For the last several years, there has been raging theological debate over the issue of Lordship salvation. The questions that pertain to this particular issue are like this. Is it necessary to trust Christ as both Savior and Lord? Or can one come to Christ and simply trust Him as Savior? Must one submit to the authority of Christ's Lordship in order to receive from Him the benefits of eternal salvation? We would proclaim, according to the Scriptures, that absolutely one must trust in Christ as both Savior and Lord. Why there is even such a debate over such a fundamental issue is beyond me. How utterly blasphemous to the Lord Jesus Christ and His marvelous grace to infer that Christ saves anyone who simply wants the gift of eternal salvation, simply wants to escape hell, but does not want the giver of such a gracious gift to rule and reign over him. The very idea of a new covenant speaks of the authority of God sovereignly initiating and establishing that covenant with those who are once his enemies by nature, who must now submit to his covenantal rule in order to enjoy all of the blessings that he has promised. Or to think in different biblical terms with regard to this issue of lordship salvation, to be in the kingdom of Christ Just another way of saying that a person is saved that he has been delivered from the kingdom of Satan the kingdom of darkness According to clay or Colossians 113 now since kingdoms have Kings a very profound statement now since kingdoms have kings and To be in the kingdom of Christ, dear ones, that is to be saved, means that we have a king, that we have a lord, that we have a master to whom we must submit. We are under his lordship. There are only two kingdoms in the world, and all people are either in one kingdom or the other. They're either in the kingdom of Christ and under his lordship or they're in the kingdom of Satan and under his lordship. And so the question then is really not, are you under lordship? The question is, whose lordship are you under? So the whole lordship salvation debate is ridiculous. So what does that have to do with the Sabbath? It has much to do with the Sabbath, for Christ includes the Sabbath as being under His Lordship. The Son of Man, he says in Mark 2.28, the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. That ought to make the Sabbath important. significant, especially to those who profess to be Christians and under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I would love to see that particular issue brought into the Lordship debate, Christ's Lordship over the Sabbath, and how that relates to men and women being under Christ's Lordship. For how can I say that Christ is my Lord and yet at the same time deny my duty to sanctify the Lord's Sabbath? There are essentially three views that I'd like to present to you today that professing Christians hold to in regard to the Lordship of Christ over the Sabbath. Three basic views. The first view is that as Lord, Christ has abolished the Sabbath altogether. So that there is no one day that is holy for Christians to observe. In fact, a Christian church is not bound to worship Christ on the first day of the week at all. It could just as easily be Monday or Thursday could be called the Lord's Day as if that were appropriate to worship the Lord on that particular day as opposed to on Sunday. And since Sunday, this view would say, since Sunday has traditionally become the day in which Christians gather together, we might as well continue that tradition. Everybody's basically agreed that it's a good day, so let's just continue the tradition. And in keeping with this view, perhaps you as well as myself have heard of more and more churches now offering a Saturday evening worship service. for those in their congregation who desire to leave Sunday completely free for their own pleasures to go on holidays or to go on a vacation or to do whatever they like to do so the church now offers a Saturday evening worship service so that you don't have to come to worship God at all publicly on the Lord's Day Sadly to say, this is the view of many, if not most, broadly evangelical churches today. The second view. The second view is this, as Lord Christ maintained the Sabbath on the last day of the week. He kept the Sabbath on the last day of the week, so that Christians must worship and sanctify Saturday. as was done from creation to the time of Christ. Now this is the view of Seventh-day Adventists and some Seventh-day Baptists, groups like this. The third view is this. As Lord Jesus Christ himself changed the Sabbath from the last day of the week to the first day of the week, from Saturday to Sunday, so that Christians must worship and sanctify Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Christian Sabbath, from Christ's resurrection to the end of the age, until the time that he returns. This, historically, has been the view of Presbyterians and Reformed churches. Increasingly, it's losing even that. Now to summarize the views, very simply, view number one basically says it doesn't matter which day, they're all the same. It doesn't matter which day you worship the Lord on, they're all the same. The second view says it does matter which day, and Saturday is the day ordained. The third view says it does matter which day and it is the first day of the week, Sunday, that the Lord Jesus Christ has ordained. Now I tend to view the first position, the it doesn't matter position, I tend to view that position as the most dishonoring to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. If I were to put the first two views parallel, I would say without a doubt in my mind that first view is the most dishonoring to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Though biblically the second position is an error, the fact that it does matter which day, but it's Saturday. I believe that's biblically an error. However, it at least takes seriously Christ's Lordship over the Sabbath. Whereas the first view just says His Lordship over the Sabbath doesn't exist, because the Sabbath doesn't exist. Dear ones, if Jesus is Lord, and He is Lord, then you can be absolutely assured that his lordship over the Sabbath is very serious business to him. And it ought to be very serious business to his people. This is not a case of being nitpicky on some seemingly insignificant detail. This is a case of either affirming the lordship of Jesus Christ in its fullness in its completeness over every area of life or it is denying the Lordship of Jesus Christ The question is is Jesus Christ indeed Lord of the Sabbath The Lord's words we ended last Lord's Day Mark chapter 2 and so I'd have you turn back there just to recap that very quickly Mark chapter 2 verses 27 through 28 I believe these two verses are