In my last post I interacted with Blake Rispens blog post on having weddings on Sundays. Essentially, we agreed that a Sunday wedding is permissible. How that plays itself out in practice we would differ on, but in principle, we agree. We also agree that there is a degree of freedom or liberty (call it a gray area) in this matter. The strong must ensure that what they are doing is not making the weak stumble.
This is point the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is making clear in Romans 14. Rispens said that I did not interact with this passage. That is true, but not because I cannot, but rather, Rispens has access to a wonderful library of quality books which give a proper exegesis of that text. John Calvin and John Murray are a helpful place to start to say the least. Nevertheless, to summarize a sound exegesis of Romans 14:4-6, the context is key to understand this passage (along with all others). Paul is speaking about freedom and love in dealing with our neighbor. When cultures come together there is tension and this was the case in Rome. There were Jews and Gentiles both in the church in Rome. Some Romans were even present in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit was poured out. Priscilla and Aquilla were from Rome. What was at issue was whether all of the ceremonial Jewish feast days had to be observed. Should Christians still celebrate those feasts which were shadows of a coming greater reality? The answer is no! No one is obligated to observe these. But, if one wants to observe them (the weaker brother), let them. He compares this to eating in verse 6. Can you eat food offered to idols? Sure, unless it causes the weaker to stumble. This is very important but simple principle. Whatever you do, do it unto the Lord. The freedom in Christ is secured by God's love to us and our thankfulness to Him (an by extension, unto our neighbor). Romans 14 is not speaking about the Lord's Day/THE SABBATH, but rather sabbaths. We would call them holidays today. A modern example could be, should Christians celebrate Christmas? You might think, "Of course." But, when you look to the pagan background, and then Roman Catholic abuse, etc. and the fact that the Scriptures don't command us to worship God on Christmas (a man-made holiday?), then someone's conscience might be bound to not worship God on such a day. Are they wrong? No, this is, what Rispens would call a gray area. However, gray areas are not areas where the Bible does not speak, but rather, in light of the teaching of scripture, there is freedom within one's own conscience and service to God to choose action A over action B and both can be morally permissible.
Rispens also claims I gave to no proof-text for my argument of Sunday being the Sabbath. While recognizing the danger of proof-texts and baptistic biblicism anyone can give a proof text for anything. Give me a view, I'll give you a proof text. Often a text is only part of a larger body of evidence for such a view. This is part of responsible biblical hermeneutics, i.e. interpreting scripture with scripture. Passages that pertain to the question at hand in various ways are Deut. 12:5-12; Heb. 10:23-25; Acts 20:7-8; Is. 58:13-14; Rev. 1:10 (The Lord's Day); I Cor. 16:1-2, etc. Keeping Sunday holy, as I have pointed out, is not in a slavish activity as the Jewish leaders often viewed the Sabbath. The Sabbath (Sunday) is a delight and it is the only biblically required feast day. Our relation to the Lord's Day is in Christ, and as we rest on the Lord's Day, we have before us a glorious picture of a glorious rest that awaits us in the New Heavens and Earth.
A similar argument flows from Colossians 2, which in verse 11 begins by connecting circumcision (an OT ordinance) and baptism (its New Testament fulfillment)...kinda like Saturday to Sunday. Then we are warned of falling into a form of legalism. Rather we have freedom in Christ (vs. 16-17) to eat or drink or celebrate and by extension apply that to a Christian's use of alcohol, tobacco, feasting, eating Kosher hot dogs, eating with Muslims, etc. Notice in verse 16 the use of the word "sabbaths"...this is not referring to the 4th commandment, but to holidays (holy-days).
