I do want to note at the start that I believe my parents have always done what they believed was right. While I now disagree with some of the stances they took while I was growing up, I can't fully fault them for my discomforts. I know that I will make mistakes when I have kids as well, and only hope that I can remain as consistent for my (future) kids as my parents were for me.
When I was really young there were certain things I didn't do. I didn't talk back to my parents, I didn't lie, and I didn't do anything that might be considered entertainment on a Sunday. This came from a view that my parents enforced that Sunday was the Lord's day. They did loosen up on the issue as I grew older.
This meant that no forms of entertainment were allowed. This was subjective and on occasions meant that we didn't watch TV, but it wasn't usually that strict. We were also often strongly encouraged to try to rest on Sunday since it was the day of rest. These rules actually varied a bit throughout my childhood, and I presume that is because it was difficult to know what specifically dishonored the Sabbath.
As I got older I determined that this seemed rather arbitrary and that my friends who did entertaining things on Sundays weren't getting struck by lightning. Also, since we were willing to bend the rules when visiting extended family, I didn't think that my parents believed this was a lightning-strike-from-Heaven offense. In the ranking of offenses, it was a relatively minor one.
Now I am old enough to have read most parts of the Bible multiple times and to have had the opportunity to study portions of it rather intensely. Given what I have read, I am sure that the idea that God set aside Sunday as a day where Christians living under the New Covenant must do nothing but sleep or think about God is not a correct view. Every day is God's day and He is more interested with how I live on the other six days of the week than He is with whether I am watching TV on a specific day.
Now for the points from Scripture:
- Nowhere in the Bible is Saturday replaced with Sunday. I think it was moved to Sunday because of the comments in Acts 20:7 or because the Resurrection was on the Sabbath. Either reasoning is weak, though. This is one of the very few things that Seventh Day Adventists get right. If we must follow strict rules about the Sabbath, it probably should be on Saturday.
- Of all the times that Paul referred to Sabbath days, he never was for enforcing them. He did say in Rom 14:5-6 that people who observe the Sabbath should be convinced that what they are doing is right. He also said that the person who does not observe should be convinced he is right as well.
- Paul twice actually argued against those who said that the Sabbath must be observed. In Gal 4:8-11 he calls observation of special days "weak and worthless elemental things." In Col 2:16-17 Paul says that you shouldn't let someone judge you for not observing a Sabbath day and that it is simply a shadow of what was to come (Christ).
- One argument that we are still under this portion of the Law generally points out that Christ said that He would not remove even a letter from the Law. In the same breath Christ said that He would fulfill the Law.
- The author of Hebrews, Like Paul in his letter to the Colossians, pointed out that the purpose of the Sabbath was to point to Christ. This is detailed in chapters three and four. The Sabbath rest represents the fact that we no longer have to work toward our salvation, and that Christ took care of it all. That is what entering His rest is.
Thanks for indulging me (which you have if you are still reading this). I won't do these kind of posts too frequently, but it is nice to mix things up a bit.
7 comments:
1) Good joy on your post. You've always been so much better than me at concluding exactly what you believe and why.
2) Feel free to start making those mistakes you said you were sure you'd make with your kids any time now. Oh wait, first you have to have kids . . . :oD Just a thought.
Thanks for indulging ME! That was very interesting to read. I knew of a MAPS worker once who wouldn't do laundry on the Sabbath. I also might ad (stepping up beside you on the soapbox for just a bit...) that our Sunday sabbaths, if you attend every service and participate in some voluntary form, and worry about getting ready etc... can be one of the most stressful times of the day. Also, one last observation. Many A/G churches are able to rent out church space on Sundays from more established 7th Day locations. And, many A/G churches are starting Saturday night outreaches. Funny.
Interesting post. Great Biblical referencese - what a great thing to have in your store of knowledge. I just remember hating to take naps on Sundays, I wasn't a nap kind of kid. I'm kind of growing into a nap kind of adult though.
I agree with your comments on the sabbath. However, they raise a few other interesting questions. If we are not required to do some of the things the Old Testament law requires, how do we tell which ones they are? Many people try to divide the law into parts (moral, civil, and ceremonial). But there are several problems with that. First of all, James 2:10-11 makes it clear that the law is a unit. Since that is the case, I don't see how we can keep part and do away with part. Also, there is no way to tell which parts are which. There is no place in scripture that says "Do not murder" is a moral command and that "Remember the sabbath and keep it holy" is ceremonial. If there is no systematic criterion by which we can tell what parts are moral, then what stops me from taking any command of God and claiming that it is civil, and therefore it does not apply to me.
I do have my own opinion as to the right response to these questions. But I am interested in what everyone else thinks. Maybe this will bring about some good discussion.
I'll hang around and discuss it, but I'd bet no one else notices that there is a discussion here.
The purpose of the Law is two-fold. It points to Christ (especially the ceremonial parts) and it points to the need for Christ (because it is not possible to fully live by the Law). Outside of these purposes, the only parts of the Law that we are bound to are those that are encompassed in loving God and neighbor as ourselves. We really aren't even bound to those parts of the Law because they are part of the OT Law, but rather because they are a violation of the new Law that is written on our hearts.
James calls this new "law" it the "law of freedom" in the next verse (James 2:12, NAS) and Paul calls it the "law of faith" in Romans 3:27. I know there is more Scripture behind this, but this is what I am coming up with on the spur of the moment.
Again, we are no longer bound to any part of the Law. There is no distinction in the Bible that says that ceremonial Law is gone, but you ought to keep these select moral parts of the Law. It has all been fulfilled. However, to break most of the moral Law is to not act in love toward God or neighbor, and that is the standard to follow.
In short, Israel had a list of rules. God gave them the rules to show that no list of rules was ever adequate. God replaced the rules with grace and a requirement to act in love (which is harder than it sounds and keeps the Spirit of the original Law), and that is what binds us today.
I agree.
The law of Moses is a list of the stipulations of a covenant made with the civil nation of Israel. It serves all the purposes you point out. The fact that it does not apply to me is not a change -- it never did apply to anyone outside the civil nation of Israel. The reason it was "obsolete and aging and will soon disappear" (Heb. 8:13) is because the people with whom it was made were obsolete. The civil nation of Israel (which a person joined by birth) was replaced with the new Israel (which a person joins by rebirth).
The word "apply" is a little tricky. We are certainly not bound by the rules of the Law, but they are still useful for teaching and correction, so in that sense they can apply even to those who are not born into Isreal.
Of course, that is kind of nit-picking and it doesn't appear we disagree in principle. :)
Post a Comment