Some people today find Jesus' teaching on the Sabbath to be comforting. Others find it confusing. still others dismiss it as a relic of a bygone era. How is it possible for the same teaching to evoke such different responses? We'll consider the answer today on Truth for Life as Alastair Begg teaches from the opening verses in Luke chapter 6.
Now, technically, healing according to the law was permitted only if the illness was life-threatening. And this, you see, was the kind of technicality that these Pharisees loved.
Well, is the man going to die? No, he's clearly not going to die. He's had a shriveled hand for some time. Then, if he's not going to die, it violates the letter of the law because it is only if the illness is life-threatening that healing may take place. And Jesus says, away with all that kind of legalistic nonsense.
Here this man has the opportunity to be healed. It would be sinful to leave him in his pitiable condition, but you want to use the synagogue and you want to use the law as a means of putting a barrier between those who are in great need and the liberation that they may discover. Isn't that a dreadful thing? When people will seek to employ the word of God and the worship of God's people and use it as the very antithesis to what God intends for to be done with it. And it happens all the time.
Is the spirit of Phariseeism alive and well in contemporary evangelicalism? Seizing the law of God to add to it our own accretions, to build into it our own shibboleths, and to use it then as a means of saying, Well, you can stay hungry and you can stay shriveled. And the reason that you can is because of this. And Jesus says, no, that may be your kind of Sabbath, where people remain hungry and their hands remain shriveled, but my kind of Sabbath is where they enjoy the corn and where their hands are made to work again. And the hated him for it.
Pharisees of every hue and in every generation. have a great problem. with liberty. And so, having addressed the question to them, verse 10a says that he looked round at them all. and then said to the man, In other words, as he turns and looks at these people, He's giving them the opportunity in that moment to respond.
To look at one another, to look down at the ground, and to admit to his authority, to acknowledge. That what he's saying is right and true. But instead they remain absolutely silent. They make it clear that they set a higher value. on their harsh Here splitting rules Then on God's law of love.
Isn't that what's happening? You're sensible people. You must read the Bible for yourselves and think.
So Jesus turns and addresses the man. He's given them the opportunity to respond. They do not respond. And he then turns to the man and he says to him, what from the lips of any other individual would have been the most cruel of jokes. Stretch out your hand.
Now have you ever done that as you're a boy, in your perversity? Perhaps not. But you had the fun of asking somebody to do something which it was painfully impossible for them to do. And it was a means of sick humor. Anybody else walking by, see the man with his hand all Shri Rahler says, hey, hey buddy, why don't you wave?
The man would have said to himself, if only I might. If only I could. Jesus has now brought him into the very center of the synagogue, and the gentleman has been standing there, presumably with sinews and nerve endings and everything, completely atrophied and useless. My grandfather's hand was like this. From one of the major battles of the First World War.
He always shook hands with his left hand. Took him center stage. He said, do I want you to stretch out your hand? And what he was clearly unable to do, he did. If you can't sleep tonight.
Lie awake thinking about that. That Jesus asked him to do what he was clearly unable to do and he did it. In the same way that he asks sinners to repent of their sins, to believe in him, something they are clearly unable to do, and they do it. It wasn't that he was able to do it, and so Jesus just said, do what you can do. He clearly couldn't do it.
So that the word of Jesus was not only a life-changing word, but it was a life-giving word, as it is to us this morning. Because the shriveled hand is only an indication of the shriveled hearts of men and women. And he comes to us and he says, now stretch out and lay hold. And we say, but I can't. That His Word is life-giving.
You can imagine the man putting his hand in his pocket, shaking hands with himself, waving to people, walking down the road, clapping people on the back, and look at the Pharisees, furious. Furious. You see, Pharisees can never share such joy and they began to discuss with one another what they might do with Jesus.
Now That is essentially it. There are two ways that we can go at this point. The first is this way. To say once again, the words and works of Jesus. Demand a response and neutrality is not an option.
Confronted this morning by the works and the wonders and the words of the Lord Jesus, he comes to people and he addresses us with such clarity and we cannot remain neutral. Saul of Tarsus, who was embedded in this kind of Phariseeism, emerges from an experience of an encounter with the Lord Jesus to be able to say, to me to live as Christ and to die as gain. This was the radical change that had been brought about in his life. Up until that point, to him to live was regulation, to him to live was formalism, to him to live was Judaism, it was Phariseeism, it was all of these things. What was it brought about, the change?
