The Old Testament Theology of the Sabbath: Creation, Old Covenant, and Old Testament Prophecy

By Richard C. Barcellos

Richard C. Barcellos pastored for over 15 years in CA and has relocated to Owensboro, KY, to serve as Part-time Lecturer in New Testament and Administrative Assistant to the Dean at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies (MCTS) beginning this fall.

Quite often when combating the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath, those against it are quick to run to Romans 14, Galatians 4, or Colossians 2 as though these texts were trump cards that overruled every other argument. This approach, however, discards the flow and progress of redemptive history concerning the Sabbath. It assumes the Sabbath has only two functions in redemptive history—as a sign between God and Old Covenant Israel and as a shadow of Christ to come. This is a myopic approach to a more complex issue with far-reaching implications for God’s people.

My aim is to examine the OT’s teaching on the Sabbath. Quite unashamedly, I will approach this study utilizing the biblical-theological or redemptive-historical approach, which seeks to examine a subject in the historical (and usually, in the canonical) order in which it is presented in Scripture. This allows us to see a doctrine’s inception, the various stages of its application and modification, and sometimes its abrogation. This method helps us to see a doctrine’s basis, to identify unique, redemptive-historical applications, and to address the question of continuity and discontinuity in the biblical materials. It gives us a panoramic view of the doctrine’s development within the Bible itself. When the doctrine of the Sabbath is approached this way, the case for a Christian Sabbath becomes not only clear but also compelling.

We will approach our subject under the following headings: (1) The Sabbath and Creation; (2) The Sabbath and the Old Covenant; and (3) The Sabbath and Old Testament Prophecy.

The Sabbath and Creation

The Sabbath began at creation (Gen. 2:2–3). This assertion is based primarily on how the rest of the Bible views aspects of the creation account as an ethical paradigm that transcends covenants and cultures.

To establish this, we will examine three NT texts that do this with marriage, divorce, and male/female roles in the church. We will then examine two texts (one in the OT and one in the NT) that do the same with the Sabbath. In this way we will see that the Bible views the creation account as containing moral law that transcends covenants and cultures. It is important to note that these texts not only base certain ethical norms in creation but also go back to specific aspects of the Genesis account as the abiding basis for man’s perpetual responsibility.

1. Texts which view aspects of the creation account as an ethical paradigm transcending covenants and cultures for marriage, divorce, and male/female roles in the church.

Matthew 19:1–8 [1]

In this text, Jesus is dealing with a question brought by the Pharisees. Matthew 19:3 says, “The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’” In his response, Jesus references Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:24.

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

He also acknowledges that Moses permitted divorce due to sin (i.e., “because of the hardness of your hearts”), but, he says, “from the beginning it was not so.” “The beginning” points back to creation. Although Jesus permits divorce (cf., 19:9), nonetheless, he takes as the basis of his argument for monogamous marriage the creation account itself. This principle transcends all covenants and all cultures.

1 Timothy 2:12–14

Here, in a context in which he is dealing with gender-based role responsibilities in the church, Paul argues from the order of creation (and from the order of the fall) to certain restrictions on women in the context of the church’s worship.

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Similar to Jesus, Paul goes back to creation (and the fall) to ground his reasoning. The basis and reason for gender-based role responsibilities in the church is not covenantal or cultural. Here the NT incorporates a creation-based ethic into its ecclesiology.

Since creation transcends culture, references to ethical implications drawn from creation are normative for the life of man on the earth as it now stands.[2] There is more to the creation account than first meets the eye. The subsequent use of the creation account by Jesus and Paul teach us this. When the Bible looks back to creation and draws ethical principles from it, those principles are normative for all men at all times, under all circumstances. In other words, the creation account contains principles that function as moral law-they are not relative to covenant or culture but transcend both.

This leads to an important question: Does the Bible do this with reference to the Sabbath? Does the Bible argue for the Sabbath based on creation? And if it does, does not the same principle of moral law apply that applies to marriage, divorce, and male/female roles in the church? If creation transcends covenants and cultures when it comes to marriage, divorce, and gender roles in the church, would it not do the same for other issues, including the Sabbath? Two passages, one in the OT and one in the NT, shed needed light on this question.

2. Texts which view aspects of the creation account as an ethical paradigm transcending covenants and cultures for the Sabbath.

Exodus 20:8–11

In the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, Moses does something that both Jesus and Paul did. The text reads:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Ex. 20:8–11)

Consider first that the language of this text implies that the Sabbath was not to be instituted for the first time but respected as an already known institution. “Remember the Sabbath” assumes its previous existence. Exodus 16:22–26 gives explicit evidence that the Sabbath predates Sinai.

And so it was, on the sixth day, that they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. And all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.’” So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. Then Moses said, “Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, there will be none.”

