Return to Basket of Figs Homepage.
CONCERNING
THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT
by
Warren C. Embree
PREFACE
The
following is a written paper of an oral presentation I gave at the Swan Lake
Reformed and Presbyterian Ministerial Retreat. The presentation was a
quasi-debate in which I challenged the Westminster Standards’ (the
Confession’s, the Shorter and Larger Catechisms’) exposition of the moral
prohibitions and requirements of the fourth commandment. The Reverend Dr.
Leonard Coppes opposed me, that is, in favor of the Westminster Standards.
Because of this circumstance, there was a certain give and take process which
does not lend itself easily to be translated into a written form. Therefore,
when I thought it appropriate, I have end noted auxiliary remarks and
observations--please read these end notes. These remarks and observations were
either in direct response to some premise or assumption argued by Dr. Coppes,
or they were in answer to questions raised by the listening audience.
Furthermore,
as there was a certain time restraint placed upon the debate, I was unable to
present all my reasons and proofs, nor was I able to present my understanding
of the Apostle Paul’s exposition of the Decalogue as it is found in his letter
to the Ephesians. Therefore, in the following paper, I have enhanced my
arguments by including those reasons and proofs without note (although, as
further study has persuaded me to alter some arguments, I have noted them), and
I have added an addendum to the end of this paper which demonstrates Paul’s
exposition of the Decalogue and in what way that exposition supports my
position.
Finally,
I agreed to make my presentation at the retreat and to write this paper because
I believed then-- and still believe now--that it is necessary to demonstrate
that those of us who disagree with the sabbatarian interpretation of the fourth
commandment are not antinominian. Not only are we not antinominian, we firmly
believe that those who hold to this sabbatarian interpretation have failed to
make the transition from the types and shadows of the Old Testament to the
reality and truth of Jesus Christ. If the reader desires to dismiss what is
argued below based upon the charge of antinomianism, then the reader is
mistaken. I am most willing to leave
the judgment of the matter in the quite capable hands of the One who spoke from
both mountains, and our Lord, Jesus Christ.
By
way of introduction, I would like to give a brief look at the way in which the
outside world viewed the way in which the Jews and the Christians practiced
“Sabbath keeping.” There are a few historical references to the issue which
provide a telling commentary on the distinction between the way in which the
Jews observed the Sabbath and the way that those not too far removed from the
apostolic teachings practiced the moral requirements of the fourth commandment.
If you look at the Roman historian Tacitus and his section on the Jews, you
find that he was well aware of the Jewish practice of Sabbath keeping. He tells
his reading audience that the Jews are lazy because they refuse to work on the
seventh day of the week. In fact, he writes, “this charm of indolence beguiled
them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction” (Complete Works of
Tacitus, 659). In his section on the Christians, however, he is silent about
this specific charge of laziness.1
This
habit of resting upon the seventh day of the week was so widely known among the
Roman population that Roman generals planned their primary assaults to coincide
with the seventh day.2 It is with this in mind that King Agrippa
(the same who spoke with Paul) warns the Jews against revolt. He tells them
that “if you do observe the Sabbath-days [in the course of war] . . . , you
will easily be taken, as was your forefathers by Pompey, who was the busiest in
his siege on those days on which the besieged rested” (Josephus 489).3
The Jewish historian Josephus (who recorded the previous speech of King
Agrippa) struggled with the problem of refraining from even war on the
Sabbath--especially since the Jewish practice of resting on the seventh day was
so widely known. He himself strove to avoid such conflict on the Sabbath (Josephus
9), but he nevertheless notes without censure that Mattathias (the father
of Maccabeus) concluded that “this rule [which] continues among us to this day
[Josephus’ time], that if there be a necessity, we may fight on Sabbath-days”
(258).4 It is evident that
the Roman (and most probably the Greek) world was well aware of the Jewish
practice of resting upon the seventh day; an awareness that formed political
and military policy toward the Jews.
On
the other hand, even though the Christians were at first considered simply
another sect of the Jewish religion and, even though the Christians were
subject to more vile (if not greater) persecution under Roman rule, yet this
charge of “indolence” is never leveled against the Christians. Pliny the
Lesser, writing to Trajan concerning the proper way to deal with charges of
engaging in Christian activity, professes some confusion on how to handle the
situation. He informs Trajan that he had made inquiries of certain people, had
resorted to torment of some of those called “deaconesses,” yet could not come
up with anything or anyone particular to punish. In the midst of this investigation, he tells Trajan that he finds
“their [the Christians’] main fault” was that
they
were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a
hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a
sacrament (or oath,) not to do anything that was ill; . . . ; after which it
was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal,
which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command (Josephus
658).
There
was no charge nor indication of laziness from Pliny. Neither Pliny, an educated
man, could have been ignorant of the Jewish habit of “Sabbath keeping,” nor
Trajan, who had done battle with the Jews, most certainly was not ignorant of
the Jewish practice of resting on the seventh day. These men found no cause to
address the refusal of the Christians to work on a certain day nor charge them
with being “lazy.”
These
few historical references demonstrate that the Jewish practice of resting on
the seventh day was widely known and that the same practice was unknown among
the Christians. But, some will want to say, these are arguments from silence.
There are no references that explicitly state that the Christian practice was different
from the Jewish one. To this I ask,
what were these early Christians taught by those whom God had given them as
Ministers of the Word? “If, therefore,
those who were brought up in the ancient order of things,” writes Ignatius,”
[possess] a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living
according to the Lord’s Day” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 63
emphasis added).5 Justin Martyr so presented the Christian
practice of not making one day holier than another that, in the voice of
Trypho the Jew, he accuses himself of willingly ignoring those Scripture
passages which enjoin such a practice (Dialogue with Trypho 207). The
charge was precipitated by Justin telling Trypho that the purpose of the
Sabbath day was for a “sign” (204), and the charge is answered by arguing that
the Sabbath was given to the Israelites as means of recognizing and
acknowledging their sinfulness and unholiness (208). Justin argues:
Do
you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths? Remain as you
were born. For if there was no need of
circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and
sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there for them now, after
that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born
without sin (206 emphasis added).
Irenaeus,
whose extant work Against Heresies contains a great deal on the
applicability of the Decalogue for Christians and is directed expressly
against the antinomian position of Marcion, states that “the Lord [Jesus
Christ] did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, . . . , but. . . He
extended and fulfilled them” (477). Irenaeus goes on to tell us how that righteousness
of Christians must exceed that of the “scribes and Pharisees,” that the
righteousness which Jesus Christ taught requires a spiritual application to the
precepts taught in the Decalogue. He too, like Justin, argues that the Sabbath,
like circumcision, was a “sign.” “These things [circumcision and Sabbaths],
then, were given for a sign; but the signs were not unsymbolical, that is,
neither unmeaning nor to no purpose. . . . But the Sabbaths taught that we
should continue day by day in God’s service” (481 Emphasis added).6
Then here is Tertull1an who, in his Answer to the Jews, remarks that “we [Christians] understand
that we still more ought to observe a Sabbath from ‘servile work’ always, and not
only every seventh day, but through all time” (155 emphasis added). Tertullian, having quoted numerous Old
Testament passages to demonstrate that the Sabbath was often “profaned,”
concludes that “it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God
formerly gave them such a law [Sabbath]” (156).
It
is generally accepted that Ignatius, along with Polycarp, studied under and was
trained by the Apostle John. Irenaeus was Polycarp’s pupil. It is evident from
the writings of these early church fathers (Ignatius died circa 107,
Justin circa 165, Irenaeus circa 202, Tertullian circa 220)
that they all understood that the fourth commandment still held forth a moral
obligation for Christians, but that moral obligation required not a
sanctification of “one whole day seven” but rather a sanctification of every
moment of our lives. “Living according to the Lord’s Day,” says
Ignatius. I submit to you that neither Tacitus nor Pliny nor Trajan found it
necessary to charge the Christians with an unwillingness to work on any given
day precisely because the Ministers of the Word who instructed those early
Christians taught them that every day was holy and that the notion of
“secular” versus “sacred” work was contrary to the Biblical principle that all
work is now holy in Christ Jesus. It is this principle of moving from the
shadows and types of the Old Testament Sabbath to the reality and truth in
Jesus Christ which guided these teachers. Christ did not abrogate nor abolish
the moral principles of the fourth commandment, he “extended” them. That
extension was based on the fact that, in Christ Jesus, we are now free
to be righteous and holy and, as such, we are no longer to look to the lesson
of being confined to “one whole day in seven” for our understanding of
holiness: we are to serve God in holiness every day of our lives.