absolutely devastating to any view that would dishonor the Sabbath day, or any view that would distinguish the Son of Man's Lordship over man, contrary in opposition to Jesus Christ's Lordship over the Sabbath. Many within the Lordship salvation debate affirm Christ's Lordship in salvation, that we must acknowledge Him to be Lord. But many within that camp are not willing to also affirm that He is yet Lord of the Sabbath. But I believe this particular passage undeniably brings, I hope to show you, undeniably brings the Lordship of Jesus Christ over men and His Lordship over the Sabbath together. in such a way that you cannot pull them apart. To deny one, the Lordship of Christ over the Sabbath, is to deny the other, according to this particular passage. Look at verse 27 again. And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. The Lord Jesus here says that the Genesis, or the beginning of the Sabbath, came the day following the Genesis, or the beginning of man. Therefore, the Sabbath, because it came after man, was made for man's benefit, rather than man being made for the Sabbath's benefit. And we looked at the argument from 1 Corinthians 11, 9, last Lord's Day, where in the priority of creation, man was created first and then woman. Therefore, the scripture teaches, the woman was made for the man. Well, in like manner, the Sabbath was made for the man. And notice here it says in this verse, the Sabbath was made for man, And that is man generically, it's not the Sabbath was made for Israel, it's going back to the very creation of man and what followed the establishment, the institution of the Sabbath. And as I again mentioned last time, if the Sabbath was not established on the seventh day, then you have no commandment or even inference within creation week that worship of God is a creation ordinance. Because you have monogamous marriage as a creation ordinance, the procreation of children as a creation ordinance, you have labor and work, as a creation ordinance, and you have the subduing and exercising dominion over God's creation, all as a part of that creation mandate. But where does worship fit in? Well, without the seventh day. Without the Sabbath, you have nothing that would lead us to believe that God required, before sin came into the world, that God required man to worship Him, even in his sinless estate. Thus the Sabbath, because it was instituted before sin came into the world, is not ceremonial as to its substance, as to its essence. It is moral and universally binding upon all people, just as the other creation mandates and ordinances are. Now moving from verse 27, look at verse 28. And we're confronted immediately, at least in the New King James Version that I'm using, with the word therefore. Therefore. Now, this is a conclusion that the Lord is drawing from what He just has said. Therefore. Therefore goes back to verse 27. In other words, because the Sabbath was made for man's benefit, therefore, The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath. Now it's absolutely essential to understand that Christ's conclusion in verse 28 is drawn from what he has said in verse 27. Let me give you, if I might, break down Christ's argument here. This is the line of argument I believe that the Lord is establishing. Number one. The Sabbath was made for man's benefit. Number two, I'm the son of man, he says, meaning by that that he's the divine man with absolute authority and lordship over all men. He's the son of man. He has lordship over all men. Therefore, this is the therefore, therefore, since I am lord over all men, I am also Lord over the Sabbath that was made for all men That little word also in verse 28 Is very very important They might say even in the authorized version, but whether it says also or whether it says even It's pointing to His Lordship I believe over to things. His Lordship over men, all men, He's the Son of Man, and His Lordship over the Sabbath. And that's why I said you cannot pull His Lordship over all men and His Lordship over the Sabbath apart. That's why the issue of Christ's Lordship belongs in the Lordship debate. Just as in Mark 2.10, you find that phrase, son of man, But that, Jesus says, but that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins. He said to the paralytic, I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go your way to your house. Just previously, the Lord had forgiven this paralytic of his sins in verse 5, when he said, Son, your sins are forgiven you. And now, Jesus says, he not only forgives his sins, but then he heals him. Now, I think this is much in the same line when Jesus hung upon the cross and we are told he forgave our sins. How are we confirmed in that truth? How do we know that he actually did forgive the sins of all of us who have put our faith and trust in him through his resurrection? In like manner, he forgives this person's sins and says, to show you that I have the power to forgive sins, I tell this man, rise up and walk. And he stands up, never having been able to walk. Paralytic. Here, as the Son of Man, He has the power to forgive sins. Now, is that power, as the Son of Man, simply... does it simply go from the time of His ministry, from the time it began, to His death? Is that how long the power for the Son of Man to forgive sins continues? Or does, as the Son of Man, His power and authority, His Lordship, as it were, to forgive sins continue? until the time that it returns? Well, to ask the question is to answer the question. Well, as the Son of Man, therefore, His Lordship over the Sabbath didn't simply extend from the time of His ministry to the time in which He died. But in like manner, His Lordship continues from the time in which he established his ministry to the time until he returns his Lordship over the Sabbath. He is earthly Sabbath. He is, when he says, therefore the Son of Man is, that is, therefore the Son of Man is and continues to be also the Lord of the Sabbath. The Lord did not abolish the Sabbath. He didn't become Lord of the Sabbath in order to abolish it, for that would indeed be a very strange and awkward Lordship. Because He's just said in verse 27 that the Sabbath was given for man's benefit. Man's benefit in worshiping and serving God. Now, he's Lord of the Sabbath in order to rightly interpret it, and in order to continue to make it a blessing to man. You know, in this particular age of the Son of Man, the Son of Man is not limiting or diminishing the blessings and benefits which were poured out upon God's people in the Old Testament. If anything, the age of the Son of Man is one in which He is enlarging the blessings and the benefits to man. Why would He take away something which He says was created for the benefit and the blessing of man? If