It struck me today that there are broad connections between the Sabbath and the entirety of redemptive history. We will take as our starting point the magnificent contribution of Geerhardus Vos to our understanding of the Sabbath, when he said that the Covenant of Works was nothing other than an embodiment of the Sabbatical principle. Just as God worked for six days and rested the seventh, so also Adam was work for the probationary period, and then enter into his eternal rest. Adam had a weekly reminder of this probationary period in the Sabbath. So far, so Vos.
The thing that struck me was that the change of day from seventh day of the week to the first day of the week can then be connected to the change of covenant from works to grace. Now, here we have to be careful, since we can in no way imply that salvation was by works in the Old Testament. Nor are we positing a dispensational understanding of the different eras of history. The Covenant of Grace began in the Garden of Eden after the Fall. However, what we can say is that Adam was told “Do this, and live.” We can expand the sentence to say “Do this for six ‘days,’ and then you will enter your seventh ‘day’ of rest, which is eternal life.” The Sabbath is a weekly sign of that Covenantal promise affixed to the Covenant of Works. OT believers thus lived in a time when the Covenant of Grace was administered in type and shadow, not in its fullness. This might have some implications for the debate on whether the Covenant of Works was republished at Sinai. I would think this Sabbatical principle connected to covenant theology does support a form of republication at Sinai (especially given the rationale for Sabbath-keeping which we find in the Ten Commandments in Exodus, which hearkens back to the time of probation in the garden; and, the people did not celebrate the Sabbath on the first day of the week yet, since the Covenant of Works had yet to be fixed by Christ. The Sabbath pointed towards Christ’s work as bringing true rest). However, just trying to think through how that would work is making my head spin.
The change of day from seventh day to first day at the very least parallels the shift to the time of Gospel, when we hear “Live, and do this.” To be more specific, the connection goes like this: Jesus has now accomplished the fulfillment of the Covenant of Works, and so now the order of events is reversed. Instead of “Do this and live,” we now hear “Live and do this.” Expanding the sentence yields the following formulation: “Celebrate your eternal life on the day of the week on which Jesus obtained it for you, and then work in the light of that salvation afterwards.” Instead of work coming before rest, rest now comes before work.
Furthermore, there is a telescoping relationship of type and antitype in the OT and in the NT. In the OT, the weekly Sabbath telescopes into the seventh year Sabbath for the land, which in turn telescopes into the Jubilee, a pattern of seven times seven. The last implied link is eternity. In the NT, the beginning of this eternity has erupted into time with the beginning of the Sabbath rest obtained for us by Jesus. In the NT, there are elements of “already” and “not yet” with regard to the Sabbath, just as in the OT. The difference is that there is a lot more “already” in the NT than in the OT. We celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday in order to celebrate the new life and salvation we have in Christ Jesus. However, we still have not entered into our bodily eternal rest, even though our souls have, as Christians.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
Wes White
Reed Here
Andrew Webb
paigebritton
M. Jay Bennett said,
January 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Excellent thoughts Lane. It just so happens I’m teaching a biblical theology of the Sabbath in Sunday School next week. I’ve had these thoughts swimming around in my head the past few days. I especially like Vos’s connection of the OT Sabbath to the CoW and your formulation “Do this and live” v. “Live and do this.”
With respect to the OT having less of the eschatological already, I’ve read somewhere that the OT week-ending Sabbath tended to point forward, which is another way of saying it emphasized the not yet; whereas the week-beginning NT Sabbath tends to point backward to Jesus resurrection, which is another way of saying it emphasizes the already.
Or another way to think through it is with respect to Old v. New creation. The OT Sabbath, being situated at the end of the creation week, drew attention back to the Old creation/CoW and the failure of the Adam; whereas the NT Sabbath, being situated at the beginning of the week with reference to the first fruits of the New creation (Jesus’ resurrection), draws attention to the New Creation/CoG and the success of the Last Adam.
Cris D. said,
January 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Excellent post, Lane. Thought-provoking. Further, this dove-tails with a slice of the Creation discussion following Adrian’s post (also quite thought-provoking).
The way you are reasoning, actually, theologizing, about the days of the week/sabbath day of the creational pattern, what does that say concerning how much time Adam & Eve spent in the garden prior to the rebellion and fall? Do you know if Vos touches on that at all?
While I’m ready to see that it’s possible to see that both Adam and Eve’s creation occurred on the first Day Six, are we to really read the story that on Day Seven, the first Seventh Day, while God rested, Adam fell? I’ve heard that in sermons, but it just doesn’t “click” for me.
I know, this could be in the Creation post, but what does the theology of the creation pattern, the eschatological foreshadowing of the Sabbath at Creation, particularly as you are discussing it here, say to that question?
-=Cris=-
paigebritton said,
January 24, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Lane,
When you wrote, “Celebrate your eternal life on the day of the week on which Jesus obtained it for you,” were you thinking of 1 Peter 1:3? I was startled by this verse this weekend, as a statement about what Jesus’ resurrection accomplished:
…According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…
We usually think about his death obtaining our inheritance of eternal life — but it’s also biblical to speak of his resurrection on the first day accomplishing this!
pb
Rowland S. Ward said,
January 25, 2012 at 1:59 am
Nice post.
There was an eschatology before sin, a higher form of bodily life in prospect. the sabbath is the sign of that goal but it cannot be attained apart from Jesus who through his obedience, death and resurrection makes it not an unattainable goal but a gift of grace based on the achievement of him who said he was Lord of the sabbath.
Rowland Ward
Melbourne Australia
Roy Kerns said,
January 25, 2012 at 10:09 am
Probably I should concede that all sorts of features such as sin and slowness and sin and sloth and sin – and,oh, lack of scholarship – keep folks from recognizing the obvious. After all, that’s true about me. But I’m nonetheless repeatedly astonished at discussions with Christians who love the Bible but scorn the 4th C. That the day changed gives no pause to ponder. How come did it change? What does the reality of the change tell us about the 4th C?
“Christ by a road before untrod ascendeth to the throne of God”. Resurrection changes everything.
Andrew Duggan said,
January 25, 2012 at 10:48 am
Interesting.
Certainly the Covanent of Works was finished and fulfulled by Christ for the elect in Christ by His righteousness and its terms fulfulled and its penaly paid by Christ in his death. Christ’s resurrection was so radical so that in some sense everything is different. Our eternal rest is so tied with Christ and his completed work, and his entering into his estate of exaltation in his resurrection that of course the day of rest is changed.
However, I am having trouble reconciling the emphasis of “Do this and Live with work then rest” with two things. First, Adam’s first full day was on the Sabbath, at best he worked only one day before his rest. From his point of view it was more like, rest, then work. Second, the preface to the ten commandments in Ex 20, reads like: I saved you, now do this. How else can you read “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt…”?
greenbaggins said,
January 25, 2012 at 11:53 am
Cris, I don’t remember Vos touching on that point. I personally would say that chapter 3 of Genesis does not have a clear time indicator. It starts with a vav-x qatal, indicating background information off the main storyline. So, I don’t think the Bible tells us at all how long Adam and Eve were in their sinless state before the Fall. As to whether the Sabbatical pattern and the CoW/CoG distinction that the change of day corresponds with actually affects this question, I could not say. I’m having difficulty seeing that it makes a whole lot of difference right now.
greenbaggins said,
January 25, 2012 at 11:56 am
Paige, I was not explicitly thinking of 1 Peter, but rather the simple fact of Jesus’ death and resurrection being a single complex of events. Calvin argues persuasively that references to either the death or the resurrection of Christ are synechdochic (a part for the whole), meaning that a reference to one in the NT automatically implies the other. In the case of the Sabbath, Christ’s death also figures into the Sabbatical pattern, since His entrance into the grave signalled the end of the OT Sabbath, and His resurrection signalled the beginning of the NT Sabbath.
greenbaggins said,
January 25, 2012 at 11:59 am
Andrew, important questions there. My initial response off the top of my head would be that there were always eschatological pointers in the OT. As Dr. Ward pointed out, eschatology existed in the garden. This is another way of stating one of Vos’s famous dictums: “The eschatological is an older strand than the soteric.” Eschatology precedes soteriology. So, it is not surprising to me that there are evidences of grace coming before law in the OT. Indeed, we have to say this, if we believe that the Covenant of Grace started in the Garden of Eden. These are the shadows and hints that will come to full flower in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
rfwhite said,
January 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Green Baggins: To your good thoughts let me take a stab at adding meat to the skeleton you’ve given us. I apologize for the length of this comment.
