Hello everyone! I've been doing some study on whether the Sabbath (i.e., ceasing from work on the seventh day of the week, Saturday) was a universal law for all of mankind or a Mosaic commandment for the Jews. While some things are commanded in the Old Testament for Israel (and thus are not binding on Christians today), such as circumcision, other commands are universal and apply at all times, such as the prohibition against murder and adultery. The following is a three-reason case for the position that the Sabbath is a Mosaic shadow. If my case is flawed, you're my friend to let me know.
The Old Testament itself
First off, the Sabbath is said to be connected with the covenant of the children of Israel. To my knowledge, the rest of humankind is never told to observe the Sabbath (excluding proselytes to Judaism, of course). For example, Exodus 31:16–17 says specifically, "Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant" (NKJV, emphasis mine). We’re not under the old, Mosaic covenant, since it was made obsolete by the new, universal covenant (Hebrews 8:8-13).
Similarly, Nehemiah 9:5-15 lists a brief chronology of God's people from creation to Moses, emphasizing all that God had done, and puts the Sabbath as being “made known” during the time of Moses—not the time of creation (Nehemiah 9:6) or even the time of Abraham (Nehemiah 9:7-8), but the time of Moses (Nehemiah 9:14). (Granted, God blesses the seventh day in Genesis 2:2‐3, but it doesn’t say man did so. We never see man told to keep the Sabbath until Moses. More on this later.)
Ezekiel 20:10-12 mentions both points made in Exodus and Nehemiah: This passage mentions how God brought Israel out of Egypt (v. 10), how He gave them statues and judgements (v. 11), and how He gave them His Sabbaths "to be a sign between them and Me" (v. 12, NKJV).
So in Exodus, the Sabbath is specifically tied to the Mosaic covenant with Israel. In Nehemiah, God isn't said to have made the Sabbath known until the time of Moses. In Ezekiel's account, both are said to be the case, that God 1) "gave" the Sabbath during the time of Moses and 2) did so to be a sign between Israel and God.
Universal laws, such as the prohibition of murder, are condemned everywhere—before Moses (Genesis 9:6), during Moses (Exodus 20:13), and after Moses (Revelation 21:8). If the Sabbath were a universal law, why are Jews always the ones told to keep it, never the Gentiles (other than proselytes to Judaism, of course), and why is Israel singled out as the people it's for?
Jesus's treatment of the Sabbath
While Jesus was on earth, did He treat the Sabbath as a universal law like the universal laws against murder or adultery, or did He see it more in line with the Mosaic commandments like circumcision and eating only meats considered clean?
Regarding universal laws such as murder or adultery, we see that Jesus was stricter than the Pharisees in passages such as Matthew 5:17-30. However, He was more lenient than the Pharisees on the Sabbath. When the Pharisees confronted Him about it, Jesus referenced certain Mosaic laws that overrode the practice of the Sabbath on special occasions. He referenced work the priests did in the temple (Matthew 12:5) and circumcision (John 1:21-24), among other things.
Could Mosaic laws ever supersede a universal law such as murder or adultery? I don’t think so. Yet, Mosaic laws did supersede the Sabbath. Thus, Jesus' defense for doing the things He and His disciples did on the Sabbath assumes the Sabbath is a Mosaic law, not a universal law that could never be superseded.
The Sabbath as a shadow
Finally, Hebrews 4:1-11 tells us to make sure we don't fall short of God's rest (Hebrews 4:1). However, those who heard God's good news before us were rejected, God swearing they would not enter His rest (Hebrews 4:2-3). However, God's work was finished from the foundation of the world when He rested on the seventh day of creation, but He says those who rejected Him won't enter His rest (Hebrews 4:3-5).
There has to be some people who enter God's rest, though, so there’s another day, "Today," referenced back in Psalm 95:7-8 (Hebrews 4:6-7). This proves that God's rest isn't merely the physical Promised Land, since Psalm 95 was written after they entered the Promised Land, so it's speaking of another day (Hebrews 4:8). Therefore, there remains a Sabbath rest for God's people (Hebrews 4:9). It obviously isn't the literal Sabbath, but rather a rest we must be diligent to enter (Hebrews 4:10-12).
It seems that Sabbatarians have a point in saying the Sabbath commanded for Israel was connected with Genesis 2:2-3, in which God rested on the seventh day (Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:16‐17). However, isn't Hebrews 4 saying that our Sabbath rest is found in the rest that "remains" for God's people, the one we must be diligent to “enter,” rather than in keeping the literal Sabbath? Doesn't the passage suggest that the Mosaic Sabbath is a shadow of something bigger, of the rest that we're obtaining as Christians? If so, then it seems Paul would tell us not to be judged about the old Sabbath days in Colossians 2:16–17 (NKJV, emphasis mine):
So let no one judge you in food or in 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.
Mosaic practices are shadows, and it seems the Sabbath qualifies as such.
Conclusion
As argued, the Sabbath 1) was given specifically as part of a covenant with Israel, not other nations; 2) was treated as a Mosaic covenant (not a universal law) by Jesus; and 3) is spoken of as being a shadow of something greater.
Do these arguments hold up? They each are independent arguments, so if any of them stand, then the Sabbath is not binding on Christians today. Conversely, if the Sabbath is binding, then all three arguments would have to be false, from what I can tell.
I'm open to hearing the other side, as that's the best way to "Test all things" in order to see if my train of thought qualifies as "what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21, NKJV). I certainly wouldn't want to think something isn't binding if, in reality, it is. Thanks in advance for your input!
