More on Sabbath...

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by heartoflesh, Feb 13, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. heartoflesh

    heartoflesh Puritan Board Junior

    [u:07c42ce3e9]Romans 14:5-6[/u:07c42ce3e9]
    One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

    In your particular view of the Sabbath day, is this verse applicable?

    Yes or no? Why or why not?

    ~Rick
     
  2. heartoflesh

    heartoflesh Puritan Board Junior

  3. Canadian Baptist

    Canadian Baptist Puritan Board Freshman

    [quote:3201dbdb78][i:3201dbdb78]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:3201dbdb78]
    [u:3201dbdb78]Romans 14:5-6[/u:3201dbdb78]
    In your particular view of the Sabbath day, is this verse applicable?

    Yes or no? Why or why not?
    ~Rick [/quote:3201dbdb78]

    Yes, but this is not referring to the seventh day Sabbath only. If the Sabbath Law was part of the New Covenant, Paul surely would have clarified at this point that the 7th day Sabbath is an exception to what he was saying about the observance of days. What is beautiful here is that Paul exhorts both those who hold a day in special esteem and those who do not are not to ridicule each other. This is Christian liberty. However, to make the day we esteem into a Law, like under the Old Covenant, is when Paul changes his tone in this matter:

    Galatians 4:10
    You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

    The Galatians were being taught "another gospel." Justification by faith alone was being overthrown. Whenever we look back to the Law for Justification (or for Sanctification for that matter) we come under the wrong yoke.

    Galatians 3:10
    For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

    Here is my point in all this. If we are under the Law then we are cursed if we do not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. So when the Sabbath day law is brought forward to the New Covenant without it's related restrictions and commands about cooking etc, (which were written in the book of the law to do), then we are still looking to the works of the law to be accepable to God in some fashion. The liberty and enjoyment of either "observing it or not observing it for the Lord" which Paul describes in Romans 14:5 disappears because it is imposed as Law. That is why so many who think the Sabbath Law is for the New Covenant people start subjectively trying to sort through what is lawful and what is not lawful to do on the day they esteem. There will never be agreement about what is lawful. It should be obvious to us who love the Lord that He never gives laws without defining the parameters of those laws. There are no parameters in regard to a New covenant Sabbath because there is no New Covenant Sabbath except us resting from all our works in Christ. The only parameters for the Sabbath day are where they should be-- in the Old Covenant, associated with the seventh day of the week that God gave to His covenant people Israel.
    Soli Deo Gloria.

    [Edited on 2-14-2004 by Canadian Baptist]
     
  4. heartoflesh

    heartoflesh Puritan Board Junior

    CB,

    You are obviously "convinced in your own mind"! You obviously are convinced through your interpretation of Scripture as well, which may mean the same thing.

    The Sabbath debate is a tough one for me. Depending on who I am reading/listening to at the time, I can find myself somewhat in agreement with what is being taught.

    The question I ask myself regarding the Romans passage is this: If the Sabbath day is truly still part of the law which Christians are to keep, it would not make sense for Paul to be speaking of it in these libertarian terms. For instance, you wouldn't have Paul saying, "one man commits adultery and one man is faithful to his wife, let each man be convinced in his own mind"! That's why I would have to believe that to a strict Sabbatarian, this verse is not talking about Sabbath day observance.
     
  5. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    So if the one in seven principle of the Sabbath is no longer part of the law (which has always been part of the Sabbath until your interpretation of Hebrews 4), why do the churches meet once a week? On what grounds do they come to worship God on that one day a week? Why is it that the Lord's Day is considered so regular? Where does Scripture indicate that we must gather together for worship on the Lord's Day? Why not only do this once a month? Or once a year? Or once a day? Though you may not like the idea, you still practicaly obey the Sabbath in part, whether you consciously recognize it our not.
     
  6. cupotea

    cupotea Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:295fd4bf7e][i:295fd4bf7e]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:295fd4bf7e]
    So if the one in seven principle of the Sabbath is no longer part of the law (which has always been part of the Sabbath until your interpretation of Hebrews 4), why do the churches meet once a week? On what grounds do they come to worship God on that one day a week? Why is it that the Lord's Day is considered so regular? Where does Scripture indicate that we must gather together for worship on the Lord's Day? Why not only do this once a month? Or once a year? Or once a day? Though you may not like the idea, you still practicaly obey the Sabbath in part, whether you consciously recognize it our not. [/quote:295fd4bf7e]
    If I could ask a few questions at this point (specifically about the above comments), was not the OT Sabbath day centered on [u:295fd4bf7e]rest[/u:295fd4bf7e], not worship?
    Do not most churches actually meet for worship more than once a week? Do we base Wednesday night or Thursday night or Saturday night prayer and worship on the Sabbath commands?
    Are you saying that the Scripture does mandate that we gather on the Lord's Day, and if so, how does that relate to the Sabbath day--a day of rest?
    I go to church every week (most times more than once a week!), but I do not observe strict rest on those days, I travel more than a short distance from my home, I am willing to go to the grocery store, etc.--so in reality I am by no means observing the Sabbath.
    It seems that your list of questions above is based on an understanding of the Sabbath that the Scriptures do not support.
     
  7. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    Matt 24 (NKJV)
    15 "Therefore when you see the "abomination of desolation,'[3] spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), 16"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! [b:15978ec98c]20And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.[/b:15978ec98c] 21For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.


    If the Sabbath is no longer in effect, how does such an interpretation reconcile with this passage? If we no longer must worry about a seventh day Sabbath, why does Jesus issue such a warning?
     