At the beginning, God blessed and commissioned man to engage in the work of ruling and filling (Gen 1:26-28) in the hope of resting from all his work as God did from his (cf. Heb 4:10). Because man yielded to sin, however, he became powerless to obey God’s command; his work of ruling and filling became futile; his hope of entering God’s rest became vain. For all his days after the fall, man’s work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest (Eccl 2:23). Through the curse of death (Gen 3:19), man ironically finds a kind of rest from the vanity and futility of his work (cf. Job 3:11-19). But this hope of finding rest through one’s own death is no gospel, since one’s own death is retribution, not redemption. So, did the entrance of sin and death render vain man’s hope of entering into God’s rest? No, we know better from the gospel of Gen 3:15.
Gen 3.15 tells us how radically the entrance of sin and death had altered the nature of the work that man was commissioned to complete, of the rest into which he would enter upon its completion, and of the means by which he would find rest from his work. After the fall, in order to enter God’s rest, man would have to rule not simply the earth, but sin, death, and the serpent and his seed. After the fall, the rest into which man would enter would involve not simply ceasing from his toil with the ground, but ceasing from his toil with sin also (cf. Gen 4:7). In other words, from the fall onward, if man would find rest from his work, he must find it not by his own hand, but by the hand of the woman’s Seed. In fact, just as apart from the Gen 3:15 gospel man would find rest only through his own death (an irony of retribution), so now according to the Gen 3:15 gospel he could enter God’s rest through the death of another, the righteous Seed (an irony of redemption). The fundamental content of the gospel would be, in sabbatical terms, the promise of rest through faith in the promised Seed.
From Adam through Moses, this gospel of rest was preached through Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Noah was prophesied to be a giver of rest from the curse: “This one will give us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands, arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed” (Gen 5:29). Through Noah (Gen 7:1), God brought a remnant of man, Noah’s household, to rest in the new world (Gen 8:4). As Noah consecrated this new mankind to the Lord by his burnt offerings (Gen 8:20), the Lord smelled the aroma of rest and restrained his curse upon the ground (Gen 8:21). Exemplary though Noah’s role in God’s deliverance of the world was, his work was not sufficient to relieve his household’s toilsome labor to subdue sin. Thus, through Noah, a remnant shared in a shadow of God’s final rest, but only a shadow.
After Noah and until Moses the hope of rest was held out to the seed of Abram (Gen 15:13-14), and through his seed, to the nations (Gen 12:3 et al.). Then came Moses. Before Sinai he preached rest to Israel (cf. Exod 5:5) as the nation toiled in slavery to Egypt (Exod 1:11-13, 6:5-8; Gen 15:13-14). Then, he preached a version of the Gen 3:15 promise of rest through the death of another as he preached that the nation would be redeemed through the sacrifice of the Passover lamb at the exodus (Exodus 12).
Then, through the covenant at Sinai, Moses gave Israel very particular commandments concerning rest. Israel was commanded to enter God’s Sabbath rest (cf. Exod 20:10-11). They were to be diligent to keep the seventh-day Sabbath holy, lest they should come short of God’s rest through the deceitfulness of sin. Israel, however, followed Adam’s example and yielded to sin. The Mosaic covenant could prescribe sabbatical rest, but could not realize it. As great as their redemption through Moses had been, when Israel came to Sinai, they were still toiling in slavery to sin, and their work of keeping the divine commands was rendered futile and their hope of entering God’s rest became vain. The Law could reveal that toil, but could not relieve it. Moses could command rest, but could not give it. He did, however, bear witness to the promise of rest. In the laws of sacrifice Moses reiterated the lesson of faith. To the nation toiling in slavery to sin, Moses repeated the gospel he preached in Egypt: rest from fallen man’s futile effort to subdue sin was available through another, viz. through the sacrifices for sin. As it had been with Noah’s offerings, so it was with Levitical offerings: God smelled the aroma of rest and restrain his judgment (Exod 29:18, 25; Gen 8:20-21). In this God’s people could see how sacrifice and Sabbath rest went hand in hand; indeed, the seventh-day Sabbath could be kept only through the sacrifice of death. To put the point differently, sinners enter the rest of God only through the acceptable sacrifice of another.
In Christ one greater than Noah has come and secured for his household relief from their work and from the toil of their hands, viz. the work-toil of ruling sin. Likewise, in Christ, one greater than Moses has come and by overcoming sin through his sacrifice has obtained rest for a new Israel who would cease from their slavery to sin. To enter God’s rest sinners looks to Christ to see in him the post-fall work of subduing sin finished. At the completion of his redemptive work, Jesus proclaimed, “It is finished” (John 19:30) and then rested from his labor of subduing sin in the sleep of death and from his labor of subduing death through resurrection in the rest of ascension.
Freed from unceasing service to sin through faith in Christ (Rom 6:17-18), the believer’s work of subduing sin is no longer futile nor his hope of rest vain. Now, through union with Christ in his death to sin and his resurrection life to God, the believer no longer walks in slavery to sin, but in newness of life, serving God (Rom 6:4-7). Through faith, the believer has subdued sin (Gal 5:24), is subduing sin (Rom 6:12-13), will subdue sin (cf. 1 John 3:3). United with Christ by faith, the believer enters into God’s rest truly now, but not yet finally. Union with Christ in his Sabbath-sacrifice is no longer publicized by the believer’s continuing observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, but our union with Christ in his Sabbath-ascension is publicized by our observance of his first-day Sabbath.
Matthew Holst said,
January 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Good post and good comments. I have far too much swimming around in my head to comment myself, but good posts. Very helpful.
RGM said,
February 5, 2012 at 1:11 pm
That’s an interesting thesis, but it’s pure speculation that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. Where does Scripture say anything of the sort? It doesn’t, plain and simple. What it does say is that any form of external Sabbath observance has been done away with in Christ.
First, Paul explicitly states that “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.” (Romans 14:5). He goes on to say that it’s wrong to “judge” or “show contempt” (Romans 14:10,13) toward one another in this matter, whether we choose to honor one day above another or not. Yet, if the external observance of the Sabbath has merely been changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week, Paul could not have written that. We would not be free to “consider every day alike,” and we would not be free from the “judgment” and “contempt” of others if we fail to observe the Sabbath on the first day of the week.
