The Law of God and the Christian - Rest

[jfschultz]

On today's RYM, R.C. Sproul mentions a meeting with a fellow minister in January 1996. His friend was tired from watching the SuperBowl which he recorded and watched at 3:00 AM in order to maintain the Sabbath.

Did this really follow the 4th commandment? Even though he watched the game early on Monday, others had to do work that is not of necessity or mercy on the Lord's Day so the recording could be made.

Remember the 4th commandment also speaks to those in "authority" so that they do not require others to work. Is the fact that these other people would be violating the Sabbath anyway an acceptable argument or a rationalization?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

It's true that the sabbath is for man not man for the sabbath, but our Lord did not intend to create license thereby.

There are also virtues such as wisdom and prudence to consider. Is it prudent to stay up to 3AM to watch anything, even the almost always most boring football game of the year?

If it must be watched (if this were Nebraska football, I might understand!) then why not record and save it for a more advantageous time?

Eric Liddell was correct (in Chariots of Fire), "The Sabbath's not a day for playing football" and I might add "or watching it"! The Sabbath is for rest, worship, works of mercy and necessity. Having attended to the means of grace twice, and having seen to the needs of one's family and brothers and sisters in Christ, who has time for football?

Would I judge someone else for watching a football game between services? No. Would I judge him for absenting himself from the means of grace to watch football? Sure I would. It's not only foolish, it's sinful. There, I said it. It's sinful to absent one's self and/or one's family from the means of grace to watch a stupid football game.

No, though I might be tempted, I wouldn't absent myself from the means of grace even to watch Nebraska football.

It's the means of grace! It's the sabbath! We have six days to watch football and shop and make money. Our Creator (and redeemer) requires that we set aside one day from the usual rush of getting and seeing for "hearing" (the Gospel) and for being fed by the means of grace (SC 88).

rsc

 

[SolaScriptura]

Scott - Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

 

[MW]

Prof. Clark,

I warmly welcome every defence of God's honour day. Much appreciated.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
It's true that the sabbath is for man not man for the sabbath, but our Lord did not intend to create license thereby.

There are also virtues such as wisdom and prudence to consider. Is it prudent to stay up to 3AM to watch anything, even the almost always most boring football game of the year?

If it must be watched (if this were Nebraska football, I might understand!) then why not record and save it for a more advantageous time?

Eric Liddell was correct (in Chariots of Fire), "The Sabbath's not a day for playing football" and I might add "or watching it"! The Sabbath is for rest, worship, works of mercy and necessity. Having attended to the means of grace twice, and having seen to the needs of one's family and brothers and sisters in Christ, who has time for football?

Would I judge someone else for watching a football game between services? No. Would I judge him for absenting himself from the means of grace to watch football? Sure I would. It's not only foolish, it's sinful. There, I said it. It's sinful to absent one's self and/or one's family from the means of grace to watch a stupid football game.

No, though I might be tempted, I wouldn't absent myself from the means of grace even to watch Nebraska football.

It's the means of grace! It's the sabbath! We have six days to watch football and shop and make money. Our Creator (and redeemer) requires that we set aside one day from the usual rush of getting and seeing for "hearing" (the Gospel) and for being fed by the means of grace (SC 88).

rsc

and

The former pastor of our church, on every "Super Bowl Sunday," made a point during the service to announce, "Today is NOT Super Bowl Sunday. Today is THE LORD'S DAY!"

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The former pastor of our church, on every "Super Bowl Sunday," made a point during the service to announce, "Today is NOT Super Bowl Sunday. Today is THE LORD'S DAY!"

The late "dominie" (the Dutch term of affection for certain types of ministers) of a certain congregation used to preach on the Sabbath every year, in the evening service, in competition with the Superbowl.

I'm told that it was the most well attended service of the year because no one wanted anyone else to think that they were home watching the SB!

rsc

 

[Augusta]

 

[Larry Hughes]

Perhaps entertainment is one issue and thereby missing out on the Word and Sacraments is a sin. However, this assumes first and foremost it is a pure clear strong Gospel Word, which deplorably it is NOT in MOST American churches today; and the Sacraments also assume they are ACTUALLY being given as means of grace and not "œobedience ordinances". Assuming this, then yes it would be a sin. Yet this too further assumes we understand "œsin" as the inward turning upon one´s self and not just "œdisobedience" (for to not desire while actually being obedient is still sin) for which the Gospel in Word and Sacrament are meant to pull us out of ourselves. Then yes to not receive the Gospel and the Sacraments would be a sin similar to starving yourself to death when food is served for a few empty frivolities while one is hungry and starving.

But if its not pure and clear Gospel and its not Sacraments that you missed, then what did you really miss?

However, work is different. Zwingle said "that it was lawful on the Lord's day, after divine service, for any man to pursue his labors. And Beza, Calvin´s successor taught that "no cessation of work on the Lord's day is required of Christians". Bucer even goes further by stating, "and doth not only call it a superstition, but an apostasy from Christ to think that working on the Lord's day, in itself considered, is a sinful thing."

