← Back to sermon library

I'll just read the section concerning 
the fourth commandment because there's a lot of material to 
get through. I really don't want to not make it through tonight. 
We're taking July and August off, so no Wednesday night Bible 
study for the next two months, so I thought it would be good 
for us to finish tonight. Deuteronomy 5, I'll read verses 
12 to 15. "'Observe the Sabbath day to 
keep it holy "'as the Lord your God commanded you. "'Six days 
you shall labor and do all your work, "'but the seventh day is 
the Sabbath of the Lord your God. "'In it you shall do no 
work, you nor your son, "'nor your daughter, nor your male 
servant, "'nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, 
"'nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger "'who is within 
your gates, that your male servant "'and your female servant may 
rest as well as you. And remember that you were a 
slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you 
out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm. Therefore, 
the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day." Amen. So we looked at an exposition 
of the commandment, the things that were prohibited, and then 
the things of the positive aspects of the command. We then looked 
at the Sabbath and the Old Covenant beginning in Genesis chapter 
2. Verses 1 to 3, when God finished the work of creation, he sabbathed, 
he rested, and that was paradigmatic, or it functioned as a pattern 
for the creature. We know that because in Genesis chapter 4, 
at the end of days, end of the days of the week, Cain and Abel 
present their sacrifice to God. They learned about sacrifice. 
from Adam. Adam learned it from God, according 
to Genesis 3. God killed animals and covered 
Adam and Eve with skins. So Adam passed that information 
about offering to his sons and the day upon which they were 
to offer. As we continue in the Old Testament, we see a Sabbath 
that precedes Sinai, Exodus chapter 16. In the gathering of manna, 
they were told on the sixth day to gather up a double portion 
so that they wouldn't have to violate the Sabbath day. So at 
Exodus 20 we then have the giving of the law, we have moral law 
in Exodus 20, judicial law in Exodus 21-23, and then ceremonial 
law in Exodus 25-30. And of course the fourth commandment 
has both moral and positive aspects, or moral and ceremonial. The 
moral stipulates that one day out of seven we're to worship 
God. Positively, we learn in the Old Covenant, it's a seventh 
day, Saturday Sabbath. And in the New Covenant, we're 
going to argue tonight that it's the first day or Sunday Sabbath 
keeping. So then from Sinai, we go to 
the plains of Moab, and we see the same commandment. We see 
different rationales, though, not different as in contradictory, 
but different in terms of emphasis. So in Exodus 20, The rationale 
for Sabbath-keeping is creation. God made the world in six days, 
and then He rested. Well, here in Deuteronomy 5, 
specifically at verse 15, it's redemption. So remember that 
you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God 
brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched 
arm. Therefore, the Lord your God commanded you to keep the 
Sabbath day. So creation and redemption are 
the rationale for a Sabbath, a weekly Sabbath. We then move 
to the prophet Isaiah. We saw Isaiah 56 and Isaiah 58 
speak favorably and positively of a New Testament or of a Sabbath 
present in the New Covenant. We know that section deals with 
the Messianic Age. It's prophetic concerning the 
Lord Jesus Christ. And then we looked at Jeremiah 
31, the promise of the New Covenant through an Old Covenant prophet. 
And we see that Jeremiah prophesies that God is going to write the 
law on the heart. We argue that that's the moral 
law, the Ten Commandments, or the Decalogue. And then last 
week we looked at, or began to look at, the Sabbath and the 
New Covenant, the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, His teaching, 
His doctrine. Do not think that I came to abolish 
the law. I didn't come to abolish it, 
but rather to fulfill it. We saw several ways in which 
He fulfills it, but as well He confirms that doctrine. He doesn't 
nullify it. He doesn't get rid of it. And 
then we saw the ministry of Jesus Christ in terms of his confrontation 
with the Pharisees in Matthew chapter 12. And we see there 
that the works of necessity and mercy are authorized. They were 
always so, with reference to Sabbath day. And I quoted a man 
by the name of James Gilfillan, who made the observation concerning 
Jesus and the confrontations that he had with the religious 
leaders concerning the Sabbath. He says, Christ was careful to 
clear it from Jewish corruptions. And if there was any preset more 
particularly vindicated by him and honored than another, it 
was that requiring the Sabbath day to be kept holy. It is not 
the practice of a wise man to repair a house which he is about 
to pull down. So the argument's clear. Why 
does Jesus fight with the Pharisees on Sabbath observance? Not so 
that he can say, well, I'm going to render it null and void at 
my death and resurrection. It's no longer binding on the 
new covenant people of God. No, like Gilfillan says, it is 
not the practice of a wise man to repair a house, which he is 
about to pull down. I think that's a very good observation. 
And then we saw the reason for the day change, and we're going 
to see that in more detail, is the resurrection of Christ. The 
Lord Jesus rose from the dead on that first day of the week, 
and that is why the church follows that pattern in terms of observance 
of Sunday as the Lord's day or Christian Sabbath. Now we move 
into the teaching of the apostles, and the first place you can turn 
is to Hebrews chapter 4. Hebrews chapter 4. We'll start 
first with the day change, and then we'll look at other passages 
that support this in the rest of the New Testament. But the 
Sabbath rest that remains, if you look specifically at Hebrews 
chapter 4 and verses 9 and 10, it says, there remains therefore 
a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered his rest 
has himself also ceased from his works as God did from his. Now, to get a good understanding 
of what's happening here, In Hebrews 4 at verses 9 and 10, 
we need to consider Hebrews 3 and 4 as a whole. So basically what 
we have is this exhortation on the part of the apostle for the 
people of God who profess faith in Jesus Christ to persevere. 
to be steadfast, to be faithful to the Lord that saved them. 
