Reformed Covenanter blog posts on the Sabbath

This week's post is one that will probably divide opinions among even strict Sabbath observers. In the below post, Silas Milton Andrews argues that we should not lie longer on the Lord's Day morning than on any other. While I can think of some objections to his argument, I think that he makes a fairly persuasive case. Either way, I think that it is fair enough to argue that unnecessary sleeping on the Sabbath is a profanation of it:

Do we find it difficult to rise as early on that day as during the week, that with the morning we may commence our duties? Let conscience speak, and we shall wake early. Let our love to God, and his service, only be as strong as our attachment to the things of the world, and no more of the Sabbath will be wasted in slumber, than of Monday morning. Men who labour through the week, contend for this indulgence; that they are wearied and need rest: besides, that the Sabbath is given for rest.

But, no reader of the Bible can say, that it is the rest of indolence and spiritual inactivity. The worship of God does not commonly demand the labours and exercise of the body; the mind only is called into healthful action; and this is also refreshing to the body. In answer to the plea, that being worn down with the cares of the week, and its toils, we may, consistently with duty, lie later on Sabbath morning than any other, it may be asked, Have we a right to expend our strength during the week, so as to unfit us for the duties of the Sabbath when they arrive?

If we found ourselves disinclined early to seek the Lord, last Sabbath, are we not bound to guard against such languor, when this holy day shall again dawn? Is not duty plain, that we ought to relax our labours on Saturday, that we may not lose the most precious hours of the Lord’s day? Were we our own, we might exercise our pleasure. But we are not. Man’s chief end is, to glorify God, and enjoy him, in this world, as well as hereafter.

Suppose you hire a man, to labour for you — you have a right to all his time; but you give him five days in the week for his own employment on condition that he will devote himself wholly to your work on the sixth. Has this man a right, so to arrange his business, and expend his strength, during the five days he labours for himself, that when the sixth day arrives, he cannot rise until late, nor commence his work until the morning be nearly past?

For the reference, see:

 
Defining "unnecessary" is sometimes tricky! But the Sabbath is such a blessing not to be squandered. Thank you for your weekly posts, Daniel.
 
This morning I attended the service at W. J. Grier's old church, Stranmillis Evangelical Presbyterian. Thus, it seems appropriate to share this post from him about the Sabbath:

The observance of the day rests upon the divine command and the divine example (Ex. xx. 11; Gn. ii. 2, 3). The principle underlying it is that man must copy God in his course of life. In the creation there was the sequence of six days of creative activity and a day of rest. Rest, of course, with God does not mean mere cessation from labour. It has a deeper and richer significance – it speaks of satisfaction and delight in the works of His hands. It is interesting to note that the seventh day was man’s first upon earth – he began his career by keeping sabbath with his God.

Christians often look on the Lord’s day as primarily for the sake of advancing religion. There is a danger in placing the emphasis too much in this direction. Its main significance is in the things of which it speaks. It witnesses to creation by God’s power at the beginning of history; and it reminds us of redemption accomplished through the crucified and risen Saviour. But these great truths do not exhaust its significance. It speaks also of eternity – of the sabbath rest that remains for the people of God. Its witness to these great truths as it recurs every week is every whit as necessary under the New Testament as under the Old. ...

For more, see:

 
Last edited:
Today's post for the Sabbath comes from the Free Church of Scotland's Robert S. Candlish. The post addresses the subject of mankind's right to a Sabbath and the benefit that it is to men of toil:

... The Sabbath was made for man; the Son of man is Lord of it. He asserts a right of property in his own name, and in the name of man; of mankind universally, and of every individual man in particular. This is a gracious charter, investing every child of Adam with a title to the free and undisturbed use of a weekly day of rest. It is a chartered title, which he may legitimately plead against all or any of his fellow-men who would invade or abridge his rest. A weekly Sabbath is the birth-right of humanity, ratified and vindicated by Him who represents humanity. The Sabbath was made for man. The Son of man is Lord of it.

