# Objections to the Sabbath using Colossians 2:16



## Unoriginalname

First off, I am not trying to subvert the confessions just to get that out of the way. I am just unsure what the confessional answer is to the objection that says "Colossians 2:16 relegates the sabbath to an old testament ordinance."


----------



## Unoriginalname

I understand the appeal to the whole council of God. I am just wondering how someone can prove that the sabbath as mentioned in this particular text is not the sabbath of the 4th commandment. Disclaimer again, I do not doubt that the 4th commandment is binding I am just curious if anyone posesses a knock down exegetical argument that can put this silly objection to rest.


----------



## toddpedlar

Unoriginalname said:


> I understand the appeal to the whole council of God. I am just wondering how someone can prove that the sabbath as mentioned in this particular text is not the sabbath of the 4th commandment. Disclaimer again, I do not doubt that the 4th commandment is binding I am just curious if anyone posesses a knock down exegetical argument that can put this silly objection to rest.



Eric -

Joshua has already alerted you to the contextual cues in Colossians 2:16. These will not be heard by everyone, because if one is predisposed to see "liberty in the matter of the sabbath", then they are likely to ignore any context that presents itself in Colossians 2:16. The context is, it seems to me, the best "knock down exegetical argument". Paul in this section of Colossians 2 is very clearly addressing the ceremonial observations of the judaic system, and calling upon the saints at Colossae to reject and dispense with the judgments of those judaizing elements within the community who would judge them based on, as he says in this verse, "meat, the festivals, the new moon, and the sabbaths" These practices are wholly identifiable parts of the ceremonial law that, as Paul writes in 2:17, pointed forward to Christ, who has now come. Those are GONE. He is calling again, as he does in other of his letters, for the recognition that Christ, being the one sacrifice for sin, the atonement for his people once and only once, is the cause for those "pointing forward" practices to be dispensed with. It's not about "the sabbath" as an institution, but "the sabbaths" as ceremonial rituals - presumably this is indicative of the many sabbaths over and above the first day sabbath, which is not (it seems quite plain to me) something that fits the context well at all. 

But those predisposed to reject the sabbatarian argument generally don't listen well to arguments such as the above (because they reject it _ a priori, _ out of hand). 

Todd


----------



## Peairtach

All good books on the Christian Sabbath (Lord's Day) have useful sections on Romans 14, Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10. 

Scripture must interpreted with Scripture in a covenantal rather than dispensational way. Any other approach is inconsistent and arbitrary exegesis that does not account for all the biblical data.

We start with the fact that the one day in seven was given to Man rather than the Israelites - unlike the many other days that were given to them - and work our way forward through Scripture.

http://www.amazon.com/Call-Sabbath-...=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323635004&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Day-Jos...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323635032&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Commandme...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323635163&sr=1-1


----------



## MW

We should bear in mind that the ceremonial holiness of the Sabbath day has been laid aside in the New Testament. Such texts as speak to the abrogation of the Sabbath are effectively teaching that there is no ceremonial holiness in the day. We intuitively accept this because we acknowledge the first day of the week to be the Christian Sabbath.


----------



## jwithnell

Rev. Winzer, that is an interesting point you raise; one that I'm not sure I've seen before. What ceremonial holiness was added to the sabbath under the Mosaic covenant?


----------



## elnwood

toddpedlar said:


> It's not about "the sabbath" as an institution, but "the sabbaths" as ceremonial rituals



If I'm understanding this correctly, the use of "Sabbath" here is a metonymy, referring to the rituals performed on the Sabbath, not to the Sabbath institution itself. Is that correct?

Are there other examples in Scripture using the word "Sabbath" as a metonymy that we can point to, in order to show that Colossians 2:16 is also using "Sabbath" that way?


----------



## jwithnell

Don if I'm following your thinking correctly, the instructions given for the 7th year rest and the year of Jubilee would be examples? These rituals were not necessarily completed in the temple but carried strong religious, if you will, meanings or teachings..


----------



## Unoriginalname

toddpedlar said:


> Joshua has already alerted you to the contextual cues in Colossians 2:16. These will not be heard by everyone, because if one is predisposed to see "liberty in the matter of the sabbath", then they are likely to ignore any context that presents itself in Colossians 2:16. The context is, it seems to me, the best "knock down exegetical argument". Paul in this section of Colossians 2 is very clearly addressing the ceremonial observations of the judaic system, and calling upon the saints at Colossae to reject and dispense with the judgments of those judaizing elements within the community who would judge them based on, as he says in this verse, "meat, the festivals, the new moon, and the sabbaths" These practices are wholly identifiable parts of the ceremonial law that, as Paul writes in 2:17, pointed forward to Christ, who has now come. Those are GONE. He is calling again, as he does in other of his letters, for the recognition that Christ, being the one sacrifice for sin, the atonement for his people once and only once, is the cause for those "pointing forward" practices to be dispensed with. It's not about "the sabbath" as an institution, but "the sabbaths" as ceremonial rituals - presumably this is indicative of the many sabbaths over and above the first day sabbath, which is not (it seems quite plain to me) something that fits the context well at all.


That makes sense, Joshua I apologize if i sounded dismissive.


----------



## MW

jwithnell said:


> Rev. Winzer, that is an interesting point you raise; one that I'm not sure I've seen before. What ceremonial holiness was added to the sabbath under the Mosaic covenant?



Older works which sought to be systematic generally dealt with this question. Popular modern works often overlook it. Fundamentally, there are three elements to the Sabbath command -- moral obligation to set aside some portion of time for the worship of God; creation ordinance that this time be one whole day in seven; and the positive prescription of the day itself. Under the Mosaic law the last day of the week as a specific day was made holy and fell under the ceremonial prescriptions of that law. The day as a holy day has been set aside by the resurrection of Christ, which has freed us from the handwriting of ordinances. The Lord's Day is a positive New Testament prescription which is based on the moral obligation and original creation ordinance, but not upon the positive ceremonial prescription of the Mosaic law.


----------



## Filipe Luiz C. Machado

I agree with you, brother. Here we have the "shabbaths": 

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, {Concerning} the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim {to be} holy convocations, {even} these {are} my feasts. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day {is} the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work {therein}: it {is} the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings. These {are} the feasts of the LORD, {even} holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. In the fourteenth {day} of the first month at even {is} the LORD'S passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month {is} the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day {is} an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work {therein}" Leviticus 23:1-8.

All of these practices are going away, because they appointed to the Son of God. So, the apostle Paul never said that the 4th commandment was canceled, if they did, we now have a 9 commandments and it can't be true, because the 10 commandments are the expression of the moral character of God and He can not void yourself - "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" James 1:17. "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" Titus 1:2. "If we believe not, {yet} he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself" 2 Timothy 2:13.

God bless you.


----------



## py3ak

A good exponent, I think, of the view Mr. Winzer stated so clearly, is Patrick Fairbairn. In his _Typology_ he speaks at some length about the Sabbath. He takes the view that Colossians 2:16 includes the other Sabbath days, but also the weekly Sabbath; and yet this does not mean that we are not bound to observe the Lord's Day. Unfortunately the version I found on Google books excludes a vital page of the argument, so I can offer only his conclusion:



> But as baptism in the Spirit is Christ's circumcision, so the Lord's Day is His Sabbath; and to be in the Spirit on that day, worshipping and serving Him in the truth of His Gospel, is to take up the yoke of the Fourth Commandment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The word in use here is σάββατον, which is the same word for the Sabbath day used elsewhere but it's not necessarily the meaning of the word here but the way Paul is using it. A similar thing occurs when he uses the word "circumcision" to address a broader problem in Galatia. 

When determining the use of a word, it is the context that drives interpretation. In this case, it is clear what Paul has in mind. Notice Paul doesn't say: "Don't observe a sabbath anymore" to make it clear that the Sabbath has been abrogated but he says: "Don' let anyone judge you..." and lists sabbath among ceremonial festivals. He further qualifies what he's talking about in the entire context:


> 16*Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17*These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18*Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19*and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
> 20*If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21*“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22*(referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23*These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
> 
> 
> The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Col 2:16–23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.


