"The
Sabbath"
The
Lord's Day, April 2, 2000
|
The ECF Pulpit |
Please note: Due to the length and unusually technical nature of this address, also appended to it are Pastor Ferguson's pulpit notes for further reference.
If you would open your Bibles this morning - (Contrary to the printing in your notes) - Those of you, who are fortunate enough to have notes that is. You'll have to think for a moment that half of the people here do not. My habit, (Romans 14 is where you are going by the way) when I go to the printer each week to get the bulletin insert done, is to quickly hand him a sheet of paper which has two of them on it because you know it only takes up one half of a page, and I tell him give me 55 copies and split them down the middle. This morning we have this fold out and so I did the usual I said give me 55 copies but don't split them. Well he did as I requested and unfortunately that means only half of you got notes. You know by the providence of God then who is blessed and who is not. Now we know the secret councils of God. That's how you find those things out. If you want notes on this later I'll be happy to supply you with them. I apologize for not having them.
I'm asking you to turn to Romans 14 because I want to begin this discussion where we are going to end. As you know we are taking a little bit of a side trip. The topic, as we've been working through - the Sabbath controversies of Christ with the Pharisees - has led us to deal with the topic of the Sabbath as a whole in a more comprehensive form. So I want to do my best this morning to help untangle some of those worms. As I mentioned before I probably won't end up making everybody happy. I may make everyone a little uncomfortable. And I'll be running for the door before I'm done praying. But here we are, in Romans 14, picking up in verse 5. And I believe the apostle was anticipating the difficulty we have with this topic in our day. "One man regards one day above another. Another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He, who observes the day, observes it for the Lord and he who eats does so for the Lord for he gives thanks to God. And he who eats not for the Lord he does not eat and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself and not one of us dies for himself. For if we live we live for the Lord or if we die we die for the Lord. Therefore whether we live or die we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again that He might be the Lord both of the dead and of the living. But you why do you judge your brother or again why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of God." I'll append to that (you don't need to turn there); Colossians 2:16. "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day."
I want to begin there because what scripture gives us is a requirement for charity and latitude regarding the topic we are in the midst of, and that requirement is on both sides of the fence. For the one who regards the day to have charity and latitude for those who do not - and for those who do not, to have charity and latitude for those who do. So having sealed my fate with those words, we'll continue. But that is the reality of it. We need to be vitally careful as we walk through this process that we make sure that we retain the Biblical perspective on one another and the right heart before God as we deal with what truly is a tough topic.
Now when I say a tough topic - I read a lot of the Puritans and some of the Reformers, and one of my favorites who grows to be more and more a favorite all the time is John Owen. You can't read anything that John Owen has written or his comments on anything without the individual who is quoting him say; "and John Owen brought his formidable powers to bear on this passage." Because nobody had the staggering intellect that John Owen had, except, maybe his only equal I can think of in terms of that group that would be maybe Jonathan Edwards. Staggering Intellect. But let me give you John Owen's words as he enters upon what he refers to an "exercitation" on the topic of the Sabbath. An exercitation is a prefacing comment by way of a short essay. He has a number of these at the beginning of his commentary on the book of Hebrews. Now if the commentary is seven volumes long you'll forgive the fact that his exercitation is only about 250 pages. That is kind of a nice preface. But in his third point on this topic he says - and I can't agree with him more: "It is far from my thoughts and hopes that I should be able to contribute much on the composing of these differences and controversies as agitated amongst men of all sorts. The known pertinancy of inveterate opinions, the many prejudices that the minds of most in this matter are already possessed with all, and the particular engagements that not a few are under to defend their pretensions and persuasions which they have published and contend for, will not allow any great expectation of a change in the mind of many from what I have to offer." Let me paraphrase and repeat that last sentence - "I don't have a great hope of changing anyone's mind." But I hope we will blow some dust off the topic and go back and look at this entire idea of the Sabbath, the fourth commandment, and what's required and what remains for us in our current state in a way that will help you wrestle with it a little more easily.
To give you an idea of how difficult that has been throughout the ages, so that we're not dealing with anything new here, let me read you something from Philip Schaff's history. Philip Schaff, being a strict Sabbatarian writes: "As to the private opinions of the principle fathers on this subject" (regarding the Sabbath), "they all favor the sanctification of the Lord's day, but treat it as a peculiarly Christian institution, and draw a strong, indeed a too strong line of distinction between it and the Jewish Sabbath forgetting that they are one in essence in aim, though different in form and spirit. And that the fourth commandment as to its substance, in other words, the keeping holy one day out of the seven, is an integral part of the Decalogue or the moral law and hence a perpetual obligation." So he is saying that this is not the standard view of the early church fathers -That is, the concept of the Lord's day, which we celebrate today, being integrally connected with the fourth commandment or the Sabbath. Let me read you a few of those so you understand where he is coming from. Let me give you a little more historical background and we'll get into the Word O.K.?
Eusebius says that "Sunday is not the Sabbath but instead is the first and chief among the days and a day of salvation," and says that, "...all Christians should assemble together every week and keep that which is called the Lord's day as a festival to refresh their bodies and to stir up their minds by divine precepts and instruction."
Athanasius says that he thinks very highly of the Lord's day as the perpetual memorial of the resurrection, but assumes the old Sabbath is deceased.
Macarius, a presbyter in Egypt, says that the Sabbath is a spiritual type and shadow of the true Sabbath given by the Lord to the soul. The true and eternal Sabbath which is freedom from sin.
Hilary in 300 says that the whole of his life is a preparation for the eternal Sabbath which is yet to come.
Epiphanius says that Sunday is an institution of the apostles, but that we can celebrate on Friday as well as any other day.
Ambrose says that Sunday is an Evangelical festival and contrasts it with the defunct legal Sabbath.
Jerome says the exact same thing as Ambrose and says that we need to guard ourselves against a superstitious concept of the Sabbath.
Augustine says that Sunday derives from the resurrection and not from the fourth commandment and that fasting on the day of spiritual joy is "a grave scandal and a heretical practice." I never even considered that. He says you shouldn't fast on Sundays it's heretical, but that's his view. And instead prescribes the celebration of the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday in addition to the Christian Sunday. He'd like you to do both.
Chrysostom warns Christians against Sabbatizing the Jews, but commends celebration on the Lord's day.
Leo the Great follows a similar line, but let me get you to the last passage on this because its what sheds some light I think. In fact Schaff says we ought to see a particular author by the name of Hessey, and Hessey writes this: "In no clearly genuine passage that I can discover in any writer of these two" (talking about the fourth and fifth centuries particularly) "or in any public document, ecclesiastical or civil is the fourth commandment referred to as the ground of the obligation to observe the Lord's day."
Where did it come from then? How did we make that connection? How is it that we've derived that in this day? He [Schaff] gives his own explanation and again he is a Sabbatarian so he's speaking from the pro-side: "The Reformers of the sixteenth century likewise in their zeal against legalism and for Christian freedom entertained rather lax views on the Sabbath law." (I'm going to explain that as we go.) "It was left for Puritanism in England, at the close of Queen Elizabeth's reign, to bring out the perpetuity of the 4th commandment and the legal and general and moral features in the Christian Sabbath. The book of Dr. Bound, which was first published in 1595 under the title, The Doctrine of the Sabbath, produced an entire revolution on the subject in the English mind which is visible to this day in the strict observance of the Lord's day in England, Scotland, the British Provinces, and the United States." And so we understand where the connection came from.
