# NT exhortations to keep Sabbath?



## he beholds (Jun 9, 2009)

Hi. Can someone direct me to NT scripture that deals with the Sabbath? Did Paul ever exhort anyone to keep it, or praise them for keeping it, or chide anyone for breaking it? I guess this would have been more necessary in a letter to Gentiles, as they would have had to adopt this practice, and maybe it was so ingrained with the Jews that never a problem came. 
Thank you!


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 9, 2009)

Jessica, I would go with this line of argumentation: firstly, the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, not a Mount Sinai ordinance. It therefore has all the validity that marriage and the cultural mandate has. The Puritans thought that it was the proportion of one day in seven (not Saturday per se) that was the substance of the moral law. In the New Testament, we find, especially in John, Jesus meeting with his disciples always on the first day of the week after the resurrection (happens twice). John 20:19, 26. This seems to indicate the pattern that Jesus wanted His disciples to follow. Then look at Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and Revelation 1:10 for other references to the first day of the week being connected with worship.


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 9, 2009)

Jessi,

You won't find a verse in the NT which states, "Christians, Keep the Sabbath." Rather, we know the commandment by good and necessary consequence. The law (read: the summation thereof in the Decalogue) is "good" and "spiritual," and Paul evidently understood the "10 Commandments" to be a unit -- see Eph. 6:1-2. Hebrews 4 tells us that there is still a "sabbatismos" -- literally, a keeping of the Sabbath -- for believers. One can attempt to interpret this in other ways, but it is difficult. If we understand the Mosaic 10 Commandments to be a summation of the Law of God (that is, the natural law written on the heart of every man; the very law which Christ came to fulfill and that by which he governs), then it matters not whether they are found in the New Testament or the Old Testament -- they are the commandments given to humanity, and specifically to the church, no matter what dispensation of time she finds herself in. The commandments would have been the basic and fundamental articles taught in the churches to new converts, and so there was no need to make a "NT List" of them for the church by the apostles in their writings. From Paul's words in Eph. 6 (see above) it is clear that gentile believers were familiar with the 10 Commandments as a group, or else Paul's words would make absolutely no sense. Thus, the OT instructions about the Sabbath, along with Christ's examples and teachings regarding its observance in the gospel accounts (that it is made for man, that it is to be sanctified in the heart, that it is not designed to be a burden, that works of mercy and necessity are an understand part thereof, that it is to be observed in public worship, etc), combined with Paul's practical teachings about the conduct of public worship itself, which, though they do not speak directly of the Sabbath itself, are yet understood by consequence to be the directions for its keeping -- these four things (the account of its establishment in creation, the OT commands to its observance, Jesus' teaching and explanation of it, and Paul's practical directions for worship) combine to give us our picture of the Sabbath. Thus, while the epistles may not explicitly speak thereof, we cannot but help understand the references and directions for public worship in light of the OT and Gospel witnesses of its institution.

*Edit*
Lane Keister just spoke much more succinctly and eloquently while I was typing.


----------



## ADKing (Jun 9, 2009)

Hebrews 4.9 "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God". The term rest is "sabbatismos" which the standard Greek lexicon defines as "Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance". 

The larger context of Hebrews 4 makes this point clear. The heavenly rest held out to the people of God was not entered into in Canaan under Joshua, was still a future reality in David's day and even now in the NT the author is exhorting Christians to enter into it. The symbol and anticipation then (the weekly sabbath observance) continues to be in effect until we at last reach the heavenly sabbath rest.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 9, 2009)

One thing you might be helpful in studying this is to do a word search for "sabbath" in the New Testament. You can do that here: BibleGateway.com - KeywordSearch: sabbath

By my count, there are 92 Old Testament references, 54 references in the New Testament (King James Version). Many of them in the New Testament assume the sabbath as a holy day of rest and worship, for both Jews and Gentiles, as the covenant community of God's people is growing, being united through faith in Christ alone.


----------



## DTK (Jun 9, 2009)

One additional thought...though the sabbath is indeed a creation ordinance, it is also articulated explicitly from the lips of the Creator in His own expression of his moral law in the decalogue (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5), which is also a revelation of His own, eternal, moral character, and has not been rescinded by way of revelation in the NT scriptures.

DTK


----------



## KMK (Jun 9, 2009)

> Mark 2:27 The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.



