One of the most controversial subjects amongst conservative Reformed folks (all 12 of us) is whether or not the Sabbath, the Old Testament day of rest, is still for today. It is a controversial issue because it is an important issue, which is why I keep coming back around to it. I was raised as a strict Sabbatarian, which meant that on Sundays we didn't work or shop. Some were stricter than we were (some wouldn't even play sports casually in the backyard on Sundays), but they were few and far between. While I respect my Sabbatarian brethren and their commitment to applying God's Word to their lives (even when doing so is unpopular), I have come to the conviction that this is not the teaching of the Bible. As I continue to read and grow in my understanding, it seems clear to me that the Scriptures present a very different perspective on the issue.
While the things of God are often very complex, I find it helpful to simplify things, if for no other reason than to process them clearly in my own brain. Such stratification also aids the communication of one's beliefs, both for didactic and apologetic purposes. So here I would like to present three fundamental reasons why I believe that the Sabbath is not binding for New Testament Christians.
While the things of God are often very complex, I find it helpful to simplify things, if for no other reason than to process them clearly in my own brain. Such stratification also aids the communication of one's beliefs, both for didactic and apologetic purposes. So here I would like to present three fundamental reasons why I believe that the Sabbath is not binding for New Testament Christians.
1) The New Testament presents holy days, including sabbaths, as shadows of Christ. Colossians 2:16 says it succinctly: "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." There are other similar passages we could examine, but this should suffice. Upon reading the context, which is always a good thing to do, we see that Paul is telling the Colossian Christians that holy days were shadows that have passed away with the coming of the reality.
The simple question we must ask is, "Is the Sabbath a sabbath?" That is, does the New Testament include the weekly Sabbath in the group of sabbaths that is abrogated here? Too many times I have heard complicated answers to that question, those answers usually beginning with "Yes, but..." Grammatically speaking, the Sabbath is certainly a sabbath. That much is obvious. Theologically speaking, however, some maintain that the Sabbath is an exception. I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that term sabbaths includes the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a subset of sabbaths and would necessarily be abrogated if sabbaths as a whole have been abrogated.
The simple question we must ask is, "Is the Sabbath a sabbath?" That is, does the New Testament include the weekly Sabbath in the group of sabbaths that is abrogated here? Too many times I have heard complicated answers to that question, those answers usually beginning with "Yes, but..." Grammatically speaking, the Sabbath is certainly a sabbath. That much is obvious. Theologically speaking, however, some maintain that the Sabbath is an exception. I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that term sabbaths includes the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a subset of sabbaths and would necessarily be abrogated if sabbaths as a whole have been abrogated.
Why? Well, first of all, one would imagine that this would've been a perfect time for Paul to clarify that he didn't mean the weekly Sabbath. Without such a clarification, I must conclude that Paul had in mind all sabbaths. Secondly, Paul speaks categorically in this and other similar passages. When Paul dismisses holy days, he does not single out this festival or that sabbath; he abrogates the phenomenon of sacred days as a whole. The idea that a day of the week, month, or year is more sacred or special than others has been set aside. That concept was shadowy, that is, it pointed to Christ.
As evidence of this categorical form of speech, note that Paul says "a festival or a new moon or a sabbath." Here he is describing the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days, speaking as broadly as he possibly can. All holy days described in the Old Testament were shadows that were fulfilled by Christ. While being a shadow doesn't necessarily imply abrogation, the New Testament does clearly abrogate holy days.
2) Church history supports the abrogation of the Sabbath. There are too many Church fathers to quote, but, generally speaking, the church fathers, although occasionally using sabbatarian language to describe the Lord's Day, view the Sabbath as a Jewish ordinance that has been abrogated, while conversely viewing the Lord's Day as a new and unique entity.
Augustine said such things as, "Shall we observe the rest of the Sabbath, and bind ourselves in the fetters of Saturn?" and "It is plain also that Christ neither observed the Sabbath himself, nor commanded it to be observed." Ignatius said, "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day..." Other quotes could be added, but the general tenor is the same. As time progressed, more and more teachers began to attribute more of the characteristics of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day, and eventually some came to view the former as the replacement of the latter, but that was not the view of the Early Church.
Bede, in his 8th century Ecclesiastical History of the English People references the Sabbath many times, and he always views it as a Jewish day that has passed away. He continually distinguishes it from the Lord's Day.
John Calvin, whose view on the issue was pretty complicated, explained the Christian's obligation to the 4th commandment in terms much softer than many Reformed folks would like. In his Geneva Catechism he asks, "What of the [fourth] commandment then remains for us?" His response is, "Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to the spiritual polity of the Church; especially to frequent sacred assemblies, to hear the word of God, to celebrate the sacraments, and engage in the regular prayers, as enjoined." This is hardly a hard-nosed, Sabbatarian view of the Lord's Day.
