Home » Posts tagged 'The Law'
Tag Archives: The Law
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.
New Covenant. The concept of covenants is part and parcel of the OT, and this includes the “new covenant.” Within the historical context of the Mosaic covenant, Jeremiah prophesied of a new covenant the Lord would establish with Israel (Jer 31:31-40). The writings comprising the NT describe the events leading up to the inauguration of the new covenant/testament and its significance for Israel and the world.
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The Lord of hosts is His name): “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the Lord, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.” Thus says the Lord: “If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the Lord. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that the city shall be built for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever.”
The Lord acknowledges the sinfulness of Israel (v. 37) and even though they are undeserving, the Lord God is absolutely unwavering in His commitment to them and the land. But the Mosaic covenant is not enough, there must be a new covenant that supersedes it, loftier in its attributes and consequences. When God choses to enact the new covenant, a faithful Jew would be a fool not to enter into it through a new blood vow. In other words, a Jew could not hope to continue in the former [Mosaic] covenant and please God when the better covenant is placed into effect. The benefits of the new covenant clearly lay in the relationship between God and His people. They will have an inward compulsion to assent to and obey God’s law [What law would that be?]. There will be a new means of knowledge and understanding of who God is [What means would that be?]. The people of the covenant will encompass all classes [Who can they be?]. Sadly, the people will continue to sin yet find complete forgiveness [How can this be?]. Finally, the people of God will dwell in a larger region of holiness untouched by human warfare [How can that be?]. Because this covenant will remain forever, there is no covenant that could ever surpass it. In other words, the new covenant is the final and fullest covenant that God will make with His people, surpassing and completing all the covenants that have come before. At the telling of this prophecy, God determined that a new covenant is necessary for Israel; however, He would wait until a particular time to ordain it [When would that be?]. The Jewish sages could only wonder about the answers to these questions and hope in their God until he brought it to pass. However, when the Lord did enact the new covenant, the years of speculation and expectation made it difficult for law-entrenched Jews to comprehend the simplicity, grandeur, and grace that characterized it.
The four gospel narratives of the NT joyfully proclaim the events leading up to the institution of the new covenant and the remaining literature describes the implications and outworking of the new covenant for the people of God living in the world. The gist of Jeremiah’s prophecy is one of contrast: “not according to the covenant made at Sinai.” However, since concepts contained in the Mosaic covenant appear to remain constant—such as Israel (the people of God), God’s law, sinfulness and the need for forgiveness, holiness (by virtue of God’s presence) and the land—the difference appears to be a contrast of superiority. But even then, the eventual revelation of the new covenant was strikingly different than what the Jewish people had expected (Rom 16:25-26; 1 Cor 2:6-10; Eph 3:8-11; Col 1:24-27). So it is no surprise that even Christians arrive at differing conclusions about the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the Christic covenant.[i] Furthermore, Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant is specifically contrasted with the covenant made with Israel, and seems to leave intact and unaffected the covenants with (Adam), Noah, Abraham, and David. As such, the NT teaches that the new covenant 1) makes full the covenant with Abraham, “that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal 3:14), and 2) makes obsolete the Sinaitic covenant, “Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13).
The term “new covenant” occurs in six NT texts (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15; 12:24) and it is clearly addressed by Paul in Galatians (Gal 4:19-31). Allusions to the prophecy of Jeremiah have also been acknowledged by commentators in Matt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-26 (institution of Lord’s Supper); Jn 6:45 (Jesus as teacher); Jn 8:37-47 (knowledge of God); Jn 16: 7-14 (gift of the Holy Spirit); Acts 5:31 (forgiveness of Israel); Rom:11:27 (forgiveness of sins) Gal 3:14 (gift of Holy Spirit); Heb 7:22 (better covenant); Heb 9:16-22 (related to first covenant); Heb 10:16-17; Heb 13:20 (blood of everlasting covenant); and 2 Thess 2:1 (future gathering). These and other NT passages help answer the questions that derive from Jeremiah’s prophecy.
Question for the New Covenant
|Israel: a nation||Who can they be?||The nature of the people of God.||Church comprising both Jew and Gentile
Matt 16:18 I will build my church
Jn 18:36 My kingdom is not of this world
Rom 1:16 to the Jew first and also to the Greek
Rom 11:7 Israel has not received, but a remnant has
Gal 3:28 you are all one in Christ
1 Pet 2:9 you are a holy nation
|Torah: written law||What law would that be?||The nature of the law||Law of Christ/ Liberty/Love
Jn 8:36 Son makes one free indeed
2 Cor 3:6 not of letter but spirit
2 Cor 3:17 liberty with the Spirit
Heb 12:25 speaks from heaven
Gal 2:4 liberty in Christ from circumcision
Gal 5:14 loving neighbor is epitome of law
Gal 5:1 stand fast in liberty
Gal 6:2 loving neighbor is Christ’s law
Jas 2:8 loving neighbor is royal law
Heb 7:28 appointed by oath after the law
1 Jh 3:11 Christian gospel begins with love
Annointing: ad hoc human ministers speaking for God
|What means would that be?||The nature of knowing God.||Christ the Prophet and Mediator/
Annointing of the Holy Spirit
Lk 4:18 Christ anointed by prophecy
Jn 6:41-51 To know God is to know Jesus
Jn 8:31 Jesus speaks truth from the Father
Jn 14:9-10 Jesus has authority from God
Jn 16:7-14 The Spirit of God takes Jesus’ place
Gal 3:14 receive the promised Spirit through faith
Eph 4:20-24 new man in learning Christ with Spirit
Heb 7:25 come to God through Him
Heb 9:15 He is the Mediator
1 Jn 2:20-27 believers anointed with Holy Spirit
|Forgiveness: by blood atonement||How can this be?||The nature of fellowship with God.||Blood of Christ
Lk 22:20 covenantal blood
Acts 5:31 Jesus gives repentance and forgiveness
1 Cor 11:25 both priest and sacrifice
Heb 7:27 sacrificed once for all
Heb 10:18-18 no more offerings, boldness to enter
Heb 13:20 complete through the blood
|Land/Holiness: specific boundaries and place worship||How can that be?||The nature of the kingdom of God.||Spiritual/ Eternal Kingdom
Jn 4:23 day coming of decentralized worship
Jn 18:36 My servants would fight if worldly kingdom
2 Cor 3:11 more glorious
Heb 9:8 way into Holiest revealed
Heb 11:16 a better country, a heavenly one
Heb 12:28 receiving a kingdom
Gal 4:26 Jerusalem above is free
|Restoration||When would that be?||The nature of eschatology.||Two Advents/Already and Not Yet
Rom 8:30 predestined to glorified
1 Cor 11:28 til He comes
Eph 2:5-6 we are raised and sit in heavenly places
1 Thes 4:14 Christ died and rose, and will come again
2 Thes 2:1 man of sin first, then Christ will appear
Heb 9:28 He will appear a second time
There is a new balance and emphasis when it comes to the concept of “law.” The OT Scriptures are cited to reinforce the ethic that derives from Christ’s ultimate sacrifice not just for sin, but for people. This sacrifice is founded on the love of God in sending His Son (Jh 3:16) and the love of the Son for His friends and brethren (Jn 15:13). And this love should also extend to enemies, for even we were once enemies of God (Col 1:21). The law of Christ begins with love, and just in case the pious Jew is confused by this, there are examples of godly love commanded in the Mosaic law that are consistent with the new emphasis now that Christ has come (Ex 23:4-5, 9; Lev 19:18, 34; Deut 10:18; 32:35). It is not just an external commandment in a code book that we are to obey, but now we are internally compelled to demonstrate love because we have experienced first-hand the ultimate expression of love. The Israelite was told to reflect on the fact that he was once a slave in Egypt, but this mindset reaches its pinnacle in the Christian’s reflection that he was once a slave to sin and now made free to serve Christ. This new covenant freedom far outshines the freedom of Israel as they wandered in the wilderness.
The institution of the nation Israel is one-upped by the institution of the church of Christ. There is still a nation called Israel,[ii] but even in its best times and highest glories, it could never attain the status of “true Israel” which is the church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile under a new covenant and a heavenly kingdom. Israel brought in a few Gentiles through circumcision, but it has been overshadowed by a more encompassing community called the church. Also, there was no nation or international community of God before the calling of Israel, so it is not beyond the intent of God to call into existence something radically different than Israel to become the people of God (Hos 2:23; Rom 9:21-24). From the beginning, the Lord’s elect were traced through faithful individuals and their families (like Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Abraham); then it progressed to a select nation from Jacob (Israel)—but now it comprises people of faith throughout the whole world. In times past, there was always a remnant, a pocket of those who trusted in God (1 Ki 19:18; Isa 1:9); but now, the yeast of His calling has blossomed to produce a wholesome loaf of children of God (Hos 1:10; Matt 13:33; Rom 9:22-29)—not born from the physical lineage of Jacob, but born again by the Spirit through belief in Jesus as Messiah. Israel gestated within a pagan land and was released from servitude to live and rule in their own land. But members of the church are gestated by the telling of the gospel and freed from sin; released to serve God wherever they are, endeavoring to live at peace within their host nation guided by the law of love (Rom 12:18-13:10).[iii] See Continuity/Discontinuity.
