Great to keep this discussion going. Thank you. I agree with you that Jesus was most likely referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. However, if you look at the context of the passage (never read a bible verse), you will see that Jesus was not speaking to ( a ) or ( b ) but rather to ( c ) “the disciples who had come to him privately (Matthew 24:3).” Verse 4 goes to say, “And Jesus answered and said to them…” These disciples are the same men to whom Jesus promised the Holy Spirit Who would teach them all things. Jesus gives a long discourse of warnings and instructions to those Who belong to Him about how to recognize and respond to the coming destruction. And since the admonition to pray includes that their flight might “not be in winter,” to ascribe sarcasm rather than sincerity to “or on the Sabbath” seems like wishful thinking (at best) or eisegesis (at worst).
Again, I appreciate the opportunity for discussion and look forward to your response.
Well, you caught me there. I agree with you entirely. If I were actually basing an argument on the way I was dealing with this text, it would totally be shameless eisegesis. And I appreciate you keeping the discussion honest. But my intent was not to actually stake an argument in this text, but rather a passing comment to say, “Now that we’re talking about it, I could see how such a reading could line up.”
Yes, I understand Jesus is addressing disciples in this text. But that doesn’t change the point. Whether you’re a 1st century Jewish disciple, living in Judea who observes the Sabbath; or a 1st century Jewish disciple living in Judea who doesn’t observe the Sabbath; the fact remains that if you’re living in Jerusalem when it’s surrounded by armies – which is when Jesus says these disciples will know it’s time to get out of Dodge (Matthew 24:15-20, cf. Luke 21:20-21), they are going to have a rough time if the specific day of their flight (Matthew 24:20) falls on the Sabbath or during the winter.
First, it’s going to be harder for them to get out of Dodge during the winter, because winter makes everything harder.
Second, it’s going to be hard for them to get out of Jerusalem on a Sabbath because all those well-to-do unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem ain’t going to be doing anything on the Sabbath. Need to buy bread for the journey into the mountains? Too bad. Need to pick up some sticks so you have firewood once you get out of town and are fleeing into the mountains? Better hope they don’t catch you and stone you. Remember, if there was one thing those 1st century Jews were good at it was keeping an eye on Sabbath breakers (Matthew 12:2, Luke 13:14).
I don’t believe Jesus is telling his disciples to pray that their flight doesn’t come on a Sabbath day, as though to infer, “Sorry guys, if it’s a Sabbath day, you’re just going to have to stay put.”
Hope that is helpful.
Now, let me pose a question for you. What do you make of Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:31-32? As you rightly pointed out, Jesus is speaking to his disciples here, right? And Luke 21:31 very specifically says “When you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.” So if we’re going to be faithful to the context of who he is speaking to, must we not conclude that the “this generation” Jesus is speaking of must, by necessity, refer to the generation of his immediate hearers?
I’m not a Greek scholar, but I believe the text conveys the meaning of a single Sabbath day (G4541). Maybe one of our schooled patrons can comment on that.
Either way, I think the point would remain the same. Those disciples were going to need to get out of Dodge, and they were going to need to get out fast. Their leaving was to be a flight; a quick fleeing before the hammer of judgment fell upon the city. Whether a Sabbath Day or a festival week, the implied difficulty would be the same.
The long and the short of it is how are we going to honor the Sabbath? We can come up with a lot of views, and issues, but the moral law still remains. The Sabbath is a moral law. If we say it is ceremonial, which we all agree can be set aside because of His fulfillment in that realm, and what Hebrews teaches us, that is fine. But are we saying He fulfilled the moral law as well, and sets that aside? Would you treat the Seventh Commandment the same way that you treat the 4th? They are connected, and they all matter.
So it boils down to how are we going to honor the moral code, even though we keep it imperfectly. The reason I say this is because God has set aside this day early in history, to say it’s not longer a requirement of the moral law, we have to jump through quite a few creative hoops, but in the end, all we are really saying is “has God indeed said…” and we end up doing what is right in our own eyes.