anything, we would expect Him to enlarge it, which He does through His own death and resurrection. So dear ones this leads us to the aspect of his lordship upon which I will be focusing the remainder of the sermon this Lord's Day Two points essentially that I want to establish and apply Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath number one in sovereignly making changes in regard to it and And he's Lord of the Sabbath, number two, in jealously guarding it from all man-made traditions. Let's look at that very first one. As Lord of the Sabbath, the Son of Man, has made specific changes, which changes are within his authority to make? He has made specific changes with regard to the Old Testament Sabbath, the Sabbath in which the Jews celebrated. He has made specific changes. Let me mention three of them, and we'll go through them one at a time. Let me just give the three to you at the outset. First change was the change of the day, from the last day to the first day of the week. The second change has to do with the hours. of the Sabbath. The time in which the Sabbath begins and the time in which the Sabbath ends. And the third change has to do with certain ceremonial aspects that have been removed from the Sabbath, which we are no longer obligated to keep. Those are the three areas of change which he as the Lord of the Sabbath has the authority to implement. So let's look at each of these briefly. First of all, the day was changed. Just as the Son of Man exercised His Lordship in changing circumcision to baptism, in Matthew 28, 19, and as the Son of Man exercised His Lordship in changing the Passover to the Lord's Supper in Matthew 26, 26 through 30. Even so, the Son of Man exercised His Lordship in changing the last day Sabbath to a first day Sabbath. Why? Why did the change occur? Well, preeminently because it was the day of His resurrection. It was the day in which Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. You know, it's very revealing that in the preaching and teaching of the apostles, as you read their sermons throughout Acts, that which occupies the greatest attention and space in their sermons is not the incarnation, is not even His sacrificial death upon the cross, but it is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that occupies prominently the space and theme of their sermons. For example, just one example, there are many I could cite, but just turn to Acts chapter 2 very quickly. Acts chapter 2, the day of Pentecost, the day in which the Holy Spirit was poured out upon God's people. Peter begins his sermon, directing it to the men of Israel earlier, but I want to focus on beginning with verse 22. Now notice what Peter focuses his attention upon. Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did through him in your midst, and as you yourselves also know. He's just passed over the Incarnation altogether as far as, you know, a baby in the manger and this type of thing. In fact, in all of the preaching, in all of the doctrinal sections of Scripture, I would be very hard-pressed to try and find where the Apostles elaborate on the birth of Jesus Christ, His Incarnation. going back to the manger scene and all these kinds of things. Where is the emphasis in the scripture on that particular event? Not that it's unimportant. Certainly it's very important, the fact that God became man. But on that particular event, I think that we would have a very difficult time to try to, in looking at the apostles teaching and preaching, seeing that as being especially significant compared to some of the other things that are mentioned here. Verse 23, Him, that is Christ, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death. Now he focuses upon Christ's crucifixion and death. But notice, it's not in the context here specifically of Christ dying for our sins. At least that's not what he says. It's simply focusing their guilt for putting the sinless Son of God to death. And that's again not to minimize the fact that we need to know why Christ died upon the cross. But my purpose is simply to point out to you, why did Jesus Christ, as the Lord, change a last-day Sabbath to a first-day Sabbath? Well, I think the emphasis again comes out throughout all their preaching. Now notice in verse 24, "...whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it." And in verses 25 through 32, This is typical of their preaching. You find him emphasizing the importance of the resurrection. You see, in Christ's incarnation and in Christ's suffering upon the cross, Christ was still working for our salvation. His works were not completed. But in His resurrection, He ceased. He ceased at that point and entered His rest. He entered His rest. That doesn't mean that He has ceased to intercede for us. That doesn't mean that He ceases to preserve us. Even as God rested from His works of creation, He continues to preserve His creation. But he ceased from the sacrificial death upon the cross. The work was completed. It was paid in full. And his resurrection indicates, at that particular point, it has been paid in full. The sins for all of those for whom I died, as it were, Jesus is saying, have been paid for because I live. If I would not have atoned for one single sin, if one sin that I died for would not have been paid for, I could not have been risen from the dead. That is essentially the message of the apostles. That one sin, had it not been paid for, would have kept Christ in the grave. But because it was paid for and dear ones, this is such a glorious truth To know that your sins have been paid for by Jesus Christ Your assurance is based upon the finished work of Christ the certainty of his resurrection The Apostle Paul says in first Corinthians 15 17 and if Christ is not risen your faith is futile You are still in your sins But he says in verse 20, but now Christ is risen from the dead. The implication, you are no longer in your sins. Your faith is not in vain. You've been made alive in Christ. It's so easy to be tossed to and fro by our emotions, by the circumstances of life, by our failures. blowing it as husbands and wives, as mothers, as fathers, as children, and keeping the commandments of God. But there, dear ones, is a refuge that will never fail us. Jesus Christ lives. He is paid for your sins. And so each Lord's Day, dear ones, we celebrate His resurrection. For Christ entered His rest, having completed His work of the new creation. 