|
Post by Admin on Dec 5, 2023 16:41:31 GMT -5
From A Baptist Catechism with Commentary By W.R. Downing
What is the Fourth Commandment?
Ans: The Fourth Commandment is, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Ex. 20:8–11)
Quest. 51: What is the significance of the Fourth Commandment?
Ans: The Fourth Commandment reveals that God is sovereign over time, and requires man to keep as holy unto God such times as he has appointed in his Word. See also: Gen. 2:2–3; Ex. 16:25–30; 23:10–12; 31:13–17; Lev. 19:30; 23:3; 26:2; Numb. 15:32–36; Deut. 5:12–15; 2 Kgs. 4:22–23; Neh. 13:15–22; Isa. 58:13–14; Ezk. 23:38; Amos 8:4–5; Matt. 12:1–13; 28:1; Mk. 2:23–28; Lk. 4:16; 23:56; 24:1; Jn. 7:22–23; 20:1, 19; Acts13:14–41; 17:3; 20:7; Rom. 14:5–6; 1 Cor. 16:2; Gal. 4:10–11; Col. 2:16–17; 2 Thess. 3:10–12; Heb. 4:1–11; 10:25; Rev. 1:10; 10:5–6. COMMENTARY The Fourth Commandment reveals the absolute sovereignty of God over man with regard to the use of his time—labor, rest, worship and recreation. The Sabbath, reflecting the rest of God upon finishing the work of creation, comes to man as a Divine blessing and gift, not a restriction or burden (Isa.58:13–14). The division of this Commandment is four–fold:
First, the strongest admonition both to remember the Sabbath and to keep it holy [set apart].
Second, the recognition of work,
Third, rest from work.
Fourth, the reason for the Sabbath. It reflects the Divine rest after the work of creation—a rest of pleasure and satisfaction.
The First Commandment reveals the absolute sovereignty of God over our worship; the Second, the spirituality of our worship; the Third, our inward– attitude in worship. The Fourth Commandment reveals the absolute sovereignty of God over our time—work and rest, worship and vocation, labor and recreation. One must work before he can rest. Six days are the God–given time– frame for work. Note that six days of work are not necessarily commanded, but rather that all man’s work is to be done within six days that he might rest on the seventh: The opening words “Six days shalt thou labour…” must not be arbitrarily separated from the remainder of the statement, “…and do all thy work,” implying a six–day time–frame for work that the Sabbath might remain separate as a day of rest.
The weekly Sabbath was not the only “Sabbath” that God commanded Israel to observe. There were weekly (Ex. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15), monthly (Numb. 28:11–15; Rom. 14:5–6) and yearly Sabbaths (Ex. 12:1–20, 43–50;Lev. 23:15–44; Numb. 28:16–25; 29:1–40), one observed every seven years (Ex. 23:10–11; Lev. 25:1–7, 18–22; 2 Chron. 36:20–21) and one observed every fifty years (Lev. 25:8–18). Some were purely rest–days, some were feast–days and some were days of corporate worship. To correctly understand the full significance of the weekly Sabbath, one must understand the whole Sabbath–principle commanded by God. The following is a short study on the various “Sabbaths”:
The Sabbath–principle of Israel was a principle of rest for man, animals and the land, instituted by God. It looked back to creation and Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, looked to God in covenant–relationship and looked ahead prophetically to the redemption of the whole creation. This principle was also a principle of celebration. Both typically anticipated the redemption– rest in the Lord Jesus Christ and in future glory (Deut. 5:12–15; Rom. 8:18–23; Heb. 4:1–11; 2 Pet. 3:7–18). To be biblical and consistent, one must make a distinction between theprovisional [ceremonial, civil] and the perpetual: The Sabbath [rest and worship]–principle is perpetual, as reflected in both God’s creation–rest (Gen. 2:2–3; Ex. 20:11) and the need for man to rest, i.e., “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27). The Sabbath–principle points ahead to the redemptive rest in the Lord Jesus Christ (Deut. 5:12–15; Heb.4:1–11. Note that Heb. 4:9 literally reads “a Sabbath rest” in the Gk.), and so has a typical significance which will find complete fulfillment in the final redemption of man and the earth, when the Sabbath rest of God and man shall find its ultimate realization (Rom. 8:18–23; 2 Pet. 3:13). What, then, in essence, is the perpetual and ultimate significance of the Sabbath? The Sabbath is described as “the Sabbath of the Lord God,” i.e., his Sabbath and is traced back to his primeval rest of celebration, accomplishment, satisfaction [“all was very good”] and anticipation (Gen.2:1–3). The national or covenant significance to Israel was both temporary and typological (Ex. 16:25–30; 23:10–12; 31:13–17; Deut. 5:12–15), awaiting its true and full significance among believers within the New or Gospel Covenant (Heb. 4:1–11).
