Okay guys, let's deal with the question of the Sabbath head on (since it came up in the comments of the last post). Let me list some of the propositions of the Sabbatarians and then some of the non-Sabbatarians. Feel free to discuss any of the propositions you want.
Propositions of the Sabbatarians:
1. The Sabbath is a Creation ordinance established for all humanity in Genesis 2:1-3.
2. The Sabbath ordinance was known before it was reiterated as a part of the 10 Commandments. (Exodus 16)
3. Since the Sabbath is a Creation ordinance and a part of the 10 Commandments, it should not be considered a part of the "ceremonial" law fulfilled in Christ.
4. Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, and Colossians 2:10 are referring to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Mosaic Law (there were many different sabbaths, after all), and do not teach that the 4th Command has been abrogated in some way.
5. Hebrews 4:9 (perhaps the central verse in the debate) either explicitly teaches Sabbatarianism (so Dabney) by using the word sabbatismos for "rest", or implicitly teaches Sabbtarianism (so most modern Sabbatarians) since the "type" (the earthly sabbath) will remain until it finds its fulfillment in the "antitype" (heaven).
6. The Apostles were led by the Spirit of Christ (who is "the Lord if the Sabbath") to change the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord.
Propositions of the non-Sabbatarians:
1. The Sabbath is not an ordinance established for all humanity. Though God did bless the seventh day and make it holy at Creation, this was only revealed to His people through Moses. The Sabbath command was given only to them.
2. The Sabbath was a "sign" of the Old Covenant which ended with that covenant.
3. Though the other nine commandments are reiterated in the New Testament, the Sabbath command is not. This is posited as evidence that the Sabbath command is a part of the ceremonial law, not the moral law.
4. Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, and Colossians 2:10 reveal that the Apostle Paul did not regard the Sabbath as binding on Christ's followers, and was not to be placed as an additional burden on Gentile converts.
5. Hebrews 4:9 and its context teach that New Testament believers find their sabbath rest in Christ.
6. There is no evidence from history that the Apostles changed the day of the Sabbath. Rather, the apostles viewed the sabbath as having been fulfilled and established an entirely new kind of day - the Lord's Day - as a day for meeting together to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.
I want to hear your thoughts about these propositions - which do you agree with and why? How does it affect your own Christian conduct and those under your care?
Popular Posts
-
While reading the Old Testament, have you ever thought to yourself, "Boy, these Israelites just didn't get it!"? God warned th... -
What do you guys think about church choirs? Are they Biblical? Are they helpful? If you could have your preference, would your church have a... -
As I'm thinking through my sermon for this coming Sunday morning, a phrase in Romans 6:4 has me thinking. Now, I haven't yet looked ...
-
Okay, so a few months back we had this long drawn out debate about divorce and remarriage here on the blog. I think it was a healthy debate... -
What do you guys think is the best way to approach specials and/or solos in a church? Is it ever appropriate to have them? I'm not a fan...
-
Just finished reading this ... I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not Sunday School makes a positive contribution to the local... -
I agree with Sam Storms on everything but 7.f. Admittedly, I have done no study on the issue of the age of the earth. For some reason I jus...
-
Hey guys, what do y'all think about this? I've recently read of some Christians who say they don't listen to "Christian&quo...
-
Here are some initial thoughts on Justin N.'s post: Women Deacons - 2 . Good thoughts Justin N.! 1. Yes, Amen! 2. Absolutely! 3. Many pe...
-
(Guests: If you haven't already, you should read the previous two posts before reading this one.) " Iron sharpens iron, and one man...
5 comments:
As you could guess, I tend to fall in line more with the second category.
One way it affects... I can emphasize that every day (not just one) is set aside for worship and resting in Christ.
Another interesting aspect about the Sabbath is when Jesus was accused of "working" on the Sabbath because he and his disciples gleaned a little grain from a field, Jesus retorted:
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
With respect to things such as Super Bowl parties and canceling church for the such deals I think it is important that we realize that Jesus saw that the Sabbath was a gift given to us and not a hardline rule that we cannot break.
Since Mark 2 has been mentioned, I have some questions about that passage and the statement just quoted from Mark 2.27-28. I think this is a pivotal passage in the whole Sabbath debate because we have an infallible commentator speaking directly to the subject – Christ himself - and I always want to hear how this verse is viewed. It is often not mentioned or is very briefly addressed. I hope you will comment.
Mark 2.27-28 NASB
27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
28 "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
QUESTION ONE
Does Christ establish the universal nature of the Sabbath in verse 27?
Gk - to sabbaton dia ton anthrôpon egeneto kai ouch o anthrôpos dia to sabbaton.