Second, Paul explicitly admonishes the Galatians for “observing special days and months and seasons and years” (Galatians 4:10), as if they continued to retain spiritual significance and legal sanction from God. This would apply to observing the first day of the week as the Sabbath as much as it would to observing the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. In principle, there’s no difference between the two. Note Calvin’s take on this passage:
“Of what nature, then, was the observation which Paul reproves? It was that which would bind the conscience, by religious considerations, as if it were necessary to the worship of God, and which, as he expresses it in the Epistle to the Romans, would make a distinction between one day and another. (Romans 14:5.) When certain days are represented as holy in themselves, when one day is distinguished from another on religious grounds, when holy days are reckoned a part of divine worship, then days are improperly observed. The Jewish Sabbath, new moons, and other festivals, were earnestly pressed by the false apostles, because they had been appointed by the law. When we, in the present age, intake a distinction of days, we do not represent them as necessary, and thus lay a snare for the conscience; we do not reckon one day to be more holy than another; we do not make days to be the same thing with religion and the worship of God; but merely attend to the preservation of order and harmony. The observance of days among us is a free service, and void of all superstition.” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Galatians 4:10)
Third, Paul explicitly tells the Colossians to “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. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). Observing the Sabbath as an external ceremony (whether on the seventh day of the week or the first day of the week) is no longer necessary. Calvin reiterates this point once again:
“Consider whether it may not be taken to mean separation, for those that make a distinction of days, separate, as it were, one from another. Such a mode of partition was suitable for the Jews, that they might celebrate religiously the days that were appointed, by separating them from others. Among Christians, however, such a division has ceased. But someone will say, ‘We still keep up some observance of days.’ I answer, that we do not by any means observe days, as though there were any sacredness in holidays, or as though it were not lawful to labor upon them, but that respect is paid to government and order — not to days.” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Colossians 2:16)
Fourth, the author of Hebrews explicitly states that the spiritual purpose signified by the Sabbath is fulfilled in those who believe: “For we who have believed do enter that rest” (Hebrews 4:3). This is not merely a “future” rest in heaven (although it includes that), but is designated as a rest that believers enter into “Today” (vs. 7-8). Calvin, once again, says the same thing:
“But I doubt not but that the Apostle designedly alluded to the Sabbath in order to reclaim the Jews from its external observances; for in no other way could its abrogation be understood, except by the knowledge of its spiritual design. He then treats of two things together; for by extolling the excellency of grace, he stimulates us to receive it by faith, and in the meantime he shows us in passing what is the true design of the Sabbath, lest the Jews should be foolishly attached to the outward rite. Of its abrogation indeed he does expressly speak, for this is not his subject, but by teaching them that the rite had a reference to something else, he gradually withdraws them from their superstitious notions. For he who understands that the main object of the precept was not external rest or earthly worship, immediately perceives, by looking on Christ, that the external rite was abolished by his coming; for when the body appears, the shadows immediately vanish away. Then our first business always is, to teach that Christ is the end of the Law.” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Hebrews 4:10)
Anyway, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that the external observance of the Sabbath has been “changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week.” As I stated at the outset, that is pure speculation. There’s not a shred of biblical evidence to support it.
Richard Tallach said,
February 17, 2012 at 6:12 pm
The whole perfectly-numbered seven day week is typological of the perfect Heavenly Eschataloigcal Kingdom. It is the only division of time that is revealed by special revelation and is “perfectly” numbered, unlike the day, the month or the year.
The new order Heavenly Eschatalogical Kingdom will have work and play, as well as rest and worship, but all will be charaterised by rest and worship. In the old order, meanwhile, a whole day has to be specificallly set aside for rest and worship only.
Unfallen Adam rested in His God and Father by faith at all times, but on the Seventh Day was invited into a peculiar rest with His God, in anticipation of His eternal rest. This weekly rest from good works would have continued beyond the probation into the ongoing cultural mandate, if Adam had passed the test.
The Seventh Day was not only the first complete day of the Old Creation, but the first complete day of the Israelites redemption from Egypt.
The First Day, was the first complete day of Christ’s New Creation and of His redemption of His people.
RGM said,
February 19, 2012 at 12:06 pm
This is a good example of what I meant by “pure speculation.” Where does Scripture teach that one “whole day has to be specifically set aside for rest and worship” under the New Covenant? Not only does God’s word not teach that, but it explicitly states the opposite:
“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. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17)
Observing the Sabbath as an outward ceremony (whether on the seventh day of the week or the first day of the week makes absolutely no difference in principle) is no longer necessary. If it were, then Paul could not have scolded the Galatians for “observing special days” (Galatians 4:10), as if they continued to retain spiritual significance and legal sanction from God. Nor could he have taught that we are now free to “consider every day alike” (Romans 14:5). If one “whole day” is still required “to be specifically set aside for rest and worship,” then we would not be free to “consider every day alike,” and we would not be free from the “judgment” and “contempt” of others if we fail to observe the Sabbath on the first day of the week.
rfwhite said,
February 19, 2012 at 1:09 pm
12/14 RGM: If you agree that Christians are obligated to meet together, what would you say are the most important factors that they should take into account to determine when their meetings take place?
RGM said,
February 19, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Since we are now free to “consider every day alike” (Romans 14:5) under the New Covenant, the criteria for when we are to come together in corporate worship is up to each congregation. I agree with what Calvin says here:
“Consider whether it may not be taken to mean separation, for those that make a distinction of days, separate, as it were, one from another. Such a mode of partition was suitable for the Jews, that they might celebrate religiously the days that were appointed, by separating them from others. Among Christians, however, such a division has ceased. But someone will say, ‘We still keep up some observance of days.’ I answer, that we do not by any means observe days, as though there were any sacredness in holidays, or as though it were not lawful to labor upon them, but that respect is paid to government and order — not to days.” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Colossians 2:16)
The early Christians often met together for corporate worship every day (Acts 2:46), but eventually seemed to settle on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2), most likely in honor of Christ’s resurrection. I would say that that is a good pattern for us to follow today as well, even though each congregation is free to set their own rules about this.
But nowhere is the first day of the week ever described as the Sabbath in Scripture. Even after Christ’s resurrection, the seventh day of the week is still described as the Sabbath (Acts 13:13-14; 16:13; 17:2), and is explicitly described as a ceremony that we are no longer required to keep (Col. 2:16-17). Therefore, as I mentioned before, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that the external observance of the Sabbath has been “changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week.” I don’t see a shred of biblical evidence that it has.
rfwhite said,
February 19, 2012 at 5:47 pm
RGM: Perhaps it would help to acknowledge that I don’t know anyone affirming Sunday as the Christian Sabbath who would disagree with your assertion about who bears the burden of proof for the change of day.
Richard Tallach said,
February 19, 2012 at 7:41 pm
RGM: The seventh day of the week is called “My holy day; the holy of the LORD” in Isaiah 58:13, and the first day of the week is called “the Lord’s Day” in Revelation 1:10.
RGM said,
February 20, 2012 at 3:14 am
Where does Revelation 1:10 say that “the Lord’s Day” is the first day of the week? It doesn’t, plain and simple. You’re simply reading that into the text.
But even if, for the sake of argument, you could demonstrate that “the Lord’s Day” was the first day of the week, it would only prove that God calls the seventh day Sabbath “My holy day” and the first day on which Christ was raised from the dead “the Lord’s Day.” It certainly doesn’t prove that the two days are equated with one another. Scripture explicitly teaches that the seventh day Sabbath is distinct from the first day of the week:
“Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.” (Matthew 28:1)
“Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.” (Mark 16:1-2)
“And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.” (Luke 23:56-24:1)
As I’ve stated several times now, there’s not a shred of biblical evidence that the first day of the week miraculously became “the Sabbath” after Christ’s resurrection. Indeed, the above verses flatly contradict such a notion, as the seventh day of the week is still called “the Sabbath” even after Christ had risen on the first day of the week.
