Sunday, April 02, 2006

The Lord's Day: Does God Have to Repeat Himself?

The first objection I heard to a Reformed lesson on the Christian Sabbath/The Lord's Day was, "Y'know, the 4th commandment is the only one of the Ten Commandments not repeated in the New Testament." I've heard it too many times to count in the 9.5 years since. And of all the objections to the observance of the Day of Rest that I encounter, this is the...well, can't think of a polite way to say this, it's the lamest. It's also very odd that this is generally spouted by the same people that are generally pretty worked up about the posting (or lack thereof) of all 10 in public buildings. Wouldn't it be more consistent for them to slip an ellipsis in between "in vain" and "V. Honor" (maybe ellipses don't look good in marble?)? But I digress...

[sidebar: this is why I love the informal nature of blogs, I don't have to run to my thesaurus to come up with a nice way of saying that idea is vacuous and foundationless. I can just call it lame--and I can ramble at will :) ]

I have a two-fold, un-scholarly response to this "objection." There are probably more that could be given, but these work for me.

1. So what? How many of us parents have ever uttered, "How many times have I told you..."? Once was enough for Ward and June Cleaver, shouldn't it be enough for our Heavenly Father? How many times does God have to say something for it to stick?

For that matter, does this rule apply only to the 10 Commandments? Off the top of my head, I don't remember something like, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen 1:28) showing up anywhere after, "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ..." [feel free to fill up the comments section with evidence that my memory is faulty...I'll gladly eat those words.]

Instead, why don't we just rest on, "the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever" (Is. 40:8)? And we shouldn't forget, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:17-18).

2. Bzzzzt! Sorry, thanks for playing. Are you sure you've read the thing? 'Cuz it's all over the place. Especially in those first few books--y'know the ones with all the red letters.

Jesus spent a whole lot of time correcting misapprehensions regarding the Sabbath, did he not? Why spend all that time doing so, if he was just going to eliminate the whole thing in a couple of years? Why would his apostles bother recording these teachings if they were obsolete by the time they set pen to papyrus? Why does he assert his lordship over the day, when it's time is almost gone?

I just stumbled onto this passage by Iain D. Campbell (while looking for something else) that fits perfectly right here.

But over what is Jesus claiming lordship? Over an Old Testament icon which he was intending to demolish? It makes no sense at all to say that the Sabbath was merely an Old Testament provision, one of the shadows and types which were to be done away in Christ. For Jesus to claim sovereignty over the Sabbath implies that the Sabbath remains under his jurisdiction.

It seems to me that we often fail to do justice to this great statement on the lips of Jesus. How can the Sabbath be altogether dispensed with by Jesus if he is Lord over it? Jesus does not say that he was Lord of the Sabbath, but that he is Lord of the Sabbath! If language means anything, then in Mark 2:28, Jesus is implying the permanent nature of the Sabbath as something over which he, as universal and eternal Son of Man has absolute authority. The day is his, as much now as ever. As long as Jesus continues to be Son of man, he continues to be Lord of the Sabbath.

This is no indication, of course, of which day is to be marked out as the Sabbath in the New Testament age. That has to be established on other grounds. But it is a clear indication of the fact that Jesus has not abrogated the Sabbath--he has not cast it into some Old Testament oblivion. The thinking that suggests that the Sabbath is gone cannot be accommodated with the claim the at Jesus makes here. If he is Lord of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath remains.
Jesus claims Lordship over the day, he attacks the legalistic misapplications of the Law by the Pharisees and other hypocrites. But He keeps the Sabbath. And He expects us to do the same.

One more example of presence of the 4th Commandment in the New Testament, and I'll call this rant done. Hebrews 4:9 tells us, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." That word translated "Sabbath rest" (sabbatismos) is a nifty little hapax legomenon that shows up in its verb form in the Septuagint, describing observing/keeping the Sabbath. Why use this word, in the middle of a passage about rest where the author had been using katapausis? Dr. Pipa sums it up pretty well:
The uniqueness of the word suggests a deliberate, theological purpose. He selects or coins sabbatismos because, in addition to referring to spiritual rest, it suggests as well an observance of that rest by a "Sabbath keeping." Because the promised rest lies ahead for the New Covenant people, they are to strive to enter the future rest. Yet as they do so, they anticipate it by continuing to keep the Sabbath.
A. W. Pink puts it in starker terms:
Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God. "There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping." Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity over Judaism; written to those addressed as "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling." Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Hebrews 4:9 referred directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament Scriptures.
Let's repeat that last sentence one more time for emphasis: "Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament Scriptures."

'nuff said.

(sure, there's a whole lot of issues I left untouched on this topic. This one bit of bombastic turgidity can't cover it all...hopefully I'll get to those sometime.)

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did you read what Methuselah had to say about the Sabbath? I haven't responded as of yet, had pre-trial today...you know trying to get court stuff out of the way so I can umm...BREATH! :) :) :) :) :) ;)

Hobster said...

Yeah, I can see the appeal of breathing (tho' I suspect it's highly over-rated). :)

Will be awaiting an email update on that...

Hobster said...

Wow! Laura was here? THE Laura? Man, if I'd known you'd be dropping by, I'd have tidied up a bit first.

Thanks for the kind words...and, can't help but agree with your comment about those who protest.

girlfriday said...

Our Lord rested on the Sabbath, rose on a Sunday.

Explain.

