Let me urge all involved—Elders, worship leaders, and church members—to prioritize the worship of the Lord’s Day. It is entirely possible that apart from one’s daily quiet time with the Lord, there is no more important activity for a Christian man or woman. For again, here the Father desires specially to gather his children to himself; and here the High King of the Church desires specially to walk among the golden lampstands (Rev. 1:12-13) Therefore, in preparing for the Lord’s Day, let all the leaders aspire to excellence. Let them stand in the counsel of the Lord, earnestly praying for a revelation of his heart and mind for the Sunday ahead (Jer. 23:22, 1 Cor. 14:27). And with that revelation in mind, let them carefully select the call to worship, the Scripture readings, the hymns, the contents of message, and the ministry at the Lord’s Table. Prior to the Lord’s Day, let them communicate with their people, urging them to prepare for it, and helping them to do so. And together with the whole church, let them pray for God’s richest blessing on the gathering. Surely he is eager to bestow it. And if we, on our part, do all we can to prepare the holy ground, surely the Holy One will meet us there.

Liturgically speaking, I have made the rounds. Down through the years this septuagenarian has worshiped in—or observed the worship of—Pentecostal, Charismatic, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, and Baptist churches. Also, throughout the years during which I served as a pastor, I continually mulled the New Testament (NT) parameters for worship on the Lord’s Day, trying hard to discern them accurately and practice them faithfully. Now, as I near the end of my journey, it has seemed good to me to share my best thoughts on Lord’s Day worship, and to craft a service of worship that I believe would be pleasing to God and edifying to his children.
Theological and Practical Foundations
Here in Part I of my essay I want to share my major premises: the theological and practical foundations upon which I have based my proposed liturgy. There are seven of them.
Lord’s Day Worship is Special
Worship on the Lord’s Day is quite special. Unlike other gatherings of God’s children, on this day the elders and members of a church come together as a whole church (Acts 15:2, 22; 1 Cor. 11:17-18; 14:23, 26; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 10:25; 13:7). Also, the regulations for this assembly are different from, and more stringent than, those pertaining to smaller gatherings (1 Acts 27:7-14; Cor. 11:1-15 vs. 11:16f). But the uniqueness of Lord’s Day worship stems above all from its close association with the mystery of the Sabbath. Theological reflection on this subject is extensive, diverse, and sometimes controversial. For brevity sake, I will give my own view simply by citing a Statement of Faith that I wrote some years back:
We believe that the Sabbath Day, which in the beginning God set apart as a day of rest and worship for all mankind, and which at the giving of the Law he instituted as a day of rest and worship for his OT people, stood as a type or picture of the eternal rest that he now offers to all men—and commands them to enter—through the Gospel. / We believe that Christians do in fact enter this rest, first at the moment of saving faith, then more fully at the entrance of their spirits into heaven, and still more fully at the resurrection of the righteous at Christ’s return. / We believe that in order to underscore the perpetuity of the believer’s rest in Christ, the NT does not, by an ordinance, tie the worship of God to the Sabbath or any special day of the week. / But we also believe that through a holy tradition inaugurated by Christ himself on the day of his resurrection, and perpetuated in the practice of the early church, God’s people are invited and encouraged to designate the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day; that on that day they do well to assemble themselves together in order to celebrate and be refreshed in the spiritual rest God has given them, through a reverent and joyful observance of the ordinances of NT worship; and that in so doing God will be pleased, Christ exalted, his people blessed, and the world confronted afresh with the Good News of the Gospel.1
In short, Lord’s Day worship is special because on that day God specially draws near to his people in order to remind them of, teach them about, and refresh them in, their eternal Sabbath rest in Lord Jesus Christ.
Lord’s Day Worship is Important to God and Man
The worship of the Lord’s Day is important to the triune God. Scripture affirms that he takes great pleasure in his people (Ps. 149:4). Indeed, his people are his chosen dwelling place (1 Ki. 8:10-11; Ps. 132:5-7; Ezek. 43:5; 44:4; John 14:23; Acts 2:2; Rev. 21:3). Knowing their needs, and not unmindful of his own enjoyment, he delights to draw near to them on the Lord’s Day. Abba Father delights to gather his children to himself and take them in his arms (Psalm 50:5, 149:4; Is. 43:2). His exalted Son, their heavenly Husband, delights to speak tenderly to his Bride, and to lay her weary head upon his vast and comforting bosom (Is. 40:1-3; John 13:23, 14:3, 17:24; Eph. 5). The Holy Spirit, knowing these things, delights to facilitate the holy visitation: to unveil and strengthen the eternal bond of love that unites the family of God. For these and other reasons, Lord’s Day worship is indeed important to the Three-in-One.
