My pastor had a sermon on a wife’s duty to her husband, which included the truths of submission, proactive behavior, and the falsehood of feminism. I’m not married, so I could have just observed, nodded in agreement that other women should take heed, and then gone on my merry way. However, It was a delightful sermon and looking back on it, it fills me with gladness more now than when I heard first it for a couple of reasons.

One reason I owe to those here who speak of their wonderful relationship with their spouses. You might not think it impacts those of us who are single and will remain single for the remainder of our lives BUT IT DOES. It is just another demonstration of God’s faithfulness among His children.

The other reason if for all of us to share in and be abundantly thankful.

Christ is our Heavenly Husband and His church is His wife. When you think about the natural, healthy spousal relationship, you can get excited about what that means spiritually. We are “one flesh” with Christ. We have died with Him and are raised with Him. He does love us as husbands ought to love their wives. We, as His wife, are to be submissive, proactive, and fulfilling the wife role.

As I was praying one day for God’s will to be done, I was thinking about all those things that are His will that we know about. Keeping His commandments, spreading the Gospel, serving one another, etc. I then began to think about His will that we know nothing about until it happen to us. Water pipes breaking in the middle of the night, an illness, your carpenter threatening to charge more than he stated, relationships which have many obstacles, lose of a job, and I could go on and on. I began to realize that everything which happens in our lives is His will for our lives and something that we should be proactive in making His will our own. Whenever we want something done, we strive wholeheartedly for it to get done. This is what we should do with God’s will. His will should be so interwoven within us that His will is our only will. We then strive to have it fulfilled in a proactive and fruitful manner.

When husbands ask their wives to do something, the wife is to do it with a lust for excellence. So for example, if the husband asks the wife to make sure the bills are paid via check by the middle of the month, she isn’t to wait next month for the same instructions. She is to make sure each bill is fully paid via check on the date set forth every month with such exactness as to elevate this duty from her husband’s mind. The wife’s responsibilities can range from small to very large depending on her husband’s need. The point is for the wife to be proactive in being a helpmate to her husband, to serve him in order that his duties are lightened and he is fully served by her. Wives should find excitement in serving their husbands, should anticipate that sparkle in their husband’s eyes when he sees their hard work and how they have been faithful in their duties. That excitement comes from the fact that they are completely head over hills in love with their husband, and they know that they themselves are the apple of their husband’s eye!

In like manner, we are to be towards Christ. He has given His wife a set of duties to perform. We should look at these duties as love acts toward Christ. Thankfully, He performs them through us via sanctification, but our heart’s desire should be a lust for obedience. When His will invades our lives in the form of a surprise, if it is trial, we should run to Him expecting Him to show us His imitate, husbandly love to us. It should be a loving time that we have with Him. Those of you who do have earthly relationships will be able to understand this better, but we who are single are not without some understanding. Christ does caressing heal any wounds that are brought about by these trials, He hold us and sustains us, and fills us with the fruit of the Spirit, and we fall deeper in love with our Heavenly Husband. We should be proactive in learning what we can from these trials so that we can learn more about His love and grace towards us, and thus, conform to His image. If happy, abundant times enter our lives unexpectedly, this is a time to rest on the mountaintop of His plentitude and feed on the green pastures beside the still waters He has given to us to build us up in Him. When we understand that He loves us with a love so deep we cannot understand and understand that He is our Husband who is in control of our lives, then we can be to Him that excited and faithful wife seen in Proverbs 31. I prayer for myself along with the rest of my brothers and sisters is that I be that faithful, proactive, loving wife to Him!

Proverbs 31:10-31

10 An excellent wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
11The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant;
she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She dresses herself with strength
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes bed coverings for herself;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates
when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers sashes to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.

“Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God- but to create Him.” Arthur C. Clarke

My first reaction to this quote is to shudder, which I should most violently, but do I in my daily life? What is God’s law and how do I break it like this man?

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Arthur is in rebellion and does not have a new nature. He cannot love God and serve only Him, therefore, he has to create a god with whom he is comfortable. I do have a God to whom I own all my allegiance and love, but I do have other gods before Him and those gods show up as graven images.