The pericope begins and ends with a focus on passing judgment with respect to an ascetic standard of righteousness on the basis of abstaining from food and drink and special days. From the verses that follow, how could it ever be said that the Scriptural practice of the Sabbath or any festival was "...according to elemental spirits of this world..."? How could it be said that the Sabbath or any festival was ever "...according to human precepts and teachings..."?

Here is where not only immediate context plays a key role in understanding what is going on but the provenance of the letter itself. We have to read between the lines in order to gain a full appreciation of what Paul is dealing with but the variant of the heresy here is not necessarily identical to other letters and there is a gnostic element here that Paul is railing against.

At the very least, proper hermeneutics takes in all the exegetical data on any given topic. There is certainly very little in the way of GNC to contribute to an idea that the entire Sabbath, which God ordained in creation and not in Moses, is to be understood to be abrogated by this somewhat unique problem which existed in Collose.


----------



## JP Wallace

I used to believe that the Colossians text was about ceremonial Sabbaths and not THE Sabbath, I have come to the conclusion that as Rev. Winzer has explained that Paul is including the weekly Jewish 7th Day Sabbath as well. 

Therefore what he is saying is that no man can bind us to any day for worship or resting as a Sabbath and we are not to keep the 7th day Sabbath. Yet the Sabbath is a creational ordinance and contained in the Moral Law. If man cannot bind us to any day, and the Jewish Sabbath (7th day) is fulfilled in Christ, what day shall we/must we keep? The answer must come from the positive law of the NT Scriptures and only day mentioned is the 1st Day - The Lord's Day Sabbath.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is part of a letter I wrote to a friend (who adheres to New Covenant Theology):



> *When “sabbaths” are mentioned in Colossians 2 this is a technical term that describes the ceremonial Sabbaths – not the weekly Sabbath:*
> 
> 1. Feast days, 2.New moons, and 3.Sabbaths:
> 
> New Covenant Theology adherents often put forth Colossians 2:16 as a proof against the abiding obligation to maintain a “Christian Sabbath” – called “The Lord’s Day” in the New Testament. After all, both Romans 14 and Colossians 2 tell us not to honor one day above another. Therefore, the first day of the week has no special place among our worship. It seems pretty cut and dried, right?
> 
> Wrong!
> 
> Colossians 2 and Romans 14 are not adequate proofs to prove the abrogation of the 4th Commandment. The sabbaths spoken of in Colossian 2 are part of the ceremonial law and not the moral law.
> 
> The Jewish ceremonial calendar had many New Moon and sabbaths other than the weekly Sabbath. Colossian 2 speaks of these special ceremonial “holy days” - not the weekly Sabbath, which is part of the Decalogue (God’s summary of his moral law).
> 
> This is vital! The phrase used in Colossians 2:16, “feast days…new moons…sabbaths,” is a technical phrase. It is a specific phrase relating to the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant. It is specifically used in the OT, to designate specific ceremonial events - and is nowhere used in reference to the weekly Sabbath. By using this phrase in Colossians 2, Paul is clearly referring to the ceremonial Sabbaths and not the Sabbath that is commanded in the Decalogue.
> 
> Hosea 2:11, clearly referring to the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant, contains this same three-part formulation of “feast days, new moons…sabbaths” that is also found in Colossian 2:16. This three-part phrase refers to the special feast and Sabbath days in the Jewish calendar. It is not referring to the weekly Sabbath. Likewise, I Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33, and Isaiah 1:13-14 all contain this common phrase, again clearly referring to ceremonial law and not the weekly Sabbath.
> 
> A Jewish Rabbi, such as Paul, would know this phrase (this 3-part formulation) well, and would be intimately familiar with its ceremonial connotations. The weekly Sabbath is not being removed here, but only the ceremonial system of feasts and holy days.
> *
> Plural sabbaths*
> 
> Paul’s very grammar in Colossians 2:16 shows that he is not speaking of the abrogation of the Sabbath. In Colossians 2:16, Paul uses the plural in reference to “sabbaths.” He does not refer to the weekly Sabbath (singular), but many sabbaths (plural). Paul is referring to ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> *Why wasn’t Paul clearer? If he meant yearly or ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly Sabbath why didn’t he specify this? *
> 
> Probably because he didn’t feel that he had to! He was being clear to his first-century audience by 1. his use of a well-known technical phrase (feast days, new moons and sabbaths), 2. his use of the plural for sabbaths, 3. his context of speaking – asserting that the ceremonial aspects of the old covenant are being done away with (i.e. and focusing on this ceremonial aspect of the law specifically).
> 
> Paul saw no need to say, “Remember, I am not speaking of the weekly Sabbath here.”
> 
> 
> *Receiving one that is “weak” in the faith versus receiving a sinful one:*
> 
> Many appeal to Romans 14 to show that all days are alike and no weekly Sabbath exists. One man treats all days alike, another regards a day. Paul commands to receive the one who is weak in faith.
> 
> It is curious that this cannot refer to moral law, lest Paul would then need to modify his words so that a “sinful” one may be received. There is a difference in being weak in conscience and sinful. What is being talked about then must be ceremonial days. Paul is not white-washing sin here!
> 
> Moral law cannot be the object of Paul’s discussion. In Romans 14, Galatians 4 and Colossians 2, ceremonial days are being addressed and Paul is speaking on the subject of those who are trying to impose Jewish feast days and holy days upon believers. The weekly Sabbath, rooted in the Decalogue – which is a summary of God’s moral Self, cannot be the object of Romans 14 or Colossians 2.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A blog I did on this topic. It mentions the Colossians passage and sets it up in context.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...ts-sabbath-concerning-colossians-hebrews-444/