Hear that, ye men of toil. Is it not good news for you? A weekly day of rest is yours; yours by divine right. It belongs to you as men. It is your property; as much your property as the bread for which you work so hard. Society is not entitled to defraud or deprive you of it. Your task-masters are not entitled to defraud or deprive you of it. You are not entitled to defraud or deprive one another of it. What surrender of your right you may fairly be expected to make, out of deference to the necessities of society, or of your employers, or of one another, may be a question forced upon them and you by the actual circumstances of the world and the conditions of human life, especially in so highly artificial a state of civilization as ours. Where such necessities are real, and really require the sacrifice, you may, and you should, without scruple and without grudging, consent to forego some portion of your privilege. The terms of the great charter securing it to you in perpetual possession, leave room, doubtless, for such accommodation. ...

For more, see:

 
The below post from John Holmes Agnew reminds us that many are doing today what they ought to be doing every week on the Lord's Day:

... Inasmuch, then, as the work of redemption is recognized in the Bible as the chief work of heaven, is represented as intended to display to the hosts of seraphim and cherubim the manifold wisdom of God, and containing in it exhibitions of the perfections of Jehovah, which awaken the earnest investigation, and profound adoration of angels, who desire to look into it; and inasmuch as it is the great purpose of the Sabbath that man shall commemorate the attributes of God as unfolded in his works, the strong presumption is, that now, since a greater work is accomplished than when God rested from all which he had created and made, and his perfections are more gloriously displayed in it, the completion of this work will be the object of commemoration, and the day on which Christ entered into his rest, having ceased from his work as God did from his own, will be the day on which the righteous will enter into the courts of the Lord’s house; and in private also feel that this is the day which the Lord hath made and set apart for the duties of devotion. That day was the first day of the week, when the Redeemer burst the bars of death and arose triumphant over the grave. ...

For more, see:

 
In this week's Sabbath-related post, the Irish Presbyterian, Thomas Witherow, explains the link between infant baptism and Sabbatarianism. In Witherow's day, he addressed this argument to Sabbath observers who denied infant baptism; in our day, we find ourselves addressing the same argument to paedobaptists who reject Sabbath observance. If you are interested in reading more of Witherow on these subjects, you will find both Scriptural Baptism and his pamphlet on The Sabbath reprinted in the recent volume, I Will Build My Church. Anyway, here he is on this issue:

... He maintains that the change from the seventh to the first day of the week does not interfere with the great unrepealed principle of one day’s rest after six days’ work, and he concludes, therefore, that the law of the Sabbath is a perpetual ordinance: and we maintain that the change of the initiatory rite from circumcision to baptism does not interfere with the great unrepealed principle of infant membership; and we conclude, therefore, that infant membership in the Church of God is a perpetual ordinance.

He insists that if men do not discover sufficient authority in the New Testament for the change of day, this does not free them from the law of the Sabbath, but binds them to keep it on the seventh day instead of the first and we insist that if men do not see sufficient authority in the New Testament for infant baptism, this does not free them from the law of infant church membership, but binds them to acknowledge that membership by circumcising instead of baptizing them. In short, the mode of proof is the same exactly in the one case as it is in the other. ...

For more, see:

 
Moderating; just word in advance; if anyone wants to debate the point, do so in Baptism forum.
In this week's Sabbath-related post, the Irish Presbyterian, Thomas Witherow, explains the link between infant baptism and Sabbatarianism. In Witherow's day, he addressed this argument to Sabbath observers who denied infant baptism; in our day, we find ourselves addressing the same argument to paedobaptists who reject Sabbath observance. If you are interested in reading more of Witherow on these subjects, you will find both Scriptural Baptism and his pamphlet on The Sabbath reprinted in the recent volume, I Will Build My Church. Anyway, here he is on this issue:

... He maintains that the change from the seventh to the first day of the week does not interfere with the great unrepealed principle of one day’s rest after six days’ work, and he concludes, therefore, that the law of the Sabbath is a perpetual ordinance: and we maintain that the change of the initiatory rite from circumcision to baptism does not interfere with the great unrepealed principle of infant membership; and we conclude, therefore, that infant membership in the Church of God is a perpetual ordinance.

