Thread: Questions from the 1689 Regarding the Sabbath Day

Brethren,

This is something I do keep in my thoughts and consideration, but have not subscribed to yet. Here is the Confessions statement:

Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day

7._____ As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.
( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

8._____ The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )

The first six articles I wholeheartedly agree with. I have not given my agreement (and that my elders well know) to these two articles. I am not in opposition to the statements, other than to say I cannot with clear conscience give my assent to them. Here is why...

1. That the Sabbath under the Old Covenant was binding on all men. I have not seen this in Scripture, but that His Sabbath(s) were for Israel and not the nations surrounding.

2. That the Sabbath which began from the beginning of the world was changed by Christ from His resurrection. I looked up the Scripture proofs for this confession and cannot see what they are seeing in Scripture, other than it is clear that the Christians came together, or met, for worship at the beginning of the week, but not that Christ changed the Sabbath Day. Looking at Revelation 1:10 for a day called the Lord's Day I do not see how this one verse proves that this was a changed Sabbath Day.

3. That the Sabbath Day was a memorial to works of creation, and for that reason was to be observed, because the Lord made the Day in which He rested Holy.

4. That the Law is fulfilled in Christ none deny. And so looking to Him and to the New Testament Scriptures in particular, namely Hebrews, which treats directly on the Sabbath Day, or rest of God, I am pursuaded at this point that Christ Himself is my Sabbath, or Rest, and that entereing into that rest is by faith in Christ Jesus.

These are some of my thoughts on the matter which I am seeking to grow in my knowledge and understanding in.

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I have not given my agreement (and that my elders well know) to these two articles. I am not in opposition to the statements, other than to say I cannot with clear conscience give my assent to them. Here is why...

1. That the Sabbath under the Old Covenant was binding on all men. I have not seen this in Scripture, but that His Sabbath(s) were for Israel and not the nations surrounding.

Firstly, the Decalogue is binding upon all men, for even by nature it is written on all men's hearts (Rom. 2:15). The 4th Commandment is a part of this Decalogue. Thus, it is required of all men.

Secondly, it is a Creation institution, and binding upon all men born of Adam. The Hebrew people weren't established yet.

Thirdly, Christ said, "The Sabbath was made for man." Man is not simply speaking of the Jewish people.

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

2. That the Sabbath which began from the beginning of the world was changed by Christ from His resurrection. I looked up the Scripture proofs for this confession and cannot see what they are seeing in Scripture, other than it is clear that the Christians came together, or met, for worship at the beginning of the week, but not that Christ changed the Sabbath Day. Looking at Revelation 1:10 for a day called the Lord's Day I do not see how this one verse proves that this was a changed Sabbath Day.

It's not simply this one verse, but Scriptural teaching and principle in its totality. One, the observance of the Sabbath is established as a pattern of sorts. One day in seven. That being noted, under the old order, it was the last day of the week. Under the new order, however, we see by apostolic example that it is moved to the first day of the week. And this is supported by the aforementioned principles, Rev. 1:10, and the fact that Christ Himself said, "I am Lord of the Sabbath."

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

3. That the Sabbath Day was a memorial to works of creation, and for that reason was to be observed, because the Lord made the Day in which He rested Holy.

The Sabbath Day was set apart as holy (i.e. it was to be enjoyed differently from all the other days).

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

4. That the Law is fulfilled in Christ none deny. And so looking to Him and to the New Testament Scriptures in particular, namely Hebrews, which treats directly on the Sabbath Day, or rest of God, I am pursuaded at this point that Christ Himself is my Sabbath, or Rest, and that entereing into that rest is by faith in Christ Jesus.

But there are passages in Hebrews wherein the terminology for a literal "sabbath keeping" is used. So while Jesus is no doubt a rest, the 4th Commandment in the Decalogue has not been abrogated. If all the other commandments of the Decalogue are to be applied in a literal sense, so also is the 4th.

Nonetheless, I'm not too well-versed in this, and will defer to the much more able men on the PB to better answer your concerns.

Hey Geoff,
I am with you in the quest. I have read the arguments from many, including my pastors:

1. http://www.calvarymemorialroanoke.or...%20Sabbath.doc
He has a few others that I couldn't find right now.

Also I read Calvin's: JOHN CALVIN "ON THE SABBATH" Part 1 - 0502

And of course Edwards: The Perpetuity And Change Of The Sabbath* --* Jonathan Edwards

As well as a few random others. I see the arguments for both. My pastor having the same final conclusion as your #4. But I see the ground work for a Christian sabbath as well. The sabbath was put into law before the 10 commandments. Others break down the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial. All fulfilled by Christ, but moral being still upheld. Also the fact that it is listed in the 10 commandments as a memorial of creation and God's work, would seem to be a universal concept not an Israel-only concept. On my study through Romans, I consistently see people calling Sabbatarians "weaker" because of Romans 14. So all of this being said, I am still studying. Maybe some good info will come about because of this thread!

Hello;

I am taking heat over on the other Sabbath thread because I hold to a "looser" view than some.

But below I have included a rather long (sorry) report I wrote to my own church about the Sabbath.

I am a sovereign grace baptist but sadly my groups is influenced by Reisenger and others who hold to "New Covenant Theology" often denying that the Sabbath exists any longer. Beware of New Covenant Theology; it infects many baptists who are calvinists.

So I compiled the best arguments I knew and fashioned them into a report for my home church and a man from a nearby church who was struggling over these issues.

Thanks to Richard Barcellos who helped me, and also the help of my pastor.

Please read and consider. Also check out the Founders Conference from 2005 (I think) that featured a discussion of New Covenant Theology. These are very good resources and I can look them up and have them sent to you if you are interested.

ROMANS 14 AND COLOSSIANS 2:
NO ABROGATION OF THE WEEKLY SABBATH:

1689 Confession

22.7._____ As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.
( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

The problem:

The Ten Commandments contains the injunction to keep the Sabbath in the 4th Commandment. Romans 14 and Colossians 2, however, both seem to indicate that one day is as another – that there is no distinction in any day. These verses seem to abrogate this necessity of physically keeping a day (instead we are to trust in Christ, who is our Rest). Do these two verses, Colossians 2 and Romans 14, disprove those who treat the first day of the week as “The Lord’s Day” and who treat the Sabbath Principle as perpetual?

The texts:

Romans 14:
2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Colossians 2:
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:



Trusting in Christ, our Rest, is of utmost importance and without this we can keep no Sabbath truly. There is, however, still one day in seven during this present age in which we are to keep the Lord’s Day and gather to worship.

Below are reasons why these two contested verses do not show the abrogation of the weekly Sabbath.

Reason one: The Sabbath was a creation ordinance.

Marriage and family, work and dominion were all given as “Creation Mandates” in the first chapters of Genesis. These mandates are binding upon all creation, for all time. These practices are continual in this age and are ordained by God.

The Sabbath was among these creation ordinances. God was our great model in this. He created the world in six days for the very purpose of illumining the Sabbath to us by example; for no other reason is there for God not creating all worlds within a single instant. This Sabbath Principle is binding on all peoples for all time. It was part of the implanted moral law written on the heart of Adam before the Fall.

The Sabbath, rooted in creation, is binding upon all peoples for all of history. This is shown even during the giving of the Decalogue, which was a “republication” of that moral law to Adam- but now unto Israel - to show them the nature of God and their inability to be holy apart from Him. The Sabbath Commandment at Sinai is directly based upon God’s creative model.

The reason for the Sabbath was not merely His redemptive dealings with Israel but His purposes in creation for all mankind for all ages. God did not make the Sabbath only for Himself. God did not make it only for Israel; but the Sabbath was made for all of man (Mark 2:27).

It is hard to believe that there was not a designated day of worship prior to Sinai. How did the ancients worship? How did God teach our first parents?

