Mercy Shown
Well-Known Member
- Jan 18, 2019
- 964
- 266
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Thank you for grounding your point in Jesus’ own words. I agree that Christ is deeply concerned with the heart, which is why the law must be written on our hearts and not merely observed outwardly (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10).
That emphasis on the heart, however, also highlights the difficulty of reading the Ten Commandments in a strictly legalistic or external way. Even commandments that seem straightforward require interpretation. For example, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image” (Exod 20:4) has raised longstanding questions: does it forbid all religious imagery, or the worship of images as gods? Scripture itself shows God commanding symbolic images in certain contexts (Exod 25:18–22; Num 21:8–9), which means the commandment cannot be applied woodenly without discernment. Jesus consistently presses the law beyond external compliance to its deeper intent (Matt 5:21–28).
This is especially relevant when we come to the Sabbath. Jesus does not deny the goodness of the Sabbath, but He reorients it around Himself: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27–28). Hebrews develops this further by pointing to a deeper rest that the Sabbath anticipates—a rest found not in a calendar day, but in Christ Himself: “For whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from His” (Heb 4:9–10). Paul likewise cautions against using days as a measure of spiritual standing: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” (Col 2:16).
If the law is written on our hearts, as you rightly note (2 Cor 3:3; Rom 13:9), then obedience flows from union with Christ rather than from rule-keeping as a boundary marker. In that light, Sabbath-keeping may point us to the rest we have in Christ rather than serve as a test of whose faith is more genuine. As Paul says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5).
We can affirm the goodness of God’s commands while also affirming that Christ Himself is their fulfillment (Matt 5:17) and that our righteousness before God rests not in how precisely we keep them, but in the One who kept them perfectly on our behalf (Rom 10:4; 2 Cor 5:21).
This was a thoughtful and passionate engagement with Scripture. I agree that God’s Word does not contradict itself and that obedience matters. Where I respectfully disagree is in how obedience—particularly Sabbath observance—is being used as a measure of saving faith and how Paul’s writings are being framed.
First, appealing to 2 Peter 3:15–16 to caution against “twisting Paul” cannot at the same time function to dismiss Paul’s plain teaching when it challenges our conclusions. Peter does not say Paul is unclear in principle, but that some distort him. Paul’s letters are called “Scripture” in the same breath, meaning they interpret—not oppose—God’s earlier revelation. To suggest that Paul cannot mean what he clearly says in passages like Romans 3:20–28; 4:4–5; 7:6; Galatians 3:10–14; Colossians 2:16 risks the very error the warning is meant to prevent.
Second, the argument that Romans 14 cannot apply because the word “Sabbath” is not used is a logical fallacy. Paul also does not use the word “circumcision” in that chapter, yet the entire epistle addresses how law-keeping functions in the life of believers. Paul’s point is explicit: days are not to be used as grounds for judgment among Christians (Rom 14:4–6). This is reinforced elsewhere: “Let no one pass judgment on you… with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” (Col 2:16). The text does not require the Sabbath to be “ceremonial” to make Paul’s point; it requires only that Sabbath-keeping not function as a boundary marker of righteousness.
Third, while it is true that the Sabbath predates Sinai (Gen 2:1–3), it does not follow that its Mosaic form is binding in the same way under the new covenant. Jesus does not merely affirm the Sabbath; He redefines it around Himself: “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27–28). Hebrews explicitly locates the ultimate Sabbath rest not in a day, but in a Person: “We who have believed enter that rest” (Heb 4:3, 9–10). To insist that the shadow must be kept in the same form after the substance has come misunderstands fulfillment (Matt 5:17; Col 2:17).
Fourth, repeatedly framing the question as “Can we disobey and be saved?” is a false dilemma. The gospel does not teach salvation by disobedience, but salvation apart from law-keeping as a basis of justification. Scripture is unequivocal: “By works of the law no human being will be justified” (Rom 3:20). If Sabbath-keeping is required for salvation, then salvation is no longer by grace (Gal 2:21; 5:4). This is precisely why Paul says the law, though holy and good, cannot give life (Rom 7:10; Gal 3:21).
Finally, passages like Luke 6:46 and Revelation 22:14 rightly emphasize obedience, but they must be read in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Jesus’ call to “do what I say” flows from union with Him, not from self-generated law-keeping (John 15:4–5). The same Bible that calls believers to obedience also says our righteousness is received, not achieved: “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). Even our obedience is God’s work in us (Phil 2:13).
In short, Christians may honor the Sabbath out of conviction and love for God—but Scripture does not permit us to use Sabbath observance as a test of genuine faith or a condition of salvation. Our confidence before God rests not in the day we keep, but in the Savior who kept the law perfectly on our behalf (Rom 10:4; Gal 3:13; Phil 3:8–9).
Upvote
0
