A little while back, Jollyblogger responded to my criticism of Sabbatarianism. His general view seems to be that the 10 Commandments are part of the moral law, while other laws were abrogated. Jesus then must have been talking about only this segment of the law (a segment the Bible never isolates as such) that he calls the ceremonial law. I think it's much more obvious that Jesus really was talking about the whole law as fulfilled. One might wonder why he felt free to break some but keep some of the law, if all of it will never pass away. Well, it's important to remember that the one part of the law that he kept not keeping was the Sabbath command. He allowed his disciples to gather grain on the Sabbath. If that doesn't constitute doing something that the law would prohibit, I don't know what does. This signals that he didn't see the Sabbath command applying. So there's no biblical distinction between ceremonial and moral law, with some abiding and some not (rather all is fulfilled in Christ, and some moral truths that formed the basis of some of the Torah continue on). And even if you did have such a division, the moral law part of the Torah is one thing Jesus kept going against.
David also tackles my discussion of the weaker brother of I Cor 8-10 and Rom 14-15. He doesn't think I'm accurately characterizing the Sabbatarian as the weaker brother in these passages, even if my view is correct that Sabbatarianism is wrong. His reason is that Sabbatarians wouldn't be likely to stumble by violating their own conscience simply because they see believers they respect not keeping the Sabbath. They would be more likely to judge their brother or sister, and David says that's not the problem of the person Paul refers to as the weaker brother. Actually, he's right but only about I Cor 8-10. The danger the weaker brother in that passages faces is doing something the weaker brother considers wrong (but that isn't really wrong), but it's wrong to do what one believes wrong. I can't see how a Sabbatarian couldn't have this happen. Any time someone believes a regulation is morally obligatory, they can be tempted to violate it because they see someone they respect doing so. But even ignoring that, Romans 14-15 gives further problems facing the weaker brother. "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother?" For we will all stand before the judgment of God" (Romans 14:10, ESV). Judging is certainly a worry for the weaker brother. "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother" (Romans 14:13, ESV). So I think these terms do apply.
I should also say that I've already responded to one of his arguments in the comments on my original post. He says he doesn't see how someone could divorce one commandment from the other nine, as if my view requires saying that nine commandments remain in effect while this one doesn't. But that's not my view. My view is that all ten commandments were given to a specific people, Israel, an Israel that was rejected and needs a new covenant to continue in good standing with God. The new covenant does repeat some of the general moral principles behind the ten commandments, but that doesn't mean the specific statements apply as stated to Christians. If you want to think of the fourth commandment as not applying, as I do, then the right thing to say is that they all fail to apply to Christians. So the charge that I'm arbitrarily singling out one command not to follow just doesn't apply.
I do want to say that nothing I've said prevents anyone from following a general pattern of resting one day a week, as long as it's not seen as an absolute moral command that must be followed in a way that even Jesus wasn't willing to do. Also, the principle of rest remains as a moral obligation. The general principle also supports the tithe command in the Torah. Part of our time and part of our money are reserved for God. In one case, that was a seventh, and in another it was a tenth. That suggests that the degree of what's reserved isn't the key but that a part of your time and money represents your devotion to God in the rest of your life as well. You devote a portion of your money specifically to God to represent that all of your money is God's. You devote a portion of your time specifically to God to represent that all of your time is God's. In the end, we do have a moral obligation to devote all that we have to God. I see no statement in the New Testament detailing how much the representative amount to reflect the whole devotion ought to be. The clear moral principle behind each is not about percentages but about representing the whole of one's devotion with a part specifically earmarked for particular devotion. That principle, I think, remains. (I do think my points in the original post about the Sabbath rest of the seventh day being fulfilled in Christ also undermine the argument from creation to some degree, since we are resting in the most complete form that we can in this life if we are in Christ, and the only true obedience to that creation ordinance is to rest in God forever in the new creation. Still, I think a principle of part-whole devotion is also at work here.)