It is quite possible that most everything I have researched and have concluded is entirely wrong. I pray that it isn’t. However, if it is, I pray that God through His mercy will show me where I err.
My last two posts were concerning the moral vs. the ceremonial theories pertaining to the 4th commandment. I sided with neither, but instead agreed with both theories in some fashion or another. But let’s pretend for a moment that I’m completely wrong and that the 4th commandment is only a moral law…one which would never be abrogated in any fashion. The next few paragraphs would state their claims which would ban the abrogation of the 4th commandment in any manner.
The other nine commandments were never abrogated in any fashion so why would the 4th commandment which is among the Ten Commandments be abrogated? None of the other nine commandments were changed or tweaked at all to make them better laws. Jesus didn’t add to “thou shalt not murder” by stating that anger was as murder. He only revealed to us the full dimension of the law, and thus, showed us how utterly unable we are to fulfill the law. He didn’t give us a “Colossians 2:16″ for the moral law of murder. No one, for example, disputes whether or not murdering someone is now allowed, so why make a dispute concerning the physical observance of the 4th commandment?
Literal Sabbath-keepers would contend that none of the commandments are shown as a type and shadow of the Substance to come. I would agree with their contention but with the exception of the 4th commandment as shown in Hebrews 3&4. The rest of the nine commandments do not even hint at the type and shadow language. However, everyone has to agree that Hebrews 3&4 does hint, (I believe it does more than just hint) at the very least, to the similarities (if not the actual type and shadow) of the Sabbath rest and the rest we find in Christ. This alone sets it apart from the other nine commandments in its character.
Even if one agrees with the spiritual implications of the Sabbath, that same person does not necessarily have to agree that we are not obliged to physically keep the 4th commandment. One might argue that Jesus only revealed the full extent of the 4th commandment in the same way that He revealed the full extent of the other nine commandments. For their sakes, we will ignore Colossians 2:16 since they do not believe that verse speaks of the 4th commandment. With that in mind let’s get down to the heart of the matter.
I cannot say with confidence that all Christians understand the moral law to be the judicial nature of God, but at least most believe this to be true. Part of God’s nature can be seen through the law He gave to His people. It shows His righteousness. It is part of who He is.
We also agree that Scripture teaches that God is never changing that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. We teach that although God is omnipotent, He is unable to change His nature for any reason. For Him to change His nature would be for Him to either digress from being perfect into something which isn’t perfect or for Him to improve upon His nature. Either scenario is rejected by faithful Christians. Yet, we have both the literal Sabbath-keeper and the non literal Sabbath-keeper changing what some deem to be a moral law in its entirety. How can anyone rationalize this type of thinking? Nothing about the other nine laws were changed, yet the Sabbath day was changed from the seventh day to the first day. How can they change part of what they deem to be a moral law?
The literal Sabbath-keeper does not believe that mankind changed this moral law, but that God changed it. Their evidential Scriptures are Christ’s resurrection on Sunday and His apostles who were gathered on that day (even though they were gathered together because they feared the Jewish leaders not because they were celebrating the Sabbath), Paul preached once on a Sunday (Acts 20:7), Paul instructed the churches to set aside money on the first day of every week (1 Cor16:2), and John the Apostle had a vision on “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10). Here lies their colossal evidence of God changing part of a moral law. However, all their evidence is lacking in many ways.
The first way in which their evidence lacks credibility is in the fact that God’s moral law cannot be changed in any fashion. If the 4th commandment is a moral law in its entirety, then not even the day can be changed by God or man. This is enough to silence the naysayer, but I will add more.
The second way in which their evidence lacks credibility is in the fact that their evidence is proof to the contrary. It could be argued that Christ rose on the first day of the week in order to fulfill the Sabbath by not doing any work on the seventh day of the week or the Sabbath. To rise from the dead, would constitute working. Thus, He rested on the Sabbath day and rose (worked) on the first day of the week.
It could be argued that Paul did the same as his Lord when he was speaking with the brethren on a Sunday and resurrected a young man from the dead who had fallen out of a window. It seems ridiculous that God would orchestrate a young man’s death on a Sunday so as not to break the Sabbath day I would agree, but then so does claiming this text as one’s evidence for changing a moral law. Perhaps the more logical thought on this verse is that the emphasis should be placed on the fact that Paul resurrected a young man from the dead and not on which day he did it. Paul preached every day according to Acts 2:46. The naysayer would contend that raising someone from the dead would fall into the “work exceptions” category of mercy. Here I will only briefly remind my reader that what was done before the crucifixion of Christ cannot necessarily be stated as a change from OT law observance, and thus, your claim to your right to be able to do the same and also claim it as something new after the resurrection of Christ. Don’t worry. I will explain myself in a later post.
If this isn’t enough for this one text, then one can deal with the terminology being used relating to the breaking of bread. Here is the text. Let’s dissect it. Acts 20:7-20
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. 8There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. 9And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, ‘Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.’ 11And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. 12And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.”
The first thing some grasp hold of as being evidence for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday it the phrase, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day.” The breaking of bread can mean a number of things all of which support my thought that the emphasis of this text is to be on the resurrection. One meaning of the term “breaking of bread” can mean having the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:26) or it can mean having an ordinary meal with other people (Acts 27:35). If this part of the text is referring to them having the Lord’s Supper, then Acts 2:46 also means they were celebrating the Lord’s Supper EVERY DAY. In both instances, they are breaking bread amongst the brethren which sounds more like the Lord’s Supper. Yet many claim that Acts 2:46 is referring to them eating ordinary meals and that is why it was done every day in their homes. However, if one claims Acts 2:46 as being the same as Acts 27:35, then what is to prevent one from claiming that Acts 20:7 isn’t also the same as Acts 27:35, and thus, thwarting any claims on this text being evidence of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. If one holds to the claim that this text is celebrating the Lord’s Supper, then one also has to hold to the notion that Acts 2:26 is celebrating the Lord’s Supper, and therefore, Paul celebrating the Lord’s Supper on Sunday is no monumental action since the church did it every day of the week.
What is left of this verse is inconsequential; however, I will point it out. Paul and company did not actually break bread until after midnight which would make that Monday. Of course, you have those who hold to the day beginning at evening and ending at evening, but those people are not the literal Sabbath-keeping, Westminster-Catechism-believing (or other similar catechisms) people of God. Those who hold to the Westminster Catechism’s understanding of the Sabbath do not believe that the day began in the evening and ended in the evening, so I have my work on this matter done for me.
Their cincher verse which one would say dispels all I just stated would be 1Cor 16:2 “2On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.”
Again, you have stated here that people are to do something on the first day of the week. However, what is Paul instructing the people to do on the first day of the week? Because American churches take up offerings on Sunday for their own church, we assume that they were doing the same thing here in this text. We put our own culture onto them. I have no doubt that they went to church on Sunday since in Acts they are shown to be attending to church every day. My doubt comes into play when this text is used to support the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
First, Paul is not setting a precedence for having church on Sunday here. There isn’t even any mention of having church…I’m sure they did, but again, that isn’t the emphasis here. The emphasis is on collecting some money from this church to send to another church that was in need. The literal Sabbath-keeper’s point is well taken on the issue that twice Paul mentions Sunday on which something special was performed and never states any other day of the week as doing something special. I agree. I think Paul is making a big deal out of Sunday as we all should for it was on Sunday that our Lord rose from the dead. John’s reference to seeing a vision on the Lord’s Day shows a particular affection for Sundays, but it is hardly a command to change a law which the literal Sabbath-keeper claims to be a moral law in its entirety.
