The Eighth-Day Sabbath is the Lord’s Day
Jan 17th, 2009 by Nathan White
From Sam Waldron, Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith?:
“In Genesis 2:3 it says that God set apart the seventh day because He rested on that day. Recognizing that what God did in redemption was so great that nothing less than the concept of a new creation could describe it, we must understand that God in the new creation uses the same designation principle. The new creation sabbath is designated on the same principle as that of the old creation sabbath. It is the day of God’s rest. The first day of the week is the day upon which Christ’s labours to atone for the sins of His people came to an end and He entered His rest in resurrection glory. The Lord’s Day is the eighth day, the day of new beginnings. As the seventh day was associated with and commemorated the old work of creation, so the first day is associated with and commemorates a new creation.”
Considering Waldron’s words, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrews references the creation Sabbath of old:
He has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” (4:4)
..and uses this as the foundation for the new-creation Sabbath, in pointing us to that final day of rest when the new creation will be consummated:
there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. (4:9)
The Sabbath is indeed ‘the Lord’s Day’. He created it, He owns it, and He will bring it to consummation.
But how, you ask, do we know that John was referring to the Sabbath when he uttered “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day“? (Rev 1:10)
First, it must be noted there are 15+ references to ‘My Sabbaths’ in the Old Testament. The Sabbath was a Day the Lord spoke of as His own posession (Exodus 31:13, Leviticus 19:3, Leviticus 19:30, Leviticus 26:2, Isaiah 56:4, Ezekiel 20:12, Ezekiel 20:13, Ezekiel 20:16, Ezekiel 20:20, Ezekiel 20:21, Ezekiel 20:24, Ezekiel 22:8, Ezekiel 22:26, Ezekiel 23:38, Ezekiel 44:24, etc.)
It is only a good and necessary inference (indeed, unmistakable) that John was referring to the Sabbath when he referenced ‘The Lord’s Day’.
Secondly, Jesus Christ calls Himself ‘the Lord of the Sabbath’ (Matt 12:8). Another good, necessary, and obvious inference is that Jesus is claiming possession of the Sabbath in the same manner that John gives the Lord possession of a particular day.
Next, Isaiah 53:8 says: “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day“, again nailing down without a doubt that the Sabbath is day of the Lord’s personal possession.
Other texts could be alluded to, though they are not as explicit, such as Psalm 118:24, which referring to Christ being the chief cornerstone, declares “This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Some understand this to be a direct reference to the resurrection of Christ and the Day that the Lord made (owns) to commemorate it.
Nevertheless, a verse often used to oppose the designation of any special day declares:
how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. (Gal 4:9-10)
Contrary to observing a ‘day’ that ultimately was a turn away from Christ, the apostle John states an explicit, special significance to ‘the Lord’s Day’, and the writer of Hebrews points us forward (and upward, to Christ) in anticipation of that final rest. If observing the Sabbath day, the Lord’s Day, is turning back to slavery, clearly the apostle John indicates otherwise.
Will you be in the Spirit this coming Lord’s Day? Or will you take God’s holy day and profane it by treating it as a common thing, as if all days are exactly the same? By God’s grace, look to Christ, the heavenly rest He secured on your behalf by faith, and strive to enter that final rest that awaits the people of God.
And I...
Nathan,
“It is only a good and necessary inference (indeed, unmistakable) that John was referring to the Sabbath when he referenced ‘The Lord’s Day’.”
Exactly! –”good and necessary inference.” The entire argument of your post is based on inference, not explicit didacticism, not precise exegesis, not clear statements, but mere inference. This is where reformers often go wrong, IMO. I believe “good and necessary inference” is very dangerous in reference to any theology. The only time I would use inference is I’m supporting an already established doctrine that is first *explicitly* taught in Scripture. For example, if Paul said, “Sunday is the new Sabbath,” then I would agree with that your inference is plausible.
I will not, I cannot base any theological claim on good and necessary inference. Am I being inconsistent here? Do we have any other examples, where we make a huge theological assertion based on mere assertion? I know not of one, but maybe you can correct me.
You also had stated: “Secondly, Jesus Christ calls Himself ‘the Lord of the Sabbath’ (Matt 12:8). Another good, necessary, and obvious inference is that Jesus is claiming possession of the Sabbath in the same manner that John gives the Lord possession of a particular day.”
Although you and I have discussed this before, I believe that the “I am the Lord of the Sabbath” inference is being totally taken out of its context. Christ was not giving himself this illustrious title for no reason. Neither was saying this because he was trying to show that sacredness of the Sabbath. The context is clear. It was a response to the Pharisees accusing him that he had broken the Jewish Sabbath, (of which he did, btw John 5:18; Mt. 12). What was his response?” Christ responded by saying, “I am the Lord of the Sabbath.” In plain words, Christ was saying, “I am the creator and Lord of the Sabbath, so I can do what I deem best!”
I think the context itself of that passage makes this very clear. Nathan, I would be interested in your interpretation of the context, as to the specific reason why Christ said what he said.
Davide said:
You misunderstood me. Please read my words carefully. I was pointing out how it is a *fact*, through a ‘good and necessary inference”, that John was referring to the Sabbath. He doesn’t say ‘I was in the Spirit on the Sabbath’, but through good and necessary inference, his meaning cannot be denied by an honest exegete.
I was not building a theology of the Sabbath off of a ‘good and necessary inference’. There is no ‘good and necessary’; it is as plain as day, and from exegesis, that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance that is also commanded in Law of God which binds our ethics.
