Re-examining the Sabbath

A review of “Perspectives on the Sabbath: Four Views”

Most Christians gladly acknowledge nine of the ten commandments, as being true for all times and places, but the fourth, the longest of them all, is the one that the majority believes no longer applies––at least not in a literal way. The Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Baptists, and Messianic congregations would be the primary exceptions, along with some Reformed believers (mainly Presbyterians) who contend that Sunday is now the Christian Sabbath and should be hallowed as such. Our Lord Jesus said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15 ESV). Does that include the Sabbath? And if so, in what sense? Does it require rest and worship on a particular day? If so, would it be Saturday or Sunday? With these important questions in mind, I recently read a book called “Perspectives on the Sabbath: Four Views” by a group of Evangelical scholars, each with a different take on the Sabbath commandment.  

Overview

I really enjoyed the format of this very accessible and yet in-depth volume. Each author writes one essay followed by a critique from the other three, after which the first author is allowed a final opportunity to clarify his points in response to the others. Dr. Skip MacCarty defends the Seventh-day Sabbath position (we should rest and worship on the seventh day), Dr. Joseph Pipa lays out the Christian Sabbath perspective (we should rest and worship on the first day of the week, this is a binding command for New Testament believers), Dr. Charles Arand explains the Lutheran view (we should prioritize times for rest and give preeminence to times when the Word is preached), and Dr. Craig Blomberg argues for the Fulfillment View (we keep the Sabbath by resting in Jesus’ finish work, and we typically gather on the first day of the week following the early Church’s example based on the day of Christ’s resurrection, but this is not a binding command for believers).

Two Views Emerge as the Strongest

I can honestly say that I went into this with an open mind to wherever Scripture would lead, trying my best to lay aside personal and theological biases. It was somewhat exciting and also a little scary. What if I’ve been wrong on this? What if I’ve been teaching others falsely? What if I become a Presbyterian? It wasn’t my first time doing an in-depth study of this topic but recent conversations and circumstances had given me the desire to take an even deeper and more thorough look. As I approached the end of the book, two views seemed to emerge as the most probable. But let’s go through each of them one by one.

First, the Christian Sabbath view (Sunday or the Lord’s Day should be kept as the Sabbath). Now, I love the Puritans and generally find them to be very solid Bible-thinkers, but I was surprised by the weakness of their view represented by Dr. Pipa. I remember a Presbyterian friend highly recommending Dr. Pipa’s work on the Christian Sabbath and I honestly expected a stronger exegetical defense of the position that Sunday is now our Sabbath day. Perhaps there is a better explication out there than his but at this point, I will take this view off the table. As much as I would still enjoy a Sunday afternoon at Dr. Pipa’s dinner table in Greenville, SC, my hopes (or fears?) of ever becoming a Presbyterian have vanished. There’s more that could be said here but in short, I simply don’t find his arguments (specifically concerning the change of day) to be convincing. However, he does make a fairly strong case for the perpetuity of the Sabbath in general, and I do think it would be worthwhile for Christians to read Dr. Pipa’s work if nothing else to gain a better understanding of a position that has been held by many mighty and dear saints over the past 400 years or so (though not nearly as common today as it was 60 years ago).

Weaker still was the Lutheran position presented by the very gracious Dr. Arand. Though I gleaned numerous insights from Luther’s view of the Ten Commandments as a whole––particularly his insistence on using the first commandment as the primary lens through which to view the rest. Luther saw commandments two through ten as nine ways to live out the first commandment on a daily basis; honoring the one true God with our speech, work, rest, relationships, possessions, inner thoughts, etc. But regarding his Sabbath position, Luther leans too heavily upon natural law and too little upon the Scriptures (which he so boldly defended and taught in regards to other issues). In fact, both Arand’s and Pipa’s essays rely significantly on reformation era writings and too little upon Scriptural exegesis. But I think this is because their views really lack strong exegetical support and must be shored up by the historic confessions of their respective traditions. No doubt, there is immense value in learning from Christian writings of the past, but there is also a great danger in depending too heavily upon a preexisting theological framework––especially when our exalted admiration for past saints, creeds, and confessions prejudices us against seeing their potential errors. 

