BRETT MURPHY: SABBATH OBSERVANCE

The Decalogue Series: Fourth Commandment "Respect the Sabbath", a sermon by Rev'd Canon Brett Murphy

In Christianity, Sunday, the first day of the week, is recognized as the day of Jesus' resurrection. The earliest Jerusalem church met daily for fellowship, teaching, and worship (Acts 2:46; 5:42). As the church expanded, regular first-day-of-the-week gatherings developed for breaking bread, corporate worship, and collections (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). It is also referred to as "the Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10, but the text never explicitly identifies it as the Sabbath. Moreover, it is questionable whether the early church regarded the Lord's Day as the Sabbath, since its earliest theological assumptions were shaped by Judaism, where the Sabbath already had an established identity. The New Testament never presents observance of the Sabbath as a binding legal requirement, In this respect, the fourth commandment stands apart from the other commandments, as Sabbath observance is never explicitly reaffirmed as an obligation for New Covenant believers. While the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21) receive substantial affirmation throughout the New Testament, with nine being clearly restated and reinforced in apostolic teaching, the Sabbath command is not directly renewed in the same manner.

The Sabbath command was given specifically to Israel as part of the Old Covenant and was a sign between God and Israel.

And the Lord said to Moses, “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you. You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’” (Exodus 31:12-17).

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13).

Murphy states that Christians are not exempt from "a form of the Sabbath" Murphy: "Sunday.. the first day of the week is a form of the Sabbath.. Our day of worship  and rest now falls on the Sunday, the day of the resurrection of Christ from the dead."

Murphy sends mixed messages regarding Sunday worship. On one hand, he maintains that church attendance on Sunday is not compulsory. On the other, he argues that it is "as close to being compulsory as can possibly be without being legalistic." He further states that habitually missing church for reasons he considers frivolous, including work commitments, constitutes disobedience. He also characterizes working on Sunday as a "heinous sin" and criticizes those who do not attend services except in cases of serious illness. This appears to be a case of going beyond what is written and giving tradition a level of authority not explicitly supported by scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6). 

Murphy's sermon mirrors the central Sabbatarian error found among groups such as Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh Day Baptists, the Church of God, and other Sabbath-keeping movements. Although these groups differ on which day should be observed, the common error is the same: elevating a theological assumption into a divine command without explicit scriptural warrant. In the case of seventh-day Sabbatarians, the assumption is that the Sabbath command remains binding upon Christians. In Murphy's case, the assumption is that first-day Christian gatherings stand on the same footing as the biblical Sabbath and therefore constitute its continuation in a new form.

Within Sabbatarian theology, interpretive conclusions are sometimes drawn that extend beyond the explicit statements of scripture. While the New Testament records gatherings on the first day of the week, as noted above, it never identifies that day as the Sabbath. The issue arises when an established ecclesiastical practice is treated as a biblical mandate despite the absence of an explicit New Testament command.

Paul's teaching presents the observance of particular days as a matter of personal conscience rather than universal obligation. His approach permits diversity of practice, with each believer responsible for acting according to sincere conviction rather than external pressure or enforced conformity.

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17).

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5).

Hebrews 4:9-10 teaches that Christ provides the true Sabbath rest for believers, a spiritual rest from our own works.

Murphy's accusatory tone is evident in statements such as: "Is it much to give two hours on Sunday to God when you spend countless hours at work or pleasure?" Such rhetoric can function less as pastoral encouragement and more as coercive guilt-based persuasion. Appeals of this kind may place believers under unnecessary pressure while also serving leaders' desire to maximize attendance. Rather than insisting that Sunday attendance is equivalent to a divine command binding on all Christians, it is more accurate to describe regular Sunday gathering as a longstanding and valuable church tradition.

Murphy goes further into the realm of theological speculation than biblical exegesis, stating:

"The Christian Sabbath is not merely a weekly day of resting and worship. Each Sunday is a bold declaration to the dark forces that have a grip on this world that Christ is king, that he has risen in victory and has trampled down the forces of death, hell, and sin. Worship is an act of spiritual warfare. It is a rallying cry for the disciples of Christ to join together in prayer and praise which makes the armies of hell quake in fear."

The difficulty is not with affirming Christ's victory over sin, death, and the powers of darkness, but with attributing effects to Sunday worship that scripture itself does not explicitly attribute to it. The argument proceeds largely through assertion rather than demonstration, advancing claims about spiritual warfare and the reaction of demonic forces without grounding those claims in the immediate biblical text. Consequently, the statement functions more as theological rhetoric than as exegetical argument.

