Sunday worship

I've discussed this before:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/01/presbyterian-papists.html

but I'll make some additional observations:

i) I don't have a problem with Sunday worship, so long as we recognize Sunday worship as a custom rather than a divine mandate. By the same token, I have no intrinsic problem with messianic Jews making Saturday their Sabbath, although I might disagree with their rationale if they make Saturday their Sabbath for the same reason they continue to practice circumcision and kosher diet.

ii) Over and above what I've already written, there are two additional obstacles insisting that Sunday is the divinely-mandated day of worship. To begin with, there's the question of how we demarcate a day. When does one day end and the next day begin? You can define a day as the interval between sunrise and sunrise or sunset and sunset. That's a matter of convention. One definition isn't right while the other is wrong. But depending on which system you use, depending on when a day begins and ends, a day under one system won't coincide with a day under the other system.

iii) Another complication is time zones. Even if we agree on what demarcates a day, sunup and sundown don't occur at the same time all around the globe. Because the earth is a large globe spinning on its axis, my today may be your tomorrow, so it isn't physically possible for all Christians to worship on the same day, since the day is constantly shifting. That wasn't an issue for ancient Jews clustered in Eretz Israel, but for a global faith it makes a difference.  

iv) Not only is there a longitudinal distinction, but a latitudinal distinction, regarding solar days and solar nights. So there is no fixed reference point. It's a fairly (but not entirely) arbitrary calendrical convention. It has some basis in nature, but even from a natural standpoint there are different natural choices regarding the starting-point and end-point. 

v) Since the Mosaic law code contains both moral laws and ceremonial laws, there's no presumption that every command in the Decalogue must be a moral law. That might be the case, but it's not a given.

vi) There's no evidence that the Jewish Sabbath was originally a day of worship. Rather, it was originally a day of rest from labor. The association of the Sabbath with worship probably arose with the synagogue system, to service Diaspora Jews.

vii) Apostles worshiping on Sunday doesn't entail Sunday replacing Saturday as the day of worship. For one thing, that assumes the Sabbath was a day of worship. If, however, that's not the case [see (vi)], then at most, Sunday worship creates an additional day of obligation: Saturday Sabbath and Sunday worship. Two separate days of obligation. 

viii) Likewise, apostles worshiping on Sunday doesn't entail Sunday replacing Saturday as the Sabbath and/or day of worship inasmuch as apostles continued to frequent the Temple services as well as Saturday Sabbath/worship services in the synagogue. So both systems were in play.

ix) If you imagine that the Gregorian calendar coincides with the Jewish Sabbath, you're not tracking the argument. It's just the opposite. If the Gregorian calendar dropped 10 days from the Julian calendar, then Sunday doesn't fall on the same day on both calendars. What makes Sunday fall on the same day? If Sunday is seven days apart from the last Sunday and the next Sunday. If, however, the Gregorian calendar dropped 10 days from the Julian calendar, then that breaks the cycle. It renumbers the days and resets the cycle at a new starting-point. The first Sunday on the new calendar doesn't fall on the same day as the last Sunday on the old calendar because it's not seven days apart. If you can't count back by 7-day intervals from our Sunday to the apostolic era, then our Sunday doesn't match their Sunday. It's a different day on their calendar. We simply relabeled the days.

x) It's vacuous to say there's one right day of worship when you can't specify the conditions which single out a particular day, to the exclusion of other candidates:

Polar days and polar nights. What counts as Sunday in that setting? It's purely calendrical with nothing in nature to back it up. 

What makes a day a day? What demarcates one day from the next? When a day begins and ends. A day which is reckoned from sundown to sundown won't coincidence with a day that's reckoned from sunup to sunup. If the apostles used a dusk-to-dusk calendar while we use a dawn-to-dawn calendar, or midnight-to-midnight calendar, then those are different days since a day is defined by when it begins and ends. the issue of time-zones. Sunday isn't simultaneous across the globe. Sunday in one time zone doesn't fall on the same day as Sunday on a time-zone 12-14 hours apart;  So the identification is equivocal. 