So, the question I would have for my brother Blake (and I do view him as a brother, not as a heretic headed to hell) is what happened to the Sabbath? Why did God give the commandment to begin with? What about the rest of the 10 commandments? For instance, is it permissible to have sexual relations with an animal? Give me a NT proof text? Romans 1? Nope, that is person on person sin. Maybe I went over the line by saying that dispensationalists have a tendency to thumb their nose at the OT. I apologize. What I mean is that they do not properly deal with the fact that the OT is the Word of God which reveals Christ in shadows, and yet, as Ps. 119 tells us, is still a lamp unto my feet. Maybe I should have said, "most dispensationalist I know act that way." This is why it is far more common to hear a NT sermon than an OT sermon in a dispensational church. There might be examples of exceptions, I've just never heard of any.
One final issue I'd like to address in this post, is that Rispens says that, "he isn't shocked I built a straw man" argument. Why isn't he shocked? And why wouldn't I think, as Rispens rightly says, I think my hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is better than others. Of course I think that otherwise I wouldn't practice it. I think a covenantal hermenteutic is the most biblical, I think it is the hermeneutic used by the NT writers in dealing with the OT, etc. That is not a statement of pride or arrogance. I am susceptible to mis-use the system and someone could possibly show me a better and more biblical hermeneutic at which point I would employ that. But, that better system is not dispensationalism. The Reformed churches have been clear on that. The teaching of Scofield was one of the worst things to happen in the North American church. In fact, the problem of a dispensational hermeneutic reaches far, which is why I said it was dangerous. It involves politics (the nation of Israel and why we are such close allies with them; equating republican with Christian), Christian living (Lord's Day and misunderstanding in some circles of Christian liberty. E.g. drinking, smoking, dancing, card playing, etc.) preaching and worship (the OT is a treasure missed by many, though not by all), etc.
I, along with Rispens, am happy if this interaction has encouraged people to study God's Word. But, part of my goal was to point out the erosion of morality and obedience to God's law in our nation and our churches. Keeping the Lord's Day holy is not just an outward exercise of doing this or that on Sunday, it, like all of God's law, is about devoting our lives and hearts to the Lord. It is about glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. As believers, we are saved (already, completely, eternally) and that salvation cannot be lost. What we must ask God now, is how can I live my whole life with a thankful heart. God's answers are revealed in the moral law (10 commandments) and on all of the pages of scripture. If we, as believers read the law through the gospel we will find it a joy to keep the Lord's Day holy.
So, I guess, in conclusion to the wedding question...why don't you just have it on Saturday and keep the weaker brother from stumbling?
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
How do you biblically approach Sunday?
An old acquaintance of mine recently wrote a blog post on the question of whether or not it was sinful to have a wedding on Sunday. His name is Blake Rispens and you can find that article here http://blakerispens84.blogspot.ca/?vm=r . I am not so concerned with the issue of whether or not a Sunday wedding is permissible. Full disclosure, I have no problem with a Sunday wedding as it has happened for hundreds of years in Reformed churches. A modern reception might be another question. But, I hope to elucidate the pitfalls of Rispens argument to show where such a misguided hermeneutic will lead an interpreter of scripture.
His argument is six-fold and it is explained very clearly. His desire is not to determine what has happened historically or in someone's own tradition, but rather what does the Bible say concerning this issue.
He summarizes his argument under six points:
1. "Sunday is not the Sabbath. So we can all take a big sigh of relief. Having a wedding on Sunday would not be in violation of the 4th commandment because the Sabbath is Saturday."
2. Since this issue of a wedding on Sunday is not addressed in the Bible, it is a "gray area" which is therefore inconclusive either way.
3. There is no biblical demand for a gentile (non-Jew) to keep the laws and rituals of the Jews.
4. Jesus clarifies the proper interpretation of the "Sabbath" in Matt. 12; Mk. 2, and Lk. 6.
5. Romans 14 makes it clear that it is wrong to place one day higher than another and then impose your position on someone else. There is liberty here, but when the line is crossed into imposing a personal opinion on someone else, then you become "the religious legalist that everyone hates."
6. Our obedience to God's law does not add anything to our salvation. Rather, trust in Jesus Christ who is our righteousness.