But it is even more important for man. For though God’s people have been justified, they are not yet fully sanctified. Though they are seated in heavenly places in Christ, they are still making an arduous journey through the howling wilderness of this present evil age (Gal. 1:4; Rev. 12:1ff). Therefore, their needs are great. Because they are weary, they need refreshing (Acts 3:19). Because they are pursued and persecuted, they need protection (Rev. 12:13-14). Because they are without (mature) understanding, they need teaching (Eph. 4:91-16). Because they are called, they need equipping (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Because they have faltered, they need exhortation, repentance, and reassurance (1 Cor. 11:27-32; 14:3). Because they are lonely, they need family; because they are lacking, they need the support of the family (Psalm 122; Acts 2:43-5). And because they are grateful and glad, they need a time and a place in which to express their gratitude and joy (1 Pet. 1:8). In sum, the saints are eager for Lord’s Day worship because they know that on that Day, through word, prayer, sacrament, and body ministry, they will yet again behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and so be transformed into his image from one degree of glory to the next (2 Cor. 3:18).
Lord’s Day Worship is Regulated
Because God desires to meet with his people, and because their needs are so very great, he carefully regulates his own worship. In particular, he gives us detailed instructions concerning the attitudes, actions, and procedures that are proper to the gathering of the whole church. We may think of these regulations as borders by which he surrounds, creates, protects, and preserves a sacred space, ensuring that he himself may fully fill that space, and that in it his people may be fully edified and refreshed (Rev. 12:6, 14). He gives us regulations so that he may freely give us himself.
Concerning the attitudes that we are to bring to this gathering, the NT provides rich instruction. We are to come with understanding (Col. 1:9), gratitude (1 Tim. 2:1), joy (Matt. 13:44; Phil. 4:4), reverence (Heb. 12:28), humility (James 1:21), sincerity (Acts 2:46), confidence (Heb. 4:16), faith (James 1:6), and eager expectation (Matt. 18:20). We come in order to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). We come faithfully, in spite of what we’ve done, and in spite of what we feel or don’t feel, always remembering that God is faithful, and that he is eager to meet both us and our needs (1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 10:25). And so, having put on these attitudes, we too come with eagerness, hoping and expecting to see his glory fill the house (1 Kings 8:11; Ezek. 43:4; Acts 2:2)!
As for the actions of NT worship, they are far fewer than those of OT times, being carefully designed to facilitate the simplicity of worship in spirit and truth instituted by Christ, and now so supernaturally natural to the regenerate hearts of his flock (John 4:24; 2 Cor. 11:3). These actions include prayer; the reading, preaching, teaching, and prophesying of the Word of God; psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, sung with grace in our hearts to the Lord; the Lord’s Supper; and, on occasion, the administration of water baptism.
Again, these actions are regulated: The NT prescribes basic procedures for each one. As the procedures become familiar, the worshiper comes to rest in them, trusting that all things are indeed being done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). Thus resting, he is free to give himself fully to the Lord throughout all the service: to listen for his voice, and to wait for his touch. Regulated worship becomes liturgy, the work of the people; liturgy, in turn, becomes a  garden paradise where the people experience the work of God.
Lord’s Day Worship is Participatory and Charismatic
Speaking personally, I cannot read 1 Corinthians 12-14 and fail to conclude that here, in good measure, the apostle is regulating the worship of the Lord’s Day. Yes, he begins by laying some theological groundwork, by unveiling the Church as the Spirit-filled Body of Christ, each of whose members is charismatically gifted for the edification of the Body. And for this reason some of the gifts mentioned here will not typically operate in a worship service (e.g. helps, mercies, administrations, healings, miracles; cf. Rom. 12:3-8). Nevertheless, the thrust of these chapters is surely to educate the saints on the gifts of the Spirit with a view to their proper exercise in the gatherings of the whole church (1 Cor. 14:23).