Richard Tallach said,
February 20, 2012 at 10:54 am
“As I’ve stated several times now, there’s not a shred of biblical evidence that the first day of the week miraculously became “the Sabbath” after Christ’s resurrection. Indeed, the above verses flatly contradict such a notion, as the seventh day of the week is still called “the Sabbath” even after Christ had risen on the first day of the week.”
Well this is the transistional period before Christ had established the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath and Lord’s Day. He’d only just risen from the dead, and his disciples were not even aware of it.
The first day of the week became the first day of Christ’s New Creation, just as the seventh day of the week is the first day of God’s Old Creation. The first day of the week became the first day of our redemption from sin, just as the seventh day of the week is the first day of Israel’s redemption from Egypt.
If you don’t believe that the day was changed by Christ and the Apostles, do you believe Christian’s should celebrate the Christian Sabbath and Lord’s Day on the seventh day of the week?
RGM said,
February 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm
That’s a bare assertion, not biblical evidence. Where does Scripture either explicitly state or necessarily imply that Christ “established the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath”? If you can’t demonstrate that from Scripture, then on what basis do you expect me to believe what you’re saying? Seriously, what happened to Sola Scriptura here?
I’ve quoted both Scripture and John Calvin stating that the external observance of a weekly Sabbath has been “abolished” under the New Covenant…
“For he who understands that the main object of the precept was not external rest or earthly worship, immediately perceives, by looking on Christ, that the external rite was abolished by his coming; for when the body appears, the shadows immediately vanish away. Then our first business always is, to teach that Christ is the end of the Law.” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Hebrews 4:10)
So why would you ask me if I “believe Christian’s should celebrate the Christian Sabbath and Lord’s Day on the seventh day of the week”? Have you not been reading what I’ve written?
Richard Tallach said,
February 20, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Because there is a commandment to observe the Sabbath, and because the Sabbath was made for man, and we are men.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 21, 2012 at 12:37 am
RGM, does Calvin’s commentary on Gen 2.3 modify your argument in any way?
RGM said,
February 21, 2012 at 5:37 am
I’ve already demonstrated from Scripture that it was a temporary commandment that has been abrogated under the New Covenant (Colossians 2:16-17), so that God’s people are now free to “consider every day alike” (Romans 14:5). So where’s your evidence from Scripture that it wasn’t abrogated, but merely changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week? I still haven’t seen any. The burden of proof is upon you here not me…
Nevertheless, since the Sabbath was a “shadow” (Colossians 2:17) that pointed to our ultimate salvation rest in Christ, we are abiding by the purpose of the Sabbath command when we place our faith in Christ. It is in Him that we find the true rest that we need (Matthew 11:28-30; Hebrews 4:1-11). The requirement for rest has been transformed to focus on Christ rather than a specific day of the week. If we have faith in Him, then we are entering God’s rest and are therefore keeping the spiritual intent of the Sabbath.
RGM said,
February 21, 2012 at 5:43 am
No, because while I agree with most of what Calvin says on the Sabbath, I don’t agree with him on every point…
Reed Here said,
February 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm
RGM: you are very welcome to comment here. However we do ask you abide by some basic rules. The paramount one being politeness towards others. Some of your responses to others here are bit condescending and a tad obnoxious. E.g., of course folks are reading what you are saying.
Please tone it down.
As well, as we do not allow anonymous posting at this blog, please identify yourself for us. Name and church membership will suffice. If you are uncomfortable posting that on line, then please send this information to us offline. You can reach me at reedhere at gmail dot com.
Thanks.
Reed DePace, moderator
Reed Here said,
February 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm
RGM; so should Christians gather for corporate worship?
Michael Cope said,
February 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm
I find it interesting that in all of the references to Hebrews 4, verse 9 has neither been mentioned nor exegeted. Allow me: (modified from Dr. Pipa’s book “The Lord’s Day”, which I highly recommend on this topic).
Hebrews 4:9 reads “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,”
The word used for Sabbath in the original manuscripts here is the noun ‘sabbatismos’. It is a unique word that is used only this one time in all of scripture. The verb form ‘sabbatizo’ is however used several times throughout the old testament (in the Septuagint) to refer to the activity of sabbath keeping (Ex. 16:30). The idea of sabbath keeping is involved every time this verb is used (Lev. 26:34-35; 2 Chr. 36:21) whether it refer to the sabbath rest of the land or the sabbath rest of the people.
Throughout the rest of Hebrews 3 and 4, however, the more general term for rest, ‘katapausis’ is used to depict God’s rest, our eternal rest, and other typical forms of rest that are expressed in sabbath keeping. This begs the question then “Why does the writer of Hebrews use this unique word ‘sabbatismos’ only in verse 9?”. If all that the writer wanted to convey was the idea that the spiritual, eternal rest promised by God has yet to be fulfilled, and that the promise of eternal rest still remains but will be fully realized only when one enters the eternal rest of glory, then he could have continued to use the word ‘katapausis’. In fact, he does use ‘katapausis’ in verse 11, “Let us therefore try to enter that rest (katapusis)”, to refer to that very thing.
The uniqueness of the word then suggests a deliberate and theological purpose and intention by the author. He uses ‘sabbatismos’ because, in addition to referring to spiritual rest that is found only in Christ and fully realized only in eternity, it also suggests an observance of that rest by a ‘sabbatismos’ (a sabbath keeping). Because the promised rest still lies ahead for the New Covenant people, they are to strive to enter that future rest, Yet, as they do, they anticipate it by continuing to keep the Sabbath.
A.W. Pink concludes:
“Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God. ‘There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping.’ Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity of Judaism; written to those addressed as ‘holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.’ Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Hebrews 4:9 refers directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament Scriptures.”
Michael Cope said,
February 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm
“As well, as we do not allow anonymous posting at this blog, please identify yourself for us. Name and church membership will suffice.”
To comply with these rules: Michael Cope, Immanuel Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Reed Here said,
February 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Thank you Michael. Now add Heb 10:24-25 to the context here, and ya got yerself a winner!
Todd said,
February 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Reed, Michael,
I don’t think Hebrews 4 is s slam dunk for the Christian Sabbath. The context of Hebrews 4 is heaven as the fulfillment of the Land promise, which we become citizens of by faith now. One could argue the passage is actually turning us away from any earthly observance, rite, land, etc… Calvin actually argues this way:
“But I doubt not but that the Apostle designedly alluded to the Sabbath in order to reclaim the Jews from its external observances; for in no other way could its abrogation be understood, except by the knowledge of its spiritual design. He then treats of two things together; for by extolling the excellency of grace, he stimulates us to receive it by faith, and in the meantime he shows us in passing what is the true design of the Sabbath, lest the Jews should be foolishly attached to the outward rite. Of its abrogation indeed he does expressly speak, for this is not his subject, but by teaching them that the rite had a reference to something else, he gradually withdraws them from their superstitious notions. For he who understands that the main object of the precept was not external rest or earthly worship, immediately perceives, by looking on Christ, that the external rite was abolished by his coming; for when the body appears, the shadows immediately vanish away. Then our first business always is, to teach that Christ is the end of the Law.”
(Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 4)
Reed Here said,
February 21, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Todd: o.k. Hebrews4, apart from its context in the book of Hebrews is not a slam dunk. (Frankly, I tend to be more cautious than this. If I demand a slam dunk before I humble myself before what appears to be God’s will, I’m in trouble.)