((The first issue on the Sabbath being Saturday I have spoken about before. Here is the second half of my lecture http://vimeo.com/40136312 . This is taken from Jochem Douma's The Ten Commandments which is an excellent book.))
To summarize the argument , in the Old Testament the Sabbath was Saturday. And therefore, Rispens argues, that if you want to keep Sunday holy, you are actually not following God's law (Ten Commandments) "to a tee." Rispens says, "Since we aren't observing Saturday anymore, hopefully we're starting to see some differences between the OT and NT." Here is where the argument becomes dangerous. The question the reader is left with at this point, is why aren't we keeping Saturday holy? He says that if you are keeping Sunday holy as an observance of the Sabbath, "you're probably defaming the actual Sabbath which is technically Saturday." To bolster his argument Rispens uses the example of Jesus who broke the Sabbath according to the religious leaders false interpretation by picking heads of grain, healing on the Sabbath, etc. What should we make of this argument?
Sunday is the New Testament Sabbath. It is better to call it Lord's Day as opposed to Sabbath, but it can be called "sabbath" as a word simply meaning rest. This is true for three reasons.
First, the pattern of working six days and resting the seventh was established by God when He created the heavens and the earth. In fact, in Exodus 20:8-11, (a text cited by Rispens interestingly enough) God bases the argument on the foundation that, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (NKJV) However, if we are to argue that the honouring of the Sabbath is creational, why do we first read about it in Exodus 20? The fact is, is that God's people already were keeping the Sabbath day holy. This is clear from when God gave the people manna from heaven in the wilderness and commanded them to gather it for six days, but on the sixth day to gather twice as much so that they would have enough for the 7th day. Exodus 16:26 says, "Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none." The 10 commandments are abiding and valid (though in a different way for us as we will see short). The fourth commandment is rooted in creation, not merely in liberation and the establishment of the nation of Israel.
Secondly, the observance of the Lord's Day was of such extreme importance that the penalty for breaking it was death. This is why the Pharisees were so quick to jump on Jesus and the disciples. It wasn't a small trivial matter. Rispens was right, that the pharisees misunderstood the Sabbath and the purpose of the Sabbath being a blessing for "rest and well-being." The fact of the matter is that Pharisees were legalists who were trusting their own obedience to put them in a right relationship with God. However, because of the seriousness of Sabbath observance, we had better be quite sure about our position concerning its validity or disuse and misuse today.
The third argument is a historical argument in light of Christ's relationship to the law. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, "Do not think that I came to destory the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." The word used there for destroy could also be translated at abolish. Rispens is arguing that the Sabbath is abolished. It is not abolished, but rather fulfilled as is all of the law of God. By Christ, fulfilling the Sabbath, as Lord over all, He, through His apostles, continues to rest one day in seven, no longer on the seventh day of the week, but on the first day of the week. This is why we see the saints gathering on the first day of the week in Acts. (By the way, being a member of the apostolic church, we confess that we base our practice on the teaching, practice, and example of the Apostles). This was carried on throughout the early church throughout history. More about this in a moment.
At this point, and recognizing that my review, not of a book, but of a blog post is getting quite lengthy, I will skip responses on the questions of "Did Gentiles have no obligation to keep the 10 commandments? What about the sojourner or proselyte? Were they permitted to work in Israel on Sunday? There is also the question of what did Jesus mean by, "If you love me you will keep my commandments....or....You will know them by their fruits." However, there are two other issue I would like to address.