In other words it seems that with the early church there was a certain amount of liberty and not an immediate connection of the Sabbath day with the Lord's day. Whether that came over the process of time, or particularly out of the Puritan movement which I highly regard. I like all those Puritan guys. But it remains for us then to understand how that was arrived at and try to go back, I think, and rethink some of the Biblical data so that we can come to a clear concept of where this was all going and what I hope to help you understand by time we are done. Unless I completely miss my mark, which is very possible, you know me, I believe that arrive at this basic concept - that we are going to see that the 4th commandment was uniquely suited to serve the purpose of allowing Christ to do two things: It enabled him first, to demonstrate his absolute divine authority even to the degree that he could touch the very Decalogue at will. And secondly, that He did so in such a manner so as not to injure the principal that is in fact being preserved for us in that commandment. Well we're going to go back and examine that. Hopefully, we'll all arrive at the same place.
Let me give you one last quote before we dig in, only because I like the fact that other people's knees smote together when they approached the same. Jonathan Edwards said; "There is perhaps no part of divinity attended to with so much intricacy and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ as stating the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ." And all the people said, Amen! That's always the wrestling point. That's the hard one. How do we make sense of, how do we understand, the right relationship between those two.
Well, let me take you on a little journey. The first thing is that we need to understand the nature both of law in the economy of God and the nature of sin itself at its very root. For the text book definition of sin (and I won't have you turn there) you would be looking in I John 3:4. You can mark this down and go back there later. If you have a King James, probably, I John 3:4 tells you that sin is transgression of the law. That's a good definition. However, if we look at that in the Greek, I think the modern translations are clearer on that, there's more imported in what John is trying to communicate when he says that. In fact he says that sin is "anomia", lawlessness. Now when we transgress the law we commit sins that's true. But sin in its essence isn't one act but is a state of being where a man is lawless. He throws off the yoke of God. So what we want to be careful to do in our studying is, that when we understand Christian liberty, we never understand it so as to think that we are without restraint or without proper standing before God. While we are not "under the law" we are not lawless. While we are not governed by things in the same way that they were under the Old Covenant there is none-the-less no license for unrighteousness and we are still called to holiness and we have to investigate how that works its way out.
Sin is at its root lawlessness. Throwing off the yoke of God. Saying I don't want to come under His direct legislation. In fact that is what happens in the first sin. You go back to the Garden of Eden and man becomes lawless. He wants to write law for himself. He becomes anomious (to coin a phrase). He doesn't care what God has said. He cares what he wants to do and all sin follows that pattern.
That being the case though, we need to move on then to the nature of law itself and I think that this is the real point. I'll tell you the truth none of the people that I read took this particular approach to this particular problem which is probably why its completely off the wall, but bear with me. I think it make sense. Maybe only in a parallel universe to some of you, but "I" think it makes sense. Now when we come to needing to know the nature of law we have to go back to the Scripture and look at what is there. And in fact, we're confronted with two ideas when we talk about law. All of you know that when we speak of revelation, we speak of revelation on two heads: That there is natural revelation, that which is known through the creation itself and that every man is aware of. That God writes his signature, if you will, in the sky in that he has created all things. We're going back to Romans 1 in just a minute as Jeff read it for us, because that plays a prime role in understanding this idea. So when we think of law, we think also that there is natural law. Now when I speak of natural law I simply mean this, that which is right considering the case of the thing. Let me show you what I mean. That won't be too mysterious. I'm just trying to be precise.
Drop back to Romans Chapter 1 where we were just a few minutes ago when Jeff was reading. In picking up in verse 18, we see what Paul has to say about natural law. He says "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness in men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (who hold down the truth of what is revealed) "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." We're told that God reveals a measure of Himself, a measure of truth to every man. Certainly in this capacity - "for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." So every man is without excuse because God has revealed Himself to us at least in that capacity. But let us go over just a little bit further to Chapter 2. Drop down to verse 14, and this is what I mean by natural law. "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law" (speaking of the Mosaic Law) "do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves." How's that so? "In that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." The simple truth is that when man was made he was made in the image of God. He was made holy and being made holy he had within him all that comprises that which is natural holiness for man. When man fell, that image of Christ, which was in him, that natural, native holiness that was given to him was shattered. And that image of Christ is defaced and it is in the process of regeneration and sanctification and ultimately glorification that God begins the process of reforming that image within us. So that we read, the principle aspect of the New Covenant is that God will write His laws in our hearts again. That there is a re-inscribing; a restoring of that which has been ruined in the fall. So it is that the Scripture tells us that we are slowly and that we are continually being conformed to the image of Christ. So it says that when we wake we will be like him fully restored. So natural law is this in the unregenerate, in every man to begin with, but especially in the unregenerate, it begins as that perfect holiness that was in Adam. But now natural law is still in all men (as we just read in Romans). Each man knows a measure of right and wrong. And he knows it because he was created with that knowledge within him. Yet that knowledge has been defiled. It has been broken. It has been twisted. It has been marred and disturbed and disrupted and in salvation God again begins to restore that. That's natural law.
But God doesn't stop at natural law. He also gives us more. Just like he gives us special revelation, which is the Word of God. That's when God speaks to us and tells us information that we can't deduce from nature or that doesn't innately dwell within us. That's what the Word of God is. That is special revelation. That's God speaking and giving us more information than we can have on our own. It's not necessarily due to the nature of things as created, but it comes purely by divine fiat. Let me read this for you and hopefully it will say what I want to say. Deuteronomy 29:29 says that "the secret things belong to the Lord our God but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever that we may observe all the Words of this Law." God reveals a measure to us that we could not know. Now let me give you a good example of special law or of revealed law.
Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve have been there and they are tooling around and they're doing their thing and God has planted there two trees; one is the knowledge of good and evil and the other is the tree of the tree of life. God says to them do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for in the day that you do you will surely die. Now what has He just done? He has told them something or given them a commandment regarding that which they did not know naturally. He let them in on more information and He revealed this to them (we're going to see in a few moments for a number of different reasons). But that is what special law does.
Let me give you another example of one so that you don't think this is too wigged out. Actually we could go back and we could look at all the ceremonial laws in the Old Testament and you would have to say that's ALL revealed. Man wouldn't know that God required a Passover sacrifice. Man wouldn't know He required anointing oil of a certain type, robes of a certain type, all the things being done on certain days and in certain ways. All those had to be revealed. Those were revealed laws; special laws. Let me give you one of my favorites. Deuteronomy 22:11 "You shall not wear material mixed of wool and linen together". Well there is nothing in nature that would ever tell you that. That is not a natural law. That's something God enjoined upon His people and He had His reasons. Again, we're going to look at those reasons in a minute. So we have these two great concepts that we begin with; there is natural law; and there is revealed law or special law.
Let's move on. The third point that I want to make about that is that natural law is perpetual because it has to do with the nature of things themselves. It doesn't change. But special law may change. Only by God, but He does have the power to change it. Case in point, as we come into the New Testament the Old Testament ceremonial laws are gone. We no longer have to have an earthly High Priest. Christ has replaced the High Priest, but that special law, which was given, has now been altered so that there is a different state of affairs. As a matter of fact, as soon as Adam fell, he no longer had that special law of don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because in fact he was thrown out of the garden and couldn't get back into the garden. It was removed from him. Special law may come. It may endure for a season. It may leave. But that is solely up to God. He does that as He sees fit. So natural law is perpetual. Those things remain because they are the principals of holiness that are born out of the nature of God Himself and they never alter, but special laws may.
