;)
tagged: Baptist Life, Church, Church Life, Church Membership, Culture, Ecclesiology, Rob Ayers, Theology, WorshipHoly Day or Holiday?
Posted by Rob Ayers in Bible & Theology
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” – Exodus 20:8-11
One of my favorite resources on the Ten Commandments is the work by Alistaire Begg entitled Pathway to Freedom: How God’s Laws Guide Our Lives (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003). In fact, I preached a series of sermons based upon the outlines provided by Pastor Begg (having gained his written blessing so I would not be in violation of the Eighth Commandment). I particularly found his treatment of the Fourth Commandment inspiring – thus the title of his chapter on the Fourth Commandment is the title of this article. Several themes and also some common words flow from his thoughts.
It is particularly noteworthy that many of my fellow believers in this culture have accepted the notion of cultural integration and no longer find the faithful practice of the Lord’s Day as meaningful or delightful in their spiritual journey. The pews of many if not most of our churches sadly tell the tale that Christians no longer hold faithful church attendance as a priority for their spiritual lives.
Most polls tell us that while Americans are a very religious people, a large segment of them never attend any form of divine service. However on a typical Sunday the malls are usually hopping, the restaurants are full, the roads are clogged with cars and bikers, the soccer fields are kicking, and the baseball and football stadiums are sold out. Though many Americans (including many who would consider themselves “Christian”) might consider the Lord’s Day in passing, in the land of perpetual fun most surely do not keep it holy.
What does this all say? It says quite dramatically that our view of Sunday has changed. For the worse, and not better! Take the generation of Baptist believers as represented by my parents. My mother was the enforcer of the Lord’s Day. While a child could sometimes fake a sniffle in an attempt to stay home from school, on Sunday the thermometer was always unpacked to confirm a sick diagnosis. Dad would often work overtime on weeknights and Saturday to make sure that he was free on Sunday for worship and rest. If my mother’s sister showed up on Saturday from Fort Smith (my aunt’s family being staunch non-believers and specifically staunch non-church goers), we left my cousins sleeping on the floor as we departed to be on time for Sunday school and church.
My family never went out to eat on Sunday when I was a child. Instead, we came home and found that the roast beef, turkey, or chicken that Mom prepared before hand waiting for us. My parents often invited people over for Sunday dinner, many times those in our church family who were needy. Lunch was followed by an afternoon of rest and relaxation. After 5:00 p.m., we prepared once again to go to evening worship service to praise and worship God. My mother often said, “He deserves our time – the rest of the week we spent on ourselves – this is His day.”
As a family we never left on vacation on Sunday, my parents preferring to leave Monday morning and arriving home by Saturday evening. If we were on vacation away from home on a Sunday, my mother dutifully looked up the nearest Baptist church from the yellow pages in the hotel room. If we were staying with relatives, often it was our relatives who stayed at home while we went to the nearest church!
Sunday mornings both our home and church were filled with worship and praise. My father often sang, “Revive Us Again” as he was shining his shoes, asking both my sister and me to join him in the chorus – “Hallelujah, Thine the Glory! Hallelujah, Amen! Hallelujah, Thine the Glory! Revive Us Again!” On most Sunday mornings I was greeted by smiling workers who it seemed could not wait to be with little children and minister to them. From the time I remember being in the four year old class until I graduated from high school, there were always caring and loving people who set aside their time to love and teach me the way of Christ. My love and admiration for the Lord started in a place where people knew that where they needed to be on Sunday morning and evening was not in bed sleeping, or with the family going on a picnic or reunion, going to the mall; to a sporting event; dragging kids to a school event; going hunting, fishing or golfing; watching television; or doing unnecessary work. They were to be in church with their families because they were devoted to Christ, and it was their love and devotion to Him that made them duty bound to meet Him, be loved by Him, and to meet and be encouraged by His children in His local body of believers.
