‘Keep the Sabbath Holy’: Ceremonial?
Jul 2nd, 2007 by Nathan White
Continuing with part 2 of the Sabbath issue (P1 here), let’s consider today whether the command to observe the Sabbath is a ceremonial command that has been fulfilled with the coming of Christ.
Thus, the question proposed today, which lies at the heart of the Sabbath issue:
Was the command to observe the Sabbath a temporary, ceremonial command which is no longer applicable or binding in the life of the New Covenant believer?
Please understand that I do not intend to deal with this subject exhaustively. My intention here is to simply provide a few points of consideration in hopes of further thought and discussion. VERY LITTLE is written these days on this issue, and there needs to be more consideration by Christians to these things. Too many simply assume that the command has been abolished, probably because there are so many good men on each side (along with the fact that Sabbath obedience runs contrary to our flesh), and they do so without thinking through what scripture teaches in this area and whether their position is indeed biblical and God-honoring. (Let me also be clear that I have no new arguments that have not been propounded by other faithful men time and again, as I am simply repeating what has been taught to me.)
A few reasons why the Sabbath Command was NOT a ceremonial command:
Most notably, the command to observe the Sabbath is found in the 10 commandments.
- The Ten Commandments are clearly set apart from the ceremonial aspects of the OT Law.
- The Ten Commandments were the only portion of the Law that was written by the very finger of God.
- The Ten Commandments were the only portion of the Law that was verbally read in the hearing of the people.
- The Ten Commandments were the only portion of the Law that was written on stone and stored in the Ark of the Covenant.
- These commandments are consistently treated as a unit throughout both the old and new testaments, and nobody would dare deny that the other nine commandments are both moral and binding on the NC Christian, as the writers of the New Testament clearly appeal to the Ten Commandments as authoritative in instructing the NT churches.
- To abolish the Sabbath is to say that we only have nine commandments, and it breaks up the Ten Commandments as a unit without any explicit instruction in scripture to do so. (More on this issue below).
The Sabbath command is ultimately rooted in creation.
- Just as Jesus and the Apostles point back to the creation account of Genesis in teaching about marriage, we can also look back to the creation account and see how the Sabbath was ultimately instituted from the very beginning.
- The Sabbath was given before sin entered the world, before Christ was promised, and thus is not a ‘type and shadow’ that pointed to fulfillment in Him (a fulfillment before the heavenly state that is).
- Jesus clearly stated that ‘the Sabbath was made for man’, thus affirming it’s universal purpose for all mankind. He did not say that the Sabbath was made for the Jew, or for the OT period, or even for believers to the total exclusion of unbelievers. No, the Sabbath transcends time and culture, as it was given from the very beginning, and as Jesus clearly says that it was ‘made for man’.
The Sabbath Command and the Testimony of Jesus:
- As noted above, Jesus clearly identifies the Sabbath as being ‘made for man’, which would undoubtedly be odd if it were to be shortly abolished after His death and resurrection.
- In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says that He did not come to destroy the law. In verse 19 He specifically says: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” By using the term ‘these commandments’, and in the context of teaching the Ten Commandments, Jesus was specifically referring to the Ten Commandments, which would of course include the observance of the Sabbath as well.
- In Mark 7:14-23, Jesus specifically abrogated the dietary (ceremonial) aspects of the Law. Compare this with how He handled the Sabbath and note that He never abrogated the Sabbath despite many opportunities to do so.
- In Matthew 24:20, Jesus foretells of the destruction of Jerusalem, which of course was to take place well after His death and resurrection (New Covenant Era), and He warns His disciples to ‘Pray that your flight may not be…on the Sabbath’. What meaning could this hold if the Sabbath was to be abolished with the coming of the New Covenant? Instead, it is clear that Jesus assumed the continuation of the command.
- In Matthew 12:1-7, while teaching on the Sabbath, Jesus ends with “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice”. This clearly implies that the Sabbath was not a ceremonial law since He wanted the Sabbath observed for its spiritual nature (”mercy”) and not burdened by “ceremonial” additions (”sacrifice”).
Next time we will take a look at a few other New Testament passages on this issue.
This does, of course, prompt the question: what does it mean to keep it “holy”? First thing that comes to mind is attending a service, but the earliest Christians probably didn’t organize themselves in the manner we do today (i.e., large congregations). They probably gathered in small groups to pray.
Should we not work? No recreational activities? No entertainment?
I don’t have a set answer in mind, just seeing what you think.
Nathan,
I recently heard a pretty compelling argument for the Sabbath not being a moral, but a ceremonial law. I wanted to hear your take on it.
The argument goes like this: If the Sabbath were a moral law, then there would never be an exception to break it. For example, when the Pharisees confronted Jesus about breaking the Sabbath, Jesus used the example of David and his men eating the forbidden shewbread of the temple, which was a violation of the ceremonial law. (Jesus was basically implying that sometimes, man’s need may override the letter of the law).
But here’s the point. If the Sabbath were a moral law, then there would be absolutely no exception for breaking it. Do we ever have an exception to murder somebody? Is it ever right to worship another God? Is there ever a time to take God’s name in vain? Is there ever a time to covet after another person’s wife? We would answer with an emphatic “no.” Then if that’s the case, why would God ever allow exceptions for the Sabbath command, even for a legitimate reason, if it were truly a moral law–that is, if it truly were part of the fabric of the absolute character of God? Do you see my point?
I also find Jesus’ response interesting; He quotes an OT verse, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” almost implying that the Sabbath equated with a “sacrifice.”
Davide,
Thanks for the comment. If the Sabbath is indeed ceremonial and not moral, then I’d hope that someone could provide rebuttals to some of the points I raised above.
Regarding you comment, let me try and be concise:
I don’t see Jesus breaking the Sabbath nor approving/defending those who do. Rather, I see Him expounded on its true essence, much like He did in the Sermon on the Mount.
That is, Jesus specifically says that the Sabbath was made for man, thus it is not meant as an unbearable yoke on our shoulders. Instead of saying it is ceremonial and making an argument from that, He simply shows what the command really meant -that it was never meant to prohibit acts of necessity (Matt 12:3,4), acts of service to God (V7,8), or acts of mercy (V7,8), all of which the Pharisees had missed.
Again, I believe the burden is on your shoulders to explain from this text why Jesus did not abolish the Sabbath law altogether, just like He clearly abolished the dietary laws.
