Objections to the Sabbath using Colossians 2:16

[Presentist]

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.

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 ----------

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

The Sabbath ended at a specific time probably.

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

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]

The Sabbath ended at a specific time probably.

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

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[KMK]

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.