Reflections on the Christian Sabbath: Part Two

This piece first appeared in Presbyterian Polity (https://pcapolity.com/2026/09/15/reflections-on-the-christian-sabbath-part-one/) It is published here with permission from the author and Presbyterian Polity.

In part one, we began looking at why Presbyterians believe in the Christian Sabbath. We examined the fourth commandment found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Additionally, we looked at Genesis 2 and argued that the Sabbath principle was established as a creation ordinance. In part two, we will consider the Sabbath and the new covenant.

Sabbath and the New Covenant

It is common for the average Christian to give little thought to the Christian Sabbath or what kind of activities are prohibited on the day because the average Christian doesn’t consider the day to be divinely set apart. This is evidenced by the fact that, for many Christians, after Sunday morning worship, the rest of the day is treated like any other. More so, some Christians do not even consider Sunday morning unique to any other morning, evidenced by the fact that some Protestant churches (typically the non-denominational mega-church type) offer worship services on Saturday night. However, Presbyterian Christians believe that the Lord’s Day is a special day in the new covenant. It is a day set apart where we cease from our ordinary labors and devote the day to worship God.

At the outset, in framing the argument about the Sabbath and the new covenant, it should be noted that if the Sabbath is a creation ordinance and the sabbath principle was given to mankind as a whole and not uniquely to Israel, then the burden of proof is on the one who argues that there is no longer a sabbath in the new covenant to substantiate that claim. That being said, I want to consider four reasons why we should believe that the sabbath principle continues under the new covenant.

The Prophets

There are places in the Old Testament prophets that anticipate the continuation of the Sabbath in the new covenant. In Isaiah 56:3-8 we read:

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. “And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer;  their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares,  “I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.”

The context is the eternal covenant of peace (Isa. 54:10) and is looking to an age where the foreigner and the eunuch will no longer be excluded from the assembly of the Lord. In fact, God says the eunuchs who keep His Sabbaths will receive a monument in the house of God and a name better than sons and daughters! Because under the old covenant foreigners and eunuchs were essentially excluded from the covenant community—with eunuchs particularly not allowed to enter God’s temple (Lev. 21:20; Deut. 23:1-8)— Isaiah must be looking to the messianic age under the new covenant. Yet note what God says about these eunuchs and foreigners in this new age: they keep God’s Sabbath(s) and do not profane it. Isaiah, consistent with Old Testament prophecy, utilizes old covenant language to describe realities of new covenant worship (sabbaths, burnt offerings, etc.). Nonetheless, the sabbath principle is still practiced under the new covenant. Furthermore, Isaiah says that Sabbath-keeping will continue into the new heavens and new earth (Isa. 66:22-23), which means its observance didn’t end with the old covenant administration. As I will mention below, both the old and new covenant practices of weekly Sabbath keeping point to the eternal Sabbath.

Jesus and the Sabbath

Jesus kept the law perfectly, including a faithful observance of the Fourth Commandment. We never see Jesus abrogate this commandment as he did elsewhere with pure positive law (Mark 7:9), but he often corrected the misunderstandings and abuses of the Sabbath by the religious leaders. Additionally, Jesus acknowledged that the Sabbath was made for “man,” which seems to imply that Jesus was pointing to a time before Sinai—when the Sabbath was codified in the law code of the nation of Israel— and back to the creation ordinance given to mankind (Mark 2:27; Gen. 2:2-3). God’s Sabbath rest was a gift for the human race, and the Jewish leadership had twisted it with their endless scruples and additional legislation. R. L. Dabney succinctly states the point well when he wrote: “The word for ‘man’ is used in its generic sense—the race. Here, then, we are divinely taught that the Sabbath was made not for the Jews, but for the race, which is precisely our doctrine.”^[1]

Entering God’s rest

A popular view among evangelical Christians is that the Sabbath pointed to entering God’s rest, and since Jesus came, we have entered God’s rest; thus, we no longer need a weekly Sabbath. Interestingly enough, both Sabbatarians and non-Sabbatarians point to Hebrews 4 to substantiate their view. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. has written an excellent article on this topic, and I commend it. He argues that in Hebrews 4:9, the author deliberately inserts the word “σαββατισμὸς” for “Sabbath rest.” Gaffin says that more than likely the writer coined the term from the usage of the Septuagint words “σαββατίζω” (Ex. 16:30; Lev. 23:32; 2 Chron. 36:21) and “σάββατον” (Ex. 16:23; 35:2; Lev. 16:31). All of these terms are in contexts describing Sabbath observance.[2] Thus, Gaffin concludes, the term is not a reference to the Sabbath day itself, but to “Sabbath-resting” or “Sabbath-keeping.”[3] So, while the writer to the Hebrews does point to the ultimate, eschatological rest, it doesn’t lead the writer to conclude that weekly Sabbath-keeping is abrogated. Instead, it is the opposite. And that makes sense given the present nature of the eschatological rest in Christ. We as new covenant believers have entered His rest by faith, but there are already/not yet aspects to that rest, with the full rest being realized in the new heavens and new earth. Because of this, a weekly Sabbath still has its place. The new covenant Sabbath rightly points us to the eternal Sabbath which awaits the consummation.  Until then, the weekly new covenant Sabbath points us to the glorious worship we will experience in the new heavens and earth, the blessed fellowship that the church triumphant will have with one another and the Lord Jesus, and ultimate separation from sin. Dabney said:

The Christian Sabbath, which is the Lord’s day, remains just as much a “sign” of our Christian separation from the world and engagement to be the Lord’s as the seventh day ever was to the Jews. And our faithfulness in sanctifying the Lord’s day ought to be as plain a mark distinguishing us from unbelievers as that which distinguished the Hebrews from the Amorites.^[4]

From the Seventh Day to the First Day

Non-Sabbatarians object to the confessional understanding of the Sabbath because of the change in the day. Essentially, if we are to keep the Sabbath as a morally binding obligation, isn’t it supposed to be observed on the seventh day? The Westminster Tradition has argued that, while the principle of resting-one-day-in-seven is moral, the particular day was circumstantial. Samuel Miller wrote:

We do not consider the fourth command as fixing a precise day, in order, which ought to be observed; but only as requiring that, after six days of labour, the seventh should be a day of rest, and be kept holy. Strictly speaking, then, there is a sense in which the Christian Sabbath is as much the seventh day as the Jewish Sabbath was; that is, it is as much the seventh part of the week, and succeeds to six days of labour as really as the Hebrew Sabbath did. The fourth commandment, then, far from being repealed or altered, is, in substance, as much in force as ever, and applies as perfectly to the New Testament Sabbath, as to that of the ceremonial economy; and, of course, ought to be considered as establishing the moral and perpetual obligation to devote one day in seven to the service of God.^[5]

So, when God established the Sabbath at creation, the particular day of rest was inconsequential compared to the principle of setting apart a day for worship and rest. However, God in His wisdom established the seventh day as the day of rest at creation and was codified in Israel’s law code, until a momentous event in the history of redemption warranted a change in the day—the resurrection of Christ.

Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week marked a shift. Immediately, we find the early church gathering on the first day of the week for worship which they called the Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). The language of the “Lord’s Day” is also important. In one sense, all days of the week are the Lord’s days because He gives them to us. But this language of the Lord’s Day communicates something special about this particular day. It is reminiscent of the Old Testament when God calls the Sabbath “my holy day” (Isa. 58:13) or “my Sabbath” (Isa. 56:4). It denoted a day that was devoted to the Lord.  It was set apart for that purpose. In the new covenant, the Lord’s Day is Christ’s holy day.  And when we understand that the principle of devoting one day in seven to the Lord was established from creation, it makes sense that God would give his people a new day to follow the ultimate work of new creation and redemption in the resurrection. Dabney writes:

The main direct argument is found in the fact that Christ and his apostles did, from the very day of the resurrection, hallow the first day of the week as a religious day. To see the full force of this fact, we must view it in light of the first argument. We remember that the disciples, like all men of all ages, are bound by the Decalogue to keep holy God’s Sabbath. We see them remit the observance of the seventh day as no longer binding, and we see them observing the first. Must we not conclude that these inspired men regarded the authority of God as now attaching to this Lord’s day?^[6]

Nonetheless, some push back and argue that there is no explicit command to change the day. That is granted. However, as Dabney notes, the examples that we have from the apostles “may be as valid and instructive a guide to duty as precedent.” The other is that whatever “necessarily follows from Scripture ‘by good and necessary consequence’ is as really authorized by it as ‘what is expressly set down.’”^[7] In other words, as the Westminster Confession notes, truths that may be deduced from Scripture and follow necessarily are just as true and binding as things explicitly set down (WCF 1.6).

What we find in the New Testament is that the apostle Paul explicitly says that Jewish practices (including Sabbaths) are no longer binding in the new covenant (more on this below). Instead, the apostles gathered together on the first day of the week to worship and fellowship with one another. If the Sabbath command is a creation ordinance (which we believe that it is) and the New Testament says that the Jewish Sabbath(s) are not binding (which it does), then what day in the new covenant satisfies the demands of the fourth commandment? Good and necessary consequence says it is the Lord’s Day.