2nd Corinthians 5 17 therefore if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation old things have passed away behold all things have become new Jesus Christ accomplished the new creation through his death and his resurrection and He entered into his rest thereafter according to Hebrews chapter 4 verse 10 which passage will look at very carefully next Lord's Day and Hebrews 4.10, though, says, speaking of Christ, for he who has entered his rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from his. It's finished. He's seated. It's paid in full. What evidence is there to demonstrate that the Son of Man did indeed change the day from the last to the first? Can't read all the passages and scriptures, I would be here for another couple hours, but let me quickly just run through them and give you the references, and you can write them down. Well, first of all, the resurrection of Christ was on the first day of the week. According to Mark 16.9 very clearly says that Christ was raised on the first day of the week. Secondly, all the post-resurrection appearances of Christ in which a day is specifically mentioned, that day that is mentioned is always the first day of the week. The first day of the week. And most of them, I think there may be only two of all the post-resurrection appearances that I, as I was comparing the gospel accounts, there are only two, I think, that I could find that didn't specifically mention, or that you could not tie them into the first day. I don't think that that means that necessarily, it may mean that he appeared in those two instances on a different day, but I don't know that that necessarily means that he didn't even appear to those on the first day. But all of the ones that he does mention with a specific day, those are the first day in which he appeared to them. Let me run through them very quickly. Mary Magdalene, He appears to Mary Magdalene in Mark 16.9 and John 20.11 on the first day. He appears to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary on the first day of the week in Matthew 28.9-10. He appears to the two on the road to Emmaus. on the first day of the week in Luke 24, 13. And he opens the word to those two. He breaks bread as a sacramental meal with them so that when he breaks the bread, their eyes are opened to know who he is on the first day of the week. Simon, the Lord appears to, on the first day of the week in Luke 24, 34. All of the disciples, excepting Thomas, he appears to on the first day of the week in John 20, 19. They were all gathered together. The Lord appears to them, meets with them, speaks to them, blesses them on the first day of the week. All the disciples now with Thomas the Lord appears to in John 20 verse 26 on the first day of the week says eight days later Which would put it on? The first day of the week since the previous meeting was on the first day of the week Again he meets with them He encourages and blesses them The Great Commission as it's given in Mark 16, 14, and as it's given in Luke 24, verses 36, and 46 through 48, occurs on the first day of the week. The promise and pledge of the giving of the Holy Spirit to his disciples is given on the first day of the week, John 20, verses 22 through 23, and Luke 24, 49. And finally, the giving of the keys of the kingdom to the apostles before he ascends into heaven is given on the first day of the week, in John 20, verses 21 through 23. Moving from all the post-resurrection appearances of Christ, the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon God's people from upon high, from Christ, who was seated at the right hand of God, occurred on the first day of the week. How do I know that? Well, it says in Acts 2.1, Now, when the day of Pentecost had fully come, when the day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Now, turn with me to Leviticus 23. Leviticus 23 to see when the day of Pentecost occurred. Leviticus 23, verse 15. The Feast of Weeks is the same as the Feast of Pentecost, here speaking of the Feast of Weeks. And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the Sabbath, which would be the first day of the week, the Sabbath in the Old Testament was the last day of the week, so counting from the day after the Sabbath, which is the first day of the week, From the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering, even seven Sabbaths shall be completed. Count 50 days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall offer a new grain offering to the Lord. First day of the week. Fourthly, the example and practice of the apostles themselves. In Acts 20, verse 7, Acts 20, verse 7. Certainly the example of the apostles ought to be followed. Here we find the apostle Paul sailing from Philippi to Troas. And he arrives in Troas, and it says in Acts 20, verse 6, But we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and in five days joined them at Troas," that is, these disciples who had preceded him, who had left earlier, he joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days. And verse 7 says, Now 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. Apparently, He arrived on a Monday in Troas. Now, if it didn't make any difference which day that they celebrated the Sabbath, or the Lord's Day, then he could have met with them any time along the week, throughout the week, and would have been able to have left much earlier for his destination, his headed toward Jerusalem. Or he could have celebrated it on the last day of the week. So neither one of those views comport with Paul's example here. He waits, however, seven days to the first day of the week so that he can worship with God's people. Notice what it says in verse 7, Now on the first day of the week, When the disciples came together to break bread, this was their custom. To come together on the first day of the week in order to break bread. This was their custom. Does that mean that Paul never went into the synagogues on the last day of the week, the Sabbath, the Jewish Sabbath, to proclaim the truth to Jews who were there? Of course not. Paul took advantage of any opportunity he could find where there was a gathering of people ready to hear and so he availed himself of the Jewish Sabbath to go in and to proclaim to those who would hear. But this gives us the practice of the early church as to when they worshipped the first day of the week. Then we find fifthly that the very precept of an apostle gives to us this same date. 1 Corinthians 16.2 1 Corinthians 16.2, I'll begin with verse 1. The Apostle Paul, by precept, not only to the church of Corinth, but he also says this is the same precept he has given to all the churches of Galatia. He says, now concerning the collection for the saints, 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." When you come together on the first day of the week, that is when you're to receive the collections. And then finally, The last one, number six, is that the first day Sabbath is designated as the Lord's Day by the Apostle John in Revelation 1.10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, John says. Now what's the