“[The new covenant] is the fulfillment of the promises of the old covenant and is better by degrees than that former covenant by virtue of its clearer view of Christ and redemption, its richer experience of the Holy Spirit, and by the greater liberty which it grants to believers.”[iv] “The old dispensation was temporary and preparatory; the new is permanent and final.”[v] “The entirety of Paul’s theology is a juxtaposition of old and new, just as Paul is a unique combination of old: rabbinically trained Jew; and new: Christian apostle and witness of the resurrected Jesus.”[vi] “That is, the use of the word “new” implies that the one which it was to supersede was “old.” New and old stand in contradistinction from each other. . . The object of the apostle is to show that by the very fact of the arrangement for a new dispensation differing so much from the old, it was implied of necessity that that was to be superseded, and would vanish away.”[vii] “As far as Christianity is preferable to Judaism, as far as Christ is preferable to Moses, as far as spiritual blessings are preferable to earthly blessings, and as far as the enjoyment of God throughout eternity is preferable to the communication of earthly good during time; so far does the new covenant exceed the old.”[viii] “If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God.”[ix] “From the fact of one covenant being established, he infers the subversion of the other; and by calling it the old covenant, he assumes that it was to be abrogated; for what is old tends to a decay. Besides, as the new is substituted, it must be that the former has come to an end; for the second, as it has been said, is of another character. But if the whole dispensation of Moses, as far as it was opposed to the dispensation of Christ, has passed away, then the ceremonies also must have ceased.”[x] The first covenant demanded obedience, and failed because it could not find it. The New Covenant was expressly made to provide for obedience.”[xi]
The controversy about the applicability of the Sabbath under the new covenant is between the beneficiaries of the new covenant. That is, Christians who entered into the new covenant with God by grace through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ differ as to whether the Sabbath must be observed.[xii] The Christian’s view of the new covenant appears to hold a uniformly lofty position whether one is a Seventh-day Sabbatarian, a Sunday Sabbatarian, or a non-Sabbatarian. So, are these different approaches Sabbath observance related at all to one’s understanding of the new covenant? That is, is there something about the new covenant that directly affects one’s view of the Sabbath?
This question would appear to take on two paths. 1) If the new covenant doctrine itself has no impact on the matter, then the argument for or against the Sabbath would not begin with the new covenant or the relationship between the old and new covenants. The arguments would be based on a separate rationale that only loosely ties into one’s understanding of the covenants. 2) If there is some subtle understanding about the new covenant that separates the various positions, then we would expect the argument for or against Sabbath-keeping to center on this difference. So, when Sabbatarians or non-Sabbatarians address this topic, do they count on their understanding of the new covenant to frame their argument or some other reference point? Where a proponent of each viewpoint begins can be telling.
Ratzlaff is a former SDA (SS) writing from the LD position. He begins his book “Sabbath in Christ” with discussions about the old and new covenants. The relationship between the covenants is central to his thesis that the Sabbath has been abrogated.[xiii] O’Hare’s (LD) “Sabbath Complete” surveys the topic as it unfolds from Genesis to Revelation. While the various covenants are discussed throughout these pages, it is not until the new covenant is established with the death and resurrection of Jesus that the rationale for a fulfilled Sabbath is presented.[xiv] Morrison’s (LD) argument in “Sabbath, Circumcision, and Tithing” also follows the biblical timeline to present the Sabbath as one of many calendar observances of the Mosaic covenant that were rendered obsolete by the new covenant.[xv] On the other hand, Ray (CS) begins with the Fourth Commandment in “Celebrating the Sabbath” and his enlarged concept of the Sabbath gets transferred to the Lord’s Day by the new covenant.[xvi] To escape the effect of the new covenant on ceremonial laws, the Sabbath is claimed to be a commandment for all mankind since creation. Pipa’s (CS) “The Lord’s Day” begins with the Sabbath commandment and an argument against “anti-sabbatarians” who on the basis of their understanding about the new covenant believe it has been set aside.[xvii] Acknowledging the fact that the Sabbath was a sign of the Mosaic covenant and contains ceremonial aspects, Pipa simply asserts that the Sabbath is still morally binding. Bacchiocchi (SS) presents his thesis via an historical analysis, yet he sets up the Sabbath as an enduring commandment despite its symbolic and typological meaning—“not the literal abrogation but the spiritual valorization of the commandment.”[xviii] Observance of the fourth commandment, he posits, was lost to Christianity by the co-opting of pagan Sun-day worship. A more historically oriented work by Heylyn (LD, 1636) recounts the history of Christianity up to his time to demonstrate that after looking through the annals of Christian history no Sabbath observance was found, not until “forty years ago, no more, some men began to introduce a Sabbath thereunto, in hope thereby to countenance and advance their other projects.”[xix]
By this brief review and my awareness of the arguments, it appears that CS and SS theologians assign certain values and interpretive rules to the Sabbath before the new covenant comes into the discussion, and these notions insulate it from the effects of the new covenant. The heightened Sabbath of the CS position is preserved but shifted to Sunday by virtue of the new covenant. Some in this camp would agree that certain ceremonial aspects enjoined only during the Mosaic covenant were done away with by the new covenant. Sunday Sabbatarians (CS) give credence to the historical practice of the church to gather on the first day of the week but they deny the historical findings of Heylyn. On the other hand, the esteemed Sabbath of Saturday Sabbatarians (SS) is unchangeable, so first-day worship must be a theological error introduced early in the history of the church.
What are the values and interpretive rules assigned to the Sabbath by SS and CS advocates that in the end prevent them from recognizing or comprehending the nullifying effect of the new covenant on the Sabbath that the LD community believes? This is the same question as: what principles or facts are the LD failing to comprehend that makes it difficult for them to accept a moral and eternally obligatory Sabbath, which they must ultimately observe on Saturday or Sunday?
- The Sabbath was instituted at creation. Because this predates the Mosaic covenant, the new covenant cannot undo it. It is not a ceremonial law but a creation mandate.
- The Sabbath is in the Ten Commandments. God placed it in the Decalogue because it is a moral command, and therefore, the new covenant cannot annul it. The new covenant only put an end to the ceremonies tied to the Sabbath under Moses.
- Jesus obeyed the Sabbath and corrected misunderstandings about it. Jesus would not approach the Sabbath in this way unless it was an enduring commandment.
- Sure, the Sabbath is symbolic and typologic, but since the final rest has not yet occurred, the practice of it must continue through the church age. Marriage is also moral and symbolic of a future reality, and it is unchanged by the new covenant.
- The Sabbath cannot be abrogated by the new covenant except by explicit instruction, which is denied. The mention of the Sabbath in Colossians must not be referring to the weekly Sabbath.
- The resurrection was of such importance that it is the reason for moving the Sabbath to the first day of the week.
[i] Can there be alternative names for the new covenant? It is the covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ. As the preceding covenants were named eponymously, I think it can be called either the Christic or Messianic covenant.
[ii] There was no Jewish “nation” from 73 to 1948 CE. Israel was not a nation (1,865 years) longer than it was a nation (about 1,382 years, not counting the past 70 years).
[iii] The history of the church demonstrates its struggle with the concept of living in the world as a “holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9) of a different order or character.
[iv] Rayburn, R. S. “Covenant, New” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Ewell, ed., p. 301.
[v] Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 377.
[vi] Hagner, Donald A. “Paul as a Jewish Believer—According to His Letters” in Jewish Believers in Jesus, p. 118.
[vii] Barnes, Albert. Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistle to the Hebrews, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1861), p. 181. (Heb 8:13).
[viii] Clarke, Adam. Commentary on the Bible, (Heb 8:6). Biblesoft Electronic Library.
[ix] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11 (ANF 1:200).
[x] Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews, p. 193 (Heb 8:13)
[xi] Murray, Andrew. The Two Covenants and the Second Blessing, London: James Nesbit & Co., 1899, p. 115. Italics in the original.
[xii] On the fringes, it is also a conflict between believers and pseudo-Christian cults.
[xiii] Ratzlaff, Dale. Sabbath in Christ. LAM, 2010.
[xiv] O’Hare, Terrence D. The Sabbath Complete, Wipf and Stock, 2011.
[xv] Morrison, Michael. Sabbath, Circumcision, and Tithing. Writers Club Press, 2002.
[xvi] Ray, Bruce A. Celebrating the Sabbath. P&R, 2000.
[xvii] Pipa, Joseph A. The Lord’s Day. Christian Focus, 1997.