As Paul mentioned, the Sabbath was made FOR man. It is a gift and a blessing. To despise the Sabbath is to despise a blessing from God. Does the NT need to put it any clearer?


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 9, 2009)

One of Jesus' titles is "Lord of the Sabbath". If there is no Sabbath in the New Covenant, how can He be "Lord of the Sabbath"? 

John calls the first day of the week "The Lord's _Day"_, not "The Lord's Hour" or "The Lord's 2 or 3 Hours", but "The Lord's 24 Hours." 

In Isaiah 58:13, the LORD calls the corresponding Old Covenant day to John the Apostle's "Lord's Day", "my holy day". We have the Seventh day of the week as "The LORD'S Holy Day" in the Old covenant, and the First day of the week as " The Lord's [Holy] Day" in the New Covenant. 

The Apostles - who were Jews - didn't go about changing the Fourth Commandment as respects the particular day of the week on which the Sabbath was to be observed, without a word from Christ while He was on Earth or a special revelation from Christ, did they?


----------



## JWJ (Jun 10, 2009)

ADKing said:


> Hebrews 4.9 "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God". The term rest is "sabbatismos" which the standard Greek lexicon defines as "Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance".
> 
> The larger context of Hebrews 4 makes this point clear. The heavenly rest held out to the people of God was not entered into in Canaan under Joshua, was still a future reality in David's day and even now in the NT the author is exhorting Christians to enter into it. The symbol and anticipation then (the weekly sabbath observance) continues to be in effect until we at last reach the heavenly sabbath rest.



With all due respect, the context has nothing to do with keeping a weekly sabbath but rather what it pointed to viz. resting in Christ.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 10, 2009)

JWJ said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > Hebrews 4.9 "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God". The term rest is "sabbatismos" which the standard Greek lexicon defines as "Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance".
> ...



Jim, you are forgetting an all-important fact: all the sabbaths of the OT telescoped into each other: weekly Sabbath for man and beast, seven-year Sabbath for the land, Jubilee for slaves, all pointing forward into the eternal Sabbath of which Hebrews 4 talks when it says "They shall not enter into My rest." That means that the eternal rest was not entered into by the people yet, and the full aspects of Sabbath rest are still to come. THEREFORE, we still celebrate the typological Sabbath, for we do not have the antitype yet.


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 10, 2009)

JWJ said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > Hebrews 4.9 "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God". The term rest is "sabbatismos" which the standard Greek lexicon defines as "Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance".
> ...



The author himself brings in the concept of the observance of the actual day of rest in vv.3-4; the observance of the day of rest is used here to signify the true and everlasting rest. Thus, it is the very fact that the apostle _is_ arguing for that eternal rest in Christ which we await that establishes the weekly observance of the Sabbath. Also, keep in mind the word being used, which signifies much more than simply "Sabbath," but an observing thereof.

*Edit*
Lane, you're too quick on the draw. This is the second time in this thread I have cross-posted with you.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 10, 2009)

JWJ said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > Hebrews 4.9 "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God". The term rest is "sabbatismos" which the standard Greek lexicon defines as "Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance".
> ...



If you mean that the Sabbath speaks about our resting from our evil works and evil attempts at justifying ourselves, I don't know how you get that. The Sabbath speaks of rest. Neither God at the creation, nor Christ resting in the tomb, nor Christ emerging from the grave had any such evil works to rest from. Once we are converted we are to rest from our evil works and self-justifying ways every day. On the Sabbath on the other hand we put away our ordinarily good works in order to rest and worship.

"For He (that is Christ) that is entered into His rest, He also hath ceased from His own works, as God did from His." (Hebrews 4:10)

See Walter Chantry's exposition of this passage in "Call the Sabbath a Delight". 

There is a _prima facie_ case for the continuance of the day of rest and worship in the New Covenant which bolsters Chantry's exposition of this passage anyway.

Why would the day of rest and worship be abolished in the New Covenant when:-

(a) Adam needed it in his state of original righteousness?

(b) It is a creation ordinance?

(c) It was written on stone in the middle of the moral law and was put under the propitiatory where blood atonement was made for breaches of the law once a year?

(d) People in the Old Covenant were executed for its flagrant breach?

(e) Jesus kept it and needed it and when clearing it of Pharisaical impositions never hinted at its abolition?