significance of this designation, the Lord's Day? Well, grammatically, This particular word, kariakas, occurs only one other time in the New Testament. It occurs only in 1 Corinthians 11.20 and Revelation 1.10. And in 1 Corinthians 11.20, it is the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Day, and the Lord's Supper. Why is that supper designated the Lord's Supper? Well, because it is the meal over which Christ exercises His Lordship for the good of His people, since it was instituted by Him and in memory of Him, namely His death. In the Lord's Supper, the Lord distinguishes this meal as holy from that which is common. It uniquely belongs to Him. It is the Lord's Supper. Now, let's just take what we've just said about the Lord's Supper and apply, therefore, to the Lord's Day, that term. Likewise, the Lord's Day is the day over which Christ exercises His Lordship. for the good of his people, since it was instituted by him and in memory of him, namely, not his death, but his resurrection, the Lord distinguishes this day as holy from all the other days which are common. It uniquely belongs to him. It is the Lord's day. Therefore, when we compare Revelation 1.10, the Lord's Day, with what Jesus says in Mark 2.28, the Lord of the Sabbath, we find that the Lord of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day are one and the same. They are one and the same. Over which day, then, does Christ continue to exercise His Lordship? Over the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's Day. What about the second change? The second change was that the hours of the Sabbath were changed as to when the Sabbath begins and ends. This will take just a moment. Apparently, the last day Sabbath of the Old Testament was celebrated from sunset to sunset. That would appear to be the case. When we look at Leviticus 23.32, There it's speaking of the Sabbath that falls on the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement actually becomes a Sabbath. Whenever that day fell on the calendar, that was a holy day of convocation, a Sabbath day. Now it says in verse 32, It shall be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month at evening. From evening to evening you shall celebrate your Sabbath. That would appear to mean from after sunset to sunset. Now, in Nehemiah 13.9, one other passage that would seem to indicate the same thing, Nehemiah 13.19, as we looked at before, where Nehemiah becomes upset with the people because they are trying to sell their wares, sell their goods on the Lord's Day. And he sees them parked outside the gate there, just waiting to enter after the Lord's Day is over. Verse 19 says, So it was at the gates of Jerusalem as it began to be dark before the Sabbath. that I commanded the gates to be shut and charged that they must not be open till after the Sabbath. Then I posted some of my servants at the gates so that no burdens would be brought in on the Sabbath day." Again, that phrase, as it began to be dark before the Sabbath. So that would tend to indicate that in the Old Testament the Sabbath ran from sunset to sunset. Now, Well, the institution of the first day Sabbath, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Sabbath was celebrated, I believe, from midnight to midnight. There was a change made. And I base that upon John chapter 20, verse 19. John 20, 19 says this, Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut, where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them, Peace be with you. Here it is, the evening, and it is called the first day, after the sunset. If we were going from sunset to sunset, the Sabbath should have been over by the time evening of the first day arrived, because the Sabbath would have begun the sunset on Saturday and run from the sunset till Sunday. But here it is evening, and it is yet the first day, and the Lord appears to His disciples. When I look at that particular phrase, at evening, literally being evening, and compare that with, you don't need to necessarily look this up, but in Luke 24, 29, it uses the phrase toward evening. Now that's a different phrase. It's growing toward evening. But once you speak of evening, you've crossed the boundary of sunset. It's dark. So on that basis, I believe that the Lord also, as being Lord of the Sabbath, this was a change He made, the hours in which the Sabbath is to be observed from midnight to midnight. Thirdly, the third change, the ceremonies of the Sabbath that were distinctly shadows were changed. Those particular elements and aspects of the Old Testament Sabbath that were shadows, that pertained to sacrifices, that pertained to the showbread which was baked and placed in the tabernacle or temple. Those particular ceremonial aspects were changed and done away with. Now, the key passage here, is Colossians chapter 2, which we read earlier. Colossians chapter 2, verses 16 through 17. There it says, Therefore, let no one judge you in food or in drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths. which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." Now, this particular passage that I just read, along with Romans 14, 6, and Galatians 4, verses 9 through 10, those three passages are the key passages that those who believe the Sabbath no longer exists that Christ is Lord over a non-existent Sabbath, basically, these are the passages that they would appeal to. Here, using a superficial reading, it would appear to say that Sabbaths were shadows of things to come, and they've been done away with in Christ, who is the body. These are the passages that they would look to. In order to understand this passage and what it's saying here, let's just quickly summarize this chapter very briefly. Paul's chief concern in Colossians 2 is that you who believe in Christ realize that Christ is your salvation, and that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, as he says in verse 3. Furthermore, Paul is desirous that the Christians here in Colossae, as well as you, come to understand the assurance, and to know and experience the assurance of your salvation. He says in verse 2, "...and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding." See, Paul doesn't want his spiritual children to be wandering here and there, always doubting, always wondering whether they truly belong to Christ. Anytime we are going back to that level in our walk with Christ and questioning whether God has actually saved us, and doubting over and over and over again whether we are really His. That's not going to promote growth in our Christian life, any more than it's going to promote growth in your children, if they continually wonder whether you are their parents, whether they belong in your family. They're going to have a very difficult time in life, I'll