[xviii] Bacchiocchi, Samuele. From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 69.
[xix] Heylyn, Peter. The History of the Sabbath, ed. Stuart Brogden (2018), p. 379.
Noachide (Noachian) Law. A body of laws presumed by ancient Jews to have been given by God to mankind prior to the giving of the Torah to Israel. All mankind (Gentiles specifically) would be accountable to this seven-point code composed of prohibitions against 1) idolatry, 2) fornication, 3) murder, 4) blasphemy, 5) corrupt government, 6) stealing, and 7) cruelty to animals. The rationale for determining such a moral standard begins with the knowledge that the law of commandments (Torah) was given to Israel, all 613 of them. This means that the Torah was not given to Adam, Noah, or even Abraham. Not until God befriended Abraham and gave him the sign of circumcision does the concept of national Israel even find reality. Since the people of Israel were chosen by God to receive the law, all other peoples and nations were not (Rom 9:4; Eph 2:12). Paul expresses that national pride in the statement, “We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles” (Gal 2:15). Paul also states boldly that the Gentiles did not have the [Mosaic] law (Rom 2:12-14; 1 Cor 9:20). Ancient Jewish rabbis considered this matter in Midrash Bereshit Rabba—and Neusner summarizes: “What Adam could not accomplish, Moses did…what man could not do, Israel, represented by Moses, can do.”[i]
The respect and love for the Torah as a guide to life elicited questions about the righteousness of Noah (Gen 7:1), who represents all mankind. How could Noah live righteously and then successfully weather the trial of his faith without the Torah to guide him? The ancient commentators deduced that mankind in Noah’s generation was not without some law delineating God’s expectations of mankind, otherwise, God could not be just in rendering judgment. The murder of Abel, the violence in Noah’s day, and the hubris at Babel provide the backdrop for determining what sins for which mankind was held accountable. Yet, even though the Gentiles did not have this unique revelation of God and a favored status by virtue of the forthcoming Messiah, the Gentiles still had a conscience that in many ways reflected the morality of the law (Rom 2:14). A Gentile is not judged by the law [of Moses], but by his own conscience that is open and laid bare before the judgment of Jesus Christ (Rom 2:15-16). And Gentiles, like Noah, first find grace in the Lord’s eyes and through faith are declared righteous (Gen 6:8; 15:6; Heb 11:7, 8; Rom 4).
A list of laws is presented in Acts 15 during the council at Jerusalem which addressed the reception of Gentiles into the growing gospel community. The specific laws mentioned on that occasion were: 1) avoiding things polluted by idolatry, 2) eluding fornication, 3) abstaining from improperly killing animals for food, and 4) shunning blood (drinking it, shedding it?). The sign of circumcision, necessary of male converts to Judaism, was not required of male converts to Christianity. This passage does not lend credence to the theory that God gave Adam and Noah these specific laws. This topic only addresses the Jewish answer to the question about the possible salvation of non-Jews.
The judgment of Noah’s world finds significance in new testament literature, as Jesus draws a parallel between that worldly judgment and the forthcoming judgment at the world’s end (Matt 24:37-38; 1 Pet 3:20). The world’s population was and continues to be held accountable to a uniform and unchanging standard of righteousness. But noticeably absent in any narrative in which Gentiles are “weighed and found wanting” (Dan 5:27) are any failures to observe Noachide laws, let alone any ritual laws such as circumcision, sacrifices, and Sabbath-keeping. Cain did not fear God and was a murderer (Gen 4:8; Heb 11:4); Lot failed in drunkenness and incest (Gen 19:33); Belshazzar was convicted of pride and idolatry (Dan 5:22-23); Nebuchadnezzar was prideful and unmerciful in his office (Dan 4:27); the King of Tyre was given much, but full of pride, self-love, and greed (Ezek 28:2, 4, 17, 18); and the people of Sodom were full of pride, gluttonous, lazy, and indifferent to the poor and needy (Ezek 16:48-50). In none of these cases, were any of these Gentile sinners accused of violating the law of Moses or the covenant with Israel. Indeed, no Gentile was ever condemned for failing to observe the Sabbath. However, the Lord judged Israel for their failure to observe the Sabbath of the Land (2 Chr 26:21) and he even despised the manner in which the Jews regarded the Sabbath (Ezek 22:8). But no other nation was so judged. In fact, the Lord found fit to deport Israel for seventy years to a country that did not observe the Sabbath or the Sabbath of the Land.
Paul asserted that the Gentiles do by nature the things in the law—their conscience bearing witness of their internal knowledge of good and evil. They may get a twinge of caution or a spasm of reconsideration as they plan to threaten and rob someone who is weaker than them. In a moment of uncontrolled passion, they may sleep with a whore or their neighbor’s wife, and yet secretly carry regret for the remainder of their life. Even a pagan child knows it’s wrong to intentionally hurt someone. But what Gentile parents on the eighth day of their newborn son’s life struggle with an inner-knowledge that they should remove their son’s foreskin (Lev 12:3)? What pagan after touching a deceased body is driven by his conscience to purify himself by water on the third and seventh day (Num 19:11)? What nation, state, or city of Gentiles on the fifteenth day of the seventh month gather fruit, palm leaves, and willow branches, and then rejoice for seven days while they live in little huts (Lev 23:34-43)? And what non-Jew in history past, felt compelled to refrain from all manner of labor every seventh day, not even building a fire or traveling (Ex 16:23-29; 31:14-16; 35:2-3)? If Paul is correct that the conscience of Gentiles—those unfamiliar with Mosaic law—is pricked when they fail to obey moral laws, and if Sabbatarians are correct that the Sabbath—resting from all manner of work on the seventh day—is a moral law, then ancient history, sociology, and anthropology books should be replete with accounts of institutional sabbatisms among most cultures, ancient and modern. But Webster’s research could find no rational explanation for the origin of the Sabbath among the Jews and declared it a “momentous innovation… which must be attributed to the Hebrew people alone.”[ii] As Webster considered the history of Christianity, he observed that the early church fathers “made no reference to Sunday as a day of abstinence from labour.”[iii] He noted that the view that Sunday should be observed like a Sabbath occurred occasionally during the Middle Ages, but did not come to fruition until the “excesses of English and Scottish Puritanism” [in the 16th century].[iv] Apart from Judaism, the Sabbath wields no moral force. And Christians who wield the Sabbath are Judaizing the Lord’s Day.
[i] Neusner, Jacob. Confronting Creation, p. 108. The argument is spurious for sure, but the ancients observed that Adam had a mere six commandments to follow, but failed. Therefore, he was not up to task of receiving the Torah. However, Israel obtained righteousness, God finding it in Abraham, David, and Israel. It is through the merits of Israel that Noah found grace. “Noah on his own–that is, humanity–enjoyed salvation only because of Israel’s merit” (p. 124).
[ii] Webster, Hutton. Rest Days, p. 254.
[iii] Ibid., p. 270.
[iv] Ibid., p. 270-271.
Ten Commandments/Decalogue. The Ten Commandments, or Ten Words, are the major part of the engraved covenant given to Israel by God from Mount Sinai shortly after the Exodus (Ex 20:1-17). “The Decalogue provides the basis for the covenant with all of Israel.”[i] The prologue identifies the parties to the covenant—the Lord God who makes nations bow to His will and the formerly enslaved and now redeemed Israelites who are to serve a new Master—and it is followed by ten laws. This collection of laws attains special status since they were specifically inscribed on stone by the hand of God and called the “Ten Words” (Ex 34:28; Deut 4:13). The manner in which the Lord conveyed His message with lightning and thundering, and the unique presentation of a miraculously hewn document that capsulized the covenant between Israel and Himself, impressed the whole camp of the Lord’s cosmic authority. He is the sovereign God of heaven and earth, yet He is establishing a covenant agreement with the least of all nations for the sake of His promise to Abraham. The Ten Commandments (with the prologue) are essentially the core document of the Mosaic covenant, kept as it was in the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:16; Deut 10:2-5, 8). The idea of a “commandment” is to draw attention to the authority of the one issuing the command, and so all Israel was to obey all the commandments of the covenant, both ethical and cultic commands. Moses introduced the engraved law and covenant as “testimonies, statutes and ordinances” (Deut 4:13-14, 44-45; 5:1), so the laws of the Decalogue are no different than the rest of the laws of the covenant and one will find that ceremonial laws are also considered to be “commandments” (Lev 27:34; Deut 1:3; 11:22; 19:9). While the form of the Ten Commandments lends itself to catechetical instruction or memory (Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2; Matt 19:17-22; Rom 13:9; cf. Lev 19:1-18; Deut 27:15-26), they far from dominate either OT or NT ethical lists or summaries. “The commandments of the Decalogue are rarely cited in the OT.”[ii] “In what respect exactly the ten commandments differed from the Book of the Covenant in terms of content is nowhere explicitly stated.”[iii] “Exodus 23 belongs to the Book of the Covenant, where the statutes and ordinances for the covenantal relationship are laid out, and these regulations can be considered as an explication of the Decalogue, which precedes them.”[iv]
There are no punishments—no legal recourses—stipulated within this document; however, there is a promise associated with the command to honor one’s parents. Most of the laws are couched as prohibitions. This collection of laws is a summary of the covenant the Lord made with Israel, “listing those areas of life where human conduct was intended to be shaped and enriched by adherence to the demands of living as a community of God’s people.”[v] “The focus is on protecting the health of the community, to which end the individual plays such an important role.”[vi]
When this list of commands is viewed superficially, the Decalogue is often considered to represent the minimum moral requirements to ensure that one’s life pleases God, but this is not to imply that obedience to the Ten Commandments will result in the salvation of one’s soul. “The giving of the law [the Ten Commandments] followed the salvation of Israel, and hence such obedience signified Israel’s grateful response to the redemption accomplished by the Lord.”[vii] Another view imagines that each commandment has a positive and negative duty that, when viewed in their totality, then encompasses every area of life. For example, not only should we not kill someone, we should also make effort to preserve human life. However, Jesus demonstrated the inadequacy of this view (Matt 10:34-29; 18:18-23; 22:35-40; cf. Isa 1:13-17; Mic 6:8). These two views often overlook three other features about the Ten Commandments: 1) they are a summary of the whole law that Israel was covenanted to keep, 2) the number and arrangement of those laws have symbolic meaning,[viii] and 3) the NT adds a new perspective about the law, and the Decalogue as a whole (2 Cor 3:6-4:6; Heb 7:11-12; 9:1-10; 12:18-24). See Moral Law and Noachide Law.
