There is much debate in Christian circles today regarding the place of the
law in the believer's life. It is increasingly evident that among Baptists,
especially those holding to the doctrines of grace, that there is a difference
of opinion on the place of the law. The views among Baptists range from those
holding to a law as binding upon the Christian by such groups as Landmark
Baptists and Reformed Baptists, to the dispensationalists and those holding to
New Covenant theology that would have a different perspective on the place of
the law in the believer's life.
Despite the various differences among these groups, most of them would agree
that Christian liberty has nothing to do with the Law of God, only with things
indifferent. For example, one would agree that it is a matter of Christian
liberty if a Christian was to plunk down his seven dollars to go to the movies.
But if that movie would be one that would cause him to lust with the eye there
would be little doubt as to the convenience of such a practice. Jesus was quite
clear in that looking upon a woman to lust is to commit adultery in the heart.
So it is quite evident that all would agree that to attend a pornographic movie
would not be a matter of Christian liberty.
But there is an area that has increasingly been subject to matters of
Christian liberty that we think is an example of an inconsistency among those
that hold to the law as a rule of life for the Christian. That area is the
sabbath. When one who holds to the Christian sabbath is asked, "What constitutes
sabbath keeping," there is usually never a straight direct answer. I once asked
a brother how a Christian was to keep the sabbath, and he said, "by keeping it
holy." My answer was, "Oh do you mean I do not have to keep the other days
holy?"
There sure is a straight answer in the Old Testament as to what constituted
sabbath breaking - the doing of any work whatsoever -period!
But what do we have today with those that say there is a sabbath under the
New Covenant?
First of all, we have a changing of the day. The sabbath was the seventh day
in the Old Testament, and even in the New Testament when the sabbath is referred
to, it is the seventh day where it refers to the Jews worshipping in the
synagogue, as we read in Acts. So the first thing that those that say the
sabbath is binding on the Christian, do is to change the day. No matter how one
reads the New Testament, which historically was the Baptist guidelines for the
church, nowhere is the first day called a sabbath.
Secondly, there is the change of the duty enjoined on the sabbath as just
mentioned. There was no specific command to worship as part of sabbath keeping
in the Old Testament. One broke the sabbath in the Old Testament by doing any
work, whatsoever. We do not read of anyone being accused of sabbath breaking
because they failed to assemble for worship on the sabbath. In fact, in Exodus
16:29 during the wilderness journey and the manna falling from heaven, they were
not allowed to leave their dwelling place on the sabbath. Today, we have all
sabbatarians saying that one has to be in worship as part of sabbath keeping,
but beyond that views differ. Can I stop in the 7-Eleven and get a cup of
coffee? Can I use toll roads? Can I go to the gas station? None of these would
ever have been areas of controversy under the Old Testament Law. Today, there is
no ambiguity regarding any other of the Laws of God that the Christian is under.
Thirdly, we have a change of the punishment for sabbath breaking. In the Old
Testament, the penalty was DEATH! Now, if one is found to be picking up sticks
on their front lawn on the sabbath, what will happen? Nothing: since we are told
that would be legalism. But we just established that Christian liberty has
nothing to do with the Law of God, so today no one even comes under the
discipline of the church for breaking the sabbath.
The punishment for breaking the sabbath was so severe because the sabbath was
itself the sign of the Old Covenant, Ex. 31:17; so to break it was to break the
covenant, therefore, the punishment was death!
What we have so far is a position that has changed the day, the duty and the
discipline of the 4th commandment, and then claims to be upholding the Law of
God.
Some may be asking as to what our position is, and what is the purpose of
this article. For one, we are not engaged in an attempt to prove that the
sabbath is not binding upon the Christian although that is our position. What we
are attempting to do is to show that those that claim to be defenders of sabbath
keeping for the Christian are not consistent; and in reality, do not keep the
sabbath themselves. We will do this by simply asking a few questions of the
reader and let him or her answer the questions with judgment day honesty as to
whether or not their church is a sabbath keeping church.
