In Exodus 20, God gave Israel the "10 words" (Deut 10:4), what we call the 10 Commandments. One of those ten is the remembrance of the Sabbath. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God" (Exo 20:9-10). The Jews maintain that still, as do a few Christian sects, but most of Christendom observes Sunday as the Lord's Day -- the "Christian Sabbath." But ... does that work? Does that make sense?
Modern Christians look at 1 Timothy 2:12 and set it aside. Paul writes, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12). We who accept the Bible as God's Word and try to figure out how we should think and live based on what it says tend to agree with Paul. Those who take their first perspectives from the perceptions of the world around us don't. "It's wrong." Some say it's wrong because it never should have been in there. Some say it was okay for Paul's day but things have changed. But Paul tells why he said it. "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim 2:13-14). It is not based on culture or education or error; it is based on Creation. So we (I already told you what "we" I'm referring to) take it as it appears to be written. Similarly, the Sabbath command receives a similar response from some. "It is in error." Not necessarily because it shouldn't be there or it was a myth. No, it was for the Jews only and we don't have to do that. Times have changed, for whatever reason. But, like Paul, God gives the reason for His Sabbath command. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy" (Exo 20:11). Like Paul's command for women, this one is also sourced in Creation. God blessed the Sabbath because it reflected His creative work and He rested.
There are two fundamental principles in the honoring of the Sabbath. First, the word itself means "intermission" or "rest." A primary concern to God was that we need rest. God knew that we could easily go the wrong way on work ... in either direction. So we should work (2 Thess 3:10) on one hand, but we need rest. Thus, the two should be part of our weekly schedule. Second, the "rest" in view here has double duty. On one hand it provides simple rest from work. On the other hand it provides the rest that God provides. Hebrews 3-4 talks about those who "would not enter His rest" (Psa 95:11; Heb 3:11, 18; Heb 4:3, 5). This rest is the rest of faith, the rest of obedience, the rest of a healthy relationship with God. It starts by honoring God weekly in physical and spiritual rest.
There are those today who argue that there is no requirement for Sabbath rest for Christians because that was given to the Jews. Interestingly, they do so by pulling the command out of 9 other commands that they do still see as valid for Christians. Like those who argue that "Genesis 1 through 11 is myth but after that it's historical narrative," it seems to me that this is a non sequitur. If the other 9 are "moral commands," what makes this one, single command in a list of moral commands different? If God roots the command in His Creation and His character, how is that not applicable to all who wish to know and serve Him? Thus, most of Christendom has surrendered the sixth day as Sabbath and exchanged it for the first day in honor of our Lord's resurrection, but they haven't surrendered the Sabbath entirely. In fact, this idea that the Sabbath has no bearing on Christians is actually quite new, as demonstrated by the "Blue Laws" that governed societal behavior in my own lifetime in America. Feminists have influenced Christians away from Scripture because they don't like Paul's command about women. Secularists have influenced Christians away from Scripture because they don't like God's command to honor Him by resting and honoring Him one day a week. I don't believe that most of those who have bought this thinking have done so for nefarious reasons, but I do believe they've been lied to and they ought to reconsider. I know I have.
36 comments:
Should we not also consider the penalty of disobeying the Sabbath command? Exodus 31:14 says those who profane the Sabbath shall surely be put to death. Should we throw that one out?
Should we not consider what Jesus had to say about the Sabbath?
I'm not being combative, I just sincerely don't know what to do about the Sabbath.
Only the last six are moral commands.The others are about relationship to God.
I've heard it argued that if you hold to the ceremonial practice of Sabbath you should also hold the rest of the Law. But we all agree that the ceremonial law has been recended for Christians, we're not Jews after all. So I agree we shouldn't maintain the ceremonial aspects of Sabbath. I believe that both the placement of the Sabbath in the MIDDLE of the moral law, that we all agree is still in effect, makes it a moral law, and that it is rooted primarily in Creation and then in a remembrance of being freed as slaves, which we should all still remember in Christ, makes the observance of rest a Christian duty. Removing it from the traditional day of Sunday only makes it more difficult to observe that rest and the communing with the brethren.