Well, he met Christ, he heard his voice, he bowed before him, and his life was radically changed. And this, of course, you see, is the great impact. of what Luke is saying. Therefore, some of us this morning need to think in those terms. The second route down which these verses take us.
is the root of asking the larger question. concerning the observance of the Sabbath principle, by each of us today. In other words, forces us to ask the question Is there any abiding significance? to the fourth commandment. The majority of you this morning have probably given very little thought to the notion of the perpetuity of the Sabbath.
In other words, that there is any abiding influence and impact from the fourth commandment in the law of God. And indeed, so much so that we may be inclined to regard any attempts at maintaining the sanctity of the Sabbath, of keeping it holy, as nothing more than a form of the contemporary Phariseeism which Jesus here was setting aside. And that's what people say. If anybody says, well, you know, we have to wrestle with this issue of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy.
Someone says, well, that is just Phariseeism. Don't you realize that in the Gospels, Jesus dealt with that. He said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, and they interpret that as meaning you can do what you like. And thirdly, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and he decided that he would just blow it apart, and that's why he dealt with the Pharisees as he did.
Well, clearly, we're not reading our Bibles because he was dealing with the abuse that was the additions and accretions of the Pharisees. He was not dealing with the use of that which God had formed and established from the very beginning of creation.
Now the foundational question with which we need to wrestle and I give it to you as part of your homework assignment. Is this question? Is then the fourth commandment a divine ordinance in the same way that the other nine commandments are divine ordinances?
Now some argue that it isn't. And they want me to argue in defense that it is. But the onus is on those who argue that it isn't to prove why it isn't because I can show you why so clearly it is. It's simply in between number three and number five. and no one took it out.
So if you want to explain that it's out, then come and explain to me why it's out. But it is so clearly there. And if it is there, Then adherence to it is not legalism. Because if adherence to the fourth commandment is legalism, then adherence to the fifth commandment is legalism. Indeed, any adherence to the commands is ipso facto legalism, which it clearly isn't.
Is fidelity marital fidelity? Legalism? No. Is total honesty Legalism? No.
Is the honoring of my father and mother legalism? No. Then is the keeping of the Sabbath Legalism. The kind of change That we want to create here, and I find it in my heart as well. is born of the charge that any attempt to deal with the Sabbath in this way is a form of legalism, and the reason that you and I are tempted to regard it as legalism is because our consciences in large measure have become totally insensitive to the very sanctity for which the commandment calls.
In other words, we are so far removed. From the very notion That for anybody to raise it as a matter of consideration is regarded as a form of Phariseeism immediately. Because after all, all of our ball games are on Sundays. All of our golf tournaments end on Sundays. All of our Wimbledon is on Sundays.
All of our stores are open on Sundays. All of our everything is on Sundays. I mean, we couldn't reverse that. We couldn't deal with that. Therefore, if anybody's going to stand up and say there is any abiding place to this issue of the Sabbath principle, Now they've got it completely wrong.
And what has happened?
Well, I think it's worthy for us to consider the possibility that theology has been replaced with expediency. In other words, we make decisions on the basis of expediency, not on the basis of theology. And when that happens, my conscience then is no longer captive to the law of God. but it is rather captive to the fluctuating fancies, ideas and moods of the contemporary genre.
So that we are moved not by an abiding principle of the law of God, but we are moved by the kind of ebb and flow of the culture around us and of the immediate culture of our own contemporary evangelicalism.
So if everybody has largely given up on it and we are caught in that flow, then we say to ourselves, well, that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing. But we're being driven now by the expediency of the moment rather than by the theology. And of course, I recognize that such a statement is founded upon the notion that I do believe that there is an abiding place for the fourth commandment. If we determine that it is not an ordinance of God and somehow or another there are only nine commandments left, then clearly my argument falls on the ground. I understand that and so do those of you who are thinking.
And where the sanctity of the Sabbath principle is observed simply as a matter of custom. and is not the product of conviction. then it will only be a matter of time before it becomes obsolete. In other words, you take Joseph. And Joseph knew that the demands of God demanded absolute purity for him.
