I was raised a Sabbatarian. Now, that word has shades of meaning, and I was at the darkest (almost)end of the spectrum. Many people could be called Sabbatarian because they believe that in some sense the Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath. The actual implications of that concept are many. For many in the Reformed Tradition that means abstaining from any work or recreation. We were allowed to play sports and the like on Sunday, but work of all sorts was forbidden. We had friends who wouldn't even toss a ball on Sunday. Sunday, then, we believed, is a day of rest and worship, just like the Old Testament Sabbath.
My views are in a state of flux on this topic. They have changed, and are probably not at their final stage of development. I have begun to study the issue and to see the inadequacy of the explanations I was given as a child. I will give a probably confusing synopsis of the two sides as I see them.
Sabbatarians say that the Sabbath Law given in Exodus 20 (the fourth commandment) was not the beginning of the law to keep the Sabbath holy. They say it was a "creation ordinance". While it is hard to prove without a doubt that this is true, I tend to agree. Exodus 16 shows God telling the Israelites to make sure they keep the Sabbath holy, and this is before the Law was given. The wording of Exodus 2 would lead us to believe that God did ordain the Sabbath as a law from creation. Genesis 2:2-3 says, "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." It is highly possible that the Sabbatarians have this fact right.
Because it was a creation ordinance, they claim, that means that it is enduring to this day. Because it was pre-Fall, then it couldn't have anything to do with that which Jesus fulfilled. This would makes sense, in the absence of any further revelation on the matter. There is, however, such revelation in the New Testament. Hebrews 4 is a complex passage on such a topic, and a very important one on this topic. It has many interpretations. I would suggest you read the first 4 chapters of Hebrews, if not the whole book, to understand this passage. I will quote only a few verses.
Hebrews 4:8-11 says, "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience." Our author had just been talking about the Israelites failing to enter into the Promised Land (their symbolic rest), and he proceeds to warning us not to fail to enter ours. The question is, what does verse 9 means? Is this Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God a spiritual rest, or is it a rest that is physical? The word rest throughout this chapter is the simple word for rest, but in verse 9 the word is the actual word used for the specific Sabbath rest of the Israelites. Many people say, "Ha! A Sabbath rest remains!" I chose the interpretation for a while, but now two questions confront me. Firstly, why doesn't the author say, "And that rest is on Sunday because Jesus was raised on Sunday!"? He is ambiguous. Secondly, how does this intepretation mesh with the rest of the book. The book is about the superiority of the reality in Christ over the symbols of the Old Covenant. What sense would it make for the author to say, "But the sabbath remains, even though it was typological." It makes no sense. Some people say that we have yet to enter our rest because this is referring to an eschatological rest. That doesn't seem to fit with the passage. We are told to strive to enter that rest. How could we enter that rest if we merely have to wait for it? Also, my views on the end times being in flux as well, I'm starting to believe that in some way we have entered into the rest in the here and now. Jesus said that eternal life is knowing the Father and His Son. That seems to tell me our rest is spiritual. Why would he use sabbatismos then, instead of the normal word for rest? Just like the rest of the passage, our author is show how the Old Testament is being fulfilled in our realities. We have spiritual rest because Christ died for our sins. We can rest from our works, just as God did. Using the word for Sabbath rest is a perfect way to say, "See! You had a symbol of that under the Old Covenant, but now you have the reality!"
A question that must be answered is, "Where are we told in any way near explicity that the day has changed from Saturday to Sunday?" We aren't. In the absence of passages decrying the Old Testament sabbath, we might be able to make that assumption based on the facts of Christ's Resurrection and New Creation. However, the New Testament does abrogate the Sabbath. That simply can't be denied. Galatians 4:9-11 states: "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain." One could say, I guess, that the Sabbath day is not mentioned. Well, it definitely is a day, but I guess something more substantial could be required. Colossians 2:16-17 says, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Certainly the Sabbath is a Sabbath, right? It's hard to deny.
Once again, the Sabbatarians will say that the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, and therefore, was not symbolic of Christ's coming. The Sabbath was present before sin, so it wasn't part of the Redemption symbolic, ceremonial system. Here's my problem with that. Firstly, Hebrews specifically references the Creation as being symbolized by our spiritual rest. Secondly, Christ came not just to wipe out sin, but to fuflill the personage of Adam, who failed to enter that rest. We have entered that rest in Christ. That rest has been (is being) fulfilled.
I am no longer satisfied with the implicit command from the observance of the Lord's Day to prove that Sunday is the Sabbath. I believe in The Lord's Day. It is not, however, the Sabbath. The Sabbath pictured rest, which we have entered. The Lord's Day pictures triumph and celebration because we have received the reality that Israel was awaiting. I do believe the Lord's Day is the fulfilled Sabbath. As such, I think it should be observed by worshipping God, and resting, preferably. However, I have no Scriptural basis to require other Christians to observe it in the same way. Apostolic example is enough for me, but it may not be enough for others. There is no explicit command, and Paul does tell us not to think that days are actually holier than other days. We must celebrate Jesus all the time. If we choose to celebrate that every Sunday, so be it. The Apostles did, too. But we must not judge on the matter. It could be compared to Christmas, if Jesus actually were born on December 25th. Choosing to commemorate Jesus's work on the day that He rose is a great idea. The Apostles were wise in doing so.
Too many people keep the Sabbath on Sunday and don't really experience the Sabbath in their lives. Let's experience rest in Christ every day, and celebrate Jesus's victory as often as we can. Sunday is a perfectly good day to do so. See you at Church.
