Did the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 Abolish the Sabbath?
Argument: "Acts 15 proves that the Old Testament law was abolished for Christians." It’s commonly argued that the
Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 abolished not just circumcision for gentiles, but the entire Old Testament law. Advocates of this position will cite Acts 15:5, which mentions what some of
the Pharisees who became Christians said concerning having the gentiles circumcised:
"It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."
Hence, when the Council decided to set aside circumcision, it’s said that it also set aside the entire Old Testament law code. The Greek of v.
5, however, indicates this interpretation is unwarranted: It’s a periphrastic construction, or an intentional roundabout way to say something, which the "and" between
the second and third verbs ("direct" and "observe") strongly suggests. But even if the linguistic issues are discounted, does anyone plausibly think that the conference
in Acts 15 not only abolished the four laws that the anti-Sabbatarians hate (the Sabbath, the Holy Days, tithing, and clean/unclean meat), but the laws against murder, adultery, coveting,
idolatry, or theft? Were the two Great Commandments, which Jesus quoted with approval, trashed as well? Once again, the anti-Sabbatarians overshoot their mark, since their argument disposes
of much too much. Furthermore, if the entire Law of Moses was obliterated, why are these four laws from the Old Testament singled out as being in force?:
"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" (Acts
15:28-29).
If Jesus’ death annihilated the entire "Law of Moses" or the entire "Old Covenant," then why are these four laws
retained? The mere fact that they still exist proves that the Old Testament law wasn’t completely abolished! Furthermore, when the apostle James announces the final decision of the
Council, if he meant to nullify the authority of Moses, why does he say (Acts 15:21):
"For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every
Sabbath"?
Why cite Moses as an authority when you've just destroyed his authority?
All the absurdities flowing from the antinomian interpretation of Acts 15 proves alternatives should be considered. The conference in Acts 15 was
really about what could be called "justification," or the initial stage of the salvation process. After all, what set off the entire debate was this assertion:
"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (v. 1).
The real dispute was over what gives salvation, not so much over what laws still have to be obeyed intrinsically. It’s especially important now
to realize that the Jews considered circumcision as an initiation rite analogous to what Christians consider baptism’s role in Christianity: You can’t be a (male) Jew without
being circumcised. This worked fine for those born Jews, but what about adult male converts to Judaism? (Another problem cropped up concerning those ex-pagans who were circumcised for
"the wrong reasons"!) Previously, before the Acts 15 Council occurred, in Judaism historically near and before the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection, a running debate had
festered between different rabbinical schools over which Old Testament laws needed to be imposed on gentile converts of Judaism. These four laws (listed in vs. 28-29) weren’t randomly
plucked from thin air, but were the same ones that the standard alternative non-Pharisaical interpretation of what the law imposed on gentile converts so they could become full members of
the covenant community of Israel. The Pharisees (or at least one of their major schools) believed circumcision had to be added to this list of four requirements (which originates in Leviticus
17-18), but their opponents in Judaism felt otherwise. Actually, all the church did in Acts 15 was to choose the competing interpretation among Jews that denied that gentiles had to be
circumcised in order to become converts to the faith. So when Peter calls some aspect of the law a "yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear," it
shouldn't be assumed that this was the entire law of Moses. Again, it’s necessary to note that just because obeying any given law doesn’t justify us, whether it be the law against
murder, the law about helping the poor, or the law about tithing, that doesn’t prove no sin is assessed when we violate it or that we don’t still have to obey it. Since the issue
in debate concerned circumcision and the initial stage of the salvation process as Judaism had considered it, it’s wrong to assume that the Acts 15 Council abolished the entire Old
Testament law.
Was the Sabbath Nailed to the Cross?
Argument: "The law, including the Sabbath, was nailed to the cross." The seemingly most relevant text cited to support this
assertion is Colossians 2:13-14:
"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 out of the way, having nailed
it to the cross."
The NASB translation here prevents the misleading interpretation read into the KJV’s translation, which has "blotting out the
handwriting of ordinances," which would seem to be a reference to the Old Testament law in general. The term translated "handwriting" in the KJV and
"certificate of debt" in the NASB is "cheirographon," which means
"a (handwritten) document, specif. a certificate of indebtedness, bond," according to the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
Greek-English Lexicon (p. 880).
Hence, it was our sins (i.e., our debts owed to God) committed for violating the law, not the law itself, that were nailed to the "stake."