In addition, I have yet to get to the subject of just what the Sabbath command means to us in the New Covenant, but like I have told you before, I see it as heart issue, that is, observing the day as holy to the Lord. And just like all the other commandments, it is possible to obey it outwardly and yet disobey it inwardly -which also has to do with why this account (Matt 12) is there for us in explaining the essence of the law that the Pharisees had neglected. Or, to put it another way, the Pharisees thought they were obeying the commandment against adultery when they were faithful to their wives. But far from changing or abolishing the command, or far from claiming the the command was ceremonial, Jesus showed its true essence in being rooted in the heart.
James said: Should we not work? No recreational activities? No entertainment?
I might get around to that, James. But for now, I would just say that the essence of the command is consecrating the day as holy to the Lord. Personally, I do not think recreational or entertainment activities are a violation of the commandment, but of course, they could be, if our hearts are not in the right place.
Please forgive the length of this comment, Nathan. You asked for interaction with your points!
NW: The ten commandments were the only portion of the Law that was written by the very finger of God.
GR: This doesn’t establish priority over the rest of the word of God. It was all breathed out by the Spirit. This is like saying that the “words in red” are more special somehow. In fact, the ten commandments are not included when Jesus tells us which commandments are the greatest. There were at least two commandments which came later, through the mouth/pen of Moses that were greater than these Ten.
NW:· The Ten Commandments were the only portion of the Law that was verbally read in the hearing of the people.
GR: I think this is a dubious claim at best. At which reading? During Nehemiah’s revival, for instance, the impression is that the congregation was gathered for the reading far longer than it would take to simply recite the ten. Deuteronomy, as well, was a speech given in the hearing of all the people, etc, etc.
NW:· The Ten Commandments were the only portion of the Law that was written on stone and stored in the Ark of the Covenant.
GR: No doubt, the Ten Commandments function as a representative symbol of the whole law. Again, I’d point out that Jesus claimed at least two commandments were greater than these, and these two were not put in the ark. Why? I submit it’s because all the articles in the ark were representative and had a special symbolic force. (They didn’t put a lot of manna in, and the manna they did put in wasn’t particularly special manna. It was a representative sample of manna.)
NW:· These commandments are consistently treated as a unit throughout both the old and new testaments, and nobody would dare deny that the other nine commandments are both moral and binding on the NC Christian, as the writers of the New Testament clearly appeal to the Ten Commandments as authoritative in instructing the NT churches.
GR: Again, a dubious claim since after Acts, the Sabbath is not mentioned but the other nine all are, repeatedly. Clearly in the bulk of the New Testament, the Ten are not always, or consistently, a unit.
NW:· To abolish the Sabbath is to say that we only have nine commandments, and it breaks up the Ten Commandments as a unit without any explicit instruction in scripture to do so. (More on this issue below).
GR: But to abolish the Sabbath by finding its fulfillment in Christ is not to “get rid” of it. The substance of the Fourth Commandment is perfectly kept in those who find rest in Jesus Christ. So it’s not like we’re advocating keeping nine out of ten. The issue is how to keep it; not whether it should be kept.
NW:· Just as Jesus and the Apostles point back to the creation account of Genesis in teaching about marriage, we can also look back to the creation account and see how the Sabbath was ultimately instituted from the very beginning.
GR: You would have a chore ahead of you to show that God put Adam and Eve under Sabbath observance. The text says He hallowed or sanctified the day, but you infer from that some command given to Adam. It is interesting, at least, that none of the Patriarchs can ever be observed keeping the Sabbath, if it was in fact given to Adam as a perpetual command. Plus, you’d be adding a command to that first covenant, aside from the prohibition to eat the forbidden fruit.
NW:· The Sabbath was given before sin entered the world, before Christ was promised, and thus is not a ‘type and shadow’ that pointed to fulfillment in Him (a fulfillment before the heavenly state that is).
GR: This is merely asserting what you need to prove. If Moses called the Sabbath a “sign” of the covenant, and Paul then includes Sabbaths under “shadows,” then it seems the burden to prove otherwise rests with you.
NW:· Jesus clearly stated that ‘the Sabbath was made for man’, thus affirming it’s universal purpose for all mankind. He did not say that the Sabbath was made for the Jew, or for the OT period, or even for believers to the total exclusion of unbelievers. No, the Sabbath transcends time and culture, as it was given from the very beginning, and as Jesus clearly says that it was ‘made for man’.
GR: This is wrenching Jesus’ statement out of its context. Clearly, the issue here was not how extensive the Sabbath was, or is. That was not the point of contention. Rather, as Davide has pointed out above, the issue was the priority of certain laws over certain other laws (should they ever come into conflict.) “The Sabbath was made for man” must be understood in conjunction with “and not man for the Sabbath.” One is made for the service of the other. One is of less priority than the other.
NW:· As noted above, Jesus clearly identifies the Sabbath as being ‘made for man’, which would undoubtedly be odd if it were to be shortly abolished after His death and resurrection.
GR: Equally as odd, then, for Him to command the cleansed lepers to go and offer the sacrifice Moses commanded. (Since sacrifices were shortly to be abolished…)
NW:· In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says that He did not come to destroy the law. In verse 19 He specifically says: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” By using the term ‘these commandments’, and in the context of teaching the Ten Commandments, Jesus was specifically referring to the Ten Commandments, which would of course include the observance of the Sabbath as well.
GR: I would agree. This is the foundational passage that explains my view of the Christian’s duty to the Law. However, if you’re going to suggest there is no evidence to put the weekly Sabbath out of gear, so to speak, then you are likewise obligated to admit that the punishment for Sabbath breaking is also still in full effect. You have no Scriptural warrant, then, for advocating anything other than the death penalty for Sabbath breaking.
NW:· In Mark 7:14-23, Jesus specifically abrogated the dietary (ceremonial) aspects of the Law. Compare this with how He handled the Sabbath and note that He never abrogated the Sabbath despite many opportunities to do so.
GR: As Davide pointed out above, He specifically sets the Sabbath in the same category as sacrifices.
NW:· In Matthew 24:20, Jesus foretells of the destruction of Jerusalem, which of course was to take place well after His death and resurrection (New Covenant Era), and He warns His disciples to ‘Pray that your flight may not be…on the Sabbath’. What meaning could this hold if the Sabbath was to be abolished with the coming of the New Covenant? Instead, it is clear that Jesus assumed the continuation of the command.
GR: If this passage is interpreted preteristically, your challenge evaporates. The Sabbath was still being practiced rigidly in Jerusalem at the time of its destruction.
