Sunday Observance/Hermeneutics: Part II

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?