Over
the years between these early church fathers and the Reformation, however,
things changed. The church and the teachers of the church became more and more
enamored with the notion of “holy days” and the “observance” of days. The
notion of freedom taught by the apostles and so well understood by those early
fathers gave way to a servitude toward days sanctioned not by Scripture but by
the “commandments of men.” This bondage of days was so practiced that Calvin complains
that “we really see how they [those who argue the “fixing of one day in seven”
as still having moral force] profit from such teaching. For those of them who
cling to their constitutions surpass the Jews three times over in crass and
carnal Sabbatarian superstition” (Institutes 400).7 It is against this background that the
Reformers worked out their understanding of the relationship of Old Testament
Law to the New Testament Christian. They understood this relationship, in
harmony with the apostles and the early church fathers, as being one of “type”
to “archtype” or of “shadow” to “reality.” They therefore formulated a specific
understanding of the fourth commandment which corresponds to that general
understanding of this relationship of “shadow” to “reality.”
As
the purpose of this paper (as was the purpose of the debate) is to defend the
“continental” position concerning the fourth commandment over and against that
of the “sabbatarian” (sometimes called “English” or “Puritan”) position, it
seems wise to define precisely what is at variance between these two positions
and, for the sake of focusing the discussion, do this definition before
discussing the interpretative principle of “shadow” and “reality.” The
“continental” position was espoused by Calvin and formulated into creedal form
by Bullinger (Zwingli’s successor at Zurich). The “sabbatarian” position is set
forth most eloquently in the Westminster Standards. At issue is not whether the
fourth commandment is still “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteous” (II Timothy 3:16) as Paul tells us
concerning Scripture. Both the “continental” and the “sabbatarian” position
hold that the fourth commandment still has moral force. What is at variance is
in what way the fourth commandment directs us by that doctrine, reproof,
correction, and instruction in righteousness. Does the fourth commandment
direct us, as the “sabbatarians” teach, to account “one whole day in seven”
holy? Or, as is the position of this
paper and the “continental” position, does it direct us to make every moment
of our lives holy?
John
Calvin wrote that the “truth” or “substance” or “reality” of our “newness” of
life is directed by the fourth commandment, not by “accounting one day holier
than another.” Rather, he argues that the moral requirement of the fourth
commandment “is not confined within a single day but extends through the
whole course of our life… Christians ought to therefore shun completely the
superstitious observance of days” (Institutes 397 emphasis added).
Calvin also notes that the fourth commandment teaches us that “we should all
observe together the lawful order set by the church for the hearing of the
Word, the administration of the sacraments, and for public prayers” (400). In
harmony with these statements of Calvin’s, the Second Helvetic Confession
(written by Henry Bullinger) expresses the same thing. In the article on “Of
Holydays, Fasts, and Choice of Meats” (Chapter XXIV), Bullinger writes:
Although
religion be not tied unto time, yet can it not be planted and exercised without
a due dividing and allotting-out of time. . . . For except some due time and
leisure were allotted to the outward exercise of religion, without doubt men
would be quite drawn from it by their own affairs.
In
regard hereof, we see that in the ancient churches there were not only certain
set hours in the week appointed for meetings, but that also the Lord’s Day
itself, ever since the apostles’ time, was consecrated to religious exercises
and to holy rest; . . . . Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish
observation of the day, or to any superstitions . For we do not account one
day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is itself
acceptable to God. Besides, we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and
not the Jewish Sabbath, and that with a free observation (Creeds of
Christendom 899 emphasis added).
Over and against this
understanding of the fourth commandment is the one set forth in the Westminster
Confession of Faith:
As it is the law of
nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the
worship of God; so, in his Word, by 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 (Creeds of
Christendom 648 emphasis added).
The
Shorter Catechism expresses the moral requirement of sanctifying the day
in even stronger terms. “The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy
to God such set times as he hath appointed in his Word; expressly one whole
day in seven, to be a holy Sabbath to himself” (Creeds 689 emphasis
added). The position of the Westminster Standards, as against Calvin and
Bullinger (as well as a host of other reformers, including the Heidelberg
Catechism and Ursinus’ exposition of the same), states that the moral doctrine,
reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness requires us to
keep “one whole day in seven” holy. (Lest the reader attempt to diminish
the intent of the Westminster Standards, what I would normally make an end note
I make parenthetically. In the Latin, which was the “original” language of the
Westminster, the Confession reads: speciatim e septenis quibusque
diebus deum unum in Sabbatum designavit, sancta sibi observandum [“out
of seven… one day… holy] (Creeds
648 emphasis added). And in the Shorter Catechism sanctum ei observemujs;
integhrum nempe Diem e septenis unim [“to be kept holy; . . .
one whole day out of seven”] (Creeds 689 emphasis added). It
cannot be avoided; the Westminster Standards argues that one day in seven is
holy.) The Westminster Standards, of course, given the fact that they claim
that one day is holy, designate which day that is. “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” (Creeds
649).
The primary difference, then, between the
“continental” and the “sabbatarian” understanding of the moral doctrine,
reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness is not that one is
antinomian and the other is not. Nor is
the difference as to whether some time needs to be set aside for the “exercise”
of religious worship. As Calvin states: “we should all observe together the
lawful order set by the church.”
As Bullinger argues: “except some due time
and leisure were allotted to the outward exercise of religion, without doubt
men would be quite drawn from it by their own affairs.” As the Westminster
Confession notes: “a due proportion of time [should] be set apart for the
worship of God.” Where these positions differ is precisely on the question of
whether or not there are holy days and, specifically, what constitutes
the holiness required in the fourth commandment and in what way it gives us
moral doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
It
is imperative that the reader understand that those who hold to the
“continental” understanding of the fourth commandment do not reject the moral
doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness found in that
commandment. Such a charge is without foundation
and is scurrilous. Moreover, it is necessary to defend this position against
the “sabbatarian” position precisely because the “sabbatarian” position fails
to interpret the fourth commandment properly. In teaching the people of God
that they should still “sanctify” a day, the “sabbatarian” position carries
over the “sign” and “shadow” of holiness which, with the coming of Jesus
Christ--His birth, His life, His work, His death, His resurrection--the reality
of holiness and right worship of God has replaced those signs and shadows.
The Old Testament cannot be understood, nor can the moral doctrine, reproof,
correction, and instruction in righteousness of the Decalogue in general and
the fourth commandment in particular be understood, unless we accept,
understand, and apply this distinction between “shadows” and “reality,” between
“type” and “archtype,” between “sign” and “signified.”
That
the New Testament writers would have us understand that the external
requirements and prohibitions of the Old Testament are not to be carried over
full and complete is evident from both their writings and their example.
Consider, for example, Peter’s vision of “a certain vessel descending [from
heaven], as it were a great sheet” (Acts 10:11). We are to understand that
contained within that “sheet” were a multitude of foods forbidden by Old
Testament law. God, however, commanded Peter to “kill and eat” (Acts
10:13). Peter, however, refuses; he
argues with God that he had never “eaten anything that is common (unholy) and
unclean” (Acts 10:14). God, in His turn, tells Peter that “what God hath
cleansed, make not thou common” (Acts 10:15). Peter demonstrates that he
understood that this “shadow” distinction between “holy” and “unholy” has now
been replaced with the “reality” of the work of Jesus Christ. “Unto to me God
hath showed,” Peter tells us, “that I should not call any man common or
unclean” (Acts 10:28 emphasis added). Where, pray tell, were there men in
that “sheet”? I read of only
“fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven”
(Acts 10:12). But Peter understood. He rightly recognized that, whereas by way
of “shadow” the nation of Israel had been made “holy” (“set apart”) by God, the
“reality” of the case is that in Christ Jesus God denies no man that
exalted position.
Consider
the teachings of the book of Hebrews.
“For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not
the very image of the things, can never. . . make perfect. . .” (Hebrews
10:1 emphasis added). The whole doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction
in righteousness found in the book of Hebrews depends expressly upon this
distinction between the “shadow” of things and the “very image” of the things
themselves. Or consider the teaching of Paul when he tells us “let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new
moon or a Sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the
body is Christ’s” (Colossians 2:16,17 emphasis added).9 Or again, where Paul tells us that the
historical events of the Old Testament “were our example [tupos, “type”],
to the intent we should not lust after evil things” (1 Corinthians 10:6). Or
again, when he teaches the Galatians the distinction between the Old Testament
and New Testament people of God, he tells them to consider the position of the
two sons of Abraham, between Hagar and Sarah, and tells us that this
distinction “contains an allegory” (Galatians 4:24).10 Despite the abuses that have crept in by
understanding the Old Testament with this interpretative principle of “shadow”
and “reality,” it is the case that we will never understand in what way the Old
Testament is to be understood unless we diligently--albeit carefully--apply
this principle.
