Merritt writes to ask, “Where do you stand on the Sabbath?” To which I respond, “In Church, twice.” But wait there’s more.
It’s a difficult but no insoluble problem. For me the key was creation. This is the part of the equation that people often overlook. Why does God reveal himself as having “rested” on the seventh day? He reveals himself as having rested even before the fall. He calls the sabbath day “holy” even before the fall. In other words the 6 (work) and 1 (rest) pattern is built into creation before we ever get to sin and salvation or grace.
In grace or salvation or redemption, the 6/1 pattern is reinforced in Deut 5 and Ex 20. The latter connects the Sabbath again to creation. In Deut 5 it’s connected to salvation.
In the new covenant the sabbath is reclaimed by the inauguration of the new creation in Christ. It becomes 1 and 6. We begin on the first day with rest/resurrection and live out of that for 6 days.
This is why all the Reformed confessions (European and British) teach the “Christian Sabbath.” The denial of the same among some Reformed folk is a modern corruption of the faith. The almost universal “evangelical” denial of the sabbath signals their virtual denial of “creation” or “nature” as a category of thought and ethics.
I have a chapter on this forthcoming in the Recovering book next month.
I guess I’ll be getting your book… but, can someone expound on what this means to daily life? Do we refrain from “work” the way the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day? What is work?
In other words, how does keeping the Sabbath holy look today in Southern California?
TIA,
aL
Hi Albert,
The root idea of “Shabbat” is “to stop.” In Scripture and through most of Christian history it meant “to rest, to worship, and to anticipate glory.”
Can it be done in SoCal (or any urban setting) today? Sure. It means setting priorities. Let’s put it this way. Is it possible not to commit theft, murder, adultery today? Sure. Is it difficult? Sure. But the moral law is the moral law. If it is the moral law of God then we find a way to set priorities to obey. We get a job that allows us to take rest on the Sabbath, unless you’re a fireman, a doctor, a nurse, or some other essential vocation. Selling clothes at the mall (or whatever) isn’t essential to human life. We can probably do without the Gap one day a week.
It means checking out of the daily grind and rat race. It means devoting the Lord’s Day to worship, rest, fellowship, and service of those in need.
Pharisaical? Jesus didn’t reject the creational Sabbath. He rejected the Pharisaical abuse of it. They wouldn’t actually allow the Sabbath to be for man! They didn’t understand that the Sabbath points to Jesus and that he was the fulfillment of the promise of the Sabbath, that he is the Sabbath rest, and that we find rest and healing in Christ. They wouldn’t let us love one another on the Sabbath because they used their Sabbath rules to control people and exercise their power. That was contrary to the Sabbath.
There’s more in the book.
So it is morally inconsistent to argue for the creation week of Genesis vs. evolution while denying the duty to keep the Christian sabbath. No?
I think so, which is why I find it amazing that the Creation Museum is open on Sundays. Well as long as we agree on fundamentals like dinosaurs on the ark I guess we can disagree on minor things like creation ordinances and the fourth commandment.
Exactly. We think we know exactly how long creation took but we live as if there was no such thing as CREATION.
Dr. Clark,
Did you post this last comment while you were answering questions at the end of class? 🙂
Scott,
Since there is obviously a creation point being made here, I wonder if you might address not just what Sabbath means to believers (that seems easy), but what implications does it have for unbelievers? I am never all that satisfied with views that seem to imply the Sabbath has no implication for all of us, just some of us. After all, unbelievers inhabit the earth on Sundays, just as frequently as they get married. But if marriage is grounded in creation and has implications for everyone, doesn’t also the Sabbath?
Dr. Clark
How would you read Colassians 2? I mean how do we deal with Paul apparently saying the Sabbath is just a shadow? I have some ideas on the subject but I would be very interested in how you interpret that passage.
Merritt Burgin
Hi Scott:
Seems to me your Sabbath view only works in the context of a free country. Why didn’t the early Christian slaves refuse to work on Sundays? Were they not to obey God over man? Doesn’t the Sabbath command only work in the context of a theocracy where the cult has legal authority to make such commands?
Todd Bordow
Hi Todd,
Great to hear from you. Wouldn’t it be more precise to say that it’s more difficult to keep a weekly sabbath in non- or pre- or post-Christian culture?