When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they rebuked Him for healing on the Sabbath His rebuke is very revealing. For He says that the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Thus, healing and caring which is love for neighbor actually shows forth the Sabbath´s true nature. To heal on Sabbath actually shows its true meaning.

For example my wife has to work every other Sunday as a trauma ER nurse, there is no way around it. On these Sundays she misses, not by a desire to miss, but out of necessity. Believe me we desire greatly clear Gospel and Sacraments if you can actually find them in the tragedy we call preaching and churches today. Yet, God has called her to this healing of the needy every other Sunday. And trust me if you ever have a heart attach or car accident on Sunday, you will certainly be glad God has placed such mercies on Sunday´s.

Ldh

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

As a matter of theology, the Reformed have always confessed an exception to the prohibition on work for works of "mercy and necessity." A nurse is one or both of those.

As to absenting one's self from stated services because of dissatisfaction is another matter.

all services are imperfect in some way.

If, however, the gospel is not preached purely and sacraments are not administered according to the Word of God routinely or as a matter of policy or theology, then according to BC 29, there is no congregation there. In which case, one has a moral duty to unite with a true church.

If it is a true church and the minister is disobedient to his ordination vows then he should be disciplined by his session/consistory for such disobedience.

In sum, if a congregation is a true church, then the gospel, sacraments, and discipline should be in order. If so, there is no cause to absent one's self from the means of grace (WSC 88) because of dissatisfaction. If things are not in order, then there needs to be reformation, discpline or dismissal to a true church.

Best,

rsc

 

[jaybird0827]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
The former pastor of our church, on every "Super Bowl Sunday," made a point during the service to announce, "Today is NOT Super Bowl Sunday. Today is THE LORD'S DAY!"

And I hope he would have said that on "Mother's Day", "Father's Day" and an other occasions of sinful human propensity to usurp The Lord's Day.

 

[Tirian]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
As to absenting one's self from stated services because of dissatisfaction is another matter.

all services are imperfect in some way.

I think this is well put. Our obediance to God should not be determined by the actions of others. Even if you had to disengage from the church you were attending because of enduring/uncorrected error or unfaithful preaching, it wouldn't provide the basis for you to engage in other activities not fitting for the Lord's day.

Though not addressing the Sabbath, I like the principle set out in Daniel (Ch3) regarding Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego before Nebuchadnezzar - "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. 17 If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. 18 But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."

Ie. We know what God requires of us, and irrespective of whether He delivers us from our present circumstance we will not do what we know to be contrary to His will.

Matt

 

[BJClark]

It sounds as if we are confusing the Sabbath with the Lords Day, two completely different days.

God Never changed the Sabbath Day, however, Man began worshipping on the FIRST day of the week (The Lords Day) which is not truly the Sabbath, if we are to go by what the Bible considers the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is from Friday Night Sun down until Saturday Night Sun down, so even if the Pastor WOULD have watched the Superbowl on Sunday he would not have been violating the Sabbath.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath

Personally, I don't see why we don't rest and read the Bible on the Sabbath, as it is basically preparing ourselves for Worship and fellowship on The Lords Day with other Saints. (even if the fellowship includes watching a Superbowl Game)



[Edited on 9-9-2006 by BJClark]

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by BJClark]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The Westminster Confession speaks of "the Christian sabbath."

When Reformed folk speak of the sabbath that's generally what they mean.

There are "seventh-day" Baptists and Adventists who keep a Saturday sabbath and are entangled with legalism, but such is not the case with the mainstream of the Reformed observation of the LD/sabbath.

See the 6 points of the Synod of Dort.

rsc

Originally posted by BJClark



It sounds as if we are confusing the Sabbath with the Lords Day, two completely different days.

God Never changed the Sabbath Day, however, Man began worshipping on the FIRST day of the week (The Lords Day) which is not truly the Sabbath, if we are to go by what the Bible considers the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is from Friday Night Sun down until Saturday Night Sun down, so even if the Pastor WOULD have watched the Superbowl on Sunday he would not have been violating the Sabbath.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath

Personally, I don't see why we don't rest and read the Bible on the Sabbath, as it is basically preparing ourselves for Worship and fellowship on The Lords Day with other Saints. (even if the fellowship includes watching a Superbowl Game)



[Edited on 9-9-2006 by BJClark]

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by BJClark]

 

[BJClark]

R. Scott Clark,

I understand that, and I have no problem with it. I do go to church on Sunday.

But I also enjoy resting from Friday evening to Saturday evening, where I don't cook or clean, or do anything around the house, except relax and enjoy the company of my family. I also enjoy reading my Bible Saturday before Church on Sunday as it helps prepare my heart for worship.

If my husband or kids desire to cook dinner or clean, wonderful, because I get to relax. As a SAHM I cook almost everyday and clean around the house (my kids help some days), so having one day a week where I don't have to is certainly a blessing and helps me to be a better wife and mother to my family. So it's not that I think everyone should do this, but it certainly helps ME in doing so.

but isn't not watching a Football game on a Sunday, just because it's Sunday, just as legalistic?