This
principle applies as well to our understanding of the Decalogue itself. I would
venture to guess that any of the readers who preaches a series of sermons on
the Decalogue begins at least by making a distinction in the prologue. Who does
not--without hesitation and quite rightly I might add--teach the people of God
that, whereas the Israelites were to be obedient to the God who has brought
them “out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2), the
Christian is to be obedient because “being made free from sin, ye became
servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:18)? It is readily evident to those who
preach that the “shadow” of being brought out of the slavery in Egypt has been
fulfilled by the “reality” of being freed from the slavery of sin. We,
therefore, do not look to the exodus for confirmation of this liberty; we look
to the cross.
Or
consider the way in which Paul teaches the fifth commandment in his letter to
the Ephesians. Whereas the fifth commandment recorded in the book of Exodus
enjoins honoring our parents so that “thy days may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee” (Exodus 20:12 emphasis added), Paul teaches
us to consider this promise “that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest
live long on the earth” (Ephesians 6:3 emphasis added). Why does he change
the promise? Precisely because the
“land” of the Old Testament was a “shadow” of the “reality” of the New. In the
New, through Christ and in Christ, “all things are yours; whether Paul, or
Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things
present, or things to come: all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is
God’s” (I Corinthians 3:22,23 emphasis added).ll Even the
“sabbatarians,” in defiance of the fourth commandment, shift their holy day
from the seventh day to the first. Most
arguments defend this shift because it was on the first day of the week that
Jesus Christ rose from the dead and, as such, marked the beginning of the “new”
creation.
It
is in recognition of this distinction between “shadow” and “reality” that
Calvin does his exposition of the fourth commandment. He tells us that we
cannot understand the moral doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in
righteousness of the fourth commandment’ unless we recognize that Jesus Christ
“himself is the truth, with whose presence all figures vanish; he is the body
at whose appearance the shadows are left behind” (Institutes 397
emphasis added). It is imperative that the reader understand that those who
hold the “continental” position do not reject--as is often asserted--the
moral force of the fourth commandment.
What
is at variance is the understanding of the holiness in general, and the
holiness of time in particular, that is enjoined by that commandment. What is
at issue is the argument that those who hold the “sabbatarian” position fail to
recognize the difference between “shadow” and “reality.” It is the
position of this paper (and the “continentalists”) that we cannot understand
the Old Testament if we refuse to accept this interpretative principle
of shadow and reality.
This
is all the more true as it relates to our understanding of the fourth
commandment. Jesus Christ is the reality of all that God has revealed to
us-- including the Old Testament (Hebrews 1:1-3 tells us God spoke “by divers
portions and in divers manners” through the prophets but that Jesus Christ is
“the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance”
emphasis added. Note also John when he says that “no man hath seen God at any
time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him” John 1:18). Jesus Christ is the “reality” and “very image” of the
Old Testament types and shadows; it is He from whom these types and shadows
took their form and shape; it is He Who is the truth and light from which these
types and shadows received their significance. While the glory of this reality
may have been “hid for ages and generations” (Colossians 1:26) by these types
and shadows, it is now “made manifest” to God’s saints. To return to these
types and shadows is to turn away from the very source of truth and light which
produced them. Our focus is to be upon Jesus Christ; we are to acknowledge and
understand that in our interpretation of Scripture God has fashioned all
His revelation to us to drive us to this focus. If we do not accept this, we
will advocate things and practice things which are no more than the silly
superstitions of an unregenerate world. As Calvin says, we must “leave them
behind.”
We
cannot understand in what way the setting aside of “one whole day in seven” in
the fourth commandment is a shadow of a future reality unless we understand why
God gave the Israelites “His Sabbath.” The purpose of the Sabbath Days, as they
defined the relationship between God and His people, defined the righteousness
in which they were to walk, is expressly stated in the book of Exodus:
And
the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel,
saying, Verily ye shall keep my Sabbaths: for it is a sign between me and you
throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord who
sanctifieth you (Exodus 31:12,13 emphasis added).
Lest
there be some reader who would like to argue that this passage reads “Sabbaths”
and not ~ Sabbath (that is, the one mentioned in the Decalogue), God
also has Moses instruct the Israelites that
Ye
shall keep the Sabbath therefore; …. Israel shall keep the Sabbath, . .
.. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in
six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested
(Exodus 31:14,16,17 emphasis added).
This
purpose of the Sabbath being a “sign” that it is the Lord “who sanctifies” His
people is reiterated by the prophet Ezekiel. “I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a
sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctifieth
them” (Ezekiel 20:12 emphasis added). Ezekiel reasserts the same point
later when he writes that God expects the Israelites “to hallow my Sabbaths;
and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the
Lord your God” (Ezekiel 20:20). Ezekiel, however, as a prophet of God and
speaking of things which are to come, tells us what is going to be the reality
of holiness in the future. “My tabernacle also shall be with them,” Ezekiel
writes in behalf of God; “and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And the nations shall know that I am the Lord that sanctifieth Israel, when
my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them” (Ezekiel 37:27,28).
Has
this tabernacle of God, this sanctuary, been built? “And the Word became flesh,
and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14). “Destroy this temple,” Jesus challenged
the Jews, “and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). John explains to
us that “he spake of the temple (sanctuary) of his body” (John 2:21). The
writer of the book of Hebrews tells us that:
Having
therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy places by the blood of
Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the
veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great priest over the house of
God; let us draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water
(Hebrews 10:19- 22).
Is
there little doubt (and I hope there is none, either with the “continental” or
the “sabbatarian”) that the real tabernacle and sanctuary of God has
come? According to Ezekiel, with the
“sanctuary in the midst” of us, the “sign” of the Sabbath that it is the “Lord
that sanctifieth” us has now become reality; that sanctuary is Jesus
Christ and it is in His presence, first as He walked upon the earth and later,
with the presence of the Holy Spirit, that the world now knows that it is “the
Lord who sanctifies us.” “Ye are the temple (sanctuary) of God,” Paul writes,
“and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (I Corinthians 3:16). Therefore the
“shadow” of the sign of the Sabbath has now been replaced by the “reality” of
the very presence of God Himself.
It
is this “reality” of the sanctifying presence of Jesus that He uses to defend
His disciples against the charge of “breaking the Sabbath” (Matthew 12). Jesus had just exhorted His disciples that
they should “take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in
heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls” (Matthew 11:29 emphasis
added). It is “at that season” (Matthew 12:1) that Matthew records the
Pharisees confronting Jesus with the charge that His disciples had broken the
Sabbath. I trust the reader recognizes
that this charge of Sabbath-breaking following the promise of “rest” for the
souls occurred neither by chance nor by accident. Such confrontations by the
Pharisees regarding the right understanding of the Law and Prophets were
designed by God to give opportunity for the “reality” of Jesus to supercede the
“types” and “shadows” which had heretofore hidden Him from the eyes of men. How
then does Jesus answer this particular charge of “Sabbath-breaking?”
The
specific charge (as we Reformed and Presbyterians are wont to call it) was that
the disciples were doing “that which it is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath”
(Matthew 12:2). The disciples, being hungry, had plucked ears of grain and were
eating them (Matthew 12:1). Was this charge by the Pharisees valid? Certainly the mere activity of gleaning from
an unharvested field was not forbidden by Old Testament law (Deuteronomy
23:25). Nor can one find any direct
prohibition against doing said gleaning upon the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the
Pharisees were not making an unreasonable nor unwarranted inference. In the
wilderness, there was to be no gathering of manna on the Sabbath; each family
was to gather enough on the day before to suffice for the Sabbath day (Exodus
16).
Furthermore, the mere
gathering of sticks on the Sabbath constituted sin and was punished by death
(Numbers 15:32). With respect to any work on the Sabbath, no fires were to be
kindled (Exodus 35:3), no burdens were to be carried (Jeremiah 17:21), and no
work in general was to be done (Exodus 31:15). It seems to me that the
Pharisees had drawn no other conclusion than the one the Westminster Confession
does. The Confession teaches that the “ordering of” our “common affairs” are to
be done “beforehand” (Creeds 649).