When life isn’t exactly what we want it to be we tend to create a god and normally it shows up as graven images. We should be careful not to think of the Second Commandment as something only pagans do…the building of images to which they burn incense and pray. This commandment is far more reaching than that common idea of a graven image. God says that we are not to make a graven imagine of anything in the universe to serve neither of Him nor those things He has created. To serve something is to be a slave to it. This image could be as “righteous” as the love of theology or as sinful as viewing pornography. We’ll leave the “big sins” out of this post since we all can agree and readily see it as breaking many commandments.

If my love is found in the image itself and not God, it is a graven image no matter how neutral that image might be or even how good that image might be. If I’m serving my brother or sister because I want recognition, the need for recognition has become my god and the work a graven image. Another example would be dissatisfaction or boredom in my circumstances. I might spend a reasonable amount of time on my favorite hobby. My hobby begins to give me some measure of happiness and I am able to find some personal acknowledgement from others when they view my handiwork. Nothing wrong with this so far until I begin to find my worth in my hobby. My hobby begins to fill most of my thoughts throughout the day. I get excited about resuming my work on my hobby. I quickly try to do all the work that needs to be done in order that I might return to my hobby. Reading God’s Word and praying begins to take second place, and I do it only as a duty. I have now lost my way, at least temporarily, all because I was bored (feel free to put a word in here that best describes you). Dissatisfaction of one’s circumstances isn’t always bad. Had I gone before the Lord and told Him that I was dissatisfied and needed a closer walk with Him, asked for the grace to better pray and read/understand His Word, then I would have grown in my walk with God. However, this dissatisfaction would have been a God sent. The dissatisfaction I described above is a sin. It is a love of self that is greater than a love for my God. In order to resolve my boredom, I created a god with whom I could live, conquer, and manipulate. So what have I done? I’ve taken Arthur’s advice and have broken two of God’s commandments. Yet, we have hope in Christ!

Philippians 1:6 “6And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

It is very logical to state that the 4th commandment does not state that the Sabbath was on Saturday or any other particular day. It only states that the Sabbath is to be observed on the seventh day. Any nation could have made up their own calendar which would make any day of the week the seventh day. I’m not sure that actually happened with any nation, but since I don’t know the answer to that, we’ll just say that it is possible that there were some nations which made different days of the week the seventh day.

It is not really important to me if other nations did change the seventh day of the week to something different from what I know. I only care about what God would do.

Jonathan Edwards hangs his hat on the fact that the seventh day in the Ten Commandments can and does mean anything God wants it to mean. For the Jew, it meant Saturday and for the Christian, it means Sunday. But is this a sturdy peg on which to hang one’s hat? Let’s look at some doctrine and different Scripture.

One of the main concepts to which the literal Sabbath-keeper (I also) holds is that the Sabbath was a creation ordinance. It is believed that God established the Sabbath at the time of creation when He rested from all His work. Now there is nothing in the Genesis account which would tell us which day this actually was.

Genesis 2:1 “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.”

The Genesis account is as vague as the 4th commandment account in that it uses “seventh” instead of “Saturday”. However, we must all agree that God established the first day as the first day and so on. He did not have multiple weeks with which He could use in order to switch the places of the days He made. The first day was indeed the first day. No other day could be that day. Each day was identified by what God did on that day. To mix these days up would be to change the order in which God created each thing, and to do this is certainly unbiblical and also would show mankind’s effort to get the upper hand on God.  I am not claiming that anyone is doing this.

Therefore, although we cannot say that it was on Saturday that God rested, we can say that He rested on the seventh day which was indeed the seventh day. I’m not so sure God gave names to the days of the week. It wouldn’t be out of the question that He let mankind give names to the days of the week. 

With all this so-called ambiguity created by some literal Sabbath keeper such as Jonathan Edwards, the question now extends to Adam and Eve. Did Adam and Eve know on which day God rested? All literal Sabbath-keepers would be hard press to say, “No”. In fact, they would argue that Adam and Eve observed the Sabbath day. Adam and Eve pretty much began their existence observing the Sabbath. They were created on the sixth day which may or may not have taken the whole day. In any case, they would have been able to see that they were the last to be created when the next day God rested and they also joined in His rest. It is interesting to note here at this point that Adam and Eve participated in God’s Sabbath rest BEFORE they even did one day’s worth of work. I might be going out on a limb here, but doesn’t this show even at the beginning of time that Adam and Eve “rested” from any work of their own because they hadn’t done any work at that point and rested in the work that God had done? Perhaps, that’s why they were created last. They could not take any glory in “helping” God in any way. 

