Objection: Galatians 4:10 must be understood in light of Galatians 4:8, which is describing the days, months, times, and years of idolatrous pagan religion, not the Old Testament Sabbaths of Jehovah.
Answer: The large context of Galatians deals with Judaizers seeking to enforce the Law of Moses, not backsliders to Zeus or Aphrodite. The small context shows the same (Gal 4:3,5,21). Paul did not try to confuse his readers with 4:8-11 by introducing an entirely different argument and heresy. Paul has not changed the subject – he is fighting Judaizers, not idolaters. The weak and beggarly elements of 4:9 are the law elements of the worldly religion of the Jewish schoolmaster of 4:1-3 and 3:23-24. Paul elsewhere described Moses’ ceremonial law as weak and unprofitable (Heb 7:18; 13:9). The bondage of 4:9 is the Law bondage of 2:4; 4:3,24-25; and 5:1. The adverb again, used twice in 4:9, emphasizes the folly of converted pagans returning to another religion of slavery by accepting the Jewish yoke of bondage. The use and language of the Jewish calendar in 4:10 is the same calendar that Paul had in view in Colossians 2:16, which is taken from the scriptures of the Jews (Is 1:13-14; Hos 2:11; I Chron 23:31). Galatians 4:8-11 is just one more argument of Paul’s in this epistle to arrest and reverse the backsliding of the Galatians into Jewish legalism, which includes the weak and beggarly Sabbath days that lead to religious bondage.
Objection: Colossians 2:16 teaches that you cannot judge me for keeping the Jewish Sabbath.
Answer: Colossians 2:16 only works in one direction – no one has the right to require Jewish rules for Christians. Paul used Galatians and this chapter of Colossians to condemn any that would do so. The context is all-important, as indicated by therefore, showing the carnal ordinances of the Jews is the issue (Col 2:14). There is no protection for Judaizers anywhere in the New Testament, for they are the enemies of the gospel of Christ. Jewish days as a personal and private liberty are something altogether different (Rom 14:5-6,22).
Objection: Paul’s condemnation of plural Sabbath days in Colossians 2:16 refers to the Sabbath days attached to the several feasts of the Jews, not the seventh day of the week observances.
Answer: Paul had already identified those special feast Sabbaths by the term holyday. Paul used the plural Sabbath days for the weekly Sabbaths, just like Moses and others (Ex 31:13; Lev 19:3,30; 26:2; I Chron 23:31; Hos 2:11). Paul separates and distinguishes the feast days and feast Sabbaths by calling them a holyday or new moon.
Objection: The Sabbath commandment was “for ever” (Ex 31:17), which means without end, so it is still in force today.
Answer: The same or stronger words are used about circumcision, which was temporary (Gen 17:10-14; Gal 2:3; 5:3); Israel inheriting the land, which was temporary (Ex 32:13; Deut 29:28; Zech 7:14; Jas 1:1); the Levitical priesthood, which was temporary (Deut 18:5; Heb 7:11-19). The Sabbath was strictly Jewish, and this carnal ordinance lasted only until the time of reformation, when God ended His dealings with the nation of Israel (Ex 31:16; Heb 9:10).
Objection: Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, had the habit and manner of assembling in synagogues on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14; 17:10; etc.).
Answer: He visited synagogues to find monotheistic worshippers of Jehovah with the scriptures, so he could recruit converts by persuading them Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and had come and fulfilled the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath, and they should be baptized as Christians and worship on the Lord’s Day (Acts 17:1-4; 18:4-11; 19:8-12; I Cor 9:19-23; 16:1-2; Col 2:16).
Objection: David said the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul, and it included the Sabbath commandment (Ps 19:7).
Answer: It also included circumcision, dietary laws, and sex with your sister-in-law! Do those who toss this sound bite around keep those three laws? Thankfully, we know much more than David when he penned those words. Paul said the law David had was weak, unprofitable, and made nothing perfect, because a better covenant with hope had come (Heb 7:18-19). It is now the perfect law of liberty of the N.T. that brings blessings (Jas 1:25). If David intended Moses’ law, we should not fault him for his inferior knowledge – for it was better than anything else available for that time under the schoolmaster. If David intended scripture in general in its respective dispensations, then we know the N.T. laws have replaced the O.T. laws (I Cor 13:8-10; II Cor 3:6-11; Eph 3:1-7).
