Home » Book Review
Category Archives: Book Review
This last part of my review of the book “Continuity and Discontinuity” will compare the sabbatology of Covenantalism and Dispensationalism. The name assigned to each system establishes the primacy of that defining term, that is, whether one believes that covenants or dispensations (as defined by them) best describe the organization and history of God’s kingdom work among men. In this regard, I place myself within Covenantal Theology, but I do not grant as a consequence the idea that the Sabbath is a moral law. The following graph illustrates the logical sequences generally advanced by Covenantal and Dispensational theologians with respect to the fourth commandment.
While these systems present a hierarchy of beliefs, it eventually becomes obvious that ancillary beliefs do not necessarily follow as logical consequences. Given the statement that the Ten Commandments are all moral laws, as advocates of this viewpoint work out the implications of it, they are quite varied in their theological analysis and practical application of a moral Sabbath commandment. While this would be an intriguing matter for study by itself, I will restrict myself to the particular nuances that Chamblin sets forth as representative of Covenantal theology.
Sabbatology. Law is designed to affect the behavior of people within a system, often carrying penalties for non-compliance (Rom 3:19). So, in one sense, law controls us. After all, we do need to be told what to do or not do (or to have confirmed what we already know internally to be right or wrong). And if a certain law delineates behavior in specific ways, then its effect on the group leads to uniformitarianism. There is nothing inherently wrong with sameness; and the church is expected to maintain a certain unity of thought and practice (1 Cor 1:10; 2 Th 3:6). While the opposite of a system of laws is antinomianism, there are no serious Christians who are truly law-less (Matt 7:23; 1 Cor 9:21). While laws do pronounce the guilt of law-breakers, one can be a sinner without subscribing or submitting to the [Mosaic] law (Rom 2:12).
The church is expected to learn from Israel, but the church is not Israel (after the flesh). The church has more liberty in the Spirit than Israel had under the [Mosaic] law. Some [Mosaic] laws are simply null for the church, while others continue as “righteous requirements of the law” (Rom 2:25-29). Paul sees a distinction within the [Mosaic] law between laws like circumcision and laws against stealing, adultery, and idolatry. Because of the change in covenants, there is a new terminology, a new relationship with the [Mosaic] law, new ideas about motivation for obedience, and new concepts when dealing with ongoing sin (non-compliance to the law of God). Holding these views in balance is not an easy task. The presence of divergent views evidences the effect of attributing more weight to some ideas than others. The differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism with regard to the law, the Ten Commandments, and the Sabbath, can be summarized as follows:
- Emphasize the unity of the
covenants of God in general and the similarity of the Mosaic and new covenants
- All laws of the Mosaic covenant are moral in some respect
- Emphasize the necessity of
the law to direct the life of the church, just as it did for Israel
- The church will use the law to convict sinners (evangelical), to restrain evil (civil), and to guide one’s life (personal sanctification)
- Believe that the Ten
Commandments transcend the covenant with Israel, and are universally obligatory
- The commandments epitomize those laws given to Adam and the world
- The law teaches us everything we need to know
- Don’t disobey because you will be punished
- The Sabbath is a moral
- Adam must have known it
- It is in the Ten Commandments
- It was Important for Israel to observe
- The church observes it on Sunday
- Emphasize the obvious NT contrasts
between the Mosaic and new covenants
- The law characterizes the [Mosaic] covenant; grace and truth epitomize the new covenant in Christ
- Emphasize the liberty of
the Christian guided by the Holy Spirit
- Obedience is less of a legal matter, and more about “fruit” resulting from love, edification, and Christ’s teachings
- Believe that the Ten
Commandments are the signature document that summarizes the covenant with
- The commandments are understood through the lens of fulfillment
- We know a lot from the law, but not everything
- Don’t disobey because you are taking advantage of God’s grace
- The Sabbath is a ceremonial
- It was not practiced by anyone prior to the liberation of Israel
- It is in the Ten Commandments to foreshadow the redemption of Christ
- The reality of redemptive rest is fully ours in Christ
- The church has no warrant to observe or keep Sabbath
The Sabbath is a law of the Mosaic covenant. Its importance is demonstrated by its inclusion in the covenant written in stone. And since the Mosaic law commands Sabbath-keeping, both authors (Chamblin and Moo) mention it in their articles dealing with the law.
Matt 12:1-14 relates to the fourth commandment. That mercy is a weightier matter than sacrifice (v. 7, quoting Hos 6:6a) is already evident in Exod 20:8-11 (in that the command provides respite from labor but says nothing about offering sacrifices) and confirmed in 1 Sam 21:1-6 (where David, by securing food for himself and his companions, upholds the sixth commandment). As “Lord of the Sabbath” (v. 8), Jesus abrogates existing Sabbath ceremonial (the disciples are “innocent,” v. 7, for the prohibition against harvesting ceases to apply with the dawn of the end) and underscores the primacy—and the abiding validity—of the law’s moral dimension. He quotes Hos 6:6; he declares his disciples “innocent” (for they, like David and his men, were hungry, v. 1); and he heals an affliction (vv. 9-13).
In the first paragraph, Chamblin condenses a hodgepodge of ideas into a somewhat convoluted statement to establish his conviction that there is an abiding morality to the Sabbath as it is presented in the Decalogue. It is almost disingenuous to state that Exodus 20 describes the moral aspect of the Sabbath (because it doesn’t mention sacrifices) and other texts that he picks describe the ceremonial aspects. I cannot imagine any Christian Sabbatarian relying on Exodus 20:8-11 alone to make their case for a moral Sabbath. The Westminster Confession of Faith cites thirteen other passages to elucidate the multiple obligations of Sabbath-keeping for Christians. Most advocates of a Christian Sabbath do not allow buying or selling on the Sabbath, but that supporting text is found outside the law of Moses (Neh 13:15). The death penalty for gathering sticks on the Sabbath is often cited as evidence for the primacy of the Sabbath, but that event happened before the giving of the law (Ex 15:32ff). And surely, no contemporary Christian Sabbatarian campaigns for capital punishment for working on the Sabbath (or the Lord’s Day, or any other rest-day of one’s choosing).
Chamblin’s citation of David and his men eating the holy bread totally misses the point that Jesus was making—that He has kingly authority to sidestep the lesser laws of the covenant (even though He did not break any laws). Chamblin avoids Jesus’ citation of the priests who work on the Sabbath and are guiltless, because that also demonstrates that Jesus has priestly advantages over the law, and that ultimately, Jesus and his men were not guilty of transgressing the law at all. While the text hints at what we call ceremonial law (His claim to be the Lord of the Sabbath), Jesus was not overtly overturning Sabbath ceremonials at that time as Chamblin affirms.
Matthew 11-12 comprises a distinct unit with several themes connecting the various pericopes. Yang’s in-depth analysis of Matthew 11-12 uncovers two central themes: 1) unbelief and Jesus’ invitation to believe in Him, and 2) multiple Messianic claims. Both of these clearly put our focus on who Jesus is and what He teaches. Concerning the relationship between Matt 11:28-30 and Matt 12:1-14, Yang says, “We may then conclude with some confidence that, for Matthew, understanding our text in the light of its immediately preceding pericope (11:25-30) is imperative.”[i] So Jesus was clearly teaching that He is the ultimate fulfillment of the Mosaic Sabbath laws (i.e., working for our rest), not merely scrapping the sacrifices made on that day! Yang concludes that the real issue behind the Sabbath controversies is not how to interpret Sabbath law, but for Jesus to proclaim His lordship of the Sabbath “since he has fulfilled the Sabbath by providing the eschatological rest (i.e., redemption) which is the ultimate goal of the Sabbath.”[ii]
Chamblin did not mention the text immediately preceding these two conflicts with the Pharisees in which Jesus positions Himself as the true giver of rest (Matt 11:28-30). Matthew’s gospel intentionally put the Sabbath conflicts in contrast with Jesus being the sole provider of rest. The Pharisees were intent on observing the Sabbath, and their focus on the details of correctly observing it made it difficult for them to see that Jesus would fulfill the twofold legal duty to abstain from work and to rest. In addition to reducing these conflicts to mundane matters about eating and healing, rather than Jesus’ kingly authority and His continuously functioning priesthood, Chamblin makes a confusing connection between these Sabbath conflicts and the abrogation of minor ceremonial laws attached to the moral Sabbath. He claims that the disciples were innocent by virtue of the abrogation of the ceremonial law against harvesting on the Sabbath. But Jesus is not abrogating Mosaic laws before He suffers and dies, and He is not admitting that His disciples actually disobeyed laws against “reaping.” They gleaned grain from a field, and this was absolutely permitted under the law (Lev 19:9-10). Chamblin erroneously suggests, in agreement with the Pharisees, that the disciples were “harvesting” on the Sabbath against the law of Moses. Again, Jesus testified that they were truly guiltless of any Sabbath violation. If Jesus intended to instruct them about the legality of gleaning, He could have and would have answered differently.
Of Matt 11:28, Hendrickson pronounces, “It is clear from this passage that ‘coming’ to Jesus means ‘believing’ in him.”[iii] It is also clear that rest for one’s soul is the consequence of believing in Jesus. That is the “benefit” to be had from believing in Jesus as the fulfillment of sabbatic types. This is a salvation matter that Jesus is addressing—not getting three square meals a day. One does not have to belief in Jesus to get “respite from labor,” but one does have to believe in Jesus to be born again and find rest for their soul. Again, Chamblin minimizes the proclamation of the saving power of Jesus and His divine authority—via the theme of sabbatic rest—in preference for a six-day workweek and a full stomach.
Romans 14:1-8 also speaks to the fourth commandment. The same person who “considers one day more sacred than another” (v. 5a) is a Jewish Christian who observes special days (including the Sabbath) as prescribed in the Mosaic Law. The person who “considers every day alike” (v. 5b) is a Gentile Christian. Paul identifies such persons as “weak” and “strong” respectively (14:1-2; 15:1). Paul recognizes that the Jewish Christian keeps the day “to the Lord” (v. 6a). Yet his faith, although genuine and sincere, “is weak” (v. 1). The “strong” understand more fully than the “weak” that OT Sabbath regulations are a shadow pointing to the reality that is Christ (Col 2:16-23), and that Jesus’ inauguration of the kingdom marks the dawn of the great sabbath age to which all prior history had painted. Such insight makes it possible to “consider every day alike” (Rom 14:5). The hallowed character once reserved for the Sabbath is now extended to all other days of the week. Yet the Sabbath age, though truly inaugurated, is only inaugurated. While the present order of creation continues, and until the eschatological tension is finally resolved, the creation ordinance of the Sabbath rest remains in effect. One can esteem all days alike and at the same time honor the Sabbath principle which human beings as creatures require for their well-being. As to the day, Sabbath rest must not be riveted to a particular day, as though the efficacy of the rest depended on its being observe on this day instead of that. (p. 196)
Next, Chamblin believes Romans 14:1-8 is relevant to the Sabbath in the church age. He makes the following statements of fact.