Davide said:
Which is exactly why I affirm the Sabbath. It is explicitly taught in scripture; it is never explicitly repealed. You are inconsistent here, because you allow a ‘good and necessary’ inference, based upon the vagueness of Heb 4 and Col 2, to completely rule your interpretation.
It’s like the issue of Calvinism. There are many passages in the NT that seem to teach free will. But there are also many that seem to teach otherwise. And many people take these ‘free will’ passages, running with them, and force them upon other passages that are very clear and didactic. You do this as well, in that you take a vague reference to OT Jewish Law, and you force it upon the other texts which uphold/explain/command the observance of the Sabbath. Because you are so decided and sure that Paul repeals the Sabbath in Col 2/Rom 14, you view everything through these lens, you cannot even begin to understand the real issues at stake. Just like the arminian who cannot reconcile his (faulty) understanding of John 3:16 in light of Romans 9.
So if anybody is building a theology off a ‘good and necessary inference’, you may disagree, but I would say you are the one.
Davide said:
The OT Law was given in explicit form, complete with full application to the lives of the Jews. It didn’t help the Israelites in obeying it. With the New Covenant, however, we are given the correct understanding of the Law, the Spirit to guide, and the righteousness (imputation) that ultimately fulfills it. But we are NOT given a list, set of rules, or even a new ethical standard by which we are to obey.
We do not need a new law, and return to demanding a dead letter, instructing us on every little jot and tittle of the Christian life, as you call for here. 2 Tim 3:16 clears it up quite nicely that the Old is sufficient. The way we look at, relate, and understand the Law has changed; the Law has not.
Davide said:
I agree completely. Except, of course, in that He did not break the Sabbath. He simply claimed ownership of the ordinance, and thus the right to properly interpret it (because the Pharisees had missed the entire point of it).
Davide said:
You’ve probably heard me on this before (and by the way, you mentioned ‘taken out of context above…but you’ve yet to demonstrate how I have done that). But this was Jesus making a claim to Deity, because obviously, the Pharisees were well familiar with God calling the Sabbath ‘His holy Day’ and ‘My Sabbaths’. He was making a claim to Deity, which is even pictured in the 4th commandment. The perfect obedience of the 4th commandment found its final fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ, just as the other laws did as well, and the Pharisees should have recognized their Messiah. Jesus thus called attention to this, and the fact that because He is God, the Owner of the Sabbath, then they ought to listen to what He has to say on it.
And, of course, Jesus says that the Sabbath was ‘Made for man’. Not commanded of man in the Law. Not given to the Jews at Sinai. Not temporarily instituted at all. But created, in the beginning, as part of the order of creation, for the benefit of man. Indeed, the Sabbath is ‘a delight’, to quote Isaiah 58. If it was a burden, a weak and beggarly element, a return to bondage, etc., Jesus would have never used such language.
By the way: would you care to take a stab at explaining why John makes special reference to the Sabbath in Rev 1, seemingly contradicting Paul who says in Rom 14 that each day is alike?
I could also add other NT examples, such as Jesus telling the Disciples to ‘pray that your flight will not be on the Sabbath’, in reference to 70ad. Clearly, Jesus had a theology of the Sabbath that didn’t allow for its profaning even when running for one’s life! Jonathan Edwards makes this point quite convincingly…
No, I didn’t misunderstand you. I just did not communicate clearly:) I wasn’t suggesting that your entire Sabbath theology is based on necessary inference, just your understanding of how that the Sabbath has been changed to Sunday.
As far as the Mt. 12 context, we actually agree somewhat! Sorry, didn’t mean to accuse you. Like you said, the only difference between you and me is the fact that you believe Christ obeyed the Sabbath in its “true” meaning, where I believe he actually broke the Sabbath (with the presupposition that the Sabbath was a ceremonial type law, and therefore, not moral in nature).
You also said: “By the way: would you care to take a stab at explaining why John makes special reference to the Sabbath in Rev 1, seemingly contradicting Paul who says in Rom 14 that each day is alike?”
That’s a great question–one to think about. First of all, the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. To suggest that it has been changed, is a gargantuan, meteor-sized inference. So, to start with, I would not approach the Rev. text with this huge presupposition.
Second, I can answer this from a personal standpoint. I, myself, call Sunday the Lord’s Day, in recognition of Christ’s resurrection, just like John did. However, I don’t look at the “Lord’s Day” in any other way different from other days, other than that it is our tradition to worship on that day. In other words, I don’t regard the Lord’s day more important than say Monday.
Davide said:
Wow, I’m almost speechless here. What a tragic view you have on this. Ceremonial or not (a few months ago you tried to convince me there were no such distinctions in scripture), for Christ to break any law would render Him sinful and unrighteous, not to mention unqualified to serve as the Second Adam.
Secondly, you undermine your own consistency, because you make the Sabbath to be really about SOMETHING ELSE, instead of about Christ. If He broke the Sabbath, then the Sabbath is not a picture of Him, and the people in the OT who were commanded to obey the Sabbath were not involved in Christ centered worship. You’ve just ripped Christ out of the Sabbath system of the OT, as if Christ isn’t the fulfillment of everything ‘ceremonial’! He can only be the fulfillment of something if He fulfills every aspect of the anti-type to perfection!
The implications of your view are astounding; so much so that I’d prefer not to dialogue on you about this until you have a few years to think this one out. Clearly, you haven’t thought this one out, for by God’s grace you won’t hold to this view for long.