The
Westminster Confession argues, however, that the Pharisees failed to
realize that “duties of necessity and mercies” are an exception (Creeds 649.
Remember Matthias?). But is this the defense that Jesus uses? As we look
carefully at this passage, remember that it is an object lesson of that
promised “rest” by Jesus. Remember that it is in “this season” that He defends
His disciples. For Jesus Christ does not defend his disciples by arguing
with “necessity and mercy”. No, He argues that any work which is done in
the presence of God and for His service is holy.
Jesus
argues His defense in three stages. First, He points out to the Pharisees that
David and his men ate “showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither
for them that were with them, but only for the priests” (Matthew 12:3). What,
pray tell, does this have to do with the Sabbath? At that response, if I
were a Pharisee, I would furrow my brows in perplexity and throw my head back
in the proverbial double-take. For not a word was mentioned by Jesus concerning
work nor work forbidden on the Sabbath nor exceptions to those prohibitions
against work. What Jesus does mention is “showbread,” and He mentions it
specifically because He is explaining the true nature of holiness.
The
“showbread” (properly, “bread of the face” or “presence bread,” lechem
panim) was part of the holy objects which were to be ever in the temple and
maintained by the priests alone (Exodus 25). Furthermore, it was holy precisely
because it was the priests who prepared the “showbread” and maintained that
“showbread” in the presence of the Lord (Leviticus 24:5-9) .
Now
David and his men were running from the wrath of Saul (1 Samuel 20). They carne
to Ahimelech, a priest, at Nob, and David asked for food. “Give me five loaves
of bread in my hand, or whatsoever there is present” (I Samuel 21:3).
Ahimelech, knowing the restrictions of the use of the showbread, responds that
there “is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy” (21:4). He does
allow to David, however, that if the “young men have kept themselves from
women” it might be possible to give David and the men some of the “holy bread.”
David immediately understands the implications of Ahimelech’s offer. “The
vessels of the young men are holy,” even though it was but a “common
journey” (21:5 emphasis added). David then adds, “how much more then today shall
their vessels be holy.” I and the men are holy, now, today, because, (and David
provides Ahimelech with his own point to ponder), I and my men are on a mission
for the Lord.
Jesus
does not therefore argue that it is because of the “necessity” of hunger that
His disciples are free to eat on the Sabbath. That was not even Ahimelech’s
reason; he did not say “weIl, if you boys are really hungry and there’s no
other food around.” No, he said “but if you and the men are holy.” Jesus is
saying to the Pharisees that his presence sanctifies the very
field in which they walked, the food which was present in that field and that,
like the priests, His presence, sanctifies His disciples.
Jesus’
second defense of His disciples follows upon and conforms with the first. “Have
ye not read in the law,” He asks the Pharisees, “that on the Sabbath day the
priest in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless” (Matthew
12:5 emphasis added). Do not allow yourself to gloss over this assertion of
Jesus that the priests profane the Sabbath. He states sabbaton
bebelousini that the priest treat the Sabbath as “common,” that they
consider it allowable for them to “walk all over” the Sabbath. Pro fanus from
the Latin; doing those things that are outside the perimeters and boundaries of
things holy. Jesus argues that the priests treat the Sabbath in this “profane”
way. But, Jesus adds, they are guiltless of breaking the Sabbath. Why? Because,
as the “sabbatarians” wish to argue, their priestly duties are “necessary” and
therefore, even though they get no “rest,” they must forge on.12
Does God, being merciful and recognizing this incongruity in His law, grant to
these priests a special dispensation? Not at all.
I
would ask the reader to look closely at what Jesus actually says. “I say
unto you, that one greater than the temple is here” (Matthew 12:6
emphasis added). Jesus is telling the Pharisees that work performed for and in
the presence of God is holier than any day could possibly be. Don’t you
see? Jesus is telling the Pharisees “My presence sanctifies this field. My
presence sanctifies the work of these disciples.” They are eating holy
food in holy service. David could eat the “showbread” because the
“Spirit of the Lord” was “mightily upon David from that day forward” after he
was anointed by Samuel (I Samuel 16:13). The priests were “guiltless” in
“profaning” the Sabbath precisely because they labored “in the presence of the
Lord.” Now one “greater than the temple” was here. Jesus is telling the
Pharisees (and therefore His disciples and us) that the real moral doctrine,
reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness directed in the fourth commandment
is service devoted to and in the presence of the glory of God. The purpose of
the “shadow” of “one whole day in seven” was to direct us to the “reality” of a
holy life--a holy life that is practiced and pursued every day of that
life.
But,
the “sabbatarian” wishes to argue with me, is it not the case that Jesus
rebukes the Pharisees by saying “if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire
mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew
12:7)? Is He not, the “sabbatarian” asks, telling the Pharisees that if they
only thought about it a moment, the need to eat is a necessary thing and, if
they had an ounce of compassion, they would not have begrudged the disciples a
little effort on the Sabbath to satisfy that necessity? Look carefully at the
rebuke and consider. Jesus used the same rebuke once before, when the Pharisees
accused him of eating with “publicans and sinners” (Matthew 9:11). In addition to citing their lack of
understanding God’s desire for mercy and not sacrifice, Jesus also asserts that
“I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:13). Is it because
of “necessity” that Jesus must reduce Himself to hob-nobbing with the refuse of
Jewish society instead of the more evidently good and noble Pharisees? Or, as I
wish you to consider, is it because He is telling them that “where the Lord is,
there is holiness”? Jesus Christ
is not telling the Pharisees that it is out of necessity or a sense of mercy
that His disciples should be allowed to pluck grain on the Sabbath. He is
telling the Pharisees that they have not a clue as to what constitutes real
holiness.l3
Jesus
concludes His answer to the Pharisees by stating to them that “the Son of man
is lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8). Is He telling the Pharisees-- as some
wish to argue--that because the “Son of man” is “lord” of the Sabbath, His
“boys” can do whatever they like? Again, as by now I hope the reader
understands, not at all. “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath,” He is recorded as having made part of the argument (Mark 2: 27). What
He is saying is that the holiness which was “signified” in the setting aside of
“one whole day in seven” has been superceded and surpassed by the
reality of the Lord who had sanctified that day. The “image itself” has
now come. He is telling the Pharisees (and His disciples and us) that the
veritable, real, Image and Presentation of holiness itself was standing in
front of them. The lesser “shadow” of the “one whole day in seven” has now been
eclipsed by the greater “reality” of the manifestation of holiness Itself.
Isn’t this the whole point of Chapter 12 of Matthew? “One greater than the temple is here” (Matthew 12:6) He says;
that is, the real Holy One which produced the Old Testament “shadow”
priests is now here. “One greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:41); that is,
the real Prophet which produced the Old Testament “shadow” prophets has
now come. “One greater than Solomon is here” (Matthew 12:42); that is, the real
King and personification of Wisdom which produced the real Old Testament
“shadow” wise kings has now taken charge. Let us not, holding to the “shadow”
teaching of the fourth commandment, fail to understand what Jesus Christ
teaches concerning the Sabbath. The Holy One of Israel has come; let us find
“rest for our souls” in Him--not in some day.
If
we look at the book of Hebrews (and no discussion of the fourth commandment
should avoid looking at the book of Hebrews: after all, it contains the claim that
there “remains a Sabbath rest or Sabbath keeping for the people of God” Hebrews
4:9), we find in what sense the New Testament writers understood the “rest of
God” into which we should desire to “enter.” As we consider what the writer of
the book of Hebrews intends to convey to us in his section on “rest,” we must
keep in mind the context in which that intention was written.14 He
is concerned that we concentrate upon the work of Jesus Christ as our “faithful
high priest” (Hebrews 2:17), and he desires us, in his discussion on the “rest
of God,” to “consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, even
Jesus” (Hebrews 3:1). Furthermore, in the section of the letter in which he
discusses that “Sabbath keeping that remains,” namely, Chapters 3 through 10,
the writer focuses our attention again and again upon the fact that Jesus
Christ is the real priest of God, that He operates in the real
temple of God, that He has brought us into the real presence of God,
that He has actualized the real covenant of God, as opposed to the
“shadows” of these things recorded in the Old Testament. The writer’s
presentation of the “rest” of God cannot be understood without this
interpretative context and consideration.