Individual commandments from the Decalogue are referenced positively in the gospels (Matt 5:21, 27; 19:18-19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Lk 18:20), by Paul (Rom 7:7-8; 13:9-10; Eph 6:1-3; 1 Tim 1:9-11), and by other NT writers (Jas 2:11), so, as with all other Scriptures, are profitable for the man of God (2 Tim 3:16-17). At the same time, Paul provides a fresh view of the Decalogue as a contrasting type of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6-18). “Paul has a certain view of the OT from the outset, as we can see in the very first reference to the ministry of the old covenant, where he already calls it a ‘ministry of death’.”[ix] Balla points out that Paul is not addressing the content of the law at this point, only the manner in which the two covenants were promulgated. However, Paul also emphasizes a liberty in the NT in contrast to the “veil” of the OT that obscured a clear vision of Jesus Christ. Certainly this would include the Spirit’s revelation that Christ is the topic of many OT narratives and laws. Paul’s repeated use of katargeo (“done away” and “abolished”) in his letter to the Corinthians is similar to doing away with the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” that kept Jew and Gentile apart (Eph 2:15-22). As Henry summarized this liberty under the gospel dispensation, there is “freedom from the yoke of ceremonial law, and from the servitude of corruption; liberty of access to God, and freedom of speech in prayer.”[x] See Abrogation.
“Therefore, from the perspective of the new covenant, the Decalogue is understood not as a summary of moral law but as a symbol of a pre-Christ relationship between God and His people and a type of the more glorious new covenant.”[xi]
“The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins, through faith.”[xii] “When I say that the Ten Commandments are finished, I mean as a covenant document, or as the tables of the covenant.”[xiii] “In other words there is a sense for Christians that the Ten Commandments do not apply to them.”[xiv]
The Ten Commandments are often proclaimed to be a summary of moral law as opposed to a summary of the Lord’s covenant with Israel. For example, “A summary of this moral law, including, in general principle, all the duties which grow out of our relations to God and to our fellow-men, is presented in the Ten Commandments, engraved by the finger of God on two tablets of stone on Mount Sinai.”[xv] “The Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God on tables of stone at Mount Sinai, are the Lord’s summary of moral law, his definition of loving behavior.”[xvi] As with any assertion, there may or may not be evidence to back it up. And so this view is not without its detractors, who except the Sabbath as a moral commandment. Weirsbe states, “There is no evidence in Scripture that God ever gave the original Sabbath command to the Gentiles, or that it was repeated for the church to obey. Nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the church epistles, but the Sabbath commandment is not repeated.”[xvii]Rordorff’s review of early Christian literature discovered that “whenever we come across the use of the decalogue within the Christian Church, the sabbath commandment is always missing.”[xviii] Augustine excepted the Sabbath Commandment: “Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian…” Come the second millennium and Aquinas softened this distinction to say the Fourth Commandment was only moral in that “some time” be devoted to the worship of God. This was the historic view prior to the Reformation, and it was shared in part by Luther and Calvin. Luther’s Small Catechism is most succinct in advising, on the basis of the Sabbath commandment, “We should so fear and love God as not to despise preaching and his Word, but deem it holy, and willingly hear and learn it.”[xix] In contradistinction, Luther also said “the [NT] Scripture, which teacheth that all the Mosaical ceremonies can be omitted after the Gospel is revealed, has abrogated the Sabbath.”[xx] Bauckham explains that “Luther defends the Christian Sunday as a civil or ecclesiastical institution” as opposed to a divine command.[xxi] In his Institutes, Calvin agrees that the external observance of the Sabbath is typological and so was abolished; however, he adds that for Christians it means 1) we should cease from our works and allow God to work within us, 2) there should be a stated day to hear the Law and perform religious rites, and 3) servants “should be indulged with a day or rest, and thus have some intermission from labour.[xxii] “Like Luther, Calvin stresses that the institution of the weekly Sunday is a matter of convenience and order only…”[xxiii]
The Ten Commandments are certainly a summary of the Mosaic covenant which, from the perspective of the new covenant, is comprised of both moral and ceremonial laws (Ex 20:2, 12; 34:28, 29; Deut 4:13; 5:2-4, 15; 2 Cor 3:6-11; Gal 3:16-19; 4:24-26). “Equally importantly, [in the Decalogue] there is no distinction between the cultic and the social/ethical; they are simply fused.”[xxiv] Of all the cultic observances peculiar to the Mosaic covenant, the Lord chose the weekly Sabbath to be the identifying sign to accompany the other commandments that make up the Decalogue. But there is no legitimate rationale to support the assertion that the Ten Commandments were intended to be a summary of God’s moral law for all nations. This includes the presumption that Christ’s summation of the Mosaic covenant (loving God and neighbor) is a compendium of the Decalogue. While the Ten Words are a convenient and concise list of mostly moral duties and it has served the church to inculcate moral instruction by it, the theological imprecision has led to confusion regarding the place of the Sabbath in Christian ethics. As such, the claim that the Decalogue is a summary of moral laws that by extension apply to all nations can only be true if all of the commandments are indeed moral laws. The burden of proof therefore is to demonstrate unequivocally that the Sabbath, as given to Israel, is a moral commandment, of the same ethical substance and character as the other nine. However, Shepard’s attempt to demonstrate this is quite inadequate and unconvincing.[xxv] “Certain expedients [were] contrived to bring natural law as close as possible to the Sabbath commandment, but by and large the Puritans abandoned as untenable the notion that the Sabbath law is wholly ‘natural.’”[xxvi] “Nor are the usual modern reflections on the Decalogue’s being universal in character, or ethically oriented, based on solid evidence.”[xxvii] “Hence it is of considerable importance that these commandments not be understood as eternally limited in scope or as ethical principles more important than any others that might be formulated.”[xxviii] “I repeat; the idea that the Ten Commandments constitute the ‘moral law of God’ is derived from the WCF, with absolutely no biblical proof.”[xxix] ”Cassuto observes that the sixth through eighth commandments are found in every civilized society yet are unusual here because of their absolute, unqualified form as abstract, eternal principles.”[xxx]
[i] Childs, Brevard S., The Book of Exodus, Old Testament Library, p. 398.
[ii] Pao, David W. and Schnabel Eckhard J., “Luke” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 351.
[iii] Childs, Brevard S., The Book of Exodus, Old Testament Library, p. 397-98.
[iv] Pao, David W. and Schnabel Eckhard J., “Luke” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 300.
[v] Clements, Ronald E. p. 288.
[vi] Fretheim, Terence E., Exodus, Interpretation Commentary, p. 221.
[vii] Schreiner, Thomas R. 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, p. 26. Emphasis in the original.
[viii] O’Hare, Terrence D., The Sabbath Complete, p. 323-24. Explores the significance of the Sabbath as the fourth in order of the Ten Commandments as a redemptive feature.
[ix] Balla, Peter, “2 Corinthians” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 754-55.
[x] Henry, Matthew, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 6, p. 495. (2 Cor3:17)
[xi] O’Hare, Terrence D., The Sabbath Complete, p. 56.
[xii] Ursinus, Zacharias. Commentary of the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard; reprint of 1852 ed.; p. 2.
[xiii] Reisinger, John G. Tablets of Stone, p.98.