Believers are now brought into union with Christ and so rejoice in his finished redemptive work and spiritually “rest” by faith in him. We celebrate our glorious salvation. Note the anticipation of that “[Sabbath–]rest which remaineth for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9). We await our future glorification (Rom. 8:14–23) and the restoration of all creation which, again, will render everything pristine and “very good” in the creation of “new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:7–13). With creation ultimately and infallibly restored, and the elect of God finally and fully redeemed, the full and final rest of God will be accomplished. The Sabbath then, ought to be a celebration of our redemption, a delight, a rest, both physical and spiritual and an anticipation of that glory which is to come. Such thoughts ought to sanctify and make the Lord’s Day a delight. While it is true that in neither the Old or New Testaments did God explicitly change the weekly Sabbath from the seventh to the first day, since the resurrection of our Lord, Christians have met on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Acts 2:1ff; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). It was our Lord’s resurrection–day, the Day of Pentecost, which marked out the New Testament church as God’s ordained institution for this Gospel economy by the empowering of the Spirit; and anticipates the full and final restoration of all things, of which his resurrection was but the first declaration. The first day (traditionally “Sunday”) thus distinguishes Christian worship from Jewish worship. This was the inspired apostolic practice throughout the New Testament. Thus, observing the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day is not merely traditional; it is implicitly and explicitly biblical (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.16:2).
Have you found that promised rest in the Lord Jesus?
Do you find the Lord’s Day a delight?
Do you take time to anticipate and rejoice in the coming Sabbath of creation?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 5, 2023 16:55:17 GMT -5
Rules about the Sabbath. Nicolas Byfield Hitherto of the Rules, that concern the parts of God's worship: The rules, that concern the time of God's worship, follow, and this time especially is the Sabbath day.
Now the rules, that bind us to the good behavior concerning the Sabbath, concern either the preparation to the Sabbath, or the manner of performing holy duties on the Sabbath. The preparation to the Sabbath, contains in it these things. First, the ending of all our works on the six days, as God did his: Gen. 2.
2. This example of God is set down, not only to show what he did, but to prescribe unto us, what we should do, as is manifest by urging this example in the reason of the commandment: We must then take order to finish the works of the week days with such discretion, that neither our heads be troubled with the cares of them, nor our hands tempted to work about them on the Sabbath day.
Secondly, the preventing of domestical grievances, and perturbations, Levite. 19.
3. Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father,and keep my Sabbath. Discords and contentions, and heart-burnings in the members of the family, extend their infection, and hurt, even to the profaning of God's Sabbath. The Lord looks not to be served aright in his House, if people live not quietly, and lovingly, and dutifully in their own houses.
Thirdly, we must cleanse ourselves, that we may keep the Sabbath,Nehem. 13. 22. Which place, though it speak of Legal cleansing, yet it shadows out that Moral and perpetual care of cleansing ourselves, that ought even to be found in us. And thus we do cleanse ourselves, when we humble ourselves, that we may walk with God, confessing our sins, even the sins of the week past, & making our peace with God, through the name of Jesus Christ.
Thus of the duties of preparation: Now for the manner of keeping the Sabbath, the rules prescribe unto us these things:
1. Rest from all our works, whether they be works of labor, or works of pleasure. Works of labor the Scripture instanced in such, as are selling of victuals: Neh.13.15. Carrying of burdens: Jer.17. Journeying from our places, Exod. 16. 29. The business of our callings done by ourselves, our children, servants, or cattle, which the words of the Commandment forbid. And as works of labor, so also works of pleasure are forbidden, Isaiah 58. 13.
2. Readiness and delight. We should love to be God's servants on this day, Isaiah 56. and consecrate it with joy, as a glorious privilege to us, Isaiah 58. 13. abhorring weariness, or a desire to have the Sabbath gone, and ended, Amos 8.
3. Care and Watchfulness. We must observe to keep it: Exod. 31. 16.we must take heed to ourselves, that no duty be omitted, and that we no way profane it, tending our hearts, and our words, Jer. 17. 21.
4. Sincerity, and this sincerity we should show diverse ways.
First, by doing God's work with as much care, as we would do our own, or rather showing more care for the service of GOD. They had their double sacrifices on the Sabbath, in the time of the Law, and we should study, how we might please GOD in especial manner on that day, choosing out the things that might delight him: God hath taken but one day of seven for his work; and shall we not do it willingly? Further, if we respect our selves, shall we not be as careful to provide for our souls on the Sabbath, as for our bodies on the weekdays?