Objection:

A few passages from the apostle Paul on Jewish practices, including observing days, are commonly offered as an objection to the Westminsterian view of the Sabbath. In Romans 14:5, Paul writes: “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.” In Galatians 4:9-11, he says:

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. 

And finally, in Colossians 2:16-17 he writes:

“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. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”

A few comments on these passages are necessary. For one, the Galatians passage would prove too much if we took this as an absolute prohibition about days. In fact, it would exclude observance of the Lord’s Day worship. It is clear from the background of Galatians that some of the members began observing days, months, and seasons as a means to earn their justification. As it is clear from the context of the letter, the Judaizers were teaching that people were obligated to keep the law in order to earn their justification. Nonetheless, an honest reading of these texts would have to admit that Paul does imply that days once required under the old covenant are no longer obligatory in the new. Colossians 2:16-17 even mentions “new moon” or a “Sabbath.”

There have been a few different responses to these passages by various Reformed authors, most of whom make a distinction between these Jewish practices and the Fourth Commandment. Some have suggested that Paul is not even thinking about the Fourth Commandment under the old covenant—thus he doesn’t have in mind the seventh day Sabbath, but the other Sabbath festivals connected to the old covenant.

However, since the Christian Sabbath is a new covenant Sabbath, it is more than likely (as noted above) that Paul is including the old covenant seventh day Sabbath. It has passed away along with the other Jewish festivals. To say it another way, the elements of the Fourth Commandment that were circumstantial and positive (ceremonial) law under the old covenant have passed away. The moral (principle) element of the Fourth Commandment—to keep one day in seven holy—has not passed away; otherwise, Paul would be repealing a creation ordinance and one of the Ten Commandments in these passages!

According to Dabney, Paul was condemning those who were imposing the old covenant holy days and feasts because they were no longer binding on the new dispensation. But, Dabney says, the apostle “did not design to be understood as speaking at all of the Lord’s day, which is one of these New-Testament ordinances. He means only the Jewish holy days.”^[8]

Conversely, one may continue to press the argument noting that the apostle uses the term Sabbath. Thus, if Paul says, let no one pass judgment on you regarding the “Sabbath,” why do Presbyterians insist on imposing the Sabbath in the new covenant? Again, Paul is addressing issues surrounding the old covenant Sabbath. Paul did not want Jew or Gentile in the early church passing judgment upon each other on whether they observed the old covenant Sabbath. Given the transitional nature of the early church from old to new covenant, differences abounded and Paul wanted believers to extend charity to one another on matters of adiaphora. But the apostles did not expect that same kind of charity to be given on matters pertaining to the Lord’s Day. With respect to the new covenant Sabbath, believers were to not “neglect meeting together” (Heb. 10:25).

The answer to the objection may turn on the use of the term “Sabbath.” It is admitted that the New Testament never uses the term “Sabbath” for the Lord’s Day, as Dabney noted, all of the usages of the term Sabbath were used “to denote the holy days of the Old Testament” and when the New Testament writers spoke “of the holy day of the New Testament they call[ed] it ‘first day of the week’ or ‘Lord’s day’ or ‘Sunday.’”^[9] But the term came to be used with the qualifier Christian Sabbath in order to describe a theological truth: that “the Lord’s day is to us by divine appointment what the Sabbath was to the Jews as to its main substance.”^[10]

Therefore, whether we use the term “Sabbath” or not to refer to the Lord’s Day is immaterial. Some Christians dislike the term and rather not use it in order to distinguish between the old covenant and new covenant holy days. To me, that is a matter of semantics, and I am indifferent to whether people like the term. The more important issue is how we view the day. Whether we call it the Lord’s Day or the Christian Sabbath, do we acknowledge that it is the continuation of the creation ordinance under the new dispensation and obliges Christians to set the day apart for worship and to cease from their labors? Westminsterians would answer in the affirmative.

In Part Three, we will turn our attention to how we may strive to honor the Christian Sabbath in our own lives.

Photo Credit: Pixabay

---

[1] R. L. Dabney, The Christian Sabbath: Its Nature, Design, and Proper Observance (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1882), 37.

[2] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. “A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God,” in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. ed. By Charles G. Dennison and Richard C. Gamble. (Philadelphia: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986), , 40.

[3] Ibid., 41.

[4] R. L. Dabney, The Christian Sabbath: Its Nature, Design, and Proper Observance (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1882), 57–58.

[5] Samuel Miller, “The Most Suitable Name for the Christian Sabbath,” The Biblical Repertory  1/6 (January 1836): 69

[6] R. L. Dabney, The Christian Sabbath: Its Nature, Design, and Proper Observance (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1882), 61

[7] Ibid., 60

[8]  R. L. Dabney, The Christian Sabbath: Its Nature, Design, and Proper Observance, 55.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.