It appears that there was an awareness of the Sabbath before the 4th Commandment was given. The Sabbath was formalized at Sinai, but appeared from Creation onward. Why else did God say, concerning the Manna in the desert, "Six days you shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none." (Exodus 16:26 RSV)? Why else were the children of Israel told to “Remember” the Sabbath? They were not told to learn it from scratch, but to “remember” it.

Yes, even the Sabbath was part of that moral law implanted in Adam from the beginning and now horribly defaced by the Fall.



The Sabbath is written on the heart of man?
Jungle tribes and the Sabbath?

The moral law is eternal and was written on the heart of Adam. Since the Fall, that inward law has been defaced, but not totally vanished. Therefore, in all the seed of Adam (the whole human race) there is a religiosity that resembles the covenant of works in all natural religion.

This brings up a very interesting concept: if the Sabbath was part of the moral law shouldn’t all men have dim reminders of the Sabbath principle by their unguided natural religion?

Shouldn't there be anthropological data demonstrating that tribes had a day of rest - testifying to that natural/but distorted law within? Shouldn't we see a simple and somewhat distorted Sabbath principle among many heathen nations? They know that to kill, steal, and lie is wrong in most cases; but do they naturally know not to profane the Sabbath?

If the Sabbath is not ceremonial, but is part of God’s moral law then we should expect such a universal, though distorted, knowledge of the Sabbath.

Two answers:

First, those tribes which have no evidence of the Sabbath are sunken low in all areas of righteousness. They generally have a disregard for all of God’s law found naturally in the conscience. If they are lacking in an echo of the Sabbath principle it is not because the Sabbath is not engraved in all men’s hearts. It is because they lack in all areas of morality that are engraven in natural man’s conscious – defaced but not erased by the Fall of man.

Second, it is a profound anthropological truth that most all religions have echoes of the Sabbath, expressed in various holy days - dim reminders of the Sabbath that was first written upon Adam’s heart. Muslims worship on Fridays. Druids have days of observance for the moon. Hindus have a multitude of “holy days.” These are all “pagan Sabbaths.”

All of these “holy days” are results of that "natural" attempt of man to appease the internal and marred/though ever-present Sabbath principle that was implanted in Adam, republished at Sinai and placed inside of believers in the New Covenant.




Reason two: When “sabbaths” are mentioned in Colossians 2 this is a technical term that describes the ceremonial Sabbaths – not the weekly Sabbath:

1. Feast days, 2.New moons, and 3.Sabbaths:

New Covenant Theology adherents often put forth Colossians 2:16 as a proof against the abiding obligation to maintain a “Christian Sabbath” – called “The Lord’s Day” in the New Testament. After all, both Romans 14 and Colossians 2 tell us not to honor one day above another. Therefore, the first day of the week has no special place among our worship. It seems pretty cut and dried, right?

Wrong! Colossians 2 and Romans 14 are not adequate proofs to prove the abrogation of the 4th Commandment. The sabbaths spoken of in Colossian 2 are part of the ceremonial law and not the moral law.

The Jewish ceremonial calendar had many New Moon and sabbaths other than the weekly Sabbath. Colossian 2 speaks of these special ceremonial “holy days” - not the weekly Sabbath, which is part of the Decalogue (God’s summary of his moral law).

This is vital! The phrase used in Colossians 2:16, “feast days…new moons…sabbaths,” is a technical phrase. It is a specific phrase relating to the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant. It is specifically used in the OT, to designate specific ceremonial events - and is nowhere used in reference to the weekly Sabbath. By using this phrase in Colossians 2, Paul is clearly referring to the ceremonial Sabbaths and not the Sabbath that is commanded in the Decalogue.

Hosea 2:11, clearly referring to the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant, contains this same three-part formulation of “feast days, new moons…sabbaths” that is also found in Colossian 2:16. This three-part phrase refers to the special feast and Sabbath days in the Jewish calendar. It is not referring to the weekly Sabbath. Likewise, I Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33, and Isaiah 1:13-14 all contain this common phrase, again clearly referring to ceremonial law and not the weekly Sabbath.

A Jewish Rabbi, such as Paul, would know this phrase well, and would be intimately familiar with its ceremonial connotations. The weekly Sabbath is not being removed here, but only the ceremonial system of feasts and holy days.

Plural sabbaths

Paul’s very grammar in Colossians 2:16 shows that he is not speaking of the abrogation of the Sabbath. In Colossians 2:16, Paul uses the plural in reference to “sabbaths.” He does not refer to the weekly Sabbath (singular), but many sabbaths (plural). Paul is referring to ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly Sabbath.



Why wasn’t Paul clearer? If he meant yearly or ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly Sabbath why didn’t he specify this?

Probably because he didn’t feel that he had to! He was being clear to his first-century audience by 1. his use of a well-known technical phrase (feast days, new moons and sabbaths), 2. his use of the plural for sabbaths, 3. his context of speaking – asserting that the ceremonial aspects of the old covenant are being done away with (i.e. and focusing on this ceremonial aspect of the law specifically).

Paul saw no need to say, “Remember, I am not speaking of the weekly Sabbath here.”



Receiving one that is “weak” in the faith versus receiving a sinful one:

Many appeal to Romans 14 to show that all days are alike and no weekly Sabbath exists. One man treats all days alike, another regards a day. Paul commands to receive the one who is weak in faith.

It is curious that this cannot refer to moral law, lest Paul would then need to modify his words so that a “sinful” one may be received. There is a difference in being weak in conscience and sinful. What is being talked about then must be ceremonial days. Paul is not white-washing sin here!

Moral law cannot be the object of Paul’s discussion. In Romans 14, Galatians 4 and Colossians 2, ceremonial days are being addressed and Paul is speaking on the subject of those who are trying to impose Jewish feast days and holy days upon believers. The weekly Sabbath, rooted in the Decalogue – which is a summary of God’s moral Self, cannot be the object of Romans 14 or Colossians 2.




Reason three: Those who deny that the 4th Commandment is perpetual distort all sound principles of hermeneutics:

The denial of the 4th Commandment is not the most serious issue at stake. Those who deny the Sabbath’s perpetuity based upon Romans 14 and Colossians 2 hold to even bigger hermeneutical flaws. The basic exegetical assumptions of these men (usually identifying themselves as followers of New Covenant Theology, hereafter referred to as NCT) is faulty.

It is a faulty hermeneutic that denies that the Decalogue is always referred to as a unit. It is everywhere spoken of as a unit. When Christ gave His two great commandments He was merely summarizing the two Tables of the Law – as a unit. When James speaks of breaking one point of the law as being equal to breaking the whole law –he was referring to the Decalogue, considered as a unit.

To carry over only 9 of the 10 commandments into the New Testament is a travesty! To separate out the 4th because “it seems ceremonial” or doesn’t seem to be repeated is not sound exegesis. Scripture always treats the Decalogue as one set, one unit.

It is also a faulty hermeneutic that asserts that a teaching must be repeated by the New Testament in order to be valid. The New Testament does not supplant the OT but only elucidates it. Moral law needs no repetition.

Paul draws a great amount of NT teaching directly from OT references. The NT was seen as exceedingly relevant and authoritative to the NT writers. Its authority is assumed without any special pleading or need for re-affirmation.



Reason four: There is still a special day for worship proclaimed in the NT - The Lord’s Day:

Those who assert that the Sabbath has been abrogated state that every day is now alike. Every day is the Lord’s.

Why then, if every day is to be counted alike (from Colossians 2 and Romans 14), is one day specifically designated as “The Lord’s Day” in the New Testament? It is specially marked out and designated with that title; a title which the rest of the week does not possess.

John was “in the Spirit” on this day (Revelation 1:10). Did John not get Paul’s memo about all days being alike?