Yet connect the whole context, i.e., the whole book. Surely Heb 10:24-25 then carries the weight of a command that we keep “a” sabbath. In context this sabbath must be one day in seven (since the exemplar referent is the Mosaic sabbath).
So let’s quibble over when during the week the sabbath MUST take place. Let us not quibble over the fact that it is a command.
Todd said,
February 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Reed
Yes, gathering together is a command – no quibble there- I just don’t see Heb 4 or 10 as an argument for a Christian Sabbath day.
Richard Tallach said,
February 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Richard Gaffin’s “Calvin and the Sabbath” (CFP) shows how little Calvin took into account that the weekly Sabbath was a type of Heavenly Eschatalogical Rest from the beginning of the world.
To the extent that a layer of Mosaic typology was also added to it at the time of the Exodus, that has fallen away/been transfigured by Christ.
Believing Man, including Adam before the Fall, always rested by faith daily in His God. But on the Seventh Day of the Week, even before the Fall, he was invited to enjoy a foretaste of his Heavenly Eschatalogical Rest from the probation and creation mandate, which his God and Father had already entered on the Seventh Day.
This is all brought to a new level in Christ of course, in whom we rest by faith, but who invites and commands us to enjoy with Him, a foretaste of the Heavenly Eschatalogical Rest He has already entered on the First Day of the week, in anticipation.
Richard Tallach, Knox Free Church, Perth, Scotland.
Reed Here said,
February 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm
RGM: your use of Calvin regarding Col 2:16 is inaccurate. Calvin is referring to the practice of festival-days. In the Mosaic economy these were the days set aside for worship in addition to the Sabbath. Calvin, being consistent with Calvin elsewhere, is using this to deny the Medieval Church practices regarding “holy-days,” days of worship required to secure right standing with God.
Here Calvin, in other words, does not support your position.
I can agree there remains no command to keep the Sabbath, unto justification. There yet, however, remains a command to keep the Sabbath in consequence of sanctification.
Reed Here said,
February 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Todd, in context Hebrews is talking about the Mosaic sabbath, no? If so, why then would we not follow his parallel? If his exemplar is the Mosaic sabbath, why would we conclude that when he tells us not to forsake our assembly, he means “on unspecified times, at an unspecified frequency”? Consistency with the context requires us to understand Heb 10:25 to be discussing the practice of regular assembly on the Christian sabbath.
Todd said,
February 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Reed,
Which Hebrews passage are you referring to in your first question in #36?
Todd said,
February 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Reed,
As to your response to RGM, I don’t think Calvin makes the distinction you are claiming, but you’d have to look elsewhere for his view on the Sabbath. But where do you get from Heb 10 that the Mosaic Sabbath is the parallel? The parallel in vv. 1-10 is the OT sacrifices, not the weekly Sabbath. That’s why I asked if I had the right verse. Calvin saw NT worship as necessary and commanded, but not necessarily on Sunday, but as the church calls.
“To sum up: as truth was delivered to the Jews under a figure, so is it set before us without shadows. First, we are to meditate throughout life upon an everlasting Sabbath rest from all our works, that the Lord may work in us through his Spirit. Secondly, each one of us privately, whenever he has leisure, is to exercise himself diligently in pious meditation upon God’s works. Also, we should all observe together the lawful order set by the church for the hearing of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and for public prayers. In the third place, we should not inhumanly oppress those subject to us” (Institutes: II.8.34).
Michael Cope said,
February 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Todd: Respectfully I must say that responding with Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 4:10 doesn’t answer the question posed in reference to Hebrews 4:9. Why did the writer of Hebrews use a different word ‘sabbatismos’, instead of the already used ‘katapausis’ if not to convey the idea of maintaining a Sabbath rest for the people of God under the New Covenant?
If we believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture then we believe that God wants us to understand that this word has a meaning that is not foreign to its context.
Furthermore, it is scripture, not Calvin, that must be our guide in determining these matters. Can you demonstrate from scripture that Hebrews 4:9 does not refer to a Christian Sabbath?
Jeff Cagle said,
February 21, 2012 at 9:58 pm
RGM (#25):
I can appreciate disagreeing with Calvin here or there.
Still and all, what I had in mind was this: in Gen 2.3, Calvin talks in terms of a familiar framework: The OT law had a general equity and shadowy particulars. The general equity (“moral law”) abides, while the shadows (“civil and ceremonial laws”) are abolished.
IF we accept this framework — and it certainly makes sense with the other nine commands of the decalogue — then this shifts the burden of proof a bit.
One must ask the question, Why is it that the 4th commandment is entirely abolished? Was there no general equity contained within it?
Todd said,
February 21, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Michael,
Greetings. I quoted Calvin in response to # 35. As for the word choice, yes, the reference is to the weekly Sabbath there, but the question is how that is fulfilled in the passage. The OT 7th day Sabbath was a day of rest, a shadow, and now we find our eternal rest through faith in Christ. To me, it doesn’t follow for the author to argue that Sunday observance of the Sabbath day is the fulfillment of the OT rest when heaven is the anti-type of rest throughout the passage(4:1, 8&9). The Sabbath day of v. 9 would also then serve as a metaphor of the true spiritual rest, just like the conquest of Canaan was a metaphor for spiritual rest. It would be odd for the author to use rest throughout the passage to refer to heaven and end up with the point about weekly sabbath-keeping. Sabbatismos’, and ‘katapausis’ are used interchangeably for rest in vv. 9&10, both meaning heaven, which is already entered through faith.
I like how William Lane translates Hebrews 4:9 as: “There remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God.” Lane suggests the author uses Sabbath rest to “define more precisely the character of the future rest promised to the people of God” It conveyed “the special aspect of festivity and joy, expressed in the adoration and praise of God” for his wonderful grace” (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 47, Hebrews, page 101, 102).
RGM said,
February 22, 2012 at 4:52 am
Ok, fine. But, if that’s the case, then why hasn’t anyone unloaded themselves of that burden and offered up any proof yet? I still haven’t seen even a shred of biblical evidence that the Sabbath has been “changed” from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week? The closest anyone has gotten has been the reference to “sabbatismos” in Hebrews 4:9, which doesn’t even address the issue.
First, Hebrews 4:9 says nothing about the Sabbath day being “changed,” which is why it’s used by the Seventh Day Adventists in an attempt to “prove” that seventh day Sabbath observance is still required of Christians. Indeed, if the word “sabbatismos” means what some here are alleging it means, then that is the only thing it would prove – that we are required to rest from all of our work and entertainment on the seventh day of the week, since that’s the only weekly “Sabbath” day ever identified in Scripture.
Second, it can’t even bear that meaning (which is why the Seventh Day Adventists are wrong), since such an interpretation flatly contradicts other clear passages of Scripture that explicitly teach that observing a specific Sabbath day is no longer necessary (Colossians 2:16-17), and that Christians are free to “consider every day alike” (Romans 14:5; cf. Galatians 4:9-11). Vine’s Greek Dictionary brings out the true meaning of “sabbatismos” (emphasis mine):
A4. SABBATISMOS (4520), a Sabbath-keeping, is used in Heb. 4:9, R.V., “a Sabbath rest,” A.V. marg., “a keeping of a Sabbath” (akin to sabbatizoµ, to keep the Sabbath, used, e.g., in Ex. 16:30, not in the N.T.); here the Sabbath-keeping is the perpetual Sabbath rest to be enjoyed uninterruptedly by believers in their fellowship with the Father and the Son, in contrast to the weekly Sabbath under the Law. Because this Sabbath rest is the rest of God Himself, 4:10, its full fruition is yet future, though believers now enter into it. In whatever way they enter into Divine rest, that which they enjoy is involved in an indissoluble relation with God.