Accordingly, in our thinking about Lord’s Day worship must take seriously the apostle’s words: “What then, brothers, is the sum of the matter? Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26). I do not believe that a biblically faithful church can exclude this verse from its understanding of the regulative principles of corporate worship. It clearly tells us that Lord’s Day worship is participatory (i.e. each one has something to contribute, though not necessarily every Sunday) and charismatic (i.e. each one contributes that something in the exercise of his spiritual gift).
My cessationist brethren will balk at this claim, believing as they do that with the closure of the NT canon, and with the passing of the foundational apostles, God has permanently withdrawn some of the more supernatural charismatic gifts. I cannot enter into that debate here. Suffice it to say that for nearly 50 years I have been unable to find a single NT text affirming the withdrawal of any charismatic gift. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 I find quite the opposite, since here the apostle depicts the charismata as essential equipment for the Church Militant.
How so? The key words are “now” and “then”. Now, in the long Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Church needs the gifts of the Spirit in order to fulfill her mission. Now she needs to prophesy, speak in tongues, teach, etc., so that the saints may be gathered in, and the Body built up (1 Cor. 13:8). However, as important as the gifts are, they reflect only a partial knowledge of God, and are therefore only temporary. But when “the perfect” comes—not the close of the NT canon, but the return of Christ, the Consummation, and the life of the Age to Come (1 Cor. 1:7)—her partial knowledge will fail, cease, and pass away (1 Cor. 13:8-9). Then, when she she has graduated into eternal adulthood, she will put away her “childish” things, her childish ways of knowing, speaking, and reasoning, for then she will see face-to-face; for then she will fully know just as she is known (1 Cor. 13:11-13). If, therefore, it is essential for the Church to pass through her spiritual childhood, it is also essential that she permanently possess the distinguishing marks of her childhood: the panoply of spiritual gifts.
All that said, the closure of the NT canon is indeed of great importance. It enables us to identify the various spiritual gifts, and to exercise them properly in their appropriate settings. With reference to the worship of the Lord’s Day, it enables us to prioritize the ministry of the Word (i.e. Scripture reading, preaching, teaching, prophecy) with a view to the edification of the church (John 17:17; 1 Cor. 14:26). It enables us to judge the doctrinal and ethical integrity of various ministries of the Word (1 Cor. 14:29). And it enables leaders, through the exercise of their own spiritual gifts, to structure the Lord’s Day worship in such a way as to incorporate all its elements, while at the same time leaving ample room for the move of the Spirit and the spontaneous participation of various members of the congregation.2
Lord’s Day Worship Specially Regulates the Verbal Participation of Women
The NT places special restrictions on the verbal participation of women in the Lord’s Day gathering of the whole Church. Pressured by the surrounding culture, modern theologians fiercely debate the meaning and application of the relevant texts, with the result that different churches have settled on different policies (1 Cor. 14:34-36; 1 Tim. 2:9-15). My own reading, which aligns with traditional Catholic and Protestant interpretations, is that sisters in Christ may freely participate in congregational singing, and in the corporate recitation of prayers, Scripture, or creeds (yet another good reason to embrace all these practices). They may not, however, engage in any form of solo speech: They may not teach, preach, prophesy, speak in tongues, interpret a tongue, read Scripture, ask questions, or make the announcements.
It should go without saying that in giving us these guidelines God is in no way denigrating the value, intelligence, or spirituality of his daughters, who, just like men, are created in his image and likeness, loved, and redeemed in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Nor are the regulations meant to exclude women from all verbal ministry, since a number of other NT texts authorizes them to teach, pray, and prophesy in settings other than the gatherings of the whole church (Acts 2:17; 18:26; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; Titus 2:3-5).