So in chapter 3, true members of the covenant are distinguished 
by their perseverance. Notice in 3.6, but Christ as 
a son over his own house, whose house we are if we hold fast 
the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. 
You can't read Hebrews without seeing that emphasis. It's a 
book filled with warnings. And the specific warnings are 
directed to those Jews who professed faith in Jesus Christ. I think 
the book was written prior to the destruction of the temple 
in AD 70. And what was happening is that 
the Jewish professors of faith in Jesus Christ are being pressured 
by workmates. They're being pressured by family 
members. They're being pressured by rabbis and priests to come 
back to Moses, to come back to the old covenant system. to come 
back to the temple, to come back to the priesthood, and to sacrifice. 
That's why the author of Hebrews emphasizes the superiority of 
Jesus Christ over the angels, over the prophets, over Moses 
himself, over Joshua, over that old covenant system. Christ is 
superior, so don't renege on Christ and go back to Moses. He's not saying Moses is bad, 
but Moses functioned to point people to the Lord Jesus Christ. 
So there's a recurring emphasis on going forward. This is the 
second of several warnings in this book. Then notice the warning 
from David about the wilderness generation in chapter 3, verses 
7 to 11. It's a quote from Psalm 95. So 
again, the emphasis here is on steadfastness and perseverance. The warning against an evil heart 
of unbelief. Notice in 3.12. Beware, brethren, 
lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief and departing 
from the living God. You're seeing a theme here. Exhortation, 
heavy on the emphasis of faithful perseverance in Christ. The necessity 
to warn one another while the today of God's grace continues 
in 3.13. The caution concerning the deceitfulness of sin which 
hardens the heart in 3.13. The necessity to hold fast your 
confidence in Christ firm until the end. Notice in verse 14, 
for we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning 
of our confidence steadfast to the end. And then the example 
of the wilderness generation who didn't enter in because of 
unbelief. Again, in chapter 13, verses 
15 to 19, we've got that emphasis. And then the promise of entering 
God's Sabbath rest remaining in chapter 4, verses 1 to 11. 
So the whole context is about persevering. And the whole context 
is about persevering to that final rest, that place where 
God dwells, that fullness of communion with the living and 
the true God. So the rest of God is the blessing of eternally 
dwelling in his presence. That's the emphasis here in chapter 
4. The specification of God's rest 
in verse 4, notice where it points back to. Verse 4 we read, For 
He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way, 
and God rested on the seventh day from all His works. You've 
got that reference to creation that we pointed out in Genesis 
chapter 2 verses 1 to 3. God finished the work of creation 
and then He rested. Then notice the emphasis in verses 
6 and 7, that Canaan was typical. It wasn't the end, it wasn't 
the consummate glory, but it was typical of that final full 
rest, which is communion with God eternally. And then the rest 
promised by God, according to verse 8, was not fulfilled in 
the land of Canaan. For if Joshua had given them 
rest, then he would not afterward have spoken of another day. So 
again, the context is persevere, be steadfast, go to the end. And he's not divorcing this from 
justification by faith. He's not suggesting that it's 
all up to you. He's not saying there's no spirit, 
there's no power. It is a context. wherein the 
exhortation is on the people of God, who profess saving faith 
in the Lord, are to persevere, they are to be steadfast, they 
are to be faithful to the Lord who bought them." And so then, 
there is this rest that remains. Notice in verse 9, there remains 
therefore a rest for the people of God. Now, this is intriguing 
because up until this point, the author has used a word for 
rest that's a typical word for rest. If I were to say, go rest, 
I would use that Greek word. Here in verse 9, he uses Sabbath 
rest specifically. The change is significant. To use the same word over and 
over and over and over and over and over and over again, as you've 
seen it here, and then change up to Sabbath rest is very indicative 
of a theological emphasis. Now, with reference to the use 
of rest or Sabbath rest, as I've said, the noun form of the other 
word is in 311, 318, 41, 43, 45, 411, and there's a verbal form in 
4, 8, and 10, but here specifically in verse 9, it's an altogether 
different word, not with an altogether different meaning, but a theologically 
charged meaning, Sabbatismos. Sabbatizo is the verb, Sabbatismos 
is the noun. And it's an interesting noun 
because it doesn't just describe the act, but it describes more 
of the, it's not just the rest or the state, but rather it's 
a practice to be observed. In fact, one man, Robert Martin, 
has a good book on the Christian Sabbath for those who want to 
do further study. He quotes a non-Sabbatarian, 
a guy named Andrew Lincoln, And Lincoln argues against Sabbath 
in the New Covenant. So just know that's where he's 
coming from. And he argues against any notion of Sabbatarianism 
here in Hebrews chapter 4. But Martin says it is interesting 
that Lincoln acknowledges that, quote, in each of these places, 
this form of this word, Sabbatismos, denotes the observance or celebration 
of the Sabbath, i.e., not a Sabbath rest as a state to be entered 
into, but a Sabbath keeping as a practice to be observed. And 
Martin has all the texts that show that or indicate that. So 
again, the use of Sabbatismos here in verse 9 is very significant 
and theologically charged. So the Sabbath rest typifies 
the eternal rest that is to come. That's what he is saying. There 
remains, therefore, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. So 
there is still a typical signification represented in Lord's Day worship 
that points us forward to that eternal rest that is to come. G.K. Beal makes the observation, 
if the eschatological, that means the end times reality, of final 
Sabbath rest has not consummately come, and it hasn't because we're 
not in the eternal state, he says, then it is unlikely that 
the typological sign pointing to that ultimate rest has ceased. 