> The London Baptist Confession of Faith
> Chapter 22
> 
> 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 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 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.
> ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )
> 
> 8. The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
> ( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is part of a study of the *triad* (holydays, new moon, and Sabbaths) that a friend Richard Barcellos pointed out in one of his books which benefited me a lot. I quote a portion of it below and part of an article on Hebrews 4:9 by Robert Martin out of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review.
> 
> Here is a portion of an article taken from the Reformed Baptist Theological Review.
> 
> http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?categoryId=1&productId=13
> 
> I am posting it here for an examination of Colossians 2:16 and the triad phrase that is used in this passage along next to the Old Testament passage in Hosea 2:11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Col 2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an *holyday*, or of the *new moon*, or of the *sabbath days*:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, *her feast days*, her *new moons*, and her *sabbaths*, and all her solemn feasts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of Baptist and non sabbattarians like to quote Colossians 2:16 as a passage that declares we need not keep a weekly Sabbath day to the Lord.
> 
> 
> Richard Barcellos is the author. Please forgive my inept mistakes in copying it from a pdf to here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Old Testament prophesies the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.
> *
> 
> The OT clearly prophesies the abrogation and cessation of ancient Israel‘s Sabbaths. It does so in Hos. 2:11, which says, ―I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths--all her appointed feasts." We will make several observations that bear this out. First, Hosea‘s prophecy is dealing with the days of the New Covenant. The phrase ―in that day" (vv. 16, 18, 21) is used prophetically of New Covenant days in Is. 22:20. Revelation 3:7 quotes Is. 22:22 and applies it to Christ. The prophecy in Is. 22:20 mentions the Lord‘s servant, who is Christ. Isaiah 22:20-22 says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it shall be in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe and strengthen him with your belt; I will commit your responsibility into his hand. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation 3:7, quoting Is. 22:22, says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ―These things says He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase, ―in that day,
> ' refers to the days of Christ–the days of the New Covenant. Paul references Hos. 1:10 and 2:23 in Rom. 9:25, applying them to Christians. ―As He says also in Hosea: ‗I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved‘" (Rom. 9:25). Peter references Hos. 1:9-10 and 2:23 in 1 Pet. 2:10 and applies them to Christians as well. He says, ―who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy" (1 Pet. 2:10). Hosea is clearly speaking of New Covenant days. According to the NT usage of Hosea, he is speaking of the time in redemptive history when God will bring Gentiles into a saving relationship with Jews. Much of the NT deals with this very issue.
> 
> Second, Hos. 2:11 clearly prophesies the abrogation of Old Covenant Israel‘s Sabbaths, along with ―all her appointed feasts." Hosea uses a triad of terms (―feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths") that is used many places in the OT (1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; and Is. 1:13-14). Clearly, he is speaking of the abrogation of Old Covenant ceremonial laws. When the Old Covenant goes, Israel‘s feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts go with it.
> 
> Third, the NT confirms this understanding of Hos. 2:11. It uses this triad of terms in Col. 2:16, which says, ―So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths." In the context, Paul is combating those who were attempting to impose Old Covenant ceremonial law on New Covenant Christians. So Col. 2:16 is clear NT language that sees Hosea‘s prophecy as fulfilled. It is of interest to note that Paul uses the plural for Sabbath in Col. 2:16 (σάββατον). It is not too hard to assume that Paul had the OT triad in mind and Hosea‘s prophecy while penning these words. The NT announces the abrogation of the Old Covenant in
> many places. For instance, 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Gal. 3-4; Eph. 2:14-16; and Heb. 8-10 (cf. esp. 8:6-7, 13; 9:9-10, 15; 10:1, 15-18) are clear that the Old Covenant has been abrogated.
> 
> (Heb. 8:6-7)
> 
> 
> 
> But now He [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant [the New Covenant], which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant [the Old Covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 8:13)
> 
> 
> 
> In that He says, ―A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 9:9-10)
> 
> 
> 
> It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 9:15)
> 
> 
> 
> And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 10:1)
> 
> 
> 
> For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 10:15-18)
> 
> 
> 
> But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, ―This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them, then He adds, ―Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant and all its ceremonies are obsolete and have vanished away (Heb. 8:13). Taking these passages and Col. 2:16 together, they clearly teach that when the Old Covenant goes, the triad of Col. 2:16 goes as well.
> 
> *2. The Old Testament prophesies the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.*
> 
> Just as there is evidence from the OT that the Sabbath will be abolished under the New Covenant, so there is evidence that it will continue. At first glance this appears contradictory. But on further investigation, it is not contradictory and, in fact, fits the evidence provided thus far for the creation basis of the Sabbath and its unique place in the Decalogue in its function as moral law. Two passages deserve our attention at this point, Is. 56:1-8 and Jer. 31:33. Isaiah‘s prophecy of the Sabbath under the New Covenant is explicit and Jeremiah‘s is implicit.
> 
> *
> Isaiah 56:1-8*
> 
> (Isaiah 56:1-8)
> 
> 
> 
> Thus says the LORD: ―Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, "The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, "Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants--everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant--even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, ―Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several observations will assist us in understanding how this passage prophesies explicitly the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant. First, the section of the book of Isaiah starting at chapter 40 and ending with chapter 66 points forward to the days of Messiah and in some places to the eternal state. This section includes language pointing forward to the time primarily between the two comings of Christ, the interadvental days of the New Covenant. It is understood this way by the New Testament in several places (see Matt. 3:3; 8:16, 17; 12:15-21; and Acts 13:34).
> 
> Second, Is. 56:1-8 speaks prophetically of a day in redemptive history in which God will save Gentiles (cf., esp. vv. 7 and 8). The language of "all nations" in v. 7 reminds us of the promise given to Abraham concerning blessing all nations through his seed (see Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3:8, 16). This Abrahamic promise is pursued by the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20. Isaiah is speaking about New Covenant days.
> 
> Third, in several New Testament texts, using the motif of fulfillment, the language of Is. 56:1-8 (and the broader context) is applied to the days between Christ‘s first and second comings (Matt. 21:12-13; Acts 8:26-40; Eph. 2:19; and 1 Tim. 3:15). Compare Matt. 21:13, “My house shall be called a house of prayer," with Is. 56:7, “For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." This anticipates the inclusion of Gentiles in the house of God, a common NT phenomenon. Compare Acts 8:26-40 (notice a eunuch was reading from Isaiah) with Is. 56:3-5, which says:
> 
> (Is. 56:3-5)
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, ―The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, ―Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: ―To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant placed restrictions on eunuchs. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, ―He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. Isaiah is prophesying about a day in redemptive history when those restrictions will no longer apply.
> 
> In Eph. 2:19 the church is called the "household of God" and in 1 Tim. 3:15 it is called "the house of God."The context of 1 Tim. 3:15 includes 1 Tim. 2:1-7, where Paul outlines regulations for church prayer. Now consider Is. 56:7, which says:
> 
> (Is. 56:7)
> 
> 
> 
> Even them [i.e., the foreigners (Gentiles) of v. 6a] I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NT sees Isaiah‘s prophecy as fulfilled under the New Covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold there (Is. 56) are transformed to fit the conditions brought in by the New Covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the New Covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the New Covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the New Covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the New Covenant (i.e., from the seventh to the first day). Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophesy looks like when being fulfilled. Jeremiah does this with thepromise of the New Covenant. What was promised to "the house of Israel" and "the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), is fulfilled in the Jew-Gentile church, the New Covenant people of God, the transformed Israel of OT prophecy.
> 
> With these considerations before us, it seems not only plausible but compelling to conclude that between the two advents of Christ, when the Old Covenant law restricting eunuchs no longer restricts them, and when the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) are becoming the Lord‘s and frequenting his house, which is his Church, a Sabbath (see Is. 56:2, 4, 6) yet remains. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of Sabbath-keeping in New Covenant days. The English Puritan John Bunyan, commenting on Isaiah 56, said, "Also it follows from hence, that the sabbath that has a promise annexed to the keeping of it, is rather that which the Lord Jesus shall give to the churches of the Gentiles."7
> 
> Again, the essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not in the Old Covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God‘s moral law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also concerning the Hebrews 4:9 passage concerning a Sabbath rest...
> 
> Those guys who quote the Colossians and Hebrew verses need to know that there are legitimate discussions and commentaries that support a sabbatarian view. I read an article by Robert P. Martin in the Reformed Baptist Theological review were he spoke on these verses. I am going to leave a quote from this article here concerning the Hebrews passage and the terms used.
> 
> Reformed Baptist Theological Review
> vl. 1.2 A Sabbath Remains.. The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament's Witness to the Lord's Day by Robert P. Martin
> (Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
> 
> In it he notes the Word used here is σαββατισμός and not κατάπαυσις
> 
> (rest).
> G4520
> σαββατισμός
> sabbatismos
> 
> This is an obscure term evidently that is used in just a few other places outside of the scriptures but used only once in the New Testament. Robert Martin says,
> 
> 
> 
> "I think that it is of interest that "in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath," i.e., not "a Sabbath rest" as a state that is entered into but "a Sabbath-keeping" as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word's morphology, for the suffix -μός indicates an action and not just a state. see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 151.
> Reformed Baptist Theological Review Vl. 1;2 p.5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words there is still a 1 in 7 day where we are still required to observe a sabbath.
> 
> Obviously the article consists of the surrounding verses but it is a good read and quotes John Owen who is one of my faves.
Click to expand...


----------



## jwithnell

I don't think _that_ our Lord's Day continues to be commanded of us was in question here -- but coming to an understanding of what the Col. passage does teach. I didn't start all this but I certain do appreciate the insights the more learned have offered! 

I do want to take a closer look at the Hosea 2:11 passage our dear Norseman has quoted. Its use in the quotation doesn't line up with my memory of the "legal" case that was being made against the northern kingdom and the impending judgment against her.