The
writer first focuses our attention upon the need for us to “hold fast our
boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end” (Hebrews 3:6). He
argues that the Israelites failed to do precisely that (that is, hold fast to
the end), and then he defines for us in what that “boldness” and “hope”
consists. The Israelites, who because of their disobedience and lack of faith
failed, were refused entrance into the Lord’s “rest” (Hebrews 3: 11,19) . The
writer warns us that we should “fear, therefore, lest haply, a promise of being
left of entering into his rest, anyone of [us, actually, you] should seem to
have come short of it” (Hebrews 3:1). He therefore tells us to “give diligence
to enter into that rest” (Hebrews 4:11). But in what does this “rest” consist?
This is truly the critical question. For if we are to be “bold” and give
“diligence” to enter into it, if the Israelites were denied entrance because of
disobedience and disbelief, if we are to “hold firm” to the end, if we are to
beware lest anyone of us “come short of it,” it necessarily follows that we
should understand what this “rest” is that should so capture our attention, our
faith, and our effort.
First,
let us consider the “rest” into which the Israelites failed to enter. The
writer quotes Psalm 95, in which the disobedience and lack of faith of the
Israelites is outlined, and then finishes his quote with God’s pronouncement
“As I sware in my wrath, They [the Israelites] shall not enter into my rest”
(Hebrews 3:11). What is this “rest” that God denied them. In Deuteronomy God
promises rest to the Israelites:
Ye
shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man
whatsoever is right in his own eyes; for ye are not as yet come to the rest and
to the inheritance, which the Lord thy God giveth thee. But when ye go over to
Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God causeth you to inherit,
and he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in
safety (Deuteronomy 12:8-10).
This
promise of “rest” from their enemies Moses reiterates later in Deuteronomy
“when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about,
in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, . . . .” (Deuteronomy 25:19). So there is a promise
to the Israelites of “rest” from all their enemies.
But
the writer to the Hebrews says that Joshua failed to give the rest to the
Israelites into which they were denied entrance (Hebrews 4:8). Yet the book of
Joshua claims that this “rest” from their enemies was accomplished through
Joshua. “And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he
sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before
them” (Joshua 21: 44) . Or again, “and now the Lord your God hath given rest
unto your brethren, as he spake unto them” (Joshua 22:4). Or again, “and it
came to pass after many days, when the Lord had given rest unto Israel from all
their enemies round about, . . . “ (Joshua 23:1). It must be the case that this
expectation of “rest” discussed by the writer to the Hebrews differs from that
of “rest of our enemies round about.” This “rest,” as the writer takes pains to
point out, was denied to the Israelites and, as is critical to any
interpretation of the fourth commandment, is the same “rest” as that which God
enjoyed on the seventh day of creation (Hebrews 4:4). Furthermore, the writer
argues that, since there still remains some to enter into that “rest,” the
Spirit of God “defineth a certain day, To day” (Hebrews 4: 7).15
What,
then, is this “rest” of which the writer to the Hebrews speaks? If we look at
Psalm 95 and the specific disobedience and disbelief that denied the Israelites
entrance into that “rest,” we find a well-defined and specific sin. At issue in
Psalm 95 is that the Israelites be not like their forefathers were at Meribah
and Massah (Psalm 95:8). It was there that the Israelites exhibited that
specific disobedience and unbelief that denied them that “rest” of God. And
what was this specific charge? “They tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord
among us, or not?” (Exodus 17:7 emphasis added). (Sound familiar? If the Pharisees had
recognized, believed, and acknowledged that “the Lord was among them,” they
would not have even thought of questioning the sanctity of Jesus’
disciples’ action on the Sabbath). Look too at the second time at Meribah and
Massah, when Moses failed to speak to the rock as directed by the Lord. God denies Moses and Aaron entrance into the
Promised Land precisely because “ye believed not in me, to sanctify
me in the eyes of the children of Israel” (Numbers 20:12 emphasis
added). The whole episode at Meribah
and Massah revolved around the very issue of holiness. For where the Lord is,
there is holiness. And because of their disobedience and unbelief, the Lord was
compelled to “show himself holy in them” (Numbers 20:13).
Let
the reader consider the whole context of Psalm 95; it is concerned with coming
into the presence of God. “Come
before his presence with thanksgiving” the psalmist exhorts us (Psalm
95:2). “Come, let us worship; and bow
down; Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker” (Psalm 95:6 emphasis
added). What does this “presence” of the Lord” have to do with the promised
“rest”? It is there, as His feet, that
the “resting” place exists. “We will go
into his tabernacles; We will worship at his footstool. Arise, 0 Lord, into
thy resting-place” (Psalm 132:7,8
emphasis added). “This is my resting-
place for ever,” pronounces the Lord; “Here will I dwell; for I have
desired it” (Psalm 132:14 emphasis added). What is the nature of this worship?
What is the single, defining feature of worshipping in the presence of the
Lord? What is the condition of being able to “enter this rest?” Holiness. “Ascribe unto the Lord the glory
due his name; Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness” (Psalm 29:2 emphasis added).
I
trust now that the reader w1ll understand the nature of that “boldness and the
glorying of our hope firm unto the end” which we are to “hold fast” (Hebrews
3:6). It is a “boldness” to “draw near”
“unto the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16). It is our hope to stand and live in
the presence of God “in the beauty of holiness;” not because we ourselves
possess such “holiness,” but because “we have been sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10
emphasis added). It is a trust which accepts that we can now “enter into the
holy place” not as polluted sinners but “by the blood of Jesus, by the way
which he dedicated for us, a new and living way” (Hebrews l0:
19,20 emphasis added). I hope the
reader understands that the writer to the Hebrews is telling us to enter into
this “rest,” to approach the “throne of grace,” to “enter into the holy place,”
to come, in other words, into the very presence of God, not just “one whole
day in seven.” No, he tells us, but
rather “day by day, so long as it is called To day” (Hebrews 3:13).
Enfolded by the holiness which Jesus Christ has purchased for us, we are to
live every day of our lives not only recognizing that “in him we live, and
move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28), but by the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit we “live, and move, and have our being” embraced by the very
presence of God.
This
is all well and good, the “sabbatarian” wishes to argue, and I do not disagree
altogether with what you say, but it is still the case that the writer to the
Hebrews states that “there remaineth therefore a Sabbath keeping (rest) for the
people of God” (Hebrews 4:9). Furthermore, such a “sabbatarian” argues, this
remaining “Sabbath keeping” is a direct inference drawn from the same Psalm 95,
that is, “He again defineth a certain day, To-day” (Hebrews 4:7). How can you
“sentimentalists” deny that the writer to the Hebrews argues that Joshua failed
to bring this “rest” and, afterward, the Spirit of God speaks of another
day, namely, To-day, and the writer specifically asserts that it
is a certain day (tina hemeran)? Not only that, the writer uses
the term sabbatismos to define this “Sabbath keeping” that remains when
everywhere else in the letter he uses katapausin. Surely it must be evident that the writer is telling us to
make “one day holier than another.” Let us look, then, at what the writer to
the Hebrews intended for us to understand by “To-day,” and in what things he
considered a “Sabbath keeping” to remain.
I
wish the reader to note that the writer to the Hebrews unequivocally,
unambiguously, (and any other term the reader can find in some thesaurus that
denies confusion), defines what he means by “To-day.” “Day by day (hekastan hemeran: “each
day,” “every single day,” “each unique
day”),” he writes; “so long as it is called To-day” (Hebrews 3:13 emphasis
added). Therefore, we must understand that when the writer says a
“certain day (tina hemeran),” he is using tina not in the sense
of “one particular” day (in seven). Rather, he uses it in the sense of “anyone”
or “another kind of” day.
Likewise
with his use of allos to speak of “another day.” Again, we must
understand that he is not indicating another “particular” day (again, in
seven). Rather, he is using allos in the sense of “a different sort” of
day. Indeed, when tis and allos
are used together, they very often carry the sense of “any other.”
I cannot leave alone this point of letting
the author of a book of the Bible define his own terms. Again, what I would
normally place in an endnote--in order to force the reader to read it--I have
put the following observation in the body of the paper. If we are to understand
the teaching of the Scripture, if we are to commit ourselves to basing all our
understanding of the doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in
righteousness which the Old Testament provides for us upon the “foundation of
the prophets and apostles,” if we are to “rightly divide” the Word of God, then
we must allow the writers of the New Testament to define and to
interpret themselves. We cannot allow ourselves, no matter how appealing
it may seem, to interpret Scripture based upon the creedal positions we wish to
subscribe to. To be sure, there are passages of Scripture which require the
enlightenment of a systematic theology.
