The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I know a lot of Church of Christ™ people believe the Decalogue was abolished along with the OT, and replaced by the NT (scriptures) which they maintain is a "new law".

Thanks!
You can probably find some historic and modern debates between the CoC and the seventh-day Baptists and Adventists on this topic.

Steven

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Oh, I do hear what you say.
However, it does not make sense, it is just an extrapolation, or eisegesis, of convenience.

I got this view from reading the bible. I was raised by people who thought Sunday was the sabbath. I studied when I was old enough for myself, and realized that's nonsense. And I also realized ALL SABBATH DAYS are a shadow of Christ. Nothing to do with convenience or eisegesis. And since Jesus IS the real Sabbath, then keeping the day in the commandment is fulfilled in being in Christ.

You speak as though anyone who disagrees with you is eisegeting the passage.

If the commandment is not "gone" or "wrong", then it is "here and now" and "right".

That is what I said! You're not reading what I say. You claim you are then you say this. If you read what I said you would realize my view states the commandment is in force but in a more real manner than a mere shadow of a day. It is JESUS.

Shouldn't you simply keep the commandment, like you try to do for the other nine?

Again, you claim you read but you actually don't. Let me spell it out for you.... I KEEP THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT by remaining in Christ.

However, keeping the sabbath is the harmony of scripture that is a beautiful spiritual-scriptural reality. Nobody who does not want to receive that pattern from God can be convinced otherwise, they will always have one answer or another (spiritualize, abrogate, shadowize, transfer, subsumed, trivialize etc.)

And you can tell how important a teaching or doctrine in the Bible is by how convoluted and difficult are the arguments that are marshaled in opposition.

Steven

Difficult? It's simple. Jesus is the body that cast the shadow of sabbath day. Get in Him and you keep sabbath.

What's so hard about that?

[Raffi]

Greetings all,

Been following the thread since Sunday, but haven't had a chance to chime in. Once again, I have enjoyed reading the back-and-forths, with some pretty profound statements to go around, in my opinion. I will get back to my discussion with Mike momentarily, picking up where I believe we left off. But first I just wanted to say I appreciated everyone else's input as well.

Steven Avery, you asked some pointed questions a short while back, to which you wanted me to respond. I am sorry I have not had time to respond sooner, as that the conversation has gone lengthily without me. But to review I believe you asked about summarizing my Sabbath stance, explaining my Covenant position, the Isaiah 66:23 Passage, the blood on the Mercy Seat (a theory I am familiar with, btw), and Luke 23:56.

To your first point, the leanest summary I can give is that according to my position there is no change of the Sabbath Day. It is as it was revealed. I believe in and uphold a continued, literal Seventh Day Sabbath as a part of New Covenant Faith and practice as according to the original Apostolic understanding that we find in The Book of Acts and in The Book of Hebrews. Simple enough.

Concerning my Covenant position, I presume you are talking about my understanding of the Historic progress of Salvation History, what is called The Redemptive Plan of God. My position is called Progressive Covenant Theology, and is similar to but not exactly like Remnant of Israel Theology. I do not believe in most of the positions of Classic Dispensationalism, nor of so-called New Covenant Theology, both of which are Abrogational concerning The Law of God. There are good points in Progressive Dispensationalism and in Reformed Covenant Theology, but I do not agree with Replacementism (Supercessionism) or in the view that there is a fundamental separation and distinction between the Israel of The "Old" Testament and the "Church" of The "New" Testament. Rather, Progressive Covenant Theology sees a UNITY and CONTINUITY of Israel-of-old through the Israel-in-Remnant of the Apostolic Age, with unfaithful branches being cut off. The concept of "COVENANT" is a huge element in my theology.

Concerning Isaiah 66:23, I believe that it is a prophecy to be literally fulfilled. And is even now BEING fulfilled in the ongoing restoration of Sabbath-keeping among contemporary Apostolic Believers.