[xiv] Arand, Charles P. “Luther’s Radical Reading of the Sabbath Commandment” in Perspectives on the Sabbath, p. 220.
[xv] Hodge, A. A., p. 280.
[xvi] Chantry, Walter, Call the Sabbath a Delight, p. 17.
[xvii] Weirsbe, Warren W., Bible Exposition Commentary, p. 392.
[xviii] Rordorf, Willy, Sunday, p.106.
[xix] Schaff, Phillip, The Creeds of Christendom, Luther’s Small Catechism, Vol. 3, p. 74-75.
[xx] Schaff, Phillip, The Creeds of Christendom, The Augsburg Confession, Vol. 3, p. 69.
[xxi] Bauckham, R. J. “Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 314.
[xxii] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, p.339.
[xxiii] Bauckham, R. J. “Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 316.
[xxiv] Watts, Rikk E., “Mark” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 167.
[xxv] Shepard, Thomas. Theses Sabbaticae. See my book review at http://wp.me/p4w327-83.
[xxvi] Bauckham, R. J. “Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 324.
[xxvii] Childs, Brevard S., The Book of Exodus, Old Testament Library, p. 398.
[xxviii] Fretheim, Terence E., Exodus, Interpretation Commentary, p. 222.
[xxix] Reisinger, John G. Tablets of Stone, p. 145.
[xxx] Blomberg, Craig L., “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 21.
Ceremonial Law. A class of laws within the Mosaic legal corpus generally associated with the religious system of worship—of the priesthood, place worship, sacrifices and offerings, and calendar rituals—that foreshadowed the work and benefits of redemption effected by Christ’s life and death (as well as His ultimate second coming)—and now rendered void to us, having been fulfilled. “Ceremonial laws were those which God gave through Moses in reference to ceremonies, or the external solemn ordinances which were to be observed in the public worship of God, with a proper attention to the circumstances which had been prescribed; binding the Jewish nation to the coming of the Messiah, and at the same time distinguishing them from all other nations; and that they might also be signs, symbols, types and shadows of spiritual things to be fulfilled in the New Testament by Christ.”[i] “The Ceremonial Law prescribes under the Old Testament the rites and ceremonies of worship… obligatory only till Christ, of whom these rites were typical… It was fulfilled rather than abrogated by the gospel.”[ii] “The Jews thought themselves complete in the ceremonial law; but we are complete in Christ.”[iii] “The ceremonial laws, civil laws, and the penal code have been abrogated, and the moral law has received further clarification in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ.”[iv] “The Gospel is a glorious superseding of and an advancement over the Mosaic administration with its ceremonial ordinances…the redemptive instructions for circumcision, priesthood, sacrifice, and temple.”[v] “In calling the Law the ‘elements of the world’ [Gal 4:3] Paul refers to the whole Law, [yet] principally to the ceremonial law which dealt with external matters, as meat, drink, dress, places, times, feasts, cleansings, sacrifices, etc.”[vi] “But the ceremonial law (including the Sabbath laws) was never given to the Gentiles.”[vii] “While the Sabbath ceremonials have passed away, the Sabbath principle itself remains valid and binding.”[viii]
The term “ceremonial” to describe cultic or ritualistic laws of the Mosaic covenant is not specifically used by NT writers. The concept is presented in the NT, but not the term. I will sometimes use the term “shadow law” as a synonym because of Paul’s specific use of the word “shadow” (skia) to describe Mosaic commandments that provided, as it were, a general outline or form of something in a darkened silhouette cast by something substantial, real, and tangible (Col 2:17). If a specific OT law was a shadow, then Christ would be the reality. “The outward performance of Jewish ceremonies became a matter of relative insignificance compared to the realization that they were designed and commanded to prepare the Jewish nation for the arrival of the Messiah.”[ix]
There is another class of ceremonial laws that our Lord established for the church to observe, and like the ceremonial laws of Israel, they are to be observed for a time and discontinued when the reason for them has been fully satisfied, i.e., when the final person enters the kingdom of God, marking the time that Christ returns to judge the world (Rom 8:18-21; 1 Cor 11:26; Rev 21:2). While Christians may boast in the fact that they are free from the observance of ceremonial laws, the fact remains that a new set of ceremonial laws has been given to the church. This should not be a surprise to Christ-followers, for if you have engaged in baptism or communion (in the context of church attendance), then you have participated in symbolic rituals that have a spiritual meaning. These two new covenant ceremonies 1) were rooted in specific historic events and soon practiced by the early church,[x] 2) picture spiritual realities already experienced in the life of the believer[xi], and 3) anticipate an escalation of fulfillment in the future.[xii] Almost all Christian sects acknowledge these two symbolic and ritualistic ceremonies for the Christian church. The church also has the external practice of gathering together on a weekly basis to perform the work of ministry and worship as “one bread” in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 10:17; 11:18-26; 16:2; 1 Pet 2:5). This was ordained by the Lord and promulgated by apostolic authority. This ministry then continues throughout the week under the guidance of the church leaders and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:4; Php 2:12-17). See Typology and Abrogation.
With rare exceptions, Christian theologians and church leaders acknowledge the Sabbath to be a ceremonial law or to at least possess ceremonial features. Pipa, a Sunday Sabbatarian admits, “This is not to say that there are no ceremonial aspects to the Fourth Commandment.”[xiii] This requires the Sabbath to be abrogated at least in those parts acknowledged to be ceremonial, because they typify Christ and His salvation. Furthermore, the onus probandi is to demonstrate the spiritual intent of a ceremonial law and specifically how Jesus fulfilled it through His redemptive ministry. Suffice it to say that whatever laws we classify as “ceremonial” are no longer required of Christians, and the practice of them is to be considered a burden or yoke, especially if we think there is any spiritual value in performing them.
However, in order to preserve the seventeenth century doctrine of a moral Sabbath, CS and SS theologians must deny or downplay the typological fulfillment of the Sabbath, especially the idea that Christ makes full and satisfies the symbolic intent of “rest.” This leads to expositions that end in non sequiturs, confusing statements, or self-contradiction. Campbell (CS) acknowledges that the Sabbath is a sign of the Mosaic covenant and that the new covenant “has no need of ritual and ceremony [characteristic of the OT],” but then he concludes: “Not only is there a Sabbath for us in the New Testament: there is also a Lord’s Day for us in the Old.”[xiv] For Campbell, a “more stringent” weekly 24-hour rest from labor, sports, birthday parties, marriage celebrations, travel, and commerce, is not a ritual. He continues: “And as far as the fourth commandment is concerned, the shadow (the old, week-end Sabbath) has gone, but the Christ-substance appears before us now in a week-beginning Sabbath.”[xv] This echoes Pipa’s assertion that “the seventh-day Sabbath has been changed to a first-day Sabbath.”[xvi] Now, when Christ fulfills OT ceremonies, He gives spiritual flesh and value to what the ceremony foreshadowed so that it can never be done in the same way as before, because the outward observance is empty compared to spiritual benefits it foreshadowed in Christ. But Campbell and Pipa seem to say that the spiritual message of the seventh-day Sabbath and Jesus’ great accomplishment of all it foreshadowed is that we get to observe the same Sabbath on a different day! Somehow, the net effect of Jesus’ fulfillment of the OT Sabbath is that He postponed it one day. On Saturday, the Sabbath-rest looked forward to the day that we get to do the same Sabbath-rest on Sunday and call it the Christ-substance.[xvii]
Barnes (CS) cannot conceive of the Sabbath in ceremonial terms: “And hence it was, that while the observance of the feasts of tabernacles, and of the Passover, and of the new moons, made a part of the ceremonial law, the law respecting the sabbaths was incorporated with the ten commandments as of moral and perpetual obligation.”[xviii] The problem with Barnes’ analysis is that the Feast of Tabernacles, the Passover, and the New Moons were observed as Sabbaths! If he is comfortable with the fulfillment of these annual Sabbaths, why not the weekly Sabbaths? In what way did Jesus fulfill the seven annual 24-hour rests, but not the weekly 24-hour rests? Barnes must demonstrate biblically how the weekly Sabbaths are to be treated differently than the yearly Sabbaths, especially when Paul made no distinction in categorizing all feast days, New Moons, and Sabbaths as shadows (Col 2:16). It is not sufficient to simply state that the weekly Sabbaths are in the Decalogue and therefore exempt from fulfillment, while the annual Sabbaths are fulfilled in Christ. Apostle Paul must have realized that the Sabbath commandment is reiterated in the Ten Words, but this made no difference to him—all calendar observances listed in Leviticus 23 are fulfilled by Christ. To fulfill the Sabbath, whether it occurs weekly or annually, is to fulfill the typological intent of rest, which is living in the presence of God in a state of holiness. For Jesus to be our giver of rest, He must amplify and accentuate the figures of rest. Hence, His rest is a daily experience of redeeming grace and an eternally effective dispensation of peace and security.
