Home » Posts tagged 'the Sabbath'
Tag Archives: the Sabbath
“In the midst of the garden sanctuary was the tree of life. The menorah was symbolic not only of life, but of eternal life for the true people of God. It not only looked back to the tree of life in the garden, but it also anticipated the tree of life that stands in the new heavens and the new earth in revelation 22.”[i] “For the believer today, the menorah is an unnecessary object for worship because Jesus proclaimed, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life’ (John 8:12).”[ii]John D. Currid
Currid continued by noting that the seven branches looked back to the creation week with its flames signifying the giving of the first light of creation (which incidentally preceded the physical beacons of light in the vast sky above the earth). It is true that the creation week was comprised of seven days, but it was a combination of six workdays and one rest day. The temple lampstand displays the same six-plus-one pattern, a pattern that exists throughout the OT reflecting the stamp of God’s sovereign design. In that ornamental hebdomad, there was a central shaft or stalk that supported six additional branches or stems for lighting the holy place (Ex 25:31-40). The number six is representative of man who was made on the sixth day, but this number is incomplete without the central stalk which represents Elohim, the maker and owner of all there is. Thus, the menorah mirrors the six workdays of the creation week plus the day of rest. In other words, the six-plus-one pattern of the golden lampstand demonstrates a unity, confirmed from the standpoint that the menorah was hammered from a solid piece of gold (Ex 37:22-24).[iii]
It is understandable to draw attention to the sum (7), but what is perhaps just as important is the meaning of the addends (6 and 1). The creation storyline begins with the first day and ends with the creation of mankind (male and female) on the sixth day. All of God’s ex nihilo creations were completed by the end of the sixth day, and having reached the dramatic climax of the narrative, God proclaimed that this was all very good (Gen 1:31). That phrase, by itself, would seem to convey a sense of completion in six days, but something was missing—symbolically speaking. Just as man was incomplete without a woman, so the six days of creation were incomplete without the addition of one more day—the day of blessing and sanctification (Gen 2:3). In Genesis 2:1:3 the solitary focus of the seventh day is on God. Keiser explains that the omission of any mention of man—the crown of creation—in the description of the seventh day, “ensures that the focus of the account remains on God. Not only is God the only actor throughout, the account concludes with the focus on him.”[iv] The number six represents man, but to be truly complete and whole, God, represented by the number one, must be in union with him. This was the Lord’s true endpoint of the creation week and honored as such on the seventh day. Thus, the menorah reprises the numerical symbolism of the creation week and couples that with the idea that the central stalk is the source of light and the remaining six branches receive and then radiate that light in unison with the central stalk. Paul draws upon this imagery to teach and exhort those whose lives have been illuminated by God’s grace: “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light” (Eph 5:8). Jesus revealed to John in a vision seven candlesticks which represented seven churches in Asia Minor (Rev 1:20). No longer is there a single menorah confined to the Jerusalem temple, but every congregation of Christ embodies the symbolism of the menorah as transmitters of the light of the gospel (Jn 4:21-24; 1 Cor 4:1-6; 2 Tim 1:10).[v] Beale is correct to note that Christ’s opening remark that He is in the midst of the seven lampstands “is intended to remind the introverted readers that their primary role in relation to their Lord should be that of a light of witness to the outside world.”[vi]
Blessing. The blessing of the seventh day was the third time this word was presented in the creation narrative, having first been applied on the fifth day to creatures of the air and sea to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:22). Then again, on the sixth day, God blessed mankind, commanding them to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1:28). In these verses, the idea is that God is enriching what He has created beyond its normal quality, particularly in fecundity.[vii] Then for emphasis, God blesses the seventh day itself if for no other reason than this day marked the day of ceasing from the previous days of working (Gen 2:3). This triad of blessings unites the six days of creation to the seventh day. In one sense, this can be viewed as a recapitulation of the first two blessings by calling upon all things living to fill the earth to His glory. However, the blessing is on the seventh day itself. But it must be stressed that God blessed only the seventh day—not every seventh day or any of the following days of His rest from creating—to elevate this particular day of ceasing to a position of equal or even greater value than the preceding days. On this day Adam and Eve would exult in the handiwork of God viewable before them and pause in awe while coming to realize their nature and purpose for living on this earth. This calm and peaceful moment of understanding likely inspired praise to God and made this day a true blessing for God (Ps 136:4-9). God’s blessing this day of rest enriched it with significance, but this significance would not be developed thematically for generations to come.
Sanctifying. Next, God sets apart the seventh day by sanctifying it, or making it holy. “The threefold repetition of the day number indicates its paramount importance within the cosmic whole. The seventh day is in polar contrast to the other six days, which are filled with creative activity.”[viii] This is not another day of creating, but the day of ceasing. His ceasing from creating is a continuous state, but this first day of cessation was singled out and appended to the preceding six days of creative work to form a seven-period (a week). With this, everything is complete, and the number seven will come to signify completion and fulfillment. The verb (qādash) is routinely translated “to sanctify,” conveying the sense of setting something apart and drawing a distinction between things, typically the profane from the holy. This verb will not be repeated until the Israelites have been freed from bondage, with the Lord demanding that all first-borns should be set apart to Him (Ex 13:2); that is, the cost of their redemption. God describes Himself as holy (qadosh) to the Israelites (Lev 11:44; Isa 6:3), a moral quality no longer attainable by people due to sin, but that to which they should aspire (Lev 11:44; 1 Pet 1:16). The sanctification of the seventh day is as much a statement of the unblemished unity between man (6) and God (1) as it was a portent that the seventh day would require a work of redemptive sanctification. God, having ceased from creation, “discovers” that Adam and Eve have disobeyed Him. In His state of cessation (or rest), He must work again to redeem and sanctify the fallen couple by providing coverings of animal skins (Gen 3:21).[ix] The use of this verb on the seventh day shows that God Himself desired to hallow it, but it was not because the beginning of the seventh day was less a period of harmonious perfection than the evening of the sixth day. God chose to add this additional day to symbolically convey the idea of completeness and fulfillment through sanctification. “Inherent within the redemptive work of God is the promise of the ultimate manifestation of God’s holiness in the glorification of his people and the deliverance of the creation from the imperfections resulting from the Edenic curse (Rom 8:18-23).[x] Even though the climax of creation was reached by the end of the sixth day, the Lord decreed that this seventh day be imbued with a transcendent and superseding quality.
The sanctification of the seventh day is overplayed by the idea that God, in the beginning, is making holy a rhythm of time or that God is making time in general transcendent. That is, there is space and the things in that space, but time is set apart to God. Heschel elaborates: “Space is exposed to our will; we may shape and change the things in space as we please. Time, however, is beyond our reach, beyond our power. It is both near and far, intrinsic to all experience and transcending all experience. It belongs exclusively to God.”[xi] If the act of sanctifying the seventh day is to be generally applied to all time, then it cannot at the same time be said to be a sanctification of every seventh day or just the seventh day in the creation week. The reason for sanctifying the day, the rationale for declaring its otherness, is because this particular day marked the beginning of God’s rest from creating, “because in it He rested from all his work” (Gen 2:3). The seventh day could have been the first day of another week of six days. But by divine desire (and superintending the typologic themes in the beginning) it is included as a single day of rest with the six days of creative activity to make a week of seven days. To repeat, God chose to add this additional day to symbolically convey the idea of completeness and fulfillment through sanctification. “The theological significance of creation’s ‘seventh day’ is eschatological. The seventh day has no closing refrain ‘evening’ and ‘morning’; the seventh day has no end and therefore is viewed as eternal.”[xii] What made the seventh day unique is the character—the status quo ante—with which it began. But mankind, as willing participants in the war between God and Satan, were no longer welcomed into God’s rest (Gen 3:21-24; Heb 4:10-11). Yet His rest remains to be entered into (Heb 4:1, 9). This rest is presently available and guaranteed to those who believe God (Heb 4:3), having their sins forgiven, being redeemed from slavery to sin, and enjoying a life of sanctification and blessing (Jn 17:15-19; Rom 4:5-8; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 2:1-9; Col 1:12-14).