It appears that one day IS, in fact, set apart as distinct and to be honored. Despite the abolishment of all other “holy days” intrinsic to the Judaic Old Covenant ceremonial system, the weekly Sabbath remains. It is hinged, not in ceremonial law which ceased, but in the Decalogue – that great summary of God’s moral law.

Every day is the Lord’s! There still remains, however, one day so marked out as special and called specifically “The Lord’s Day”.

If the Sabbath IS, in fact, eternal and perpetual, then how could the day change from Saturday to Sunday? If it can be changed, why can’t it be abrogated?

The Fourth Commandment says nothing about either Saturday or Sunday. It just lays down the pattern of six days of labor, followed by one day set apart for the Lord.

The OT civil administration of the Sabbath died with the civil state of Israel’s demise. Sabbath-breaking is no longer punishable by death. The OT ceremonial sabbaths died with the ceasing of the shadows in light of the full dawn of redemptive history in Christ. The moral law, however, that enshrined the Sabbath principle in the Decalogue is eternal and is binding for us even today – though its outward administration has changed in the course of redemptive history.



But why can’t I worship just as well on a Tuesday instead of a Sunday? It really doesn’t matter which day we worship on:

Why is this first day of the week given a separate and special name? If all days are the same and no day in particular matters for worship, why is the first day called “The Lord’s Day” if no special distinction exists?

Why did the early church meet and worship on the Lord’s Day? Could they have met on any other day regularly instead?

I believe that the example of the early church was not a mere occurrence based upon convenience or custom, but is a normative model for all Christians.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2;
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Paul tells the churches to gather their gifts on the first day of the week – the Lord’s Day.

In the very least, the collection of the saints, done assumedly in a gathered assembly (most likely worship) was commanded to be done on the first day of the week – called “The Lord’s Day” elsewhere. This is not just an example – this is clear apostolic command! This passage appears much more than just a description, but a prescription.

Acts 20:7 is not just a description of worship, but seems to assume obedience to a former prescription. Acts 20:7 states that when the disciples met together for the breaking of bread that this occurred on the Lord’s Day. The Lord’s Day was the normative day of worship. Meetings together were not haphazard or as occasion warranted but were regular, planned and for the purpose of worship.

In Acts 20:16 Paul seemed in a hurry to get to Jerusalem, yet he stayed 7 whole days on Troas (verse 6) before leaving on the next day – which was a Monday. Paul had stayed over for their Sunday worship.



What was the origin of Sunday worship anyway?

How did disparate groups in disparate places all gain the same tradition of Sunday worship? Was it out of convenience of meeting on Sunday? That seems highly improbable. It appears that this practice must have been laid out by the apostles. First Corinthians 11:2 has Paul telling his audience to keep the traditions that he has laid down for them. It appears that Sunday worship was one of these traditions – and is to be kept as special.

A peculiarity in the phrase “the first day of the week.”

There are five references to the fact that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week in the NT. Why so many? So what? Who cares what day it was?

If the day of the week did not matter, why even mention it all – much less five times?

How many days of the week were, in fact, mentioned in the New Testament? Aside from the preparation day for the Sabbath and the third day after Christ died, there is no mention of days of the week in the NT at all – except for “on the first day.”

The very peculiarity of this phrase, and the absence of like mentions of other days in the NT is very important! It is a strong proof that the first day of the week is set apart as special. It is to be treated as such by worshipping God, of doing works of mercy and charity, of worshipping together as a body, and of breaking bread.



Reason five: the glorious prophecies of the OT concern both the end of sabbaths and the eternality of the Sabbath:

Strangely enough, in OT prophecy there are prophecies that concern both the end of the sabbaths of the ceremonial law and also prophecies which speak of God’s eternal Sabbath continuing for endless ages. The OT prophesies that ceremonial sabbaths and feast days shall end. The OT also prophesies that the Sabbath will last forever.

How can this be? It must be granted that there is a distinction between various new moons and sabbaths and the weekly Sabbath – rooted in the Decalogue. This distinction must be admitted for Scripture to be reconciled with itself.

Already mentioned above, Hosea 2:11 speaks of the cessation of feast days, new moons and sabbaths. It is a prophecy of the abrogation of the ceremonial Sabbaths. The end of the old covenant is foreseen.

The moral law, however, is eternal. The Sabbath is prophesied as being likewise eternal. The perpetuity of the Sabbath to the endless ages is prophesied in Isaiah 56:1-8.

This 58th chapter of Isaiah speaks of Messiah and His day, when all peoples and nations may come to the Lord – which is this present Epoch! The continuation of the Sabbath occurs even during these inter-advental days of promise!

The only way for the authority of Scripture to survive both a prophecy of the end of the sabbaths and also a prophecy of the perpetuity of the Sabbath is for the Bible to be speaking of two distinct “sabbaths”. To have multiple ceremonial sabbaths cease, while the moral Sabbath remains is the only solution.


Paul lists “profane” persons as sinners to Timothy:
In 1 Tim. 1:8-11, we read a list of sins, which corresponds closely to transgressions of the Decalogue:
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kid-nappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

Paul is referring to transgressions of the Decalogue. In verses 9 and 10, he first lists the sins of the second table, and then the sins of the first table. Sins against the first 9 out of 10 commandments of the Decalogue are listed.

Is Sabbath-breaking covered in this list? Yes, by the word “profane.”

The word “profane” occurs in numerous places in the OT Septuagint to refer to Sabbath Breakers (Nehemiah 13:17; Ezekiel 20:13 and Isaiah 56:2). Even the NT mentions, like Matthew 12:5, those who “profane” the Sabbath.

Paul, in this passage, is marching through the Two Tables and listing sinners by concise labels, based upon the commandment which they transgress. The Sabbath transgression is noticeably listed. Those who break the Sabbath are listed by the concise summary of “profane.”

If the Sabbath has been abrogated, surely we cannot “profane” it!

SUMMARY:

The moral law was written on Adam’s heart. At the fall it was effaced and distorted but not totally removed. All of fallen society attempts to obey this law under a state similar to the covenant of works (hence the reason for so many Arminians). God “republished” this law under Moses to make clear man’s sin and inability by showing the nature of God more clearly. This giving of the Law was a gracious act and a step forward in the history of redemption. The New Covenant takes this law and again puts it within our hearts.

The one Covenant of Grace is made up of both the Old Covenant and New Covenant. The Old Covenant is not synonymous with the Decalogue. With the dawning of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant passed away – the ceremonial aspects – but not God’s moral law, which was summarized in the Decalogue, later summarized by Christ’s two great commands and later by James’ “law of love.”

The New Covenant is glorious indeed! There are many discontinuous elements in it. Let us not, however, make it more discontinuous than it is! God’s covenant of grace is a basic unity with discontinues elements; it is not basically discontinuous with some elements of sameness.

A FINAL WARNING:

Thank God most New Covenant theologians do not see the logical implications of their system.

In NCT, Christ is seen as “giving the church a new canon of moral conduct,” according to many NCT advocates. Christ is a new lawgiver, they assert, instead of the authoritative expositor of the Law. This not only distorts the law, but may eventually lead to an erosion of justification by faith and a very inferior view concerning the obedience of Christ.

The truth of Scripture is this: The righteousness that Adam had to live up to is the same standard of righteousness that we have to live up to. He had to follow the same law as we do. Of course, none of us do so naturally. Christ fulfills this standard of righteousness and merits it for us.

What if this standard of righteousness changes? What if the old standard is removed and a new “canon of moral conduct” is given to the church? What does this do to the doctrines of sin, righteousness and the work of Christ being judicially punished for the transgressions of the law on behalf of us?

If Christ was punished in our stead for not fulfilling the old standard of the law; so that we should now live, not by that old standard any longer, but by a new standard, does this not introduce grievous complications in the Gospel?