In other words, if it functioned in the old covenant to point 
us forward, how come it doesn't function in the new covenant 
to point us forward? It truly is the market day of 
the soul. He goes on to say, that is, if the weekly Sabbath 
included the function of pointing forward to consummate rest, and 
that rest has not yet come, then that weekly Sabbath should continue. That's called good logic. I quoted 
this from last week by A.W. Pink. He says, Here then, commenting 
on verse 9, there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people 
of God. Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration 
by the Spirit of God. There remaineth therefore a Sabbath 
keeping. Nothing could be simpler, nothing 
less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this 
statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority 
of Christianity over Judaism. written to those addressed as 
holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling. Therefore, 
it cannot be gainsaid that Hebrews 4 and 9 refers directly to the 
Christian Sabbath. Hence, we solemnly and emphatically 
declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath 
takes direct issue with the New Testament Scriptures. That's 
a pretty powerful statement, but in light of what the author 
in 4.9 says in the larger context of what's being exhorted and 
what is being typified, I think Pink's right on the money there. 
Now, when we ask the question, how do we know it's the first 
day? Well, verse 10 answers that. Verse 10 answers that. If you're 
using the New King James, the New King James has the practice 
of capitalizing pronouns when it refers to deity. That's an 
interpretative call. When an interpreter, or a translator 
rather, capitalizes a pronoun and ascribes that to deity, that's 
a translation call. That's an interpretative call. 
Notice here, the New King James, I don't know what the ESV does. 
Does the ESV capitalize pronouns? I don't know. Notice, in the 
New King James, it's not capitalized. I argue that it should be. Because 
verse 10 is referring to Jesus. So, the comparison here is not 
the Christian's work and God's work. No, the comparison is verse 10 
and verse 4. In the old covenant, God created 
the world and then he rested. In the new covenant, Jesus redeems 
his elect out of the world and then he rested. Remember those 
themes, creation and redemption, Exodus and Deuteronomy? I had 
mentioned way back when we first started this, remember those 
two things, that's the rationale. That's exactly what the author 
is doing in this instance. As well, you've got a significant 
change of pronoun throughout the two chapters. What we have 
throughout 3.7 to 4.11, the plural is used in 4.1, 4.3, and 4.11. 
Here, however, the singular is used. Again, the emphasis isn't on 
you, individual believer. As well, it is the one having 
entered, specifically, not anyone or whoever, but it is the one 
who has entered his rest. And then the rest of verse 10, 
notice, is completed. For he who has entered his rest 
has himself also ceased from his works as God did from his. 
Note the contrast with verse 11 when it comes to exhortation 
to us. Let us, therefore, be diligent 
to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example 
of disobedience. So verse 10 pictures one as having 
entered his rest. Who is that? Well, look at 414. 
Seeing then that we have a great high priest who has passed through 
the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. So what we have is the rest of 
verse 10 is completed while the rest of verse 11 is not completed, 
and it is to be strived after. So the comparison isn't the believer 
in God who rested on the Sabbath in Genesis chapter 2. The comparison 
is the Father rests at the work of creation. The Son rests at 
the work of recreation or new creation. The theological significance 
of this, there remains therefore a rest for the people of God, 
and then the specific identification of Christ's rest, we know that's 
the resurrection, when he had completed his work, it is finished 
he says on the cross, for he who has entered his rest has 
himself also seized from his works as God did from his. We're not being compared to God. No believer is that good at doing 
works that they'll ever be compared to God in terms as we see here. No, the obvious comparison is 
between the Father and the Son, not between in any sense of a 
contrast, but it's a theological comparison. The way the Father 
rested on the work of creation is the way the Son rests on the 
work of new creation. William Ames makes the observation, 
the reason for the change by the consent of all is the resurrection 
of Christ, which is itself a confirmation. On this day, the creation of 
a new world or of a world to come. wherein all things are 
made new was completed. And God in Christ, rising from 
the dead, ceased and rested from His greatest work. Just as in 
the beginning God rested from His work and blessed and hallowed 
the day wherein He rested, so also it is right that the very 
day wherein He rested, so also it is right that the very day 
wherein Christ rested from His labors should be hallowed. So 
the issue is that there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for 
the people of God. What happened in terms of the 
conquest of Canaan, that did not exhaust the promise of a 
rest with God, nor does this stage that we're in, the already, 
we're not in the not yet yet, and so these weekly Sabbaths 
that remain for the people of God are to be helpful to us to 
point us forward to that coming rest. Now with that in mind, 
let's look at what the church did in the first century. Look 
at Acts chapter 20. Acts chapter 20, a worship service 
at Troas. Notice in Acts 20 at verse 7, 
now on note the language, the first day of the week, when the 
disciples came together to break bread, probably not just to have 
a meal, that language is used or applied to the supper in Acts 
chapter 2. So now, on the first day of the 
week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, 
ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his 
message until midnight. Now, we know the rest of the 
story. Eutychus falls out of the window 
and, you know, Paul didn't say, how dare you sleep while I preach? 
No, he, you know, helped him. and blessed him. But notice now on the first day 
of the week when the disciples came together. And if you look 
back at verse six, we sailed away from Philippi after the 
days of unleavened bread and in five days joined them at Troas 
where we stayed seven days. So they stayed a complete week 
in Troas. That would include a Saturday. 
