Delight in the Lord’s Day
Jul 19th, 2009 by Nathan White
Since my readers are well aware that I’ve spent a significant amount of time discussing the Sabbath Commandment here at Shepherd the Flock, I thought the following article was relevant in answering many of the questions that often come up. Namely: what does New Testament Sabbath keeping look like?
Tim Challies posted an excerpt from Don Whitney (Associate Professor of Biblical Spirituality and Senior Associate Dean at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky) that bears repeating here.
Excellent, excellent thoughts below on the Lord’s Day, taken from the book Simplify Your Spiritual Life:
What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the biblical term Sabbath? Many people, including those familiar with the New Testament, may think first of legalism. That’s because nearly every mention of “Sabbath” in the Gospels has to do with the Pharisees accusing Jesus of violating their manmade rules. God’s original intention, however, was for the Jews to “call the Sabbath a delight” (Isaiah 58:13). He meant for each of them on that day to “delight [themselves] in the Lord” (verse 14). Far from being a day to dread because of its restrictions, God designed the Sabbath to be a delightful day, the best of the week.
If that was true in the Old Testament, how much more should those who know God through Christ and have His Holy Spirit find delight in “the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10)?
How do we do this? As I mentioned in the previous chapter, there are differing views on what the Bible teaches about the Lord’s Day. But those rooted deeply in Scripture would agree on at least these two principles (though some would argue for much more): First, our greatest privilege and most important responsibility on the Lord’s day is to worship Him with His people. Not only was the Old Testament Sabbath a day of worship, but we have the apostolic command about “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:24). And the apostolic example associated with this command is worship “on the first day of the week” (see Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).
Second, all our activities on Sunday should reflect the fact that it is “the Lord’s day” (over and above the fact that, according to Psalm 118:24, every day is “the day which the Lord has made”). As you would expect, the practical aspects of what this means are very personal and intensely debated. In general, I think it means devoting ourselves to the pursuit of those things that promote the enjoyment of God. This also includes those activities that edify our church and family, extend the kingdom of God, and refresh our souls and bodies.
Years ago I began to delight in the Lord’s Day much more intentionally. One change was to redirect the time I spent watching sports on Sunday afternoons. It wasn’t because I don’t like viewing sports on TV anymore, for I enjoy that as much as ever. Rather, I stopped watching in order to turn to activities that would better restore my soul and recreate my body. People speak of “vegging” in front of the television. Staring at a screen for hours may not make us more tired, but neither does it invigorate us. Unlike taking a nap, a prayer-walk, reading the Bible or other good book alone or with family, or having a time of spiritual fellowship with other believers, we don’t feel refreshed after an afternoon of TV-watching.
Imagine living to age seventy and spending every Lord’s Day in the ways I’ve suggested. You’d experience ten years of worshiping the Lord with His people, reading great literature, playing with your children or grandchildren, taking walks, enjoying fellowship, and taking naps. Does this sound like a burden to you? Most people dream of a life like this. It’s the kind of life you can enjoy when you delight in the Lord’s Day.
And I...
Hello Nathan. I would respond with: “delight yourself in the
”. Many well intended souls place priority on important issues that are not primary. Whenever we take
from the center and place our family, our doctrine, our church, etc, as our focus, we will eventually drift into error. The Lord’s day is not what we delight ourselves in, it is the Lord. I know you would agree in this, but the Sabbatarian perspective will shift the focus ever so slightly to the day. Delight, trust, rest, believe, rejoice in Christ daily brother, and may our every thought, breath, and act be a living and acceptable sacrifice unto Him!
I obviously don’t know how to work this comment/posting stuff, sorry:)
Hey Pete-
Thanks for the comment. Couldn’t agree more.
Where I would differ would be in recognizing that God has ordained means through which we are to delight in Him. More than that, He has given us very specific means that promote this ‘delighting’ in Him more than other means. Just as participating in the Lord’s Table is a more special means ‘of grace’ than say, praying in the privacy of my closet, the Sabbath is a gift to man that enables us a ‘delighting’ in him that is not possible when we are beset with our employment/entertainments of a ‘normal’ day.
God command what is good for us, and the Sabbath is no exception.