2. By observing the whole day, as well as a part, and keeping the Sabbath in our dwellings, as well as in God's house: God requires the whole day, and not a part. As we would not be contented our servants should work for us only an hour, or two in the six days: so neither should we yield less unto God, then we require for our selves. Nor will it suffice to serve God by public duties in his House, unless we serve him also by private duties in our own dwellings, Commandment 4. Levite. 23. 3.
3. By avoiding the lesser violations of the Sabbath, as well as the greater, especially not transgressing of contempt, or willfulness in the least things we know to be forbidden.
4.The Prophet instanced: Isaiah 58. 13. We must not speak our own words. Thus of sincerity.
5. The fifth thing required of us, is Faith: we must glorify GOD by believing, that he will make it a day of blessing unto us, and perform that blessing he hath promised, accepting our desire to walk before him in the uprightness of our hearts, and passing by our infirmities, and frailties. We many times disturb the rest and Sabbath of our souls by unbelief, Commandment 4. Genes. 2.2.Exod. 31. 13.Eze.20. 20. & 46. 2, 5.
6. The last thing is Deprecation: we must beseech God, when we have done our best, to show us mercy, and spare us for our defects and weaknesses. Thus we must end the day, and reconcile ourselves to GOD, that the Rest of Jesus Christ may be established in our hearts, Neh. 13. 22. And thus of the rules, that bind us to the good behavior, in respect of the time of God's worship.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 5, 2023 17:18:12 GMT -5
CHAPTER 22 Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day Paragraph 1 The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. Jeremiah 10:7 Mark 12:33 Deuteronomy 12:32 Exodus 20:4-6 Paragraph 2 Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to him alone; not to angels, saints, or any other creatures; and since the fall, not without a mediator, nor in the mediation of any other but Christ alone. Matthew 4:9 10 John 6:23 Matthew 28:19 Romans 1:25 Colossians 2:18 Revelation 19:10 John 14:6 1 Timothy 2:5 Paragraph 3 Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one part of natural worship, is by God required of all men. But that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of the Spirit, according to his will; with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and when with others, in a known tongue. Psalms 95:1-7 Psalms 65:2 John 14:13,14 Romans 8:26 1 John 5:14 1 Corinthians 14:16,17 Paragraph 4 Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter; but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death. 1 Timothy 2:1,2 2 Samuel 7:29 2 Samuel 12:21-23 1 John 5:16 Paragraph 5 The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord's supper, are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear; moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, ought to be used in an holy and religious manner. ( Psalms 107 1 Timothy 4:13 2 Timothy 4:2 Luke 8:18 Colossians 3:16 Ephesians 5:19 Matthew 28:19,20 1 Corinthians 11:26 Esther 4:16 Joel 2:12 Exodus 15:1-19 Paragraph 6 Neither prayer nor any other part of religious worship, is now under the gospel, tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed; but God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and in truth; as in private families daily, and in secret each one by himself; so more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken, when God by his word or providence calleth thereunto. John 4:21 Malachi 1:11 1 Timothy 2:8 Acts 10:2 Matthew 6:11 Psalms 55:17 Matthew 6:6 Hebrews 10:25 Acts 2:42 Paragraph 7 As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. Exodus 20:8 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 Acts 20:7 Revelation 1:10 Paragraph 8 The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. Isaiah 58:13 Nehemiah 13:15-22 Matthew 12:1-13
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 5, 2023 17:33:14 GMT -5
Are There Two Distinct Reformed Views Of The Sabbath? Does The Continental View Really Exist? by R. SCOTT CLARK on September 2, 2013 | 55 Comments Recovering the Reformed Confession-FeaturedOn Twitter Anthony Bradley pointed us to a webpage by Ra McLaughlin on the Sabbath. There is good material there but there are also a couple of items that warrant discussion. The one on which I want to focus in this post is the use of the expression “the continental tradition” with respect to the Sabbath. As reflected on this page, it is widely held that there are two distinct Reformed views of the Sabbath, the British or Westminster Standards position and “the Continental view.” It is sometimes argued that the so-called “Continental View” was Calvin’s. Thence people point to the relative brevity of Heidelberg Catechism on the Sabbath and finally one will likely read something about Cocceius on the Sabbath. The implication is usually that the so-called “Continental View” is less rigorous than the British view.