Why shouldn't Christian brothers get together and fellowship on The Lords Day and enjoy a football game after coming together and worshipping the Lord?




[Edited on 9-10-2006 by BJClark]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Bobbi,

I'm not Lord of your conscience. I'm not telling anyone what they can do between services. I am only objecting to people absenting themselves from the means of grace for the sake of entertainment.

Do I think it's wise to spend the sabbath pursuing entertainment? Not particularly. We have 6 days to do our own business. God asks only one day to worship, rest, and care for the brothers and sisters.

I don't think that's legalistic any more than "love your neighbor" or "don't covet" or "submit to authorities" is legalistic.

Legalism would be either making law-keeping a condition of justification or undue specification in law-keeping (e.g., someoone once told me I could walk or drive to his house on the sabbath, but I couldn't ride my bicycle! That's legalism of the second order).

I don't see how seeking to obey the spirit of the 4th commandment, which is grounded after all both in creation - Ex 20 - and redemption - Deut 5 - is legalistic.

I don't think the 6 points of Dort are legalistic. They seem eminently wise to me. We don't keep the sabbath with Jewish strictness, but we do keep the sabbath (as per above).

Best,

rsc

Originally posted by BJClark
R. Scott Clark,

I understand that, and I have no problem with it. I do go to church on Sunday.

But I also enjoy resting from Friday evening to Saturday evening, where I don't cook or clean, or do anything around the house, except relax and enjoy the company of my family. I also enjoy reading my Bible Saturday before Church on Sunday as it helps prepare my heart for worship.

If my husband or kids desire to cook dinner or clean, wonderful, because I get to relax. As a SAHM I cook almost everyday and clean around the house (my kids help some days), so having one day a week where I don't have to is certainly a blessing and helps me to be a better wife and mother to my family. So it's not that I think everyone should do this, but it certainly helps ME in doing so.

but isn't not watching a Football game on a Sunday, just because it's Sunday, just as legalistic?

Why shouldn't Christian brothers get together and fellowship on The Lords Day and enjoy a football game after coming together and worshipping the Lord?




[Edited on 9-10-2006 by BJClark]

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[jaybird0827]

Dr. Clark,

I am glad that you are posting on this forum.

Thank you for the wisdom expressed in your reply (prior message) and for clarifying the definition of legalism. I have been looking for a clear statement of just what legalism is, for years. I did not even know about the 6 points of Dort. I have been with the "Reformed camp" for 25 years now and not once has this eminent document even mentioned. And I thank you for your work in translating it.

Jay

I Corinthians 15:58

 

[Larry Hughes]

people absenting themselves from the means of grace for the sake of entertainment

Thank you very much for the help.

This I exactly agree with.

Where the rub is, not presently at our wonderful grace driven church in Word and Sacrament, is when one cannot find a good church that does this and the means of grace NOR Gospel are given. If that church is merely a "law" preaching church with alter calls and so forth - I speculate the use of going though I've never practiced my own speculation in the past.

Such "churches" I would agree are not churches at all and in the end one would no more be eshewing true worship than eschewing attendance at a Mormon Ward or JW Hall. That may sound harsh but I hardly see the difference.

The big challenge is finding a church you can attend, I by no means mean perfection or any where close to that - but one can tell quite easily if the Gospel exist AT ALL in the church.

I suppose if all esle fails a high liturgical church would be a default, since at LEAST the liturgy forces the Gospel as opposed to a "free worship" church.

Blessings,

Ldh

 

[Arch2k]

The Westminster Larger Catechism

Q117: How is the sabbath or the Lord's day to be sanctified?
A117: The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day,[1] not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful;[2] and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity and mercy)[3] in the public and private exercises of God's worship:[4] and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.[5]

1. Exod. 20:8, 10
2. Exod. 16:25-28; Neh. 13:15-22; Jer. 17:21-22

3. Matt. 12:1-13
4. Isa. 58:18; 66:23; Luke 4:16; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:1-2; Psa. ch. 92; Lev. 23:3
5. Exod. 16:22, 25-26, 29; 20:8; Luke 23:54, 56; Neh. 13:19

 

[Texas Aggie]

I have two questions concerning this topic:

1. If there are two days (Lord's Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath), then which day are we to observe as a day of rest (no servile work)? It seems to me that if God never changed His Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) then this would be the instruction to observe. A Sunday observance of rest might be considered above and beyond that which God has prescribed. Therefore, cooking, cleaning, working and watching a football game on Sunday is perfectly acceptable to God. Is this correct?