In the Tabletalk article, Currid points out the relationship of the gold menorah to Eden’s Tree of Life. I would add that the reason for this association is two-fold in terms of its retrospective function. Not only does it symbolize life and blessing in the original intent, but it symbolizes how easily that blessed position can be lost by sin. Israel is now God’s son by virtue of their covenant relationship with Him, but it is a tenuous relationship (Ex 4:22; Lev 26:21-25). Israel, just like Adam, is God’s first-born who must be redeemed, but their disobedience will incur seven times more plagues. The gold lampstand also had a prospective function by promising to those whose lives were declared righteous to rise in righteousness to enjoy everlasting life. So, Canaan—the land of milk and honey—was no garden of Eden; and the golden lampstand—continuously emitting light (Ex 27:20-21; Lev 24:1-4)—was no Tree of Life. These Mosaic covenant features were even darker shadows than their prototypes which shadowed forth the heavenly Jerusalem and eternal tree of life (Rev 2:7; 3:2; 21:10; 22:14). Israel’s focus though, was on the nowness of these temporal duties and circumstances, rather than on the retrospective or prospective aspect of their symbolism (warning and hope). Regardless, the menorah remains an enduring symbol or cultural icon of Judaism, but not so much an emblem of Christianity (yet it may be). For Christians, the golden lampstand is a type of Christ as the enduring radix of light and the guarantor of the culmination of God’s redemption in the heavenly Jerusalem with the Tree of Life in its midst (Rev 2:7; 22:2). Acknowledging the lampstand’s imagery of the beginning of days and future never-ending days, Currid advises that it is an unnecessary object for worship, since Jesus claimed to be the light of the world (Jn 9:5). Christ’s self-attestation is enough evidence to support the claim that the menorah is fulfilled in Christ. His light will endure from generation to generation, something that the gold menorah could never do (Lev 24:3).[xiii] And though it is fulfilled completely in Christ, there is still an aspect of its symbolism that will not be realized until the end of the ages. If it is so clear to Currid and others that the lampstand is fulfilled in Christ and therefore an inconsequential artifact and ritual to continue in our churches, then the Sabbath should be treated the same way. Jesus claimed to be the giver of rest, not only to Israel, but to anyone who is burdened (Matt 11:28). Noah’s ark did not usher in rest, Moses’ intercession did not deliverer of rest, Joshua’s conquests did not provide rest, and David’s illustrious rule did not bring rest, but Jesus is superior in His lineage, capacity, authority, and ability to provide redemptive rest to those who believe. His rest is God’s rest. If it is unnecessary to ensure the continual maintenance of a burning light in the temple or in our churches or homes because Jesus is the light that shines in our soul, then physical rest every seven days is a dubious ritual for Christians given Jesus’ claim to provide an ongoing rest for one’s soul.
Hamilton’s study of typology explores the idea that OT authors recognized patterns in history and attributed to them the likelihood, or even the expectation, that these patterns would occur again in greater measure. “When patterns of historical correspondences are repeated across narratives, expectations accumulate and cause escalation in the perceived significance of the repeated similarities and patterns.”[xiv] In this case, Moses would have recognized the significance of the six-plus-one pattern established in the creation narrative and duplicated in the Sabbath and the golden candlestick. He would expect that God’s light would flood the cosmos again and bring everlasting rest to the people of God. By the time of the NT writers, these patterns would be understood to have culminated in the advent of Jesus Christ. Whether a type was fulfilled in full, such as Christ being the sacrificial lamb at His death, or in part, such as Christ satisfying the call to Sabbath rest, NT authors conceive of Jesus’ first advent as the fulfillment of all things (Matt 5:17; Mk 7:18-19; Lk 4:21; 18:31-34; 22:37; 24:44; John 2: 19-21; 4:21-23; 5:39, 46; Acts 1:16; 3:18; Rom 8:4; 10:4; 2 Cor 1:20; Gal 3:23-25; 6:2; Col 2:14-16; Heb 7:23-24; 9:10, 12, 24; 10:1).
[i] Currid, John D. “The Lampstand” in Tabletalk, December 2017 p. 19.
[ii] Currid, John D. “The Lampstand” in Tabletalk, December 2017 p. 20.
[iii] It should not be missed that in hammerwork, either a relief or an indentation is made depending on the surface one is hammering. This corresponds to the idea behind typology, which monitors the relationship between the die and the imprint.
[iv] Keiser, Thomas A. Genesis 1-11 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013), p. 69.
[v] Artists generally depict one lampstand with each branch representing a particular church. However, there are seven golden lampstands, each one representing a church.
[vi] Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) p.230.
[vii] Johnston, Wendell G. “Blessing” in The Theological Wordbook Charles R. Swindoll, ed. (Nashville: Nelson, 2000) p. 37.
[viii] Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis Commentary, JPS Torah Commentary, Vol 1 (Philadelphia: JPS, 1989), p. 14.
[ix] The pericope describing the seventh day is Gen 2:1-3. Then Gen 2:4ff recaps the creation and the sixth day. Gen 3:1ff describes the fall of mankind. At face value, the fall took place on or immediately after the seventh day. See The Sabbath Complete (O’Hare, Wipf and Stock, 2011, p. 9-11; 92-97) for exegetical evidence that the fall occurred on the seventh day. Note that God made the coats of skin for Adam and Eve before they were banished from Eden. In other words, they were blood-redeemed in the garden and then immediately dispossessed. Once outside, they could look back to see what remained to be entered into.
[x] McComiskey, Thomas E. “qōdesh” in TWOT (Chicago: Moody, 1980), p.788.
[xi] Heschel, Abraham Joshua The Sabbath, 21st Printing (New York: unk, 1994) p. 99.
[xii] Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26, Vol 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H, 1996) p. 181.
[xiii] The image I chose for this blog is a stone relief depicting Roman soldiers carrying away the golden lampstand to Rome. Ironically, Israel was supposed to be a light to the nations, but her disobedience led to this temple artifact to be carried away to another nation. In a sense, it now represents the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ being taken to the Gentiles for their ultimate salvation.
[xiv] Hamilton, James M. Typology: Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022) p. 25.