guarantee you, if they are not assured of those particular truths. That you love them, that you care for them, that you'll provide for them, that they belong to you. In the same way, in the Christian life, if a Christian does not learn that most basic and elementary principle, that they actually belong to Christ, If they're not assured of that, they're going to have a very difficult time growing at all in the Christian walk. Paul wants his spiritual children to be assured of that. You see, as well in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that this particular doctrine is considered to be an extremely important doctrine. It says in chapter 18 of Assurance of Grace and Salvation, it says, Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes, and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God and a state of salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish. Yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus and love Him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed. This certainty is not a bare, conjectural, improbable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which spirit is the earnest of our inheritance whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption, Now that infallible assurance is not necessary in order to be saved. In other words, one may not have that assurance and yet be truly saved. And yet, in the Christian life, I can think of nothing more needful for his growth and understanding than that particular truth. And this is what Paul desires for the Colossian believers here. But there are threats to this firm assurance of faith in Christ, which Paul warns them of in verse 4. He says, Now this I say, lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. Anyone would seek to remove you from seeking this assurance of your salvation. Now these threats essentially involve Even though, as we look at these particular threats to the assurance of God's people, they essentially involve this one thing. They involve looking in some way to man, rather than to Christ. Looking to someone else, to give them what they need to hear rather than depending upon Christ or looking within themselves in some way to think that they can add to their acceptance before Christ. I've always wondered It's a question that I ask those who really believe that they can add to the work of Jesus Christ, that Christ's work is not sufficient, that they can add something to the work of Christ in order to make them more acceptable to God. I always ask them, where do you know to stop? How much to add? Is that enough? If you have to add something, how much do you have to add? And really what it boils down to is if you're going to turn your eyes from Christ, you've got to add it all. You've got to be perfect. And so Paul here speaks of in verse 8, Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit according to the tradition of men. That's what's going to take your eyes off of Christ. Men, their traditions. If you want to know assurance in Jesus Christ, assurance of your salvation, turn to Jesus Christ alone, as he speaks of in verses 9-15, which we read earlier. See that your salvation, your life, everything is wrapped up with Jesus Christ. Do not look to yourselves, do not look to others, look to Him alone and His sufficiency for you. And then beginning with verse 16, Paul begins to identify particular concerns and issues that will indeed take their eyes as well as your eyes off of Christ and His finished work. In verses 16 through 17, Paul identifies certain shadows. He calls them shadows in verse 17. Shadows, a shadow of things to come. He identifies these shadows, which were Old Testament shadows. which pointed to the work of Christ, which pointed to Jesus who was to come. And once the substance, and once the body, once Christ has come, no longer do we need the shadows. It's the same thing that the Apostle Paul says in Hebrews chapter 10. Notice what he says with regard to the shadows there. I read this earlier. before our time of prayer for the law having a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image of the things can never with the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year make those who approach perfect those are the shadows the ceremonies of the Old Testament are the shadows that Paul refers to in Colossians the writer of the book of Hebrews is referring to those same ceremonies But as we see in verse 14, Christ has already nailed all of those shadows and ordinances of the Old Testament to the cross. That's what it's speaking of there. Having wiped out the writing, the handwriting of the requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us, He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. those ordinances, those particular shadows, which continually reminded the people of God, not of their forgiveness, but of their sins. That's what it says in Hebrews. With the offering of those same sacrifices every year, they're reminded that their sin was not finally put away. They were forgiven in light of what Christ would accomplish, but as long as those sacrifices continue to be offered, They knew that the one who had put sin away forever had not come. So it reminded them of their sins, the writer of the book of Hebrews says. But Jesus took all of those ordinances and he nailed them to his cross, putting them aside because the shadow is terminated when the body, Christ, comes. That's the same thing that he says with regard to making the Jew and the Gentile one new man in Ephesians 2, verses 14-16. What separated them? What was the enmity between them? The ceremonial law. That separated the Jew from the Gentile. Jesus Christ has removed that as an enmity out of the way, the ceremonial law, making one new man as well. And so Paul, in essence, is saying here, anyone who would tell you that you still need to look back to those shadows to be complete in Christ is a liar. Don't believe him. He's a liar. Now look at verse 16 to identify the shadows. Colossians 2.16. What are the shadows that are mentioned? Food and drink, festival, new moon, Sabbath. Those are the shadows. Let's understand what's being said here. The festivals would refer to the feast days of the Old Testament such as Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles. The new moon would refer to the monthly celebrations and the Sabbaths would refer to the weekly celebrations. Now the food and drink Here we're going to do just a little bit of study Very quickly in the Old Testament, but the food and drink most likely speak of the offerings that were made on those particular occasions Those sacrifices that were made turn with me back to numbers 28 Numbers 28 It's a good thing that in one sense I suppose that this sermon will not be a