2. In terms of a necessity for working on the Sabbath, where does an airline pilot fall? Would this truly be considered a necessity in the eyes of God?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Larry Hughes]

A good difference between legalism can be better seen by distinguishing between that which is intrinsic to a thing and that which is extrinsic to a thing. E.g. My job pays me cash money for my labor. This is an extrinsic reward, it has absolutely nothing to do with my type or kind of work. This is easily seen in that your job which differs from my own receives the same extrinsic reward, cash. The money is irrelevant to whether I´m a doctor or Indian chief by profession. Similarly with punishments. To punish by spanking for getting a cookie out of a cookie jar has no true linkage to the offense, in essence its arbitrary. Numerous studies have shown the psychological failure of such extrinsic rewards and punishments at length. For example studies have shown that at length monetary payment for a meaningless jobs does not increase the desire to do the meaningless job. In fact as time passes and the job remains meaningless not even increases in pay matter, most will eventually quit.

An intrinsic reward or punishment is immediately related to the task work itself. A musician is rewarded by the work itself, even in lieu of payment extrinsically speaking. Rewarding careers are had that pay little money out of shear love of the vocation. Similarly intrinsic punishments abound. If one commits adultery on their spouse the real punishment arises from the destroyed relationship and not any court fines, pressures from ethics, or so forth.

The real sin of sin and hell of hell is the loss of the loving relationship with God and neighbor for which we were created. The letting go of one to ultimate inward curving and selfishness is the real hell of sin and sin itself, with no hope of ever loving God or neighbor. The real reward, if you will, of the Gospel restoring us, is not some extrinsic reward but the restoring of loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself (ultimately this will be only fully realized in heaven). We see this only in a foggy way in this life but only via the Good News. The Gospel is truly good news to one seeing his hopeless inward curving either by gross immorality or "œobedience" in a legal way, either of which are really nothing more than effects of a deeper problem "“ the inward curving and helpless sin nature.

Thus, especially in our time terms like "œobedience" and so forth can wrongly carry a legal component. For what God truly desires of us is that which issues forth naturally without effort or eye toward "œobedience" that measures "œright and wrong" but from a heart that naturally flows (this is to truly have the law written on the heart, that it is no longer "œlaw" but natural). Luther recognized that if one has reached the level of "œI ought to do it" in assessing in given situation that one must recognize one has ALREADY fallen into sin, EVEN IF you do the "œought to good". The bare fact you weigh it indicates you already naturally resist it in your desires. If one is pure love as Christ was, then one would not even "œweigh the ought". On the negative side we don´t need commands or laws to obey being sinful (inwardly curved), this we do quite naturally. The reverse of this, outwardly curved utterly, the true law which is pure love, is what we should be. Here we see the true fallen nature of man, sin and hell on one side; and what we begin to be by the Gospel and will be in consummation, and heaven on the other side. The earthly example often given is "œif you have to be commanded to kiss your girl friend, you better get another girl friend." The point is that which we "œlove" or "œdesire" we do naturally without law, command or obedience but naturally. Yet, in human language it can be spoken of as command or obedience sans the legal tone and be natural OR as we often do be spoken of as command or obedience WITH the legal tone and be a legalism.

Therefore, things like the Sabbath and other "œcommands" to the Christian take by the Gospel, ideally, should be loving desires and not "œcommands" per se. This is why some can hear the same words with "œcommand" attached as legal and other not. The first command can become a wonderful promise, "œyou shall" can be a command or promise. If its purely command then its legalism, but if its promise (that one day it will be pure from the heart and only in shadows now) then its something wonderful we partially do now, resting on the Gospel, and await the day when sin (inward turning) will but utterly vanquished from our being. Then we will love God and neighbor purely and this IS the reward of heaven "“ the loving relationships that are pure. Hell will be utter inward turning.

Thus, the Sabbath should be given as a promise issuing forth from the Gospel and not a "œcommand" to be obeyed or else. For the "œpunishment" for not coming is intrinsic (not extrinsic), it´s your great loose for not coming to RECEIVE from God His grace (like disobeying a parent who has your best interest in mind and if you "œdisobey" you will hurt yourself by the breaking of the relationship. If the Sabbath is taught as "œlaw" or conveyed that way, fear of punishment extrinsically for not attending, then attending will equally be worthless for the wrong reward, extrinsic, is falsely sought. The lose of not attending the holy day, the Word and Sacraments

Thus, a legalism can arise from ANYTHING, even otherwise good things. Very few bother to see this.

Blessings as always,

Ldh

 

[Augusta]

That is really great Larry. You have helped me to see this in a new light. What are you reading?? Care to share?

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
I have two questions concerning this topic:

1. If there are two days (Lord's Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath), then which day are we to observe as a day of rest (no servile work)? It seems to me that if God never changed His Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) then this would be the instruction to observe. A Sunday observance of rest might be considered above and beyond that which God has prescribed. Therefore, cooking, cleaning, working and watching a football game on Sunday is perfectly acceptable to God. Is this correct?

2. In terms of a necessity for working on the Sabbath, where does an airline pilot fall? Would this truly be considered a necessity in the eyes of God?

Thanks for your help.

Hello

1. There is only one day. The Lord's Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath are two terms for the same day.