I'm not a mathematician here, but I know that a complete week 
includes a Saturday. when they come together to break 
bread? On the first day of the week. Why? Because the resurrection 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. F.F. Bruce says the reference 
to the meeting for the breaking of bread on the first day of 
the week is the earliest text we have from which it may be 
inferred with reasonable certainty that Christians regularly came 
together for worship on that day. Early on in what�s called 
the Didache, it�s an early Christian teaching manual dated conservatively 
at about 100 or 110. It refers to the Lord�s Day when 
the people of God got together, they sang, they prayed, they 
preached and did all the things that we try and do on the Lord�s 
Day. Now, notice then 1 Corinthians chapter 16. These three passages 
are probably more familiar to you, the Acts 20, the 1 Corinthians 
16, and the next one that we'll do. But the Hebrews 4, to me, 
is a linchpin. I think if you get what the apostle 
is doing there, it's theological. I mean, it's not necessarily 
on the surface intuitive when you first read it. But when you 
think through it, you understand what's going on there. and that 
significant change of word from one word, rest, to Sabbath rest, 
or Sabbath keeping. I think that Pink's gloss on 
that is absolutely correct. But notice in 1 Corinthians 16 
at verses 1 and 2. Now concerning the collection 
for the saints, I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, 
so you must do also. On the first day of the week, 
let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, 
that there be no collections when I come. So this wasn't unique 
to only the church in Corinth, but the churches of Galatia as 
well. And it's intriguing because he 
specifies the first day. Why is that? Because that's when 
they would gather for worship. It was on the first day. And 
notice this isn't a suggestion. He says, I have given orders 
to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also. When you gather together on the 
first day, bring the collections, and we'll take them up then, 
and we'll make sure they get distributed. And then a final 
one is in Revelation 1. Revelation chapter 1, again another 
one that's probably more familiar along with 1 Corinthians 16 and 
Acts 7 or Acts 20 verse 7. But notice in Revelation chapter 
1 specifically at verse 10, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day 
and I heard behind me a loud voice as of a trumpet saying, 
now this form of the word here is only found one other time 
in the New Testament. We'll see that in just a moment. 
It's the word that basically means pertaining to the Lord. 
And it's where the word Kirk actually comes from. You've heard 
the word Kirk, like the Scottish Kirk. It's the name for church. 
It comes from this particular word, kuriake. It simply means 
that which pertains or belongs to the Lord. It's the Lord. So 
kirk comes more from that than it does ekklesia, which ekklesia 
is a great, great name for the church as well. The only other 
place is in first Corinthians 11 and you can turn there. First 
Corinthians chapter 11. so that which pertains to the 
Lord that which belongs to the Lord so we have it applied to 
the day in Revelation 1 at verse 10 and we have it applied to 
the supper in 1st Corinthians 11 and verse 20 therefore when 
you come together in one place it is not to eat the Lord's supper 
So God owns all suppers, God owns all days, but in the New 
Testament there's one supper and one day specifically identifiable 
as the Lord's. It pertains to Him, it belongs 
to Him, it is owned by Him. It's not the eschatological day 
of the Lord. in Revelation chapter 1, but 
rather the day that particularly belongs to the Lord Himself. 
Again, it's intriguing. That word's twice used in the 
New Testament, one for the supper and one for the day. We do the 
supper on the day that God has set apart to be a helpful benefit 
to us as we persevere to that final eschatological rest. James 
Durham in his commentary on Revelation says, as the Lord's Supper is 
for the remembrance of his death till he come again, so is this 
day for remembering the work of redemption and his resurrection 
till he come again. So the fact that Jesus is raised 
from the dead on Sunday, on the first day of the week, and he 
shows himself to his disciples, and then the church meets on 
that first day of the week, and we see this theological argument 
in Hebrews chapter 4, We've got that Hebrews 4.9 in our minds, 
there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God, a 
Sabbath keeping for the people of God. It's hard to get away 
from the fact or the idea that the fourth commandment is still 
binding upon us. And I think last week Charlotte 
brought up a good question. I wanted to address that tonight. 
When we look at the fourth commandment, it has both a moral aspect and 
a ceremonial or positive law. Moral law says one day out of 
seven, the creature must worship God. The ceremonial or the positive 
is conditioned by the covenant that one is in. So again, in 
the old covenant, it was Saturday. In the new covenant, it's Sunday. 
How do we know that? Because Christ rested from his 
labors on the first day of the week. That was signified by his 
resurrection from the dead and all of the blessings that attend 
that. But Charlotte asked the question, why positive? When 
we hear that statement, positive law, does that mean I'm gonna 
give you a law that's really positive? No, it has a, you know, 
I felt like an idiot looking at chat GPT, but here it is. Positive law refers to laws that 
are formally enacted by a proper authority, such as a government 
or legislature. These laws are written, codified, 
and enforced by institutions, and they are distinguished from 
natural law, which is based on moral principles or inherent 
human rights. Positive law is called positive 
not because it's good or affirmative, but because it is posited, meaning 
it is laid down or established by a legitimate authority, such 
as a government or legislature. Positive law is positive because 
it is posited, or put in place by human, or we could say divine. 
G.P.T. wasn't going to go there, by 
human authority, not because of any value judgment about its 
content. I mentioned that. Prohibition 
against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil. It's not because that tree was necessarily bad. It wasn't 
because it was evil. In the old covenant, you couldn't 
eat shrimp, and you couldn't eat bacon. Some have argued that 
it was health, and maybe pig isn't the most healthy thing, 
and maybe shrimp isn't the most healthy thing. But that's not 
the emphasis. It's a holiness code separating the nation of 
Israel from the pagans around them. There's no morality in 
not eating bacon. There's no morality in not eating 
shrimp. If you think it's healthier, 
you'd go right ahead. But there's no holiness to be 
found in rejecting shellfish. It was to set them apart. So 
positive law is posited by God in that Old Covenant situation. 