The Sabbath goes back to Exodus 16 at least.

Consider second that the parallels between Exod. 20:8–11 and Gen. 2:2–3 are indisputable. Genesis 2:2–3 says:

And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (Gen. 2:2–3)

The Sabbath is a day that is to be kept holy; i.e., set apart from other normal days of labor. The reason for this is found in Exod. 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” Moses (actually God, cf., vv. 1–2) bases Sabbath-keeping on God’s work/rest cycle at creation. Just as the days of creation were days, so the Sabbath is a day. Just as God worked six days then rested, so the Jews are told to work six days then rest.

Consider third that the Sabbath of Exod. 20:11 refers both to God’s Sabbath and man’s. John Frame says:

It is important to ask, what Sabbath does Ex. 20:11 refer to? Does “Sabbath” here refer to God’s rest after creating the world, or to man’s own Sabbath rest? The answer has to be, both. The first sentence of Ex. 20:11 refers to God’s own rest. But “Sabbath” in the second sentence must refer to the same Sabbath as in verse 8, the Sabbath God requires of Israel. Ex. 20:11 sees an identity between these. It teaches that when God took his own rest from his creative labors and rested on the seventh day, which he hallowed and blessed, he also hallowed and blessed a human Sabbath, a Sabbath for man (Mark 2:27). In other words, when God blessed his own Sabbath rest in Gen. 2:3, he blessed it as a model for human imitation. So Israel is to keep the Sabbath, because in Gen. 2:2–3 God hallowed and blessed man’s Sabbath as well as his own.[3]

This is why elsewhere the Sabbath is called God’s day, because he instituted it and owns it (cf., Is. 58:13, “My holy day”; Rev. 1:10, “the Lord’s Day”), as well as calls it something made for man (Mk. 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man”). The Sabbath is God’s because of his example and institution. The Sabbath is man’s because God made it for him. Surely “the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary” (Is. 40:28). God did not make the Sabbath for himself because he was tired and needed rest. He made it for man. And his example at creation is imperatival for man.

Consider fourth, the basis for the fourth commandment is creation and God’s example of working six days and resting. Here is where Moses does what Jesus and Paul did. He bases ethics on creation. God’s example in working six days and resting transcends covenants and cultures. Though it is clear from Exod. 20:1–2 and Deut. 5:6, 15 that God is speaking to the Jews as a nation brought “out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,” it is also true that the basis for the fourth commandment is creation. In other words, God is applying a creation ordinance to a specific redemptive-historical situation, just as he applies the creation ordinances of labor and marriage/procreation in the same redemptive-historical situation (Exod. 20:9, 4th commandment-labor; 20:12, 5th commandment-marriage/procreation; 20:14 7th commandment marriage/procreation). We have already seen Paul apply a creation ordinance to a unique redemptive-historical situation-the New Covenant church (1 Tim. 2:12–13; cf., 1 Cor. 11:3, 8–9). Both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant incorporate aspects of creation ordinances into their ethical scheme. The common ground between them is the fact and function of creation.

Mark 2:27–28

Jesus here draws from creation a moral principle that is germane to mankind as a whole. “And He said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.’” First, note that both man and the Sabbath are said to be made. The verb used (γίνομαι) means “to become” or “to be.” It is the same verb used in Jn. 1:3, where it is translated “made,” and where it refers to the creation of all things through the Word. What Jesus is saying in Mk. 2:27 is that in the past, both man and the Sabbath came into being (i.e., “were made”). That this dual creation (man and Sabbath) is described by one verb suggests that man and the Sabbath were made at the same time. It would be exegetically clumsy to separate the making of man and the making of the Sabbath by thousands of years by placing the Sabbath’s institution after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. Since we know that man was created (i.e., “came into being”) in the Garden of Eden, Christ would have us to conclude that the Sabbath, as he refers to it here, was made at the same time and in the same place. This corresponds with what we saw in Exod. 20:11.

Second, both Sabbath and man are singular and articular in the Greek text (τὸ σάββατον… τὸν ἄνθρωπον). Jesus did not say “The Sabbath was made for the Jews” or “the Sabbaths[4] were made for the Jews.” He said “the Sabbath” was made for “the man.” “The man” refers either to Adam as the head of the human race or, most likely, to mankind. Either way, Christ goes back to the creation account and sees both man and the Sabbath being made then. In context, Christ not only corrects the Pharisees for misunderstanding the Sabbath (Mk. 2:23–24) but he also in effect rebukes their narrow-minded approach to the Sabbath. Jesus teaches us that the Sabbath is not unique to the Jews. God caused it to come into being when he caused Adam and all mankind through him to come into being, for his glory and their good. According to Christ, the Sabbath is as old as man, not merely as old as the Jews.