Why, then, these special restrictions? A close reading of NT teaching on gender relations makes it clear that the rules are designed, above all, to reflect—and to reinforce in the hearts of his people—God’s creation order for the sexes (1 Tim. 2:11-15). By his wise decree—which is meant to image the mystery of Christ and the Church—man is the spiritual “head” of woman: the authority over her (1 Cor. 11:2-16; Eph. 5:22-33). In marriage, in the family, and in the church, God has given to men the responsibility—and with that, the authority—to lead, always with a view to the protection and provision of those under their care. Accordingly, when a woman speaks out in church she inverts the creation order by displacing the authorized leader, replacing him with herself, and setting the men in attendance under her authority, since the Word of God (or the words of the elders) in her mouth is (or is thought to be) authoritative. Paul states that such an inversion is disgraceful, for when the illicit inversion is both performed and permitted, ignominy rightly falls on the woman, her husband, the elders, and the men in the church—all of whom have had their part in turning the world upside down (1 Cor. 14:35).
There are practical considerations as well. If a woman happens to misspeak (as men themselves will surely do from time to time), she will not only dishonor her husband, but may even oblige the elder in charge to correct her in front of her husband and the entire congregation—a needless embarrassment that Paul no doubt wanted to head off at the pass. It should also be noted from 1 Timothy 2:14 that unless a woman is fully submitted to her husband, she, like mother Eve, is especially vulnerable to deception, and therefore to propagating the deception, in the event that she is allowed to speak in church. Finally, we need honestly to admit that a woman speaking in church, by attracting attention to herself, can stimulate sexual thoughts in the men (who are more visually oriented than women), thereby distracting them from the worship of the Lord. This, I think, is why Paul urges the sisters to dress modestly and discreetly when they come to church (1 Tim. 2:9-10).3 The words of the apostle display great practical wisdom, a wisdom that enables us to avoid all sorts of problems, and so to preserve peace in the churches.
I am all too aware that in our day these regulations are highly counter-cultural. It will therefore take great wisdom, love, patience, and courage for church leaders to explain and implement them, and for God’s men and women to submit to them. But if they love the Lord, and if they desire the fullest possible manifestation of his presence and power in the worship service, they will do so gladly. 
Lord’s Day Worship Honors the History and Accomplishments of the Church Triumphant
In the Lord’s Day worship the Church Militant joins with the Church Triumphant before the throne of God, in order to worship, praise, petition, and receive from our triune Creator and Redeemer (Rev. 4-5). Because this is so, I think it fitting that the Church Militant should honor the Church Triumphant by incorporating into her own worship the forms and contents that her predecessors developed through their own prayerful interaction with the Word of God. Yes, we must do this carefully, striving to set aside any forms and contents that we consider unbiblical. But our natural bias, born out of love and respect for the work of God in former times, should be to include from the past as much as we honestly can, so that the worshiping Church of our own day may feel an abiding spiritual connection with our Catholic and Protestant forefathers.
In the service of worship below I have sought to do this very thing.
Read More
Related Posts:

My very worthy and dear brother,
I received your letter, and had no time to answer you as I’d have liked. I thank the Lord who upholds you in all your trials and temptations. It is good for you to be kept in exercise, otherwise I would suspect that all was not well with you. God is faithful, as you find by experience, and will not test you above your strength. Courage, dear brother. All is in love, all works together for the best. You must be hewn and hammered down, and dressed, and prepared, before you are a “living stone” fit for His building!
God’s Way of Working
And if He is minded to make you fit to help repair the ruins of His house, you must still expect other kinds of blows than you have felt so far. You must feel your own weakness so that you may be humbled and cast down before Him, and so that you may pity poor weak ones who are borne down with infirmities. And when you are laid low, and made vile in your own eyes, then He will raise you up, and refresh you with some glimpses of His favourable countenance, so that you may be able to comfort others with the consolations with which you have been comforted by Him. This you know by some experience (blessed be God), and as strength and grace increase, look for stronger trials, fightings without and fears within, the devil and his instruments against you, and your Lord hiding His face, and deep and almost overwhelming troubles and terrors.
Yet out of all this misery, He is working some gracious work of mercy for the glory of His great name, the salvation and sanctification of your own soul, and the comfort of His distressed children here or there, or both, as pleases Him.
Our Way of Persevering
Take heart, then, and prepare for the battle. Put on the whole armour of God. Though you are weak, you have a strong Captain, whose power is made perfect in weakness, and whose grace is sufficient for you. What you lack in yourself you have in Him, for He is given to you by God to be your wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, your treasure and your treasurer, who keeps everything in store for you.