If there is a true contrast between our rule “under law” and our new rule “under grace” then this leads to serious implications even concerning the obedience of Christ – fulfilling all the law for His people (fulfilling a different law then that which is required of His people, apparently). The doctrine of the active obedience of Christ is destroyed!

A FINAL WORD: The 1689 Baptist Confession:

The moral law [Decalogue] doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation (19:5).

Originally Posted by Walkthecalling

Hey Geoff,
I am with you in the quest. I have read the arguments from many, including my pastors:

1. http://www.calvarymemorialroanoke.or...%20Sabbath.doc
He has a few others that I couldn't find right now.

Also I read Calvin's: JOHN CALVIN "ON THE SABBATH" Part 1 - 0502

And of course Edwards: The Perpetuity And Change Of The Sabbath* --* Jonathan Edwards

As well as a few random others. I see the arguments for both. My pastor having the same final conclusion as your #4. But I see the ground work for a Christian sabbath as well. The sabbath was put into law before the 10 commandments. Others break down the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial. All fulfilled by Christ, but moral being still upheld. Also the fact that it is listed in the 10 commandments as a memorial of creation and God's work, would seem to be a universal concept not an Israel-only concept. On my study through Romans, I consistently see people calling Sabbatarians "weaker" because of Romans 14. So all of this being said, I am still studying. Maybe some good info will come about because of this thread!

Good points brother, I will check out those articles. Have you also read John Bunyan's work on the perpetuity of the Sabbath? It's been a little while since I read that, but it is worth the read. Questions About the Nature and Perpetuity of the Seventh-Day Sabbath

I also read an article one time proclaiming the change in day's (Sat. to Sun.) represented the thought process in the New Testament. As Jesus called everyone to higher accountability with the Sermon on the Mount, that challenged heart issues, not outward workings, honoring the Lord with the 1st day of the week instead of the last, put God 1st in our lives. Didn't have much scripture for this thought.
I believe I am staying on track here but what about the other parts of the Sabbath. The parts about resting the land on the 7th year and releasing slaves, etc. Has that carried over, is there any historic references to these being followed in the New Testament or since?

Haven't read Bunyans. I will check it out today! Thanks for the link!

So if Christ came not to throw down but to fill up, what, besides updating to the Lord's day, is specifically different now regarding the Sabbath?

This post: has a link at the top to a very useful exchange from another site demonstrating how Our risen Lord (God) Christ chose to meet repeatedly with his people on the First Day.

Why do we come to worship? Our idea? Then its bound to be sinful.

Wait, it's God's idea? Then he's the one calling the meeting? OK, then we should check the day and hour on the invitation.

Jesus isn't only "our Sabbath rest", he's also Lord of the Sabbath. And Hebrews 4:9 tells us there remains a Sabbath-day-keeping for us.

From AT Robertson: "A sabbath rest (sabbatismos). Late word from sabbatizō (Exo_16:30) to keep the Sabbath, apparently coined by the author."

Not just a future rest, but the foretaste "remains" as well, Hallelujah! Isn't this covenant era supposed to be "better"?!?

Hey Peter,
That's a good question. I will look forward to others answers. I have read many mighty men breakdown what He meant by fulfill the Law. I think this is where the dispensational/covenant theology start to break apart in what exactly Jesus changed, what He ended, what He began, what continued on. I know you are Sovereign Grace right? How do they treat the Sabbath?

It seems to me that it can breakdown to where covenant theology supports Sabbath, Infant Baptism, & amellinialism, and dispensational supports Lord's day (not held like the Sabbath), credobaptism and pre-mellinialism. Both based on what was fulfilled/changed by Christ. If you get the basics of either as your pre-supposition it determines the rest. Maybe?

Lots to think about

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

This post: has a link at the top to a very useful exchange from another site demonstrating how Our risen Lord (God) Christ chose to meet repeatedly with his people on the First Day.

Why do we come to worship? Our idea? Then its bound to be sinful.

Wait, it's God's idea? Then he's the one calling the meeting? OK, then we should check the day and hour on the invitation.

Jesus isn't only "our Sabbath rest", he's also Lord of the Sabbath. And Hebrews 4:9 tells us there remains a Sabbath-day-keeping for us.

From AT Robertson: "A sabbath rest (sabbatismos). Late word from sabbatizō (Exo_16:30) to keep the Sabbath, apparently coined by the author."

Not just a future rest, but the foretaste "remains" as well, Hallelujah! Isn't this covenant era supposed to be "better"?!?

Are you saying that Hebrews 4:9 is teaching a Christian Sabbath-Day keeping like is being discussed here? How is this so? How is this not the distinction between belief and unbelief? My question is because verse 6 says, "Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:"

And verse 11 says, "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. "

And the exhortation is, from verse 14, "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession."

So since I have held fast my profession of faith in Jesus the Son of God, and have not fallen away in unbelief, how is it that I have not entered this rest?

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

Are you saying that Hebrews 4:9 is teaching a Christian Sabbath-Day keeping like is being discussed here? How is this so? How is this not the distinction between belief and unbelief?

This is from a past post on Hebrews 4:9

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

You guys who are quoting the Colosians and Hebrew versess need to know that there are legitimate discussions and commentaries that support a sabbatarian view. I read an article by Robert P. Martin in the Reformed Baptist Theological review that he spoke on these verses. Here is just a quote.


vl. 1.2 A Sabbath Remains.. The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament's Witness to the Lord's Day by Robert P. Martin
(Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

In it he notes the Word is used here is σαββατισμός and not κατάπαυσις

(rest).
G4520
σαββατισμός
sabbatismos

This is an obscure term evidently that is used in just a few other places outside of the scriptures but used only once in the New Testament. Robert Martin says,

"I think that it is of interest that "in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath," i.e., not "a Sabbath rest" as a state that is entered into but "a Sabbath-keeping" as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word's morphology, for the suffix -μός indicates an action and not just a state. see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 151.
Reformed Baptist Theological Review Vl. 1;2 p.5

Obviously the article consists of the surrounding verses but it is a good read and quotes John Owen who is one of my faves.

And the Colosians verse is tied to an old testament reference.

1. That the Sabbath under the Old Covenant was binding on all men. I have not seen this in Scripture, but that His Sabbath(s) were for Israel and not the nations surrounding.

Why would God make commandments 1-3 and 5-10 apply but not 4?

Jesus clarifies, but does not abrogate the forth commandment in the New Testament.

The Sabbath is even stronger. It is a creation ordinance (established at Creation) like marriage and work.
2. That the Sabbath which began from the beginning of the world was changed by Christ from His resurrection. I looked up the Scripture proofs for this confession and cannot see what they are seeing in Scripture, other than it is clear that the Christians came together, or met, for worship at the beginning of the week, but not that Christ changed the Sabbath Day. Looking at Revelation 1:10 for a day called the Lord's Day I do not see how this one verse proves that this was a changed Sabbath Day.

God set aside one day in seven. We probably have lost the order of days as calendars we use have changed (we have not always used the Julian Calendar) so Sunday now could be some other day then. The important part is that it is one day in seven. The Sabbath represents creation (Exodus), redemption (Deuteronomy). The early church worship on the day the Lord was resurrected (redemption aspect) that's why it is fitting to call it the Lord's Day.
3. That the Sabbath Day was a memorial to works of creation, and for that reason was to be observed, because the Lord made the Day in which He rested Holy.

Being a creation ordinance means it is applicable to all men. God commands all to rest one day in seven.

4. That the Law is fulfilled in Christ none deny. And so looking to Him and to the New Testament Scriptures in particular, namely Hebrews, which treats directly on the Sabbath Day, or rest of God, I am pursuaded at this point that Christ Himself is my Sabbath, or Rest, and that entereing into that rest is by faith in Christ Jesus.

