Sabbath and rose early on Sunday morning. The verse indicates that the women disciples returned to the tomb at the very first opportunity after the death and burial of Jesus. Because the Sabbath came so soon after His burial, they could not approach the tomb again until after sundown on Sabbath evening. (The Sabbath began at sundown on the sixth day and ended at sundown on the seventh day; compare Lev. 23:32; Neh. 13:19; Mark 1:21, 32) Early Sunday morning was the most convenient time for them to visit the tomb. Mark 16:1, 2, When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. Mark records the same events as Matthew with the additional information that the women visited the tomb early on the Sunday morning for the express purpose of anointing Jesus body with spices. Mark 16:9, Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. This verse simply records that, after His resurrection early on the Sunday morning, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene. Luke 23:54 24:1, It [the day of Jesus death and burial] was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. The Sabbath came a few hours after Jesus death on the cross. The women disciples rested the sabbath day according to the commandment (Luke 23:56, KJV). Then very early in the morning of the first day they visited the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus. The fact that they observed the Sabbath rest is sufficient indication that Jesus had never attempted to change the day or to suggest that after His death the first day would replace the Sabbath. Writing years after the event, Luke gave not the slightest hint that, even though the women disciples of Jesus observed the Sabbath, such a practice was no longer expected of Christians. He simply recorded that the Sabbath day according to the commandment, which Jesus followers were careful to observe, was the day after the crucifixion day (Friday), and before the resurrection day (Sunday). John 20:1, Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. Mary Magdalene visited the tomb early the first day of the week. Nothing is said of Sunday as a day of worship or rest. John 20:19, When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, Peace be with you. On the evening of the first day of the week the disciples were assembled behind locked doors for fear of the Jews. Jesus appeared to them at that time. The passage does not say that henceforth Sunday was to be the day for worship. Since it was the evening of the first day of the week that Jesus appeared to the disciples, it was after sundown. According to Jewish reckoning this was actually the beginning of the second day (Monday; compare Gen. 1:5, 8). A week later when Thomas happened to be present, Jesus met with the disciples again (verse 26). But, writing years later, John records nothing regarding Sunday as a day of Christian worship. Johns narrative gives no warrant for regarding Sunday as a substitute for the Sabbath or as a day to be distinguished by Christians above any other day of the week. And there is no indication in the passage that Sunday should henceforth be observed as a memorial of Christs resurrection. Acts 20:7, On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight. Since the meeting was held at night on the first day of the week, it may have been Saturday night. According to Jewish reckoning, the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began at sundown of the seventh day. If it were Sunday evening, the event gives no suggestion that Sunday should be observed as a day of worship. The following verses record that Paul preached a sermon on Thursday. The next day after the meeting recorded in Acts 20:7 (Monday), Paul and his party set sail for Mitylene (Acts 20:13, 14). The following day (Tuesday) they arrived opposite Chios (verse 15). The next day (Wednesday) they passed Samos (verse 15), and the day after that (Thursday) they arrived at Miletus (verse 15). The elders of the church of Ephesus met Paul at Miletus, and he preached to them (Acts 20:16-36). Because a Christian service was held on Thursday, do we conclude that Thursday is a day for regular Christian worship replacing the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath? A religious service on Sunday, Thursday, or any other day certainly did not make that day a replacement for the seventh-day Sabbath or a day of regular Christian worship and rest. There is no special significance in the disciples breaking bread at this first-day meeting, for they broke bread daily (Acts 2:46). We are not told that it was a Lords Supper celebration, nor are we told that henceforth Sunday should be the day for this service to be conducted. To read Sunday sacredness or Sunday observance into Acts 20:7 is to do violence to the text. 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, Now concerning the collection for the saints: you should follow the directions I gave the churches of Galatia. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save whatever extra you earn, so that collections need not be taken when I come. And when I arrive, I will send any whom you approve with letters to take your gift to Jerusalem. These verses may be literally translated from the Greek as follows: And concerning the collection for the saints, as I instructed the churches of Galatia, so also you do. On the first day of the week let each of you place (or lay) by himself, storing up whatever he might be prospered, so that when I come there might be no collections. (Italics supplied.) The phrase by himself (par heauto), followed by the participle storing up or saving (thesaupizon), rules out the possibility that this is a reference to an offering taken up in a worship service. The Christian believer was to check his accounts on Sunday and put by at home the money that he wished to give to Paul for the support of the church. When Paul arrived, then the offerings of each individual would be collected. None of these eight New Testament references to the first day of the week (Sunday), provides any evidence that Jesus or His disciples changed the day of worship from the seventh to the first day. Nor is the first day of the week represented as a time to memorialize the resurrection of Christ. Whatever special significance was given to Sunday in the later history of the