He had a conviction about absolute purity. If his commitment to purity was simply on the basis of custom, in other words, I only have to be pure if I'm in this situation and amongst my own people and everything else, but when I'm gone from there, when I'm in Egypt, I don't have to do those things because they don't relate, they don't cross territorial boundaries, and therefore on the basis of expediency, I will determine what to do in the advances of Potiphar's wife. Where would Joseph have been? In bed with Potiphar's wife. What was it that prevented him from doing so?
Not custom, conviction. Conviction. If he was driven simply by custom, then custom would have been blown away with the smell of her perfume. And if you or I have been brought up to some kind of legalistic observance of a structure of life and it has never come to the level of conviction, then we will be moved any time, any day, by any passing fancy. It will immediately become obsolete.
Because after all, it was a custom, it was an accretion, it was an idea of man.
Somebody told us he had a bit of a B in his ear, and he was concerned about this, and that's why we did it, and we don't do it anymore, and who cares? And two factors more than any other contribute to this loss. of the application of the Sabbath principle. First, and this is your homework. The idea that Romans 14, 5 and Colossians 2, 16.
which have to do with Sabbath days and special feasts, et cetera. The idea and the teaching that there in those two passages in Romans 14 and Colossians 2, Paul is dispensing with the moral law of God. I ask you to think about that in all honesty. Do you really believe that Paul is setting aside the decalogue in Romans 14 after he has explained the abiding place of the law? You have to argue that he does in order to get it out of there.
He is obviously dealing with the ceremonial dimensions of man-made days, appreciations, and alternative Sabbaths. I do not believe for a moment that he is setting aside the Sabbath principle. And the second element that contributes to the notion that Sunday is whatever we want it to be. Is this whole matter of how did we get from the Sabbath On the seventh day, to Sunday on the first day. And no one writes to me more.
Then Seventh-day Adventists. I think I have more male from Seventh-day Adventists who hear me addressing the issue of the Sabbath and they heard it in the Ten Commandments series and they listened, they listened, they listened, they said, this is one of our boys and all of a sudden I turned left on them and they were furious. And so they write to me frequently to tell me that Alastair Begg, you cannot be a Christian unless you follow a Saturday Sabbath rule. If they are right, of course, I am not a Christian, and neither are you.
So it's quite an allegation, isn't it? on the basis of this.
Now let me give you just a very brief sketch and I'll wrap this up. How do we establish a change then? From the seventh day to the first day. Is there a verse in the Bible you go to and it says, now change from the seventh to the first day? No, absolutely not.
Therefore, we come to it as we come to many understandings in the Bible. For example, our understanding of the Trinity, not by turning to a verse which explains the Trinity, but by taking the enveloping, unfolding pattern of God's revelation and saying, This is how we come to one God in three persons, co-equal and co-eternal. It's there in Scripture. When you read your Bible, you will discover that apart from Paul's use of Jewish synagogue worship, and his evangelistic use of Jewish synagogue worship. Luke chapter 23 and verse 56 is the last reference to the followers of Christ keeping the Jewish Sabbath.
Now, you can go home and do your homework and find out if I'm right or not. I will be glad to hear from you. Luke chapter 23 and verse 56. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes, talking about the woman, but they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. And that is the last reference that you find to the followers of Jesus maintaining.
the Jewish Sabbath. You then turn the pages and you discover that the first Christians very quickly chose the first day of the week as the special day when they would meet to worship God. You find this throughout the letters and also in Acts, Acts chapter 20, verse 7, 1 Corinthians 16, verse 2. And by the time that John is writing from the island of Patmos, the revelation. which is our closing book of the Bible, he is referring to the first day of the week as the Lord's Day, and he is doing so in a way that he understands everybody would be able to fasten on to.
Why then would there be a change in the day? Because the early Christians wanted to separate themselves from the Jewish way of worship.
Now, this raises another side note which I will not get into, that has to do with the whole idea of professing Messianic Jewish believers reintroducing the Sabbath on the seventh day. I'm not going to touch that. I'll come back to it another time, perhaps. But when you read the New Testament, you see very clearly that there was no attempt on the part of the apostles or of the immediate followers of Jesus to try and create some kind of quasi-Jewish-Christian interface. But no, Jesus came and revolutionized their lives.
Paul had been a Pharisee par excellence. Paul was now enjoying the liberty that was his in the Lord Jesus Christ. He had no interest in trying to marry the two things. And the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 speaks to that. They had great things to celebrate on that day.