Maybe we New Covenant believers are a different breed and are so spiritual that we don't need the Sabbath. Saying that you keep the Christian Sabbath/Lord's Day by resting always from evil works and evil works of self-justification - which Old Covenant believers did anyway - is a kind of Gnostic super-spirituality.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Jun 10, 2009)

KMK said:


> > Mark 2:27 The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> As Paul mentioned, the Sabbath was made FOR man. It is a gift and a blessing. To despise the Sabbath is to despise a blessing from God. Does the NT need to put it any clearer?



While I don't agree with this particular interpretation, how I have often heard this verse quoted is "see, the sabbath is made FOR man, therefore I can go shopping and eat out and enjoy my sabbath rest at the same time."


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 10, 2009)

Yes. And such sincere Sabbath-keepers are helping the retailers and restauranteurs to enjoy their Sabbath rest while slaving away for the said Sabbath-keepers at the same time. Paradoxical or what?


----------



## JWJ (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote: Jim, you are forgetting an all-important fact: all the sabbaths of the OT telescoped into each other: weekly Sabbath for man and beast, seven-year Sabbath for the land, Jubilee for slaves, all pointing forward into the eternal Sabbath of which Hebrews 4 talks when it says "They shall not enter into My rest." That means that the eternal rest was not entered into by the people yet, and the full aspects of Sabbath rest are still to come. THEREFORE, we still celebrate the typological Sabbath, for we do not have the antitype yet.[/QUOTE]

Yes all of the Sabbaths in the OT were promises, shadows and types and all find thier fulfilment in Christ (2 Cor 1:21). If you keep the "already" and "not yet" paradigm in view the basis for an actual day fails. To turn the tables on your logic I would assume that you treat the land promise the same. Therefore in this age of the "already" you look for a literal piece of land and not Christ for its fulfiment. 

In short, in the age of the gospel / New Covenant we cannot and must not celebrate any typological Sabbaths.

Jim


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 11, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> Quote: Jim, you are forgetting an all-important fact: all the sabbaths of the OT telescoped into each other: weekly Sabbath for man and beast, seven-year Sabbath for the land, Jubilee for slaves, all pointing forward into the eternal Sabbath of which Hebrews 4 talks when it says "They shall not enter into My rest." That means that the eternal rest was not entered into by the people yet, and the full aspects of Sabbath rest are still to come. THEREFORE, we still celebrate the typological Sabbath, for we do not have the antitype yet.



Jim: Yes all of the Sabbaths in the OT were promises, shadows and types and all find thier fulfilment in Christ (2 Cor 1:21). If you keep the "already" and "not yet" paradigm in view the basis for an actual day fails. To turn the tables on your logic I would assume that you treat the land promise the same. Therefore in this age of the "already" you look for a literal piece of land and not Christ for its fulfiment. 

In short, in the age of the gospel / New Covenant we cannot and must not celebrate any typological Sabbaths.

Jim[/QUOTE]

You have an over-realized eschatology. The first coming of Christ has not ushered in everything that the Gospel promises. It has inaugurated the end times, but not consummated them. Otherwise, we have only nine commandments, and not ten. Your arguments bear close resemblance to the Anabaptists and (ironically) the Prelatical arguments of the Puritan period, but bear zero resemblance to anything Reformed, not even Calvin's views, certainly not anything confessional. Be very careful Jim. This is a confessional Reformed board. Such a complete attack on the Sabbath Day will not be tolerated.


----------



## JM (Jun 11, 2009)

Just watching...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 11, 2009)

We have Christ now. We aren't in heaven yet, _permanently_.

"Jesus, where'er thy people meet,
*There* they behold thy mercy-seat;
Where'er they seek thee, thou art found,
And ev'ry place is hallowed ground."

Calvin made a profound and true remark when he noted that our worship takes place "in heaven." God sets his ladder between earth and heaven, and we commune with him. Wherever he does that--it doesn't have to be in Jerusalem anymore--that is "Bethel."

The Reformed position says that there is no more "land" on earth where God can only be truly approached, as in the days of Israel. However, he does come specially to his people and meets them. He makes our gatherings a "literal piece" of--not earth--but heaven.

These aren't "typological" meetings. God calls church meetings; he doesn't attend them or drop in. We, his servants, answer his Official Summons. Jesus is God. Jesus gave the Sabbath. He gave it as his gift in the Garden of Eden. He made it for man.

