Links are helpful when referencing scripture.
No, it’s pretty straightforward and not an enigma. You should have been able to deduce it easily from the irony (that some are denying). Abstain from everyday commerce on Sunday, including commercial employment or employing. (We are not talking about jobs in infrastructure, mercy, necessity and public order. ‘Infrastructure’ is probably redundant, since it would be classified under necessity, I suppose.)
There is more we can abstain from without being obsessive, as well. It might take a little to get in the right mindset, but being resistive doesn’t buy it (speaking of abstaining from commerce 
).
One of the challenges that arises when laws are in play - especially boundary-keeping laws of a religious nature, is that there is often no clear-cut answers on how one is supposed to keep said law. This led to Jews (Pharisees, in particular) putting fences around the law - making regulations that prevented people from getting close to breaking laws.
Your post, quoted above, shows just how byzantine things can get. Should a Christian paramedic work on Sunday? A police officer? A lawyer? How about a pastor? How can we know what is ok on a Sunday and what isn’t ok? I can recall stories from my own family background, a few generations back, where any enjoyment was forbidden (!) lest one “break the Sabbath”. Talk about getting things completely backwards.
Maybe, the NT way is to walk by the Spirit which gives life, and not by the letter, which brings death. If righteousness could have come by the law, then Christ died for nothing. Why bind yourself to those weak and worthless principles?
The idea that Christians should transfer Jewish Sabbath practices over to Sunday is also without any support in the New Testament. Yes, they seemed to meet on that day, as they were able, but it also says that they met daily in the temple courts in the early church in Acts. No where in the NT do we see any church having a practice that specifies Sunday (or Saturday for that matter) as having any special importance. Nor do we see Paul (or anyone else) exhort anyone to keep a Sabbath or a Sunday - quite the contrary.
A little too ironic, and yeah, I really do think…
Yeah, it’s ironic that it’s in the same list with adultery, murder and idolotry.
I didn’t read the essay, but I’ve read the thread. I think Sabbath-keeping is like tithing. The law was good in a lot of ways. It was babysitter, like Paul said. Resting is good. Giving regularly is good. But I’m with Dennis in thinking that Paul would not approve of saying the Sabbath law applies to Christians.
Paul thought that it was okay to dispense with those laws, too.
Read the essay again and get a clue. We know you didn’t read it well the first time.
The Jerusalem Council decided Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic Law. The only thing Paul encouraged Gentiles to do to live in harmony with their Jewish brothers and sisters was to avoid fornication, and eating meat sacrificed to idols and blood from strangled animals. No mention of keeping Sabbath.
Lots of things are on lists together in the Bible. You know what is supposed to get you cut off from your people? Sex with your wife less than eight days after her period starts. It’s on the same list as bestiality and sacrificing your children to Molech. Sorry, but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
That was irony, in case anyone missed it.
We aren’t talking about Mosaic law. The moral law precedes and succeeds Mosaic law.
Read the essay, for goodness’ sake.
Including the footnotes this time.
Dale, many of us have read the essay and simply disagree with you, and have shared the reasons why. Telling us to read it again is not helpful. At this point it’s probably best to agree to disagree.
I opened it when you first posted and read a few paragraphs, but it just didn’t really grab my attention.
Sometimes learning takes some self-discipline.
(Note, this post is long! I appreciate not everyone may be interested in all its points, so see the end for a TLDR summary 
)
Hi Dale,
After going out of your way to invite me, I’m sorry that I am a little late to the party. I’m not a Presbyterian myself, though (with a few notable exceptions) I do hold to the Westminster Confession as a subordinate standard. But then you may have guessed that already. I also am a big fan of John Frame, and his book The Doctrine of the Christian Life in particular. I’ve found his multi-perspectival approach to theology and ethics (among other things) hugely helpful. Even if I don’t always agree with every conclusion John Frame lands at (YEC being one) I do find I always learn something whenever I open one of his books. Also, I think his commentary on the Ten Commandments in DoCL is probably one of the best we have in Reformed circles at the moment and is essential reading along with Calvin’s commentary on them in the Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Thanks also for the opportunity to read your reflections on the Sabbath it is always worth considering the perspectives of others on these things. I especially appreciated your desire to accurately reflect all that the bible has to say on this topic. Having read your essay, and the thread, let me provide a few observations (in no particular order) and some personal perspectives along the way. Since so many have commented on the biblical angle, I’m going to mainly focus on the historical theology side.
