The Jerusalem Council and the Sabbath:

Does the New Testament tell us we don’t have to keep the «Jewish» Sabbath?

This is a widely discussed topic, but the Bible does offer some answers. Jesus never said the law would be abolished, nor did He say the Sabbath would be. None of the New Testament writers says so either, yet many believe they do because they have been told so. We are therefore going to look at the verses many interpret as saying we are no longer obligated to keep the Sabbath.

The first argument often used concerns the Jerusalem Council. It lists some of the things the apostles believed the converted Gentiles should observe:

«For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.» (Acts.15,28-29)

The fact that the Sabbath is not mentioned in this list is interpreted by some as meaning it is not required for Gentiles. This raises several issues, however, if interpreted that way.

One question is, did the Jerusalem Council have the authority to make God’s law no longer binding on the Gentiles? The second is, if these are the only things the pagans were to keep from God’s law, then what happened to «thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not have any other gods beside Me, thou shalt not kill, honor thy mother and thy father,” and so on. Was the non-mentioning of the Sabbath, the fourth commandment of the dialogue, synonymous with it being lawful to break? And if so, none of the other commandments were mentioned unless we think of «fornication» to be a synonym for the seventh commandment against adultery. However, the word fornication was also used to describe when a believer took part in rituals and feasts with idol-worshippers or a pagan interpretation of what was legal sexually that contradicted the morals of the Bible. Different people had different ideas of what fornication was.
When Jesus tells a young man to keep the commandments, He lists several of the Ten Commandments, and when He says “do not commit adultery,” an entirely different Greek word (moicheuo) is used to describe this commandment (Mar 10:19). The word used by the Jerusalem Council is “porneia,” which means harlotry. It could be referring to the seventh commandment, or it could refer to an interpretation of sexual morality, or even to spiritual fornication with pagan gods. But was it not a given that one should have no other gods once converted? It was not. In Roman times, it was customary to welcome new gods into their mythology. In fact, as Roman territory expanded, the government accepted the gods of newly conquered territories into its pantheon rather than competing with them. They had an ecumenical sort of religion, and most pagans were not accustomed to a monotheistic faith. Hearing about the Father and the Son would, for many, be considered an addition to their existing gods rather than a replacement. These were among the battles the apostles faced when converting pagans to a Jewish-biblical worldview that forbade other gods, an unusual concept for most Gentiles. And so, among the first converts, many received the faith but did not abandon the customs that connected them to the larger society.
In the Bible and the Old Testament, God’s people were called a harlot when they engaged in religious rituals tied to idol worship. He was repeatedly displeased with them because they did not leave behind their Egyptian traditions and so readily adopted customs from other religions (Ezek. 23:8, Acts 7:42-43).
It is hard for us today to understand the concern that Jesus-believing Jews felt, who were accustomed to it being wrong even to dine with an uncircumcised person, and now the converted Gentiles, with their unfamiliarity with biblical practices, wanted to worship together with them.

But even if this was not the harlotry they were speaking of, and they were indeed referring to the seventh commandment, and we found one of the Ten Commandments in the Jerusalem Council, we still have to question what happened to the other nine commandments. For instance, they said to “abstain from meat offered to idols” but said nothing about any other ritual tied to idol worship, nor about having no other god than the God of the Bible. Was it sufficient to simply not eat what was sacrificed to them? This is not itself one of the Ten Commandments. It is at best an explanation of a commandment, but not the commandment itself.

Those who assume that the only things a Gentile Christian must keep are those listed by the Jerusalem Council may have misunderstood something very important.
At the time of the Council, Jewish rituals were still being practiced. The Jewish temple still stood and continued as before. This is evident when Paul later returned to Jerusalem and was told to participate in a ritual cleansing at the temple (Acts 21:20-21). They were eager to prove to their Jewish brethren and family that they continued to observe all Jewish practices even though they believed in Jesus. This is understandable, considering Jesus never told them not to. In fact, Jesus showed great respect for the Jewish system, even asking people He had healed to show themselves to the priest with the accompanying sacrifice:

«And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.» (Mat.8,4)

He also said: “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Mat 23:1-3)