He insists that if men do not discover sufficient authority in the New Testament for the change of day, this does not free them from the law of the Sabbath, but binds them to keep it on the seventh day instead of the first and we insist that if men do not see sufficient authority in the New Testament for infant baptism, this does not free them from the law of infant church membership, but binds them to acknowledge that membership by circumcising instead of baptizing them. In short, the mode of proof is the same exactly in the one case as it is in the other. ...

For more, see:

 
This week's post for the Lord's Day is from Benjamin Colman of New England and focuses on the importance of Sabbath sanctification to the state of religion:

... As the World grows upon us in its numbers and trade, we are growing out of this our primitive purity and beauty; but it is visible that the decay of Sanctity bears proportion to our declension in Sabbath Sanctification. We had need therefore to remember how we have received and heard, and hold fast and repent; let no man take our Crown. I know no one Rule more compendious, comprehensive and effectual for the revival and perpetuity of Religion among us than this, that we keep the LORD’s Sabbaths, as a Sign between Him and us thro’ out our Generations, that HE is the Lord that doth sanctify us. ...

For more, see:

 
The post for this week from A. A. Hodge focuses on the Sabbath as a positive commandment:

The law of the Sabbath, in fact, is also a positive commandment, having its ground in the will of God as supreme Lord. That a certain portion of time should be set apart for the worship of God and the religious instruction of men is a plain dictate of reason. That a certain portion of time should be set apart for rest from labour is by experience found to be, on physiological and moral grounds, highly desirable. That some monument of the creation of the world and of the resurrection of Christ, and that some permanent and frequently-recurring type of the rest of heaven, should be instituted, is eminently desirable for man, considered as a religious being.

But that all these ends should be combined and secured by one institution, and that precisely one whole day in seven should be allotted to that purpose, and that this one day in seven should be at one time the seventh and afterward the first day of the week, is evidently a matter of positive enactment, and binds us as long as the indications of the divine will in the matter remain unchanged.

The time of observance was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week in the age of the apostles, and consequently with their sanction; and that day, as “the Lord’s day” (Rev. i. 10), has ever since been observed in the stead of the ancient Sabbath, in all portions and ages of the Christian Church. ...

For more, see:

 
Today's post from J. C. Ryle highlights the incongruity of ministers of the Church of England undermining the Sabbath (it is worth reading the entire extract, if you get the chance):

... But how any clergyman holding office in the Church of England, and reading the Fourth Commandment every Sunday to his congregation, can lend his aid to movements which must infallibly prevent the Sabbath being kept holy, if they succeed, is one of those mysteries of the nineteenth century which pass my understanding. I am amazed, pained, troubled, grieved, and astonished. The good that the best clergyman does at his very best in a fallen world is small. But he that expects to do good by introducing a Continental Sunday into his parish, exhibits, in my judgment, however excellent his intentions, great ignorance of human nature. He is cutting off his right hand, and destroying his own usefulness.

Whatever may be the bad habits of the working-classes in large parishes, they will never be cured by organizing modes of breaking the Fourth Commandment. We should call that statesman a poor lawgiver who sanctioned petty larceny in order to prevent burglary; and I call that clergyman an unwise man, who, in order to stop drunkenness and its concomitants, is prepared to throw overboard the Sabbath Day. Surely to sacrifice one commandment in order to prevent the breach of another, is neither Christianity nor common-sense. It is, in my opinion, ‘doing evil that good may come.’ ...