- The faith of the Hebrew-Christian is weak if he observes Jewish holy days, including the Sabbath
- The faith of the Gentile-Christian is strong if he considers every day alike
- If he understands that Christ is the reality to which Sabbath regulations pointed
- Jesus’ kingdom inaugurates the great Sabbath age
- The hallowed nature of the Sabbath is placed on every day, yet
- The creation ordinance of the Sabbath remains in effect for all humanity
- [Because we are not experiencing the complete fulfillment of the Sabbath]
- [One day in seven remains holy]
- So now, one can consider every day alike and at the same time give esteem to the [Christian] Sabbath or Sabbath principle
- Yet the Sabbath can be observed on any day of your own choosing
In Romans 14:1-8, Paul does not use the word “holy” or “sanctified” to describe the character of any of the days in question. There are simply those who esteem, give regard to, or keep certain days and those who regard all days the same as any other (they do not esteem, give regard to, or keep certain days in the same manner as their weaker brethren). Paul has diffused the Mosaic concept that certain days are holy to the Lord, and set apart from ordinary days by the required duties or “mitzvahs” to be performed on those days. There are no holy days since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those Hebrew Christians who are weak in the faith have a difficult time letting go of the concept of holy days. Chamblin is correct in identifying believing Jews as those who still feel compelled to order their lives according to the calendar laws of the Mosaic covenant (including the Sabbath, he says). Paul asks the Gentile Christians to be especially understanding of their Jewish brothers and sisters, and to treat them in a loving fashion. This is because they more fully understand that the calendar laws pointed to Christ—and He is the substance of them (Col 2:16). One would think that if Christ fulfilled the Sabbath and that He presently affords rest for our soul (Heb 4:3), then we would be free from the external observation of the Sabbath. But Chamblin thinks he can weave in ideas that allow the Sabbath to continue as a holy day even though all days are now alike. Remember, he must demonstrate his thesis that the Ten Commandments are all moral laws and that Christians must continue to observe the [moral] Sabbath. This requires the introduction of new terms (the great Sabbath age) and new rules (ceremonial commands continue until they are fully realized).
The first term is the “great Sabbath age.” Obviously, this is not a biblical term, but Jews did view the future kingdom as a kind of ongoing Sabbath—not because of resting from labors pro forma, but from the expected experience of utter peace and well-being consonant with eternal life. From the other Hebrew word for rest—“menuhah”—Heschel explains that it “became a synonym for the life in the world to come, for eternal life.”[iv] The Sabbath was a foretaste or “type” of the future holy relationship between man and God—life eternal. Chamblin explains that Christ fulfilled the Sabbath as He inaugurated His kingdom, but as Chamblin continues, he cannot have a completely fulfilled type. It may be fulfilled enough that at this present time every day is alike—alike in a shared hallowedness; but at the same time, the Sabbath cannot be completely fulfilled, so we, like the Jews, must continue to observe the Sabbath by abstaining from work for 24 hours. There are nuances to this theory. The Sabbath is only partly fulfilled because Jesus only fulfilled Sabbath “regulations,” not the Sabbath “principle.” Chamblin alludes to three such regulations that are abolished: 1) offering sacrifices, 2) the prohibition against harvesting,[v] and 3) the specific day of the week on which the Sabbath occurs. And given his statement that we will ultimately abandon Sabbath-keeping when the full inauguration of the Sabbath-age comes in, we may conclude that resting one day in seven is still a type to be fulfilled. So, on the surface, it does not appear that Christ accomplished very much in terms of abrogating the Sabbath. And if Christ was consistent in fulfilling the other feast-days and new moon celebrations, then only the sacrifices on those days have been fulfilled in Christ, leaving the command to rest from labor intact on all other feast days while we await the consummation.
The second and third terms are presented as a pair by Chamblin: a “creation ordinance” and a “Sabbath principle.” Again, neither are discernibly biblical terms, but they are part of the package that underlies Chamblin’s rule that partial fulfillment necessitates the continuation of [Mosaic] laws until the full disclosure of Christ’s kingdom. This is where the confusion comes in. It is true that the Mosaic Sabbath requires rest from labor, but the Jewish Sabbath, according to Chamblin, is really a continuation of a Sabbath principle enacted from the beginning. The Mosaic Sabbath has “regulations” attached to it. It appears that Chamblin wishes to separate these regulations (that Christ can effectively annul) from the command to rest (which Christ does not annul, but He will later).
This leads to many questions. Is resting from all manner of work every seven days for a 24 hour period a moral law or a ceremonial law? What is the nature of a creation ordinance in relationship to a compelling Mosaic law that has consequences for disobedience? Is the effect of Christ’s fulfillment of moral laws the same as the effect of His fulfillment of ceremonial laws? Leaving these questions unanswered for now, let us turn to Chamblin’s casuistry. He asserts that, “The hallowed character once reserved for the Sabbath is now extended to all other days of the week.” I understand this to mean that by fulfilling the Sabbath regulation (presumably a regulation that had its origin in the Mosaic covenant) the holiness of the Sabbath is now shared among all days. I say “presumably” because Chamblin also introduces a “Sabbath principle” that pre-dates the [Mosaic] law and is therefore unaffected for the time being by Christ’s redemptive work. If this is the case, then the creational Sabbath principle should not carry the connotation of “hallowedness” in contradistinction to the Mosaic Sabbath regulation that does, otherwise Christ’s death and resurrection would be able to affect it. However, Chamblin believes Exodus 20:8-11 captures the essence of the Sabbath principle which assigns sacredness and sanctity to the seventh day of creation, the source and beginning of the moral Sabbath principle that obligates all humanity to rest one day in seven. So, if there was one day of the week that was sacred for all humanity before the giving of the law, and then the Jews were told that hallowed day was Saturday, how is it that since Christ’s death that sanctity or hallowedness is “extended to all other days of the week”? Yet at the same time, Christians are to “keep one day in seven holy unto Him as a Sabbath.”[vi] Chamblin goes on to state that this need not be “riveted to a particular day;” however, the Westminster Confession of Faith states affirmatively that “since the resurrection of Christ [the Sabbath] has been changed to the first day of the week.” His statement that “one can esteem all days alike and at the same time honor the Sabbath principle” appears nonsensical in light of the holiness that God ascribed to the Sabbath. It is not simply whether we esteem days or honor principles, but whether God has hallowed a particular day of the week as He did in the [Mosaic] law, and whether He commands us to keep it sacred by our attention to particular laws attendant to that day.
These are the benefits to believers, according to Chamblin, as the result of the fulfillment of the Sabbath by Jesus Christ—a fulfillment that is limited in scope, for sure, but…
- Allows us to harvest on the Sabbath (but not work) to avoid hunger
- Allows us to do more good on the Sabbath, like miraculous healings, (remember Jesus said the Jews already did good things like pulling a trapped animal from a pit),
- Eliminate sacrifices on the Sabbath (which only the priesthood could do anyway).
- Call any day of the week our Sabbath, because hallowedness is extended to all days of the week (even though God moved it to the first day of the week).
What I find interesting, is that Covenantalists have a strong theological background in classifying the laws of the covenant with Israel as either moral, ceremonial, or civil. It is this very framework for understanding the individual laws of the Mosaic covenant that should lead them to acknowledge the ceremonial design of the Sabbath. The Westminster Confession describes ceremonial laws as those that “pertain to worship and foreshadow Christ, His grace, actions, suffering, and the benefits to be had from believing in Him.”[vii] The question should be: Is the Sabbath a ceremonial law according to this definition? Does it pertain to worship? Does it foreshadow Christ, His grace, actions, suffering, and the benefits to be had from believing in Him? This can be answered in the affirmative at every level and at every point. If the ‘great Sabbath age’ has begun, as Chamblin states, and that ‘great Sabbath age’ represents eternal life, then do not believers in Jesus Christ presently possess and experience eternal life? “He who has the Son has life” (1 Jn 5:12). “Come unto me…and I will give your rest to your soul” (Matt 11:29). Any covenant theologian would and should answer affirmatively.
Citing Colossian 2:16, Chamblin acknowledges that “Sabbath regulations are a shadow pointing to the reality that is Christ.” Note that he associates Christ’s reality to shadowy “regulations” alone—not to the supposed Sabbath principle itself. But really, what is the Sabbath but a list of regulations? Rest on the seventh day from all manner of work; you and your family and working animals (Ex 20:10). Do not cook or make a fire, do not reap and set aside, do not buy and do not sell, and do not go out. (Ex 16:23; Neh 13:16-19). Instead, sanctify the day to the Lord as opposed to doing your own works, finding your own pleasures, and speaking your own words (Isa 58:13). Anyone who despises the Sabbath is worthy of death (Ex 31:14-15) which makes necessary the additional sacrifices on that day (Num 28:9-10). In addition, the showbread must be prepared every Sabbath (Lev 24:5-9). Is Jesus Christ the reality of these regulations or is He not? If so, in what way did the regulations foreshadow Christ, His grace, actions, suffering, and the benefits to be had? Rather than exploring this in detail, the following chart[viii] summarizes the proposed fulfillment of the seven major features of Sabbath-keeping.
•Day and Frequency
•Time to begin and end
•Perfection of Lord’s work in His own time; Lord’s work will surely be completed; Redemption as promised will be fulfilled eternally
•God’s work begins in midst of man’s darkness; Man awakens to the promised rest (enlightened to salvation, resurrected to glory)
•In Your Dwellings
•Presence of and fellowship with God in us, the personal temple; Communion with family of God
•Christ, our representative, makes the requisite propitiation before God in heaven
•The creation events and pattern are redemptive types; God’s rest was disrupted by sin, yet it was only a shadow of a future eternal glory; That rest is only provided by the work of God through the Seed
•Redemption of man implies a previous master: Sin is the bondage from which man must be redeemed
•Do no work
•Salvation not by works and not for purchase; not of yourself or the laurels of others; redemption not only for man but the whole world, and not only for Israel, but strangers to their land; the redeemed are not burdened with the guilt of their sin
• Relational rest in Jesus Christ, the sum of all rest figures; a present soulical rest in salvation by grace through faith; an expected bodily resurrection rest at the end of the ages; the death-rest of Jesus Christ which fulfilled the Sabbath
•Light no fire
•Free from the eternally severe judgment of God for our sins; made acceptable to God by Christ
•Our redemption was foreordained before the creation of the world and therefore, forever sure
•Sin-payment exacted for Adam and Eve through whom the promised Seed should come
•Heavenly bread is sufficient for the life of all the redeemed; All the redeemed are one before the face of God
•Cut Off from Israel
•Exact Death Penalty
•Living death of unregenerate souls apart from God
•Second death of the wicked (who do not obtain eternal rest)
The fourteen (2×7) laws specifically relate to the redemption provided by Jesus. In fact, they tell the gospel story from beginning to end. If the Westminster Confession means anything, then adherents should prayerfully consider its assertion that “All of these ceremonial laws are now nullified under the New Testament.”[ix] That includes the Sabbath—in its entirety.