The logic was not far off, considering they had sacrificed for hundreds of years, now understanding that it had all been a symbol of Christ pointing to His death, and that continuing to take part was a remembrance of that same event. They did not see a contradiction: whether performed before the cross or after, both pointed to Christ and the only true way to salvation. However, in the letter to the Hebrews, they are told that these sacrifices are no longer needed after Christ died on the cross. Rather, they would draw focus away from salvation through Christ, giving many Jews a false sense of security. The ritual laws were therefore now hindering Jews from feeling the need for atonement through the blood of Christ, as they believed their sacrificial system was sufficient for salvation. Some tried to combine the two, thinking salvation lay in both. When the Gentiles were converting, some even tried to make them adopt all these practices, believing they were still necessary. Many of Paul’s letters address this problem.
Paul, being a Pharisee by education, took it upon himself to teach in several of his letters that these laws in many ways ended up competing with the cross. In the end, Jewish Christians stopped sacrificing and performing the rituals tied to the temple service. However, at the time of the Jerusalem Council, they still took part in many of those rituals. Given their situation, these rituals seemed pointless and even an unnecessary burden to place upon the Gentiles, who needed to focus on ridding themselves of idol practices and thinking. The apostles still kept them in order to reach their Jewish brethren, not to be saved by them. Those who traveled to the new congregations, claiming that Gentiles had to partake in these rituals in order to belong, were considered to be in the wrong. Peter addressed this in the Council, arguing that God had sent him to the house of a convert and that they had received the Holy Spirit even though they were not circumcised. They therefore concluded that if God had not withheld His Spirit from the uncircumcised, there was no need to require it of Gentiles from different backgrounds.
It is important to understand that circumcision, which was at the heart of the debate, was what any Gentile had to undergo in order to be part of the Jewish ritual system. If someone was not circumcised, they could not dine with a Jew or take part in any of the rituals. Even at Passover, no uncircumcised person could join in the meal together with the Jews, and Jesus was the fulfillment of the Passover lamb. So some believed that in order to partake in Jesus, God’s lamb, circumcision was necessary.

“And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof” (Exo.12,48).

This is why some claimed that converted Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be part of the “family,” as the stranger had always been required to be in the past.
That this is what the matter concerned is evident when the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, long after the Council, tell Paul to take part in a cleansing ritual at the temple that involved animal sacrifice, saying:

“As touching the Gentiles which belief, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication” (Acts.21,25)

Here it becomes clear that the matter was tied to the Jewish ritual services. However, as the Council had concluded, if the Gentiles followed the above requirements involving cleansing themselves from specific pagan customs, they could take part in the Jewish-Christian worship gatherings, although not in the Jewish ones. Even though Peter had been part of the Jerusalem Council and among those who decided that Gentile believers in Jesus did not need to be circumcised to take part in the Christian congregation, he later struggled with that decision. Paul is greatly upset with Peter when he writes:

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation” (Gal 2:11-13).

The reason the Jerusalem Council is so misunderstood is that we have little concept today of the struggle that existed at that time.
Even when it came to food, many feared to eat what had been prepared by Gentile Christians, as they were not versed in all the rules and regulations the Jews had added to God’s law. Paul also addressed this in his letters (Rom 14:2). Many believe that, in the vision he received, Peter was told to eat unclean animals. But the sheet containing the animals held both clean and unclean ones, and Peter regarded the clean as unclean because of contamination. It was a metaphor for the Jewish thinking of the time, as is evident in Peter’s response:

“But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean” (Act 10:14)

The word “unclean” means it is against the law, but the word “common” is the Greek “koinos,” which means “common, that is, (literally) shared by all or several, or (ceremonially) profane.” Peter would not even eat the meat he was permitted to eat because it lay together with the unclean and had therefore been contaminated. The Jews held this same understanding about themselves: that they would become unclean by being in the company of Gentiles. God then replies to Peter:

“And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts.10,15)

Note that God does not say that which is “unclean” has been cleansed, but rather that which Peter called “common.” Peter himself knew this was not about food when he explained the meaning of the vision:

“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Act 10:28)

Peter does not say he learned from the vision that he could now eat pork. Rather, he says God had shown him he would not be made unclean by visiting these converted Gentiles, and that he should not regard those who had turned to God as unclean. Yet today, taken entirely out of context, Christians believe God gave Peter the vision so that he would no longer need to follow the health laws of the Bible. Cornelius was a Gentile, but he followed the religion of the Jews: “A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house” (Acts 10:2). He was clean, and Peter was not permitted to call either of them unclean on account of their meeting. Those who had turned to God were to be considered clean, even though they were not Jewish by birth or by circumcision.