The Fourth Commandment more than any other forces believers to wrestle with what we REALLY believe about the abiding place of God’s Law in Christian living. For many, the Lord’s Day has become optional, and thus the Fourth Commandment is outdated, claimed by some that the sacrifice of Jesus has made the day merely an anachronism derived from the construction of Judaism. For Southern Baptists, the cultural irrelevance of the Lord’s Day is seen from the changing of our confessional statement from the 1963 version to the 2000 version (just a scant thirty-seven years separate the two statements, not even a “biblical” generation!) (the different language between the two statements are found in bold print and italics):
The Baptist Faith and Message (1963):VIII. THE LORD’S DAY – The first day of the week is the Lords Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, and by refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, work of necessity and mercy only being excepted. Ex 20:8-11; Mat 12:1-12; 28:1; Mk 2:27-28; 16:1-7
Luke 24:1-3, 33-36; John 4:21-24; 20:1, 19-28; Acts 20:7; 1Co 16:1-2; Col 2:16; 3:16; Rev 1:10
The Baptist Faith and Message (2000):VIII. THE LORD’S DAY – The first day of the week is the Lord’s Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private. Activities on the Lord’s Day should be commensurate with the Christian’s conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Exodus 20:8-11; Matthew 12:1-12; 28:1ff.; Mark 2:27-28; 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-3,33-36; John 4:21-24; 20:1,19-28; Acts 20:7; Romans 14:5-10; I Corinthians 16:1-2; Colossians 2:16; 3:16; Revelation 1:10.
This “generation gap” can be best illustrated in noting the difference of the text in the above statements. The statement (and practice) of my parents can be found in the 1963 version (the year I was born). The 2000 statement in my opinion weakens the historical Baptist understanding of the day, regulating activities of the believer only to the “conscience.” I would submit to you that for the preponderance of folks in the pews today, their conscience is fairly weak. If given the choice between serving and worshiping God or going to that “important event” then they will choose the later most every time.
There is a reason why for this I believe. For a great majority of believers, the issue of the Lord’s Day is not debated any longer – it is merely ignored. That the Fourth Commandment should engender any strife with them is news to them. They assume that being faithful to the Lord on His day has more to do with the past than the present. These people have never considered the Lord’s Day as different or unique, one that is delightful by design, and which helps frame and shape the spiritual life of the believer. And this is so because our pulpits and theological pundits have weakened our understanding of and about the benefits of the Lord’s Day. Even within corporate Baptist life, Sunday is merely another day to do work and to perform inventory once a year in the bookstores owned by Southern Baptists. This is to our shame.
It is very clear that from even a short glance of history in both the church and culture that there was a shared sense of obligation to curtail work and encourage both worship and meditation on Sunday. Reading Laura Ingalls Wilder (author of Little House on the Prairie and other works) gives the sense that Christians on the American frontier during the middle to late 1800’s viewed the day as different and unique from any other day. Even though survival on the frontier was iffy and required maximum focus, work, and concentration, these spiritual ancestors of ours found the time not to work at all and gave the day to the Lord in their practice of worship and rest. Up until the final half of the last century, the culture adapted the norms as practiced by committed Christians on their day. Did you know that it was not until 1949 that the NFL officially sanctioned Sunday games?
So what exactly has changed? Are we to believe that for centuries our spiritual ancestors and forefathers “simply got it wrong?” Did they fail to grasp the transition between the Old and New Testaments? Did they fail to grasp what Jesus meant when He said, “The Sabbath was made for man”? Or is it possible that this commandment confronts us in a peculiar way today with our unwillingness to be obedient to it? Nowadays if a church has Sunday night service on Super Bowl Sunday, some members in Sunday School have the chutzpah to invite fellow members over to their house for a “Super Bowl Party.” This leaves the faithful few in church to worship the true God, while leaving the world, which includes many Christians these days to keep the high holy day of a false god, often while chomping on corn chips and buffalo wings.
“And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.” - Genesis 2:2-3
The Fourth Commandment starts with a call to remember. God established a day – a day of rest after six days of work. He established this pattern after the grand scheme of His creation. The eternal God does not need rest. He has never ceased in and from His work of sustaining the world through His continual care. The day of rest was established for humanity as Jesus claimed – not for God. The day of rest was not established by Moses only for Israel – it was something started before Israel was born, and before the Law was codified on tablets of stone. It was made and delivered to all of humanity from the beginning as a gift from God as the above verse in Genesis illustrates.
Let me be clear and state that I am not a Sabbatarian. Unlike Seventh Day Adventists, my advocacy is not for the “seventh” day Sabbath. At the same time, my advocacy is to not throw the baby out with the bath water, either. Many Christians, even Baptists, advocate that since Paul declared the destruction of those things particular to Judaism (including seventh day Sabbath observances) that then this invalidates the Fourth Commandment. I do not believe so. The Fourth Commandment mandates a particular universal pattern derived from divine practice: as God rested after six days of work, so His creatures set apart one day in seven for worship and rest. This pattern if practiced differentiates believers from others; shows the believer’s willingness to follow Christ even in the face of cultural indifference to the things of God; and also shows the believer’s willingness to have faith in God in sacrificing the day despite cultural indifference or even certain hostility that the faithful practice of the believer may produce. The early followers of Christ chose the first day of the week as their day. In this, they recognized and established the significance of the Resurrection as the event central to Christian doctrine and teaching. Just as the deliverance from Egypt lays at the heart of the Mosaic Sabbath, so the redemption of Christ is remembered on the Lord’s Day. While in principle every day is the “Lord’s Day”, the references to the church and their meetings “on the first day of the week” in Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; and Revelation 1:10 do indeed point to Sunday as the recognized day of Christian celebration and rest. The change to the day points us to the shift between the Old Testament focus on creation and exodus to the New Testament focus of re-creation and the believer’s liberation from enslavement to sin.