BTW, if we had a space colony on Mars, what day would the Sabbath fall on? What's the frame of reference? A terrestrial diurnal cycle or Martian diurnal cycle? If the future, this may be more than hypothetical.

I find it amusing that some Protestants who swear by sola scriptura can't bring themselves to see or admit that this is an ecclesiastical tradition rather than a divine mandate. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that so long as you don't confuse the two and assign divine obligation to a human custom. 

Presbyterian Papists

Recently I got into an impromptu debate on Facebook about Sabbath-keeping and Sunday sports. A couple of preliminary observations:

1. My own position is based on ecclesiology. Given the fact that Christian identity has a corporate dimension (e.g. public worship) as well as an individual dimension, it makes sense for churches to have an agreed-upon day of worship. In principle, independent local churches could have their own religious calendar. For instance, some Messianic congregations worship on Saturday. It's logical for denominations to synchronize the day of worship. And there's value generally in all Christians having a common day of worship.

However, the choice of day is flexible. The principle is normative, but the implementation is contingent and variable. 

2. It's reckless for fathers to risk making their sons estranged from the faith as well as their fathers by drawing a line in the sand over adiaphora. Of course, hardline Sabbatarians don't think that's adiaphoric, but that's what the debate was about. 

The Sabbath

Here I'm expanding on a Facebook exchange:

Webb

So which is worse? Not respecting the Lord on the Lord's Day or not respecting the flag of your nation?

Hays 

Where does the NT say the "Lord's Day" is Sunday on the Gregorian calendar?

Webb 

It's called "the Lord's Day" because it was the day upon which the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That happened on the first day of the week: 

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 

Ditto, Mark 16:2, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1

The first day of the week in the seven day week, both Jewish and Gentile, is Sunday. This is not a disputed point.

Since the Resurrection, the church has historically gathered for worship on the Lord's Day, see Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2.

Hays 

I didn't ask why it's called the "Lord's Day", so your comment is irrelevant to what I said. You dodged the point about different calendars. BTW, it's not a command.

Webb

I don't think you're getting the point. The Gregorian and Julian calendars both have a 7-day-week beginning with Sunday. The Gregorian calendar didn't come in to use until 1582 to make up for the 11 minute difference in the length of a year. Prior to that time the church had always been meeting on Sunday, the Lord's Day. So the Gregorian Calendar is irrelevant to this issue.

Hays

i) Scheduling worship according to the Gregorian calendar is an ethnocentric custom, not a biblical mandate. Frankly, you need to take that difference seriously rather than conflating biblical norms with extrabiblical adaptations and culturebound conventions. What if Japanese or Chinese converts used a traditional Japanese or Chinese calendar? 

ii) That doesn't mean there's anything improper about using the Gregorian calendar to regulate worship; what is improper is to conflate localized conventions and post-biblical developments with the authority of Scripture, then condemn people for a made-up sin. That's what the church of Rome does.

Imagine you were a missionary to Chinese, Japanese, or Mayans before the Gregorian calendar became the default standard in modern times. Do you think their calendrical system corresponds to our calendrical system? Do you believe Christian conversion requires them to adopt the Gregorian calendar?

Webb

And it's only not a command if you either don't believe the command to not forsake the assembling of the church.

Hays

i) To begin with, you're guilty of equivocation by confounding arguments for obligatory public worship with a particular day on the Gregorian calendar. That's logically fallacious.

ii) Apropos (i), your thin, atomistic prooftexting falls short of your desired destination. A more sophisticated argument for mandatory church attendance would begin with the nature of the church and the fact that Christian faith as a corporate dimension. To practice fellowship, Christians must have agreed-upon times and places to gather for worship. That's a firmer foundation than cobbling together some verses that prove less than you need.