So the Sabbath is moral in its character. It is foundational 
to human existence. We know that God is. We know 
that He is to be feared. We know that He is to be worshipped. 
We know that He is to be glorified. But positive law tells us, by 
virtue of the covenant that we're in, which day it is that we worship 
Him on. So in the old covenant, it was 
Saturday, it was seventh day, and in the new covenant, it is 
the first day. So that's positive law there 
for you, Charlotte. Now, let's just finish here with 
the alleged anti-sabbatarian New Testament texts. That's a 
mouthful. You can say that ten times and 
we can be finished. The alleged anti-sabbatarian 
New Testament texts. And there are three of them. 
I'm sure there's others. But remember, Jesus gives his doctrine 
of the law There is hermeneutical principles in Matthew 5, 17 to 
20. Do not think that I came to abolish. 
I didn't come to abolish, but to fulfill. He's speaking of 
moral law. He fulfills ceremonial law. The nation of Israel is 
no longer a theocratic entity governed by the old covenant 
that has judicial law running through its veins. Judicial law 
is positive for us, not in that positive law sense, but it is 
good for us in terms of wisdom, general equity, and those sorts 
of things. But ceremonial and judicial are 
no longer in play, technically and officially, for the New Covenant 
Church. But moral law is. The prophet Jeremiah prophesied 
that God would write it on our hearts. When the apostles need 
to invoke law, where do they go? They go to the Ten Commandments. 
Children, obey your parents and the Lord, for this is right. 
Honor your father and your mother, which is the first commandment 
with promise. When Paul wants to show what love looks like 
in Romans 13, 8-10, he goes to what? He goes to the moral law. If you want to love your neighbor, 
don't kill him. If you want to love your neighbor, don't commit adultery 
with his wife. If you want to love your neighbor, don't steal 
from him. So the moral law is binding on all men in all ages, 
irrespective of the covenant that you find yourselves in. 
So the Sabbath commandment had that moral character, but it 
had the positive, or the ceremonial. Now here, when we come to certain 
texts in the New Covenant, they seem to be contrary to the Sabbath. And if you ask dispensationalists, 
progressive covenantalists, New Covenant theologians, they'll 
say, yeah, nine of the Ten Commandments survived in the New Covenant. 
How about that? It's usually the fourth commandment 
that people today say is no longer binding upon the Church today. 
And they would suggest that studies like this is to Judaize the New 
Covenant Church. It is legalistic. It is bondage. It is horrible. Well, one other 
text I didn't mention in our survey of the Old Testament or 
the Old Covenant was Mark 2. I know that's not an Old Testament 
passage, but Mark 2 is a commentary on Jesus, who is the Son of Man 
and Lord of the Sabbath. He says the Sabbath, or man was 
not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath was made for man, not 
Jew. not at Sinai, not on plains of 
Moab, but it was made for man. Well, where does God make man? 
In creation, in Genesis chapter 1. So Sabbath, Genesis chapter 
2, was right there as a gift given to man. It's a gift given 
to man. It's not burdensome. John the 
Apostle tells us the commandments of God aren't grievous. They're 
not burdensome. It's not a drudgery. It's not 
an albatross to get a gift from your Lord to have a day of rest. 
I mean, pagans and heathens throughout the millennia would probably 
love such an arrangement. The point is, I think specifically 
verses three and four. Well, let's pick up in verse 
one. Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to dispute 
over doubtful things. For one who believes he may eat 
all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Again, 
don't think he's setting forth, you know, if you're a vegan or 
you're a vegetarian, you've got these health concerns. That's 
not his point. His point is cultural, ethnic, 
things, traditions that you adopted, as long as you don't import them 
into a religious way. And that's what he's going to 
do with relations as well. Circumcision isn't damnable, 
but circumcision for justification is damnable. If your tradition 
is that you do that, I mean, Paul had to be circumcised. Why? So he wouldn't arouse tension 
among the Jews in the region he was taking benefit. So here, 
verse two, one believes he may eat all things, but he who is 
weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise 
him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge 
him who eats, for God hath received him. The point is, he's dealing 
with weaker and stronger brethren. Stronger brethren think they 
can eat everything. The weaker brethren think, no, 
I can only eat vegetables. Again, do what you want, but 
if you're a weaker brother, Why is the weaker? Come on, fuck 
up, eat this rib eye with me. But if you're the weaker brother, 
don't judge the stronger brother. See, those are the tendencies. 
Weaker brethren have the tendency to judge stronger brethren. Stronger 
brethren have the tendency to despise weaker brethren. That's 
what he's going after here. He's not saying we're under the 
new covenant now, there's no more weekly Sabbath. No, he's 
saying the Jewish calendar, the Jewish dietary regulations If 
you're doing that and you don't think that's commending you to 
God, go ahead. It doesn't hurt you. And if you're 
a brother that doesn't see the value in it, don't mock them 
or despise them. The Lord's Day is not in view, 
but rather Jewish feast days observed for ethnic or cultural 
reasons. Paul himself shaved his head 
and took a vow and went to the temple. He didn't do it because 
he thought he was gaining acceptance with God. He did it because he 
agreed to do it. He didn't want to offend people. 