Third, the Sabbath is said to have been “made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus says, “the Sabbath was made for man.” It was not made for God. God does not need a Sabbath. We do. It was made by God for our good. And, man was not made “for the Sabbath.” Man existed first. His needs existed before the Sabbath did. The Sabbath came into being to serve man’s needs to be like God and to enjoy him. We don’t serve the Sabbath; it serves us.

Fourth, Christ puts his stamp of Messianic lordship on the Sabbath that was made at creation and for man. “Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:28). This provides us with the expectation that the Sabbath will abide under his lordship and will take on characteristics appropriate to this lordship under the New Covenant (cf., Rev. 1:10). John Murray comments:

What the Lord is affirming is that the Sabbath has its place within the sphere of his messianic lordship and that he exercises lordship over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man. Since he is Lord of the Sabbath it is his to guard it against those distortions and perversions with which Pharisaism had surrounded it and by which its truly beneficent purpose has been defeated. But he is also its Lord to guard and vindicate its permanent place within that messianic lordship which he exercises over all things-he is Lord of the Sabbath, too. And he is Lord of it, not for the purpose of depriving men of that inestimable benefit which the Sabbath bestows, but for the purpose of bringing to the fullest realization on behalf of men that beneficent design for which the Sabbath was instituted. If the Sabbath was made for man, and if Jesus is the Son of man to save man, surely the lordship which he exercises to that end is not to deprive man of that which was made for his good, but to seal to man that which the Sabbath institution involves. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath-we dare not tamper with his authority and we dare not misconstrue the intent of his words.[5]

It is clear from the text in Daniel, where the phrase “Son of Man” comes from, that it refers to Christ in the posture of enthronement, immediately following his ascension into glory, and is a title appropriate for him during the days in which he is given a kingdom and the nations become his.

I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13–14)

In other words, as the Son of Man, Christ governs the Sabbath during the whole interadvental period, i.e., during the days of the New Covenant. Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath also implies His deity. The Sabbath is God’s (Is. 56:4; 58:13). Since as Son of Man, Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, and since this title is his during the days of the New Covenant, we should not be shocked if the Sabbath bears unique characteristics of his lordship under the New Covenant. Patrick Fairbairn says:

He is Lord of the Sabbath, and, as such, has a right to order everything concerning it, so as to make it, in the fullest sense, a day of blessing for man-a right, therefore, if He should see fit, to transfer its observance from the last day of the week to the first, that it might be associated with the consummation of His redemptive work, and to make it, in accordance with the impulsive life and energy thereby brought in, more than in the past, a day of active and hallowed employment for the good of men.[6]

Jesus, Paul, and Moses argue in similar fashion. They go back to the creation account for the basis of ethics in terms of marriage, divorce, male/female roles in the church, and Sabbath. They apply the same reasoning, though to different issues. If the basis for their arguing is creation, and if creation transcends covenants and cultures, how can we not conclude that what they are arguing for applies to all men at all times? Though the application may vary according to the redemptive-historical situation, the principle itself stands. And the reason it stands is due to the ethical implications of creation drawn out by the Bible itself.

If the principle applies to marriage, divorce, and male/female roles in the church, then doesn’t it still apply to the Sabbath as well? If it does not apply to the Sabbath, on what ground is the principle dismissed? If one says, “The Sabbath was an ordinance for the Jews only. It was theirs as God’s Old Covenant people to apply to their culture alone in the Promised Land,” then could not someone argue the same for male/female roles in the church? Could they not say, “Paul was dealing with a culture-relative issue. His reasoning applied to that culture alone. Women, therefore, may have authority over men in the church and teach and preach to them. Women may be pastors”? Some argue this way; but, as we have seen, when the Bible bases ethics on creation, the principle applies to all cultures at all times. And until this age gives way to the fullness of the age to come, creation-based ethics (i.e., creation ordinances) are moral laws for all men.

The Bible understands the creation ordinances (dominion, labor, marriage/procreation, and Sabbath) and the creative activity of God in Genesis 1 and 2 as providing much more than a mere narrative of events. In other words, the Bible’s own exposition and application of Genesis 1 and 2 teaches us that there is more to the text of Genesis than simply an historical account of what was happening and its ethical implications for Adam and Eve alone. Much of what God was giving us in Genesis 1 and 2 is treated as a perpetually relevant, ethical paradigm by the rest of Scripture. Genesis 1 and 2 is not merely descriptive but prescriptive; not merely telling us what happened then, but telling us what ought to happen now. The ethics of the Garden are what we need to get back to; they are our model until Jesus returns in glory and ushers in the age to come in its fullness. However, the ethics of the Garden have been affected by sin. This means that, though the basic ethical scheme remains, there is a modified application of the creation ordinances after the fall into sin.