Yes, I agree that it was more difficult, in some instances, prior to Constantine. Nevertheless, the evidence I’ve seen is that the pre-Constantinian Christians met for worship twice on the Sabbath. Christian slaves might indeed have to work but I don’t share the assumption that, as a matter of history, it was impossible for Christians to observe the Sabbath prior to Constantine. Obviously it’s much easier to keep the Sabbath more fully in a free country but I don’t think that the Sabbath either assumes the modern idea liberty or a theocracy. The Sabbath existed prior to the Mosaic theocracy and I’ve no idea that those people enjoyed the equivalent of modern civil liberty.
Merritt,
The key there is “new moons” and “Sabbaths.” Paul’s not speaking to the creational, weekly Sabbath. He’s speaking to the specifically Mosaic cultic (religious) calendar. That seems to have been aspect of the moralism he was combatting, the attempt to impose the Mosaic system on Christians.
The weekly Sabbath wasn’t originally Mosaic. It was built into creation, just as the moral law is built into creation. That’s why the Mosaic law continues to be in force after the cross. Everything that was specifically Mosaic (the 613 mitzvoth) was abrogated and abolished. The moral law was the general equity of the Torah and thus we’re always obligated to love God and neighbor and we’re always obligated not to murder, steal etc.
Thus, I agree with Zrim’s implication — if I understand it correctly — that, as a creational institution, all image bearers should have a weekly rest. I agree entirely. Just as marriage is a creational institution and thus non-Christians participate rightly in marriage so too they participate in the creational rest. For Christians, however, the creational rest is also a re-creational rest anticipating the consummation.
Hi David,
No. The wireless signal is too weak in the chapel.
Scott,
Yes, it’s surely more difficult, but I understand that the early Christian slaves met for worship late Sunday night/early Monday morning because they were required to work Sundays. Is there any evidence those Christians understood the contuining validity of the fourth commandent as applying now to Sundays, and thus refused to work because it wasn’t a work of necessity? I haven’t seen any such evidence, but you would know more than me.
Todd
Todd,
The archeological evidence for what earliest post-apostolic Christians thought is less clear than the evidence for what they did. I do sketch lines of evidence and argument, however, in the book. The summary is that yes, there is evidence that the early Christians saw the Sabbath as a creational institution. They were quite conscious of the distinction between Moses and Christ. They were under strong and constant criticism from Jewish critics and they had to work out a covenant theology. Justin and Irenaeus developed a doctrine of substantial continuity between the Old and New Testaments, but they also developed a doctrine of creation.
It’s this latter category, creation, that is often missing from the sabbath discussion. The sabbath is not a purely Mosaic institution.
Isn’t there an ‘end of Days’ text regarding the Cain and Abel account which is an indicator that the Sabbath was followed by man prior to Moses?
Dr. Scott,
A couple of points.
1. Is the Sabbath a moral command? Why? Does not Jesus compare the Sabbath command with the ceremonial prohibition of eating the consecrated bread in Mark 2? Why would he do this, rather than compare it to murder, adultery, etc.?
2. You say, “In the new covenant the sabbath is reclaimed by the inauguration of the new creation in Christ. It becomes 1 and 6. We begin on the first day with rest/resurrection and live out of that for 6 days.”
How does this comment even come close to what the Author to the Hebrews concludes as, “Today.” The Rest which the Sabbath pointed is now open to all who will enter by faith and rest from their works, as God did from his. We do not live from the rest we receive on the first day of the week, but from the rest we have Today and every day in Christ.
Furthermore, are you aware that the Sabbath (Ex. 20, the fourth commandment) is also the sign of the Old Covenant, the Covenant with Israel? If so, how do you explain how the sign of that covenant escapes the obsolescence of the same covenant? (Ex. 31:14-18; Heb. 7:11-12; 8:13).
Also, I do not think anyone will be persuaded by your interpretation of Col 2:13. Just because Paul uses the Sabbath in the plural does not mean that he does not have THE SABBATH in mind too. Remember, Ex. 31 begins by talking about the Sabbaths and has a very seemless transition to THE SABBATH.
I wrote a post on this very issue a long time ago. It is part of a larger post in which I’m interacting with Meredith Kline’s view of the covenant of works: http://chaosandoldnight.wordpress.com/2006/07/22/covenants-and-biblical-theology-part-2/
John Bunyan is an interesting antagonist to the Creation ordinance view as well. I agree with his exegesis of Neh. 9:13-14, ““You came down on Mt. Sinai to speak . . . you made known to them your holy Sabbath, and the commandments, statutes, and torah, which you commanded to them by the hand of Moses, your servant.”
