The Sabbath in Light of the New Covenant
On one of my mailing lists a few weeks ago, an unrelated message morphed into a discussion on the Sabbath. This is a technical list that consists of those who agree to an Evangelical Christian statement of Faith, the former part of that meaning any discussion can come out of about every discussion and the latter meaning everyone seemed to agree on one thing: the observance of the Sabbath will not save you nor is it a required step toward salvation.
Generally speaking, Christians try to follow the law, though not required, because we want to do God's will. That point is often used against the argument of sabbatarians, much like Paul's declaration not to judge any observance of Sabbaths, new moon festivals, etc. (Colossians 2:16). Still, assuming we want to do God's will (see argument 1), it would seem to me that we should set down our guard and consider the sabbatarian argument — not as a requirement or a judgment, but an earnest attempt to understand whether or not it has merit. Unless we have no interest in following God's laws willfully, then our freedom from the law is not an excuse to let this issue slide (I'm not saying one must get a particular conclusion, but that we should really consider this issue rather than just ignoring it like it so often is).
For the last few years, I've made an effort (that I have often failed) to make Sunday a day of rest. I have always followed the reasoning that Sunday is the new sabbath — the Lord's Day. However during this particular argument I started to wonder if all of this was really a fallicy. My Seventh-Day Adventist friend, who seems to enjoy a good debate as much as I do, made a really good point: there is nothing, that I know of, in the Bible that says the early Christians actually moved Sabbath observance to Sunday. They met on Sunday, yes, but there is no indication that they ended the observance of the Sabbath in doing so.
Another friend, who attends a non-sabbatarian church, solves the problem in a way that seems to closely mimic what we can infer from Acts. He observes the Sabbath, but worships on Sunday morning. The Sabbath is a day of rest, and it is the seventh day, but that isn't a prohibition on Sunday worship. The command we are considering isn't “Honor the Sabbath and worship only on this day.” In other words, this need not be an all or nothing position where if you accept the Sabbath, you must give up your existing Church and move to one that has Saturday services. All this question is, is a question concerning whether the day of rest must be on the seventh day.
One person chimed in suggesting that the ideal solution might be to observe both the Lord's Day and the Sabbath as days of rest. At first this sounded like a good idea, but wasn't this exactly what the Phari did? When unsure, they added more rules “just to be safe.” To me, this seems like a road destined for legalism, whether that is intended or not.
With that in mind, I am pondering the idea of switching to Sabbath observance. Not legalistic, mind you, but the same way I have treated Sunday for a while. I'm confused as to whether this is right or wrong, but it seems to me that only post-Biblical dogma provides rationale for having a “first day Sabbath.” If that's the case, and I want to take the fourth commandment as seriously as the rest, I guess I must confront this.
The status quo is unacceptable. It is comfortable, but if it isn't God's will, that is irrelevant. Now I must just pray that I can better understand this.
Of course, as always, I welcome the thoughts of my friends here in the blogosphere…
Join the Conversation
RE: The Sabbath in Light of the New Covenant
After some twenty plus years of listening to the Modernist Teachings of the Neo-Christian Church, I have come to several conclusions. The First and most important of these conclusions is that the “person” named Jehoshuah who was given the title “Meshiach” was named The Word (cf. John Ch. 1), and He proclaimed that He did not come to destroy the Law (as some would teach!), but to fulfill the Law (correctly interpreted: BRING FULNESS TO THE LAW) It is interesting that this COMMANDMENT OF GOD was given before there was sin in the world (Genesis), it was taught by all the Patriarchs from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Jehoshua Meshiach. I do not ever see The Word of God made flesh (Jehoshua Meshiach)changing the codified LAW of His Father (by God’s own finger in stone) to whom He subjugated Himself when he said: “NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE.” And this He did throughout His ministry. This LAW is still in effect and is as important to Jehoshua Meshiach in His time on this earth as it is now as we live and reign with HIM in this time even now (Please see the epistles of Paul in every instance). It is not hard to understand why the modernist church leaders disdain the evidence of what Jehoshua Meshiach did and said. It would not serve their secular material interests. While it is true we are saved by grace through faith; it was the GRACE and MERCY of the FATHER that He sent is SON, Jehoshua Meshiach, to be HIS lamb for the remission of sin (“There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood”). That singular act does not abrogate, expunge, abolish or repeal the LAW. The GIVER of the LAW is the ONLY power that can AMEND His Constitution (THE LAW), and to date, he had not seen fit to do so. Lastly, it was Jehoshua Meshiach that proclaimed: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled.” Who is man that he is wiser than this that he should rewrite the Commandments of God. I suggest you read Psalm 119 in its entirety, then study the three letters of the apostle John. Should you decide then that the blessings given to believers are of no affect, then you, a teacher, will suffer the wrath that the teacher will face as promised in the letter of James.