The Sabbath and the Old Covenant

Most of the Bible’s information about the Sabbath comes in its relationship to the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was made with Israel as the national, ethnic seed of Abraham under the leadership of Moses. Within the body of Old Covenant law are various types of laws, often intermixed with each other-civil laws pertaining to politics and economics; ceremonial laws referring to the sacrificial system, priestly order, and festivals and holy days; and moral laws based on creation.

Within the law considered as a whole, legislation for Sabbath observance may be broken into two categories: weekly and non-weekly Sabbaths. We will look briefly at both types.

1. The Weekly Sabbath under the Old Covenant

First, consider the weekly Sabbath’s twofold basis. In Exod. 20:8–11 its theological basis is creation (see above). The Sabbath functioned as a reminder that God created the earth in six days and rested. In Deut. 5:15, the theological basis for the Sabbath is redemption.

And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

The Sabbath had a unique place in the law of Israel due to its unique status as a nation in covenant with God. Thus, the Sabbath was a reminder of the redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage. It was not only a memorial ordinance of God’s act of creation; it became a memorial ordinance of God’s act of redemption as well. The weekly Sabbath takes on a twofold function under the Old Covenant: to commemorate God’s acts in creation, and to commemorate God’s acts in redemption.

Second, consider the sanctions for its violation. Exodus 31:14 says, “You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.” Death was to come to the Israelite who profaned the Sabbath. Some have used this as proof that the Sabbath cannot be moral law since capital punishment is connected to its violation. This, it is said, proves that it is not moral but ceremonial and unique to Israel under the Old Covenant.

It cannot be proven, however, that if a commandment has the death penalty attached to it under the Old Covenant it is, therefore, merely ceremonial and for Israel under the Old Covenant alone. For instance, the third commandment has the sanction of capital punishment attached to it under the Old Covenant (Lev. 20:1–3). No one, however, argues against the perpetuity of the third commandment due to this. The fifth commandment also has the sanction of capital punishment attached to it under the Old Covenant (Exod. 21:12; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:18–21). No one, however, argues against the perpetuity of the fifth commandment due to this. The seventh commandment also has the sanction of capital punishment attached to it under the Old Covenant (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:21–22). Again, no one argues against the perpetuity of the seventh commandment due to this. The Decalogue formed the heart of Old Covenant Israel’s law. It had various appendages added to it to administrate the unique redemptive-historical circumstances it was given in. These redemptive-historical appendages were added to the Decalogue under the Old Covenant “until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10b). Simply because some commands of the Decalogue have the sanction of capital punishment attached to them under the Old Covenant does not mean they cannot function in other eras of redemptive history without these sanctions.

Third, consider the Sabbath’s unique status as “sign” between God and Old Covenant Israel (Exod. 31:12–17, esp. vv. 13, 16–17; Ezek. 20:20).

Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: “Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.” (Ex. 31:13) 

Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. (Ex. 31:16–17) 

Hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God. (Ezek. 20:20)

It is clear from these passages that the weekly, seventh day Sabbath under the Old Covenant took on unique significance for Israel. It was a token to remind them that they were God’s special, covenant nation. It reminded them of God as both creator and redeemer.

Some have used this against the Sabbath as moral law. Those who offer this objection often continue by claiming that since the Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant, then when the Old Covenant went the Sabbath went in all senses. We have seen (and will see even more below), however, that the Sabbath has more functions in the Bible than the sign of the Old Covenant. We will see that the OT itself prophesies the abrogation of the Old Covenant’s Sabbaths (all of them) and the perpetuity of a Sabbath under the New Covenant. The Sabbath, like the entire Decalogue, transcends covenants and cultures. It may take on various functions throughout redemptive history, functions that may come and go. Its essence, however, is morally binding on all men because it is based on creation. The Sabbath has more functions than the sign of the Old Covenant, just as the Decalogue has more functions than the basic, fundamental law of the Old Covenant.

Fourth, consider the fact that the Sabbath was both a rest from labor and involved holy convocations or public worship. Both the weekly Sabbath and feast days were times of rest from customary work and times of sacred assembly.

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘The feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, these are My feasts. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings. These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the LORD’s Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD for seven days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.’” (Lev. 23:1–8) 

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. You shall do no customary work on it; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD.’” (Lev. 23:23–25)

Days of special rest were days of worship. During the days of the NT, the Jews met in the synagogues on the Sabbath day. They rested from their ordinary work and gave themselves to holy convocations on the Sabbath day. Jesus, who upheld the Sabbath in all legitimate respects, made it his custom to go “into the synagogue on the Sabbath day” (Lk. 4:16; see also Matt. 12:9; Lk. 4:31–33; 6:6).