There is no question that the “analogy of faith” demands that we not
ignore one portion of Scripture in favor of emphasizing another. But the writer
to the Hebrews leaves no doubt as to what he intends by “To-day;” “day by day,”
he says, each and every and any sort of day.
To understand his use of the term in any other way is to grant ourselves
the right to define Scriptural terms in spite of the intention of the
author.16
Returning
to the question of a “Sabbath keeping” “remaining,” in what way does the writer
to the Hebrews wish us to understand this “Sabbath keeping?” I would have the reader recall that the
writer’s focus of the whole letter is upon the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Particularly, as he enters into this discussion of “rest,” he would have us
consider “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, even Jesus” (Hebrews
3:1). Furthermore, he enjoins the exhortation to “hold fast our boldness” just
before he quotes Psalm 95. Again,
shortly after speaking of a “Sabbath keeping remaining,” he again exhorts us to
“draw near with boldness” (Hebrew 4:16). Finally, having defined and defended
in what sense “Jesus Christ is the “very image itself” of the Old Testament
“shadows,” he again tells us we have “boldness to enter into the holy place”
(Hebrews 10:19). I would submit to the reader that since the very substance of
“our hope” of “rest” is to be in the presence of God, that the fact that it is
the “blood of Jesus” which has opened the way to that presence (Hebrews
10:19,20), that it is now by Christ, who has “sprinkled” our “hearts. . . from
an evil conscience” and washed “our body. . . with pure water,” that we can
draw near to the presence of God, and that the whole section between Hebrews
4:16 and Hebrews 10:19 defines the means by which we can have “boldness”
to be in the presence of God, what is written to us in Hebrews 10:23-25 defines
the nature of that “Sabbath keeping.”
In
this section there are three specific things which the writer tells us are the
nature of the “Sabbath keeping.”17 First, he tells us to “hold fast
the confession of our hope that it waver not” (Hebrews 10:23). Remember the
exhortation in Chapter 3 of Hebrews. The writer told us to “hold fast our
boldness and the glorying of our hope unto the end” (Hebrews 3:6). That hope,
as has been demonstrated, is the “rest” into which we can now enter; a “rest”
which is defined by being in the very presence of God, in the “beauty of
holiness.” Therefore we, unlike the Israelites at Meribah and Massah who failed
precisely because they raised the question “is the Lord among us, or not,” are
to acknowledge that we walk continually in the presence of God. We Christians, having been sanctified by the
blood of Christ and having been so united to Him that we are “partakers of
Christ” (Hebrews 3:14), are to “sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord:
being ready always to give answer. . . concerning the hope that
is in you” (I Peter 3: 15 emphasis added). We Christians are to account
ourselves “a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:5). This, says Paul, is our “reasonable
(or spiritual) service” (Romans 12:1).
This
“reasonable service” is therefore not confined to “one whole day in seven. ,.
“Holding fast our confession” is to be done day by day, everyday, by
every Christian. The writer to the Hebrews is not simply speaking to
those, who by the grace of God given to them, are teachers and leaders in the
Church.18 Ditch digger,
carpenter, used car salesman, housewife, beautician, mother, father, child, or
what ever else one may be or do for a vocation and calling, each and at all
times is in the holy service of Christ, having now in Jesus boldness to
“walk before the Lord” “in the beauty of holiness.” All have a moral duty to
sanctify everything they say, do, or think--including the very tools used to
perform one’s labor (“In that day,” Zechariah tells us, “shall be upon the
bells of the horses, HOLY UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the Lord’s
house shall be like the bowls before the altar” (Zechariah 14:20 emphasis
added). Compare this with the description of Aaron’s mitre in Exodus 28:36 and
following. Are we to do, like the Roman Catholics, and allow that only the
“clergy” have “holy” utensils? This I
thinking defies the very name of “saints”). This, then, is the “hope of our
calling”: The Lord is among us and, enfolded by the holiness Christ and clothed
in the “beauty of holiness,” everything we do every day is consecrated
to the service of God and His Christ, Jesus. Let us therefore “hold fast to
this confession”: The Lord is among us, and let us not, like the Israelites at
Meribah and Massah, be so foolish as to doubt and to complain “Is the Lord
among us, or not?”
Second,
“let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works” (Hebrews
10:24). It is not fitting that we, who now have boldness through the blood of
Jesus Christ to enter into the presence of God, should fail to wear our
“wedding garment.” Therefore, Paul says, “putting away, . . ., the old man,
that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit” we should rather “be renewed in
the spirit of [our] mind, and put on the new man, that after God hath been
created in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (Ephesians 4:22,23). We
have been “created in Christ Jesus,” after all, “for good works, which God
afore prepared that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). We are to
therefore cease from “dead works” (Hebrews 6: 1) and “press on unto perfection”
(Hebrews 6:1)--a perfection which consists precisely in that “righteousness and
holiness of the truth,” that is, the renewed image of God, so that we walk with
Him not only in the “cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8) but day by day, all day. In
this fashion, by “putting off the old man and putting on the new,” we are like
the land of Canaan which, having the wicked and sinful Israelites removed from
it, was able ‘‘as long as it lay desolate” to “keep Sabbath, to fulfill
threescore and ten years” (II Chronicles 36:21). We “keep Sabbath” then, when
we, “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience” (Hebrews 10:22),
cease our practice of evil works and turn, by “provoking one another” not just “one
whole day in seven” nor even “threescore and ten” but “day by day, so long as
it is called To-day” (Hebrews 3:13). For we walk with God in the “beauty of
holiness,” and in His presence we are to give continual
expression to that “righteousness and holiness of the truth.”
Third, we are to “not forsake our own assembling
together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much
more, as ye see the day drawing nigh” (Hebrews 10: 25). That “day drawing nigh”
is, of course, “the day” that “shall declare it” in which “the fire itself
shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is” (I Corinthians 3: 13) . We are
not “solitary lambs,” nor are we to go it alone. We are to assemble together
for the express purpose of “exhortation” and “provoking one another to love and
good works.” The Scripture elsewhere teaches us what we are to do when we
assemble, and there are clearly defined things we are to do. One, “be filled
with the Spirit; speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing and making melody with [our] hearts to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:18,19).
Two, give “thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to
God, even the Father” (Ephesians 5:20). Three, we are to “subject [ourselves]
one to another in the fear of Christ” (Ephesians 5:21).
Four, “lay by . . . in store, as [each] may prosper” for the purpose of helping
the saints in need (I Corinthians 16:2). Five, that “supplications, prayers,
intercessions, thanksgiving, be made for all men; for the kings and all that
are in high places” (I Timothy 2:1,2). Six, we are to attend to the preaching
of the word, not refusing to hear “him that speaketh” (Hebrews 12:25), but
rather “in season, out of season” receive from that preaching “[reproof],
rebuke, [exhortation], . . . and teaching” (I Timothy 4:2). Seven, when “we assemble [ourselves]
together” we are to properly observe the “Lord’s Supper” (I Corinthians 1:20
and following. I do not think it a stretch to include the sacrament of baptism
as well).
This
then constitutes the “Sabbath keeping” of which the writer to the Hebrews
speaks; a “Sabbath keeping” which is based upon the reality of the
corning of Jesus Christ who is the “very image” of the things. with respect to
the fourth commandment, this reality is to bring us “boldly” into the
presence of God, not just “one day in seven” but “day by day, so long as it is
called To-day.” Our “boldness” in the presence of God is based upon the fact
that Jesus, as the “Apostle and Great High Priest of our calling” has made us
all “a holy priesthood.” Therefore our “Sabbath keeping” consists in
consecrating our whole lives, at all times, in all ways, to service in the
presence of God, “redeeming the time, because the days are evil”
(Ephesians 5:16 emphasis added). We are to “put off the old man and put on the
new” lest, in disobedience and disbelief in the “glory” into which Christ has
brought us, anyone count “the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified
an unholy [or common] thing” (Hebrews 10:29). We are not to think, like Korah,
that God has made us “all holy” and, therefore we can go it alone. We are to
assemble ourselves together for the express purpose of praising, giving thanks
to, subjecting ourselves one to another in fear of, giving of our financial
prosperity to, praying to, listening to, and observing the sacraments of
God. This is the reality
of “Sabbath keeping” prescribed for us as the moral doctrine, reproof,
correction, and instruction in righteousness of the fourth commandment. To
understand otherwise is to return to the “shadow” and count the “blood of
Christ as an unholy thing.”