This way of speaking would be a surprise to the Continental Reformed tradition. Let’s define our terms. The adjective “continental” is a little slippery. It’s not always clear what is meant by it. Sometimes it refers to the Dutch Reformed churches. It might include the Germans, the French, and perhaps Geneva. Often, judging by usage, it seems to mean, “Reformed folk who don’t speak English” and are European. The unstated assumption behind this way of writing and speaking is that there were (and are) two distinct traditions, the European (mainly Dutch) and the British (and American). Such ways of speaking and thinking would have been foreign to the classical Reformed writers in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yes, they spoke their own vernacular languages but they all wrote and spoke Latin. They were quite conscious of belonging to single Reformed tradition. The British Reformed (Scots, English, Welsh, Irish) were reading the Dutch, German, French, and Swiss Reformed and vice versa. There was no consciousness in the classical period of a distinctly “British” or “Continental” view of anything. There was simply an international Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
Let’s consider four cases. I made this case at length in RRC so I won’t belabor (on Labor Day) here but much of what has been written about Calvin’s allegedly “continental” view of the Sabbath is simply not well grounded in the sources. What typically happens is that writers appeal to a passage or two from the 1559 Institutes and then call it a day. This way of reading Calvin is deeply flawed. The only way to understand Calvin properly is to read him the way he intended to be read. One must start with his biblical commentary, then go to a treatise (the Institutes or some other), and then to go to his sermons. When one reads Calvin holistically, in context, his view of the Sabbath is quite difficult to distinguish from what is alleged to be a distinctly (and harshly) British view.
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) did speak to the Sabbath:
103. What does God require in the fourth Commandment?
In the first place, God wills that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained, and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church, to learn the Word of God, to use the Holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest form my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath.
Ursinus’ lecture on the Christian Sabbath were translated into English and available to students at Oxford University by 1587, where his lectures on the catechism were a part of the curriculum. In his explanation on this question Ursinus observed,
That the first part is moral and perpetual, is evident from the end and the causes of the commandment, which are perpetual in their character. The end or design of the commandment is the maintenance of the public worship of God in the church; or the perpetual preservation, and use of the ecclesiastical ministry.
He wrote that the second part of the commandment is distinctly Mosaic, ceremonial, and temporary. He distinguished between the Israelite “sabbaths” and “the Sabbath.” The Sabbath itself was grounded in creation. It is part of the abiding moral law of God. He distinguished between servile works, i.e., those that hinder worship.
Third, though we mainly think about the Synod of Dort (1618–19) in regard to the doctrine of salvation, the Reformed Churches actually met there to discuss more than responding to the Remonstrants (Arminians). They discussed the life of the church and they formulated a position on the Sabbath that is not clearly distinct from what was held by most British Reformed congregations and confessions. The Synod distinguished between that which is perpetual or creational and that which was temporary or Mosaic in the Sabbath. The intent, however, of these rules (canons) on the Sabbath, adopted in May, 1619, was to make clear that the Sabbath is not abrogated along with the old, Mosaic covenant.F
Fourth, it is frequently asserted or implied that Johannes Cocceius (1603–69) corrupted the Reformed consensus on the Sabbath. E.g., the Theopedia entry claims, “In one of his essays he contends that the observance of the Sabbath, though expedient, is not binding upon Christians, since it was a Jewish institution.” The picture in the original texts, however, is more complicated. In §21 and §338 of the Summa de foedere he recognized that the Sabbath was a creational institution. He taught that it had perpetual validity. He recognized that the Mosaic Sabbath legislation was “moral in nature” while acknowledging that the punishments attached to it, under Moses, were temporary and that there were other temporary aspects to the Mosaic legislation. He also observed the eschatological (i.e., the heavenward looking) aspect of the Sabbath. His doctrine of the progressive abrogation of the covenant of works caused him to argue that the Decalogue was not a covenant of works. He was adamant that the covenant of grace was administered through the Mosaic legislation. These sections of the Summa are difficult but it seems clear that he taught that though the Jewish Sabbath a type and shadow of the future Sabbath rest that would be given in the new covenant, “nevertheless,” he wrote, “it remains true that the [Sabbath-rest] of the New Testament must be observed together with its sanctification. In every possible way the New Testament’s Sabbath rest can be considered and practiced and maintained.
There were Cocceians who, because of the heated polemical context of the fight with the Voetians, took stronger, less conservative views of the Sabbath, I’m not confident that we can read those views back into Cocceius, just as we cannot read the adoption by some Cocceians, of a the Cartesian epistemology, back into Cocceius himself.
Yes there is some diversity within classical Reformed theology on the Sabbath but it is diversity within unity. There is a Reformed view of the Sabbath. There is a fundamental unity that God has established a 1 in 7 pattern in creation. To that creational law was added typological and temporary Mosaic legislation but the Sabbath was not grounded in the Mosaic law and covenant but in creation, i.e., in the nature of things. The Sabbath principle, then, remained in force in the New Covenant. The day was transformed from the last day to the first by the bodily resurrection of the Son of God and the inauguration of the new creation but the Sabbath principle and practice remained.
Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 5, 2023 17:36:33 GMT -5
The Sabbath Institution | Obligation, Sanctity and Observance 1 By Professor John Murray
The questions relating to the weekly day of rest and worship are of perennial interest and concern. The circumstances in connection with which these questions arise differ from generation to generation, from family to family, and from person to person. But the basic questions are always the same. Any argument for or against the weekly Sabbath which fails to come to terms with these basic questions is one which misses the point of the debate. This is why a great deal that has been written in the interests of libertinism is a begging of the question, and, sad to say, a good deal written and pleaded in behalf of Sabbath observance has lacked the cogency of divine sanction. The argument for the perpetuity of the Sabbath rest stands or falls with the question of divine institution and obligation. Whatever expediency might dictate, it can never carry the sanction of law and it cannot bind the conscience of man. There is no law of expediency; it changes with circumstance. And what changes with circumstance is not universal and perpetual law. The recognition of this is necessary not only to guard law; it is also necessary to guard liberty. If we once allow expediency to dictate law then we are on the road to tyranny, and conscience is no longer captive to the law of God but to the variable fancies of men. There are three questions that must be dealt with if controversy regarding the Sabbath institution is to be placed in proper focus and if the perpetuity of this ordinance is to be established. These are the Obligation, the Sanctity, and the Observance of the Sabbath.
I. THE OBLIGATION. When we assert the obligation of the Sabbath we are not dealing simply with its obligation under the Mosaic economy. It is the question of its perpetual obligation; it is the question of the relevance to us of the institution which was defined for those of the Mosaic economy in the fourth commandment. What are the facts which indicate that it is of permanent application?
1. The Sabbath was instituted at creation (Gen. 2:2, 3). It belongs, therefore, to the order of things which God established for man at the beginning. It is relevant quite apart from sin and the need of redemption. In this respect it is like the institutions of labour (Gen. 2:15), of marriage (Gen. 2:24, 25), and of fruitfulness (Gen. 1:28). The Sabbath institution was given to man as man, for the good of man as man, and extended to man the assurance and promise that his labour would issue in a Sabbath rest similar to the rest of God himself. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance and does not derive its validity or its necessity or its sanction, in the first instance, from any
From an address given at Golspie, Sutherland, on August 12, 1953; reprinted in Collected Writings of JohnMurray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), I:205-216. Texigencies arising from sin nor from any of the provisions of redemptive grace. When sin entered, the circumstances under which the Sabbath rest was to be observed were altered, just as in the case of these other institutions. The forces of redemptive grace were now indispensable to their proper discharge. But the entrance of sin did not abrogate the Sabbath institution any more than it abrogated the institutions of labour, marriage, and fruitfulness. The depravity arising from sin did not make in any way irrelevant or unnecessary the obligations emanating from these divine institutions. In a word, sin does not abrogate creation ordinances and redemption doesnot make superfluous their obligation and fulfillment.
2. The Sabbath rests upon the divine example (Gen. 2:2). This is expressly stated in the fourth commandment. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it” (Exod. 20:11). This means that the sequence for man of six days of labour and one day of rest is patterned after the sequence which God followed in the grand scheme of His creative work. God created in six successive days and He rested on the seventh. That is the exemplar for man. In this connection there are a few questions to be asked and the questions contain their answers. Has God’s work of creation ceased to be relevant to us? Has the fact that He created, not in one grand fiat but in the space of six days, become irrelevant? Is not the fact of creation basic to all Christian thinking? The biblical writers should be our monitors in this. How frequently the God of Christian faith and piety is identified by the inspired writers as the God who made the world and all things therein. More specifically, has the fact that God rested on the seventh day ceased to be relevant? God is not now creating; He is resting from His creative work. The sequence of six days of creative work and the seventh of rest is an irreversible fact in the transcendent sphere of God’s relation to this universe which He has made. And now to the most pointed question of all: has the divine example become obsolete? Can we think of the exemplar established by God’s working and resting as ever ceasing to be the pattern for man’s conduct in the ordinances of labor and rest?
3. The Sabbath commandment is comprised in the decalogue. The fourth commandment is not an appendix to the decalogue, nor is it an application of the decalogue, nor is it an application of the decalogue to the temporary conditions and circumstances of Israel. There were ordinances in Israel, regulating the observance of the Sabbath, which were peculiar to the circumstances of the people of Israel at the time, and we have no warrant to believe that they are of permanent obligation. But the fourth commandment itself is an element of that basic law which was distinguished from all else in the Mosaic revelation by being inscribed on two tables of stone. The fourth commandment belongs to all that is distinctive and characteristic of that summary of human obligation set forth in the decalogue. It would require the most conclusive evidence to establish the thesis that the fourth command is in a different category from the other nine. That it finds its place among the ten words written by the finger of God upon tables of stone establishes for this commandment, and for the labour and rest it enjoins, a position equal to that of the third or the fifth or the seventh or the tenth.
4. Our lord has confirmed the relevance of the Sabbath institution. “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Wherefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath” (Mark 2:27, 28). What the Lord is affirming is that the Sabbath has its place within the sphere of His messianic Lordship and that He exercises lordship over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man. Since He is Lord of the Sabbath it is His to guard it against those dis-tortions and perversions with which pharisaism had surrounded it and by which its truly beneficent purpose has been defeated. But He is also its Lord to guard and vindicate its permanent place within that messianic Lordship which He exercises over all things—He is Lord of the Sabbath, too. And He is Lord of it, not for the purpose of depriving men of that inestimable benefit which the Sabbath bestows, but for the purpose of bringing to the fullest realization on behalf of men that beneficent design for which the Sabbath was instituted. If the Sabbath was made for man, and if Jesus is the Son of man to save man, surely the Lordship which He exercises to that end is not to deprive man of that which was made for his good, but to seal to man that which the Sabbath institution involves. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath—we dare not tamper with His authority and we dare not misconstrue the intent of His words. For these four reasons we are compelled to conclude that the weekly Sabbath is embedded in that order which God has established for man as man. As an institution it antedated the fall of man and would have been, therefore, a feature of man’s obedience in a perfect state of integrity and bliss. It antedated the promulgation of the ten commandments at Mount Sinai; the fourth commandment simply defined what the already existing institution was. The commandment finds its place within the summary of the rule of life for man; it is not an appendix nor even a prologue. Our Lord Himself confirms its permanent relevance; the Sabbath was made for man, and the Son of man, as the Saviour of men is its Lord. We must appreciate the cumulative force of these arguments. They mutually supplement and reinforce one another and they all converge to establish the principle that the weekly Sabbath is of perpetual obligation and application.
II. THE SANCTITY. The sanctity of the Sabbath resides in the command to keep it holy or to sanctify it (Exodus 20:8); the sanctity is that which is involved in sanctifying it. There are two elements in the word “sanctify". It means, first of all, to set apart. If set apart it is distinguished from something else. This belongs to the sanctity of the seventh day. There are people who will say that every day is to them a Sabbath, at least that every day is to them the Lord’s Day. This may seem very pious. It seems pious because there is an element of truth in the assertion that every day is the Lord’sday. It is true that we ought to serve the Lord every day and every moment of every day. And our devotion to the Lord should not be one whit less at our weekly labors than in our worship in God’s house on the Sabbath. We should dig or plough with as much devotion to the Lord as we pray or sing in the assembly of the saints. Whatsoever we do we are to do it to the Lord and to His glory. In this connection we should remember that the fourth commandment is the commandment of labor as well as of rest. “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work” (Exod. 20:9). But while it is true that we ought to serve the Lord every day and, in all things, we must not forget that there are different ways of serving God. We do not serve Him by doing the same thing all the time. If we do that we are either insane or notoriously perverse. There is a great variety in human vocation. If we neglect to observe that variation we shall soon pay the cost. One of the ways by which this variety is expressed and enjoined is to set apart every recurring seventh day. That is the divine institution. The recurring seventh day is different and it is so by divine appointment. To obliterate this difference may appear pious. But it is pilosity, not piety. It is not piety to be wiser than God; it is impiety of the darkest hue. The Sabbath day is different from every other day, and to obliterate this distinction either in thought or practice is to destroy what is of the essence of the institution.
The Sabbath Institution 4 The recognition of distinction is indispensable to observance. Too frequently among Christians refraining from certain practices is merely a matter of custom. There is perchance adherence to honoured tradition, but it is the shell without the kernel. Truly, they do not do certain things but this abstinence does not spring from a well-grounded sense of sanctity. And the consequence is that when solicitation or temptation to deviate from custom confronts them there is no recoil dictated by principle—they are the victims of circumstance. It needs to be underlined that Sabbath observance soon becomes obsolete if it does not spring from the sense of sanctity generated and nourished in us by the recognition that God has set apart one day in seven. The second element in sanctity is that the difference which God has ordained is a difference of a specific kind. The Sabbath is set apart to the Lord—“the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exod. 20:10). It is “a sabbath of rest to the Lord” (Exod. 35:2). The Sabbath rest does not mean inactivity. God’s rest on the seventh day after six days of creative activity was not the rest of inactivity. Jesus said, “My Father worketh until now, and I work” (John 5:17). And He said this in reference to this question of Sabbath observance. He justified the activity which the Jews had condemned, and He did this by appeal to the activity of the Father. God rested on the seventh day from His work of creation but He continued to be omni presently active in the work of providence. Hence our rest of the Sabbath is not one of inaction, of idleness, far less of sloth. It is the rest of another kind of activity. It is indeed rest from the ordinary employments of the other six days. There is cessation from that activity and the labor it entails. But it is also rest to or rest in; it is rest to and rest in the Lord. That must mean the rest of activity in the specific worship of the Lord our God. There is release from the labors of the six days but it is also release to the contemplation of the glory of God. Cessation from the labors of the week must itself have its source and ground in obedience to God, and the gratitude which is both the motive and fruit of such obedience will minister to the worship which is the specific employment of the Sabbath rest. This is just saying that rest from weekly labors and the exercises of specific worship are inseparable and they mutually condition one another. In a Sabbath of rest to the Lord we cannot have the one without the other. This is the sanctity of the Sabbath institution—it is the sanctity of separateness and it is the sanctity of concentrated adoration of the glory of the Lord our God.
III. THE OBSERVANCE. It is sometimes said, and it is said by good men, that we do not now under this economy observe the Sabbath as strictly as was required of the people of Israel under the Old Testament. This statement of the case needs examination, and careful distinction must be made if we are to assess it properly. There is an element of truth in it. But there is also a good deal of error. It is true that certain regulations both preceptive and punitive, regulations which governed the observance of the Sabbath under the Mosaic law, do not apply to us under the New Testament. In Israel it was distinctly provided that they were not to kindle a fire through out their habitations upon the Sabbath day (Exod. 35:3). It was also enacted that whosoever would do any work on the Sabbath would be put to death (Exod. 35:2). Now there is no warrant for supposing that such regulatory provisions both prohibitive and punitive bind us under the New Testament. This is particularly apparent in the case of the capital punishment executed for Sabbath desecration in the matter of labor. If this is what is meant when it is said that observance is not as strict in its application to us as it was under the Mosaic law, then the contention should have to be granted. It must be said, however, that this
The Sabbath Institution 5 would be a rather awkward and inaccurate way of expressing the distinction between the Mosaic economy and the New Testament economy in respect of Sabbath observance. For, recognizing to the fullest extent the discontinuance of certain regulatory provisions in the jurisprudence of Israel under the law of Moses, we may still ask quite insistently: What has this to do with the strictness of observance? The force of this question can be made more obvious if we think of the regulatory provisions of the Mosaic law governing the observance of other commandments of the decalogue. There were regulations in connection with the other commandments, regulations which we have no warrant to believe apply to us under the New Testament. For example, in respect of the fifth commandment it was provided that the man who cursed father or mother was to be put to death (Exod. 21:17; Lev. 20:9). In respect of the seventh it was provided that the adulterer and the adulteress were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10). Now, however grievous these sins are, we do not believe that the sanction by which they were punished under the Mosaic law is applicable under the New Testament. Such provisions of the Mosaic law are so closely bound up with an economy which has passed away as to its observance that we could hold to the continuance of these provisions no more than we could hold to the continuance of the Mosaic economy itself. And so we come to the real point at issue; may it be said that we are free to observe less strictly the fifth and seventh commandments? The abolition of certain Mosaic provisions guarding and promoting the sanctity of these two commandments we must recognize. But has the sanctity of these commandments been in any way revoked or the strictness with which we observe them relaxed? The very thought is, of course, revolting. And every enlightened mind and tender conscience recoils from the suggestion. The fact is that the sanctity of these commandments is more clearly revealed and enforced in the New Testament than in the Old, and the depth and breadth of their application made more apparent. Is this not the burden of the Sermon on the Mount? And this is just another way of saying that the demands of strictness in the observance of these commandments are made more patent than they are in the Old. It is because this is the case, because the revelation of the sanctity of the commandments is more abundant and the illuminating and sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit more profuse, that the regulations guarding and promoting the observance of these commandments under the Old Testament have been abrogated. Hence the abolition of these regulations is coincident with the deeper understanding of the sanctity of the commandments. It is this same line of thought that must also be applied to the fourth commandment. Abolition of certain Mosaic regulations? Yes! But this in no way affects the sanctity of the commandment nor the strictness of observance that is the complement of that sanctity. And so it is to confuse the question at issue to speak of observance under the present economy as less strict than under the Old. As in the case of the other commandments, it is the fullness of New Testament revelation and redemptive accomplishment that serves to confirm the sanctity of the Sabbath institution and the strictness of observance demanded of us. The only way whereby the logic of this conclusion could be controverted is by driving a wedge of sharp discrimination between the fourth commandment and the other nine. And this is a position which the proponents of less strict observance have not been successful in proving. Sometimes appeal is made to what Jesus said on one occasion, “It is lawful to do well on the sabbath days” (Matt. 12:12), and these words of our Lord are interpreted to mean that it is
The Sabbath Institution 6 lawful to do on the Sabbath days everything that it is lawful or well for man to do. If that were the case, then it would be lawful to do on the Sabbath everything that man might lawfully do at any time, and there would be no necessary distinction between the activities on the day of rest and the activities of the six days of labor. This word of Jesus was spoken in a context, and the context always determines the meaning of what is said. Jesus was vindicating and defending the doing of certain things on the Sabbath day. If we examine the context we shall find that the works defended and approved by Him are not works of every conceivable kind; they are works which fall into certain categories. These categories are indeed very instructive—they are the categories of piety, necessity, and mercy. A work of piety, that is, work connected with the worship of the sanctuary, is in view when He says, “Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matt. 12:5). A work of necessity is referred to when He says, “Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?” (Matt. 12:3, 4). That is to say, dire necessity warranted the doing of something which under normal conditions would have been a culpable violation of divine prescription and restriction. And a work of mercy is in view when He says, “What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?” (Matt. 12:11). It is this service of mercy which Jesus then in the most conspicuous way exemplified when He said to the man with the withered hand, “Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole like as the other” (Matt. 12:13). It is in reference to such works of piety, necessity, and mercy that Jesus says, “Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days,” and, more specifically, it is in reference to the work of mercy illustrated by drawing a sheep out of a pit and exemplified in the concrete situation by His own miracle of healing the man with the withered hand. The occasion upon which Jesus spoke all these words was the criticism which the pharisees brought against the disciples for satisfying their hunger by eating from the standing grain on the sabbath day. 2 Jesus defended His disciples against this censoriousness, which arose, not from insight into the design of the Sabbath, but from the sophistry by which rabbinical tradition had perverted the Sabbath and turned it into an instrument of oppression and hypocrisy. It is true that we must guard against the encroachments which proceed from pharisaical imposition. This is self-righteousness and will-worship. It completely frustrates the divine design. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. When we encumber the institutions of God with accretions of our own invention we not only pervert His law but we impugnHis wisdom and usurp His authority. We make ourselves lawgivers and forget that there is only
Editor’s note: Do we not see in this instance yet a fourth work justified by our Lord as proper on the Sabbath? Satisfying hunger by picking and eating the grain was not a work of “dire necessity”, nor a work of mercy. Rather, it appears to be what might be called a work of preservation, or a work of continuity, analogous to the preserving work that God continues during His Sabbath rest from the work of creation, or to the preserving work our Lord continues with respect to the spiritual life of His elect during His rest from the finished work of redemption on the cross. In this class would be included all those activities of daily life (hygiene, meals, restoring order, polite conversation, etc.) that “bracket” both the productive labor of the six days, and the works of piety of the Lord’s day, and make for the continuance and preservation of normal daily life throughout all seven days. The Sabbath Institution 7 one lawgiver. Not only the wisdom but the holiness of God is reflected in what He has not required, as well as in what He actually demands. If we add to His law then we suppose ourselves to be better and wiser than God. And that is the essence of impiety and lawlessness. We must not, however, fall into the Charybdis of libertinism because we want to avoid the Scylla of pharisaism. The opponents of Sabbath observance and of its complementary restrictions like to peddle the charge of pharisaism when efforts are made to preserve the Sabbath from desecration and to maintain its sanctity. We should not be disturbed by this type of vilification. Why should insistence upon Sabbath observance be pharisaical or legalistic? The question is: Is it a divine ordinance? If it is, then adherence to it is not legalistic any more than adherence to the other commandments of God. Are we to be charged with legalism if we are meticulously honest? If we are jealous not to deprive our neighbor unjustly of one penny which is his, and are therefore meticulous in the details of money transactions, are we necessarily legalistic? Our Christianity is not worth much if we can knowingly and deliberately deprive our neighbor of one penny that belongs to him and not to us. Are we to be charged with legalism if we are scrupulously chaste and condemn the very suggestions or gestures of lewdness? How distorted our conception of the Christian ethic and of the demands of holiness has become if we associate concern for the details of integrity with pharisaism and legalism! “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: And he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much” (Luke 16:10). Why then should insistence upon Sabbath observance be legalism and pharisaism? This charge can appear plausible only because our consciences have become insensitive to the demands of the sanctity which the ordinance entails. The charge really springs from failure to understand what is the liberty of the Christian man. The law of God is the royal law of liberty and liberty consists in being captive to the Word and law of God. All other liberty is not liberty but the thraldom of servitude to sin
|
|