----------



## Scott1

JP Wallace said:


> I used to believe that the Colossians text was about ceremonial Sabbaths and not THE Sabbath, I have come to the conclusion that as Rev. Winzer has explained that Paul is including the weekly Jewish 7th Day Sabbath as well.
> 
> Therefore what he is saying is that no man can bind us to any day for worship or resting as a Sabbath and we are not to keep the 7th day Sabbath. Yet the Sabbath is a creational ordinance and contained in the Moral Law. If man cannot bind us to any day, and the Jewish Sabbath (7th day) is fulfilled in Christ, what day shall we/must we keep? The answer must come from the positive law of the NT Scriptures and only day mentioned is the 1st Day - The Lord's Day Sabbath.



It's interesting,
The Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession, virtually identical here, use the term
"the Christian sabbath."



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XXI.
> Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
> 
> VII. As it is 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 has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] 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,[35] which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,[36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, *as the Christian Sabbath*.[37]





> London Baptist Confession
> Chapter 22.
> Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
> 
> 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 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 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.
> ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )



That is in line with distinguishing it from the ceremonial law (and perhaps civil law of Israel) bound sabbath that Christians of the first century, at the time of Colossians, would have been dealing with. Many believers, being Jewish were making the transition away from that toward recognizing the fulfillment in Christ (both in terms of the ceremony and to that particular nation as Messiah).

So, it quite reasonably was a significant issue to explain.

The new moon festivals, feasts and other ceremonies oftentimes connected with the sabbath day had been fulfilled. The civil law given Israel was expiring because the Messiah had come to the nation as God's vehicle to go to the nations...

It's quite understandable how this was a lot to "digest" to first century believers.


----------



## JP Wallace

Scott

I'd have no problem using the term Christian Sabbath as well, I think the Lord's Day = the Christian Sabbath, it *is* the Sabbath now, continuing on from the Old Covenant Sabbath. The day has changed, the duty, responsibility and privilege of keeping 1 in 7 holy unto the Lord has not. 

I'm only saying that in case anyone thinks I'm meaning something different by the terminology.


----------



## JP Wallace

It should also be noted, that Dr. Pipa (in _The Lord's Day_ pages 95-110) espouses this position - that last-Day-Sabbath keeping is set aside by Paul here, not just the other ceremonial Sabbaths (though it does all that too!).

"The most significant sign, however, was the seventh-day Sabbath. When Adam fell into sin, God gave the promise of the Saviour. Until He came, the Old Testament saints would remain under bondage, awaiting the day of their inheritance (Gal. 3:23-26). In their end-of-the-week Sabbath, they anticipated the coming of the Messiah who was to be the true rest-giver. Thus, the day of their Sabbath observance was a shadow of the Saviour's coming. When he came, He actually did part of His atoning work on the seventh-day Sabbath, by remaining in the tomb, suffering death and burial in the place of His people. When he arose on the first day, He entered into His rest."

_(The Lord's Day_, Page 103)

This is THE best modern book, and in my opinion THE best book ever, on the Sabbath Day, at least that I have read.


----------



## Marrow Man

Some thoughts on Colossians 2:16 from a study we did on Wednesdays earlier this year. Some of this follows Dr. Pipa's book, as well as Keith Weber's book on the Sabbath, published by Day One.


It is not just the Sabbath that is mentioned; all the Jewish holy days are included.
It is not the days themselves but the festivals associated with the days that are in view (see 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:32-33).
Why? These days were a relic of the older administration of God (they were shadows), and something new had come in Christ (the substance); to revert back to them would be like denying Christ (the lesson of Hebrews).
“In short, in this section of his letter Paul has nothing to say about the Fourth Commandment, and his reference to Sabbaths is simply a natural one on account of his argument concerning the rituals of the Old Testament law which took place on such days.” ~ Keith Weber


I would add, though, that Colossians 2:16 is a passage I would go to if someone (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists) insisted on a seventh day observation of the Sabbath. I think such a position would present enormous theological problems, such as an implicit denial of Christ's resurrection on the Lord's Day and the fulfillment of the ceremonial law in Him.


----------



## Presentist

JP Wallace said:


> I think the Lord's Day = the Christian Sabbath



What is the scriptural reason to believe that "the Lord's Day" is the *first* day of the week?

I think the term "the Lord's Day" is only mentioned once in the Bible and that passage does not say *what* day of the week it is.

It would seem that the term "the Lord's Day" could just as easily refer to the *seventh* day since "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it".

Do we rely on *tradition* to demand that "the Lord's Day" is the *first* day of the week?


----------



## JP Wallace

As Joshua says above, but also specifically the unmistakable similarity between Rev 1 Lord's Day terminology and Isaiah 58

Isaiah 58:13 13 " If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on *My holy day*, And call the Sabbath a delight, *The holy day of the LORD* honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 

Those who received Revelation first of all would obviously have been able to identify what the Lord's Day was, it would have been a familiar phrase, and since we see the practice of the early church was 1st worship, and that this was obviously likewise their Sabbath, it is pretty clear that this 1st Day Sabbath was the Lord's Day.


----------



## Presentist

JP Wallace said:


> Isaiah 58:13 13 " If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on *My holy day*, And call the Sabbath a delight, *The holy day of the LORD* honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words,



I am not sure I follow you. What day do you believe Isaiah was referring to as "My holy day" and "the Sabbath"? The seventh day or the first day of the week.


----------



## JP Wallace

He was in the first place referring to the creational principle of keeping 1 in 7 sacred, in the second place, he is referring to the 7th day Sabbath, as he is writing to the Old Covenant Jews.

Regardless of that my point was to illustrate that the terminology Lord's Day, or Day of the Lord is (as Joshua wrote above) all over the Bible and frequently refers to the Sabbath Day. Thus the expectation is that when John uses it in Revelation he is referring to the Sabbath Day, which day (from the book of Acts data) is the 1st Day.


----------



## Presentist

JP Wallace said:


> [the first day of the week] was obviously likewise their Sabbath



What scripture reference shows that the first day of the week was their "Sabbath?" There are passages that could show they got together on the first day of the week for collections etc., but what passage shows that they "rested and did not do any work" on the first day of the week (which would be a sign that they were observing the Sabbath on that day)?

On the contrary, Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

That verse shows that Paul intentionally made his plans so that he would travel on the first day of the week. I don't think he would have done that if he were observing the first day as the Sabbath (the day of rest).

---------- Post added at 02:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------




JP Wallace said:


> he is referring to the 7th day Sabbath



My point was that since (as you agree) "My holy day" and "the Sabbath" refer to the seventh day, that we could naturally expect John's reference to "the Lord's day" to refer to the seventh day as well.

And since the one verse that mentions the phrase "the Lord's day" does not mention which day of the week it was...

Do we rely on *tradition* to demand that "the Lord's Day" is the *first* day of the week?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The day change is getting a bit off topic. Here is a page that has some helpful writings on it concerning the issue. 

A Puritan's Mind » Search Results » The day changed


----------



## JP Wallace

Philip,

Two questions:

1) Have you read this discussion from the beginning?
2) Do you subscribe to the 1689 Second London Confession of Faith, because you appear to be taking positions that are either questioning its theology or are in opposition to the 22nd Chapter Paragraph 7?

If you had read from the beginning you would see that the discussion has been about how Colossians 2 is about the change of day on which the Sabbath is to be observed.

You would also have picked up that we do not rely on "tradition" to establish that the Lord's Day is both the Christian Sabbath and the 1st Day of the week, rather we rely on

a) an understanding that the Sabbath is a creational ordinance and is therefore of permanent applicability to God's people
b) that 7th day Sabbath and all other sabbaths have been fulfilled in Christ, though that fulfilling of the ceremonial, Mosaic sabbath regulation does not render the creational ordinance null and void
c) the 7th day regulation was designated as the day of the Lord, His holy day and that, the 4th commandment urges us to keep one day in 7 holy unto the Lord, it would appear that the Lord's Day (or similar terms) is a term for the Sabbath Day (in whatever administration)
d) it is clear from Colossians 2 that we are NOT permitted to bind anyone to keep the 7th day Sabbath, or any other Jewish ceremonial Sabbath, though in no way does Paul even intimate that the creation ordinance requirement is nullified.
e) the early church obviously met on the 1st day. Since no other day is highlighted and since the creation ordinance was and is still binding upon all, we assume therefore that this 1st day was indeed kept as the Sabbath, there is no other evidence to go on. (though Church history backs this up)
f) since the Sabbath was called the day of the Lord, his Day, the Lord's Day in the Old Covenant administration, and, since the only day highlighted as the worship day in the New Covenant church is the 1st day, then we assume that when John says he was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day that this was the 1st day and the Sabbath.