Alistaire Begg (Pathway to Freedom, pg. 113-14) concludes his chapter on the Fourth Commandment with a ditty his parents made up to instruct their children concerning the importance of keeping the Lord’s Day holy. I leave it for you to ponder:
“A Sunday well spent
Brings a week of content,
And strength for the toils of tomorrow.
But a Sunday profaned
Whatever is gained,
Is a certain forerunner for sorrow”
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Rob, Powerful post! As a society we have so comforted ourselves with the world and its enticements that we often forget why we get a day off on Sundays. For years my husband didn’t go to church because it was the only day off he had in a week. (He wasn’t a Christian and saw no need to go to church). I know a lot of folks like that today. Sadly, it isn’t lost folks–it is Christians.
I do believe we fail our Lord when we choose other activities above Him on Sundays. While I know that every day should be a holy-day, God thought one day ought to have priority in our lives for Him. Had that not been so, He would not have included in the Ten Commandments. And your little poem at the end describes quite well the benefits for having giving God His due. He blesses us with so much…such abundance each day, and focusing on Him puts our lives in perspective so that we are better equipped for the days ahead. Thanks for your post. Great way to jog our apathetic minds. selahV
Rob: How would the fact that we are now under the New Covenant fit in with what you have written here?
Selah – Thank you for your kind words.
Debbie – the short answer is “God’s law is universal and sustains itself through both Covenants.” A longer answer follows with a couple of quotes:
“I fear that after our time the right handling of the Law will become a lost art. Even now, although we continually explain the separate functions of the Law and the Gospel, we have those among us who do not understand how the Law should be used. What will it be like when we are dead and gone?
“As long as a person is not a murderer, adulterer and thief, he would swear that he is righteous. How is God going to humble a person except by law?…As long as a person thinks he is right he is going to be incomprehensibly proud and presumptuous. He is going to hate God, despise His grace and mercy, and ignore the promises of Christ. The Gospel of free forgiveness of sins through Christ will never appeal to the self-righteous. The monster of self-righteousness, this stiff-necked beast, needs a big axe. And that is what the Law is, a big axe.” – Martin Luther
“The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the Lord are true,
and righteous altogether.” Psalm 19:7-9
Debbie it is quite simple. Our understanding of morality, ethics, and justice are tied directly to God’s moral laws, which are found in the Ten Commandments. The Law itself is transcendent and universal. It was delivered by a being who is not subject to contradiction or changes His mind. The Rules of Logic and of non-contradiction apply to Him. The ceremonial law was repudiated by Paul specifically in Galatians – neither are we as believers justified by the law but by faith in Christ alone for our salvation.
The question remains however, “what is the standard of holy living?” and “How can I be justified in my own right?” By whit are we to compare our actions in response to either being lead by the Holy Spirit, or by our fleshly selves? – or how can those outside of Christ know the peril they are in and seek the need of a Saviour? On the first half of the question, the Spirit will never act out contrary to that which He has already stated. God is not a being that changes His mind – He compares Himself and His Word as to a “Rock” that stands for millenia. The Ten Commandments were written on tablets of stone, symbolically representing God’s enduring Word throughout the age and it’s unchanging nature. As to the second part, this same law shows the self-righteous that they can in no way keep it, and the penalty for disobeying one part of it is death and separation from God for eternity. The abiding place of God’s law in the New Covenant is two fold – to show humanity the futility of keeping the Law therefore driving them into the arms of the Savior, as well as showing believers the standard of Holy and Righteous living that pleases God and does not quench the Spirit.