NW:· In Matthew 12:1-7, while teaching on the Sabbath, Jesus ends with “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice”. This clearly implies that the Sabbath was not a ceremonial law since He wanted the Sabbath observed for its spiritual nature (”mercy”) and not burdened by “ceremonial” additions (”sacrifice”).
GR: Beg pardon, but I don’t see how it “clearly implies” that at all. He specifically puts feeding hungry people at a higher priority than worrying about keeping the Sabbath. Feeding the hungry (mercy) is greater than fussing over the Sabbath (sacrifice.)
Note 5: WOW! That’s long.
Happy 4th!
Gordan,
In order to try to be concise, I will only quote the part of your statement that I am directly responding to. Readers who try to read my reply without first reading yours in its entirety will probably get lost.
Long comments require long rebuttals
Gordan said: This doesn’t establish priority over the rest of the word of God. It was all breathed out by the Spirit. This is like saying that the “words in red” are more special somehow.
Maybe you missed the title of my post. I never said that these commandments take priority over any other portion of God’s word, but rather that the 10 are in the context of moral law, they are treated as such throughout scripture, and that God placed it as the highest priority when giving it to Israel. Maybe you would like to argue that the one of the other 9 is also ceremonial? You will have to in order to prove your point, for the context of the entire 10 clearly proves mine.
Gordan said: In fact, the ten commandments are not included when Jesus tells us which commandments are the greatest. There were at least two commandments which came later, through the mouth/pen of Moses that were greater than these Ten.
Only an ignorance of the true meaning of the 10 would claim that the greatest two commandments quoted by Jesus were NOT ultimately rooted and already revealed in the 10. The two greatest were simply an exposition of what was already commanded in the 10. I’m surprised that you would say such a thing in light of the apostle Paul clearly saying that “any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Gordan said: I think this is a dubious claim at best. At which reading?
I was referring to when the law was given to Moses. This portion alone was read to all the people; the rest was simply given to Moses for him to write down. See Duet 10:4.
Gordan said: Again, a dubious claim since after Acts, the Sabbath is not mentioned but the other nine all are, repeatedly.
First off, the first commandment warns against making graven images. Since, according to you, ceremonial laws are on the tablets, and this particular command is not repeated in the New Testament, then I have the complete freedom to carve an image of God, Jesus, or even of the Holy Spirit, since you’re taking the dispensational position of arguing that a command must be repeated in order to be valid. The Catholic Church sure thinks this one is OK, since of course they are not worshiping the image, as they are only worshiping God through the image. But to take it a step further: Is bestiality a sin? What about incest? Visiting fortune tellers? Refusing to spank your children? Please show me where these are repeated in the New, otherwise I am going to argue that they were simply ceremonial.
Gordan said: Clearly in the bulk of the New Testament, the Ten are not always, or consistently, a unit.
Really? Because the following verses sure seem to treat the commandments as whole: Matt 5:19, Matt 19:17, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Rom 13:19, James 2:11-12, etc. (Luke 1:6 makes a distinction between commandments and statues)
Gordan said: But to abolish the Sabbath by finding its fulfillment in Christ is not to “get rid” of it. The substance of the Fourth Commandment is perfectly kept in those who find rest in Jesus Christ.
Again, to suggest that the Sabbath was given before sin and man’s need for a Christ, but is still yet a sign that is fulfilled in Christ, is to completely miss the point. In addition to that, Hebrews crystal-clearly says that there still yet remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. If there still remains a Sabbath rest, then it makes no sense to argue that it is ‘fulfilled’.
Gordan said: You would have a chore ahead of you to show that God put Adam and Eve under Sabbath observance.
You say ‘put under’ as if it is a bad thing. Instead, I believe that the Sabbath was made as a gift to man, but you seem to see it as a burden. Instead, God instituted a few things at creation, including marriage, procreation, labor, and yes, the Sabbath. However, even though I do believe God commanded Sabbath observance to Adam, I am completely content with conceding and saying that He didn’t COMMAND it. Thus, as an ‘imitator of God’, why in the world would we not imitate Him? When do we ever shy away from imitating God?
Gordan said: It is interesting, at least, that none of the Patriarchs can ever be observed keeping the Sabbath
In Exodus 16:4-6; 21-23 the Sabbath was observed before the giving of the law.
Gordan said: If Moses called the Sabbath a “sign” of the covenant, and Paul then includes Sabbaths under “shadows,” then it seems the burden to prove otherwise rests with you.
I’m not arguing that it is not a ‘shadow’, for we know it ultimately points to the heavenly rest. I am arguing that since ‘there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God’, and that being given from creation itself, it is not finally and ultimately fulfilled in Christ here on earth. That makes no sense if considered in context, though it is an easy way out.
Gordan said: This is wrenching Jesus’ statement out of its context.
No, this is simply considering Jesus’ words in light of creation, which your position cannot adequately deal with. If it wasn’t instituted from the very beginning, you might have a great point here.
Gordan said: Rather, as Davide has pointed out above, the issue was the priority of certain laws over certain other laws (should they ever come into conflict.)
Actually, you or Davide must first prove that Jesus broke the Sabbath, or defended those breaking the Sabbath, before you try to say that Jesus was simply explaining the priority of laws over another.
Gordan said: Equally as odd, then, for Him to command the cleansed lepers to go and offer the sacrifice Moses commanded. (Since sacrifices were shortly to be abolished…)
Good point. However, Jesus deals with the Sabbath on a number of occasions, and since He was directly accused of breaking the Sabbath, I think that we cannot compare this with telling the lepers to obey their law.
Gordan said: if you’re going to suggest there is no evidence to put the weekly Sabbath out of gear, so to speak, then you are likewise obligated to admit that the punishment for Sabbath breaking is also still in full effect. You have no Scriptural warrant, then, for advocating anything other than the death penalty for Sabbath breaking.
That is a little ridiculous, Gordan. For you hold that adultery is a sin, and yet I doubt you would consider yourself obligated to admit that the punishment is still in effect. Likewise with a plethora of other OT sins and punishments (like rebellious children). There is no question that since the theocracy of Israel has passed away, along with the entire form of the law, that the punishments are no longer in effect. IN FACT, I think the fact that the death penalty was prescribed proves that the commandment was NOT ceremonial. Where else is death prescribed for breakers of the ceremonial law??
Gordan said: As Davide pointed out above, He specifically sets the Sabbath in the same category as sacrifices.
Again, please show that Jesus was defending the breaking of the Sabbath instead of the proper interpretation of it, and I might be inclined to consider this point.