Concerning the idea of a literal application of Messiah's blood to the Mercy Seat, I believe you are probably making reference to the late Ron Wyatt's claims back in the early '90s. Well, I believe that Ron Wyatt was for the most part a good guy, but he has done some things in his former career that bothered me a bit (things not entirely honest), and so it leaves some shadow of doubt on the other things he has done. I used to fully embrace Ron's claim about discovering the Ark below that crack in the cliffside at north Jerusalem, and the claims about the blood sample he gathered. However, what bothered me the most was that grainy photograph he circulated that he kept INSISTING was the Ark, when it had been completely debunked and dismissed numerous times. That one thing more than anything else caused me to really feel insecure with his overall claims. It was a really cool theory, and I propagated it around for awhile. But I let it go eventually. Today, I do not think it is theologically necessary that Messiah's Blood HAD to be applied to the Ark in a literal sense, because I agree with Mike Blume that the True Atonement did not involve physical blood (although I disagree with him about the "death" symbology).

Concerning Luke 23:56 where Luke writes that the women rested on the Sabbath Day "according to The Commandment". I think this is a telling point that, at least in Luke's mind, The Commandments of The Law still bore weight to him and were relevant in his theology even AFTER the death, resurrection and ascension of the Messiah. It is interesting to note that Luke was NOT born Jewish, but was a Gentile convert to Judaism before embracing Yeshua of Nazareth as the Promised Messiah. Even as a former Gentile proselyte, Luke still recognizes the validity of The Commandments and of the authority of the Sabbath Day so late in the period. By the way, Mike agrees that the early Apostles continued to keep the Commandments of Moses and the Sabbath for decades after the Ascension of Messiah. Where he differs with me is that he insists that later on, Paul received a new revelation about Divine Truth that effectively exposed the earlier (what I say . . .) "Pentecostal" theology of the earlier Apostles as having been essentially wrong, and helped them all replace their old thinking with a whole NEW understanding and interpretation of Gospel Theology. We have quibbled about that point before.

So I hope that helped a bit. By the way, it is good to have another voice on this thread. Besides myself, if you haven't already gathered, there are some other Sabbath-keepers here. Esaias is a Sabbath-keeper, and Aquila is a Sabbath-keeper at least some times.

As for Amanah, I do not know exactly what her position is on the Sabbath, but I must say that I appreciated very much what Amanah has pointed out in her post. Her historical analysis shows us that the Christian debate over the role and authority of the Sabbath came MUCH later than Paul's ministry as Mike suggests, and that it came by the issue of men, NOT of God. But I would like to let Amanah also know, there is CONSIDERABLY much more historical documentation that I have uncovered to verify both of those points. Far more even than what Amanah has here concerning the Council of Laodicea.

Also, I would like to encourage Steven Avery to actually read all of the previous posts in this thread and to then contribute his own additional thoughts. I should like to hear his opinion about what has been discussed.

And Esaias, I really enjoyed your responses to Aquila. I especially liked the last one. Your statement, "You cannot 'love God' by disobeying His Commandments" for me was a very profound point.

For anyone who is interested, there is a decent web article on Desiring God by John Piper worth reading. It was written back in 1981, but is worth reading because it is relevant to some of the discussion here.

Why the Law Was Given - John Piper
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/...-law-was-given


Peace

[Raffi]

CONCERNING THE SABBATH AS MERELY A TYPE

We talk of the weekly Sabbath as a "type", and as a "shadow" . . . based on Colossians 2:16-17. And I do not dispute that. But if we are to consider the Sabbath as a repeating motif in Scripture, it becomes clear to us that the Sabbath uniquely seems something far MORE than the common type and shadow. There is clearly something more concerning the fundamental nature of the Sabbath than merely "shadow".

Consider some points:

No other "type" is said to have been ordained by God from Creation (Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 20:11).

No other "type" is made to be part of the Moral Law known as the ASARET HADBERIM (The Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:8-11), where the Sabbath Command uniquely stands as the LONGEST Commandment, and occupying the "heart" or center of the list. But what is more, the Sabbath Command is seen both as a part of God's MORAL Law AND as part of the Ceremonial/Religious Law. It is the only "shadow" that made the Ten Commandments, written in stone (a symbol of its permanence and its perpetually binding moral nature, for if only nine were perpetual, why were ten graven in stone by the personal Finger of God?)