First, I think this thread is evidence enough that discussions about the Sabbath are controversial and John Frame says as much in his commentary on the sabbath command (pg. 513). For me, that’s a clear warning to step carefully and be ready to dispense extra measures of grace and patience to brothers and sisters who see things differently. Especially, those who do not share out confessional or Reformed leanings.
Second, even in confessionally Reformed traditions, the sabbath is still a thorny problem. Luther’s small catechism (1529) frames obedience to the sabbath command as little more than church attendance:
What is meant by this Commandment?
Answer. We should so fear and love God as not to despise his word and the preaching of the gospel but deem it holy, and willingly hear and learn it.
(Martin Luther, Luther’s Small Catechism, p8).
In the Institutes (1559), John Calvin lays his cards on the table in his commentary on the sabbath too:
“Early Christian writers are wont to call it typical [that is a type of something to come], as containing the external observance of a day which was abolished with the other types on the advent of Christ. This is indeed true…”. (Institutes II, viii, 28).
However, he does also point out in section 28 out that there is more to it than that. Calvin notes that though the OT Sabbath is not obligatory for the Christian it stands as a continual reminder to cease from work’s righteousness and rest in Christ so that Spirit can work in us. He also points out that a regular day set aside is useful for pray and reflection on God’s work, and for meeting with God’s people to participate in the ordinary means of grace (Pray, bible reading, preaching, and sacraments). See Institutes II, viii, 34 for more on that. This may be why the Belgic Confession of 1561, whilst taking the time to outline how one is to view civil authorities is totally silent on the sabbath issue.
Interestingly, both Luther and Calvin’s views seem to be reflected in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), with an added ethical component focused on almsgiving:
What does God require in the fourth commandment?
First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained; and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God, to hear his word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord, and contribute to the relief of the poor. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath. (Lords Day 38, Question 103)
What is interesting is that the Catechism presents ceasing work on the sabbath not as an end itself, but as a means to an end. The goal of stopping work, the catechism says, is to “diligently frequent the church of God”. As Zacharias Ursinus, one of the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism points out in his commentary on Q103:
The end or design of the commandment is the maintenance of the public worship of God in the church; or the perpetual preservation, and use of the ecclesiastical ministry. God designs that there should at all times be a public ministry of the church and that there should be assemblies of the faithful to which his doctrine may be preached. (Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism. (G. W. Williard, trans.), 1888, pg. 557. Emphasis added).
So whilst the Catechism employs sabbath language, it doesn’t seem to do so in an Ex 20/Dt 5 sense of the word ‘sabbath’. Rather sabbath is used almost synonymously with Lord’s Day in the catechism to mean ‘the day we set aside to meet as God’s people’.
Finally, we get to the Westminster Confession (1647) which by far and away is the most prescriptive in its sabbath teaching:
This Sabbath [Sunday, see Ch 11.7] is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (Westminster Confession, 21.8)
A couple of things are worth pointing out as notable developments. It appears (to me at least) that the goal of the sabbath is now as much about not working as it is about meeting with God’s people in gathered worship. But what is particularly of note is that to fulfil this rest the confession says one must set aside work, words, and thoughts relating to employment and recreation. Instead, we are told to give the whole day over to public and private devotion. The only exception being acts of necessity (EG. Feeding the dog) or acts of mercy (EG. taking the dog to the emergency vet).
All this is a very, very long-winded way of saying that there is the development of thought rather than unity of thought in how the Reformed have approached the sabbath since the Reformation began.