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Saturday, February 17, 2024
The weekly Sabbath is not merely – or even primarily – a type or shadow. Rather, the weekly Sabbath is embedded in the middle of the Ten Commandments, which earlier generations viewed as the indispensable “lynchpin” between the two tables of the Law.

Keeping the Sabbath Today? By Jay Adams
Readers may ask why a book published in 2008 should be reviewed today. Several years ago my pastor gave me his copy and asked me to write a review. His request was the only reason for this ruling elder – lacking Hebrew and Greek – being willing to undertake the task; albeit having completed a doctoral dissertation on the Christian Sabbath in the nineteenth century.[1] (Finally overcoming my procrastination, this review’s completion happily coincides with the run-up to this year’s Super Bowl.)
I recall years ago when Dr. Adams visited my church. His credentials, experience, and widely-known counseling and writing ministry were hugely impressive; today they still give me trepidation to write in opposition to one of his roughly 100 books – the writing of which caused Adams himself “some trepidation” as he acknowledges. Alas, the book should be opposed; but respectfully and thoughtfully.[2]
Before diving in, I’ll borrow from nineteenth-century Southern Presbyterian theologian, Dr. Robert Lewis Dabney, whose lecture on the fourth commandment in his Systematic Theology is as good as any relatively short piece I’ve found on the subject. Dabney’s opening words are as relevant today as when he penned them:
There is, perhaps, no subject of Christian practice on which there is, among sincere Christians, more practical diversity and laxity of conscience than the duty of Sabbath observance. We find that, in theory, almost all Protestants now profess the views once peculiar to Presbyterians and other Puritans; but, in actual life, there is, among good people, a variety of usages. . . .[3]
Then – and now – the usages of the first day of the week range from laxity to strictness. Dabney relates how “the communions founded at the Reformation, were widely and avowedly divided in opinion as to the perpetuity of the Sabbath obligation.” Some of the “purest” churches “professed that they saw no obligation in the Scriptures to any peculiar Sabbath observance. . . .” While many of their descendants – at least in Dabney’s day – had ceased to “defend the looser theory of their forefathers,” they retained their forefathers’ traditional practices which were “far beneath” their profession.[4]
Adams largely shares the view historically called the “Continental Sabbath,” which was essentially Calvin’s view. It is fundamentally different from the Presbyterian and Puritan churches, lacking the moral authority of the fourth commandment and viewing the first day’s observance of corporate worship as a means of order and convenience for the Church. Not surprisingly, such convictions attach less weight to the day’s observance. Adams writes that Calvin’s position “is essentially that which I espouse.”[5]
Furthermore, Adams was convinced many Christians suffered from a burdensome Sabbath, writing, “Possibly this book will be used by God to free them from this weekly misery and help others from ever experiencing it.” His overarching concern, though, transcends Dabney’s laxity or strictness. Adams does not see either position as a legitimate concern because, in his view, the weekly Sabbath has ceased. A number of the arguments in this book, however, fall short of achieving Adams’s objective of proving the weekly Sabbath’s abolition.[6]
The hundred page book contains 21 chapters; only a few will be addressed here, although at least one common thread runs throughout. It is Adams’s conviction that because the (original, physical) “rest” required by the fourth commandment has been fulfilled for the believer in Jesus Christ in a far greater (spiritual) manner – in one’s resting by faith upon Him alone for salvation (Matthew 11:28-29) – one must conclude that the original Sabbath commandment has been made obsolete.