“The once-and-for-all washing—signified by baptism—occurs as defiled sinners repent of their sins, in faith receive God’s promises fulfilled in Jesus and proclaimed in his word, and become joined to him. Through this union, believers break with their old lives and begin a process of sanctification in which they take on the qualities of their Savior, who will ensure its completion and a place for them forever in the presence of a holy God.”[i]
The original bronze basin or laver (Ex 30:17-21) for the tabernacle and the enlarged and arresting “molten Sea” structure for the Solomonic temple (1 Ki 7:23-26) were not only for the ministers of worship to ritually cleanse themselves of their own defilement from sin but to cleanse the carcasses prepared for sacrifice (Ex 29:17; Lev 1:9, 13; 2 Ch 4:6). The Torah required cleansing from a specially constructed bowl during priestly service, but by the time the Solomonic Temple was built, a remarkable system was developed due to the increased number of sacrifices, and to expedite and restructure the ability to cleanse both priests and sacrifices. Commenting on the Herodian Temple that followed the Solomonic Temple, Edersheim elaborates:
The first lot, which in reality had been cast before the actual break of day, was that to designate the various priests who were to cleanse the altar and to prepare its fires. The first of the priests on whom this lot had fallen immediately went out. His brethren reminded him where the silver chafing-dish was deposited, and not to touch any sacred vessel till he had washed his hands and feet. He took no light with him; the fire of the altar was sufficient for his office. Hands and feet were washed by laying the right hand on the right foot, and the left hand on the left. The sound of the machinery, as it filled the laver with water, admonished the others to be in readiness. This machinery had been made by Ben Catin, who also altered the laver so that twelve priests could at the same time perform their ablutions. Otherwise the laver resembled that in the Temple of Solomon.[ii]
The bronze laver was as sacred as the altar for several reasons: 1) it was dedicated to service with a unique concoction of holy oil (Ex 30:28), 2) it was positioned in the court with the altar, and 3) it was used as much as the altar. Failure to ritually wash could jeopardize the priest’s life (Ex 30:20), so the priests understood that the sacred bowl, its contents, and its use were integral to holy worship. The use and function of the bronze laver contribute to its symbolic meaning and typological intention, and these in turn provide the basis for understanding how this ritual was specifically fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Logically, if Christ’s sacrificial death rendered the altar obsolete, then the wash basin would acquire the same status. However, the fulfillment of the bronze basin must stand on specific historical elements and have conceptual associations in NT teachings, so that our confidence in dismissing this temple ritual is based on particular aspects of Christ’s work of redemption.
The Hebrew words used to generally describe washing and cleansing (kabas and rachats) focus on the physical action of removing dirt and impurities from clothing or skin (Gen 8:14; 1 Sam 25:41). At first blush, water from this temple fixture was used to “wash” the hands and feet of material defilement. The desired result from washing was to be clean (taher) or pure (chata); uncontaminated and holy.
The first association of washing with the intent to preparing a person to stand before God is when Moses brought the Hebrew evacuees to the foot of Mount Sinai. Moses gave the people two days to wash their clothes so they would be consecrated for the visible manifestation of God upon the Holy Mount on the third day. “So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes” (Ex 19:14). The significance of this is not just that the people would be “clean as a whistle” before God visited them, but that they were removing the defilement of having lived in Egypt (Lev 18:3). This soteriological idea is echoed in the Feast of Unleavened Bread during which all traces of leaven, representing sin and the corruption of Egyptian influences, were removed from the home (Ex 34:28; cf. Ezek 23:7; Lk 12:1; 1 Cor 5:6-8). The Hebrew nation was saved from their oppressors, but also saved (somewhat) from the influences of Egypt. They would naturally rejoice in the freedom of the former, but they would have to repent from the mindset of the latter. The washing was reminiscent of their passage through the waters of the Red Sea and of their desire to begin life anew with their Lord and God, from whom they would receive the covenant (Ex 20:1-2). Salvation and repentance were recapitulated when John the Baptist urged the people of this covenant to prepare their life for the arrival of the Messiah through personal repentance, evidenced by water baptism (Matt 3:1-12). His baptismal washing was directly associated with the forgiveness of sins (Jn 1:36). But John understood that the Messiah would provide a “baptism” that transcended and escalated his water baptism.
The second association between washing and sanctification was in the preparation of Aaron and his sons for ministering in the temple (Ex 29:4-9). Their hallowing for service included unleavened bread and sacrificial animals, but it began with washing, dressing with fine linens, and anointing with oil. This washing prepared the priests for service in the tabernacle, giving them greater responsibility and closer proximity to the Holy Place as representatives of Israel before God. But this priesthood and all the rituals associated with them must yield to the greater priesthood (Heb 5:4-6; 7:4-10, 12), just as John the Baptist, himself a Levite, proclaimed to his fellow priests and Levites his inferiority to the Messiah who should come (Jn 1:15ff). This new High Priest would ritually wash the feet of His disciples to prepare them for worldwide ministry in the kingdom of God. Wrapped with a simple linen, He need only wash their feet to establish their qualification for this new priesthood, for they were made clean by His word (Jn 13:3-5, 10-11).
The bronze wash basin is the third picture of washing with water, restricted to the Aaronic priests in the course of their service, “When they go into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to the Lord, they shall wash with water” (Ex 30:20). However, prior to entering the temple arena, priests would have already washed themselves thoroughly to establish their ritual purity for ministry (Ex 40:12-15; Num 8:7). The bronze laver, then, standing beyond the altar, allowed the priests to maintain that purity while they labored in the temple court. It was perhaps understood by priests that the act of washing did not actually make them pure and morally innocent before God—it was symbolic οf their need to remain pure of heart or morally clean. In contrast, the religious establishment at the outset of Jesus’ ministry were likened to vipers to be trampled, trees to be cut down, and chaff to be burned (Matt 3:7-12), despite their punctilious attention to temple rituals. Israel was about to “cleaned” through judgment because they did not internalize their ritual of maintenance cleansing. However, priests of the new covenant may pass on repetitive water rituals to cleanse visible debris, and instead cleanse their lives of immoral conduct, their hands of sinful actions, and their minds of insincerity through repentance, humility, and confession (1Cor 7:1; Jas 4:8; 1 Jn 1:9).
These episodes and rituals in the law do not explicitly associate washing with moral cleanness. This idea, though, is eventually expressed when the word of God comes through David (a king), Jeremiah (a priest), and Isaiah (a prophet).
David: “Wash (kabas) me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse (taher: to purify) me from my sin” (Ps 51:2).
Jeremiah: “O Jerusalem, wash (kabas) your heart from wickedness, That you may be saved (yasha: safe). How long shall your evil thoughts lodge within you?” (Jer 4:14).
Isaiah: “Wash (rachats) yourselves, make yourselves clean (zakah: innocent); Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes” (Isa 1:16).
Washing became a metaphor for cleansing the heart and mind from the pollution and defilement of sin. It is plausible then, that ritual washings entered the public sphere to demonstrate innocence of wrongdoing (Deut 29:6; Ps. 26:6; Matt 27:24). Sickness was often thought to be the consequence of sin. Jesus employed the symbolism of washing to demonstrate the innocence of the man born blind—then healed when he washed (Jn 9:1-7). Eventually, the baptism of John, indicating personal repentance of sin, became the symbolic ritual for the disciples of Christ to proclaim the forgiveness of their sins through the blood of Jesus Christ (Act 22:16; Rev 1:5).[iii] Christian baptism is likened to the safety of the ark passing through the judgment of water (God purged the world of sin), not necessarily to the cleansing of material defilement by water (1 Pet 3:21). Christian baptism is also likened to the figurative washing of Israelites as they passed through the Red Sea, cleansing them from their former idolatrous lives (1 Cor 10:1-2). Baptism also recapitulates the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—an event with which Christians identify (Rom 6:3-5).
In the law, washing and cleansing were also necessary for those who were ritually unclean, like a leper who experienced healing (Lev 14:1-20). Cleanness was to be achieved by two clean birds, one of which was sacrificed, and its blood sprinkled on the person seven times. The healed leper proceeded to wash his clothes, shave his body, wash his body, and waited seven days; and in near repetition, he washed his clothes again, shaved his head, and washed his body. On the eighth day (the first day of the week) the work necessary to declare cleanness increased:
“And on the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, and one log of oil. Then the priest who makes him clean shall present the man who is to be made clean, and those things, before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. And the priest shall take one male lamb and offer it as a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them as a wave offering before the Lord. Then he shall kill the lamb in the place where he kills the sin offering and the burnt offering, in a holy place; for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering. It is most holy. The priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. Then the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. And of the rest of the oil in his hand, the priest shall put some on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the blood of the trespass offering. The rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put on the head of him who is to be cleansed. So the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord. Then the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make atonement for him who is to be cleansed from his uncleanness. Afterward he shall kill the burnt offering. And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the grain offering on the altar. So the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean” (Lev 14:10-20).