But when you say that “the Sabbatarian perspective will shift the focus ever so slightly to the day” –I must say that I’ve heard similar statements made about assembling at a local church (as opposed to a house church), the preaching of the word, and even sola scriptura itself (the Word replaces the relationship, they say). Thus, I don’t find this to be a valid deduction in the argument.
But I certainly agree with the gist of your statement, and am ‘delighted’ that you agree that the Lord is to be delighted in (we just disagree on whether He’s given/appointed a special time for doing so).
By the way, I DO appreciate your emphasis here and desire to recover the delighting in Christ. The 4th commandment cannot be properly interpreted, IMO, outside of the New Testament. And I also fear that many sabbatarrians often emphasize the command itself, forgetting that it’s all about the ‘Lord of the Sabbath’, the ‘LORD’s Day, and that Christ is our Sabbath.
Why they sometimes do this is another question altogether, but nevertheless, I’d certainly like to see a recovery of the Heb 4 emphasis on the Sabbath, rather than isolating the 4th commandment by itself.
I believe your heart is in the right place Nathan. I just wanted to address an obvious (or perhaps to some, not so obvious) exhortation.
Also, I do believe the arguments are valid when one elevates anything above Christ. Generally, I’ve found the sweetest fellowships within the church to be in congregations that did not own their own buildings and realize more readily that the body is a living, breathing entity. There are certainly those to whom the Lord has given a structure to use as a tool in their testimony, but only if it is properly prioritized.
The preaching of the word and sola scriptura can lend itself to these nuances. Wonderful tools that must be yielded with truth, humility, and love…yet when Christ is not at the center, they eventually lead toward error.
So, ultimately what is it I wish to impart…as long as your Sabbath observance is a reflection of your love for and toward our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I admire and commend you for it.
(Rom 14:1) As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
(Rom 14:2) One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
(Rom 14:3) Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
(Rom 14:4) Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
(Rom 14:5) One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
(Rom 14:6) The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
(Rom 14:7) For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.
(Rom 14:8) For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.
(Col 2:16) Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
(Col 2:17) These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
To Him alone glory. With love in Christ
Wow, Pete, I’ve never read those passages before.
In all seriousness, thank you for your words. I will take them to heart.
Of course, anytime we break the law of God and teach others to do so, there are consequences as well. I could also share my experiences and how I’ve seen Sabbath-breakers run into all kinds of errors because of it.
Nevertheless, the passages you quoted above have been dealt with here many times. I do not share the presuppositions you bring to each text. If we value exegesis over an overriding theology, we must admit that each passage is dealing with fast/holy days and the Jewish Sabbath system, both of which have passes away with the Old Covenant. Paul is dealing with the Law here; the Sabbath came well before the Law and well before there was a need for types and shadows.
Though we do not celebrate the passover according to OC standards, we do celebrate it at the Lord’s table. And we do so despite the fact that we already possess what the elements symbolize. Likewise, we delight in the new covenant Sabbath, though we already possess what it signifies. To refuse to submit to the Sabbath is a sin for a Christian, just like if he refused to participate in the Table. It is destructive to spiritual life.
Although, we warn others to be careful of elevating the elements of the Table above what it signifies; and I agree that we should do the same regarding the Sabbath.
Nathan, you are a CTer. You are the definition of an overriding theology over exegesis. Since you cannot pull the CT system out of the scripture (and only read into scripture), you are the one who does not value exegesis first. It is precisely because you are a CTer that you believe the decalogue is the eternal moral law of God. On that basis, you change the sabbath but try not to change the sabbath for those postcross.
This statement is the exact, precise, could not be more clear example of what Paul was condemning.
(Rom 14:5) One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Can you show me from this passage where it says anything about fast/holy days and the jewish sabbath system? In fact, the entire sabbath observance was jewish only. There is no command anywhere prior to not collecting manna on the 7th day to set one day aside to rest. Nothing.
Nathan, I am willing to be convinced on this. You show me where Romans 14:5 says anything about fast/holy days ONLY, and I will believe you. If you can’t, then you are in sin nullifying God’s law by following the commandments of men.
Hi James-
I’d be glad to answer your questions. But please realize that, A) I do feel like all I do is repeat myself to you. If you’re not convinced by my arguments then so be it; let’s not beat a dead horse. And B) there are mountains of material written by our fathers, the Puritans, Reformers, Spurgeons of the world, dealing with this (and other passages on the Sabbath), who are much more learned in this area that I am.