P.s. I've gone too long already. I encourage you to investigate the origins of the Sunday Sabbath tradition. It opened my eyes immensely. The Catholic Church actually claims to have changed it without Scriptural reason. Here's one link. A search of the internet could produce more. http://www.wwco.com/religion/believe/believe_39.html
My views are in a state of flux on this topic. They have changed, and are probably not at their final stage of development. I have begun to study the issue and to see the inadequacy of the explanations I was given as a child. I will give a probably confusing synopsis of the two sides as I see them.
Sabbatarians say that the Sabbath Law given in Exodus 20 (the fourth commandment) was not the beginning of the law to keep the Sabbath holy. They say it was a "creation ordinance". While it is hard to prove without a doubt that this is true, I tend to agree. Exodus 16 shows God telling the Israelites to make sure they keep the Sabbath holy, and this is before the Law was given. The wording of Exodus 2 would lead us to believe that God did ordain the Sabbath as a law from creation. Genesis 2:2-3 says, "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." It is highly possible that the Sabbatarians have this fact right.
Because it was a creation ordinance, they claim, that means that it is enduring to this day. Because it was pre-Fall, then it couldn't have anything to do with that which Jesus fulfilled. This would makes sense, in the absence of any further revelation on the matter. There is, however, such revelation in the New Testament. Hebrews 4 is a complex passage on such a topic, and a very important one on this topic. It has many interpretations. I would suggest you read the first 4 chapters of Hebrews, if not the whole book, to understand this passage. I will quote only a few verses.
Hebrews 4:8-11 says, "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience." Our author had just been talking about the Israelites failing to enter into the Promised Land (their symbolic rest), and he proceeds to warning us not to fail to enter ours. The question is, what does verse 9 means? Is this Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God a spiritual rest, or is it a rest that is physical? The word rest throughout this chapter is the simple word for rest, but in verse 9 the word is the actual word used for the specific Sabbath rest of the Israelites. Many people say, "Ha! A Sabbath rest remains!" I chose the interpretation for a while, but now two questions confront me. Firstly, why doesn't the author say, "And that rest is on Sunday because Jesus was raised on Sunday!"? He is ambiguous. Secondly, how does this intepretation mesh with the rest of the book. The book is about the superiority of the reality in Christ over the symbols of the Old Covenant. What sense would it make for the author to say, "But the sabbath remains, even though it was typological." It makes no sense. Some people say that we have yet to enter our rest because this is referring to an eschatological rest. That doesn't seem to fit with the passage. We are told to strive to enter that rest. How could we enter that rest if we merely have to wait for it? Also, my views on the end times being in flux as well, I'm starting to believe that in some way we have entered into the rest in the here and now. Jesus said that eternal life is knowing the Father and His Son. That seems to tell me our rest is spiritual. Why would he use sabbatismos then, instead of the normal word for rest? Just like the rest of the passage, our author is show how the Old Testament is being fulfilled in our realities. We have spiritual rest because Christ died for our sins. We can rest from our works, just as God did. Using the word for Sabbath rest is a perfect way to say, "See! You had a symbol of that under the Old Covenant, but now you have the reality!"
A question that must be answered is, "Where are we told in any way near explicity that the day has changed from Saturday to Sunday?" We aren't. In the absence of passages decrying the Old Testament sabbath, we might be able to make that assumption based on the facts of Christ's Resurrection and New Creation. However, the New Testament does abrogate the Sabbath. That simply can't be denied. Galatians 4:9-11 states: "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain." One could say, I guess, that the Sabbath day is not mentioned. Well, it definitely is a day, but I guess something more substantial could be required. Colossians 2:16-17 says, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Certainly the Sabbath is a Sabbath, right? It's hard to deny.
Once again, the Sabbatarians will say that the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, and therefore, was not symbolic of Christ's coming. The Sabbath was present before sin, so it wasn't part of the Redemption symbolic, ceremonial system. Here's my problem with that. Firstly, Hebrews specifically references the Creation as being symbolized by our spiritual rest. Secondly, Christ came not just to wipe out sin, but to fuflill the personage of Adam, who failed to enter that rest. We have entered that rest in Christ. That rest has been (is being) fulfilled.
I am no longer satisfied with the implicit command from the observance of the Lord's Day to prove that Sunday is the Sabbath. I believe in The Lord's Day. It is not, however, the Sabbath. The Sabbath pictured rest, which we have entered. The Lord's Day pictures triumph and celebration because we have received the reality that Israel was awaiting. I do believe the Lord's Day is the fulfilled Sabbath. As such, I think it should be observed by worshipping God, and resting, preferably. However, I have no Scriptural basis to require other Christians to observe it in the same way. Apostolic example is enough for me, but it may not be enough for others. There is no explicit command, and Paul does tell us not to think that days are actually holier than other days. We must celebrate Jesus all the time. If we choose to celebrate that every Sunday, so be it. The Apostles did, too. But we must not judge on the matter. It could be compared to Christmas, if Jesus actually were born on December 25th. Choosing to commemorate Jesus's work on the day that He rose is a great idea. The Apostles were wise in doing so.
Too many people keep the Sabbath on Sunday and don't really experience the Sabbath in their lives. Let's experience rest in Christ every day, and celebrate Jesus's victory as often as we can. Sunday is a perfectly good day to do so. See you at Church.
P.s. I've gone too long already. I encourage you to investigate the origins of the Sunday Sabbath tradition. It opened my eyes immensely. The Catholic Church actually claims to have changed it without Scriptural reason. Here's one link. A search of the internet could produce more. http://www.wwco.com/religion/believe/believe_39.html
Comments
Post a Comment