In this case, even though the leper was healed, he still had to be ritually cleansed and declared clean. This was achieved not only by water, but by blood and oil—the same elements used in the dedication of priests (Num 8:5-16). Interestingly, cleansing involved the hands and feet of both the priest and former-leper, and the priest had to cleanse himself with a sin offering and trespass offering in the process (Heb 7:27). More importantly, the healed person was not declared “clean” until the eighth day, that is, the start of a new week. There is no record in the OT that this ritual law was ever employed, so Jesus’ healing and cleansing of ten lepers should have been a momentous occasion for temple priests (Lk 17:11-18).
While water washing is not directly associated with moral cleanness in the Pentateuch, blood atonement is (Lev 16:24). Attaining a “clean slate” from sin was possible for the nation only on the Day of Atonement: “For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse (taher: to purify) you, that you may be clean (taher: to purify) from all your sins before the Lord” (Lev 16:30ff). Blood atonement on the Sabbath of all Sabbaths was the means for Israel to be “washed” clean of all her sins and to eventually experience Edenic rest. The minister of this climactic ritual, the High Priest from the tribe of Levi, washed and put on articles of clothing befitting his office and the extraordinary service he provided on behalf of the people of Israel.[iv]
“And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. So you shall speak to all who are gifted artisans, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments, to consecrate him, that he may minister to Me as priest” (Ex 28:2-3).
Cleansing and purification of the heart under Mosaic law was accomplished primarily by blood atonement, but allusions were made to the cleansing effect of water. The NT uses both blood and water to figuratively describe the spiritual cleansing effects of redemption. “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses (καθαρίζω) us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7). “Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify (ἁγιάζω) and cleanse (καθαρίζω) her with the washing (λυοτρόν) of water by the word (ῥῆμα), that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:25-27). “You are already clean (καθαροί) because of the word which I have spoken to you” (Jn 15:3). “Sanctify (ἁγιάζω) them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (Jn 17:17). “When He had by Himself purged (καθαρίζω) our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3).
Returning to the bronze basin, Exodus relates that master-craftsman Bezaleel obtained the necessary material for its construction from devoted women who voluntarily surrendered their polished brass mirrors to the task (Ex 38:8). Henry muses about the association between this seemingly obscure detail and the function of the Word of God as a mirror (Jas 1:23).[v] David attributes to the word of God the cleansing effect of water (Ps. 119:9) as did Jesus (Jn 15:3). It is possible that the bronze laver served as a type of the cleansing effect of God’s word, that is, His continual, “maintenance” work of purifying the hearts of His kingdom of priests who daily render services of praise and thanksgiving. But this word must be closely related to the work of the Holy Spirit, who is also likened to active streams of living water (Jn 7:38-39). By the Spirit, we are able to comprehend God’s word (Heb 3:7; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet 1:2, 12, 22; 1 Jn 4:2-3. 13). By the Spirit, we are sanctified in our salvation through the truth of the gospel (2 Th 2:13-14).
The law of Moses provided no “once-and-for-all washing” that sanctified and purified someone from all their sins. Like most of the other fixtures and services associated with worship, the statutes of the bronze basin were to be followed forever by each succeeding generation of Levitical priests (Ex 30:21). The repetitive nature of washing in this case can be compared to the repetitive nature of sacrifices. And if continual sacrifices didn’t remove sin and continual washing didn’t purify the heart, then continual Sabbath-keeping did not provide rest. And if all OT sacrifices can be undone by one sacrifice and all OT washings are undone by one spiritual cleansing, then all Sabbaths are done away by the everlasting rest in Christ (Heb 4:3). By grace, through faith, we have been cleansed of all our sins. “For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed (καθαρός) from his old sins” (2 Peter 1:9). At the same time, we are encouraged to “wash” daily by the word of God and His Spirit: “having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse (καθαρίζω) ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1). And after death, our sanctification and purification from sin will finally be complete.
The bronze laver is another OT ritual that finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and like the other Mosaic ceremonies, there is a component of fulfillment yet to come. The surety of the “not yet” part of our spiritual washing and purity is made possible by the indwelling Holy Spirit, who seals these promises to us. Were this not the case, we must, whenever we sin, renew ourselves in purity with another baptistic ritual. Like the Sabbath, the fulfillment of the bronze laver by Jesus Christ has both an “already” and “not yet” aspect. If we were to apply the same rule to the basin that Sabbatarians apply to the Sabbath (that a ritual law with a “not yet” aspect should still be observed to the letter), then we should continue to perform ritual cleansings in church to remind us of the day to come when we, like the cleansed priests prepared for ministry, don our white robes of holiness (Rev 7:9-17: 19:8). However, through Christ’s work of redemption, we are forever cleansed for His service, forever free from the guilt and dominion of sin, and forever at peace and in fellowship with God (that is, sacrifices, washings, and rests are fulfilled). The fulfillment of these types is complete, even though there is more to be realized. As Greidanus explains: “Even fulfilled promises can still point forward toward the future. The Old Testament acquaints us with the concept of multiple fulfillments or progressive fulfillment, that is, the initial fulfillment may hold the promise of further fulfillment.”[vi] This is true of figures and types as well.
This study would not be complete without mentioning the foot washing of the disciples sometime near Jesus’ final Passover. This final week relates Christ’s preparation for His ultimate sacrifice, but there was still much to convey to His disciples. Like the three washings described in the Pentateuch, Jesus uses this foot-washing episode to describe three new covenant concepts: 1) of spiritual readiness, 2) of priesthood readiness, and 3) of priesthood maintenance. The primary lesson for the disciples was His example: that if Jesus being Lord would wash the feet of his disciples, then this same attitude of humility should guide those who follow Him. In this spirit the disciples were cleansed, clothed and anointed to humbly serve the flock, by caring for them and being willing to give their lives for them. This is what Jesus was about to do on the cross on behalf of his sheep. The link between foot-washing and His sin payment demonstrates the profound love for His own and the cleansing of their sins by water and by blood.
Washing 1. Potentially Clean—Spiritual Readiness. Jesus washes the feet of all the disciples, including Judas Iscariot. This is reminiscent of the washing performed by the Israelites in preparation for the Lord’s descent upon Mount Sinai (Ex 19). Many were called, but few were chosen (Matt 22:14). Shortly after the Israelites readied themselves by washing, God both amazed and terrified them with a demonstration of his power and might. In spite of this, many refused to obey God and suffered the consequences of unbelief (Ex 32:28; Heb 3:12). The warning in Hebrews applies—should one fall away following an experience of God’s goodness and grace, they will not benefit from another washing of repentance (Heb 4:2; 6:4-6). This acknowledges the gruesome end of many Israelites who previously washed, but whose disobedience revealed the true alliance of their heart.
Washing 2. Salvation clean—Priesthood Readiness. The foot-washing was for His followers: those who were privileged to understand through the gift of the Holy Spirit the teachings of Christ. For these disciples, the foot-washing signified their salvific spiritual cleansing. “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you” (Jn 13:10). The eleven disciples were called and chosen, cleansed and sanctified for their apostolic work. True believers are also declared clean by virtue of their faith in the sin-payment made by Jesus (2 Pet 1:9; cf. Act 10:9-16). Washing clothes did not actually sanctify; foot-washing was not efficacious by itself; neither does the act of baptism ensure the cleansing of the heart from sin. We are clean when we believe on the word of God (Jn 15:3). However, Jesus, as the Prophet who should come to replace Moses (Deut 18:15), will wash and sanctify a kingdom of priests to serve Him in His heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:11). These priests will ultimately be clothed in righteousness, though they at this present time, wear common garments.