In the introduction, Adams highlights Romans 14:5-6 with its reference to observing “one day above another” (as well as the eating or not eating of meat). Here, without acknowledging the context of the passage (he does so shortly thereafter) – which concerns Jewish ceremonial practices (including ceremonial sabbaths which also are in view in Galatians 4:9-10 and Colossians 2:16-17) – Adams leads the reader to assume the apostle Paul was including the weekly Sabbath day in the passage. As this essay argues, that is a stretch.[7]
These passages (Rom. 14, Gal. 4, Col. 2) deal with questions of Jewish ceremonial practices which were no longer appropriate after Christ’s resurrection – questions of meat-eating, “days and months and seasons and years,” and food/drink/festivals/new moons/sabbath days. How does Adams get from ceremonial law and non-weekly sabbath references to abolishing the weekly Sabbath? He does this by assuming that all references to any form of the word “sabbath” must include the weekly holy day.[8]
Close examination of the English rendering of the scriptural references to this word reveals that in most cases where the fourth commandment is in view, the article “the” is employed in addition to the singular form as in “the sabbath” or “the sabbath day.” In contrast, in most cases in which the context indicates Jewish ceremonials to be in view, either the article “a” is used as in “a sabbath” or “a sabbath day”; or, the rendering is plural, as in “her sabbaths” or “sabbath days.”[9]
The lack of reference in these passages to the fourth commandment has not stopped anti-Sabbath advocates from arguing against the weekly rest/worship day’s obligation. At this point, Calvin’s comments regarding another portion of Scripture prove helpful. In Calvin’s Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1, he writes concerning the genealogy of Jesus Christ: “. . . we must observe, that the Evangelists do not speak of events known in their own age” [emphasis added]. Regarding the ancestry of Joseph and Mary, “The Evangelists, trusting to what was generally understood in their own day, were, no doubt, less solicitous” on the question of Mary’s tribe,
. . . for, if any one entertained doubts, the research was neither difficult nor tedious. Besides, they took for granted, that Joseph, as a man of good character and behaviour, had obeyed the . . . law in marrying a wife from his own tribe.[10]  
The relevance of Calvin’s point is this: because it was generally understood that the apostolic church had begun worshiping corporately on the first day of the week (the research “neither difficult nor tedious”) in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, observing the Christian Sabbath with the moral authority of the fourth commandment’s one-day-out-of-seven, there was no need for Paul to state that the days he refers to do not include the weekly rest/worship day. To borrow Calvin’s phrasing, there was no need for Paul to be “solicitous” on that point.      
In chapter 11, Adams asks, “Why must the Sabbath change its meaning and purpose again and again?” His main argument here stems from the fact that the rationale for the fourth commandment in Deuteronomy 5 is different from that in Exodus 20. As the Westminster Larger Catechism (LC) 121 suggests, creation is the rationale for the Sabbath commandment given in Exodus while redemption (or, deliverance) is the rationale provided in Deuteronomy. Adams argues from this development that the Sabbath “is not unchangeable. Indeed, it is the one commandment of the Ten that is changeable.” True, and in fact the fourth commandment itself does not specify a particular day of the week’s seven days to be observed in perpetuity. Rather, the wording “the seventh day” suggests a one-in-seven principle, not necessarily the 7th of the week’s seven days. In any case, why should believers be troubled with an addition – or enhancement – to our understanding of one of God’s ordinances? An addition does not necessarily require a full replacement of the commandment, as Adams suggests.[11]
Another pastor friend points out examples in Scripture of what he calls “both-and rather than either-or.” That view fits LC 121: “The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, partly . . . to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion. . . .” Creation and redemption. Because God is Creator, He alone is the rightful Redeemer of those He chooses. It is not necessarily an either-or proposition. In fact, holding both realities together is faith enhancing.