Mt. 12:8 the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day

The Lord Jesus did change the day of the Sabbath. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ it was the seventh day. After Jesus rose from death on the first day of the week, by his example of meeting with the disciples every 1st day until the ascension and the example of the Apostles, he changed it to the first day, which is Sunday. The seventh day sabbath under the old dispensation was a rememberance of God's work of creation. The first day Sabbath on the first day points to his work of redemption.

See further here

2. in my opinion, it depends what reason the airline pilot is flying. What is his cargo? If vacationers, I don't think that would be justifiable. If he is helping people get to a destination where they will be doing works of mercy or piety then certainly it is permissible. In the Scottish Hebrides until around a year ago no ferries could leave or enter the islands on Sundays in honor of the Sabbath. One Scottish denomination does not even allow public transportation on Sundays, even to get to church.

 

[Peter]

Larry, good point. The relationship between ALL sin and punishment is intrinsic. In sinning we are separating ourselves from God, which is the essense of what hell is. Plus, consider that our sins will be the very thing of our torment, the worm that does not cease. The breaking the Sabbath, as you pointed out, is a more immediate illustration of this because it is a means of grace, the restoration of our relationship with God. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Sabbath is part of the Moral Law, an ordinance of Creation, given to Adam before sin ever entered in. Threatenings of curses are denounced against all who do not keep the Sabbath unless they are in Christ and dead to the Law.

I agree, knowing the evil of sin and the deceitfulness of sin we should not meddle with it or contemplate it but immediately cut it off. Knowing that something is sin we should then right away realize that there is no good in it, no reason to choose it, and no reason even to consider it. Of course it is a good thing to meditate on the reasons not to sin though. The primary reason is out of thankfulness to God but the threats of the law are also good to consider, the scriptures do enough so it must be good for us too.

 

[Peter]

In light of the spiritual nature of the Law and the express commands of Isaiah 58, I was wondering how faithful you guys are in keeping your words and mind devoted to the worship of Jesus on the Lord's Day. I have trouble keeping back gross outward violations of the Sabbath and I find it nearly impossible speeking and thinking the Lord's pleasure on his holy day. I've noticed that conversations between the Lord's people tends to be very worldly on the Sabbath and I readily slip into this. What are some specific guidlines about how much nonreligious talk and thought we can have on Sunday?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Speaking our own words is a very common sin to many who otherwise outwardly keep the Lord's Day holy. This extract from Fisher's Catechism may be helpful:

Q. 60.14. Are we not to rest on the Lord's day from lawful recreations, as well as from lawful worldly employments?

A. Yes; because we are expressly required, on this holy day, to abstain from doing our own ways, finding our own pleasure, and speaking our own words, Isa 58:13.

Q. 60.15. What are these recreations that are lawful on other days?

A. Innocent pastimes, visiting friends, walking in the fields, talking of the news, or common affairs, and the like.

Q. 60.16. Why are these recreations unlawful on the Lord's day?

A. Because they tend to divert the mind from the duties of the Sabbath, as much as, if not more than, worldly employments.

Q. 60.17. Is not the Sabbath a festival, or feast day; and consequently may not our conversation on it be cheerful and diverting?

A. It is, indeed, properly a feast day, but of a spiritual, not of a carnal nature: we may refresh our bodies moderately, but not sumptuously; and our conversation ought to turn wholly upon spiritual and heavenly subjects, or such as have that tendency, after the example of our Lord, Luke 14:1-25.

Q. 60.18. What should be the principal end of our six days' labour?

A. That it be so managed, as in no way to discompose or unfit us for a holy resting on the Sabbath, or meeting with God on his own day.

Q. 60.19. What is a [holy resting?]

A. Not only an abstaining from our own work, or labour, but an entering by faith, (in the use of appointed means,) into the presence and enjoyment of God in Christ, as the only rest of our souls, Heb 4:3; that having no work of our own to mind or do, we may be wholly taken up with the works of God.

Q. 60.20. Why called a [holy] resting?

A. Because we should rest from worldly labour, in order to be employed in the holy exercises, which the Lord requires on this day; otherwise, as to bare cessation, our cattle rest from outward labour, as well as we.

Q. 60.21. What are the holy exercises, in which we ought to be employed on the Lord's day?

A. [In the public and private exercises of God's worship.]

Q. 60.22. What are the [public exercises] of God's worship in which we should be employed?

A. Hearing the word preached, Rom 10:17; joining in public prayers and praises, Luke 24:53; and partaking of the sacraments, Acts 20:7.

And this from Matthew Henry:

On sabbath days we must not walk in our own ways (that is, not follow our callings), not find our own pleasure (that is, not follow our sports and recreations); nay, we must not speak our own words, words that concern either our callings or our pleasures; we must not allow ourselves a liberty of speech on that day as on other days, for we must then mind God's ways, make religion the business of the day; we must choose the things that please him; and speak his words, speak of divine things as we sit in the house and walk by the way. In all we say and do we must put a difference between this day and other days.

And this from Henry Scudder:

(2.) Directions for the religious observance of the Lord's day.

