Test 27: Answering Common Objections — Part 1

Introduction

Throughout this investigation, we have examined the biblical evidence for Sabbath observance. However, various objections are commonly raised against Sabbath-keeping. This test addresses the most significant theological objections, providing responses grounded in the evidence already established.

• Objection 1: "Christians are not under law but under grace"

The claim: Romans 6:14 says "ye are not under the law, but under grace." Therefore, Christians are free from the law, including the Sabbath. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Contextual Interpretation:

A statement must be interpreted in its immediate context.

Response:

The Immediate Context

Romans 6:14-15 — "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

Paul immediately and emphatically rejects the interpretation that "not under law" means freedom to disregard the law. "God forbid" (mē genoito) is the strongest negative in Greek.

What "Under Law" Means

In Paul's usage, "under law" refers to:

1. Under the law's condemnation — bearing its penalty
2. Under law as a means of justification — trying to earn salvation

We are not under the law's condemnation (Christ paid the penalty) or under law as a system of salvation (we are saved by grace). But the law remains as the standard of righteousness.

Paul's Own Clarification

Romans 3:31 — "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

Romans 7:12 — "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

Conclusion: "Not under law" addresses the law's condemning/justifying function, not its existence or moral authority. The law remains; we are freed from its penalty, not from obedience.

• Objection 2: "Christ is the end of the law"

The claim: Romans 10:4 says "Christ is the end of the law." Therefore, the law (including the Sabbath) is terminated. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Word Study:

When a word has multiple meanings, context determines which applies.

Response:

The Greek Word Telos

Telos (τέλος) can mean:

1. Goal, aim, purpose — that toward which something is directed
2. Completion, fulfilment — the state of being complete
3. End, termination — the point at which something ceases

Paul's Usage Elsewhere

1 Timothy 1:5 — "Now the end (telos) of the commandment is charity."

Does charity terminate the commandment? No — charity is the goal of the commandment.

Romans 6:21-22 — "The end (telos) of those things is death... the end (telos) everlasting life."

Death and life are outcomes/goals, not termination points.

The Context of Romans 10:4

Paul is discussing Israel's failed pursuit of righteousness through law-keeping (Romans 9:30-10:3). Christ is the goal/purpose of the law for righteousness. The law was always meant to lead us to Christ — not to be a means of earning salvation ourselves.

Conclusion: Telos means "goal/purpose" in this context. Christ is what the law points to for righteousness. He is not the law's termination.

• Objection 3: "We are no longer under a schoolmaster"

The claim: Galatians 3:24-25 says the law was a "schoolmaster" until Christ came. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster (law). The applicable legal principle:

UK — Purpose-Limited Interpretation:

When a provision serves a specific purpose, its termination relates to that purpose.

Response:

The Context: Justification

Galatians 3 addresses one specific issue: justification — how one is made right with God.

Paul's argument:

• Abraham was justified by faith (3:6-9)
• The law cannot justify (3:10-12)
• The law was a "schoolmaster" (paidagōgos) until Christ (3:24)
• We are justified by faith in Christ (3:24-26)

The Schoolmaster's Role

The paidagōgos was not a teacher but a guardian/supervisor who brought children to the teacher. The law's role as "schoolmaster" was to lead us to Christ for justification.

"No longer under a schoolmaster" means we no longer rely on the law for justification. Christ justifies us.

The Law Continues in Galatians

In the same letter, Paul upholds the law:

Galatians 5:14 — "For all the law is fulfilled in one word... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Galatians 5:19-21 — Lists violations of the moral law (adultery, murder, idolatry) as "works of the flesh."

Conclusion: The law's function as a guide to Christ for justification is complete. The law itself continues as the standard of righteousness.

• Objection 4: "Let no man judge you regarding sabbath days"

The claim: Colossians 2:16 says "Let no man therefore judge you in... sabbath days." Therefore, Sabbath observance is optional. The applicable legal principle:

*UK — Letang v Cooper [1965] — Noscitur a Sociis:

A word is understood by the company it keeps.

Response:

The Context: Ceremonial Elements

Colossians 2:16-17 — "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: Which are a shadow of things to come."

The company "sabbath days" keeps:

• Meat offerings — ceremonial
• Drink offerings — ceremonial
• Holydays (annual festivals) — ceremonial
• New moons — ceremonial

Ceremonial vs. Weekly Sabbaths

The Old Testament prescribed ceremonial sabbaths tied to the feast system:

Leviticus 23:24, 32, 39 — Days of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles, etc., were called "sabbaths."

These ceremonial sabbaths:

• Fell on different days of the week each year
• Were tied to the sacrificial system
• Were "shadows" pointing to Christ

The weekly Sabbath:

• Is based on creation (Genesis 2:2-3)
• Commemorates creation, not redemption typology
• Is part of the moral law (Ten Commandments)

The "Shadow" Identification

Paul says these are "a shadow of things to come." The weekly Sabbath points backward to creation (Exodus 20:11), not forward to Christ. It is not a shadow in this sense.

Conclusion: Colossians 2:16 addresses ceremonial sabbaths (known by their ceremonial company), not the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment.