For more, see:

 
This week, our Sabbath-themed post comes from W. G. T. Shedd's Sermons to the Spiritual Man. In the below extract, he argues that the Sabbath, in addition to daily private worship, is necessary for man as a creature of habit:

... Man is a creature of habit and routine, and therefore whatever he leaves to the chances of time, place, and opportunity, is very certain to be either ill-performed or neglected altogether. He who has no particular time for winding up his watch will find it very often run down. The man of business who should select no particular hours for his transactions, but should attempt to conduct them at any time in the day or the night, would discover that the world does not agree with him. It is here, that we perceive the fallacy of those who would abolish the Sabbath as a day of special religious worship, upon the specious plea that every day ought to be a Sabbath, because the whole of human life should be consecrated to God. What would be thought of a banking institution that should adopt this theory; that should announce to the public, that inasmuch as it was their desire to accumulate wealth unceasingly, at one time as much as at another, therefore they should set no particular time for banking, but leave the transaction of business to their own convenience, and that of their customers? ...

For more, see:

 
This week's post from Wilhelmus à Brakel focuses on the Sabbath as a day, not for idleness, but for religious worship:

... (3) The commandment not to work has also not been given to enable us to do something else in its place — something spiritual. The implication would then be that one is not to be active, but rather to be engaged exclusively in the spiritual service of God. The cessation of labour would then be necessary due to labour being a hindrance to spiritual exercises.

(4) The command not to do any manner of work is also not conjoined to another element of sabbath observance, as if being idle and serving God were conjoined as two collateral activities. This would suggest that he who would have done no work would have observed this commandment partially, and this would likewise be true for him who had served God spiritually and nevertheless had done some work.

(5) Rather, doing no manner of work and religious worship must be conjoined as being one injunction. Doing no manner of work must be understood in a spiritual sense, so that it refers to the manner of religious engagement, and thereby is distinguished from religion in the general sense of the word as it is enjoined in the first commandment. It is not rest which is commanded, but rather, a holy rest. “Tomorrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord” (Exod 16:23); “… in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD” (Exod 31:15). ...

For more, see:

 
During the week, I am currently reading George Marsden's Jonathan Edwards, which is an outstanding biography of this great man of God. As much as I disagree with Edwards's philosophical idealism and his revivalist tendencies, there is no question that he was generally a great preacher, theologian, and writer. The below post on remembering Christ’s redemptive work on the Lord’s Day is excellent:

... We should therefore meditate on this with joy. We should have a sympathy with Christ in his joy. He was refreshed on this day; we should be refreshed, as those whose hearts are united with his. When Christ rejoices, it becomes all his church everywhere to rejoice. We are to say of this day, “this is the day that the Lord hath made” [Psalms 118:24].

But we are not only to commemorate the resurrection, but the whole work of redemption, of which this was the finishing. We keep the day on which the work [was] finished, because ’tis in remembrance of the whole work. We should on this day contemplate the wonderful love and {work of redemption}, and our remembrance of these things should be accompanied with suitable exercises of soul with respect to them. When we call to mind Christ’s love, it should be with the exercise of mutual love. When we commemorate this work, it should be with faith in the Savior. And we should praise God and the Lamb for this work, for his glory and his love manifested in it, in our private and public prayers, in talking of God’s wondrous works and singing divine songs. ...

For more, see:

 
This week's post is from the Free Church of Scotland minister, Robert Hunter (thanks to an old friend of ours for helping me identify the author from the British and Foreign Evangelical Review). It focuses on the relevance of Hebrews 4 to Sabbath observance in the New Testament:

In opposition to these [anti-Sabbatarian] views, we maintain that the Lord’s day was instituted under the divine guidance of him whose name it bears.

The first verse that seems logically to require notice is the well-known one in Heb. iv. [9], “There remaineth therefore a rest (σαββατισμoς, i.e. Sabbath keeping) for the people of God.” The reference appears to be to heaven. If, as has been proved, there was a Sabbath-keeping for those who lived under the patriarchal period of the church’s history, if there was one under the Jewish dispensation, and if there is one for the redeemed above, would it not appear like a want of symmetry in the divine plan if under the Christian dispensation there was no Sabbath?