Now specifically to your question, let me test you here. In what way does the prohibition of murder relate to the “New Covenant?” How absurd would it be to state that the prohibition to commit adultery is merely an “Old Covenant” ritual. Are you then willing to allow your husband to test out his freedom in Christ in this way? Would it be okay to steal your neighbor’s property because of this same freedom? While I suspect in each of these you would refrain, how is it that you could even ask the question about my treatment of the Fourth Commandment in a “New Covenant” framework? I believe you would not even object if for say I commented upon the Eighth Commandment – but you did for the Fourth. And really that is the point and the purpose of this post. I hope in the end to shine some light for some with this obvious contradiction that many believers these days seem to share. I hope this post and response have been helpful to you.
Rob
Rob:Thank you for the answer. It helps me see where you are coming from Rob. Several things come to mind here. The book of Galatians is not just speaking of salvation but also in using the law to keep right with God. I do believe in Holy living which is only brought about by the Holy Spirit in us who is God. I wonder if you could give the interpretation of “You also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.” 1 Timothy 1:6-7.
I am also reading what you would not do on Sunday and wondering if you think a person is wrong or sinning if they leave for vacation on a Sunday or are you simply saying this is your own personal conviction. I am asking for clarification purposes only.
I believe the purpose of the law is to show our sin, our need of a Savior.Paul speaks of this frequently in the epistles. Christ himself taught this repeatedly. I read the Bible saying if we break one commandment we break all of them. We cannot keep them which is why Christ came. Do you agree or disagree? Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate it.
Debbie,
We have only a little in which we are in disagreement here. Indeed, Christ took the the Law, putting His body on a tree with it “in substitution” for us, placing our sins (which we know about from the Law) on Himself. We have been set free from the condemnation of the Law (which is death) by the free grace gift of God’s mercy through the Sacrifice of Christ:
“…yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Galatians 2:16
No one can be redeemed outside of faith in Christ – no amount of work, or obedience to the Law will suffice:
“Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
- Hebrews 10:28-31
We as believers are called to give ourselves, our very bodies, as living sacrifices and to be transformed by the renewing of our minds – minds that are ruled by the Scriptures and free from every human directive that is additional to them. Until the moment that our minds and bodies have been perfected “in the image of His Son” and our convictions are totally bound by Scripture by the guidance of the Spirit, then we will fluctuate to our fancies and will be susceptible to our flesh. The Law then continues as a “teacher,” showing us our foibles, putting us again on the path to Holy living, and being directed once again by the Spirit.
Pastor Begg states very well this purpose (Pathway to Freedom, 100): “Convinced, grace filled, spirit led obedience to God’s Law really is the pathway to freedom. Remember, the Law is not the dynamic for our sanctification. God’s love for us is not on the basis of duty, but neither does his love for us free us from duty.” As the Apostle Paul states clearly in Romans 6:1-4 in response to his teaching that we are no longer sanctified by the Law: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”
I submit to you that the Fourth Commandment is just as moral, transcendent, and universal as the other nine, and therefore as believers God has given us the “boundary” of life and death, good and evil, blessing and sin in which to measure our lives and conduct. Again, you would not ask the question, “can I steal from a grocery store if I need the food” or “can I commit adultery if my husband neglects me.” Both of these would be absurd. Yet many would ask for the limitations or even the loopholes to the universal dictum of the Fourth Commandment. Many ask “what can I get away with” rather than “how can I please God with a better understanding” of it.
I understand that this commandment is difficult because some have put legalist brier patches around it. Rather than get into specifics of your question, I will post Pastor Begg’s list of introspection so we can all benefit from them, and therefore ask ourselves the questions about any particular activity in terms of faithful worship attendance and other personal activity on the Lord’s Day (Ibid., 112):
1. Is this activity a selfish indulgence?
2. Am I doing as I please without reference to God and His Word?
3. Will participation in the activity be a help or hindrance to delighting in the Lord’s Day?
4. Am I helping others to take the Lord’s Day seriously by engaging in this activity?
I must tell you Debbie that item number four is the catch all for me. If I go to that family reunion on the Lord’s Day, skipping worship to do it, and I show up to the event knowing that several of my family members are 1)unsaved and 2)noticing what I do with my life and time, what kind of witness am I showing to them if the one day I sacrifice to the Lord is been given short thrift?
I hope and pray again that my answers are beneficial to you.
Rob
An important distinction in the rewording of the Baptist position is the addition of Romans 14:5-10 in the list of “proof texts”. This is the reason why they changed the wording to reflect “the conscience”. They brought the balance of Paul’s words into play, and I think that is commendable. When Paul talks about valuing one day above another (see also Colossian 2:16), is it not possible that he is referring to the Sabbath observance?
Additionally, you responded to Debbie’s questions above by pointing to other commandments and implying that consistency would require those commandments to be taken “loosely” as well.