You said,
And it is precisely because you are NCT that you attempt to erase what God has written in stone. We both have presuppositions here, and of course I believe the Decalogue is perpetual. Just look at the other 9, which you inconsistently hold to perpetual as well
But I do not rest my final case on the Decalogue. My position is affirmed by Jesus’ pointing back to the creation account: “The Sabbath was MADE for MAN”
You said,
Actually, could you show me one indicator that the Sabbath IS what Paul is referring to? Because in verses 2, 3, and 4, eating and fasting is the one and only subject. Read the verses and you’ll see for yourself. Your presuppositions of ‘a day’ are read into the text, rather than Paul actually mentioning a Sabbath. This is why I affirm that my position holds to exegesis of the text: I pay attention the words Paul says, not to implications that cannot be proven by the context (but are rather inserted because of theological presuppositions).
You said,
Let’s say just for one moment that you are right in the Paul is talking about the Sabbath (which he isn’t). If so, you are as much as an example of what Paul is condemning as I am. You ‘esteem all days alike’, but are imposing your beliefs on another. You are on my blog, telling me that my conscience is weak and that I’m foolish/sinful for doing so.
You said,
Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man. Not the Jew. Not the ones under the OC. But for man. He uses almost exactly the same language/argumentation when pointing out that divorce is a sin because of what was instituted at creation.
You said,
1st, the command regarding Manna came before the giving of the Decalogue, and it contained the phrase ‘remember’. What does ‘remember’ signify? Clearly a command rooted in creation (as God goes on to mention in the Decalogue) that they had ‘forgotten’.
2nd, there is no command anywhere prior for many of the 10 commandments, but do you think man was sinning by breaking them before the Law?
3rd, there is also no command in the creation account regarding marriage (just a statement), but Jesus certainly saw a command there, just as He does with the Sabbath.
Please, my friends, look up the archives here on this blog. I’ve said all of the above many times before.
SDG
Okay, this has actually been progress I think. It isn’t the same thing over and over.
I simply agree with Paul in 2 Cor 3 that the ministry of the spirit which brings life is superior to the ministry of that which was written on stone, which brings death. The very words of Paul explicitly remove the 10 commandments as our governing principle. This of course was simply the further explanation of Christ in Matt 5 that Christ really did fulfill all of the law, not simply 2/3 of it. That is a position brought out of the text, not read into it.
Not inconsistent at all. I hold that the other 9 are binding because they are explicitly part of the New Covenant. That they are also in the OC has no weight at all on the matter. Say a British person becomes an american citizen. If he commits murder, he is tried by american law, not british law, even if both laws forbid murder. So it is with all christians whether they accept it or not. We are under a new law.
I agree Nathan. How that gets turned on its head to be a perpetual mandate that is actually changed by CTers is a mystery to me. The sabbath was made for man. It was to man’s benefit, it wasn’t to be a burden. The pharisees had turned it into a burden by changing the law of God. The precise thing CTers do today. You make the sabbath a burden when Christ specifically changed it.
Sure, if you kept reading you would see in verse six that some insisted on keeping a day. Paul forbid this very thing. If you want to do it, you do it however you want. If you try to bind others to this, you commit sin. I have always affirmed your right to observe it however you want. Your statement that we are in sin by not doing it actually makes you sin by violating the exact thing Paul says. That is just the romans passage. When you see the Galatians and Colossians passage as well, you see where he explicitly again mentions the sabbath.
Except that it isn’t a presupposition. When Paul is dealing with an issue of Christian liberty, did the Jews hold that any particular day was more important than the others? Yes. What day was that? The sabbath. The ones holding that a day should be more important than the other days can only mean the sabbath. No other day was regarded as being more important than the rest.
I showed that he was. I also said that you are free to do what you want right up to the point where you condemn my view, which would be sin on your part.
Galatians 4:9-11
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.
You observe days and months and seasons and years. That was the condemnation of Paul to those who went back to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world. Something that brings with it bondage.