Here it’s necessary to keep the soteriological terms in their proper logical relationship with each other, since being forgiven for our sins for breaking the law doesn’t entail
abolishing the law itself. (Ending the law itself wouldn't remove from us the guilt assessed from previously committed violations anyway). Does anyone really believe that God abolished the
laws against stealing, murder, idolatry, lying, coveting, or adultery when His Son died? It was a sin, a transgression of the law, to murder the day before Jesus died, and it remained a sin
the day after He died. Why is the Sabbath command singled out as a law abolished by Jesus’ crucifixion and death, but not the others?
Was the Sabbath Command only for the Jews, not Gentiles?
Argument: "The Sabbath command was only for the Jews, not gentiles." Unlike all the arguments examined above, at least this
one purports to keep the laws Evangelicals like, but get rid of the ones (such as the Sabbath) they don’t like. It has been commonly argued that the commands concerning the Sabbath,
tithing, the Holy Days, and clean/unclean meat were only intended for the Jews to mark them off as different from all other nations, the gentiles. But is it true that the Sabbath, for
example, was only intended for the Jews? Jesus in Mark 2:27 said,
"The Sabbath was made for man,"
not just the Jews. The Sabbath was created on the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:2-3), long before there were any Jews. The Fourth Commandment
itself says the Sabbath is a reminder of God’s works of creation since the seven-day week is analogous to the six days God created the world and the seventh to the day He rested:
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore
the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" (Exodus 20:11).
Therefore, the Sabbath wasn’t intended merely for the Jews. Isaiah 56:3-7 reveals that the gentiles could embrace it as well:
"Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, "The Lord will surely separate me from His people." Neither let
the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree." For thus says the Lord, "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast my covenant [the old
covenant!—EVS], to them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will
not be cut off. Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the
Sabbath, and holds fast my covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. . . . For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the
peoples."
Fundamentally, the concept that the four laws in dispute here (the Sabbath, the Holy Days, tithing, and the clean/unclean meat distinction) are
"markers" that make the Jews distinct from the gentiles, and that the latter never needed to obey them, unlike (say) the laws against murder, idolatry, and adultery, involves
circular reasoning. The argument essentially becomes this: Because the vast majority of people never kept these laws, therefore, the vast majority doesn’t need to keep them today. Why are the Jews, a tiny minority of the world’s population, the only ones who should keep these laws? Because the gentiles don’t keep them, now or in the past. So why are
the Jews different? Because they keep them and the gentiles don’t. If the Jews had given up observing these laws, they long ago would have been absorbed into the surrounding gentile
(whether pagan, Muslim, or Christian) culture. So now, when Christians/gentiles reason, "Those laws are only for the Jews!" they implicitly assume that because their
ancestors didn’t keep them, therefore, they are exempt from them. So where does it say in the Old Testament that these four laws were only intended for the Jews to observe them? We
know from Zechariah 14:16-19 that gentile nations during the millennium will observe the Feast of Tabernacles, one of the seven annual holy days listed in Leviticus 23:
"Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the
King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts,
there will be no rain on them. And if the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the Lord smites the nations who do not go
up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. "
We find that the priests in the millennium
"shall also keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed Feasts, and sanctify My Sabbaths" (Ezekiel
44:24).
Now, if the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice was to rid us of this terrible monster forever—God’s law (which, incidentally, Paul calls holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12))—why is it back among us during the millennium? Was Christ’s sacrifice not "good enough" to permanently
trash it? Or was it only "good enough" to get rid of it for a mere (say) two thousand years, and then our "protection" against it expires? The logic of antinomian
(anti-law) dispensationalism produces blasphemous absurdities concerning the relationship of God’s law and Christ’s sacrifice, which was offered once for all time (Hebrews 10:12,
14). Saying these four laws were only intended for the Jews and no one else because no one else keeps them or has kept them is the worst kind of circular reasoning. Majority opinion is a
poor guide to theological truth, since even today a majority of the world’s population worships either no god at all or some other God besides Yahweh. Contrary to what Texas Guinan
claimed, fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong.
Does the Natural Law Reasoning prove the Sabbath is Gone?
Argument: One seemingly objective approach to figuring out which Old Testament laws were only intended for the Jews to keep for a brief
dispensation (period of time during which God works in certain ways with humanity) is to reason that whatever laws can be proven by human reason alone are in force, but those which
can’t be, aren't. Now natural law theorizing does have some validity to it, even from a Scriptural viewpoint. Consider Paul’s statement concerning the gentiles obeying a moral
code based on their conscience despite they hadn't known the law of God revealed through Moses and the prophets (Romans 2:14-15):
"For when the Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternatively accusing or else defending them."