That, however, doesn't absolutize any particular day on whatever national calendar happens to be in use. Rather, it's a question of convenience and mutual agreement.

iii) BTW, the passage from Hebrews you allude is contextually referring to fear of persecution. 

Webb

Or the actual practice of the Apostolic...

Hays

i) You're turning descriptive passages into prescriptive passages. That's not a principle you can consistently apply. Do you really need me to give you counterexamples? It isn't hard. 

Webb

…and post-Apostolic church is not binding or normative.

Hays

You can't be serious. You think the practice of the postapostolic church is ipso facto normative for Christians? Counterexamples abound.

David

Surely a 7-day-week is ordained by God.

Hays

Whether a 7-day-week is ordained by God is distinct from whether a particular calendar day is ordained by God. We need to draw some basic distinctions. 

1. Natural symbolism

Some phenomena have naturally emblematic associations, viz. four seasons, five senses, lifecycle, day/night, sunrise/sunset, garden/desert, fatherhood/sonship. This forms the basis of poetic metaphors and theological metaphors. And this often enjoys a universal appeal. 

2. Assigned symbolism

In contrast to natural symbolism, some phenomenon have ascribed significance. Take Christmas or Easter. Christians agree on a particular day or date to commemorate the birth of Christ or the Resurrection of Christ. That doesn't correspond to the actual calendar date. We don't know what that was. So we pick an arbitrary day or date. 

3. Idiosyncratic significance

Particular people, places, and events may be significant to one individual but not to another. The high school you attended may have nostalgic associations for you, but not for someone who didn't attend your school. It's constitutes a symbolic landmark in your life.  

When they're still alive, you celebrate your mother or father's birthday. After they pass way, their deathdate is more significant to you than their birthdate. For one thing, the death of a parent is a turning-point in your own life. In addition, you experience their death in a way that you don't experience their birth. 

4. Days and dates

Anniversaries commemorate significant events. By definition, an anniversary is a year later than the original event or the last anniversary. The same date, one year later. But even though anniversaries fall on the same calendar date, a year later, they usually fall on a different day, since days and dates shift from one year to the next. 

So, for instance, you may remember the anniversary of a parent's death every year, but that's pegged to the calendar date rather than the calendar day. The interval is what makes it significant, and not whether it falls on the same day of the week. It's important to keep that conceptual distinction in mind when we consider the significance of the Christian Sabbath. 

5. Commemorations

And in terms of symbolic associations, it's not the day that makes the observance memorable, but vice versa. The commemoration reminds of us the original event, not vice versa.

6. The first day of the week

Monday is the first day of the week according to the international standard ISO 8601, so even symbolically, there's no consistent correlation between Sunday, the Resurrection, and the first day of the week.

Was Jesus a Sabbath-breaker?

For ease of formatting, and to bypass the word-limit, I'm going to lift this out of the combox and address it in a separate post:

CR:
i.) I remain convinced by Scripture and conscience that lying is always sinful, and thus is always impermissible for Christians.
ii.) Scripture does not approve of lying.
iii.) Christ didn't lie, and Christians are called to imitate Him.
iv.) Christ never broke any of God's commands, and since He was "in every respect tempted as we are, yet without sin", it's not possible for Heb. 4:15 to be true if Christians will face situations where they are forced to disobey one of God's commands (a "lesser" command) in order to obey another (a "greater" command), or else Jesus would have been faced with such a situation too.

Multiple problems:

i) A biting irony of the "absolutist" position is that absolutists are forced to concoct hairsplitting distinctions between the permissibility of deception and the impermissibility of lying. They draw makeshift distinctions between lying and deception, or between verbal and nonverbal deception. They allow for military deception. They allow for half-truths, equivocations, &c. They allow for deceptive communication so long as that's not technically "lying." 