Okay, here is another place where you are explicitly wrong. When Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man, he was saying that it was for man’s benefit. Go back and read the context of that statement. He wasn’t declaring a mandate. He was rebuking the pharisees for making it a burden. Now, the sabbath was for the Jew. The Jew was commanded not to take the manna on saturday. No one else got that command. It was prior to the law yes, I know. It was specific to the jew though.
You also see where God said:
Exodus 31:
13 You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.
16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.
The sabbath was the sign of the covenant God made with israel.
So here is Paul’s logic.
Circumcision was the sign the covenant between God and Abraham.
Sabbath keeping was the sign of the covenant between God and Israel.
The Abrahamic covenant was superior to the Mosaic covenant because:
Galatians 3
16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
So the CTer today says no to circumcision but yes to sabbath keeping. So no to the sign of the superior covenant, but yes to the sign of the inferior covenant.
One last thing here. People can see for themselves who has what presuppositions.
The word remember can mean one of two things:
1. Remember as in looking back to an event. (remember when we were in high school?)
2. Remember as in from this point forward. (remember this victory today troops, for it turned the tide)
Based on everything else we see in the Bible, only the second meaning is valid. Remember going forward Israel the sabbath, because it is a sign between God and his people. Honor it and do not profane it.
James-
I have no desire to jump into NCT/CT discussions with you. That is not the topic of this post. Only a few statements will suffice:
Of course what is written by the Spirit is superior to what was written on stone.
But of course, exegesis proves that they are one in the same law, under two different administrations.
Of course the 10 commandments ALONE are not our governing principle.
But of course, Jesus and the apostles repeatedly emphasized and repeated the 10 commandments when laying governing principles for the NT church.
Of course Jesus fulfilled all of the law.
But of course, ‘fulfilling’ doesn’t mean that we are not obligated/commanded to obey it. Jesus fulfilled the command for adultery, but the Decalogue AND the creation account bind my ethics in this area –even though there is no condemnation for breaking the command in Christ.
Of course Christ changed the Sabbath in that it no longer has Jewish baggage/emphasis in it.
But of course Christ did not change the essence of the Sabbath, which is for man’s good and spiritual well-being.
Of course, as I have proven, the Sabbath is nowhere found in the context of Romans 14;
But of course, if what you are saying about Rom 14 is true, then the Apostle John in Holy Scripture is guilty of violating this ‘observance’: Rev 1:10.
Of course, Paul in Galatians and Collossians mentions the Jewish Sabbath system as a whole, and I cannot see how forcing the 4th commandment in here comports with exegesis of the text.
For, of course, like I’ve already demonstrated, you claim that Paul is talking about the Sabbath in Gal., Col, and Romans 14, and yet you still cannot close the hole in your argument that both Moses AND Jesus clearly and emphatically taught the Sabbath as a creation ordinance. A creation ordinance, unfortunately, does not fit into the context of any of these Pauline passages.
Of course the Sabbath came prior to the law.
For of course, this is seen in Genesis and in the Manna account.
Of course, the Sabbath was also the sign of the OC.
But of course, this does not change the fact that the Sabbath appears before any and all covenants as being woven into the very fabric of creation. And I am also not advocating a Jewish/OC observance of the commandment.
Of course, ‘remember’ has obvious implications that you dismiss, like the fact that Moses himself wrote the creation account for the very purpose of guiding Israel into the promise land, and that he *explicitly* mentions creation in the giving of the 4th commandment –all of which make ‘remember’ very clear in what it refers to. ‘Remember’ that God rested on the Sabbath and set this as a ordinance for mankind.
Of course, the law binds you to keep the Sabbath and you sin against Christ when you don’t, so I am laying on you no burden whatsoever.
But of course, praise God that you seem to be one of true faith, and there is an advocate who will stand in your place and bear the punishment for your Sabbath-breaking, as I myself have the very same need for this advocate and this sin.
James, I do not wish to argue and get into disputes about the Law. Let’s agree to disagree and focus more on where we share common beliefs.
SDG
Dear Nathan, I want to hopefully clarify (maybe:) ) a few things so you’ll perhaps understand in a better way what my “presuppositions” are…
I believe in the Sabbath and circumcision: I believe in the circumcision of the heart and Christ as my Sabbath. As James said, both of these were signs of previous covenants, and they both ultimately proclaim the gospel as they are fulfilled and presented in Christ, our covenant and ultimate revelation (the same goes with the “Decalogue”…as fulfilled and represented in and thru Christ).
I believe that the Sabbath was foreshadowed from creation when God “rested” from His work, a rest that is not followed by another 6-day week. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a “creation ordinance” in the way that traditional systematic theology constructs. Something can be instructive yet not prescriptive in the way an ordinance is (i.e. would you call an unmarried believer a sinner?).
But anyhow, from my viewpoint, I’m observing the Sabbath not externally, but resting fully in Christ my redeemer…externals follow from this belief, and it is a belief that we rest upon continually/daily and completely. Though my faith rests in Christ, I still battle the sin within and around me…so there is yet a Sabbath rest for me to come…come soon Lord Jesus. Looking forward to the day when we can all be completely united in Christ. As you know, I do not believe this is an issue for division.
(Rom 13:10) Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
(1Ti 1:5) The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
Forgive me for all the posting, but I found a very helpful comment by ‘Rick T’ on this page: http://eqdj.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/554/#comment-4302 that is very relevant to this discussion.
Rick T said:
“The Sabbath was set apart before sin came into the world, and before any ceremonialism was instituted. The sinless man, Adam, was to set apart the Sabbath from the other six days, even though he would have been sinless on those other six day. How do you set apart a day from the others when you are sinless on them? God says, sanctify it, make it holy. He alone is holy, therefore He is the focus of the day in a way that He isn’t the focus of the other sinless days.
The Sabbath was made for man, not just Israel.
The Lord still has a Day. It is called the Lord’s Day. The possessive nature of the phrase is highlighted by contrasting it with the other ordinance that He claims as His, the Lord’s supper. Christians are to eat & drink to the glory of God, yet, their is a supper to be treated with great reverence and respect to the Lord above how the other meals are eaten. Not properly doing so led some to sickness and death.
The Lord attaches His name to a Day. He considers one day different from the rest. Applying Romans 14 to this day would be calling the Lord the weak brother.
The Lord’s day is the day to particularly focus on the Lord in a way that is not available on the other six days, which are to be also lived to the glory of God. It is a blessing and not a cursing. It is a gift to be able to worship, adore, love, honour, respect, reverence, and praise Him.”
Thank you Pete for the clarification. I have already written so much on this blog about the Sabbath that I’m not going to point out here where I disagree with you. Needless to say, I used to hold to your view, am now convinced it is based upon fallacious reasoning, and you can read through my ’sabbath’ archives to see how I would respond to each of your points above. I’ve addressed them all.
Nevertheless, as I have pointed out before, some ’signs’ continue on as a matter of obedience to us even though we already possess the reality of what they signify. The Passover is one example. Another example would be the commandments of marriage and divorce. Ultimately, marriage is given to us a picture of Christ and His church. Yet, there are still rules and boundaries in the Christian life regarding the spiritual realities we already possess. We are not free to commit adultery because Christ has ‘fulfilled’ the Seventh commandment; and we are not free to divorce simply because we are wed to Christ –the ultimate fulfillment of the laws/regulations/typology of marriage.
Likewise, Christ is our Sabbath, but “there still remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” We await the fulfillment of this rest by following God’s commandment in the sign while here on earth. Every age has a Sabbath, including the NC age. And if faith in Christ is the ‘end’ of Sabbath observance, the phrase ‘remains for the people of God’ would make no sense. The Sabbath rest remains for those who have faith, thus faith as an end of the Sabbath cannot be reconciled with this passage. This and other exegetical reasons lead me to conclude that abolishing Sabbath observance is inherently inconsistent with the whole scriptures teaching on the issue.
One more thing
Sorry for all the posting; you guys are no doubt sick of hearing me
But, it’s obvious that you both (and many Christians) get your view of the Sabbath from Hebrews 4.
I do too.
And I think it’s worth pointing out that:
A) the chapter begins the Sabbath discussion by pointing back to creation rather than simply the law. Thus affirming to me that it is a creation ordinance, not simply law/ceremonial.
B) in a book all about the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant, where the writer has no qualms about cleary abolishing OC ceremonies, he never abolishes the Sabbath.