Davide said:
Maybe you could benefit from reading some books on hermeneutics and defining for us what a ‘good and necessary inference’ is. For the definition itself means that it isn’t explicit. And anytime something isn’t explicit, men will always claim that we’re making a stretch. Your words of ‘gargantuan’ tell me that maybe you aren’t familiar with what an actual inference is. We don’t claim that the inference is enough to convince those who are already close-minded because of their presuppositions.
Jesus rose on Sunday. That is His Day, so it would seem. Many see Psalm 118 as speaking of this as ‘the Day God made’. He also appeared to the 12 on Sunday, Pentecost was on Sunday, etc. But the ‘good and necessary inference’ is when we have Paul commanding the church to meet on the first day of the week, followed by their example. So when we see the Apostles obeying the Sabbath on Sunday, commanding believers to gather (essentially obey the Sabbath) on Sunday, and then we see all of church history following in this apostolic tradition, like it or not, the inference is clear. Add to this the Christ-centeredness of the Sabbath that Hebrews 4 teaches us, clearly indicating that Christ has entered His rest upon His completion of His works (which was on Sunday), and the future-fulfillment and the eighth day make perfect sense in light of these texts.
You don’t have to deny the inference just because you disagree with it. I deny padeo-baptism, but the ‘good and necessary inference’ is certainly not a huge stretch.
Davide said:
Can you prove that John was speaking of the resurrection, or is this a good and necessary inference?
To suggest that John means anything other than the Sabbath, in light of all the references to ‘My Holy Day’ in scripture, is, well, very sad.
Davide said:
I was hoping that you’d explain the inconsistency that I identified in your position, from scripture, rather than from personal tradition. But it seems as though you either cannot, or do not wish to, right?
Davide writes: “In other words, I don’t regard the Lord’s day more important than say Monday.”
I’d have to mostly agree. Are we to not pray during the week? Are we to not read the Bible during the week? Are to not gather with other believers during the week? Of course not. Yet, these are all considered peculiar to the Lord’s Day for some reason.
Perhaps it should be defined by what we do NOT do? Should we not attend sporting events? I’m doubting many Christians are going to find attending a football game to be sinful, though.
I think there’s an old fallacy that Christians should be more holy on Sunday than the rest of the week. This is the wrong attitude: if we neglect the things of God during the week, we should re-evaluate our dedication to Him.
Brother, I’m saddened that I offended and shocked you to such a degree. I feel that I’ve been unwise by bringing this up. Listen, brother, whether you agree with my interpretation or not, I’m just quoting the text verbatim–John 5:18 “Christ broke the Sabbath.” That’s not the Pharisee’s words, that’s John’s. Christ obviously never, ever broke the spirit of any law, which is love, the greatest commandment.
You have totally misunderstood me on our previous conversations, but I will not even go into that right now.
As far as Christ’s sinlessness is concerned, let it be made clear that Christ was the spotless lamb of God, and perfect in all respects.
Davide–
Thank you for clarifying. Maybe my reaction was a little knee-jerk because now I’m wondering if I properly understand you.
Let me say this: I’ve told you before that I see a ceremonial *AND* a moral aspect in the 4th commandment. I see that in all of them. The moral aspect, I believe, is grounded in creation and revealed in fullness with the gospel. The ceremonial aspect concerned the 7th day and the *very strict* regulations that God gave to the Jew.
Thus, I believe that the moral aspect, specifically from creation, passages like Isa 58, and the NT, continues on, but that the ceremonial aspect has almost completely gone away. I say ‘almost’ because I do see a theology of the Lord’s Day in the NT, much like the passover ‘almost’ went away in that it has changed to the Lord’s Supper.
Nevertheless, let me think on this more. I know John says he broke the Sabbath, but I tend to understand that as He broke their definition of the Sabbath, which since they were the religious leaders/interpreters of scripture, ruled that age. From my standpoint, even the ceremonial aspects, because they pointed to Him, and were commanded by God (they were moral at that time), could not be truly broken by, as you said, the spotless Lamb of God.
Let me clarify my position a little further, so you don’t think I’m a heretic. I must not be a good communicator:) I want you to read my words carefully, so we can be clear with each other.
When John says that Christ “broke” the Sabbath, he is stating that in a very loose sense. He “broke” the Sabbath (in its letter) in order to fulfill a greater commandment, the law of love and mercy. That’s why He responds in the same passage, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” To love is the foundation/essence of the entire Mosaic Covenant.
A person could observe the Sabbath perfectly—resting, going to the temple, offering sacrifices—yet, if he did this at the expense of neglecting to show love to others, he was guilty of a greater sin.
The disciples were “hungry” (the Greek implies that they had no food). Christ saw their need and had compassion. Because Christ is the “Lord of the Sabbath” he had the prerogative to fulfill the greatest commandment at the expense of breaching the letter of the law. The greatest commandment is the essence of the entire Mosaic Law. The Pharisees missed that, and therefore, misunderstood the entire law.
In other words, under any *normal* circumstances, what Christ did would be considered a breach of the 4th commandment, (if any other person did it). For example, a man was stoned in the OT because he was gathering sticks. In the same manner, if an ordinary man were out in a field plucking corn to eat it on the Sabbath, because he was hungry, I would think he would be breaking the Sabbath.