But the most consequential case in which Adams argues for replacement in lieu of addition comes from his view of Hebrews 4. Adams rightly states, “The Sabbath now pictures the heavenly rest – the final Sabbath.” He assumes that the eternal, spiritual Sabbath rest (4:11) must of necessity require the passing away of the weekly Sabbath, one of the Old Testament “types and shadows” in his view.[12]
But the weekly Sabbath is not merely – or even primarily – a type or shadow. Rather, the weekly Sabbath is embedded in the middle of the Ten Commandments, which earlier generations viewed as the indispensable “lynchpin” between the two tables of the Law. Nehemiah 9:13-14 strongly supports that position, where “Your holy Sabbath” clearly stands for the “just ordinances and true laws, Good statutes and commandments” (i.e., the Ten Commandments) given at Mount Sinai. The weekly Sabbath, possessing both a type-shadow and a moral nature, is a case of both-and, not either-or.[13]
Moreover, in this section Adams overstates his case:
As there are no more sacrifices and no more temple service because Jesus is the reality that these things symbolized, so too Paul says, there is no more Sabbath, because the ‘rest-reality’ is found in Christ – now in part and forever in the end. . . . The eternal Sabbath is the sign of our everlasting rest in Christ [emphasis added].[14]
There is much truth here. But Paul never says “there is no more Sabbath.” Adams appears to allude to Colossians 2, which he uses to argue for the weekly Sabbath’s abolition. (This has long been the favorite passage of New Testament Sabbath opponents.) In Col. 2:16-17, Paul says:
So then, you must allow nobody to judge you about eating and drinking or about feasts or new moons or sabbaths, which are shadows of what was coming (the body belongs to Christ).[15]
But Adams errs in assuming that, “If Paul wanted Christians to keep the weekly Sabbath, he surely missed a golden opportunity to stress the fact.” This is an argument purely from silence, which can never prove anything in history, or theology. Paul had no reason to stress the weekly first day’s observance that was already well established and not in dispute, believers having begun first-day worship following the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). For Paul to have done so would merely have muddied the waters. Throughout the book, Adams assumes that plural references to “a sabbath” or “sabbaths” or “sabbath days” – the usual biblical manner of referring to ceremonial days – must include the fourth commandment’s weekly holy day, which is essential to his thesis statement: “. . . the Bible teaches that the Sabbath has been abolished.”[16]
But assuming the Sabbath commandment was so soon to be abolished, how nonsensical should it be for the Lord Jesus to affirm the Sabbath – and His lordship over that institution – as in Mark 2:27-28, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (see also Matt. 12:8, Lk. 6:5). PCA Pastor Roland Barnes – who retired in 2023 after four-plus decades of ministry in Statesboro, Georgia – writes, “The Sabbath law prevents us from becoming slaves to our work on the one hand and slaves to our pleasures on the other.” As Jesus said, the day was “made for man,” that is, for man’s benefit and blessing to the extent he employs its hours in God-honoring ways. The physical and the spiritual elements complement one another: as one rests (body/mind) from secular labor on the day, he is thereby enabled to devote himself to corporate worship of the living and true God as well as pursuing the interests of the soul in private/family devotional time, mercy ministry, fellowship, and more during the remaining hours of the day. Occasionally when church members acknowledged they wished for more time to study their Bibles, my former pastor used to reply, “What are you doing on Sunday afternoon?” The Sabbath is a precious and holy gift; use it well.
Adams mentions today’s “more complex society” and suggests, rightly it seems, that a strict cessation of labor on any given day is impossible where medical, utilities, law enforcement, and other services are deemed a necessity (the question of legitimate works of necessity is beyond the scope here but is easily abused in practice). But what bearing does this development have on the moral obligation itself? Perhaps – as an Oak Ridge, Tennessee, engineer friend of mine suggested three decades ago – the commandment was intended, in part, to preclude the development of the type of complex society we have now, one in which technology (perhaps most significantly, medical) facilitates the arrogance of men who increasingly pretend themselves to be gods?
While nostalgia for a simpler time is often dreamy, how less complex might our society be without the massive urban centers (with associated social problems) made possible in part by the production of the steel and power (energy) required for high-rise buildings, utilities, transportation systems, and more? By the nineteenth century, beginning in Pennsylvania the nascent steel industry required blast furnaces to operate continuously – including on the weekly rest/worship day – in order to maintain the extremely high temperature necessary for production. That, along with transportation systems such as railroads which operated every day of the week, probably constituted the most far-reaching examples of societal Sabbath-breaking prior to 1900. It was our own mainly Presbyterian forefathers who did their best to warn against the long-term consequences of societal, even institutionalized, Sabbath breaking.
While the complex society problem is real, perhaps it is also important for the believer to remind himself that one’s favor in God’s sight does not stem from perfect observance of the fourth commandment – or any other law. Jesus Christ alone has fulfilled His Father’s law perfectly, on our behalf. It is Christ’s righteousness alone that believers are credited with, which is received by faith alone. Perhaps the failures of earlier generations – even those of the nineteenth century – have seriously damaged the prospects of contemporary Christians to observe the weekly holy day in the best possible manner. If that be the case, then let it be. May the intractable challenges of honoring the Lord in the fourth commandment – despite our best efforts – serve as a weekly reminder of our true and unending dependence upon “the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 3:5-6).