“In practical terms, this means that the Christian must always view the whole law only under the condition of its fulfillment. No commandment, even those of the Decalogue, is binding simply because it is part of the Mosaic Law. In saying this, I am running smack up against a cherished and widely taught tradition. The singling out of the Decalogue as basic and eternal ‘moral law,’ to be distinguished from the ceremonial and civil law and thereby to be seen as an eternally valid ethical authority, has a long and respected history. Even within this tradition, however, there has been considerable discussion about that to do with the Sabbath command which, at least for the great majority of those who have advocated this approach, has not been applied or obeyed in the form in which it was first given (e.g., as requiring rest on the seventh day). A further difficulty was the question of how to determine what was ‘moral’ law and what not. But the basic difficulty, of course, is that the NT does not approach the matter this way. The whole law, every ‘jot and tittle,’ is fulfilled in Christ and can only be understood and applied in light of that fulfillment. In actual ethical practice, very little is lost. For the NT clearly takes up all the Decalogue, except the Sabbath, as part of ‘Christ’s law’ and thereby as authoritative for believers. But considerable difference in theological construct is involved, and the difference in approach is therefore not at all insignificant.” (p. 217-218)
Moo’s succinct paragraph is targeted at the very ideas presented by Chamblin. While Chamblin’s endorsement of the Sabbath is not strictly aligned with other Reformed expositors, it is nonetheless a cherished tradition involving—as Moo kindly described it—a [less than credible] “theological construct” that does not share much in common with Lutheranism, or for that matter, Evangelicals holding to dispensationalism. Moo’s approach to understanding the relationship between the two covenants includes the following points:
- The whole law must be evaluated in terms of fulfillment
- No commandment is binding
simply because it is stated in the Mosaic law
- This includes the Ten Words of the covenant
- The NT does not evaluate laws on the premise of what is moral or not
- But on the premise that every jot and tittle is fulfilled
- Yet, ethically, little change is evident
And Moo’s critique of the Sabbatarian model includes the following points:
- Those who do believe the Decalogue to contain only moral commands cannot attain consensus concerning the Sabbath command
- Those who advocate Sabbath-keeping do not keep it on the day it prescribes [he does not acknowledge some Christian sects that do]
- The theological construct of Sabbatarians prevents them from recognizing the obvious fulfillment of the Sabbath by Jesus
Beginning with the idea that the whole Mosaic law/covenant is fulfilled in Christ, Moo proposes that every Mosaic law must be examined in light of that fulfillment. This may be a tall order because not every Mosaic law is examined by the new covenant with this rationale in mind. One of the earliest writers is James, and his first citations from the Mosaic law are from Lev 19:18 and Ex 20:13-14. Carson’s assessment of James’ thinking at verse 2:8 lends credence to Moo’s construct.
What James is saying, then, might be paraphrased thus: If you really keep the royal law, the law of the dawning kingdom, the law which is according to Scripture—Scripture as it has been magnificently fulfilled in all that Christ has taught and effected, and that is rightly summarized in ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’—you are doing well. In other words, it appears that James, even while quoting Lev. 19:18, simultaneously uses a number of Gospel categories that remind us of Jesus’ own instruction on the centrality of the first and second commandment, which had substantive impact on how early Christians understood the relationship of their new covenant obligations with respect to the OT law.[x]
James seems to understand the law in the same way that any Jew would understand the law when he mentions the commandments against adultery and murder (Jas 2:11). However, James’ singling out Lev 19:18 as the “royal law” portrays the impact of Christ on his approach to the OT. This may reflect a shift from the traditional Jewish thinking that gave greater esteem to the Ten Words. James is not saying that the only commandment is to love, but neither is he saying that the Decalogue must be rigidly obeyed as a summary of God’s ethical demands. Instead, two commandments expounded by Jesus (Matt 5:21-30) demonstrate that love must come from a heart motivated by the Spirit of Christ.
This is why Moo could state that “in actual ethical practice” there is little difference between the Jew and the Christian. Moo must be thinking of the moral standards that are commonly held by Judaism and Christianity, such as respect for life (contra murder) and commitment in marriage (contra adultery). But Sabbath-keeping is an exception. Moo did not explain how the Sabbath is excepted, so his approach may seem too free and loose to those who are obliged to categories and systems, cherished traditions, and denominational standards.
Sabbatarians tend to hear only two points by Moo: Christ fulfilled the law, therefore, the Sabbath is not binding. However, unstated is Moo’s belief that the NT corpus gives no reason to conclude that the Sabbath is anything but a fulfilled ceremonial law. As important as the Sabbath was to the Jews, its fulfillment in the heart of believers rendered it useless as an external tradition.
Below are two logical streams that finish with the same conclusion: Nine of the Ten Commandments summarizing God’s covenant with Israel are consistent with the ethical norms of new covenant believers. The corollary conclusion is that not all of the Ten Commandments are moral laws.
[i] Yang, Yong-Eui. Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, p. 145.
[ii] Yang, Yong-Eui. Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, p. 302.
[iii] Hendrickson, William. New Testament Commentary, Matthew; Vol. 1, p. 503.
[iv] Heschel, Abraham. The Sabbath, p. 23.
[v] The prohibition against harvesting is a case example of work. If that specific kind of work is annulled, then the prohibition against all work is annulled.
[vi] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21, para. 7.
[vii] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19, para. 3.
[viii] O’Hare, Terrence D. The Sabbath Complete, Appendix Two: “Summary of Sabbath Law” (modified). The demonstration of Christ’s fulfillment of these laws is presented in Chapter 4, of The Sabbath Complete.
[ix] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19, para. 3.
[x] Carson, D.A. “James” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Beale and Carson, p. 1000.
Focusing on the Law
I already provided an overall review of this book, but purposely left out my discussion about the two entries dealing with the “continuity” or “discontinuity” of the law from the Reformed and Dispensational perspectives. I am familiar with both, but an expert of neither. The terms are associated with two systems of thought—Reformed Covenantalism and Evangelical Dispensationalism—but each camp has owned a term, such that the term (either continuity or discontinuity) comes to stand for the theological framework. However, when the terms are taken for what they ordinarily mean—continuity means something continues uninterrupted and discontinuity means something comes to an end or is changed—then both camps acknowledge a wide range of viewpoints. As such, a sound bar best illustrates the mixture and gradations that any one person holds. Yet, even this example is too over-simplified to fully express the wide range of opinions on these topics.
Knox Chamblin (1935-2012), then an instructor at Reformed Theological Seminary, presents a Reformed perspective that emphasizes “continuity” of the law. Douglas Moo, on the other hand, favors “discontinuity.” Moo was also a contributor in the book “Five Views of the Law and Gospel” (1993) and he stated that he presented a Modified Lutheran perspective. While his view of the law may be similar to the viewpoint of other dispensationalists, Lutheran theology does not support the end-times scenario proposed by Darby and Scofield.
Comparison would be a good way to decide what continues and what doesn’t. Should we count the Mosaic commands and the NT commands and enumerate the differences? Are the gospels counted as OT or NT? Are we restricted to the literal meaning of a command in the historical context or are we allowed, for modern times, to spiritualize it or to imagine some continuing moral principle? Do historical events describing the positive and negative behaviors of the people of old count as commands? Do proverbial sayings count as commands? Since the Reformed folk feel that near all ethical obligations are contained in the Ten Commandments,[i] can we assume that there are only ten OT commands to compare? Christians maintain that Mosaic laws can be divided into two or three groups. Is this viewpoint defensible? If so, how shall the details of “ceremonial” commands be counted? Does continuity or discontinuity best label a ceremonial command that is abrogated but a principle within it is followed? None of these ideas are explored and none of these questions are answered by Chamblin or Moo.
Reformed. As Chamblin recognizes, there is a Jewish way and a Christian way. But law is given to God’s people within the context of a covenant, and so there is a continuity on a fundamental level from Mosaic law to Christic law. It is not a different sort of law, if we think of the law enjoining love of God and love for fellow man; however, since the advent of Christ there is discontinuity in the law because it is “newly administered and more deeply expounded than ever before” (p. 182).[ii] The new administration is related to the threefold division of the law—rather “dimensions”—and this is discovered by the New Testament use of Mosaic law.
So begins Chamblin’s discussion of the law before Christ and after Christ. Since mankind cannot keep the law, there needs to be a means to gain forgiveness. This was provided through a system of cultic performances that were an integral part of Mosaic law. Those who believed the Scriptures as delivered by Moses, should be ready to believe Jesus. The reason for the existence of the Mosaic law was to prepare Israel “for a new, more glorious order” (187). Jesus is the object of the Mosaic law, its Lord, and its teacher. His arrival marks the end of the age of the Prophets and the Law, which He fulfills, not abolishes. As the object, He accomplished and brought to fulfillment the anticipatory figures. Scriptures move from the law to the lawgiver, which was the highest purpose of the Mosaic law. The law is not the enemy, but sin is. The law was a tool of sin and now becomes a means of grace with our new Master. Bound to Christ we are bound to His law. The NT does not abolish rules and regulations per se, only the tendencies to supplant God’s law with traditions or to become proud of one’s obedience (p. 189). The details of the law confirm the “childhood” status of the people of God, but now we can convert rules into principles. Jesus does not replace the law, but exegetes it. This brings the age of the law to an end, but not the law itself (p. 190). Jesus does not declare a new law but goes to the heart of the existing law. One rediscovers the command to love, but it is not a new law. Loving one another is new because of the revelation of Christ (p. 191). The Holy Spirit amplifies rather than replaces the witness of Moses. The very law inscribed on stone is now inscribed by the Spirit on our hearts, so we are liberated for the law (p.192). We are not forced by an external command of Mosaic law to obey, but inwardly by the Spirit to obey the heart of Mosaic commandments. Law rests on grace and law is an expression of grace.
Chamblin then continues by discussing the three “dimensions” of the law. With respect to morality, there is continuity. With respect to redemption, there is discontinuity. Obedience to the Decalogue is the same thing as obedience to moral law. In typical Reformed style, he reviews the morality of the Ten Commandments which continue into the “dawn of the great sabbath age,” but there are new mercies and new severities when it comes to divorce (p.197). With regards to the ceremonial law, there is continuity of its inseparable relationship with moral law in both testaments (p. 198). The new covenant is not de-ceremonialized, but re-ceremonialized. Baptism is the counterpart to circumcision, but better because women can do it and it’s not painful. Fasting is encouraged and protected. The temple motif is not discarded but transformed. Tithing is not overturned. The civil dimension, for Chamblin, displays continuity too, but it is a re-civilizing and transformation, because there are new graces, relationships, and obligations (but no mention of new severities).