To start with lets take a scenario that could happened to some that believe
in a Christian sabbath: Let us suppose that a family visits a church, and after
a few visits, the church finds out that the couple were not married, and that
their children were illegitimate. To make matters worse, these people claim to
be Christians even though they are living in sin. If they were to treat this
lightly, I do not think it would be business-as-usual for any reputable church
member. I am certain that the family would not be invited to fellowship on a
Lord's day afternoon as would any other Christian. If anything, the church body
would seek to enlighten the couple, and if there was no convincing them
otherwise, they would be treated as unconverted. They might seek to get to know
them better, but I doubt if they would treat that as a mere doctrinal
difference. In this we agree. Even if the couple's reasons for now getting
married were because they thought they were not under the law (so thereby the
7th commandment was not binding) (There ARE some that believe that.).
BUT.... what if the couple was one that did not hold to a Christian sabbath?
Lets suppose this same couple are married, and they appear to be God-fearing
people that lived a life that was Christ-like but sincerely did not believe that
there was a New Testament sabbath. Would they be treated with the same attitude
as the immoral couple? I say they wouldn't. So who is the one that is lowering
the standard of God's law, the sabbattarian or the New Covenant Christian who
does not see a sabbath in the New Covenant?
Let us ask a few questions and see if the reader can judge for him or herself
as to whether or not they are consistent. These questions will be asked without
comment for the reader to think about. Keep in mind that none of these questions
should be answered with anything having to do with Christian liberty since that
has nothing to do with the Law of God.
Why would a Christian have to be sure he or she did not break the sabbath?
Can one play "Catch" with one of their children in the backyard on the
sabbath?
When does the sabbath begin, and when does it end? Is the sabbath over at
sundown or at midnight?
Where in the Old Testament is worship ever commanded as part of sabbath
keeping?
Where in the New Testament is Sunday called the sabbath?
If it is so important to keep the sabbath, then these things should be cut
and dry or they don't matter. If they don't matter, then you don't have a 4th
Commandment.
We want to add a few more questions regarding the unconverted. Those that
hold to the sabbath also say that the unconverted are sabbath breakers if they
do not keep it.
What exactly should an unregenerate person have to do not to break the
sabbath?
Can the unregenerate actually keep the sabbath? If so how?
Our purpose in all of this is to show that for one to actually be Biblical in
their sabbath keeping, they would have to become legalistic since there is no
grace in law. God has given the sabbath to be kept the way He intended it to the
people that He gave it to. It was a cessation of work typifying the finished
work of Christ. You can search from Genesis to Revelation and use all of the
deductive reasoning you want: you will not find anywhere where a failure to
attend worship service on the sabbath constituted being a sabbath breaker.
Are we saying that a Christian should not set aside the day for worship and
he or she is free to take or leave church? ABSOLUTELY NOT! A Christian should
have a burning desire to want to be among God's people in worship and
fellowship. It should be his desire to law aside the worries of the world for
one day. He should be gathered at all of the meetings of the church that he has
committed himself to.
BUT THAT IS NOT SABBATH KEEPING!
But some will ask, "If the Christian is free from the sabbath, is he free
from the seventh commandment?". This is a common argument and one we have used
ourselves when we were sabbattarians. The answer is simple. A Christian is not
free to do anything that is "contrary to sound doctrine according to the
glorious Gospel of the Blessed God".1Tim:1 If one will read that passage,
they will see that Paul says that the law was made not for the righteous but the
unrighteous. In addition, where Paul speaks of things contrary to sound doctrine
there is not mention of the sabbath. In fact, for one to still be under the
sabbath they are, in essence, saying that the One that the sabbath is pointing
to has not come.
Christian, has your church been consistent in sabbath keeping? My guess is
"no," and the answers to the above questions will point that out. Don't claim to
be upholding the Law if you are lowering the standard of God's Law concerning
the sabbath. If it seems to legalistic to you, then maybe you get the point, and
you will seek to live a life that is according to the Gospel of the Blessed God.
Let your conduct be as becomes the Gospel of Christ, not in the oldness of the
letter, but in the newness of the Spirit.
Please direct your comments to Mike Krall.