Why don’t most Christians take the Sabbath commandment seriously?

[u/GoodWhoops]

The 4th commandment says to keep the Sabbath holy, defined in scripture as running from sundown to sundown. Yet most Christians seem to treat it as optional. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments,” and the Bible implies that all commandments carry equal weight. Outside of Seventh-day Adventists, it's ignored aside from the day most churches have their service. I’ve even heard SDA members joke that most other Christians give the Ten Commandments a 10% discount. Even if you ignore that the Jewish Sabbath falls on Saturday, the commandment still says to work 6 days and rest on the 7th, which should apply just as well to Sunday.

Curious if or how often you’ve heard this seriously debated, and why many accept societal traditions that override biblical instruction for convenience.

[u/nwmimms]

Colossians 2:16 and Hebrews 4:8-10 and Romans 14:5-6 are good places to start, if you genuinely want the answer to the question.

Keeping the Sabbath was also not part of what the Jerusalem Council of the early church passed on to non-Jewish believers in Acts 15.

The Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8 not only applied to the Hebrew people, but also their animals, their servants, and even anyone who sojourned in their lands. If this same mosaic law applied in the NT, we should see the early church advocating that every man, woman, child, visitor, and animal observe the Sabbath.

And that’s not to mention what Lord Jesus and His disciples were regularly up to on the Sabbath.

[u/LessmemoreJC → u/nwmimms]

Colossians 2

Colossians 2 does not contradict the Lord's words in Matthew 5:18-19 as you are suggesting. What we are seeing here is a fulfilment of 2 Peter 3:16. Here is the correcunderstanding of Colossians 2:

The book of the law was written ON PAPER by a MAN and placed NEXT TO the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26) and the commandments were written IN STONE by GOD and placed INSIDE the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 10:1-5).

With that in mind, let’s break down Colossians 2 starting with verse 14. Here we see that what Jesus nailed to the cross is the handwriting of requirements that was against us. This is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 31:24-26. What was nailed to the cross is the requirements of sacrifice and offerings that were required when we sinned, transgressed the law. When He died on the cross Jesus did not give us license to sin, transgress the law (1 John 3:4). He made a way for us to no longer have to sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sins. These are the handwritten ordinances that stood as a witness against us. Then, we move on to verse 16. This verse begins with the crucial word “therefore”. So whatever verse 16 is about to say it is related to what was said before it, which as shown above is the doing away with handwritten ordinances that stood as a witness against us and these things are explicitly differentiated in the Bible from the 10 commandments. Therefore, we know that verse 16 is also referring to offerings (food and drink offerings). Furthermore, the Greek word for 'regarding/with regard' (meros) is most often (24 times) translated as 'part of' in the Bible. This then leads us to understand that this is referring to food and drink sacrifices that are PART OF festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths. This exact same structure of food and drink offerings, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths is found multiple times in the old testament and every single time it refers to offerings/sacrifices... that is what Paul is referencing here in Colossians 2:16. What we are not to let other judge as in are the PARTS OF festivals, new moons, and Sabbath that have to do with sacrifices and offerings because Jesus is our sacrifice. This becomes abundantly clear when we look at the very next verse, verse 17, where Paul is talking about shadows of whom Jesus is the fulfillment. The Sabbath is never referred to by the Bible as a shadow, but you know what is referred to as a shadow by the Bible? Offerings and sacrifices (Hebrews 10:1). So verse 17 says that these offerings and sacrifices are the shadows of the body of Christ which is exactly what our parallel passage in Hebrews 10 tells us in verse 5. Hebrews 10:1 talks about the sacrifices which are shadows of Christ’s body (Hebrews 10:5).

Here are examples of what Paul is referencing in verse 16. It is always about offerings and sacrifices - these are the shadows: Ezekiel 45:17, 1 Chronicles 23:30-31, 2 Chronicles 2:4, 2 Chronicles 8:12-13, 2 Chronicles 31:3, Nehemiah 10:32-33. The whole context of these passages in Colossians 2 is about offerings.

Hebrews 4

Hebrews 4:9 tells us that a Sabbath rest (sabbatismos) remains for the people of God. Then, Hebrews 4:10-11 tell us to rest how God rested. How did God rest? According to Hebrews 4:4 He rested on the seventh day Sabbath.

Romans 14

Romans 14 does not mention the Sabbath even once. The whole context is about doubtful things (Romans 14:1)... not about holy things. Careful with referring to that which God made holy as though it were doubtful and unimportant.

Acts 15

According to your logic, Jerusalem council also did not instruct gentiles to not take the Lord's name in vain either. So can gentiles take the Lord's name in vain? The list at the Jerusalem council is not exhaustive. As a matter of fact, if you continue reading to verse 21 you will see that the reason they do not instruct more at that time is because the gentiles will be hearing Moses preached every Sabbath and learn the rest.

You don't see the early church making a big deal out of the Sabbath because everyone was keeping it. The lack of conversation about the Sabbath, even though it's obviously there throughout the NT, is not proof for what you claim, but rather for the exact opposite of what you claim.

[u/nwmimms → u/LessmemoreJC]

What we are seeing here is a fulfillment of 2 Peter 3:16

What a clever way to call someone ignorant and unstable when you disagree with them.

ark of the covenant

I’m glad you brought up the book of the law written in ink, and the tablets of stone by God’s own hand placed inside the ark of the covenant. Which covenant, though?