Secondly, Being convinced of the holiness of this day, the better to keep it holy when it comes, you must,

1st. On the week day before the Sabbath, or Lord's day, remember it, Exod 20:8-9, to the end that none of your worldly business be left undone, or put off till then; especially upon Saturday, you must prepare for it. Then you must put an end to the works of your calling; and do whatsoever may be well done beforehand, to prevent bodily labour even in your necessary actions, that, when the day comes, you may have less occasion of worldly thoughts, less incumbrance and distractions; and may be more free, both in body and mind, for spiritual exercises.

2d. You yourself, and, as much as in you lies, all under your authority, must rest upon this day, Exod 23:12; Exod 34:21, the space of the whole day of four-and-twenty hours, from all manner of works, except those which have true reference to the present day's works of piety, mercy, and true necessity, Matt 12:1-13, not doing your own ways, not finding your own pleasures, nor speaking your own words, Isa 58:13.

3d. It is not enough that you observe this day as a rest, but you must keep a holy rest. Which that you may do, you must, on your awaking in the morning, make a difference between it and other days, not thinking on any worldly business more than will serve for a general providence, to preserve you from great hurt or loss. Both in your lying awake, and rising in the morning, make use of the former directions, showing you how to awake and rise with God. Rise early, Ps 92:2, if it will consist with your health, and not hinder your fitness for spiritual exercises through drowsiness afterward, that you may show forth God's loving-kindness in the morning. Double your devotions on the Lord's day, as the Jews did their morning and evening sacrifice on the Sabbath day, Num 28:3,9-10. Prepare yourself for the public holy services by reading, by meditation, Eccles 5:1-2; and by putting away all filthiness, James 1:21; 1 Pet 2:1-2; that is, repenting of every sin; and casting away the superfluity of naughtiness; that is, let no sin be allowed or suffered to reign in you. Then pray for yourself, and for the minister, Eph 6:18-20, that God would give him a mouth to speak, and you an heart to hear, as you both ought to do. All this, before you shall assemble for public worship. Being thus prepared, bring your family with you to the church. Join with the minister and congregation. Set yourself as in the special presence of God, following the example of good Cornelius, Acts 10:33, with all reverence attending and consenting; saying Amen with understanding, faith, and affection, to the prayers uttered by the minister; believing, Heb 4:2, and obeying, James 1:22, whatsoever is by him commanded you from God. Afterward, by meditation, and by conference, Acts 17:11-12; and if you have opportunity, by repetitions, call to mind, and wisely and firmly lay up in your heart what you have learned, Ps 119:11. The like care must be had before, at, and after, the evening exercise.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Augusta,

It was part of what I saw at my own conversion back in 1997 from atheist to Christian. Without going into great detail of my conversion, it was one of those rare moments in time hearing someone preach the cross as clear as I've ever heard it. Back then "I saw/heard/received", pick your term, while hearing a sermon, that very issue of sin, the inward turning.

Prior to that I'd always asked the question and could never get an answer to that intrinsic/extrinsic relationship. I saw sin pretty much the way most did even as a rank atheistic unbeliever. Though, even as an atheist, I could affirm everything about Jesus as to Who He was (deity and person), that His death was for "sin" per se and even at a point believe He being God was raised from the dead. I could even affirm what seemed to be a righteous punishment for sin (as I perceived sin) AND even, ironically, as an atheist coming out of rank atheism and more into a form of believing in God fear the idea of hell as in "hell fire". I even, and this was in a period of life were I professed as an atheist but still could "see" some things, could see the necessity for the Christian God only, Jesus and everything. I even at one time defended against a Catholic on some issues that Christians would, but yet STILL was a professing atheist and so in my heart. But NONE of that would convert me, I refused to be baptized into the church.

What I could never see was the real issue of sin and real force of what Christ suffered for until that 1997 day. But when it hit it hit full force and the FIRST thing I saw was that sin, my sin, was not the external things I did good or bad. Rather all that I was was inwardly curved, I termed it utter selfishness. I recall explaining to a chemical engineer friend and co-worker a couple years after my conversion this very thing: That basically all sin and fallen man was utterly selfish and God was completely opposite utterly unselfish and that if God were like fallen man He would be so infinitely inwardly bent (that was the first time I used that term and had NEVER so much as read one single reformed writing at that time) that He would be self consuming and NEVER even as much as create a single thing. That was my grasp of it back then.

At my conversion, that preaching of Christ crucified, I saw on one hand myself so inwardly turned as to be utterly helpless and on the other hand Christ utterly outwardly turned and given for me - it broke me and all my resistance. I immediately saught baptism, I had to be. That's my story in a nutshell.

But just recently I picked up some stuff Luther wrote and particularly William Hordern's "Living By Grace", 1975 (I think, GREAT book). And in the later chapters he spells that out, much better and articulate than I can. But it took me back to that day in 1997. I told my wife, this guys saying it, exactly the way I experienced it.