  8. Canadian Baptist

    Canadian Baptist Puritan Board Freshman

    [quote:dcc4b21702][i:dcc4b21702]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:dcc4b21702]
    If the Sabbath is no longer in effect, how does such an interpretation reconcile with this passage? If we no longer must worry about a seventh day Sabbath, why does Jesus issue such a warning? [/quote:dcc4b21702]

    First of all, the only Sabbath that Jesus referred to is the only Sabbath that has ever existed and the only one He ever new--the SEVENTH DAY Sabbath (Saturday).
    Verse 16 tells us he is speaking to "those who are in Judea." He is talking about the Jews in regard to the events that surround the destruction of the temple, the seige of Jerusalem, and the end of the Jewish age (Matt.24:2, Luke 21:20-24)
    Unless one is dispensational, I don't think we would put this portion of the events Jesus is describing in the future.
     
  9. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:e624ee446b][i:e624ee446b]Originally posted by Canadian Baptist[/i:e624ee446b]
    [quote:e624ee446b][i:e624ee446b]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:e624ee446b]
    If the Sabbath is no longer in effect, how does such an interpretation reconcile with this passage? If we no longer must worry about a seventh day Sabbath, why does Jesus issue such a warning? [/quote:e624ee446b]

    First of all, the only Sabbath that Jesus referred to is the only Sabbath that has ever existed and the only one He ever new--the SEVENTH DAY Sabbath (Saturday).
    Verse 16 tells us he is speaking to "those who are in Judea." He is talking about the Jews in regard to the events that surround the destruction of the temple, the seige of Jerusalem, and the end of the Jewish age (Matt.24:2, Luke 21:20-24)
    Unless one is dispensational, I don't think we would put this portion of the events Jesus is describing in the future. [/quote:e624ee446b]

    Actually Jesus is talking to his disciples not the Jews:
    1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

    And whether you refer to it as the destruction of Jerusalem or the end of the world you still have Jesus warning his disciples about the possibility of fleeing on the Sabbath, which according to your interpretation would not be necessary. If the Sabbath is no longer a 1 in 7 principle, then why would Jesus even need to warn his disciples about it? Why would they even care?
     
  10. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    CBruno...

    [quote:4b8d760a3d]If I could ask a few questions at this point (specifically about the above comments), was not the OT Sabbath day centered on [u:4b8d760a3d]rest[/u:4b8d760a3d], not worship?[/quote:4b8d760a3d]

    I think you are right about this. There are many Sabbaths in the OT. Some were for Holy Covocations. The men had to go up three times a year. Also, the Sabbath was not necessarily always a Saturday. Many times, it was not a Saturday. The priests would start the month by the phases of the moon. So just like January 1st is not always on the first day of the week, so the new moon is not always a Sunday. However, a new moon would mark the beginning of the month. Seven days into the month, a Sabbath would be held.

    And, until the beginning of the synagogue period, I don't believe that there was a weekly worship service.

    I am also willing to see the "kindling of fires," in a different way as well. I do not think these were necessarily cooking fires, or if they were, they were made the day before and stoked, just as long as the fire was not made on the Sabbath but remained from the previous day.

    The kindling of fires could also have to do with work, of both the people and the priests. The craftsmen could not fashion anything on that day, nor could the priests light the lamps. The lamps had to be prepared the day before so that they would not go out. As well, the fires of sacrifice.

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  11. cupotea

    cupotea Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:9fdf913312]If the Sabbath is no longer in effect, how does such an interpretation reconcile with this passage? If we no longer must worry about a seventh day Sabbath, why does Jesus issue such a warning? [/quote:9fdf913312]

    Jesus' warning does not necessarily mean that the Sabbath would continue, for he could simply have in mind the inconveniences of fleeing on the Sabbath--inability to get food, closed gates in the city, etc. For more on this see, DA Carson's essay on Sabbath in the Gospels in [i:9fdf913312]From Sabbath to Lord's Day[/i:9fdf913312].
     
  12. Canadian Baptist

    Canadian Baptist Puritan Board Freshman

    [quote:687e0d2baf][i:687e0d2baf]Originally posted by cbruno01[/i:687e0d2baf]
    Jesus' warning does not necessarily mean that the Sabbath would continue, for he could simply have in mind the inconveniences of fleeing on the Sabbath--inability to get food, closed gates in the city, etc. For more on this see, DA Carson's essay on Sabbath in the Gospels in [i:687e0d2baf]From Sabbath to Lord's Day[/i:687e0d2baf]. [/quote:687e0d2baf]

    John Gill expresses a similar thought:

    And the reason why our Lord put them on praying, that their flight might not be on the sabbath day, was, because he knew not only that the Jews, who believed not in him, would not suffer them to travel on a sabbath day more than two thousand cubits; which, according to their traditions , was a sabbath day's journey; and which would not be sufficient for their flight to put them out of danger; but also, that those that did believe in him, particularly the Jerusalem Jews, would be all of them fond of the law of Moses, and scrupulous of violating any part of it, and especially that of the sabbath; see (Acts 21:20).....Now our Lord's meaning, in putting them on this petition, was, not to prevent the violation of the seventh day sabbath, or on account of the sacredness of it, which he knew would be abolished, and was abolished before this time; but he says this with respect to the opinion of the Jews, and "Judaizing" Christians, who, taking that day to be sacred, and fleeing on it unlawful, would find a difficulty with themselves, and others, to make their escape; otherwise it was as lawful to flee and travel on that day, as in the winter season; though both, for different reasons, incommodious.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page