Washing 3. Ministry clean—Priesthood Maintenance. Having declared that some disciples were already clean, Jesus states that He must wash only their feet. This corresponds to the use of the bronze laver that priests availed themselves of during ministry. “Individuals who have been cleansed by Christ atoning work will doubtless need to have subsequent sins washed away, but the fundamental cleansing can never be repeated.”[vii] Jesus dons the linen apron of a servant. Dress indicates the status of the person, so Jesus assumes the dress of a lowly servant. This is in juxtaposition to the attire of the highest religious official in Israel: the high priest whose duty was to labor on behalf of the people of Israel. Jesus, of course, is the high priest after the order of Melchizedek, but He is adorned with a simple linen wrap and prepared to serve rather than be served (Matt 20:28). Jesus revealed this just a week before the current High Priest, Caiaphas, would interrogate Him and allow Him to be slapped for answering truthfully (Jn 18:19-23). This intimate gathering with the apostles is characterized by intense personal instruction aimed at keeping these disciples focused on their calling. Jesus’ instructions and teachings, and even His enigmatic sayings, will be brought to remembrance by the Holy Spirit (Jn 13:7; Lk 12:11-12). It will be Jesus Christ’s teachings that provide direction for the church, and His word will be instrumental in saving generations from their sins, and His word will be necessary for sanctifying future generations for daily living (1 Jn 1:9-10).
[i] Estrada, Justin E. “The Bronze Basin” Tabletalk, December 2017, p. 17.
[ii] Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1997), p. 108.
[iii] Skarsaune, Oskar. In The Shadow of the Temple (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), p. 353-375.
[iv] Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1997), p. 201.
[v] Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol 1. p. 346. (Ex 38:8)
[vi] Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 208.
[vii] Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1991), p. 465.
“The altar of burnt offering emphasizes the need for sacrificial atonement and consecration, but in the Old Testament, animal sacrifices only gave access to a copy of the heavenly temple, and these sacrifices needed to be repeated daily. Jesus’ sacrificial death is a perfect, once-for-all time sacrifice. On the cross, Jesus Christ ransoms, cleanses, and sanctifies those who trust in Him alone by faith. Only those who have been made holy by Christ may approach God without fear.”[i]
The world prior to the entrance of sin was a world of peaceful fellowship and harmony between God and humankind, but alas, only two people enjoyed that paradise, and that only temporarily. The seventh-day rest following creation was soon disrupted, and immediately two animals were slain by God to reestablish the first couple’s relationship with Him. These animals were the first living things to experience death. They were a fitting demonstration of the mortality Adam and Eve brought upon their descendants, but also of the grace to be experienced through a substitutionary sacrifice. With all humanity now in exile from Eden, that paradisaical day of rest came to signify the state of perfection to which God would eventually bring his people (Gen 3:15). Scripture records a few instances of offerings, sacrifices, and altars in the lives of the patriarchs leading up to the Mosaic covenant (Gen 3:21 God; Gen 4:3-4 Cain/Abel; Gen 8:20 Noah; Gen 12:7; 13:18; 22:2, 13 Abraham/Isaac; Gen 31:54; 35:7 Jacob; Ex 10:25 Moses/Pharaoh; Ex 12 Passover; Ex 18:12 Jethro; Ex 20:22-26 personal). But the Mosaic covenant would amplify the predicament of sin by legislating a system of blood-letting sacrifices by a family of priests at a central temple according to the law and its calendar. Alexander points out the necessity of sacrificial atonement to ransom, cleanse, and sanctify the sinner. The bronze altar, as part of the temple complex, served to emphasize that blood atonement was key to approaching God who was distanced from His creation due to their sin. The bronze altar that witnessed the exertions of countless priests and the deaths of countless animals looked back to the garden sacrifices for Adam and Eve and it looked forward to the singular sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God. Its centrality to Jewish worship is evidenced by their query to Christians, “Where is your altar?”
The altar of sacrifice answers the question, “Who may (re)enter into God’s presence?” Only those who have been forgiven of sin via substitution, cleansed in sanctification, and consecrated through participation in the covenant meal. Moses was able to ascend to the top of Mount Sinai, the elders up its side, and the general population at its foot. Similarly, the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, priests could enter the Holy place and the people could gather in the courtyard containing the altar. The realities that these types looked forward to are in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, His priestly access to the Holy of Holies in heaven, and our participation in the new covenant “meal” by faith (Jn 6:53-58). Jesus has ascended to the right hand of God, but even though His work is “finished” we have not yet entered into heaven as these types adumbrate.
The message of Hebrews is certain: The sacrifice of Jesus’ life need not be repeated since He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified (Heb 10:14). His traumatic death provided complete redemption for sin, a result not possible by the thousands of animals previously sacrificed each year at the temple altar. Similarly, the temple structures are also unnecessary since Jesus, our High Priest, having completed the work of redemption, is seated at the right hand of God (Heb 9:11; 10:12). But may we not erect in our churches a model of the altar to remind us that by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice there remains a promise that we will forever dwell in His presence (Jn 17:24; 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:6; 1 Jn 3:2)? Is not the altar fulfilled only in part since we are entreated to continue to make sacrifices and offerings to God (Rom 12:1; Phil 2:17; 4:18; Heb 13:5, 16; 1 Pet 2:5)?
The author of Hebrews answers these questions for us. “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (Heb 13:10). This is not an altar of unhewn stones (Ex 20:24-26) erected in our churches for the sake of symbolism or ritual. Our altar is where the sacrifice of Jesus Christ took place—the cross on Golgotha—not ever to be employed again. This put wavering Jews to task to choose between the tangible altar of Judaism or the symbolical altar of Christ. Christ’s altar inspires His followers to take up their cross outside the camp and share in His sufferings (Heb 13:13-14). His altar dispenses with the rituals in the temple court and calls for sacrifices of praise to God and service to fellow believers (Heb 13:15-16). “Christ is our altar,” say Turretin, “on the cross, by immolation; in heaven, by intercession; on the table, by commemoration.”[ii]
Commenting on the “altar” of Christ, Calvin states,
This is a beautiful adaptation of an old rite under the Law, to the present state of the Church. There was a kind of sacrifice appointed, mentioned in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, no part of which returned to the priests and Levites. This, as he now shows by a suitable allusion, was accomplished in Christ; for he was sacrificed on this condition, that they who serve the tabernacle should not feed on him. But by the ministers of the tabernacle he means all those who performed the ceremonies. Then that we may partake of Christ, he intimates that we must renounce the tabernacle; for as the word altar includes sacrificing and the victim; so tabernacle, all the external types connected with it. Then the meaning is, “No wonder if the rites of the Law have now ceased, for this is what was typified by the sacrifice which the Levites brought without the camp to be there burnt; for as the ministers of the tabernacle did eat nothing of it, so if we serve the tabernacle, that is, retain its ceremonies, we shall not be partakers of that sacrifice which Christ once offered, nor of the expiation which he once made by his own blood; for his own blood he brought into the heavenly sanctuary that he might atone for the sin of the world.”[iii]
Unphased by the perfection of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and the imperfection of repeated ritual sacrifices, the Roman Catholic Church holds that “a church…[is] where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar…”[iv] In limited agreement with Protestants, Catholics declare that the altar of the NC is the cross of Jesus Christ. However, their man-made doctrines demand a physical altar for the sacrament of the eucharist, and to effect and apply Christ’s sacrifice as an unbloody sacrifice on a daily basis.[v] If you have a physical altar, there must be a physical Christ upon it. If Christ is physically present, there must be a physical place for Him to be offered again and again. However, based on the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice on the altar of the cross, Turretin questions the need for any ongoing propitiatory sacrifice, even if Catholics call it a “sacrifice of commemoration” or a “sacrifice of application.”