I realize that this is to step on a lot of toes (to put it mildly) and that this discussion is much, much broader than this thread, and probably even too extensive for a written forum like this (though I’d be more than willing to have it!) but, with all due respect, I think this is a far too simplistic way to think about it. Yes, they are all connected (not just the so-called “moral” laws but the “civil” and “ceremonial” too!) and they all matter. But the question is “for what and for whom?”
Jonathan Leeman puts it this way:
Are the civil, ceremonial, or even moral laws of ethnic and national Israel binding on Christians? No more than the laws of China are binding on Americans. The Chinese law against murder might look similar to the American law against murder, but they belong to different administrations. In the same way, the sixth commandment, strictly speaking, was given to Israel (Exod 20:1). Now, it just happens that that law is repeated in the New Testament for Christians (Romans 13:9), as are nine of the ten commandments; but it’s the latter articulation through Christ that binds Christians (see 1 Cor 9:21) much like the American law against murder binds Christians, not the Chinese law.
Or, in the words of John Reisinger:
The American colonies were under the constitution and laws of England up until 1776. On that date, the colonies became the United States of America. They united under the Constitution of the United States. From that moment, they were ‘under a new rule.’ The laws and Constitution of England no longer had any legal authority over any American. The laws of England, as such, were totally nullified in respect to us as a nation. None of England’s laws could be appealed to as the final authority on any matter whatsoever. America was under the authority of a new constitutional document or covenant. The Constitution of the United States was now the full and final authority over every American. That is the exact parallel between the tablets of the covenant given to Israel and the New Covenant given to the church. That which established and governed Israel as a theocracy is no longer in effect over the church. It is clear that the framers of the United States Constitution carefully considered and used many of the laws of England when they wrote the new laws. However, that is not the point. The significance is in the change from life under the law of England to life under the law of the United States. That constitutes a complete change, regardless of how many laws are new, the same, or different. That is precisely what the Bible means when it compares the legal covenant that governed Israel and the gracious covenant that governs the church.
For practical purposes, as Leeman mentions, the only ethic that was applied to Israel in the old covenant but doesn’t seem to explicitly be applied to Christians in the new is the fourth (Sabbath), which is why this general conversation tends to focus on this commandment, as we’re doing in this thread.
I realize that most on this site probably don’t agree with this (especially given the affinity for John Calvin, who I greatly respect and have benefitted much from) but I believe Calvin (and many others) sometimes begin to let their theological systems/confessions of faith supersede what Scripture says (with things like “moral law”) rather than the other way around.
As has already been mentioned multiple times, thanks all for the excellent discussion.
it’s the latter articulation through Christ that binds Christians
No. There are different dispensations and applications of the natural law that is written on our hearts, but at no time in history has that fundamental law against murder been absent or changed. Jesus didn’t have to recreate morality for us. He fulfilled it and reiterated it.
Jesus’ fulfillment of the law didn’t eliminate the idea of right and wrong, leading Him to make entirely new rules for us. Rather He changed our relationship with the law.
I don’t accept your premise the simple is a problem. I think I will stick to simplistic. The Reformers were fighting for the simple, plain and understandable meaning of Scripture. It was the Papists who declared that Scripture was too complicated for the people to understand.
The reality is that we can point to one passage, in Colossians, that there is real dispute over when it comes to the LORD’s day. And many more that are clear in keeping it. As I always like to point out: the Ten Commandments were written in stone for a reason, showing their unity the fact that you break one, you break them all. They all stand or fall together.
What I fear is that many in Reformed circles have taken a Dispensational view toward the LAW, shouting with Andy Stanley, “we no longer are under the law! Dispense with the Ten Commandments.” When we have such a rich history of maintaining the Sabbath, and view it for the feast with Christ that the day is. He has blessed us with the opportunity and joy of being able to rest from the world, and we keep saying, “no, Your feast is not is not enough. I have a Super Bowl party to go to.”
