A Worthy Rebuttal of My Views on the Sabbath

Jeremy Pierce at Parableman has written a rebuttal to my views on the Sabbath, as they have been expressed in some recent posts.  I commend his post to you.  He says this:

What struck me in David's post is that he holds on to a view of the Sabbath that I think is extremely difficult to maintain biblically. Leave aside the assumption that if Sunday is the Sabbath then we ought to have our main time of worship on Sunday. I'm interested in whether Christians should observe the Sabbath at all. I think there's a clear biblical case against seeing Sunday or Saturday as a Sabbath for Christians.

I have the highest respect for Jeremy and generally believe that, if he says I'm wrong, I'm probably wrong.  I haven't said everything I want to say on the issue, but if you haven't read what I have said, you can find the gist of what I believe in this post.  That will give you some background for his criticisms.  For now, I'll just address a couple of things he brings up.

Jeremy says:

The Sabbath command was, as stated, only really for Israel as a nation and an old covenant community. My main reason for thinking this is that Paul seems to remove all reliance on special days or times in Colossians.

I'm not so sure of the first sentence and because I disagree with the first sentence I am not sure on the second.  Genesis 2:2-3 says:

² By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. ³ And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. 

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Israel's practice of Sabbath observance is then predicated on this creation ordinance.  Exodus 20:11 gives the basis for the fourth commandment:

¹¹ For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

My point is that that the Sabbath has deeper significance and wider application than to just the Israelite community.  Further, it is part of the moral law which is always binding.  Jeremy says this:

I think there are reasons to think Paul means something stronger than merely not relying on Sabbath observance for salvation. I think Paul really treats it as no longer an obligation in any sense, and I think he sees those who see it as a moral command as in the same category as those who see circumcision as a moral command (which isn't to say that it's the same category as those who think circumcision is required for salvation).

That is where I will just have to demur. I hold to the traditional view that the ceremonial laws, under which circumcision fell, have been abrogated, but the moral law is still binding.  And the Sabbath command is part of the moral law.  True, the ceremonial law gives instruciton in the application of the Sabbath, i.e. in how it is to be observed and we are not beholden to the Jewish practices of observing the Sabbath.  But the Sabbath itself still stands as a moral command.

I also place a good deal of weight on Matthew 5:17-19 - that not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away.  I think Jesus is speaking of the moral law here and this sets a trajectory for how we interpret Paul's writings on the law.  In other words, that "law" which Paul says is abrogated is not the "law" that Jesus says will never pass away. 

Having said that I think Jeremy's strongest argument against mine is the expansion argument.  He says this:

It seems as if the new covenant view of the holy involves an expansion from what was treated as holy in the old covenant. There was a physical temple, where God's presence dwelled in a way not true of other places. With Christ, God's presence has expanded to include anywhere two or more believers agree on anything or come together in his name. In the old covenant, God's people consisted of one nation, one family. In the new covenant, that's expanded to all nations.

In the Colossians verse David quotes, Paul seems to be saying something similar about days and hours. It's not that Saturdays are no longer holy. It's that every day is holy, which is why we can treat Sunday as special to begin with. There's no biblical warrant for treating Sunday as the Sabbath, though. The reality is that the Sabbath has itself expanded to every day. Hebrews makes that clear, as does Paul (I believe somewhere in Romans, but I can't remember where offhand). We are in the Sabbath that Christ brings, the fulfillment of the rest promised when Joshua entered the land, a rest that Hebrews tells us had to be more than merely physically possessing the land.

I actually agree with almost all of this.  I think Jeremy is speaking of Hebrews 4 here and it is clear to me from Hebrews 4 that the Sabbath has a kind of sacramental significance. It points to something beyond itself - the rest that is promised in the Sabbath points to the ultimate rest we have in Christ.  And, every day is holy. 

This is a "whole 'nuther" issue but I think my knickers would be far less wadded up on this if we really practiced what Jeremy says here.  In other words if Christians self-consciously approached every day as a holy day, whether they are at work or at church, this would be a great thing.  As it stands today, rather than accentuating the holiness of "ordinary" days, we diminish the holiness of Sunday.  In other words, there is indeed a levelling process in existence today where all days are treated alike.  But the levelling process has gone the wrong way - rather than enhancing the holiness of Monday through Saturday, in practice we simply diminish the holiness of Sunday.  But that's a different issue altogether.

Before I leave this though, I still don't think Jeremy's position negates the importance of a Christian Sabbath.  The analogy I would offer is that all of life is worship, but God has ordained that His people gather as a community for worship at particular times.  Similarly, every day is holy, but God has ordained that His people treat one day in seven in a special way.