So the circumcision, the going to the temple, the shaving of 
his head, he didn't think that this made him acceptable before 
God. The apostle's concern is that 
observers of these days do not bind the consciences of those 
who do not. That's the point of Romans 14. It's not to abolish the Christian 
Sabbath. To read Romans 14 and come away 
with, look, there's one more fourth commandment, is to really 
misread Romans 14. Listen to Ames again. This is 
from Merrill Theology by William Ames. The apostle in Romans 14 
expressly speaks of the judgment about certain days which then 
produced offense among Christians. The observance of the Lord's 
names, the apostle himself teaches, had already taken place in all 
the churches, 1 Corinthians 16, and could not be the occasion 
of offense. It is most probable that the apostle in this passage 
is treating the dispute about the choosing of days to eat or 
to refuse certain meats, for the question is put in 14.2 about 
meats only, and in verses five and six, the related problem 
of duty is discussed. And in the remainder of the chapter, 
he considers only meats, making no mention of days. That's not 
his point. The next one is Galatians 4. 
We typically think of Galatians as the main battle front is circumcision. But the calendar is on there 
as well. Notice in Galatians chapter 4, 
the Judaizing of believers in Christ. Faith plus circumcision. Faith plus calendar. Again, you 
can see where the Jews come in to Jesus, those who did. would 
probably wonder, what about my calendar? What about my diet? I mean, this was a big deal in 
the old covenant, right? These Gentiles don't have to 
do the same thing? I'm not justifying, you know, 
pun intended with relations. I'm not justifying the conduct 
of these Judaizers. But you can kind of see intuitively 
why they might think that. Wait a minute, we've got to get 
circumcised. We've got to eat this. We've got to do this. These 
Gentiles come in and they believe on Jesus? Well, wait a minute. 
They should probably have to do a few of these things. Again, 
I'm not justifying it, but I kind of see where it comes from. So 
the Apostle is battling over this very thing. Because again, 
if your calendar or your circumcision makes you think now you're commendable 
to God, that's Paul's problem. Circumcising Timothy to not give 
offense to Jews isn't Paul's problem. Circumcising a professing 
Gentile believer So that he may be saved is Paul's problem. That 
is to depart from the grace of God. So in chapter 4, notice 
in verse 8, but then indeed, when you did not know God, you 
served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you 
have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it you turn 
again to the weak and beggary elements from which you desire 
again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and 
seasons and years. I am afraid for you lest I have 
labored for you in vain. So circumcision, for cultural 
reasons or not to be an unnecessary offense, is acceptable at 16th 
grade. As well, the use of the Jewish 
calendar, you're a Jew who believes in Jesus and you want to do that, 
but you don't think it's commending you to God, but every year at 
this time you get a special meal. I don't think that's Paul's war. 
Paul's war is, hey, Gentile, who's believed on Jesus, you 
need to keep these specific feast days in order to really be saved. That's Paul's issue. It's not 
dispensing with the morality of the Christian Sabbath at all. 
Again, Ames says, in the Galatians passage, the discussion relates 
only to the observance of days, months, and years as an aspect 
of bondage to weave in bedrock elements. But it was far from 
the apostle's mind and altogether strange to Christian faith to 
consider any commandment of the Decalogue or any ordinance of 
Christ in such a vein. He is not dispensing of the Ten 
Commandments with the wave of a hand. Again, we know that the 
law is good if one uses it lawfully. If somebody tries to use the 
law to gain acceptance with God, Paul comes down on them. Well, 
the issue in the churches in southern Galatia were Judaizers. You've got to keep the feast. 
You've got to eat the meat. You've got to do the things. 
You've got to get circumcised in order to be saved. That's 
what Paul's war is with in the book of Galatians. He's not even 
condemning Jewish festivals as such. He observed them. Again, 
not for I want to be accepted with God, but I don't want to 
offend people. The apostle condemns this practice 
because, like circumcision, they thought that such an observance, 
and they'd heard it from the Judaizers, was necessary for 
their salvation. It's about getting rid of the 
Christian Sabbath. You can't just say, you observe 
days and months and seasons and years. I'm afraid for you, lest 
I labor for you in vain. Therefore, there's no Christian 
Sabbath. But why does he say, Paul wrote Hebrews 4.9, there 
remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. You can't 
just with sleight of hand or wave of hand get rid of it. A 
more modern commentator, last name Fung, says, the issue that 
is not the observation of religious usages as such, but the basis 
of the justification before God. The legalistic approach advocated 
by the Galatian agitators in the gospel of free grace I would say if you have a proper 
doctrine of the Christian Sabbath, based on the things that we have 
looked at, a good one, you could recite 2nd London, chapter 22, 
paragraph 7. But you thought that that plus 
faith in Jesus was what saved you, I would say you're wrong. That's condemnable. That's bad. That's Judaizing. 
It's not your faith in Jesus plus your appropriation of the 
fourth commandment. That's what Paul's attacking 
here. He's not saying there no longer does remain a Sabbath-keeping 
for the people of God. And then the final one is Colossians 
2. Colossians chapter 2. Again, there might be others 
that people can find. I think these are the three main 
ones. This is a warning against mystical legalism. And the context 
helps us. The attempt by false teachers 
to cheat the Colossians, 2A. Notice in 2A, beware lest anyone 
cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to 
the tradition of man, according to the basic principles of the 
world, and not according to Christ. That's the broader context. And 
the Colossian heresy is a bit more tough to nail down. Philatia, 
pretty simple. Get circumcised, be saved. All 
right, believe Jesus, get circumcised, be saved. Colossians seemed to 
have been an amalgamation, a bit of Jewish religion, a bit of 
angels, and Jesus. So sort of a syncretistic approach. Let's just hedge all our bets 
and cover all our bases. So the warning by Paul, notice 
in verse 16, do not let that happen. So let no one judge you. Now he gives several illustrations 
in food or in drink. Again, I doubt he's talking about, 
you know, what you had for dinner on Friday night. And Mrs. May, 
Amber, your helper, don't let any of the brethren judge you. 
This is Jewish dietary stuff. It's not just a general, universal, 
you know, you're eating a chocolate and your bride sees you and judges 
you. That's not what he's talking 
about here. It's not about being brought 
into bondage, as if those dietary regulations are mandated for 
you in order to reach heaven. That you've got to be circumcised 
in order to reach heaven. You've got to keep your species 
in order to reach heaven. That's what he's condemning. 
So let no one judge you in food and drink or regarding a festival 
or a new moon or Sabbaths. The first thing you need to appreciate 
there is Sabbaths, plural. Sabbaths, plural. next to and beside the seven-day 
Sabbath. Leviticus 23 indicates some of 
those. But these three terms find connection 
in, I think, six or seven Old Testament passages. These three 
terms, festival or feast, or a new moon or Sabbaths, seven 
times those words are linked together. And it's not the seventh 
day moral fourth commandment Sabbath. It's the temporary, 
the occasional, those rest days that were built into the calendar 
for the people of Israel and the Old Covenant. In fact, in 
Hosea 2.11, we even read that those are gonna be done away 
with. Hosea 2.11. all her mirth to cease, her feast 
days, her new moons, her sabbaths, all her appointed feasts. Remember 
when we looked at Isaiah 56 and Isaiah 58, what we didn't see? We did not see there, and I'm 
going to cause the sabbath, the fourth commandment, the moral 
law of God to cease in the incumbent era. Note the eunuchs are going 
to be getting granted access to the vows of God. I mentioned 
how Acts 8 is significant the Ethiopian eunuch got saved, yeah, 
but the Ethiopian eunuch was a fulfillment of Isaiah 56. Deuteronomy 
23 said that those who were eunuchs, those emasculated, could not 
enter into the assembly of the Lord. Well, in the New Covenant 
era, they are brought nigh, and they get to keep the Sabbath, 
and they get to enjoy all those benefits and blessings. But here, 
specifically, I will cause all emergencies, or feast days, or 
new moons, or Sabbaths, all her appointed feasts, Israel will 
be punished for her infidelity, and those things that mark her 
calendar are gonna be no more. When Jesus comes, there are those 
aspects, those positive law aspects of the old covenant religion 
that are no longer binding. He fulfilled those. Ceremonially, 
he fulfilled those. So in Colossians chapter two, 
the apostle Paul is telling them to let no one judge you in food 
or in drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbath. Some 
explain this as the Saturday Sabbath in the Old Covenant. 
I don't think that's wrong. I don't think it's bad. I don't think it's right. referring to certain things that 
occasionally appeared on the Jewish calendar, not the weekly 
Sabbath, not the moral law, the ecological Sabbath that we could 
say. So this mysticism or this mystical 
legalism is what he's denying here. Look at, again, verse 16. 
So let no one judge you in food or in drink or regarding festival 
or new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, 
but the substances of Christ. Now that the substance has come, 
we don't need the shadow. The fourth commandment is not 
the shadow or the substance. It's typological, and it points 
us forward to that eternal rest, and we therefore have a Sabbath-keeping 
rest that remains for the people of God. So the bottom line is 
that Paul is saying that those things appeared on the Jewish 
calendar pointed forward to and prefigured in shadow form and 
type form twice. That's what one of the aspects 
of ceremonial law is all about. right, was to point to Jesus, 
to prefigure Jesus. Now that Jesus is here, we don't 
need those things, we don't go back to the shadow. Then he says 
in verse 18, let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight 
in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those 
things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his flesh 
and mind, and not holding fast to the head from whom all the 
body nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows 
with the increase that is from God. So that's why I said, in 
verse 16, you get a distinctly Jewish reference in terms of 
feasts, new moon, and Sabbath. Several Testament texts, we looked 
at one of them in Hosea chapter 2, verse 11. Condemnation of 
that, in verse 17, which are a shadow of things to come, but 
the substance is of Christ. I use the illustration all the 
time. When I'm with my grandkids, I don't need my kids to say, 
look at this picture of Junior. He's right there texting a picture 
of Junior. That's a good shadow for when 
he's not in my presence. That's what Paul is saying, that 
the substance has come. Why don't we go back to the shadow? 
You've got him in your presence. Why don't you go back to the 
picture? And then in verses 18 and 19, this is where I say it 
becomes a bit more complicated because it seems to transcend 
some old covenant Judaism. He says, let no one cheat you 
of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship 
of angels. in tuning into those things which 
he is not singing, mainly popped up by his fleshly mind. So there's 
an amalgamation of weird stuff going on in Colossians, and that's 
Paul's point, and Paul sets forth the supremacy of Jesus Christ 
as the antidote to deal with that. And then notice, if you 
wanna finish out the section, there's an emphasis on asceticism 
in verses 20 to 23. Don't touch, don't taste, don't 
go, don't do, and you'll be fine. No, that's not it at all. He 
says in verse 23, these things indeed have an appearance of 
wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of 
the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the 
flesh. You've got Christ. You've got the substance. You've 
got everything. You're complete in Him. Notice 
in verse 23. Verse nine, for in him dwells all the fullness 
of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in him, verse 10, 
who is the head, all principality and power. You're complete in 
him. Don't go back to the calendar. Don't go back to this, or at 
least don't go to this concept of angel worship. Don't get involved 
in mysticism and asceticism. Just live your life in the blessed 
reality that you've been justified freely by God's grace. It's like 
dispensing with the moral love of God. That is to import an anti-Sabbaterianism 
into the text of scripture. And again, Ames. In Colossians 
2, the Sabbaths mentioned are specially and expressly described 
as new moons and ceremonial shadows of things to come in Christ. 
