The Sabbath is not mentioned in any of the lists of evils or lists of virtues in the New Testament. Doesn't this suggest that the Fourth Commandment is no longer in force?

It is a mistake to view the New Testament as a "systematic theology" or "statement of beliefs" or "creed" compiled by the apostles for the purpose of providing church members with an exposition on all the laws, commandments, and doctrines of the New Covenant. The church already had access to the Old Testament, and believed it to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

       One reason the Sabbath is rarely mentioned in the epistles is that there was no conflict over which day to keep, or whether to keep it. At first, the church was entirely Jewish. Aside from the Samaritans, who were also Sabbathkeepers, the earliest non-Jewish Christians were people biblical historians describe as "God-fearers." They were gentiles who, though uncircumcised, worshiped the God of the Hebrews. Many of them first heard the gospel while in the synagogue on the Sabbath day (see Acts 13:1416, 26,3845; 14:1; 16:13,14; 17:24; 18:4). Thus, the church, from its foundation, was a Sabbath-keeping church.

       The silence of the New Testament epistles on the subject of the Sabbath, if anything, supports the Sabbathkeepers' position. Had the churchwith its Jewish leaders, thousands of Jewish converts, and growing number of God-fearing gentilesnot been keeping the Sabbath, it is extremely doubtful that we would find such silence in the New Testament. Surely the Pharisaic believers who caused such a stir over circumcision (Acts 15) would have vigorously and loudly voiced their objection had the early Christians abandoned the Sabbath. Yet, no such objection is recorded in the New Testament.

       Large sections of the Old Testament make no mention of the Sabbath, though we know that the Sabbath was in full force and was being observed during the times those sections were written. Therefore, New Testament silence on this subject by no means indicates that the apostles and early Christians regarded the Fourth Commandment as obsolete.

I would like to ask your help in explaining something I am having trouble understanding. I know that you depend heavily on Leviticus 23 to prove that people should observe the holy days that are listed there. Several verses say that "it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations." But it also says that God told Moses to "speak unto the children of Israel" about these things. It seems like these days and festivals were intended only for the Hebrew people in ancient times. There is no indication that other people were ever meant to observe them. The fact that it says "a statute for ever among your generations" does not seem to be enough to prove that everyone, everywhere, even today should observe these days. If the instructions were given to the "children of Israel," how could others who never received the instructions be expected to follow them.

       Also, Leviticus 24 speaks of using olive oil to keep the lamps burning continually. Verse 3 says this "shall be a statute for ever in your generations." I'm sure you do not believe this applies today. Your churches do not have lamps burning continually. So how can you say chapter 23 is still to be observed but chapter 24 is not when they both say "forever in your generations."

       Finally, back in chapter 23, there are several references to an offering made of fire. Your churches do not offer burnt offerings. How can you pick some parts of the chapter to obey but not other parts. For example, verses 7 and 8 say, "ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord." You believe the first part about servile work should be obeyed but not the part about a burnt offeringand yet they are part of the same statement.

       You see my problem? You appear to pick certain chapters and verses and say everyone needs to obey them. But then other verses that use the same language, "a statute for ever," you say do not need to be obeyed.

       Please help me to understand the reason for this.

First, you are quite right in saying, "The fact that it says 'a statute for ever among your generations' does not seem to be enough to prove that everyone, everywhere, even today should observe these days." Obviously, God does not hold people responsible for holy days they know nothing about. These days were given to Israel, as you point out, and there is no evidence that God had revealed them to anyone else before establishing them for the nation He brought out of Egypt.

       However, the continuity between Israel and the church cannot be ignored. In Romans 11:16-24, the true Israel is depicted as an olive tree with both natural and grafted branches, which represent converted Jews and gentiles. Thus, Israel's tree is the church. In Romans 2:28,29, Paul says, "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardlybut he is a Jew who is one inwardly." In Galatians 4:29, the apostle states, "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." For this reason, Paul can speak of the church as "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16).

       God's promise of renewing His covenant with Israel is applied to the church (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13), and prophecy pertaining to the restoration of Israel finds fulfillment in the establishment of the church (cf. Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21). Gentile converts to Christianity were once "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise," but in Christ those "who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (Ephesians 2:12,13). These believing gentiles are "no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints [believing Israelites] and members of the household of God" (verse 19).

       Through the prophet Isaiah, God reveals that the time will come when many non-Israelites will seek to learn the ways of the God of Israel. "For out of Zion shall go forth the law [to the nations], and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isaiah 2:3). So, yes, the law God gave to Israel was not meant to be exclusively for Israel. This can be seen in several Old Testament passages, including Zechariah 14, where God calls for the nations outside Israel to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. It also comes across very clearly in the New Testament. For instance, Paul, writing to the church in Ephesus, applies the Fifth Commandment of the Decalogue (a part of the law given to Israel) to gentile believers, and even gives the land-promise associated with that commandment a universal application (Ephesians 6:13). Of course, Paul knew, as we do today, that certain aspects of the law were limited to specific times and places, and only certain underlying principles can be applied outside those time/place boundaries.