He's in his eternal Sabbath right now. So, do we also have to wait for now, until heaven, to enjoy his rest? Yes, if we mean entirely to enjoy it... and no, he offers us a special taste every single week.


We should reject the thought that we have to CHOOSE between understanding that Christ IS a "rest" (sabbath) for us, and has PROVIDED "rest" (sabbath) for us. _As if we could only have one or the other?_

We don't have to choose BETWEEN Christ or heaven. The two are conceptually distinct.
We get BOTH--already, and not yet--but with "a foretaste of glory divine."


----------



## JWJ (Jun 12, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> Jim, You have an over-realized eschatology. The first coming of Christ has not ushered in everything that the Gospel promises. It has inaugurated the end times, but not consummated them. Otherwise, we have only nine commandments, and not ten. Your arguments bear close resemblance to the Anabaptists and (ironically) the Prelatical arguments of the Puritan period, but bear zero resemblance to anything Reformed, not even Calvin's views, certainly not anything confessional. Be very careful Jim. This is a confessional Reformed board. Such a complete attack on the Sabbath Day will not be tolerated.



Lane,

With all due respect, your comments and warnings are unjustified. I could quote many who stand in the Reformed tradition that would agree with my statements regarding Hebrews 3 & 4 yet this would add nothing to what the Word of God already says. Please, Lane, do not lose sight of the original question and how many went about answering it. The question was posed “Can someone direct me to NT scripture that deals with the Sabbath? Did Paul ever exhort anyone to keep it, or praise them for keeping it, or chide anyone for breaking it?”

Scriptures were then provided that in my opinion had nothing to do with the Sabbath or question at hand. Finally someone provided a pivotal narrative of Scripture, i.e., Hebrews 3 & 4. Hebrews 3 & 4 definitely and directly deals with the Sabbath issue and gives an exhortation to enter into it. My point of contention was that in no way does the context of this narrative teach (as is wrongly presumed by many) about keeping a literal day—especially the typological shadows and types of the Old Covenant. 

Lane, seeing that you are a teaching elder in the age of the New Covenant I would hope you see the important teaching of Hebrew 3 & 4—i.e., that its teaching is not about keeping a literal day—especially the typological shadows and types of the Old Covenant. I hope and pray that you are able to glean let alone teach from the overall context of the book and within the redemptive historical argument the pastor of Hebrews is trying to make that the Holy Spirit is not given an exhortation to keep a literal day.

Whether Sunday or Saturday or any one-in-seven day is to be kept is another issue. Granted this question can be probed in light of Hebrews 3 & 4. However, I ask kindly Lane, that your stricture regarding my theology and comments stay within the point of issue viz. does Hebrews 3 & 4 give an exhortation to keep a literal day. 

Now I do not have the time to give a detailed exposition but I trust that if you really read and study the context you will understand the argument Hebrews is making and that my comments are indeed biblical. Suffice to say Hebrews 4:3 makes it very plain that we New Covenant believers have already entered this rest and that all who enters this rest rests in Christ i.e., rests in the finished work of Christ; lives daily to the cross; lives by the power of the gospel and power of His resurrection; and walks in the Spirit (cf. Heb 4:10-11; Rom. 1:16; Philp. 3:10; Gal. 5:16-18). 

Lane, please see that this rest the Holy Spirit is talking about is indeed the eschatological rest foreshadowed in the Old Covenant under the types of a literal day, feasts, and of the like. Christ Jesus is the Amen of all the promises. The age to come has broken into this passing age by the ministry, death, resurrection, and glorification of Christ. In particular the ministry of the Holy Spirit appropriates the works of Christ and the age to come in us now.

Let’s also keep in mind that the pastor to the Hebrews was giving a word of exhortation (sermon). Within his congregation (s) there were many Jewish Christians who still wanted to live in the world of shadows and types of the old covenant and thus were indirectly denying the glory of Christ and the New Covenant He inaugurated. The macro context of this whole sermon is a warning to move beyond the shadows and types and thus to see and taste the superiority of Christ, the long awaited Messiah, Jesus, as the fulfiller of all of the promises.

Lane my dear brother in Christ, it is true, as Bruce pointed out, that we have not experienced the full consummation of this rest—something I never implied and therefore you are in error in judging my theology as being an over-realized eschatology. Though we have not yet experienced the full consummation of this rest, Scripture is plain that we believers are now (and should) be experiencing and living in the “already” of this rest—the true rest in Christ. 