Gordan said: If this passage is interpreted preteristically, your challenge evaporates. The Sabbath was still being practiced rigidly in Jerusalem at the time of its destruction.
This still fails to answer the question. For, A) even preteristically, the New Covenant was in full effect and the Sabbath had supposedly been fulfilled. And B) why would the disciples care about who still practiced the Sabbath if they were not under it, and if they were running for their lives?
Gordan said: He specifically puts feeding hungry people at a higher priority than worrying about keeping the Sabbath. Feeding the hungry (mercy) is greater than fussing over the Sabbath (sacrifice.)
And once again, you and I see this passage in two different lights. I am arguing that He is explaining its true essence, you are arguing that He is somehow defending the breaking/non-observance of the Sabbath and placing ‘priorities’ on commandments. Please show how Jesus or His disciples broke the Sabbath in anything they said or did, and maybe I will be inclined to consider your point about ‘priorities’.
Gordan,
As I think about this further, I am intrigued by your statement that the Sabbath was not commanded at creation. Particularly with how it relates to the Matt 12 teaching on the Sabbath.
Consider that Jesus and Paul point back to creation to instruct us on marriage, but that neither divorce nor adultery was ‘commanded’ in the garden. To take it a step further, Jesus actually pardons the women caught in adultery (John 4), and based on your dealings with Matt 12 (you claim priority of law), then could it not be said that Jesus also disobeyed the commandment to stone adulterers by setting her free? I certainly don’t hold that position, but it could possibly be argued.
Point being: divorce and adultery were not prohibited at creation, but that does mean that a moral standard is not implicitly given by God, and that doesn’t stop Jesus and Paul pointing back to the account to teach us from it. I would argue the same concerning the Sabbath: it wasn’t explicitly given at creation, but it was by implication, and in dealing with this command in the NT, Jesus never abolishes it, but He rather corrects our understanding of it.
Nathan, even cutting out several points that I did want to keep discussing, this reply is a monster! Maybe it would be best if we took one particular line of thought and went with that, and then could move on to something else. This is unwieldy. Nevertheless, here goes…
NW: Maybe you missed the title of my post. I never said that these
commandments take priority over any other portion of God’s word, but rather
that the 10 are in the context of moral law, they are treated as such
throughout scripture, and that God placed it as the highest priority when
giving it to Israel. Maybe you would like to argue that the one of the
other 9 is also ceremonial? You will have to in order to prove your
point, for the context of the entire 10 clearly proves mine.
GR: I haven’t denied that there is an eternal moral precept at the bottom of the 4th Commandment. I have denied here that the Bible really holds up the Ten Commandments in some special place, as if separated somehow either by category or by priority, from the rest of the Law. I thought that was part of your point. If it isn’t I apologize.
NW: Only an ignorance of the true meaning of the 10 would claim that the
greatest two commandments quoted by Jesus were NOT ultimately rooted and
already revealed in the 10. The two greatest were simply an exposition
of what was already commanded in the 10. I’m surprised that you would
say such a thing in light of the apostle Paul clearly saying that
“any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love
your neighbor as yourself.â€
GR: You misunderstand my point (which I made maybe misunderstanding yours.) I thought you were arguing for the priority of the Ten Words over the rest of the law, and so I referenced a place where two commandments were set over them in terms of greatness. I do believe the 10 Commandments show us how to perform the greater two: they show us what it means to love God and love our neighbor. Tim suggested I try this illustration: When Jesus said the whole rest of the Law “hangs” on the two greatest commandments, I picture one of those hanging mobiles. The two greatest are nearest the ceiling in this picture, and then the whole rest of the Law hangs under them: it is all connected; it is all a unit, and yet there are distinct parts. I’d see the ten comm hanging beneath the Two, and then all the case laws descending from the ten.
[NW then accuses GR of a latent dispensationalism, and a similar view on law as the Catholics hold.]
GR: I don’t demand that a law must be repeated in order to be in force. And as often as I’ve stated that to you, I’m surprised you accuse me of it. I was responding to your assertion that the New Testament uniformly treats the Ten Commandments as a unit, by pointing out that Sabbath injunctions are absent from most of it.
NW: Really? Because the following verses sure seem to treat the
commandments as whole: Matt 5:19, Matt 19:17, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Rom 13:19,
James 2:11-12, etc. (Luke 1:6 makes a distinction between commandments
and statues)
GR: I believe the law is a whole, but I’m betting we’d agree that Romans 13:19 and James 2:11-12 are not including things like circumcision and the sacrifices and temple worship. Yes, the law is a unit, but that doesn’t preclude God abrogating some commandments. (And, I did specify that the Sabbath is not enjoined after Acts, so the Gospel quotations don’t add anything to the discussion here.)
NW: In addition to that, Hebrews crystal-clearly says that there still yet remains a Sabbath rest for the people of
God. If there still remains a Sabbath rest, then it makes no sense to
argue that it is ‘fulfilled’.
GR: I agree that IS crystal clear. There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. But it remains how, and in relation to what? Just as crystal-clearly, it remains through faith (“we who believe do enter that rest”) and it remains in relation to, and distinction from, what was formerly called rest/Sabbath. If I were to say there remains for the people of God only one sacrifice for sins, would it “make no sense” to claim the older sacrifices were “fulfilled?”
NW:However, even though I
do believe God commanded Sabbath observance to Adam, I am completely
content with conceding and saying that He didn’t COMMAND it. Thus, as an
‘imitator of God’, why in the world would we not imitate Him? When
do we ever shy away from imitating God?
GR: I am ecstatic about this concession. (Even if you take it back below…) The Jewish day of rest is only an imitation of God in the most outward way. I want to hallow the Sabbath in a manner that causes my heart to imitate Christ’s and flows out from there to make my everyday life pleasing to God.
NW: In Exodus 16:4-6; 21-23 the Sabbath was observed before the giving of
the law.
GR: I’d grant they observed it prior to the Sinai event, and the formal ratification of the covenant. But those passages sure make it look like they’re being introduced to something that they had no previous awareness of. It’s perfectly natural, in relation to the text, to see Moses instituting Sabbath observance (by God’s command,) but merely prior to the formal inscription on the tablets.
NW: I’m not arguing that it is not a ‘shadow’, for we know it
ultimately points to the heavenly rest. I am arguing that since ‘there
remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God’, and that being given from
creation itself, it is not finally and ultimately fulfilled in Christ
here on earth. That makes no sense if considered in context, though it is
an easy way out.