Sabbath is not an ordinance that is centered on the Levitical ministry. It is not a Levitical Ordinance at all. Yeshua did not say the Sabbath was made for the Jews or for the Levites. He said, the Sabbath was made for MAN (Mark 2:27).

The Sabbath is not dependent on a tabernacle or temple as were the Levitical sacrifices.

The Sabbath may not be "suspended" or "postponed" when the People were in exile from the land or sojourning in a foreign country. Even when separated from the Land, every Israelite man, woman, and child was still required to fulfill the Sabbath Command.

The Sabbath is the only "shadow" given that has a specific penalty imposed for disobedience (Exodus 31:14-15; Exodus 35:2).
One of the few Commandments punishable with the death penalty. Nowhere else do we see someone stoned to death for skipping to make a sacrifice. The severity of the punishment says something to us of how serious God feels about this issue.

Sabbath is the only "shadow" said to be a "Sign" between Israel and God (Exodus 31:13-17; Ezekiel 20:12).
Except for circumcision, no other "type" is said to be a "sign". Sabbath is the Covenant Sign of Israel, but ALSO it is said to be given for Gentiles who convert to the love of Israel's God (Isaiah 56:5-6).

No other "type" is found to anger God so much when it is neglected than the Sabbath (Ezekiel 22:26; Ezekiel 22:31). Neglecting the Tithe angers God (Malachi 3), but the neglect of the Sabbaths, the New Moons and the Jubilees angered God so much that we are told that THIS was the very reason God sent the Jews into the Captivity. Israel was never punished for missing sacrifices, although this made God angry also. They WERE punished for missing Sabbaths, however (Nehemiah 13:17-18; Jeremiah 17:27).

The Sabbath is the only "shadow" upon which there is the promise of a specific blessing for keeping it (Isaiah 56:2; Jeremiah 17:21-26).


Something is to be said about Sabbath that makes it different from other 'EDOT such as sacrifices, clean meats, ceremonial washings, and even daily prayers. Within the Sabbath we are dealing with something more than just a common, run-of-the-mill "type" or "shadow". It is on a whole different level.

Thus we cannot strictly compare the Sabbath with such "shadows" as the Levitical sacrifices. The Sabbath, like the Lord's Supper and Baptism, DOES possess within it typological meanings and significance, but it is clear that the Sabbath also possesses in it more concrete meanings as well, which out it in a unique class apart from those ordinances which we esteem more as merely "shadow". Like The Holy Word Itself, the Sabbath is something distinct among God's Special Revelations.

In the heart of The Ten Commandments we read, REMEMBER the Sabbath . . ." (Exodus 20:8).
The Hebrew word is ZAKAR, which has to do with a "memorial". Think back also, that Yeshua spoke of another "type and shadow" when in 1 Corinthians 11:24 he said, ". . . this do in REMEMBRANCE of me."
Therefore, the Sabbath is not just a "shadow", it is a MEMORIAL. As such, it is intended to last perpetually.

God sovereignly chose the Sabbath Day to be the thing whereby His Set-Apart Ones can demonstrate a link to Him as the Creator. The Sabbath Covenant is a sign that God will complete His work in Humankind, which He began at Creation. It is a testament to His faithfulness, which endures forever. If God ended the Sabbath, that would be like sending the typological message that God's faithfulness CAN NOT be trusted to endure forever.

The Sabbath functions as a perpetual reminder He WILL complete the work of creation in us when He said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Thus, it is the ongoing symbol of both Creation AND Re-Creation.

To this day the Seventh Day Sabbath is recognized the world over as the one unique sign that a given person is a believer of specifically BIBLICAL religion. And faithful Sabbath-keeping sends the message that one is a convictional believer, set away from any philosophy of unbelief such as atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, Naturalism, or Materialism, and distinct from any other non-Bible-based world religion. Hebrews 4:9-11 tells us that the Sabbath Rest is one safeguard against unbelief, for in the days of ancient Israel, when our People began to forsake and neglect God's Sabbath, the next thing we see is that the People fell into unbelief. So if Colossians 2:16-17 is the strongest point anyone can give for the supposed dissolution of God's Sabbath Day, I should contribute that Hebrews 4:9-11 is a STRONGER case for it's preservation and continuation.

