Did Paul Abolish The Sabbath?

Under the Law given Moses, most commands do not apply to sojourners / foreigners (i.e., Gentiles), but only to Israel. For example, circumcision only mentions sons of Israel. (See Leviticus 12:1-3.) One of the exceptions was the Sabbath command. The Sabbath command equally applies to Gentiles living in community with Israel as to any member of Israel. See Deut. 5:12-15 ("sojourner within thy gates"); Lev. 25:6 ("sojourner settling with thee"); Exo 23:12 (sojourner). In fact, God conditioned His promise of salvation in the New Covenant for Gentiles, eunuchs, etc., upon them, among things, keeping the Sabbath. Specifically, the promise in Isaiah 56 of salvation and blessings to such ones -- just after ch. 53 says salvation is through Messiah's sacrifice -- was predicated on two things: "keep the Sabbath from profaning it and keep his hand from doing evil" (Isaiah 56:2) and "who keep My Sabbaths, and choose things that please Me, and take hold of my covenant." (Isaiah 56:4,6 -such a Gentile will be given an eternal name).

But Paul said anyone in Christ's movement did not have to follow the Sabbath any longer.

Paul wrote in Col. 2:16-17:

¹⁶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

¹⁷Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Luther Agrees Paul Abolished Sabbath

Martin Luther in a sermon entitled How Christians Should Regard Moses given August 27, 1525 says of this passage:

Again one can prove it from the third commandment that Moses does not pertain to Gentiles and Christians. For Paul [Col. 2:16]...abolish[ed] the sabbath, to show us that the sabbath was given to the Jews alone, for whom it is a stern commandment.

Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," Luther's Works: Word and Sacrament I (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960) Vol. 35 at 161-174; Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (ed. Lull & Russell) (Fortress Press, 2005) at 127.

Calvin Agreed Paul Abolished Sabbath

Calvin wrote on Colossians 2:16: "We see now that the Sabbath is done away with and the people are free from it." (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles o f Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians (trans. John Pringle) (1948) at 191.)

Tertullian Agrees Paul Taught Sabbath Abolished

Tertullian read Col. 2:16 likewise, and that Paul abolished all the Law (even though Tertullian says he does not want to discuss the validity of that conclusion), commenting: "We do not now treat of the Law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance - that is, from figurative types to reality, which is Christ."  (Tertullian, "Against Marcion" 5, 19, ANF III, 471, 472 (emphasis supplied).)

Numerous Christian scholars agree Paul abolished Sabbath in Colossians 2:16-17: Paul K. Jewett, C.S.Mosna, J. Danielou, and W. Robertson Nicholl.

Paul In Romans Abolishes Sabbath Again

Paul will repeat this abolition of Sabbath in Romans 14:5-6.  Paul writes: "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Christian commentators explain this means regarding Sabbath: "Christians are permitted to make up their own minds about a special day." Dan Corner, Six Facts For Saturday Sabbatarians To Ponder at http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/sabbath.htm (last accessed 2005).

You can take it or leave it. It is up to you.

Likewise, scholar, J.Danielou, sees this clearly the same way: "St.Paul proclaimed the end of the Sabbath (Rom.14:6)." (Jean Danielou, Bible and Liturgy (Light & Life: 1956) at 228.)

However, many commentators are sheepish on this topic. When they realize Paul would be a false prophet by definition found in the Law and Prophets for so teaching (Isaiah 8:20; Deut. 13:1-5), they try to do a retreat. But Luther, Calvin, Danielou and Corner are correct -- Paul claimed Sabbath was henceforth abolished.

Mainstream Anti-Sabbitarians Defend Paul Abolished Sabbath

Unaware of the implication that Paul is invalidated as an inspired voice by abolishing Sabbath (Deut. 13:1-5; Isaiah 8:20), a defender of Sunday as the new Sabbath, William Armstrong, wrote of these passages from Paul in his book Is Saturday or Sunday the Christian Sabbath?: A Refutation of Sabbatarianism (Philips & Hunt, 1880) at 90. He articulates how clearly Paul intends indeed to abolish the Sabbath command from the Ten Commandments. Armstrong is completely unaware how the Bible then condemns Paul as a false prophet because the Bible says the Law including this Sabbath command would be "eternal for all generations" -- repeated 12 times in Scripture, i.e., Ex. 27:21; 30:21; Lev. 6:18; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8. Armstrong writes:

Much has been written on this text, and many commentators, fearful of its effect on the institution of the Sabbath, have referred this Sabbath (not Sabbath days as the translators have rendered it) to the annual Sabbaths, while other commentators, as learned, among which are Whedon, have referred it to the weekly day. I agree with the latter. The use of the words, "Shadow of good things to come," is no evidence that the Sabbath in the text refers at all to the annual Sabbaths which are all included under the words, holy day. We have the new moon, the annual holy convocations, and the Sabbath, all expressed in the text. The Sabbath day was a shadow of good things to come.... We have seen that the Jewish [Sabbath] day was a commemoration of deliverance, and as such was a shadow of the deliverance through Christ....The Saturday Sabbath being a sign of the Mosaic covenant, and of the deliverance from Egypt, must pass away with that covenant. Id., at 90.

I would only add that even if Paul had in view only to abolish the annual Sabbaths commanded by God as days of rest, such as the Sabbath of Passover (which did not always coincide with the weekly Sabbath), Paul would still be a false prophet. He taught believers in Christ (whether Jew or Gentile) not to follow a command from God in the Ten Commandments (aka 'the Testimony') -- the Sabbath command -- which proves him a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-5.). See also Isaiah 8:20 ("To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.")

What About Sunday? Any Necessity To Go To Church or Rest Then Either?

And, importantly, if one accepts Paul's reasoning in Romans 14:5-6, what happens to Sunday as our replacement-Sabbath? Our substitute? If you follow Paul, no one has to adhere to that either. It is just custom, and unlike the true Sabbath, Sunday has utterly no Biblical support for it as a day of observance of rest. As Peter Ditzel confesses from a Pauline-approving perspective:

Let’s face it. Paul makes no exception. He says it is perfectly acceptable to esteem every day alike, which is the same as esteeming no day in particular. He gives no hint whatsoever that either the seventh day or the first day are exceptions to what he is saying. (Pete Ditzel, "What is the Christian Sabbath?" Part 4.)

So it is fair for us to say Paul not only abolished sabbath but all kinds of religious festivals.

Further Study

See our reprinting of ch. 20 of the work by a Jewish scholar, Abraham Millgram, Sabbath: Day of Delight (1965) where he discusses "Paul abolished Sabbath." He discusses also how this did not catch on until the 300s when the Gentile-dominated church supplanted finally the teachings of Jesus and the original apostles who Millgram says were Torah-observant on Sabbath and other Torah-principles.

For the defense the Sabbath was not "perpetual," even though OLAM in OT is translated that way, but supposedly could mean a "long time," see "What Is The Christian Sabbath, part 2."  This notion is silly, as it means God is insisting on obedience, and He supposedly says this ordinance will be "an ordinance for a long time," even though OLAM typically means eternal. Just poor reasoning to uphold Paul.

The same article incorrectly argues: "The only people in the New Testament who try to enforce Sabbath keeping and who accuse others of Sabbath breaking are the Pharisees and their ilk." But the issue there between Jesus and the Pharisees was not about keeping Sabbath, but when was work a violation. Jesus said in essence that doing good is never prohibited on Sabbath. He did not say there is no more Sabbath, and thus no more need to even bother with the issue whether you can violate it by doing good works or not. Jesus' answers all assumed the Sabbath principle continues; Jesus just corrected the overzealous analysis of what 'rest' vs. 'work' meant in interpretation of a Sabbath violation.

This same article quotes in triumph that Luther says that if we must keep sabbath, we must also keep circumcision when we all know James interpreted we do not have to do so:

“Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath - that is to say, Saturday - must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all things, and we should come to be circumcised: for that is true, and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessary to keep one law of Moses, and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem all necessary, and keep them all” (“Against the Celestial Prophets” as quoted in The Life of Martin Luther in Pictures, p. 147).

But again, the circumcision command was only upon Israelites in Leviticus 12. Otherwise, the Bible said the Sabbath had to be obeyed by all sojourners / foreigners in community with Israel. Hence, one can defend a Gentile-Christian should keep Sabbath but that is not the same as defending a Gentile must be circumcised. Torah / the Law makes this distinction and is perfectly consistent. Those who say otherwise are simply ill-informed about the Law which is not surprising because they denigrate it as totally void.