You Can't Have it Both Ways...

Greetings in the Blessed name of Jesus.

I haven't made it a habit of writing doctrinal pieces on this blog, but today I think I will. And also since there are so many ministers out there with pulpits and radio shows pointing people in the wrong direction I think that it is important to discuss doctrine every once in a while.

I want to talk a little bit about the Sabbath today. There is a more thorough commentary on this topic posted on this web-site in the "Bible Materials" section, but I want to make a few observations here in this blog.
It seems to me that whenever I discuss the seventh day Sabbath with traditional church-goers they always want to have it both ways. What do I mean by this? Well first let's outline some common objections:

Objection #1 The Sabbath Day is a ceremonial law that was done away with when Jesus instituted the New Testament Church.

This is usually what I come across first when discussing this. But really they're trying to have it both ways. How? Well, they typically don't think that the other Ten Commandments are a part of the ceremonial law. "Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" they have no problem with ascribing to as relevant today. But the Sabbath day IS a part of the Ten Commandments. AND IF it is a part of the ceremonial law, THEN the Ten Commandments must just be ceremonial law since they are the law that the Sabbath is a part of.

But of course they don't want that. So, they want one Ten Commandment to be ceremonial law that was done away with, but the others (or most of them) they want to say are not ceremonial law even though all ten were apart of the SAME law written by the finger of God at the SAME time. You see? They want to have it both ways.

Objection #2 The Sabbath was a burden of the "old law" and we are not bound by it anymore because we are free from the law.

Objection #3 Jesus is our Sabbath now and therefore we have rest everyday and don't need the 7th day Sabbath.

Now, I listed those two together for a reason. Why? Because I've noticed that quite often the same people who like to use objection #2 will also ascribe to objection #3.

But here's what's interesting about that. If the Sabbath was a burden and now God's rest (Jesus) is our Sabbath... wouldn't that make God's rest (Jesus) a burden? The things in the Old Covenant that were "burdens" represent spiritual things that are often difficult for people today... like sacrifice. You see, you can't have it both ways.

Of course, since the writer of Hebrews compares the Sabbath to God's rest(both the natural land of Canaan in the Old Testament and the Spiritual Kingdom of God in the New Testament Heb. 3:11, 4:4) then it must be a good thing and not a burden. Jesus also underscores this himself in by saying that the Sabbath was made for man (Mar. 2:27).

Now finally, let's focus on objection #3 by itself. Hebrews chapter four does compare the Sabbath to the spiritual rest we have in Christ. It does this in verse four, but the very fact that this "rest" is also compared to Israel's entrance into Canaan precludes the notion that the author is trying to say that the Sabbath day is a ceremonial precursor to the spiritual rest. Rather it is apparent that this is just a spiritual comparison to convey the idea.

But what shall we say? If just because something natural is compared to something spiritual does that mean the natural is nullified? If that were so then we shouldn't be marrying anybody because after all, the church is the bride of Christ. You could make the argument that Jesus is our marriage and we don't need the natural ceremony anymore. Of course that's ridiculous and typically no one will make that argument while at the same time they'll use the same logic to argue that we don't have to keep the Sabbath anymore. But you see, you really can't have it both ways.

God bless!