*I remind you again that this is a confessional belief and as such is not up for discussion on this board.
*
2nd LBCF 22:7._____ 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 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 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.


----------



## Presentist

> "The first day of the week" is Sunday. Ergo, "the morrow" would have been Monday.



Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

Since the first day of the week started at sundown Saturday, and since "upon" seems to imply the *beginning* of the day, I have understood that they "came together to break bread" after sundown on Saturday (the beginning of the first day of the week). Paul then preached until midnight, and traveled the next morning (still the first day of the week).

What day and what time of day are you saying is referred to by "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread?" Saturday evening, Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon, or Sunday evening?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That still is assuming that morrow doesn't mean the next succeeding day. The next succeeding day would be Monday no matter how you slice it. And it is off topic as I noted above.

succeeding day
ἐπαύριον

not morning
πρωΐ́


----------



## Presentist

JP Wallace said:


> Two questions:
> 1) Have you read this discussion from the beginning?
> 2) Do you subscribe to the 1680 Second London Confession of Faith, because you appear to be taking positions that are either questioning its theology or are in opposition to the 22nd Chapter Paragraph 7?



1. Yes
2. Yes. I even subscribe to Chapter 26 Paragraph 4 in contrast to most on this forum. 



JP Wallace said:


> we assume that when John says he was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day that this was the 1st day



That may answer my question. We "assume" that John is referring to the first day of the week when he mentioned "the Lord's day."

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> And it is off topic as I noted above.



True. But to limit this to one final off-topic post, can you answer...

What day and what time of day are you saying is referred to by "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread?" Saturday evening, Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon, or Sunday evening?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

point is irrelevant.....

the Greek means succeeding day and not the next morning. It was the first day of the week. And the text says epaurion not prōi. Therefore the next day is Monday.


----------



## JP Wallace

Lest there be any doubt, by 'assume' I do not concede that this is a traditional doctrine or practice. The assumption is made on the basis of clear biblical facts as expressed above. The only additional data that would exceed this would be if John said that it was the first day. That would make things more certain, but what we have is only a very little less than certain given all the information we do have.

LBCF 1:6. The whole Councel of God concerning all things necessary for his own Glory, Mans Salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressely set down or *necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture*; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

WCF 1:6 VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture,* or by good and necessary consequence *may be deduced from Scripture:

I will take you at your word regarding your adherence to the confession but you need to be clear that when you write the following it does not appear to harmonise with that statement of adherence,



> "What scripture reference shows that the first day of the week was their "Sabbath?" There are passages that could show they got together on the first day of the week for collections etc., but what passage shows that they "rested and did not do any work" on the first day of the week (which would be a sign that they were observing the Sabbath on that day)?"



In asking this question are you not in fact questioning the confessions statement that the Sabbath has changed from 7th day to 1st day, and that the early church did keep the 1st day as their Sabbath?

2nd LBCF 22:7._____ 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 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 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.

*In the above quoted statement you are questioning two positions that confession teachs a) that the 1st day was kept as the Sabbath and b) that this 1st day Sabbath was the Lord's Day.*


----------



## Presentist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> point is irrelevant.....



Surely not. This passage is one of only two verses listed in the confession to prove the point that the Sabbath is now the first day instead of the seventh day. Our understanding of this verse cannot be irrelevant.

Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

Which midnight did Paul preach through? Midnight Saturday or midnight Sunday?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Point is irrelevant because the days are noted. Be careful you don't let the minute detract or misguide you from the whole.


----------



## Presentist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Point is irrelevant because the days are noted. Be careful you don't let the minute detract or misguide you from the whole.



Okay. But do you have an answer to the questions...

Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

Which midnight did Paul preach through? Midnight Saturday or midnight Sunday?

What day and what time of day are you saying is referred to by "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread?" Saturday evening, Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon, or Sunday evening?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I don't off hand. You are assuming a lot on when the preaching and attending to the Lord's table started either way. You are assuming that the Preaching and Lord's table was attended to at a specific time as in the beginning of sundown also. If I am not mistaken the Sabbath started in one's home and proceeded to the synagogue during daylight the following. If that be the case then they met during the daylight and not during the night while they were in their homes. If that is the case they started in the morning or later on the first day of the week and it might have carried over into the next day thus having St. Paul leaving on the day after the first day of the week. 

Please address Pastor Wallace's post.


JP Wallace said:


> In the above quoted statement you are questioning two positions that confession teachs a) that the 1st day was kept as the Sabbath and b) that this 1st day Sabbath was the Lord's Day.


----------



## py3ak

Two points may be worth considering:
1. It is an assumption (and in my view unwarranted) that Luke is following the Jewish method of tracking time (sundown to sundown). According to Edersheim, even the Jews did not always track time that way.
2. Psalm 118 speaks of the day that the Lord has made in reference to the resurrection of Christ (which happened on the first day of the week); that is the natural OT background to Revelation 1.


----------



## Presentist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> they started in the morning or later on the first day of the week and it might have carried over into the next day



Okay. Since the first day ends at sundown, it would seem that the majority of their meeting was on the second day since Paul preached past midnight.

Thank you for your answer. I have searched the web and it seems very difficult to find an answer.

Do the rest of you agree with PuritanConvenanter? If not, what of you believe...

What day and what time of day are you saying is referred to by "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread?" Saturday evening, Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon, or Sunday evening?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Presentist said:


> Okay. Since the first day ends at sundown, it would seem that the majority of their meeting was on the second day since Paul preached past midnight.
> 
> Thank you for your answer. I have searched the web and it seems very difficult to find an answer.
> 
> Do the rest of you agree with PuritanConvenanter? If not, what of you believe...



First off, you don't seem to listen very well. It doesn't appear the majority of their meeting was on a second day. Not even with the scenerio I mentioned. Second I told you this was off topic. Learn how to listen please. I am speaking as a moderator.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Also you need to address this post Philip.



JP Wallace said:


> Lest there be any doubt, by 'assume' I do not concede that this is a traditional doctrine or practice. The assumption is made on the basis of clear biblical facts as expressed above. The only additional data that would exceed this would be if John said that it was the first day. That would make things more certain, but what we have is only a very little less than certain given all the information we do have.
> 
> LBCF 1:6. The whole Councel of God concerning all things necessary for his own Glory, Mans Salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressely set down or *necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture*; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
> 
> WCF 1:6 VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture,* or by good and necessary consequence *may be deduced from Scripture:
> 
> I will take you at your word regarding your adherence to the confession but you need to be clear that when you write the following it does not appear to harmonise with that statement of adherence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What scripture reference shows that the first day of the week was their "Sabbath?" There are passages that could show they got together on the first day of the week for collections etc., but what passage shows that they "rested and did not do any work" on the first day of the week (which would be a sign that they were observing the Sabbath on that day)?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In asking this question are you not in fact questioning the confessions statement that the Sabbath has changed from 7th day to 1st day, and that the early church did keep the 1st day as their Sabbath?
> 
> 2nd LBCF 22:7._____ 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 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 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.
> 
> *In the above quoted statement you are questioning two positions that confession teachs a) that the 1st day was kept as the Sabbath and b) that this 1st day Sabbath was the Lord's Day.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Presentist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> In asking this question are you not in fact questioning the confessions statement that the Sabbath has changed from 7th day to 1st day, and that the early church did keep the 1st day as their Sabbath?



