I read this quote from a sermon preached by Jim Savastio, Pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville, KY. In light of my last post on the Sabbath, I thought it would be appropriate to archive as an addendum.
Reformed Baptists have a conviction that the Law of God (as expressed
in the Ten Commandments) is regulative in the life of the New Covenant
believer. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:19 that, “Circumcision is nothing
and uncircumcision is nothing, keeping the commandments of God is what
matters.” The present age is an antinomian (lawless) age of
Christianity, which makes no demands on its ‘converts,’ but God’s way of
holiness has not changed. The law written on the heart in creation
(Romans 2:14, 15) is the same law codified in the Ten Commandments on
Sinai and the same law written on the hearts of those who enter into the
New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3). The Apostle John
wrote “He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is
a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Jesus told His disciples that the
way in which they would demonstrate that they truly loved Him was by
obeying His commandments. Jesus said in Matthew 7 that many professing
Christians will find themselves cast out on the last day because they
were “practicers of lawlessness” who did not do the Father’s will. Among
the laws of God none is so hated as the thought that God requires
believers to give of their time to worship him and to turn from worldly
pursuits. In recent years many have leveled an unrelenting attack upon
the Fourth Commandment. The Presbyterian pastor and Bible commentator
Albert Barnes once wrote,
“There is a state of things in this land that is tending to
obliterate the Sabbath altogether. The Sabbath has more enemies in this
land than all the other institutions of religion put together. At the
same time it is more difficult to meet the enemy here than anywhere
else: for we come into conflict not with argument but with interest and
pleasure and the love of indulgence and of gain.”
John Bunyan wrote, “A man shall show his heart and life, what
they are, more by one Lord’s Day than by all the days of the week
besides. To delight ourselves in God’s service upon His Holy Day gives a
better proof of a sanctified nature than to grudge at the coming of
such days.”
Modern man is so addicted to his pleasures, his games and his
entertainment that the thought that he must give them up for
twenty-four hours to worship and to delight in God is seen as legalistic
bondage. It is a particular grief to see those who profess to love
Jesus Christ shrink from turning from their own pleasures. To God’s
people, who love His law and meditate upon it to the delight of their
blood-bought souls, such a commandment is not bondage, but a precious
gift.
The law of Moses about keeping the sabbath takes on some new "twists" in the N.T. Pharisees condemn Jesus for working on the sabbath; Jesus counters that his works of healing are appropriate for the sabbath; and Jesus adds that he is Lord of the sabbath, and thus does not need to follow the sabbath rules of other lords. Jesus also says God works on the sabbath, and thus so does he. Moses' law about not working on the sabbath is being revised.
ReplyDeletePaul follows along this line in Col. 2:16, where he says to let no one judge them due to questions about food and drink or about a festival, new moon, or sabbath. In Rom. 14:5-6,10 Paul alludes to such judgments, due to disagreements about how one "esteems" one day as better than another (and observes the day), while another esteems all days alike.
In other words, the importance of the law of Moses about the sabbath is being downgraded in the N.T.
Jesusandthebible,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. Your sentiments are shared by many and I am all too familiar with the arguments you raise. However, I do not subscribe to a New-covenant or even a Continental view of the Sabbath, but rather hold to the traditional and confessional reformed position. Therefore, I have a far different understanding on the texts you mention.
Matthew 12 is a wonderful passage that does nothing to "twist", modify, or eliminate the 4th commandment in any way. Rather it corrects the Pharisaical "twisting" and establishes it through Christ's demonstration of love. Love is after the sum of the ten commandments: the first four being our loving duty to God and the last six, our loving duty to our fellow man. Both NT and OT testify to this summation of love. Our Lord rightly proclaims himself to be the authority of this perpetual law and teaches the proper use of it for "works" of mercy - in this case, the feeding of His beloved disciples and healing of the man with the withered hand. The 1689 LBC reflects this teaching in Cptr 22:8 "The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy."
The other passages you mentioned also reveal a difference of exegesis between us. Paul is clearly speaking of the ceremonial laws here. In Colossians his argument is not against the moral law found in the Ten Commandments, but rather the "tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (vs 8). He then mentions circumcision (a temporary ordinance of the old covenant), food and drink (dietary restrictions), and finally a grouping of holydays, new moons, and sabbath days (ceremonial law festivites). All of these ceremonial aspects of the law given in Leviticus were exactly as Paul says in vs 17, "a shadow of things to come". The Scriptures never suppose that the Commandments written in stone (signifying the perpetuity of the moral law) were shadows, or types, of that which was to come in Christ. To miss this distinction blurs your hermeneutics for the NT. Finally, in vs 22, Paul calls these ceremonial shadows the "commandments and doctrines of men". I shudder to imagine anyone holding due respect for God's word would refer to the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God, as such. Paul cannot be speaking here of "the Sabbath"(definite article here), but rather the ceremonial sabbath days.