Fourthly, we then have to look at the principial nature - that's not principal, and its not a misprint - of the Decalogue. And when I say that let me go back again and borrow a statement from John Owen. I like John Owen so much and he's written so much on this particular topic and if I can find the actual one I want it will even be good. Hold on for one second... Maybe I didn't bring it with me... John Owen, volume 6 of his work on Hebrews; "The external law is nothing but a divine summary" (speaking of the ten commandments) "is nothing but a divine summary of the law written in the heart of man at His creation." That is true. They fully accord with one another. We need to keep that in mind, so we understand in all that God has given to us, there are principles behind the law.
Now why do I say that the Law is principial? I say that for several reasons. The first is this. We discussed this a bit last week. You remember when the Pharisees came to Jesus or when the one man asked Him, "what is the great commandment?" What is that big, that one big commandment that if I keep THAT, everything else is covered? You know, my fail-safe. Jesus said the great commandment is this that you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. What had He done? He had taken the whole of the Law and reduced it to two very simple principles. And from those principles issue all of the things that are bound upon man as we walk before God. But let me move on that just a little further. Let me give you an idea. There are few who would argue, (although we may disagree about particulars), I think we'll not argue about the basic reality that when we made this transition from the Old Covenant into the New Covenant, certain things from the Old Covenant passed away. Among them were the ceremonial laws that were given and we just covered some of those. So we don't have a high priest, we don't have a priesthood that's robed and has to wear certain garments and has to be a certain age and has to go through all those various things. And we don't have to get up when we've sinned and take our lamb or take our turtle doves and go back to the temple and make sure that they wring the neck off the turtle dove. I'm very grateful for that one as I'm sure that religion couldn't exist in America because the ASPCA would have everybody down on charges anyway. So those things have all been removed from us and I think we're glad they have been. We automatically say that those things, which were specific to the civil nature of Israel as a nation, have been removed from us. We don't have their legal system. We don't have their court system. We don't follow those intricate details. God gave them that system while they were a cohesive unit but that's been removed from us and we typically say then that we are left with the moral law or the ten commandments. And that's what we are really dealing with this morning, that's the bottom line that we are playing with.
But when we look at the Ten Commandments we understand that there aren't only ten sins, but those things that are given to us in the Ten Commandments have a broader application - so - they are principial. They are a principal stated. Now good case in point; "Thou shall not commit adultery" well "Thou shall not commit adultery" is a good commandment. It is a good commandment because it protects our homes. It protects our families. It is a wonderful thing we should have. But no one would think for a moment that that is the sum and the total of sexual purity. It goes far beyond that. In fact the commandment is calling to us to sexual purity. So it goes beyond adultery but goes into fornication. It goes into all forms of sexual sin as being forbidden under that one, because it is the principle that is being articulated. We find this throughout all of those laws that are given to us and we could build the case for each and we are not going to do it because time will simply not allow nor will you sit there while I do it.
But we do need to go back and look at this specifically in the case of the Sabbath because it is getting to the principial nature of it that we really find the answer to our question. And if we go down through (and I'm going to give you just a quick listing) this is what I did as I've been studying through some of this over the last several weeks.
If we were to go to the first commandment we can draw a general principle - and I don't think we are far off the mark on this, nor am I the only one who has done this. I can glean this from a lot of guys. But the first commandment can be seen like this: God is God alone and He must be recognized by such. That's binding on everybody. I don't care who you are. We just read that in Romans one. Those who refuse to take that knowledge of God as it has been given will be punished for it.
Secondly God is not to be reduced to an image. That is a general thing and that is a principle and that remains for us and we can't get around it.
Thirdly God is not to be taken lightly even in the use of His name. And of course we can take a look at that verse as it has been expounded in a dozen different ways, but it means at least these two things: That you never invoke the name of God lightly, and that you never swear to God unless it is a serious matter and you had better be truthful! I think that carries over and gains even more momentum in the New Testament. When one calls himself a Christian, he'd better not do that vainly. He takes the name of Christ and he'd better not do that emptily.
Fourthly, and let me read Calvin because I think he gives us the best summary of the fourth law - out of his 'Harmony of the Law". Wonderful! "The object of this commandment is that believers should exercise themselves in the worship of God". That's the base. That's the principle behind the outward command. "For we know how prone men are to fall into indifference unless they have some props to lean on or have some stimulants to arouse them in maintaining their care and zeal for religion." We can go on.
Number five. Man is to be respected as created in God's image. Especially with our parents first.
In six. Life is sacred. We cannot kill and that doesn't just mean that we can't murder but manslaughter and other forms falls under that.
Seven. Sexual purity is required in man. One cannot love his neighbor apart from it.
In eight. Man's property is not to be violated. That remains as a principle.
In nine. Man is not to sin even against the use of the law. To sin in lying.
And in ten. That we are to be content with the things that God has given and not covet.
Those are the principals. Those are the things that stay back there behind everything else.
Well that moves us on. Man having broken God's laws, all of those things, God then begins to move and in the way that He moves He begins to multiply His outward commandments. Now why does He do that? He does that because man is continuing to digress. As man fails, God adds more and more ordinances. You see it continue but we are also told in Scripture that that will come to an end at some point in time. In fact if we read this carefully, the law increased because the original within man was shattered and declining. Then Galatians 3:19 asks the question; "well why the law then?" Paul says it "was added because of transgressions. Having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made." What's he after? He is after this - and I would hope that this would go without saying to a certain extent, but bear with me - When we are children the whole of our understanding of our world especially our communication with parents is pretty much wrapped up in a legal sense with two words 'Yes' and 'No'. And then as they grow we get more expressive with those commands. But something happens when a person begins to mature, and that is that you start working less on command and more on principle. I would hope, when you go to your job every day, your boss doesn't have to tell you everything to do every minute. Instead he says this is what your job is and then you're to begin to function under those auspices.
That's precisely what begins to happen when a person is born again. They begin to move from that process of being under A, B, and C ordinance, to the restoring of that principle of holiness which will by its very nature live out those principles that are already contained over there. You see the difference? The one is the individual being under the constraint of the ordinance. The other is the individual living either up to the ordinance or beyond it because the principal of holiness within him steers him past it. So, now there is an entirely new thing within me, the holiness of Christ being stirred up within. And it isn't the ordinance that I need, its the fullness of the Holy Spirit to live the way that I should.
Let me take that on a bit more then, and look at some of the purposes for which the law was given and then we'll work into how this comes down to a final case. I hope. And I understand that we're doing a lot of very precise talking but we are in a precise area and it requires us to take a special approach. We're even going to apply this I hope so that it is truly a blessing to you by the time we are done.
Well the law then was given not only "because of transgressions" as we saw in Galatians 3:19 (and we're going to back and look at that again), but it was given for at least seven specific reasons. Let me read these to you very quickly because we don't have the time to go back and look at the verses. We won't be able to finish.