The perfection of this sacrifice being established, however, the necessity of the sacrifice of the Mass is taken away. For to what purpose should Christ be offered further for the propitiation of sin, if once by the offering of himself he most perfectly obtained it? Therefore, either the sacrifice of the cross must be convicted of insufficiency or the falsity of the sacrifice of the Mass be acknowledged as not only useless, but also injurious and derogatory to the sacrifice of the cross.[vi]
There is danger awaiting those who seek to emulate the cultus of Judaism. Christians are not encouraged to continue to practice Jewish rituals to keep before them what the rituals foreshadowed. The Lord gave the church a simple ritual—a meal of unity in Him and with each other—to serve as 1) a reminder of a past event, perfect in satisfying the wrath of God for our sins (Christ on the cross) and 2) a promise of its full and complete consummation (a bodily resurrection into His heavenly presence). We do not need an altar to observe this symbolic and commemorative meal because the true sacrifice of Christ’s blood fulfilled the purpose of Israel’s altar. Nor should Christians employ the artifacts of Jewish temple worship if what they foreshadowed has only been conveyed in part. Jesus was clear that whoever “eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life” (Jn 6:54).[vii] When we enter into and share in His life by faith, we have eternal life as a present, continuous possession. However, there is more to be realized by Jesus’ death on the cross. He then promised that He will “raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:39-40) which indicates a benefit of eternal life yet to come. Even the access that we have now to approach the throne of God in prayer and petition (Heb 10:19-22)—clearly a fulfillment of His priestly service at the altar—is but a taste of the eventual and final fellowship we will enjoy in His presence (Rev 21:3). So, whether a fulfilled ceremony—like the altar or the Sabbath—has an unaccomplished aspect or not, we are under no obligation to continue the ceremony for whatever emotional or intellectual benefit we can conceive.
The author of Hebrews is decisive: those who continue to give service to the tabernacle have no right to participate in Christian worship (Heb 13:11). Christ’s sacrifice was enough, not just for the sins that were committed prior to His death, but those in the future. His expiatory death eliminated the need for all animal sacrifices, but it also removed the need for a centralized temple in which the sacrifices took place, and the calendar that specified what sacrifices were to be offered on what days. Gone are the days of gifts, offerings, and sacrifices, assisted by a priesthood at a designated place on designated days. Instead, our “sacrifices” of praise and thanksgiving require no temple, no altar, no human priesthood, and no Sabbath. Retaining a Sabbatarian view of the week is tantamount to retaining the sacrificial altar, the temple complex, and the calendar. As Turretin uncompromisingly said, our employment of an altar, and by extension, Sabbatizing the Lord’s Day, is “injurious and derogatory to the sacrifice of the cross.” In consideration of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 56:7), Calvin illuminates,
“Here we have the manifest difference between the Law and the Gospel; for under the Law the true worship of God was observed by one nation only, for whose sake the temple was especially dedicated to him; but now all are freely admitted without distinction into the temple of God, that they may worship him purely in it, that is, everywhere. We must attend to the form of expression, which is customary and familiar to the Prophets, who employ, as we have already said, figures that correspond to their own age, and, under the name of “Sacrifices” and of “the Temple,” describe the pure worship of God. He paints the spiritual kingdom of Christ, under which we may everywhere “lift up pure hands,” (1 Tim 2:8) and call upon God; and, as Christ saith, God is not now to be adored in that temple, but “the true worshippers worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)
We don’t need to infuse our first-day worship in spirit and in truth with any legalisms of OT worship. Those who argue that we must continue to observe the Sabbath because what it foreshadowed has only been fulfilled in part are no different than those who argue for an altar in our churches to continue what remains to be accomplished by the altar of Christ’s sacrifice.
[i] Alexander, T. Desmond. “The Altar of Burnt Offering” Tabletalk, December 2017 p. 15.
[ii] Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol 2, p. 156.
[iii] Calvin, John. Commentary on the Bible Vol x p. x.
[iv] “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (Ligouri Pub: Ligouri, MO, undated), p.305.
[v] Ibid. p. 349.
[vi] Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol 3, p. 528.
[vii] This is not a reference to the Lord’s Supper, and certainly not to the Catholic belief that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist and therefore actually consumed during communion. Carson is blunt: “Any dullard could see that Jesus was not speaking literally: no-one would suppose Jesus was seriously advocating cannibalism and offering himself as the first meal” (Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC p. 295). Alluding to the manna that fed Israel for 40 years and kept them physically alive, Jesus asserts that if one eats the True Manna from heaven, i.e., believe that He alone is the Messiah who saves; that person will have eternal life, a spiritual life of complete rest in Him. Too, that the eternal life He grants is at the expense of shedding His only blood as a vicarious sacrifice for our sin. Believe this scandalous doctrine and follow Him. The Lord’s Supper uses real bread and wine which represent His broken body and sacrificial death. Participating in this sacramental “meal” does not bestow eternal life (otherwise, it would only need to be eaten only once).
Sabbatarians have had difficulty sustaining the belief that the Sabbath is both a moral and ceremonial command. Historically, the aspect of the Sabbath that was considered to be ceremonial was only the day of the week on which it fell so the Sabbath could be moved to another day. The emphasis has been on the morality of Sabbath-keeping due to its mention in the decalogue and its association with the creation narrative. However, contemporary Sabbatarians have acknowledged the typologic relationship between the creation rest and the future state along with the numerous symbolic themes of rest throughout the OT. They no longer champion the idea that the Sabbath was practiced prior to the formation of national Israel. These facts admit to a more essential ceremonial status of the Sabbath as given to Israel. However, to rescue their viewpoint, Sabbatarians have advanced the idea that a ceremonial command that has a “not yet” component to its fulfillment needs be continued by the church to keep what is still foreshadowed in the ceremony fresh in her mind until the final consummation brings the intent of the ceremonial law into full accomplishment. Curiously, this hermeneutical rule seems to apply only to the Sabbath commandment, as if it were in a class-of-one among all the ceremonies given to Israel in the law. For example, Gaffin admits that the Sabbath commandment is eschatological in function within the “already/not yet” paradigm of fulfillment. He states that those who discontinue the observation of the Sabbath based on the first phase of fulfillment alone forget that there is still another phase of fulfillment that requires “a continuing place for the Sabbath sign under the new covenant.”[i] In other words, partial fulfillment is not sufficient a reason to discontinue the outward performance of a ceremonial law. This hermeneutic also affirms that the Sabbath was not only a sign of the Mosaic covenant, but of the new covenant as well. Pipa asserts that because new covenant people are striving to enter the future rest they should continue to keep the Sabbath.[ii] “Thus the theology of accomplished redemption does not annul a continued Sabbath keeping, but requires it.”[iii] Ray states that the “resurrection rest” that we celebrate on Sunday “is not the end or fulfillment: it is the beginning… of eternal life, of the abundant and blessed rest in Jesus…[and so] the Sabbath is still appointed for all men everywhere.”[iv] The Fortieth General Assembly of the OPC disputed the argument that the Sabbath was no longer required because it was an eschatological sign fulfilled by Christ’s coming. While agreeing that the NT unmistakably identifies the eschatological character of the Sabbath, they held that since the experience of that rest is still future, the sign is still in force.[v] More recently, Beale advances the same line of thinking: “If the eschatological reality of final Sabbath rest has not consummately come, then it is unlikely that the typological sign pointing to that ultimate rest has ceased. That is, if the weekly Sabbath included the function of pointing forward to consummate rest, and that rest has not yet come, then that weekly Sabbath should continue.”[vi]
This line of thinking engenders many questions.