There is one final issue I would like to treat in Jeremy's post and that is his view that Sabbatarians are to be treated as the weaker brother.  He says:

If what I've been arguing is correct, then the right response of someone who realizes what I've been saying (including me), is to treat Sabbatarians as the 'weaker brother" of I Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14-15.

I'll split a couple of biblical and theological hairs with Jeremy on this one. Even if he is right and we Sabbatarians are wrong, I don't think Sabbatarians ought to be treated as weaker brothers.  If you follow the rest of Jeremy's thought on that matter, what he is describing as treatment of the weaker brother could just as easily fall under the category of "love of neighbor," or "doing good to all men, and especially those of the household of faith."

The reason I don't want Sabbatarians to be labelled weaker brothers is that the weaker brothers are those who may be tempted to violate their own conscience when they see you practicing your freedom in Christ.  And although there are some who may be weaker brothers, I don't know many Sabbatarians who are likely to sin by violating their conscience.  Sabbatarians are more likely to sin by harshly judging their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Weaker brothers are to be tolerated, accomodated and gently instructed.  Judgmentalists are to be rebuked. So I am splitting this little theological hair simply to say that if non-Sabbatarians treat all Sabbatarians as weaker brothers they may find themselves tolerating and accomodating some who need to be sharply rebuked.

 

Jeremy is basically asking the question, "how am I to get along with my Sabbatarian brethren?"  And in answer to that question I recommend that we simply follow Romans 14:5 without getting too obsessed with determining who is weaker, stronger or judgmental.  This verse says:

⁵ One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Within certain guidelines that verse provides the model for interaction on an issue like this.

As I am sure you can imagine I have what I believe is a biblical grid that causes me to interpret this passage in such a way that my view of the Sabbath is not compromised.   Further, and stick with me here as I try to connect several dots, I don't believe that the observance of the Sabbath is a disputable matter, per Romans 14:1. 

The reason I say this goes back to what I said about the moral law and Matthew 5:17-19.  None of the moral laws are disputable.  Paul didn't say "one man considers adultery (murder, stealing) to be right and another considers it to be wrong, each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."  Since the Sabbath law is of a piece with the laws on adultery, murder, and stealing (see James 2:10) we wouldn't consider it disputable any more than the others.  Thus, I can't agree with Jeremy's aforementioned statement:

I'm interested in whether Christians should observe the Sabbath at all. I think there's a clear biblical case against seeing Sunday or Saturday as a Sabbath for Christians.

I think it is indisputable that we must observe the Sabbath, it is disputable how we observe the Sabbath.  And actually, I think this is where Jeremy goes through the rest of his post.

So this is where I think Romans 14:5 comes back into play.  I have a real problem "agreeing to disagree" with someone who says we are under no obligation to observe the Sabbath because I have never heard a compelling argument that divorces the obligatory nature of the fourth commandment from the rest. 

But I am willing to concede that there is a legitimate dispute on how we obey the fourth commandment and am willing to debate, discuss, and disagree on this under the Romans 14:5 rubric.

I would also point out that I believe strongly in Sola Scriptura - that our consciences are bound only by the Word of God.  So, I have no problem with those who disagree with me on these issues if they are firmly convinced by the Word of God.  Again, not to beat a dead horse, but my problem has been that, in dealing with these issues in many cases, decisions about worship on Sunday''s and at Christmas and the like have been based justified on a pragmatic, rather than a biblical/theological basis.  I am sure it is never intended this way, but it gives the impression that our conscience is being bound by personal convenieence and pragmatic issues rather than the biblical and theological concerns inherent in our doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Comments

[Paul Huxley]

Interesting debate, the sabbath one. Dave Bish (bluefish) posted something on it a while ago at http://thebluefish.blogspot.com/2005/10/sabbath.html that you may want to check out...

In terms of applying OT law, http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1989Toward.htm

has some helpful pointers. I don't think we can stick divisions on laws as ceremonial, moral and so on where the Bible itself doesn't. If we take Frame's approach it'll come out in a fairly similar way anyway, but we'll at least consider each part separately.

[cavman]

Exegetically, the Colossians passage speaks of 'sabbaths' not the Sabbath. Paul would appear to be refering to the many feast days of the Jewish calendar during which additional Sabbath rests were mandated.
These particular Sabbaths would be part of the ceremonial law, not the moral law. These would have been abrogated, not the creational pattern of work & rest which is meant to shape our lives.
To say all days are 'holy' would seem to spiritualize 'rest' since I obviously can't cease from my labors every day.
God made the Sabbath for me, for my advantage- to rest and seek God by faith unhindered by my ordinary obligations.
So how would this apply to Colossians? We cannot mandate special worship services (Christmas Eve, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday etc). We may offer such services, but ought not judge those who choose not to attend. Dec. 25th is not more holy than July 3rd. But the first day of the week would be set aside for corporate worship and rest from earning my living.