One of the first reasons the law was given (and we know it was never given to justify man because by the works of the flesh shall no man be justified, there's no law given that can give us righteousness. We know that. So it never given to justify us or was it ever given to sanctify us because the sanctifying principle in the New Testament is "If you by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh you shall live. It's an entirely different thing and if you want to read a lot on that just pick up John Owen's volume 6 on sin. You'll read a lot about that verse in Romans. As a matter of fact he bases his whole concept on it) The first thing then that the law does is it exposes sin. Romans 3:20: "For through the law comes the knowledge of sin." Romans 5:20: "The law came in so that the transgressions would increase," so that we would understand the depths of the sin itself. Romans 7:7: "I would not have come to know sin except through the law". Well not absolutely, we already know a measure of right from wrong, but the law exposes it and aggravates it and irritates it and teases it out into the open for what it is.
Secondly it was given for instruction. Exodus 24:12: "Now the Lord said to Moses come up to me on the mountain and remain there and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and commandment which I have written for their instruction." And so it was given for instruction.
Thirdly - and this is true for all law, that God gives whether it is natural or special - it's to promote humility. And this one particularly speaks to the Sabbath. Leviticus 16:31: "It is to be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you that you may humble your souls." Depending on God is a humbling thing and when the law requires us to depend on God, we are humiliated. A good thing.
It is also declarative. Deuteronomy 4:6: "So keep and do them for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people for what great nation has a God so near to it as the Lord our God whenever we shall call upon Him." The law was given so that the people around the Israelites might be able to see that they were uniquely God's and it declared who they were.
Also, it's given for identification. For that very same reason, having received these laws, people would know that the Israelites belonged to God.
Sixthly, some laws, also have a prophetic aspect to them and that is uniquely a part of the Sabbath. We read in Colossians 2:16: "That the things which were are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." They spoken in some capacity toward that which was coming. They were prophetic.
But far and away, and believe me, this is what Bible geeks do when they have the time: If you look up every instance in the Old and New Testaments of the word law, statute, ordinance, judgement, etc., there are seven of them altogether, you'll get over 800 occurrences of them. And when you read each and every one of them you come up with a very interesting fact. That far and away the vast majority of them, (over 600 of those references) are having to do with the purpose of the law in its capacity as protective or preservative for His people. Isn't that interesting? As a matter of fact, it's protective and it's preservative on two main counts; the law is given first of all so that we won't incur the wrath of God - it protects us from him. But secondly it protects us from the natural consequences of our own stupid sinful actions. Case in point; "Thou shall not commit adultery". That's an extraordinarily protective and preserving commandment. Why? Because my neighbor knows that he need not fear from me that I will approach his wife. He's kept safe. And my home is protected against someone else encroaching because that's the nature of what God is given. It's a good thing. It's a protective thing. It's a preservative thing but the principal again is what we're after.
Now all that being said (and I KNOW I've thrown a LOT at you) brings us down to this point; which is that as we've looked at law and we've seen it as natural law and we've seen it as special law, we come then to the fourth commandment and we find that the fourth commandment itself is unique even within the framework of the Decalogue. Now I say that for nine reasons and I've outlined them there for you, but let me just read you this quickly:
All of the rest of the ten words are to be found in the realm of natural law. All of them. If you were to go back and read Romans one and two and see all of the things that God charges even the heathen with, you'll see that everything that's contained in the other nine commandments is contained in that, but the Sabbath is not mentioned. Now that's not an omission. It's not wrong. But he's dealing with an aspect of the law, which is that natural part of the law, which every man knows. Only the Sabbath among them required a special revelation and we're going to go back and we're going to see that revelation in a second, and in Exodus 31 and Ezekiel 20 there are a number of places where it was given. The rest of these nine accord with the nature of things as they were made or as they are. But we know that God rested on the seventh day and the ONLY way we know it is by special revelation. We don't know that by natural revelation. We don't know that intuitively. We don't know that naturally. We know it because Scripture tells us.
Nor would we know that there was a Sabbath commanded upon Israel to observe unless it had be revealed. And let me read for you Nehemiah 9:14: "So you made known to them your holy Sabbath and laid down for them commandments, statues, and law through your servant Moses." There was a unique revelation of the nature of the Sabbath that was given to them which had not come previously. Now do we see the type of it back in the Garden of Eden, in Creation? Absolutely. And that principal that was established there still remains. But how do we work through how that comes down to us? Well that's where we are going.
Nine special realities about the Sabbath, the 4th commandment.
First it was revealed, or special revelation, and not natural. As a matter of fact if you go back and see the reasons for which God ousted all the heathen out of the land of Canaan before the Israelites came in - He charges with all form of sin and defilement and breaking all kinds of law, but He never charges them with breaking the Sabbath. It's very interesting. Nevertheless that's a revealed thing. It's a special thing.
Number two. It had a specific institution. We can track it. We can go to Exodus 16 and see when God specifically enjoined the people to observe the seventh day itself.
Third there is a ceremonial observance attached to it that is not found with the other nine and this is going to be the real issue that we get down to it. There's no ceremony attending the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery." There's no ceremony for that. There's no ceremony for not killing somebody. There's no ceremony even given by God specifically for acknowledging Him as God. There's no ceremony for not taking the Lord's name in vain. There's no ceremony for obeying your parents. There's no ceremony for not coveting. The only one which has a ceremony connected to it is the Sabbath day and in this He says "Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy." Now let me say one thing before we get back to where we are. I have to go down the rabbit trail because there are those who are very strict Sabbatarians. And the only two parties that I know of that are strict Sabbatarians in the Biblical sense take that verse verbatim. And if there has been no change to the Sabbath law at all, we are left with this, we are required by the fourth commandment to keep the seventh day holy. Not to keep a day holy. The seventh day holy. That's the commandment. And if there has been NO change to the commandment, then we must meet on Saturday. We can have no worship on Sunday and we're not free from that restriction. If that law has not been altered somehow and in some fashion and virtually all Reformed thinkers say it has been altered somehow - The question is how and to what degree?
But if it hasn't been altered, we are there folks and we can't alter that and that's it. And so the only ones--the Seventh Day Adventists, a few Seventh Day Baptists I know out there and the Orthodox Jews--are the only ones doing it right! I think there's something wrong with that thinking though. We're going to go back and find that - honest. I know you're bearing with me in a very difficult thing. Hang in there a few more minutes.
Fourthly. We know that there was a covenantal importance of the Sabbath that was given to Israel alone. Time won't allow us to go back and look at it. You can check it out in Exodus 31 and Ezekiel 20 and various other places.
Fifthly. We have no New Testament requirement for anyone to observe the Sabbath and when I say New Testament requirement - after the Gospels the word Sabbath is only used nine times in the New Testament. Its either used in reference to "they met" or "they went a Sabbath's day journey," used as a reference point. Or its used in the passages which we've quoted to you out of Romans, and out of Corinthians, or out of Galatians where one is not to be bound or judged by the virtue of the Sabbath. It's very interesting. That that takes a transition, but it's the "why" behind it and what we do with it that's important.
Sixth. This is the only one with a prophetic fulfillment. This was the shadow of that which was to come. There's no prophetic fulfillment to the commandment; "Thou shall not commit adultery". That stands as is. There's no prophetic fulfillment to; "Thou shall not covet". That is what it is. But there was a prophetic fulfillment, which we read in Colossians 2 that Christ in coming has fulfilled the Sabbath in some regard.