The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that Jesus did make some very clear statements about almost all of the 10 commandments. With regard to adultery, murder, etc., he did not say “Those prohibitions were made for man.” In fact, he took those prohibitions further and made them heart issues, not action issues.
But with regard to the Sabbath, he did make the clarification that it was made for man, and not vice versa. I think this is a critical distinction. Jesus actually dealt with this commandment differently than other commandments.
There are several other points of argumentation that I find lacking in this post, but I’ll just point out one more, because it shows the weakness of the proof-texting in this process.
You wrote: While in principle every day is the “Lord’s Day”, the references to the church and their meetings “on the first day of the week” in Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; and Revelation 1:10 do indeed point to Sunday as the recognized day of Christian celebration and rest.
Unfortunately, this does not bear up under examination of each of these proof-texts, which I will show here in detail:
1 Corinthians 16:2 does not reference anything related to “the recognized day of Christian celebration and rest”, but rather is a day that Paul says they should set aside some savings for a future collection to benefit Christians elsewhere who had need. There is no reference to gathering.
Revelation 1:10 does not reference “the recognized day of Christian celebration and rest”, and in fact, does not even specify that it was the first day of the week, Sunday, etc. In this, the first part of your statement saying that every day is “the Lord’s Day” lends credibility to the idea that we don’t know which day to which John referred.
And finally, while Acts 20:7 references “breaking bread” on “the first day of the week”, it does not indicate that this was, of necessity, “the recognized day of Christian celebration and rest.” In fact, there are two other possible interpretations that would leave the meaning not as clear as you indicated in your post.
1. Luke has just said that they were in Troas for seven days (i.e., a week). And he then says, literally, “on the first of the sabbaths”. According to Thayer’s and Smith’s lexicon, this could mean an actual Sabbath (i.e., Saturday), or the first of “the week” (i.e., Sunday), or simply the first “of seven” (i.e., the first of the seven days that they were in Troas. In other words, it is not clearly Sunday.
2. It is possible that a particular meeting was called because Paul was in town, and it is not indicated in the text that it was a customary meeting on a particular day that they always gathered.
With all of those verses taken for what they are, one cannot legitimately conclude (at least not on the basis of those three verses) that they “do indeed point to Sunday as the recognized day of Christian celebration and rest.” That tradition has to be substantiated with extra-biblical sources rather than attempt to claim it as a “biblical” example.
Steve,
So sorry for my delay in posting a response. I was gone for a couple of days vacation starting last Wednesday and arrived home Saturday night. I came to church on Sunday and the internet was out. It has only recently been turned back on, and found your response to my post. After reading it, I found that I did desire your response to be “the last word” and so I hope that you are therefore still “listening.”
“One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
- Mark 2:23-28
I hope you concede that the Lord’s statements concerning the Sabbath should be taken into complete context. The above confrontation occurred because the disciples picked ate wheat in the field during their walk to the Synagogue that morning. The law of Moses made it perfectly clear that this was an acceptable practice:
“If you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.” – Deuteronomy 23:25
The Pharisees, however, had no place for piety or mercy in their system. The Talmud devotes 24 chapters to the Sabbath, complete with a catalogue of 39 principle works, with 6 subcategories, all of which forbid any sort of act on the Sabbath. Jesus in NO way was canceling the use of the Fourth Commandment. He was in this case correcting the ABUSE of the Sabbath:
“It was not deviation from Old Testament requirements that our Lord was condoning, but deviation from pharisaical distortion. He was condemning the tyranny by which the Sabbath institution had been made an instrument of oppression. And he did this by appeal to the true intent of the Sabbath as verified by the Scripture itself.” – John Murray, “Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 1:223
In another confrontation concerning the Sabbath, Jesus demonstrates the Pharisaical distortion of the Sabbath further:
“Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And there was a woman who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.” And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God. But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” As he said these things, all his adversaries were put to shame, and all the people rejoiced at all the glorious things that were done by him.”
- Luke 13:10-17
The self-righteous attitude can be clearly seen from the ruler of the synagogue. Jesus clearly points out the hypocrisy of the Talmud which would allow for the care of horses, donkeys, and cows in distress, yet allow a “daughter of Abraham” to continue in agony and pain. This my friend is where the exception found in the 1963 version comes into play – and best fits into the Scriptural admonitions of Jesus than the 2000 version ever does.