church, it had no basis in the teaching or practice of Jesus and His apostles. As pointed out in the previous chapter, Jesus instructed His disciples to observe the Sabbath after His death (Matt. 24:20). Jesus instruction was incorporated into His interpretation of Daniel 8 (compare Matthew 24:15 ff.). Daniel predicted that the work of the little horn power would continue until the setting up of Gods kingdom (Dan. 8:25). Hence, Jesus instruction to flee from the little horn power was not confined to Christians at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Toward the end of time, during the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21, of which earlier tribulations were a type or preview, Gods people will be obliged to flee again. Jesus instruction that we pray that our flight will not be on the Sabbath day emphasizes His will that we engage in only those activities on the Sabbath that are consistent with worship and spiritual rest. The record of the book of Acts (chapters 13, 1618) establishes that the apostles consistently kept the Sabbath day as a time for worship and fellowship. This observance was not merely a means of meeting the Jews in the synagogue on their Sabbath day. In Philippi, Paul and his companions met for worship by the riverside. Luke says, On the sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed [or thought or assumed : Greek nomizo] there was a place for prayer. . . . (Acts 16:13). The apostles selected a place by the river that they thought would be appropriate for their Sabbath worship service, and there they prayed and witnessed for their Lord. Jesus and the apostles kept the seventh-day Sabbath and instructed others to do likewise. DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REJECT THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH? Despite the evidence that Jesus kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16) and encouraged His followers to do the same (Matt. 24:20), and despite the evidence that Paul customarily observed the Sabbath (Acts 13, 16, 17, 18), some Bible students focus on certain passages in Pauls writings as supposed evidence that he sought to do away with the seventh-day Sabbath. The two passages that are usually presented are Romans 14:5, 6 and Colossians 2:13-17. The Romans passage in context reads as follows: Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. 2. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. 3. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. 4. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. 6. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God (Rom. 14:1-6). Referring to verses 5 and 6, R. C. H. Lenski incorrectly comments: We see no reason for refusing to assume that the distinction here touched upon refers to the Jewish Sabbath. What other day would any Roman Christian judge to be above other days? That self-chosen days are referred to is scarcely to be assumed. It is not difficult to see that a few Jewish Christians, some of them who perhaps came from the old mother church in Jerusalem, still clung to the Sabbath much as the Christians did after Pentecost.(1) If Lenski is correct, Paul was condoning those who were disregarding the seventh-day Sabbath? Other Sunday keeping scholars disagree with Lenski,(2) and he is most certainly in error. In his writings, Paul consistently accepted the authority of the Ten Commandments as the standard of righteousness. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law (Rom. 3:31). Paul identified the law that faith upholds as the Ten Commandments. What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, You shall not covet.. . . So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. . . . For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 7:7, 12, 14). Christ died so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4). It is inconceivable that one who had such a confirmed respect for the Ten Commandment law of God should summarily reject one of the commandments as no longer valid for Christians. Raoul Dederen pertinently comments: It is to be noted, however, that the attempt to connect the Sabbath of the Decalogue with the days mentioned in this passage is not convincing for everyone.(3) Who could have a divine commandment before him and say to others: You can treat that commandment as you please; it really makes no difference whether you keep it or not? No apostle could conduct such an argument. And probably no man would be more surprised at that interpretation than Paul himself, who had utmost respect for the Decalogue, Gods law, which is holy, and just, and good (chap. 7:12). Christ, the norm of all Pauline teaching, was indisputably a Sabbathkeeper. And Paul himself, who evidently cannot be reckoned among the weak, worshiped on the Sabbath as was his custom (Acts 17:2, R.S.V.; cf. Luke 4:16). There is no conclusive evidence to the contrary. Paul was in no doubt as to the validity of the weekly Sabbath. Thus, to assume that when they were converted to Christianity by Paul, Gentiles or Jews would be anxious to give up the Jewish Sabbath for their own day is hardly likely. This could be expected only at some later time in the history of the Christian church, and for other reasons.(4) A number of conclusions emerge from a careful consideration of the passage: (1) Romans 14 is not speaking of moral issues on which we have a clear Thus saith the Lord. Verses 1-4 clearly make the point that God accepts both the spiritually strong who eat any food as well as the weak who think they should eat only vegetables. Speaking of both groups verse 4 says, And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. (2) The stronger Christians who use any kind of food are not eating that which is physically harmful. For them to do so would be a contradiction of their Christian commitment. Earlier in the epistle Paul instructs: I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (Rom. 12:1). To deliberately appropriate as food that which God condemns as harmful (see Lev. 11; Isa. 65:3, 4; 66:15-17) cannot be said to be behavior that God can accept; nor is it an acceptable application of the Romans 12:1 counsel. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul seriously warns against defiling the body temple. Do you not know that you are Gods temple and that Gods Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys Gods temple, God will destroy that person. For Gods temple is holy, and you are that temple (1 Cor. 3:16, 17). But in Romans 14, God accepted the diet of the non-vegetarians. The issue was not a matter of health. Since God accepted both parties, the dietary issue among the Roman Christians was a matter of indifference (adiaphora); it was not a question of right and wrong. Paul says later in the chapter, I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love (Rom. 14:14, 15). This parallels the remark in his epistle to Timothy: For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:4) Are we therefore to assume that slugs and snails and the kinds of flesh condemned in the Old Testament as unfit for food can now be eaten because the Christian has been given unrestrained freedom in questions of diet? Obviously not! What Paul is saying is that everything that God created as acceptable for food may be partaken of. But Paul is not condoning the eating of that which would be harmful to health whether it is specifically mentioned in Scripture or not. Since our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, imbibing that which is hurtful to health is a moral issue. The issue in Rome was not a question of health; it was a question of preference in matters that did not involve right and wrong in Gods sight. But one party did not recognize that the specific dietary question was a non-issue. Vegetarians today who refrain from eating flesh for health reasons have a different motivation than did the vegetarians in the Roman church. (3) In Romans 14:5, 6, Paul treats the controversy over days in a similar manner. The question was not a moral issue as it would have been if one of the Ten Commandments was being questioned. The Sabbath and worship are not even mentioned in the passage. The observance of the days in question, whatever days they were, was not a matter of right and wrong. The Lord accepted both parties, those who observed the days and those who did not. In the light of Matthew 24:20, the Lord could not have accepted anyone who did not honor His Sabbath day, as Jesus had honored it during his life on earth (Luke 4:16) and as Paul himself honored it (Acts 13, 15, 17, 18). (4) Roul Dederen has pointed out that there seems to have been a clear connection between the observance of days in Rome and the vegetarianism of the weaker Christians. Those who were abstaining from eating particular foods in honor of the Lord seem to have been those who were observing particular days in honor of the Lord (verse 6). Dederens suggestion is that there was a party in the Roman church that chose to refrain from certain foods on certain days which they regarded as religious fast days. He writes: Pauls statement in Romans 14:2, One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables (R.S.V.) is curiously analogous to his thought in verse 5, One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike (R.S.V.). He mentions the two cases together, and later in the chapter he declares that a man should not be judged by his eating (verses 10-13), which may imply that Paul is referring to fast days. It appears quite probable from the context that Paul here is correlating the eating with the observance of days. Most likely--although it is impossible to ascertain this--the apostle is dealing with fast days in a context of either partial or total abstinence. Here again the Essenes may have caused the problem It is certainly significant that besides abstaining from meat and wine--at least at times--they were also very specific in the matter of observing days. They sanctified certain days that were not observed by the general stream of Jews. . . . Some pertinent observations emerge now that could well tie in the matter of diet with that of esteeming certain days above others. The Essenes scrupulously abstained from meat and wine--at least at times. They added certain feast days to the regular Jewish calendar. The discussion over the point existed in Jewry prior to the advent of Christianity. Could it be that the controversy was carried over into the Christian church and finds itself reflected in Romans 14? In this case, the practice of the weak may be compared with the early Christian custom indicated in the Didache of fasting twice every week. Is it not significant, and relevant as well, that we have in this document too a matter of diet and days connected in a controversial issue?(5) The Didache or Teaching that Dederen cites is a late first- or early second-century document.(6) It reveals a controversy in the Christian church over fast days. The relevant statement reads: Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.(7) The hypocrites are a reference to the Jews whose fast days were Mondays and Thursdays.(8) By contrast, Christians were to Fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. We know that in Jesus day there was a controversy over fasting. (See Matt. 6:16-18; 9:14, 15; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33-35.) In fact, in Jesus parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the Pharisee prayed, I fast twice a week (Luke 18:12). It seems that it would not be unusual for the fasting controversy of Jesus day to carry over into the early Christian church with lively discussion as to which days would be the most appropriate for fasting. Some have suggested that the days referred to in Romans 14:5, 6 were the ceremonial feast days of the Jewish religious year. (See Lev. 23; Num. 28, 29.) Although this is a possibility, the suggestion seems to be ruled out by the fact that these days were feast days, not fast days. Pauls discussion of the controversy over days (Rom. 14) is associated with his discussion of abstinence from food. Hence it seems that Dederens suggestion of the presence in the Roman church of an ascetic group like the Essenes who were insisting on abstinence from certain foods on certain days is the most likely explanation. At all events, the passage gives no warrant for the conclusion that Paul rejected the seventh-day Sabbath. A second passage that is often cited as evidence that Paul rejected the seventh-day Sabbath is Colossians 2:13-17. In the New American Standard Bible, the passage is translated as follows: 13. 