Out of genuine respect and admiration for the memory of this eminent father of the faith, the late Dr. Adams gets the last word here – which was his closing sentence in this little book: “Now, may God’s Spirit work in your heart through His Word that you may find saving, sanctifying, and glorifying rest in the Lord Jesus Christ – both now and forever.”[17]
Forrest L. Marion is a ruling elder in the First Presbyterian Church (PCA), Crossville, Tennessee.

[1] To clarify whether the weekly (fourth commandment) Sabbath or the several Jewish ceremonial sabbaths are in view, I elected to capitalize the weekly “Sabbath” and use lower case for the ceremonial “sabbaths.” Because the Westminster Confession of Faith uses the term “Christian Sabbath” or “Lord’s Day” in chapter XXI, para. VII, which terms have been used by generations since then, I will also use those terms on occasion. Note that the capitalization of the word sabbath found in many English renderings of Colossians 2:16 was an editorial decision – the Greek language of Paul’s day did not use capitalizations. That unfortunate editorial decision – thereby implying the weekly holy day (fourth commandment) was in view, rather than solely Jewish ceremonial days – has made the already difficult discussions of this issue even more difficult.  
[2] Jay E. Adams, Keeping the Sabbath Today? (Timeless Texts: Stanley, N.C., 2008), vii.
[3] Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth Trust: Edinburgh and Carlisle, Penn., 1985 [1871]), 366-97 (quote on 366).
[4] Dabney, Systematic Theology, 366-67.
[5] Dabney, Systematic Theology, 366-68; Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, x.
[6] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, x.
[7] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, xi, 1-4.
[8] Gal. 4:10. Note Col. 2:16’s reference to “a Sabbath day” (NASB and other translations), is the result of an editorial decision to capitalize “Sabbath” – which capitalization does not appear in the Greek. The editors here showed their assumption – incorrect in the view of the Westminster Standards – that the weekly day of rest/worship was in view. Either the old, obsolete, Jewish ceremonial sabbaths were in view; or the Old Testament’s seventh-day Sabbath was in view (or both). But it cannot be logically argued that the New Testament’s holy day is in view – that day’s observance was not in dispute among believers and, therefore, had no need to be addressed; and does not fit the context.
[9] In addition to Colossians 2:16-17, Adams also relies on Rom. 14:5-6 (see also his chapters 1, 14) and Gal. 4:9-10 (see also his chapters 8, 17). Note that none of these three passages refers explicitly to the Christian Sabbath or Lord’s day. Romans 14:5-6 refers to those who regard “. . . one day above another, another regards every day alike”; and, “He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord. . . .” Galatians 4:9-10 warns against believers reverting to Jewish ceremonials, in verse 10, “You observe days and months and seasons and years.” Paul’s clear reference is to Jewish ceremonial days, also considered “sabbaths” or “sabbath days” (note the plural references to these ceremonial days) in several Old Testament passages (Neh. 10:33 refers to “the sabbaths, the new moons, for the appointed times, for the holy things” [clearly, these “times” are other than the weekly Sabbath; note that, in contrast, in chapter 13:15-22, Nehemiah refers ten times to the weekly holy day (singular) as “the sabbath” or “the sabbath day”]; Is. 1:13-14 refers to “New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies . . . I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts” – because “sabbath” is linked with “assemblies” and “new moon festivals” and “appointed feasts” (all plurals), there is no question the reference to all such ceremonies is in the plural; Hos. 2:11 refers to “feasts, her new moons, her sabbaths, And all her festal assemblies,” again, both the context and plural indicating ceremonial days are in view rather than the weekly Sabbath). Unless noted otherwise, all Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
[10] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1 (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003 [reprint]), 82.
[11] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 60 [emphasis in original]; Westminster Larger Catechism, Q/A 121; Exodus 20:10.
[12] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 61.
[13] Or, if one prefers, the weekly Sabbath illustrates “the already and the not yet.”
[14] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 61.
[15] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 3. I am not sure which Bible version Adams uses here.

[16] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 3-4. Evidence exists that for a time some Jewish believers observed both the Jewish seventh day and the Christian first day.
[17] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 103.
Related Posts: