Calvin on the Sabbath Rest

Calvin writes the following on Genesis 2:3 -

3. And God blessed the seventh day ... Thus we may be allowed to describe the day as blessed by him which he has embraced with love, to the end that the excellence and dignity of his works may therein be celebrated... God therefore sanctifies the seventh day, when he renders it illustrious, that by a special law it may be distinguished from the rest. Whence it also appears, that God always had respect to the welfare of men. I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works. He had the same end in view in the appointment of his own rest, for he set apart a day selected out of the remainder for this special use. Wherefore, that benediction is nothing else than a solemn consecration, by which God claims for himself the meditations and employments of men on the seventh day. This is, indeed, the proper business of the whole life, in which men should daily exercise themselves, to consider the infinite goodness, justice, power, and wisdom of God, in this magnificent theater of heaven and earth. But, lest men should prove less sedulously attentive to it than they ought, every seventh day has been especially selected for the purpose of supplying what was wanting in daily meditation. First, therefore, God rested; then he blessed this rest, that in all ages it might be held sacred among men: or he dedicated every seventh day to rest, that his own example might be a perpetual rule. The design of the institution must be always kept in memory: for God did not command men simply to keep holiday every seventh day, as if he delighted in their indolence; but rather that they, being released from all other business, might the more readily apply their minds to the Creator of the world. [TJD: I.e. it isn't about sleeping the day away.] Lastly, that is a sacred rest, which withdraws men from the impediments of the world, that it may dedicate them entirely to God. But now, since men are so backward to celebrate the justice, wisdom, and power of God, and to consider his benefits, that even when they are most faithfully admonished they still remain torpid, no slight stimulus is given by God’s own example, and the very precept itself is thereby rendered amiable. For God cannot either more gently allure, or more effectually incite us to obedience, than by inviting and exhorting us to the imitation of himself. Besides, we must know, that this is to be the common employment not of one age or people only, but of the whole human race. Afterwards, in the Law, a new precept concerning the Sabbath was given, which should be peculiar to the Jews, and but for a season; because it was a legal ceremony shadowing forth a spiritual rest, the truth of which was manifested in Christ. Therefore the Lord the more frequently testifies that he had given, in the Sabbath, a symbol of sanctification to his ancient people. Therefore when we hear that the Sabbath was abrogated by the coming of Christ, we must distinguish between what belongs to the perpetual government of human life, and what properly belongs to ancient figures, the use of which was abolished when the truth was fulfilled. Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live unto themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.

Full version at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.viii.i.html. See also http://ad-gloriam-dei.blogspot.com/2006/08/calvin-on-sabbath.html.

Christ Forbids Calling Religious Leaders "Father"

It is sad to see in so-called Protestant churches like the Anglican church that in some quarters the fashion has been resurrected of referring to ‘clergymen’ as “Father”. Christ's prohibition against this is abundantly clear:

“The scribes and the Pharisees… love… to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven… But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” (Matt. 23)

Some argue from Paul's use of the term "father", e.g. 1 Cor.4:14-15, that this practice is allowed, but it is one thing for Paul to consider himself as a father to his spiritual children, and it is another to append the title as Christ condemned.

Paul never called himself, nor was referred to as “Father Paul”. If you love your spiritual children in a fatherly way, and they love you as a father, then that is all good, but Christ doesn’t want you or others to call you, “Father so-and-so”.

“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14:21)

(See also here and here.)

Continued...

The Second Commandment not Part of the First

The Reformed and Anglican Churches believe that the commandment against images is the 2nd Commandment, and that the commandment regarding coveting is completely encompassed by the 10th Commandment. The Roman 'Catholic Church', Anglo-Catholics and the Lutherans disagree, and believe that the 2nd is part of the 1st, and that the 10th is divided into two.

I think that it is telling that the Greek Church, the Early Greek authors (e.g. Origen, Athanasius, etc.) and the Early Latin authors (e.g. Jerome, Ambrose, Severus and Augustine) agree with the Reformed/ Anglican division, against the Later Latin Church and the Lutheran semi-Reformation. It is even more telling that the Jews also make the same division, e.g. Josephus and Philo!

It is absurd for the last commandment on coveting to be divided unnaturally. The only rationale for such a division is to avoid the clear intent of the 2nd, i.e. that images are not allowed in worship.

As Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism states: (Q.113):

That this commandment, which has respect to lust, or concupiscence, is one, and not two, is evident

1. From the fact that Moses repeats it in a different order in Ex. 20 : 17, and Deut. 5 : 21, as we have already shown.

2. From the fact that Moses comprehends it in one verse in both of the places to which we have just referred.

3. From the interpretation of Paul, who comprises in one commandment all that Moses says in relation to this subject, when he says, ” I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Rom. 7 : 7.)

4. From the fact that the Papists and others are accustomed, in their expositions of this part of the Decalogue, to join together the coveting of our neighbour’s house and wife ; because they, without doubt, perceived that the coveting of our neighbour’s wife, house, and all other things which long to our neighbour, are here forbidden, for one and the same reason. It follows, therefore, either that there is but one precept touching concupiscence, or that there must be as many commandments enumerated, as there are things belonging to our neighbour which we are forbidden to covet.

5. From the authority of the best ancient writers, both among the Jews and Christians, to whom we have referred in our remarks upon the division of the Decalogue.

Moreover, as Christ showed in His Sermon on the Mount, each of the Commandments are archetypal and comprehend all other types of sin (and obedience). If these are archetypal sins, then why divide coveting into two parts? Why have two archetypes of coveting?