Dr. Clark,
Thanks for your comments. I understood your view of the sabbath to not be derived from the moral/mosaic law, but from creation. So, I am a bit confused by your reliance on the moral law to justify the sabbath. In any event, if the model of creation is to be our model and that’s why we should keep the sabbath, should we not also work on Saturdays, since God worked for six, not just five days?
aL
Scott,
How did the reformers untie the Jewish practice of the Sabbath from its moral, civil, and ceremonial strands? Would their Sabbath observance have looked different from theocratic Israel in any substantive way (except, of course, the change in days)? Is it at all concerning that our defense of the practices of a “Christian Sabbath” (not its existence) seems to rely almost wholly on theocratic texts?
Eric,
I deal with this in the book, but the Heidelberg and the Westminster Confession and catechism reflect the general Reformed pattern of seeing the sabbath as a creational institution that was employed in the covenant of grace, that receives a Mosaic re-statement, that is renewed and transformed in the New Covenant. The Reformed didn’t have to “until” the sabbath from the theocracy, Jesus did it for us by coming as the Israel of God, by recapitulating the history of Israel (going down to Egypt etc), by obeying, by keeping Sabbath and by inaugurating the new covenant Sabbath in his resurrection.
In the book I do more than simply appeal to theocratic texts — that said, and to answer Al’s question, certainly if someone is going to say that I can’t quote from any texts from the Torah or the Prophets or the writings, then I will point them to the language concerning “general equity” in the WCF.
The point of appealing to Ex 20 and Deut 5 is to say that, Ex 20, following Gen 1, which was written during the theocratic period (broadly) but which reflects a pre-theocratic tradition and revelation, is to say that it is grounded first of all in creation. That’s the point of Gen 1-2. The garden is not, strictly, a theocratic setting.
Like the rest of the moral law, the 4th commandment gets re-stated in theocratic-Israelitish terms under Moses, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as the moral law. We don’t say, “the prohibition against murder is re-stated under Moses and therefore we’re not obligated to it.” No, we recognize that Moses is simply repeating the natural, creational, moral law. We make use of it on that basis.
The real question here, it seems to me, is whether there is such a thing as creational, moral, natural law or not. If there is, then the Sabbath principle is surely part of that law as it is probably the very point of the creation narrative itself. Nothing is more clear or constitutive of the creation story than the Sabbath.
Al,
As to saturday, that’s the point of noting Jesus’ fulfillment of and transformation of the Sabbath by his obedience as the Israel of God and his resurrection as the Son of God. The same Word who spoke the Sabbath command, the Lord of the Sabbath, who “rested” on the 7th day in creation, inaugurated a new creation and we have been united to him in that new creation sola gratia et sola fide by the Holy Spirit.
This is how I understand Hebrews 4. It’s not about a weekly Sabbath per se. The rest that remains is the eschatological rest into which we’ve been initiated in Christ and to which we aspire in the consummation.
But as you note, God hallowed the sabbath even before the fall; so wouldn’t that amount to an unbeliever trying to exercise a holy rest?
Marriage, I can see how it might have secular and sacred components; marriage was a creation ordinance, established before the Sabbath was hallowed, and thus is secular; yet Christian marriages are hallowed in a way that purely secular marriages are not (I Cor 7:14).
But where’s the secular component of a hallowed Sabbath? Do you have any thoughts on Kline’s concept that for unbelievers to observe a Sabbath rest is to claim a promise they have no right to? And for believers to condone unbelieving pseudo-sabbath-keeping is to shamefully offer them false assurance?
Hi Rube,
Yes, I simply disagree with my beloved prof. In the flow of the creation narrative “holy” before the fall cannot mean “free from sin.” There was no sin. Not everything is about redemption. This is the thing to which I keep returning. If there really is such a category as “creation” or “nature” and if there was a rest instituted and modeled by the Creator, and if it was the Creator’s intent that the creature (his image bearer) should imitate him by resting one day out of seven, then there it is.