You'll see as you study this closely (e.g. Colossians 2:16) that there were ceremonies done along with the Sabbath Day. These were abrograted because Christ fulfilled their purpose. Remember, the ceremonial law and civil law given to Israel are not binding on us today, but the moral law is.

Keeping the Sabbath is inconvenient. I think tithing and keeping the Fourth Commandment greatly reflect what is going on inside spiritually- the former over your money, the latter over your time. My last Pastor taught that keeping the Forth Commandment helps you to keep all the other commandments better. It took me a long time to understand and come to believe it, but think it through...

If you do not take all seven days for yourself you are less likely to covet, less likely to worship material things (second commandment) "the rat race" seven days to earn money, think about it, etc. Rested you are less prone to violence (sixth commandment). Honor God one day, easier to honor your father in mother (fifth commandment).

This can be overwhelming when you understand it- and a great source of blessing if you obey.

Blessings.

Hey PuritanCoventar,

Thank you very much for that response. I haven't dug into the language but did after I saw your post. Here is what I found...

v. 1 katapausis
v. 3 katapausis
v. 4 katapauō (what God did)
v. 5 katapausis
v. 8 katapauō
v. 9 sabbatismos
v.10 katapausis
v.11 katapausis

So, while the KJV translates the sabbatismos as rest in verse 9, it would be better translated Sabbath, or as Thayer's puts it, a keeping Sabbath.

need more study on this. I am not convinced by the change in language alone, that this somehow changes the meaning that our sabbath-keeping is anything more than our believing in the Lord Jesus. But I am open..

Originally Posted by Scott1

1. That the Sabbath under the Old Covenant was binding on all men. I have not seen this in Scripture, but that His Sabbath(s) were for Israel and not the nations surrounding.

Why would God make commandments 1-3 and 5-10 apply but not 4?

Jesus clarifies, but does not abrogate the forth commandment in the New Testament.

The Sabbath is even stronger. It is a creation ordinance (established at Creation) like marriage and work.
2. That the Sabbath which began from the beginning of the world was changed by Christ from His resurrection. I looked up the Scripture proofs for this confession and cannot see what they are seeing in Scripture, other than it is clear that the Christians came together, or met, for worship at the beginning of the week, but not that Christ changed the Sabbath Day. Looking at Revelation 1:10 for a day called the Lord's Day I do not see how this one verse proves that this was a changed Sabbath Day.

God set aside one day in seven. We probably have lost the order of days as calendars we use have changed (we have not always used the Julian Calendar) so Sunday now could be some other day then. The important part is that it is one day in seven. The Sabbath represents creation (Exodus), redemption (Deuteronomy). The early church worship on the day the Lord was resurrected (redemption aspect) that's why it is fitting to call it the Lord's Day.
3. That the Sabbath Day was a memorial to works of creation, and for that reason was to be observed, because the Lord made the Day in which He rested Holy.

Being a creation ordinance means it is applicable to all men. God commands all to rest one day in seven.

4. That the Law is fulfilled in Christ none deny. And so looking to Him and to the New Testament Scriptures in particular, namely Hebrews, which treats directly on the Sabbath Day, or rest of God, I am pursuaded at this point that Christ Himself is my Sabbath, or Rest, and that entereing into that rest is by faith in Christ Jesus.

Christ fulfilled everything in the Law. 100%, including the forth commandment. That doesn't mean we don't obey God's commandments.

Keeping the Sabbath is inconvenient. I think tithing and keeping the Forth Commandment greatly reflect what is going on inside- the former over your money, the latter over your time. My last Pastor taught that keeping the Forth Commandment helps you to keep all the other commandments better. It took me a long time to understand and come to believe it, but think it through, it does.

Blessings.

Thanks for your reply. First, I don't care about convience. In fact, the idea of spending an entire day in nothing more than the glories of Christ and the Gospel is awesome. I love it. I am examining this thing biblically, not as a matter personal taste or pleasure. And for the record, I see no warrant for tithing either.

John Bunyan actually argues for a Christian Sabbath, but differes on some points from what I usually hear. For example,

"First, we read not that God gave it to any but to the seed of Jacob. Hence it is said to Israel, and to Israel only, 'The Lord hath given YOU the sabbath' (Exo 16:29). And again, 'also I gave THEM my sabbath' (Eze 20:5,12)."

Now, that He believes there is a perpetural moral law written upon the hearts of men, he doesn't pretend to deny. But that the day would be the seventh, he argues no pagan nation knew. So he makes a distinction between nature teaching all men that God must be worshipped in time, the light of nature does not teach all men what particular day the true God ought to be worshipped on. The light of nature doesn't even teach all men a 7-day week.

Bunyan also wrote concerning the Sabbath,

"Moses and the prophet Ezekiel both, do fully confirm what has been insinuated by us; to wit, that the seventh day, as a sabbath, was not imposed upon men until Israel was brought into the wilderness."

1. Moses saith to Israel, 'Remember that thou wast a servant int he land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: THEREFORE the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.' Yea, he tells us, that the covenant which God made with them in Horeb, that written in stones, was not made with their forefathers, to wit, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but with them (Deut 5:1-15).


2. Ezekiel also is punctual as to this: I caused them, saith God by that prophet, 'to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them' (Eze 20:10-12; Exo 20:8, 31:13, 35:2).


I think Bunyan makes a strong point. The nature of the moral aspect of the 4the commandment is perpetual, but not in respect to the actual day, but of time.

Mr Bunyan, whose Puritan view of the Sabbath is that of the LBCF and WCF, is saying what Reformed theology holds- the Sabbath is based on one day in seven, not one particular day.

GI Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes p. 172

The difference is the distinction between proportion and order. When the commandment specifies that six of our days are for one duty, and the remaining portion of the week, one seventh to be exact, for another duty...Since the Fourth Commandment directs us to observe the seventh part of our time as a sabbath, there is nothing in this commandment that does not apply with full force to the first day of the week (as to the order of days), for the first day of the week is still the seventh as far as the proportion of time is concerned.

Here is Youngs translation of Mt 28:1
Matthew 28 (Young's Literal Translation)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Public Domain



Matthew 28
1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,

Also there is in Acts an in between sabbath, the first day,let me find that reference

Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, pp. 272-276:

III. Its Appointed Day

The thrust of paragraph 1 of this chapter is that God has and exercises the right to appoint how he will be worshipped. Man does not have the right to intrude his ideas, his opinions or his authority into divine worship. It is only in this framework and from this perspective that we can appreciate the Puritan and biblical teaching on the sabbath. Just as every other major element of worship is appointed by God and not by ecclesiastical authority, even so the day of public worship is not left for man to decide. By a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, God appoints the day.

Now in treating the appointed day of worship, the Confession expounds: its institution (para. 7) and its sanctification (para. 8). The exposition here will deal only with its institution.

The Confession first mentions the natural necessity of an appointed day of worship. The Confession teaches that the law of nature requires an appointed day for worship. First, God must be worshipped publicly and corporately by men. Second, such public and corporate worship requires a publicly and corporately agreed upon proportion of time. Such a proportion of time must be appointed by God, because the only alternative (that men should appoint it) would violate the prerogatives of God in his worship.

The positive enactment of the appointed day is next mentioned. Although general revelation (the law of nature) makes it clear that an appointed day of worship is necessary, the law of nature does not and cannot specify which day that should be. Resting for worship on the seventh day or first day is not written by creation on the hearts of men. Since the law of nature did not specify the right proportion or the specific part of our time for public worship, there must be a positive commandment by God to specify that time. The term 'positive' used here in the Confession means something in addition to the law of nature and general revelation. The appointed day must be revealed by special revelation. Some have asked, 'If the sabbath is a moral law, why are not Gentiles without special revelation indicted for breaking it in the Bible?' The reason is evident. It is a positive commandment revealed only by special revelation. Positive commandments, as the Confession makes clear, may also be moral. Thus the specially revealed character of the sabbath does not mean that it is ceremonial.