Are you saying you still regard Saturday as the Sabbath and not Sunday? How does that work for you? At the risk of sounding flippant, how do we know the 7th day wasn't a Tuesday? Off the top of my head, I can't think of what the earliest Scriptural reference to the Sabbath is, which wouldn't make Saturday the Sabbath a somewhat arbitrary selection after which it became the fact. This wouldn't make it any less acceptable as any chosen day would represent the 7th Day, whatever day it was, and thus serve to honor the day of which the LORD spoke.
To a great extent, do you think it really matters which specific day of the week is reserved in this way, or is it the fact that a day is selected at all for the purpose which is the important thing?
Bruce, quite clearly the penalty listed in Exodus is a penalty for a theocracy. We are not that theocracy. That's a civil penalty; we are not that group. Obeying the commands doesn't mean we also uphold the penalties because those were given to the governing body of the day, and we don't have that. So we won't be hunting down and killing people who don't observe the Sabbath or who commit adultery or ... you get it.
Glenn, I'm not entirely sure your position. Idolatry is NOT a moral concern? Our relationship with God has no moral element? I'm not clear.
David, to be honest, I don't even know what "the ceremonial practice of the Sabbath" would be.
Marshal, I think I was clear. The church has observed the Christian Sabbath as Sunday from biblical times ("the Lord's day," the "first day of the week"). So the Sabbath -- a day of rest and community worship -- remained in effect even if the specific day shifted. Saturday was the Sabbath for the Jews because God referenced "the seventh day" in regards to Creation, so the earliest reference to the Sabbath and to the 7th day as the Sabbath was Exodus 20. The only problem I see with "whatever day you wish" is that it should include a gathering with believers and "whatever day you wish" likely won't.
I don't understand people calling the 10 Commandment the moral law. The first three commandments, including that of the Sabbath, are about the relationship with God. It's the rest of the commandments which are the moral law.
I think I've fully demonstrated that the Sabbath is not for the Christian, but for those who weren't on a previous comment string I'll include my investigation here; https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/05/are-christians-required-to-keep-sabbath.html
I know Stan disagree with me as do others who claim we still need to honor the Sabbath, but they why are then not honoring sundown Friday to sundown Saturday?
And as Bruce questions, if we are still to honor the Sabbath do we then suffer the death penalty for not doing so? The Sabbath day itself was for the theocracy, and Stan just wrote that "we are not in that group" and yet at the same time says the Sabbath is still for the Christian. And, no, the Christians did NOT observe a Sunday Sabbath. They observed Sunday as a special day of worship since the first day of the week is when Christ rose from the dead. You can't change the Sabbath day to any day you want it to be.
Any day of the week can be set aside as a personal day of rest, while everyday should be a day of worship. For people unable to be off on Sundays they have no choice but to have a different day set aside. And not always can one get together with other believers every week, but there is no command about how many believers one should fellowship with or how often.
No, idolatry isn't about morality; morality has to do with people's relationships. Idolatry is an affront to God.
Glenn, I didn't publish your second comment because you did, in fact, include your link in the first. :)
To no one in particular, but on topic, I found it interesting what God told Israel in Exodus. In talking about the manna that God provided for His people, God said, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions? See, the LORD has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day" (Exo 16:28-29) Interesting because God appears to think that the sabbath was a gift, not a hardship.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply each individual having a Sabbath day on whatever day each chooses for himself. I meant "you" as a more corporate, congregational or denominational thing.
I've never heard the argument that the first 3 Commandments aren't moral. Interesting. I would think they are moral, unless you're meaning something different by the word moral than I do.
David,
I look at "moral" in this context as relationships between mankind rather than relationship with God. Two different planes.