The first issue is that of a dispensational hermeneutic. For a dispensationalist the most important page in the Bible is that page between the OT and NT. Now, don't get me wrong, there is something New about the NT and there is something old about the OT. As the church father said, "The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed." There is one people of God and there is one church of God from creation until Jesus Christ returns. Rispens himself said that he is "spiritually speaking" a Jew. Good, we are children of Abraham and as the entire book of Romans makes clear "not all Israel is of Israel" or as Paul says in Galatians 3 "There is neither Jew nor Greek..." All people at all times are either saved or condemned for the same reason. They are saved through faith alone in the work of the Messiah (Messiah to come or Messiah already come: hint....its the same God-Man). Dispensationalists often thumb their nose at the Old Testament and find themselves in the unorthodox land somewhere between the everlasting covenant of grace and the early church heretic Marcion. They aren't Marcionites, but they fall between covenant and Marcion. This is dangerous and unfounded (though reasonable) in light of the whole of the scriptures. For instance, look at how the New Testament uses the OT (e.g. I Cor. 10; Jer. 31 and Acts 2; etc.) Without a covenantal reading of scripture, it should not surprise us that someone would be permitted to go out to eat on Sunday, keep their business open, have an open house to sell their home, spend the day on the lake with the family. The question is, why would anyone worship God on Sunday? Has he commanded them? Using Rispens argument, it seems you would have to be a seventh-day adventist or you could never expect anyone to consistently worship God on Sunday. Maybe he agrees, but I doubt it.
The second important question is the role of the law, liberty, and gratitude. To summarize briefly, Christ has fulfilled the law. As the Beglic Confession of Faith says in Artice 25, "We believe taht the ceremonies and symbols of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished among Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honorableness to the glory of God, according to His will." The civil and ceremonial law in Israel were full of shadows fuflilled in Christ. The truth and substance of them remain. You can understand that to be the valid principles undergirding those laws in the civil realm. However, the moral law of God remains, as it was not ordained merely for the nation of Israel, but for the whole entire world. This is the law written on the minds of all people. Even though the unbeliever is so depraved that they are unable to properly interpret that law and they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-20; 2), nevertheless, this is God standard of living in this world. It is summarized under the theme of love. Love for God and neighbor.
However, we are dead to the law and alive in Christ. The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. The law exposes our sin and shows our inability to earn the favor of God. The law condemns us, but Jesus Christ saves us. We are saved, not through law-keeping, but through faith alone, which is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-10). How then ought we to respond to God's amazing grace living in the freedom Christ has won for us? This is where the third use of the moral law comes in....it becomes a guide for Christian gratitude. I don't honor my father and mother so that I can earn God's favor or grace, but rather, because I already have God's favor and grace in Jesus Christ. The law is for the believer, an expression of thankfulness. Our works show our faith, they do not produce our faith. Does it matter how we live? Of course it matters. We are not antinomians. Rispens argues that our works do not contribute to our salvation. Well, that is true, if he means that our works do not contribute to our justification, but our sanctification, which is also part of our salvation, is allowing the Jesus Christ, who had kept the law, to work in us thankful hearts, so that we may offer our whole lives as thank offerings to God. We must not use Christian liberty as a license to sin. We have freedom in Jesus Christ, but that freedom has the boundaries of the 10 commandments properly applied (as they were by Jesus Himself throughout the whole Scripture). Our freedom is like a fish in the ocean. If you take the fish out of the ocean, is it still free? No, not in the way it is when it is in water. The Spirit working in us secures our freedom and liberty in Jesus Christ.
So, back to the original question, can you have a wedding on Sunday? Sure, right after the Sunday morning sermon in corporate worship, let bride and groom stand up, here the form read, say their vows, sign the marriage form, and then sit down and worship God. A reception, that is more difficult, but to have it at church as a feast of celebration could certainly be pleasing to the Lord.
His argument is six-fold and it is explained very clearly. His desire is not to determine what has happened historically or in someone's own tradition, but rather what does the Bible say concerning this issue.
He summarizes his argument under six points:
1. "Sunday is not the Sabbath. So we can all take a big sigh of relief. Having a wedding on Sunday would not be in violation of the 4th commandment because the Sabbath is Saturday."
2. Since this issue of a wedding on Sunday is not addressed in the Bible, it is a "gray area" which is therefore inconclusive either way.