 After being in slavery for 400 years, it is quite possible that the Israelites forgot which day of the week it was as Jonathan Edwards points out. However, there are other literal Sabbath-keepers who state just the opposite. Here is a quote by Dr. R. L. Dabney and here is its link. Look under number 504.

“But especially does the twenty-second verse of Exodus chap. 16 prove our view and refute the other. The people had, on the sixth day, already begun to make preparations for the rest of the seventh by gathering two portions of manna, before Moses or the elders had said one word to them about it! Their doing so was what prompted the elders to make the inquiry of Moses. Thus it appears beyond question that the Hebrews did know of God’s command to hallow the Sabbath, and were in the general (not universal) habit of honoring it, before ever the manna had fallen or Moses had said a word about the duty.”

So which is it? Did the Israelites know which day was the Sabbath or did they not? Although Jonathan Edwards was more intelligent than most people (Dr. R. L. Dabney might even agree more intelligent than himself), I will have to side on the side of Dr. R. L. Dabney’s belief that the Israelites knew which day was the Sabbath day for the very reason he gave which is according to Scripture. We can presume logical things about the Israelites all day long, but if they are not supported by Scripture one has to abandon them.

If the Israelites already knew which day was the seventh day because it was an established point in time since the beginning of time, then it is unremarkable that God didn’t state “Saturday” in the 4th commandment instead of “seventh”. If God established the seventh day to have its own place in time, then He didn’t need to say “Saturday” in the 4th commandment. The seventh day would always be the seventh day no matter what you called it. You could call it “Saturday” or you could call it “Goenluyn” and it still remains the seventh day. Actually, God saying “seventh” secures the place that the Sabbath day held. If He had stated “Saturday” in the 4th commandment, then mankind could have changed the actual day to another day and just named the new day “Saturday”.  For example, mankind decides he doesn’t like the seventh day to be the Sabbath day so he changes it to the fourth day. All he would have to do is change the fourth day’s  name to “Saturday” and he would still be observing the law. If God had put “Saturday” into the 4th commandment instead of “seventh”, then He in essence wouldn’t have specified which day was the Sabbath but would have only given the Sabbath day a name. You see, the order of the days would be impossible to change since He established their place in time, but the names of the days would be possible to change, and God knew that.

However, let’s continue with Jonathan’s line of thinking for the sake of showing where errors might exist. 

Even though the Israelites had forgotten the day on which to celebrate the Sabbath, can we lay this forgetfulness upon God? Would He be perplexed as to which day to honor the Sabbath? No. Everyone agrees that God knew which day was the Sabbath. Many would agree that it was the same day on which He rested in the creational account.  

God had been just as vague about which day was the Sabbath day in the creational account as He was in the 4th commandment, and yet, He expected Adam to know which day it was. We have no Scriptural support which would leads us to believe that God had to spell out this day for Adam. We are not shown that Adam was left with the sense that any day could be the seventh day, and therefore, needed divine revelation as to which day was the seventh day. It must be supposed then that God made each day to fit in the order in which He made them. Why would this not continue throughout history? Why would He make a commandment which could scramble the seventh day around in the week? He had created the seventh day to fit in its own place in time. Was He now about to  decide to change the order of the days via a moral command? Why would He do that? Would He really make the “seventh” in the 4th commandment undefined, not because He didn’t know which day was the seventh at the time of creation, but because He wanted to change the place in time the seventh day had always inhabited later on in history? God is an orderly God, yet this indeed seems very unorderly. This is, however, what Jonathan purports.

Let’s for the sake of continuance say he is right. Which Scripture tells us that Saturday is now Sunday and both are the seventh? I, of course, do not believe there is any Scripture to support this. However, if we continue with Jonathan Edward’s line of thinking, any day of the week can be the seventh day as long as you work six days before the “resting” day. We have to use the same reasoning here in the NT as he used in the OT. Once you’ve established a premise, you must carry it through to the end of your belief system. His premise is that the “seventh” in the 4th commandment isn’t particular to a specific day and that God had to give Exo. 16, which is outside of the moral law and thus has the ability to change, to show the Israelites what day He meant by the “seventh” in the 4th commandment. If the 4th commandment is ambiguous for them, then it is also ambiguous for us. We would, therefore, need an “Exo. 16″ in order to tell us which day is the Sabbath. Well, we did have an “Exo 16″, but Jonathan Edwards claims that we now cannot use Exo. 16 as our instructions to tell us which day is the Sabbath.