The analogy of the prior periods, and of that which is yet to come, is so strongly in favour of a Christian Sabbath, that we should have suspected its existence, even had there been no positive evidence of its institution; and much less will suffice than would have been required had the analogy fallen in the opposite direction.

For the reference, see:

 
This week's post for the Lord's Day is from John Murray on the sanctity of the Sabbath:

... There is no purpose in contending for the moral obligation of the commandment unless this sanctity is recognised and preserved, for it is the core around which all else is formed and without which all else disintegrates. Just as there is an ineradicable distinction between the six days of creation and the day of rest by which they were followed, so it is here. And it is precisely with this reminder that the commandment itself ends, “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.”

Israel truly was a holy people; they were separated unto God Jehovah. It might, then, be supposed that the sanctification of one day in seven was inconsistent with the totality of their devotion to God. Yet it is an inescapable fact that this kingdom of priests and holy nation was in the most direct way commanded to separate one day from the other six for a specific purpose. And unless our conception of devotion to God, and of time as it is related to Him, can embrace and appreciate this notion, together with the divine wisdom embodied in it, we can have no understanding of the fourth commandment. ...

For more, see:

 
This week's extract for the Sabbath is again from the Free Church of Scotland minister, Robert Hunter. It addresses the subject of liberty of conscience in relation to both the Sabbath and extra-biblical holy days:

We entertain the most heartfelt belief in that doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which teaches, “that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men,” &c. If Paul would not be judged with respect to holidays, or new moons, or (the Jewish) Sabbath days, we, after his example, object to have censorious verdicts passed on us in regard to Good Friday, or Christmas, or Ash-Wednesday, or the feast, fast, or vigil of this or that evangelist or saint. And we should feel quite free in regard to Sunday, if it were simply ordained by “the church.”

The objection to the philosophic view is this, that a day resting merely on utility, would, in our opinion, lose all its binding authority on the conscience. It would be observed when convenient, and only then. While all would do their best to take suitable rest or recreation some time or other, it would be difficult to obtain such concert in regard to the seasons of repose as might leave the greater part of the population free to attend divine worship.

The generality of men, we fear, would “forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some is;” and though museums, crystal palaces, scientific lectures, and other schemes designed to benefit the masses-all, so far as they go, teaching truth, and therefore helpful to religion-might tend to diffuse light in regard to the Creator and his works; still the complaint of the prophet might be brought against them all—“They have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly.” The barrier they would raise against the inroads of evil, would, we fear, be but feeble; and, despite their influence, irreligion, with its invariable concomitant immorality, would roll like a flood over the land.

For the reference, see:

 
This week's post for the Lord's Day comes from the Scottish Seceder writer, George Stevenson. It focuses on the magistrate's duty to enforce Sabbath-observance:

We are aware that some will deny the right of the Magistrate to enforce the external observation of the Christian Sabbath, from the proportion of time, and the particular day of the week, set apart for that purpose, being of positive institution, and therefore not reducible to natural religion and law. But they would do well to remember that the law of nature does not only suggest that some part of our time should be wholly appropriated to the service of God, but also binds both rulers and subjects to bow to God’s authority as to the proportion of our time and the particular day of the week to be so observed, when made known by supernatural revelation.

Moreover, no one who recognises the Divine authority of the fourth commandment can hesitate about this matter being cognizable by the Magistrate. His right is obviously recognised in the commandment itself. It does not only require superiors to refrain from working on the Sabbath, but also enjoins them to employ their authority in preventing their inferiors from worldly employments on that day. Parents are to restrain their children, and masters their servants; but as the restriction is to extend even to strangers, who are supposed to be under the control neither of parents nor masters, their conduct must fall under the cognizance of the magistrate of the place where they reside. “Thou shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter; thy man-servant nor thy maid-servant; nor thy cattle, nor the stranger within thy gates, &c.”

