Continuing our study in the book of Exodus, but we've slowed way down in Exodus chapter 20, taking each of the commandments one by one. We're on part three of the fourth commandment, which is Exodus chapter 20, verses 8 to 11. But I'll read the section beginning in verse one. God spoke all these words saying, I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. Now all the people witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking. And when the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off. Then they said to Moses, you speak with us and we will hear, but let not God speak with us lest we die. And Moses said to the people, do not fear, for God has come to test you, and that his fear may be before you, so that you may not sin. So the people stood afar off, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was." Amen. So we looked at an exposition of the commandment. If you look specifically at verses 8 to 11, there is a positive aspect. Remember, the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Then there follows a prohibition, six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gate. So positive aspect, prohibition, and then the reason, verse 11, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth. the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Now, when we look at the parallel passage in Deuteronomy chapter 5, we see the same emphasis, positive aspect, prohibition, and then a reason. Does anybody remember what the reason is in the parallel in Deuteronomy chapter 5? the exodus, so redemption. So the twin concepts of creation and redemption are sort of the backbone of Sabbath-keeping. So after looking at this commandment in particular, we noted the Sabbath in the Old Covenant, because if you look at the language in verse 8, it says, remember the Sabbath day. In Deuteronomy 5, it says, observe the Sabbath day. So both of these emphasize the reality that it was already in play, it was already existent. In other words, it wasn't given by commandment at Sinai as if it had never been given previous to that. So where did we go to first see the Sabbath in the Old Covenant? Anybody remember? Genesis chapter 2 verses 1 to 3, God Sabbathed after he created the world and all things in it, by the word of his power in the space of six days everything was very good and then God rested. He approved of the work that he had conducted. As we learned from John 5 on Sunday morning, that doesn't mean the absolute cessation of everything in terms of God. God finished creation, God nevertheless sustains the creation in His providence, so He is active. As Jesus says, My Father has been working until now, so He as well works, according to John 5. Now, where did we go after creation? Does anybody remember? Cain and Abel, Genesis chapter 4. So Cain and Abel had the understanding to worship God through sacrifice. They no doubt received this from their father Adam. Adam had witnessed God kill animals, take the skins off the animals, and cover he and his beloved. So in Genesis chapter 3 verse 21 we see that transaction, blood atonement, for the forgiveness of sins, Adam then passes that down to Cain and Abel, and intriguingly, Cain and Abel go to worship at the end of days. It's the end of the days of the week, not the end of the days of the world, because that hasn't happened yet. So Cain and Abel, taking that tradition from their father that he had passed down, not only in terms of bringing sacrifice to God in worship, but the specific day upon which to worship. Now, moving from there, we saw, I think I heard it over here, Exodus chapter 16, the instructions given for the collection of manna. Of course, they were told to collect double the amount on Friday or on the sixth day so that they would have the appropriate measure for Saturday, the Sabbath day, and wouldn't have to go out and work. And then, of course, you see the giving of the commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Again, creation and redemption function as the context for Sabbath keeping. And then from there we move to the prophets. Anybody remember the specific prophets? the law is written on man's heart, and thus, while that text doesn't refer to sabotage by name, it's implied, or it's thereby been a necessary consequence. Right. The law of God is a unit, the law of God is given as a unit, and the promise of the new covenant is that the Spirit of God is going to write the law of God on the hearts of God's people. And so he will internalize that law, such that the law, according to John, in 1 John 5, is not grievous, it's not burdensome, it's not a hassle for the people of God, but their hearts have been changed, their affections have been changed, their desires have been changed, and while there is remaining corruption, and while there may be the occasional struggle, we delight in the law of God in the inward man. So the prophet Jeremiah prophesies concerning new covenant reality. And so he speaks concerning the law as unit. But prior to Jeremiah, you have the prophet Isaiah, and Isaiah, after chapter 53, that last servant song of Yahweh that describes the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ, he shifts his attention to the Messianic kingdom. He shifts his attention to new covenant reality, and he is prophesying and he is speaking concerning of new covenant blessing. And in Isaiah 56, he talks about the eunuch who had been kept from the assembly of the Lord being welcomed into the assembly of the Lord in the new covenant. We see that come to pass in Acts chapter 8, when Philip evangelizes that Ethiopian eunuch. It's a wonderful example of a personal victory in terms of soul winning, but it's also fulfillment of God's word. In other words, it's not the case that those persons will be excluded like they were in the old covenant. Now, as well in Isaiah 56, he speaks concerning Sabbath, and he speaks concerning the house of God being a house