In The Gospels, when the Messiah desires to identify himself as the Sovereign of The Torah Law Itself, he identifies himself with the unusual epithet "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8; Luke 6:5).

We can all agree that Baptism is more than just a type, though it contains within it typological elements. But it is not reducible to just merely a "type". Likewise, the Sabbath CONTAINS elements of "type" and "shadow", but it is not reducible to merely a "type". Baptism, the Memorial Meal, and the Sabbath are lasting Ordinances intended to be part of the New Covenant Kingdom Way.

I do not believe that the Sabbath is a "type" or "shadow". It is a MEMORIAL and a SIGN. It is an eternal law. It contains within it an element of "shadow". The concept of "rest" and "repose" inherent within the Sabbath is a "type' and "shadow". It is an everlasting Ordinance and a Covenant Sign of God's Kingdom Government in , through, and over His Called-Out, Set-Apart People. The Sabbath is STILL the "Sign" of The Covenant, thus we are correct to STILL call our Messiah The Lord of the Sabbath. Not that he only WAS the Lord of the Sabbath. He IS the Lord of the Sabbath, for he changeth not. And some are want to say that the Sabbath as a DAY is no more for Messiah himself is now the True Sabbath. But if there is anything that we can say of our Messiah is that he always kept the Sabbath as a DAY, and that now he is crowned LORD OF THAT DAY. If he is our example, and we are to follow his way, we too will keep the DAY of which he is the Lord. Colossians 2:17 speaks of those things which are a "shadow" of the things to come. And we know that Messiah is the SUBSTANCE of that which was "shadow". But Colossians does NOT say that now that the SUBSTANCE has come the "shadow" goes away or disappears. It says nothing at all as to what becomes of the "shadow", only that the SUBSTANCE (i.e., the BODY) has arrived on the scene to give definition to the meaning of that which was "shadow". Though the SUBSTANCE has arrived, the "shadow" can still be present, if now for anything else, with MUCH MORE meaning than ever before. So it is my belief that though Messiah has come, that which WAS "shadow" in the Sabbath Day still remains as "shadow", and still remains with us today, pointing ever just the same to our Messiah King and Lord of the Sabbath. Everything that was true and standing about the Sabbath in the Torah Covenant is STILL true and standing today. On the face of this whole earth, there is not a single people for which the Sabbath as a Day would have more meaning and significance than for APOSTOLIC people. HalleluYah!

Though we are told that the authority of the Levitical Priesthood and it's Ordinances are "fading" and "passing away", where is the tell-tale Passage that proves that the Sabbath is passing away? It is not there because the Sabbath stood independent of the Levitical Ordinances. The Sabbath was something MORE, something CONCRETE in the Divine Plan and Will of The Creator.

He is Lord of the Sabbath because the Sabbath is the "Sign" of His Kingdom come, His Law, and His Covenant. Baptism introduces us into the Kingdom, but it is not the "Sign". Baptism introduces us, but the Sabbath is the ongoing symbol of our faithfulness to the Covenant and our position in His Kingdom as subjects of the Lord of the Sabbath.

Baptism's interpretation as a lasting memorial ordinance is thus:
1. I have DIED in him.
2. I have been BURIED in him.
3. I have been RAISED in him.

If Baptism is the sign of Initial Salvation, what is the sign of ongoing Sanctification? Wouldn't the Sabbath, with its emphasis of obedience to God's Will and it's intrinsic message of REST IN HIM be such a sign? After Baptism and its rich symbolic meaning, the Sabbath becomes the ONGOING token of our progressive Salvation . . . our Sanctification. The Sabbath says, I REST in him for his Redemption is a Finished Work. Praise his name! The Sabbath is an ongoing, perpetual testimony that we have ceased from our striving and our seeking of Salvation through religious works, and now we find REST in Messiah's Work.

