Romans 14:5 and the Sabbath

[Bill The Baptist]

No, you are missing my point. An "explicit quoting or restatement" of a commandment would be like Romans 13:9, Ephesians 6:2-3, or James 2:11. Those are explicit, direct quotes from the second table of the law. What you have listed above may be described as inferences or applications of commandments, which I do not dispute (one could point to 1 Timothy 1:9-10), but they are not direct quotes as with the verses I referenced. I am attempting to address the argument of the person who points out that 4th commandment is not directly quoted in the NT by pointing out that the same could be said of the whole of the first table of the law.

I see your point, and I agree that Scripture is often less explicit than we would like, but that lack of clarity is often the result of an assumption on the part of the writer that certain things are simply understood. The writers of the NT would most likely have operated under the assumption that the Ten Commandments were well understood, and thus did not neccesarily feel the need to repeat them verbatim. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that even though we may not see the commandments repeated explicitly, we most certainly can find the principle being applied.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I am not disagreeing with you regarding the Sabbath, just with your assertion that these commandments are not repeated in the NT

Bill,
As you must admit, those are analogies to the first three of 10C. And of course, as has been demonstrated in this thread, even the 4th has its necessary analogy as well. So, I think that the spirit in which Tim answered the original assertion met the challenge of that assertion. That is, the absence something explicitly quoting a command cannot be a sufficient criteria for denying its abiding validity. The relevance of moral law is built on a far more sophisticated exegetical foundation than mere prooftexting.

Agreed. See my response to Tim above.

 

[timmopussycat]

Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."

An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>

Actually this is not certain. For if Christ is here referring to the then future destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, "the Sabbath" would be referring to the day on which the Jewish community in that city would still be practicing the old covenant Sabbath.

 

[Mushroom]

Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."

An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>

Actually this is not certain. For if Christ is here referring to the then future destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, "the Sabbath" would be referring to the day on which the Jewish community in that city would still be practicing the old covenant Sabbath.

Considering that He was privately addressing the disciples, it is irrelevant to this discussion as to whether He was referring to the destruction of the temple. He told them, not the apostate unbelieving Jewish community still engaged in temple worship, to pray that their flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath in a future time obviously after His ascension yet before His return. That is the age His disciples still occupy except in the minds of full preterists, which I assume to be relatively rare on the PB. So there remains a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age.

 

[KMK]

With respect it doesn't matter who the pastor is because pastors disagree over this topic, and two even the most insignificant of believers have the ability to understand scripture and have disagreements.

Actually, it does matter. Rom 14 is a warning to those in authority not to bind the consciences of their sheep. If none of the three hypothetical people in your scenario have authority over the others, then Rom 14 does not apply to the situation. Who cares if Johnny, Steve, and Greg disagree if none of them is in authority? Johnny is bound by the regulations of his own church regarding worship, as are Steve and Greg.

If one of them was in authority over the others, then Rom 14 might apply. But if they are all equals then who cares if they disagree? Equals are not able to bind each others' consciences.

I completly agree with all you just said here. But it doesn't play out that way in everyday dealings with other Christians whether it be online or in person. One person says this is my view, and the other person says your wrong. That's why I wrote the scenario the way I did. I also would like to say that your completly right that you should follow all your Church rules for membership (even if I don't agree with every detail).

If Greg is trying to convince Johnny and Steve of their error in an online discussion, he is wasting his time. By adopting their views, Johnny and Steve have already rejected 2000 years of church history and authority. They certainly aren't going to be persuaded by some random guy on the internet. The problem with these online discussions is you never know what kind of weaker brothers are 'listening in'. I would avoid such scenarios altogether.

 

[Scott1]

One observation that might be helpful in understanding the applicability of the ten commandments to us in the New Testament.

The Sermon on the Mount, the longest recorded discourse by our Lord in the New Testament is about the broad applicability of the ten commandments. E.g. being angry without cause is related to the six commandment, lust in the heart related to the seventh commandment, etc.

The broad application of them has always been why, since the Fall, man stands guilty before a Holy God. Indeed, His standard is perfect obedience (Matthew 5:48). The underlying principles being:

1) God is holy and cannot tolerate sin
2) Man sins against God in thought, word and deed
3) Only faith in Christ's perfect righteousness allows us to be justified before our Holy God

Far from saying He was abrogating the Law (Ten Commandments), He specifically says He has not come to destroy (abrogate) it (see Matthew 5:18).

This includes commandment four, as well as the others.

 

[jwithnell]

Tyrese, it is important here to distinguish whether or not one observes a sabbath and what is specifically addressed in the passage you cited. In the first instance, a Sabbath rest on the first day of the week is recognized by the reformed confessions; your best bet would be to refer to the scriptures given with whatever confessional text you are using.

Otherwise,we need to exercise caution and not take the phrase, "one man considers every day alike" out of context. The Roman church was dealing with the conflicting viewpoints of the resident "Greek" believers and the returning Jewish Christians. Paul places the peace of the church and the growth of individuals above petty conflicts over keeping the Jewish holidays (which had been conflated by this point in history) or eating certain kinds of meat.