2. Non-weekly Sabbaths under the Old Covenant

Old Covenant Israel clearly had non-weekly Sabbaths. Exodus 23:10–11; Lev. 23:24, 32, 39; and 25:4 bear this point out.

Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its produce, but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave, the beasts of the field may eat. In like manner you shall do with your vineyard and your olive grove. (Ex. 23:10–11) 

Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.’ (Lev. 23:24) 

It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath. (Lev. 23:32) 

Also on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruit of the land, you shall keep the feast of the LORD for seven days; on the first day there shall be a sabbath-rest, and on the eighth day a sabbath-rest. (Lev. 23:39) 

But in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath to the LORD. You shall neither sow your field nor prune your vineyard. (Lev. 25:4)

What were the reasons for these Sabbaths? These were holy convocations to remember certain aspects of God’s sovereignty over the Israelites and the benefits that they received from him. Even Israel’s land was to Sabbath (Lev. 25:4). The NT helps us answer this question even further, though. Colossians 2:16–17 teaches that there were ceremonial “festivals, new moons and Sabbaths” which were shadows of what was to come concerning Christ. So in one way or another, the non-weekly Sabbaths pointed to Christ. When Christ came, their purpose came to its end, along with the weekly Sabbath as a sign between God and Old Covenant Israel.

The Sabbath and Old Testament Prophecy

The Sabbath occurs in OT prophecy in two apparently contradictory fashions. On the one hand, the Sabbath is prophesied as fulfilled and abolished when the New Covenant comes. On the other hand, the Sabbath is prophesied as abiding and perpetual when the New Covenant comes. Both its cessation and continuation under the New Covenant are prophesied. How can we understand both of these strands of truth without contradiction? Looking at several passages carefully will cause us to see that both can be understood without contradiction.

1. The Old Testament prophesies the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.

The OT clearly prophesies the abrogation and cessation of ancient Israel’s Sabbaths. It does so in Hos. 2:11, which says, “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths--all her appointed feasts.” We will make several observations that bear this out. First, Hosea’s prophecy is dealing with the days of the New Covenant. The phrase “in that day” (vv. 16, 18, 21) is used prophetically of New Covenant days in Is. 22:20. Revelation 3:7 quotes Is. 22:22 and applies it to Christ. The prophecy in Is. 22:20 mentions the Lord’s servant, who is Christ. Isaiah 22:20–22 says:

Then it shall be in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe and strengthen him with your belt; I will commit your responsibility into his hand. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open. (Is. 22:20–22)

Revelation 3:7, quoting Is. 22:22, says:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, “These things says He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.” (Rev. 3:7)

The phrase, “in that day,” refers to the days of Christ-the days of the New Covenant. Paul references Hos. 1:10 and 2:23 in Rom. 9:25, applying them to Christians. “As He says also in Hosea: ‘I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved’” (Rom. 9:25). Peter references Hos. 1:9–10 and 2:23 in 1 Pet. 2:10 and applies them to Christians as well. He says, “who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy” (1 Pet. 2:10). Hosea is clearly speaking of New Covenant days. According to the NT usage of Hosea, he is speaking of the time in redemptive history when God will bring Gentiles into a saving relationship with Jews. Much of the NT deals with this very issue.

Second, Hos. 2:11 clearly prophesies the abrogation of Old Covenant Israel’s Sabbaths, along with “all her appointed feasts.” Hosea uses a triad of terms (“feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths”) that is used many places in the OT (1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; and Is. 1:13–14). Clearly, he is speaking of the abrogation of Old Covenant ceremonial laws. When the Old Covenant goes, Israel’s feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts go with it.

Third, the NT confirms this understanding of Hos. 2:11. It uses this triad of terms in Col. 2:16, which says, “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths.” In the context, Paul is combating those who were attempting to impose Old Covenant ceremonial law on New Covenant Christians. So Col. 2:16 is clear NT language that sees Hosea’s prophecy as fulfilled. It is of interest to note that Paul uses the plural for Sabbath in Col. 2:16 (σαββάτων). It is not too hard to assume that Paul had the OT triad in mind and Hosea’s prophecy while penning these words. The NT announces the abrogation of the Old Covenant in many places. For instance, 2 Cor. 3:7–18; Gal. 3–4; Eph. 2:14–16; and Heb. 8–10 (cf. esp. 8:6–7, 13; 9:9–10, 15; 10:1, 15–18) are clear that the Old Covenant has been abrogated.

But now He [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant [the New Covenant], which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant [the Old Covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. (Heb. 8:6–7) 

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13) 

It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (Heb. 9:9–10) 

And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Heb. 9:15) 

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. (Heb. 10:1) 

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. (Heb. 10:15–18)

The Old Covenant and all its ceremonies are obsolete and have vanished away (Heb. 8:13). Taking these passages and Col. 2:16 together, they clearly teach that when the Old Covenant goes, the triad of Col. 2:16 goes as well.