Finally, Chamblin discusses the “emerging” hermeneutic he uses to bring clarity to his conclusions, one he advances “in a very tentative fashion.” He denies that the NT warrants the idea that moral commands continue and ceremonial/civil commands discontinue. “In some sense, the entirety of the [Mosaic] law remains in force.” At the same time, “the whole [Mosaic] law is… just as surely transformed and reshaped” (p. 200). Interestingly, he lends credence to Kaiser’s (a discontinuity man) framework for determining what particulars of Mosaic law are still relevant to believers. If we use the “ladder of abstraction” from the “level of specificity” to the “level of generality” then we can reject the two opposing axioms that Reformed and Evangelicals have asserted best answers this question.[iii] Chamblin reiterates that law for the Christian is merely a better understanding of Mosaic law, as Christ interprets it.
Analysis. Chamblin’s essay was replete with theological propositional statements. At times I concurred; other times, I was puzzled or in disagreement. It is difficult to discuss the Mosaic law in its historical context without the influence of the perspective of the new covenant. As Chamblin stated, “apart from [Christ, the law] cannot be fully understood” (188). But “the law” in the OT period meant one thing, and “law” in the NT period has a wider range of meaning because of the enactment of the NT. And the gospels hold a unique position because Jesus was living under the [Mosaic] law (Gal 4:4) while at the same time fulfilling it (Lk 1:1; 4:1).
Chamblin’s failure to carefully define “law” (besides it being a “rule of life,” p. 181) and his inconsistent use of the term “law” led to statements that were difficult to assess. He understands that law is given in the context of a covenant but he doesn’t make the connection that the law is the covenant. For example, in his final paragraph discussing the law before Christ, we read this:
“The ‘new covenant’ of Jer 31:31-34 will actually achieve the forgiveness of sins, will entail not a new law but a new and more personal administration of the old (Mosaic) law, and will accomplish, chiefly by those two means, that purpose for which the Sinaitic Covenant had been established and the Mosaic Law given—namely, the deepest mutual knowledge between Yahweh and his people.” (p. 187)
In other words,
- The old covenant did not actually provide forgiveness of sins [So far, so good, from the NT perspective]
- The old law was delivered under a less personal administration [Okay? Moses wrote down what he experienced and what God told him vis-à-vis apostles wrote down what they experienced and heard with Jesus]
- But these particulars were not the real purpose of the old covenant [Okay… Did the Jews really know what the real purpose of the law was?]
- Yet a new administration of the old covenant will provide forgiveness and a deeper relationship with God [What!? The NT is the OT administered in a new way?]
Chamblin states that a new covenant does not require a new law (“not a new law”); that forgiveness will actually be achieved by the Mosaic law under a new administration. However, Hebrews (Heb 7:12) states emphatically that the change of the priesthood (which is the end of the Aaronic priesthood) necessitates a change of the law (which is the end of the old Mosaic law). After all, which priesthood was involved in the Christian’s sin-debt settlement? There must be something wrong with Chamblin’s system if the outworking of it makes him contradict a clear passage of Scripture. Is there a new covenant with its own priesthood and law, or is it really the continuation of the old covenant with an upgraded priesthood that reinterprets the same old law? If the OT is so great, why does it have to be reinterpreted and re-administered?
If Chamblin’s statement is to be understood in the historical context, then it is true that the new covenant would bring a greater measure of obedience and forgiveness, and a deeper relationship with God. The Lord explained to Jeremiah that the reason for a new covenant is because the Mosaic covenant was already broken by the people of God. And it remains a broken law-covenant (Ps 119:126). A new covenant, under these circumstances, cannot simply be a re-instatement of the former covenant. However, if the “law” that will be imbedded in their heart and mind is the very law that they received at Sinai, then the change is very small. Along these lines, we should then expect that the new covenant will be for the same people and in the same land as Jeremiah prophesied. “New” is not a radical, essential change, but an improvement and continuation of previously established covenants that brings Israel into the millennial kingdom. As Rabbi Federow stated: “This new covenant that Gd speaks about in Jeremiah 31 is not talking about a new covenant, a new contract, and He does not mean a new set of laws, a new Torah, a new scripture. It means the covenant between Gd and the Jews and the laws of that covenant are eternal.”[iv] Now that sounds like “continuity.” But as the New Testament understands this passage, the institution of the “new covenant” stamps the [Mosaic covenant] obsolete (Heb 8:13). That sounds like “discontinuity.”
Despite Chamblin’s acknowledgment that the [Mosaic] law is unable to provide redemption, he emphasizes continuity to such an extent that the covenants are nearly equalized. Referring to John 1:17 (law from Moses), Chamblin says the [Mosaic] law is as much about grace and truth as is Jesus, and to see Jesus is to see Yahweh as He revealed Himself at Sinai (p. 188). So much for more a more personal administration. He struggles to avoid admitting any shortcoming or “disparagement” [to reduce in esteem or rank] of Mosaic law. However, Calvin, commenting on this verse, sees this as an antithesis between the old and new testaments. “[John] reminds [the Jews] that what [Moses] brought was exceedingly small, when compared to the grace of Christ. It would otherwise have been a great hindrance that they expected to receive from the Law what we can only obtain through Christ.”[v] When it comes to grace and truth, you’ll find it in spades with Jesus, the testator of the new covenant.
The discontinuity viewpoint is presented by Douglas Moo, who acknowledges the complexity involved in presenting an answer to the question regarding the relationship of the law to both testaments. He decides to give an overview of his opinion that the NT leans more toward a discontinuous attitude toward Mosaic law, while focusing on the likely meanings of Matt 5:17, Rom 10:4; and Gal 6:2 (p. 204).
Beginning with Jesus’ statement that He has not come to “abolish” the law but to “fulfill” it, Moo examines the idea that Jesus merely means to establish or uphold the law, but finds it inadequate a position in view of the contextual contrasts in Jesus’ sermon. While some of Jesus’ teachings are directed against perverse Jewish traditions, most of His demands “go considerably beyond any fair exegesis of … of the actual texts he quotes; nor do most of his demands find support anywhere in the OT” (p. 205). Jesus positions Himself as a new authority. Moo prefers to think that “fulfil” [Gk. πληρόω] means “deepen” or “extend,” and not simply to bring to pass an OT prophecy, nor to validate the law as a code of conduct. “The continuity of the law with Jesus’ teaching is thereby clearly stressed, but it is a continuity on the plane of a salvation-historical scheme of ‘anticipation-realization’.” While the law is to be taught, it must be interpreted and applied in light of its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Paul’s view of the law sometimes resembles what Jesus taught.
Paul taught that Christ is the “end” or “goal” [Gk. τἐλος] of the law for righteousness. Moo asserts that neither word is adequate in itself as we understand them in our language. But it is clear that “end” does not mean the law ceases to function in all regards. The law pointed to Christ; it was a key element in God’s redemptive plan, but not the ultimate provider of righteousness. (p. 207). Paul introduces a new term—the law of Christ—now that Christ has come fulfilling that for which the law was designed (Gal 6:2). Again, Moo reviews a variety of interpretations of this phrase. To assist the reader in understanding this phrase, he elects to review two other concepts: 1) how love is the fulfillment of the law (Gal 5:14), and 2) how Christians are no longer under the law (Gal 5:18).
The quandary throughout the church age is how a Christian is “free from the law” and at the same time expected to be obedient to God’s moral standard. Clearly, to the Jewish mind, if a Christian is free from the law of circumcision, then he is at the same time a law-breaker. Paul’s answer is not so complex as to enumerate which laws from Moses are legitimate and which are not, but to provide a more basic grid to evaluate moral choices in relation to Christ’s demonstration and advocacy of love. Love may thus summarize the law, but acting in love fulfills the law (p. 209). The Christian’s attitude toward the law is elevated through the Spirit, for in one sense the law has already been fulfilled in us, so as we continue to act out of love, we continue to fulfill the law’s purpose (p. 210). This can be done even when excluding such a commandment as circumcision.
Paul also asserted that believers are not under the law. Moo clarifies that the phrase cannot be taken to mean “the law as perverted by men into a means of salvation” (p. 210). Better, it means that Christians are “not being directly subjected to the ordinances of the law of Moses (p. 212). Moo continues to describe the law as a pedagogue and its relationship to the Gentiles. The law was not only culturally specific, it was temporally confined. Moo examines all occurrences of “under law” and sees a consistent contrast with the Christian’s lifestyle, but at the same time cautions against the tendency to totally separate oneself from the law. While the NT stresses discontinuity of the law, the Christian is nevertheless bound to God’s law or the law of Christ. “No commandment, even those of the Decalogue, is binding simply because it is part of the Mosaic Law” (p. 217). Moo concludes with saying, “any approach that substitutes external commands for the Spirit as the basic norm for Christian living runs into serious difficulties with Paul” (p. 218).
Analysis. Moo’s presentation was certainly coherent, moderate, and discursive; and I found myself more in agreement with his understanding of the law. He focused on a handful of verses that are crucial to this topic, and was true to his stated goal to suggest general ideas that give shape to the puzzle as he sees it. I noticed that he did not discuss God’s law prior to the Mosaic covenant or even the concept of moral law (there were a few “brushstrokes”), and he did not delve into the NT teaching that Jesus is the substance of various OT laws or the necessary classification of Mosaic laws. It was as if he intended to explain the apostolic position at their point in time as they promoted the concepts of walking in the Spirit, the virtue of love, and the example of Christ. This is all before the church tried to explain this position with a breakdown of moral, ceremonial, and civil commands.
The Jews moved from one form of slavery to another (2 Cor 3:9). They could not experience the full measure of freedom in their deliverance until the fullness of times arrived. “Their rest was a memorial of the Lord’s sinless seventh-day rest and a token of the future eternal rest; it was a reminder that their inward state of sinfulness must be despised as a slave despised his mistreatment and that they must call out to God for redemption from their sins as a slave would call out for redemption from slavery.”[vi] This, I believe, is what Paul meant by calling the law a pedagogue-someone to provide instruction for the greater matters of adulthood. Once maturity is attained, there is no longer a need for such an authority figure.
[i] i.e., “Directions for handling [lawsuits] are found in the Decalogue…” (p. 199)
[ii] So discontinuity relates to “newness.”
[iii] Reformed: “Every law in the OT continues unless specifically abrogated” (but Chamblin does not believe in abrogation). Evangelical: “Only those laws repeated in the NT are valid” and it’s corollary: “Free to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by the NT.” I questioned these two axioms myself in The Sabbath Complete: “Unfortunately, the regulative principle has been turned around to produce the very thing that it was meant to correct: elevating the traditions of men (formulated through deduction) to the unequivocal level of God’s precepts” (229). “The alternative, called the liberal or permissive principle, common in Lutheran and Evangelical churches, is to allow anything in worship that is not specifically prohibited by Scripture. Even this principle has its flaws” (232).
[iv] Federow, Stuart. http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/prooftext7jer3131.html. Accessed October 4, 2018.
[v] Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Calvin’s Commentaries, Baker (2009) Vol. XVII, p. 52. (John 1:17).