And this, of course, depends on their stimulative definition of "lying." The Bible doesn't define lying. It never draws those finespun distinctions. Absolutists impose that on the text. 

ii) As I pointed out before, which CR ignores, Scripture sometimes presents God as a deceiver (of unbelievers). We see this in both Testaments. If Jesus is divine, then he sometimes engages in divine deception.

iii) CR is rehashing some objections that I already addressed in response to another commenter. For instance:

a) If I were Jesus, I wouldn't box myself into that predicament in the first place. If I can predestine history, I won't put myself in a bind.

But since I'm not God or God Incarnate, I must play the hand I was dealt. I'm not the dealer. I didn't shuffle the deck.

b) Likewise, if I had the miraculous powers of Jesus, there'd always be alternatives to lying since I'd be able to supernaturally override the circumstances.

c) In large part, God can be trusted to keep his promises because God has the unilateral ability to ensure their realization. Nothing and no one has the power to prevent him from doing what he said he'd do.

In addition, God is never in a position where he must choose between protecting the innocent and telling the truth.

The same, however, can't be said for feeble creatures in a fallen world.

iv) My argument was never that there are situations where we must commit a lesser wrong to avoid a greater wrong.

v) The implication of CR's position is that it would be sinful for God Incarnate to disobey any of God's laws. Likewise, he puts lesser commands and greater commands in scare quotes, as if that distinction has no basis in fact.

By that logic, it would be sinful for God Incarnate to disregard any of the ceremonial laws, even though these are not moral laws, but symbolic illustrations of holiness and unholiness.

vi) By that logic, the new covenant entices Christians to commit sin inasmuch as the new covenant abrogates many of the Mosaic laws, viz. the Mosaic cultus (priesthood and sacrifice), purity codes. 

vii) To assert that it's always sinful to break a law of God begs the question. To assert that Christ never broke a law of God begs the question.

Moreover, it's demonstrable that Jesus sometimes violated the purity codes by fraternizing with ritually impure persons. 

viii) But let's focus on the Sabbath. In Jn 5:17-18, Jesus admits that he works on the Sabbath, in direct contravention to what the Mosaic law prohibits. He justifies that on the grounds that God works on the Sabbath–and by implication–that he is divine. A spine-tingling comparison for a Jewish audience. 

According to Jn 5:17-18, Jesus breaks the Sabbath all the time. Not just in exceptional circumstances, but in his divine capacity (e.g. ordinary providence). Jn 9 is another Johannine healing on the Sabbath. 

ix) In the synoptic Gospels (Mt 12: 1-14; Mk 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Lk 6:1-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6), the argument isn't predicated on the necessary assumption that Jesus and his disciples actually are Sabbath-breakers. Rather, the argument is that even if they were Sabbath-breakers, their infraction would be justifiable under the circumstances. 

x) Jesus doesn't accuse the Pharisees of misinterpreting the Sabbath prohibition. He doesn't deny their allegation that he was working on the Sabbath or breaking the command.  Jesus pleads no contest. He grants the allegation for the sake of argument. Whether or not he was guilty as charged misses the point. 

Rather, he accuses them of failing to distinguish between lesser and greater obligations. Even if he was guilty as charged, his behavior was justified by a higher duty. 

Jesus doesn't correct their interpretation of the Sabbath command. Rather, he corrects their flat view of legal and moral obligations. All obligations aren't equally obligatory. For instance, ethical obligations outrank ritual obligations. 

xi) He deploys a fortiori arguments. For instance, he says David's soldiers broke the Levitical law by consuming the showbread, which was reserved for priests. Yet he says that was warranted under the circumstances.

By analogy, his disciples are at liberty to glean the fields on the Sabbath. Although gleaning the fields was permissible on most days, doing so on the Sabbath would conflict with the prohibition against Sabbath labor.