Romans 14 is a similar case, as is Galatians 4. Paul speaks of liberty from being bound to follow after the laws that men would place upon one another (be circumcised, don't eat that, keep the feast of booths, shave your head, etc.). Don't let your liberty in Christ be trampled by those who would have you under the law. Paul does not speak here of being freed from the moral law, else there would be no more sin. Here we must understand the three uses of the law; civil, pedagogical, and normative. The normative use of the moral law, guides us into a life of holiness and teaches us how to love God and our fellow man. Paul only enforces and expounds this use of the law when he imposes more imperatives on the saints than the OT ever dreamed of.
Continued,
ReplyDeleteDo we really need to look at the Apostle John and his equation of loving God and keeping His commandments? The commandments that are now written in our hearts, unchanged, but now a delight because the curse has been removed in Christ?
When it comes down to it though, if you submit to the reformed perspective of the law and gospel and the moral law (ten commandments), you will find endearing joy and a blessing, not a burden. Even if I am in error here, it only serve to enhance my day of worship and service. It's not legalism, because I'm not looking for any merit, only seeking to honor and love God through His revealed will. If, however, you are wrong, and you have "twisted" God's moral laws to remove what you perceive to be a burden from your shoulders, then there is a serious problem with your relationship to His moral character. If in Christ, you are accepted because of His redeeming work, but you risk being a stubborn son that refuses to be taught how to fully delight in and love your Lord - who, mind you, is the Lord of the Sabbath.
We can both be wrong, but we can't both be right. May the lord bless us as we seek His will.
Hi Armand,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your detailed response.
Some of your final remarks suggest I think the sabbath--and God's moral laws--are a burden. While I agree that the Pharisaic traditions about the sabbath, food laws, etc., were a burden, I don't think the sabbath as a day of rest or worship or service is a burden. Paul's point in Rom. 14:5-6 is that one man who esteems one day (like the sabbath) as better than another, observes that day in honor of the Lord. At the same time, another man esteems all days alike--and thus observes all days in honor of the Lord: every day is the Lord's day, a day to worship and serve.
Paul's reason for speaking thus was due to some judging others about those differences. The one who esteems the sabbath should not condemn the one who esteems every day as the Lord's day, a day of worship and service. And the one who esteems every day as the Lord's day should not judge the one who esteems the sabbath.
Similar to Jesus' statement in Mt. 12:5 about how the priests in the temple on the sabbath profane the sabbath yet are guiltless, my life's work has been teaching and serving on behalf of my Lord, working in that same way every day of the week, including the sabbath (whether Saturday or Sunday). Like Jesus, I might withdraw some day or days for special prayer or study or rest, but it does not need to be on the sabbath--just as special days of teaching or worship or service need not be on the sabbath.
Does this sound like I'm a "stubborn son"? Or that I have a serious problem regarding Christ's moral character? Like those Paul addresses in Rom. 14, it's always interesting to see who thinks they are the strong in faith (and who they then consider the weak in faith, or the ones without true faith at all).
JATB,
ReplyDeleteIf the fourth commandment is indeed perpetual, then any who disregard it, and do not "remember it to keep it holy", are disobedient, period. It's not my judgement of the situation, it is the case in hand. A son who refuses to submit under his father's rules is stubborn (actually rebellious, but I'm trying to be gracious). I'm not judging your faith or maturity, simply contrasting your own admission of esteeming the sabbath as any other day with the command to "remember it and keep it holy" (this would be an explicit command to esteem it differently). Here is the dilema: If the command is perpetual and a divine appointment for us today, and we disregard it, then we are not doing well (He who keeps my commandment, he it is who loves me).
Romans 14
To impose the Sabbath into the mix of Paul's address in Romans 14 is eisegetical. Nothing in the text would indicate that Paul is referring to the moral law (Ten Commandments). If we insist otherwise, then why not the rest of the moral law, why only the fourth, because of the word "days"? The question then would be what "days" is Paul referring to? If we say ceremonial days, then we gain some insight as to how liberty fits Biblically into the context of Paul's argument (it's not a liberty to break God's moral laws). If we suddenly eradicate the fourth commandment from the moral law because of the mention of "days", then we need some serious exegetical weight to illustrate this violence, and it's simply not to be found in scripture.
I'm sorry you feel judged, I'm trying to provoke consideration, not offense. So, if the moral law is indeed an eternally valid expression of the moral character of God, and it is a guide of how to love and obey our Lord, and yet we would rather claim that our liberty supersedes God's law or we insist that God has relaxed or changed His moral law/character (does immutability apply here?), despite the clarity of His word, then forgive me for not having a word better than "stubborn" (really I'm trying to be nice).
So Moses' moral law for the sabbath was to rest and keep it holy (set it apart from the other six work days); not working was the explicit moral part of keeping it holy, special. But Moses' ceremonial law for the sabbath--about how to worship God through certain sacrifices--was not as important or "perpetual"? And you connect the sabbaths in Col. 2:16 (or special days in Rom. 14:5) with only the ceremonial sabbaths, and with the traditions of men in Col. 2:8.