Here is where I think you err: the writer fully explains the sabbath and its true essence, but he never hints that the observance of it in our lives is no longer. And reading Col 2 into this text is a fallacy because Paul is talking about the Law, while the writer of Hebrews begins his argument with creation.
I’ve written a full post on this somewhere..
Nathan,
I could not agree with you more on your interpretation of Hebrews 4. I believe this text has been so badly misinterpreted among modern evangelicals. I also believe this misinterpretation has led to many Christians becoming very frustrated with their walk due to their lack of time with God. (I know we rest in Christ, but we still live in a four dimensional world and time is still apart of our lives. Without taking time to be with God our lives spiral in the wrong direction.)
Blessings,
Hey Nathan,
I value your commitment to keep a sabbath that is non-legalistic, Christ-centered, and delightful/non-burdensome–qualities that are not always present among modern day Sabbath keepers. Keep it up, seriously.
James,
I’m always amused when reading your posts. You never seem to give up:) I am, however, very curious as to your purpose in your discussion with Nathan. Seriously, what does it matter whether Nathan believes in the Sabbath or not? How do you believe that his view affect his Christian life negatively? Honestly, sometimes it sounds like you are arguing just for the heck of it.
Another helpful summary on the ‘Christian Sabbath’ from R.A. Torrey, found here.
davide, I have always held the position that Nathan is free to do as he chooses. If his mind is made up that he must put special value on one day over the other 6, that is fine. I do not fault him for that.
My objection was to his statement that those who also do not put special emphasis on that same day are in sin. That is where he crossed the line from biblical freedom to rabbinical bondage.
I have provided so much scripture on the topic, answered every single objection Nathan has with scripture, and have done so with no evil motivation.
I enjoy discussing theology. I know people who have come out of CT to embrace the new law, based on better promises, with a better prophet and high priest, that is emphasized by NCT.
In fact, I have just recently helped a friend see his way out of CT and its inconsistencies and doublespeak to embrace NCT. He now has tremendous opportunities because of the circles he is in to talk to alot of pastors about this as well. I pray that goes well.
James, on a previous thread I pointed out that you teach that incest is *still* a sin even though it is not commanded in the New Testament. You’re reasoning was that we see implications and other consistencies in the New Testament to lead us to conclude this.
Likewise, Reformed Theology recognizes that there are implications and other consistencies in the New Testament that lead us to conclude that Sabbath-breaking is *still* a sin even though it isn’t explicit in the NT.
You’re free to have your own opinion, but I think ‘rabbinical bondage’ is a little over the top. Just seems a little hypocritical to me given that there are some within your camp who would make the same accusation over your beliefs on incest.
Nathan, regarding incest, I said that Paul did seem to continue the sexual laws from the OT. That it is binding on us today is due to the fact that its command is carried over by an apostle in the NC, not that it appears in the OC. My position is entirely consisten with everything else I have said.
What is your answer about incest? You never answered me about that. Was incest always sin or did it become sin in the Mosaic law?
Regarding the sabbath, there is nothing in the NT that indicates a day is to be continually observed any different than the other days. There is no NT implication at all. There is only the belief that the 10 commandments are the eternal moral law of God and therefore the sabbath has to be continued over somehow. I find it interesting the various way CTers try to teach the sabbath. They are all over the place with it.
In fact, in Hebrews 4, the author had to tell us that even though the sabbath ended in Christ, there still remains ‘A’ sabbath. What sabbath remains? Well, it isn’t a day. The sabbath that remains is not rest on a day but rest in him forever. Sabbath means rest.
James-
You insist that incest is a sin because ‘it seems’ to be carried over into the NT. I insist that Sabbath-breaking is a sin for exactly the same reason: I am convinced it is carried over and not abolished even though it isn’t explicit, and it isn’t exactly like the Jewish system.
I believe that there are ceremonial and moral aspects to the Sabbath. Those who believe the Sabbath has been abolished only recognize a ceremonial aspect to it, and they (you) get stuck on the Old Covenant aspect of the Sabbath rather than taking into account the entirety of Biblical revelation and the full development of the doctrine.
This is hardly ‘rabbinical bondage’, but you’re free to your own opinion.