Returning briefly to Dr. Pipa’s position, the same could be said about his reliance on historical theology. Church history matters and Pipa does make a strong case for the existence of Sunday observance prior to Constantine, with several quotes from early church fathers, but again, our primary foundation for what we believe about the Sabbath must be the Scriptures themselves and not the historical practice of the Church.

This leaves us with the two opposing views represented by MacCarty and Blomberg, two views that were more strongly supported by biblical exegesis and yet seemingly incompatible with each other. Let’s examine them below. First by looking at their strengths and then considering some of their potential weaknesses.

The Strengths of the Seventh-Day View

According to this perspective, God instituted the Sabbath at creation, therefore it is not unique to the ceremonial laws given through Moses, but is an abiding moral law for all times, peoples, and places. MacCarty is a lucid communicator who seems very clear on the gospel and appears to have significant knowledge of and respect for the Protestant Reformers and their writings. I always appreciate it when people possess a robust understanding of other views and refrain from straw-man characterizations. Unlike some within the SDA Church, MacCarty does not place Non-Sabbatarians in a “Sub-Christian” category but graciously interacts with them as fellow believers and co-heirs in Christ. He holds to a form of covenant theology, embracing elements of partial-preterism and historicism while presumably remaining pre-millennial (I’d be curious to hear a synthesis of his eschatology). Anyways, MacCarty notes how Exodus 20:8–11 explicitly roots the Sabbath command in God’s resting on the seventh day in Genesis 2, arguing that this demonstrates its abiding relevance for humanity. He freely admits that no specific command is given in Genesis in regards to keeping this day, but writes that “no command forbidding murder is recorded until Noah’s day (Gen 9:9–6), and none of the other Ten Commandments is recorded until they were issued at Sinai. Yet Cain was held accountable for the murder of Abel, and Joseph knew that adultery was “sin against God” (Gen 4:6–11; 39:9).”¹ He also points to Exodus 16:26 as evidence that the Sabbath was an assumed expectation prior to the giving of the Law in Exodus 20. Continuing to argue for the universality of the seventh-day Sabbath (contra those who maintain it was only given to the nation of Israel), he calls attention to the fact that in the Ten Commandments, the sabbath is specifically to be kept not only by native Israelites but also by “the sojourner who is within your gates.” And as further evidence, he cites Isaiah 56:6–7, which states that even “the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant—these 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 peoples.” From here he argues for the perpetuity of the Sabbath by quoting Isaiah 66:22–23, contending that since this passage mentions the Sabbath in the context of the new heavens and the new earth, it must be an ongoing practice that extends into eternity: “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the Lord, so shall your offspring and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the Lord.” Surely if the Sabbath will be celebrated in the new heavens and the new earth, then we should remember it and keep it holy today, right? 

Turning to the New Testament, MacCarty states that Jesus never broke the Sabbath but rather the Pharisees’ added traditions to the Sabbath and that if Jesus had violated the fourth commandment it would have disqualified him from being the perfect law-keeper in our place. He views Jesus’ Sabbath teaching as a continuation of the Sabbath-reform tradition of the Old Testament prophets (eg. Jeremiah 17:21–27; Amos 8:5, and Ezekiel 22:8–11), noting that Jesus freed the Sabbath day from the baggage it had acquired during the intertestamental period, and with a quote from N.H. Young asserts that “Luke’s reference to Jesus’ custom of worshipping on the Sabbath and healing on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16; 6:6–11; 13:10–17; 14:1–6), informs largely Gentile Christian communities some 40 or 60 years after Jesus’ death how, not whether, to keep the Sabbath.”² In connection to this reference to early Christian practice, he also includes quotes from early church fathers demonstrating that possibly a majority of Christians were still gathering on the seventh-day Sabbath well into the fourth century.