For this reason I am convinced that the Sabbath is COMMANDED of us in Hebrews 4:9-11, and later in Hebrews 10:24-25 (when we are commanded to assemble together and NOT to forsake it), and that these are not just poetical allegory about SPIRITUAL REST. The Hebrews 10 Passage is talking about the Sabbath Rest referred to earlier in Hebrews 4. Not Sunday or just any old day of our choosing. If we pick any day of our OWN will and accord, how does that show any kind of specificity in our OBEDIENCE to HIS Will? No, we are a submitted People, and the ONLY biblical precedent for weekly congregational assembly is the original Seventh Day of the Ten Commandments. THE seventh day, not one day in seven.

continued . . . .

[Raffi]

The Sabbath is the consistent testimony, the common theme of Scripture, beginning from the very FIRST story of Genesis. Even before the introduction of the Two Tress, the Sabbath theme was present.

The Sabbath is no mere symbol only. It exists as an indelible part of the Divinely Revealed Religion of God, retaining throughout Scripture an extremely high place of prominence and prestige. There is not a single hint of the Sabbath ever passing away. Not a single prophecy. Not even the mention of a preparation of such from the mouth of the Master himself before the cross, nor found in his Teaching of his Apostles during the 40 days AFTER his Resurrection. In fact, we rather find prophecies that speak of the restoration and universalization of God's Sabbath. The Sabbath is among the few motifs of prophecy that we are told clearly will stand until the AHARIT HA YOMIM (The Latter Days), and will be prominent in The Kingdom To Come as a universal law imposed over ALL Nations: Not as a mere spiritual allegory, but as a literal law and ordinance to be obeyed. The Sabbath is prophesied to be restored (Isaiah 66:23; Ezekiel 44:24; Ezekiel 46:3), and made open even to the Gentiles (Isaiah 56:6-8).

Should we not, therefore, keep and obey this ordinance today in preparation of that Day To Come when it shall be REQUIRED of ALL people and nations?

Does the frequency and intensity of the Sabbath's mention in Scripture not testify to how important the Sabbath is to The Creator? To how serious He takes it? That we should doubt that there is any weight to the claim of the abrogation of the literal Sabbath Day? And does not the scarcity of mention to it's dissolution not raise flags in our minds to question the veracity and legitimacy of such a claim? For if we are to read The Scripture plainthrough, we cannot help but to notice how much He invested into His Sabbaths, and how silent He was as to the Sabbath's supposed removal as a commanded ordinance. This speaks volumes to me.

So once again, for me I see that authentic Acts Apostolic Christianity is clearly a Oneness-believing, Acts 2:38, tongue-talking, Sabbath-keeping Revealed way of life, set apart from the world and called to a New Way.

Peace

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Again, you claim you read but you actually don't. Let me spell it out for you.... I KEEP THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT by remaining in Christ. ... esus is the body that cast the shadow of sabbath day. Get in Him and you keep sabbath.

So any commandment from the decalogue can be kept by a self-assertion that you are in Christ.

The logic is simply not there. Basically you give a false interpretation of one verse in Colossians (about which I answered your questions) and use that as a lever to propel away major Bible teachings.

It seems your position is based on the shadow doctrine specifically, which is all based on the one verse eisegesis.
Then Raffi goes into that above.

====================

I have to think about where this fits into the categories of how people squiggle around the simple commandment.

Definitely not abrograted or transferred, nor trivialized.

spiritualized really refers to "Jesus is my sabbath", which is reasonably close to mfblume.
It may be the same as subsumed.
And I may drop shadowize, hmmm, but that is a good one word explanation of mfblume, who is very clear that he hinges everything on his interp of Col 2:16.

That would leave the "outs" as:

abrograted (gone-sabbath)
transferred (often connected to the resurrection)
trivialized (simply not important, majoring in minors)
spiritualized (Jesus is our sabbath)

Have I missed anything?
How about the idea that the new love is just the two Love commandments?

reduced (sabbath is reduced to love)

Maybe reconstructed (referring to the idea that the decalogue law is now the nine thought to be affirmed in the NT, that is a little different than abrogated, which refers more easily to a full antinomian position). That was said to be the position of many CoC.