Keep in mind that the disciples weren't starving to death. They were simply hungry. But this wasn't a work of "necessity." They could forgo food for a day.

xii) Moreover, he cites Hos 6:6 to underscore the principle that higher obligations override lower obligations in case of conflict. 

xiii) Furthermore, he appeals to his divine authority as Lord of the Sabbath to suspend that command–in another hair-raising claim for a Jewish audience.

xiv) Likewise, he reasons, a fortiori, that if the temple (tabernacle) is greater than the Sabbath, then he is greater than the temple (tabernacle). If it was permissible for priests to work on the Sabbath, in violation of the general prohibition, it's permissible for him to work on the Sabbath–inasmuch as he is greater than the temple and the Sabbath alike. 

xv) In another a fortiori argument, he says that if it's permissible to aid livestock on the Sabbath, it is all the more permissible to aid the sick. In case of conflict, higher obligations supersede lower obligations. 

This is despite the fact that the sick could wait another day. It isn't necessary to heal them on the Sabbath. Many were sick for years. One more day wouldn't be a big deal. 

The livestock weren't in mortal danger. The patients weren't in mortal danger. But mercy takes precedence.

Keener on the Sabbath

http://www.craigkeener.com/which-day-is-the-sabbath/

Playing hooky

This is a sequel to a post I did several years ago:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-tebow-sabbath-breaker.html

As the Superbowl approaches, some pastors are decrying Christians who skip church to watch the Superbowl. A few quick observations:

i) i agree that many Americans have skewed priorities when it comes to sports. (And not just Americans. The same holds true for Europe, the UK, and Latin America.)

That said, unless you think professional sports is sinful, a prudent pastor should pick his battles. No point attacking something that's popular unless it's sinful. That's a lost cause. 

In cases like that, it's best to take advantage of the situation.

ii) At the risk of stepping on some toes, most church services are eminently forgettable. How many church services in your experience ever made an indelible impression? If you attended one less church service per year, what difference would that make? Would you remember the service if you hadn't played hooky that Sunday? 

iii) Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that watching football is more important than attending church. Mind you, that depends on the kind of church you attend. There are situations where you'd get more from reading a good Bible commentary. 

iv) Someone might object that this isn't a fair way to assess church attendance. The value of church attendance is cumulative and fairly subliminal. A form of spiritual maintenance. A regiment or discipline which helps to keep you from drifting. 

If that's the argument, I agree. But by the same token, skipping one service has negligible effect. 

v) A better question is what we do in our spare time generally. It's not enough just to complain about how many churchgoers fritter away their leisure time on trivia. They need advice on how to make better use of their free time. 

Is Tebow a Sabbath-breaker?

I got into an impromptu debate over this issue at Justin Taylor’s blog. I may update this post if that exchange continues, but this lays down some markers:

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 3:47 pm

Kyle

“Friends, breaking the Sabbath is included in the same set of moral and unchangeable laws as not committing adultery. *If* God is helping Tebow (and more than in the general “he upholds all things by the power of his Word) it’s not for Tebow’s benefit.”

I’ve seen Tebow criticized on those grounds before. And that raises a valid issue. However:

i) Based on Rom 14:5, Gal 4:10, & Col 2:16, there are eminent Bible scholars who don’t think keeping the sabbath is a new covenant ordinance.

ii) And even if (arguendo) we regard the sabbath as part of God’s unchangeable law, it doesn’t follow that God’s law requires Christians to make Sunday on the Gregorian calendar their sabbath. That’s just a modern calendrical convention, not a Biblical mandate.

iii) Furthermore, there are also scholars who distinguish a day of worship from a day of rest.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 5:09 pm

Kyle

“Thanks for your comments. For every scholar that writes against the perpetuity of the Sabbath I can up the ante…and if I were a betting man I’d sooner put my money on those who have gone before us then most contemporaries. You say Schreiner I’ll say Calvin; you say Carson, I’ll say Owen, etc, etc. And I can go beyond that, I’ll add any of the Reformers, Puritans, and any who have stood within the pales of Confessional Reformed or Baptist orthodoxy. So those ‘scholars’ (often influenced by Dispensational or New Covenant theologies) can say what they will, but any attempt to rid the Sabbath command from the binding moral law is nothing but wresting the Scriptures and robbing Christ of his Lordship as he is the Lord of the Sabbath.”

i) It’s not a question of how many scholars you and I can line up on either side of the issue, but the quality of their respective arguments.

ii) Tradition has no independent authority, over and above Scripture.

iii) In addition, you dodged points #2-3 of my comment.