Objection: Paul kept Jewish feast days, showing that Israel’s holy days were still valuable in pleasing God, which would also include the Sabbath days (Acts 18:21; 20:16).
Answer: The two covenants ran side by side during the time of reformation (Heb 9:10). Paul became a Jew to win Jews and went under law to win those under law (I Cor 9:19-23). The feasts and the Sabbath were still carnal ordinances with a near end (Heb 8:13; 9:10). His trip to Jerusalem was also to deliver charitable collections (Acts 24:17; Rom 15:25-28); he was not obsessing about Jewish holy days, for he had skipped dozens of them during the years he traveled abroad. The feast Paul sought to attend, Pentecost, was always held on the first day of the week (Lev 23:15-16)!
Objection: Paul kept Jewish vows, showing that Israel’s ceremonial laws were still valuable in pleasing God, which would also include the Sabbath days (Acts 18:18; 21:23).
Answer: There was an offering involved. On what altar should it be offered? If the excuse is made that there is no longer a temple or an altar, we agree that God destroyed both in 70 A.D. at the end of the time of reformation, which has denied all such observances for nearly 2000 years (Heb 9:10). Paul only did this vow to be made all things to all men, including the Jews (I Cor 9:19-23). If this was the Nazarite vow, how should we burn our shaved hair in the fire under the peace offering (Num 6:18)?
Objection: If Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, then the Sabbath law is still in force, and if it is still in force, should it not be observed on the day chosen by God for its observance?
Answer: There is no Sabbath law or principle in the New Testament. It was only a shadow, and a poor one at that, of the reality and substance of Jesus Christ and the finished work of redemption (Col 2:16-17; 8:5; 10:1). The gospel rest replaces the Sabbath and is far superior to the weak and unprofitable Jewish Sabbath (Heb 4:1-11; 7:18-19). Christians do not want anything to do with a weekly Sabbath, which is a Jewish institution, no matter what day of the week is chosen. This does not mean that Christians cannot rest more on Sunday to refresh themselves for the coming week and enhance the value of the spiritual activities of their day of worship.
Objection: Mark 2:27 states that the Sabbath was made for man, which means it was not for the Jews only.
Answer: Mark 2:27 should be viewed in light of Matthew 12:7, where we have the same event and similar lesson. God made the Sabbath for the benefit of Jewish men, rather than Jewish men for the purpose of worshipping the Sabbath. The lesson is the intent of the Sabbath, not the extent of the Sabbath. The extent of the Sabbath is settled by the express declarations for it by scripture (Ex 31:12-18; Deut 5:15; Neh 9:13-14; Ezek 20:12,20).
Objection: Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law, but you say He abolished the Sabbath ordinance (Matt 5:20).
Answer: This and the following three verses were our Lord’s introduction to His Sermon on the Mount, and His intent was to head off any Jewish defensiveness about His correction of the common understanding of the law. He did not destroy the law at all. He restored its right definitions and applications, even in the smallest parts of it. After completely fulfilling it by His life and death, and nailing its impossible terms to the cross, He instituted the new covenant with its new laws written in the heart, but void of all the carnal ordinances of the O.T., including the Sabbath.
Objection: Why do you reject the fourth commandment, but you emphasize the fifth?
Answer: The fourth commandment was strictly Jewish for the nation of Israel only (Ex 31:12-18; Neh 9:13-14), and Paul and the other apostles rejected it as binding on Gentiles (Col 2:16; Gal 4:10-11; Acts 15:19,28; 21:25). On the other hand, the fifth commandment existed before Israel, and Paul applied it word for word to Gentiles (Eph 6:1-3).
Objection: Why did God make the Sabbath one of the Ten Commandments, if it was only a part of Israel’s ceremonial and national law? The other nine are moral and still binding, and this connection causes many to think they are all equivalent and binding.
Answer: God knew with perfect omniscience that superstitious types would rather hold two tables of stone with an even ten commandments on them than submit to His Son and His apostles and their gospel of reformation in the N.T., so He gave them a stumblingstone to trip them up, to which they were appointed (I Pet 2:6-8). God is happy to confuse and deceive those who approach Him with idols like the Sabbath in their hearts (Ezek 14:6-11).
Objection: You make the council at Jerusalem to be an important vote against Sabbath-keeping, but Acts 15:21 indicates that the apostles counted on the numerous synagogues throughout the world to keep Jewish traditions, including the Sabbath, alive and binding.