Seventh. There is a mention of the dissolution of the Sabbath in Colossians and Galatians. We'll go back... Well time won't let us today, but..
Eighth. It can be present or absent without violating either table of the law. In other words if the principle behind it is that man worship - The issue of worshiping on a particular day can be moved or altered without violating the principle. This is what Jesus did. Let's move on.
Ninth. It is subject to God's discretion. Now we know that God can't deny Himself. We know that God can't lie. We know that God can't cease to exist but He didn't have to rest on the Sabbath day. That was purely an act of His own divine will. Purely a fiat of His. Natural law is tied to His nature. Special law is tied to His acts and He can move those and change them and modify them without violating the principal. Now let's go down.
Why then the fourth commandment? I'll re-read what I read originally - that the fourth commandment then as we are seeing in these Sabbath difficulties was uniquely suited to serve the purpose of allowing Christ to demonstrate His divine authority as touching the law. Even the Decalogue it self and yet to do so without violating the principle of holiness in the process. Let me say it this way - Christ abolished the necessary ceremonial performance of the observance of the Sabbath day, but the principle that all men must worship remains. See the difference? We are not required to meet on the seventh day and keep that holy, but oh are we required to worship. We never get around that.
Now let's take that just a little bit further and I know we're at the end of our time, bear with me just a few more moments and we'll be finished. Let me read this from Calvin's Institutes "But there is no doubt by the Lord Christ's coming the ceremonial part of the commandment was abolished. For He, Himself is the truth. In who's presence, in whose presence all figures, vanish. He is the body at whose appearance the shadows are left behind. He is I say the true fulfillment of Sabbath. We were buried with him by Baptism. We were engrafted into participation into His death that sharing in His resurrection we may walk in newness of life." The law instructed us to worship. Grace transforms us into worshippers. It alters our entire composition so that now we agree with the principle and yet are free from the outward restriction. See the difference there? Now let me take that to a couple of quick conclusions for you. I'm cutting a mass of material here, but you couldn't take it and neither can I.
First conclusion: That the Sabbath law as given to Israel was a unique institution to them and is not binding on the Christian today. I think that is abundantly evident. I think that is very clear in the New Testament and you are going to find very few men (of sound men) who are going to go beyond that. I think that is true. I think I've established that for you I can't go back and rebuild it.
Secondly: The ceremonial observance being abolished in Christ we are still left with the discharge of the principal; which is that you and I are to worship. Now the early church did it. In the New Covenant, the profusion of the Holy Spirit necessarily incites us to worship and I want to use that word. There is no such thing as a man who is born again who does not want to worship with the people of God. I'll say it plainly. It necessarily incites us to worship. I could build that for you in such a big way out of Ephesians but we simply don't have time.
And lastly: As New Testament believers we meet on the first day of the week which was called the Lord's day not out of ceremonial observance (because it was never instituted by God and given as a command). But we do so first out of the necessity of worship, and secondly out of the uniform testimony and example of the early church. That is why we gather today. It's fitting that we celebrate the day that God, that Christ resurrected from the dead. That's why we gather on the first day of the week. Now if we lived in Whosheezwhatsitbanky, whatever the South American country is that nobody knows and the national law there was that everybody took Thursday off. Could the church meet on Thursday? Absolutely! And if we think they couldn't we are goofed up. How's that? That's a real technical term. We're required to worship, but more we are incited to worship and what do we need to do with that? We gather together with the Saints, and we worship with the Saints because we know we have to do it driven by the Spirit of Holiness within us. Let me take that very quickly then to the end and we'll close.
Man I threw away a lot of stuff! First is this and I think we really need to see this. When we look at this transition of the Fourth Commandment and the abolishment of its ceremonial observance we are left with this; that Christ removed the restriction of only being able to worship on the Sabbath day that we might worship anytime anywhere. He has removed from us an impediment that was bound upon them in order to restrict them so that they understood that man can't come to God on his own. But when He rent the veil in the temple there was an opening up of the presence of Christ. We were allowed to come in and He was allowed to spill out. And in that gathering together you don't have to wait to come together with the Saints to pray. You can even worship by yourself, but in corporate worship we can gather on Monday, and on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, and on Thursday.. We are going to gather tonight. We're going to have the Lord's Supper. And you know what He said, "as oft as you eat of it," not when you get together on the commanded date but as oft as you do it. We have that liberty. My problem is that we have Christians who call themselves Christians who say they have NO need to be worshipping with the Saints of God. Don't call yourself a Christian and tell me that. The Spirit of Christ will make you drive together with the body of believers. You can't get away from it.
Secondly He raised the requirement so that men could no longer consider the fulfillment of their religious duty going to church once a week. He opened it up and said you are required to worship all the time. You're not required to be holy on one day. You are required to be holy perpetually. Live it entirely. Make it the whole breath of your life and then when you gather together there's really something going to happen. But He removed from us that notion that we could, somehow, we could fulfill a holy obligation by doing a day. We can't do a day. We are a life unto Him. That why we gather together.
But lastly, He demonstrated His divinity in this extraordinary capacity. And don't you see the genius of God setting this up before the foundations of the world? I give them this commandment. But this commandment when Christ comes on the scene, He by His own personal divine fiat will be able to alter. He will remove it so that they have to acknowledge Him as supreme God and authority over all things. And yet He'll do so as to never injure the principle behind it. Nor does He injure the holiness that is enjoined by the Spirit of Christ within us. See what He did in this? This is why the Sabbath controversies are so important. He establishes Himself in that position and yet gives unto us more than what they could ever have on a Sabbath day - but a life of worship and glory unto Him. Read the full of Calvin's Catechism to Geneva that I gave you. When it gets down to the last paragraph he says it so perfectly..Oh I'm going to hate myself. I know you are angry at me, it's late. But I have to. What did I do with it? When you get down to the end of that; just read those last few sentences here. Let me do it here. We'll close, I promise. This is just so important folks, I couldn't let it go.
When he comes down to a summary, Calvin says, "Master (is what the 'M' stands for), let's us now see how far this command has reference to us. The student replies in regard to the ceremony, I hold that it was abolished as the reality existed in Christ. Master; what of the commandment then remains for us? Oh I love this. Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to the spiritual polity of the church, (in other words, you gotta get together) and especially to frequent sacred assemblies to hear the word of God, to celebrate the sacraments, and to engage in regular prayers as enjoined." Isn't that a beautiful summary? That's what it's all about. If you're fettered by the day I pray that you won't be. But if you honor the day as unto God, do so and do so with a clear conscience and let no one here take that away from you.
As the body of Christ, let's worship. That's what it's all about. Let's pray.
Pulpit Notes:
1 - THE REQUIREMENT OF CHARITY AND LATITUDE WE WILL BEGIN WHERE WE WILL END: ROMANS 5:5 ONE MAN REGARDS ONE DAY ABOVE ANOTHER, ANOTHER REGARDS EVERY DAY ALIKE. LET EACH MAN BE FULLY CONVINCED IN HIS OWN MIND. 6 HE WHO OBSERVES THE DAY, OBSERVES IT FOR THE LORD, AND HE WHO EATS, DOES SO FOR THE LORD, FOR HE GIVES THANKS TO GOD; AND HE WHO EATS NOT, FOR THE LORD HE DOES NOT EAT, AND GIVES THANKS TO GOD. 7 FOR NOT ONE OF US LIVES FOR HIMSELF, AND NOT ONE DIES FOR HIMSELF; 8 FOR IF WE LIVE, WE LIVE FOR THE LORD, OR IF WE DIE, WE DIE FOR THE LORD; THEREFORE WHETHER WE LIVE OR DIE, WE ARE THE LORD'S. 9 FOR TO THIS END CHRIST DIED AND LIVED AGAIN, THAT HE MIGHT BE LORD BOTH OF THE DEAD AND OF THE LIVING. 10 BUT YOU, WHY DO YOU JUDGE YOUR BROTHER? OR YOU AGAIN, WHY DO YOU REGARD YOUR BROTHER WITH CONTEMPT? FOR WE SHALL ALL STAND BEFORE THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF GOD.