[vi] O’Hare, Terrence D. The Sabbath Complete, p. 101.
Part 1: General Overview
A Covenantalist and a Dispensationalist aim and fire their shotguns at their targets. How do you tell which target belonged to whom?
This is the battle between Reformed Covenant theology and Evangelical Dispensationalism and how these systems understand the relationship between the OT and NT, but especially between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. All of the contributors are beneficiaries of the work of Christ and participants in the new covenant, but something has created a rift in their understanding of the place of the NT church in God’s eternal plan. Essayist Petersen states “The Bible, the book that unites the church, frequently divides it” (p. 34). But I think we ourselves divide over it.
Continuity and Discontinuity is now 30 years old. And in that time, having associated with churches that espouse these varied positions, I don’t think much has changed since then. My interest in this book was specific to the law, and how the foundational premise of continuity and discontinuity would affect their respective views of the Sabbath. I plan to discuss the two chapters dealing with the law and in a separate article. A third article will address the comments made by Chamblin and Moo specific to their sabbatology.
The first chapter of this in-depth festschrift reviews the historical development of the challenges of relating the testaments to each other. Covenant Theology arose in the sixteenth century (there are precursors with everything) with a sense that the church was true Israel. I agreed with Petersen’s observation that “the implication from this was that the moral laws and precepts of the OT were given added weight as guides to the Christian life” (p. 27). Dispensationalism arose in the nineteenth century with the sense that Israel as a nation still had a role in end-times events. Historically speaking, it appears that the Christian’s hope for the Parousia, couched in terms of their present historical circumstances, can have a profound effect on their hermeneutic. Could it be possible that both of these views have misdirected NT theology?
The following topics are discussed, two essays from opposing viewpoints. I will comment only on the topics “Theological Systems” and “People of God.”
- Theological Systems (Ch 2,3)
- Hermeneutics (Ch 4,5)
- Salvation (Ch 6,7)
- The Law (Ch 8,9)
- People of God (Ch 10,11)
- Kingdom Promises (Ch 12,13)
Chapters 2 and 3 offer a general outline of the competing systems. Readers will not be presented with a conclusive position statement from either system of thought; they will simply have to be already familiar with the respective systems.
Reformed. Van Gemeren says Reformed theology is a continuity system, but little is presented what necessitates a position of “continuity.” He mentions a list of similarities and differences between the covenants compiled by Ursinus, but the list seemed to favor dissimilarities! The first half of his essay focused on the in-fighting among Reformed theologians and concluded with the introspective question whether it is possible to be biblical and confessionally Reformed. Silly question. Of course, those who embrace Reformed theology think they are biblical. The second half of his essay says little about what makes Reformed theology a continuity system. God is father, Christ is a unifying thread, the Spirit is working, and there will be end times. “The genius of Reformed Theology lies in the willingness to live with tensions inherent in the system” (p. 62).
Dispensational. Feinberg then argues that Dispensationalism does not rely on the term “dispensation,” does not mean that God is testing humanity, does not specify the number of dispensations one must accept, has no impact on whether one is Calvinist or Arminian, and does not demand a particular view of the law. Israel is important. Feinberg begins to isolate a difference between the systems when he states that typological approaches and the promise-fulfillment concept form the basis for continuity-oriented interpretations (p. 66). But later he says, “Dispensational and nondispensational thinkers agree that the NT fulfills the OT and is a more complete revelation of God” (p. 75). Later, he explains that nondispensational systems view types as shadows that somehow lose their meaning in their own context when superseded by the anti-type. On the other hand, dispensationalists view types as not necessarily shadows and they must “be given their due meanings in their own contexts while maintaining a typological relation to one another” (p. 78). Without a valid illustration of this phenomenon, it is difficult to understand what he means. All dispensationalists, he avers, “think some sort of distinction between Israel and the church is important” (p. 68, 81). Then he says that “many covenant theologians distinguish Israel from the church” (p. 71). As he admitted, there is confusion in the camps (p. 74).
Chapters 10 and 11 explain why Israel is or is not a continuing entity in God’s redemptive plans.
Reformed. Woudstra, arguing for continuity between Israel and the church, begins with a Scottish confessional statement about the existence of the “kirk” or church from the time of Adam. For Woudstra the question, it seems, is tied to salvation. He sees Israel in Genesis before it became a nation, and so he sees the church in Exodus before Christ even said He will build His church. At the same time, Woudstra calls Israel a prototype of the church, which to me means that it cannot be both the church and a prototype of the church at the same time. Israel is or it is not the church (and vice versa). And he calls the church the new Israel. Not the new “Israel” but the new Israel. However, you will not find the Reformed boasting that they are Jews. While God may call the things that are not as though they are (Rom 4:17), I have a problem with the prochronism of Covenant Theology that places the NT church in OT times. Certainly, OT saints were saved, but not because they understood that Jesus died for their sins. And if Israel, which is the kirk or a prototype of the church, enjoyed all the benefits that the NT church now enjoys, then what makes the new covenant “new”?
Dispensational. Suacy, arguing for discontinuity between Israel and the church, notes the dramatic changes brought by the new covenant, but then says, “But newness with the inauguration of the church does not in itself establish a discontinuity of the church in relation to Israel” (p. 250). Saucy seems to see the question as to whether Israel as a nation has a separate spiritual path after the establishment of the New Testament church. Of course, he admits from the outset this question arises due to historic circumstances. Paul mentions Israel and means the nation Israel, he propounds. However, Paul wrote when Israel was still a nation. And until 1948, there was no national Israel. Its contemporary existence as an independent state is certainly a monumental event, but it is not a restoration of the Mosaic covenant, nor was the event the fulfillment of clear prophecy.
Analysis. I got the impression that the contributors were often arguing from the standpoint of their chosen theological system rather than from exegetical analysis of key texts and a comprehensive understanding of both sides of the topic in question. Sometimes, the more one qualifies their position the less clear their position becomes. On top of that, the terms “continuity” and “discontinuity” were never really defined, which makes them near meaningless. I find it amusing that the discontinuity between Israel and the church means that Israel continues to be Israel; and that continuity means that the Jewish nation ends (the old church, as it were) and is subsumed or superseded by the church, which is the new Israel. But what system do I belong to if I believe that the church started with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and that God’s covenant with Israel is old and passed away? I am glad that ethnic Jews remain to this day. Does God want them to assent to the vicarious suffering and death of Jesus and so enter the new covenant or does He want them to remain in unbelief until such time that He reinstates or reactivates the inferior covenant to resume bloody sacrifices and give them earthly blessings?
Editor and contributor John S. Feinberg provided a fine summary of this festschrift in the final epilogue. However, it is a foregone conclusion that “the authors of this volume agree that the relation of the Testaments is one of continuity and discontinuity.” Each essayist admitted that from the outset. No one supports complete discontinuity or complete continuity, whatever that might entail. Each contributor was quite nuanced in his presentation, so at times it is was difficult to figure out whether they were in agreement or disagreement with each other. Nonetheless, there remains notable differences regarding the relationship of Israel and the church, and the corollary topics of the law and kingdom promises.
The new covenant expects and demands that Christians are unified in their understanding of it and what sort of life one should lead. The contributors do not hammer out the behaviors that necessarily follow from their viewpoint (thankfully), but they do focus on the background assumptions and conclusions which in turn would play out in practical application. It does not, in my mind, adequately explain why Covenantalism or Dispensationalism necessarily lead to either continuity or discontinuity, when all the authors acknowledge that within each camp there is such variety of positions that no one position exemplifies or captures the essence of them. Hence, the shotgun illustration above. If someone could be all over the board, so to speak, how do the words “continuity” or “discontinuity” explain one’s position?
As a student of the Bible, I began to wonder if I was ignoring Paul’s advice “that the ultimate aim is to love which springs from a pure heart, a good conscience and a genuine faith. Some seem to have forgotten this and to have lost themselves in endless words” (1 Tim 1:5-6, Phillips). But maybe this fits under iron sharpens iron (Prov 27:17). It was dialogical, after all; and what better way to iron out the wrinkles in our theology? This book stimulated much thinking and study on my part, which led me to produce a three-part review. At the same time, this book was not as definitive as I would have liked.
This small book delves into the meaning of the Ten Commandments for the church of Christ. Reisinger focuses on the relationship between the Decalogue and the Mosaic law-covenant, and the corollary topic whether the Sabbath is applicable as a moral commandment for the church age. For centuries now, the church has used the Ten Commandments to inculcate Christian ethical standards. When a Christian is asked about the moral law, the image of Moses holding the tablets of stone is first to come to mind. When did this begin?
This began with Luther’s Treatise on Good Works (1520) and his catechisms (1529)[i] which used the Ten Commandments as a format to teach moral principles to parishioners. At that time, many unbelievers were compelled to go to Mass every Sunday. They slept in church, talked aloud, and even played games. After church, they would go to the pubs and get drunk. More pious parishioners thought their good behavior was meritorious for salvation or compensated for their sins. In his catechism, Luther briefly explains what the Sabbath commandment means for Christians:
“You shall sanctify the holy day. [Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.] What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it.”
Luther reduced a complex Jewish ritual law into a simple statement: attend to the preaching of God’s word [every week]. For Luther, the Sabbath as practiced at the synagogue represented the faithful weekly attendance of God’s people to the hearing and study of God’s word, and then actually applying what was learned at home and at work. His desire was that those attending church would have this heart in them and faithfully learn God’s word, as Sunday preaching was the only means to hear God’s word. It was not to keep Sabbath with a 24-hour rest from all manner of work.
Luther also emphasized the distinction between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ to emphasize the contrast between works and faith, but some interpreted this to mean that there was no law for Christians. Those who rationalized the gospel of Christ in this way were called “antinomians”—those who stood against the law or believed that they were guided by no law except the Holy Spirit. The reaction of other Reformers was … reactive; and ensuing theological statements advanced the “proper uses of the law” as opposed to any misconstrued understandings of Paul’s teaching that Christians are “dead to the law” (Rom 7:1ff). Connected to this controversy was whether the Mosaic law was a “covenant of works” by which it were possible to be saved. Of course, OT saints could not be saved by the law; they were saved by grace (Rom 11:6; Gal 3:21). And so, the idea was put forth that the law of Moses was really a “covenant of grace.” Eventually, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) took center stage among English speaking countries and became the foundational “secondary standard” for many Protestant churches. The WCF teaches that after Adam fell, God instituted a “covenant of grace” and this one covenant was administered differently during the two testaments.
“This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel. Under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament. . . There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” (Chapter 7)
The “good and necessary” inference was that the Ten Commandments epitomized the moral law of God from the time of Adam to the present day.
“God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.” (Chapter 19)
Churches that assent to the WCF and its children are taught that the Ten Words are a summary of moral law, as opposed to a summary of the Mosaic covenant. This is contrary to Moses’ claim that the covenant was made with Israel and not with the fathers—not with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, and less so with Adam.
