The Lord’s Day Is Not Passé

Seven years ago the United States Supreme Court handed down landmark decisions on four cases dealing with the legal regulation of Sunday. At issue was whether Sunday closing laws violated the United States Constitution. In the opinion of the court, the Sunday laws no longer had a religious significance. In fact, the only concern of the justices in this regard was whether the Sunday laws violated religious liberty. The majority view as expressed by Chief Justice Warren was that the present purpose and effect of the various Sunday laws was “to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens”:

This statement points up the difference between present and past practices. The Puritan heritage of many of the early colonists included a strong conviction about observance of the Lord’s Day. In 1595, the doctrine of Sabbatarianism was outlined by Nicholas Bownd in a work called The True Doctrine of the Sabbath. Although he recognized the distinction between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lord’s Day, Bownd affirmed that the commandment to sanctify every seventh day was moral and perpetual in its significance. His work apparently had a great influence upon the Puritans of his time.

Another evidence of Puritan thought is seen in an action of the Synod of Dort, which in 1619 agreed upon the following:

A similar conviction was expressed in the Westminster Confession, drawn up in 1643 by a group of clergymen and laymen, the majority of whom were Presbyterian Puritans, and approved in 1647 by the general assembly of the Church of Scotland. Since the confession became the creed of Scottish and American Presbyterianism, this statement from it is significant:

This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before Him, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreation; but are also taken up the whole time in public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

It was Puritans of this persuasion who brought with them to this country their conception of the Christian Sabbath and established its observance by law as part of the ideal of a Christian commonwealth. Yet as early as 1631 Roger Williams challenged this policy, arguing that it was inappropriate for the civil authority to enforce obedience to the fourth commandment.

Abandonment of the Puritan position on the observance of Sunday, however, did not come until after the wave of immigration from Europe to this country in the latter part of the nineteenth century. These new citizens brought with them the so-called Continental Sunday, characterized more by rest and recreation than by worship and Christian service. This practice was compatible with the growing secularization of Western culture during this era, and it provided the basis for the Supreme Court’s opinion that Sunday laws no longer applied to religious observance but had to do with the secular goals of the state.

The early Puritans insisted that every dimension of personal and social life was to be brought under the authority of the Word of God. The modern evangelical who accepts this principle is faced with a problem that is both cultural and theological. Today’s society, while it may give lip service to the idea of setting aside one day a week as a day of rest, is not in full agreement about what this means, and across the land contradictory practices prevail. In some areas businesses are closed while in others they remain open. Generally those who favor Sunday closing do so on pragmatic grounds: families are able to be together on one day of the week, or business competitors are better circumscribed by Sunday laws. The conscientious Christian must decide whether he should change employment if required to work on Sunday in a job not vital to community health or welfare, whether to refrain from recreation engaged in by the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries on that day, perhaps even whether to take his family out to Sunday dinner after church.

Since his decision should be based primarily on biblical rather than cultural or expedient grounds, he is also faced with the important question of just what the Word of God teaches about observance of the Lord’s Day. Historically, Christendom has not been united on this subject, and it still is not. Even the Reformers did not agree whether the Lord’s Day was to be observed on the basis of expediency or in accordance with the commandments of God. Luther’s sermon at the dedication of the Castle Church at Torgau on October 5, 1544, is often cited: “We Christians … have the liberty to turn Monday or some other day of the week into Sunday if the Sabbath or Sunday does not please us.” Yet it could well be that both the early Church and the Reformers felt such an obligation to distinguish between themselves and their Jewish or Roman Catholic antecedents that they tended to over-emphasize the distinction between the old order and the new and between law and grace.

Because this matter has been one of persistent controversy, the tendency has been to avoid the question whether Scripture speaks normatively to today’s Christian about observance of the Lord’s Day. But the question remains.

One common view among evangelicals is that the fourth commandment pertains strictly to the economy of law and thus has no place in the practice of the New Testament Church. Yet it is difficult to think that a set of commandments as basic as the Decalogue could be so fragmented. This is particularly true in light of the reason given for the observance of one day in seven, that is, that it recalls God’s rest after the completion of his creative work. Is it no longer necessary for the Church to mark the completion of God’s creative work in this way?

The conviction and practice of the New Testament Church are instructive at this point. The early Christians set apart the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection of Christ. This great, central fact of our Christian faith was not divorced from the creative acts of God. The Apostle Paul asserted in the eighth chapter of Romans that a fallen creation waits for the redemption that is yet to be effected through the saving work of Christ. In observing the Lord’s Day, then, the Christian Church can be obedient to the foundational purpose of the fourth commandment in marking God’s rest from his initial creative acts and also be a witness to his re-creative activity, so to speak, through the resurrection ministry and ultimate triumph of the Son of God.

Observance of the Lord’s Day as, among other things, a witness to God’s creative and redemptive work is consistent with other observances having the same objective. For millions of Christians, baptism is a sign or seal of their identification with Jesus Christ in his sacrifical, redemptive ministry. Similarly, each time Christians celebrate the Lord’s supper they announce the Lord’s death until he comes again. In Ephesians, Christian marriage is described as a witness to the world of the union that exists between Christ and the Church. As baptism and the Lord’s supper affirm the relation of the believer to Jesus Christ as Saviour, so Christian marriage bears witness to the relationship of the Christian Church to Christ as head. And God has provided a similar type of witness to the world of his creative acts and the ultimate restoration of creation under his sovereignty—the Lord’s Day. By setting aside of one day for worship and service and release from the tasks that normally occupy them, today’s believers can witness to their contemporaries both of what God has done and of what, in Jesus Christ, he yet will do.

Obedience and witness, moreover, are not without recompense for the Christian. Admittedly there is self-fulfillment or self-realization in obedience to the Word of God and in bearing witness to an unbelieving world. Yet other benefits stem from a proper accommodation to the basic order of God’s universe. Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man rather than man for the Sabbath. Much has been said about what this statement implies, but it seems evident that the setting aside of one day in seven was meant to give man the physical and emotional renewal he greatly needs through rest from labor and in worship and praise. Perhaps the mental and emotional illness that plagues even the Christian community might be lessened if men deliberately set aside the pressures and tensions of demanding schedules and devoted one day in seven to meditation, worship, and fellowship. Like the other nine commandments, the fourth is designed to enable man to serve his Creator better.

Let Christians take seriously their responsibility to observe the Lord’s Day. But let their observance be the product, not of a sterile legalism, but of spiritual vitality. The secular world may not pay much attention to words, but it may well be summoned to give attention to the claims of Christ by the actions of his followers. Observance of the Lord’s Day is one of the most obvious of the Christian practices. Perhaps God will use it to gain the attention of our contemporaries and have them consider his sovereignty both in creation and in redemption through Jesus Christ.

Milton D. Hunnex is professor and head of the department of philosophy at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon. He received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Redlands and the Ph.D. in the Inter-collegiate Program in Graduate Studies, Claremont, California. He is author of “Philosophies and Philosophers.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.