 

[timmopussycat]

Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."

An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>

Actually this is not certain. For if Christ is here referring to the then future destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, "the Sabbath" would be referring to the day on which the Jewish community in that city would still be practicing the old covenant Sabbath.

Considering that He was privately addressing the disciples, it is irrelevant to this discussion as to whether He was referring to the destruction of the temple. He told them, not the apostate unbelieving Jewish community still engaged in temple worship, to pray that their flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath in a future time obviously after His ascension yet before His return. That is the age His disciples still occupy except in the minds of full preterists, which I assume to be relatively rare on the PB. So there remains a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age.

I am not saying that there does not remain a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age. Nor am I a full preterist, although I do think that some of the Olivet discourse refers to pre-70 events.

Given that the term "Sabbath" was never used for anything else but the seventh day in the Gospels and that it continued to be used for the seventh day by Christian writers well into the book of Acts. (Acts 13:14, 16:13, 17:2) and, that, the top of my head, I can't remember any instance in the NT where the term "the Sabbath" is also specifically identified as the Christian first day of the week, I don't see that we have warrant for thinking that Christ, in Matt. 24:20, used the word in any other way than the Jewish seventh day. It does not take too much imagination to realize the reasons why Christ's disciples could well have found fleeing from an otherwise predominantly Jewish community would have been more difficult on the Sabbath than on other days.

 

[Marrow Man]

No, you are missing my point. An "explicit quoting or restatement" of a commandment would be like Romans 13:9, Ephesians 6:2-3, or James 2:11. Those are explicit, direct quotes from the second table of the law. What you have listed above may be described as inferences or applications of commandments, which I do not dispute (one could point to 1 Timothy 1:9-10), but they are not direct quotes as with the verses I referenced. I am attempting to address the argument of the person who points out that 4th commandment is not directly quoted in the NT by pointing out that the same could be said of the whole of the first table of the law.

I see your point, and I agree that Scripture is often less explicit than we would like, but that lack of clarity is often the result of an assumption on the part of the writer that certain things are simply understood. The writers of the NT would most likely have operated under the assumption that the Ten Commandments were well understood, and thus did not neccesarily feel the need to repeat them verbatim. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that even though we may not see the commandments repeated explicitly, we most certainly can find the principle being applied.

Thanks for that rejoinder, Bill, and I am glad we are in agreement on the abiding validity of the moral law of God.

 

[Tyrese]

Tyrese
Buy read and study Joseph Pipa's 'The Lord's Day' - it will simply and wisely explain all. Basicially: Paul's point is that no man can bind the conscience of any man on any day (or in any thing else for that matter), therefore in fact Wednesday, Saturday, Tuesday CANNOT be the Sabbath, because God has not so commanded it. There MUST be a Sabbath - (4th Commandment), and so the ONLY day which it can be is the one which there is clear evidence of divine authority for and there is only one candidate - the 1st Day, the Lord's Day i.e Sunday the Christian Sabbath. Any other day is an imposition by man against the liberty of the Christian.

Thanks Pastor Wallace I will go ahead and get this as soon as I can. Lol I have a limited book allowance. But this is important so I will make it a priority.

 

[Tyrese]

My wife wants to join in so it's taking me a little longer to get through the sermons. I listened to the first sermon but I need a little more time to go over a lot of what he said. Very interesting points might I add.

 

[Tyrese]

Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."

An irrefutable proof that the Sabbath is not abrogated in the NT age. <Edit: Not wanting to detract from the importance of the Sabbath, I thought it best to delete the superfluous unrelated comments. My apologies.>

Actually this is not certain. For if Christ is here referring to the then future destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, "the Sabbath" would be referring to the day on which the Jewish community in that city would still be practicing the old covenant Sabbath.

Considering that He was privately addressing the disciples, it is irrelevant to this discussion as to whether He was referring to the destruction of the temple. He told them, not the apostate unbelieving Jewish community still engaged in temple worship, to pray that their flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath in a future time obviously after His ascension yet before His return. That is the age His disciples still occupy except in the minds of full preterists, which I assume to be relatively rare on the PB. So there remains a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age.

Agreed. I think if God wanted to fully convince us that their was no longer a Sabbath for Christians, than I think Jesus would have left out his comment about the Sabbath as he does seem to be speaking about future events. Vs 17 says, "For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." He is describing His second coming right? Jesus also says, "The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath." Being that the Sabbath applies to all men I would assume Jesus is talking about a NT Sabbath. I mean I could be wrong.

 

[Mushroom]

I am not saying that there does not remain a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age. Nor am I a full preterist, although I do think that some of the Olivet discourse refers to pre-70 events.

Given that the term "Sabbath" was never used for anything else but the seventh day in the Gospels and that it continued to be used for the seventh day by Christian writers well into the book of Acts. (Acts 13:14, 16:13, 17:2) and, that, the top of my head, I can't remember any instance in the NT where the term "the Sabbath" is also specifically identified as the Christian first day of the week, I don't see that we have warrant for thinking that Christ, in Matt. 24:20, used the word in any other way than the Jewish seventh day. It does not take too much imagination to realize the reasons why Christ's disciples could well have found fleeing from an otherwise predominantly Jewish community would have been more difficult on the Sabbath than on other days.

Tim, I love you brother. I am somewhat confused about what you are saying, however. Are you stating that there is no day, one in seven, set aside as a Sabbath-day for NT believers?

 

[JoannaV]

I've heard Pipa's book mentioned often enough on here that I finally ordered it!

 

[Michael Doyle]

After reading the post about celebrating Chistmas and other holidays, I now have new issues with the Sabbath that I thought I understood. But just simply reading Romans 14:5 alone, I've run into new problems with the Sabbath in relation to RPW. Let me give my understanding of the text, and how it appears others are understanding it.

Johnny says, Wednesday is the most sacred and holy day of the week (for whatever reason). He is convinced in HIS OWN mind that this is ok.

Steve says, no everyday is exactly the same. I have no special days that I set apart as more holy than others. I think all days are equally special. And He is convinced in HIS OWN mind.

Greg says, no you both are wrong. Sunday is the Sabbath and it is the most holy and noble day of them all. He also says you are not allowed to come up with any special days because you are not at liberty. I hold to the RPW. He says Romans 14 doesn't mean what says and that each one does not have liberty to be convinced in his own mind.

I guess there needs to be a straightforward explanation as to why Romans 14:5 doesn't mean exactly what it says? And how you hold to the RPW in issues regarding days even though their seems to be wiggle room in how one approaches the issue.

I think a stronger text against the Sabbath is Colossians 2:16. Seems pretty explicit to me, and MacArthur explains well how that cannot refer to the feast Sabbaths because Paul covered those in his use of the words "festivals" and "new moons."

Also strangely absent from the New Testament-and the epistles in general-is any explicit command to keep the Sabbath, or condemnation for Sabbath breaking.

I am interested to hear your argument against those who refuted your claims. Seems a bit disingenuous to make the statements you have made without engaging the conversation as if your points are final and irrefutable.

 

[timmopussycat]

I am not saying that there does not remain a Sabbath for the people of God in the NT age. Nor am I a full preterist, although I do think that some of the Olivet discourse refers to pre-70 events.

Given that the term "Sabbath" was never used for anything else but the seventh day in the Gospels and that it continued to be used for the seventh day by Christian writers well into the book of Acts. (Acts 13:14, 16:13, 17:2) and, that, the top of my head, I can't remember any instance in the NT where the term "the Sabbath" is also specifically identified as the Christian first day of the week, I don't see that we have warrant for thinking that Christ, in Matt. 24:20, used the word in any other way than the Jewish seventh day. It does not take too much imagination to realize the reasons why Christ's disciples could well have found fleeing from an otherwise predominantly Jewish community would have been more difficult on the Sabbath than on other days.

Tim, I love you brother. I am somewhat confused about what you are saying, however. Are you stating that there is no day, one in seven, set aside as a Sabbath-day for NT believers?

I am saying nothing against the propriety of Christians observing the Lord's day in obedience to the fourth commandment. All I am saying is that the term "Sabbath" in Matt. 24:20 most likely refers to the seventh day.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think it is important to note that the Lord's Day being the Christian Sabbath is a truth that is developed by good and necessary consequence and not by specifically appealing to a single verse upon which the entire truth stands or falls. If our only standard for Christian truth is proof-texting and we do not permit logical inferences from several principles that portions of Scripture, taken together, teach then we would have to jettison many Christian doctrines that are at the foundation of the Christian faith.

Appeals to a dispensational foundation to reject the notion of a Christian Sabbath are puzzling. If one subscribes to a Reformed Confession, built upon the foundation of a Reformed hermeuntic, then it is schizophrenic to reject that same hermeneutic when studying the issue of the Sabbath.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Here's an excerpt from MacArthur's article on the Sabbath. I know Sabbatarians don't like to hear it, but MacArthur (and others) have raised good objections to the Sabbath and I've yet to hear satisfactory answers to the contrary:

1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word “Sabbath?” He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.

I like Dr MacArthurs point here but I wonder what he would say about Matthew 24:15-28. Vs 20 says, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath." Doesn't this assume there is a Sabbath since this is somthing Jesus is prophesying about? I don't just have problems with the Sabbath view, I also have problems with the non sabbatarian view.

Since MacArthur is a dispensationalist, I imagine that his answer would be that Jews will still be keeping the Sabbath (since it is a command for Jews) when Christ returns (dispensationalists have a futurist interpretation of Matt 24).

If you reject dispensationalism, there must be a binding Sabbath keeping remaining for the people of God. Matt 24 is a proof of this.