Moreover, had the writer of Hebrews desired to emphasize a specific Sabbath “day” for sacred worship, the word sabbaton (Sabbath day) would have been used. Instead, Hebrews 4:9 describes a daily worship experience that brings us into the “perpetual Sabbath rest to be enjoyed uninterruptedly by believers in their fellowship with the Father and the Son, in contrast to the weekly Sabbath under the Law.”
But, again I ask, where’s the biblical evidence that the Sabbath has been “changed” from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week? Perhaps it would be easier to simply admit that there isn’t any biblical evidence, and that this “doctrine” is based solely upon tradition, conjecture, and invalid inferences?
Michael Cope said,
February 22, 2012 at 5:42 am
RGM: In order to prove a change of days one must first acknowledge that the sabbath is still a perpetually binding moral command and second that it is positively commanded in the NT scriptures. If you will allow me some time I will continue with an exegetical approach to show you that the change of day is in fact scriptural by looking not only to the NT passages about the ‘Lord’s day’ but also the significance of the ‘eighth day’ in the OT feasts and worship. I will attempt to respond later in the day.
Blessings,
Michael
RGM said,
February 22, 2012 at 6:52 am
I agree with the “general equity and shadowy figures” framework to a degree. But that’s a far cry from inferring that the Sabbath ordinance is a perpetual command that has been transferred from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. That’s simply not a valid inference. In other words, it doesn’t necessarily follow from the “general equity” of the Sabbath command.
Moreover, nowhere does Scripture state that such a “change” was made, which is unfathomable if the so-called first day Sabbath is such an integral command that Christians need to obey today.
Second, Paul could not have said that we are free to “consider every day alike” (Romans 14:5) if the Sabbath observance had merely been transferred from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. If that were the case, then we would most certainly not be free to “consider every day alike.”
Third, Paul could not have wrote that we are not to let anyone judge us “with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2:16) if the Sabbath command were still in effect, and the day had simply been transferred from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. If that were the case, then it would in fact be wrong not to judge those who fail to observe the first day Sabbath.
Therefore, I would say that the “general equity” of the Sabbath command is upheld when the church follows the New Covenant practice of coming together for corporate worship on a regular basis (Hebrews 10:24-25), with “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2) being the most obvious example, in honor of Christ’s resurrection. But even this I don’t see as being a hard and fast rule. Nowhere is the first day of the week commanded to be the day of regular worship, and Scripture explicitly states that we are free to “consider every day alike” (Romans 14:5) under the New Covenant.
RGM said,
February 22, 2012 at 7:15 am
Hi Michael,
I’ll be looking forward to your post. But don’t you think it’s a little strange that such an important change as the Sabbath day is so difficult to see in Scripture? Wouldn’t such a monumental alteration of God’s commandment be fairly straightforward and easy to see (such as with circumcision) if it had indeed happened? Why does it have to be “divined” from God’s word, so to speak? And why do other verses clearly state that special religious “days” have ceased under the New Covenant, specifically mentioning the abrogation of the “Sabbath day”? I’m just saying…
Blessings,
Roger
Michael Cope said,
February 22, 2012 at 7:48 am
Roger: Briefly I would like to answer just one of your assertions.
You appeal to the complexity of the doctrine to assert that it doesn’t carry any weight but I would like to point out that the doctrine of the trinity, which is dogmatic to say the least, is complex and not clearly defined in scripture as well. In fact it took approximately 400 years of councils and debates to formulate what we we now have as the doctrine of the trinity. May I ask, would you argue against it in the same manner? I would like to think not. Therefore why then do you see difficulty in adhering to a position that is not only scriptural (more on that in my later post) but also is the historic position of the church since the turn of the first century? It is interesting to note that the reformers defended, fervently, the perpetuity of the sabbath instead of finding a more ‘spiritual’ application of it. I raise this issue to simply ask you to be humble in your approach to what many reformed would consider a vital issue and prayerfully consider what God intends for us to believe and do concerning it. Until later
Blessings,
Michael
rfwhite said,
February 22, 2012 at 12:09 pm
43 Roger Mann:
In response to my acknowledgement of who carries the burden of proof on the matter of the change of day, you said, Ok, fine. But, if that’s the case, then why hasn’t anyone unloaded themselves of that burden and offered up any proof yet?
I’ll only answer for myself: the reason why is simply that, in my view, it has already been done in other places by other people.
Reed Here said,
February 22, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Roger: enough with the argumentative tone. I’ve pulled your comment.
Reed Here said,
February 22, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Todd: the context is not specifically the preceding verses, but the whole argument the writer is making beginning in chapter 3. From that point on the whole comparison is between the ministry under Moses and the ministry under Jesus.
Reed Here said,
February 22, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Col 2:16-17: in context is not clear that Paul is denying the perpetuity of the 4th Commandment. That, to be sure, is one option (call it no. 1). Another option (no.2) is that Paul is denying the worship requirements under the Mosaic ministry, without therefore denying the keeping of a sabbath.
Given that:
a) the context describes food, drink, festivals, and new moon celebrations, all of which are specific to the Mosaic system of worship, and
b) other NT passages maintain the perpetuity of the Moral Law (the 10C; Rom. 3:31; 7:25; 13:8-10; I Cor. 9:21; Gal. 5:14; Eph. 6:2-3; I John 2:3-4, 7; Rom. 3:20; 7:7-8 and I John 3:4 with Rom. 6:15),
Using the Bible’s own hermeneutical principle (Scripture interprets Scripture), I believe the passage is teaching option no. 2.
Todd said,
February 22, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Reed,
In # 49 it looks like you are arguing for a continuing Sabbath because the “rest” of Heb 4:9 is the fulfillment of the Mosaic system of Sabbath worship and rest, thus the ministry under Moses, but in # 50 it looks like you are arguing the opposite, that the weekly Sabbath does not belong to the Mosaic economy, thus cannot be included in Paul’s statement on holy days in Col 2. Can you clarify?
RGM said,
February 22, 2012 at 2:37 pm
No, but that’s because the doctrine of the Trinity has plenty of Scriptural support and is a necessary implication of the many verses which teach that there is only one God, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So I honestly don’t see a parallel between the two issues. The Sabbath supposedly being changed to the first day of the week simply doesn’t have the same sort of Scriptural or logical support.
Luther certainly wasn’t one of the Reformers who defended this fervently:
“Secondly, and most especially, that on such day of rest (since we can get no other opportunity) freedom and time be taken to attend divine service, so that we come together to hear and treat of God’s and then to praise God, to sing and pray. However, this, I say, is not so restricted to any time, as with the Jews, that it must be just on this or that day; for in itself no one day is better than another; but this should indeed be done daily; however, since the masses cannot give such attendance, there must be at least one day in the week set apart. But since from of old Sunday [the Lord's Day] has been appointed for this purpose [i.e., as a matter of church tradition], we also should continue the same, in order that everything be done in harmonious order, and no one create disorder by unnecessary innovation.” (Large Catechism)
Nor did the early Lutherans:
“For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord’s Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord’s Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.” (Augsburg Confession, 1530)
Anyway, I’ll wait to read your entire argument before passing judgment.
RGM said,
February 22, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Reed, you falsely accuse me of being “condescending and a tad obnoxious,” and then you pull my response, which was perfectly reasonable. And now you say that I’m the one with an “argumentative tone”? Fine, this will be my last post here…
Michael Cope said,
February 22, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Roger: As I am still working on my response I will keep this brief as well.