[David Wayne]

Good one Cavman - I like.

Paul - thanks for this. I am also aware that the Federal Vision folks have some different ideas on the distinctions in the law, but I'm not to up on that and didn't want to try to get into it. Thanks for the link to the frame-poythress stuff.

[Laura]

Ooh, good stuff. I was going to say what Cavman said about what Paul said in Colossians. :)

[jmark]

I'm with you David

The whole point of the OT Sabbath was to free people up fromt eh grind of daily work to enjoy speding time with God. I fail to see how our need for that has changed from OT to NT. For me the Sabbath is about relationship rather than regulations. It is a day to enjoy our relationship with God more. Hence it is my favourite day of the week. And so when Christmas day falls on A Sunday we'll be celebrating it on the Monday, because that way I get two great days instead of one! (Or three instead of two if you include Boxing Day)

So it isnt a case of the brother who feels free to do what he likes being the stronger brother, rather he's depriving himself of could be his.

I blogged about looking at the Sabbath in this light once upon a time

Sabbath Delighting

[Scott]

Just to throw in my .02.

The Colossians passage says in Chapter 2:16
"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day."

Although I will be the first to admit that I need to study this subject more diligently, I think it is worth discussing whether or not Paul is decribing 3 types of religious obeservances, annual, monthly and, umm, weekly. Clearly, Religious festivals are yearly and New Moon celebrations are monthly, so I think the idea that Paul is creating a progression of thought to describe the weekly sabbath does have some merit.

[Shaun]

I wish I had time to post on this, but hall decking preempts me.

Take a look at Jonathan Edwards' sermons on the "Perspecuity and Change in the Sabbath" (in his Works). He makes it clear that the Sabbath moved to Sunday and that it continues in the Church Age, while also sounding a great deal like Calvin.

Ironically, when you read Calvin, he sounds a lot more Sabbatarian than you might expect.

[Alan Grey]

I generally avoid using the term 'Sabbath' for sunday, as Saturday is actually the Sabbath. Sunday is the Lords Day and if you read Justin Martyr, the early Christian's were criticised for not keeping the Sabbath.

I think I am somewhere between you and Jeremy here as I think having a day of rest and fellowship is still important, but the Sabbath in and of itself does not need to be that day.

[cavman]

I'm not going to revisit Colossians 2 (see my previous post), except that Paul does not use an article. May or may not be significant, but those who say it isn't ought to explain why thy interpret it as if Paul is saying "the Sabbath".
sabbath does not refer to Saturday. Sabbath means 'rest'. The weekly Sabbath was Saturday. But the sabbaths celebrated as a part of the feasts were not necessarily the last day of the week. Since Paul addresses these feasts in Col. 2; it seems fairly certain to me that he is referring to these sabbaths, not the sabbath day.
Let's ask this: if we don't rest on Sunday (the Lord's Day) does Genesis 2:1-4 have any application for us?
I am assuming that most who disagree w/David and others gather together, usually NOT working, on Sunday to worship. So, why are you strenuously dissenting?
I took an exception regarding the WCF on the Sabbath, because it prohibits recreation which I think goes beyond Scripture. Should our discussion be about how to spend the day rather than whether or not to have a day & which day?
Sorry for being verbose.

[Jeremy Pierce]

Alan, I'm curious why you think agreeing with me amounts to taking an in-between view.

JMark, you would be correct if the Sabbatarian view is correct. What I said is that if I'm right (and the Sabbatarian is wrong), then the Sabbatarian is the weaker brother. What you say if the Sabbatarian is right is a completely different matter. Those categories simply wouldn't apply, because the non-Sabbatarian would actually be doing something wrong if they exercized what they believe is their Christian freedom.

[~ The Billy Goat ~]

One thing missed in the discussion of the Colossians passasge is the question of how the Colossian Gentile Christian believers would have understood that statement.... I gently suggest their first thought would have been the Jewish weekly Saturday sabbath.... and Paul had those Gentile belivers in mind when writing Colossians...

Also the "how" of keeping a day is very important to the discussion. I have known those who defined "sabbath orthodoxy" on the basis of their own keeping of the first day of the week. If you didn't dot their i's and cross their t's in your practice of that day, you were not "keeping the sabbath"...

I could say more but choose to refrain....

Peace to ALL who love Jesus,

~ The Billy Goat ~