of prayer for all the nations. So again, He is amplifying the promises given to the patriarchs, the promises that move through the prophetic literature, the promises that we see in the Psalter, and he shows us that that will come in connection with this servant of the Lord that he has introduced to us, this servant of the Lord that he spoke of in Isaiah 42, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 50, and then Isaiah 52 and 53. So each of those servant songs give us a facet concerning the Messiah's work. And so on the heels of the last servant song, again, New Covenant reality, so we see in the New Covenant, eunuchs brought nigh through the blood of Israel's Messiah, and we see Sabbath observance in play, along with the church being a house of prayer for all nations. And then, of course, in Isaiah the prophet in chapter 58, God, through the prophet, tells him to upbraid the nation, to make her know her sins, and the prophet speaks specifically to her religious sins, her sins with reference to fasting and Sabbath keeping. It's not wrong to fast, it's not wrong to keep the Sabbath. But Israel approached these things as external, formalistic ritual, and they had no heart accompaniment. And so God uses the prophet to indict them and to call them to repentance. And so we can learn a lesson with reference to Sabbath keeping from Isaiah chapter 58. We are to call it a delight, and we are to see that it's not this external thing that is designed to put us into bondage. Jesus disavows that notion in Mark's gospel in Mark chapter 2, verse 27 and 28. He says that man was not made for the Sabbath, but rather the Sabbath was made for the man. And I think he challenges us there to see or focus our perspective on the positive aspect of the commandment. Yeah, there's a negative. You can't do your normal work. Well, what a good negative that is. And the positive, of course, is to set the day apart, sanctify it, keep it holy, find your joy and enjoyment in God Most High. So, if we approach the Sabbath as a burden, if we approach the Sabbath as a restraint, if we approach it as this negative sort of a concept that it's often been portrayed by among Sabbatarians, unfortunately, and certainly among anti-Sabbatarians, we're doing no one any good. Jesus says it was made for the man. It was made for Adam, not not Israel as Israel or for the Jew as Jew, but it was made for man. It's a good thing. And then as we look at the Sabbath commandment, and I tried to explain this a bit last week, I think, there's both moral and ceremonial or moral and positive aspects to the fourth commandment. The moral principle is one day out of seven set apart for the worship of God. The positive element is conditioned by the covenant. That's why in the old covenant it was Saturday, and in the new covenant it is Sunday. So in terms of positive law or ceremonial law, that justifies or legitimizes the day change. But in terms of the moral principle, And our confession of faith says it's not only the written word of God, but also the light of nature. There's something about us being created in the image of God, and we know that it's right to give God a part of our time. We know that it's right that if there is a creator and we are his creature, then we owe him something in terms of obedience and reverence and worship. So the confession underscores not only the fact that it comes through special revelation, but it's also signified in the light of nature or what we call natural theology. So there's the moral principle, and then there's the positive aspect. The positive aspect, again, is the legitimacy for the day change. Now, having looked at the exposition of the commandment, the Sabbath, and the Old Covenant, we turned our attention to the Sabbath in the New Covenant. And we first looked at the ministry of Jesus Christ. What passage did we look at first with reference to the ministry of Jesus Christ under his doctrine concerning the law? Does anybody remember that? Nope. That's the next section. So I broke it down. Ministry of Jesus, two ways. His doctrine concerning the law and his practice concerning the Sabbath. The practice concerning the Sabbath is Matthew 12. But where does Jesus give us his hermeneutics with reference to the Old Covenant? I would suggest it's all throughout the Gospel narratives. We shouldn't put too much weight on one particular passage, but it is a very important passage in terms of the study of biblical law. That's right. Does anybody know where that is? What? 517 to 20, that's right. So Jesus' popularity is growing, no doubt people are wondering, what does he think about the Old Testament? So Jesus says, unquivocally, don't think that I came to abolish, to do away with, to abrogate the law and the prophets. I didn't come to abolish, but rather to fulfill. He fulfills it in his own role as being the one that the prophets spoke of. He fulfills it in his work by being that lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. But as well, he fulfills it in his teaching. He confirms it. He establishes it. He makes sure that persons understand it without all of the fair misunderstanding that had attached itself to a giving of the law. So, the ministry of Jesus with reference to the law, Matthew 5, and then his practice concerning the Sabbath in Matthew 12. When we look at Jesus' practice concerning the Sabbath, there's two works that we see that are lawful on the Sabbath day. Does anybody remember that? Categories. Works of necessity and works of mercy. Right. When Jesus upbraids the religious leaders of his day and he says, which one of you, having an ox or a sheep that falls into the ditch, doesn't fish it out of the ditch? Of course they did. And if that kind of a work of mercy was appropriate and wasn't a violation of the law, then Jesus healing a man on his paralytic bed for 38 years wasn't a breach of the law either. So when Jesus heals that woman who's