Amen, brother. I agree with you. Couple questions:
How do you understand what it means that “He changed our relationship with the law” (first thing that come to my mind is Romans 7:1-6)?
What do you mean by natural law? I don’t want to make any assumptions but we have all kinds of modifiers on law in our theological parlance (moral, civil, ceremonial, natural, etc.) that aren’t the explicit language of Scripture so I want to make sure I understand what you’re talking about.
Maybe the simplistic argument wasn’t the best response from me. There’s a sense in which I think the traditional division of moral, civil, ceremonial complicates what Paul seems to clearly and simply communicate when it comes to the believer’s relationship to the law (e.g. Romans 7). So, yes, I do believe simple is better, not a problem. Though we need to be careful with this. I guess there’s a distinction to be made between simple and simplistic. We want to be simple but we should not try to be simplistic where biblical issues aren’t simple (e.g. 2 Peter 3:16).
I will say that:
I wouldn’t say I’m on the same page with Andy Stanley. I haven’t read his latest book (though I’d be interested to hear his arguments) but from what I’ve heard of him in general and articles/reviews I’ve read concerning him he seems to play far too fast and loose with Scripture in general for me to identify with him.
I agree with you about choosing Super Bowl party over gathering with God’s people is sad and doesn’t seem to me to be the kind of heart the new covenant creates. But I’m not getting there via the Sabbath because I don’t see the NT emphasis on keeping the Sabbath as a day.
So many thoughts based on recent comments. Where to begin!
First, I am very apprehensive to make use of the categories of “moral, civil, and ceremonial” laws. I understand what we mean by these, but I think it’s very important to stop and recognize that while these are distinctions we often use in our theological discourse, they are not biblical distinctions.
When Paul argued that Christians were released from the law (as in Romans 7), he doesn’t make a distinction as to what part of the law he was talking about. He says, quite simply, the law! And textually, I can only take this to refer to the totality of the law – from circumcision, to the Decalogue, to all the rules and statutes of temple worship, etc. The New Testament teaches that the Christian does not serve in the way of the letter (Romans 7:6); whether those letters written on stone tablets, or letters written in a book sprinkled with blood.
So I agree with what I think @cgatihi is getting at. I don’t believe the Decalogue should be understood as the moral law. Rather, the moral law – which existed prior to the giving of the Covenant at Sinai – was represented in the Decalogue. As @jtbayly said, Jesus’ fulfillment of the law did not eliminate the ideas of right and wrong. We must add also that the Decalogue did not create the ideas of right and wrong (Romans 5:13). They already existed.
The law itself did not create right and wrong. The law gave formal recognition to what is right and wrong, in order that sin might be shown to be what it is, and that our mouths might be stopped (Romans 5:13; Romans 3:19).
For the Christian, the law has already done its work on us. The Decalogue showed us our sin; the blackness of our hearts; our utter rebellion against a holy God. But then, we entered into Christ. We died with him, and so through him we died to the law which held us captive (Romans 7:6). We were then raised with him to serve in the manner of the Spirit.
For us to point to the Decalogue and say that it is binding on the Christian is more than simplistic; it’s actually very dangerous. The law carved in stone was a ministry of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), and it isn’t the way Christians serve God. Shall we return to our first husband (the law), after having died and been joined to Christ? Such a thing is an abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4).
So I don’t think the question is “which of the Ten Commandments apply to the church?” In truth, none of them, because Christians don’t serve according to the letter. But if we truly are Christians, then we have been born of God’s Spirit; God has given us a new heart — a heart that longs to be obedient to God (Romans 6:17). And as John says, we will not go on sinning, for the seed of God abides in us.
The reason I honor the Lord’s Day is not because of the Sabbath law. It’s because I love Christ, and I love his church, and I love to hear the word preached, and I love the gathering and fellowship of the saints. If God has made us alive in Christ, then the importance of things like swim meets and soccer games are going to begin to take a back seat to the importance of being together with the saints. As we behold Christ, with unveiled face (for we do not wear a veil as Moses did under the ministry of the law), the affairs of this world will grow dimmer and dimmer.
That’s how I have come to honor the Lord’s Day. As Chris has so well stated it, we don’t get there through the law.
That’s all I have time to write for now. I look forward to continuing this with you all.
I believe it was Doug Wilson that said (and I’m sure many others) something to the effect that some think the Old Testament law is ended unless it’s restated in the New. Instead, however, we should rather say that the law is ended only if it is clearly ended in the New.
That, and, what do we make of the Sabbath being given in the creation account first? Is there a parallel with Paul grounding male and female relationships in creation? That is, since the Sabbath began in creation, like the ordering of the sexes, wouldn’t this teach us that the Sabbath, like make male headship, is still in force?
With respect, I don’t believe these kinds of comments serve as helpful to these kinds of conversations. To just drop a verse like this, without any interaction with things that have already been said, seems to imply that you think that quoting this verse constitutes a sort of “mic drop” end to the conversation. I can appreciate that these sorts of drive by comments are commonplace in the trenches of Facebook and Twitter, but I’m really hoping to maintain more thoughtful interaction in this forum.
Yes, we all know that Jesus said if we love him, we will keep his commandments. But citing that verse isn’t solving anything that’s on the table here. I trust that you realize how irresponsible and careless it would be to simply apply John 14:15 with a broad brush across the whole counsel of Scripture. Great heresies have been birthed from the sorts of syllogisms that spawn from this sort of simplistic approach:
“The Bible commands we should wear tassels on our garments (Numbers 15:38). Jesus says if we love him we will keep his commandments. Therefore, we ought to wear tassels on our garments. And if we do not wear tassels on our garments, it is evidence that we don’t actually love Jesus.”
I’ve lost dear friends to the so-called “Hebrew Roots” movement, who were carried away by just this kind of thinking. And they have become nothing less than enemies of the gospel. They preach law-keeping and circumcision, not Christ.
I trust that all of us engaged in this discussion earnestly desire to love Christ, and obey his commandments. But to do that, we must consider the whole counsel of his word (Acts 20:27), and not simplistically apply single verses.
Thanks, Jeremy. I think this is right right direction to take the conversation. If it is true that the law – in its totality – is not binding on the Christian (which I believe Scripture clearly teaches), what then do we do with the principle of the Sabbath rest that was built into creation?
In short, I believe there is a progression observed in the Scriptures, which I’ve tried to summarize by these headings:
The Principle of the Sabbath Inherent In Creation
The Law of the Sabbath Commanded in the Old Covenant
The Law of the Sabbath Fulfilled in Christ
The Principle of the Sabbath Enjoyed on the Lord’s Day
The Sabbath principle was indeed modeled in the created order. God rested from his works, and declared the seventh day holy. God established the example of rest as a normative principle for mankind. It’s a gift.
But until Sinai, we do not observe any indication that God had ever placed any sort of imperative upon man concerning the seventh day rest. Beginning with the Covenant at Sinai, though, for an Israelite to work on the Sabbath meant death. The Sabbath is strictly established as a sign (very critical point), to be maintained throughout the generations of Israel, that the people of Israel might know that it is the Lord who sanctifies them (Exodus 31:13, Ezekiel 20:12).
But signs don’t point to themselves. They point to something that comes after them.
This is what makes the Sabbath law so unique. None of the other nine commandments in the Decalogue are of a sign nature. Only the Sabbath. All of God’s laws can generally be understood to be about us doing what is right, in order that we may be found holy (Leviticus 18:5); but the Sabbath is a sign of perpetual remembrance that only God can make us holy! It’s a breath-taking paradox to me. The law testifies to its own inability to make its adherents righteous (Romans 3:21).