COL 2:16 THEREFORE NO ONE IS TO ACT AS YOUR JUDGE IN REGARD TO FOOD OR DRINK OR IN RESPECT TO A FESTIVAL OR A NEW MOON OR A SABBATH DAY.
* JONATHAN EDWARDS: "THERE IS PERHAPS NO PART OF DIVINITY ATTENDED WITH SO MUCH INTRICACY, AND WHEREIN ORTHODOX DIVINES DO SO MUCH DIFFER AS STATING THE PRECISE AGREEMENT AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DISPENSATIONS OF MOSES AND CHRIST."
2 - THE NATURE OF SIN, AND THE NATURE OF LAW (OR COMMANDMENTS)
THE NATURE OF SIN
a. 1 JOHN 3:4 EVERYONE WHO PRACTICES SIN ALSO PRACTICES LAWLESSNESS; AND SIN IS LAWLESSNESS. (ANOMIA - TO BE WITHOUT LAW OR RESTRAINT) SIN IS WRAPPED UP IN BEING "LAWLESS" - WITHOUT RESTRAINT. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS NOT BEING "UNDER THE LAW" OR SUBJECT TO ITS JUDGMENTS. WE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, BUT NEITHER ARE WE TO BE LAWLESS. SO 1 COR. 9:20 TO THE JEWS I BECAME AS A JEW, SO THAT I MIGHT WIN JEWS; TO THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW, AS UNDER THE LAW THOUGH NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER THE LAW, SO THAT I MIGHT WIN THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW; 21 TO THOSE WHO ARE WITHOUT LAW, AS WITHOUT LAW, THOUGH NOT BEING WITHOUT THE LAW OF GOD BUT UNDER THE LAW OF CHRIST, SO THAT I MIGHT WIN THOSE WHO ARE WITHOUT LAW.
THE NATURE OF LAW
a. NATURAL LAW (LIKE NATURAL REVELATION) ROM. 1:18-32 / 2:12-15 - NECESSARY, HAVING TO DO WITH THE NATURE OF THINGS AS CREATED. I.E. IT IS RIGHT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND WORSHIP GOD AND TO TREAT THE MAN MADE IN HIS IMAGE PROPERLY (PER ROM. 1) SEE ALSO: LE 18:24 'DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELVES BY ANY OF THESE THINGS; FOR BY ALL THESE THE NATIONS WHICH I AM CASTING OUT BEFORE YOU HAVE BECOME DEFILED.'
b. SPECIAL LAW (LIKE SPECIAL REVELATION) - NOT NECESSARY DUE TO THE NATURE OF THINGS AS CREATED, BUT ENACTED BY DIVINE FIAT. DE 29:29 "THE SECRET THINGS BELONG TO THE LORD OUR GOD, BUT THE THINGS REVEALED BELONG TO US AND TO OUR SONS FOREVER, THAT WE MAY OBSERVE ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW. / DE 22:11 "YOU SHALL NOT WEAR A MATERIAL MIXED OF WOOL AND LINEN TOGETHER.
c. NATURAL LAW IS PERPETUAL, SPECIAL LAW MAY OR MAY NOT BE: CEREMONIAL / CIVIL
d. THE PRINCIPIAL NATURE OF THE DECALOGUE
MATT. 22:37 AND HE SAID TO HIM, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "THIS IS THE GREAT AND FOREMOST COMMANDMENT. 39 "THE SECOND IS LIKE IT, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS DEPEND THE WHOLE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."
1 - GOD IS GOD ALONE AND MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH
2 - GOD IS NOT TO BE REDUCED TO AN IMAGE
3 - GOD IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY - EVEN IN THE USE OF HIS NAME
4 - GOD IS TO BE WORSHIPPED (CALVIN - HARMONY OF THE LAW - THE OBJECT OF THIS COMMANDMENT IS THAT BELIEVERS SHOULD EXERCISE THEMSELVES IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD; FOR WE KNOW HOW PRONE MEN ARE TO FALL INTO INDIFFERENCE, UNLESS THEY HAVE SOME PROPS TO LEAN ON OR SOME STIMULANTS TO AROUSE THEM IN MAINTAINING THEIR CARE AND ZEAL FOR RELIGION.)
5 - MAN IS TO BE RESPECTED AS CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE - FIRST WITH PARENTS
6 - LIFE IS SACRED BEFORE GOD
7 - SEXUAL PURITY IS REQUIRED TO LOVE MAN
8 - MAN'S PROPERTY IS NOT TO BE VIOLATED
9 - MAN IS NOT TO SINNED AGAINST EVEN IN THE USE OF LAW
10 - CONTENTMENT WITH GOD'S PROVISION
IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN - BOTH
A. MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD - HOLY, THE LAW WRITTEN ON HIS HEART INTACT
B. A SPECIAL LAW REVEALED "DO NOT EAT OF THE TREE"
MAN HAVING BROKEN GOD'S LAW - LAW (EXTERNAL REGULATIONS) NOW INCREASE / UNTIL [THE DECALOGUE] - "FOR THAT IS NOTHING BUT A DIVINE SUMMARY OF THE LAW WRITTEN IN THE HEART OF MAN AT HIS CREATION." JOHN OWEN - COMM. ON HEBREWS, VOL. 6 - PG. 77
THUS THE LAW INCREASED, BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL WITHIN MAN WAS BOTH SHATTERED, AND DECLINING - SO WE READ: GALATIANS 3:19 WHY THE LAW THEN? IT WAS ADDED BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSIONS, HAVING BEEN ORDAINED THROUGH ANGELS BY THE AGENCY OF A MEDIATOR, UNTIL THE SEED WOULD COME TO WHOM THE PROMISE HAD BEEN MADE.