With this as a backdrop, Reisinger’s criticism of “covenant theology” and “theological systems,” his antipathy for being labeled as an “antinomian” for questioning the biblicity of the WCF, and his proposition that the Ten Commandments are NOT a summary of moral law finds context. Overall, his thesis has biblical support and this makes it a worthwhile read. There are a few foibles, but I’ll mention only one.
I wish that Reisinger’s book began with a statement of the problem facing the church that he aims to set straight, as well as references for the ideas and statements that he mentions (i.e, p. 95). I thought at first that he was being gracious to avoid mentioning names, but he eventually implicated “Covenant Theology” as presented in the Westminster Confession of Faith and derivative faith statements. With a knowledge of what the WCF actually says, it becomes obvious how its emphasis on the unity of the old and new covenants misrepresents the contrasts that abound in the NT corpus. Furthermore, the WCF proposition that the Ten Commandments are a summary of moral law is without merit. On this point, Reisinger shines. Reisinger repetitively brings the reader back to the plain sense of those texts mentioning the Ten Commandments and makes cogent arguments against the misleading verbiage in the WCF. The tables of stone are clearly a summary document of the covenant between Israel and God (not the church and God). The Mosaic covenant is over and the church is now under a new covenant. As Reisinger continues, he knows that some readers will react and say, “Don’t we have a law to obey?” Of course, Christians have a law, and it is the law of Christ. Moral duties for the church are to be defined by the covenant we are under. The Ten Commandments, he argues, are a vital part of the Christian life, but only as applied and interpreted by the Lord and the apostles—just as other OT texts are considered by the NT writers.
The ideas that Reisinger is challenging are entrenched in “confessional” churches and took centuries to develop into the one-liner—yet biblically indefensible—maxims that they are today. It is time to re-examine the wording of some of these historic theological statements and make them more true to the Scriptures, especially if church members are expected to assent to them without granting the taking of exceptions.
[i] “The first Catholic catechism was written after the Council of Trent which took place in 1546 and was published in 1566 and called the Roman Catechism. A new catechism was not created until 1994 called The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Other bishops in various parts of the world may have produced a catechism, such as the Baltimore Catechism of 1885, but there was not a universal catechism produced between the years 1566 and 1994.” http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/the-role-of-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church/ (accessed July 28, 2017).
While reading this book, I decided to learn more about the author and came upon an autobiography published posthumously from his dairy and notes. The author of a book wants to know his audience, but a book reviewer wants to know the author. The editors of his biography remarked that Shepard had a “simple, childlike confidence in God, [a] heartfelt and earnest piety, and . . . an unaffected devotional spirit.”[i] After his death, mourners lauded his treatise, Theses Sabbaticae, “wherin (sic) he hath handled the morality of the Sabbath with a degree of reason, reading, and religion which is truly extraordinary.”[ii] The title of his publication expresses his affinity for Latin which he sprinkles throughout his dissertation on the Sabbath.
Thomas Shepard was born on November 5, 1605, the day it was rumored that supporters of the Roman Catholic Church were to “blow up” the Protestant-controlled English Parliament. His father could not believe that such an act could be done in the name of the church and so named his son Thomas after the incredulous apostle of Jesus Christ. His father, William, married a grocer’s daughter and had three sons and six daughters, but only four of them were alive at the time of his writing. His unnamed mother died when he was four and his father’s second wife died when he was ten. His father took a third wife, who did not like Thomas at all, and she succumbed to sickness as well. Shepard eventually studied at Cambridge University, earning his Master of Arts, and took up ministry in Essex. He eventually married in 1632 “the best and fittest woman in the world” amidst the religious conflicts of the day. Parker mentions Shepard in his book about the parliamentary conflicts about the Sabbath roughly during 1560-1630. Shepard is described as a crypto-papist[iii] who made arguments before the parliament in 1621 that were not well-received. He was but sixteen years of age. Parker summarizes, “Other members attacked Shepard for his abuse of God’s word, and the Commons passed a resolution that he should be ‘cast out of the House as an unworthy member’.”[iv]
In October 16, 1634, he took steps to leave old England with his wife and first son, Thomas, to New England to escape religious turmoil possibly related to his Separatist beliefs. His son died early in the travels before leaving England. His wife bore a second son, whom he also named Thomas. The journey continued in August 1635 through the seas with various terrors and they finally landed in New England in October. His journey was part of the “Great Migration” of Puritans from England during this time providing continued growth of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. His wife, Margaret, died shortly after arriving in 1636. He married a second time in October, 1637. Their first son died. Their second son Samuel was alive during his final years, but his third son, John, died in infancy. Another son was born in April 1646, living but three years. So tender a heart he maintained, that in all these deaths he seemed to believe they were provoked by his own sin.[v] He married a third time in 1647 and had a son who would later become a minister. Thomas Shepard died August 25, 1649 at the age of 44. He was then pastor of the Church of Christ, at Cambridge. His life was brief and full of hardship, yet he served the Lord with all his might and mind.
This great man was familiar with arguments antagonistic to the Sunday Sabbath viewpoint from such authors as Primrose,[vi] Heylin,[vii] Ironside,[viii] Wallæus,[ix] Traske,[x] Gomarus,[xi] Brabourn,[xii] Broad[xiii], and others. These men and their works are described in Robert Cox’s (1865) The Literature of the Sabbath Question. So Shepard determined to defend the Westminster (1632) idea that the Sabbath of the Decalogue is in continuing force not only for the church, but for the world, and that this day was divinely selected to be the first day of the week since the resurrection of Jesus. His writing was also occasioned by King Charles I, who republished in 1632 King James’s 1618 Book of Sports, that conveyed the King’s desire that the populace are at liberty to engage in Sunday pastimes after church, notwithstanding the judgmentalism of Puritans.[xiv]
This may have been a well-respected work in the 17th century, but it makes for difficult reading today. His sentences are long and convoluted, some of them filling nearly a whole page. An example follows.
“The Familists and Antinomians of late, like the Manichees of old, do make all days equally holy under the gospel, and none to be observed more than another by virtue of any command of God, unless it be from some command of man to which the outward man they think should not stick to conform, or unless it be pro re nata, or upon several occasions, which special occasions are only to give the alarums for church meetings and public Christian assemblies—an audacious assertion, cross to the very light of nature among the blind heathens, who have universally allowed the Deity whom they ignorantly worshiped the honor of some solemn duties; cross to the verdict of Popish schoolmen and prelatists, whose stomachs never stood much toward any Sabbath at all; cross to the scope of the law of the Sabbath, which, if it hath any general morality, (not denied scarce to any of Moses’ judicials,) surely one would think it should lie in the observation of some day or days, though not in a seventh day, for which now we do not contend; cross also to the appointment of the gospel, foretold by Isaiah and Ezekiel, (Is. lvi. 4, 6; Ezek. xliii. 27,) made mention of by our Saviour to continue long after the abolishing of all ceremonies by his death, (Matt. xxiv. 20,) who therefore bids them pray, that their flight may not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day, which, whether it be the Jewish or Christian Sabbath, I dispute not; only this is evident, that he hath an eye to some special set day, and which was lastly ordained by Christ, and observed in the primitive churches, commonly called the Lord’s day, as shall be shown in due place, and which notion, under pretense of more spiritualness, in making every day a Sabbath, (which is utterly unlawful and impossible, unless it be lawful to neglect our own work all the week long, and without which there can be no true Sabbath;) doth really undermine the true Sabbath, in special set days; and look, as to make every man a king and judge in a Christian commonwealth would be the introduction of confusion, and consequently the destruction of a civil government, so to crown every day with equal honor unto God’s set days and Sabbath which he hath anointed and exalted above the rest, this anarchy and confusion of days doth utterly subvert the true Sabbath; to make every day a Sabbath is a real debasing and dethroning of God’s Sabbath.”[xv]
There were times that I followed his logic and agreed with his conclusions, and sometimes he asked good questions, but didn’t always answer them. Yet conversely he made outrageous statements and non sequiturs. Overall, his arguments for the morality of the Sabbath were barely understandable. He spent little time on the relationship of the Sabbath to ceremonial law, typology, and eschatology. He provided no detailed research regarding the expression of sabbatical natural law in primitive peoples or earlier cultures, and he failed to explain how the Christian church missed this critical doctrine until his time.
“Because the express words of the commandment do not run thus, viz., “Remember to keep holy that seventh day,” but more generally, “the Sabbath day;” it is in the beginning, and so it is in the end of this commandment, where it is not said, that God blessed that seventh day, but the Sabbath day; by which expression the wisdom of God, as it points to that particular seventh day, that it should be sanctified, so it also opens a door of liberty for change, if God shall see meet, because the substance of the commandment doth not only contain that seventh day, but the Sabbath day, which may be upon another seventh, as well as upon that which God appointed first; and that the substance of the command is contained in those first words, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,: may appear from the repetition of the same commandment, (Deut. v.12,) where these words, “As the Lord thy God commanded thee,” are immediately inserted before the rest of the words of the commandment be set down, to show thus much, that therein is contained the substance of the fourth command; the words following being added only to press the duty, and to point out the particular day, which at that time God would have them to observe.”[xvi]
It was hard not to recall in his biography his recollection of former times as a student. “The third yeare wherin I was Sophister (at Cambridge) I began to be foolish & proud, to show myselfe in the public schooles there to be a disputer about things which now I see I did not know then at all but only prated about them.”[xvii] While only occasionally did he mock the ignorance of those with whom he disagreed, he was generally methodical and studious in discussing the multitude of considerations in this debate.
His work is divided into four sections. First, he determines to prove by many infallible proofs, termed “theses,” that a religious rest every seven days is a moral commandment from the beginning of creation. This section is comprised of 207 propositions in which he lays out his powers of deduction and induction. His main argument for the morality of the Sabbath is its presence within the Decalogue. While he discusses the fact that moral and ceremonial laws are often listed side by side in the OT and that how laws are listed is no way to determine the difference between them, he simply asserts that it is not so in the Decalogue—they are all moral. This is a logical fallacy in itself as he assumes to be true what he seeks to prove. He expends considerable ink on the relationship of the morality of the Sabbath to the law of nature, whether the morality is abstract or concrete, general or particular, primary or secondary, moral-moral or moral-ceremonial, private or public, internal or external, and direct or indirect. This was difficulty reading to be sure and offers little for Sabbatarians to draw upon for the defense of the morality of the Sabbath. As he considers the creation week, he makes the outlandish statement that “God never made himself an example of any ceremonial duty, it being unsuitable to his glorious excellency to do so.”[xviii] He states this as if it were a well-known fact, and then claims that this is the reason why the weekly Sabbath is moral and the yearly Sabbath of the Land is not. Shepard fails to observe that God’s seventh day rest was not a recurring Sabbath nor described as such, so His example doesn’t actually demonstrate the weekly Sabbath. Shepard also fails to notice that God gave Adam an example of a bloody sacrifice (Gen 3:21), the foremost of all ceremonial laws. So it certainly is acceptable for God to demonstrate a behavior that has ceremonial implications. The manna was provided in the wilderness at the set times that He willed to provide it, doing so for six days and refraining on the seventh. His example provided the experience necessary to initially teach the Israelites the rules about Sabbath-keeping and He continued to provide manna in the same manner week after week for forty years. The Lord tutored Israel in Sabbath law and He directly involved Himself in the sanctification and sanction of it. God most certainly made Himself an example of ceremonial law.[xix] On the eve of His crucifixion, Jesus provided an example during the annual seder of the new covenant meal—the Lord’s Supper—which is not moral but a ceremonial institution, because it had a beginning that very night and will come to a conclusion when Christ comes into his kingdom.