GR: I’m not looking for an easy out. I’m trying to deal with the text. Hebrews 4:4 and following equates God’s rest on the seventh day of creation with the rest that we are told must be entered by faith. 4:6 says the peoples’ disobedience kept them out of God’s rest. But they surely kept the Mosaic Fourth Commandment; so this rest is not a thing that can be entered merely by the passage of days.
And I’d agree that it ultimately points to heavenly rest, but it also tells us we should “strive to enter that rest.” (4:11) How? By observing the Jewish day of rest one-out-of-seven? Or by meeting the good news with faith (4:2-3) and by repentance from dead works (4:10)?
I wonder specifically what it is that you think I’m trying to find an easy way out of? I advocate corporate worship on the Lord’s Day, and think that to willfully forsake the gathering together is sin. I advocate making the worship of God and the doing of good a priority on that day. So I’m just curious what you think I’m hoping to escape.
Gordan said: if you’re going to suggest there is
no evidence to put the weekly Sabbath out of gear, so to speak, then
you are likewise obligated to admit that the punishment for Sabbath
breaking is also still in full effect. You have no Scriptural warrant,
then, for advocating anything other than the death penalty for Sabbath
breaking.
NW: That is a little ridiculous, Gordan. For you hold that adultery is a
sin, and yet I doubt you would consider yourself obligated to admit that
the punishment is still in effect.
GR: On the contrary. I do indeed believe adultery ought to be a capital offense.
NW: Likewise with a plethora of other OT
sins and punishments (like rebellious children).
GR: Like the “plethora” of death penalties for breaking the ceremonial laws? Look, like I said, I believe once God says it, it remains in force unless He changes it. That includes the case law.
NW: There is no question
that since the theocracy of Israel has passed away, along with the
entire form of the law, that the punishments are no longer in effect.
GR: Yes, there IS a question. Ever heard of Theonomy/Greg Bahnsen et al.? You’re asserting what hasn’t been proven. In fact, your earlier citation of Jesus’ warning in Matthew 5 about annulling the least of the commandments, I think argues very strongly against this assertion.
Gordan said: If this passage is interpreted
preteristically, your challenge evaporates. The Sabbath was still being
practiced rigidly in Jerusalem at the time of its destruction.
NW:This still fails to answer the question. For, A) even preteristically,
the New Covenant was in full effect and the Sabbath had supposedly been
fulfilled. And B) why would the disciples care about who still
practiced the Sabbath if they were not under it, and if they were running for
their lives?
GR: The reason this would be a bad thing, to try and flee on the Sabbath, is that you’d be doing so in the midst of a culture that overwhelmingly believed that traveling on that day was sinful, and worthy of severe punishment.
On Matthew 12 and marriage:
- I don’t have any problem with going back to creation to find eternal moral precepts, or with those precepts being later clarified by the New Testament authors. In fact, that is the very basis of my Sabbath argument: that the New Testament clarifies for us what it really means to obey that eternal commandment.
- By the way, the fact that marriage was instituted prior to the fall, shows that it is not inconceivable that God would use pre-fall things to illustrate the redemption of Christ.
- The thing with the woman caught in adultery is that the Jews were actually violating the Law in their prosecution of her. They were not following the Law, but breaking it. Jesus did not break the law either in her case, but as the Lawgiver and the one who offered Himself for sins, He has the authority to release her from the Law’s punishment. I’d submit it’s not that her sin went without punishment, but it was punished on the Cross.
Gordan, I will reply (fairly concise) when I have a moment. For the time being, if you could pass along to us an example of where God commands capitol punishment (death) for a ceremonial law, we’d appreciate it.
Gen 17:14;
Ex 12:15,19; 30:33, 38
Lev 7:21, 25, 27
17: 4, 9
22:3
Num 1:51; 3:10; 9:13; 19:13,20
Gordan,
‘Cut off from among the people’ is not prescribing death. The only verse you quoted above that is applicable is the ‘put to death’ in numbers which clearly has nothing to do with breaking a ceremonial law, but with protecting the priests.
Those are interesting comments.
What would you suggest “cut off from the people” means? I have seen a number of teachers suggest it means death. I’d be interested in where you get that idea from.
Also, you’re saying the priesthood is not a ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic covenant? Again, that’s a new one on me. I don’t see how you separate priesthood from sacrifices, tabernacle, temple, and so on.
I find it interesting how much of this discussion hinges upon what is ceremonial laws and what is moral laws, when I see in Scripture the two so very intertwined. Could it be that there is Law and you can either believe that it is something that believers follow or that they do not. I would also add to that, is it possibly something that Jewish believers either follow or do not and that possibly Gentile believers follow or do not? Is there someplace that clearly indicates that we are to divide the Law up in such a manner?
Second a question about Mark 7, where you indicate that Jesus was very clear that we should all enjoy ham sandwiches from now on. How come Peter seems to have not gotten that clear message all the way in Acts 10. He indicates that he never ate anything unclean? It seems that Peter being a good Jewish boy, did not take what Jesus said there as indicating the abrogation of Biblical dietary laws.
Just a couple of thoughts and questions. I understand that I have strayed from the discussion of the Sabbath, which I still see as a seventh day thing, at least for myself as a Jewish believer. Sorry if I have taken this off course.
Peace be unto each of you.
Gordan,
It’s not a deciding point, but I would say ‘cut off’ is referring to being cut out of the covenant, as a gentile so to speak, like many other theologians affirm.
I just wanted to point out that execution by stoning, for example, is given only for moral laws, unless we view the Sabbath as ceremonial.
Bryan said: a question about Mark 7, where you indicate that Jesus was very clear that we should all enjoy ham sandwiches from now on. How come Peter seems to have not gotten that clear message all the way in Acts 10. He indicates that he never ate anything unclean? It seems that Peter being a good Jewish boy, did not take what Jesus said there as indicating the abrogation of Biblical dietary laws.
Bryan, thanks for your insight. Regarding Mark 7, we know that it was written by JohnMark, who was not an apostle, nor did he witness the events, as it was written well after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus, I believe the Mark 7 passage comes from a perspective of looking back on Jesus’ teaching (which is why, I believe, Mark declares all foods clean, instead of Jesus actually saying it Himself).
Regarding the law and different instructions for different ethnic groups, I believe Paul in Galatians, for example, emphatically demonstrates how there is no difference between Jew and Greek whatsoever, and that separation over these things is sinful.