As a minister of the gospel I encourage you as an elder to first and foremost exhort the people the Lord has given under your care regarding this truth. Oh it is my prayer that we as leaders continue to make every effort daily to enter / experience this rest and encourage and exhort our people to do likewise---for this is truly living and ministering the cross and gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## he beholds (Jun 12, 2009)

JWJ said:


> Lane,
> 
> With all due respect, your comments and warnings are unjustified. I could quote many who stand in the Reformed tradition that would agree with my statements regarding Hebrews 3 & 4 yet this would add nothing to what the Word of God already says. Please, Lane, do not lose sight of the original question and how many went about answering it. The question was posed “Can someone direct me to NT scripture that deals with the Sabbath? Did Paul ever exhort anyone to keep it, or praise them for keeping it, or chide anyone for breaking it?”
> 
> ...




I think you are saying the Sabbath should not be a type for us, since all types point to Christ, who already came. Is my understanding of your post correct?


----------



## JWJ (Jun 12, 2009)

[QUOTE I think you are saying the Sabbath should not be a type for us, since all types point to Christ, who already came. Is my understanding of your post correct?[/QUOTE]


Essentially yes. Though I think you can see that this biblical teaching carries weighty implications-- implications not thought through by many today. 

Jim


----------



## he beholds (Jun 12, 2009)

JWJ said:


> Essentially yes. Though I think you can see that this biblical teaching carries weighty implications-- implications not thought through by many today.
> 
> Jim



Can you please elaborate when you have time?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 12, 2009)

Jim, you are ignoring several key aspects of Hebrews 3-4 that show that your position is inadequate to explain the passage. I am in complete agreement that we enter the rest spiritually once for all when we come to faith. However, we do not yet enter that rest physically until we rest from our labors. Here are some indications that there is a "not yet" aspect to the Sabbath rest (by the way, it is the "not yet" aspects of the Sabbath rest that direct us to celebrate typologically a weekly rest now): 1. the overall context of the passage compares the church to Israel in the wilderness wanderings, NOT as compared to Israel in possession of the promised land. Otherwise the warnings of 3:12 would have no logical connection at all with 3:17. For the author of Hebrews, then, the church is in the antitypical wilderness of having been brought out of its spiritual Egypt of sin and death, but not yet having the consummation of the new heavens and the new earth (which is the antitype to Canaan). 

2. Compare closely 3:14, which has a perfect tense verb "we have become partakers," with 4:1, which draws an inference from the preceding narrative, based on the fact that we are already partakers of Christ, therefore there is a promise of entering the rest. In examination of verse 1 a bit more closely, we find the wording "let us fear." This is a subjunctive exhortation that applies to the entire body of Christ, believing or not. This is confirmed by the wording "any of you." To come short, then, of entering the rest is the thing feared by the author on behalf of all the people to whom he is writing. Verse 3 then goes on to elaborate the "already" aspect of entering the rest. the "already" aspect of the rest continues on through verse 10, but the "not yet" takes over in verse 11 with the exhortation to enter that rest. 

This leads us to the third crucial point: if we enter the rest completely and consummately by faith, then we cannot "diligently" enter that rest, as it tells us to do in 4:11. Not entering the rest would be the result of disobedience. 4:11 is very clearly talking about the "not yet" aspect of entering the Sabbath rest. 

Since the "not yet" aspect primarily refers to physical rest, the typological Sabbath day has not yet completely ended. This does not take away from the "already" of attaining spiritual rest by faith. Nevertheless, we walk by faith, not by sight. 

Do be aware that your position means that the fourth commandment is now defunct, which is something Jesus plainly does not do when He says (as others have noted on this thread) that He is Lord of the Sabbath. His work involves a change in the day, since resurrection points to the inaugurated completion of the new creation and new redemption.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 12, 2009)

> *greenbaggins *
> 
> The first coming of Christ has not ushered in everything that the Gospel promises. It has inaugurated the end times, but not consummated them.



Well said. This helps many things in Scripture in context of Scripture.



> *Contra_Mundum*
> 
> Calvin made a profound and true remark when he noted that our worship takes place "in heaven." God sets his ladder between earth and heaven, and we commune with him. Wherever he does that--it doesn't have to be in Jerusalem anymore--that is "Bethel."
> 
> The Reformed position says that there is no more "land" on earth where God can only be truly approached, as in the days of Israel. However, he does come specially to his people and meets them. He makes our gatherings a "literal piece" of--not earth--but heaven.