Most arguments made for the delimitation of the Fourth Commandment that are made from Colossians 2:16-17, Romans 14:5-6 and Galations 4:10-11 are proof texts. Paul in each is not setting aside the moral principle of setting aside one day in seven to rest. If anything, Paul is setting aside the seventh day Sabbath with all the Jewish Ceremonies and Shadows. The moral imperative of the Fourth Commandment still stands and always will. The “scaffolding” of Judaism has been removed, leaving the building of the Fourth Commandment standing.
All attempts to suggest that the Fourth Commandment is irrelevant, and immaterial are suspect. To “argue from silence” as if not broaching the subject in the N.T. makes it irrelevant is patently nonsense. This fails to recognize that the Old Testament has equal authority with the New (remember Jesus saying “not one yod or tittle”?), and also repudiates a well known hermeneutical rule that whatever the Bible does not repeal remains in effect (Jesus never commented about homosexuality – Did He have to?). The only way to contradict the Fourth commandment then is to claim that it is not equal to the other nine somehow. All of your attempts, with respect, are not very convincing to me.
While I believe that there are certainly many “worthy” interpretations of “The Lord’s Day” and the texts I mentioned, I do not believe I am proof texting these. Certainly both the Apostalic Fathers as well as our Baptist ancestors in their writings seem to have held to the same conclusion that I have – the repudiation of the “Lord’s Day” as such is only a recent phenomena – a point that I hope you concede. As to the “Lord’s Day” being every day – you face the challenge of making every day look like Sunday rather than what is usually the case – from my vantage point, Sunday looks like every other day.
“The choice is plain. Either we determine to move to the rhythm of the saints or we will march to the drumbeat of the world.”
- Begg, 112.
Rob
Rob, the beauty of subscribing to the comments through email is that you can reply weeks later, and I’ll know it
There’s a lot of words here, and it’s going to be difficult to respond in this format (comment box), but I will attempt to respond.
Personally, I think that your position is a lot weaker than you are willing to admit. And your characterization (both in the post, and in your reply to me) of any differing position as being less passionate about Christ, or “repudiating the Lord’s Day” as you stated here, is a bit over the top. There can be sincere differences of interpretation on this matter without one needing to paint one who disagrees in those terms.
However, since you have responded at length, allow me to do the same.
For the record, where did I use an “argument from silence”? I actually talked quite specifically about what Jesus did say about the the 4th commandment. The reality is that he addressed it in a manner quite different from how he addressed any other commandment.
Your logic, my dear brother, leaves much to be desired. You say that a valid hermeneutic recognizes that anything the Bible does not repeal remains in effect. First of all, does this hermeneutic itself come from scripture? If not, it should be proven without being stated as if it were self-evident. A lot did change with the incarnation, and any attempt to impose the Old Testament law on New Covenant believers is quite risky.
Secondly, I do not even believe that you would abide by this “rule” yourself in every situation. If you did, you would have to say that much of the Old Testament law (not just the 10 Commandments) is still in effect.
For example, not just the concept of tithing, but the manner, amount, and procedure of tithing was never repealed in the Bible. Do you follow the guidelines spelled out in the OT for bringing your crops to the place where God has chosen to place his name? If you give money instead of crops, on what basis? Furthermore, as Deuteronomy 14:23 commands, the tithe of your crops is to be eaten as a celebration to the Lord. Do you do that with your tithe?
I say all of that not to argue about tithing, but simply to show that your logic is not consistent.
To the topic at hand, Saturday is never repealed in the Bible as the Sabbath, so your logic would require you to adhere to a Saturday Sabbath position, which you stated in your post as a position you do not hold.
You wrote: Most arguments made for the delimitation of the Fourth Commandment that are made from Colossians 2:16-17, Romans 14:5-6 and Galations 4:10-11 are proof texts. Paul in each is not setting aside the moral principle of setting aside one day in seven to rest. If anything, Paul is setting aside the seventh day Sabbath with all the Jewish Ceremonies and Shadows. The moral imperative of the Fourth Commandment still stands and always will.
What you have presented here is purely an interpretation, but I would hope that you can acknowledge the difference between what the Bible actually says and what it is interpreted to say. What is odd is that you blow off what Paul actually does say.
Colossians 2:16 says, “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to…a Sabbath day….” yet you have acted here as a judge of others who do not observe “the Sabbath” in the way you think they should.
Paul states that the old things were mere shadows of what is fulfilled in Christ. This harmonizes beautifully with the way the book of Hebrews describes Jesus as our Sabbath rest. Read Hebrews 4.