The more of Church history that I read, the more I am convinced that the concept of a New Testament Sabbath is not historically founded. The modern Sabbatarian view is an aberration.
Augustine said such things as, "Shall we observe the rest of the Sabbath, and bind ourselves in the fetters of Saturn?" and "It is plain also that Christ neither observed the Sabbath himself, nor commanded it to be observed." Ignatius said, "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day..." Other quotes could be added, but the general tenor is the same. As time progressed, more and more teachers began to attribute more of the characteristics of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day, and eventually some came to view the former as the replacement of the latter, but that was not the view of the Early Church.
Bede, in his 8th century Ecclesiastical History of the English People references the Sabbath many times, and he always views it as a Jewish day that has passed away. He continually distinguishes it from the Lord's Day.
John Calvin, whose view on the issue was pretty complicated, explained the Christian's obligation to the 4th commandment in terms much softer than many Reformed folks would like. In his Geneva Catechism he asks, "What of the [fourth] commandment then remains for us?" His response is, "Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to the spiritual polity of the Church; especially to frequent sacred assemblies, to hear the word of God, to celebrate the sacraments, and engage in the regular prayers, as enjoined." This is hardly a hard-nosed, Sabbatarian view of the Lord's Day.
The more of Church history that I read, the more I am convinced that the concept of a New Testament Sabbath is not historically founded. The modern Sabbatarian view is an aberration.
3) There is no Biblical basis for observing the Sabbath on Sunday. Allow me to clarify that statement. There certainly are verses that, when strung together, could suggest the notion of the Sabbath being changed to the first day of the week, assuming one already had that idea in mind. In the absence of multiple abrogations of holy days, that might suffice, but, alas, such abrogations abound in the New Testament. What we need, then, is a) a clarification that such abrogations do not include the weekly Sabbath because it is unique among holy days; and/or b) an explicit command to observe the Sabbath day on Sunday. One can search the Scriptures for a lifetime and find no such clarification or command. The New Testament never instructs us to treat the first day of the week the same way the Jews treated the seventh day of the week, nor are we told that the character and rituals of the seventh day have been transferred to the first day.
Sabbatarians typically place the burden of proof on those who do not support their view. If one of the 10 Commandments is abrogated, they say, you need an explicit command from Scripture! I wholeheartedly agree, which is why, if I believed that the Sabbath is still for today, I would be forced to agree with my Seventh Day Adventist brethren who teach that Saturday is still the Sabbath. There is no explicit command to observe the Sabbath on the first day of the week, and something as important as the Sabbath is requires something explicit. The Old Testament places too much emphasis on the Sabbath for us to alter the day of its observance without a clear command to do so in the New Testament. We need something more concrete than a handful of allusions to the first day of the week scattered throughout the New Testament. Of course, I believe that the clear abrogation has been given multiple times in the New Testament, but Sabbatarians' presuppositions (primarily that the Sabbath is a Creation Ordinance and not a ceremonial law as the other Jewish holy days are) keep them from applying such obligations to the weekly Sabbath.
I am aware that my view is not what is considered the "historical Reformed view" by many conservative Presbyterians. It is, however, a view that has been commonly held throughout the history of the Church, even by some of the Reformers. Sabbatarians have long viewed my kind as licentious, but I am not an antinomian who is trying to break the yoke of the Law of God. If anything, I am trying to maintain its integrity. I respect the views of my Sabbatarian friends, and I simply ask for the same respect.
Sabbatarians typically place the burden of proof on those who do not support their view. If one of the 10 Commandments is abrogated, they say, you need an explicit command from Scripture! I wholeheartedly agree, which is why, if I believed that the Sabbath is still for today, I would be forced to agree with my Seventh Day Adventist brethren who teach that Saturday is still the Sabbath. There is no explicit command to observe the Sabbath on the first day of the week, and something as important as the Sabbath is requires something explicit. The Old Testament places too much emphasis on the Sabbath for us to alter the day of its observance without a clear command to do so in the New Testament. We need something more concrete than a handful of allusions to the first day of the week scattered throughout the New Testament. Of course, I believe that the clear abrogation has been given multiple times in the New Testament, but Sabbatarians' presuppositions (primarily that the Sabbath is a Creation Ordinance and not a ceremonial law as the other Jewish holy days are) keep them from applying such obligations to the weekly Sabbath.
I am aware that my view is not what is considered the "historical Reformed view" by many conservative Presbyterians. It is, however, a view that has been commonly held throughout the history of the Church, even by some of the Reformers. Sabbatarians have long viewed my kind as licentious, but I am not an antinomian who is trying to break the yoke of the Law of God. If anything, I am trying to maintain its integrity. I respect the views of my Sabbatarian friends, and I simply ask for the same respect.
Comments
Post a Comment