Firstly, you said, “I honestly don’t see a parallel between the two issues. (trinity and sabbath)” The parallel is simply this: that both doctrines formulations are not derived from only explicit passages of scripture but are the consequence of necessary inference. (Even though in my mind Heb. 4:9 makes a pretty explicit case!)
Secondly, you assert that “because the doctrine of the Trinity has plenty of Scriptural support and is a necessary implication of the many verses” and “The Sabbath supposedly being changed to the first day of the week simply doesn’t have the same sort of Scriptural or logical support.” that it cannot be true. Let me ask you: How many verses are required to form a doctrine? Three? Five? Twenty? At the very least, you have been shown numerous passages of scripture that affirm the perpetuity of the sabbath (albeit with a change of days). At what point do you draw the line to say this is enough “proof” and this is not? This is only food for thought and I will look forward to dialoguing more after I post my response to my previous post.
In light of your final comment I would like to extend the offer to continue this conversation elsewhere if you feel the need to refrain from posting so as to avoid any sinful interactions. You can contact me by email at: michael.cope2@gmail.com if you are interested. Blessings, Brother.
Michael
Roy said,
February 22, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Roger (RGM) made a number of assertions. One of them (in #s 12,14,24 and assumed in a number of other posts) was that Col 2 proves the 4th C is no longer binding. Reed responded in #s 35, 50. Reed’s response, while correct and not getting any interaction from Roger, was pretty packed and cryptic. Below I fill in some of the details.
I intend to utterly remove any debate about using Col 2 against the continuation of the 4th C. Perhaps one can show from some other passages the 4th C no longer applies (one cannot). But one cannot use Col 2.
First: context. Trace from ch 2:2ff. What concept does the text repeatedly stress, so much so that even without this iteration of the theme, the point stands out? Note citations of “in whom”, “in him”, “in Christ”, “with Christ”. Sure, Union with Christ (= salvation). If one has this relation, then there exists no need for the world’s philosophy (v8). The sacraments of the church portray that union (OT circumcision, v11, NT baptism v12, noting in an aside that Paul uses these as interchangeable in content contra the antipaedobaptist).
That union means sin can no longer condemn us v13-15, that we have every reason to reject approaches that would proclaim salvation by works v 16-17, which apparently some were doing in the Colossian church (don’t eat this, don’t do that, do this, and you’ll get right with God).
Obviously God did not intend us to think denying salvation by works meant we should ignore, say, “Thou shalt not steal”. Simply because some might misuse that command by saying those who don’t steal go to heaven does not invalidate the 8th C. Just as obviously the flow in Col 2 does not invalidate the 4th C, but the possible misuse of it.
Putting “First” a little differently: only what Christ did can make us right with God. No works can. So OT Sabbath keeping, which one must agree God commanded, could not. But OT believers could not then ignore the Sabbath on the basis that it did not save. In the same manner, whatever Col 2:16 ref’s as something one may ignore because it does not save, that something is not the 4th C.
Second: whatever v16′s reference to “sabbath day” means, it must in some clear fashion foreshadow what “in Christ” means in Col 2, namely salvation based upon the finished work of Christ and not on any effort of our own.(Heb 8:5 gives a parallel reference to “shadow”, telling us that the tabernacle was a hint of what would come. “Foreshadow” gives the idea in both Heb 8 or Col 2.) Thus anyone who wishes to apply Col 2:16 contra the 4th C *must* demonstrate how the 4th C foreshadows the redemptive work of Christ. I do not know of any who make that connection. Further, I assert as reasonably obvious that the 4th C clearly does not foreshadow the redemptive work of Christ. (Briefly: 1) it pictures heaven, the eternal rest, 2) gives a covenant sign in space and time of God’s invitation to join Him forever, and 3) declares His promise of that coming reality.)
Well, what fits as a foreshadow? Essentially what one finds is that v16′strilogy “sabbath, feast day, new moon” became a sort of label for the Old Testament feast days. That summarizes the homework. Here is the homework: Lev 23 tells us that God commanded a number of feasts, some of these in association with the weekly sabbaths. Nu 28, esp v9-10, 26ff reiterate some of this. II Chr 2:4 cites “sabbaths, new moons, feasts” as does 8:13. These
occassions, while sometimes occuring on the sabbath, did not equal or mean the same thing as the sabbath. Indeed, one can easily recognize much of their “trappings” as foreshadows of Christ’s redemptive work; they clearly involved the sacrificial system. Neh 10:33 uses the trio in this sense as does Is 1:13-14, Lam 2:6, Ez 45:17, 46:3 and Ho 2:11.
Third: note how very well this understanding fits the argument of Col 2. Some people said “Christ plus something.” Col 2 says repeatedly, “Christ alone.” When one gets to v16ff we have a specific “plus something” listed: the Old Testament sacramental/ceremonial feasts. Col says, “Nope. Not only do those not save, they as a matter of fact pointed to that which does save. Don’t let anyone impose them on you.”
If this were mathematics, I would write QED: I demonstrated that Col 2:16 does not refer to the present validity of the 4th C. But since it is not math, I will simply recommend that no reader misuse that reference as somehow contrary to the present validity of the 4th C. That question must find resolution elsewhere.
member Christ PCA, Tulsa
Bob S said,
February 22, 2012 at 11:24 pm
45 Roger
My answer to yours would be the same as that to 7th Day Adventists.
If the example of Christ and the apostles isn’t good enough for you, then nothing is good enough. At least that was what the Westminster divines thought, when it came to the synagogue and the change of the day. All we have is an example, not the command for the particular practice or institution.
Two, there are sabbaths and there are sabbaths and we are after all talking about the moral law with the 4th commandment.
cheers
Cris D. said,
February 23, 2012 at 9:54 am
>> In the OT, the weekly Sabbath telescopes into the seventh year Sabbath for the land, which in turn telescopes into the Jubilee, a pattern of seven times seven. The last implied link is eternity. In the NT, the beginning of this eternity has erupted into time with the beginning of the Sabbath rest obtained for us by Jesus. In the NT, there are elements of “already” and “not yet” with regard to the Sabbath, just as in the OT. <<
Just saw this line jump out at me. The telescoping works backwards now that Christ has come in the flesh. Eternity has broken through (anew) in a decisive way, and are we working the time- measurement telescoped elements backward? Eternity entered time in the incarnation, first parousia. The Christ proclaimed the Jubilee, the acceptable Year of the Lord (Luke 4:16-22)! Next on the time line is the Day of the Lord.
Reed Here said,
February 23, 2012 at 11:02 am
Roger: thanks for your input.
Reed Here said,
February 23, 2012 at 11:07 am
Todd: not sure where the disparity is coming from.
The point of Hebrews is about the continuing application of the 4th commandment; there still is a day each week in which God’s people are called together to worship.
The point from Col is that Paul is not abrogating the application of the 4th commandment. Instead, he is abrogating the application of the 4th commandment according to the terms of the Mosaic economy. Yes, there still is a sabbath day in which the NT children of God weekly enjoy a taste of the eternal rest which is pictured (the argument from Hebrews). No, that sabbath day is not to be practiced according the pattern of the OT economy (the argument of Colossians).
These are complementary, no?
Reed Here said,
February 23, 2012 at 11:16 am
Roy, no.55: cryptic, hmmm … and I thought I was just being simple. :) I’m at least glad you didn’t find me esoteric.
To sum your point, would this be fair?
Col 2:16-17 cannot be used to support the ongoing application of the 4th commandment,
AND,
Neither can it be used to support the cessation of the application of the 4th commandment.