Throughout Scripture we find a plethora of examples where God allows the letter of the law to be breached. He commanded Ezekiel to do that which was contrary to the Law of Moses—eat dung. The law prohibited to eat anything unclean. This served as a sign to God’s people of their wickedness. God commanded Isaiah to walk naked before the people. Again, a breach of the Law of God. David ate the forbidden showbread. Levites often worked all day on the Sabbath. All of these are violations of the Mosaic Law. Christ had the authority to authorize exceptions, if and only if, it was for the sake of keeping the greatest commandment.
Does this mean that anybody could breach the letter of law if they did in the name of love? I think not. Uzzah was killed because he sought to save the ark of the covenant. No doubt he had great motives, yet he broke the Mosaic Law and was killed because of it.
I actually think we basically believe the same thing, except you believe that what Christ did would be okay for anybody to do. I don’t.
Davide said:
It may just be me. Think about it: I’ve been on the defensive here, regarding this issue, for more than a week now. I appreciate the interaction and objections, for they help refine my thinking and theological convictions, but it can get tiresome always defending myself. The one on the defense is always more knee-jerk and sensitive to language. You guys don’t have to present a position; you are simply free to pick apart my presentation
Davide said:
The first and greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart. The second is love your neighbor. I don’t see how breaking the greatest one (love to God, clearly an aspect of the 4th commandment) can justify breaking the second greatest one.
Davide said:
I think it is clear that He is simply expounding the true nature of God, by which we learn the true nature of the Sabbath command. Not only that, but His main goal is to claim Deity. He calls Himself God; He claims the “I will have mercy” as if He Himself is speaking. The undertones are clear, IMO.
Davide said:
As we have argued before, I believe it is clear, specifically because of what Paul says in Rom 13, that the Commandments expound for us what love looks like. Love does not exist in a vacuum. We do not get to define it personally. It is defined for us in the law. Thus, I believe you are making a false dichotomy between love and law. The law tells us how to love; love does not tell us how to obey the law. Love cannot be defined without the law.
Davide said:
I agree completely. This is what we see in the prophets, specifically in Is 58, where the people’s outward adherence to the Sabbath was a breaking of it because of their inward profaning.
Davide said:
Again, you get the greatest and the second greatest confused. I cannot see how the 2nd somehow takes precedence over the first.
Davide said:
I definitely agree.
Davide said:
Yes, I do agree here. But again, I believe the context of the gospels shows that the Pharisees, the religious interpreters of the day, had missed the Law entirely. Thus, this example shows that they were not “guilty” before God, even though they were guilty before man because of the interpretation and application of the law in their day. Plucking corn because you are hungry is not a breaking of the Sabbath in the eyes of God; this should be clear.
Davide said:
There are several things I disagree with here:
First, I do not share your view on ethics. All commands of God are binding, all the time. It would be wrong to say ‘I love my neighbor, so I am going to lie and say her cooking was good when it wasn’t”. We do not get to decide for ourselves if a law can be broken in favor of another. And I also don’t see how refusing to obey God (observe the sabbath) would take precedence over the second commandment, loving our neighbor.
Secondly, I disagree with your view of ‘ceremonial’. I see that all commands are moral within the covenant they are given; I cannot see how we can make any distinction. The ‘ceremonial’ laws were just as ‘moral’ as the other laws at the time they were given. The ceremonial laws given to Israel are not moral to us, but they were very moral to Israel at the time.
Thirdly, there is another aspect of the ceremonial law where I believe you err. That is in that they point to Christ. For example, the ceremonial law that the sacrificial lamb was not have any broken bones pointed to Christ. If He were to have one of His bones broken, though the law was ceremonial, He would have marred the type/anti-type fulfillment. To say that there was a ceremonial aspect to God’s law that Christ did not perfectly fulfill is to undermine the entire purpose and Christocentric nature of the ceremonial system. I think you’re way off here. He ceases to be the fulfillment and heavenly reality of the ceremonial law if He breaks any of the ceremonial portion in any way. I hope that you’ll re-think this.
Nathan,
Though we have not yet been able to see eye to eye in this matter, I have found this discussion personally very profitable. I hope it has to you. Thanks for responding.
Davide said: “He “broke” the Sabbath (in its letter) in order to fulfill a greater commandment, the law of love and mercy.”
Nathan responded: “I don’t see how breaking the greatest one (love to God, clearly an aspect of the 4th commandment) can justify breaking the second greatest one…Again, you get the greatest and the second greatest confused. I cannot see how the 2nd somehow takes precedence over the first…And I also don’t see how refusing to obey God (observe the sabbath) would take precedence over the second commandment, loving our neighbor.”
Davide’s answer to Nathan’s response: You have misunderstood. Jesus wasn’t breaking the greatest commandment. You are assuming that breaking the letter of a ceremonial law is tantamount with breaking the greatest commandment. It is not. Yes, the *spirit* of the Sabbath commandment has everything to do with Loving God, but not the bare letter. There is a difference. Why else would God command Ezekiel and Isaiah to *break* a ceremonial law? Why was David excused for breaking the letter of a ceremonial law? Why were priests allowed to “profane the Sabbath” by working all day long? These are all crystal clear violations of the letter of the law. Would God command a person to break the greatest commandment, and do something contrary to loving God? Of course not.
This fact inevitably leads me to conclude that the bare letter of ceremonial/type laws are not *intrinsically* moral in nature. Please understand what I’m saying. Obviously, everything that God commands his people is moral, but the actual commandment itself may not be *intrinsically* moral. For example, if eating pork was an *intrinsically* moral issue, then it would still be sin to eat it. The fact that we can eat it now teaches us that it was only moral in the fact that God restricted during that time.