       For ancient Israel, the law was viewed through the "lenses" of the Exodus. Laws pertaining to slavery, laws dealing with foreigners, and laws concerning the observance of Sabbaths and festivals were Exodus-related. In fact, the Sinaitic Covenant is Exodus-centered. Obviously, festivals commemorating the Exodus and related events have less meaning for non-Israelites than for Israelites. But once it is recognized that the festivals are not static in meaning, and that they actually have more New Covenant and Christological meaning than Exodus/Old Covenant meaning, then citizens of the "Israel of God" can see clearly that the annual festivals of Leviticus 23 do, in fact, apply to the New Covenant community.

       How a particular law applies to a Christian must be determined on the basis of (1) the purpose of the law in question, and (2) the Christological/New Covenant meaning of that law. Only then will we be fully equipped to determine how a particular law relates to our situation. Where holy days are concerned, we realize that it would be quite unlawful to offer the sacrifices associated with them in our churches. The law demands that sacrifices be offered only at the tabernacle (or temple), and only under the supervision of the Levitical priesthood. However, it was always understood by the Israelites that a person could lawfully observe the holy days outside of Jerusalem, or, for that matter, outside of Israel.

       The lighting of the candles you refer to pertains to the tabernacle, not local churches. While there is an abundance of evidence that in the future the temple will be rebuilt, the priesthood restored, and the sacrifices reinstituted under the direction of the Jesus Christ (see Ezekiel 40-48), the temple (tabernacle) is not standing now and there is no functional priesthood officiating. Our churches are not patterned after the temple services, but are more like the synagogues that served as learning and worship centers for the scattered Jews and God-fearing gentiles of the ancient world. It would be a mistake to apply the sacrificial and ceremonial laws of the tabernacle/temple to local churches.

       When we observe the annual holy days, we are celebrating the sacrificial and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. We recognize that the holy days are a "shadow" of the good things Christ makes possible for His people, but His is the "body" that casts the shadow (see Colossians 2:16,17).

I have read of the church keeping the feast days as well as the Sabbath days, and have accepted these teachings. However, after reading Galatians 4:9,10, I am having trouble with why we are to keep these days. Is Paul saying we are not to be bound by the festivals and Sabbaths set forth under the law if we are in Christ?

Paul writes, "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain" (Galatians 4:8-11).

       Since the problem was that some of the Galatian believers were being persuaded to adopt some form of Judaism as a means of salvation or spiritual perfection, many have thought that the "days and months and seasons and years" were the Sabbaths, new moons, festivals, and sabbatical years described in the Law of Moses. But let's remember that Judaism is not precisely the same as the Law of Moses, or religion of the Old Testament. Some forms of Judaism revised the Law considerably, and picked up certain pagan elements along the way.

       Daniel G. Reid states, "From Second Temple Judaism there comes ample evidence of speculation about the universe and how the heavenly bodies were related to angels. The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries in 1 Enoch 7282, a work dating from perhaps the first century B.C., testifies to Jewish astrological ideas and the association of an angel, Uriel, with the stars. This is set within a context in which particular attention is paid to times and seasons" (Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 1993, p. 231, emphasis added).

       These astrological beliefs were probably held by some Jewish sects during the time of the apostles. In all likelihood, the astrological "times and seasons" are the "days and months and seasons and years" Paul has in mind in Galatians 4:10. The apostle warns these former pagans that those who were taking up astrological observances common to certain Jewish and pagan religious sects were returning to the base and worthless elements they had served before they became believers in Jesus Christ.

       Paul fully recognized the Christological significance of the weekly Sabbath and annual holy days. By no means was he condemning the observance of these divinely ordained institutions.

I have read your material on the Sabbath, but I am still left without an answer when asked about the time difference between the Holy Land and Kentucky. When it is sundown Friday in Jerusalem, what time would it be here in Kentucky? If one is keeping the Sabbath correctly, it seems he would have to observe the exact same time period as God did in the Genesis account of creation. It seems those exact hours would be the only ones He made holy by resting in them. What do you think?

God set aside and declared holy the seventh day of each week. Sabbathkeepers throughout the world observe the same day, but do not observe the day at the exact same time, or during the same hours. The Sabbath starts and ends in Jerusalem before it starts and ends in the United States. The Bible nowhere says that we should determine the beginning and end of the seventh day (or any other day) according to "Jerusalem time."

       In ancient times, when an Israelite traveled in foreign lands, he observed the Sabbath when it came to him. No Israelite, regardless of his location in the world, ever perceived that the Sabbath started at any time other than sunsetand the Bible gives no instruction concerning Sabbath "adjustments" for traveling Israelites.

       We need not worry about what time it is in Jerusalem. We should simply observe the seventh day when it comes to us.