Also, you fail to recognize my position if you think I hold to some magical day as better than the others. The specific day is a positive command. The heathen profane the Sabbath chiefly by failing to worship and delight in their creator. But they do not know which day to do so because they haven’t heard the scriptures. The day itself isn’t special in itself, but only what it signifies. And the reason why Sunday is given to us in the NT as the New Covenant Sabbath is because all Christians must observe the same day for the command to be properly obeyed.
And yes, you are right, a chief part of my argument consists in the crystal-clarity of the New Testament in treating the 10 commandments as a whole, and treating them as perpetual over all covenants. You break one you break them all. Love is fulfilled in the proper observance of all. If you believe it is still a sin to commit adultery or to bear false witness, then you are inconsistent if sabbath-breaking likewise isn’t a sin.
Hebrews 4 says nothing about a sabbath ‘ending’ in Christ. Just like in Romans 14, you read your presuppositions into the text instead of using exegesis to let it speak for itself. Regardless, you are right, the Sabbath rest isn’t about a day, it’s about eternity in Christ. But for our good, we still observe the day just as we still partake in the Passover.
Nathan, I said that incest appears to still be a sin based on what Paul said in I Cor 5 because it is the only text in the NT that even remotely deals with it.
Are you of the belief that every single sexual sin as specified in the law carries over into the NT?
After you wife has a son do you abstain 40 days, a girl 80 days? Do you not have sex the week of her period and the week after? Do you use birth control?
You see, if you want to get specific into case law of the OT, that is fine. But you must keep a consistent position with God’s revelation.
Incest was NOT a sin prior to the giving of the law (adam and eve’s kids, abraham and sarah).
I do not know about you Nathan, but I have studied OT case law about this. If you demand that incest is a sin today because it is in the law, then you also must include there every other sexual sin in the OT.
No James, I don’t say that all OT teaching on sin is binding. We are under a different covenant and a different application of the Law. I affirm, with Jesus and the Apostles, the moral perpetuity of the 10 words in light of the New Covenant realities.
I only brought up incest to demonstrate how the NT does not give us a strict code as to what to obey/not obey, and that we look to both testaments to understand our duties to God and man. And like incest, the Sabbath isn’t repeated, but still binds us to obedience. That’s all I wanted to point out.
James,
“My objection was to his statement that those who also do not put special emphasis on that same day are in sin. That is where he crossed the line from biblical freedom to rabbinical bondage.”
Anyone who puts special emphasis on any law and tries to add to it and elevate it above the Biblical standard is danger of falling into rabbinical bondage, or more precisely pharisaic bondage. However, both CT and NCT proponents are guilty of this. In fact, we all are. The issue is not what is sin, the true issue is that we are SINNERS. I believe NCT in their attempt to redefine the Law, because of their unwillingness to apply appropriate historical context to the NT, have somehow missed this vital point.
Blessings,
Okay, I’m really tired of hearing the incest. Some arguments are worth answering; this one happens not to be one of them. This issue is so silly, its really not even worth bringing up, but I’m going to answer it anyway.
1. Question: How many people have you known in your entire lifetime, believer or nonbeliever that relished a sexual relationship with a close relative? Can you name just one? Why not? Incest is something that is extremely unnatural. If that’s not enough, incest is so unnatural and uncommon, it is not even preached against in our pulpits today. The New Testament repeatedly speaks against inordinate and unnatural lusts.
2. Ask 50 unbelievers if they think it is ’sexually immoral’ to have sex with your sister or mother and they would all reply with an absolute “yes.” The NT word “fornication” (pornea) includes any kind of ’sexual immorality’– be it, adultery, pornography, homosexuality, lesbianism, beastiality, incest. etc.
3. Wow! What would we ever do without that chapter in Leviticus on incest?! If those four verses weren’t there, I’m sure believers and unbelievers alike would scramble to marry their sibling or parent, because, after all, the NT gives us complete license to to have sex with our siblings. (I hope you sense my sarcasm).
The NT never mentions the word “incest.” True. The NT never condemns the practice in principle? That’s absolutely a most ludicrous and myopic understanding of the NT.
I will not respond back to any comments on this post.
Davide,
“The NT never mentions the word “incest.” True. The NT never condemns the practice in principle? That’s absolutely a most ludicrous and myopic understanding of the NT.”