Answer: The purpose of Acts 15:21 is the opposite of what you think. With a clear apostolic and inspired answer that Moses’ law did not apply to Gentiles, we should not look for loopholes to conclude the opposite of what they declared. The purpose of Acts 15:21 was to explain why such ridiculous restrictions as strangled meat should be requested of Gentiles. Because there were synagogues in every major city of the Gentiles, the Jews there would be regularly hearing the Law about strangled meat, and if the Gentiles were insensitive to the weak consciences of the Jews, it would lead to greater division and strife. These meat laws of the Jews were only a temporary obligation of the Gentiles, for Paul dispenses of one of them when writing the Corinthians (I Cor 8:1-13; 10:23-33).
Objection: Paul said the law and commandment were holy, just, and good (Rom 7:12). How can you take something that is holy, just, and good and throw it away?
Answer: The law Paul spoke of was the tenth commandment against coveting, which exposed and revealed Paul’s lusts (Rom 7:7). This precept of God’s moral law existed long before Mt. Sinai, and it is still binding on Christians today (Job 31:1; Rom 13:8-10). If this text justifies Sinai’s Sabbath, then it must also justify Sinai’s dietary laws, for both precepts are from the ceremonial and national laws of Israel. The two should stand or fall together, and Paul condemns them both together (Col 2:16-17; Heb 9:10). Remember that striving about the law is unprofitable, and no amount of striving can overturn Col 2:16; Gal 4:10; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; 21:25; and I Cor 16:2, among many others provided above.
Objection: Paul said the law was spiritual; so the Sabbath is spiritual, and it belongs with the spiritual nature of the new covenant (Rom 7:14).
Answer: Yet Paul declared that the ordinances of the law were carnal (Heb 7:16; 9:10) and worldly (Heb 9:1; Gal 4:3; Col 2:20). What shall we do? He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth to avoid confusion like this (II Tim 2:15). The moral law of God and the ceremonial law of the Jews must be separated, for the one is spiritual and the other carnal. In the context of Romans 7, Paul dealt with the moral law, for he explained at length how its spiritual properties exposed his spiritual depravity. The carnal ordinances against pork and for Saturday sleeping are not part of Paul’s discussion in Romans 7.
These objections are gathered from many different sources, and are used by permission.
Answer: The large context of Galatians deals with Judaizers seeking to enforce the Law of Moses, not backsliders to Zeus or Aphrodite. The small context shows the same (Gal 4:3,5,21). Paul did not try to confuse his readers with 4:8-11 by introducing an entirely different argument and heresy. Paul has not changed the subject – he is fighting Judaizers, not idolaters. The weak and beggarly elements of 4:9 are the law elements of the worldly religion of the Jewish schoolmaster of 4:1-3 and 3:23-24. Paul elsewhere described Moses’ ceremonial law as weak and unprofitable (Heb 7:18; 13:9). The bondage of 4:9 is the Law bondage of 2:4; 4:3,24-25; and 5:1. The adverb again, used twice in 4:9, emphasizes the folly of converted pagans returning to another religion of slavery by accepting the Jewish yoke of bondage. The use and language of the Jewish calendar in 4:10 is the same calendar that Paul had in view in Colossians 2:16, which is taken from the scriptures of the Jews (Is 1:13-14; Hos 2:11; I Chron 23:31). Galatians 4:8-11 is just one more argument of Paul’s in this epistle to arrest and reverse the backsliding of the Galatians into Jewish legalism, which includes the weak and beggarly Sabbath days that lead to religious bondage.
Objection: Colossians 2:16 teaches that you cannot judge me for keeping the Jewish Sabbath.
Answer: Colossians 2:16 only works in one direction – no one has the right to require Jewish rules for Christians. Paul used Galatians and this chapter of Colossians to condemn any that would do so. The context is all-important, as indicated by therefore, showing the carnal ordinances of the Jews is the issue (Col 2:14). There is no protection for Judaizers anywhere in the New Testament, for they are the enemies of the gospel of Christ. Jewish days as a personal and private liberty are something altogether different (Rom 14:5-6,22).
Objection: Paul’s condemnation of plural Sabbath days in Colossians 2:16 refers to the Sabbath days attached to the several feasts of the Jews, not the seventh day of the week observances.