For the reference, see:

 
Last edited:
I live in Pennsylvania. Years ago, before I was a believer, I went to buy a car, and got talking with the car salesman about good days to come back for a test drive.

He mentioned to me that, because of an "archaic" Pennsylvania law, it couldn't be Sunday, because the dealerships weren't allowed to sell cars on Sunday. We kind of both poo-poo-ed at it.

Now every time I see a car dealership on the Lord's Day, empty and quiet, I think of how one magistrates actions have carried over into today's hustle and bustle. Amen and Amen.
 
This week's post from George Gillespie deals with defences of unbiblical holy days in relation to observing the Lord's Day as a divine ordinance:

First, I require the B[ishop] to shew us a difference betwixt the keeping of holy days by formalists, & their keeping of the Lord’s day: for upon holy days they enjoin a cessation from work, and a dedicating of the day to Divine worship, even as upon the Lord’s day. The Bishop alledgeth five respects of difference, but they are not true. First, he saith, that the Lord’s day is commanded to be observed of necessity, for conscience of the Divine ordinance, as a day sanctified and blessed by God himself.

Answ. 1. so have we heard from [Richard] Hooker, that holy days are sanctified by God’s extraordinary works, but because the B[ishop] dare not say so much, therefore I say. 2. This difference cannot shew us, that they observe holy days only for order and policy, and that they place no worship in the observing of them, as in the observing of the Lord’s day, (which is the point that we require) for worship is placed in the observing of human, as well as of Divine ordinances; otherwise worship hath never been placed in the keeping of Pharisaical and Popish traditions. This way is worship placed in the keeping of holy days, when for conscience of an human ordinance, they are both kept as holy, and thought necessary to be so kept. 3. The B[ishop] contradicteth himself, for elsewhere he defendeth, that the Church hath power to change the Lord’s day. ...

For more, see:

 
Johann Heinrich Heidegger's The Concise Marrow of Christian Theology is one of the books that I acquired in the recent RHB sale. Hence, I may as well quote him this week on the fourth commandment and the Sabbath:

The fourth commandment commands “to keep holy the day of the Sabbath” (תבש םוי). The Sabbath is rest from work. God commands “to keep holy” and be devoted to the time of that rest by keeping, worshipping, glorifying the holy things of the one true God, and hallowing His name with thoughts and cares. For the Sabbath is necessary to be performed for the Lord (חהיל), for the grace of the honour and worship of the Lord (Ex. 20:8–11; 31:15). Hence, neither is all cessation commanded, nor that from any work that man takes up for the necessity of his life, but from servile work (חכאלמ) (Lev. 23:7).

For the reference, see:

 
This week's post comes from the Lutheran scholastic theologian, Johann Gerhard, who appears to have held a surprisingly high view of the Sabbath:

Because God the Lord commands that we should hallow the day of the Sabbath, He intended to teach by doing so that one should rest [feyren] not only a few hours, but the whole day, and not act according to the common custom, in which one spends perhaps one or two hours hearing God’s Word but afterward wastes the rest of the time with idleness, useless chatter, going for walks, carousings, and similar things. Against this, God the Lord commands that we are to hallow the entire day of the Sabbath and pass the time with holy works.

For the reference, see:

 
Just a short extract this week from one of the pamphlets republished in Hugh Martin's collection, Christ Victorious, about the church's divine right to observe the Sabbath:

The Church has the Sabbath from Christ, the Son over his own house – even the Son of man, who is Lord also of the Sabbath. And by divine right she can demand all civil liberty which the nature of the case requires, to secure for her the actual enjoyment of this boon, to prevent this gift from her Lord being either nullified or impaired.