Coming to the epistles, MacCarty believes that Colossians 2:16 must not be a reference to the weekly Sabbath but rather to the special festival Sabbaths which were fulfilled in Christ and that Hebrews 4:9 explicitly teaches the ongoing practice of keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, noting the unique word that is used in that verse (sabbatismos), which he reasons cannot simply be speaking of a spiritual rest. These two passages are both critical and complex and will require more time to get into than this post allows. I will do a follow-up article that seeks to dig into each of those texts, scrutinizing both MacCarty’s and Blomberg’s views in light of them. Hopefully, you’ve seen that I’ve tried to present MacCarty’s view as favorably as possible, trying to show the best evidence for his position. He certainly employed some additional arguments which I did not find nearly as strong as the aforementioned. In summary, much of this view is dependent on the Sabbath being a creation ordinance, and that (along with the other nine commandments) it is a perpetual moral command for God’s covenant people. One will quickly observe that most of the arguments stem back to those two foundational claims. As I will show below, in spite of its many strengths, this foundation also seems to be one of the Sabbatarian view’s biggest weaknesses.

One Significant Weakness of the Seventh-day Sabbath View

Since proponents of this perspective are persuaded that Genesis 2:2-3 functions as the foundation for the universal applicability of the Sabbath, this could lead them to all too easily dismiss other later passages that seem to suggest a change in the Sabbath. In other words, Colossians 2:16 cannot mean what the average reader would assume it means (namely that the literal Sabbath was a shadow that has been fulfilled in Christ) because they are already committed to defending the perpetuity of the literal Sabbath no matter what. This is like a person who is convinced that all Italians are short and therefore cannot accept that a tall person could possibly be Italian. It doesn’t fit within their framework, and so another explanation must be searched out. We all do this, and it is not necessarily wrong, but one has to really examine the solidity of their premise. The existence of tall people claiming to be Italian should probably cause one to go back and reexamine the foundational evidence for their belief. Is the premise that the Genesis 2 passage teaches the universality and perpetuity of the Sabbath a solid enough premise to dismiss a priori any texts that seem to contradict it? Or does it need to be reexamined in light of those texts? Remembering (as MacCarty admits) that Genesis 2:2-3 does not give a specific command to humans regarding the Sabbath, we should ask, is it really that solid of a premise? Granted, MacCarty addresses this to some extent in his essay, and I don’t think this potential weakness alone blows his view out of the water, but this premise should be carefully examined in its immediate context and in light of the whole of Scripture before one comes to any dogmatic conclusion regarding the Sabbath.³

The Strengths of the “Fulfillment View” as presented by Blomberg

It is important to note that Dr. Craig Blomberg does not identify as a Dispensationalist (a theological camp that also denies the perpetuity of the literal Sabbath command), rather together with theologians like D.A. Carson and John Piper, he holds more closely to what has been called “New Covenant Theology.” It would have been nice to see a dispensational perspective included in this volume as well (they are included in other books within the “Perspectives” series), but I suspect the publishers thought Blomberg’s position would be close enough. Both viewpoints land in similar places, albeit through slightly different means.

From the “Fulfillment in Christ” perspective, the Sabbath command was specifically given as part of the Old Covenant through Moses, which was replaced with the New Covenant inaugurated through the shedding of Christ’s blood at the cross (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8). Therefore the command to cease from work on the seventh day has been fulfilled by Christ along with the rest of the Torah. However, this does not mean that we simply throw out the Old Testament. It is still God-breathed and useful for “teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). Against classical dispensationalism, Blomberg asserts that we don’t dismiss an Old Testament command merely because it is not repeated in the New Testament, rather we must apply the “fulfillment-in-Christ filter” to that command in order to understand how it applies to those of us living on this side of Christ’s death and resurrection. Blomberg sees this as the best understanding of Matthew 5:17 where Jesus declares, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” He writes: “The concept of fulfillment is the key to understanding the role of the OT in the NT age. Jesus is not abolishing the Law; every last verse remains an inspired authority for believers (cf. 2 Tim 3:16–17). But Jesus does not contrast “abolish” with its natural opposite, such as “preserve unchanged.” ⁴ To say it another way, “fulfill” is not the antithesis of “abolish.” This really is a crucial nuance. To fortify his argument, Blomberg cites scholarly work on the original language to back up the assertion that the Greek word for “fulfill” employed by Jesus means: “to give the true or complete meaning to something,” or “to provide the real significance of that item.” ⁵

Moving on to look at the epistles, Dr. Blomberg highlights the distinctions between the covenants found in places like Romans 7, 2 Corinthians 3, and Galatians 5-6. Blomberg believes Hebrews 8:13 is probably the strongest passage in Scripture that shows the contrast between the covenants: “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” What could be any clearer than this? Would not this include the Sabbath? Dispensationalists see the issue as settled with such a statement. But Dr. Blomberg adds some words of clarification and caution: “Every portion of the law remains an inspired, relevant authority for believers; but none of it may be applied properly until one understands how the new covenant has fulfilled that particular law or part of the law. A new age has been inaugurated that potentially changes everything. In some cases the application of a segment of Hebrew Scripture involves appreciating how it is fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus so that we obey certain OT laws simply by trusting in Christ for our salvation. In other cases, especially with broad moral principles, applications may remain virtually unchanged… We dare not assume in advance where on this spectrum Sabbath observance in the NT era will fall by some methodological presupposition that would a priori push obedience to this command to a particular place on our spectrum of possible applications. We must rather turn to the specific NT texts that impinge on the issue of Sabbath-keeping and see what pattern, if any, emerges from their teaching.”⁶ 

With that premise in mind, Dr. Blomberg leads us through a number of texts (of course Colossians 2:16 and Hebrews 4:9 are among them, but we’ll consider those in the following post). After surveying the Sabbath texts in the synoptic gospels, he states: “Nothing suggests Jesus actually broke the written law of Moses in any of these incidents. Indeed, nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus unambiguously breaking one of the Pentateuchal commandments… To be a spotless, sinless sacrifice for our sins, He actually had to obey the law perfectly.”⁷ So he and MacCarty agree on this point. However, Blomberg continues: “But the emphasis in these Sabbath episodes is hardly on Jesus following convention or expectation. And when we analyze the statements He actually makes to justify His behavior, it is hard not to see the foundations being laid for a more sweeping challenge to and change in the law that would begin after His death and resurrection among His followers, even if it would only gradually dawn on them just how sweeping those ramifications were.”⁸ In other words, he argues that the “Jesus on the Sabbath” narratives all seem to, at least in a sense, downplay the Sabbath. It’s also interesting to note that though Jesus spoke more about the Sabbath than possibly any other of the ten commandments, he never once explicitly reiterates the command or even gives a clear caveat about its perpetuity––the kind that one would expect if the Sabbath were going to continue unchanged into the New Testament era. Indeed, Blomberg believes there is only one place where Jesus gives a command regarding the Sabbath; a command to rest. Though the passage doesn’t contain the word “Sabbath” the concept is clearly there and this is supported by the fact that it is immediately followed by two Sabbath episodes. This is, of course, Matthew 11:28-30: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” In light of this passage and his exposition of Hebrews 4, Blomberg comments: “At last we can answer the question of how the Christian obeys God’s Sabbath commands clearly and unequivocally. Because Jesus fulfilled the Law, and thus fulfilled the Sabbath commands, He, not some day of the week, is what offers the believers rest. We obey the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue as we spiritually rest in Christ, letting Him bear our heavy burdens, trusting Him for salvation, and committing our lives to Him in service, then remaining faithful in lifelong loyalty to Him rather than committing apostasy. No special day each week for rest or worship could ever come close to fulfilling this grander and far more enriching and exciting vision of life to the full!” ⁹

I also appreciated Dr. Blomberg’s treatment of an often-cited argument from Sabbatarians. In Matthew 24, we see that Jesus taught His disciples to pray not only that their having to flee Jerusalem might not occur in winter but also not on a Sabbath (Matt 24:20; cf. Mark 13:18). MacCarty and most other Sabbatarians I’ve encountered typically view this passage as proof that Jesus affirmed the continuance of the literal Sabbath command. If Christians during this future time (MacCarty sees it as a reference to 70 AD) should obey the Sabbath laws regarding travel, then that must mean that the literal Sabbath should still be observed by believers in the New Testament era. But as Blomberg points out, there is also “…nothing unlawful about traveling in the winter! In the larger context, both Matthew and Mark have just warned how hard such flight would be on pregnant women and nursing mothers. Winter travel in Israel was often made more difficult by the colder, rainier weather. Likewise even if Jesus’ followers were not practicing Sabbath-keeping, non-Christian Jews would be, and it would be difficult to buy provisions, get emergency help, or escape the rebukes (or worse) of onlookers if Christ’s followers did travel farther on a given Saturday. In any event, there is nothing prescriptive in this passage about ceasing from work on Sabbaths.”¹⁰ Not that this is a deciding text, but I think Blomberg is right here. I’ve always found this argumentation by Sabbatarians to be rather feeble. Especially since according to Jesus’ own Sabbath reforms, protecting life is permitted on the Sabbath, it would therefore be perfectly lawful for believers to flee on the Sabbath to save the lives of their loved ones. Overall, Blomberg’s explanation makes much better sense.

Some Weaknesses of Dr. Blomberg’s “Fulfillment View”

Dr. Blomberg could have done a better job of supporting his premise and showing how specific commands, though not being abolished, have changed in the New Testament fulfillment era. For example, Hebrews 7:​12-14 “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” This passage clearly demonstrates that “fulfill” doesn’t mean “preserve unchanged.” Jesus fulfilled the typological office of the priesthood and in doing so radically changed its form in the present age. The insufficient external form of the Old Testament commandment has literally been done away with, while the essence of the command has remained in new covenant form as seen in Jesus as the greater high priest of which the OT priesthood was a mere shadow. Notice how clear this is in Hebrews 7:18-19, “For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” Then observe how the author of Hebrews clarifies that this better priest, this better covenant, and this better hope are not inconsistent with the OT but rather promised by it. “And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’” This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.” (Hebrews 7:20-21 which quotes Psalm 110:4). All of Hebrews 7 and 8 are crucial for understanding the New Covenant and the fulfillment of Old Testament promises and commands in Christ, and I am surprised that Blomberg didn’t spend more time there. 

Another example that should have been mentioned would be the following exhortation by Paul to the Corinthians: “Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast permeates the whole batch of dough? Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch. You are indeed unleavened, for Christ our Passover has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us observe the feast, not with old yeast or with the yeast of malice and evil but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:6-8 HCSB). Does this passage not make clear how the truer and deeper realities of the Law have been brought to the service by Christ’s inauguration of the New Covenant, replacing what were only types and shadows? The unleavened bread was a type that pointed to Christ, the Bread of Life, and to who His people would be in Him. Now that Christ has come and fulfilled that OT external form, the truer and richer meaning not only remains but is brought to the forefront. Therefore as Christians, we should get rid of the yeast of malice and evil and pursue sincerity and truth in order to reflect who Christ is and what He has done for us. Notice that Paul bases this shift in the reality that “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.” It is the fulfillment in Christ, the true sun, that pushes away the shadows of the Old Covenant external forms. To be sure, there are many notable theologians who hold similar views to Dr. Blomberg and I’m not sure he presents the strongest case possible in his essay. 

To Be Continued

Of course, both MacCarty and Blomberg respond to each other in the book, and some helpful things were brought out in that process, but I will have to reserve my response to their responses for the next article. May the Lord grant us wisdom as we continue to search the Scriptures.

Questions for further study

Further Challenges to the Sabbatarian view: 

If the OT Sabbath command is so central and continues into the New Testament age, then why is “Sabbath-breaking” not listed in a single one of the “vice passages” in the epistles? (See Rom 1:29–31; 1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:19–21; Eph 5:3–5; 1 Tim 1:9–10; and Rev 21:8).

Does the context of Hebrews 4:9 support MacCarty’s interpretation that sabbatismos refers to a literal keeping of a 24 hour day? Since sabbatismos is a hapax legomenon context must be the primary interpretative tool.

If one were to begin observing the Sabbath, would it be necessary to also move the corporate gathering to that day, is there anything in the abiding moral law that would indicate that? In other words, do the Scriptures (OT or NT) ever mandate a specific day for corporate worship?

Further Challenges to the Fulfillment view: 

If Colossians 2:16 is a reference to the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments, then why is it bracketed in the context by terms like “philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition” and “commands and doctrines of men?”

Does the fulfillment view necessarily cancel out the command for literal Sabbath observance, could we rest on the Sabbath while also letting it point to Jesus and life with him in the new creation as our ultimate and truest rest? McCarty states that he agrees for the most part with the fulfillment view, he just doesn’t see it as abolishing the literal sabbath command. In other words, could it be a both/and?

Footnotes:

1. Perspectives on the Sabbath (p. 12). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

2. Perspectives on the Sabbath (p. 20). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

3. It is important to disguise Dr. MacCarty’s view from the view of those within the “Hebrew Roots” or “Torah Observant” movement. MacCarty rightly understands that the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ in such a way that the physical practice of such laws has been abrogated leaving us with the true and deeper spiritual realities that they represented, whereas those in these other movements seek to directly apply the entire ceremonial law to Christians today. While I have no doubt that there are true believers among the Hebrew Roots and/or “Torah Observant” groups, they often seem to be much more similar to the Judiazers than someone like Dr. MacCarty and his fellow modern-day SDA Christians. Having seen a fair amount of evidence that those who identify as “Torah Observant” often (but not always) drift further away from grace and dangerously closer to a works-based righteousness (or even into complete Judaism), I was grateful not to find this with Dr. MacCarty. Of course in a sense, we all ought to be Torah observant; we should pay attention to the first five books of Moses and seek to rightly apply them to our lives, as with the rest of the Scriptures. However, we must do so recognizing that Christ has come and shown the full and truest meaning of the Torah in such a way that changes the direct application of many laws to us today. We no longer need to offer animal sacrifices because Jesus is the final sacrifice, and in Him, we offer up our bodies as living sacrifices (Hebrews 7-8; Romans 12:1).

4. Perspectives on the Sabbath (p. 323). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

5. Perspectives on the Sabbath (p. 323). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

6. Perspectives on the Sabbath (p. 332). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

7. Perspectives on the Sabbath (p. 333). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

8. Perspectives on the Sabbath (p. 333). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

9. Perspectives on the Sabbath (p. 351). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

10. Perspectives on the Sabbath (pp. 335-336). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Film clip below from: The Chosen scene: “Now I’m completely different”

Bible quotations are from the ESV unless otherwise noted.

Preview of Next article:

I have read more than a few articles and watched numerous debates and discussions, and I want to bring those into the discussion as well, hopefully moving towards a more concrete answer on this topic.

I’ll discuss what I believe to be four keys to coming to an answer on this issue “ (1) The “Jesus and the Sabbath” passages in the four gospels, (2) The “nature of worship in the NT” passages, (3) Colossians 2:16 and context, and (4) Hebrews 4:9 and context.