Home » Posts tagged 'Sabbath “Christian Sabbath” “Ceremonial Law” “Lord’s Day”'
Tag Archives: Sabbath “Christian Sabbath” “Ceremonial Law” “Lord’s Day”
The Altar of Sacrifice
Altar
“The altar of burnt offering emphasizes the need for sacrificial atonement and consecration, but in the Old Testament, animal sacrifices only gave access to a copy of the heavenly temple, and these sacrifices needed to be repeated daily. Jesus’ sacrificial death is a perfect, once-for-all time sacrifice. On the cross, Jesus Christ ransoms, cleanses, and sanctifies those who trust in Him alone by faith. Only those who have been made holy by Christ may approach God without fear.”[i]
The world prior to the entrance of sin was a world of peaceful fellowship and harmony between God and humankind, but alas, only two people enjoyed that paradise, and that only temporarily. The seventh-day rest following creation was soon disrupted, and immediately two animals were slain by God to reestablish the first couple’s relationship with Him. These animals were the first living things to experience death. They were a fitting demonstration of the mortality Adam and Eve brought upon their descendants, but also of the grace to be experienced through a substitutionary sacrifice. With all humanity now in exile from Eden, that paradisaical day of rest came to signify the state of perfection to which God would eventually bring his people (Gen 3:15). Scripture records a few instances of offerings, sacrifices, and altars in the lives of the patriarchs leading up to the Mosaic covenant (Gen 3:21 God; Gen 4:3-4 Cain/Abel; Gen 8:20 Noah; Gen 12:7; 13:18; 22:2, 13 Abraham/Isaac; Gen 31:54; 35:7 Jacob; Ex 10:25 Moses/Pharaoh; Ex 12 Passover; Ex 18:12 Jethro; Ex 20:22-26 personal). But the Mosaic covenant would amplify the predicament of sin by legislating a system of blood-letting sacrifices by a family of priests at a central temple according to the law and its calendar. Alexander points out the necessity of sacrificial atonement to ransom, cleanse, and sanctify the sinner. The bronze altar, as part of the temple complex, served to emphasize that blood atonement was key to approaching God who was distanced from His creation due to their sin. The bronze altar that witnessed the exertions of countless priests and the deaths of countless animals looked back to the garden sacrifices for Adam and Eve and it looked forward to the singular sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God. Its centrality to Jewish worship is evidenced by their query to Christians, “Where is your altar?”
The altar of sacrifice answers the question, “Who may (re)enter into God’s presence?” Only those who have been forgiven of sin via substitution, cleansed in sanctification, and consecrated through participation in the covenant meal. Moses was able to ascend to the top of Mount Sinai, the elders up its side, and the general population at its foot. Similarly, the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, priests could enter the Holy place and the people could gather in the courtyard containing the altar. The realities that these types looked forward to are in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, His priestly access to the Holy of Holies in heaven, and our participation in the new covenant “meal” by faith (Jn 6:53-58). Jesus has ascended to the right hand of God, but even though His work is “finished” we have not yet entered into heaven as these types adumbrate.
The message of Hebrews is certain: The sacrifice of Jesus’ life need not be repeated since He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified (Heb 10:14). His traumatic death provided complete redemption for sin, a result not possible by the thousands of animals previously sacrificed each year at the temple altar. Similarly, the temple structures are also unnecessary since Jesus, our High Priest, having completed the work of redemption, is seated at the right hand of God (Heb 9:11; 10:12). But may we not erect in our churches a model of the altar to remind us that by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice there remains a promise that we will forever dwell in His presence (Jn 17:24; 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:6; 1 Jn 3:2)? Is not the altar fulfilled only in part since we are entreated to continue to make sacrifices and offerings to God (Rom 12:1; Phil 2:17; 4:18; Heb 13:5, 16; 1 Pet 2:5)?
The author of Hebrews answers these questions for us. “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (Heb 13:10). This is not an altar of unhewn stones (Ex 20:24-26) erected in our churches for the sake of symbolism or ritual. Our altar is where the sacrifice of Jesus Christ took place—the cross on Golgotha—not ever to be employed again. This put wavering Jews to task to choose between the tangible altar of Judaism or the symbolical altar of Christ. Christ’s altar inspires His followers to take up their cross outside the camp and share in His sufferings (Heb 13:13-14). His altar dispenses with the rituals in the temple court and calls for sacrifices of praise to God and service to fellow believers (Heb 13:15-16). “Christ is our altar,” say Turretin, “on the cross, by immolation; in heaven, by intercession; on the table, by commemoration.”[ii]
Commenting on the “altar” of Christ, Calvin states,
This is a beautiful adaptation of an old rite under the Law, to the present state of the Church. There was a kind of sacrifice appointed, mentioned in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, no part of which returned to the priests and Levites. This, as he now shows by a suitable allusion, was accomplished in Christ; for he was sacrificed on this condition, that they who serve the tabernacle should not feed on him. But by the ministers of the tabernacle he means all those who performed the ceremonies. Then that we may partake of Christ, he intimates that we must renounce the tabernacle; for as the word altar includes sacrificing and the victim; so tabernacle, all the external types connected with it. Then the meaning is, “No wonder if the rites of the Law have now ceased, for this is what was typified by the sacrifice which the Levites brought without the camp to be there burnt; for as the ministers of the tabernacle did eat nothing of it, so if we serve the tabernacle, that is, retain its ceremonies, we shall not be partakers of that sacrifice which Christ once offered, nor of the expiation which he once made by his own blood; for his own blood he brought into the heavenly sanctuary that he might atone for the sin of the world.”[iii]
Unphased by the perfection of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and the imperfection of repeated ritual sacrifices, the Roman Catholic Church holds that “a church…[is] where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar…”[iv] In limited agreement with Protestants, Catholics declare that the altar of the NC is the cross of Jesus Christ. However, their man-made doctrines demand a physical altar for the sacrament of the eucharist, and to effect and apply Christ’s sacrifice as an unbloody sacrifice on a daily basis.[v] If you have a physical altar, there must be a physical Christ upon it. If Christ is physically present, there must be a physical place for Him to be offered again and again. However, based on the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice on the altar of the cross, Turretin questions the need for any ongoing propitiatory sacrifice, even if Catholics call it a “sacrifice of commemoration” or a “sacrifice of application.”
The perfection of this sacrifice being established, however, the necessity of the sacrifice of the Mass is taken away. For to what purpose should Christ be offered further for the propitiation of sin, if once by the offering of himself he most perfectly obtained it? Therefore, either the sacrifice of the cross must be convicted of insufficiency or the falsity of the sacrifice of the Mass be acknowledged as not only useless, but also injurious and derogatory to the sacrifice of the cross.[vi]
There is danger awaiting those who seek to emulate the cultus of Judaism. Christians are not encouraged to continue to practice Jewish rituals to keep before them what the rituals foreshadowed. The Lord gave the church a simple ritual—a meal of unity in Him and with each other—to serve as 1) a reminder of a past event, perfect in satisfying the wrath of God for our sins (Christ on the cross) and 2) a promise of its full and complete consummation (a bodily resurrection into His heavenly presence). We do not need an altar to observe this symbolic and commemorative meal because the true sacrifice of Christ’s blood fulfilled the purpose of Israel’s altar. Nor should Christians employ the artifacts of Jewish temple worship if what they foreshadowed has only been conveyed in part. Jesus was clear that whoever “eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life” (Jn 6:54).[vii] When we enter into and share in His life by faith, we have eternal life as a present, continuous possession. However, there is more to be realized by Jesus’ death on the cross. He then promised that He will “raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:39-40) which indicates a benefit of eternal life yet to come. Even the access that we have now to approach the throne of God in prayer and petition (Heb 10:19-22)—clearly a fulfillment of His priestly service at the altar—is but a taste of the eventual and final fellowship we will enjoy in His presence (Rev 21:3). So, whether a fulfilled ceremony—like the altar or the Sabbath—has an unaccomplished aspect or not, we are under no obligation to continue the ceremony for whatever emotional or intellectual benefit we can conceive.
The author of Hebrews is decisive: those who continue to give service to the tabernacle have no right to participate in Christian worship (Heb 13:11). Christ’s sacrifice was enough, not just for the sins that were committed prior to His death, but those in the future. His expiatory death eliminated the need for all animal sacrifices, but it also removed the need for a centralized temple in which the sacrifices took place, and the calendar that specified what sacrifices were to be offered on what days. Gone are the days of gifts, offerings, and sacrifices, assisted by a priesthood at a designated place on designated days. Instead, our “sacrifices” of praise and thanksgiving require no temple, no altar, no human priesthood, and no Sabbath. Retaining a Sabbatarian view of the week is tantamount to retaining the sacrificial altar, the temple complex, and the calendar. As Turretin uncompromisingly said, our employment of an altar, and by extension, Sabbatizing the Lord’s Day, is “injurious and derogatory to the sacrifice of the cross.” In consideration of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 56:7), Calvin illuminates,
“Here we have the manifest difference between the Law and the Gospel; for under the Law the true worship of God was observed by one nation only, for whose sake the temple was especially dedicated to him; but now all are freely admitted without distinction into the temple of God, that they may worship him purely in it, that is, everywhere. We must attend to the form of expression, which is customary and familiar to the Prophets, who employ, as we have already said, figures that correspond to their own age, and, under the name of “Sacrifices” and of “the Temple,” describe the pure worship of God. He paints the spiritual kingdom of Christ, under which we may everywhere “lift up pure hands,” (1 Tim 2:8) and call upon God; and, as Christ saith, God is not now to be adored in that temple, but “the true worshippers worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)
We don’t need to infuse our first-day worship in spirit and in truth with any legalisms of OT worship. Those who argue that we must continue to observe the Sabbath because what it foreshadowed has only been fulfilled in part are no different than those who argue for an altar in our churches to continue what remains to be accomplished by the altar of Christ’s sacrifice.
[i] Alexander, T. Desmond. “The Altar of Burnt Offering” Tabletalk, December 2017 p. 15.
[ii] Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol 2, p. 156.
[iii] Calvin, John. Commentary on the Bible Vol x p. x.
[iv] “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (Ligouri Pub: Ligouri, MO, undated), p.305.
[v] Ibid. p. 349.
[vi] Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol 3, p. 528.
[vii] This is not a reference to the Lord’s Supper, and certainly not to the Catholic belief that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist and therefore actually consumed during communion. Carson is blunt: “Any dullard could see that Jesus was not speaking literally: no-one would suppose Jesus was seriously advocating cannibalism and offering himself as the first meal” (Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC p. 295). Alluding to the manna that fed Israel for 40 years and kept them physically alive, Jesus asserts that if one eats the True Manna from heaven, i.e., believe that He alone is the Messiah who saves; that person will have eternal life, a spiritual life of complete rest in Him. Too, that the eternal life He grants is at the expense of shedding His only blood as a vicarious sacrifice for our sin. Believe this scandalous doctrine and follow Him. The Lord’s Supper uses real bread and wine which represent His broken body and sacrificial death. Participating in this sacramental “meal” does not bestow eternal life (otherwise, it would only need to be eaten only once).
How Does Christ’s Fulfillment of the Law Affect Ritual Rest?
Introduction
Sabbatarians have had difficulty sustaining the belief that the Sabbath is both a moral and ceremonial command. Historically, the aspect of the Sabbath that was considered to be ceremonial was only the day of the week on which it fell so the Sabbath could be moved to another day. The emphasis has been on the morality of Sabbath-keeping due to its mention in the decalogue and its association with the creation narrative. However, contemporary Sabbatarians have acknowledged the typologic relationship between the creation rest and the future state along with the numerous symbolic themes of rest throughout the OT. They no longer champion the idea that the Sabbath was practiced prior to the formation of national Israel. These facts admit to a more essential ceremonial status of the Sabbath as given to Israel. However, to rescue their viewpoint, Sabbatarians have advanced the idea that a ceremonial command that has a “not yet” component to its fulfillment needs be continued by the church to keep what is still foreshadowed in the ceremony fresh in her mind until the final consummation brings the intent of the ceremonial law into full accomplishment. Curiously, this hermeneutical rule seems to apply only to the Sabbath commandment, as if it were in a class-of-one among all the ceremonies given to Israel in the law. For example, Gaffin admits that the Sabbath commandment is eschatological in function within the “already/not yet” paradigm of fulfillment. He states that those who discontinue the observation of the Sabbath based on the first phase of fulfillment alone forget that there is still another phase of fulfillment that requires “a continuing place for the Sabbath sign under the new covenant.”[i] In other words, partial fulfillment is not sufficient a reason to discontinue the outward performance of a ceremonial law. This hermeneutic also affirms that the Sabbath was not only a sign of the Mosaic covenant, but of the new covenant as well. Pipa asserts that because new covenant people are striving to enter the future rest they should continue to keep the Sabbath.[ii] “Thus the theology of accomplished redemption does not annul a continued Sabbath keeping, but requires it.”[iii] Ray states that the “resurrection rest” that we celebrate on Sunday “is not the end or fulfillment: it is the beginning… of eternal life, of the abundant and blessed rest in Jesus…[and so] the Sabbath is still appointed for all men everywhere.”[iv] The Fortieth General Assembly of the OPC disputed the argument that the Sabbath was no longer required because it was an eschatological sign fulfilled by Christ’s coming. While agreeing that the NT unmistakably identifies the eschatological character of the Sabbath, they held that since the experience of that rest is still future, the sign is still in force.[v] More recently, Beale advances the same line of thinking: “If the eschatological reality of final Sabbath rest has not consummately come, then it is unlikely that the typological sign pointing to that ultimate rest has ceased. That is, if the weekly Sabbath included the function of pointing forward to consummate rest, and that rest has not yet come, then that weekly Sabbath should continue.”[vi]
This line of thinking engenders many questions.
- Is Sabbath-keeping essentially a moral or ceremonial law? What parts are moral and what parts are ceremonial? What NT teaching provides the rationale for making these distinctions? Are the annual Sabbaths moral or ceremonial in substance? Is the Sabbath on the Day of Atonement a moral or ceremonial law for Christians? What NT basis is there for discontinuing this and other annual Sabbaths? What other OT ceremonial laws have a continuing moral component to them?
- What aspect of Sabbath-keeping is moral and what part is ceremonial? Does resting from work on the Day of Atonement look forward to the eternal rest? Does resting from work signify the “eternal Sabbath,” in which case resting from work is ceremonial? If resting from work is ceremonial, then what aspect of the Sabbath is moral? Was God’s creation rest an expression of an intrinsic attribute of His holiness (i.e., moral) or was it symbolic of a future rest (i.e., eschatological and typological)? Where in the creation narrative is all mankind commanded to keep a cyclical Sabbath? When did God’s rest signify the future state of His people: before or after the fall?
- The Sabbath is a signal command of the Mosaic covenant, but where is it stated that it is a signal command for all humanity or for beneficiaries of the new covenant? Are there other symbols and types in the creation narrative that are echoed in OT law as outward ceremonies, and then fulfilled by Christ during His first advent, yet still anticipate a future fulfillment coinciding with Christ’s return? If so, are Christians obligated to keep these themes in mind by faithful observance of such OT laws?
- What is the origin of this rule that partial fulfillment of an OT signal command does not remove the requirement to observe it? Does partial fulfillment fully abrogate any ceremonial laws or are they all still required under the new covenant? What new covenant citations exist that demands the continuation of the old covenant law of the Sabbath? Does this hermeneutic rule apply to all ceremonial laws that have been only partially fulfilled or to the Sabbath alone? Are all ceremonial commands to adhere to this hermeneutical precept: that if there is a greater fulfillment still anticipated, the new covenant “requires” that old covenant ceremonial laws be continued?
- Is it possible that this rule is just another attempt to bolster a seventeenth century doctrine? Isn’t it easier to bring the Westminster Confession into full harmony with the NT view of the Sabbath? Wouldn’t Reformed leaders be counted more honorable for admitting the inadequate treatment of Lord’s Day doctrine and the fourth commandment, than using logical fallacies and sophistry to rescue this teaching?
There is no question whether a final future “rest” awaits us; the matter is whether the “rest” that believers receive now as Jesus promised (Matt 11:28-29; Heb 4:3) is to be considered fulfilled enough to warrant the annulment of sabbatic rituals. “Two of the more recent attempts to give New Testament support for viewing the first day as a day of rest are those of Jewett and Beckwith, who hold that because the consummation is yet to come the sign of a weekly Sabbath rest still holds. We have criticized this view in passing in connection with the exegesis of the relevant passages, but here it should also be added that there is a sense in which all rest points to the consummation of rest; but there is no convincing reason from the New Testament evidence why this has to be associated with Sunday. Also one cannot properly argue that, because the rest has not yet been consummated, we must therefore preserve the physical symbol of a day of rest.”[vii] As Botkin explains: “The Sabbath was not only a gracious gift from God, but it was a sign of a greater reality that was yet to come. That reality has come in Christ, and so ‘today’ one can enter God’s rest, thereby experiencing the fellowship that has been waiting for God’s people since creation.”[viii] Christians don’t enter God’s rest ultimately by striving to keep the Sabbath each week on the wrong day. We enter God’s rest now by faith (Heb 4:3) on any day of the week and we experience the benefits of that rest on a daily basis by faith. The analogy Hebrews depended on was the necessity of faith, which brings not only rest but salvation. Our present rest is as sure and real as the moment an Israelite crossed the river and set foot in the promised land. Either faith is enough to enter into God’s rest or it is not. While the fullness of our restful salvation is yet to come, we remain faithful now through tribulations knowing that our future rest is sure because the reality of redemption is ours now through Jesus Christ (Col 2:16). How is the rest we experience now different than the rest we will experience in the future? And how is our redemption now different than the redemption we will experience in the future?
If Pipa is correct that the notion of a completed redemption has no effect on ceremonial rest, and instead our completed redemption demands a continuation of ritual rest, then any other ritual rest commanded by God in the law must also be performed by Christians. This means that there are seven additional Sabbath rests that must be observed throughout the year by Christians. If this be denied, then Pipa and cohorts see Christ’s fulfillment to be sufficient to annul the annual Sabbaths but not the weekly Sabbaths. However, there is no NT rationale to support this inequitable effect of a completed redemption on ceremonial Sabbaths. The manner in which the weekly Sabbath is observed is the same as the manner in which an annual Sabbath is observed. All Sabbath rests regardless of the day on which they fell look forward to the same ultimate salvific rest. What is overlooked by Sabbatarians is that resting from work does not signify resting from work. Let it be asserted again: resting from work does not signify resting from work. Ceremonial rest signifies something more profound. The restriction from work that defines proper Sabbath-keeping is not foreshadowing a future completely devoid of work. Our eternal state will not be marked by a ritual rest every seventh day nor by an eternal state of ceasing work. Instead, ceremonial rest signifies two different things. First, in terms of foreshadowing a completed redemption, ritual rest portrays the idea that salvation is not the result of human doing; that is, salvation is not by works. Ritual rest also signifies trust, because salvation is not by works, but through faith. By resting from works, a faithful Israelite portrayed that the promised rest—his future inheritance in the kingdom; i.e., redemption—was not his through works, but through faith. In other words, ceremonial rest foreshadowed a completed redemption. The 24-hour rest typified what was required of the penitent sinner when calling out for salvation in Jesus’ name. The fact that Christ provides a completed salvation to those who call upon his name in faith demonstrates that the ritual portrayed the reality of a completed redemption. Secondly, the day of rest foreshadowed everlasting peace and fellowship with God in a sinless estate. This future state of complete redemption is also pictured in the Sabbatic Year and the Jubilee. Must these ceremonies also be continued because what they foreshadow is not our present existential reality? In truth, there is no valid rationale for treating calendar Sabbaths any differently. They all portray the necessity of faith alone on the human side and the guarantee of a completed redemption of the divine side.
Following this introduction, I will present eight essays that continue to explore and evaluate the proposed hermeneutical rule that OT ceremonies must continue in force until they are fully realized at the end of the ages. As a point of departure, I chose a Ligonier Tabletalk (December 2017) that provided several brief, but Christ-honoring essays about the temple of Israel. The editor introduces the collection of essays by stating that “the earthly tabernacle and temple of Israel and all of their furnishings served Israel by manifesting God’s presence through symbols, types, and shadows.”[ix] Hinting at the ultimate fulfillment of temple symbolism in Revelation 21, he goes on to state, “God was not required to dwell with us, and God does not possess an inherent need to dwell with us, but because of his sovereign love and for his glory, he chose to dwell with us and in us.”[x] In the same way, there was no inherent need in God to set apart the seventh day of the creation week and infuse it with the themes of restful harmony, peace, and fellowship between God and man unless He, in knowing the end from the beginning, designed that seventh day to point forward to the eventual reconciliation of His people for His glory. Likewise, God was not required to give Israel a hebdomadal law that reminded them of what was lost through sin and what would eventually be regained through the seed of the woman. Scripture clearly demonstrates that tabernacle/temple worship had a beginning and an end. So did the Sabbath. Each feature of temple worship, including the Sabbath, looked back to creation and looked forward to the consummation of the ages; yet each feature was gloriously fulfilled in Christ, bringing an end to the obligation to continue them—even though they have an already/not yet aspect to their fulfillment. While the Tabletalk essays focus on tangible items of temple worship, one must not overlook the calendar given to Israel that directed the use of every temple artifact and prescribed the order of temple worship. Any priestly activities performed without attention to the calendar would amount to will-worship. The two cannot be separated.
[i] Gaffin, Richard B. “Westminster and the Sabbath” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Vol. 1, Duncan, ed. repr. 2004 (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2003) p. 132.
[ii] Pipa, Joseph A. The Lord’s Day (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 1997), p. 117.
[iii] Pipa, Joseph A. The Lord’s Day (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 1997), p. 117-118.
[iv] Ray, Bruce A. Celebrating the Sabbath (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000) p. 52-53.
[v] Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Fortieth General Assembly “Report of the Committee on Sabbath Matters” p. 105. (Richard Gaffin was on this Committee.)
[vi] Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011) p. 789.
[vii] Lincoln, A. T. “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day (Repr. Wipf and Stock, 1999) p. 216.
[viii] Botkin, John E. “‘Today,’ Enter God’s Rest: The Argument of Hebrews 3:7-4:11 and Its Implications for the Sabbath Command” (Master’s thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002), p. 62.
[ix] Parsons, Burk “Immanuel” Tabletalk, December 2017 p. 2.
[x] Parsons, Burk “Immanuel” Tabletalk, December 2017 p. 2.
Book Review of “Waiting for the Rest that Still Remains” by Arie C. Leder
Out of the kindness of Wipf and Stock, I received a preview digital file in response to my interest in the topic of biblical rest. In this book, he provides insights into the varied themes of the Former Prophets, a study that follows his survey of the Pentateuch entitled, “Waiting for the Land” (2010).
The idea that “rest” is an organizational theme within the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings is one that I explored in The Sabbath Complete, published in 2011. Indeed, both “land” and “rest” occupy the minds of the authors of much of OT literature. Not surprisingly, the Lord instituted multiple ritual ordinances related to these significant eschatological themes. But Israel, having never realized in fullness the possession of the land and the resultant rest from enemies, must ponder how the Lord will ultimately accomplish His promises with such a notoriously disobedient people. These themes must also be considered by new covenant believers since they are reminded in Hebrews to be diligent to enter that rest (Heb 4:11).
In preparation for his insights into the Former Prophets, Leder reviews canonical considerations, hermeneutical views, and presuppositions that affect how one is to read and derive meaning from the books of the Bible. “Scripture speaks to its committed readers today as it did to those of old because the intended audience is that divinely shaped community which accepts this Scripture as God’s word and therefore authoritative and definitive for faith and conduct” (p. 9). Following this, Leder continues to prepare his readers with the backdrop of Genesis and the historical trajectories that set the stage for Joshua and beyond. These are worthwhile instructional chapters. The remaining chapters investigate the theme of rest in each book of the Former Prophets. I was intrigued with his discoveries of parallelism and repetition. If you decide to read this book, I suggest beginning with his appendix/word study on nuach and menuhah in Genesis.
As mentioned above, the theme of rest is of great importance to members of the NT church. The book title derives its name from Hebrews 4:9: “There remains therefore a rest (sabbatismos) for the people of God.” Hebrews 3:7-4:11 draws on passages in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Kings, and Psalms to provide relevant assurances, advice, and warnings to the people of God. The overall thrust of Leder’s book considers “rest” to be a redemptive and eschatological theme to be fulfilled in Christ. But If Christ indeed provides rest for the people of God, this necessarily invalidates the “divine instructions” to overthrow the enemies, to take possession of the land, and to physically rest at appointed times. Instead, these themes are reimagined as spiritual realities and experiences. Leder astutely observes that “fundamentally, completing the conquest was not a territorial matter but a profoundly spiritual battle against the powers and principalities that ruled Canaan” (p 86). This understanding, guided by the NT interpretation of the OT, pictures new covenant believers as also awaiting the promised land and its rest, while concurrently engaged in spiritual warfare.
Depending on one’s view of fulfillment and its affect on ceremonies of land and rest, Hebrews 4 may become a bit of an interpretive battleground. Hebrews 4:9 is used in Reformed literature to advocate the continuation of a weekly rest, à la the fourth commandment. However, Leder does not directly advocate “keeping the Sabbath” and mentions it but a few times. Once, he uses the Sabbath as a metaphor for the hope of peaceful rest with God (p. 171). His focus is on the relationship of the experience of daily rest from enemies and peaceful fellowship with God while in the land. The Sabbath is merely a weekly duty to rest from work, during which God expects “nothing less than rigorous keeping of the covenant vows” (p. 86). Also, Leder only adverts to Matt 11:28-29 a few times, where Christ promises rest to those who exchange their burdens for his easy yoke—presumably a daily experience of rest. But the sense of rest proposed in Leder’s studies is that our time awaiting the complete fulfillment of rest is our burden. “The burden of waiting for the rest that still remains is the waiting, the incompleteness, the brokenness, the temptation to surrender to the pain of bodily incoherence, and the never ending discerning the spirit behind the conflict (p. 182). There is no denying the hardships that challenge our sense of rest in Jesus Christ. “For indeed, when we came to Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were troubled on every side. Outside were conflicts, inside were fears. Nevertheless God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus” (2 Cor 7:5-6). But at the same time, this idea of waiting for the rest that remains must take into account that “we who have believed do enter that rest” (Heb 4:3). Clarke wonderfully expressed the truth of this verse:
“The meaning appears to be this: We Jews, who have believed in Christ, do actually possess that rest-state of happiness in God, produced by peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Spirit—which was typified by the happiness and comfort to be enjoyed by the believing Hebrews, in the possession of the promised land.”
Clarke, Adam. Clarke’s Commentary, 6:710
The New Testament does not support the idea that Sabbath-keeping is a required law for Christians. Sabbatarians tend to maximize their attention on the idea of waiting for the rest that remains—the shared hope of faithful Israel—while minimizing the present possession of salvation rest of those who believe. Since the focus is on waiting, the church, they say, must continue to observe the Sabbath which sustains that future hope. Scripture does present a parallel between the Jews awaiting the (land) rest that remains and the Christian awaiting the (heavenly) rest that remains. We may admit this even though the concept of that rest is slightly different—the Jews expecting national occupation of the land promised to Abraham, and Christians expecting the inheritance of a new heavens and earth, also expected by Abraham (Heb 11:13-16). However, the parallel between the Jew’s occasional and temporary rest from enemies is profoundly different than the present and unshakeable redemptive rest that every Christian enjoys in covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. This truth obviates Sabbath-keeping because our soulical experience of complete rest in Jesus Christ is the down-payment and guarantee of our full inheritance in the promised eschaton. There is no wondering whether our perfect obedience is instrumental in securing or maintaining the present possession of rest. As Leder says, “Israel’s rest from its enemies all around is no longer dependent on its compliance with divine instruction as in the days of Joshua, but on the Lord’s covenant with David and his descendants” (p. 143). While our ultimate salvation is sure, not directly dependent on our obedience, we are still urged to be diligent to enter that rest lest any succumb to the disobedience of disbelief (Heb 4:11).
Part 2d: What Are The Terms? Adiaphora
Glossary 26 Adiaphora
Adiaphora. A concept of moral neutrality; that is, behaviors, traditions, and practices that are neither sinful nor righteous in and of themselves, because there is no biblical command to warrant them or prohibition to avoid them. The NT does not employ this word, but Paul certainly describes matters of indifference—things that are nothing—and provides guidance to ameliorate controversies that arise from them (Rom 14:1-15:6; 1 Cor 8:1-13; 9:19-23; 10:23-33; Gal 2:3-5; 5:13-15; Col 2:16-20). “True adiaphora are things neither commanded nor forbidden by the Word of God and which, therefore, concern matters that can be decided in the church by the mutual agreement of the members.[1] “Situations where there are differences of understanding or practice about matters having to do primarily with social background, personal opinion, or personal preference—that is, with the so-called adiaphora, or matters that are neither required of nor prohibited to believers in Jesus”[2] As Paul noted about matters of indifference, one may still sin in attitude, either by action or inaction, e.g., offending a weaker brother by eating meat offered to idols (1 Cor 10:23-29). While it is true that a liberty taken can offend someone or lead one to become less circumspect, it is also true that a freedom given away can lead to other personal violations and encroachments or a loss of self-government. However, when adiaphora become required or denied by ecclesiastical authorities, controversy over the matter is certain, because this affects both doctrine and conscience, and impedes the gospel message (Gal 2:3-5).
The historical underpinnings for the notion of adiaphora (Gk. ἀδιάφορα) developed with the Stoics who evaluated human endeavors as either good, bad, or indifferent (not able to differentiate). The idea arose again during the earliest stages of the Reformation.
After the publication of the Augsburg Confession in 1530 by the Lutherans, the Roman Catholic Church began their eighteen-year Council of Trent in 1545 to clarify their doctrine and practices. Since the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul III was supported by the Spanish King Charles V, Lutherans in Germany faced persecution, imprisonment, and war for their beliefs. Some Reformers, like Melanchthon, thought it best to concede on certain practices that he considered tolerable in order to protect Lutherans, but other Reformers, like Flacius, were less conciliatory. They reasoned that “one should not even make concessions in regard to practices which under normal circumstances would represent things of indifference or ‘adiaphora.’ To yield in external practices to false teachers would give the impression that one agrees with false doctrine, thereby also compromising one’s public witness to the faith.”[3] The Lutherans, having learned through this controversy, addressed adiaphora specifically under the heading of Ecclesiastic Ceremonies in the Formula of Concord, published in 1576.[4] Adiaphora are defined as above (things neither enjoined nor forbidden) and viewed as practices permitted by the church for the sake of order, decorum, and edification. Churches may not judge other churches because they have more or fewer ceremonial or ritual practices in place, provided they share a mutual faith. However, when forced under persecution to adopt adiaphora, they are no longer “adiaphora,” but have become moral precepts to be resisted.[5] “Indeed, other evidence in this early period point to a low view of holy days; for these days were either treated as adiaphora or opposed as popish remnants in the Church.”[6] While the Reformers made wonderful changes in reducing the number of external rites and ceremonies involved in Christian worship, they eventually paved the way for the re-introduction of a shadow-law and transforming it into a moral precept. As Paul observed: Human traditions deceive by a show of wisdom but are without value (Col 2:23). Calvin’s criticism of Roman Catholic rituals, composed of “a strange mixture of Judaism” and enforced by “perverse legislators [who] make no end of their demands and prohibitions until they reach the extreme of harshness”[7] should prove prophetic of the churches of the Reformation with the rise of Sabbatarianism. Calvin defined human traditions as “all the laws enacted by men, without authority from the word of God, for the purpose either of prescribing the mode of divine worship or laying a religious obligation on the conscience.”[8] “Paul and John say a lot about the godly behavior that springs from Christian faith and love, but the Sabbath is simply never commanded.”[9]
Following the resurrection, the first Jewish Christians—the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ—likely observed the Sabbath and then met together on the first day of the week. The new covenant was in place, yet they may have expected to add to their yearly, monthly, and weekly observances a meeting with fellow Jewish-Christians on the first day of the week. Prior to Jesus’ ascension, He directed them to wait in Jerusalem which allowed them to observe one more Sabbath prior to Shavout (Pentecost) on the first day of the week (Acts 2:1). Luke relates that following the gift of the Holy Spirit the apostles preached at this time bringing thousands to faith in Christ (Acts 2:41).
They quickly established a community practice of meeting at homes or the temple grounds based on their unity in the Spirit (Acts 2:42). Shortly after, when Peter preached again, the persecution of Jewish Christians began (Acts 4:1-3). It was not long before their welcome at the synagogue or temple was withdrawn and within a few years, those who professed Christ were clearly viewed as enemies to be cruelly mistreated (Acts 9:2). Following Paul’s conversion, he continued to go to synagogues to interact and gain the opportunity to preach, but this can hardly be viewed as a consanguineous relationship. As more people entered the ranks of Christianity—both Jew and Gentile—the leaders of the synagogue recognized that Christianity was a threat to Judaism. Concurrently, the early Christians realized that to meet together without conflict or danger they best continue to assemble with like-minded believers on the first day of the week.
The reader should already be aware that an individual’s transition from one religion to another is neither abrupt nor straightforward. People must sort out many conflicting emotions and new realizations within their mind. There are habits of life and social relationships that complicate the withdrawal from one sect and the incorporation into another. A Jewish convert to Christianity at this time might have continued to attend a Sabbath synagogue meeting; however, if it interfered with their full acceptance of Christianity, it could be a spiritual danger to them (Gal 5:1-6; Heb 10:23-27). Within a few years Christians already established a way of life that was distinct enough to be evidentiary of their allegiance to the doctrines of Jesus Christ (Acts 9:2). If a Jewish believer stopped going to synagogue, their name would be known to the leaders and surrendered to Paul for investigation. But if a Jewish believer continued at the synagogue, it was out of fear of discovery. Gentile believers would face the same dilemma if they were already regularly attending synagogue, but new gentile converts were oblivious to any such obligation. Paul warns the church to be wary of any person advocating the observance of days (Rom 14:5-6; Gal 2:8-11; Col 2:16-23). By the time Paul addressed the church at Colossae, it appears that on the personal level, he considers Sabbath-keeping to be a matter of indifference (for Jews), yet he couches it within a warning (to Gentiles) of being beguiled by false teachers.
Paul identified the Jewish observance of days as matters of indifference—adiaphora. In his letter to the Colossians, he said, “Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths.” The reason these were no longer matters of Christian morality is because they were shadow-laws that forecasted and revealed the substance of Jesus Christ, now dispelled by the new covenant. It is not just that the Mosaic covenant has been superseded; Paul rejected them because they had served to inform Israel of the coming Messiah. That is, Christ is the telos—the fulfilling end or goal—of these laws, representing in His person what these laws portrayed in a rudimentary way.
The festivals of Israel also adumbrated the life and work of Jesus Christ, but the Sabbath was the epitome of a foreshadowing device within the law. Leviticus 23 summarizes the calendar festivals for Israel. The Sabbath repeats throughout the year (as well as the New Moon) and the annual ceremonies are infused with sabbatic features and are coordinated with the Sabbath. The whole calendar is suffused with rituals foreshadowing the mighty work of redemption to be provided by the coming Messiah. This is why Jesus affirmed that He provided true rest that was otherwise unobtainable through Canaan, the Temple, or any of the Sabbaths. Jesus claimed to be the giver of rest (Matt 11:28-30)—a clear reference to the Sabbath and its calendar relatives, the land of Canaan, the Tabernacle or Temple, and various leaders who provided rest for the nation following military victories. He is greater than Joshua (Heb 4:8), David (Matt 22:42-45), and Solomon (Matt 12:42). He is greater than the temple (Matt 12:6; Jn 2:19). He is our Passover (1 Cor 5:7). He encompasses the Day of Atonement (Heb 9:25; 10:1), the High Sabbath of the year, and He is our Jubilee, the grandest of all sabbatic institutions (Lk 4:18-21). Again, if Jesus fulfilled the greatest of the sabbatic rituals, a fortiori, He fulfilled them all. Once an OT ritual law finds its fulfillment in Christ, His redemption, or His church, the obligation to perform the outward demands of that law are annulled. The substance and reality of Christ’s work of redemption for His people is tangible and complete, possessed and guaranteed—effects that the shadow-laws could never achieve, claim, or promise in and of themselves (Col 2:16; Heb 4:3). At this point in history, there is no good reason to pattern new covenant church life precisely after old covenant Jewish ceremonies or rituals. As such, no church leader, organization, or denomination should promulgate rules or doctrines endorsing a specific diet or the observation of days as if there were some spiritual benefit affixed to the practice or some negative outcome to be expected for non-observance.
[1] Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985) p.26.
[2] Longnecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), p. 1001.
[3] Kilcrease, Jack. “The Augsburg Interim” https://lutheranreformation.org/history/the-augsburg-interim/ (Accessed Apr 29, 2020)
[4] Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom, “Formula of Concord, Art X” Vol 3, p. 160-164.
[5] Johnson, J. F. “Adiaphora, Adiaphorists” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Ewell, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), p. 24-35.
[6] Parker, Kenneth L. The English Sabbath, (Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1988) p. 51.
[7] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:10:13.
[8] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:10:16.
[9] Morrison, Michael. Sabbath, Circumcision, and Tithing (Lincoln, NE: Writers Club Press, 2002), p. 260-261.
Part 2d: What Are the Terms? Sabbatarianism
Glossary 24 Sabbatarianism
Sabbatarianism. A term restricted to the teaching and practice of Christians to apply Sabbath law in some respect to their weekly behavior and conduct. As such, Jews are not “Sabbatarians” even though they are Sabbath observant according to their community history and traditions. The extent of application of Sabbath law can vary among Christian sects and Bible-based cults; however, the most common application is to regard the chosen day of community worship as a day of rest. In the strictest sense, Christians are Sabbatarians if they practice any Sabbath law or appeal to Sabbath law as a basis for Christian assembly. Sabbatarianism is “the view which insists that one day of each week be reserved for religious observance as prescribed by the OT sabbath law.”[i] Harm differentiates between strict Sabbatarianism which holds that humankind is morally responsible to rest from all labor on Saturday and semisabbatarianism, which merely transfers this demand to Sunday.
A Sabbatarian doctrine is a nuanced position because it developed over several centuries to arrive at a state of strict observance in the English commonwealth during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries and then to ultimately to lose its national prominence while maintaining its variable relevance in Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Reformed, Reformed Baptist, and Seventh-day sects.
The earliest Christian traditions did not associate the Christian Lord’s Day on Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday and only minor doctrinal connections involving rest were taught during medieval times. Skarsuane evaluates the dialogue of Justin and Trypho, a second century Christian apologetic, and concludes: “The main point is that the ritual commandments [circumcision and Sabbath keeping] were understood to be temporary measures until the coming of the Messiah. To continue with them after his coming would amount to a practical denial of the efficacy of his coming. It could well be that if Justin knew (as we know he did) Jewish believers who nevertheless kept on observing the ritual commandments due to ‘instability of will,’ he also knew Jewish believers who did not, i.e., who drew the full and logical consequences of this theory concerning the law and abandoned all or most of the ritual observances.”[ii] Historically, the development of a Sabbatarian theology began within the Roman Catholic Church which allegedly claimed to have moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by the authority of the church, which is an instrument of Christ. Aquinas later popularized the idea that all of the Jewish feasts were replaced with Christian feasts.[iii] These teachings aggrandized the power and authority of the Roman church to hold the populace accountable to consistent Sunday observance, to declare certain days to be holy, and to legitimize ritualistic practices. Protestants could not accept the rationale for Sunday worship in terms of papal authority and began to emphasize that Sunday worship was simply a practical decision during the early years following the resurrection. And so they initially denied the historical claim of the Roman Catholic Church to have moved the Sabbath, to decree holy days, or to demand the practice of religious ceremonies, but within a century came to view Sunday as a “Christian Sabbath”—the expression of mature Sabbatarian thought.[iv]
The early Reformers, Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1509-1564), distanced themselves from claiming that the fourth commandment was the basis for Christian gatherings on the first day of the week or that it was to be fully observed like the Jews, but they employed the fourth commandment, like Aquinas, to defend the notion that “some time” is necessary for the worship of God and that Sunday should be treated more reverently than other days.[v] Even though Calvin understood the typical intent of physical rest was to encourage believers “to cease from their own works and allow God to work in them,” he posited the idea that servants were to be “indulged with a day of rest.”[vi] By undermining his own understanding of the typical meaning of rest—to perpetually rest from our works—he employed the literal rest to serve his pastoral desire to have the commoners and laborers attend church to be fed by God’s word. The contradiction did not go unnoticed by his peers who complained that “Christian people are trained in Judaism because some observance of days is retained.” He denied the accusation, stating that “we do not celebrate it with most minute formality, as a ceremony by which we imagine that a spiritual mystery is typified, but we adopt it as a necessary remedy for preserving order in the Church.” While this was not called “Sabbatarianism” at the time, the foundation was laid for the progressive development of Sabbatarian thought. This seemingly innocent application of the Sabbath to the Christian economy encouraged increasing calls to transfuse the Lord’s Day with sabbatic rules, or as Parker observes, “the evolving rigorism of judaizing Christians.”[vii]
With this foundation and the later development of a creational rationale for a weekly rest, in the early sixteenth century Glait (1490-1546) and later Traske (1585–1636), both seventh day Anabaptists, argued that the Sabbath could not be moved to Sunday if the fourth commandment is a moral command emanating from creation; and so their followers gathered on Saturday. The initial use of the term “Sabbatarian”—along with “Saturdarian” and “Sabbatary Christians”—was used by Sunday-observant Christians (who believed the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday) to describe Christian assembly on Saturday (who believed the Sabbath could not be moved). “Traskites were to become important as examples of the extremes that could result from precisionist attitudes.”[viii] Ironically, the term invented to describe the aberrancy of Christians observing a Sabbath on Saturday came to describe those who first employed the term.
The Sunday Sabbatarian culture prevailed and was able to curtail commerce and control conduct through civil law. During the Great Awakening in the United States, other seventh day sects developed. This led to the distinction between “Saturday Sabbatarianism” and “Sunday Sabbatarianism” because both endeavor to apply the fourth commandment to their chosen day of worship, as opposed to non-Sabbatarians who do not consider Sabbath law to have any force for Christians. With the rise of evangelicalism, the Sabbath was increasingly regarded as a ceremonial law or simply an outdated law of the old covenant and therefore without moral relevance for Christians. “We are convinced that there is no theological connection between Sabbath and Sunday.”[ix] This decrease of support for Sabbatarian practices and the loss of a national Christian consensus eventually led to the desuetude of business closure laws and penalties for breaking the Sabbath. “Sabbatarianism was also to burden Christian liberty with human traditions”[x]
The moral state of this present age is no different than that of the twelfth through twentieth centuries, but Sabbatarians no longer appeal to the State to control the behavior of the populace on Sunday (or Saturday). While a few Sabbatarian authors opine about the loss of significance that Sunday worship commands compared to former years, they are unable to do anything except at the ecclesiastic level.
Following the Reformation, the magnification of Sabbath obligations was only possible because of the working relationship of church and state. Having acknowledged the danger of such a relationship and admitting a need to alter confessions,[xi] the idea of the moral obligation of all humanity to rest for 24 hours on a weekly basis is no longer defensible. Sabbatarians continue to proclaim the morality of the Sabbath but the lack of enforceability erodes confidence in this doctrine. Nowadays, the appeal to observe a sabbatic rest is conditioned on the individual decision to apply this law for personal benefit, which is grounded not on the authority of God’s word, but on a person’s internalization of what the command means to them at any given time.[xii]
Sabbatarianism is a difficult doctrine to defend because of the presuppositions that undergird it, the internal contradictions, and the inconsistencies in application. During the sixteenth century, the heightened state of Sunday Sabbatarianism gave birth to Saturday Sabbatarianism which in turn diminished the solidarity and enforceability of Sunday Sabbatarianism. What Sunday Sabbatarianism logically generated came to weaken the arguments for Sunday Sabbatarianism. For example, the first Saturday Sabbatarians were Anabaptists who believed that the State did not have authority over church matters, but unfortunately for the earliest Saturday Sabbatarians, they were persecuted for their faith for the reason that if Sunday Sabbatarianism is the only proper day for Christians to worship and the church has the support of the State to enforce Sunday Sabbatarian laws, then they could condemn and persecute Saturday Sabbatarians. However, if Sunday Sabbatarians argue that the fourth commandment means that people are only obligated to rest every seventh day, then they could not condemn Saturday Sabbatarians for worshipping on Saturday. Ultimately, this gave civil government the power to sit as judge and settle the theological conundrum facing the church (which is also undesirable).
The development of Sabbatarianism gave rise to internal theological contradictions. Sunday Sabbatarianism caused a schism centered on the significance of the day of Christ’s resurrection and the authority of God to freely appoint another day of worship for Christ followers. Initially, with the alignment of the state, they were able to persecute Saturday Sabbatarians on the premise that God moved the Sabbath to Sunday. But with the loss of the state’s favor, Sunday Sabbatarians now must tolerate the existence of Saturday Sabbatarianism. “We are taught that a Sabbatarian has the right to observe the seventh day if he so wishes; that is, if he believes that God wants him to.”[xiii] Barnhouse, writing this in the twentieth century, could not have said this in the early sixteenth century. Observe that the sequence of rest every seventh day is more important than the actual day God chose for Christians to worship. Giving theological superiority to the sequence (one in seven days) in order to summon the authority of the fourth commandment results in the loss of significance of first day congregational gatherings.[xiv] “Those who celebrate Saturday are clearly the most consistent Sabbatarians but fail to do justice to the newness of the eschatological situation brought about by God’s actions in Christ… the discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, and to the attitude of the New Testament… to the Mosaic Law.”[xv]
The question then arises, “If Christians meet weekly and the Sabbath occurred weekly, then isn’t this an adaptation or continuance of Sabbath law?” Not necessarily. What marks Sabbatarianism is rest, which is the meaning of shabbat, not its hebdomadal attribute. The Sabbath was not only a weekly occurrence but was occasioned on the New Moon and several annual festival days. What made it a Sabbath was the prohibition from work (and other associated laws). The introduction of the Sabbath in the wilderness as a weekly observance gave that day of the week its name because the Jews would rest from their labors every seventh day as commanded from that point forward, but the fact that other days were called Sabbaths implied that Sabbath observance was not strictly a weekly event. Otherwise, any observance that occurs on a weekly basis is sabbatical—if Sabbath means weekly.
Lincoln (LD) addresses the fact that the Sabbath and Lord’s Day share the seven-day sequence and sees this as an analogy. “Even if it is agreed that Sunday is the new Christian day for worship and that the Sabbath commandment is not to be applied to it, there remains an analogy between the two institutions of the Old Testament Sabbath and the New Testament Lord’s Day.”[xvi] It is undeniable that the Sabbath occurs weekly on Saturday (and still does) and the Lord’s Day occurs weekly on Sunday (and still does). Both had a distinct beginning, a distinct etiology, a distinct nomenclature, and a distinct covenantal duty. They are treated as separate institutions in the NT, i.e., the Sabbath and the first day of the week, and they were treated as disparate institutions by the church fathers.[xvii]
Giving the Sabbath to the liberated Jews was a sign of the Mosaic covenant that obligated them to a recurring weekly observance. The Sabbath occurs on what is now called Saturday, but the specific day of the week was designated by God as the Sabbath. Had not the Romans control over the calendar and given celestial names to the days, we would have continued to call the seventh day of the week by the Jewish name “Sabbath.”[xviii] The Jews were given other recurring observances that coincided with the celestial rhythms of the day, months, seasons, and years, but the Sabbath was unique in that it was not related in any way to the natural rhythms of the planet. Its rhythm was of divine decree. Neither the OT nor the NT give any indication that the weekly Sabbaths could be instantly shifted to a different day of the week. With the establishment of the new covenant, the former observance of days was nullified, and in their place the Lord assigned the first day of the week and all that followed as a day for believers in Jesus Christ to assemble to remember their Redeemer through a new communal ritual. The new covenant was a new beginning for the new creation based on the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week in fulfillment of the Feast of Firstfruits which shadowed forth His resurrection. Having fulfilled the Sabbath as His body lay lifeless in the tomb, He rose in power over the grave on the first day of the week.
The week as a unit (and later as a recurring pattern) is unique to the Judeo-Christian mindset because it was a divine measure of days established at creation. Since God is the source of this measure of days and of His desire to mark His people by a weekly observance, He is free to use it however He wants. The weekly character of Jewish and Christian meetings identifies them with the God of the Bible. Even Muslims adopted a weekly pattern for worship.
If God desires His covenant people to meet together, is He not free to choose a frequency and appoint a starting day? Just because the Sabbath is nullified, it doesn’t mean the Lord can’t ask His children to assemble together on the first day of the week to hear the preaching of His word and to enjoy joyful fellowship in acknowledgement of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Lincoln and others propose that first day assembly and worship was simply a practical matter for Christians—they couldn’t meet daily until the Lord returned and they couldn’t meet with the Jews on the Sabbath—but this bypasses the possibility that the Lord Himself ordained the day and set the frequency for Christians to meet through apostolic authority.
The Sabbath was not instituted at creation, but the model for a week of seven days was. The weekly pattern of rest did not apply to the community of Israel until they were a community in covenant with God. The church as a new community of God demonstrates their association and fellowship with God by a hebdomadal tradition, not on the last day of the week but on the first day, which accentuates the loss of continuity with ritual calendar laws of the old covenant.
[i] Harm, F. R. “Sabbatarianism” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001) p. 1045.
[ii] Skarsaune, Oskar. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature” in Jewish Believers in Jesus, Skarsaune and Hvalvik, eds. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), p. 512.
[iii] O’Hare, Terrence D. The Sabbath Complete, p. 267.
[iv] González, Justo L. A Brief History of Sunday (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), p. 113.
[v] Bauckham, R. J., “Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day,p. 317.
[vi] Calvin Institutes (2:8:28), p. 339. Following references in order (2:8:33), p. 342
[vii] Parker, Kenneth L. The English Sabbath p. 162.
[viii] Parker, Kenneth L. The English Sabbath, p. 164.
[ix] Shead, A. G. “Sabbath” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, T. Desmond Alexander, et. al. eds. (Downers Grover, IL: IVP, 2000), p. 749.
[x] Bauckham, R. J. “Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 329.
[xi] Barker, William S. “Lord of Lords and Kings of Commoners: The Westminster Confession and the Relationship of Church and State” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Ligon Duncan, ed., repr. 2004 (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2003) p. 413-428.
[xii] Wirzba, Norman. Living the Sabbath. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007). See my review at https://sabbathcomplete.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/book-review-living-the-sabbath-by-norman-wirzba/
[xiii] Barnhouse, Donald Grey. Romans: Expositions of Bible Doctrines (Rom 14:5,6).
[xiv] See https://blog.lifeassuranceministries.org/2018/03/26/three-reasons-adventists-dont-celebrate-easter/.
[xv] Lincoln, A. T. “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 401.
[xvi] Lincoln, A. T. “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 398.
[xvii] González, Justo L. A Brief History of Sunday (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), p. 18-39.
[xviii] In countries where the early Christian terminology persisted, Saturday is known as Sabato (Italian), Sabado (Spanish and Portuguese), Subbota (Russian), Sobota (Polish and Czech), and Szombat (Hungarian).
The Sabbath Complete 