• Objection 5: "One man esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike"

The claim: Romans 14:5 proves that day observance is a matter of personal preference. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Contextual Interpretation:

A verse must be interpreted in its surrounding context.

Response:

The Context: Jewish Fast Days and Feast Days

Romans 14 addresses disputable matters — things not commanded or forbidden by God's law:

Romans 14:1 — "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."

The chapter discusses:

• Eating meat vs. vegetables (v. 2)
• Esteeming days (v. 5)
• Eating meat offered to idols (v. 14-21)

These are matters of opinion — not moral law.

What Days Are in View?

The "days" in view are likely:

• Jewish fast days (Monday and Thursday)
• Jewish feast days (ceremonial calendar)
• Days considered lucky or unlucky

These were matters of custom and conscience, not divine command.

The Sabbath Is Not a "Doubtful Disputation"

The Sabbath is:

• Commanded in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:8-11)
• Part of the moral law
• Not a matter of personal preference

Paul does not say "one man keeps the Sabbath; another doesn't — each is right." He addresses ceremonial/cultural day observances that are genuinely optional.

Conclusion: Romans 14:5 addresses optional day observances (fasts, feasts), not the commanded weekly Sabbath.

• Objection 6: "The Sabbath was only for Israel"

The claim: The Sabbath was given to Israel at Sinai as part of the old covenant. It does not apply to Gentile Christians. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Historical Origin:

The original establishment of an institution determines its scope.

Response:

The Sabbath Predates Sinai

Genesis 2:2-3 — "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day... And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it."

The Sabbath was established at creation — before sin, before Israel, before the old covenant. It was given to humanity (adam), not to Israel.

Jesus Said It Was Made for Man

Mark 2:27 — "The sabbath was made for man (anthrōpos), and not man for the sabbath."

Anthrōpos means "humanity" — not "Israel" or "Jews." Jesus explicitly states the Sabbath was made for humanity.

The Sabbath Is Part of the Moral Law

The Ten Commandments are moral, not ceremonial:

• They reflect God's eternal character
• They define universal right and wrong
• They apply to all humanity

No one argues "Thou shalt not murder" was only for Israel. Neither was "Remember the Sabbath."

Conclusion: The Sabbath was established at creation for humanity, not at Sinai for Israel alone.

• Objection 7: "We worship on Sunday to honour the resurrection"

The claim: Christians worship on Sunday because Jesus rose on Sunday. This commemorates the resurrection. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Morgan Grenfell [2002] — Clear Statement Rule:

Significant changes require clear statement.

Response:

No Biblical Command for Sunday Worship

Scripture never:

• Commands Sunday worship
• Transfers Sabbath sanctity to Sunday
• Declares Sunday holy
• Connects Sunday with obligatory worship

No Command to Commemorate the Resurrection Weekly

Scripture commands baptism as the memorial of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection:

Romans 6:3-5 — "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead... we also should walk in newness of life."

No Scripture commands weekly Sunday observance for resurrection.

The Catholic Admission

Cardinal Gibbons: "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday."

The party that claims to have made the change admits Scripture doesn't authorise it.

Conclusion: Sunday worship for resurrection lacks biblical authority. The Sabbath remains the commanded day.

• Objection 8: "The early church met on Sunday"

The claim: Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 prove the early church worshipped on Sunday. The applicable legal principle:

UK — Contextual Interpretation:

Passages must be examined in their full context.

Response:

Acts 20:7 — A Farewell Meeting

Acts 20:7 — "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow."

• This was a farewell meeting (Paul was leaving)
• It was likely Saturday night (Jewish first day began at sunset)
• Paul travelled on Sunday (v. 11-14) — inconsistent with Sunday sacredness
• "Breaking bread" occurred daily (Acts 2:46), not just Sunday

1 Corinthians 16:2 — Private Collection

1 Corinthians 16:2 — "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store."

• "Lay by him in store" (par' heautō) means "at home" — private action
• This is financial planning, not a church collection
• Sunday was a working day — the logical time to assess weekly income

The Consistent Pattern

Acts records 8 Sabbath observances and only 1 first-day meeting (a farewell). The pattern clearly favours Sabbath.

Conclusion: Neither passage establishes Sunday worship. Acts 20:7 is a farewell meeting; 1 Corinthians 16:2 is private financial planning.

• Summary Table

Objection	Key Response
"Not under law but grace"	Not under condemnation; law still stands (Romans 3:31)
"Christ is the end of the law"	Telos* = goal/purpose, not termination
"No longer under schoolmaster"	Law can't justify; law still defines righteousness
"Let no man judge you"	Ceremonial sabbaths, not weekly Sabbath (context)
"One day alike"	Optional days (fasts), not commanded Sabbath
"Sabbath was for Israel"	Established at creation for humanity (Genesis 2; Mark 2:27)
"Sunday honours resurrection"	No biblical command; baptism is resurrection memorial
"Early church met Sunday"	Acts 20:7 = farewell; 1 Cor 16:2 = private; pattern is Sabbath

---

← Previous: Test 26 Next: Test 28 →