Sabbath Theories

 

CGI’s Vance Stinson’s Three Sabbath Theories

Lonnie Hendrix

This past Sabbath, Pastor Vance Stinson of the Church of God International delivered a sermon titled “Sabbath Theories.” The message began with a defense of the notion that Torah commandments can be divided into a number of categories (e.g., moral, judicial/civil, ceremonial). Mr. Stinson also asserted the preeminence of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) within Torah and asserted that it constituted the “heart of the Old Covenant.” Believing himself to have established the principle that the Law can and should be divided into these categories, the pastor then proceeded to identify three theories (Transference, Replacement, and New Covenant Theology) used by traditional Christians to justify ignoring the Sabbath and worshipping on Sunday. Mr. Stinson went on to associate the Transference Theory with The Westminster Confession of Faith. Likewise, he associated the Replacement Theory with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Indeed, he found much in those documents with which he could agree. Although he rejected all three theories, of course, he reserved much of his fire for what he referred to as “New Covenant Theology” (might that be because he thinks it most closely explains the view represented by my posts?).

First, it is important to begin where Mr. Stinson began – Should we regard the Law as a whole or a collection of categories which are severable from each other? While I have repeatedly acknowledged the value of dividing the Law into various categories to aid us in understanding it, Scripture ALWAYS regards the Law as a WHOLE (in both the Old and New Testaments). In the fourth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, we read: “And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.” (Verses 1-2, ESV here and throughout, unless otherwise specified) A few verses on, in the same chapter, we read: “See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.” (Verse 5) “And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?” (Verse 8) Moreover, to reinforce the notion that the Torah was to be viewed as a whole, we read near the conclusion of the chapter: “This is the law that Moses set before the people of Israel. These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the rules, which Moses spoke to the people of Israel when they came out of Egypt” (verses 44-45). Indeed, in the twelfth chapter, we read “Be careful to obey all these words that I command you.” And, at the very end of that twelfth chapter of the same book (Deuteronomy), we read: “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.”

Likewise, in the New Testament, the writers constantly refer to THE LAW and the Prophets. Indeed, Jesus said that he came to this earth to fulfill both (Matthew 5:17). When Christ was asked about the greatest of the commandments in Torah, he answered that the commands to love God and our neighbors were the greatest (Matthew 22:34-39). Then, he concluded with “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Verse 40) Indeed, we hear the echo of Christ’s teaching in Paul’s epistle to the saints at Rome – he wrote: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Romans 13:10) In other words, the WHOLE Law is fulfilled by love. Likewise, in his epistle to the saints of Galatia, Paul wrote: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Earlier, in that same letter to the Romans, Paul had talked about the Law as a whole and mentions the “letter of the Law.” He wrote: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (3:20) Also, in that letter to the Galatians, Paul wrote: “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” (5:3) In the epistle of James, we read: “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.” (2:8-11) So, again, we see that in both the Old and New Testaments, the Law is treated as a WHOLE.

In fact, Mr. Stinson admits in his sermon that Scripture does NOT use the terms which he uses to describe different categories of laws. Even so, Mr. Stinson went on to suggest that the seventh chapter of Paul’s first epistle to the saints at Corinth demonstrated his contention that there are different categories of law. He said that Paul’s distinction between circumcision and the other commandments suggests/implies different categories of law (I Corinthians 7:19). Of course, if Paul is suggesting such a thing here, he clearly contradicts himself in his letters to the Romans and Galatians. Paul, however, was NOT contradicting himself in this instance. The context suggests that both those who were circumcised (Jews), and those who were not circumcised (Gentiles) should NOT concern themselves with this physical sign of the Old Covenant. Think about it, is Mr. Stinson suggesting that the command to circumcise males isn’t a component of Torah or the Old Covenant? Of course, NOT! The pastor knows that this is an integral part of the whole. Paul was NOT suggesting that the command to circumcise was somehow inferior to the other commandments. You see, Mr. Stinson’s theology DEMANDS dividing the Law into categories. It is the ONLY way that he can justify obligating Christians to obey some of Torah’s provisions while ignoring others! He can say that Christ abrogated the “judicial/civil” and “ceremonial” categories but enjoined his followers to observe the “moral” part of the Law. Again, it’s the only way CGI’s cherry-picking of Torah works!

I do agree with Mr. Stinson that the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) is the preeminent expression of Torah Law – written by the very finger of God. That is Scriptural. I also agree with him that the Ten Commandments are the “heart of the Old Covenant,” and that they cannot be separated from the rest. However, it seems to me like these facts are more supportive of my thesis (the Law as a WHOLE), than his (the Law divided into different categories). After all, just as the Decalogue summarized, encompassed, and represented the terms of the Old Covenant, Christ said that his two commandments summarized and fulfilled ALL of the Torah/Law!

After leaving the subject of the Law, Mr. Stinson began reading excerpts from The Westminster Confession of Faith. The pastor especially liked what it had to say about the Law (because it closely aligns with his own view of the Law). After a discussion of the Decalogue, we read there: “Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.” Indeed, Mr. Stinson commented several times that he liked this stuff – that it was biblically sound (although, as we have pointed out, it is NOT).

However, Mr. Stinson did part company with the Westminster Confession when it came to the question of the Sabbath. Although he liked much of what they had to say about the Sabbath, he deserted them when he read: “As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.” Mr. Stinson characterized this as the “Transference Theory” of the Sabbath (that the obligation to observe the Sabbath had been transferred to Sunday). Now, although I have no problem with the folks who accept this Confession of Faith, I must agree with Mr. Stinson that this does NOT constitute a sound biblical justification for Sunday observance. From a Scriptural perspective, I believe that Christ renders the observance of ALL of the individual commandments of Torah unnecessary.

From there, Mr. Stinson went to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Once again, the pastor liked many of the things that they had to say about the Law and the Sabbath; but he did NOT like their stance on observance of the Sabbath. Now, although I think that Mr. Stinson’s characterization of The Westminster Confession was fair, I think that his characterization of the Catholic Catechism missed some of the nuance contained in that document with regard to the Law. For example, the document talks about a “Moral Law,” but it is clearly distinguished from Torah. We read there: “There are different expression of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law – the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law; comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws. The moral law finds it fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: ‘For Christ is the end of the law, that everyone who has faith may be justified.” Later, in speaking about Torah, we read: “The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. ‘The Law is a pedagogy and prophecy of things to come.’ It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, ‘types,’ and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit.” This is consistent with Paul’s statement in his letter to the saints at Colossae that food, drink, festivals, and the Sabbath were “shadows” of what was to come, but that the reality is found in Jesus Christ (2:16-17).

Nevertheless, once again, Mr. Stinson parted company with the Catholics over the issue of Sabbath observance. Although he liked this statement: “The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: ‘The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord…the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.” I would point out that Christ commissioned his disciples to teach “them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Mr. Stinson, however, does not share their belief that Sunday worship fulfills the “moral” commandment to “remember the Sabbath day.” The pastor labels this the “Replacement Theory.” Now, in so far as I believe that just like the other commandments, the Sabbath commandment pointed to Christ and was fulfilled by him, I would say that replacing Saturday with Sunday to “fulfill” the commandment is unnecessary and redundant.

Finally, Mr. Stinson labels what I have advocated “New Covenant Theology.” Now, if he means by that that we subscribe to the notion that the Old Covenant has been replaced by a New Covenant, he is absolutely correct. We read in the anonymous epistle to the Hebrews: “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.’ In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (8:6-13)

Pastor Stinson proceeded to “correct” New Covenant Theology’s mischaracterization of the fourth chapter of this same epistle to the Hebrews. He claims that this passage is NOT speaking of the Sabbath in the present sense, but in the future – eschatological sense. First, we should note that the thought actually begins in the third chapter of that book. We learn there that the Israelites were unable to enter God’s rest because of their unbelief. Then, in chapter four, we read: “Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed. Now we who have believed enter that rest…” (verses 1-3, NIV) Now, Mr. Stinson made much of something that was said a little later in the fourth chapter. We read there: “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.” (Verses 9-11) He said that this could not refer to the present Christian Age, because our works cannot be said to currently equate with God’s works. The passage, however, does not suggest that our works are the equivalent of God’s works. On the contrary, it specifically draws attention to the fact that we would cease working just as God had ceased working. In other words, the nature of the works themselves is unimportant, and they would obviously be different!

Mr. Stinson went on to characterize this position as “Jesus is my Sabbath, so I don’t need a day to worship.” Nothing could be further from the truth. This same epistle establishes the need for regular fellowship and worship with like-minded people (Hebrews 10:25).

No, Mr. Stinson, the Old Covenant is NOT the same as the New Covenant. It’s provisions were NOT transferred to, and made a part of, the New Covenant. The Law of Christ is NOT the same as the Torah/Mosaic Law. The two commandments, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” do comprehend and summarize Torah, including those “moral” laws, “natural” laws, Ten Commandments, etc. Nevertheless, unlike the individual commandments which the Israelites were required to keep as part of their covenant with God, the New Covenant Christian must apply these principles to every situation and circumstance he/she will face in this life. It isn’t that Torah was abrogated or “done away with.” Rather, it is that Christ fulfilled it for us – rendering our attempts to obey those individual commandments redundant/unnecessary. Christ fulfilled it ALL. Everything in Torah pointed to him. Torah was the shadow – Christ is the reality. We don’t need the written code, the letter, anymore. The two commandments go to the intent of the Law – love. They make its internalization and spiritualization possible. Christ said that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18) He accomplished ALL of it – It is finished! And that, my friend, is why God will accept the worship of those who have accepted Christ on Saturday, Sunday, or any other day of the week! “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20)