I think one of the problems with summarizing the Decalogue to be the “moral law” is that it actually causes us to misconstrue the focus of the fourth commandment. We think that the focus is on rest, itself – as though rest bears some intrinsic moral virtue to it (you know, like not murdering people). Rather, God labors to explain that the heart of the Sabbath command has to do with maintaining the sign. And he even gives this command a place of preeminence:
“Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.” - Exodus 31:13
Why the Sabbath “above all?” Because the Sabbath bore witness to that only thing which will avail sinners. The Sabbath was the perpetual reminder throughout the Old Covenant that the Messiah was coming – the one who would sanctify the people once and for all. The one who would circumcise their hearts, and replace the heart of stone with a heart of flesh.
“I am the Lord who sanctifies you.” Keeping my law will not sanctify you. You cannot measure up. Only I can sanctify you.
If ever there were a sign clearly pointing to Christ, this is it. Jesus is the substance to which the Sabbath sign pointed. And having now received the substance, the sign itself has served its purpose. Turn off the GPS; we’ve arrived at our destination. God’s command to Israel to strictly observe the Sabbath sign “throughout their generations” (which I take to mean, prior to the coming of the time of the Gentiles, when the Old Covenant was still in effect) has been fulfilled. Christ has come.
And since Christ has come, we are left only with the principle of rest that was inherent at creation. No rigid requirement. No sign to maintain diligently throughout our generations. Only the blessed example of God giving rest to his people. And this is where I see the Lord’s Day arising:
(Quoting from my own paper linked in an earlier post)
Though the law of the Sabbath has found its completion and fulfillment in Christ, the principle of
the Sabbath rest, ordained from the beginning – that one day in seven, man shall enjoy rest
from his labors – remains ingrained in God’s created order as a wonderful gift to mankind. The
Lord would have his people enjoy physical respite each week, not as a matter of rigid obligation,
but as a matter of gracious kindness.
To that end, while Christians are no longer bound to the Sabbath law, both the Scriptures and
church history testify that the custom arose in the early church that believers would assemble on
the first day of the week for worship and fellowship. This day became known as the Lord’s Day,
for it was the day when Jesus arose from the grave (Mark 16:9, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2.
Revelation 1:10). This custom has continued to this very day, such that Sunday is known
throughout the world as the Christian day of worship. And since the Lord’s Day has been
historically associated with worship, fellowship, rest, and recreation, it has been understood by
Christians throughout history to be the de facto Christian Sabbath.
“De facto” Christian Sabbath. Not an actual Sabbath. No law. No rigid requirement. Only a precious gift to be enjoyed. This is the Sabbath principle seen in creation. And it is wholly distinct from the Sabbath law.
It was not God’s design that the Sabbath rest be regarded as a law to be rigidly observed
across the ages. Rather, the Sabbath rest is a testimony of God’s kindness and grace toward
mankind. In his compassion, God saw fit to grant man to rest from his toil one day a week. God
knows our frame, and remembers that we are but dust (Psalm 103:13-14). The Sabbath rest
was not designed to enslave Adam’s race, but to give them respite. “The Sabbath was made for
man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27).
Worked for Jesus when He faced the tempter in the desert.
Obviously Jesus left us with commandments to follow and summarized them in the Great Commandment, “love the LORD your God, love your neighbor.” He validated the 10 commandments in the sermon on the mount, showing that we were to not simply keep the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law (which never contradicts the letter).
I agree with you entirely. If I were actually basing an argument on the way I was dealing with this text, it would totally be shameless eisegesis. And I appreciate you keeping the discussion honest. But my intent was not to actually stake an argument in this text, but rather a passing comment to say, “Now that we’re talking about it, I could see how such a reading could line up.”
What do you make of Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:31-32? As you rightly pointed out, Jesus is speaking to his disciples here, right? And Luke 21:31 very specifically says “When you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.” So if we’re going to be faithful to the context of who he is speaking to, must we not conclude that the “this generation” Jesus is speaking of must, by necessity, refer to the generation of his immediate hearers?