He believes God changed the Sabbath day in the NT and supports this change with Scriptures such as Christ’s resurrection, one account of Paul preaching on the first day of the week, Paul’s instruction to put aside money on the first day of the week, and John the Apostle having a vision on the Lord’s Day. Fine! I don’t think any of those Scriptures support his beliefs, but let’s pretend they do. 

If Jonathan Edwards is willing to allow the seventh day in the week to be mobile and not adhere to Scriptural support that God gave each day its own position in time, then that type of thinking also has to extend to every other day of the week including the first day of the week. We might have Scripture which tells us to change the Sabbath from the seventh to the first, but we lack Scripture which tells us which day the first day actually is…remember we’ve thrown out Exo. 16 which informed the Jew on which day (Saturday) the Sabbath took place. This would seem like a ridiculous statement to Edwards because he would state that the Jews had for centuries observed the Sabbath on Saturday, and so it would be natural for the first day to follow the seventh day. However, he would be ascribing to the principle that God established each day in its own place in time…a principle he threw out some time ago!

Jonathan Edwards

First, the words of the fourth commandment afford no objections against this being the day that should be the Sabbath, any more than against any other day. That this day, which according to the Jewish reckoning, is the first of the week, should be kept as a Sabbath, is no more opposite to any sentence or word of the fourth command, than that the seventh of the week should be the day. The words of the fourth command do not determine which day of the week we should keep as a Sabbath. They merely determine, that we should rest and keep as a Sabbath every seventh day, or one day after every six. It says, “Six days thou shalt labour, and the seventh thou shalt rest;” which implies no more, than that after six days of labour, we shall upon the next to the sixth, rest and keep it holy. And this we are obliged to do forever. But the words no way determine where those six days shall begin, and so where the rest or Sabbath shall fall. There is no direction in the fourth command how to reckon the time, i.e. where to begin and end it. But that is supposed to be determined otherwise. The Jews did not know, by the fourth command, where to begin their six days, and on which particular day to rest: this was determined by another precept. The fourth command does indeed suppose a particular day appointed; but it does not appoint any. It requires us to rest and keep holy a seventh day, one after every six of labor, which particular day God either had or should appoint. The particular day was determined for that nation in another place, viz. in Exo. 16:23-26, “And he said unto them, this is that which the Lord hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake, today, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over, lay up for you to be kept until the morning. And Moses said, Eat that today; for today is a sabbath unto the Lord: today ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.” This is the first place where we have any mention made of the Sabbath, from the first Sabbath on which God rested. It seems that the Israelites, in the time of their bondage in Egypt, had lost the true reckoning of time by the days of the week, reckoning from the first day of the creation. They were slaves and in cruel bondage and had in a great measure forgotten the true religion. For we are told that they served the gods of Egypt. And it is not to be supposed that the Egyptians would suffer their slaves to rest from their work every seventh day. Now, they having remained in bondage for so long a time, had probably lost the weekly reckoning. Therefore, when God had brought them out of Egypt into the wilderness, he made known to them the Sabbath, on the occasion and in the manner recorded in the text just now quoted. Hence, we read in Nehemiah that when God had led the children of Israel out of Egypt, etc. he made known unto them his holy Sabbath, Neh. 9:14, “And madest known unto them the holy sabbath.” To the same effect, we read din Eze. 20:10, 12, “Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. Moreover also, I gave them my sabbaths.” But they never would have known where the particular day would have fallen by the fourth command. Indeed, the fourth command, as it was spoken to the Jews, did refer to their Jewish Sabbath. But that does not prove that the day was determined and appointed by it. The precept in the fourth command is to be taken generally of such a seventh day as God should appoint, or had appointed. And because such a particular day had been already appointed for the Jewish church, therefore, as it was spoken to them, it did refer to that particular day. But this does not prove, but the same words refer to another appointed seventh day, now in the Christian church. The words of the fourth command may oblige the church, under different dispensations, to observe different appointed seventh days, as well as the fifth command may oblige different persons to honor different fathers and mothers. The Christian Sabbath, in the sense of the fourth command, is as much the seventh day as the Jewish Sabbath, because it is kept after six days of labor as well as that. It is the seventh reckoning from the beginning of our first working-day, as well as that was the seventh from the beginning of their first working day. All the difference is that the seven days formerly began from the day after God’s rest from the creation, and now they begin the day after that. It is no matter by what names the days are called: if our nation had, for instance, called Wednesday the first day of the week, it would have been all one as to this argument. Therefore, by the institution of the Christian Sabbath, there is no change from the fourth command; but the change is from another law, which determined the beginning and ending of their working days. So that those words of the fourth command, viz. “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.” These words are not made insignificant to Christians, by the institution of the Christian Sabbath. They still remain in their full force as to that which is principally intended by them. They were designed to give us a reason why we are to word but six days at a time, and then rest on the seventh, because God has set us the example. And taken so, they remain still in as much force as ever they were. This is the reason still, as much as ever it was, why we may work but six days at a time. What is the reason that Christians rest every seventh, and not every eighth, or every ninth, or tenth day? It is because God worked six days and rested the seventh. It is true, these words did carry something further in their meaning, as they were spoken to the Jews, and to the church before the coming of Christ. It was then also intended by them that the seventh day was to be kept in commemoration of the work of creation. But this is no objection to the supposition that the words, as they relate to us, do not import all that they did, as they related to the Jews. For there are other words which were written upon those tables of stone with the ten commandments, which are known and allowed not to be of the same import, as they relate to us, and as they related to the Jews, viz. these words, in the preface to the ten commandments, “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” — These words were written on the tables of stone with the rest, and are spoken to us, as well as to the Jews. They are spoken to all to whom the commandments themselves are spoken, for they are spoken as an enforcement of the commandments. But they do not now remain in all the signification which they had, as they respected the Jews. For we never were brought out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, except in a mystical sense. — The same may be said of those words which are inserted in the commandments themselves, Deu. 5:15, “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God commanded thee out thence, through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath-day.”