hunched over for 18 years, that's a work of mercy. But then you have works of necessity. The sacrifices didn't sacrifice themselves in the time of the temple. You had a priestly class that was charged with laboring on the Sabbath day. It was a work of necessity to make sure that that cultus was observed, that it was executed, and that it was carried out. to the Sabbath command was never given to restrain legitimate works of mercy and necessity. Christ upholds that reality more often than not in his earthly ministry. And then next, moving to the New Covenant, we see not only the ministry of Jesus Christ, but what next big event really shows us that it is the first day of the week that the Church should be meeting on. The resurrection. That's right. The resurrection. Gospel writers take pains to make sure that we know that Jesus was raised on the first day. Now after having considered that, we went to Hebrews chapter 4, and you can rest assured we're not going to rehearse that whole section again tonight. But suffice to say, what we have in Hebrews chapter 4 are the twin themes of creation and redemption undergirding not only the original giving of the Sabbath and the Old Covenant, but the continuation of the Sabbath and the New Covenant. Remember in 4.9, there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. Unequivocally, the apostle says there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 410 underscores the day. 410 is not describing the believer ceasing from his rest. 410 describes Christ ceasing from his work, and it's on the day of resurrection when he had completed the work of salvation. So the parallel in Hebrews chapter 4 is God the Father who created the world and all things in it, and then He sabbathed according to chapter 2 of Genesis verses 1 to 3. Well Christ orchestrates the new creation or redemption. So, the day that he completes that is the day of rest, and we call that the Lord's Day, or the Christian Sabbath, or the Resurrection Day. So, that brings us to new stuff tonight. With reference to the teaching of the apostles, we've got three more passages, and then we have three alleged anti-Sabbatarian New Testament texts. So, with reference to the next three passages, I want to want to demonstrate or rather assert that what we have is a precedent or a pattern and not a precept. A precept is a direct command. You must do this. You must not do that. That's a precept. Now, when it comes to Scripture, we see that precept is used often. The Ten Commandments are precepts. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. So, these are precepts given that give us the particular content of a command that we're supposed to obey. But with reference to a precedent or pattern, there are certain things modeled for us by persons in the Bible that it's assumed that we're going to follow. And I think the most obvious example thus far in our study is Genesis chapter 2, 1-3. Again, Exodus 20 goes back to the creation account and parallels the Jew and the man, the woman, the recipient of the fourth commandment. Their rest is grounded in God's rest, which he expressed at the creation. So Genesis 2, 1-3 does not contain a precept or a command that mankind sabbaths. But when we get to Sinai, and this emphasis on remember, it connects us back to what God does. So there is this pattern. There is this precedent that has been established. Well, the same thing is true in the New Testament. There's not a precept in Romans 17 that says thou must keep Sunday as the Christian Sabbath as the holy day of God. But when we look at the New Testament again, the apostles gathering together specifically in John's Gospel in John chapter 20, they did so on the first day of the week. Turn over to the book of Acts, Acts chapter 20. The texts are simple. They're the texts that are cited by our confession in the statement concerning the Sabbath. It's Acts 20, verse 7, 1 Corinthians 16, 1 and 2, and then Revelation 1, 10. So that's where we're going. Notice at chapter 20 at verse 6, "...we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days." So, if they had stayed there for seven days, that includes an entire week, right? It's not a stretch exegetically. If they were there seven days, it certainly included a Saturday. If they were there seven days, they would have been there on a Saturday. But notice verse 7. Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, When you see that concept or that idea of breaking bread in the New Testament, there are times when it could have been a common meal. They got together and had fajitas. They got together and ate mangoes. They got together and enjoyed tacos. Probably not specifically, but it doesn't always necessarily mean the sacrament. but that they broke bread on the first day of the week and Paul preached and continued his message until midnight seems to underscore that it's a worship service and the breaking of bread most likely is the Lord's Supper. So notice in verse 7, so on the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. Here's your ground for long preaching, long sermons. There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together, and in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus who was sinking into a deep sleep. Now, of course, you'll all say, and here's your rationale for falling asleep in a sermon. Absolutely, we got it here. And he was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep, and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him. Now when he had come up and had broken bread and eaten, see that breaking of bread there, it's probably not the supper, it's probably something for sustenance, for health, for strengthening. And talked a long while, even until daybreak he departed, and they brought the young man in alive, and they were not a little comforted. So you have Paul in Troas, a full seven days, including the Jewish Sabbath, but the text specifically says they come together on the first day of the week to break bread. The commentator F.F. Bruce, and I don't know that F.F. Bruce was a Sabbatarian, I don't know that he had a confessional view, in terms of the Lord's Day, but he said the reference to the meeting for the breaking of bread on the first day of the week is the earliest text we have from which it may be inferred with reasonable certainty that Christians regularly came together for worship on that day. So again, by way of pattern, by way of precedent, not a strict commandment, all those who go to church in the city of Troas, thou must go on a Sunday. But we see what the apostles did when they gathered for worship, when they broke bread together, and when they had preaching services. They did it on the first day of the week. Notice, in 1 Corinthians chapter 16, the apostle Paul orders something here. He doesn't just suggest, he doesn't just say, you know, it might be a good idea, but he says in chapter 16 at verse 1, now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also." So it wasn't just something unique to the church at Corinth, but also the churches of Galatia, most likely the southern churches or the churches in southern Galatia Those that the apostle visited on his first missionary journey, they would have been established already by this particular time. It's to those churches that Paul writes Galatians specifically, because after he had gone through those churches, Judaizers had come along and said, you need to believe the gospel and you need to be circumcised. But as we'll see in a moment, they not only said you need to believe the gospel and be circumcised, but you also have to obey Israel's calendar. You have to engage in feast days, and you have to keep with all those things that were given to Old Covenant Israel according to their calendrical observances. But in this particular passage, he's not just singling out the church of Corinth, or the church in Corinth, but rather, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also. On the first day of the week, let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. Why do you think he did that? Because there wasn't e-transfer. Why do you think he did that? Because he couldn't just pop onto his phone and have the money readily available to him. They would do it on the first day of the week because they were going to gather together as the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, the third and final text is Revelation chapter 1. Again, these are the by-pattern or by-precedent texts that we observe. We'll look at the next three anti-Sabbatarian texts in a minute. But notice the vision at Patmos, the Lord's Day, Revelation chapter 1, verse 9. I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice as of a trumpet saying, Now, the form of the word that is used here is where we get our word Kirk. There are Scottish churches that call themselves Kirks. I think the Dutch use Kirk as well. Well, that word Kirk is connected to this particular word. The typical word we think of in the New Testament when we think of church, does anybody know that particular Greek word? Ekklesia. That's right. Ekklesia. And everybody likes to say, well, it's the etymology, it's the called out one. No, it's the connection to the Qahal in the Old Testament. So the assembly of God's people in the Old Testament is called Qahal. The assembly of God's people in the New Testament is called Ekklesia. So typically that's how we refer to church life. So the word Kirk And probably church is modeled after the particular word that's used right here, kuriake. It's not ecclesia, but it's kuriake. Notice what it modifies. I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, kuriake day. Now this particular word means pertaining to or belonging to the Lord, the Lord's, that's what it means. Now, God owns Monday, and He owns Tuesday, and He owns Wednesday, and I'm not going to go through the whole week, but He owns Sunday in a way that is particularly His. The only other place in the New Testament where this word is used, it doesn't modify day, but it modifies supper. You can turn to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. 1 Corinthians chapter 11, the same use of that word karyake, which means pertaining to or belonging to the Lord. So notice in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 at verse 20. Therefore, when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's supper. God owns every bit of food that he gives you to eat. Every good gift comes from our blessed heavenly father. So when you had dinner tonight, yeah, there's a sense where it was God's dinner that he has bestowed on you. But you see how the word is being used here. It modifies a particular supper. It modifies the time when the church comes together and they eat this bread and they drink this cup in remembrance of Jesus. So it's specifically called the Lord's Supper. Just like in Revelation chapter 1, it's specifically called the Lord's Day. Now that this word is only used in this form twice, and it modifies day and it modifies supper, I think it's pretty strong evidence that God wants us to see something in the use of that particular word. So the use of the word in Revelation 1.10, it's not the eschatological day of the Lord. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Some take it as that day of judgment or the preceding time to that day of judgment. No, it meant Sunday. John was on the island of Patmos for the Word of God and for the testimony of the Lord. And while he's on the island of Patmos, he's in the Spirit. In other words, the Spirit has come upon him, the Spirit is going to show him these visions, and the Spirit is going to command him to write. Notice, specifically at chapter 1 in verse 19, Jesus says, write the things which you have seen, the things which are, and the things which are about to take place after this. That's the program for what follows in Revelation. So this is sort of the introductory vision where Christ comes to the apostle on the island of Patmos, and he gives him this instruction to write the things which you have seen, the things which are, and the things which are about to take place after this. In other words, the language that he uses in that third part is a billion years from now. I think he's speaking about stuff that was going to happen in John's lifetime. But back to verse 10, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, that which pertains to, or that which belongs specifically to the Lord. So Kirk, or church, is a good sort of expression of that reality. Now, there's a fellow by the name of James Durham, and James Durham wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation about that thick. If anybody wants to read it, have a good time. But he makes this observation, as the Lord's Supper is for the remembrance of his death till he come again, so is this day for remembering the work of redemption and his resurrection till he come again. We saw that in Hebrews chapter 4. The theology behind it is that if the Sabbath functioned in the Old Covenant as an encouragement to the people of God to persevere to their ultimate rest, then why would we think God would do away with that encouragement in the New Covenant when the New Covenant people of God need encouragement and help for their perseverance to their final and eternal rest? In other words, if God gave that good gift to Old Covenant Israel, then God gives that good gift to New Covenant Israel, which is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. So the principle remains, one day out of seven, that we give specifically to our God. With reference to the ceremonial or the positive aspect, the day has been changed from Saturday to Sunday in the context of the works of redemption and revelation. We see the church worshiping in Troas on the first day of the week. We see the apostle call for a collection to be taken up on the first day of the week. We see the apostle John on the island of Patmos in the Spirit on the first day of the week, on the Lord�s Day. Intriguingly, that's what the early church called Sunday. They called it the Lord's Day. That's why we call it the Lord's Day, because the Bible calls it the Lord's Day. It is something pertaining to Him, something that belongs to Him. Just like He owns every meal that you and I will ever eat, so He owns every day that you and I will ever live. but there's a particular supper and there's a particular day that are specifically predicated to belong to God, to belong to our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, in terms of the alleged anti-sabbatarian texts, turn to Romans chapter 14. I think a good principle in interpretation of Scripture, a good principle of hermeneutics is context. What is the context speaking of? Is the context speaking of the Sabbath? Arguably, Romans 14 is not. Romans 14 primarily is concerned with Christian liberty. Now, in the context, it has to do most likely with Jewish food laws and the Jewish calendar. Remember, in the first century, you had Jews, by grace, coming to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. As well, you had Gentiles, by grace, coming to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. When these Jews and Gentiles got together, there was harmony, there was love, there was peace, but there was also tension. There was also difficulty. You see in Acts 15, there was a whole council convened to deal with the issue. Do believing Gentiles have to be circumcised in order to be counted among the people of God? That was a real issue they had to deal with in Acts 15, and of course they dealt with it decisively, and they said no, a Gentile doesn't have to be circumcised in order to be a believer in Jesus Christ. But you can see where the Jews might have concluded this. The Jews might have thought, well, you know, we got circumcised, and we obey the calendar, and he is Israel's Messiah, and now that these Gentiles are coming to Israel's Messiah, ergo, they should have to go through what we've gone through. They should be circumcised too. They should follow the calendar too. They should engage in these practices too. So that's why the early church combats this, and that's why specifically in the Apostle Paul's writing, the emphasis is on justification by faith alone. Now, if you want to observe the Jewish calendar, or if you want to get circumcised, and you don't attach to it any sort of religious significance, vis-a-vis, you're going to be accepted by God for it, then go ahead. The Apostle Paul took oaths and the Apostle Paul still followed some of those particular laws so that he would not offend Jewish people. Remember that he had Timothy circumcised when he took him into certain parts because persons knew that Timothy's father was a Gentile and his mother was a Jew. And so Timothy submitted to circumcision by the Apostle Paul's commandment so that they wouldn't offend unbelievers. So Paul doesn't have a problem per se with circumcision. It's not that he's, you know, one of these anti-circumcision people that, you know, is campaigning actively for, you know, that to never take place. He's got a problem when persons attach religious significance, specifically acceptance with God, in terms of circumcision. Everybody get that? So this was an issue that happened in the early church. You've got Jews, you've got Gentiles. The Jews still had their customs. The Jews still had their ethnic practices. They still engaged in circumcision. They still had their calendar. They still had their sacrifices and all that sort of thing. So the apostles main emphasis in chapter 14 of the book of Romans is not to offend one another in matters of Christian liberty. Those things that are not commanded by God, those things that persons have liberty with reference to, the people that engage in or disengage in must not treat each other poorly. In other words, just because somebody doesn't share your opinion on a thing indifferent doesn't mean they're hell-bound sinners. And just because somebody dots an I or crosses a T on a liberty issue in a way that you don't agree with, Keep your mouth shut. It's not your business to judge them. It's not your business to call into question their ethics or their conduct. So notice, verse 1 of chapter 14, receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." So you see there's something there about food. Now obviously we take it into our modern context and say, you know, this text obviously condemns veganism. You guys all just need to throw off your salads and eat a big steak. That's probably not what's in view here. Again, it's most likely having to do with foods used in sacrifice, most likely things that were kosher killed or whatnot. But the idea is that there is this disparity among people. Verse 2, one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Now jump to verse 5, one person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord, and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks, and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks." A far cry different than Paul's emphasis in Romans 3.31. What do we say then? Do we nullify the law? No, rather we establish the law. Paul is very pro nomos, Paul is very much for the law as long as it's used lawfully. What's going on here again has to do with eating and drinking, not connected to religious services, and it has to do with calendrical observances not connected to religious services. The Jews had a lot of things going on on their calendar. Paul's point specifically is the matter of Christian liberty. Notice the principle that he lays out in verse 3. Here's his point. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has received him. See, there's this tendency, if we just use the bare meaning of the text in verse 2, the meat eater looks down on the vegetarian and says, come on, get with the program, God made steak, it's beautiful, go ahead and eat. But there's a tendency among the weaker brethren that won't eat the steak to judge the guy who eats the steak. See, we often think that sin is only confined to one class of people. No, we all have tendencies to sin, no matter our station, no matter our condition. I love the scripture, the Old Testament scripture, when it tells the judges not to show partiality to the poor. Why? Because you can't be a bleeding heart liberal and expect to have a good justice system. If a poor man breaks the law, he should be punished accordingly. If a rich man breaks the law, he should be punished accordingly. That's how you apply the law. So when it comes to this particular principle, it's a matter of Christian liberty. The strong brother has a tendency to look down on the weak or to despise them, and the weak brother has the tendency to judge him who eats. The apostle gives the principle that should direct both the strong and the weak in verse 4. Who are you to judge another servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. You're not supposed to judge. Again, if somebody's committing adultery, or somebody steals, or somebody's done an actual sin, then by all means rebuke him, reprove him, do what Matthew 18 says. But if it's a matter of diet, if it's a matter of conviction, if it's a matter of preference, if it's a matter of, you know, I believe under God I have this particular liberty, you're not supposed to judge that person. I know it's in us to do that. I know that's the, well, that person this, or that person that. I think Paul's point is mind your own business. I know that's a lost and forgotten principle of common life, but it's certainly one that needs recovery. So the emphasis in Romans 14 is on matters of indifference, on matters of what we call Christian liberty, adiaphora, things indifferent. Those things that aren't commanded by God to either A. observe or B. to abstain from. There are liberty issues. God gives us some freedom. Not some. He gives us complete freedom. But the Bible doesn't specify every jot and tittle of our lives. We may come to some different conclusions. One of the big issues that happens in church is alcohol. Can we drink alcohol or can't we? You get some who judge, people who do, and you get others who do, they look down on others. And then you've got all these problems with, you know, well, if it offends my brother, as Paul uses that language in 1 Corinthians, well, then I'll never do it again. Or does Paul mean when somebody comes over? he's not going to flaunt it. Does it mean he never ever eats a piece of meat? Or does it mean when his weak brother is sitting across from him, he doesn't eat meat? Probably the latter. I mean, Paul is extra holy, so maybe he never did eat meat again. But I don't think you're wrong if you have a brother that is perhaps a weaker brother, and he's not at your house, go ahead and enjoy the steak. But if he happens to come over and he cringes at the thought of you eating a steak, Then love your brother and don't eat the steak. Have some kale and rejoice with them. But the point is, we're not supposed to do that to one another. But one of the other things that I think we ought to appreciate with reference to this text is that Paul does not have a problem categorizing one group as weak and the other as strong. Now, what's the ultimate goal? It's that the weak people get strong, isn't it? It's that the weak people don't cringe when somebody, you know, sinks their mouth into that stake. It's so that they don't judge people without any biblical warrant to do it. I mean, we don't want a whole class or churches filled with weak people. We want to instruct people such that their consciences are informed. Sometimes you'll hear people say that, well, my conscience won't allow it. Have you ever allowed for the fact that perhaps your conscience is wrong? You need to be informed by God's Word concerning your conscience, not according to your whim or your preferences or when I was raised. No, it's the Word of God that should inform the consciences of God's people. There's nothing wrong with abstaining, there's nothing wrong with engaging, as long as we do it within the confines of God's law, God's, you know, the orbit of God's revelation, but the bottom line is we're not to judge people or despise people because they differ in something. So again, when you look at verse five, one person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. That doesn't jive with what we've been reading. That doesn't jive with what we've been seeing. Paul understood Isaiah 56. Paul understood Isaiah 58. Paul understood gathering the church together on the first day of the week. Paul understood commanding the churches of Corinth and Galatia to set apart money on the first day of the week. Paul understood this. He's not dealing with the Sabbath day. He's not dealing with the fourth commandment. He's dealing with other days that persons held near and dear to their hearts and most likely observed for either ethnicity, perhaps religious, whatever the issue was, you're not supposed to judge the Gentile who doesn't observe that particular day in the way that you do. And again, notice how he sort of grounds this admonition. So verse 5, one person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord. He who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks. And he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. The way he just interchangeably goes from days to food, again, it reeks of Jewish practice. It reeks of the transition period when Jews and Gentiles are now up in each other's business, and having to figure out, how are we going to do this together? Paul is giving them instruction. Now notice verse 7, For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, for it is written, as I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another any more, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way. Now when you take that and you jump over to 1 Corinthians like 8 to 10, again you see the emphasis is on Jewish stuff And again, the process is, is how much do the Gentiles, or do the Gentiles, need to do Jewish stuff? Acts 15 was the decisive counsel, but it didn't correct everything. There were still issues, just like Elijah at Mount Carmel vanquished Baal worship, at least for a time, but guess what? Later on, they re-worshipped Baal. So, just because the Jews and the Gentiles were given, you know, a council and instruction and letters and epistles, doesn't mean that everything just automatically fell into place. Just like today, the same sort of tensions that we have in churches, where there's differences of this, that, or the other. So, I would argue that Romans 14 is not dealing with the Sabbath commandment given in the Decalogue. Ames, the marrow of theology, says the Apostle in Romans 14 expressly speaks of the judgment about certain days, which then produced offense among Christians. But the observance of the Lord's day, which the Apostle himself teaches, had already taken place in all the churches, 1 Corinthians 16, and could not be the occasion of offense. It is most probable that the Apostle in this passage is treating of a dispute about the choosing of days to eat or to refuse certain meats, for the question is put in Romans 14, 2 about meats only, and in verses 5 and 6 the related problem of duty is discussed. And the remainder of the chapter he considers only meats, making no mention of days." Again, it's most likely relative to the Jews and the various things that they had concerns for. Now turn over to Galatians 4. Galatians 4, we typically understand that the book of Galatians is Paul's condemnation of Judaizers, and the Judaizers again were guys that came after Paul's first missionary journey. So in about AD 48 to 50, 48, 49, Paul makes his missionary journey through the churches of Southern Galatia. According to Acts chapter 14, when he comes back through those areas, they stop at each of the churches, they appoint elders in those churches, and then Paul returns to Antioch. So, not long after that, Paul writes Galatians. I mean, Galatians, most scholars believe, is the apostle's first letter that he wrote. And why he wrote it is because the Judaizers, after Paul went through these churches, the Judaizers came along and said, what Paul said is good. Jesus is Israel's Messiah, and he's a wonderful Messiah. Believe on him. but you also need to be circumcised. You also need to submit to these laws of Moses. You need to take on these ceremonial observances in order to be saved. Again, it's not a custom, it's not an ethnic practice, it's not a, you know, kind of a thing that's preferable for those who confess faith in Jesus. Look at Galatians chapter 5. Paul gives us or tips his hand with reference to his emphasis in the book. So 5-1, stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Indeed I Paul say to you that if you become circumcised Christ will profit you nothing. Paul had Timothy circumcised. That was different. We have to appreciate that. For Paul to say what he says here, and then for Paul to engage in what he did with Timothy, it was different circumstances. It was a different situation. Paul did not have Timothy circumcised so that Timothy could go to heaven. Paul had Timothy circumcised so that they could move freely around Jewish regions without creating unnecessary offense. But the problem in Galatia is this idea that if you believe Jesus plus circumcision is necessary, then you've invalidated Jesus. You have chosen the covenant of works as your way of approach to God Almighty. That's why the hard language. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You see, when the Judaizers come and they say faith in Jesus plus circumcision, it's not just faith in Jesus plus circumcision. If you opt for circumcision, then you've invalidated Jesus. You've gotten rid of the covenant of grace. Now it's all up to you in terms of the covenant of works, and therefore you are a debtor to keep the whole law. You either come to God through the mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ, or you come to God in your own strength. If you choose circumcision, you're signing up for the covenant of works, and you're signing up for entering into God's presence based on what you've done. That's why Galatians 2.21. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." In other words, if you can get circumcised and observe the Jewish calendar and eat certain meats, then why in the world would Jesus have to come live, die, and be raised again. So that's the polemic of Galatians. He's not condemning ethnic Jewish practices per se, because Paul participated in ethnic Jewish practices himself, not least of which was the circumcising of Timothy. But in this particular context, it's not a Jewish ethnic sort of function or an engagement. here it is religious in nature with the intention of gaining our justification through faith plus works. Verse 4, you have become estranged from Christ. Chapter 5, you who attempt to be justified by law. See, that's the point that Paul has in Galatia. It's not, oh you got circumcised, you're going to hell. Oh, you eat this, you're going to hell. That's not what he's doing. You have become estranged from Christ, you attempt to be justified by law. Now notice this, you have fallen from grace. How many times have you heard that in a Facebook discussion? Armenians say, well there it is, you can fall from grace. That's not the point of the apostle. He's not saying you can be saved and then fall from grace. He is saying, there's one of two ways that you approach God. Covenant of works, covenant of grace. If you choose the covenant of works, You've fallen from grace. You've fallen from the covenant of grace. You have turned your back on it. You have defected from it. If you opt for that, understand that you're a debtor to keep the whole law. So Paul is vindicating justification by faith alone. But notice that Paul is not anti-law. Law is great provided it's in the context where we use it lawfully, vis-a-vis sanctification. But back to verse 5 there, �For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything but faith working through love.� Now, then drop down to verse 16, just so you can see that Paul has a robust understanding of God's law and its application to the Christian, not as a means for justification, but as a means of or a pattern for sanctification for those justified by grace. Notice in verse 16, I say then, walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the spirit, the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. That's a passage that validates what we call remaining corruption. There is still a principle in the believer, the best of believers, that he wants to go out and sin sometimes, and the apostle treats that. And then verse 18, if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. For the works of the flesh are evident, which are adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like, of which I tell you beforehand, just as I told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." that there is remaining things in your heart is a reality, but the practicing of those things betrays Christian faith. So the idea isn't sinless perfectionism, the idea is that there is that warfare, there is that genuine desire, you are trying to kill sin, even though once in a while you mess up, but there is forgiveness with God. Now notice what he says in verse 22, but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Notice what the next clause says, against such there is no law. What's the implication? Against the previous there is a law, and it commands you not to go out and act like that kind of a wretch. When it comes to the practice of righteousness, there is no law. You get to do that as much as you want. You go out and love. You go out and be gentle. You go out and be self-control. There's no law external to you saying, well, you can only have, you know, 15 units of self-control and no more. No, no, against such there is no law. The implication is, is that before, in terms of the vice-less, there is a law and it condemns that kind of practice. So Paul is pro-law, pro-namas, we might say. Now go to Galatians 4. Actually, we're gonna stop there and go to Galatians 4 next Wednesday. I do not wanna, I have a private covenant with myself and all of you that we will not go past nine, and I don't wanna exceed that boundary. You may have cows at home that need milking, so I don't wanna keep you from that. We'll get to Galatians 4.10 next time, and we'll work through that, and then the last text, and then we'll summarize the teaching on the Christian Sabbath, specifically the fourth commandment from Exodus chapter 20. So the stage has been set. Hopefully you understand what Galatians is about. Next week, I'll probably give a little bit of that just by way of introduction, and then we'll jump into 410. Just a spoiler alert, it has nothing to do with the Christian Sabbath. It has nothing to do with the Fourth Commandment. It has to do with the Jewish calendar. So, let's close in a word of prayer, and then if there's any questions or comments, we can do that. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for the word of God. We thank you for this privilege that we have to have it, to be having been given it by you to us. Help us to be students of your word, help us to be humble under that word and help us to love it, to have it dwell in our hearts richly through faith. And we pray that you would just bless this local church, go with us now, grant us safety and grace and peace and bring us together on the Lord's day that we may worship you and speak