But the Sabbath commanded in the Decalogue in our Lord's day 
are of another nature entirely. And Gilfillan says, while moreover 
his words discard the days of Judaism, They touch not the authority 
of the ancient statue of paradise. I love the way he touches that, 
the way he phrases that. The ancient statue of paradise. 
See when we started our study of the Sabbath from Genesis 2, 
1 to 3? That's crucial. If you start 
at Exodus 20, and you adopt a mindset that the Ten Commandments are 
only for the Jews, of course there's no new covenant Sabbath. Of course there's no Christian 
church Sabbath. You've just broad-brushed major portions of scripture that 
deal with the doctrine. You've got to start in the garden. 
That's precisely what it means. While moreover, as words discard 
the days of Judaism, they touch not the authority of the ancient 
statute of paradise. And in undermining ceremonial 
rights, leave unshaken the moral foundation on which rests the 
prescription, remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. He's right, 
brethren. I think that the dismissal of 
the Christian Sabbath, it could just be, you know what, I haven't 
really studied that. But it could be there's just, 
I don't know, blinders? We have seen a lot of texts, 
right? I mean, if the exegesis is off on a point here or there, 
I'm sorry, but I think the overwhelming thrust of scripture indicates 
that there are 10 commandments, and they do bind all men in all 
ages. And in this New Covenant era, 
that moral principle stands, and the ceremonial, rather positive 
aspect is first day, based on the resurrection of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. Now, I have more, but we're gonna 
stop there, and yeah, hopefully that confuses you even more. If I can't convince you, I wanna 
confuse you. I hope it's been clear. Does 
anybody have a question? of anything that I was doing. 
Actually, let me run real quick through. Here's what I always 
end with, or just about end with. I think that the onus of truth 
at this point, when you have a unit like the Ten Commandments, 
the onus is on those who want to take one out. I don't know why it's on us who want 
to keep them together intact. So here's what I would ask. Why does God establish the six-in-one 
pattern at creation? Why does Sabbath observance predate 
Sinai in Genesis 4 and in Exodus 16? Why does God at Sinai tell 
them to remember the Sabbath? Why does God refer to both creation 
and redemption in the giving of the Sabbath law? Why does 
Isaiah speak of Sabbath keeping during the Messianic age? Why 
does Jesus claim lordship of the Sabbath in Mark 2? Why does 
Jesus say that Sabbath was made for man, either Adam specifically 
or mankind generally, instead of saying it was made for Israel? 
Why would Jesus clear away the Jewish corruptions only to destroy 
it not long after? Why does the early church worship 
on the first day of the week, the day that Christ rose from 
the dead? Why does the integrity of the Ten Commandments suffer 
in the New Covenant? In other words, how do we hermeneutically 
justify nine of the Ten Commandments, and especially in light of an 
old covenant prophet speaking of a new covenant reality, and 
he says that God's going to write the laws on the hearts of the 
people. And why does the author of Hebrews emphatically assert 
that the change of a word that is highly unique and highly distinctive 
and highly theologically charged assert that a Sabbath day remains 
for the people of God? See, I think those questions 
should be sufficiently answered, not why do we maintain 10 commandments. Why don't you? Why 9 of the 10? I think the onus belongs to them. At some point, I always feel 
like we're defending our practice of Christian sabbatarianism. 
Well, I'd like to hear a good defense of non-sabbatarianism. I'd like to hear something other 
than, well, if it's not repeated in the New Testament, it's no 
longer binding. Well, it is. We've seen it. Jesus 
gives his view of the law. We've seen the church gather 
together on that day. We hear the Apostle say, there 
remains therefore a side of speaking for the people of God. What do 
you mean it's not repeated? It's repeated many times. If 
I'm wrong on Romans 14 and Colossians 2 and Galatians 4, that doesn't 
mean they're right. Well, he just got rid of the 
Christian side. Do you understand? I could be wrong, but they could 
be wrong too. So the onus at some point has 
to be on the dispensationalists, and it has to be on the New Covenant 
guys, and it has to be on the progressivists to answer why 
you could take nine of the Ten Commandments and just dispense 
so quickly with the four. Well, because it was ceremonial, 
yeah, and moral. Show me where it wasn't moral. 
Show me how in the body of Ten Commandments that are a package 
deal, which is the first commandment with promise, which indicates 
a series of commandments. I wonder what he's reflecting 
on. Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Why are we just willy-nilly 
degrading our commandments? It doesn't make sense, rather. 
So be offensive next time. Without fists. I didn't mean 
that that way. You know, let them defend their 
practice. Well, let's pray and see if there 
are any questions. Father in heaven, thank you for your word. 
Thank you for these times that we can study together. We pray 
for your blessing upon us, cause us to reflect upon the goodness 
of God in giving us this day of rest, and cause us to treasure 
it, to value it, to prize it, to come with joy in our hearts 
to the house of the Lord, to glorify and honor you. We pray 
through Christ our Lord, amen.