“What
shall we say to these things?” First, I would have the reader understand that
neither I nor those to hold the “continental” position concerning the fourth
commandment hold any alliance with those who simply dismiss the Old Testament
in general, and the Decalogue in particular, out of hand. I believe without
hesitation and without embarrassment that all “Scripture is inspired of
God and is profitable.” It is the height of arrogance to ignore those things
which the Apostle Paul teaches us are our “examples [types], to the intent we
should not lust after evil things, as they [the Israelites] also lusted” (I
Corinthians 10:6). But it is critical to understand that neither do I, nor
those who hold the “continental” position, consider ourselves living in the
“shadow” of the Old Covenant. Jesus
Christ has come; we now live in the “light” of His truth and grace. We believe,
again without hesitation and without embarrassment, that in order to understand
in what way those “examples” or “types” profit us, we must not ignore the
distinction between the “shadows” and “the very image of things.” To interpret
Scripture in general, and the Decalogue in particular in this kind of ignorance
is to ignore the fact that “in the fulness of time. . . God sent forth his Son”
(Galatians 4:4).
Second,
I would warn those who are “sabbatarians.” This warning is given with as much
love, gentleness, compassion, and lowliness of mind that my sinful heart can
muster. By convincing yourselves that God requires “one whole day in seven” to be
holy and by teaching the same to those under whose care God has placed them,
you are teaching yourself and others to look at the
“shadows”
instead of the Light which had made those “shadows.” God’s intention from
the beginning was to have a people “not having spot or wrinkle or any such
thing; but. . . holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27). Because of the sin
of our first parents, however, and the subsequence “actual sins” of their
descendents, God choose to “hide” this intention in “types” and “shadows.” This
choice was not without cause, for had the world known “they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory” (I Corinthians 2:8). But now is He revealed and,
although before His coming God spoke “by divers portions and in divers
manners,” He has now made known by means of the Light who is “the effulgence of
his glory, and the very image of his substance” (Hebrews 1:1,3). I fear for you
because, denying that in Christ Jesus we now have “boldness” “to draw near unto
the throne of grace” at all times, and we are supposed to “hold fast our
boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end,” you are unwittingly
teaching yourselves and your people to treat the “blood of Jesus which
sanctifies” you and them ''as an unholy thing” (Hebrews 4: 16;
3: 6; 10: 29).
Third,
I would like to give a word of encouragement to those who, like I, accept and
trust in the “continental” understanding of the fourth commandment. “Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new
moon or a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2: 16). “These things are a
shadow of the things to come,” Paul tells us; “but the
body is Christ's” (Colossians 2:17). Do
not ignore the metaphor. Jesus Christ is the real body,
the very “object” which, when the light shines on it, casts a shadow. Granted,
it was a long shadow, but the real High Priest has come. He has opened for us
the “holy place” (Hebrews 10:19). Let no man therefore deny to you the boldness
to enter into that “holy place” any time and all times.
Do not allow any man to raise in your mind and to question whether on Monday or
Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday or Friday or Saturday or Sunday “Is the Lord
among us, or not?” He is with us always, “even unto the
end of the world” (Matthew 28: 20). “Hold
fast,” then, “our boldness and the glorying of our hope firm” unto the very
end. For as with the disciples, so with us: Jesus has sanctified our very
existence and has sanctified everything we do. We serve Him, not the shadows.
We are holy in Him, not in days.
Finally, I wish us all
to take seriously and rejoice in Christ's exhortation and promise:
Come
unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take
my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye
shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light (Matthew
11:28-30).
Let us therefore
accept this “yoke;” let us all, whether “sabbatarian” or “continental,” accept
our roles as a “royal priesthood.” Let us, in other words, be imitators of
Jesus Christ Who, His whole life, was holy and was with His whole life
dedicated to the service of God. Not just “one whole day in seven” but every
moment of that Life. Then we can rest in the presence of God, without fear,
walking in His light and love, glorying in His goodness, clothed in the “beauty
of holiness” purchased for us by the blood of Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory
and our never ceasing adoration and thanksgiving.
1
It is the case that Tacitus exhibits a dislike, if not hatred of the Jews. He
may very well have thought, since the Christians were simply another sect of
these loathed Jews, he did not feel compelled to outline any things other than
in what way they differed from the Jews.
2
I am persuaded that the Greeks (the Ptolemies) were well aware of this Jewish
practice of the Sabbaths as well. I do not think it by chance that Antiochus
attacked the Jewish people on Sabbath days; especially since one of his stated
desires was to force the Jews to discontinue their religious practices. See Josephus
pages 258 and following.
3
Josephus records that, as Pompey began his siege of the temple, he took “notice
of the seventh days, on which the Jews abstain from fighting on those days” (Josephus
436). Therefore, Pompey restrained his men from fighting on that day as well.
Rather, he used the day as a time for destroying the physical defenses set up
by the Jews. Furthermore, it seems that the Jewish people, rather then actively
fighting upon Sabbath days, chose rather to passively defend (Josephus
436 and following).
4
I cannot but help pointing out that the defense “of necessity” was not unknown
to the Jewish people. Therefore, if Jesus would be defending his disciples’
breaking of the Sabbath (found in Matthew 12) as being an “act of necessity,”
He could have very well pointed out to the Pharisees their own traditions.
Jesus was not remiss in doing so elsewhere.
5
While there is some question as to the authenticity of the letters of Ignatius,
the letter to the Magnesians is not in doubt. Furthermore, it is the case that
in the “longer” version of this letter, we find reference to “the Lord’s Day”
as being the “queen and chief of all the days” and that the prophets foretold
that we should look “to the end, for the eight day” (Epistle of Iqnatius to
the Magnesians 63). However, I concur with those who hold that it is the
“shorter” version of the letters which are truly from Ignatius--the “longer”
versions having been introduced to re-enforce later questionable doctrines.
6
I heartily encourage the reader to study Irenaeus. He defended the Old
Testament against the nonsense of Marcion, who would have us believe that the
New Testament Christian has nothing to do with the Old Testament revelation. On
the contrary, Irenaeus argues. He shows that the precepts of the Decalogue were
designed to “bind” the soul, in order that man might “serve God.” However,
Irenaeus argues, “the Word set free the soul;” not for the purpose of therefore
disregarding the Old Testament teachings, but rather pursuing the righteousness
therein “willingly” (Against Heresies 477). I find Irenaeus not only a
meek soul, but one with a keen intellect. He understood the distinction between
“shadow” and “reality” and, rather than running from the problems incumbent
upon interpreting the Old Testament in this way, saw that the difference
between “bondage” and “freedom” lay precisely in the difference between being forced
to perform and being willing to perform. See Heidelberg Catechism
question and answer number one (#1). This “willingness,” however, requires
giving up the type and shadows of the Old Testament and entering into the
reality of a life in conformity to Christ’s life. Was it ever possible for
Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest, to have ever “broken” the Sabbath?
7
In a footnote on this section by Calvin, McNeill provides us with references
for these “constitutions.” He further notes that the “penitential books of the
early Middle Ages indicate heavy penalties for Sunday work” (Institutes 400
note 44).
8
During the question and answer period of the debate at Swan Lake, it was noted
that, while Calvin and Bullinger in principle rejected the sanctity of
“one whole day in seven,” in practice they did just that. Furthermore,
it was argued that in Calvin’s Catechism he argues for “sanctifying” Sunday. I
read all the questions and answers from that Catechism and demonstrated that
this was not the case. Fairbairn argues
much the same thing (that in practice the Reformers held to a “holy” day) in
Appendix A of his book The Typology of Scripture entitled “Views of the
Reformers Regarding the Sabbath” (447-459). Fairbairn also argues that Calvin
and others were merely reacting to the excesses of the Jews. When I remarked
that Bullinger argues that it was a “free observance,” I was accused of
“quibbling about words.”