Gordan:
Thanks for the interaction. Obviously, a few issues still separate us. Let me try to flesh them out:
-You deny that the Bible holds up the Ten Comm. in some special place. However, you cannot deny that the 10 were clearly give separate from the ceremonial law, and that Jesus and the apostles repeatedly appeal to the 10 as authoritative in their argumentation. Eph. 6:1, for example, shows Paul treated the commands AND the promises of the commands as authoritative.
-You have still failed to demonstrate how the first commandment (making graven images) is NOT ceremonial. If the tablets reflect both moral and ceremonial, then I am free to make this argument for the parallels are easily made. Unless you can instruct otherwise??
-Of course the Jewish Sabbath system has been abrogated; I am not arguing that. I am saying, however, that the Sabbath, as found in creation, repeated in the 10 words in its old covenant form, prophesied as part of the New Covenant era by Isaiah (Isaiah 56:1-8), practiced in the New Testament (first day of the week; John calling one day ‘the Lord’s Day), has clearly not been abrogated.
-Regarding Hebrews 4, I disagree with your interpretation. Instead, Stan Reeves of Founders has rightly said: [The Sabbath] Commemorates God resting from his creative works as well as Christ resting from his redemptive works after being resurrected from the dead. Heb. 4:9-11. Translation: “There remains a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God. For the one (Christ) who has entered his own rest has also ceased from his own works (the works of redemption, as God did from his own (the works of creation).”
-’Making everyday’ special to God not only fails to imitate God’s example in creation, but it also fails to recognize that John specifically called one day ‘the Lord’s Day’, to which he was ‘in the Spirit’. It also miserably fails to acknowledge that even Adam, in a state of innocency, was given the Sabbath ‘principle’ or ‘command’, whatever you want to call it. If Adam, being perfect, needed a Sabbath, how can we say that we don’t and that we can just live everyday the same?
-Case law is a whole ‘nother issue which I don’t think is really relevant to our discussion. Regardless, you holding that rebellious children should be stoned but that Sabbath-breakers should not (when their both mentioned by the law), is highly inconsistent. I am surprised at that one, for I’d love to see that taken care of exegetically.
-Regarding Matthew 24 and preterism: The Romans, who were the ones the Jews would be fleeing from, could care less about the Sabbath, so I’m not sure how you’re interpretation of this verse makes any sense.
At the end of the day, you stick to your favorite proof-texts, and I stick to mine. We’re not going to change minds. However, I do want to point out that I will post on Col 2:16, Rom 14, etc., in due time.
Also, I’d like to make it clear that I DO think the Sabbath command as captured in the OT has passed away in Christ. However, I think it is mentioned in creation for a reason; I think it is a part of the moral tablet for a reason; and thus I believe there IS an application for the New Covenant (an application where we can obey or disobey) which is different than the application for the Old Covenant. It isn’t a burden; it isn’t a chore; it is a gift, given to man from God, and if we care for our own well-being (body and soul) we would be well to seek how the Lord would have us imitate Him.
SDG
Nathan and Gordan,
Wow! Great discussions! Great thoughts! It took me a while to read it through. I won’t interupt your debate, but I do, Nathan, want to address your rebuttal to my original argument. Although I’ve considered your interpretation, I must say disagree with it. I believe the disciples were expressly breaking the Sabbath commandment.
Here’s why:
1.) Picture this: The disciples were walking through a cornfield, and probably were starting to get hungry. So they started chopping corn from the stalks and tearing the ears off so that they could eat them later on (maybe even putting them into baskets). Question: What if some one did that in the OT? How about the same thing that happened to the man that picked up sticks, or the people who tried to pick up manna on the Sabbath.
2.) What was Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees who charged the disciples of breaking the Sabbath? Did He try to show them that the disciples weren’t breaking the law? No, not at all. Actually, Jesus uses an OT example of David breaking the law! “Have ye not read, what David did…?” In other words, David broke the law but was justified because of greater need.
…Here’s the clincher:
3.) Jesus concludes by telling the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man. THEREFORE, the Son of Man is the LORD of the Sabbath.
Do we realize WHY Jesus concludes with that remark? He was saying in essence, “I am the “LORD of the Sabbath,” that is, the Creator of the Law, and I made this law for the benefit of man; therefore I have the perrogative to determine how it is carried out!”
In other words, because Christ created the Sabbath for the benefit of man, Christ had the right to authorize exceptions for the breaking of it. I think this is the clear, natural understanding of this text. What do you think Gordan?
Davide said: I believe the disciples were expressly breaking the Sabbath commandment.
Can you please point out in the Law where this was a violation? I must admit, I have never heard someone actually make this claim.
Davide said: Actually, Jesus uses an OT example of David breaking the law!
Davide, I hope you never get into a dialogue with atheists, because claiming that Jesus broke or advocated breaking any portion of the law will get you in deep water. They would eat you for lunch. Situational ethics is what they live by. And undermining the law of God is their number one goal. I think it is ridiculous to suggest such a thing, and if taken consistently, it undermines Christ’s redemptive work in fulfilling every jot of the law for us.
Davide said: In other words, because Christ created the Sabbath for the benefit of man, Christ had the right to authorize exceptions for the breaking of it
Make exceptions? Absolutely not. Christ was saying that He was the Divine interpreter of the law, since He gave it. Also, IMO, He was claiming authority to change it –NOT in it’s moral aspect, for that is rooted in God’s character, but in its form, as I certainly believe the form of the OT law has passed away, but that the essence has stayed the same since the beginning.
This kind of argumentation is similar to the NCT guys, who claim that Christ ‘changed’ the law of adultery, for example, instead of expounding its true meaning in light of the traditional pharisaical interpretations.
Just like He did with many other laws in the OT, Christ demonstrates how the Pharisees had twisted and distorted its true purpose by their traditions.
Sorry for so many questions and ones that are not on the Sabbath but you said in your comment:
Regarding the law and different instructions for different ethnic groups, I believe Paul in Galatians, for example, emphatically demonstrates how there is no difference between Jew and Greek whatsoever, and that separation over these things is sinful.
And I would like to ask then, does he not also say no difference between man and woman and free and slave. Are you suggesting that there are no differences in the same way in these cases as well? I can see that in reference to salvation, but not in the practices, roles and responsibilities.
The verse in Mark is a comment by the author and not a quote from Jesus, however if it was clearly understood, I would think Peter would have gotten it. I also notice that the same story in Matthew does not have the comment. The biggest difference I see between Matthew and Mark is that Matthew’s intended audience was to Jewish readers and Mark’s was towards Gentile readers. I see it as possible that Mark was letting Gentile readers know that they did not need to follow the Biblical dietary laws, but that is just one possible view.