God “rested” and set apart one day, which is all “holy” means here as a part of creation. Obviously, to those of us in Christ, it speaks of a re-creation and a consummation (hence Hebrews 4) but that doesn’t mean that grace overwhelms or destroys nature. To paraphrase Hebrews 4, “there remains therefore a doctrine of creation to be observed until the consummation.”
I do think that it’s a fair question to ask whether non-Christians should be compelled or expected to or perhaps even given the opportunity to observe the Christian Sabbath. It might be arguable that, on natural grounds alone, all one can conclude is a one in seven pattern.
My point is so much to speak to what unbelievers should or shouldn’t do but to speak to how Christians should think about the creational and redemptive 1 in seven pattern.
WCF 21.7 affirms that “it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God”, but the one-in-seven pattern comes from special revelation.
But in general, what I guess you’re saying is that unbelievers can set apart a time for rest, without there being anything redemptively holy about it. Certainly I agree, any creature can take a break (even non-image-bearers!), but the fact that the creational Sabbath was both hallowed and blessed (is that blessing distinct from the declaration “very good”?) doesn’t seem to leave much room for a secular component. And (unlike creational marriage, which will go away) even in creation, before the fall and redemption, the Sabbath is fundamentally eschatological.
I guess I just agree with your beloved prof!
Rube said, “And (unlike creational marriage, which will go away) even in creation, before the fall and redemption, the Sabbath is fundamentally eschatological.”
I don’t see how this helps make your point, Rube. I don’t think anyone would disagree that the Sabbath is fundamentally eschatological: Adam was supposed to be graduated into glory, he wasn’t supposed to fall and be redeemed. The fall is what gave birth to having to distinguish the categories of creation and redemption (“In the flow of the creation narrative ‘holy’ before the fall cannot mean ‘free from sin.’ There was no sin. Not everything is about redemption”).
And, yes, marriage will pass away; but so will the visible church, and so will Sunday which will yield to the eighth day. The point is that all things temporal will yield to the eternal.
Dear Dr. Clark,
Would you say that the Sabbath rest they had in the Old Covenant and what we have in the New Covenant are the same or different? I mean in a reply to one of my questions on facebook you said Abraham was a Christian looking ahead to the fulfillment of the promise. So wouldn’t the rest he had in his hope be the same rest we have in our hope?
Merritt
Hi Merritt,
Was Abraham an “Old Covenant” figure? How does Paul use the term “old covenant” (2 Cor 3) or how is it used in Hebrews chs 7-10? If the term denotes, “Mosaic theocracy” as it seems to, then Abraham wasn’t really an Old Covenant figure. He’s a typological figure but he’s also a member of the very same covenant of grace. That’s why we’re Abraham’s children. So Abraham anticipated the New Covenant Sabbath in Christ. He had it proleptically, by anticipation, but not in reality–at least he didn’t have the reality in the way we have it. We have that for which Abraham (and Moses and all the other believers under the typological system) hoped. That seems to be the message of Hebrews 11. Jesus said that “Abraham saw my day and rejoiced.” (John 8:56) but he didn’t “have” Abraham’s day as we do.
We want to account for the blessings, realities, and benefits of living in the fulfillment of the promises while recognizing the continuities.
Maybe this makes it simpler: in creation, before the fall, the Sabbath was hallowed and blessed. I don’t see that as “partly about taking a break, and partly a covenant celebration of the promise of eschatological rest”; I see it as only “a covenant celebration of the promise of eschatological rest”.
Marriage, on the other hand, was not hallowed/blessed (unless “very good” counts as a blessing).
So as I see it, the Sabbath is creational/holy, and marriage is creational/secular. You would have it that the Sabbath is creational/(part secular + part holy).
In terms of a separate disagreement of ours, I would have it that “Christian marriage” is part secular + part holy; why do I not therefore also see the Sabbath as part secular + part holy? Because marriage was totally secular before the fall, and Christian marriage became part holy only because of redemptive considerations. The Sabbath, on the other hand, was (all — there’s my assumption) holy even before the fall, and the eventuation of the fall did not somehow add a secular component to the Sabbath.
Rube,
I think like RSC suggests, much of this turns on your understanding of “holy.” Your sustained meaning seems to be that it means “free of sin.” But since there was no sin when both Sabbath and marriage were instituted this creates a problem. Holy can mean “very good.” Thus I can understand a pagan marriage as holy just as much as his resting on Sunday as holy.