This also puts much in context.

(I'm rating this thread a "5")


----------



## chbrooking (Jun 12, 2009)

I see that Lane has already responded, so I've deleted most of what I had written. I'll only add this ...

Jim, I believe you are conflating κατάπαυσις with σαββατισμός in this passage. It seems that the author of Hebrews' point is precisely that the observance of Sabbath (σαββατισμός) remains, in view of the continuing anticipation of consummate rest (κατάπαυσις).


----------



## OPC'n (Jun 12, 2009)

Jessica,
before I came to PB I didn't think the Sabbath was for us today in the physical sense. I"m still not convinced on the day change. However, with Lane's help I was able to see why see should observe the Sabbath. I don't see it as the OT way of observing it but here's how I see we should. Every day of the week we live for God and His glory through our work, relationships, etc. Those days are for our sanctification process. They focus on us for God's glory. Sundays however are special in that man stops his working and focuses on God for God's glory. It is a love gift given to Him from us by His grace. Think of it sort of as when you and your husband have alone time with each other. Your kids go see grand ma and you guys focus on each other. That's how Sundays should be. When we focus completely on God (worship, prayer, biblical studying, fellowship with the saints because the saint are apart of Christ's body) that act not only is a love gift from us to Him, but it also (because He is gracious) is the height of benefit for us. Don't you enjoy setting aside the things you do and the interference of life to spend time with your husband? It's the same with the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man because that is the time when the tools of grace are most used, and as we know it is the tools of grace which sanctify us. Sundays are your love gift to God and it's a time when He brings you closer to Himself.....all of which glorifies Himself. As far as a verse, you won't find one because it was an established fact. Paul didn't command them to have a worship service either because that was an established fact. He only warned them not to neglect the gathering of the brethren. Like I said, I'm still not convinced on how we got the day change so I won't say anything to that. Hope that helps a little.


----------



## JWJ (Jun 12, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> I see that Lane has already responded, so I've deleted most of what I had written. I'll only add this ...
> 
> Jim, I believe you are conflating κατάπαυσις with σαββατισμός in this passage. It seems that the author of Hebrews' point is precisely that the observance of Sabbath (σαββατισμός) remains, in view of the continuing anticipation of consummate rest (κατάπαυσις).



Yes the Sabbath remains. However, there is no way contextually you can say that the author is arguing for a physical Sabbath—this is the opposite of what Hebrews teaches. With all due respect both you and Lane are the one’s “ignoring several key aspects of Hebrews 3-4 that show that your position is inadequate to explain the passage” and “conflating” the age of shadows and types with the reality of the age of the gospel. To say that we enter a / the spiritual Sabbath and at the same time must keep the / a shadow and type is exactly the mind-set that Hebrews warns against! 

What remains is not the Sabbath type but rather the opportunity through the power of the gospel to enter into the true rest. Your theology and logic is likened to the following story. A father in the year 1900 promised his son a horse and buggy when he matured and began a family. When this day arrived, 25 years later, the father gave him a motor car. (The motor car was the reality of what the horse and buggy foreshadowed, but since the son could not conceive of this reality, until the fullness of time, he spoke in the language of the day i.e., types and shadows).

Your theology and logic necessitates that the son should react to this gift by the comment “where is my horse and buggy!” “I want my horse and buggy!” Or at the very least your logic and theology would want both the car and horse and buggy. Either way this would be a slap in the face to the intended promise of the father and the times of the age.

Jim


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 12, 2009)

Assertion, and no proof, Jim. You did not even remotely address my exegetical arguments. And you obviously didn't listen to my arguments at all. I argue for an inaugurated eschatology. The Sabbath is not part of the ceremonies or the civil law of Israel. It was instituted at creation. Therefore, it is not a horse and buggy. That's where your analogy utterly fails. Jim, I can debate peaceably with most people, but your disrespect for the Puritan position is way overboard. Basically, you are saying that the Puritan position is a slap in the face of the intended promise. I can tolerate disagreement with the Puritan position, but not such slaps in the face. Cool it.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 12, 2009)

*Moderator Hat On*
*Word to all: Regardless of our personal doubts, disagreements, or even innocent ignorance of the arguments, the Puritan Board is a place for the vigorous debate of theological topics, but not for advocating a non-confessional view. If you take exception to items in the confessions, this is a good place to learn and be instructed by others, not to advocate for views contrary to the confessions.