Hodge (CS) classifies the law of God into four groups: 1) the foundational obligations of love and truth consistent with God’s nature; 2) the moral obligations for human relationships and societies [these two would comprise the moral law of God]; 3) the temporary duties for Israel dealing with their social, governmental, and ecclesiastical functions [this would be ceremonial and judicial laws of the Mosaic covenant]; and finally, 4) the duties that God simply wills for us to do. Into this last category, Hodge places the “Christian Sabbath,” an obligation that whether we understand the reason or not, we are morally obligated to obey. Hodge further explains that it is the invariable need for rest that man must keep the Sabbath day holy, yet God may will that a particular day be set aside for this, “which otherwise would have been a matter of indifference.” Hodge knows that the “Christian Sabbath” does not fit neatly into the realm of moral law (otherwise he would have addressed it under that rubric); and at the same time he does not want the Sabbath to be relegated to ceremonial law because, for him, the Christian day of worship cannot stand on its own, but must be unescapably bound to the Sabbath.
The crux of the matter is whether the Sabbath is infused with redemptive meaning or not. If the external observance of the Sabbath is pregnant with the symbolism of redemption, then it may conclusively be categorized as a ceremonial law. Campbell (CS) acknowledges the strong connection between the tabernacle and the Sabbath in Exodus 35: “The symbolism of creation is evident, therefore, as much in the Sabbath principle as in the tabernacle construction and its account. The cumulative evidence of these early passages of Genesis and Exodus point to the intimate relationship between creation and redemption, with the Sabbath principle of creation binding these motifs and themes together.”[xix] Campbell laid the foundation for declaring the typological intent of the Sabbath, but rather than promote the glory of Christ in fulfilling it, he obfuscates matters with needless casuistry. The typology of the Sabbath will be explored further in this work, however, should the reader want a detailed explanation how the seven external Sabbath-keeping behaviors have biblically defensible redemptive meanings, the matter is presented in my book, “The Sabbath Complete.”
[i] Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 491.
[ii] Easton, “Law” in Easton’s Bible Dictionary.
[iii] Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Col 2:4-12, p. 610.
[iv] VanGemeren, Willem A., “The Law is the Perfection of Righteousness in Jesus Christ” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 37.
[v] Bahnsen, Greg L., “The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 99.
[vi] Luther, Martin. A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, (1538? 31?) trans. Theodore Graebner, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervon (1949). p. 99.
[vii] Weirsbe, Warren W. Weirsbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament, Cook:Colorado Springs, CO (1992), p. 524. (on Gal 3:19-20).
[viii] Campbell, Iain D., On the First Day of the Week, p. 66.
[ix] O’Hare, Terrence D., The Sabbath Complete, p. 190.
[x] The baptism of Jesus by John (Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; Acts 2:38; 8:37-39) and the inauguration of the new covenant by Jesus at the close of Passover, the evening before His crucifixion (Lk 22:14-20; Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:23-26).
[xi] Sharing in the baptism of Jesus’ suffering () and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit () through faith. Made “one bread” as a community of faith and having the assurance of forgiveness because of Jesus’ shed blood; re-enactment of the initial covenant meal and re-commitment.
[xii] The world will experience the baptism of suffering but the saints will be immersed into the heavenly community prepared for us at the beginning. The saints from every nation, tongue, and kindred will experience the full unity of kingdom of God under His perfect rule.
[xiii] Pipa, Joseph A., The Lord’s Day, p. 57.
[xiv] Campbell, Iain D., On the First Day of the Week, p. 59, 66.
[xv] Campbell, Iain D., On the First Day of the Week, p. 149.
[xvi] Pipa, Joseph A., The Lord’s Day, p. 64.
[xvii] His argument seems to be that the Feast of First Fruits was fulfilled by Jesus in His resurrection, and that by fulfilling that calendar feast, He moved the Sabbath to Sunday, which starts the week instead of finishing it.
[xviii] Barnes, Albert. Notes on the Old Testament, Isaiah, 2 Vol., (Isa 66:23)
[xix] Campbell, Iain D., On the First Day of the Week, p. 62-63.
Moral Law. Also called lex naturalis: laws revealed in nature and the conscience. Based on the absolute holiness of God, these apodictic laws have widespread acceptance among most societies, indicating an innate consciousness of a commonly held moral behavior, such as protecting the sanctity of life, the right to own property, fidelity in marriage, respect and equanimity in relationships, and the virtue of truthfulness (Ps 98:2; Rom 1:18-32), with the concomitant responsibility to punish wrong-doers. As such, moral law transcends Mosaic law. Within the Mosaic law, God explicitly reveals moral and ethical standards that most cultures would assent to; however, only the Judeo-Christian religions attribute the source of this standard to a sovereign and holy God.[i] As such, any failure to act in a moral way, such as adultery and murder, is a sin against God and a challenge to His authority (2 Sam 12:13; Mic 7:1-9; Lk 15:21; Rom 8:7). “The sublime source of this law is the uncreated, absolute, and immutable moral perfection of the divine nature.”[ii] “The moral laws, then, are the remaining commandments that deal with fundamental issues of right and wrong, often found in many of the world’s cultures and religions, which humans, perhaps by general revelation or the image of God that remains in them (though marred) even as unbelievers, almost universally acknowledge as dictating how people should or should not behave.”[iii] In the beginning, all mankind was represented in Adam who was warned not to take of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Having taken from that tree, mankind fell into sin, becoming disposed to sin. Bavinck explored the meaning of Adam’s act and concluded, “By violating the command of God and eating of the tree, they [Adam and Eve] would make themselves like God in the sense that they would position themselves outside and above the [moral] law and, like God, determine and judge for themselves what good and evil was.”[iv] The content of law is known, but what people do with it is the problem of sin. People can deny this truth and begin a downward spiral into greater ungodliness and unrighteousness, even calling their evil deeds a moral good and approving such wickedness in others (Rom 1:18-32). For example, Israel received the [Mosaic] law and occasionally ignored it, therefore plummeting to the depths of the abominations of the Gentiles (Judg 19:29-30; Jer 8:5-8; Ezek 5:6-17). On the other hand, there are Gentile societies who do not possess the law of God, yet they express the generalities of moral compunctions in their civil laws and traditions (e.g., Gen 12:18; 1 Cor 5:1). This is not to their credit because they merely expressed the good of their conscience that originated from God (Jas 1:17) while denying Him the glory for it (Eccl 7:29; Deut 8:10; Phil 3:6-7). “With respect to the moral commandments of the second table of the law there is always much agreement among the nations, inasmuch as the work of the law continues to be written in their hearts.”[v] Ursinus astutely summarized the significance of Adam’s choice: 1) pride, ambition, and admiration of self, 2) unbelief, 3) contempt and disobedience to God, 4) ingratitude for benefits received, 5) unnaturalness, and the want of love to posterity, and 6) apostasy.[vi] These are the sins for which the nations are judged; and this judgment is just even though they were not in covenant with God through the law of Moses (Gen 6:5, 11; Lev 18; Prov 10:2-4; Isa 16:6; Ezek 16:49; Dan 5:18-28; Col 3:5-7; Rev 18:1-3). The fallen disposition of man tends toward evil, but on the practical level, people are compelled to work together—indeed, humanity must maintain social order or succumb to total anarchy—but they want this world and their particular sins without the God who created them. “Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.”[vii]
The concept of a body of law that applies equally to Jew and Gentile (Rom 2:15-29) can also be inferred from God’s condemnation of Gentile nations and their leaders, of whole populations and certain individuals, not only prior to the Mosaic law, but after its fulfillment. “The [moral] law was engraven upon the heart of man his creation, and is therefore known to all naturally, although no other revelation were given.”[viii] “God even apart from his written law, has preserved in us certain general principles of the natural law, sufficient to accuse and condemn us.”[ix] The moral law is not an antithesis to the gospel unless a person hopes to gain the favor of God by compliance to it (Acts 15:10). But alas, no one is able to obey moral laws perfectly (Rom 3:20; Gal 3:10). So an understanding of and proper relationship to the moral law must be grounded in an understanding of the gospel. Paul explains to Timothy (1 Tim 1) that the ultimate goal of “the commandment” [moral law] is love toward God and fellow man (v. 5), according to the gospel (v. 11); and that “sound doctrine” [moral law] stands in opposition to immoral behavior (v. 8-10) to identify the need of salvation of sinners (v. 15). The gospel premises that no one can be saved by obedience to moral laws because no one can obey them perfectly, yet the gospel saves people so they can obey God’s [moral] laws guided by love. And when they sin, they have the assurance of forgiveness through Christ’s death on their behalf. See Gospel and Noachide Laws.