3. There is no biblical demand for a gentile (non-Jew) to keep the laws and rituals of the Jews.
4. Jesus clarifies the proper interpretation of the "Sabbath" in Matt. 12; Mk. 2, and Lk. 6.
5. Romans 14 makes it clear that it is wrong to place one day higher than another and then impose your position on someone else. There is liberty here, but when the line is crossed into imposing a personal opinion on someone else, then you become "the religious legalist that everyone hates."
6. Our obedience to God's law does not add anything to our salvation. Rather, trust in Jesus Christ who is our righteousness.
((The first issue on the Sabbath being Saturday I have spoken about before. Here is the second half of my lecture http://vimeo.com/40136312 . This is taken from Jochem Douma's The Ten Commandments which is an excellent book.))
To summarize the argument , in the Old Testament the Sabbath was Saturday. And therefore, Rispens argues, that if you want to keep Sunday holy, you are actually not following God's law (Ten Commandments) "to a tee." Rispens says, "Since we aren't observing Saturday anymore, hopefully we're starting to see some differences between the OT and NT." Here is where the argument becomes dangerous. The question the reader is left with at this point, is why aren't we keeping Saturday holy? He says that if you are keeping Sunday holy as an observance of the Sabbath, "you're probably defaming the actual Sabbath which is technically Saturday." To bolster his argument Rispens uses the example of Jesus who broke the Sabbath according to the religious leaders false interpretation by picking heads of grain, healing on the Sabbath, etc. What should we make of this argument?
Sunday is the New Testament Sabbath. It is better to call it Lord's Day as opposed to Sabbath, but it can be called "sabbath" as a word simply meaning rest. This is true for three reasons.
First, the pattern of working six days and resting the seventh was established by God when He created the heavens and the earth. In fact, in Exodus 20:8-11, (a text cited by Rispens interestingly enough) God bases the argument on the foundation that, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (NKJV) However, if we are to argue that the honouring of the Sabbath is creational, why do we first read about it in Exodus 20? The fact is, is that God's people already were keeping the Sabbath day holy. This is clear from when God gave the people manna from heaven in the wilderness and commanded them to gather it for six days, but on the sixth day to gather twice as much so that they would have enough for the 7th day. Exodus 16:26 says, "Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none." The 10 commandments are abiding and valid (though in a different way for us as we will see short). The fourth commandment is rooted in creation, not merely in liberation and the establishment of the nation of Israel.
Secondly, the observance of the Lord's Day was of such extreme importance that the penalty for breaking it was death. This is why the Pharisees were so quick to jump on Jesus and the disciples. It wasn't a small trivial matter. Rispens was right, that the pharisees misunderstood the Sabbath and the purpose of the Sabbath being a blessing for "rest and well-being." The fact of the matter is that Pharisees were legalists who were trusting their own obedience to put them in a right relationship with God. However, because of the seriousness of Sabbath observance, we had better be quite sure about our position concerning its validity or disuse and misuse today.
The third argument is a historical argument in light of Christ's relationship to the law. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, "Do not think that I came to destory the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." The word used there for destroy could also be translated at abolish. Rispens is arguing that the Sabbath is abolished. It is not abolished, but rather fulfilled as is all of the law of God. By Christ, fulfilling the Sabbath, as Lord over all, He, through His apostles, continues to rest one day in seven, no longer on the seventh day of the week, but on the first day of the week. This is why we see the saints gathering on the first day of the week in Acts. (By the way, being a member of the apostolic church, we confess that we base our practice on the teaching, practice, and example of the Apostles). This was carried on throughout the early church throughout history. More about this in a moment.
At this point, and recognizing that my review, not of a book, but of a blog post is getting quite lengthy, I will skip responses on the questions of "Did Gentiles have no obligation to keep the 10 commandments? What about the sojourner or proselyte? Were they permitted to work in Israel on Sunday? There is also the question of what did Jesus mean by, "If you love me you will keep my commandments....or....You will know them by their fruits." However, there are two other issue I would like to address.