“I feel the same way about this as you probably would if someone tried to biblically justify adultery. Chances are you wouldn’t give them much of a hearing because Scripture is painstakingly clear on the sinfulness of such an action.”

You're asserting an analogy minus a supporting argument. So it begs the question.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Kyle

“As to the original (ii), the Sabbath commandment is grounded in the seven day week. The Sabbath command requires one day in seven to be kept as Sabbath. As this is a creation ordinance and obviously preceded the Mosaic economy (c.f. Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16) it’s not a matter of old vs. new covenant. By positive command that was the last day of the week under the OT. Since the resurrection of Christ that form was changed (not the substance of one in seven) to the first day of the week in accord with the pattern set by our Lord and the Apostles. Having the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath is not, in fact, a ‘modern calendrical convention.’”

These are not equally strong arguments:

i) You can make a fairly strong argument that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance. (Mind you, that has to be counterbalanced against other Biblical evidence.)

ii) Even that wouldn’t make it a moral absolute (“moral and unchangeable law”). As Christ points out, the Sabbath is a means to an end, not an end in itself. As such, its value is relative, not absolute.

iii) The argument for a shift from Saturday to Sunday is much weaker. There is no dominical or apostolic command to worship and/or rest on Sunday. At most we have some suggestive indications regarding apostolic practice. But apostolic practice isn’t ipso facto equivalent to apostolic precept. Paul’s vow (Acts 18:18) isn’t mandatory for Christians.

iv) The Gospels don’t show Jesus celebrating the Sabbath on the first Easter.

v) And even if he did, dominical practice isn’t ipso facto normative. Jesus did many things that aren’t normative for Christians.

vi) You’re also equivocating. Let’s assume the first day of the week c. 30 AD was the Christian Sabbath. That hardly means the NT is preauthorizing the Gregorian calendar. If, instead of the Gregorian calendar, a Renaissance pope made the Mayan calendar the official calendar of Western Europe, would Tebow be breaking God’s “unchanging moral law” by failing to set aside the Mayan Sunday as his Christian Sabbath?

vii) You’re equivocating in another respect as well. 1st and 7th involve a sequence. It’s not the day in isolation, but the sequence, that’s the fundamental unit. You can have the same sequence on a different day.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Kyle

“As to the original (ii), the Sabbath commandment is grounded in the seven day week. The Sabbath command requires one day in seven to be kept as Sabbath. As this is a creation ordinance and obviously preceded the Mosaic economy (c.f. Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16) it’s not a matter of old vs. new covenant. By positive command that was the last day of the week under the OT. Since the resurrection of Christ that form was changed (not the substance of one in seven) to the first day of the week in accord with the pattern set by our Lord and the Apostles. Having the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath is not, in fact, a ‘modern calendrical convention.’”

That’s fatally equivocal. Let’s grant (arguendo) that reserving the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath is a creation ordinance. That would be the enduring principle.

However, the Gregorian calendar is a modern calendrical convention. How we reckon the first day of the week is not a creation ordinance. What counts as “Sunday” is an artifact of whatever calendar we happen to be using. That’s the frame of reference. The underlying principle is Scriptural, but the specific application is cultural.

Scripture doesn’t assign “Sunday” as the Christian Sabbath. The first day of the week is relative to a sequence of days, and that’s relative to the operative calendar. Our calendar is a social convention.