You sure do sound like a CT:)
Blessings,
Davide said:
I simply brought it up (on another thread no less) to demonstrate that NCT often does the very same thing it accuses CT of doing: taking what is explicit in the OT and implicit in the NT, and affirming a precept. But I agree. It is a silly issue.
Davide said:
Actually, I know someone who has committed incest. Actually, you know him too. As a professing believer as well. He has since repented, though it was not easy for him to do. Paul also addressed this in 1 Corinthians. It is not as uncommon as you think. I would strongly prefer not to name names, and that you’ll trust me as a brother that I am not lying.
Davide said:
Yes, this is the point I was making with James. OT law is very specific in its application to Israel. We are in an entirely different age and covenant, so the word-for-word application of OT is often different, with the essence clearly remaining the same. Whether it be with idolatry, discipline of our children, sorcery, witchcraft, or sexual perversions, there are a variety of explicit OT commands that are only hinted at in the NT that all Christians agree are ’sin’. One example is how you and James do this with incest. Reformed theologians see the same with the Sabbath.
Davide said:
What’s funny is that this statement undermines the NCT position. If it wasn’t explicit in the OT, we’d never know it was an inordinate and unnatural lust, implicit in the NT instruction. The Law of God cannot be delegated to one covenant or one testament alone.
Davide said:
I agree. Which is why I brought the issue up. The Old is often explicit where the New is implicit; that is a proper understanding of the “appropriate historical context to the NT” that Eric mentioned above.
Again, my only point: we see the Sabbath explicit in the OT, and only hinted at in the NT. Without the OT Sabbath we would never know that God calls us to corporately worship Him on the Sabbath, or to take regular time off from laboring for the necessities of life, or actually stopping what we need and love to do to consecrate time to the worship of the Lord. Simply because things aren’t explicit in the NT is no reason to abolish it; we don’t with other commands, we shouldn’t with the Sabbath.
Correction in that last paragraph: I meant to say this:
The difference between the sabbath issue and the incest issue is that the NT only barely touches on the incest issue while it has alot to say about the sabbath issue.
Both issues are not relegated to theory.
None of the CTers answered my question: on what basis do you declare that incest is a sin today? Is it because it is found in the law and therefore binding?
How do you know it is still a sin? Is it because Paul said so?
James,
“None of the CTers answered my question: on what basis do you declare that incest is a sin today? Is it because it is found in the law and therefore binding?
How do you know it is still a sin? Is it because Paul said so?”
I believe Davide gave a pretty good answer from a “CT” point of view.
James, I just don’t understand the NCT compulsion to compartmentalize the Bible. This compartmentalization is just not supported by an accurate historical reading of the NT.
Blessings,
Erik, I see where David said:
Does that imply that incest is a moral sin that transcends all time? So God created a world where mankind in order to obey reproducing had to commit moral sin to do that? Was Abraham guilty of that also?
Is that the answer you were referring to? So a good answer to my question is the assumption that incest = inordinate and unnatural lust?
I do not advocate incest, I have stated why I am against it. I have a scripturally backed consistent position though.
As to this statement:
I could just as easily ask why CT has the compulsion to cram everything together with covenants not mentioned or hinted at in the Bible and deny the explicit passages in the NT which demand a break from the OC.
James,
“Does that imply that incest is a moral sin that transcends all time? So God created a world where mankind in order to obey reproducing had to commit moral sin to do that? Was Abraham guilty of that also?”
As N.C. Christians, both you and I are beyond this static enumeration of sin. We both know it is not about that. Let me paraphrase Leo Cox. Perfect love is not perfect performance or perfect skill or perfect human nature. Rather, it is rendering obedience in relationship to both the God of love and the great principle undergirding His law. (Cox, Wesley’s Concept of Perfection)
With that understanding and the principles presented in Scripture all N.C. Christians should be fully aware of when and how these situations become sinful and when and how they would be appropriate in God’s eyes.
“I could just as easily ask why CT has the compulsion to cram everything together with covenants not mentioned or hinted at in the Bible and deny the explicit passages in the NT which demand a break from the OC.”
We can go around and around on this one, but it seems painfully clear that the NT does not teach the “break” that NCTs push into these texts. It is all about the experience, not the historical covenant in many of these texts.
Blessings,