But not only is this commandment called positive because it is something in addition to the law of nature, it is also called moral and perpetual. This commandment of one day in seven as a sabbath may be seen to be moral and perpetual for at least three good reasons.

It was instituted at creation (Gen. 2:3; Exod. 20:8-11; Mark 2:27-28). What was instituted from creation has significance for as long as creation continues. Thus both Jesus and Paul ground ethical duty on the fact that something was instituted at creation (Matt. 19:4-8; 1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:8-9).

It was included in the Decalogue (Exod. 20:8-11). God saw fit to include the sabbath ordinance in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments have an importance that transcends the other Old Testament laws (see chapter 19). They alone were directly spoken by God. They alone were written on stone by the finger of God. They alone were placed in the Ark of the Covenant. They are said to be written in the hearts of New Covenant believers (Jer. 31:33). They are repeatedly cited as fundamental moral laws of perpetual significance in the New Testament (Rom. 13:8-10; Matt. 22:18-19). The idea that the sabbath is a ceremonial and temporary law flatly contradicts these biblical facts.

It is continued in the Lord's day. The Lord's day of the New Covenant embodies the sabbath principle instituted at creation. This is proved by many conspicuous parallels between the sabbath and the Lord's day.

1. The designation 'Lord's day' alludes to biblical phrases descriptive of the sabbath: 'my holy day,' 'the Lord's holy day' (Isa. 58:13); 'the Lord of the sabbath' (Matt. 12:8).

2. Like the sabbath and unlike any other religious observance, the Lord's day is the celebration of one day of weekly recurrence.

3. Like the sabbath and unlike any other religious observance, the Lord's day thus presupposes the seven-day week of creation.

4. The Lord's day is a memorial of both creation and redemption. Even as the sabbath commemorated the first creation and the exodus of Israel from Egypt, so also the Lord's day commemorates a new creation and a greater redemption.

5. The Lord's day is a day belonging especially to God. Sixteen times God speaks of 'my sabbaths'.

6. The Lord's day is a holy day and must be kept holy. The sabbath was a holy day. It was sanctified and was to be kept holy (Gen. 2:3; Exod. 20:8). The Lord's day is also a holy day. The word 'holy' means to set apart to God from common use. Something that is set apart to God is his special possession. Vice versa, if it is God's special possession, it is holy. To be holy and to belong especially to God are equivalents (Exod. 13:2; Numb. 16:3-7). Is the Lord's day God's special possession in a sense that other days are not? Yes. Then, it is holy and must be sanctified. We must, then, remember the Lord's day, to keep it holy.

7. Like the sabbath, the Lord's day is a day of corporate, public worship (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). But if it is a day appointed for public worship, it must be a day of rest or sabbath. This is so for three reasons. First, all days of public, corporate worship are sabbaths in the Bible. A day of worship which was not a sabbath would have been incomprehensible to the Jewish disciples of Jesus. Secondly, the Lord's day is a holy day and, therefore, must be set apart from ordinary labours and set apart to worship. That is what sanctifying the day requires. Such a day is, however, clearly a day of rest. Thirdly, no one can engage in public worship without, at least for an hour or two, resting from his secular labours.

It is now evident why the Lord's day must be viewed as the Christian sabbath. The institution of the sabbath at creation, the inclusion of the sabbath in the Decalogue and the continuation of the sabbath principle in the Lord's day demands this. This is why when someone says, 'The term sabbath always refers to the Jewish sabbath in the New Testament,' it need not bother us. Of course, the sabbath in the Bible referred to the seventh-day sabbath. It had referred to that ordinance for 4,000 years. On the basis of the evidence just quoted, however, we must distinguish between the Jewish seventh-day sabbath ordinance, which is abolished, and the concept of the sabbath, which is continued in the Lord's day. This distinction between the ordinance of the sabbath and the concept of the sabbath is demanded by its institution at creation, its inclusion in the Ten Commandments and the very meaning of the phrase 'Lord's day'.

In the last part of paragraph 7 the epoch-making alteration of the appointed day from the seventh to the first day of the week is discussed. Many have felt that this is the weak point in the Confession's doctrine of a Christian sabbath. At first glance their reasoning seems plausible. It is argued that if the sabbath commandment is a moral law, it could not be altered. Two different conclusions have been drawn from this premise. Some, like Seventh Day Adventists, have concluded from this premise that the day has not been changed and that the appointed day of worship is still the seventh day of the week. Others have concluded that since the day is changed, the sabbath could not possibly be a moral law.

The answer to the dilemma posed by this premise is found in the peculiar character of the sabbath commandment implied in the language used by the Confession to describe it. It is called 'a positive moral, and perpetual commandment'. This particular moral law is composed of two separate elements: the law of nature and the positive enactment. The law of nature cannot be and is not altered. The positive enactment may be and is. Thus, the alteration of the day is no argument against the morality and perpetuity of the sabbath commandment.

A further issue may be raised at this point. The sabbath commandment is a positive commandment instituted at creation. How can a creation ordinance be altered? The answer is, of course, that only a new creation could alter a creation ordinance. Christ has, however, inaugurated a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). Hence, one would expect a change in the creation ordinance of the sabbath. That the observation of the last day of the week is abolished is proved by Colossians 2:16-17. While this text is not speaking of the concept or principle of the sabbath, it is teaching that the old creation and Old Covenant 'seventh day' sabbath ordinance is abolished.

Another difficulty people have about the alteration of the day is that they can find no mention in the Scriptures of this change of the day. If this problem is to be resolved, we must first understand the principle by which the day of worship is appointed in the creation ordinance. The designation principle must be understood. In Genesis 2:3 it says that God set apart the seventh day because he rested on that day. Recognizing that what God did in redemption was so great that nothing less than the concept of a new creation could describe it, we must understand that God in the new creation uses the same designation principle. The new creation sabbath is designated on the same principle as that of the old creation sabbath. It is the day of God's rest. The first day of the week is the day upon which Christ's labours to atone for the sins of his people came to an end and he entered into his rest in resurrection glory. The Lord's day is the eighth day, the day of new beginnings. As the seventh day was associated with and commemorated the old work of creation, so the first day is associated with and commemorates a new creation.

Reformed Baptist

I think Bunyan makes a strong point. The nature of the moral aspect of the 4the commandment is perpetual, but not in respect to the actual day, but of time.

One of the reasons this is important to understand is that, some have made the day of the week an article of faith (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists). While they are right on much of the substantive application of the fourth commandment, they hold the day of the week as priority.

The point was never the day in and of itself but the God behind the day who commanded that a due proportion of time be set aside from the ordinary to focus on enjoying communion with Him. This helps check our tendancy to idolotrize work, entertaining ourselves, self endulgance, etc. and has great practical benefit to our health, attitudes and perspectives on life.

Not only is this misguided, but practically, there is no way to assure (in the case of insisting on the day of the week as priority) that Saturday today was Saturday back in Old Testament times because calendars have changed. Even timekeeping has been disrupted by wars, displacements of people, and national upheavals. So, if the priority was on "getting the day of the week right," we could be in very big trouble!

Not only so, but I agree with the reasoning that argues that the Jewish religious calendar (the original one of Moses) was a solar year, not lunar. (this, by the way would not preclude the use of the moon for purposes of marking time, months, new-moon sacrifices, etc.) It was taken with them out of Egypt (which nation used a solar year), and modified.

And there were "anomalies" in how they kept time. That is to say, there were "8th day" Sabbaths, or 48 hour Sabbath, every year. And the days of the week resumed, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, after that. They didn't start the following week with "day2". Practically, this means that every time this happened, the days "moved". The following Sabbath in this special instance day fell 7 days after the previous Sabbath concluded, however it fell *8* days after the previous Sabbath had begun.