Answer: Paul had already identified those special feast Sabbaths by the term holyday. Paul used the plural Sabbath days for the weekly Sabbaths, just like Moses and others (Ex 31:13; Lev 19:3,30; 26:2; I Chron 23:31; Hos 2:11). Paul separates and distinguishes the feast days and feast Sabbaths by calling them a holyday or new moon.
Objection: The Sabbath commandment was “for ever” (Ex 31:17), which means without end, so it is still in force today.
Answer: The same or stronger words are used about circumcision, which was temporary (Gen 17:10-14; Gal 2:3; 5:3); Israel inheriting the land, which was temporary (Ex 32:13; Deut 29:28; Zech 7:14; Jas 1:1); the Levitical priesthood, which was temporary (Deut 18:5; Heb 7:11-19). The Sabbath was strictly Jewish, and this carnal ordinance lasted only until the time of reformation, when God ended His dealings with the nation of Israel (Ex 31:16; Heb 9:10).
Objection: Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, had the habit and manner of assembling in synagogues on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14; 17:10; etc.).
Answer: He visited synagogues to find monotheistic worshippers of Jehovah with the scriptures, so he could recruit converts by persuading them Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and had come and fulfilled the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath, and they should be baptized as Christians and worship on the Lord’s Day (Acts 17:1-4; 18:4-11; 19:8-12; I Cor 9:19-23; 16:1-2; Col 2:16).
Objection: David said the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul, and it included the Sabbath commandment (Ps 19:7).
Answer: It also included circumcision, dietary laws, and sex with your sister-in-law! Do those who toss this sound bite around keep those three laws? Thankfully, we know much more than David when he penned those words. Paul said the law David had was weak, unprofitable, and made nothing perfect, because a better covenant with hope had come (Heb 7:18-19). It is now the perfect law of liberty of the N.T. that brings blessings (Jas 1:25). If David intended Moses’ law, we should not fault him for his inferior knowledge – for it was better than anything else available for that time under the schoolmaster. If David intended scripture in general in its respective dispensations, then we know the N.T. laws have replaced the O.T. laws (I Cor 13:8-10; II Cor 3:6-11; Eph 3:1-7).
Objection: Paul kept Jewish feast days, showing that Israel’s holy days were still valuable in pleasing God, which would also include the Sabbath days (Acts 18:21; 20:16).
Answer: The two covenants ran side by side during the time of reformation (Heb 9:10). Paul became a Jew to win Jews and went under law to win those under law (I Cor 9:19-23). The feasts and the Sabbath were still carnal ordinances with a near end (Heb 8:13; 9:10). His trip to Jerusalem was also to deliver charitable collections (Acts 24:17; Rom 15:25-28); he was not obsessing about Jewish holy days, for he had skipped dozens of them during the years he traveled abroad. The feast Paul sought to attend, Pentecost, was always held on the first day of the week (Lev 23:15-16)!
Objection: Paul kept Jewish vows, showing that Israel’s ceremonial laws were still valuable in pleasing God, which would also include the Sabbath days (Acts 18:18; 21:23).
Answer: There was an offering involved. On what altar should it be offered? If the excuse is made that there is no longer a temple or an altar, we agree that God destroyed both in 70 A.D. at the end of the time of reformation, which has denied all such observances for nearly 2000 years (Heb 9:10). Paul only did this vow to be made all things to all men, including the Jews (I Cor 9:19-23). If this was the Nazarite vow, how should we burn our shaved hair in the fire under the peace offering (Num 6:18)?
Objection: If Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, then the Sabbath law is still in force, and if it is still in force, should it not be observed on the day chosen by God for its observance?
Answer: There is no Sabbath law or principle in the New Testament. It was only a shadow, and a poor one at that, of the reality and substance of Jesus Christ and the finished work of redemption (Col 2:16-17; 8:5; 10:1). The gospel rest replaces the Sabbath and is far superior to the weak and unprofitable Jewish Sabbath (Heb 4:1-11; 7:18-19). Christians do not want anything to do with a weekly Sabbath, which is a Jewish institution, no matter what day of the week is chosen. This does not mean that Christians cannot rest more on Sunday to refresh themselves for the coming week and enhance the value of the spiritual activities of their day of worship.
Objection: Mark 2:27 states that the Sabbath was made for man, which means it was not for the Jews only.