I don't want to give you the impression by "experience" I mean fresh revelation, oh no! Make NO mistake about it it was the preaching of the Word, a specifically STRONT and CRYSTAL CLEAR PURE Gospel, the Cross like I've never heard it since preached. I don't know who that preacher was on my car radio that morning. BUT I'll NEVER forget that sermon. And I'll never forget how He spoke of the Cross. That morning I saw, I really hear the call of the Gospel. Sometimes I lament not hearing it that strongly today. It was literally like coming to life, that's the only metaphor I can relate it to. One second the world was this way to me, the next all I formerly knew was a facade and the world was different. It broke/shattered me and I was as a hardened atheistic/agnostic as they come, granite hard. That's why I always put the Cross central, after that I could do no less.

But check Hordern's book out you WILL NOT be disappointed.

Yours and Blessings in Christ alone,

Larry















I didn't have the way to express it until recently.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

What about the sabbath?

Answer to an emailed question about keeping the Sabbath.

I'm glad you enjoyed the broadcast and I hope you will keep listening.

With respect to the sabbath: if you in faith desire to observe a day a week as unto the Lord I have no problem with that whatsoever -- nor does the Lord. However, such things are not part of the gospel. God either counts us righteous because of what we do or not do or else He counts us righteous through faith as He did Abraham. There is no way to mix law and grace. It might be profitable to read legalism.htm. It is an answer to a letter and although the particular aspect of "commandments" was different, the principles still apply.

I can find no way to reconcile the imposition of sabbath-keeping on Christians and what Paul said in Romans 14, particularly verses 5 and 6. I find it interesting that in Romans 14, those who had a lot scruples about things like eating and drinking and observing days were the ones Paul considered "weak in the faith." I believe that is because they were still tainted by the idea that their righteous standing before God depended in some measure on these things and not on Christ alone.

I believe that Colossians 2:8-17 is abundantly clear. All of these Old Testament observances served a purpose -- mainly to teach about things that were to come through Christ. Gal. 3:24. The main concern of the writer to the Hebrews was that Jews would find it difficult to leave the law behind and come to a full place of rest in what Christ had done on the cross. That is particularly what Heb. 4:1-10 is about. The resting that God did on the seventh day is set forth as a type of the spiritual rest we come to when we "cease from our own works" and enter into his rest -- his rest being the result of having provided a full and complete salvation and there being nothing to add to it. In other words, anyone who is truly born again is thereby observing the "sabbath" in the only way that truly matters.

When someone is truly born again there is an inward grace that begins to teach him to "deny ungodliness and worldly lusts" and to "live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." Titus 2:12. Read also Rom. 8:4 as to how the "righteousness of the law" is fulfilled. (I am fully aware that there are multitudes today who claim to have experienced the grace of God who are strangers to it.)

"Commandment keeping" and the gospel just don't go together. God has a better way! As I said at the beginning, if you in faith desire to set aside a special day to seek and worship God because you find it spiritually beneficial -- wonderful. But the minute you begin to try to impose such convictions on others you have jumped the fence from gospel to law.

May God bless you!
Phil Enlow

 

[Blueridge Believer]

John Gill on the sabbath:
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

Colossians 2:16

Ver. 16. Let no man therefore judge you,.... Since they were complete in Christ, had everything in him, were circumcised in him; and particularly since the handwriting of the law was blotted out, and torn to pieces through the nails of the cross of Christ, the apostle's conclusion is, that they should be judged by no man; they should not regard or submit to any man's judgment, as to the observance of the ceremonial law: Christ is the prophet who was to be raised up like unto Moses, and who only, and not Moses, is to be heard; saints are to call no man master upon earth but him; they are not to be the servants of men, nor should suffer any yoke of bondage to be imposed upon them; and should they be suffered and condemned by others, as if they were transgressors of the law, and their state bad, for not observing the rituals of the former dispensation, they should not regard such censures, for the judaizing Christians were very censorious, they were ready to look upon and condemn a man as an immoral man, as in a state of damnation, if he did not keep the law of Moses; but such rigid censures were to be disregarded, "let no man judge", or "condemn you"; and though they could not help or hinder the judgment and condemnation of men, yet they could despise them, and not be uneasy with them, but set light by them, as they ought to do. The Syriac version renders it, Nwkdwdn, "let no man trouble you", or make you uneasy, by imposing ceremonies on you: the sense is, that the apostle would not have them submit to the yoke they would lay upon them, nor be terrified by their anathemas against them, for the non-observation of the things that follow:

in meat or in drink; or on account of not observing the laws and rules about meats and drinks, in the law of Moses; such as related to the difference between clean and unclean creatures, to abstinence in Nazarites from wine and strong drink, and which forbid drinking out of an uncovered vessel, and which was not clean; hence the washing of cups, &c. religiously observed by the Pharisees. There was no distinction of meats and drinks before the law, but all sorts of herbs and animals, without limitation, were given to be food for men; by the ceremonial law a difference was made between them, some were allowed, and others were forbidden; which law stood only in meats and drinks, and such like things, but is now abolished; for the kingdom of God, or the Gospel dispensation, does not lie in the observance of such outward things, but in internal ones, in righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; it is not any thing that goes into the man that defiles, nor is anything in its own nature common or unclean, but every creature of God is good, so be it, it be used in moderation and with thankfulness:

or in respect of an holyday; or feast, such as the feast of the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the feast of Pentecost; which were three grand festivals, at which all the Jewish males were obliged to appear before the Lord; but were never binding upon the Gentiles, and were what the Christians under the Gospel dispensation had nothing to do with, and even believing Jews were freed from them, as having had their accomplishment in Christ; and therefore were not to be imposed upon them, or they condemned for the neglect of them. The phrase en merei, which we render "in respect", has greatly puzzled interpreters; some reading it "in part of a feast"; or holyday; as if the sense was, that no man should judge or condemn them, for not observing some part of a festival, since they were not obliged to observe any at all: others "in the partition", or "division of a feast"; that is, in the several distinct feasts, as they come in their turns: some {c} think the apostle respects the Misna, or oral law of the Jews, in which are several treatises concerning a good day, or an holyday, the beginning of the new year, and the sabbath, which treatises are divided into sections or chapters; and that it is one of these sections or chapters, containing rules about these things, that is here regarded; and then the sense is, let no man judge you or condemn you, for your non-observance of feast days, new moons, and sabbaths, by any part, chapter, or section, of bwj Mwy, or by anything out of the treatise "concerning a feast day"; or by any part, chapter, or section, of
hnvh var, the treatise "concerning the beginning of the year"; or by any part, chapter, or section, of tbv, the treatise "concerning the sabbath"; and if these treatises are referred to, it proves the antiquity of the Misna. The Syriac version renders it, adaed aglwpb, "in the divisions of the feast": frequent mention is made of gxh owrp, "the division", or "half of the feast", in the Jewish writings: thus for instance it is said {d},

"three times in a year they clear the chamber (where the half-shekels were put), owrpb, "in the half", or middle of the passover, in the middle of Pentecost, and in the middle of the feast.''

again {e}

"there are three times for tithing of beasts, in the middle of the passover, in the middle of Pentecost, and the middle of the feast;''

that is, of tabernacles: and this, the Jewish commentators say {f}, was fifteen days before each of these festivals: now whether it was to this, owrp, "middle", or "half space", before each and any of these feasts the apostle refers to, may be considered:

or of the new moon; which the Jews were obliged to observe, by attending religious worship, and offering sacrifices; see Nu 28:11 2Ki 4:23.

Or of the sabbath [days], or "sabbaths"; meaning the jubilee sabbath, which was one year in fifty; and the sabbath of the land, which was one year in seven; and the seventh day sabbath, and some copies read in the singular number, "or of the sabbath"; which were all peculiar to the Jews, were never binding on the Gentiles, and to which believers in Christ, be they who they will, are by no means obliged; nor ought they to observe them, the one any more than the other; and should they be imposed upon them, they ought to reject them; and should they be judged, censured, and condemned, for so doing, they ought not to mind it. It is the sense of the Jews themselves, that the Gentiles are not obliged to keep their sabbath; no, not the proselyte of the gate, or he that dwelt in any of their cities; for they say {g}, that

"it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common feast day; R. Akiba says, as for all Israelite on a feast day; R. Jose says, it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common or week day:''

and this last is the received sense of the nation; nay, they assert that a Gentile that keeps a sabbath is guilty of death {h};
See Gill on "Mr 2:27". Yea, they say {i}, that

"if a Gentile sabbatizes, or keeps a sabbath, though on any of the days of the week, if he makes or appoints it as a sabbath for himself, he is guilty of the same.''

It is the general sense of that people, that the sabbath was peculiarly given to the children of Israel; and that the Gentiles, strangers, or others, were not punishable for the neglect and breach of it {k}; that it is a special and an additional precept, which, with some others, were given them at Marah, over and above the seven commands, which the sons of Noah were only obliged to regard {l}; and that the blessing and sanctifying of it were by the manna provided for that day; and that the passage in Ge 2:3; refers not to the then present time, but dyteh le, "to time to come", to the time of the manna {m}.

{c} Vid. Casaubon. Epist. ep. 24. {d} Misn. Shekalim, c. 3. sect. 1. {e} Misn. Becorot, c. 9. sect. 5. {f} Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. {g} T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9. 1. Piske Tosaphot Yebamot. art. 84. Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 20. sect. 14. {h} T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 58. 2. {i} Maimon. Hilch. Melachim, c. 10. sect. 9. {k} T. Bab. Betza, fol. 16. 1. Seder Tephillot, fol. 76. 1. Ed. Amtst. {l} T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 56. 2. Seder Olam Rabba, p. 17. & Zuta, p. 101. Ed. Meyer. {m} Jarchi & Baal Hatturim in Gen. ii. 3. Pirke Eliezer, c. 18.

[Edited on 10-4-2006 by Blueridge reformer]