IN REGENERATION - THE EXPRESS NATURE OF THE NEW COVENANT IS THE RE-INSCRIBING THAT ORIGINAL LAW ON THE HEART OF THE BELIEVER - THUS OWEN: "And the whole controversy about what day is to be observed now as a day of holy rest unto the Lord, is resolved fully into this inquiry, namely, what covenant we do walk before God in." John Owen - Comm. On Heb., vol. 2 - pg. 392
3 - THE 7-FOLD PURPOSE OF THE LAW
a. TO EXPOSE SIN / ROM. 3:20: FOR THROUGH THE LAW COMES THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. ROM. 5:20: THE LAW CAME IN SO THAT THE TRANSGRESSION WOULD INCREASE; ROM. 7:7: I WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO KNOW SIN EXCEPT THROUGH THE LAW
b. FOR INSTRUCTION / EX. 24:12: NOW THE LORD SAID TO MOSES, "COME UP TO ME ON THE MOUNTAIN AND REMAIN THERE, AND I WILL GIVE YOU THE STONE TABLETS WITH THE LAW AND THE COMMANDMENT WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN FOR THEIR INSTRUCTION."
c. TO PROMOTE HUMILITY / LEV. 16:31 "IT IS TO BE A SABBATH OF SOLEMN REST FOR YOU, THAT YOU MAY HUMBLE YOUR SOULS; IT IS A PERMANENT STATUTE.
d. DECLARATIVE / DEUT. 4:6-8 "SO KEEP AND DO THEM, FOR THAT IS YOUR WISDOM AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN THE SIGHT OF THE PEOPLES WHO WILL HEAR ALL THESE STATUTES AND SAY, 'SURELY THIS GREAT NATION IS A WISE AND UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE.' "FOR WHAT GREAT NATION IS THERE THAT HAS A GOD SO NEAR TO IT AS IS THE LORD OUR GOD WHENEVER WE CALL ON HIM? "OR WHAT GREAT NATION IS THERE THAT HAS STATUTES AND JUDGMENTS AS RIGHTEOUS AS THIS WHOLE LAW WHICH I AM SETTING BEFORE YOU TODAY?
e. IDENTIFICATION / SAME AS ABOVE
f. PROPHETIC / COL. 2:16, 17 THINGS WHICH ARE A MERE SHADOW OF WHAT IS TO COME; BUT THE SUBSTANCE BELONGS TO CHRIST.
g. PROTECTIVE OR TO PRESERVE / GAL. 3:19 WHY THE LAW THEN? IT WAS ADDED BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSIONS, HAVING BEEN ORDAINED THROUGH ANGELS BY THE AGENCY OF A MEDIATOR, UNTIL THE SEED WOULD COME TO WHOM THE PROMISE HAD BEEN MADE."
* DRIVEN FROM THE GARDEN / FLOOD / BABEL / LAW / PROPHETS
* MAINLY PROTECTIVE AGAINST TWO THINGS: THE WRATH OF GOD / NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF OUR SINS
ALL THAT BEING SAID THEN - WE COME TO THE FOURTH POINT:
4 - THE UNIQUENESS OF THE SABBATH WITHIN THE DECALOGUE
ALL OF THE REST OF THE TEN WORDS ARE TO BE FOUND IN THE REALM OF NATURAL LAW - ONLY THE SABBATH AMONG THEM REQUIRES SPECIAL REVELATION.
- THE REST ACCORD WITH THE NATURE OF THINGS AS THEY WERE MADE OR AS THEY ARE - BUT WE WOULD NOT KNOW GOD RESTED ON THE 7TH DAY WITHOUT SPECIAL REVELATION
- NOR WOULD WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A SABBATH COMMANDED UPON ISRAEL TO OBSERVE UNLESS IT HAD BEEN REVEALED - THUS: NE. 9:14 "SO YOU MADE KNOWN TO THEM YOUR HOLY SABBATH, AND LAID DOWN FOR THEM COMMANDMENTS, STATUTES AND LAW, THROUGH YOUR SERVANT MOSES.
1. REVEALED (SPECIAL REVELATION), NOT NATURAL: SEE ROM. 1
2. A SPECIFIC INSTITUTION (NONE BEFORE MOSES) EX. 16
3. CEREMONIAL OBSERVANCE (NOT FOUND WITH THE OTHER 9)
4. COVENANTAL IMPORTANCE WITH ISRAEL ALONE
5. NO NT CHURCH OBSERVANCE
6. PROPHETIC FULFILLMENT (UNLIKE THE OTHERS)
7. MENTION OF DISSOLUTION (COL. & GAL.)
8. CAN BE PRESENT OR ABSENT WITHOUT VIOLATING EITHER TABLE IN PRINCIPLE
9. SUBJECT TO GOD'S DISCRETION (GOD CANNOT DENY HIMSELF, GOD CANNOT SIN, HE WAS NOT CONSTRAINED TO REST)
WHY THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT WAS UNIQUELY SUITED TO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING CHRIST TO DEMONSTRATE HIS ABSOLUTE DIVINE AUTHORITY AS TOUCHING EVEN THE DECALOGUE - YET SO AS TO DO NO INJURY TO TRUE HOLINESS AND THE "GREAT" PRINCIPLES OF LOVING THE LORD OUR GOD WITH ALL OUR HEARTS, SOULS, MINDS AND STRENGTH - AND OUR NEIGHBORS AS OURSELVES.
CHRIST ABOLISHED THE NECESSARY CEREMONIAL OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH DAY - BUT THE BINDING PRINCIPLE THAT ALL MEN, AND ESPECIALLY GOD'S PEOPLE ARE TO WORSHIP REMAINS.
CALVIN'S INSTITUTES
31. IN CHRIST THE PROMISE OF THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT IS FULFILLED. BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT BY THE LORD CHRIST'S COMING THE CEREMONIAL PART OF THIS COMMANDMENT WAS ABOLISHED. FOR HE HIMSELF IS THE TRUTH, WITH WHOSE PRESENCE ALL FIGURES VANISH; HE IS THE BODY, AT WHOSE APPEARANCE THE SHADOWS ARE LEFT BEHIND. HE IS, I SAY, THE TRUE FULFILLMENT OF THE SABBATH. "WE WERE BURIED WITH HIM BY BAPTISM, WE WERE ENGRAFTED INTO PARTICIPATION IN HIS DEATH, THAT SHARING IN HIS RESURRECTION WE MAY WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE." [ROMANS 6:4-5 P.] FOR THIS: REASON THE APOSTLE ELSEWHERE WRITES THAT THE SABBATH [COLOSSIANS 2:16] WAS "A SHADOW OF WHAT IS TO COME; BUT THE BODY BELONGS TO CHRIST" [COLOSSIANS 2:17], THAT IS, THE VERY SUBSTANCE OF TRUTH, WHICH PAUL WELL EXPLAINED IN THAT PASSAGE. THIS IS NOT CONFINED WITHIN A SINGLE DAY BUT EXTENDS THROUGH THE WHOLE COURSE OF OUR LIFE, UNTIL, COMPLETELY DEAD TO OURSELVES, WE ARE FILLED WITH THE LIFE OF GOD. CHRISTIANS OUGHT THEREFORE TO SHUN COMPLETELY THE SUPERSTITIOUS OBSERVANCE OF DAYS.
THE LAW INSTRUCTED US TO WORSHIP - BUT GRACE HAS MADE US WORSHIPPERS
CONCLUSIONS:
1 - THE SABBATH LAW AS GIVEN TO ISRAEL WAS A UNIQUE INSTITUTION TO THEM - NOT BINDING ON THE CHRISTIAN TODAY
2 - THE CEREMONIAL OBSERVANCE BEING ABOLISHED IN CHRIST, WE ARE LEFT WITH THE DISCHARGE OF THE PRINCIPLE
3 - IN THE NEW COVENANT, THE PROFUSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT NECESSARILY INCITES US TO WORSHIP
4 - THE NT BELIEVER MEETS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK (THE LORD'S DAY) NOT OUT OF CEREMONIAL OBSERVANCE (IT WAS NEVER SO INSTITUTED BY GOD) BUT
A. OUT OF NECESSITY TO WORSHIP
B. THE EXAMPLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH
PRACTICAL APPLICATION:
1 - CHRIST REMOVED THE RESTRICTION THAT MEN MIGHT GATHER AND WORSHIP ANY TIME, ANY PLACE.