My background in broad evangelicalism has given me no frame of reference for the respectful honoring of sabbath observance. So, my sojourn here has been deeply instructive and helpful to me in recognizing the gaps in my own education and the holes in my practice.*


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 12, 2009)

At creation God imposed the perfectly numbered seven day week on a good but not perfect creation. Only the seven day week is a unit of time revealed by special revelation. The day, month and year are revealed by the good but not perfect creation.

The cycle of six days of work, rest, play and worship followed by one day of rest and worship was to remain until unfallen Man had fulfilled the probation and creation/cultural mandate. Then the world was to be transformed into the incorruptible and perfect eternal state.

After the Fall the pattern remains. Each Sabbath is a stepping stone or rung in the ladder to the perfect world. After the Fall, in a sense, the weekly day of rest and worship is even more of a practical and moral necessity, and even more is the pattern of six days for work, rest, play and worship and one for rest and worship, a typologial anticipation of a better world, perfect,incorruptible, undefiled and separate from sin.

In that eternal world there will be another arrangement of the functions of worship, work, rest and play, than there is in this world.

Re the other Sabbaths of the Jews, which unlike the weekly Sabbath were not made for all men, there are still moral and practical principles which we can learn from those e.g. look after God's earth in a reasonable manner.

The working week and the weekly Sabbath are not Jewish types, but types that were given to Man as Man before the Fall and which continue until we all reach the consummated kingdom.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 12, 2009)

I will just repost this here. I think it will be very edifying to this discussion.....



PuritanCovenanter said:


> http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/richard-barcellos-sabbath-colossians-2-16-triad-41414/
> 
> I have taken this from another thread since Col 2:16-17 is brought up so much.
> 
> ...



I do believe there is New Covenant exhortations to keep a sabbath day.


----------



## he beholds (Jun 12, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> At creation God imposed the perfectly numbered seven day week on a *good but not perfect creation*. Only the seven day week is a unit of time revealed by special revelation. The day, month and year are revealed by the good but not perfect creation.
> 
> The cycle of six days of work, rest, play and worship followed by one day of rest and worship was to remain until unfallen Man had fulfilled the probation and creation/cultural mandate. Then the world was to be transformed into the incorruptible and perfect eternal state.
> 
> ...




I have never heard pre-fall earth explained as anything but perfect, but I guess God did only call it good. Except, isn't good for God, perfectly good?
Something for me to chew on...


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 12, 2009)

he beholds said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > At creation God imposed the perfectly numbered seven day week on a *good but not perfect creation*. Only the seven day week is a unit of time revealed by special revelation. The day, month and year are revealed by the good but not perfect creation.
> ...



I'm not sure the perfect/not-perfect distiction is really germane to the discussion. The point is that God instituted the Sabbath at creation, and its continuing validity as a day of rest and worship of God means that there is no need for it to be "reaffirmed" in the NT in order for us to understand that setting that day apart for those God-ordained purposes hasn't passed away with the Jewish economy.


----------



## he beholds (Jun 12, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...



I know...I just so do not have ADD that I need to deal with every thing posted, and for me, the tangents don't take me off track.

-----Added 6/12/2009 at 01:12:08 EST-----

I wasn't asking for it to be "reaffirmed," but trying to see if the early church had any directives.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 12, 2009)

I am not sure of the greek wording here or if it is the one used in Genesis in the Septuigent. 



> (Mar 10:18) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.



I really don't think it matters. I think my previous post shows that the sabbath day (1 in 7) is still in effect.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 12, 2009)

*Moderation Note: Evidently I was unclear. We will NOT argue contra-confessionally on the PB AT ALL. If you hold other views, please refrain from arguing them here or this thread will be closed.*


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 12, 2009)

First point: Bunyan's whole point was to rescue the pattern of six days work/one day rest from the SATURDAY Sabbath. All the Puritans thought that it was the _proportion_ of one day of rest for every six days of work that was of creational and moral force, not the Saturday itself (see Dennison's book "The Market Day of the Soul"). The day was something that God could change by a positive law. The problem here is that you say "Sabbath" when Bunyan says "Saturday Sabbath." Bunyan's whole point was to prove the Sunday Sabbath, as he says (p. 361 of volume 2 of his works): 