part of the series on worship because it probably wouldn't have fit anyway, as far as the time that's allotted. But I'm thankful that we can, that you're going to be patient with me, Lord willing, that we'll be able to finish this. Numbers 28-29, simply note here, the categories This is, in Numbers 28 and 29, it speaks of all the offerings that are made, first of all, in verses 1 through 8, the daily offerings that were made on the part of the priest. In verses 9 and 10, it talks about the Sabbath offerings. In verses 11 through 15, the offerings that were made at the new moon. In verses 16 of chapter 28, through the end of chapter 29 are the offerings that were made at Passover, Pentecost, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles. I believe that the Apostle Paul, in stating what he did in Colossians 2.16, has this particular passage in mind, because we note here what are the sacrifices. Well, in each and every case, you'll find three areas, three classifications of sacrifices or offerings to God. There's first of all, a sacrifice of an animal or animals. Second of all, there's the sacrifice of food, grain offerings. And thirdly, there's a sacrifice of drink, drink offerings, wine. those three categories of offerings made on these particular days, every day, at each of these particular celebrations. Now, I believe that the Apostle Paul is therefore in Colossians 2.16 not saying is not saying that that which is moral and universal and binding about the Sabbath has been done away with. But those specific and particular Jewish elements of the ceremonial law about the Sabbath, namely the food and drink offerings that are associated with it, have ended because he has nailed it to the cross. In fact, in Ezekiel 45, 17, in Ezekiel 45, 17, I think we find a prophecy of the prince who is to come, the Lord Jesus Christ. And there it says, using the same language here, Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings at the feasts, the new moons, the Sabbaths. And at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel, he shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel. And I believe Jesus notes that that is being fulfilled in his own life in John 6, 55, where he says, For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. His sacrifice upon the cross As the prince of peace is the fulfillment of all of those ceremonial aspects, even of the Sabbath. So what are we left with after we remove all the ceremonial aspects? Well, we're left with the Sabbath that was instituted at creation. And those moral, not ceremonial, those moral requirements that pertain to the Sabbath. That's what we're left with after we take away all the ceremonial elements. And that is what Paul, I believe, is saying. He's not saying that the Sabbath has been done away with. He's talking about those ceremonial aspects that have been nailed to the cross. Those have been done away with. And likewise, in Romans 14.6 and Galatians 4.10, those other two passages, neither of those passages indicate that the Lord of the Sabbath has abolished the Christian Sabbath and made all days alike. That is not what he's saying. In Romans 14.6, Paul describes those who observe the day That is, a certain feast day apparently of the Old Testament, and those who do not observe the day. Those who do not observe that particular feast day. But they do so, they observe the day, Paul says, as to the Lord. Apparently, this believer that he's speaking of here, who yet observes the day, believes that he should follow the day because God commanded it in the Old Testament. And his conscience has not yet freed him from that obligation to follow that particular day. He doesn't have the knowledge that the strong brother has that he doesn't have to keep it. He's still a weak brother, believing that he's under the obligation of that ceremonial feast day. Paul admonishes the church to bear with those who are weak in such an area in Romans 15.1. He says, bear with them. Be patient with them. But the goal, dear ones, is not to either leave them weak Nor is the goal to allow the weak brother's view to become the view of the church. And so the goal is to instruct and to train and to teach his conscience as to what God's word actually teaches about the coming of Christ. And in Galatians chapter 4 verse 10, it talks about you observe days and weeks and months and years, seasons, those types of things. Paul is especially stronger in his correction to the people in Galatia, to the believers there. Why? In Romans, the problem was apparently limited to very few people, to a brother or so who had a weak conscience in this area. But in Galatia, the churches there in Galatia, this particular view predominated and was taking over the church. So the view of the weak was actually ruling. Paul makes it very clear, this cannot be. Furthermore, the false teachers were saying that you have to observe and follow these particular days in order to be saved, in order to be declared righteous before God. So that's why his condemnation, that's why his correction of these particular views is much stronger in Galatia, in the book of Galatians, rather than in Romans. Actually, we find to the contrary that the first day of the week was distinguished from all other days of the week as we've already noted in Revelation 1 10 it is called the Lord's Day and in first Corinthians 16 They were to set aside the collections and bring them on the first day of the week and in Acts 27 they gathered to break bread on the first day of the week so there was a distinction between the days of The Apostle Paul is not speaking of the Sabbath as a moral binding obligation upon all people in Romans 14.6 nor in Galatians 4.10. Okay, now, I just have one more thing that I want to mention. As I mentioned earlier, there were two things. Two ways in which the Lord Jesus Christ showed his Lordship over the Sabbath, first of all, that's what we've looked at so far, in sovereignly making changes in regard to it. Now, let's just very, very briefly look at the second way in which the Lord Jesus shows that he is Lord of the Sabbath in jealously guarding it from all man-made traditions. Now, I refer at this particular point to the religious holidays of man's appointing as a dishonor to the Sabbath and as a dishonor to the Lord of the Sabbath. To establish holy days which the Lord the Sabbath has not commanded is to show dishonor for the Lord of the Sabbath himself. For Jesus, as Lord of the Sabbath, is the Lord of our worship. John 4.24, God is spirit and those who worship Him must, not may, not might, but must worship Him in spirit and in truth. If we're going to worship the Lord aright, we must worship Him according to His truth, according to His spirit, according to the commandments