- Is Sabbath-keeping essentially a moral or ceremonial law? What parts are moral and what parts are ceremonial? What NT teaching provides the rationale for making these distinctions? Are the annual Sabbaths moral or ceremonial in substance? Is the Sabbath on the Day of Atonement a moral or ceremonial law for Christians? What NT basis is there for discontinuing this and other annual Sabbaths? What other OT ceremonial laws have a continuing moral component to them?
- What aspect of Sabbath-keeping is moral and what part is ceremonial? Does resting from work on the Day of Atonement look forward to the eternal rest? Does resting from work signify the “eternal Sabbath,” in which case resting from work is ceremonial? If resting from work is ceremonial, then what aspect of the Sabbath is moral? Was God’s creation rest an expression of an intrinsic attribute of His holiness (i.e., moral) or was it symbolic of a future rest (i.e., eschatological and typological)? Where in the creation narrative is all mankind commanded to keep a cyclical Sabbath? When did God’s rest signify the future state of His people: before or after the fall?
- The Sabbath is a signal command of the Mosaic covenant, but where is it stated that it is a signal command for all humanity or for beneficiaries of the new covenant? Are there other symbols and types in the creation narrative that are echoed in OT law as outward ceremonies, and then fulfilled by Christ during His first advent, yet still anticipate a future fulfillment coinciding with Christ’s return? If so, are Christians obligated to keep these themes in mind by faithful observance of such OT laws?
- What is the origin of this rule that partial fulfillment of an OT signal command does not remove the requirement to observe it? Does partial fulfillment fully abrogate any ceremonial laws or are they all still required under the new covenant? What new covenant citations exist that demands the continuation of the old covenant law of the Sabbath? Does this hermeneutic rule apply to all ceremonial laws that have been only partially fulfilled or to the Sabbath alone? Are all ceremonial commands to adhere to this hermeneutical precept: that if there is a greater fulfillment still anticipated, the new covenant “requires” that old covenant ceremonial laws be continued?
- Is it possible that this rule is just another attempt to bolster a seventeenth century doctrine? Isn’t it easier to bring the Westminster Confession into full harmony with the NT view of the Sabbath? Wouldn’t Reformed leaders be counted more honorable for admitting the inadequate treatment of Lord’s Day doctrine and the fourth commandment, than using logical fallacies and sophistry to rescue this teaching?
There is no question whether a final future “rest” awaits us; the matter is whether the “rest” that believers receive now as Jesus promised (Matt 11:28-29; Heb 4:3) is to be considered fulfilled enough to warrant the annulment of sabbatic rituals. “Two of the more recent attempts to give New Testament support for viewing the first day as a day of rest are those of Jewett and Beckwith, who hold that because the consummation is yet to come the sign of a weekly Sabbath rest still holds. We have criticized this view in passing in connection with the exegesis of the relevant passages, but here it should also be added that there is a sense in which all rest points to the consummation of rest; but there is no convincing reason from the New Testament evidence why this has to be associated with Sunday. Also one cannot properly argue that, because the rest has not yet been consummated, we must therefore preserve the physical symbol of a day of rest.”[vii] As Botkin explains: “The Sabbath was not only a gracious gift from God, but it was a sign of a greater reality that was yet to come. That reality has come in Christ, and so ‘today’ one can enter God’s rest, thereby experiencing the fellowship that has been waiting for God’s people since creation.”[viii] Christians don’t enter God’s rest ultimately by striving to keep the Sabbath each week on the wrong day. We enter God’s rest now by faith (Heb 4:3) on any day of the week and we experience the benefits of that rest on a daily basis by faith. The analogy Hebrews depended on was the necessity of faith, which brings not only rest but salvation. Our present rest is as sure and real as the moment an Israelite crossed the river and set foot in the promised land. Either faith is enough to enter into God’s rest or it is not. While the fullness of our restful salvation is yet to come, we remain faithful now through tribulations knowing that our future rest is sure because the reality of redemption is ours now through Jesus Christ (Col 2:16). How is the rest we experience now different than the rest we will experience in the future? And how is our redemption now different than the redemption we will experience in the future?
If Pipa is correct that the notion of a completed redemption has no effect on ceremonial rest, and instead our completed redemption demands a continuation of ritual rest, then any other ritual rest commanded by God in the law must also be performed by Christians. This means that there are seven additional Sabbath rests that must be observed throughout the year by Christians. If this be denied, then Pipa and cohorts see Christ’s fulfillment to be sufficient to annul the annual Sabbaths but not the weekly Sabbaths. However, there is no NT rationale to support this inequitable effect of a completed redemption on ceremonial Sabbaths. The manner in which the weekly Sabbath is observed is the same as the manner in which an annual Sabbath is observed. All Sabbath rests regardless of the day on which they fell look forward to the same ultimate salvific rest. What is overlooked by Sabbatarians is that resting from work does not signify resting from work. Let it be asserted again: resting from work does not signify resting from work. Ceremonial rest signifies something more profound. The restriction from work that defines proper Sabbath-keeping is not foreshadowing a future completely devoid of work. Our eternal state will not be marked by a ritual rest every seventh day nor by an eternal state of ceasing work. Instead, ceremonial rest signifies two different things. First, in terms of foreshadowing a completed redemption, ritual rest portrays the idea that salvation is not the result of human doing; that is, salvation is not by works. Ritual rest also signifies trust, because salvation is not by works, but through faith. By resting from works, a faithful Israelite portrayed that the promised rest—his future inheritance in the kingdom; i.e., redemption—was not his through works, but through faith. In other words, ceremonial rest foreshadowed a completed redemption. The 24-hour rest typified what was required of the penitent sinner when calling out for salvation in Jesus’ name. The fact that Christ provides a completed salvation to those who call upon his name in faith demonstrates that the ritual portrayed the reality of a completed redemption. Secondly, the day of rest foreshadowed everlasting peace and fellowship with God in a sinless estate. This future state of complete redemption is also pictured in the Sabbatic Year and the Jubilee. Must these ceremonies also be continued because what they foreshadow is not our present existential reality? In truth, there is no valid rationale for treating calendar Sabbaths any differently. They all portray the necessity of faith alone on the human side and the guarantee of a completed redemption of the divine side.
Following this introduction, I will present eight essays that continue to explore and evaluate the proposed hermeneutical rule that OT ceremonies must continue in force until they are fully realized at the end of the ages. As a point of departure, I chose a Ligonier Tabletalk (December 2017) that provided several brief, but Christ-honoring essays about the temple of Israel. The editor introduces the collection of essays by stating that “the earthly tabernacle and temple of Israel and all of their furnishings served Israel by manifesting God’s presence through symbols, types, and shadows.”[ix] Hinting at the ultimate fulfillment of temple symbolism in Revelation 21, he goes on to state, “God was not required to dwell with us, and God does not possess an inherent need to dwell with us, but because of his sovereign love and for his glory, he chose to dwell with us and in us.”[x] In the same way, there was no inherent need in God to set apart the seventh day of the creation week and infuse it with the themes of restful harmony, peace, and fellowship between God and man unless He, in knowing the end from the beginning, designed that seventh day to point forward to the eventual reconciliation of His people for His glory. Likewise, God was not required to give Israel a hebdomadal law that reminded them of what was lost through sin and what would eventually be regained through the seed of the woman. Scripture clearly demonstrates that tabernacle/temple worship had a beginning and an end. So did the Sabbath. Each feature of temple worship, including the Sabbath, looked back to creation and looked forward to the consummation of the ages; yet each feature was gloriously fulfilled in Christ, bringing an end to the obligation to continue them—even though they have an already/not yet aspect to their fulfillment. While the Tabletalk essays focus on tangible items of temple worship, one must not overlook the calendar given to Israel that directed the use of every temple artifact and prescribed the order of temple worship. Any priestly activities performed without attention to the calendar would amount to will-worship. The two cannot be separated.