Another question - are you therefore saying that I as a Jew need to become Gentile in order to have salvation? It seems as though you are, for I must stop following the Laws and traditions of my culture, much like the Judaizers were in Galatians. It seems that a verse like circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing is better rendered as uncircumcision is everything.
Sorry to be disruptive, but I try to look at Scripture from all side and see what it means to the Jew, especially the Jewish mindset of the writer and also what it would mean to the Gentile and their mindset. It seems that comments like I see here, are all with only a Gentile view in mind, but with the discussion bearing upon all believers, no matter their background. I appreciate that it might be that Gentile dominate what are today’s believers, but I think Paul made the same points very strongly to the Jewish domination of the body of believers at his time.
I am not trying to tell you that there is one thing that is right or one thing that is wrong, but to give you the opportunity to examine the Scriptures from a perspective that leaves your backyard. If salvation is of faith and faith alone, and we are all working out our salvation with fear and trembling (and with blogs), then I think we can see that we are (hopefully) all trying to better understand our Creator and follow Him using the Spirit to guide us in our day to day actions, and perhaps we are all at different places along that path, some ahead of others in some things and behind in others.
Peace to you.
NW: “Can you please point out in the Law where this was a violation?
DP: Where is picking up sticks mentioned as a violation? I don’t see any difference between that and husking and peeling corn. Besides, like I have already mentioned, Israel was not allowed to pick up manna on the Sabbath. Isn’t that the same thing as husking corn to eat for lunch?
NW: I think it is ridiculous to suggest such a thing [Christ advocating the disciples’ breaking of the Sabbath].
DP: Then why did Christ respond right after with the example of David doing that which was “UNLAWFUL.”
NW: “Can you please point out in the Law where this was a violation?
DP: Where is picking up sticks mentioned as a violation? I don’t see any difference between that and husking and peeling corn. Besides, like I have already mentioned, Israel was not allowed to pick up manna on the Sabbath. Isn’t that the same thing as husking corn to eat for lunch?
NW: “He was claiming authority to change it –not in it’s moral aspect, for that is rooted in God’s character, but in its form, as I certainly believe the form of the OT law has passed away.”
DP: This precisely proves my point. You say that the application/interpretation of the Sabbath has changed. Why hasn’t the form of the rest nine commandments passed away? Although Christ added new meaning to the other nine, the original form of them still remains the same.
Regarding Matthew 24:20
I agree with Gordan on this particular one. There was no specific law in the OT regarding how much one should travel on the Sabbath. So the Jews decided that 2000 paces would be the maximum traveling distance durnig the Sabbath day (That’s why Acts 1 speaks of a ‘Sabbath day’s journey’). You could be stoned if you were seen traveliing out of town during the Sabbath.
Obviously, God would not hold it against someone if they were running for their life on the Sabbath. Christ’s point was, that they could be potentially hindered from escaping Jerusalem, if the Jews saw them leaving with all their belongings. Do you see my point?
Davide said: Where is picking up sticks mentioned as a violation? I don’t see any difference between that and husking and peeling corn. Besides, like I have already mentioned, Israel was not allowed to pick up manna on the Sabbath. Isn’t that the same thing as husking corn to eat for lunch?
A) It is clear that the picking up sticks was a premeditated sabbath-breaking act.
B) Eating was a need of necessity. Picking up sticks wasn’t.
C) Why was Israel not allowed to pick up manna? That’s because the provision was double the previous day (and it would not spoil), thus there was no NEED to collect manna.
Davide said: Then why did Christ respond right after with the example of David doing that which was “UNLAWFUL.”
Because David broke the law, of course. That does not mean that Christ was advocating that it was OK for him to break the law. There are many possible interpretations of this passage, but saying that Christ was advocating the breaking of the law is not one of them. To do so undermines the law of God completely. Situational ethics now rule.
It might be helpful for you to provide a list of Godly men who hold to this view, and maybe we can examine what they say in light of that.
David said: This precisely proves my point. You say that the application/interpretation of the Sabbath has changed. Why hasn’t the form of the rest nine commandments passed away? Although Christ added new meaning to the other nine, the original form of them still remains the same.
No, it doesn’t prove your point, because your point is necessitated on the disciples breaking the Sabbath and then Jesus approving of it or changing it right on the spot. The fact that the disciples obeyed the Sabbath later on sure proves odd since you say Jesus was pronouncing its annulment.
I would say that the form of the Sabbath has only passed in the sense that just like adultery and murder, Jesus clarifies the real meaning of the commandment, which is of course rooted in creation –a fact you and Gordan continually ignore.
Nathan,
Thank you for this post and the discussion that has followed. I mean that. I am grateful for it.
I still don’t think you understand my (theonomic) view of the Law. (For instance, why punish adultery and not Sabbath-breaking: because the Lawgiver hasn’t come along and changed the adultery rules. I maintain He has done that with the Sabbath and its punishments.)
I look forward to discussing this more when you post more, and maybe interacting in more detail on the Law itself.
I think it would help my understanding if you clarified your own view. At first you seemed to say it was “ridiculous” to imagine the passing away of the Jewish day of rest, but now you’re saying you believe that happened; but the substance of Sabbath observance has continued. This is the part I would need clarification on. How do you separate the eternal “substance” of the fourth commandment from the actual words of the fourth commandment, and everything the prophets said about it?
I guess I’d really like to know your ideas about what Christian Sabbath-keeping should look like. (My bet is that you and I wind up advocating basically the same thing for Sunday.)
As always, SDG. If I am off-base on all this stuff, I really hope the Spirit will use your words to convict me and change me. Let it not be, as you suggest, that neither one of us is teachable on this topic. Amen.
Nathan,
I was simply trying to make this point: If a OT family were caught picking corn out in the fields on the Sabbath because they were hungry, they would be undoubtedly be found guilty of breaking the Sabbath. People were not even allowed to make a fire on the Sabbath! (BTW, the Jews were severely repremanded and considered disobedient for attempting to pick up manna on the Sabbath).
NW: “Because David broke the law, of course. That does not mean that Christ was advocating that it was OK for him to break the law.”
DP: Then why in the world would Christ use that example then in the same exact context??? What was Christ’s point in using the example of David? It seems very clear to me that one has to logically hold to one of the following:
a.) Christ was allowing the disciples to sin in the same manner as David.
b.) Christ was saying that there are exceptions in breaching a ceremonial law (like David) if a higher need arises.