2. The Old Testament prophesies the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.

Just as there is evidence from the OT that the Sabbath will be abolished under the New Covenant, so there is evidence that it will continue. At first glance this appears contradictory. But on further investigation, it is not contradictory and, in fact, fits the evidence provided thus far for the creation basis of the Sabbath and its unique place in the Decalogue in its function as moral law. Two passages deserve our attention at this point, Is. 56:1–8 and Jer. 31:33. Isaiah’s prophecy of the Sabbath under the New Covenant is explicit and Jeremiah’s is implicit.

Isaiah 56:1–8

Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants--everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant--even them 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 nations.” The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, “Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.” (Is. 56:1–8)

Several observations will assist us in understanding how this passage prophesies explicitly the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant. First, the section of the book of Isaiah starting at chapter 40 and ending with chapter 66 points forward to the days of Messiah and in some places to the eternal state. This section includes language pointing forward to the time primarily between the two comings of Christ, the interadvental days of the New Covenant. It is understood this way by the New Testament in several places (see Matt. 3:3; 8:16, 17; 12:15–21; and Acts 13:34).

Second, Is. 56:1–8 speaks prophetically of a day in redemptive history in which God will save Gentiles (cf., esp. vv. 7 and 8). The language of “all nations” in v. 7 reminds us of the promise given to Abraham concerning blessing all nations through his seed (see Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3:8, 16). This Abrahamic promise is pursued by the great commission of Matt. 28:18–20. Isaiah is speaking about New Covenant days.

Third, in several New Testament texts, using the motif of fulfillment, the language of Is. 56:1–8 (and the broader context) is applied to the days between Christ’s first and second comings (Matt. 21:12–13; Acts 8:26–40; Eph. 2:19; and 1 Tim. 3:15). Compare Matt. 21:13, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” with Is. 56:7, “For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” This anticipates the inclusion of Gentiles in the house of God, a common NT phenomenon. Compare Acts 8:26–40 (notice a eunuch was reading from Isaiah) with Is. 56:3–5, which says:

Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. (Is. 56:3–5)

The Old Covenant placed restrictions on eunuchs. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.” Isaiah is prophesying about a day in redemptive history when those restrictions will no longer apply.

In Eph. 2:19 the church is called the “household of God” and in 1 Tim. 3:15 it is called “the house of God.” The context of 1 Tim. 3:15 includes 1 Tim. 2:1–7, where Paul outlines regulations for church prayer. Now consider Is. 56:7, which says:

Even them [i.e., the foreigners (Gentiles) of v. 6a] 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 nations. (Is. 56:7)

The NT sees Isaiah’s prophecy as fulfilled under the New Covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold there (Is. 56) are transformed to fit the conditions brought in by the New Covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the New Covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the New Covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the New Covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the New Covenant (i.e., from the seventh to the first day). Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophecy looks like when being fulfilled. Jeremiah does this with the promise of the New Covenant. What was promised to “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31), is fulfilled in the Jew-Gentile church, the New Covenant people of God, the transformed Israel of OT prophecy.

With these considerations before us, it seems not only plausible but compelling to conclude that between the two advents of Christ, when the Old Covenant law restricting eunuchs no longer restricts them, and when the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) are becoming the Lord’s and frequenting his house, which is his Church, a Sabbath (see Is. 56:2, 4, 6) yet remains. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of Sabbath-keeping in New Covenant days. The English Puritan John Bunyan, commenting on Isaiah 56, said, “Also it follows from hence, that the sabbath that has a promise annexed to the keeping of it, is rather that which the Lord Jesus shall give to the churches of the Gentiles.”[7]

Again, the essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not in the Old Covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God’s moral law.

Jeremiah 31:33 [8]

Due to the focus of our subject, we will concentrate on the law written on the heart promised as part of the blessings of the New Covenant.

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

A few observations will serve our purpose. First, notice that the law under the New Covenant is God’s law, something He both authors and possesses. We read, “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts.” My law and it refer to the same thing. The phrase My law occurs six times in the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 6:19; 9:13; 16:11; 26:4; 31:33; and 44:10). In these contexts, My law is described as something that can be heard, as something that was set before the Old Covenant people of God, as something that is equated with God’s voice, as something that can be not kept, as something that when not kept is considered as forsaking God and committing idolatry, as something that can be listened to, as something that can be transgressed, as something that will be written on the heart, and as something that was set before the fathers. It is clear that Jeremiah is referring to an objective standard of known and expected conduct when he uses the phrase My law. Whatever this law is, we know that it is not our law but God’s law already revealed to God’s Old Covenant people.