Christ had risen on that day. The Holy Spirit had been poured out on that day. And the early Christians celebrated the resurrection of the Lord Jesus without forgetting the original purpose of the Sabbath. But the question comes. Frequently, to me, can we be sure that the New Testament Christians intended to replace Saturday with Sunday?
Isn't it true to say that the first Sunday legislation wasn't brought in until the time of Constantine in the fourth century? And that's what the Seventh-day Adventists always write to me about. They say, you don't have a leg to stand on because you have to go to the fourth century and to Constantine before you can show that this was introduced. I understand that that was the first official dimension of it. This is what Constantine said in AD 321.
On the venerable day of the sun, S-U-N. Let the magistrates and people residing in the city rest, and let all workshops be closed.
So the Seventh-day Adventist says, you see, the principle of the first day of the week is actually a pagan thing. And the true people are still on the seventh day of the week.
Well, no, you don't understand. The reason that Constantine was able to legislate in this way is because there were 300 years of. Developing principle whereby the people of God were worshiping, celebrating on this first day of the week. They had been using it as their Sabbath day. They recognized that there were differences between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, just as there were differences between the celebration of the Passover and the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
But the early church leaders confirm what the apostles displayed. And that is that the Christian Sunday had taken the place of the Jewish Sabbath. I don't want to bore you with a lot of information, but you will discover if you read history that this is true. Preaching in the fourth century, a bishop by the name of Melita, the bishop of Sardis. I beg your pardon preaching in the second century.
He made clear these things. Tertullian, Oregon, Eusebius, all the church fathers would have concurred with Eusebius' word. Christ has changed and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the rising of the light of a true rest, the Lord's Day. And so the question remains, how then are we to think? About Our use.
of the Lord's Day.
Sorry to run out of time. Dreadful planning on my part. But enough, I think. to get some furious. and to stir questions of faith in others.
Mm. Uh You're listening to Truth for Life with Alistair Begg. Alastair returns in just a moment to close today's program. In the meantime, we have a special offer for you today. It's a free audiobook from well-known Oxford mathematician John Lennox.
The book is titled Can Science Explain Everything? Professor Lennox has been helping Christians think clearly and biblically about science and faith for many years. In this audiobook he contrasts the views of modern science with the Christian faith. You probably have friends who think the scientific view of the world is in direct opposition to the biblical view.
Well, in this audiobook, you'll hear the evidence that shows science and Christian beliefs are actually more aligned than you may have realized. For example, he explains how contemporary discoveries about the origin and development of the universe are consistent with the biblical record of creation. He also explains how the New Testament record of Jesus' death and resurrection are historically verifiable and how they stand up to the most rigorous methods of scientific scrutiny.
Now for a limited time we're offering this as a free audiobook. It will help you deepen your own understanding of how science affirms what God's Word tells us. And for those times when you encounter individuals who argue that believing in God is irrational, this book will help you present a compelling case about where science and the Christian faith validate each other. Don't miss this free audiobook offer. Again the title is Can Science Explain Everything?
and you can download your copy at truthforlife. org slash science.
Now before Alastair offers our closing prayer, would you keep him in your prayers? He is speaking this week at the Doxology and Theology Conference in Salina, Texas, where pastors and worship leaders are gathering for a time of Bible teaching and fellowship. And here is Alastair with our closing prayer. Oh God, our Heavenly Father, we bless you this morning for your word, the Bible. What a wonderful book.
What an immense privilege to be able to study it as we do. How impoverished we are before its wisdom. How greatly in need of your insight. and the teaching of your Spirit. How we see ourselves.
aligned with the Pharisees. And we repent of that. In the joyful freedom of the disciples. And we joy in that. In the immense need of the man with a shriveled hand, and we identify with that.
And we bless you this morning. To be confronted with the claims of Jesus Christ demands a yes or a no, demands faith or fury, but certainly neutrality is not an option. Hear us, O God, as we pray. for a fresh understanding of what it means to love your law and to delight in it. and to rejoice in the freedom that is found Not in doing what we want.
but in being able to do what we ought. Thank you for the example of Christ. whom we desire to follow. and in whose name we pray. Amen.
I'm Bob Lopean. Do you delight in the Sabbath? Tomorrow we'll find out why every believer should. The Bible teaching of Alastair Begg is furnished by Truth for Life. Where the Learning is for Living.