> The seventh day sabbath was not moral. For that must of necessity be done, before it can be made (to, LK) appear that the first day of the week is that which is the sabbath day for Christians. But withal it follows, that if the the seventh day sabbath was not moral, the first day is not so. What is it then? Why, a sabbath for holy worship is moral; but _this_ or _that_ day appointed for such service, is sanctified by precept or by approved example. (emphasis original)



His position is therefore quite vanilla Puritan: the moral precept and creational precept is not this or that day, but the _proportion_ of one day in seven. This is true in my own argumentation as well. When he says that the first day is not moral, he is NOT saying that the idea of the _proportion_ of one day in seven is not moral. He is rather saying that the _day_ on which it is celebrated is not an issue of the moral law. All the Puritans said this. What day the Sabbath is celebrated on is determined by positive command from God. In the OT, the positive command was the seventh day. In the NT, the positive command was the first day. The positive command comes from John 20, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, and Revelation 1:10, not to mention Hebrews 3 and 4.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 12, 2009)

he beholds said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > At creation God imposed the perfectly numbered seven day week on a *good but not perfect creation*. Only the seven day week is a unit of time revealed by special revelation. The day, month and year are revealed by the good but not perfect creation.
> ...



Maybe the expression "imperfect" is infelicitous, as whatever God does is perfect in the sense that He does/makes whatever He wants to, and all His actions are good/perfect and morally holy.

I'm just making the distinction between the world Adam and Eve were brought into which was capable of corruption and the curse if Adam fell, and the eternal New Heavens and New Earth which Adam could have inherited if he had passed the test, and which we inherit in Christ, which is incorruptible i.e. not capable of corruption and will be the best of all possible worlds because it is made for Christ and His people.

Is the New Creation portrayed in the book of Revelation _better_ than what Adam and Eve had?

With Jesus' resurrection the New Creation has begun in principle and the Sabbath changes from the last to the first day of the week thus having a more forward-looking aspect. But until the consummation, the moral and practical necessity of one day cleared of work and play and devoted to rest and worship remains, unless we are more godly than the pre-Fall Adam, than the Lord Jesus Himself, or any of the Patriarchal or Old Covenant Saints.

What has changed in the New Covenant saints that means that we are so "spiritual" that we can do without/should disobey this provision written on stone? Surely it is one of the commandments now written on our hearts?


----------



## JM (Jun 12, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> *Moderation Note: Evidently I was unclear. We will NOT argue contra-confessionally on the PB AT ALL. If you hold other views, please refrain from arguing them here or this thread will be closed.*



Does that include arguments that are contra-confessional concerning who antichrist is?


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 12, 2009)

Just to clear this up. We all agreed when we signed up that we subscribed the WCF, 3 Forms of Unity, London Baptist Confession or Second Helvetic, with the WCF being the official governing standard of the board. We do not have to hold every detail of the confession to be a member, but we cannot advocate that which is contrary thereunto. Honest inquiry to help understand the confessional position is always welcome, however. To remove any ambiguity, all the confessions speak to the requirement of one day in seven. See below.



> *Westminster Confession*
> VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.
> 
> VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.





> *Heidelberg Catechism*
> *Question 103*. What does God require in the fourth commandment?
> 
> Answer: First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained; (a) and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God, (b) to hear his word, (c) to use the sacraments, (d) publicly to call upon the Lord, (e) and contribute to the relief of the poor. (f) Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath. (g)





> *Second Helvetic Confession*
> THE LORD'S DAY. Hence we see that in the ancient churches there were not only certain set hours in the week appointed for meetings, but that also the Lord's Day itself, ever since the apostles' time, was set aside for them and for a holy rest, a practice now rightly preserved by our Churches for the sake of worship and love.
> 
> SUPERSTITION. In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God. Moreover, we celebrate the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance.


Note that Bullinger's statements of rejecting the Sabbath in favor of the Lord's day are to distance it from the superstitions of the Jews; not to eliminate the moral aspect of one day in seven. If there is any doubt as to Bullinger's view of the 4th commandment, see the applicable portions of his Decades, where he states of those who do not observe the Sabbath day "do err from the truth as far as heaven is wide."



> *1689 London Baptist Confession*
> Paragraph 7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he has particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's Day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 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 a 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


----------