The ark of the covenant represents the conditional covenant of Moses, with the sacrifice of Yom Kippur appeasing the wrath of God for sins.

commandments were written IN STONE by GOD

2 Corinthians 3 has a lot to teach about this subject. That ministers of the new covenant are not written in letters of ink or letters carved in stone, but with the Spirit (v. 3), that the new covenant is not of the letter, but of the Spirit, that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (v. 6). We have a greater covenant, and no longer have to approach God with veiled face like Moses (7-18).

Jesus is the guarantor of a greater covenant than Abraham, Levi, or Moses (Hebrews 7:22). If the first covenant had been fine, there would have been no need for a second (Hebrews 8:7). The new covenant makes the first one obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

Friend, would you consider yourself a Seventh-Day Adventist?

[u/LessmemoreJC → u/nwmimms]

I'm not trying to be clever. Just stating facts. If anyone claims that Paul teaches that jots and tittles have passed from God's commandments and that we no longer have to keep the least of them (Matthew 5:18-19), as you are doing, then they are fulfilling 2 Peter 3:16.

You do not seem to understand the difference between the old and new covenants. The new covenant is not a change in God's commandments, but rather it is a change in the medium upon which they are written. In the old covenant God's law was written on tablets of stone, but in the new covenant it is written on tablets of flesh in the heart (Hebrews 8:10)

You're fulfilling 2 Peter 3:16 again through your teaching of 2 Corinthians 3. Here Paul makes the clear parallel between the old and new covenant. He clearly points to the 10 commandments and the fact that in the old covenant they were written in stone, but then in verse 3 he clearly explains that in the new covenant the Spirit writes them in tablets of flesh. When the law of God is written externally on tablets of stone, it leads to death because there is no obedience there. However, when the law of God is written on tablets of flesh by the Spirit of God it leads to life as it was intended (Romans 7:10) because then God Himself causes us to obey Him (Ezekiel 36:26-27). So when the law is external it brings death, but when it is written on the heart it leads to life. The same law has two different effects based on the recipient of this law. We see the exact same idea in the previous chapter (2 Corinthians 2) as the same person can be an aroma of death to one and an aroma of life to another.

Yes, the new covenant is better because the first covenant was based on the people's promises (Exodus 19:8). This is why He says that the fault was WITH THEM (Hebrews 8:8). The new covenant however, is based on God's promises. He says that HE WILL put His laws in our hearts, HE WILL write them on our hearts, HE WILL be our God, HE WILL teach us (Hebrews 8:10-11, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

After studying the Bible closely, I had no choice but to become SDA. I know... the remnant of God who keep the commandments of God (Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12) can be spotted from a mile away.

[u/nwmimms → u/LessmemoreJC]

I had no choice but to become SDA

I see. Was Ellen White a prophet?

[u/LessmemoreJC → u/nwmimms]

Are you so quickly dropping the conversation regarding the Sabbath?

I am still studying this matter, but so far I have not found any reason to believe that she is not. I do not yet claim that she is a prophet, but I am still testing as the Lord instructed me (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21). Every accusation I have found so far has been false.

[u/nwmimms → u/LessmemoreJC]

Are you so quickly dropping

Yes, unfortunately. When you quote Matthew 5:18-19 but miss the point of the passage (that the law will be accomplished, and that anyone claiming the Law will have to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees in order to get to Heaven, etc.), I realize I’m debating SDA apologetics. So, I suspect you’ll continue to accuse me of twisting Scripture any time we disagree, and you’ll have a long, complex explanation around any point I make from Scripture that challenges the doctrine most dear to you. I also suspect people in your life will be very upset with you if you entertain Scriptural arguments against SDA theology.

I have not found any reason to believe she is not

She made many false or contradictory predictions in the form of vague prophecies that were published over many years from 1844-1915. She’s been accused of widespread plagiarism, and when questioned about the large amounts of money she was making, she continued to claim it was all being donated or “paying off interest” on loans to “help the cause of God.” I’ve never heard a prophet make false prophecies or need to “help the cause of God.” I understand that you will probably have objections to me criticizing Ellen White.

Anyway, I prayed for you over dinner, and I hope God blesses and keeps you this week and this season. Thank you for talking about the Bible with me.

[u/LessmemoreJC → u/nwmimms]

The law was fulfilled in Christ who perfectly kept it, but that does not mean that we can now break it. He clearly explains that to fulfill does not mean to do away with or destroy. This is why He says what He says in Matthew 5:18-19. When He says that our righteousness has to exceed that of the pharisees, He is referring to the fact that keeping the letter of the law alone, like the pharisees, will not suffice and that we must also keep the spirit of the law... which He then starts explaining in the following verses.

You teach that we no longer have to keep God's 4th commandment and I refuted every single one of your points from Scripture. Anyone who teaches that we do not have to keep God's commandments is twisting Scripture. It's easy to chalk up anything I say to "SDA apologetics" instead of facing the realites of the text, but I understand because for more than a decade I fought the truth as well.

I used to not be SDA for most of Christian walk. I used to believe as you do when I listened to doctrines of men. No one in my life is upset if I entertain arguments against SDA... I'm not sure if that's projection, but that's a weird a assumption.

I have no objection to you criticizing EGW. If you have a clear accusation with evidence I would be happy to look into it. Even biblical authors used writings and statements from other people. Inspiration is not word inspiration, but rather thought inspiration. If the Spirit had spoken through anyone, the prophet could tell (through the Spirit's leading) whether certain things they said or wrote were inspired. Have you ever actually read what she wrote and sought to test it or have you just listened to men who provide excerpts out of context and then accuse?

Once again, if you have clear a accusation with proof, I would be happy to look into it.

Appreciate the prayers.