[i] Gaffin, Richard B. “Westminster and the Sabbath” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Vol. 1, Duncan, ed. repr. 2004 (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2003) p. 132.
[ii] Pipa, Joseph A. The Lord’s Day (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 1997), p. 117.
[iii] Pipa, Joseph A. The Lord’s Day (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 1997), p. 117-118.
[iv] Ray, Bruce A. Celebrating the Sabbath (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000) p. 52-53.
[v] Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Fortieth General Assembly “Report of the Committee on Sabbath Matters” p. 105. (Richard Gaffin was on this Committee.)
[vi] Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011) p. 789.
[vii] Lincoln, A. T. “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day (Repr. Wipf and Stock, 1999) p. 216.
[viii] Botkin, John E. “‘Today,’ Enter God’s Rest: The Argument of Hebrews 3:7-4:11 and Its Implications for the Sabbath Command” (Master’s thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002), p. 62.
[ix] Parsons, Burk “Immanuel” Tabletalk, December 2017 p. 2.
[x] Parsons, Burk “Immanuel” Tabletalk, December 2017 p. 2.
Out of the kindness of Wipf and Stock, I received a preview digital file in response to my interest in the topic of biblical rest. In this book, he provides insights into the varied themes of the Former Prophets, a study that follows his survey of the Pentateuch entitled, “Waiting for the Land” (2010).
The idea that “rest” is an organizational theme within the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings is one that I explored in The Sabbath Complete, published in 2011. Indeed, both “land” and “rest” occupy the minds of the authors of much of OT literature. Not surprisingly, the Lord instituted multiple ritual ordinances related to these significant eschatological themes. But Israel, having never realized in fullness the possession of the land and the resultant rest from enemies, must ponder how the Lord will ultimately accomplish His promises with such a notoriously disobedient people. These themes must also be considered by new covenant believers since they are reminded in Hebrews to be diligent to enter that rest (Heb 4:11).
In preparation for his insights into the Former Prophets, Leder reviews canonical considerations, hermeneutical views, and presuppositions that affect how one is to read and derive meaning from the books of the Bible. “Scripture speaks to its committed readers today as it did to those of old because the intended audience is that divinely shaped community which accepts this Scripture as God’s word and therefore authoritative and definitive for faith and conduct” (p. 9). Following this, Leder continues to prepare his readers with the backdrop of Genesis and the historical trajectories that set the stage for Joshua and beyond. These are worthwhile instructional chapters. The remaining chapters investigate the theme of rest in each book of the Former Prophets. I was intrigued with his discoveries of parallelism and repetition. If you decide to read this book, I suggest beginning with his appendix/word study on nuach and menuhah in Genesis.
As mentioned above, the theme of rest is of great importance to members of the NT church. The book title derives its name from Hebrews 4:9: “There remains therefore a rest (sabbatismos) for the people of God.” Hebrews 3:7-4:11 draws on passages in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Kings, and Psalms to provide relevant assurances, advice, and warnings to the people of God. The overall thrust of Leder’s book considers “rest” to be a redemptive and eschatological theme to be fulfilled in Christ. But If Christ indeed provides rest for the people of God, this necessarily invalidates the “divine instructions” to overthrow the enemies, to take possession of the land, and to physically rest at appointed times. Instead, these themes are reimagined as spiritual realities and experiences. Leder astutely observes that “fundamentally, completing the conquest was not a territorial matter but a profoundly spiritual battle against the powers and principalities that ruled Canaan” (p 86). This understanding, guided by the NT interpretation of the OT, pictures new covenant believers as also awaiting the promised land and its rest, while concurrently engaged in spiritual warfare.
Depending on one’s view of fulfillment and its affect on ceremonies of land and rest, Hebrews 4 may become a bit of an interpretive battleground. Hebrews 4:9 is used in Reformed literature to advocate the continuation of a weekly rest, à la the fourth commandment. However, Leder does not directly advocate “keeping the Sabbath” and mentions it but a few times. Once, he uses the Sabbath as a metaphor for the hope of peaceful rest with God (p. 171). His focus is on the relationship of the experience of daily rest from enemies and peaceful fellowship with God while in the land. The Sabbath is merely a weekly duty to rest from work, during which God expects “nothing less than rigorous keeping of the covenant vows” (p. 86). Also, Leder only adverts to Matt 11:28-29 a few times, where Christ promises rest to those who exchange their burdens for his easy yoke—presumably a daily experience of rest. But the sense of rest proposed in Leder’s studies is that our time awaiting the complete fulfillment of rest is our burden. “The burden of waiting for the rest that still remains is the waiting, the incompleteness, the brokenness, the temptation to surrender to the pain of bodily incoherence, and the never ending discerning the spirit behind the conflict (p. 182). There is no denying the hardships that challenge our sense of rest in Jesus Christ. “For indeed, when we came to Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were troubled on every side. Outside were conflicts, inside were fears. Nevertheless God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus” (2 Cor 7:5-6). But at the same time, this idea of waiting for the rest that remains must take into account that “we who have believed do enter that rest” (Heb 4:3). Clarke wonderfully expressed the truth of this verse:
“The meaning appears to be this: We Jews, who have believed in Christ, do actually possess that rest-state of happiness in God, produced by peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Spirit—which was typified by the happiness and comfort to be enjoyed by the believing Hebrews, in the possession of the promised land.”Clarke, Adam. Clarke’s Commentary, 6:710
The New Testament does not support the idea that Sabbath-keeping is a required law for Christians. Sabbatarians tend to maximize their attention on the idea of waiting for the rest that remains—the shared hope of faithful Israel—while minimizing the present possession of salvation rest of those who believe. Since the focus is on waiting, the church, they say, must continue to observe the Sabbath which sustains that future hope. Scripture does present a parallel between the Jews awaiting the (land) rest that remains and the Christian awaiting the (heavenly) rest that remains. We may admit this even though the concept of that rest is slightly different—the Jews expecting national occupation of the land promised to Abraham, and Christians expecting the inheritance of a new heavens and earth, also expected by Abraham (Heb 11:13-16). However, the parallel between the Jew’s occasional and temporary rest from enemies is profoundly different than the present and unshakeable redemptive rest that every Christian enjoys in covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. This truth obviates Sabbath-keeping because our soulical experience of complete rest in Jesus Christ is the down-payment and guarantee of our full inheritance in the promised eschaton. There is no wondering whether our perfect obedience is instrumental in securing or maintaining the present possession of rest. As Leder says, “Israel’s rest from its enemies all around is no longer dependent on its compliance with divine instruction as in the days of Joshua, but on the Lord’s covenant with David and his descendants” (p. 143). While our ultimate salvation is sure, not directly dependent on our obedience, we are still urged to be diligent to enter that rest lest any succumb to the disobedience of disbelief (Heb 4:11).