Hobster said...

thatd be one of the things I was referring to in the parenthetical statement at the end there--hopefully, sometime. :)

Anonymous said...

and there you have the argument I encountered....
I'm definitely inclined to disagree with Methuselah on this point...haven't studied it as in depth as I would like, but something tells me... we're supposed to keep the Sabbath, I think that would pretty much fall into the category of common sense.
Of course, I could be wrong...
I'll stay tuned in....

rustypth said...

Hobs - do you believe the Sabbath is now on Sunday?

girlfriday said...

I was being argumentative.

On another note, most Christians worship on Sunday. What we really disagree about is what we're supposed to do with the rest of it.

Hobster said...

how bright was this? I say I don't have time to do much here, and then I post on this topic.

Laura--thanks for the assist there! Short, sweet, to the point, and totally orthodox.

Rusty--yup. (you should know I'm not gonna publish anything contra my vows). Now, I know that response is too short to satisfy you, I'll get to it. :)

Travelin--thanks for hangin' in there, will hopefully be worth it :)

rustypth said...

okie =)

Hobster said...

It could take volumes to answer the number of errors in that brief yet rambling paragraph. I honestly wouldn't know where to start, had I the time or inclination to do so.

That probably comes across far nastier than I intend, so I will apologize in advance.

I suggest, sir that you get yourself grounded in the faith--via sound Biblical teaching and the oversight of elders--before you presume to instruct or correct others as you have here. Based on the few comments you've left here over the last couple of months--and those I've seen on one other blog--I see a real lack of discernment, maturity, or insight on your part. It's not my practice to criticize those young in the faith (as I can only assume you to be), and I don't intend that now, take this as an encouragement to grow.

Anonymous said...

Laura,
I don't agree with Methuselah. Let me make that clear before I begin.
I didn't see how we are still obliged to have church on Sunday, and I don't see how we are explicitly commanded to that. I did read your response. Maybe I'm not enlightened enough to see your point. (seriously)
Is there something I can read to further help me?
I think maybe your response was too academic?? For me anyway.
Thanks so much.
'trav

Hobster said...

Travelin' ... I hadn't intended on getting to the day change right away, but given the responses (both here and otherwise), will try to write something up on it this Lord's Day...

(this is not to say that Larua can't jump in and answer your questions, just to say am workin' on it)

polymathis said...

Wow, you opened a can'o worms!

The ol' "jesus died therefore the law is not binding on us” is mainstream antinomian or at the least Dispo thinking (as I was raised with). And it is a syllogism wrought with assumptions! Not the least of which is that Christ's life and death was against God’s holiness; for if the Law of God expresses the holy nature and justice of God, then that Law cannot be violated without violating God’s justice. “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law”! (Rom. 3:31). But if one uses another definition of Law (for instance confusing the moral and the ceremonial law) then confusion arises. It is not uncommon for modern Evangelicals to “flat-out” a biblical word that may have different uses (like “world”: 1) physical planet; 2) the zeitgeist of sin; etc.) and read that definition into its every occurrence.

Furthermore, on the text front, check out Acts 25:8: “he answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.” Now, if the Reformed are correct in their view of the Testaments, then this statement makes sense for the substance of the law remains the same in both Testaments although the form changes (hence, we are a living sacrifice Rom. 12:2 but no longer give physical sacrifices; etc.). Plus, the simple fact that Paul quotes the Older Testament (1 Cor. 9:9—muzzling an ox an OT case-law; Acts 23:3-5; etc.) prima facia demonstrates the validity of the OT. This would either mean he violates modern Christian “law v. grace” paradigms, or uses the OT contrary to NT, or that Paul is providing an interpretive example for believers to follow.

(Naturally, if Sunday is "tradition" as was claimed, then I ought not follow the traditions of man--this is common with those who reject in toto the OT, man's ways become the force of Law)

As for our intrepid Methuselah, as much as he may not like this, I have pity on him having once thought in such narrow terms. And having had to debate my own father who disowned me over such issues. I transformed my understanding of the Law of God when I realized that Christ *obeyed* the Law for us--that His active righteousness was thus imputed to me (Rom. 5:19). I no longer feared God's Law, but embraced it as His revealed Will, that which I was predetermines to walk (Eph. 2:10), "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Rom. 8:4). Amen.

(OK, I'm off my soapbox, you can throw tomatoes now!)

Anonymous said...

Polymathis-Wow! Nice. That made perfect sense and there should no tomatoes thrown your way!

For Methuselah I say this:
"Jesus followed the Law, if He didn’t He wouldn’t be our Savior! Saying Jesus didn’t follow the Law entirely would be designating God a liar. Being a sinless atonement for our wretched soul, Jesus was and is the Perfect Lamb. I don’t think it wise to attempt an argument based on consistency. Jesus, as our perfect example, HAD no choice but to observe the Sabbath. How can you logically deny we do the same?"

Hob-are we right?

Hobster said...

travelin'--first, I echo your comments to polymathis.

Now, I wouldn't phrase it quite the same way you did that Jesus "HAD no choice..."
As the Law is the reflection/codification of His character, of course He would live in perfect conformity to it while on earth. And, as he was going to be the atoning sacrifice for us, He did have no choice but to observe the Sabbath, w/o giving up that overarching duty. So maybe I'm just wasting a good deal of time nickel and diming you on a phrase that I'm echoing :) (sigh...ever have one of those days?)

That said, I did want to pick up on something else you did said. As Jesus is our perfect example, how could we even think of doing something other than what He did!

polymathis said...

with all this writting we can combine it and make a posting, eh Hobart?

to quote the great Marvel editor, Stan the Man: 'nuff said!