2 - HE RAISED THE REQUIREMENT SO THAT MEN COULD NO LONGER CONSIDER THEIR WORSHIP OF GOD AS FULFILLED IN A SINGLE - WEEKLY "OBLIGATION
3 - HE DEMONSTRATED HIS DIVINITY IN EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO TOUCH THE LAW AS HE SAW FIT - AND DID SO WITHOUT INJURY TO IT
CALVIN'S CATECHISM / BACK TO THE BEGINING
APPENDIX - THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHURCH
FROM PHILIP SCHAFF: AS TO THE PRIVATE OPINIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL FATHERS ON THIS SUBJECT, THEY ALL FAVOR THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE LORD'S DAY, BUT TREAT IT AS A PECULIARLY CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION, AND DRAW A STRONG, INDEED A TOO STRONG, LINE OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN IT AND THE JEWISH SABBATH; FORGETTING THAT THEY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE AND AIM, THOUGH DIFFERENT IN FORM AND SPIRIT, AND THAT THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT AS TO ITS SUBSTANCE-VIZ., THE KEEPING HOLY OF ONE DAY OUT OF SEVEN-IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DECALOGUE OR THE MORAL LAW, AND HENCE OF PERPETUAL OBLIGATION.
EUSEBIUS [263 - 339] CALLS SUNDAY, BUT NOT THE SABBATH, "THE FIRST AND CHIEF OF DAYS AND A DAY OF SALVATION," AND COMMENDS CONSTANTINE FOR COMMANDING THAT "ALL SHOULD ASSEMBLE TOGETHER EVERY WEEK, AND KEEP THAT WHICH IS CALLED THE LORD'S DAY AS A FESTIVAL, TO REFRESH EVEN THEIR BODIES AND TO STIR UP THEIR MINDS BY DIVINE PRECEPTS AND INSTRUCTION."
ATHANASIUS [ BORN 296] SPEAKS VERY HIGHLY OF THE LORD'S DAY, AS THE PERPETUAL MEMORIAL OF THE RESURRECTION, BUT ASSUMES THAT THE OLD SABBATH HAS DECEASED.
MACARIUS, A PRESBYTER OF UPPER EGYPT (350), SPIRITUALIZES THE SABBATH AS A TYPE AND SHADOW OF THE TRUE SABBATH GIVEN BY THE LORD TO THE SOUL-THE TRUE AND ETERNAL SABBATH, WHICH IS FREEDOM FROM SIN.
HILARY [300 + ] REPRESENTS THE WHOLE OF THIS LIFE AS A PREPARATION FOR THE ETERNAL SABBATH OF THE NEXT.
EPIPHANIUS SPEAKS OF SUNDAY AS AN INSTITUTION OF THE APOSTLES, BUT FALSELY ATTRIBUTES THE SAME ORIGIN TO THE OBSERVANCE OF WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AS HALF FASTS.
AMBROSE FREQUENTLY MENTIONS SUNDAY AS AN EVANGELICAL FESTIVAL, AND CONTRASTS IT WITH THE DEFUNCT LEGAL SABBATH.
JEROME MAKES THE SAME DISTINCTION. HE RELATES OF THE EGYPTIAN COENOBITES THAT THEY "DEVOTE THEMSELVES ON THE LORD'S DAY TO NOTHING BUT PRAYER AND READING THE SCRIPTURES." BUT HE MENTIONS ALSO WITHOUT CENSURE, THAT THE PIOUS PAULA AND HER COMPANIONS, AFTER RETURNING FROM CHURCH ON SUNDAYS, "APPLIED THEMSELVES TO THEIR ALLOTTED WORKS AND MADE GARMENTS FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS."
AUGUSTINE LIKEWISE DIRECTLY DERIVES SUNDAY FROM THE RESURRECTION, AND NOT FROM THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT. FASTING ON THAT DAY OF SPIRITUAL JOY HE REGARDS, LIKE AMBROSE, AS A GRAVE SCANDAL AND HERETICAL PRACTICE. THE APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS IN THIS RESPECT GO EVEN STILL FURTHER, AND DECLARE: "HE THAT FASTS ON THE LORD'S DAY IS GUILTY OF SIN." BUT THEY STILL PRESCRIBE THE CELEBRATION OF THE JEWISH SABBATH ON SATURDAY IN ADDITION TO THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY.
CHRYSOSTOM WARNS CHRISTIANS AGAINST SABBATIZING WITH THE JEWS, BUT EARNESTLY COMMENDS THE DUE CELEBRATION OF THE LORD'S DAY.
LEO THE GREAT, IN A BEAUTIFUL PASSAGE-THE FINEST OF ALL THE PATRISTIC UTTERANCES ON THIS SUBJECT-LAUDS THE LORD'S DAY AS THE DAY OF THE PRIMITIVE CREATION, OF THE CHRISTIAN REDEMPTION, OF THE MEETING OF THE RISEN SAVIOUR WITH THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES, OF THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, OF THE PRINCIPAL DIVINE BLESSINGS BESTOWED UPON THE WORLD. BUT HE LIKEWISE BRINGS IT IN NO CONNECTION WITH THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, AND WITH THE OTHER FATHERS LEAVES OUT OF VIEW THE PROPER FOUNDATION OF THE DAY IN THE ETERNAL MORAL LAW OF GOD.
SEE THE PRINCIPAL PATRISTIC PASSAGES ON THE LORD'S DAY IN HESSEY, SUNDAY, ETC., P. 90 FF. AND P. 388 FF. HESSEY SAYS, P. 114: "IN NO CLEARLY GENUINE PASSAGE THAT I CAN DISCOVER IN ANY WRITER OF THESE TWO [THE FOURTH AND FIFTH] CENTURIES, OR IN ANY PUBLIC DOCUMENT, ECCLESIASTICAL OR CIVIL, IS THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT REFERRED TO AS THE GROUND OF THE OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE THE LORD'S DAY." THE REFORMERS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, LIKEWISE, IN THEIR ZEAL AGAINST LEGALISM AND FOR CHRISTIAN FREEDOM, ENTERTAINED RATHER LAX VIEWS ON THE SABBATH LAW. IT WAS LEFT FOR PURITANISM IN ENGLAND, AT THE CLOSE OF QUEEN ELIZABETH'S REIGN, TO BRING OUT THE PERPETUITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT AND THE LEGAL AND GENERAL MORAL FEATURE IN THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. THE BOOK OF DR. BOWND, FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1595, UNDER THE TITLE, "THE DOCTRINE OF THE SABBATH," PRODUCED AN ENTIRE REVOLUTION ON THE SUBJECT IN THE ENGLISH MIND, WHICH IS VISIBLE TO THIS DAY IN THE STRICT OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S DAY IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, THE BRITISH PROVINCES, AND THE UNITED STATES. COMP. ON DR. BOWND'S BOOK MY ESSAY ABOVE QUOTED, P. 16 FF., GILFILLAN, P. 69 FF., AND HESSEY, P. 276 FF.
Transcribed by Hebe Gottschalk
Copyright © 2001 Reid A. Ferguson. Permission granted to quote in context.