The debate over Sabbath observance hinges on whether the Sabbath law should be classified as moral or ceremonial. While some maintain the common distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil laws, Scripture itself does not make such a division. Even if one were to accept this framework, the Sabbath does not fit the category of moral law. If it were a moral commandment, then failing to observe it would be inherently immoral, meaning all who do not keep the Sabbath—including Jewish believers under the New Covenant—would be guilty of moral failure. However, the Law of Moses does not treat the Sabbath in this way. Instead, it consistently presents the Sabbath as a ceremonial regulation rather than a moral imperative. The rules surrounding its observance—what could and could not be done—were tied to specific ritualistic practices rather than universal moral principles. In contrast to moral laws, which are always binding, the Sabbath’s prohibitions were situational. Adultery, for example, is always immoral, regardless of context, whereas activities forbidden on the Sabbath, such as gathering food or carrying objects, were permissible on other days. This indicates that the Sabbath’s restrictions were not rooted in inherent morality but rather in covenantal ceremonialism.

If one argues that the moral law remains binding while ceremonial and civil laws have been set aside, then the Sabbath must logically fall into the category of abolished ceremonial laws. However, if one insists that Sabbath observance is a moral obligation, they must also be willing to label all non-Sabbath-keeping believers, including those in the New Testament church, as immoral—an assertion that is both theologically inconsistent and contradicted by Scripture. The New Testament makes clear that the Law of Moses, including its ceremonial elements, has been rendered inoperative (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 3:24–25; Col. 2:16–17). Furthermore, the Sabbath is explicitly referred to as a covenant sign (Exod. 31:13, Ezek. 20:12), a designation never used for moral laws. Paul, in addressing the early church, places the Sabbath alongside ceremonial laws such as dietary restrictions and Jewish festivals (Col. 2:16–17), underscoring its temporary and symbolic nature. Unlike truly moral imperatives, which are universally applicable, Paul allows freedom in Sabbath observance (Rom. 14:5), something he would not do for commands against murder or theft. The early church did not impose Sabbath-keeping on Gentile believers (Acts 15:28–29), reinforcing that it was not viewed as a universal moral obligation.

Scholars have long recognized that the Sabbath belongs to the ceremonial category of Old Testament law. In From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, D.A. Carson argues that the biblical text itself does not divide the law into moral, ceremonial, and civil categories and that the Sabbath should not be treated as a universally binding moral law. In the chapter “Jesus and the Sabbath in the Four Gospels,” Carson discusses Jesus’ perspective on the Sabbath; he points out that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament classifies the Sabbath as a universally binding moral command. Instead, it falls under ceremonial regulations, as it is tied to Israel’s unique identity and covenant obligations. Jesus declares that ‘the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’ (Mark 2:27), thereby emphasizing the Sabbath’s purpose as serving humanity’s needs rather than imposing burdens. This perspective aligns with the view that the Sabbath functions as a ceremonial institution designed for a specific purpose within Israel’s covenant relationship with God. [1]

Similarly, Thomas Schreiner, in 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, highlights how the Sabbath functioned as a temporary sign rather than a moral imperative:

“We would expect the Sabbath to no longer be in force since it was the covenant sign of the Mosaic covenant, and, as I have argued elsewhere in this book, it is clear that believers are no longer under the Sinai covenant. Therefore, they are no longer bound by the sign of the covenant either. The Sabbath, as a covenant sign, celebrated Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, but the Exodus points forward, according to New Testament writers, to redemption in Christ. Believers in Christ were not freed from Egypt, and hence the covenant sign of Israel does not apply to them.” [2]

Everett Ferguson’s [3] conclusion, drawn three decades ago after analyzing major book-length defenses of both the Seventh-day Adventist (S. Bacchiocchi) and traditional Reformed perspectives (R. T. Beckwith and W. St), remains strong and serves as an appropriate closing quotation:

“The view that the Sabbath is binding on Christians rests on no explicit text in the NT or early Christian literature. It is surpassingly strange that a supposedly central Christian religious duty depends on the interpretation of an OT text. Rather than seeing a continuing validity of the Sabbath, which was changed from Saturday to Sunday, whether legitimately by the apostles in the first century or illegitimately by the church in the second (or by Constantine in the fourth), it is better to see the Sabbath command as a part of the superseded Mosaic institution and the Lord’s day as a different type of day, a day of assembly and worship.” [4]

Given this overwhelming biblical and theological evidence, the Sabbath should rightly be understood as a ceremonial law, fulfilled in Christ, rather than a moral law binding upon believers today.  Ultimately, the Sabbath law is clearly ceremonial rather than moral. It was given as a sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 31:16–17), not as an eternal moral principle. The moral law, which reflects God’s unchanging nature, is reaffirmed under the Law of Christ, but the Sabbath is not. Thus, there is no valid basis for insisting that Sabbath observance remains binding for believers today.

In Christian Love,

[1] D. A. Carson, “Jesus and the Sabbath in the Four Gospels,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 68-98.

[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law, ed. Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2010), 212.

[3] E. F. Ferguson, “Sabbath: Saturday or Sunday? A Review Article,” ResQ 23 (1980): 181. Ferguson was reviewing S. Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977); and R. T. Beckwith and W. Stott, This Is the Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian Sunday (Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1978).

[4] Craig L. Blomberg, “The Sabbath as Fulfilled in Christ,” in Perspectives on the Sabbath (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 351–352.