Second, notice that the law of God under the New Covenant will be put on the mind, written on the heart of all the beneficiaries of the New Covenant. This promised blessing is to be enjoyed by the whole New Covenant community. The law of God written on the heart will be universal within that community, just like the saving knowledge of God and the forgiveness of sins (see v. 34). In other words, the New Covenant community is a saved, regenerate community.

Third, notice that God is both the author of the law itself and the one who writes it on the heart. In effect, God says, “I will put and write My law on the minds and hearts of My New Covenant people.”

These observations provide the exegetical groundwork necessary for identifying the basic, fundamental law of God under the New Covenant referred to by Jeremiah. The text of Jeremiah clearly assumes that the law of God under the New Covenant is referring to a law that was already written at the time of the writing of Jeremiah. The phrase My law, when referring to God, always refers to something revealed by Him to Israel, not only in the book of Jeremiah, but in the whole OT.[9] The language of God Himself writing a law is familiar OT language. This is illustrated in Exod. 31:18, which says, “And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.” Exodus 31:18 must have entered the minds of Jeremiah’s audience, steeped in OT language and theology as they were.[10] Jeremiah clearly teaches that the law of God under the New Covenant is a law that both has been and will be written by God Himself. If we allow antecedent OT theology to inform the writer, the original audience, and all subsequent hearers, the only plausible answer to the question concerning the identity of the law is that it must be the same law God Himself wrote previously. This is the natural assumption of the text.

Understood this way, Jeremiah clearly teaches that the law of God under the New Covenant is a law that was written on stone by God and that will be written on hearts by God. Exodus 24:12 identifies the “tablets of stone” with “the law and commandments which I have written.” This is a very important verse for it uses the Hebrew word torah [law] as a synonym for what God wrote on stones. In the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Peter Enns acknowledges that torah [law] refers to the Decalogue in this text, when he says, “Other uses of torah [law] include: a reference to the stone tablets (Exod 24:12).”[11]

Let us compare Exod. 31:18, Jer. 31:33, and 2 Cor. 3:3 in canonical order. “And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.” “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” “You are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.” Thus, both antecedent revelation (Exod. 31:18) and subsequent revelation (2 Cor. 3:3) force us to reckon with the fact that the law of God written by God Himself was what He wrote on stone.[12] In a unique way, the Ten Commandments comprise the law of God. All other Old Covenant laws were both mediated through Moses and written by Moses. The Ten Commandments were first written by God and then written by Moses. We conclude, the terms of the New Covenant include the writing of the Decalogue on the hearts of God’s people.[13] “The [torah] is…the Decalogue.”[14]

We are now prepared to note that the change is not from one law to another law, but from stone to hearts. The text of Jeremiah clearly teaches that the basic, fundamental law of God under the New Covenant is the Decalogue.[15] What God does is write it on the hearts of all covenant citizens. It is not the Ten Commandments as Old Covenant law, but as New Covenant law that is being referred to. There is discontinuity and continuity. There is continuity of law—the Ten Commandments[16] and discontinuity of place—from stone to hearts.

Just as it is important to notice what the text does say, it is equally important to observe what it does not say. The text does not say that the law of God under the New Covenant consists of a disposition to obey. This was true of Old Covenant saints and would not be anything new. A disposition to obey is one of the blessings of the New Covenant, according to Ezek. 11:19, which says, “Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh.” And what will be the disposition of this new heart? Ezekiel 11:20 tells us: “that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them.”[17] Ezekiel 36:26–27 promises the same thing in slightly different language. “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” The promise of the New Covenant includes both a law to follow and a disposition of heart to obey. The phrase My law in Jeremiah never refers to a disposition in men but always and clearly to something revealed by God to Israel as His Old Covenant nation. In fact, the Hebrew word for law, torah, used by Jeremiah, is mentioned 305 other times in the Hebrew OT, but it never refers to a human disposition.[18]

And, as we have seen, the text also does not say that the law of God under the New Covenant consists of a new law. The Word Biblical Commentary says, “There is no indication … that the content of the law, God’s will revealed in commandment, statute, and ordinance, will be altered in the new covenant.”[19] Walter Kaiser agrees, “When the items of continuity in the New covenant are tabulated in this passage, they are: (1) the same covenant-making God, ‘My covenant’; (2) the same law, My torah (note, not a different one than Sinai).”[20] A new law is not being referred to, but a new covenant, the New Covenant, and even a new place for the law of God to be written—on the hearts of all covenant citizens instead of on stone tablets.

Jeremiah 31:33 teaches that, according to OT prophecy, the Decalogue will function under the New Covenant as the basic, fundamental law for Christians.