The second focus of his book is in defending the change of the day of week on which the Sabbath occurs, from the seventh day of the week to the first. As a Lord’s Day advocate, I agree with him that the Christians are obligated to assemble on Sunday and that the authority for it came through the apostles and the ground for it due to the resurrection, but I disagree that the Sabbath itself was reassigned to Sunday. I agree that assembling together (“going to church”) is not a matter of Christian liberty, otherwise there would be no sin in forsaking the assembly. So Shepard attempts to explain why the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday is ceremonial and the Christian Sabbath on Sunday is moral. According to Shepard there was a moral Sabbath practiced by the patriarchs and then the Jews were given their Sabbath which is only “accidentally typical”; that is, it was assigned typological attributes specific to the Jews which are not essentially moral. Those typical features may be done away with—and he assures us they were abrogated—but the force of the fourth commandment continues. He asks, “What type is affixed and annexed to the Sabbath?” and answers, “I think it difficult to find out.” Of interest here is that he does not think that by shifting the Sabbath one day that the morality of it is undermined. He explains that the Jews celebrated their Sabbath at the end of six days work and Christians celebrate their Sabbath at the beginning of the week, thus both give the Lord one-seventh of their time, which is the moral requirement. If this is the case, then the Lord required the observation of two consecutive Sabbaths (which disrupted the rhythm of the universe) and He altered the concept of rest as a prelude to work instead of the completion of work. Well, few there be (Sabbatarians included) that can’t help but think of the Sabbath as something to work toward, the fruit of the labor. It remains a rest for having worked. For example, Pink asserts “He who never works is unfitted for worship…Work is to pave the way for worship…The more diligent and faithful we are in performing the duties of the six days, the more shall we value the rest of the seventh.”[xx] But some Sabbatarians disagree. Plonk argues that Adam began his week with worship. “What needs to be emphasized here is that worship comes before work, both in connection with creation and redemption. The day of rest precedes the days of toil.”[xxi] So it is unclear whether Sabbatarians are following the example of God or Adam. Shepard sees the analogy between God’s creation rest coming at the end of His work and Christ’s rest coming at the end of His work, only Christ’s rest was not in the grave on the Sabbath but on the first day of His resurrection. Since “man’s sin spoiled the first rest . . .the day of it might be justly abrogated,” he avers. Taking what he says all together: God’s rest was the last day of the week, but for Adam his rest began the week, and since Adam ruined the last day of the week Sabbath, the Jews were made to follow the example of God by observing the Sabbath on the last day of the week; and this was typological and could be abolished (only that would make God an example of a ceremony); so Christ having paid for sin and completed the work of redemption, rested on the first day of the week and restored the original intent that man begin the week with a Sabbath (even though the Creator’s perfect rest was on the last day of the week).[xxii] The more he babbles, the more the incongruities accrue.
Thirdly, he evaluates various opinions about the timing of the observation of the Sabbath; that is, when it ought to begin and end. This was a fiercely debated aspect of Sabbath-keeping in his day and so the English Parliament in 1656 defined the Lord’s Day as the time between midnight Saturday night to midnight Sunday night.[xxiii] In opposition to this act, Shepard ably demonstrates that the Jewish Sabbath was from “even to even” and deduces that the proper observation of the Christian Sabbath should encompass the same timeframe. “If therefore the Jewish Sabbath ended at even, the Christian Sabbath must immediately succeed it, and begin it then, or else a moral rule is broken.”[xxiv] For Shepard, this is a moral issue, and it is a sin to think otherwise. He is but a step away from seventh-day Sabbatarianism, which incidentally got its first church in England in 1653, less than five years after the publication of his book. And the first Seventh-day Baptist Church was formed in the colonies in 1671.
Lastly, he engages the reader with his thoughts about the manner in which the Sabbath is sanctified. As a preacher at least influenced by Puritanism, he is aghast at the libertarian attitude of Roman Catholics who make Sunday a “dancing Sabbath.” To keep the Sunday Sabbath holy, one must look to the Jewish legislation. “Whatever holy duties the Lord required of the Jews, which were not ceremonial, the same duties he requires of us upon this day.”[xxv] Most readers of Exodus think the Jews were not permitted to cook, make a fire, or gather sticks on the Sabbath—but according to Shepard, these are permissible on the Christian Sabbath, not because these were ceremonial laws now abolished or antiquated civil laws, but because they were never legal restrictions in the first place. He has an entirely different take on these three supposed prohibitions. His exploration of these topics in Theses 6-8 should make Reformed exegetes cringe. He cites Numbers 11:8, which states, “The people went about and gathered it, ground it on millstones or beat it in the mortar, cooked it in pans, and made cakes of it; and its taste was like the taste of pastry prepared with oil,” and concludes that it was lawful to do this on the Sabbath. He sees in this passage a daily activity. However, Exodus 16:23 states that the Jews were to gather on the sixth day the quantity for two days, only they should “Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.” So it is quite clear that the Lord did not allow them to prepare the manna on the Sabbath. After all, they tried to put God to the test (cf. Ex 17:7), but He turned it around and put them to the test (Ex 16:4). What sort of test would it be if they could go out every day and gather manna every day and cook it every day? The consensus of three thousand years of Judaism and nearly two thousand years of Christianity mean little to Shepard on this matter. Klagsbrun (JSS) says, “Laws regulating the preparation of food for the Sabbath ahead of time would be based on the manna that anticipated the Sabbath.”[xxvi] Kaplan (JSS) states that the use of fire is a prototype of work because it is “one of the prime ways in which man demonstrates his mastery over nature.”[xxvii] Commenting on this passage, Henry (CS) states, “On that day they were to fetch in enough for two days, and to prepare it, v. 23. The law was very strict, that they must bake and seeth, the day before, and not on the sabbath day.”[xxviii] Regardless, Shepard is not so strict about work restrictions, restricting the work restriction only to servile works that are “done for any worldly gain, profit, or livelihood, to acquire and purchase that things of this life by weekday labor… hence buying, selling, sowing, reaping, which are done for worldly gain, are unlawful on this day, being therefore servile work; hence also worldly sports and pastimes.”[xxix] But it is permissible to cook, build a fire, and gather sticks on the Christian Sabbath. However, it is an open question whether presumptuous Sabbath-breakers should be put to death. He addresses the fact that God performs works of maintenance in His good providence, but Shepard disallows sweeping the house, washing clothes, or watering horses. It is interesting to me how the Puritans despised the ceremonies of Judaism, the legalisms of the Pharisees, the superstitions of Roman Catholics, and the doctrinal inventions of Popery, yet their views about the Christian Sabbath are blood kin to them all.
[i] Shepard, Thomas. Autobiography of Thomas Shepard, Boston: Pierce and Parker, 1832, p.3.
[ii] Ibid., p. 104.
[iii] I could find no actual denominational association for Shepard. He seems aligned with Puritan beliefs, but does not hold to the strictness they are known for regarding the Sabbath; and in his writings, “Puritan” is a pejorative term. There were dissenters, and separatists, and non-conformists at the time, so I gather that he was a Congregationalist.
[iv] Parker, Kenneth L. The English Sabbath, p. 171.
[v] Six epidemics of smallpox affected the Boston area from 1636-1698 (Campbell, American Disasters). At this time, the prevailing belief was that calamities were brought on by the will of God.
[vi] Alt. Primerose, David. Minister at Rouen. Authored A Treatise of the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day in 1636, supportive of the Declaration of Sports.
[vii] Alt. Heylyn; Sub-dean of Westminster and Chaplain to Charles I; Wrote The History of the Sabbath in 1636 with a preface to the king “to show them how much they deceived not only themselves and others, in making the old Jewish Sabbath of equal age and observation with the Law of Nature, and preaching their new Sabbath doctrines in the Church of Christ, with which the Church hath no acquaintance.” He denies that the Sabbath was instituted any earlier than in the wilderness as described in Exodus and that the Lord’s Day is not a Sabbath at all, nor had it ever been during the long history of the church, not until after the Reformation.
[viii] Ironside, Gilbert. Bishop of Bristol; His 1637 book answers seven questions regarding the Sabbath dispute; denies that Adam was given the Sabbath; that the 4th commandment obliges Christians to observe the Sabbath; that devoting one day a week to worship is not natural, nor moral.
[ix] Wallæus, Anthony. Professor of Divinity at Leyden; authored a dissertation on the Sabbath in 1628.
[x]Traske, John. In 1620 published curiously titled “A Treatise of Liberty from Judaism” in which he takes the morality of the Sabbath to its logical end, and advocated Saturday Sabbatarianism, in addition to Jewish food laws. According to Cox, Heylin wrote about Traske, telling of his public whipping and 3 year incarceration, afterward he recanted his “rather humorous than hurtful” opinions and died in obscurity (Cox, p. 153).
[xi] Alt. Gomar, Francis; his 1628 investigation into the origin of the Sabbath denies that the Sabbath was instituted at creation, neither does the 4th commandment oblige all men to religious rest one day in seven.
[xii] Alt. Brabourne, Theophilus; a Puritan minister; reasons that if the 4th commandment is moral, then that affirms the Saturday Sabbath as obligatory upon the church; and further denies the Sabbath was moved to Sunday. Those of this theological bent were called “Sabbatarians” for holding to a Saturday Sabbath, but his followers (and of Traske) are now called 7th Day Baptists. Cox states that Brabourne was brought under pressure by a Commission of Charles I, and submitted to orthodox doctrines (p. 162).
[xiii] Broad, Thomas. Issued a tract regarding the 4th Commandment in 1621, advising that the Lord’s Day be kept as it has been since the resurrection of Jesus, without the formalities of the Sabbath.
[xiv] Cox states (p. 163) that when the Puritans got the legislative advantage, “in 1643 it was ordered by the Long Parliament to be burned by the hands of the common hangman… and all having copies of it were required to deliver them up to be thus disposed of.”
[xv] Shepard, Thomas. Theses Sabbaticae (1649), reprinted 2002, Dahlonega, GA: Crown Rights Book Company, p. 73-74.
[xvi] Ibid., p. 135.
[xvii] Shepard, Thomas. Autobiography of Thomas Shepard, Boston: Pierce and Parker, 1832, p. 20.
[xviii] Shepard, Thomas. Theses Sabbaticae, p. 38-39.