If I’ve understood you rightly, yep, that’s what I was trying to say in too few words. (Can’t wait to tell some of my folks in church; I didn’t use enough words :). They’re gonna love it, after they believe it.)
Todd said,
February 23, 2012 at 11:26 am
Reed,
Your ideas are complimentary when you phrase them like that. I just do not see them in the texts. Do you think that the Col. Christians, mostly Gentiles, would have understood such distinctions, that when Paul wrote that no day is holy anymore, that he was excluding the weekly Sabbath in it’s new covenant form because the Sabbath was part of God’s moral Law and now moved to Sundays? How would they come to such conclusions? In a similar vein, how did Adam know one day of every seven should not be for work? Would he know by special or general revelation?
Thanks
Roy said,
February 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Reed #60: You’ve understood. Col 2 does not speak to the issue of the continuing nature of the 4th C. Period.
I have a longer term goal in removing an appeal to Col 2 from debate. If folks opposing the 4th C see how they’ve been swindled by a false understanding of Col 2, perhaps they will wonder about the rest of their paradigm. Or maybe they will enter a discussion with more evidence of humility and willingness to think about the interchange of ideas.
Not a shred of evidence for a day change? Lane’s essay opening this discussion tells not that the day did change, but that it simply had to change. And not to any day, but to first day. Now that’s, to borrow a word, esoteric. The 4thC, the Sabbath, remains a sign of the covenant, sealing God’s invitation to fellowship with him forever. But it has new characteristics reflecting progress in redemptive history.
How can one not get filled with joy and excited with the outworking implications? I identify with Chris #57′s comment “this line jump(ed) out at me”.
ps: Glad to be of service regarding your having an opportunity to tell folks you didn’t use enough words :^D
Roy said,
February 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Todd #61:Yes, I do think the Gentile Col Christians would have understood the distinction between the 4th C and ceremonial feast days from the OT system.
That’s because Col 2 does not address the 4thC. But it does address the problem of folks telling the Col congregation that, while Jesus is great, they needed Jesus plus something else, namely works. One specific example of which was the feasts of the OT system. Paul says, “Nope. And, BTW, those feasts were a shadow pointing to Christ.” The implication is that now that the reality has come, the feast shadows are no longer appropriate.
Short version of my #55.
Reed Here said,
February 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Todd: Roy …
Roy said,
February 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Have just re-read Lane’s starting essay and all the subsequent posts. Lot of excellent thinking, including by some who have not yet connected dots. Humbled by the interchange of ideas. And, most of all, humbled by God’s invitation of the Sabbath.
In that latter vein, brief comment. Most of us have sung the song taken from Ps 118: “This is the day…let us rejoice and be glad in it.” I hope those who know it have the tune resonating in their mind. OK. What day is it that the psalmist has in mind? What day excites him, fills him with praise, joy, delight?
It bothers me that in multiple congregations nearly no folks I’ve met singing that song had pondered that question. It frosts, errr, saddens me that so many pastors don’t insist on teaching folks what they are actually singing. I hope that this is recondite rather than esoteric will motivate teaching.
Ps 118 is just another one of those 150 messianic psalms. Skimming it, even the uninitiate easily recognize the subject and development of his story. It tells of the Messiah’s anguish, of the assaults on him, of his certainty of victory, of the hint of his defeating death. What the psalmist could at best only vaguely perceive, we now see clearly. v24, the words of the song, speak of Resurrection Day! Of course v23 described this as “wonderful in our eyes” ( wonderful rather than marvelous since the word’s root is pe lamed aleph, same as Isaiah 9:6′s “wonderful” and not merely neat-o-jet magical, but tying to God invading space and time on behalf of his people to accomplish their redemption, cf Moses, whom God tells he will execute wonders upon Egypt in order to deliver Israel). Jesus himself is wonder, wonderful in his accomplishing of a wonder!
That beautiful song we sing praises God because of Resurrection Day, that First Day, that Eschatological Day. Not just any old day of a weekly pattern (ponder, btw, why a seven day week around the world), but first day. (Oh, the ironies of the folks singing that psalm when they have no regard at all for the 4th C.)
Richard Tallach said,
February 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm
See Walter Chantry’s “Call the Sabbath a Delight” for his exegesis of Hebrews 3 and 4:
There remains therefore the keeping of a Sabbath unto the (New Testament) people of God. For He that is entered into His rest, He also has ceased from His own works, as God did from His. (Hebrews 4:9-10)
rfwhite said,
February 24, 2012 at 4:30 pm
65 Roy: what you say here reminds me that we fail fully to appreciate Christ’s resurrection and ascension if we do not recognize that in these events he entered into his rest from his redemptive work. To honor Christ’s resurrection and ascension by congregating on the first day is sabbatical in character at least insofar as we, the kingdom of priests, are testifying to the sabbath rest into which our great royal high priest has entered.
rfwhite said,
February 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm
65 Roy: one other thing … when you mentioned our regard/disregard of the 4th command, I couldn’t help thinking how God set his beatitude on the 7th day because on it he ceased all the work he had been doing in creation. Do we not honor the first day as his resurrection and ascenscion day, as the day Jesus ceased all the work he had been doing in redemption? Are we, then, by gathering on the first day, confessing that God set his beatitude on that day in Christ?
Reed Here said,
February 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Todd: a bit more. Do I think the Gentile Christians would have understood the Jewish (Mosaic) references that I think Paul was making? Ignoring the question of make up of audience, well, I’m not Jewish and I can understand them. ;)
More, what “new moon” celebration would the Gentile Christians think Paul was referring to? Something from their pagan background?
More (going to Roy here), why was Paul writing about anything Jewish (Mosaic) to Gentiles in the first place? Maybe because some Judaizers (a known condition) were trying to impose Mosaic obligations on top of their Christian faith? Surely this is the best read of the text.
Now, acknowledging you’re questioning the detail to which they were understanding what Paul meant with reference to sabbath practices:
> Paul did not limit himself to speaking only about sabbath practices.
>He specifically referenced what we might term “advanced” Mosaic worship practices (new moons, festivals).
> In other words, in context, he is already talking beyond mere sabbath keeping.
Rightly interpreting this text means to answer the question, what do all three Mosaic worship practices have in common, relevant to the point Paul is making? Mere sabbath keeping IS NOT the common denominator (back to Roy for details).
This, plus the fact that Scripture interprets Scripture, makes it clear to us and the Colossian Christians (Gentile or otherwise) that Paul was not abrogating the 4th Commandment. He was making a different point (i.e., no requirement to maintain Mosaic sabbath practices.)
Sincerely Todd, I’m a bit surprised at what seems like an anachronistic challenge from you. You’re not just playing devil’s advocate, are you?
Roy said,
February 24, 2012 at 9:02 pm
rfwhite #s 67,68: All these (excellent, yea, wonderful) connections, don’t ya know, are not explicit in the text. While I’m totally persuaded they are clear, boldly on the surface, I’m also aware that others may not easily see them. A biblical theological/redemptive historical approach is not translucent.
On the one hand the struggle over those connections remind me of what someone noted earlier, namely the church taking a while to wrap its collective mind around what it understood and believed regarding the Trinity and then put that into common language. On the other hand, the struggle reminds me of the debate between credobaptists and covenant theology.
Both reminders make me aware simultaneously of two truths: 1) the importance of the 4th C, and, specifically, the need for clear teaching regarding it; 2) my need for patience and humility when attempting explanations of what the Bible says regarding the 4th C.