which He has given to us, not according to our arbitrary wills and whims. Any worship that is not founded upon the scriptures, dear ones, any worship that is lacking the authority of God's holy word is, according to Colossians 2.23, will-worship, self-imposed religion. All of the feast days, all of the holy days of the Old Testament had the authority and warrant of God. All of the feast days, all of the holy days in the New Covenant must therefore as well have the authority of the Lord of the Sabbath. He's not relinquished his Lordship with regard to that aspect. He's not stepped down. Whatever does not have the authority of God's Word as a holy day has therefore only man's authority and not the Lord of the Sabbath's authority. For example, what authority does the Church have to institute on its own an annual celebration of the Lord's resurrection that we call Easter? What authority does man have to institute such a celebration when the Lord of the Sabbath has already given us a day, one day each week, to celebrate His resurrection? Are we saying that's not sufficient? Are we saying you don't know what you're doing, Lord? Where is the authority to do so? You see, this issue revolves around lordship and authority. That's the critical issue. The most critical issue here has to do with that single word, authority. The Lord of the Sabbath has the authority to do so, but no man apart from Christ's authority has the right to do so. An apostle can't do so apart from the authority of Jesus Christ. In fact, the apostles never instituted a holy day. Why do we think we can? The apostles never thought it was necessary or needful to appoint another holy day than the Sabbath. Why do we think we need a holy day other than the Sabbath? So I ask, where is the biblical warrant for Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, Lent, and on and on goes the list. Where is the biblical authority for the church to decree and for ministers to stand in the pulpit and to proclaim issues related to a particular holiday that was not instituted by Christ or the Apostles, that didn't come into being until the 3rd and 4th centuries. Where is the authority? You see, the standard of those who are Presbyterian Reformed is summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In the Westminster, actually, the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, it says this concerning the issue of Holy Days. There is no day commanded in Scripture to be kept holy under the Gospel but the Lord's Day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy Days... Excuse me. Festival days, vulgarly called holy days, having no warrant in the Word of God, are not to be continued. Very clear. However, the standard that most Presbyterians in Reformed churches seem to follow today is not the standards that we have been given in the Westminster standards, but rather the standards of the Church of England, in the 39 Articles. These are not our standards, but this seems to be the practice today. In Chapter 20, or Article 20, of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, under the subject of the authority of the Church, it says the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies. And I ask, as Presbyterians and Reformed people, which set of standards are we following? It furthermore says, under Article 34, under the heading of the Traditions of the Church, it is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like. For at all times they have been diverse and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. If the Word of God condemns it, you can't do it. But if the Word of God is silent, you can do it. That's what the standards teach. That's not what the Westminster standards have taught. Whose standards are we following? Dear ones, if even those ceremonies and holy days of God's appointment in the Old Testament shadows to be done away with according to Colossians chapter 2 how much more Paul would have condemned any mere man-made Holy Day God does not need our help in remembering Christ He has given us baptism the Lord's Supper and and the Sabbath to remember Christ. That's sufficient. Rather, dear ones, let us submit ourselves, not in part, but wholly unto the Lord of the Sabbath to worship Him as He Himself has ordained in His most holy word. Let's pray. Dear Father in Heaven, forgive us For the sins of our youth, Lord, forgive us for our own days of breaking your commandments in these particular areas. And Lord, forgive us as we continue to break your commandments in these areas. O God, we thank you that we have one who sits at the right hand of yourself, has already satisfied your infinite justice on our part, on our behalf. O Lord God, we praise you that we can now appeal to him and find a place of acceptance and forgiveness with him. Deliver us, Lord God, from all man-made, self-imposed authority. O Lord God, let us rather find as a church, in our worship, in our government, in our doctrine, in our practice, that it is your word and your word alone that governs us and guides us, for God alone is Lord of the conscience, and we are not to be bound and become enslaved by the traditions of men. O Father, we praise you for revealing these truths to us. We praise you, Lord God, that you have been gracious unto us. We ask, Heavenly Father, that you will give grace to your church throughout the world to see and to understand these very, very important truths. Otherwise, Lord, we disregard your Lordship. O God, we pray rather that we would gladly affirm it through our acts of obedience. In Jesus' name, Amen. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. You are welcome to make copies and give them to those in need. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available, free and for sale, in audio, video, and printed formats. It is likely that the sermon or book that you just listened to is also available on cassette or video, or as a printed book or booklet. Our many free resources, as well as our complete mail order catalog, containing thousands of classic and contemporary Puritan and Reform books, tapes and videos at great discounts is on the web at www.swrb.com. We can also be reached by email at swrb.com, by phone at 780-450-3730, by fax at 780-468-1096, or by mail at 4710-37A Edmonton, that's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N, Alberta, abbreviated capital A, capital B, Canada, T6L3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Calvin, in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart. From his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The prophet's words, then, are very important, when he says that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind, as though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.