Also, it should be noted that the 2nd Commandment forbids all additions to and subtractions from the ordinances of God, as clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture. Idolatry and images are but an archetype of all the corruption of God’s worship by the inventions of men, who think themselves wiser than God, and His Prophets and Apostles!

Continued...

The Perpetual Obligation of the Weekly Sabbath

Q. 59. Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath?

A. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week, ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.

Traditionally orthodox Christianity has affirmed with the Westminster Catechisms that the 4th Commandment has a perpetual obligation and that we, as Christians, observe the first day of the week as a Sabbath, or day of cessation from work, called the Lord’s Day.

Some have disagreed with this opinion, especially since the dawn of Dispensationalism, and have asserted that either the 4th Commandment, being part of the Mosaic Law, does not oblige the Church, or that it was a merely ceremonial law pointing to the rest that there is in Christ, and thus terminated in his Resurrection. Let me look at the latter view held by some Covenantalists. (Dealing with the Dispensationalist argument would involve a long refutation of a whole system of hermeneutics.)

1. The Sabbath was Instituted before the Fall

I believe that one of the reasons that there is still a weekly Sabbath is that it was instituted at Creation before the Fall and was not part of the ceremonies introduced in the Mosaic economy; neither was it connected to the sacrifices and other bloody ceremonies introduced between the Fall and Moses. How would something instituted as unconnected to Christ's death be abrogated by that death?

2. The Sabbath is in the Context of the Ten Commandments as a Complete Unit

The Ten Commandments were a summary of the complete obligation of man to God (a.k.a. the Law). Each commandment was an archetypal law that represented a class of obligations to God under them, e.g. the commandment not to commit adultery contained much more under it, such as the commandment not to lust, and the commandment not to kill included the commandment not to be angry. This is well expressed in the historic confessions and catechisms of the British non-conformists, esp. the Westminster Larger Catechism Questions 91 to 152.

Similarly, we are obliged to keep all those days special that God has set aside at any moment in time. If it were merely ceremonies, then that would be included under the archetypal commandment concerning worship (the Second). God wanted to emphasise the observance of the Sabbath as a perpetual obligation.

3. The Problem in the Early Church was the Festival Sabbaths, not the Weekly Sabbath

The NT period was one of transition from a Jewish congregation (εκκλησια) to a global one. The difficulties with this transition are apparent throughout this period and various approaches are used depending on the circumstances. Paul circumcised Timothy on one occasion, but refused it for Titus on another. Another problem was the observance of the various days that God had given in the Mosaic Law, most of which were Sabbaths, or days of cessation from work to engage in religious duties. This is the context in which Paul said the following:

“One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.” (Rom. 14:5,6a)

“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (Col. 2:16-17)

Note the following:

• Both of these are in the context of the eating of various foods, etc., i.e. we're talking about the ceremonial law instituted under Moses.
  
• Although I originally believed that there was a distinction in the use of the plural form of the word 'sabbath' (σαββατα/των), I remembered afterwards that there was something special about the word 'sabbath' in the Greek. Consultation of my lexicons and grammar showed that this was the case and that the plural form of 'sabbath' can refer to either 'sabbaths' in the plural or 'sabbath' in the singular. However the lack of the characteristic definite article (e.g. τα/των) would tend to indicate that it is not the Weekly Sabbath, although this is not conclusive.
  
• The Festival Sabbaths were a shadow of Christ given after the Fall, but the Weekly Sabbath was not a shadow of Christ’s work because it was given prior to the Fall. The Festival Sabbaths involved more than rest and worship; they were intimately connected to figurative ceremonies and especially sacrifices, which were shadows of Christ as Hebrews tells us.
• Since the beginning of the Church, one day in seven has been observed as a day of rest from labour and for the convocation of God’s people for worship. We see this weekly observance and assembly for worship on the Lord’s Day. The day of rest (or Sabbath) then quickly made the transition from the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Lord’s Day. In my opinion, the dispute in the Early Church was not one over the observance of a weekly day of rest and convocation of God’s people, but the observance of the Festival Sabbaths.
• It may also be the case that the problem was like that experienced with Seventh Day Adventists in modern times, and some were insisting on observing a day of rest and worship on the seventh day of the week.
  

4. Christ’s Commandments on the Sabbath Made Irrelevant by the Antisabbatarians

My last argument against the view that there is no weekly Sabbath for the Christian is that Christ’s discussions about the Sabbath in Matthew 12:1-14 and Mark 2:23 – 3:6 become a bit redundant under this view of the Sabbath (i.e. that there is no weekly day of rest and worship). What are we to make of Christ’s Lordship of the Sabbath? It seems that there is no Sabbath over which He is Lord. The statement that the “Sabbath was made for man” indicates that it was not merely a ceremony that was to terminate in Christ’s Resurrection, but was designed for man’s perpetual good. Why bother to teach us more about Sabbath observance when the Sabbath was about to disappear forever?

In summary, I reject the case for Covenantalists rejecting the Weekly Sabbath for the following reasons:

1. The Sabbath did not terminate in Christ’s death because the Sabbath was instituted before the Fall, i.e. before Christ’s death was necessary.
2. It makes the inclusion of the 4th Commandment in the Ten Commandments incongruous, and destroys the completeness of the unit as the summary of God’s Law enscripturated as archetypal commandments.
3. The chief text used by the Antisabbatarians would appear to refer to the Festival Sabbaths, not the Weekly Sabbath, because they were part of the festivals and sacrifical system that foreshadowed the death of Christ.
4. Christ’s teachings on the Sabbath do not seem to be consistent with the imminency of the abrogation of the Weekly Sabbath.

(See also these articles on the Blue Banner website.)
Read the rest...