On the other hand, committing adultery or murder is still a sin, no matter where you slice it. These commandments are intrinsically moral, in letter and spirit, unlike ceremonial laws which are only moral because either a.) God commanded it or, b.) By its “spirit” or true meaning.
To sum everything up, the spirit of any ceremonial law, including the Sabbath is intrinsically moral, the letter is not. Therefore, although Jesus broke the *letter* of the 4th commandment, he did not break the *spirit* of it, and therefore, His actions had nothing to do with breaking the spirit of the law, namely love. Because Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, He has the prerogative to break the letter of the law if it was at the expense of loving his neighbor.
I could talk about a lot of things you said, but I think that would be unnecessary and overly fatiguing at this point. I understand the logic of your points and will have to agree to disagree. I simply do not see the text at all as you do at this point, but, we all have our blind spots and I give way to the fact that this could be one of them.
Oh, one more thing…I think the Sabbath is justifiably comparable to eating pork, because Paul makes the same comparison (Col. 2:17) If that’s not enough, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was a ceremonial law , (like eating pork), on this premise: both laws were temporal in their literal application. Just like eating pork is not innately ethical/moral, by the very fact that we are allowed to eat it today, so the same goes with the Jewish Sabbath. In other words, I think we would both conclude that it is not innately evil in and of itself to work on the Sabbath. To you it would depend on the circumstances. In the letter of the Jewish Sabbath, it was sin to work, no matter what the reason.
Again, I’m not saying that the fundamental, intrinsic meaning of the Sabbath is not spiritual/moral issue. I think it is.
My entire point is, again, that Jesus broke the actual letter of the law, but never the spirit. Breaking the law, even its letter, was a sin for any ordinary man, because it was a commandment of God. But since Christ’s was the giver of the Mosaic law, he had the prerogative to break it if he wanted to.
…Just making sure you understand me right:)
Davide–
A few points here and I’m going to wrap this up this discussion. We’ve been down this road before, and this technically isn’t the topic of this post.
Let me see if I can break this down in the best order I can. Here is where you err on Matthew 12:
-Jesus in Matthew 12 says ‘guiltless’, which indicates that no law was broken, ceremonial or not. Saying that they were ‘really’ breaking the commandment is reading into the text something that isn’t there. They were *guiltless* because the Law, in letter or spirit, was not broken.
-A few verses down in Matt 12, verse 11, Jesus says that the Pharisees also ‘worked’ on the Sabbath to rescue their animals. So Jesus had a clear intention of exposing their hypocrisy. They did themselves what they claimed to be ‘unlawful’. Again, my point that Jesus was correcting them stands firm.
-Then Jesus concludes the Matt 12 passage by correcting the Pharisees on what is *lawful* on the Sabbath. Your position is clearly refuted here. Jesus says ‘it is indeed lawful’, thus *lawful* means that they weren’t breaking the command in letter or in spirit.
-So Jesus says that they were ‘guiltless’ and then He says they’re behavior ‘is lawful’. Thus, the point couldn’t be any clearer: they were guiltless of the Spirit of the Law, and were within its lawful boundaries in the letter.
-You said that “In the letter of the Jewish Sabbath, it was sin to work, no matter what the reason.” Unfortunately, you cannot show from the OT that the poor picking grain on the Sabbath is a breaking of the letter. This assumption cannot be proven exegetically.
-I didn’t see an explanation for the clear problem of Christ being the end, purpose, and fulfillment of the ceremonial law, and how He could still be so if He fails to fulfill it down to every letter.
-Making the leap from David/Ezekiel/OT Saints breaking the letter to Jesus breaking the letter is a huge theological leap. Sinful men, who need atonement for their sins, who are allowed to transgress the letter is something completely different than Christ Himself doing so. Comparing the two is a false dichotomy and a dangerous one theologically, IMO.
-In Isaiah 42:21 the Lord says concerning Jesus Christ: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to magnify His Law and make it glorious.” Did Jesus magnify the Sabbath and make it glorious? Yes, He did so, because He kept it down to the very letter.
-You said: “but the actual commandment itself may not be *intrinsically* moral.” This isn’t completely related to your point here, but let me just say that the Sabbath is intrinsically moral; but that it is the actual Day of observance that is not. The actual Day of observance must be told to us via special revelation. God did this through Moses, in instructing the Jews to observe Saturday (Saturday is not demanded in the Ten Commandments), and He did this through Paul as well in 1 Cor 16/Acts 20.
-You said: “committing adultery or murder is still a sin, no matter where you slice it.” But God commanded Hosea to marry a whore, a woman who had committed adultery. There is a huge difference in sinful man’s actions and the sinless Man.
By the way, Davide: how about a perfect parallel to this passage?
I’ve already mentioned that Jesus told the disciples ‘pray that your flight not be on the Sabbath’, in reference to first century persecution after His ascension. Interesting He would say this because it seems that David running for his life and eating the ceremonial showbread, and the disciples running for their lives and having to flee on the (you say ceremonial) Sabbath would be similar issues. But Jesus treats them differently. David is guiltless in eating the showbread while running for his life, but the disciples are told to ‘pray’ that their running for their lives, from the Romans, won’t be on the Sabbath.
So, David can break the showbread while running for his life, but the disciples should pray beforehand that they aren’t put in that position…
Next, Davide, you mentioned Col 2:17 as if this proves the Sabbath is ceremonial. But I must point out that the phrase “festival, new moon, sabbaths’ occur many times in the Old Testament. Paul’s audience was obviously familiar with the OT, and they would have known exactly what he was referring to here, and that is the entire festival/sabbath system.
Note these passages: Neh 10:33, 1 Cron 2:4, 31:3; Is 1:13-14; Hos 2:11; Ez 45:17. Paul didn’t use this term by accident; and it does not refer to the moral command of the Sabbath Day which was given before the Law.
It would be foolish to read this passage with 21st century eyes; eyes that have never seen the ‘festival, new moon, and sabbaths’ system in full force.
Sorry for all the posts, but this bears noticing as well:
Jesus notes the hypocrisy and hatred of human life (over the animals) of the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath. This proves that the Sabbath is a moral issue. Jesus specifically calls out their motives! Ceremonial laws don’t have ‘motives’! Ceremonial laws are just ‘do this’.
This is a point that could be fleshed out further. For when we examine the Old Testament, specifically passages like Isaiah 58, we should come to no other conclusion that that the Sabbath is moral. For God deals with their heart, their motives, their desires when dealing with their Sabbath-breaking.
For mere temporary ceremonies, you don’t find God dealing with the heart in proscribing obedience to the command, as He clearly does regarding the Sabbath.
I’m done now
Well, I guess I can lovingly agree to disagree. By the very fact that we both have worn out this discussion of Mt. 12 and John 5:8, leads me to believe that we both are interpreting this text in light of our preconceived theological paradigms. We are both coming to the table with many presuppositions, which is the reason why we have such a drastic difference in interpretation. We both unavoidably have a framework in which we look at this text (although my framework is the right one:-)
Sorry about getting of the subject of your post.
Davide–
Yes, you are right. We each approach this with presuppositions.
However, even if Jesus did break the letter (unthinkable, in my mind), and even if He was making a point that mercy/love supersedes ceremonies/rituals, to infer from this text that Jesus is *teaching* that the Sabbath is ceremonial, is going way beyond the bounds of what the text says. Regardless of whether the Sabbath is ceremonial or not, that is not Jesus’ point.
But again, I implore you to consider the moral *nature* of the command. Clearly, from the OT, such as Is 58, obedience to the Sabbath was an issue of the heart, and it concerned the worship of God. Nature teaches us that there is a God and He must be worshiped. The 4th commandment and the Creation account teaches us how often. Thus, the Sabbath was never a dead ceremony, and still isn’t. It cannot be compared to the eating of pork, for example, because as you said, there is nothing intrinsically moral about that. But there most definitely is something intrinsically moral about worshiping God. We would never count a man regenerated if he set aside 5 minutes a month or even 5 minutes a week for the worship of God. Taking time out of our schedules to serve/obey God is *always* a moral issue. The command itself, other than ordering a specific day, is absolutely moral from top to bottom –and that cannot be disputed.
Davide–
Setting aside the disagreements on the Law, Covenant Theology, and the specific texts, our disagreement on this issue essentially comes down to this:
We both believe that God should be worshiped. We just disagree on when, how much, and whether He has given us standards regarding this in His law.
-I believe that He has commanded us to set aside a full day of worship, 1 24hr period, every 7th day. (Minimum, but no maximum).
-You believe Christian liberty frees us from this obligation, and that we are free to set aside time for worship whenever we please, and however much we please. (No minimum and no maximum).
-I believe that He has commanded this worship to be a minimum of 1 day every 7th day, and that this is on the Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath, God’s holy day set aside as His gift to mankind.
-You believe that this particular day of worship, in addition to not having to be a full day, can be whatever day and whenever we choose, and as often or infrequent as we choose.
-I believe that on this Day, God has called us to completely devote our attention to Him in worship, service, praise, which by necessity requires us to rest from our normal duties of working for a living and entertaining ourselves.
-You believe that, on the day of worship, we are free to worship a little, work a little, worship a little, participate in recreation a little; whatever pleases us, we are free to do, just so long as we find time for worship and/or refrain from neglecting worship and the gathering of God’s people.
-In regards to corporate worship and our obedience there, I believe that the church cannot demand that we gather more than the minimum 1 day in 7, on the Christian Sabbath Day, even though gathering more often is good and healthy.
-You believe that the church has the right to set the particular day (and frequency) in which we must gather for a time (not day) and obey in this worship.
Am I off here?
Nathan,
I’m shocked to see how much I actually agree with these last few posts! Here are some points that I definitely agree with you on:
1. Regardless of our interpretation of Matt. 12, Jesus’ point was not at all to prove the Sabbath was ceremonial. (I think He was showing that there was a deeper meaning to the law than just the letter).
2. The Sabbath (whether ceremonial or not) was intrinsically a moral issue. (I just don’t think the “the not working part” was an intrinsically moral issue).
3. I totally agree with your 1st, 2nd and third comparison.
The last statement, I sort of agree with. I believe the church can decide when we meet (Sunday is a great idea since that has been the tradition for the last 2,000 years:). However, I don’t believe meeting together is ever an act of obedience. The church sets the time for worship, but that does not mean that if you don’t show up, you being “disobedient.”
FYI, I don’t use anymore the Heb. 10 passage about “forsaking the assembly” as a basis for attending church. I think that verse has been taken out of context (a whole other argument). My reason church attendance is a very pragmatic one:
a.) We meet because of spiritual necessity (God has ordained the body as the primary means of edification of God’s people (Eph. 4)
b.) We meet out of our duty to others. (each member has a unique responsibility in the body, working together to edify one another.
c.) We meet out of delight to worship God.
d.) We meet together because the church has authority and we are accountable to it (Matt. 18?).