I've simply never heard someone limit the meaning of morality to only human interaction. "Conforming to a standard of what is right and good." Since God is that standard, how we act toward Him would fall under morality. As far as I've known, how we act toward God has historically been considered part of morality. But you go ahead and redefine moral to suit your narrative. If the first 3 aren't moral, then in what way are they binding to us? What part of the law do they fall under then? I've only ever heard of three types of Biblical Law, ceremonial, moral, and judicial. Christianity has historically believed that we don't need to obey the ceremonial or judicial laws because they are only for the Jews. But the moral law is binding on all mankind. So if not moral, what are the first three? Why must we obey the first two, but ignore the third, if the first 3 are how we are supposed to act toward God? If the last 7 alone are moral law, then the first 3 are...ceremonial, judicial? Then we don't need to keep any of those per Christian teaching. I think all of here agree that only the moral law is binding on Christians. If the first 3 aren't moral, then we don't need to obey them. However, if morality is about right conduct without regard to the subject, then the first 3 are still binding on us, which is what Christianity has historically believed.
David,
You want to nit-pick verbiage because I see relationships among humans as different from our relationship with God. I suppose you want to see them all the same.
In my article I do call all of it a moral law, but I note that the Sabbath is ONLY for Israel, and in fact the whole 10C is only for the Israel. I do note that the entire 10C except for the Sabbath is either implicit or, if explicit were given before Abraham. Which means all but the Sabbath are repeated in some fashion for humankind.
My point is that the Sabbath was never before and is not now or ever for anyone by Israel. (And, no, Christians didn't adopt a Sunday Sabbath.) It was specifically stated as a sign of a covenant between God and Israel.
It's not really nit-picking when it fundamentally changes something. You claim the Sabbath was never mentioned outside the Law, but it is mentioned before Abraham, in Creation. Why do you ignore the connection God gives between the Sabbath and the day of rest that God made holy at Creation? How do you account for the keeping of a sabbath day being in the center of a group of commands you admit we are to keep? If it wasn't meant for all, wouldn't it be on the outskirts, or not connected at all? When you make a shopping list, do you group the sources together or sprinkle them willy-nilly and hope you keep track? You're asking me to ignore rational, orderly thought just to justify your 15 years of working on Sundays.
I never said the Sabbath was not mentioned outside the Law. Did you even read my article?
I'm not trying to justify anything, because my working Sundays had nothing to do with the Sabbath, and no where does Scripture designated Sundays as a Christian version of it.
Your whole comment is illogical nonsense. Try reading my article to which I linked above (5th comment in the string) before you castigate me with unbiblical nonsense.
I read your article the last time you linked it and I was not convinced. The Sabbath is given in Creation. On the 7th day God rested and made it holy. God instituted a rest day outside of the Law. The NT church was told to stop observing the Jewish Sabbath but to keep the Lord's Day. Just like baptism replaces circumcision, the Lord's Day replaces Sabbath.
The Sabbath day was NOT given at creation. It wasn't given until it was given as a sign of a covenant with Israel. THAT is what the Bible say. Genesis just says God rested on the 7th day and then he blessed THAT day (not the weekly occurance) and made it holy (or "sanctified it). Nowhere is it even hinted that it would now be a weekly holy day. YOu have to read that into the text.
Yes the Sabbath was given before the Law (Exodus 16)--as a sign of a covenant between Him and Israel and not for any other people.
Where does it say in the N.T. that we are to "keep the Lord's Day"? Where in the N.T. does it say the one day a week we are to rest is on Sunday? I understand Calvinists (and Lutherans & Catholics and legalistic assemblies) make this claim but there is no Scripture to back it.
Where in the N.T. does it say we can't use another day for "assembling together" (Heb.10:25)?
Baptism did NOT replace circumcision. Circumcision is another sign of a covenant between God and Israel. Baptism is a NEW sign, for believers (not babies or children who have no idea what it's about). And no, Sunday didn't replace the Sabbath. You have no bibilcal evidence.
You're right, the Church has been wrong to observe the Lord's Day for the last 2000 years. Modern Liberals finally figured it out. Don't have a day of rest dedicated to reflecting on what the Lord has done for us.
You seem to misunderstand me. I believe in Believer's Baptism. So when I say that baptism replaces circumcision, I mean that the symbol that circumcision represents is fulfilled in baptism. In like manner, the Lord's Day has replaced the Sabbath as a day to rest in the work of Christ and to reflect on His saving work, just like the Sabbath was meant to be a time for Israel to remember their release from slavery through God. It didn't necessarily have to be Sunday, but the historic church chose that day as their day to come together and partake in the euchirist, thus obeying the command to gather with fellow believers. If you have a church that meets on Wednesdays and celebrates the Lord's Supper then, and you can rest on that day, then you are fulfilling the command contained within meeting together and resting to reflect on your freedom from slavery.