The Decalogue functions as a unit under both the Old and New Covenants. Since Jeremiah’s prophecy includes the writing of the entire Decalogue on the hearts of all New Covenant citizens, and since the fourth commandment is part of the Decalogue, then it follows that the New Covenant has a Sabbath to obey. This is not only born out implicitly from Jer. 31:33, but it is also confirmed explicitly by Is. 56:1–8.

Conclusion

The OT teaches us that Old Covenant Israel’s Sabbaths will one day pass away because the Old Covenant will pass away. But it also presents us with a Sabbath for the New Covenant. The Sabbath, therefore, functions under different eras of redemptive history. This should not shock us since we have seen that the Sabbath has its roots in that which does not change-creation and its ethical implications for man created in God’s image. Granting the validity of our findings, the question of a Sabbath under the New Covenant is settled. The issue now becomes, what does the New Covenant’s Sabbath look like? Since the Old Covenant’s Sabbath took on unique, redemptive-historical elements, can we not expect the New Covenant’s Sabbath to do the same? Since Christ, as the Son of Man, is Lord of the Sabbath, should we not expect the Sabbath to bear distinct marks of his lordship? These are crucial questions but beyond the scope of this article. It is hoped that this study has provided an OT redemptive-historical grid through which the breadth and diversity of the subject of the Sabbath can be viewed and with which the NT can now be properly examined.

Notes

1. All English Bible references are taken from the NKJV.
2. This is not to deny the fact that the Bible also adds positive laws that may and do change the application of creation-based ethics in light of man’s fall into sin (e.g., divorce due to the hardness of hearts).
3. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, unpublished.
4. The Jews under the Old Covenant had both a weekly Sabbath and other non-weekly Sabbaths. We will consider these below.
5. John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 1:208.
6. Patrick Fairbairn, The Revelation of Law in Scripture (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 1996), 238.
7. John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 2:361
8.  Some of the material used in this section is used by permission from Founders Press.
9. See Exod. 16:4; 2 Chron. 6:16; Ps. 89:30; Is. 51:7; Jer. 6:19; 9:13; 16:11; 26:4; 31:33; 44:10; Ezek. 22:26; and Hos. 8:1, 12. The phrase is also used in contexts not referring to God in Ps. 78:1; Prov. 3:1; 4:2; and 7:2.
10. I realize that the prophecy looks forward in redemptive history. This might cause some to conclude that we must wait for subsequent revelation to define the law of the New Covenant for us. I agree with this, in part. For instance, Heb. 8:10 says, “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts.” This text in no way negates the exposition of Jer. 31:33 as referring to the Decalogue. It simply argues for a redemptive-historical expansion and application of Jeremiah’s prophecy. In other words, as with other uses of the OT by the NT, the fulfillment of Jer. 31:33 illustrates the principle of sensus plenior (Old Testament texts often contain a fuller sense than intended by the author, a sense which awaits further revelation from God for its meaning.). It is argued below that the understanding of the law being referred to by Jeremiah as the Ten Commandments is not only supported by the OT, but also by the NT. In other words, what the OT promises, the NT fulfills.
11. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 4:896.
12. This reality reminds one of Augustine’s famous maxim: “The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed.” Others have said it this way: “The New is in the Old contained, the Old is by the New explained.” For our purposes we may say: “What is latent in the Old becomes patent in the New.” Or “Subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was implicit in antecedent revelation.”
13. This understanding of Jer. 31:33 was held by Thomas Boston in the Eighteenth Century. See Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (reprint ed., Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 177.
14. William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 2:820.
15. This in no way infers that the Decalogue has the corner on law under the New Covenant. See the comments on Heb. 8:10 above. The Decalogue summarily contains the Moral Law, not exhausts it. The New Covenant also contains many positive laws (e.g., Baptism and the Lord’s Supper), as did the Old Covenant.
16. Some might want to challenge the approach that reduces torah to the Decalogue. However, not reducing torah to the Decalogue produces the difficulty of answering the question why God would write temporary, ceremonial laws which point to Christ on the hearts of New Covenant people after Christ’s work on the cross abrogated those very laws.
17. Common synonyms for the Hebrew word ‘law’ (torah) in the Old Testament include: statutes, ordinances, precepts, judgments, My (God’s) voice, and My (God’s) word.
18. The word “law” (torah) is used 306 times in the Hebrew text in 214 verses. It normally refers to the law revealed by God through Moses to Israel. It does have other uses, but never referring to a disposition of the heart. Its uses include: the law of the Old Covenant as a whole; the book of the covenant; the Decalogue; the words of a prophet; the providence of God; and the instruction of parents.
19. Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 27, Jeremiah 26–52 (Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1995), 134. It should be noted that the authors define “law” (torah) in Jer. 31:33 more generically than I do.
20. Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978, re. 1991), 233.