I hold to the London Baptist Confession and I attend church on Sunday. But I am asking for the scriptural passages that show that the Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week from the last day of the week. We should have answers for what we believe, and they should be derived "sola-scriptura."

I just got back from a weeklong conference on the London Baptist Confession and they did not provide much scriptural reason to believe that idea without relying on the tradition of the early church.

P.S. To avoid getting this thread off topic, I tried to open a new thread for this discussion but it seems to have been deleted.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tolle Lege...

Here is plenty of material for you to look at. I referred to it earlier. Ruben and I gave you a few good answers about the Acts passage. The change of day didn't drop out of the sky. It was derived from scripture. Py3ak alluded to it from Psalm 118 above. Here is other material on the subject. Tolle Lege. 

A Puritan's Mind » Search Results » The day changed


----------



## Presentist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ruben and I gave you a few good answers about the Acts passage.



Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading your posts I think you would answer my questions this way...

What day and what time of day are you saying is referred to by "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread?" Saturday evening, Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon, or Sunday evening?

*You would answer, sometime during the daylight on Sunday.*

What midnight did Paul preach through, midnight Saturday or midnight Sunday?

*You would answer, midnight Sunday.*

Is that correct?


----------



## JP Wallace

Philip

The proof texts are in the Confession. Do you agree with them or not? 

For your convenience I list them Exo. 20.8. 1 Cor. 16.1,2. *Act. 20.7*. Rev. 1.10.

Notice the third one, the very text you keep bringing up is used by the Confession writers as a proof text in direct opposition to your 'theory'.

Furthermore you repeated emphasis on "upon" the first day is non-sensical the Greek lying behind upon has a wide variety of meanings, and none of them necessarily suggest 'at the beginning of' as you seem to want it to.

For example

NKJ Matthew 3:1 *In those* days John the Baptist....


NKJ Matthew 13:25 "*but while* men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.


NKJ Luke 1:26 *Now in* the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,

NKJ Acts 17:16 *Now while *Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.

There are 22 go look them up.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Presentist said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In asking this question are you not in fact questioning the confessions statement that the Sabbath has changed from 7th day to 1st day, and that the early church did keep the 1st day as their Sabbath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hold to the London Baptist Confession and I attend church on Sunday. But I am asking for the scriptural passages that show that the Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week from the last day of the week. We should have answers for what we believe, and they should be derived "sola-scriptura."
> 
> I just got back from a weeklong conference on the London Baptist Confession and they did not provide much scriptural reason to believe that idea without relying on the tradition of the early church.
> 
> P.S. To avoid getting this thread off topic, I tried to open a new thread for this discussion but it seems to have been deleted.
Click to expand...


The thread you started wasn't about the change of day. It was in reference to what we have answered here concerning times of day and days. You have a few good answers to that question from Py3ak and myself. You also threw in an assumption that I thoroughly deny. If Paul did keep on past sundown it didn't go into a majority. It does fully answer your question as does Py3ak's answer concerning your assumption of time. 

Tolle Lege...
Here is plenty of material for you to look at. I referred to it earlier. Ruben and I gave you a few good answers about the Acts passage. The change of day didn't drop out of the sky. It was derived from scripture. Py3ak alluded to it from Psalm 118 above. Here is other material on the subject. Tolle Lege. 

Read these writings...
A Puritan's Mind » Search Results » The day changed


----------



## Presentist

JP Wallace said:


> The proof texts are in the Confession. Do you agree with them or not?
> 
> For your convenience I list them Exo. 20.8. 1 Cor. 16.1,2. *Act. 20.7*. Rev. 1.10.



I am asking for clarification on how Acts 20:7 applies. What do you think Acts 20:7 shows...

What midnight does Paul preach through, midnight Saturday or midnight Sunday?


----------



## JP Wallace

I'm sorry brother but if you can't see how Acts 20:7 applies in exactly the same way as 1 Cor 16:1,2 applies I doubt any explanation I could give would convince you. 

It was midnight Sunday and I have not the slightest doubt of it as 99.9% of Christians wouldn't have either.

I'm dropping the subject.


----------



## JP Wallace

Now having dispensed with that subject perhaps you would have the good grace to answer my question?



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I will take you at your word regarding your adherence to the confession but you need to be clear that when you write the following it does not appear to harmonise with that statement of adherence,
> 
> "What scripture reference shows that the first day of the week was their "Sabbath?" There are passages that could show they got together on the first day of the week for collections etc., but what passage shows that they "rested and did not do any work" on the first day of the week (which would be a sign that they were observing the Sabbath on that day)?"
> In asking this question are you not in fact questioning the confessions statement that the Sabbath has changed from 7th day to 1st day, and that the early church did keep the 1st day as their Sabbath?
> 
> 2nd LBCF 22:7._____ 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 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 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.
> 
> In the above quoted statement you are questioning two positions that confession teachs a) that the 1st day was kept as the Sabbath and b) that this 1st day Sabbath was the Lord's Day.


----------



## Presentist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> If Paul did keep on past sundown it didn't go into a majority.



How do you figure...

Acts 20:11 says "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed."

If they met on Sunday afternoon as you say, then when sundown came it was now the second day of the week. So Paul's preaching from sundown to the break of the next day was on the second day of the week. That would make 12 hours of preaching on the second day of the week as opposed to the first day of the week.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Presentist said:


> JP Wallace said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof texts are in the Confession. Do you agree with them or not?
> 
> For your convenience I list them Exo. 20.8. 1 Cor. 16.1,2. *Act. 20.7*. Rev. 1.10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for clarification on how Acts 20:7 applies. What do you think Acts 20:7 shows...
> 
> What midnight does Paul preach through, midnight Saturday or midnight Sunday?
Click to expand...

What does it matter? What are you trying to prove? We tried to show you that your assumption is merely assumption. Py3ak even showed you that you that the Hebrews didn't always view time like you are trying to portray it. Luke was a Gentile. He may have been referencing time differently. Either way, I asked you to go study the topic. We gave you answers. How are you applying God's word in keeping the Sabbath? That would be of far better benefit for you than minoring over minutia and not receiving God's instruction to be a doer of the Word. Are you implying that this one text would over rule the Christian Sabbath depending on which midnight is meant here? I don't think you can based upon the Greek words for day and morning. That point has been made. You have your answers. 



py3ak said:


> Two points may be worth considering:
> 1. It is an assumption (and in my view unwarranted) that Luke is following the Jewish method of tracking time (sundown to sundown). According to Edersheim, even the Jews did not always track time that way.
> 2. Psalm 118 speaks of the day that the Lord has made in reference to the resurrection of Christ (which happened on the first day of the week); that is the natural OT background to Revelation 1.


----------



## Presentist

JP Wallace said:


> It was midnight Sunday



Okay. Thank you for your answer. In summary, you would say...

They came together sometime on Sunday afternoon (the first day of the week), they ate a meal and Paul began to preach. He preached halfway into the second day of the week before he travelled.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Presentist said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Paul did keep on past sundown it didn't go into a majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure...
> 
> Acts 20:11 says "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed."
> 
> If they met on Sunday afternoon as you say, then when sundown came it was now the second day of the week. So Paul's preaching from sundown to the break of the next day was on the second day of the week. That would make 12 hours of preaching on the second day of the week as opposed to the first day of the week.
Click to expand...


What are you trying to prove Phil? I don't get the correlation. The Sabbath ended at a specific time probably. But if they wanted to go longer at being instructed and eating together, how does that negate the Sabbath? What is your point? Have you not ever lingered for something after Church or after a Bible Study for edification? I would encourage you to become a doer of the word instead of focusing on this minutia as if it was going to prove something against the Sabbath or tradition.


----------



## Presentist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Sabbath ended at a specific time probably.



Probably?? Do you not think that there is a specific beginning and ending to the Sabbath?



PuritanCovenanter said:


> What is your point? Have you not ever lingered for something after Church or after a Bible Study for edification?