Lit – the Sabbath because of THE MAN (mankind? / humanity? / the man ADAM?) was created (generated) and not THE MAN (ADAM?) because of the Sabbath.
How do we theologically or exegetically get from THE MAN of verse 27 to the non-Sabbatarian view that the Sabbath principle only applies to the Jewish man after Moses and before Christ?
The problem I have with that view in light of this verse is as follows and I would like to know where my understanding is straying from the path – It appears that Christ is using the same method that he uses in Mark 10.6-8 where in teaching about marriage he appeals to foundational “creation” principles and to the scriptures of Gen 2 as the basis for his instruction. He expects his audience to be familiar with the scriptures and he uses the Word of God to speak to the issue. In Mark 2 he does the same thing. He is faced with an ethical challenge. Is he guilty of unlawful behavior on the Sabbath? He appeals to the scriptures. But to what scripture does he go? Not Ex 20 as we would expect from a non-Sabbatarian perspective but to Gen 2.3, 7. In fact, in Gen 2.7 the LXX uses the same precise language used by Christ - “ginomai” and “o anthrôpos” to translate “formed man”. If the language here is in fact universal, then how do other arguments and systematic schemes trump the words of Christ? If this language is not universal then how should we understand them?
QUESTION TWO
On what basis does Christ claim to be “Lord of the Sabbath”?
Gk – ôste kurios estin o uios tou anthrôpou kai tou sabbatou.
Lit – thus (therefore / so that) Lord is the son of the man and (also) of the Sabbath.
The basis of Christ’s claim to be the Lord of the Sabbath is laid squarely upon the fact that he is the Son of THE MAN and that the Sabbath day exists for and was made for THE MAN and not the other way around (from v.27). It is not an arbitrary “I am God therefore I can do whatever I want” assertion of authority. Christ as the Son of Man stands at the head of mankind and anything subjected to man or made for his benefit is subject to Christ and is for his benefit. This is the assertion being made – the Sabbath belongs to man so it belongs to me and since it belongs to me I am Lord over it. The whole concept of the Son of Man will not allow its connection to the Sabbath to have a narrow Mosaic significance. In Mark’s gospel the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (2.10), must suffer (8.31), will come in glory (8.38), will rise from the dead (9.9), will suffer (9.12, 31, 10.33), will give his life a ransom for many (10.45), will come with great power and glory (13.26), will be betrayed (14.21, 41) and will sit at the right hand of power (14.62). To whatever degree the significance of Christ as the Son of Man can not be restricted to a narrow context which is both Jewish and under the Mosaic law, neither can the connection of the Sabbath to man be so limited. In reverse, to whatever degree the Son of Man eclipses that narrow context, the relationship of the Sabbath to man must also since the one is claimed on account of the other. It seems that we are again forced into a universal Sabbath principle. Is Mark 2.28 saying “The Mosaic Sabbath was made for man under the Mosaic law, and not man under the Mosaic law for the Mosaic Sabbath. So the Son of Men under the Mosaic law is Lord even of the Mosaic Sabbath." From a non-Sabbatarian viewpoint, how do you understand the authority of Christ over the Sabbath and the connection between the “Son of Man” and the Sabbath principle?
QUESTION THREE
How does the blessing and benefit of the Sabbath particularly relate to the Jewish people after Moses and before Christ exclusively in a way distinct from all others? If it is truly “for” man then how was it not “for” them prior to Sinai and how is it not “for” them now? When Christ addresses this ethical issue about which he has been attacked, he expects his hearers to know from the scriptures that the Sabbath is “for”, “because of”, “for the sake of” man. How are they to be convinced about his teaching that the Sabbath was created for their benefit? Would it not be because the scriptures say specifically that God blessed it and sanctified it? When does God do that? In Gen 2.3. This establishing and blessing of the day at the time of creation is not contradicted by but is confirmed by Ex 20.11 – “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day.” God does not bless the day in the time of Moses. Are we to understand that God creates this pattern – indeed completely orders the creation process so that he can establish the Sabbath principle, blesses the day and then suspends its recognition and benefit for centuries until Moses? What we see instead is that Ex 20 confirms the relevance of the divine example, Ex 20 affirms it prior blessing and sanctification and Ex 20 affirms the intended example of Gen to be a weekly pattern. It seems to me that in Mk 2 Jesus affirms the understanding that Gen is about a weekly principle, Jesus affirms the understanding that the Sabbath keeping is rooted in creation rather than the law and Jesus affirms that the creation event was designed to bless and sanctify the Sabbath for Adam’s immediate benefit. Where is this line of thinking getting off base from a non-Sabbatarian viewpoint and what are the alternative explanations?
QUESTION FOUR
Is the idea that Christ claims Lordship over the Sabbath for the purpose of abolishing it a legitimate concept? It seems that consistency with everything else that Christ does we would expect him to do something quite different. Can v.28 be saying that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath to destroy and abrogate that which was made for man's benefit? This would not be consistent with the gracious nature of His kingdom. In Daniel 7, the symbolism is of the beastly Gentile kingdoms being swept away by the messianic kingdom. They are like beasts in their dreadful, savage, and violent character. Such kingdoms are often terribly harmful to the interests of the men subjected to them. In contrast to this symbolism the messianic kingdom is symbolized by the appearance of one like unto a Son of Man, humane and beneficial. Note this comment by Murray - “Since he is Lord of the Sabbath it is his to guard it against those distortions and perversions with which Pharisaism had surrounded it and by which its truly beneficent purpose has been defeated. But he is also its Lord to guard and vindicate its permanent place within that messianic lordship which he exercises over all things -he is Lord of the Sabbath, too. And he is Lord of it, not for the purpose of depriving men of that inestimable benefit which the Sabbath bestows, but for the purpose of bringing to the fullest realization on behalf of men that beneficent design for which the Sabbath was instituted.” I think this view is consistent with what we see Christ doing in his church. Even in the external acts of worship he Passover meal becomes the Lord’s Supper, circumcision becomes Christian baptism, Sabbath observance becomes Lord’s Day worship. From a non-Sabbatarian perspective, where is this view of what the Lord of the Sabbath would be expected to do wrong?
Mark 2 raises several other questions but I do not have time to ask them now. Please forgive the thrown together nature of the comments which were done in a rush - I hope they make sense. Thank you in advance for your response.
Sabbath--based upon atonement and sacrifice. The final Lamb was sacrificed and He was the Lamb of God. The Sabbath? Perhaps, the Words of Jesus on that final day of sacrifice could relate to the Sabbath, that is, "It is finished."
Texas Ron Linebarger
Anonymous,
Thanks for the well thought out comment. You've worked hard for your answers and I appreciate that. I don't have all the answer to these questions. In fact, some of my answers may seem contradictory (they may be) as I'm working through these things for myself.
Q1: Does Christ establish the universal nature of the Sabbath in verse 27? I don't think he does. Even your use of question marks beside the different words of translation show the speculative nature of the argument that Jesus is referring to Adam. In the previous verses he speaks of David, showing how he unlawfully ate the bread of the Presence and gave it to those with him. If we want to take the words in 27-28 as “the man” then we should assign it to David. In this context is words in 27 and 28 seem best understood referring to the Jews, whom Jesus is addressing.
With this reading (man in general and not “the man,” Adam) it doesn't appear the Jesus is doing the same thing in this verse as he is doing in Mk. 10:6-8. He doesn't take it to Genesis. He's simply stating that the Sabbath was made for their benefit. They weren't to serve the Sabbath, it served them. It was for man's rest. But Christ, as Justin said in a previous post, never reiterates the Sabbath command, and Paul says that the observance of different “holy days” should be left to the conscience of the individual.
Q2: On what basis does Christ claim to be “Lord of the Sabbath?” As the Son of Man (ie. True man and Messiah) he has the right to use, change, fulfill, abrogate the day to what he wanted.
Q3: How does the blessing and benefit of the Sabbath particularly relate to the Jewish people after Moses and before Christ exclusively in a way distinct from all others? You also asked “Are we to understand that God creates this pattern – indeed completely orders the creation process so that he can establish the Sabbath principle, blesses the day and then suspends its recognition and benefit for centuries until Moses?” I don't think I have a problem with that. God's plan includes a gradual revealing of his redemptive purposes, all pointing ultimately to Jesus Christ.
Q4:Is the idea that Christ claims Lordship over the Sabbath for the purpose of abolishing it a legitimate concept? From your comments, it looks like you're not a strict Sabbatarian, right? I find myself somewhere in between, I think, but closer to non-Sab. I do see something like a Sabbath day, but not the same. In what Christ did, I'd rather use the language of “fulfillment” than “abolishment.” As Paul says in Col. 2:16-17, these things (including festivals and a Sabbath) are just shadows of things to come. And the substance of them belongs to Christ. Also in Hebrews 4... the Jews were looking for a rest in Canaan, but God spoke of yet a future rest. We have entered into that rest by our belief in Christ. The Sabbath served its purposes with the Jews, but now we have something so much better... the real thing... not just a shadow... the real rest, Jesus Christ.
Isn't this the type of change we expect from Jesus? With the other commandments he makes things simpler, but also much more difficult... the many commands summed up by “love God and love neighbor” (more freeing, yet more difficult).
Talk about thrown together. Sorry about that. But this should help spark more comments.
Post a Comment