...here's some thoughts on the Sabbath year and the Jubilee year.

Sabbath year (see Leviticus 25)
In the Sabbath year regulations, the Lord commanded obedience from the people to allow the land its sabbath and commanded the land to provide for the needs of the people during that sabbath. The sabbath year was a demonstration of the land's relationship with the Lord as its creator and redeemer, just as the sabbath day was a demonstration of the people's relationship with the Lord as their creator and redeemer.

Just as the sabbath day gave the people limited, temporary respite from the curse of painful toil, so the sabbath day gave the land limited, temporary respite from its curse in producing food (see Genesis 3:17-18). This rest was a foretaste of the future, final redemption from that curse.

It's worth noting that sabbath rest is never equated with total inactivity. God, on the seventh day, rested from his work of creation but not his works of sustaining and providing. Our sabbath rest is a rest from toilsome labour but not from works of service (see Luke 19:1-27). The sabbath rest of the land will not mean inactivity but unfettered fruitfulness.

Jubilee year
Leviticus 25 makes several contrasts between the sabbath year and the jubilee year which are helpful in correcting some common misunderstandings about the jubilee.

Where the Sabbath was for the land, the jubilee was for the people. There was rest for the land but there was also a restoration of land to its owners and a release of enslaved landowners to return to their land. Inevitably this restoration had economic effects, but the aim of the jubilee was not wholly (nor, I would argue, primarily) economic. Forms of wealth other than land were not redistributed. In particular, city properties were exempt from the regulations. And it seems plausible to argue that the 50-year cycle of the jubilee was intended to prevent individuals from regaining their land and to emphasise the continuity of the family inheritance.

Rather, it seems better to interpret the jubilee as an institution for the preservation of the family unit. Land was not reallocated at the jubilee. Instead, there was a general 'homecoming'. Each family had their land, land which had been given to them by the Lord, land through which the Lord provided for their needs, land on which they were responsible for observing sabbath, land which was inextricably bound up with the exercise of their faith.

There is nothing here to suggest the underlying principle of state-enforced wealth distribution which is usually associated with the word 'jubilee' today. What was important in the jubilee was not so much restoration of wealth, nor of equality (since there was no redistribution to make up for shortcomings in some family holdings). What mattered was the family-land unit which was central in the relationship with the Lord.

Someone put a glossy brochure from the Keep Sunday Special campaign in my pigeonhole today. I don't know who it was, so I'm just going to explain here why I won't be supporting this campaign against the new government proposals to extend Sunday trading hours or possibly to remove all restrictions on Sunday trade.

KSS 'believes that any extension of Sunday trading hours would be damaging to our society.' They argue that this issue is not just one of cultural heritage but has particular importance for Christians.

The Sabbath 'principle'
Bizarrely, they argue that the Sabbath as instituted under the old covenant is NOT binding upon Christians since 'under the new covenant we're saved by what Jesus has done, not by keeping the law.' They don't say how they think people were saved under the old covenant if not by what Jesus had done. Nor do they say why they think that God's laws have changed. And, although they recognise that Jesus showed his disciples how to understand and obey the OT Sabbath law properly, they think that really what Jesus was showing was the principle 'of having a day off for our own good' which hasn't changed.

Now that's very odd, since in the OT the Sabbath never seems to be 'for our own good'. It is a memorial of creation (Exodus 20:8-11); a reminder of redemption (Deut 5:12-15) and a promise of sanctification (Exodus 31:12-17). It is a Sabbath to the Lord, a way of honouring Him, not of looking after ourselves.

So it seems very strange to think that in any of this there is a 'principle' of a day off for our own good, which applies to non-believers as well as to covenant people.

Sabbath activities
According to KSS, Sundays as a day off give us time for God, time for ourselves and time for others. We need a shared day off so that we can meet with other Christians at church. We need time for ourselves to relax and to recharge. And we need time to spend with our family and friends.

Obviously it's true that we need to meet with other Christians. And there's enough examples of people in the bible going off to pray by themselves to suggest that this is a good idea too. And of course our family and friends are important.

But what has any of this to do with Sabbath? The early church met every day (Acts 2:46) and the exhortation in Hebrews 10:24-25 doesn't suggest that these meetings are limited to one day of the week or even the formal church meeting. And shouldn't we pray on our own every day? And make time for friends and family throughout the week?

Consumer choice
So here we get to the real point. The KSS people say they 'don't want to tell people what they can and can't do on a Sunday.' But that's exactly the point of their campaign! They do want to say that certain people can't work on a Sunday and that none of us can shop on a Sunday. They claim to be protecting the freedom of choice of those who would rather not work on a Sunday.

If people don't want to work on a Sunday they don't have to. If people don't want to shop on a Sunday they certainly don't have to. At lunch today, I was discussing this issue with someone from Kenya who said that shops are free to open on Sundays there, but very few do because everyone's at church so no-one's going shopping. There's nothing to stop people here from boycotting shops on Sunday if they choose. And if they did, it wouldn't take long before the shops were shut again and no-one was asked to work on Sundays. The KSS campaign is all about restricting people's freedom by means of the law.

Whose decision is this anyway?
Which leads to the final point. The KSS campaign is premised on the idea that this is an appropriate matter for the state to control. Which is extraordinary. How does a religious institution, specifically designed as a reminder of our relationship with the Lord, ever come to be considered a matter for state control?

I choose not to shop on Sundays. I organise my life so that I don't do academic work on Sundays. I make spending time with my church family and other Christian brothers and sisters a priority on Sundays. I do all this freely as an expression of my love for the Lord and as an expression of my obedience to his law.

But I don't think any of this has a bearing on what non-believers choose to do with their time and nor do I think that any of this is the business of the state. If pastors choose to exhort and discipline their congregations on Sabbath observance, well and good.

So, I won't be signing the online petition, telling my friends, writing to my MP or raising the issue in my community. But I will be encouraging Christian brothers and sisters to observe the Sabbath and I will be sharing the gospel with unbelievers and praying for the advance of the gospel in this country and across the world. I think that's a much better way of keeping Sunday special.