9. I have specifically avoided Paul’s arguments
as found in Romans 14 and Colossians 2 concerning the charge not to “judge”
anyone concerning “days” because, in many ways, this is rather well traveled
ground. It can reasonably be argued that, in the Romans 14 passage, the context
is dealing with days “outside” the Old Testament revelation. In the Colossians
passage, however, such an argument cannot be made. “Feast day or a new moon or
a Sabbath day” is expressly a Jewish concept, and Paul would have drawn
these terms from nowhere else other than the Old Testament. Furthermore, it is
the case that the Sabbath day is included in this exhortation of Paul’s (It has
been argued to me that Paul intends all other Sabbaths, exclusive of the
seventh day). Ezekiel 46:1 states that: “The gate of the inner court that
looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the Sabbath
day…, and on the day of the new moon it shall be opened.” A little later he
writes “the people of the land shall worship at the door of the gate before the
Lord on the Sabbaths and on the new moons” (Ezekiel 46:3). See also 1
Chronicles 23:31, 2 Chronicles 2:4 (where Solomon states that the temple is
dedicated to the Lord for offerings “morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, and
on the new moons, and on the set feasts of the Lord our God.” By what stretch
of the imagination is Solomon excluding the seventh day?), 2 Chronicles 8:14,
and so forth. In the Old Testament, from which Paul most assuredly drew his
terms “feast day, new moon, and Sabbath day,” the seventh day was included
within that designation.
Another
point concerning “typological” interpretation needs to be made. Care must be
taken that we do not look for Christ “under every rock.” Nor can we allow
ourselves to degenerate into allegorical interpretation. That particular
nonsense has already had enough time in the history of the Church.
10
I understand Paul to use “allegory” here in the sense of “illustration.” It is
therefore like the “examples” or “types” of the Old Testament which, while
being “shadows of the things to come,” nevertheless are not “unmeaning or to no
purpose.” They serve to illustrate the reality of the accomplishments of Christ
Jesus and point us to the fullness of revelation found in Him.
11
Paul also makes this shift from “land” to “world” in Romans 4:13 where he
argues that Abraham was “heir of the whole world.” Genesis 17:8 has God telling
Abraham that “I will give thee, . . ., the land of thy sojournings, all the
land of Canaan.” But Paul is telling us
that, while the “setting apart” of the land of Canaan was a “type,” the
“reality” is the “setting apart” of the whole world.
It is the case that
Dr. Coppes argued that the “land” in the fifth commandment is not to be
understood as the “land” of Canaan. I recognize his arguments; I do not accept
the conclusions. I leave it to the reader to study the term “land” in the Old
Testament and decide for himself whether the use of the term “land” in the
fifth commandment can refer to anything other than the land of Canaan.
12 It is imperative
that the reader recognize this progressive flow of Jesus’ argument. It is not
“necessity” that sanctifies the priests. It is the very presence of God. The
priest sanctifies the bread, the temple sanctifies the priest, the presence of
God sanctifies the temple. The Sabbath was an external sign of presence of God
in our lives. With God Himself among
us, where pray tell, and when, is holiness ever absent?
13
This may seem overly harsh, but Jesus-was not hesitant to force the Pharisees
into recognizing just how far off the mark they were. Furthermore, the avodah
(“prototypes of the work forbidden and permitted on the Sabbath” Steinsalz The
Essential Talmud 109) were based expressly upon those actions necessary
for the construction of the tabernacle in the desert. The mishnah derives
this model (that is, the thirty-nine “prototypes” of forbidden and permitted
‘labors’ from the construction of the tabernacle) because the rabbins believed
that Exodus 35 and following forbid working on tabernacle on Sabbath. Now the reader may wish to assume that Jesus
was ignorant of this fact, but I do not believe in such an ignorant Savior. It
is not for nothing that Jesus is throwing into the faces of the Pharisees the
fact that “one greater than the temple is here.” They did not have it right to
begin with and, with the coming of the real tabernacle of God, they will
never have it right if they persist in their unbelief.
14
Since there is some question as to the authorship of the book of Hebrews, I
have used the unfortunate designation of “the writer to the Hebrews.” I,
myself, waffle every other week. One week I believe the author to be Paul, the
next week, Apollos. Since there are those who would like to argue the point, I
have avoided mentioning anyone as the author. It seems wise to leave a debate
over the authorship of the book of Hebrews to another time.
15
The Reverend Dr. Leonard Coppes recognized and acknowledged that there was a
certain “eschatological” quality about the arguments presented in Hebrews. It
seemed to be the consensus of the listening audience as well.
16
I must make a note on this as well. In 1 Corinthians 14:19 Paul writes “howbeit
in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that
I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” It is
evident from his whole argument on tongues, that Paul asserts that the
“meaning” of a term or word is the “understanding” of the speaker. I realize
that there are any number of interpretative approaches that look for the
meaning of words, terms, and phrases elsewhere. I also realize that those who
pursue these other approaches would consider me “naive” to think that the
meaning of words consists in the intention (understanding) of the author. I
marvel that these people would have me “understand” what they “understand”
by using words. Since understanding is from the Lord and Paul teaches
that the meaning of words is the intended understanding of the author, with all
due respect to intellectual and scholarly study, I shall remain “naive.”
17 Calvin and others
assert a fourth thing, namely, that we should “not inhumanly oppress those
subject to us” (Institutes 400). At the
time of the conference, I agreed with this. However, after a heated debate at
the conference, in which I must admit the position seemed sillier and sillier,
I re-examined the point. After careful study in the book of Ephesians, I have
come to the conclusion that “not inhumanly oppressing those subject to us” more
properly belongs with the fifth commandment. See Ephesians 6:5-9.
18
Jude warns us to beware of the “gainsaying of Korah” (11). Korah, the reader
will remember, challenged Moses’ authority by arguing that God had made them all
“holy,” and Moses said that we will leave it up to the Lord to decide “who are
his, and who is holy” (Numbers 16:1-35). I am not advocating that I can be “out
fishing” and worshipping the Lord while the rest the congregation are attending
the worship service. The fact that all our lives are now sanctified does not
overturn the lawful order of the church nor the requirements of the fifth
commandment. However, I would have those readers who are pastors, elders, and
deacons realize that your service is no more holy than those of us who
pursue other vocations. It is the case that yours is a position of greater responsibility,
but again, this responsibility rests in the fact that you have received
leadership and teaching roles among the people of God. These roles are defined
in the third and in the fifth commandments. There is no longer a “sacred”
clergy; there is, however, to be a well-ordered government.
Furthermore,
it is the case that pastors, elders, and deacons are “set apart by the laying
on of hands” for the express purpose of “doing the Lord’s things,” that is,
teaching, leading, overseeing, being an example to, and watching out for the
Church of Jesus Christ. In this sense, Jesus Christ is a pastor’s, elder’s, or
deacon’s direct “Boss.” Nevertheless, and again, this is not more “sacred” or
“holy;” it is a more responsible position. This is how the apostles
themselves made the distinction (James 3:1; 1 Corinthians 3:10-4:21; Romans
12:1-8; et al). Please note also that Paul implies that anyone who is a
“master” (and I assume, therefore, works “for himself”) has as his
direct “Boss,” the Lord and the slave, while having a “master” over him,
nonetheless has the same “Master. . . in heaven” (Ephesians 6:9).
I
wish the reader to note that the Apostle Paul, having informed the saints at
Ephesus that “we are his [God’s] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:9),
then proceeds with an exposition of the Decalogue. I was not able to
demonstrate this at the conference; so I have included it as this addendum. I
am not concerned with giving a detailed analysis of Paul’s exposition. Nor am I
arguing that it is because Paul gives such an exposition that we are to pay
attention to the Decalogue. I merely
wish the reader to note that all ten commandments are exposited by Paul,
and this exposition teaches us in what way the coming of Christ Jesus has
fulfilled the law and set us free to willingly serve Him. Beyond this, I will
let the reader develop his own uses and applications of Paul’s exposition.
“I am the Lord thy
God, which has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage.” “Ye, the Gentiles in the
flesh, . . . ; were. . . separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth
of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and
without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are
made nigh in the blood of Christ. . . .
So ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens
with the saints, and of the household of God . . . . etc.” (Ephesians 2:11-3:20
inclusive).
“Thou
shalt have no other gods before me”
“There
is . . . , one Spirit, . . . , one Lord, . . . , one God and Father of all. . .
.” (that is, it is no longer Jehovah but the Trinity. Ephesians 4:1-16
inclusive).
“Thou
shalt not make unto thee a graven image. . . etc.”
“Put
away, as concerning your former manner of life, the old man, that waxeth
corrupt after the lusts of deceit; and that ye be renewed in the spirit of your
mind, and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness
and holiness of truth” (Ephesians 4:22-24).
“Thou
shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not
hold him guiltless. . . etc.”
“Let no man deceive
you with empty words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon
the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 5: 6) . “Let no corrupt speech proceed out
of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29). And elsewhere concerning speech.
“Remember
the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . . etc.”
“Lo