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.

We need to look at Scriptures which state, “Cut off” and see how they are used and then later define this phrase.

1.Genesis 9:11 “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
2.Genesis 17:14 “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
3.Exodus 8:9 “Moses said to Pharaoh, “Be pleased to command me when I am to plead for you and for your servants and for your people, that the frogs be cut off from you and your houses and be left only in the Nile.”
4.Exodus 9:15 “For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth.”
5.Exodus 12:15 “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.”
6.Exodus 31:14 “You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.”
7.Leviticus 17:4 “and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD, blood guilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.”
8.Leviticus 17:10 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.”

Now that we have our texts with which we can work, let’s define what is meant by “cut off”. All of these Scriptures use words such as “among”, “by”, “from” after the phrase ”cut off” but they are not used consistently with just one of the Ten Commandments (Exo 31:14) or with just a ceremonial law (Gen 17:14). Therefore, these words do not change the meaning of “cut off”. 

Next, I will discuss each one of these verses in order to show whether or not “cut off” means “to put to death” or whether it means “to cast out of Israel”. I will use their numbers in order to speak of each verse so that I don’t have retype the verse all over again.

1. This verse is obviously speaking of “putting to death” since all of creation, save Noah and his family, died in the flood ie Genesis 6:17. This only supports that “cut off” means “putting to death”…has nothing to do with moral or ceremonial laws.
2. This verse isn’t obvious. We would have to go to other Scripture which is clear in order to back up either view. I will type out the whole text since this verse isn’t clear. Genesis 4:24-26 is the verse which confirms that those who were not circumcised were put to death: “24At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.” This verse supports that “cut off” means “putting to death” and it proves that that ceremonial laws carried the death penalty for the offender.
3. This verse is obviously speaking of “putting to death” since the frogs died ie Genesis 8:13. This verse only supports that “cut off” means “putting to death” and has nothing to do with any law.
4. This verse is obviously speaking of “putting to death” since the only way (at that time) you could leave earth was by death. This verse only supports that “cut off” means “putting to death” and has nothing to do with any law.
5. This verse isn’t obvious as to whether it speaks of “putting to death” or banishment.
6. This verse is interesting in that it states that if you break the Sabbath, the offender shall be put to death and then a few words later says the offender shall be cut off. Obviously, it is clear that “cut off” here means death since I don’t believe God is giving them a choice to either die or be banished. One would obviously choose banishment instead of death. It might not be ideal to live with the Gentiles, but it certainly wouldn’t have been impossible ie Naomi.
7. Even though the offender described in this verse isn’t guilty of murdering another human being, he was guilty of offering a sacrifice in the wrong manner and is described as being “blood guilty”. A verse which can be used in support of this is Lev 10:1-2. This can be used to support both the moral law (2nd Commandment) and the ceremonial laws connected to sacrifices.
8. This verse is not obvious as to whether it speaks of “putting to death” or banishment. 1Sam is the only place I see where God’s people ate blood but they were neither put to death nor put outside of Israel. Gen 9:3-5 and Lev 17:12-14 seem to suggest that one would be put to death if they ate blood, but again, none of these verses directly tells us this nor shows us an example of the offender being put to death. In the end, this verse remains unclear.