I find the argument quite compelling. And it quite finishes the idea that the 7th day as such holds any significance. It has been forgotten. As for present day Saturdays, if they are assumed to be some perfect multiple of 7 since the world began, this an utterly arbitrary assertion, based on nothing but an idea that God would keep it sacrosanct somehow. It is not biblical.

It certainly has nothing whatever to do with the Christian calendar, the modern Jewish calendar (which is of Babylonian origin, and no earlier of use in Judaism than the Exile), or the ancient Jewish calendar, with its deliberate adjustments of the first day of the week.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Not only so, but I agree with the reasoning that argues that the Jewish religious calendar (the original one of Moses) was a solar year, not lunar. (this, by the way would not preclude the use of the moon for purposes of marking time, months, new-moon sacrifices, etc.) It was taken with them out of Egypt (which nation used a solar year), and modified.

And there were "anomalies" in how they kept time. That is to say, there were "8th day" Sabbaths, or 48 hour Sabbath, every year. And the days of the week resumed, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, after that. They didn't start the following week with "day2". Practically, this means that every time this happened, the days "moved". The following Sabbath in this special instance day fell 7 days after the previous Sabbath concluded, however it fell *8* days after the previous Sabbath had begun.

I find the argument quite compelling. And it quite finishes the idea that the 7th day as such holds any significance. It has been forgotten. As for present day Saturdays, if they are assumed to be some perfect multiple of 7 since the world began, this an utterly arbitrary assertion, based on nothing but an idea that God would keep it sacrosanct somehow. It is not biblical.

It certainly has nothing whatever to do with the Christian calendar, the modern Jewish calendar (which is of Babylonian origin, and no earlier of use in Judaism than the Exile), or the ancient Jewish calendar, with its deliberate adjustments of the first day of the week.

I'm trying to figure out how to word this question. Would not Adam's 1rst sabbath day rest not have been his 1rst full day on earth and not his 7th?
The Lord sactified the 7th day, or one day in seven if you please, but it was not Adam's 7th day. Am I making any sense?

So, are you saying that he sanctified Adam's 2nd day of existence? I guess that's right, but I'm not sure about its relevance...?

Personally, I don't think it matters. God gave us a week. We can speculate on whether our human pattern is "designed" to be rest-then-work, over against God's work-then-rest. But these questions seem slightly speculative to me. And the fact is that we are on a cycle, both sides giving rise to the phase that follows

Thanks for everyone's reply and patience. I have continued to look at this subject and have a few thoughts.

1. The proper day for Christians to assemble for corporate worship is the 1st day of the week, which would be Sunday, because it is set down by example in Scripture, but not precept. In other words, we see this practiced by the Church in Scripture, but not commanded by the Lord Jesus or Apostle.

2. There is a keeping of a Sabbath by the people of God by precept and teaching of the Apostles found in Hebrews 4:9 which is more accurately translated, "There remains therefore a keeping sabbath to the people of God."

3. It does not follow that this passage is teaching that that rest is Sunday. In the context of Hebrews 4:9 the day mentioned is TODAY, or semeron, this very day, not Sunday or any other particular day at all. The "another day" spoken of in verse 8 is not Sunday. It is today.

4. Those who believe in Christ enter that rest (For we which have believed do enter into rest), which is being made a partaker of Christ, Ch. 3:14, and the day being designated "today" verse, 15 of chapter 3, amd verse 7 of chapter 4 saying the limitation of the day is a today.

5. "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." 4:10. Since the broader context of this passage and book is to set the preeminance of Christ and His Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant and priesthood, then this verse must be understood that those who enter His rest do so when they cease from seeking righteousness by the Law and have His righteosness imputed by faith in Christ. We truly cease from our own works and rest in the finished work of Christ who has accomplished eternal redemption for us.

6. Those who went before us did not enter because of unbelief, and we may not enter either for the same reason.

1. The proper day for Christians to assemble for corporate worship is the 1st day of the week, which would be Sunday, because it is set down by example in Scripture, but not precept. In other words, we see this practiced by the Church in Scripture, but not commanded by the Lord Jesus or Apostle.

I think you have nailed this right in line with the Reformed understanding and the broader church universal understanding. While there was good reason to observe the sabbath on the day the Lord had risen, even in line with Deuteronomy's restatement of the fourth commandment to include the purpose of redemption, there was no explicit or implicit command to observe it on that particular day because the day sequence was not the priority- the proportion of time was.

This understanding also permits a Pastor, whose work peaks on Sunday, to take something analogous on another day of the week, and still, in good conscience, not violate the command.

Certainly, the early church did not find the day of the week the priority because they began observing the Command on what we now sequence as Sunday.

3. It does not follow that this passage is teaching that that rest is Sunday. In the context of Hebrews 4:9 the day mentioned is TODAY, or semeron, this very day, not Sunday or any other particular day at all. The "another day" spoken of in verse 8 is not Sunday. It is today.

I think this interpretation misses the author's own interpretation of the OT text he is quoting. John Owen is very good on this passage, as also he discusses the whole question of Sabbath-perpetuity in one of his prefaced essays to his Exposition of Hebrews.

5. "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." 4:10. Since the broader context of this passage and book is to set the preeminance of Christ and His Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant and priesthood, then this verse must be understood that those who enter His rest do so when they cease from seeking righteousness by the Law and have His righteosness imputed by faith in Christ. We truly cease from our own works and rest in the finished work of Christ who has accomplished eternal redemption for us.

Why does this follow? Why does it not mean that we are actively entering into His rest, on the day of rest?

Indeed, Christ is supreme, and "better", and is resting, now, from his labors. All the more reason why we should earnestly desire him in heaven where he is, resting. And when he offers to "break in" to our experience each Sunday, and to invite us up to "heavenly Jerusalem" for a foretaste of glory (see Heb. 12:22ff), we should be rejoicing with greater delights than our Israelitish fathers did as they ascended to the earthly Jerusalem for the appointed feasts. "Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise."

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

3. It does not follow that this passage is teaching that that rest is Sunday. In the context of Hebrews 4:9 the day mentioned is TODAY, or semeron, this very day, not Sunday or any other particular day at all. The "another day" spoken of in verse 8 is not Sunday. It is today.

I think this interpretation misses the author's own interpretation of the OT text he is quoting. John Owen is very good on this passage, as also he discusses the whole question of Sabbath-perpetuity in one of his prefaced essays to his Exposition of Hebrews.

5. "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." 4:10. Since the broader context of this passage and book is to set the preeminance of Christ and His Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant and priesthood, then this verse must be understood that those who enter His rest do so when they cease from seeking righteousness by the Law and have His righteosness imputed by faith in Christ. We truly cease from our own works and rest in the finished work of Christ who has accomplished eternal redemption for us.

Why does this follow? Why does it not mean that we are actively entering into His rest, on the day of rest?

Indeed, Christ is supreme, and "better", and is resting, now, from his labors. All the more reason why we should earnestly desire him in heaven where he is, resting. And when he offers to "break in" to our experience each Sunday, and to invite us up to "heavenly Jerusalem" for a foretaste of glory (see Heb. 12:22ff), we should be rejoicing with greater delights than our Israelitish fathers did as they ascended to the earthly Jerusalem for the appointed feasts. "Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise."

Thank you for your replies. I hope it is not a burden to you for more important things. Hopefully you can see that I am really trying to see this in the Scriptures, but I am just not getting it as they say. I figure I am probably the one wrong about it so many men of God who affirm a Sunday Sabbath, but I do want to find this in the Scriptures.

I have Owen's work and will check it out. Thanks for the heads up.

You ask me why does it not mean that we are actively entering His rest on the day of rest. Here is why I am not seeing this..

As I follow the text of Scripture beginning in chapter 3 verse, Christ is set before our eyes as more glorious than Moses as one who builds a house has more honor than the house. But Christ is the son over his own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm until the end.

