The Sabbath

I have two study Bibles that I use on a very regular basis. One is the Reformation Study Bible, produced by Ligonier Ministries, the other is the ESV Study Bible, produced by Crossway Bibles. I love both these study bibles and reference them repeatedly. As much as I love the resources in both these Bibles, there is one subject which they both get wrong: The Sabbath.

Romans 14

Romans 14 is a powerful declaration of Christian liberty. Verse 5 says the following:

"One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

One thing we know for sure, the words of the Scripture, here, are completely true, but what do they mean?

The two Study Bibles listed above give us two different interpretations:

Reformation Study Bible:

14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another. A pattern of holy days characterized the Jewish year, and it is probably to these that Paul refers, and not the Sabbath. If the Sabbath were in view it would have been more natural to say, “One man considers the Sabbath above the other days.”

ESV Study Bible

14:5 The weak thought some days were more important than others. Given the Jewish background here (see v. 14), the day that is supremely in view is certainly the Sabbath. The strong think every day is the same. Both views are permissible. Each person must follow his own conscience. What is remarkable is that the Sabbath is no longer a binding commitment for Paul but a matter of one's personal conviction. Unlike the other nine commandments in Ex. 20:1–17, the Sabbath commandment seems to have been part of the “ceremonial laws” of the Mosaic covenant, like the dietary laws and the laws about sacrifices, all of which are no longer binding on new covenant believers (see also Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16–17). However, it is still wise to take regular times of rest from work, and regular times of worship are commanded for Christians (Heb. 10:24–25; cf. Acts 20:7).

The Reformation Study Bible gives us what is widely considered the 'classic Reformed' perspective, here. What is ironic about this, is that the fountainhead of the Reformed tradition, John Calvin, would be an Antinomian by the standard put forth by it. (This shall be covered more, later.) The ESV Study Bible gives us a perspective that has a distinct New Covenant Theology flavor, and essentially leaves us with only nine commandments, not ten, when we read the Mosaic law.

Both views are particularly flawed.

Reformation Study Bible

According to the Reformation Study Bible, if Paul were talking about the Sabbath, it would have been more natural to say that 'One man considers the Sabbath above other days." Unfortunately, their logic here makes no sense. If Paul were merely to list the Sabbath, he leaves open the possibility that his audience could still consider other feast days as set apart and above others. I would offer, to the contrary, that if Paul, an expert in Jewish law in his own right, felt it necessary to exclude the Sabbath from what he was discussing, he would certainly have pointed that out. The argumentation in Romans is wonderfully thorough from start to finish, and I see no reason for this oversight on Paul's part if he had intended for us to continue holding one Sabbath day in the mode that it was held in the OT.  If, on the other hand, he meant that NO days, including the Sabbath, were necessarily held above others, then he would have said "One person esteems one day above another, while another esteems all days alike." Which is precisely what he said. The brief argument given to us by the Reformation Study Bible is weak and unconvincing.

A possible salvation for this argument?

The Reformation Heritage Bible, which is of the same mind as the Reformation Study Bible, offers a slightly different angle to try to save this position:

A second example: honoring special days, probably the ceremonial holy days of the old covenant, once appointed by God but canceled in Christ (Gal4:10, Col2:16-17). While this could include some ceremonial elements of the mosaic Sabbath observance, the Sabbath itself is a creation ordinance and therefore has abiding moral force (Gen2:1-3; Ex20:11; Rev1:10). Paul's words here cannot mean that Christians are under no obligation to observe any sacred days, for then his words about food (verses14-23) would imply that Christians are under no obligation to observe a sacred use of food, as in the Lord's Supper.

This would be an incredibly powerful argument, if it were valid and sound. Unfortunately, it is not. What does Romans 14 say about food? We have that, here:

2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand... 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

 How the Reformation Heritage Study Bible draws their inference about what the rejection of a particular Sabbath day implies for the Lord Supper based on this food is beyond me. The only connection to the Lord's Supper this could possibly have is if a person were to argue that only a specific type of bread and fruit of the vine were acceptable for the Lord's Supper, and a person who rejects a particular day for the Sabbath would be very unlikely to require a specific type of flatbread or product of the vine for the Lord Supper anyway, so the Reformation Heritage Bible utterly fails in showing the contradiction that they would like to show.

The ESV Study Bible

The problem with the ESV Study Bible is that it completely nullifies one of the Ten Commandments, and then turns around and suggests that it is still 'wise' to take a Sabbath rest. By what authority does it assert the wisdom of a Sabbath rest if there is no longer a Sabbath requirement? It seems quite problematic to take the entire Sabbath command, which has its roots in the creation of the world well before the Mosaic law, and try to say that the entire concept is put away along with the ceremonial laws that were firmly established so many years later. 

A third alternative, as held by John Calvin and others...

What I would like to propose is a third option, which does not trip on the apparent Antinomian tendency of the ESV Study Bible position nor does it place us in the apparent bondage that is seen in the Reformation Study Bible position. I would suggest that in the command of the Sabbath rest there are two elements. One that is ceremonial and one that is moral. 

John Calvin wrote in his Geneva Catechism (1560) concerning the fourth commandment the following:

171. Do you mean that this commandment properly refers to the Jews, and was therefore merely temporary? I do, in as far as it is ceremonial.

172. What then? Is there any thing under it beyond ceremony? It was given for three reasons.

173. State them to me. To figure spiritual rest; for the preservation of ecclesiastical polity; and for the relief of slaves.

174. What do you mean by spiritual rest? When we keep holiday from our own works, that God may perform his own works in us. 

Calvin saw a certain part of the Sabbath day to be distinctly ceremonial in nature, and he happily asserted that this portion of this command was gone. However, he also asserted that the Sabbath command had three reasons in it which are still necessary for us, today: spiritual rest, the preservation of ecclesiastical polity, and the relief of slaves.

But doesn't preservation of ecclesiastical polity revert back to having one specific day? Certainly not, it simply means that congregations and even denominations, together, can agree on what day they will celebrate this rest as a body. In Calvin's view, this day could be any agreed upon by the church.

Calvin's full view of the Sabbath has many other elements to it, that deserve their own consideration, elsewhere, but I want to now suggest an outcropping of Calvin's view that he himself may not have fully stated, but which I think accounts for our issue at hand with the different understandings of Romans 14, and is at least consistent with Calvin's greater theory on the Sabbath.

1. If Calvin is correct, and there is a ceremonial aspect of the Sabbath that is completed, then it does not matter which day we celebrate as the Sabbath.

2. If Calvin is correct, and there is a moral requirement in the Sabbath that we are still bound to, then at some level Christians are responsible for respecting a Sabbath rest.

3. If Calvin is correct, and corporate worship is a key component of the Sabbath, then our choosing of a time to have our Sabbath rest should be done in concert with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

4. This implies that our Sabbath rest should be taken in a way that encourages fellowship between those who are in Christ.

"The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord."

If these three things are true, then some consideration should be made by those of us who do not care how we celebrate the Sabbath should be considerate of the convictions of those who feel it should be a specific day. The Sabbath is a key component of the fellowship we have in Christ, and, while the brief arguments considered do not seem to be successful in coercing all Christians to celebrate a particular Sabbath day, they certainly represent a perspective that is "fully convinced in [their] own mind" and that needs to be respected.

On the other hand, we, as those who do not feel compelled to honor a specific day, yet still recognize the morally required Sabbath rest deserve the respect from our brothers who respect the day to not be considered antinomian simply because we understand the nature of the current application of the fourth commandment in a different way.