Many of these usages of “cut off” mean “to put to death”. It is very clear that one cannot say that “cut off” doesn’t ever mean “to put to death”. The important verse of all these verses is Gen 17:14 and it’s clarifying verse, Gen 4:24-26. To say that the Sabbath can be proven to be a moral law because it required the death penalty if broken, is no proof at all since the death penalty was also used on those who were not circumcised. It would seem that the death penalty was used on both the moral and ceremonial laws.

“16Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.”

Many literal-Sabbath keepers insist that the Sabbath to which Paul is referring is a ceremonial Sabbath and not the 4th Commandment Sabbath. Is there ceremonial Sabbaths and also a 4th Commandment Sabbath? Let’s look at the wording in Colossians:

“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.”

The article “a” is used instead of the article”the”. In the English language when we want to speak about a specific item, we use the article “the”. So when I say to someone, “Go to the house” that person will know of which house I spoke. If I said, “Go to a house” they would look at me expecting more info so that they would know of which house I speak. Is that what God is doing here in Colossians? Is God using “a” to show us there are ceremonial Sabbaths versus the 4th Commandment Sabbath? Is God saying ”a Sabbath” so that we have many Sabbath from which to choose? Well, we can’t ask God directly what He actually meant here in Colossians, so we have to go to other Scripture to see how He uses these two articles when speaking of the Sabbath. Let’s go to Exodus to find some example of how God uses them:

Ex 16:23 This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD…
Ex 16:25 Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD.
Ex 16:26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none
Ex 16:29 See! The LORD has given you the Sabbath;
Ex 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
Ex 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God
Ex 20:11 Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Ex 31:13 Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths
Ex 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you.
Ex 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.

There are many more examples, but I think these show that God uses both “a” and “the” when speaking of the 4th Commandment. If the article “the” used before Sabbath isn’t specific to the 4th Commandment and “a” isn’t used for all other “sabbaths”, then is this evidence that there is no ceremonial sabbaths? Well, first we need to define the term Sabbath. We must remember that Sabbath isn’t defined as Saturday, but instead means “to cease”. The 4th Commandment told us from what we were to cease.

Exodus 20 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

How did the Israelites keep the Sabbath day holy? If God had only given this part of the commandment, the Israelites would have either been too strict or too laxed concerning His law. Therefore, God gave instructions from what to cease.

9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

These are the instructions (which defines Sabbath) that were needed by the Israelites in order for them to fulfill God’s commandment to rest. Whether one wants to say this command is moral or ceremonial, makes no difference for the Israelite who needed this set of instructions.

Different groups claim this is a moral law while other groups say it is a ceremonial law. I say it is both. It is a moral law in the fact that this law requires obedience. There is nothing immoral about work in and of itself. But just as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn’t evil, but instead, the disobeying of God by eating of the fruit from that tree was the evil, so work isn’t immoral but only the disobeying of God by working on Saturday was immoral. It is ceremonial in that the literal keeping of the Sabbath represents the rest we find in Christ.

The moral aspect of this law is not done away with but is instead fulfilled in Christ and perfectly kept by us being kept in our salvation by Christ (Heb 3&4). The unsaved person is disobeying the call to repentance and resting in Christ. Their own works represents the Israelite who worked on Saturday. For example, they might give money to the poor (James 2:16) but their “good” work is done without faith. They have disobeyed God even though their work of giving to the poor is not morally wrong.

The ceremonial aspect of this law is kept by those whose conscious demands its adherence (Rom 14:5-9).  NT scripture never condemns people for observing the Sabbath literally (Rom 14:5-9), but it does caution the reader against putting their confidence in the literal keeping of the Sabbath instead of Christ (Gal 4:9-11 and Col 2:16-17).

Our next post will continue to address the issue of moral versus ceremonial Sabbaths.