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, 14. 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. 15. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. 16. 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-- 17. things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Verses 13 and 14 are speaking of Gods forgiveness of the believers sins made possible by Christs death on the cross. Some would have us believe that the law was nailed to the cross. But this is not what the text is saying. It was our indebtedness in view of our having broken the law that was nailed to the cross. Verse 14 may be translated, Blotting out the handwriting in decrees which was against us which was contrary to us, and he took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. The handwriting (Greek: cheirographon) refers to a bond or certificate of debt.(9) The certificate of debt was in decrees (Greek: tois dogmasin). God had decreed that the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 6:23). Jesus took the death which was ours so that we can have the life which is His. (Compare Romans 5:15-21.) He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed (1 Peter 2:24). The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:6). For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). It was our guilt born by Jesus Christ that was nailed to the cross. As we have noted above, the law remains as the standard expression of Gods righteousness. Christ died so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4). Not only did Jesus suffer for our sins on the cross, he disarmed Satan and his cohorts and publicly displayed to the world and the universe the evil demons that they are. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it (Col. 2:15). Verse 16 adds the corollary: No one can now judge the believer in regard to ritualistic eating and drinking or in respect to the sacrificial observances involved in the practice of the ceremonial law. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ (verse 17). The phrase a festival [feast] or a new moon or a sabbath (Col. 2:16, RSV) is an idiomatic or stylized reference to the ceremonial sacrifices offered in the ancient Israelite sanctuary or temple. The Old Testament background is in Numbers 28 and 29 and Leviticus 23, in which the burnt offerings daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly are listed. There were five yearly feasts, involving seven ceremonial sabbaths. The seven ceremonial sabbaths were: (1) The first day of the feast of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:7). (2) The last day of the feast of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:8). (3) The feast of weeks, 50 days after the feast of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:21). (4) The feast of trumpets on the first day of the seventh month (Lev. 23:24, 25). (5) The day of atonement on the 10th day of the 7th month (Lev. 23:27-32). (6) The first day of the feast of tabernacles (Lev. 23:35). (7) The last day of the feast tabernacles (Lev. 23:36). Seven Old Testament passages use some form of the phrase feasts, new moons, sabbaths (1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 8:12, 13; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Eze. 45:17; Hosea 2:11). Consistently these passages refer to the burnt offerings to be offered weekly, monthly, and yearly. Usually the feasts specify only the three pilgrimage feasts (Unleavened Bread, Weeks or Pentecost, and Tabernacles). The sabbaths must, therefore, include the ceremonial sabbaths--otherwise Solomon, for example, would have failed to offer burnt offerings on the days of Trumpets and Atonement. Then Solomon offered up burnt offerings to the Lord on the altar of the Lord that he had built in front of the vestibule, as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual festivals--the festival of unleavened bread, the festival of weeks, and the festival of booths [tabernacles] (2 Chron. 8:12, 13). If the sabbaths mentioned in the passage did not include ceremonial sabbaths, Solomon would have failed to offer the stipulated burnt offerings on the feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, because the feasts as listed exclude these two ceremonial sabbaths. The word sabbath (whether singular or plural) in the phrase feast, new moon, sabbath specifies the burnt offerings for weekly and annual (ceremonial sabbaths). Colossians 2:16, 17 is simply teaching that the sacrifices offered weekly (sabbath), monthly, or yearly were a shadow pointing forward to Christ (see Heb. 8:5; 10:1), which lost their significance at the cross. Now no one has a right to judge those who reject these ceremonial observances which pointed forward to the sacrifice and heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ. The phrase feast, new moon, sabbath is simply a stylized way of referring to the temporary ceremonial observances that typified the work of our Savior. Although the special animal sacrifices commanded for the weekly Sabbath (Num 28; Lev. 23) no longer have significance, the weekly Sabbath itself remains as a perpetual memorial of Creation (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Matt. 24:20; Heb. 4:9) and a sign of sanctification (Ex. 31:13) and redemption (Heb. 4:9-11). The food and drink (Col. 2:16, RSV) may refer to the meal and drink offerings that were presented to God along with the burnt offerings (see Num. 28:2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, etc.). Or they may refer to ritualistic eating and drinking or abstaining from eating and drinking of the kind referred to in Romans 14:1-6. Or they may refer to eating or not eating food that had been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8). The force of the passage (Col. 2:13-17) is that, since Christ has died for our sins, and we have now been forgiven, ceremonial, ritualistic observances that foreshadowed aspects of his sacrificial and mediatorial ministries have been done away, and no Christian should allow himself to be judged in respect to these ceremonial observances. Paul was not abolishing the weekly Sabbath which, according to the book of Acts, he consistently observed.
Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:43:38 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015