Back to the Council:

Right after the original Jerusalem Council, Paul went to Antioch, where he informed everyone of the Council’s verdict: that new believers should stay away from the practices of the Gentiles. In fact, all the things listed in the Council’s letter were tied to Gentile practices they wished the converts would abstain from, as they felt that fellowship with such practices defiled the congregation. Beyond that, they said they would place no further burden on them, meaning no additional requirements to join the new family. As the Council concludes, after listing all the things tied to Gentile practices:

«For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.» (Acts.15,21)

The Sabbath IS mentioned in the Council as the day on which they could grow in knowledge, and that there were preachers of the law available in every city to share the truth on that day. In other words, the Council was not writing a new law, but simply offering some complementary words of guidance alongside the teaching the believers were already receiving and would continue to receive in the congregation on the Sabbath.
But did the converted Gentiles not go to the synagogue? At first, they actually did. The fully converted went inside, and some waited outside so that it could be preached to them as well. There were no churches at first, only synagogues. Some accepted the faith, and some did not. We can see this in the book of Acts, chapter 13:

“But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. 
And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. 
Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience…. And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and RELIGIOUS PROSELYTES [converts] followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God” (Acts.13,14-16 & 42-43)

“And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God” (Acts 13,44)

In harmony with the decision of the Jerusalem Council, Paul preached to the Gentiles on the Sabbath:

“And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither” (Act 16:13). 
“And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures” (Act 17:2)
“And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks” (Act 18:4)

The Gentiles worshipping alongside the Jews are referred to in this verse as “religious proselytes,” meaning converts. In order for a convert to be accepted as part of the Jewish congregation, they had to be circumcised and follow all the customs; otherwise, they would still be considered “unclean.” This was the controversy that gave rise to the Jerusalem Council in the first place. It sounds strange today, but it was a genuine question at the time. That is why Peter did not want to go and dine with Cornelius, and why he was so surprised that they received the Holy Spirit even though they were not circumcised. God had to teach Peter through the vision that he could commune with followers of Christ who were not circumcised. Now, in the Jerusalem Council, the idea of separating worshippers was rejected. It had been practiced in the temple, during holidays, and in their congregations, but now the wall between them was torn down, and both circumcised and uncircumcised could dine and worship together in the name of Christ.
The problem of that era is misinterpreted because modern and medieval scholars compared it to a different time and conflict than the one those early believers actually faced. It also became a matter of power, position, and the desire to separate from the Jews. In many ways, Christians turned it all upside down. The Council, which was meant to unite the converts with the Jewish-Christian congregation, was suddenly used to label Jews and their traditions as unclean instead. The Church Council of Laodicea in the 300s actually forbade Christians from feasting with Jews or taking part in any of their traditions (see footnote 1). Everything was turned upside down, and the meaning was lost, as these verses were used to create separation rather than to unite the converts to “Israel.” Now it was claimed that Jews who believed in Jesus had to adopt pagan customs in order to be part of their congregation. The more modern interpretation of the Jerusalem Council is in many ways built upon old Catholic ideas and laws, and is the main reason it is misunderstood even by Protestants today, who regard Christians keeping the original Sabbath as “not real Christians” or “unclean Christians.”

The idea that the Jerusalem Council rejected God’s moral laws, even His Ten Commandments, in favor of these four requirements mentioned in the Council, is in many ways an absurd interpretation of the Council.
And if they had done this, they would have acted contrary to Christ’s own words and to the entire law and the prophets. All accusations against them at that time would indeed have been correct. Jesus was removing the separation, not creating one. If pagans and Jews were from that moment to keep two different laws in order to be right with God, then a separation was created at this Council, not a union. What remained for a complete union was for the Jews to realize they did not have to continue the sacrificial laws, and they did come to that realization once the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and they were prevented from continuing.