David,
Don't twist what I wrote.
I never said anyone was wrong to celebrate the Lord's day. What I said was that nowhere in the N.T. does it say Sunday has replaced the Sabbath, nor does it say we must gather on Sunday and not any other day of the week. They gathered on Sunday to memorialize the day Christ rose (not necessarily as a day of rest). But if one isn't able to use that day of rest or memorialization, there is nothing in the N.T. to say you can't use another day. After all, everyday is the Lord's and we worship him every day.
Your twisting what I said is what the liberals do to Christians all the time.
No matter how you slice it, baptism did NOT replace circumcision; circumcision is still for the Jew because it is a sign of a covenant. Christians (nor any gentile) never had circumcision. In the same was, Sunday never replaced the Sabbath because the Jews still honor the Sabbath and neither Christian nor gentile ever had the the Sabbath. Both baptism and the Lord's day were NEW things brought into the church and replaced nothing.
So baptism isn't the sign of the new covenant?
David,
Did you see where I even suggested that it isn't? But baptism is for believers, not babies/infants who have no idea what it's about.
If baptism is the sign of the new covenant, then it is the sign the replaces the old covenant in function, not practice. I already said I believe in believers baptism. I don't believe in infant baptism for the same (and more) reason you stated. But I do believe that baptism takes the place of circumcision for Christians. Since nobody is born a Chiristian, only confessors would be baptized. How's that not a replacement of circumcision? We are not bound to a day of rest on the 7th day, but we are bound to resting in Christ and celebrating His resurrection onthe Lord's Day. Never did I say we are only to worship one day. But in practice, the Lord's Day replaces the Sabbath.
You can't "replace" what you didn't have. Christians had neither circumcision nor the Sabbath. The Jews still have both and have not replace them. The signs are for different peoples.
So the Jews are saved by a different means than Christians? Christianity isn't the fulfillment and extension of the old covenant? There is no relation be between Jew and Christian? The New Covenant doesn't replace the Old? We are not grafted in to Israel?
David,
Nice strawman arguement. The discussion was not about salvation, only about signs of covenants.
Thanks for playing but I find it futile discussing so I'm finished.
Not a strawman, a rational conclusion from your premise that Christians are not replacing Israel.
Christians are NOT replacing Israel. But that's not about salvation. Israel has the same savior, but Israel has an everlasting covenant with God--the Bible does say that.
Then what does it mean that we are being grafted in to the tree of Israel? The image portrays to me of God pruning the unsaved Jews and grafting Christians in. We are part of the same covenant the Jews received. We are not bound by the Law of the covenant, but we receive the bounty He promised His people.
I'm not getting into that theology; it is beyond the scope of covanental signs, and N.T. signs not replacing O.T. signs. The signs are my argument and the context of this string.
I guess I'm of a different opinion. To me, it is all theology. The Bible is irrevocably tied to itself. This kind of proves my point. You see symbology as not tied to theology. I do, so that changes way one views their importance.
I'm also not fully sold on the idea that Israel is still under the old covenant. I mean, it's not even possible for them to hold up their end of the covenant anymore. God always said He will do those things if they obeyed, and while He was long suffering, Christ fulfilled the old covenant and the destruction and failure to rebuild the temple seems to indicate the conclusion of the old covenant which is replaced by the new that all must obey. The Jews under the old covenant were saved by faith in the coming Messiah. They can't anymore since He has already come.
I didn't say it wasn't theology!!!! I said I wasn't getting into THAT theology. You just want to argue.
No, I see all theology tied together. One aspect of theology informs another aspect.
Look, my comments are about one set of signs NOT being replaced by another set. The Bible does not say one replaced another. My point is that the signs for both Jews and Christians are separate. This is a specific theology and has no need to have other theological aspects to be discussed in order to specify these distinctions.
I am finished here.
Post a Comment