Biblically, worship is first directed toward God's glory; any spiritual-warfare dimension is secondary to that primary purpose. Nor should we assume that Sunday worship is the sole context in which God's presence, power, and favor are manifested among His people. Scripture does not confine God's powerful activity to Sunday worship. The New Testament consistently portrays God working through the prayers, worship, and faithful obedience of His people wherever they may be. (e.g. Acts 12:5,12-14; Acts 16:25-34).

While I affirm the importance of meeting together on the Lord's Day, the reality for many believers is that they are unable to find a church they regard as doctrinally sound. The condition of contemporary Christianity has made this a significant challenge. In my own experience, spanning many years, I have been unable to identify a nearby church that I could confidently describe as sound. Aside from more obvious doctrinal deficiencies, many churches have adopted ecumenical approaches with little apparent recognition that such practices directly conflict with biblical teaching. 

Brett Murphy bears the title "Reverend" and serves as a vicar in the Free Church of England (FCE). Psalm 111:9 contains the sole occurrence of the English word "reverend" in the King James Version, where it is applied exclusively to God. Murphy has attracted controversy for his views on women's ordination and LGBTQ+ issues, and was removed from ministerial office following remarks that included describing female priests as "witches".

While I reject the ordination of women and the adoption of progressive woke ideological frameworks as inconsistent with my understanding of New Testament teaching, I regard ecumenism as an equally serious departure. Both the Church of England and the Free Church of England maintain ecclesiastical structures that incorporate honorific titles and clerical offices extending beyond those explicitly prescribed in the New Testament. From this perspective, such practices derive more from ecclesiastical tradition than from apostolic instruction.

The FCE affirms the historic Christian doctrines of Christ's return, the resurrection of the dead, and final judgment. However, its approach to ecumenism is more complex. The denomination participates in Churches Together in England, an ecumenical body that includes the Roman Catholic Church and numerous other denominations. From my perspective, this raises significant concerns regarding doctrinal separation and ecclesiastical boundaries. Furthermore, while the FCE affirms the core elements of historic Christian eschatology, it does not appear to adopt an official millennial position.

The deeper issue concerns the nature of church authority and ministry itself. The New Testament presents a model in which all believers share a common standing before God rather than belonging to distinct priestly classes. Consequently, systems that elevate certain individuals through sacerdotal offices or honorific titles may be seen as departing from the simplicity of the apostolic pattern and relying instead upon later ecclesiastical developments.

The deeper issue, however, concerns the nature of church leadership itself. The New Testament presents a different model. Under the New Covenant, all believers share in a common priesthood rather than belonging to a hierarchy of distinct priestly classes. As Peter writes: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). This language is directed to the entire body of believers, emphasizing their collective priestly standing before God rather than the existence of a separate sacerdotal order.

Biblically, the priesthood is not restricted to a clerical class but belongs collectively to God's people. Likewise, Revelation 1:5-6 declares that Christ made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, emphasizing the privileged position of all believers in their direct relationship with God.

Hebrews 4:14-16 further teaches that Jesus Christ is the great High Priest through whom believers have direct access to the throne of grace. Because Christ alone mediates between God and His people, no earthly priesthood is required to stand between the believer and God. The New Testament consistently presents Christ as the sole High Priest and all believers as priests in Him. Consequently, the distinction between a clerical priesthood and an ordinary laity finds no support in apostolic teaching.

In the early church the offices of bishop (episkopos, overseer) and elder (presbyteros) appear to have been one and the same. Local congregations were ordinarily governed by a plurality of elders or overseers, with passages such as Acts 20:17,20:28 and Titus 1:5-7 using the terms interchangeably. During the early second century, however, a more defined episcopal structure emerged in which a single bishop exercised oversight over presbyters and deacons. The claim that the bishop emerged as a distinct, monarchical ecclesiastical office after the apostolic period remains a significant position within Protestant scholarship, particularly among traditions influenced by sola scriptura. Episcopal traditions dispute this interpretation, arguing that the historic episcopate represents a legitimate continuation and maturation of apostolic oversight rather than a substantive innovation.

Murphy is affiliated with Cei Dewar, false prophet Chris Wickland, and the Make Great Britain Christian Again movement. I consider these associations to be highly problematic.