Jesus warned ahead of time to the very apostles who were later sitting in that Council:

«Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.» (Mat 5:19)

Jesus also showed no indication that the Sabbath was no longer valid after the Council, which took place around 48 AD. When Jesus spoke of 70 AD, He told them to pray that they would not end up in a situation that caused them to break the Sabbath (Mat. 24:20). If it had been nailed to the cross, why would Jesus speak of it in relation to the future? Would the Council make Christ’s words about the future of no effect? Of course not. Was the Sabbath nailed to the cross for Gentiles but not for Jews? How would that work? Jesus said that His blood was the blood of the covenant and that it was confirmed on the cross. Anything added to or removed from the covenant had to be proclaimed by Christ Himself before His death. If the moral law was no longer required to be kept after the cross, Jesus would have told them. Throughout the Bible, God always informed His people; He never left them to guess His requirements or expectations. It was never left to man to make or abolish laws. Those who did so were considered rebels in the Bible. The leaders in Jeremiah’s day did, and God called them false prophets. Kings did, and God said He would remove the throne from their descendants. No man could remove God’s requirements but God Himself. That is why the law was placed inside God’s throne here on earth. It is not a matter of interpretation or guesswork based on a letter that can mean one thing or another. If there were no longer any requirement to keep God’s law, God would have directly informed them through Christ beforehand, and there would be no cause to doubt.

The New Testament works to break down the idea that there is one path of salvation for Jews and another for Christians. Paul tries to explain this over and over again in his letters: that there is only one name by which we must be saved. Peter proclaimed it boldly:

«Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.» (Act_4:12)

No Jewish tradition or law could change that. Without Christ, it was all in vain, and without Him, pointless. Together with Christ, it was educational.
Paul uses the image of a tree in his letter to the Romans. The tree is Christ, the roots are the law and the prophets, and the branches on this tree are both Jews and Gentiles. After Christ, Jews who would not believe were cut off, and Gentiles were grafted in with the believing Jews. However, it was the same tree, with the same conditions and the same requirements (Rom. 11:11-24).
Paul said everyone is one in Christ.

«There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus» (Gal_3:28)

It was always supposed to be this way. When known Biblical heathen people such as Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth converted, they became part of the Jewish line, the family tree leading to both David and Christ. In fact, God Himself said that any stranger who would keep the Sabbath and honor Him as God was to be welcome to His mountain and His house of prayer:

«Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.» (Isa 56:6-7)

No separation, not two different religious practices. Just one. And the one thing that united them was honoring the Sabbath and the covenant. Not one covenant for converted Gentiles and another for Jews, not one Sabbath for converted Gentiles and another for Jews. The converted would become one in God’s family by embracing God’s Sabbath and the covenant.
In the Old Testament, the Sabbath was a sign that one had turned to the only true God and would make them part of God’s family. Choosing a different “sabbath” from the one God sanctified means Christians are excluding themselves from the true congregation of God. The idea that the Sabbath in the New Testament would be a wall separating Jews and converted Gentiles is therefore not in harmony with the God of the Bible and His desire to unite them. The Sabbath was meant to unite, just as Paul used that day to preach to both Jews and Gentiles alike. The Sabbath was, after all, a memorial of God as Creator, instituted before sin for all of humanity’s ancestors, not Abraham, but Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:1-3). It was not just for the descendants of Jacob, but as a memorial to our Father in Heaven. The Sabbath had nothing to do with the sacrificial laws that came as a result of sin, for the Sabbath was made holy before sin had even entered this world. Keeping the Sabbath is therefore not the same as keeping a sacrificial law that competes with Christ’s sacrifice. This is a lie from God’s enemy, the one who seeks to scatter and divide God’s people.
A sacrifice or a sacrificial law was an act performed to atone for sin committed. One can atone for having broken the Sabbath, as breaking the law is sin (1 John 3:4). But one cannot atone for sin simply by keeping the Sabbath. It is important to understand the difference. If we do not understand it, we end up calling sin that which is not sin, and calling lawful that which is not lawful.
So when Jesus speaks of Rome encamping Jerusalem around 70 AD, He tells them to pray that their flight will not be on the Sabbath, as that would place them in a difficult situation. Jesus clearly sees the Sabbath as still being important even at that future time, showing no indication that the Sabbath had been nailed to the cross.
Lastly, another argument against the claim that they omitted the Sabbath in the Jerusalem Council (even though they did not, as they mentioned it as a day of learning) is found in the very words they used:

«to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…»

Notice the word BURDEN. Would keeping the Sabbath holy be a burden if it were kept according to the biblical requirements? According to the laws governing the Sabbath, one could not call the Sabbath a burden without dishonoring it. Calling the Sabbath a burden was associated with sin and disobedience.
God says through the prophet Isaiah:

«If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour Him …» (Isa.58,13)

The Sabbath was to be called a delight, a joyful day of communion, a spiritual feast with the Lord. Those who claimed otherwise were in disfavor with God.

«Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? ….Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? and it shall rise up wholly as a flood; and it shall be cast out and drowned, as by the flood of Egypt.» (Amos. 8,5 & 8) 

God said:

«And it shall come to pass, if ye diligently hearken unto me, saith the LORD, to bring in no burden through the gates of this city on the sabbath day, but hallow the sabbath day, to do no work therein» (Jer 17:24)

Everything that constituted a burden had to be set aside on the Sabbath, so that the Sabbath itself would NOT be a burden.
God says it is sacrilegious and blasphemous to disregard the Sabbath. God even said that Israel had fallen away when they polluted the Sabbath:

«they polluted [to profane/wound] my sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them …withdrew Mine hand, and wrought for my name’s sake, that it should not be polluted [to profane/wound] in the sight of the heathen…» (Ezek.20,22)

God did not want His Sabbath to be profaned in the sight of the Gentiles. The Sabbath was a witness to them of God’s identity, and that witness had been ruined. No self-respecting Jew at the time of the Jerusalem Council would call the Sabbath “a burden” they did not want to place upon the Gentiles.
It is clear from the meeting’s setting that they were simply providing additional guidance on how to handle the union of Gentile converts and Jews. No Jew, even those who had converted to Jesus, would want to dine with a Gentile who still ate of sacrifices made to idols, or animals that had not been slaughtered in a kosher manner. Many of the converts still had families they dined with who practiced these things. And in order to bring the two groups together, the Gentile converts had to at least consider meeting these requirements, although they did not have to be circumcised in order to dine or even worship on the Sabbath with their fellow Jewish believers.

Those who have deceived millions by abolishing God’s law and using the Jerusalem Council as their defense lack evidence and knowledge of Christ’s mission and His identity, as well as knowledge of the controversies of the first Christian assembly.
When the idea that God’s law was no longer valid was first presented, new scriptural verses were used to confirm it, pulling even more verses out of their context. When one begins interpreting “evidence” incorrectly, every new piece of evidence will be interpreted to fit the already chosen conclusion.

We will look at two such passages. Please remember that the Bible warns us that Satan would use scripture and even Christ’s name to deceive people, and so part of his mission is to distort the meaning of the Bible so that people remain in opposition to the truth (2 Cor. 11:14-15). Peter even said that Paul’s letters in particular were already being twisted in their own day.

 

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2.Pet.3,16)

This can help explain why a first-century church would not even receive John, Christ’s beloved apostle who had known Jesus personally, into their congregation. The controversy started early. The apostle John writes:

“I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. …neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.” (3.Joh.1,9-10)

Not only would he not receive the apostle himself, but he cast out anyone who would. What was so offensive about the apostle to whom Jesus had even entrusted His own mother, that he would not be received in a Christian church? Pagan converts had already begun to reject God’s law. John wrote:

“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1.Joh.2,4)

John rebuked those who claimed the name “Christ” while rejecting God’s law. And this church mentioned in his third letter would not even receive him or his brethren. Did John not know the true gospel? Did John not know Christ? Peter knew Paul was a devoted believer who respected God’s law, but he saw how Paul’s words were being misinterpreted even then, which is why he issued his warning.

Misinterpreted Paul

One of the things most commonly misinterpreted is found in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, where he writes:

«But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.» (Gal 4:9-11)

For those who are “unlearned,” as Peter puts it, in the law and the prophets and Christ’s own words regarding His mission, it seems at first glance that Paul is annoyed with anyone keeping biblical holy days like the Sabbath. This is odd, considering the New Testament shows that Paul kept them himself, even taking care to track all of God’s appointed times so he could observe them (see Acts 18:21, Acts 20:16, Acts 20:6, 1 Cor. 5:8).
Some believe he is telling the Galatians that keeping God’s appointed times leads to captivity, that it is wrong, and that we are now free from such things. It almost sounds as though keeping the Sabbath or any of the Lord’s feasts leads to perdition.
However, only by placing the verses in context does it reveal something different. The verse before the two just quoted clears it up:

«Howbeit then, when YE KNEW NOT GOD, ye did service UNTO THEM which by nature are NO GODS.» (Gal 4:8)

The Galatians were of pagan origin and had previously served other gods. In fact, according to Paul in this verse, they had not even known the God of the Bible before hearing the gospel. He continues:

«But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how TURN YE AGAIN to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be IN BONDAGE?»

They cannot turn again to biblical times and the Sabbath when they never observed them in the first place. Paul is here speaking of the customs of the pagans, their holy days, and their practices. The Galatians had, while still proclaiming Christ’s name, turned back to pagan practices and mixed them with their newfound faith, perhaps feeling pressured by family and friends, as not taking part often led to rejection by their loved ones. This is what Paul is criticizing. We know historically that this is what happened with the Christian church early on: they mixed the feasts and times of pagan religion with Jewish Christianity in order to strip the Jewishness out of the faith. Christians to this day still do what Paul called bondage; they keep previously pagan seasons, times, and feasts. Church traditions sought to blend the two, and many Christians place church traditions above the Bible and God’s laws. But it gets worse: they claim to be free when they do it, and say that those who keep God’s Sabbaths are the ones in captivity. The meaning has been turned completely around. The devil is very clever with his deceptions. That which is of God is now considered sin and bondage, and that which comes from his invented religions is now considered freedom, all in the name of Christ.
However, God said it was a pollution of His Sabbath to call it anything other than holy and honorable. Anyone calling God’s Sabbath bondage is profaning it, just as God previously warned. The verses, in their context, clearly show that Paul is speaking about Christians observing pagan “times” and engaging in astrological divination.

Another misunderstood letter is in Paul’s letter to the Colossians:

 

«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.»

Did Paul not just “judge” in respect of “moon” and “times” to the Galatians, saying they were in bondage? Is he now contradicting himself? No. This time he speaks of “sabbath days.” He was rebuking them when speaking of pagan times, but when he now speaks of God’s times, he says: “Let no man therefore judge you.” To judge: returning to old pagan times. Not to judge: things related to God’s times. It is quite simple.
Those who twist the scripture against God’s laws claim Paul says no one can judge you for BREAKING the Sabbath. But is that what Paul is saying? Continuing to read reveals the matter of conflict. The meaning appears to be the opposite. Those who DID keep God’s Sabbath days were the ones who were unrightfully judged. Why? There are two reasons.
Paul himself links the first meaning when he says: “Let no man therefore..” The verse often misunderstood is connected to what Paul had just written before it. In the verses before this verse, Paul argues that the heathen should consider themselves clean through Christ’s sacrifice even though they are not circumcised.
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” he then continues and says their sins are forgiven: “ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses” . Because he had paid for their sins, and they were baptized, they were to be considered more “clean” and “pure” than a disbelieving Jew who was circumcised. So when the Jews claimed Christians had no part in the culture given to Israel because they were not “clean”, they were not to let that stop them from being a part of God’s assembly. He argues they are clean and therefore not to accept being excluded from God’s sabbath and feasts. To not allow such men to condemn them for taking part. So he says to them they are circumcised in the heart, and then he says “let no man therefore..”. This message is a similar one to the one in Isaiah 56, which we will look at, where the meaning is perfectly clear.

Another reason not to let themselves be judged was for not practicing God’s culture after the Jewish Oral traditions. Because they didn’t keep it after “the doctrines of men”.
He continues to speak of people worshiping angels, and «intruding into those things which he hath not seen» (verse 18). He then continues:

«Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not;  Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.» (Col.2,20-23)

Paul here clarifies his meaning perfectly when he says, “after the commandments and doctrines of men.” He is not speaking about the commandments of God, but those of men. He is not saying the Sabbath is a commandment of men; he knows it is not. He is saying the rules and regulations surrounding eating on these occasions are commandments of men. Some converted Gentiles were refused the right to take part in the meals and were judged for keeping them. Some converted Jews were criticized for not following the Jewish rituals tied to these times. Historically, the second-temple period Jewish sect known as the Essenes did hold a peculiar veneration of angels, and they also claimed it was a sin to eat meat, the Passover lamb, or even to take part in a Passover meal. There were many man-made rules from different Jewish groups in those days, and some of them converted to Christianity but continued trying to impose their ideas as law on the first Christians. Paul did not want a Christian “Talmud.” We know Paul is speaking of the additional laws and requirements attached to these holy days, how to keep them, what to do and not to do, as he himself states that what he criticizes is that which is “after the commandments of men.”
They were not to let anyone judge them over questions that had no foundation in scripture. They could keep the appointed times with a good conscience, without bearing the burden of all the man-made additional laws. Many felt that Gentile converts had no right to take part in any of the Jewish feasts since they were not circumcised. Still, to this day, Jews claim that Gentiles are not to keep the Sabbath, contrary to God’s own words, and judge those who do.
Still to this day, many rules and regulations regarding eating and drinking are added to God’s appointed times that are not found in the original law.
No place in these verses does Paul say he speaks about those who judge them who DO NOT keep God’s sabbaths; more, it seems, he is trying to separate what is of God and what is of men. And he is proclaiming that these things belong to Jesus as they testify of Him. They are not Jewish property; they belong to Christ as they all pointed to Him. God addressed the Jews, coming up with the idea that the Sabbaths are only for them in Isaiah:

“Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it …Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off” (Isa 56,2-5)

And so it was not the first time the Jews had tried to claim the Sabbath as exclusively their own. Now Paul has to tell the believers, like God once did, not to let anyone judge them for keeping God’s times.
Jesus did the same regarding the Sabbath when He was here on earth. He provoked the Pharisees and all their man-made laws, tied, for instance, to the Sabbath. And he broke their additional laws to such a degree that He was condemned to be a Sabbath breaker:

«Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man [Jesus] is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day» (Joh 9:16 ).

Jesus was judged a Sabbath breaker when, in fact, He was keeping it in harmony with God’s law (John 15:10). Jesus met their accusations by saying He, the son of man, was the master of the Sabbath. It’s the same argument Paul makes in his letter when he says: «or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ». Paul ties the sabbaths to Christ and the rest that is to come. The laws he says not to be judged by are, according to himself:

«after the commandments and doctrines of men.»
God’s sabbaths are not after the commandments and doctrines of men, and so we need to separate the two, as probably was Paul’s intention with his words in the first place. The law of God strictly forbids the mixing of the commandments of God with the commandments of men:

«What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.» (Deu 12:32)

This struggle was so great that Paul even warned his friend Titus about it:

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision: ….Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth” (Tit.1 10& 13-14).

Paul is constantly criticizing the Jewish traditions that have no foundation in the Bible or the law. When it comes to the law and the prophets (there was no New Testament when Paul wrote this), Paul gives the opposite testimony:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2Ti 3:16-17)

In other words: Jewish self-made commandments are bad, and God’s law and words to the prophets are good. It’s very simple if we do not distort the meaning.

We can either interpret Paul as being in harmony with the law or as being in violation of it. If he is in violation, the rest of the Bible warns us about men like Paul. But how we choose to read it will reveal what we desire the truth to be. Would we rather, as the Galatians, Paul gave a reproof, keep old gentile customs together with Christ’s name, or will we keep God’s times instead, without letting anyone judge us for it, saying it’s just for the Jews? Shall we be judged by the world «in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days»?
In those days, there were Jewish groups who were so strict about what they could and could not eat, far surpassing the laws in Leviticus, that they would rather eat grass than something that might have been in contact with something unclean. Or that a pan had been used for unclean things, so they could not accept anyone’s hospitality even if the host gave them “clean meat”. The exaggeration in the keeping of God’s requirements caused ridicule and fanaticism and pictured God as a dictator looking for faults rather than a loving, caring Father. In the letter to the Colossians, Paul says:

«Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,  (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?» (Col 2:20-22)

Paul isn’t even here speaking of the things the bible forbids to eat, but things that men themselves have commanded not to eat. We never find Paul criticizing God’s law; we can only find him criticizing the traditions and laws of man. Unfortunately, because the worker of Satan has «transformed as the ministers of righteousness,» Satan has found a way to make the Bible seem to attack God’s laws. (2. Cor. 11,14) He is still the serpent sitting in the tree, convincing man that it’s harmless to eat, that it’s harmless to break God’s command. He has convinced hordes of Christians that they will be free if they break them, that they are elevated above God’s law, and therefore need not keep them. Just like he said to Eve, she would be as god if she ate. To be a god is to be your own judge rather than being under someone else’s laws. He preaches that freedom is to break God’s law, or to eat that fruit. He uses these precious lessons of Paul to try to convince Christians that they have a different meaning and that they prove God will be even happier if you now go against His laws. Not only happy, but we sin if we don’t. What a deception. Christ’s words regarding the law were so clear that they cannot be used against Him, leaving the followers of this misinterpretation of Paul to reject even following in Christ’s footsteps regarding respecting God’s law. They follow “Paul”, not “Christ”. To be a Christian is to follow in the steps of Christ. But few can be compared to the actual life of Christ, which was in harmony with all of God’s laws. He who kept the Sabbath Himself. He who was the living sabbath manifested, the word made flesh (Joh. 1:1).

You won’t find the Sabbath abolished anywhere in the Bible, no prophecy of its abolition, nothing about it being abolished in the New Testament either. You won’t find a single place where it is changed to another day or called unholy. In fact, the two places that speak about God’s law changed, or His times changed, God calls those who do it ungodly and deceivers (Isa_24:5, Dan. 7:25, Matt 5:17-19). Not one single place says the Sabbath is no more. Yet many Christians all over the world think the Bible says the Sabbath is no longer valid, and many even think the Bible says it’s now changed to Sunday. They used the fact that Jesus rose on that day and that the disciples gathered that day. But even this is a deception. Jesus first gathered with the disciples in the evening after the first day of the week, which in Biblical times was when it crossed over to the second day of the week (Joh 20:19). Next, they met eight days later, where Christ showed Himself to them on a Monday evening which according to Biblical times is the third day of the week (Joh 20:26). Pentecost was on a Sunday because Pentecost was really a biblical holy day called Shavuot, they were gathered to keep this law not to keep Sunday as the new Sabbath. (Acts.2,1, Lev. 23,15-16) And Christ outpoured the Holy Spirit that day because it was His holy appointed time, the time of “first fruits”. It even says it’s tied to the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and not the weekly Sabbath in the text. There is no scriptural evidence for Sunday as the new Sabbath; it’s just a lie originating with the Catholic Church, which claims the change is a mark of its authority as the church’s lawgiver (See footnote 2).
Lastly, when the word «The Lord’s day» is used in the book of Revelation, it is, according to scripture, but one day, the original Sabbath. No other day is called the Lord’s day in the Bible. Sunday does not exist as a holy day in the Bible.
Not one verse calls God’s Sabbath abolished. And even if Paul had claimed so, the rest of the Bible would call him a liar. Paul was not a lawgiver and had no power to abolish laws. Nor did the Jerusalem Council, nor did they claim to. They only tried to guide and unify the believers so that they could worship together…. on the Sabbath! They wanted the Gentiles to be “clean” from idol practices before joining in the togetherness.

 

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. ( 1Co 5:9-11)

Did the Jerusalem council say heathens didn’t have to keep the Sabbath? No. They didn’t address the Ten Commandments, perhaps because it had not yet occurred to anyone that someone might claim we are now free to break God’s moral law in Christ’s name.
But it happened.

Now you can be free from these lies and let no one judge you for going back to the apostolic faith and become one of those who will resist the beast and his mark in the end days, “here are the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus”. (Rev.14,12)

 

_______________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

Footnote 1:
(Note: Example of “touch not..” after “commandments of men” in regards to God’s feasts)
Canon 37
It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.
Canon 38
It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.
Canon 29
“Christians must not judaize by resting on the [Jewish] Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema (excommunicated) from Christ.
(Laodicean Council (363–364 AD):

Footnote 2:
“Instead of THE SEVENTH DAY, AND OTHER FESTIVALS appointed by the old law, the church has prescribed THE SUNDAYS AND HOLY DAYS to be set apart for God’s WORSHIP, and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.” (The Catholic Christian Instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifices, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church By Way of Question and Answer, RT Rev. Dr. Challoner, p. 204)

“… Christians should seek recognition of SUNDAYS AND THE … HOLY DAYS as LEGAL holidays” “… for rest and divine WORSHIP.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2000, pars. 2188 and 2187)

“Q. Has the [Catholic] church power to make any alterations in the commandments of God?
“A. … INSTEAD OF THE SEVENTH DAY, AND OTHER FESTIVALS APPOINTED BY THE OLD LAW, THE CHURCH HAS PRESCRIBED THE SUNDAYS AND HOLY DAYS TO BE SET APART FOR GOD’S WORSHIP; and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.” (The Catholic Christian Instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifices, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church By Way of Question and Answer, RT Rev. Dr. Challoner, p. 204; my comment inserted within brackets)