But although mankind can discover, using the human reason that God gave it, basic moral truths, such as the immorality of murder or theft, why does
this ability become a method for sorting out which Old Testament laws are still in force and which ones aren't? Where does it say in Scripture that because the law against murder can be
proven by human reason, it’s still in force, but because the Sabbath can’t be, it isn’t? Do we have the right to exalt our human reason against the plain words of God’s
revelation to humanity? Does that allow us to nullify parts of it because our human reason can’t discover on its own the reasons why God rested on the seventh day, and thus created a
Sabbath day?
The great medieval Catholic philosopher/theologian Thomas Aquinas reasoned that Sunday worship was just as good as worship on the Sabbath because the rest function of the
Sabbath command could be proven by human reason, but not what day it occurred on, because human reason/speculative moral philosophy can’t figure that part out on its own. Similarly,
the Reformer John Calvin reasoned that the specific day of the week to rest on was typological in nature, and thus both temporary and limited to the Jews, but not the Christian Sunday.
Naturally enough, the reason why the Sabbath falls on the seventh day can only be known from accepting the revealed truth of the Pentateuch that God rested on this day during the week of
the world’s creation, not on some other day. But just because human reason can’t find a reason for why God rested on the seventh day, rather than (say) a mid-week break on the
fourth, or chose this occasion (the week of creation) to create a special day, a holy day, rather than some other, doesn’t authorize humans to reject it as not binding on them. Where
does the New Testament say that because a certain law can’t be proven by human reason it’s now nullified? Hence, since the Old Testament plainly commands the Sabbath to be
observed, the burden of proof is on its rejecters (without any use of natural law theory) to show it is abolished, not on Sabbatarians to prove it is still in force as against the New
Testament’s alleged "silence."
Other Arguments that "Prove too much" against the Law
Given the above extensive analysis of various faulty reasons given against observing the seventh-day Sabbath, many others can be easily disposed of
since they're merely variations on these arguments and/or "prove too much," and so they have to be rejected.
For example, it was argued that certain Sabbatarians didn’t believe that faith in Christ was sufficient for salvation, but that they believed in
faith in Christ plus Sabbath observance. Casting aside all the complexities of Paul’s soteriology (salvation theology) here, why doesn’t somebody accuse a Sunday-keeper of
believing that faith in Christ plus avoiding adultery is necessary for salvation? The Sunday-observer merely has a shorter list of requirements than the Sabbatarian has then, so why accuse
the latter of denying justification by faith alone on that basis? It was said that certain Sabbatarians made Christ of no effect, and put Him on the sidelines by believing in the Sabbath.
Why doesn’t the Sunday-observers’ belief in the laws against murder, idolatry, or theft also put Christ on the sidelines? If having Christ as the Christian standard in place of
the Old Testament law abolishes the Sabbath, why doesn’t that also abolish the law against murder?
If avoiding unnecessary work or worldly pleasure on the Sabbath is "legalistic," why isn’t avoiding the reading of (say) pornographic
magazines or renting smutty videos "legalistic" when observing the command against adultery (Matthew 5:27-28)? It was said that the "doctrinal growth" of a church that
rejected the Sabbath (despite a "sizable minority" resisting it) focused on one thing: "Jesus Christ is Lord!" Readers by now, even as much as they may believe Jesus is
their Savior, ought to see that merely invoking the name of Christ isn’t enough to abolish a single Old Testament law of God without proof. How does saying, "Jesus Christ is
Lord!" abolish the Sabbath, but not the laws against murder or coveting? If imputed righteousness (Romans 3:21-22; 4:1-9) or God’s gift of grace abolishes the Sabbath, why
doesn’t it also abolish the law against theft? If new covenant Christians don’t have to literally observe the Sabbath because they daily experience a salvation rest in Jesus, why
doesn’t that let us off the hook from obeying the laws against taking the Lord’s name in vain or dishonoring our parents?
If Jesus "replaced the law," how does that abolish the Sabbath but not the law against coveting? Plainly enough, the anti-Sabbatarians
repeatedly use verbal "shotguns" to attack Sabbath observance, when they really need a "rifle" if they wish to blow out the Fourth Commandment out of the Decalogue but
preserve the other nine. They must be desperate to avoid having to rest on the seventh day of the week, or else they wouldn't be constantly devising such lousy arguments!
Is the Old Testament Law "in force" but not "in force?"