I was pointing out that in that particular instance, Paul preached more on the second day of the week than on the first day of the week. You did not seem to agree.


----------



## py3ak

Philip, what is your argument?

Days are measured sundown to sundown;
Therefore Paul preached more on Monday than Sunday;
Therefore ... ?

If Paul starts on Sunday, and preaches until daybreak Monday, he hasn't preached more on Monday than Sunday; that supposition is only true if it can be shown that Luke thinks of days measured sundown-sundown. He could have spoken for as little as four hours on a Monday.

But let's say Paul did preach more on Monday than Sunday. So what? First of all, this a meeting that became unusual (even in Paul's meetings people didn't routinely die and get raised). The end of the meeting is less significant than its beginning. _Although Paul is in a hurry, he waits for the first day of the week to start this meeting_. Plainly he had a particular reason for doing that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Presentist said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sabbath ended at a specific time probably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably?? Do you not think that there is a specific beginning and ending to the Sabbath?
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point? Have you not ever lingered for something after Church or after a Bible Study for edification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was pointing out that in that particular instance, Paul preached more on the second day of the week than on the first day of the week. You did not seem to agree.
Click to expand...

Phil, my question to you is how does this knowledge apply to you? You seem to be fishing for something. I don't know how long Paul preached and I would have to make assumptions concerning this as you would also. We don't know how much time was spent on Preaching the Word, teaching the word, fellowshipping over a meal, partaking of the Lord's table, singing of the Psalms, or whatever they did. We can speculate over a lot of those things. But you raised this question in relationship to the Sabbath. 

My question to you is how does this knowledge help you apply the Sabbath? Why are you making the assumptions you are making? Concerning your first assumption I would say you were out of the ball park but that is my take. It looks like you are majoring on a minor trying to prove or disprove something by this text but you are missing the point of the text and why it is referenced. Phil, how is this text helping you apply the biblical principle of the Sabbath?



PuritanCovenanter said:


> If they met on Sunday afternoon as you say,


And I didn't say they specifically met at noon on the Sabbath as you said I did. I don't know when they started their meeting. And it is really irrelevant in my estimation. I didn't say the service started at midday. You keep saying things that I am not saying. It might well have started in the morning. I said I don't know. 

I stand corrected concerning how long they lingered. But to say they continued in the Sabbath tradition and service after the Sabbath day ended is assumption also. I don't understand what you are getting at and why it matters. As to how you apply this is more important in my estimation. Attending to the Sabbath is more important than trying to figure out why St. Paul continued past it unless you are trying to disprove that observing the Christian Sabbath is sound doctrine. So how does this passage spur you on in Christ would be my concern. Does it?


----------



## Presentist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't understand what you are getting at and why it matters.



I am asking for clarification how certain verses support our doctrines and you ask "why it matters?" I personally want to be able to give the best answer to everyone who asks me what I believe.

The London Baptist Confession lists Exodus 20 to support the doctrine that "[God] 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."

That seems clear since Exodus 20:8-11 says "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

That seems like a strong direct command from God, and I am sure you are aware of the other verses that show just how important the sabbath is to God.

The Confession then lists three verses to support the doctrine that "the observation of the last day of the week being abolished." If we are going to abolish the strong direct command of God in Exodus 20, I was hoping for a similar strong direct command from God to "abolish the observation of the last day of the week."

Below are the three verses. Notice that the "sabbath" is not even mentioned in any of the verses. One verse does not say what day it is, and the other verses do not say they are abolishing the seventh day sabbath, or that they are even necessarily observing the sabbath in those instances. They could just be meeting as they did often.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 says "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

Revelation 1:10 says "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"

I agree with the Confession, but it seems we do in fact have to refer to the tradition of the early church (and not just these verses) in order to defend the doctrine to "abolish the observation of the last day of the week."


----------



## he beholds

Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

And on Sunday, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on Monday; and continued his speech until sometime after 11:59 pm Sunday evening. 

I don't at all get what the question is and I can't tell if you are trying to mess with my head or if it is a genuinely good question (I go back-and-forth when trying to read through the latter half of this thread), but I think it is very clear what Acts 20:7 means. I've given what I think it clearly means. Not that I understand what you think _that _means.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Presentist said:


> The Confession then lists three verses to support the doctrine that "the observation of the last day of the week being abolished." If we are going to abolish the strong direct command of God in Exodus 20, I was hoping for a similar strong direct command from God to "abolish the observation of the last day of the week."
> 
> ...I agree with the Confession, but it seems we do in fact have to refer to the tradition of the early church (and not just these verses) in order to defend the doctrine to "abolish the observation of the last day of the week."



Phil, 
I posted this earlier in this thread. There is scriptural support for the abrogation of the observing the last day and for support of a continuation of a Sabbath in the New Covenant. This post might be of some help to you. It is based upon scripture. A friend of mine, Dr. Richard Barcellos, wrote this. He is a Reformed Baptist. I think it will help answer some of your question. Here is a portion of the post that I think will help you. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/objections-sabbath-using-colossians-2-16-a-71565/#post915533