Wherefore...because of this, then the Scripture is quoted, as you said, from the OT, Psalm 95. In Numbers God speaks of his land, not his rest as He does on the Psalms. This is curious to me and I will have to think on it. I also found Psalm 132 interesting, perhaps relevant to the subject. God says, "For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it." Psalm 132:13-14

But the Scripture in Hebrews, as to how the Apostle applies Psalm 95, it appears to me that he makes an exhortation to take heed to ourselves lest a similar heart of unbelief be found in us in departing from God. From the OT passages the Israelites questioned if God was among them. In verse 13 we are told to exhort one another daily while it is called Today. How can this be just Sunday if it is daily, and the "Today" is not referring to a definite day?

So, the Israelites we are told did not enter into His rest because of unbelief, and we should exhort one another daily unless a similar heart of unbelief rise up in us like it was in them, while it is still called Today.

Hebrews 4:1 then exhorts to godly fear because a promise is left to us of entering into His rest! That is exciting isn't it? How pastoral of the Apostle whose love for us is that none of us come short of it. And what was preached to them is also preached to us: The Gospel. verse 2

But sadly, the word that was preached them did not benefit them because it was not united with faith. But we which have believed do enter into rest, although the works of creation were finished from the foundation of the world. Then we read in verse 4 and 5 of the seventh day, which must refer to the Jewish Sabbath, and then the Apostle restates "If they shall enter my rest."

Had it not been for Dr. Gill I may not have understood this passage. The Apostle is showing by the Scriptures here that the rest he speaks of is not the God's rest from the works of creation, but another rest.

This seems to be the point of verse 6 of chapter 4, saying that there remains that some must enter into this rest, and those who first heard of it did not enter in because of unbelief. In verse 7 the Apostle says he, God, limits a certain day...which he calls "Today" again quoting Psalm 95. In verse 8 the Apostle shows that it was not Joshua that gave them rest because another day would not have been spoken of, proving what I understood from Dr. Gill. Then the conclusion:

There remaineth therefore a keeping sabbath to the people of God (or a Sabbath rest as the ESV puts it).

How can I say this "Today" is Sunday when it is daily and always "Today" as long as the time of the Gospel is at hand? This time for entering into the Sabbath of God will continue until, I suppose, until the end of the age.

One last thought my brother. As I read Psalm 95, the Apostle only quotes part of it. The full context of Psalm 95 speaks of a call to worship, namely from verse 1 - 7a...then begins the quoting of the Psalm in Hebrews. This struck me too, and I think I see your point. The quoting in Hebrews of Psalm 95 is a call to public worship of God's people. I will think on that brother. Thanks for your help.

RB

Peace. I hope you appreciate Owen's depths.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Peace. I hope you appreciate Owen's depths.

I will try. But in the end my conscience will be bound to the Word of God.

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Peace. I hope you appreciate Owen's depths.

I will try. But in the end my conscience will be bound to the Word of God.

I think you mean "bound to my understanding of"; as was Owen certainly and as we all should be.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Peace. I hope you appreciate Owen's depths.

I will try. But in the end my conscience will be bound to the Word of God.

I think you mean "bound to my understanding of"; as was Owen certainly and as we all should be.

No, I mean conscience...as in those great words spoken by Luther.

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

And better words yet, "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:" 1 Tim 1:5

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, pp. 272-276:

III. Its Appointed Day

The Confession first mentions the natural necessity of an appointed day of worship. The Confession teaches that the law of nature requires an appointed day for worship. First, God must be worshipped publicly and corporately by men. Second, such public and corporate worship requires a publicly and corporately agreed upon proportion of time. Such a proportion of time must be appointed by God, because the only alternative (that men should appoint it) would violate the prerogatives of God in his worship.

Waldron hits the nail on the head! Do you love to worship God corporately with your brothers and sisters in Christ? Then you need a day wherein you can do that. That is why God gives us a Sabbath! The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It is a gift to all of those who desire to worship Him corporately. It is a natural necessity because without it, there will be no regular corporate worship.

BTW, Andrew, where did you obtain an electronic version of Waldron's book?

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, pp. 272-276:

III. Its Appointed Day

The Confession first mentions the natural necessity of an appointed day of worship. The Confession teaches that the law of nature requires an appointed day for worship. First, God must be worshipped publicly and corporately by men. Second, such public and corporate worship requires a publicly and corporately agreed upon proportion of time. Such a proportion of time must be appointed by God, because the only alternative (that men should appoint it) would violate the prerogatives of God in his worship.

Waldron hits the nail on the head! Do you love to worship God corporately with your brothers and sisters in Christ? Then you need a day wherein you can do that. That is why God gives us a Sabbath! The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It is a gift to all of those who desire to worship Him corporately. It is a natural necessity because without it, there will be no regular corporate worship.

BTW, Andrew, where did you obtain an electronic version of Waldron's book?

I have his book, Read it. It doesn't convince me at all.

No; understanding of the word of God is what I was after; understanding can be faulty and yet conscience still binds to it.

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I will try. But in the end my conscience will be bound to the Word of God.

I think you mean "bound to my understanding of"; as was Owen certainly and as we all should be.

No, I mean conscience...as in those great words spoken by Luther.

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

And better words yet, "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:" 1 Tim 1:5

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, pp. 272-276:

III. Its Appointed Day

The Confession first mentions the natural necessity of an appointed day of worship. The Confession teaches that the law of nature requires an appointed day for worship. First, God must be worshipped publicly and corporately by men. Second, such public and corporate worship requires a publicly and corporately agreed upon proportion of time. Such a proportion of time must be appointed by God, because the only alternative (that men should appoint it) would violate the prerogatives of God in his worship.

Waldron hits the nail on the head! Do you love to worship God corporately with your brothers and sisters in Christ? Then you need a day wherein you can do that. That is why God gives us a Sabbath! The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It is a gift to all of those who desire to worship Him corporately. It is a natural necessity because without it, there will be no regular corporate worship.

BTW, Andrew, where did you obtain an electronic version of Waldron's book?

I don't have an electronic version, I just typed it for the edification of the brethren.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

No; understanding of the word of God is what I was after; understanding can be faulty and yet conscience still binds to it.

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I think you mean "bound to my understanding of"; as was Owen certainly and as we all should be.

No, I mean conscience...as in those great words spoken by Luther.

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

And better words yet, "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:" 1 Tim 1:5

My understanding certainly can be faulty.

I must admit, this treatise is powerful. Dr. Gill almost persuadeth me to the Christian Sabbath

8. Of the Place and Time of Public Worship.

Ok, so my wife and I are talking about this subject and she is asking me this and that about it, and I say, "Honey, you should do your own study on this too." Her answer:

"I don't see myself spending hours studying Gill, Calvin and others to see if I can wash the dishes on Sunday."

I about fell out of my chair laughing. Got to love women!

In his wisdom, God, from the beginning set up one day in seven for all of us to worship Him corporately. Ultimately, if you reject this wisdom you are asserting that you have a better way for us to worship Him corporately.

It is one thing to reject the Sabbath system. It is another to propose an alternative.

If not the Sabbath, then what system do you propose for us to regularly engage in corporate worship?

(This question is addressed in general to all who oppose the Sabbath)

Originally Posted by KMK

In his wisdom, God, from the beginning set up one day in seven for all of us to worship Him corporately. Ultimately, if you reject this wisdom you are asserting that you have a better way for us to worship Him corporately.

It is one thing to reject the Sabbath system. It is another to propose an alternative.

If not the Sabbath, then what system do you propose for us to regularly engage in corporate worship?

(This question is addressed in general to all who oppose the Sabbath)

Good question brother, but I am going to have to "shelve" this subject for a season. My Systematic 1 mats arrived today...got to get busy on that.

Blessings