Years ago, the church taught that the Day of Pentecost was always on a Monday. Today, the church observes Pentecost on a Sunday. When, and why, was Pentecost changed from Monday to Sunday?

The church changed its practice of a Monday Pentecost in 1974. Before that time, many could see that the "Monday" explanation was theologically weak, but it was not until 1974 that the church began observing Pentecost on a Sunday.

       In brief, here's the reason we believe Pentecost should fall on a Sunday:

       The sheaf of the firstfruits was to be waved before the Lord "on the day after the Sabbath" (Leviticus 23:11). Pentecost was to be counted this way: "And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the Sabbath [the day after the Sabbath is the first day of the weekSunday], from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering: seven Sabbaths shall be completed" (verse 15). This verse tells us which day to count from; the next verse tells us which day to count to: "Count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath" (verse 16).

       Notice three very important points: (1) We are to count from the first day of the week (Sunday). (2) We are to count to the first day of the week. (3) We are to count fifty days (Pentecost means "fiftieth," indicating that it falls on the fiftieth day of the count). The instructions are simple and easy to understand. Not only are we told which day to count from, we are told which day to count to. And to make what is clear even clearer, we are told how many days we are to count. If we begin counting on a Sunday (the "day after the Sabbath"), the fiftieth day of our count will be a Sunday (the "day after the seventh Sabbath").

       The old view was full of errors. The claim that the Hebrew word translated "from" (as in "from the day after the Sabbath") is not inclusive was wrong. The normal meaning of the Hebrew construction for "count from the day after the Sabbath" is "begin counting on the day after the Sabbath." To our knowledge, there is not a single Hebrew scholar anywhere who agrees with the old argument.

       In addition, the Jubilee cycle should be considered. The fiftieth year, or year of release, was the Jubilee. It followed the seventh sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:1-17). It makes sense that the Feast of Weeks would follow the same pattern: Seven full weeks, each ending with the Sabbath, with the Day of Pentecost falling on the day after the seventh Sabbath.

Doesn't Paul remind the Colossians that the Mosaic law was nailed to the cross and, in the same context, warn of heretics who would have them adopt Old Testament holy days (Colossians 2:14-17)?

The passage in question reads, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. And having spoiled [disarmed] principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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; but the body is of Christ" (King James Version).

       It is commonly assumed that the "handwriting of ordinances" is the Old Testament law. The term handwriting is from the Greek cheirographon, which generally refers to a legal document or bond, and is used of a "record book of sins" in Jewish apocalyptic literature.

       The King James Version's "handwriting of ordinances" is an unfortunate translation. Modern English versions are better, and generally do not leave the impression that Paul is speaking of Old Testament laws. Notice how Colossians 2:13b,14 is rendered in the following modern English versions:

       The New Revised Standard Version: "when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross."

       The New American Standard Bible: "having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

       The New American Bible: "having forgiven us all our transgressions; obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross."

       The "record," "certificate of debt," or "bond" that was against us was not the Old Testament law; it was the record of our sins. When God forgives our sins, he erases the record completely.

       In verse 16, Paul mentions the Sabbaths and festivals, but he does not chastise the Colossians for keeping them. He simply admonishes them to allow no one to judge them in matters regarding eating and drinking or Sabbath or festival observance. This suggests that the Colossians were observing holy days, and someone was judging them for it.

       While many cite Colossians 2:16 as "proof" that the holy days were "done away," at least a few evangelical scholars point out that the passage suggests that the Colossians were observing the holy days.

       One such scholar is Douglas R. De Lacey, Ph.D., of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, England). De Lacey says, "The 'judgment' seems to be criticism of the Christians' present practice, apparently of eating and drinking and enjoying Jewish festivals, in contrast to those whose watchword was 'do not handle, do not taste, do not even touch' (Col. 2:21)" (Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, InterVarsity Press, 1993).

       The troublemakers were philosophers who claimed that one could obtain a higher level of spirituality or righteousness by practicing asceticism ("Touch not; taste not; handle not"verse 21). Paul says the philosophers' regulations are nothing more than the "commandments and doctrines of men" (verse 22).

       Given the nature of the problem, it is doubtful that the philosophers were judging the Colossians for keeping or not keeping Sabbaths and festivals. More likely, their judgment was based on how the Colossians kept the holy days. It seems that the joy, laughter, and pleasure of eating and drinkingall of which were abundant on holy dayswere not in agreement with the philosophers' ascetic views.

       By attaching man-made regulations to Christian fellowship and holy day observance, the philosophers were missing the purpose of the holy days. Holy days are not an end in themselves; they are a means to an end. As Paul says, they are a "shadow of things to come," but Christ is the "body" that casts the shadow. Without the body (or "substance"), the shadow is worth little. With the body, however, the shadow serves as a means of enhancing worship and increasing understanding and appreciation of Christ's redemptive work and God's plan for mankind.