[xix] This is similar to the statement: “Don’t require of others what you are not willing to do yourself.”
[xx] Pink, Arthur W. The Ten Commandments, p. 28
[xxi] Pronk, Cornelis. “Worship Comes Before Work” March 1995 (Reprinted in “Keeping the Christian Sunday”).
[xxii] The view that the patriarchal Sabbath was on the first day of the week is mentioned in the JFB Commentary on Exodus 16:23-26.
[xxiii] Cox, Robert. The Literature of the Sabbath Question, p. 254.
[xxiv] Shepard, Thomas. Theses Sabbaticae, p. 241.
[xxv] Shepard, Thomas. Theses Sabbaticae, p. 254.
[xxvi] Klagsbrun, Francine. The Fourth Commandment, p. 28.
[xxvii] Kaplan, Aryeh. Sabbath Day of Eternity, p. 35.
[xxviii] Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Bible, Vol. 1 p. 271 (Ex 16:22-31). However, Henry relaxes this law for Christians: “This does not now make it unlawful for us to dress meat on the Lord’s day, but directs us to contrive our family affairs so that they may hinder us as little as possible in the work of the sabbath.”
[xxix] Shepard, Thomas. Theses Sabbaticae, p. 257.
Kien documents a millennial-old problem that affects women in society and suggests a solution. She proposes that women used to be in charge of calendars because any woman would feel like their own physiological changes had a connection with the known universe via the lunar cycles. This link between the human and the elements was mysterious, but it gave women a position of importance in society. Older societies, for lack of the scientific understanding of today, assigned femaleness to the world around them and viewed the universe as a life-giving womb with nurturing attributes. However, the rise of societies and kingdoms led to changing concepts of the universe and fluctuating symbolism to maintain connection with the cosmos. Gods and the planets were increasingly assigned maleness, and this led to marginalization of women.
I share some of Kien’s passions—symbolism, science, archaeology, calendars, and religion—which attracted me to purchase her book, but my presuppositions prevented me from relating to it or giving it much credence. The first half of the book seemed jumbled to me, but the second half more technical and understandable. I do not have the archaeological background that she has, so some of her conclusions may or may not find resounding support among experts. But the thesis that ancient or primitive cultures attributed maleness or femaleness to the sun and moon, and that this in turn is a controlling force over society, is plausible. It mirrors our contemporary question whether media and its worldview influences culture or merely reflects it. But it hardly seems that
she’s uncovered an ancient plot to dissociate women from the spheres of leadership via the symbolism inherent in religions and calendar making. In Kien’s estimation, the moon (representing women) lost the battle with the Sun (representing men) and the present disrespect for, disfranchisement and marginalization of women is the result.
While I found the book interesting, I sensed that I would have enjoyed it more if it were organized along a historical timeline to demonstrate the fluctuating concepts, or to provide some timeline charts to organize the material. Also, I would like to have seen more evidence for some of the assertions she made. In the past, calendar systems ebbed and flowed, or flip-flopped, which demonstrates the practical difficulty in reconciling a lunar and solar calendar, but she didn’t link any of the calendar changes to actual historical evidence of changes in attitudes towards women.
As she reviewed the history of Judaism and Christianity with respect to the calendar, she made several statements that I think were erroneous. For example, she claims that the Jewish calendar evolved and that its lunar aspect is a vestige of previous æons when women priests were in control of the calendar. So she asserts that the twelve tribes of Israel are really thirteen tribes; and that changes in female-controlled calendars to male-controlled calendars are reflected as changes in the biblical story from thirteen to twelve tribes, which makes the Jewish luni-solar calendar male, because it has twelve months (or tribes). As evidence for this from biblical accounts, she cites that Moses counted thirteen tribes, but exempted Levi (which she labels “ephemeral”), and this narrative reflects an effort to remove the symbolism of femaleness in the number 13 to the symbolism of maleness in the number 12. The account is in Numbers 1. Moses is given the task of conducting a census of the tribes for the purposes of warfare. The tribe of Levi was to perform the sacerdotal services of the tabernacle, so they were exempt from warfare. There is an initial listing of twelve military “tribes” in Number 1:1-16—which I put in quotes because Levi is omitted and Joseph’s tribe is counted as two because he had two sons (Josh 14:4). The purpose for the census was to determine their military strength, and the division of Joseph’s tribe is to ensure that three “tribes” flank each face of the tabernacle. Moses then gives the results of the census in Numbers 1:17-46, and mentions in verse 47 that Levi was exempted from the census. The tribe of Levi is not “ephemeral,” but real, extant, and enduring. If one were to graphically represent the numbers of men counted in each tribe and station them by flanks around the tabernacle, then a bird’s eye view of the camp would show the figure of a cross (similar to the crucifixion cross). This is the intended symbolism, which is typological of Christ going to war to defeat His enemies and to give His people rest (Josh 21:44-45; Ps 98:1; Isa 25:11; Acts 2:23-24, 32-36; Col 2:15; Heb 2:14; 1Jn 3:8; Rev 12:9; 20:10).
Kien’s statement that 12 tribes is a “fiction” is nonsense. The twelve tribes are the twelve sons of Jacob, but in military terms, the twelve tribes are comprised differently. So when Moses sent the first spies into Canaan, he mentions Ephraim, and then “from the tribe of Joseph, that is Manasseh” (Num 13:11) so that each of the military tribes sent one man (Levi was exempt). Moses didn’t do this because of changing concepts in calendars, nor does this give evidence that the narrative was altered, and poorly though, as if it left clues of a previous matriarchal story of the events. Kien would have us believe that male priests re-wrote the stories but didn’t do the greatest job at removing all the evidence of a “moon womb 13 month calendar.”
Then Kien also wants to count Dinah as “a semi-matriarchal” tribe, that would bring the tribal count to thirteen. She seems to think that the historical accounts are biased in favor of the number twelve “at all costs” (I’m assuming she means at the cost of historical accuracy). After all, Dinah is mentioned regularly in lists of the twelve tribes (twelve sons) of Israel (Jacob). But Dinah is hardly the only daughter borne of Jacob. Her mention is to invoke the memory of Simeon’s and Levi’s sin of anger and Jacob’s curse upon their tribes to be divided and scattered among the other tribes (Gen 49:5-7). Kien notes that Simeon is not mentioned in Moses’ blessing and interprets this as another clue of the battle between the moon and the sun. But it is more reasonable to assume that Moses simply let Jacob’s curse stand (Josh 19:1); or even that Simeon’s name was inadvertently omitted.
Kien is not happy with Judaism or Christianity which propagate male centered symbolism, and seems more aligned with pagan religions of the past. The calendar by which most of the world orders itself today developed with the growth of civilization, influenced by politics and science, not because of misogyny. A solar calendar is as natural as a lunar calendar. She believes in nature, mystery, holiness, symbolism, and that in the beginning the world was female. She urges religions to adopt inclusive spiritual imagery and for cultures to embrace moon-related festivities as measures to restore value to women and menstruation. As I read the book, I wondered why Kien granted calendars the power to alienate women from nature, to marginalize women from positions of authority, to change men’s attitudes about menstruation, and estrange women from the “cosmic dance.” Why couldn’t women still garner that connection with the moon since it still appears every 29.5 days in the sky? Couldn’t women maintain their “cultic” calendar while the nation they live in uses a “male” solar calendar? She brought this up herself when she described the adoption of a lunar calendar by the Jews. “Using the Babylonian calendar for administrative purposes need not have affected the cultic calendar in any way.” The world still spins ‘round once every day, and that has not changed. But there is a reason why paganism has vanished and the God of Israel remains established: this is His world that He called into existence by the power of His word.
Published in 1926, this little volume purports to be among the first to study the origin of the week, preceded by only one book nearly a century before. Indeed, the topic is rarely presented because of the dearth of material, and what historical evidence exists, allows some conjecture. This is not to say that nothing conclusive can be stated, but there are questions that remain.
- Why did the Roman Empire change from an eight-day week to a seven-day week?
- What is the origin of the Planetary week? Did it arise independently of the Jewish week?
- What was the thinking process or the decisive event that led to the naming of the days of the week?
- Why does the number seven resonate with peoples of differing cultures?
My previous reading on this general topic includes Duncan’s Calendar, Webster’s Rest Days, Jordan’s Christianity and the Calendar, and Doig’s New Testament Chronology. Duncan does not give much attention to the week, however, he concurs with Colson that the “planetary” names for the days of the week are in the order that they are because of a technique that assigns a planet to each of the twenty-four hours of a day. The planet that begins the first hour of the day assumes the title of that day. Colson was familiar with Webster’s 1916 book, which assumes that all religious and civil observations have their origin in rudimentary beliefs and customs, and often in the superstitions of barbaric societies. Similarly, Colson does not give credence to the biblical account of the origin of the week or the Sabbath. But at the same time, none of the naturalistic theories seem to resonate with him, and he asserts instead that the origin of the Jewish week is lost to antiquity. But it is interesting that no archaeological and anthropological studies have uncovered any alternative theory than what is already presented in the biblical narratives.
What we do know is that Rome had an eight-day week. Egypt had a ten-day week and classical Greeks had none. Various other societies had “weeks” of 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 days, but not necessarily as cycles of weeks. The oldest evidence of a seven-day week is with Judaism, and it appears that Rome adopted its seven-day week in the first century AD. But Colson curiously thinks this originated independently of Jewish influence. Etymological studies demonstrate that host nations subject to Roman rule adopted the Roman nomenclature for the most part, since commerce, military operations, and political events required it. In a few instances, as a result of the spread of Christianity, Saturday and Sunday gave way to Sabbata and Domingo. But this still doesn’t explain why an unchanging seven-day cycle should become the status quo within a luni-solar calendar, and especially with peoples who are not necessarily accustomed to Judaism.
This book is interesting to read as the author considers and interprets his findings in Greek and Roman literature. He is familiar with Scripture, but is selective in what he considers as evidence. Does he make the same conclusions I would with the same evidence? Often yes, but not always. Regarding the naming of the Lord’s Day for Sunday, he favorably states, “I see no reason to go outside Christian thought to account for the name Lord’s-day.” He muses that a celebration of the resurrection would naturally be an annual event, but because Christianity was initially a Jewish movement that grew to encompass Gentiles, and that both cultures operated in seven-day cycles, it was natural that Christianity maintained the weekly cycle. However, he specifically discounts apostolic authority for its continuation. I agree with his assertion that when early Christians assembled on the 7th +1 day instead of on the 7th, it was not keeping the Sabbath. However, I disagree with his conclusion that the abrogation of the Sabbath destroyed the reason for the week. In my opinion, the week, or seven-period, is divine in origin. The weekly Sabbath unified Israel under the Mosaic covenant and the weekly Lord’s Day unifies the church under the New Covenant. Shifting the day of assembly maintained the weekly cycle and caused no calendar upset, yet conclusively broke the grip of the Sabbath on New Covenant believers.