Nathan,
I think the Westminster Shorter Catechism nicely summarizes what you just said. Would you agree?
Q60: How is the Sabbath to be sanctified?
A60: The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.
Q61: What is forbidden in the Fourth Commandment?
A61: The Fourth Commandment forbiddeth the omission or careless performance of the duties required, and the profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations
Nathan,
One more thing, and I’ll shut up. I do actually have an honest question relating to the topic of your post:
Besides the notion that the Sabbath has been changed to Sunday, what actually is the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath? The only difference that comes to mind is the Saturday/Sunday change. Am I off here?
Davide—
Fair warning: long comment here.
Isn’t it amazing how we can bicker and fight, think that the other person has just lost it exegetically, and at the end of the day, our differences are almost too subtle to distinguish?
I think sometimes we need to BOTH remember that we’re fighting the same battles, from the same foxhole.
As I thought on this further, I think our differences are even more subtle if we were to look at what each of us actually does on the Lord’s Day. We both take the day off of work (I completely, and I would guess that you at least do not actively seek work) in order to attend Church faithfully. And we both look at the Day just a little differently than a normal day. I would at least guess that although you might spend more time in entertainment or something than I would, for the most part, it is a quiet day where you prepare and then reflect on the public worship of our God.
Anyway, regarding your comments:
-On Matthew 12, again, I agree with you in saying that Jesus was teaching a deeper meaning than the letter. Specifically, I believe He was teaching that although the letter might appear to restrict just any kind of work on the Sabbath, God never intends for the ‘rest’ of the letter to supersede other acts of mercy/service.
-Regarding the morality of the Sabbath: the specific Day ordained is ceremonial in a sense. Or, as John Owen argued at length, there are distinctions in the Law of God. He called the Sabbath an example of a ‘moral-positive’ law. In other words, the essence of the command is moral, but the instructions for carrying out the law must be given to us, and these instructions are open to change. To give a great parallel: there is nothing inherently sinful with marrying our sister. That is, the law of adultery, a moral law, simply teaches monogamy. We don’t violate the command of monogamy when we marry our sister. However, later, in the Law, God forbids incest. It wasn’t forbidden before, as we see in the Patriarchs, but from the Law onward the instructions for carrying out the moral command of adultery were slightly altered, and incest is forbidden. So in regards to the Sabbath, the Puritans argued at great length, and from the Hebrew, that neither the Garden nor the 10 Words command a Saturday observance of the Sabbath. The Saturday originated, for Israel only, when God gave Manna to Israel. Thus, the morality of the command stays the same, but the instructions for carrying it out, particularly what day we should observe it, are open to change, and do not in any way effect the moral substance of the law.
-Regarding the ‘not working’ part; I believe this is one instance in the Law where God gives Israel an application, but not a completely universal application. Obviously, ‘not working’ is not so strict as to supersede other acts of service, mercy, and obedience. And simply ‘not working’ is actually worse than working, in a sense, if all we do is rest, doing nothing at all. For not only does this violate other passages instructing us on the Sabbath (Is. 58), but idleness is a great hindrance to Godliness, and a huge invitation for temptation. The ‘not working’ is simply a picture of laying aside our own desires and employment, and letting God work in us. It is an application, in that it is a re-directing of our focus from work to worship.
-I also do not believe that missing church is a sin. Sanctifying the Sabbath is so much more than that, but I do believe the command encourages us to attend whenever it is reasonably possible.
-I agree completely with the Westminster Catechism you stated. I think the Puritans on this, contrary to popular belief, got this issue better than any other generation. Trust me, reading the history of this Sabbath debate, they were faced with every accusation you guys have thrown at me, and much more. They were also faced with some radical, Saturday-sabbatarians, and debated them for many years –proving them wrong on all fronts.
-What has changed between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath? This deserves a full post, but here are a few brief thoughts:
Obviously the big change is the Day, which is now rooted in the New Creation, not simply the history of Israel. And this resurrection Day has a decidedly Christ-centered focus, which changes everything (doctrine always changes practice). The Saturday observance, which started at sundown for the Jews, was to specifically distinguish them as God’s chosen people, serving as the sign of the covenant. But our Sabbath is not the sign of the covenant. Our Sabbath isn’t simply to distinguish us from the world (it does in a sense, but that’s not its focus). It being a sign of the covenant for the Jews has many ramifications in regards to the Sabbath system that formed their entire society, the strictness by which God punished their Sabbath breaking, and the overall focus and center of the command itself.
We have the full revelation of the command/ordinance; the Jews didn’t. Their Sabbath, again, was to mainly function as a sign of the covenant. Ours is much richer than that. Ours centers on the new creation brought by Christ, and we now know the full revelation of the picture of heavenly rest (in Christ) that the command entails. In other words, the center and focus is not nearly as ‘earthly/temporal’ as the Jews’ Sabbath; ours is more focused on heaven, eternity, worship, sanctification, Christ, rather than simply obeying a law here on earth. The Sabbath is a gift, it is our friend, and it should be our delight.
Of course, with all of this, I believe the physical restrictions, here on earth, are much lighter for us than the Jews. The obedience is more internal, not external, per the Divine revelation into the Law by the Lawgiver Himself when He walked the earth. This does not annul the outward conformity to the command, i.e., rest and ceasing from labor; but it does shift the focus to the heart, as Jesus did with all the commands (adultery, murder, coveting, etc.).