Romans 14:5 says, “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.” Yet you have claimed here that Paul is still talking about the “moral imperative” of the commandment. The distinction “moral imperative” is not even found in the Bible.
And why should each one be “convinced in his own mind” if the commandment is still clearly in effect?
Unfortunately, the way you are interpreting these passages appears to be as shaky as the three that you used earlier with reference to Sunday. And when I pointed out the flawed exegesis there (probably better called eisegesis) your response pretty much amounted to “no it’s not”. You have not even responded to the substance of my critique, failing to acknowledge that the verses you gave do not even specifically reference Sunday as a day of gathering. Now you’re using other verses with equally shaky rewording and reinterpretation.
That is very troubling to me, brother.
One final note, and then you can have the floor: your quote by Begg at the very end is bothersome because our choice should not be between “the rhythm of the saints” and “the drumbeat of the world.” Our choice should be to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. One must be humbly willing to acknowledge that our traditions (“the rhythm of the saints”) are not always consistent with the Holy Spirit.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
I quote this my brother because it seems in your concerned rebuke that the Holy Spirit’s speaking through the Canon cannot be found in the “tradition” that the Fourth Commandment calls for. The above admonition by Paul (if I may humbly remind you) is concerning the Old Testament, not the New. What I perceive your cavalier treatment of God’s Word is very troubling to me. I was very meticulous in my article, expounding upon both the historicity of the command, as well as it’s moral imperative. Do words have to be found in the Scripture for the principle to be affirmed? I seem to recall that the word “trinity” is also not found in the Holy Canon. Do you deny the doctrine that the word “trinity” affirms? From the same principle flows the “moral imperative” of the Fourth Commandment (as well as the rest for that matter). Or is it not a “moral imperative” to refrain from sleeping with your neighbor’s wife? Or to refrain from using the name of God as an expletive? Or to have anything in one’s life more important than God? Or to take things that are not yours? Or to fail to be content with what God has given you, desiring the wealth of others? Again you “nine command” folks seem to have cast out the Fourth as non-moral in a list of moral commands. How come?
The crux here is upon you. Which other of the nine commands found on those tablets of stone are irrelevant and immaterial in a New Covenant Construction? What it boils down to is this – I believe from what I have read from you is that probably the rest of the nine could be “moral” with the exception of the Fourth. And yet I would submit that if one could be immaterial and irrelevant, then they all are on shaky ground indeed. Are there others of the rest, which would fail to gain admittance on “moral” grounds. Which ones?
I answered that Jesus did not invalidate the Fourth Commandment, but merely repudiated the Pharisees and their construction that was not only onerous, but also extra-biblical. That part of my answer did not seem to get any excitement from you. I note that you kept to the same old rubric that “Jesus spoke differently” yet fail to address how Jesus spoke differently. I did. You ignored it. That indeed troubles me greatly.
The same can be found in the command to “tithe.” I can believe in the Biblical principle without following the structure of Judaism. We do not live in a predominantly agricultural society. I can give my gifts to God along the principle of the tithe without addressing the minutia of the ceremonial law, which of itself has been dismantled with the incarnation of Christ. There was a great discussion on this very blog about “tithing” a couple of months ago. Go look it up in the archives.
Yet there is a difference between the “tithing” and the Fourth Commandment. Unless I am mistaken, the Fourth Commandment was found on those tablets of stone – “tithing” was not. Those first set of tablets that was the Decalogue were written by the hand of God – the second given by dictation by God to Moses – and given word for word. This is important because much of how God gave His revelation using intermediaries were using those instrumentalities through what most Baptists hold to as plenary inspiration. Does this not then make these particular Laws unique and differentiated from all of the others? I would hold them to be, and I find myself in good company.
I will not repeat myself from my main article or what I communicated in previous responses concerning my position on the law. I judge no one – God’s Word gives us the standard on how God will judge. My concerns are over a “called and chosen” people whose spiritual and devotional life is in grave jeopardy because they prefer to selfishly follow their own desires rather than place their faith and trust in God. We have a generation of youth today who have been taught by our example that it is more expedient to serve us in restaurants for Sunday lunch rather than learn about Jesus in church. We note a people who would tarnish their witness to their loved ones and neighbors by their inability to wait “one hour” for services to be finished, rather going to that birthday party or family reunion, or to boat on the lake, or play golf with their buddies. We note a majority of people who complain about the “misery” of listening to God’s precious and living Word for one or two hours, yet pay extravagant fees to go to football games, baseball games and the like and scream their bloody heads off when their teams are winning. God is not mocked my dear brother. We will sow what we reap. And in that I find that in many things we must agree to disagree. I love you my friend.