NW: “…You say Jesus was pronouncing its annulment.”
DP: You kinda put words in my mouth. I didn’t intend to imply that Christ was annulling the Sabbath. I simply say that Christ had the authority to make exceptions for the disciples when there was legitimate cause.
NW: “I would say that the form of the Sabbath has only PASSED in the sense that just like adultery and murder, Jesus clarifies the real meaning of the commandment.”
DP: So when Jesus clarified the meaning of adultery and murder, how did their commonly understood meaning pass away?
Love you bro:)
Nathan,
After a while, all the meaty, lengthy posts and rebuttals become confusing, so I’ve taken the liberty of starting fresh over at Incrediblog with your latest comments in my direction.
Over at Richard Barcellos’ blog, a man made this comment:
I must say, gentlemen, that I agree with this comment if the Sabbath is indeed ceremonial and thus no longer applicable in this day and age. You have stripped the decalogue of it’s authority altogether, and have thus blurred all the clear distinctions between what has carried over and what hasn’t. Heck, we might as well become NCT, for that matter, because you’re position ends up in the exact same place, minus of course a few ‘words and names’.
Nathan,
Not at all! Not at all!
The commands don’t have authority because of where they’re located, or what they were written on. They have authority because they came from God.
This is a totally false and simplistic conundrum here. As if we have no law at all if the Ten Commandments are not kept unchanged.
And you yourself have recently said on this thread that the Old Covenant form of the Sabbath command (which would be..um…the Fourth Commandment) has passed away.
This is a false dichotomy meant to burn a straw man.
Davide,
After consulting a few commentaries and looking into what others say about the showbread, I have found that many believe David had the authority to eat the bread, and thus Jesus uses that to proclaim His authority as well. Thus, he didn’t break the law, but the bread couldn’t be eaten by just anyone who was hungry.
Commentaries: Maybe David didn’t break the law.
Jesus: David “ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat…”
Gordan said: This is a false dichotomy meant to burn a straw man.
Actually, it’s more of a personal interpretation based on what I see as consistent. I see no reason to hold the other 9 as moral if they were given in the exact same context as the ceremonial command. I find it very difficult, IMO, to distinguish between what is moral and what is ceremonial in the rest of the OT law, if we cannot look to the 10 as the absolute foundation for what determines moral vs. ceremonial.
Gordan said: Jesus: David “ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat…”
So just anyone who was hungry could have eaten the showbread? Is this what you’re saying?
By the way, Gordan, Jesus broke the commandment to stone adulteries also, so I guess that must make it a ceremonial command.
NW: Actually, it’s more of a personal interpretation based on what I see as consistent. I see no reason to hold the other 9 as moral if they were given in the exact same context as the ceremonial command. I find it very difficult, IMO, to distinguish between what is moral and what is ceremonial in the rest of the OT law, if we cannot look to the 10 as the absolute foundation for what determines moral vs. ceremonial.
GR: Is it possible the rest of the Bible might give us some guidance?
NW: By the way, Gordan, Jesus broke the commandment to stone adulteries also, so I guess that must make it a ceremonial command.
GR: A canard like this causes me to suspect that I have not been listened to. I’ve already shown why it would have in fact not been lawful to stone her, the legal case having broken down. Jesus was going to let them do it, but they walked away. Jesus didn’t witness the crime. So His telling her to go and sin no more was perfectly in accord with the law.
NW:So just anyone who was hungry could have eaten the showbread? Is this what you’re saying?
GR: IF they were starving to death. God desires mercy and not sacrifice. Welfare of people takes priority over ceremony.
Hey Gordan, my family was starving the other day, so I broke into the local grocery store and stole some food. I’m sure the judge will understand. Oh, stealing is a moral law? On the basis of what? Doesn’t God desire mercy instead of strict obedience?
BTW, I did listen to you the first time regarding the woman caught in adultery, I just didn’t buy your argument. The ones picking up stones HAD witnessed the crime, and Jesus clearly argues in an attempt to stop them from stoning her, which they did. If they witnessed it, and didn’t stone her, then they broke the law, and Jesus did nothing about it.
Hey Gordan,
In all seriousness, I think arguing about the law is not the place to go here. Ultimately, like I have said so many times before, I believe that the Sabbath is rooted in creation and the fact that it is not abrogated in the NT. I feel that you continue to sidestep my best arguments and are trying to nail me at the weakest points (no doubt, maybe you feel the same way about how I am arguing). So, I think I’ll step aside for now, until I post again on this issue.
I can say, however, that it appears that we agree on the following points:
-any OT law continues unless it is abrogated in the new.
-the Sabbath was not completely abrogated because there is still a future Sabbath rest (we obviously disagree on what constitutes obeying it).
-the Sabbath in it’s OT form (Saturday observance; Sabbath feast and years), has either changed or passed away.
Thus, we have a lot we agree on, but we’re probably not going to work out our disagreements here. It just seems like each of us have presuppositions that we will not let go of (you: the command is ceremonial; me: the command was given at creation and thus cannot be ceremonial).
Do you realize that in all of your provided passages, those passages are specifically aimed at… the Jews/Hebrews! Those directions are not to “Christians”, but his chosen people. Now if you can find Paul, who was sent specifically to deliver the words of God to US, talking about the sabbath, I would say you’ve made your argument.
aionon,
Speaking to Gentiles, Peter says:
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
There is considerable confusion about what is a moral or a ceremonial law. The ceremonies pointed to Christ as the Messiah and redeemer and the atoning sacrifice for sin. They served a temporary time period before Christ appeared. The Sabbath, theologically, has nothing temporary about it. It points back to the Creator, and to our human origin as created in God’s image; it points to the cross, in that weekly, we rest from our own efforts to save ourselves, and rest in the atoning ministry of Christ; it points forward to the Second coming, when all will be restored, and we receive the fruits of the atonement, eternal life with Christ. We enjoy the ultimate rest.
Theologically, the Sabbath does not belong to any time period, but truly “was made for man” as Jesus declared. We still need a Sabbath rest today, as Paul declared in Hebrews that a rest remains. We need to rest, physically, spiritually, emotionally, and yes, we need a break from the incessant tug of the world, AND its entertainments! Let’s spare the video games, television, newspapers, and things of the world, and spend time in worship, with our families, in fellowship, in active recreation, and in service to God and man.
Alan,
Amen, brother. Excellent comment.