> *1. The Old Testament prophesies the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.
> *
> 
> The OT clearly prophesies the abrogation and cessation of ancient Israel‘s Sabbaths. It does so in Hos. 2:11, which says, ―I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths--all her appointed feasts." We will make several observations that bear this out. First, Hosea‘s prophecy is dealing with the days of the New Covenant. The phrase ―in that day" (vv. 16, 18, 21) is used prophetically of New Covenant days in Is. 22:20. Revelation 3:7 quotes Is. 22:22 and applies it to Christ. The prophecy in Is. 22:20 mentions the Lord‘s servant, who is Christ. Isaiah 22:20-22 says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it shall be in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe and strengthen him with your belt; I will commit your responsibility into his hand. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation 3:7, quoting Is. 22:22, says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ―These things says He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase, ―in that day,
> ' refers to the days of Christ–the days of the New Covenant. Paul references Hos. 1:10 and 2:23 in Rom. 9:25, applying them to Christians. ―As He says also in Hosea: ‗I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved‘" (Rom. 9:25). Peter references Hos. 1:9-10 and 2:23 in 1 Pet. 2:10 and applies them to Christians as well. He says, ―who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy" (1 Pet. 2:10). Hosea is clearly speaking of New Covenant days. According to the NT usage of Hosea, he is speaking of the time in redemptive history when God will bring Gentiles into a saving relationship with Jews. Much of the NT deals with this very issue.
> 
> Second, Hos. 2:11 clearly prophesies the abrogation of Old Covenant Israel‘s Sabbaths, along with ―all her appointed feasts." Hosea uses a triad of terms (―feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths") that is used many places in the OT (1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; and Is. 1:13-14). Clearly, he is speaking of the abrogation of Old Covenant ceremonial laws. When the Old Covenant goes, Israel‘s feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts go with it.
> 
> Third, the NT confirms this understanding of Hos. 2:11. It uses this triad of terms in Col. 2:16, which says, ―So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths." In the context, Paul is combating those who were attempting to impose Old Covenant ceremonial law on New Covenant Christians. So Col. 2:16 is clear NT language that sees Hosea‘s prophecy as fulfilled. It is of interest to note that Paul uses the plural for Sabbath in Col. 2:16 (σάββατον). It is not too hard to assume that Paul had the OT triad in mind and Hosea‘s prophecy while penning these words. The NT announces the abrogation of the Old Covenant in
> many places. For instance, 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Gal. 3-4; Eph. 2:14-16; and Heb. 8-10 (cf. esp. 8:6-7, 13; 9:9-10, 15; 10:1, 15-18) are clear that the Old Covenant has been abrogated.
> 
> (Heb. 8:6-7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now He [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant [the New Covenant], which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant [the Old Covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 8:13)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that He says, ―A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 9:9-10)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 9:15)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 10:1)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Heb. 10:15-18)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, ―This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them, then He adds, ―Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant and all its ceremonies are obsolete and have vanished away (Heb. 8:13). Taking these passages and Col. 2:16 together, they clearly teach that when the Old Covenant goes, the triad of Col. 2:16 goes as well.
> 
> *2. The Old Testament prophesies the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.*
> 
> Just as there is evidence from the OT that the Sabbath will be abolished under the New Covenant, so there is evidence that it will continue. At first glance this appears contradictory. But on further investigation, it is not contradictory and, in fact, fits the evidence provided thus far for the creation basis of the Sabbath and its unique place in the Decalogue in its function as moral law. Two passages deserve our attention at this point, Is. 56:1-8 and Jer. 31:33. Isaiah‘s prophecy of the Sabbath under the New Covenant is explicit and Jeremiah‘s is implicit.
> 
> 
> (Isaiah 56:1-8)
> 
> 
> 
> Thus says the LORD: ―Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, "The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, "Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants--everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant--even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, ―Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several observations will assist us in understanding how this passage prophesies explicitly the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant. First, the section of the book of Isaiah starting at chapter 40 and ending with chapter 66 points forward to the days of Messiah and in some places to the eternal state. This section includes language pointing forward to the time primarily between the two comings of Christ, the interadvental days of the New Covenant. It is understood this way by the New Testament in several places (see Matt. 3:3; 8:16, 17; 12:15-21; and Acts 13:34).
> 
> Second, Is. 56:1-8 speaks prophetically of a day in redemptive history in which God will save Gentiles (cf., esp. vv. 7 and 8). The language of "all nations" in v. 7 reminds us of the promise given to Abraham concerning blessing all nations through his seed (see Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3:8, 16). This Abrahamic promise is pursued by the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20. Isaiah is speaking about New Covenant days.
> 
> Third, in several New Testament texts, using the motif of fulfillment, the language of Is. 56:1-8 (and the broader context) is applied to the days between Christ‘s first and second comings (Matt. 21:12-13; Acts 8:26-40; Eph. 2:19; and 1 Tim. 3:15). Compare Matt. 21:13, “My house shall be called a house of prayer," with Is. 56:7, “For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." This anticipates the inclusion of Gentiles in the house of God, a common NT phenomenon. Compare Acts 8:26-40 (notice a eunuch was reading from Isaiah) with Is. 56:3-5, which says:
> 
> (Is. 56:3-5)
> 
> 
> 
> Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, ―The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, ―Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: ―To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant placed restrictions on eunuchs. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, ―He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. Isaiah is prophesying about a day in redemptive history when those restrictions will no longer apply.
> 
> In Eph. 2:19 the church is called the "household of God" and in 1 Tim. 3:15 it is called "the house of God."The context of 1 Tim. 3:15 includes 1 Tim. 2:1-7, where Paul outlines regulations for church prayer. Now consider Is. 56:7, which says:
> 
> (Is. 56:7)
> 
> 
> 
> Even them [i.e., the foreigners (Gentiles) of v. 6a] I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NT sees Isaiah‘s prophecy as fulfilled under the New Covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold there (Is. 56) are transformed to fit the conditions brought in by the New Covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the New Covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the New Covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the New Covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the New Covenant (i.e., from the seventh to the first day). Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophesy looks like when being fulfilled. Jeremiah does this with thepromise of the New Covenant. What was promised to "the house of Israel" and "the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), is fulfilled in the Jew-Gentile church, the New Covenant people of God, the transformed Israel of OT prophecy.
> 
> With these considerations before us, it seems not only plausible but compelling to conclude that between the two advents of Christ, when the Old Covenant law restricting eunuchs no longer restricts them, and when the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) are becoming the Lord‘s and frequenting his house, which is his Church, a Sabbath (see Is. 56:2, 4, 6) yet remains. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of Sabbath-keeping in New Covenant days. The English Puritan John Bunyan, commenting on Isaiah 56, said, "Also it follows from hence, that the sabbath that has a promise annexed to the keeping of it, is rather that which the Lord Jesus shall give to the churches of the Gentiles."7
> 
> Again, the essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not in the Old Covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God‘s moral law.
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

Presentist said:


> I agree with the Confession, but it seems we do in fact have to refer to the tradition of the early church (and not just these verses) in order to defend the doctrine to "abolish the observation of the last day of the week."



Do you also believe this part of the LBC?



> Chapter 1, Paragraph 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, *our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.*8
> 8 John 16:13,14; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20,27



Just because your 'full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth (of the 1st Day Christian Sabbath), and divine authority thereof,' does not lie entirely in the Scriptures, does not mean the same is true for everyone else. If you require the tradition of the early church to establish the truth of 22:7, then you are not in the same kind of 'agreement' as the owners and moderators of this board. You need to just be honest and admit that you do not agree with 22:7 and then take on an attitude of a learner instead of a teacher.


----------



## Presentist

he beholds said:


> continued his speech until sometime after 11:59 pm Sunday evening.



Since the days went from sundown to sundown, it was actually 11:59pm Monday evening. Which means that at least 12 hours of his sermon was on the second day of the week (which started at sundown Sunday).



he beholds said:


> I think it is very clear what Acts 20:7 means.



It is only clear that they "came together to break bread", it is not clear that they were observing the Sabbath on that day instead of the previous day (since the "sabbath" is not mentioned). Acts 20:7 seems to be similar to John 20:19 that simply shows them assembling on the first day of the week. That was not for the purpose of observing the Sabbath.

Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

John 20:19 says "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."

Even if Acts 20:7 could show that they were observing the Sabbath by not working on the first day of the week, Acts 20:7 does not record a commandment. Whereas, there was a direct command from God to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week.

So it would seem that we do rely on the tradition of the early church to some degree.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------




KMK said:


> If you require the tradition of the early church to establish the truth of 22:7



There is no verse that mentions the "first day" of the week in relation to the "sabbath." Without the tradition of the early church, how would you show that God has commanded us to observe the Sabbath on the first day as opposed to the seventh day (which was His original command)?


----------



## he beholds

Presentist said:


> Since the days went from sundown to sundown, *it was actually 11:59pm Monday evening. *Which means that at least 12 hours of his sermon was on the second day of the week (which started at sundown Sunday).



You also said, earlier: 



> On the contrary, Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."
> 
> *That verse shows that Paul intentionally made his plans so that he would travel on the first day of the week. *I don't think he would have done that if he were observing the first day as the Sabbath (the day of rest).



So I really don't get what you are saying, now more than ever. 

Anyway, is it your opinion that preaching would have began at sundown (ie, what we call Saturday night?), rather than the _morning OF the first day_? From where do you come by this knowledge?

And what's your deal? Is this your pet theory that you go around trying to convince people of? And if so, to what end? I mean, you are pretty new here and you seem to be pretty focused on enlightening all of us--and it is frankly a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Scripture, so it just feels a little...rabid?


----------



## py3ak

Presentist said:


> Since the days went from sundown to sundown, it was actually 11:59pm Monday evening



This is your assumption which has been challenged. Until it is shown that Luke measures time in that way, your whole case is ungrounded. And as pointed out before, even if you were correct about that, it would still prove nothing.

Secondly, authorized example is a sufficient warrant for our practices. The seventh-day sabbath ceased (Colossians 2:16); the day of resurrection is in a special way the day the Lord has made (Psalm 118); the apostles observed the day of resurrection: the disciples met on those days, Christ appeared to them on those days, that was the day of taking the offerings (1 Corithians 16), that was the day of coming together to break bread (Acts 20), that was the Lord's day (Revelation 1).

Biblical evidence is not what is lacking.


----------



## KMK

Presentist said:


> There is no verse that mentions the "first day" of the week in relation to the "sabbath." Without the tradition of the early church, how would you show that God has commanded us to observe the Sabbath on the first day as opposed to the seventh day (which was His original command)?



This question has been sufficiently answered. This thread is closed. After reading and meditating on all that has been said, a new thread could be started in the future.


----------