Esaias, do you have any thoughts on this?

When you have a discussion, and five people may give five conflicting reasons for why they disagree with you on many scriptures, I do find it helpful to understand the five contra viewpoints. Each one says .. forget the other four, I have the real reason. The person who says that the sabbath is simply abrogated or transferred would laugh at the idea that now the sabbath is kept by being in Jesus Christ. Why keep something that is gone? Or, why not keep the new transferred day?

=======

Steven

[Raffi]

The Catholic service of worship has the altar where the Mass and Eucharist are offered dominating the center of the church. Historic Protestant services have the pulpit at the center, with its strong emphasis on the preaching of the Word based on a thorough theological basis. Classical Pentecostal services are dominated by the experiential, a product of the Pentecostal hermeneutic. Neo-Pentecostal (Charismatic) services are centered on the ministration of the Gifts of the Spirit through, among, and directly TO the local church. That to be said, the emphasis of Sabbath-keeping Pentecostals is on the restoration of "PRACTICAL SPIRITUALITY", with its focus on individual obedience to those "outward" expressions of submission such as the Sabbath, the Feasts, the Prayers, and the eating of meats deemed to be clean.

Sabbath-keeping Pentecostals (such as Set-Apart Apostolics) see themselves as standing at one end of a contiguous tradition that upholds the fullness of the Biblical emphases, from the sacramental, the doctrinal, the experiential, the charismatic, AS WELL AS the pragmatic elements of Biblical (hence Full Gospel/Apostolic) Faith.

Much of my argument for the continuation of the Sabbath for us Apostolics, much like the Pentecostal argument for the continuation of the Apostolic Gospel and speaking in tongues, is based on my belief in the unchangeable character of God. For me, the unchangeable character of God guarantees that the nature of the Religion He revealed is to be consistent, unchanging, and continuous for all time. I believe that this is the way the early Apostles understood it as well at least as late as the final destruction of Jerusalem in 135 AD (though Mike says as late as Paul's revelation of the Mystery). As the Pentecostal Movement restored the supernatural elements of God's Revealed Religion, the contemporary Sabbath-keeping Movement is restoring the "Practical" elements of spirituality in God's Revealed Religion.

This leads to my cry to RETURN to the Faith of the Apostles at Pentecost, which had as part of it's practical demonstration the Sabbath. Hence my predilection for the term "Apostolic".

Peace.

[Raffi]

My polite response to Mike's last question:

You claim that my view that God had displeasure in sacrifice had something to do with the people's faithlessness regarding them is my "assumption". That in so doing I am "adding to The Word". I respectfully disagree with you, Mike. My interpretation of this is not as arbitrary as you are suggesting. You asked me why I felt that God became displeased with the old sacrifices. I did not see where Hebrews supplied a direct answer except where it appealed to Old Testament precedent. So, I too turned to Old Testament precedent (not private assumption) to find the answer. I demonstrated that according to The Scripture Itself, God's displeasure in the sacrifices was connected to His displeasure in the heart intent of the people. That is not an arbitrary answer.

I have given you precedent. Precedent based directly on Scripture. You have given me NO precedent that God's displeasure of the sacrifices was connected to something intrinsic of the sacrifices themselves.

If you give me a case where The Bible says that God's displeasure in those sacrifices was connected to something intrinsic to the nature of the sacrifices themselves, then I'll have a reason to consider your argument. Otherwise I am compelled to stick to the testimony of Scripture.

Mike, you imply that the reason why God had no pleasure in the sacrifices was that because He was disappointed that they failed, or because they were incapable of providing forgiveness of sins. In that, God was displeased with the sacrifices because of their intrinsic weakness to accomplish a task for which God put for the to do. My disagreement is that God did NOT put the sacrifices forward to forgive sins, and so their failure to do so was NOT the reason for His displeasure. Therefore, they were not "inadequate" in the way that you mean. Here is where I believe it is YOU that is reading your theology into the text.