Answer: Mark 2:27 should be viewed in light of Matthew 12:7, where we have the same event and similar lesson. God made the Sabbath for the benefit of Jewish men, rather than Jewish men for the purpose of worshipping the Sabbath. The lesson is the intent of the Sabbath, not the extent of the Sabbath. The extent of the Sabbath is settled by the express declarations for it by scripture (Ex 31:12-18; Deut 5:15; Neh 9:13-14; Ezek 20:12,20).
Objection: Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law, but you say He abolished the Sabbath ordinance (Matt 5:20).
Answer: This and the following three verses were our Lord’s introduction to His Sermon on the Mount, and His intent was to head off any Jewish defensiveness about His correction of the common understanding of the law. He did not destroy the law at all. He restored its right definitions and applications, even in the smallest parts of it. After completely fulfilling it by His life and death, and nailing its impossible terms to the cross, He instituted the new covenant with its new laws written in the heart, but void of all the carnal ordinances of the O.T., including the Sabbath.
Objection: Why do you reject the fourth commandment, but you emphasize the fifth?
Answer: The fourth commandment was strictly Jewish for the nation of Israel only (Ex 31:12-18; Neh 9:13-14), and Paul and the other apostles rejected it as binding on Gentiles (Col 2:16; Gal 4:10-11; Acts 15:19,28; 21:25). On the other hand, the fifth commandment existed before Israel, and Paul applied it word for word to Gentiles (Eph 6:1-3).
Objection: Why did God make the Sabbath one of the Ten Commandments, if it was only a part of Israel’s ceremonial and national law? The other nine are moral and still binding, and this connection causes many to think they are all equivalent and binding.
Answer: God knew with perfect omniscience that superstitious types would rather hold two tables of stone with an even ten commandments on them than submit to His Son and His apostles and their gospel of reformation in the N.T., so He gave them a stumblingstone to trip them up, to which they were appointed (I Pet 2:6-8). God is happy to confuse and deceive those who approach Him with idols like the Sabbath in their hearts (Ezek 14:6-11).
Objection: You make the council at Jerusalem to be an important vote against Sabbath-keeping, but Acts 15:21 indicates that the apostles counted on the numerous synagogues throughout the world to keep Jewish traditions, including the Sabbath, alive and binding.
Answer: The purpose of Acts 15:21 is the opposite of what you think. With a clear apostolic and inspired answer that Moses’ law did not apply to Gentiles, we should not look for loopholes to conclude the opposite of what they declared. The purpose of Acts 15:21 was to explain why such ridiculous restrictions as strangled meat should be requested of Gentiles. Because there were synagogues in every major city of the Gentiles, the Jews there would be regularly hearing the Law about strangled meat, and if the Gentiles were insensitive to the weak consciences of the Jews, it would lead to greater division and strife. These meat laws of the Jews were only a temporary obligation of the Gentiles, for Paul dispenses of one of them when writing the Corinthians (I Cor 8:1-13; 10:23-33).
Objection: Paul said the law and commandment were holy, just, and good (Rom 7:12). How can you take something that is holy, just, and good and throw it away?
Answer: The law Paul spoke of was the tenth commandment against coveting, which exposed and revealed Paul’s lusts (Rom 7:7). This precept of God’s moral law existed long before Mt. Sinai, and it is still binding on Christians today (Job 31:1; Rom 13:8-10). If this text justifies Sinai’s Sabbath, then it must also justify Sinai’s dietary laws, for both precepts are from the ceremonial and national laws of Israel. The two should stand or fall together, and Paul condemns them both together (Col 2:16-17; Heb 9:10). Remember that striving about the law is unprofitable, and no amount of striving can overturn Col 2:16; Gal 4:10; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; 21:25; and I Cor 16:2, among many others provided above.
Objection: Paul said the law was spiritual; so the Sabbath is spiritual, and it belongs with the spiritual nature of the new covenant (Rom 7:14).
Answer: Yet Paul declared that the ordinances of the law were carnal (Heb 7:16; 9:10) and worldly (Heb 9:1; Gal 4:3; Col 2:20). What shall we do? He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth to avoid confusion like this (II Tim 2:15). The moral law of God and the ceremonial law of the Jews must be separated, for the one is spiritual and the other carnal. In the context of Romans 7, Paul dealt with the moral law, for he explained at length how its spiritual properties exposed his spiritual depravity. The carnal ordinances against pork and for Saturday sleeping are not part of Paul’s discussion in Romans 7.
These objections are gathered from many different sources, and are used by permission.
