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.

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:

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?).