I hope that helps. And let me tell you, I have really benefited from this discussion. For a while there, though I didn’t let it on, I started to have a few doubts about my position. But this has forced me to go back to the scriptures, and to research this issue anew, and, though you might roll your eyes at this, I believe in the perpetuity of the Christian Sabbath stronger than I ever have before
I’ve never been more sure of my convictions of what scripture teaches in this area. I sure wish more men in our day would give it the time of day to deeply consider all the issues, rather than simply writing it off as Judaism.
Nathan,
I’m glad this discussion has helped you too. It also made me seriously consider the meaning of texts we have considered. Its’ not always fun to disagree, especially with friends, but we must be persuaded in our minds with the truth. Honestly, sometimes I wish I could agree.
As I grow in my own understanding of the Sabbath/Law issue, I have found a need to correct myself in something I said asserted previously. I realized I have been somewhat inconsistent in what I have proposed, and I would like to clarify it. Hopefully, this is not intended to start another full-blown discussion. I just want to make myself clear.
I had asserted that the “spirit” of the 4th commandment was intrinsically moral, but the letter of the 4th commandment was not. I was wrong. I’m convinced that this is a false dichotomy that cannot be substantiated from Scripture, IMHO. Instead, I believe the “spirit” of the 4th commandment was *not* intrinsically moral either.
In the case with the commandment to observe day of rest, I don’t believe that either its letter or the actual essential character of the commandment is a moral/ethical issue. I simply do not believe the commandment, itself, has any mandating quality upon the NC believer. (I’m aware you are in strong disagreement with this statement and have your reasons). Nothing about the 4th commandment was moral, IMO, (other than the fact that it was given by God to be obeyed by a certain group of people).
I believe the Hebrews 4 and Col. 2 teach that the 7th day rest, *itself*, (not the commandment) is a spiritual picture, but that’s it. End of story. The creation Sabbath and the Jewish Sabbath were simply a ‘shadow of good things to come.’ Perfect spiritual rest is the archetype of the Creation and Jewish Sabbath. That’s as far as I go.
Of course, this whole conclusion stems from the fact that I believe the Old Covenant is ‘obsolete ‘ (Heb. 8), being replaced by the New (Heb. 9) The Decalogue was ‘brought to an end’ (2 Cor. 3:7), along with ceremonies and civil regulations. But this is a whole discussion in and of itself, and does not relate to this post. My intention is not to bring discord among us, but if I am, let me know, and I will not talk about this subject anymore.
Davide–
I’m sad to see this comment. I thought we had started to move closer together, but I guess upon reflection you realized your inconsistencies. It pains me to see you post such foolish thoughts on the law as you do above. I dispute every point on the basis of the clear testimony of scripture.
Davide said:
“I had asserted that the “spirit” of the 4th commandment was intrinsically moral, but the letter of the 4th commandment was not. I was wrong. I’m convinced that this is a false dichotomy that cannot be substantiated from Scripture.”
The Sabbath is easily proved to be moral:
-The need to worship God and not pursue our own desires is a moral issue of the heart.
-The 4th commandment was binding on ALL people in OT Israel, not just the Jew. Exodus 20:10 states ‘an the sojourner’. Maybe you haven’t noticed that the Gentile was not allowed to participate in the feasts, festivals, temple worship, etc. All the other clear ceremonial commands that is.
-The 4th commandment is moral because its basis (‘remember’) is pre-law and pre-sin. This fact alone will keep it firm in God’s church until that final Day of rest appears.
Much more argumentation could be given. But any theological system that does not recognize these plain facts must be reformed.
For proof that a application/moral-positive feature of the Decalogue can change and yet the morality stay the same:
Eph 6:3 says:
The Decalogue emphasizes that they will live long in the Land; Paul, while holding up the command as still binding, emphasizes ‘earth’. The scope has changed; the morality has not.
In the 4th: the Day has changed; the morality has not.
We observed a Sabbath before the fall, after the fall, and during the Law. We will also observe a never-ending Sabbath in heaven. Thus, this age, the most glorious age on earth, according to you, is the only age in eternity in which we do not observe the Sabbath. What a tragedy!
oh my! well this is a lively discussion:) Nathan, i’m glad to see this final post, because the whole argument of “spirit of the law” and “letter of the law” is a stumbling block. Jesus was clear about the letter of the law when He said, “Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” He spoke to the very words of it. As soon as we start down the road about the “spirit of the law” it’s like people who say our constituition is a “living document”. The purpose is either to open it up for interpretation or to change it altogether. Now, granted those who speak about the “spirit of the law” don’t think they are doing that, but nevertheless, that is what happens.
Davide, all the things you spoke of as the disciples breaking the Sabbath or Christ breaking the Sabbath were not a breaking of the Sabbath ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. They were however a violation of the addtional rules and laws that the fathers had put in. This is what John is referencing.
As soon as we do not adhere to the words of the text and start with the “spirit” stuff we go on our own wisdom and not the wisdom of God. We should be very careful on these grounds and Nathan you are quite correct when you say that the law defines what love looks like, both towards God and man. This “spirit of the law” and a open definition of “love” sounds very much like the new covenant theology perspective. I hope that is not the case here, but it does sound faintly familiar.
Tim,
The more I study my own position in the matter, the more I realize you are right. The argument is not about the whole “what’s the letter, what’s the spirit” of the law. So I agree somewhat.
[...] a follow-up to this post, where I discussed the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, I’d simply like to add [...]