For the reference, see:

 
Last edited:
Today, we once again quote from J. C. Ryle on the Sabbath; in this extract, he focuses on the Devil's campaign against the Lord's Day:

... Partly from the spread of infidelity, that old enemy of the Lord’s Day; partly from the morbid love of liberty, and letting everyone do as he likes; partly from the exaggerated love of pleasure which marks this age; partly from the facilities afforded by railways for Sabbath travelling, of which our fathers knew nothing, and got on well enough without them; partly from one cause and partly from another, the devil is just now getting more help in his favourite campaign against the Lord’s Day than he has done since the Reformation. You may see what I mean, in the persistent attempts now made to throw open places of amusement, aquariums, museums, picture galleries, and such-like places, under the plausible pretence of ‘affording recreation to the working classes.’ ...

For more, see:

 
This week's post is from Zacharias Ursinus in opposition to the Judaical seventh-day Sabbath observance:

... Fourthly they reply: That the laws given by God before the fall, are not figures of benefits to be received in the Messias, and that they do bind all mankind at all times: for then as at that time the promise concerning the Messias was not yet given, and there was one & the same condition & estate of all mankind, the which was comprehended in our first parents: but the Sabbath of the seventh day was ordained of God, after the creation of the world was finished, before the fall of mankind: therefore it is universal and perpetual.

We answer by distinguishing of the Maior: the which is true concerning moral laws, the natural knowledges [sic] whereof were imprinted in the mind of man in the creation, but is not true as touching the ceremony or keeping of the seventh day, as which after the fall in the law of Moses was made a figure of the benefits to be received in the Messias, and therefore like as other ceremonies, either then, or before ordained, was made subject unto change by the coming of the Messias. For God would not have shadows of things to come to remain, the things themselves being exhibited and given already. Albeit therefore that we grant, that the exercises of the worship of God on the seventh day were to be observed & kept by the commandment of God, as well as if men had not sinned (like as the exercise of abstaining from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) as after they had sinned: yet after that God placed this ceremony among the shadows of the Messias to come, by this self same new law given by Moses, he made the same changeable together with the other Ceremonies. ...

For more, see:

 
Today's post is from John Murray, concerning the Sabbath being a universal institution:

“The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath” (Mark 2:27, 28). … In this affirmation, contrary to much glib but wanton appeal to it, there is not the least hint that the Sabbath law was about to be abrogated. What Jesus was combatting on this occasion was the travesties of application by which the Jews had made void the law of God. Jesus’ unsparing condemnation of those artificialities that had turned a beneficent institution into an instrument of tyranny no more argues the abrogation of the institution itself, than does His condemnation of the traditions by which the Jews had made void the fifth commandment argue for the abrogation of the fifth (Cf. Mark 7:8-13). If His condemnation and correction of the tradition by which the Jews of His day had made void the Word of God in the fifth commandment in no way relieves but rather reinforces the divine obligation of this commandment itself, so His statement with reference to the Sabbath quoted above furnishes no support for the abrogation of the fourth commandment. But let us examine Mark 2:27,28 more closely.

“The sabbath was made for man.” Of course, when it is said that it was made, there is but one meaning, namely, that God made it. It is not a device of human expediency or utility. It is a divine creation. It is God’s day. The reasonable inference is that this is an allusion to the primaeval institution as recorded in Genesis 2:2, 3. We know that the Sabbath institution existed prior to the promulgation of it at Sinai. So the making of it referred to by our Lord cannot reasonably refer simply to the giving of the law at Sinai. And since we must go back to something that antedates Sinai, what is there that more naturally or perfectly suits the allusion than that referred to in Genesis 2:2, 3? ...

For more, see:

 
This week's post for the Lord's Day comes from Patrick Fairbairn. Similarly to a recent post from Thomas Witherow, this one also addresses the issue of the link between first-day Sabbath observance and baptism replacing circumcision:

... When associated with the typical services of the old covenant, the same thing virtually happened to it as with circumcision, which was the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant of grace, and had no immediate connection with the law of Moses; while yet it became so identified with that law, that it required to be supplanted by another ordinance of nearly similar import when the seed of blessing arrived, in which the Abrahamic covenant was to find its fulfilment. So great had the necessity become for the abolition of the one ordinance and the introduction of the other, that the apostle virtually declares it to have been indispensable, when he affirms (in his Epistle to the Galatians), of those who would still be circumcised, that they were debtors to do the whole law.