Argument: At this point, confronted by the absurdity of many of their pet arguments against the Sabbath, Evangelicals might resort to some
variation of this self-contradictory argument: "The Old Testament law is in force, but not in force." They have to engage in double-talk, or else their artifices will be
exposed. It may be said that there is a law of Christ and that it’s different from the "law of Moses" or the law of God. Of course, since Christ was God (John 1:1, 14; 5:18,
20:28; 10:33; 1Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8), it’s not obvious how the Law of God is different from the Law of Christ. Since Yahweh was seen and heard in the Old Testament (Exodus 20:1;
34:5-6, 3:6; 33:18, 23; Deuteronomy 5:4-5, 22-28; Judges 6:14, 13:22), but the Father wasn’t (John 1:18; 5:37), it was the One who became Jesus who spoke the Ten Commandments to Israel. And,
plainly enough, the Law of Moses was the revealed will of God, not some law code invented from scratch by some talented Hebrew shepherd engaged in religious mythmaking.
Many chapters in
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy will begin their first verse with some variation on "The Lord spoke to Moses" before enumerating various commands or laws. The
"Law of Moses" is the law of God, since God inspired Moses to write it. It’s been argued that the Ten Commandments are a nullified law code for Christians for the same reason
that the ordinances of one city (say, Cleveland, Ohio) are invalid elsewhere (say, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) since they have no jurisdiction elsewhere. But where does the New Testament
say the entire Old Testament law is now invalid for Christians? Murder was a sin (a violation of the law) the day before Jesus’ crucifixion, and it was the day after, so what’s
the difference? In both cases, the revealed will of God condemned murder, and this revealed will of God for guiding humanity’s actions is His "law." What so bad about that?
The fallacy in this jurisdictional argument is that there is the same "Lawgiver" both before and after the crucifixion, the same God who does not change (Malachi 3:6). By analogy,
consider the role of federal law between the cities (here) of Cleveland and Philadelphia. Unless Congress made some special, spelled-out exceptions, the same law applies to both cities.
Even when revolutions or major constitutional changes in governments occur, often they keep many of the same laws: In Italy, many laws passed by the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini
remained in force even after a democratic regime was proclaimed and instituted. Likewise, both before and after the crucifixion, God’s will should be assumed to not have changed,
unless it’s been clearly revealed otherwise, such as on circumcision (Romans 2:26-29; Galatians 5:2, 11, 6:15; 1Corinthians 7:18-19 (a text that distinguishes the moral law from the ceremonial
law)) or the animal sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9-10; 10:1-18).
In order to run the "the law is in force but not in force" argument, the anti-Sabbatarian will have to state a further argument that
allows him to keep the laws he wants, but to dispose of the laws he doesn’t like (such as the Sabbath or tithing). But any principle that an anti-Sabbatarian will name that allows him
to keep the laws he wants, a Sabbatarian can cite as reason for the Sabbath still being in force also. For example, it has been said that although the Ten Commandments have been abolished,
the last six commandments should be kept because of the law (or principle) of love. But a Sabbatarian can easily hitch his wagon to the anti-Sabbatarian’s horse: "I keep the
Sabbath (the Holy Days, tithing, etc.) in order to show love to God." And again—how does the principle of love abolish the Sabbath, but not the laws against murder or
adultery? Here we have yet again the antinomians wielding a meat ax against the Sabbath when they require a scalpel instead.
It's time to stop using Theological "shotguns!"
In conclusion, if Evangelical Protestants are going to attack the Sabbath, it’s time for them to stop using broad, general, even vacuous,
arguments against God’s law that trash not just the Sabbath, the Holy Days, tithing, and the clean/unclean meat distinction, but laws they believe in, such as the prohibitions against
murder, theft, adultery, coveting, and idolatry. It’s time for them to stop proclaiming the name of Christ as a substitute for reasoned Biblical exegesis and careful soteriological
analysis. It’s deceptive to use nice-sounding, sentimental rhetoric about Jesus’ role as Savior to replace the need for carefully defining and analyzing the meaning and
inter-relationships of such terms in Paul’s Letters as "grace," "law," "repentance," "justification," "baptism,"
"sanctification," "salvation," etc. Anti-Sabbatarians should stop using blunderbuss arguments against the Sabbath which are calculated to sound emotionally pleasing, but
which blow away many laws that they believe in also. Evangelicals should also drop all double-talk about the Old Testament law being in force yet not in force while hoping their rhetoric
will sufficiently distract their Sabbatarian opponents from noticing such an argument’s blatant self-contradiction. In short, anti-Sabbatarians should cease using arguments that use
sentimental rhetoric and sloppy, overly broad reasoning against the rest in God humanity so badly needs in this frantically paced modern world.
Written by: Eric Snow
|