Part of the question about classifying laws as moral or not is whether the Jews thought or determined that there were differences among the laws of the Mosaic covenant. Jesus mentioned the “weightier” matters of the law as justice, mercy, and faith as opposed to overly scrupulous attention to the payment of tithes (Matt 23:23; Num 18:21; Deut 14:22). The Pharisees gave attention to the law (Mal 2:8-10), even to the extreme, however their hearts were unmoved by more important commands of justice, mercy, and humility (Mic 6:6-8). In another instance, a scribe inquired of Jesus which is the “first of the commandments”; that is, the first in rank and value or the foremost of all commandments (Mk 12:28-34). Following Jesus’ answer (which did not refer to the Ten Words) the scribe remarked: to love God…and one’s neighbor “is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (v. 33).[x] Clearly, the Jews recognized the difference between interpersonal obligations and ritual obligations, even though the latter were Godward expressions of obedience. One could believe that ALL the laws are part and parcel of the Mosaic covenant yet still view individual laws as different in character. So, recognizing differences among the 613 mitzvot is not a challenge to the unity of the [Mosaic] law. This is why Kaplan (JS) can explain that Torah is composed of ethical and ritual laws: “Among the many rituals of Judaism, we find one prime ritual that stands above the rest. That is Shabbos—the Jewish Sabbath.”[xi] There is a difference between moral and ceremonial laws. The Jews were aware of this in part, but it was made well known through the new covenant. “The moral law of God took precedence over the civil and ceremonial laws in that it was based on the character of God. The civil and ceremonial laws functioned only as further illustrations of the moral law. That is why holiness and love could serve as veritable summaries of all that the law demanded.”[xii] The unity of the Mosaic covenant made Israel legally obligated to observe ceremonial laws. The only way to be released from the Mosaic covenant, which is called the “first covenant” in the book of Hebrews, is to enter the new covenant with God (Heb 8:7, 13; 9:15; 10:9).
With regard to the Sabbath, the controversy surrounds its classification as a moral or ceremonial command. Many in the Reformed tradition believe the Sabbath is a moral command, either wholly or in part. Bavink (CS) muses about the creation rest: “Before the fall our first parents did not yet enjoy the eternal heavenly Sabbath. Just as they were subject to the alternation of day and night, they were also bound to the rule of six days of labor and one of rest. A day of rest and days of labor were therefore also distinct before the fall.”[xiii] Bavink hopes to associate the first seven days of creation with the enduring sequence of the nychthemeron or night-day phenomenon in order to claim that humanity is “bound” or morally compelled to a sequence of work and rest. But he has not sufficiently established the least amount of moral boundedness connected to our revolving planet. And he has not sufficiently explained how God’s work of creation and His rest is equivalent to the Jewish workweek and their Sabbath rest. His mention of “the rule of six days of labor and one of rest” is true only of the Jewish Sabbath. There was no rule or command for anyone prior to this. During the creation week, God was not bound by some hypothetical rule as if this “rule” existed outside Himself and compelled Him to behave in such a manner; nor was God bound by this supposed rule after the creation week as clearly attested by Jesus (Jn 5:17). It is not a divine attribute to work six days and rest one day ad infinitum. God worked and rested only once in His eternal career and Adam was a late-comer to that supernatural event, having been fashioned on the sixth day. In the book of beginnings, God is the only one said to have worked six days and rested on the seventh day.
We can agree with Bavink that mankind is subject to the transition from night to day, but there are no rules, no moral obligations associated with it. There are no ethical guidelines regarding the amount of sleep one obtains each day, otherwise night-watchmen labor in sin. The repetition of night and day is an observable natural phenomenon, and its predictability provides the basis for measuring time just as God decreed in the beginning (Gen 1:14-19). However, a week or “seven period” is not a discernible phenomenon because it may it may begin on any day of the month and it must be counted. Therefore, the week is substantively different from the day or the month (lunation) or the year. If the greater markers of time carry no moral force, then less so the artificiality of a seven-period.
Bavink mentions a “heavenly Sabbath,” but this is not a textual term—it is a term to describe the typological fulfillment of rest, which is heaven itself. The fact that Bavink associates the creation rest and weekly Sabbath with an eternal rest demonstrates his intuition that these are essentially typological events, not moral. Night and day are not eternal concepts—there was no night or day before creation and there is no night or day after the new creation; less so, measuring eternity in 7 periods. A seven-period only has meaning inside the created realm, not in the heavenly spheres. Therefore, the Sabbath is not a moral commandment. It is an earthly religious commandment that is not able to perfect the worshiper according to his conscience (Heb 9:9-10).
[i] This would include Islam.
[ii] Hodge, A. A. Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine, Banner of Truth:Edinburg (1990 reprint), p. 273.
[iii] Blomberg, Craig L. “The Sabbath as Fulfilled in Christ” in Perspectives on the Sabbath, p. 319.
[iv] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p. 33.
[v] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p. 134.
[vi] Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 33-34.
[vii] Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith, p. 490. (Emphasis added)
[viii] Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 104.
[ix] Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 36.
[x] Jesus cites Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18, both of which are among the 613 mitzvot. The beauty of Jesus’ answer plays with the word “first” [πρώτη protos], because it must always be remembered that the Lord is singulary one, yet foremost. Therefore, love should be directed to Him (who is love) and to those made in His image. The angry crowd of religious onlookers fail to love Jesus on both accounts. This is why the scribe was “not far” from the kingdom of God, because he recognized truth and respected Jesus for stating it. However, to be a part of the kingdom of God, he must love Jesus as God. “If this scribe would now…come to Jesus as his Savior and Lord, he would have advanced to one of being ‘inside’ the kingdom of God.” (Hendriksen, William. NTC, Vol B: Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, p.496). Rafael’s comments are not a little sad: “The subject matter of the Talmud, reflecting centuries of rabbinic argument in the post-Destruction period, give great weight to defining the sacrificial system. This preoccupation is particularly striking in the endless discussions of festival sacrifices, as if this was where the most bitter-sweet memories were expressed” (Chaim Rafael, The Festivals, p. 19).
[xi] Kaplan, Aryeh. Sabbath Day of Eternity, p. 6.
[xii] Kaiser Jr., Walter C. “The Law as God’s Guidance for the Promotion of Holiness” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 190. I agree that some ceremonial laws do exhibit, illustrate, or promote obvious moral behavior. For example, the often cited law to place a rail on the rooftop (Deut 22:8) illustrates a concern for safety, and more widely a love for fellow man. It protects the homeowner from a potential lawsuit for a careless disregard for others, and from personal guilt should a fatal accident occur. But is it fair to expand this “moral duty” to such an extent that we are culpable for every preventable accident that happens in the home and thereby subject to the law of lex talonis? One could assert that even the most unusual laws and severe punishments in the Mosaic covenant promoted trust and devotion and obedience from the Israelite. The law requiring cutting off the hand of the wife who grabs by the genitals her husband’s assailant, punishes her for the immoral act of immodesty, even while coming to the defense of her husband (Deut 25:11-12; cf. Matt 5:30). By knowledge of this law, Jewish women learn that modest behavior and respect for men must ever be in their mind even under extreme circumstances. And the Jewish magistrate learns the underlying moral virtues of humility and obedience, for he must not pity the women as if he were to be more gracious than God. However, just because we can imagine a moral virtue associated with any law of the Mosaic covenant, it does not mean we are morally bound to obey the letter of that law. One could attribute the moral virtues of devotion and trust to the Sabbath and conclude that it is morally responsible to observe a 24 hour rest every seven days. However, the same virtues of devotion and trust are tied to the seven annual Sabbaths. Consistency demands that it is equally a moral duty to observe a 24 hour rest at those intervals as well.
[xiii] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, p. 574.