At the same time, as regards the original design and spiritual import of circumcision, this he makes coincident with baptism, speaks here (v. 11) of baptized believers as the circumcision of Christ; and so presents the two ordinances as in principle most closely associated with each other, differing in form rather than in substance. We have no reason to suppose his meaning to be different in regard to the Sabbath; it is gone so far as its outward rest on the seventh day formed part of the typical things of Judaism, but no further. Its primaeval character and destination remain. 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 carry out the intent of the fourth commandment. ...

For more, see:

 
This week's post for the Lord's Day is from the Lutheran scholastic, Johann Gerhard on the Christian Sabbath and Christ's resurrection:

... The primary and most important reason [for the change of the Sabbath] is because Christ rose from the dead on that day, as is seen from the Gospel accounts of Matt. 28:1 and Mark 16:1. Thus the first day of the week is called ἡμέρα κυριακή (“the Lord’s Day”) (Rev. 1:10). (1) Just as the Sabbath was instituted in the Old Testment in remembrance of the benefit of God’s six-day work of creation and His rest from it on the seventh day, so also in the New Testament the first day of the week is celebrated in remembrance of the benefit of Christ’s victorious return from the dead in glory on the first day of the week after He had accomplished the mystery of our redemption through His suffering and death.

(2) Just as in the Old Testament the Sabbath was instituted as a memorial of the liberation from Egypt (Deut. 5:15), so also in the New Testament the Lord’s Day is a memorial of our spiritual liberation from the kingdom and captivity of Satan, which was given to us through Christ’s resurrection. The Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt was a type of this. ...

For more, see:

 
From the article...

---
"Through Christ’s death and resurrection the Levitical ceremonies and shadows of the Law have been abrogated. The Sabbath was counted among these (Col. 2:17). Therefore exchanging the Sabbath for the Lord’s Day is a public testimony that Christians have been freed from the shadows of the Law and from the distinction of days which God had sanctioned formerly."
---

Is this a commonly held belief by the Lutherans, that the fourth command was abrogated along with the ceremonial Law?
If so, do they consider the Christian Sabbath to be a mandatory observance?
 
From the article...

---
"Through Christ’s death and resurrection the Levitical ceremonies and shadows of the Law have been abrogated. The Sabbath was counted among these (Col. 2:17). Therefore exchanging the Sabbath for the Lord’s Day is a public testimony that Christians have been freed from the shadows of the Law and from the distinction of days which God had sanctioned formerly."
---

Is this a commonly held belief by the Lutherans, that the fourth command was abrogated along with the ceremonial Law?
If so, do they consider the Christian Sabbath to be a mandatory observance?

In context, he means the Jewish Sabbath. As I understand it, Gerhard was a bit of an odd one among Lutherans in that he agreed more with the Reformed on the Sabbath than with other Lutherans. There should be more posts explaining his views in subsequent weeks, DV.
 
Today's post from the Southern Presbyterian theologian, John Lafayette Girardeau focuses on increasing laxity regarding the Sabbath amongst the Protestant churches:

In the first place, greater and greater license is allowed by the Protestant Church to the infraction of the Sabbath law. Her members are, on God’s day. indulged in the visitation of their places of business, riding out for pleasure, boating excursions, promenades in parks, travelling on railways, going for their mail, reading secular newspapers, social visiting, engaging in business pursuits in connection with railroads, telegraph lines, express companies, and post offices,—on the plea of making a livelihood, notwithstanding the words of a crucified Saviour: “Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.”

For the reference, see:

 
Back
Top