ReplyDeleteDoes the O.T. explicitly separate keeping "the" sabbath from keeping the ceremonial sabbath laws, which also referred to "the" sabbath? The ceremonial sabbath was "the" sabbath. In order to separate the two in Col. 2:16, you suggest the ceremonial sabbath was somehow like the "traditions" of men, similar to circumcision and the dietary laws of Moses. All of these relate to Col. 2:8 and the temporary traditions of men?
As for your carefully quoted reformed tradition, what is required on the sabbath is not only rest from work but to spend the "whole time in the private and public exercises of his worship." Where does Scripture say all this? And to what extent do these become more "ceremonial" than "moral"? The O.T. does not go into much detail about how to keep the sabbath holy. It is human traditions, like those of the Pharisees, that often try to define what that means.
My point regarding the distinction in Rom. 14 between "special" days and all other days was not that the sabbath was (just) like any other day, i.e., of no special importance, but that every day is special and meant to be a day of worship and service.
As for what is written in stone being perpetual, 2 Cor. 3:3-11 lumps together the tablets of stone with the written code that kills, the dispensation (or ministry) of death, a lesser splendor (glory), the dispensation (or ministry) of condemnation, and a splendor that is now surpassed and is fading away; in contrast to these are the Spirit of the living God, tablets of human hearts, ministers of a new covenant, the Spirit that gives life, the dispensation (or ministry) of the Spirit, the dispensation of righteousness, all of which is permanent, since its splendor far exceeds the former splendor. So what is written in stone is not part of the "permanent" (perpetual) list here.
The N.T. does quote specifically all of the other ten commandments that follow the commandment about the sabbath (as thus part of the new covenant, but defined in new ways by Christ), yet never quotes the command about the sabbath. The new covenant does not explicitly say to keep this commandment. So this is part of what was written in stone that was not permanent. Instead, Heb. 4 speaks of God's sabbath rest as more of a "type" for the eternal rest of Christians.
Brother (or sister),
ReplyDeleteI truly don't have the time nor desire to pry your deeply rooted beliefs from your strong N.C. grip, so I'll briefly answer a few of your concerns (in case you are honestly seeking answers and not just arguing for the sake of it) and that will have to suffice. Feel free to email me for a reading list if you wish to continue your studies on the Sabbath day.
The moral principle of the Sabbath day, being instituted at creation by God Himself, was to set apart the day for rest to enjoy the good that He had made - by the way, isn't it interesting that we have years (the earth around the sun) and months (the moon around the earth), but seven day weeks instituted by the divine prerogative. Again, for Moses and the Israelites, this rest to to remember and enjoy the blessings of God's promise fulfilled (check out the allusions in Heb 4). The Sabbath (rest) is for enjoying God and His blessings - Remember that, keep that day set apart.
The ceremonial law was never for only the Sabbath, but you are right, for every day. The moral aspect of the Sabbath (Remember it, keep it holy, and rest) was written in stone and not for every day, not then, and not now. The ceremonial aspects of the law come primarily from Exodus and Leviticus, not the tables of stone (here is your "explicit separation") , and were intended to point to Christ (I could go long here, but I'll suppose you follow). The tabernacle furnishings, the priesthood, the day of Atonement, the sacrificial system, the fesats of booths, the offereings, etc. all point us to the Lamb of God who came to make propitiation. So if your question is do I make a distinction between the "Remember, keep holy, and rest" aspect and the sacrificial and celebratory aspects of the Old Covenant given to the nation of Israel, the answer would be yes. Christ was the end of the ceremonial law.
As for my "carefully quoted reformed tradition" and where does it come from, whew!, where should I start? I will leave it to say that if you consider the "enjoy" aspect of "rest", we in the New Covenant are now enjoying and resting in the finished work of Christ. We see the N.T. testify to this concept in what is commonly called the four pillars, passages of scripture where we see the N.T. saints "observing" these practices in the first day of the week.
As for your mention of the 2 Cor 3 passage, I'm assuming you understand that that same Spirit is the one who has written that same law on our hearts in the New Covenant (Jer 31:33, Heb 10:16). Could Paul be here referring to the fact that in the old covenant, the law was the requirement for righteousness but in the new covenant, in Christ by the spirit (same one that writes this law on our fleshy hearts - fleshy heart that can love the law and live according to it rather than be killed by it), the righteousness of Christ (righteousness according to the law) now becomes imputed righteousness imputed and realized through the work of sanctification.
Anyway, I pray that you are blessed in your studies.
Armand, that reading list you promised JesusAndTheBible — I'd like to see it here, and I imagine others would as well. Would you be willing to oblige?
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the inquiry.
The reply was too much for a comment, so I posted some resources here:
http://armanderwin.blogspot.com/2013/04/resources-on-sabbath.html