Rob
Rob, thank you for the prompt response. I am willing to agree to disagree on this, and so I will not post beyond this comment on this thread, unless you have a specific desire to get my response on something.
The reason I did not respond to your comments about what Jesus said regarding the Sabbath is because I had already brought that into the discussion. I didn’t see where you did anything but confirm the point that I was making. You seemed to be trying to make another point, but if you did, I didn’t get it.
And your sidebar about the “trinity” doctrine misses my point completely. I never asked you if a certain word had to appear in scripture. I simply asked if you derived the hermeneutical principle from scripture, or if that came from some other source. If it is not from scripture, than it is not self-evident like you presented it.
My concerns are over a “called and chosen” people whose spiritual and devotional life is in grave jeopardy because they prefer to selfishly follow their own desires rather than place their faith and trust in God.
This is the false dichotomy that first prompted me to comment. The fellowship that my family and I are a part of does not always meet on Sunday. In fact, most often we meet on Saturday evenings. That right there has placed me in a category (by your logic) that leaves me in a place of faithless, selfish living.
But I can assure you most certainly, my dear brother, that we have not chosen a different day for any reason contrary to “faith and trust in God.” And I can assure you equally certainly that our times together (as well as the many times throughout the week that I am encouraged and edified by brothers and sisters) are quite effective in helping me keep my focus on things above, not on things of this earth (see Colossians 3). And likewise, I find myself continually spurred on toward love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:23-25). In other words, if you want a “moral imperative”, we’re definitely following it.
This obviously does not fit your paradigm. I would simply encourage you to step away from your passion on this issue long enough to see the danger in it. I admire your passion, Rob, but there are some serious issues with your logic and your exegesis. And you seem very resistant to that being pointed out, instead choosing to pass judgment on my faith and to place some burden of proof on me. With all due respect, brother, it was your original post that I challenged, and you have brushed away my challenges to your logic and exegesis.
Unfortunately, the net result is that you take a position that is far closer to the Pharisaical position than you realize.
Paul’s comment to not let anyone judge you for that, but to be persuaded in your own mind applies to your position, as well, though. Honor the Sabbath as unto the Lord, my dear brother, in whatever way your conscience persuades you. But do not seek to judge others (and yes, you are, Rob) in this regard.
Go in peace, brother.
Steve,
Again, I left you in peace my brother yet you wish to call me a judge and “Pharisee”. I could turn around and say to you “antinomian” but that would be using the same measure that you have used against me and be uncharitable in an otherwise civil discussion minus the fallacious name calling.
It seems you missed the point of the post entirely. It seems that I am not the only one who brushes away logic and exegesis, and certainly not the only one who has their judge robes out. The “moral imperative” is to worship and rest “one day in seven.” The Christian tradition is to do this on Sunday (a tradition I hold is both Scriptural and historical). Obviously not everyone can do this: police, nurses, doctors, those ministers of “mercy” included. If a fellowship, such as one you claim, desires to meet weekly on a Saturday night for worship – then Praise God! You are keeping and abiding with the “moral imperative” which glorifies God in an otherwise “untraditional” manner (at least in modern Christianity) – but nevertheless are keeping and abiding to it (I hope consistently).
But let us not kid ourselves. Most of the people who would chaff at the Fourth Commandment don’t desire to hold to it. They chaff and rebel at the notion that the command toward unity and community has any bearing upon them. They see no need to congregate in a fellowship where “two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst.” They see no problem in being consistent and faithful to their fellowship, failing to recognize that as iron-sharpens-iron we charge our batteries for the battering that comes about during our charge in the world. We are not rugged individualists. We need community for the sake of our sanity. The Lord Jesus knew this when He instituted the “church.”
I would charge with you however that oftentimes “conscience” leads to “rebellion.” “Tradition” is not always evil – it is how in most cases doctrine and truth are handed down from generation to generation.
By the way – I do believe that what we have said about Jesus sayings are different. You wish to say that Jesus repudiated the Fourth Commandment. I say that Jesus repudiated the Pharisees abuse of the Commandment. There is a distinct difference.
Grace and Peace,
Rob
Brother Rob, I’m genuinely sorry you feel the way you do about my comments. Perhaps our iron sharpening here will help others considering these same issues.
Be blessed as you follow your conscience in this matter, brother.
[...] of my favorite resources (as I have shared before here) on the Ten Commandments is the work by Alistaire Begg entitled Pathway to Freedom: How God’s [...]