Messiah's sacrifice is "better" because unlike previous sacrifices which could not forgive sins, and were not intended to forgive sins (but only "covered over" sin), Messiah's sacrifice WAS a sacrifice which COULD do these things.

You say you are not a Dispensationalist and that you have great aversion for Dispensationalism, and that may generally be so, and I believe that you feel that way. But, Mike, brother, this argument you present here is not taught in Covenant Theology, but was a mainstay of some early Dispensationalists. It was eventually corrected, accept among Hyper- and Ultra-Dispies which STILL insist non this logic to this day. It is one of the major weeknesses of their theology. I say that not to be disrespectful to you, but just to say it is astounding to me to hear a Covenant-leaning individual employ an argument that seems historically to have been a Dispensationalist mistake.

Peace

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

====================

I have to think about where this fits into the categories of how people squiggle around the simple commandment.

Definitely not abrograted or transferred, nor trivialized.

spiritualized really refers to "Jesus is my sabbath", which is reasonably close to mfblume.
It may be the same as subsumed.
And I may drop shadowize, hmmm, but that is a good one word explanation of mfblume, who is very clear that he hinges everything on his interp of Col 2:16.

That would leave the "outs" as:

abrograted (gone-sabbath)
transferred (often connected to the resurrection)
trivialized (simply not important, majoring in minors)
spiritualized (Jesus is our sabbath)

Have I missed anything?
How about the idea that the new love is just the two Love commandments?

reduced (sabbath is reduced to love)

Maybe reconstructed (referring to the idea that the decalogue law is now the nine thought to be affirmed in the NT, that is a little different than abrogated, which refers more easily to a full antinomian position). That was said to be the position of many CoC.

Esaias, do you have any thoughts on this?

The transferred Sabbath is the Puritan idea (that Jesus via His resurrection) transferred or moved the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day, thus they are "Sunday Sabbatarians". The Roman Catholics have a variation of this in they believe that although the Sabbath itself was not transferred or moved, the obligation of rest and worship was (by authority of the Church). The CoC are Sunday keepers but I think their reasoning is replacement - Decalogue repealed and replaced with the NT Scriptures (leaving Sabbath wholly repealed) and granting NT authority (and obligation) for assembly and the "five acts of corporate worship" on the first day of the week. I find the CoC position to be somewhat less internally consistent than the Puritan Sunday Sabbath view.

There is also the "8th Day" replacement view but that seems more of an "additional proof" used by various Sunday keepers than an actual raison d'etre (sp?) for non Sabbath keeping.

The "Jesus is the Sabbath" position which says obedience to the command is satisfied by merely being a Christian seems to me to be the weakest of them all, if not then second behind the "God doesn't care" belief. I say that because it just doesn't make any sense: the Sabbath is not something that "just happened to be applied to a day of the week" but it IS the seventh day of the week, either the seventh day is still the Sabbath or there is no Sabbath.

Interesting that Israel was told to REMEMBER the Sabbath, not "make Sabbath". They were to remember that the seventh day (itself) is the Sabbath of Jehovah. It is not a veneer that can be pasted onto a day, or a person, but the day itself.

The reductionist approach ("just love God and your neighbour") is similarly weak, in that both ignore plain grammar and logic. I think it really all just comes down to "want to", people often just dont have any "want to" when it comes to Sabbath keeping as it interferes with their plans and purposes.

I would say your categorizations are pretty good:

Abrogation (repeal of fourth commandment, or of whole Decalogue).
Transference (moved from seventh to first day).
Trivialized (God doesn't care).
Shadowized (Sabbath command a shadow of Christ, Jesus is my Sabbath, etc).

I wouldn't call it Spiritualized though, the Sabbath is already a spiritual reality. Perhaps "Idealized" (in the Platonic sense) might be more accurate?

[Esaias]

Raffi said:

"To this day the Seventh Day Sabbath is recognized the world over as the one unique sign that a given person is a believer of specifically BIBLICAL religion. And faithful Sabbath-keeping sends the message that one is a convictional believer, set away from any philosophy of unbelief such as atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, Naturalism, or Materialism, and distinct from any other non-Bible-based world religion."

Bravo! Excellent and powerful point.