Personally, I cannot in good conscience hold to the Westminster Confession on this point (though I respect those who do) and so would take exception to article 21.8 (quoted above). My personal approach is much closer to Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism. The Sabbath regulations, like all the law, is fulfilled in Christ who is our righteousness, though (among other things) we may still draw binding moral principles from them (Eg. don’t murder people and idolatry is really, really bad!). The Sabbath then stands as a reminder that we have entered God’s sabbath rest now through Christ and look forward to the fullness of that rest on the last day. Christian’s are also to set aside one day in the week to meet with God’s people for worship and participation in the ordinary means of grace as a beautiful foretaste of the fullness of rest to come. My own view is that this seems to do justice to the witness of scripture without straying into antinomianism on the one hand (the law is irrelevant to the Christian) or legalism on the other (Christians must follow every dot and tittle). It is also what I believe the writer of Hebrews is driving at in his excurses on the Sabbath.
Lastly, here are few final thoughts on the Reformed approach to the law more generally. The Reformed tradition has always put forward a threefold approach the Law, dividing it into ceremonial, civil, and moral. The argument is that the ceremonial (sacrifices, festivals, priesthood, circumcision) foreshadowed, fulfilled, and repealed in Christ. The civil foreshadowed Christ too but were mainly about regulating life in Israel. They were repealed with the dawn of the church age. The final set being the moral law (laws regarding murder, rape, stealing, the ten commandments, etc.) were fulfilled in Christ (in that he is our moral righteousness) but were not repealed.
Personally, I think that this is an extremely useful rule of thumb especially for new Christian’s reading the Exodus - Deuteronomy for the first time, or for established Christian’s wanting to make sense of and apply these books. However, and it is a big ‘however’, it isn’t quite that simple. Scholars Christopher JH Wright has pointed out that the division is artificial and probably not reflective of a Hebrew approach to the law. As such can become a bit arbitrary if applied to firmly. The sabbath is, I think a good example of this. Clearly, the Sabbath is important to the Law of Moses, yet as the Sorting Hat once said: “but where to put you?” Certainly, there are ceremonial aspects to it in that the people ceased from work to hear the law read and enjoy God’s presence around or in sacred space. There is a civil competent to it too. Since the family, the village, the tribe and the nation were to obey the sabbath law, it shaped how Israel as a civil society. And given the number of times the prophets lay into the people for not keeping it, there is a moral element to it as well. So again where to put it when, under the Reformed schema, it has elements of all three (ceremonial, civil, and moral)? That I think should again caution us about being too prescriptive in how others should approach the sabbath, or be too hardline in our application of the threefold approach to the Law.
So here is my TLDR for anyone who wants the cake without reading the recipe. Even in Reformed circles, there is both a historical diversity and a historical development of approaches to the sabbath. Therefore, I would council folk not to be too prescriptive, but to be gracious to those who see it differently. Rather, I believe we would do well to focus on what all views have in common, the setting aside of one day to meeting with God’s people in worship and to receive God’s grace through the ordinary means of prayer, bible reading, preaching and the sacraments. Beyond that, I stick like glue to Paul’s advice in Romans 14:5:
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.
Hope that helps you, Dale, and others in your collective thinking and reflecting, and provides a positive contribution to the conversation.
Did you note my note citing R.C. Sproul relevant to your citing and noting the WCF 11.8 on page 1 of the essay? We certainly agree there.
Given the big landscape and the included forest that I hoped to have partially painted and demonstrated, unskillfully, in my little essay, the correct takeaway from Romans 14:5 should be inferred to be (and since there were believing Jews in his audience):
One person considers one special sabbath day more sacred than other days; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.
It is not unlike our revering Christmas and Easter above other days.
I, for instance, believe in the sanctity of the event of Christmas, but not the sanctity of the date. Easter Sunday I think we could agree on.
The point being, the weekly Day of Rest is still close to Father’s heart and has not been rescinded (and by virtue of it being part of the moral law) and the ceasings mandated for it are still in effect, not unlike that the mandate to cease from theft is still in effect.
I would not be at all shocked if we would celebrate The Lord’s Day of Rest in some fashion in eternity, ceasing from our ‘ordinary’ labors there.
Relax, and confidently enjoy Psalm 119 as you cannot unless you are resting on The Lord’s Day.
Paul says that it’s perfectly ok to think of every day as the same. All 365 (in our calendar). That includes any festivals, feasts, “special sabbaths” and regular sabbaths. Every day alike - perfectly fine.
In your humble opinion, but in the big picture and in the context of all of scripture, maybe not so much.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