The first issue is that of a dispensational hermeneutic. For a dispensationalist the most important page in the Bible is that page between the OT and NT. Now, don't get me wrong, there is something New about the NT and there is something old about the OT. As the church father said, "The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed." There is one people of God and there is one church of God from creation until Jesus Christ returns. Rispens himself said that he is "spiritually speaking" a Jew. Good, we are children of Abraham and as the entire book of Romans makes clear "not all Israel is of Israel" or as Paul says in Galatians 3 "There is neither Jew nor Greek..." All people at all times are either saved or condemned for the same reason. They are saved through faith alone in the work of the Messiah (Messiah to come or Messiah already come: hint....its the same God-Man). Dispensationalists often thumb their nose at the Old Testament and find themselves in the unorthodox land somewhere between the everlasting covenant of grace and the early church heretic Marcion. They aren't Marcionites, but they fall between covenant and Marcion. This is dangerous and unfounded (though reasonable) in light of the whole of the scriptures. For instance, look at how the New Testament uses the OT (e.g. I Cor. 10; Jer. 31 and Acts 2; etc.) Without a covenantal reading of scripture, it should not surprise us that someone would be permitted to go out to eat on Sunday, keep their business open, have an open house to sell their home, spend the day on the lake with the family. The question is, why would anyone worship God on Sunday? Has he commanded them? Using Rispens argument, it seems you would have to be a seventh-day adventist or you could never expect anyone to consistently worship God on Sunday. Maybe he agrees, but I doubt it.
The second important question is the role of the law, liberty, and gratitude. To summarize briefly, Christ has fulfilled the law. As the Beglic Confession of Faith says in Artice 25, "We believe taht the ceremonies and symbols of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished among Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honorableness to the glory of God, according to His will." The civil and ceremonial law in Israel were full of shadows fuflilled in Christ. The truth and substance of them remain. You can understand that to be the valid principles undergirding those laws in the civil realm. However, the moral law of God remains, as it was not ordained merely for the nation of Israel, but for the whole entire world. This is the law written on the minds of all people. Even though the unbeliever is so depraved that they are unable to properly interpret that law and they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-20; 2), nevertheless, this is God standard of living in this world. It is summarized under the theme of love. Love for God and neighbor.
However, we are dead to the law and alive in Christ. The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. The law exposes our sin and shows our inability to earn the favor of God. The law condemns us, but Jesus Christ saves us. We are saved, not through law-keeping, but through faith alone, which is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-10). How then ought we to respond to God's amazing grace living in the freedom Christ has won for us? This is where the third use of the moral law comes in....it becomes a guide for Christian gratitude. I don't honor my father and mother so that I can earn God's favor or grace, but rather, because I already have God's favor and grace in Jesus Christ. The law is for the believer, an expression of thankfulness. Our works show our faith, they do not produce our faith. Does it matter how we live? Of course it matters. We are not antinomians. Rispens argues that our works do not contribute to our salvation. Well, that is true, if he means that our works do not contribute to our justification, but our sanctification, which is also part of our salvation, is allowing the Jesus Christ, who had kept the law, to work in us thankful hearts, so that we may offer our whole lives as thank offerings to God. We must not use Christian liberty as a license to sin. We have freedom in Jesus Christ, but that freedom has the boundaries of the 10 commandments properly applied (as they were by Jesus Himself throughout the whole Scripture). Our freedom is like a fish in the ocean. If you take the fish out of the ocean, is it still free? No, not in the way it is when it is in water. The Spirit working in us secures our freedom and liberty in Jesus Christ.
So, back to the original question, can you have a wedding on Sunday? Sure, right after the Sunday morning sermon in corporate worship, let bride and groom stand up, here the form read, say their vows, sign the marriage form, and then sit down and worship God. A reception, that is more difficult, but to have it at church as a feast of celebration could certainly be pleasing to the Lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)