Mosaic Law (Covenant). Also called the Sinaitic covenant. The law and covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai for the Jewish people by direct revelation from God (Ex 12:41; Deut 5:2, 3; Jn 1:17; 7:19; Gal 3:17; Heb 7:11). Rarely in the plural and when used in such a way is combined with other similar nouns to refer to the collection of individual provisions; i.e., “statutes and judgments and laws” (Lev 26:36) or “precepts, statutes and laws” (Neh 9:14). Otherwise, it is singular, referring to whole system of Jewish legislation discoverable in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Similarly, it is a single covenant between God and Israel, even though He refers to a few particular laws as covenants: e.g., 1) the ordinances insuring the priesthood their portion is a “covenant of salt” (Num 18:19), 2) keeping the Sabbath is a “perpetual covenant” (Ex 31:16), and 3) the showbread an “everlasting covenant” (Lev 24:8). And of course, the Ten Commandments is a condensation or compendium of the covenant (Deut 4:13). God made a single covenant with Israel and it is called “the law.” Since Israel as a nation was in covenant with the Lord, they were duty-bound to avoid making covenant with any other nations (Ex 23:32; Deut 7:2). The covenantal relationship between God and Israel was unique and exclusive. Of this law, the Jews have discovered 613 commandments or “mitzvot” to obey.[i]
In this respect, Mosaic law is “the law” and Mosaic law is “covenant law.”[ii] The Mosaic law is perfect because God is the author of it and it reflects the perfection of His will, but this does mean aspects of this law could not be temporary or have imposed limitations. “Of divine laws there are some that are eternal and unchangeable; whilst there are others that are changeable; yet only by God himself, who has instituted them.”[iii] Besides being synonymous with the “law of Moses” used in Bible 21 times, the use of the modifier “Mosaic” reflects the attempt to clarify and improve communication about the Pauline use of the word “law,” which he uses 123 times. Paul makes his own distinctions with references to the “law of Moses” (1 Cor 9:9), the “law of God” (Rom 7:22, 25; 8:7), and the “law of Christ” (Rom 8:2; 1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2), but generally, he refers to “the law.” Luke uses the “law of Moses” and the “law of the Lord” interchangeably (Lk 2:22-24). Longenecker informs us that “No distinctions, however, can be made in Paul’s letter between the anarthrous and articular forms of νόμος [nomos] with respect to the Mosaic law.”[iv] Paul states that the [Mosaic] law was designed to be a custodian to bring us (Jews) to faith in Christ, but once that purpose has been realized, we (Jews) are no long under its tutelage (Gal 3:19-25). Yet, it is the [Mosaic] law that points out that all humanity is enslaved to sin (Gal 3:22; Ps 5:9; 10:7; 14:1-3; Isa 59:7-8) and that justification comes by faith (Gal 3:11, 22, 24, 25; Gen 15:6). The NT view of [Mosaic] law is both positive and negative, not out of ambiguity, but in view of the exceeding glories of the new covenant and the law of Christ (2 Cor 3:12-18). The [Mosaic] law is contrasted with the covenant of promise made with Abraham (Gal 3:18) because the [Mosaic] law [covenant] cannot undo an earlier promise [covenant] that brought justification by faith for both Jew and Gentile. Yet the [Mosaic] law also teaches justification by faith (Hab 2:4) and the salvation of the Gentiles (Isa 60:3). The terminus of the [Mosaic] law occurred while Jesus, the Son of God, suffered on the cross and experienced the judgment for sin and separation from God that the [Mosaic] law demanded. Sixteen hundred years of living under the [Mosaic] law did not keep Israel from demanding the crucifixion of their Messiah. “Go to the law,” says DeHaan, if you want to be saved by your own work and righteousness, but if you realize the impossibility of that, then you must go to the cross of Calvary. There, Christ’s death showed two things: 1) the law kills—He’s dead and 2) the law’s terminus—to reset to the covenant of grace with Abraham.[v] “And since any power to fulfill the law can reach the sinner only through Grace—of which the law knows nothing—it follows, lastly, that to be ‘under the law’ is to be shut up under an inability to keep it, and consequently to be the helpless slave of sin.”[vi] “[The author of Hebrews provides] a robust defense of the Christian dismissal of the purely ritual and cultic features of the Mosaic law.”[vii] “I think the Mosaic law as a whole was given to Israel for a limited time and purpose and is no longer immediately authoritative for the Christian.”[viii] “The Ten Commandments [which summarizes the Mosaic Covenant] came to a functional end at the cross.”[ix] “For Paul is not reasoning here as to mere ceremonies, but shows how much more powerfully the Spirit of God exercises his power in the gospel, than of old under the [Mosaic] law.”[x] See The Law.
Paul may give the appearance of contradicting himself, but the problem more often than not is one which we are erecting in our own minds—by taking what he says out of context, extrapolating what he says to a degree he did not intend, adamantly holding to an either/or mindset, or bringing to the text our denominational presuppositions. [xi] Be content with some paradoxes.
For example, Paul contrasts the Jews under the [Mosaic] law [that regulates their outward behaviors] and [Gentiles] without the [Mosaic] law [because they have their own customs and sensibilities]. But to avoid being misunderstood, Paul clarified that he was not lawless [in his actions] because his conscience was still bound by God’s or Christ’s law that transcends [Mosaic] law (1 Cor 9:21). Yet, it was the [Mosaic] law that informed him to live with integrity and to which he appealed to both Jew and Gentile for the support of his ministry (1 Cor 9:9-14). Paul appealed to the “law of Moses” (Deut 25:4; Lev 6:16-18) to explain that “God’s law” endorses the principle that those who labor in ministry for others have the right to expect subsistence in return.[xii] “It is necessary to stress at this point that the New Testament teaching about the law is first, and most basically, teaching about the Mosaic law.”[xiii] The Reformed and Adventist mindset has difficulty understanding that the concept of the abrogation of the Mosaic law as a covenant structure and system does not necessarily imply that Christians have no moral compass to guide their life.[xiv] They see as a contradiction the claim that the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant while at the same time resorting to the Mosaic covenant to underscore moral behaviors or ethical norms. But that is what Paul did.
Calvin tends to relate the phrase “Mosaic law” (which he does not use very often) to the ceremonies that bound Jews to certain behaviors, like circumcision, sacrifices, washings, and abstentions. For example, “He [the author of Hebrews] then intimates that all the rites of the Mosaic Law were a part of the old covenant, and that they partook of the same ancientness, and were therefore to perish.”[xv] This may have led to the misapprehension that there is a difference between the law of Moses and the law of the Lord, the former concerned with ceremonies, offerings, and the like, while the latter is reflected in the Ten Commandments. “However, the law of Moses and the law of God are one, and to state that the law of Moses was fulfilled and abolished at Calvary, and the not the law of the Lord, is a complete misunderstanding of the Bible.”[xvi]
Just as the rainbow is a sign (Heb. owth) of God’s covenant with Noah to never flood the earth again, so is Israel’s keeping of the Sabbath a sign of their covenant with the Lord (Ex 31:13-18; Ezek 20:12, 20). A sign is a visual cue or symbol of some other fact, condition, or quality. The sign is not greater than what it signifies, identifies, or designates. The covenantal bond between Israel and God was enacted after their deliverance from Egypt, and Israel assented to the historical reality of that event by their Sabbath-keeping. The meaning of the sign finds its context in an historic event. No other nation was chosen to be redeemed from such slavish circumstances, and so no other nation performed this unique, symbolical ritual; and this cemented into the Jewish mind that they were the only nation so covenanted with the Lord. “It is impossible for the Sabbath day to be at the same time ‘for all mankind’ and also to be a unique sign of the God’s old covenant with national Israel.”[xvii] Interestingly, in “The Christ of the Covenants,” Robertson (CS) does not mention the above Scriptures (Ex 31 or Ezek 20) in his discussion of the Sabbath or the Mosaic covenant.[xviii] However, Rushdooney understands the meaning of a sign. “But the sabbath is a sign of the covenant; it is not a law for a humanistic state, and has no meaning for it, nor can it be required of it. In a Christian state, it cannot be made anything resembling the sabbath of Israel. It must be a day of rest, and of peace and quiet, but the basic emphasis is on the authority of God, knowledge of Him, and rest in His government and salvation. The shifting of emphasis from the meaning of the Sabbath to quibbling about regulations for the Sabbath is certainly no honor to the Sabbath.”[xix]
[i] It appears that all of the laws are taken from Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, with the exceptions to be fruitful and multiply from Gen 1:28, and to not eat the “sinew which shrank” from Gen 32:32. Circumcision is based on both Gen 17:12 and Lev 12:3.
[ii] Clements, Ronald E. p. 289.
[iii] Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 490.
[iv] Longenecker, Richard N. (NIGTC) The Epistle to the Romans, p. 631. Meaning “law” or “the law.”
[v] DeHaan, M.R. Law or Grace, p. x.
[vi] JFB, Bible Commentary, Vol 3, p. 227. (on Rom 6:14)
[vii] Clements, Ronald E. p. 293.
[viii] Moo, Douglas. “Response to Willem A. VanGemeren” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 84.
[ix] Ratzlaff, Dale. “The Covenants” Proclamation 17:3, p. 13.
[x] Calvin, Commentaires. Vol 20, p. 179 (2 Cor 3:7).
[xi] Moo, Douglas. “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 319-320.
[xii] My assessment here conforms with Bahsen in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 105-108.
[xiii] Moo, Douglas. “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 321.
[xiv] Reisinger, John G. Tablets of Stone, p. 97, 113.
[xv] Calvin, Commentaries, Vol 22, p. 195 (Heb 9:1).
[xvi] DeHaan, M. R. Law or Grace, p. 19.
[xvii] Kelly, Russell Earl. “Who Changed the Sabbath” in Proclamation! Vol. 18, No. 1. (Spring 2017) p. 10.
[xviii] Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants, p. 68-74; 167-199.
[xix] Rushdoony, R. Institutes of Biblical Theology, p. 154. (emphasis mine). I would differ from Rushdooney in this: that even “resting” as a required weekly physio-spiritual exercise is not required of the NT church.