I think RSC’s point about a doctrine of creation is vital to make this point (along with so many others, not least of which the problems with transformationalism). As long as a doctrine of creation remains weak I can see how this gets a knit brow. Moreover, to be honest, I think what you are suggesting seems to make it harder to refute charges of antinomianism by the theonomists…just a tad though.
I don’t think I am seeing holy as “free of sin”; in particular, I see pre-fall “holy” as meaning set apart — set apart from what? From things not set apart, i.e. marriage. Thus, marriage is creational/secular, sabbath is creational/holy.
Similarly, I see a difference between “pronounced very good”and “blessed”. The former is not a declaration with an effect, just a statement of fact; the latter vice versa.
Rube,
Now you’re making the charges of neutrality get sticky.
That all seems fairly tortured. And how can something declared very good be that sterile? I mean, do you really want to tell your pagan neighbor that his marriage isn’t good or bad, it just is? I’d rather have a good time at his reception. I guess Martin Short was right, “Every party has a pooper.”
It’s good — it just ain’t holy.
Get the word out. The following must be stricken from all Christian marriage liturgies:
“Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today in the sight of God, to witness the union of John and Jane in holy matrimony.”
Also, since the Law is holy (Rom 7:12) does that mean it is only for believers?
Ron,
On your reasoning should we not recognize civil marriages? Weddings performed in church are acts licensed by the state.
You can’t read the post-lapsarian meaning of “holy” into Gen 2:1. The fall hasn’t happened yet in the story.
This is my concern about the way so many folk think about the faith today. There’s no place for creation. Ron’s post is a perfect example of this tendency. It’s almost gnostic. It’s dualistic. Grace/redemption has to be applied to everything or it isn’t real. It’s Anabaptist.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic in reference the small exchange of comments directly above mine. The comment above mine asserted that marriage is good, but not holy. But the Church calls marriage holy in her marriage liturgies. So if the Church is right, either marriage in general is holy, or there is a certain sort of marriage that is holy over against “unholy” marriages. And if that is the case, should the Church recognize “unholy” marriages?
I’m not being dualistic. I think all marriage (as biblically defined, of course) is holy. And my comment about the Law was merely to prove the proposition “Holy => set apart for believers” to be a non sequitur since we all know that the Law is binding on all as well as justified persons.
An unbeliever’s marriage is good, but not holy. If you go further up than just the “small of exchange of comments directly above,” you will see that I affirm that “‘Christian marriage’ is part secular + part holy”.
Absolutely not; if unbelieving parents ask for their child to be baptized, the Church should refuse.
All marriage is holy because man is holy. Of course there has always been a subset of mankind who were holy among other men as God’s covenant people, but all mankind is holy among God’s creation because they alone among God’s creation bear His image. And marriage is the relationship God ordained for mankind to bear the image of His own covenant relationship within Himself.
It can be clearly seen that the Church holds this view by the fact that when a married, non-believing couple join the Church, they are not commanded to remarry. Their “unholy” or “secular” marriage is received as the holy marriage it always was.
And Rube, you never answered by challenge to your “Holy => set apart for believers” asssertion expressed in the statement:
I guess a better expression of your assertion would be “Holy => ~secular” If that is indeed an accurate expression of your assertion (if not, I’m sure you will correct me), how do you square that with Romans 7:12 and WCF XIX.V?
It is not church- vs. civil-marriage that makes their marriage holy, it is the fact of containing one or more believing spouses (I Cor 7:14), so by virtue of joining the Chuch, a couple’s unholy marriage becomes holy (and they have the privilege and obligation of baptizing their children).
Obviously a different meaning of holy than “blessed the Sabbath, and hallowed it,” because of the Fall twixt there and here. This is where you say the presence of sin is not enough to imply a different meaning to a word, and I’m not going around that tree anymore. (And don’t forget to note that I linked to a large volume of text…)
Rube,
I guess I still don’t get how one can say something that is at once called “very good” is just a matter of fact, no import to it at all.
You said,
“I see a difference between ‘pronounced very good”and ‘blessed’. The former is not a declaration with an effect, just a statement of fact; the latter vice versa.”
It sounds like you are conflating the nature of a brute fact with something that is very good in order to sustain your point. But that the sky is blue is a brute fact, calling it very good goes beyond that.
“Should the Church recognize ‘unholy’ marriages?”
Rube said, “Absolutely not; if unbelieving parents ask for their child to be baptized, the Church should refuse.”
Why would unbelieving parents ask for this?
But even before that, what direct interest does the Church have in, what I take to be, un-Christian marriages? It’s not until at least one spouse becomes a believer that it even matters. And even then, per Paul, unbelief on the part of the other spouse does nothing to negate the rules because it’s grounded in creation: the rules against a wife not submitting, a husband not loving, adultery, etc. still hold. The church is not the recognizing agent, but the state is. The church doesn’t dole out divorces not only because she forbids them, but also because she has no jurisdiction in the first place. Even the minister who joins a man and woman (members of the church, of course) has his authority on lease from the magistrate. The church only wants to know if there is true faith because that is her jurisdiction.
Zrim, fancy seeing you here 🙂
Rube, how is it so “obviously” a different meaning of “holy” wrt the Sabbath and the Law? Wasn’t there a fall “twixt” the establishment of the holy Law and “here” as well? And isn’t the Sabbath in the category of Law (summarily comprehended in the fourth command)? Wherein lies the distinction therefore between the holiness of the Sabbath and the holiness of the Law and how is this distinction supported by the simple fact that there is the presence of sin?
Why is it some people have such a hard time with the 4th Commandment?
That’s a very good question Ben. It’s a long answer.
Part of it is that the Reformed confessional churches are so few relative to 60 million evangelicals and most American evangelicals don’t come from traditions which value the moral/natural law. American revivalism has tended, esp. in the 20th century, to be antinomian. Thus, when evangelicals cross over, as it were, into Reformed congregations, adherence to the 4th commandment is one of the last things to click.
Second, there hasn’t been a lot of unanimity among Reformed folk in the last 100 years or so about the Sabbath. Third, the Sabbath is more of the more difficult exegetical problems (no unequivocal NT command, Jesus’ rhetoric against the pharisees), and in a context where there isn’t a lot of enthusiasm for it already it’s easy to exaggerate the difficulties and turn them into reasons not to follow the confessional and traditional Reformed view and practice. I had never seen traditional adherence to the Sabbath when I came to seminary in 1984. It was a little shocking to see. In truth, the first few strong adherents to the confessional view of the Sabbath that I met were not, shall we say, winsome (suaviter in modo). That didn’t encourage me. Further, I had a low view of the means of grace. It took many years to become aware of and admit the implications of Heidelberg Catechism Q 65.
Third, many of us seem to associate the 4th commandment so closely with the Mosaic economy or covenant that with its abrogation it’s often assumed that the 4th commandment must have been abrogated entirely with it, and not just the Mosaic or typological administration of the commandment.
Another reason, one that I’ve tried to point out in this post, is that we lack a doctrine of creation. This is a category that really doesn’t seem to exist for a lot of Christians. Because we lack a doctrine of creation, we have no place for creational norms. All norms therefore are related to special revelation or redemption. This is part of the Neo-Kuyperian package, at least in many cases. In some instances it borders on gnostic dualism, which is odd since they are often ardent anti-dualists.
Finally. unlike some of the other commandments (e.g. “you shall not murder”), which is relatively easy to keep outwardly, in a culture where there’s no encouragement to observe one day in seven, the Sabbath requires us to live contrary to our culture, our impulses, and our opportunities. There’s little social pressure to murder outwardly (with the tongue and heart yes, but not so much with the hands) but there’s a great lot of social pressure to “go” seven days a week. There’s no stigma to not resting, to not worshipping, to not setting aside one day in seven. This is a change even in my life time. I recall there being a stigma to not going to church as a boy. We weren’t allowed to play outdoors on Sun til after 11AM when some folk, at least could be expected to be home from early mass and when everyone could be expected to be awake.
Ron,
Don’t look now, but your two-kingdom skirt may be showing. Like Lt. Dan told Bubba, You better tuck that thing in, boy, it’ll get you killed.
Rube and I have been around this marriage tree before (digging new holes around the Sabbath, I guess), and I can’t say that I yet see how what he says can flow as easily from a two-kingdom view that has resident within it a pretty strong doctrine of creation. My hunch, such as it is, seems to be that he may be over-compensating against forms of theonomy, perceived or real. He has before concluded that he has no stake, for example, in what happens with regard to certain marriage laws. But it’s possible to have an interest without going one iota theonomist. It’s called referring to natural law instead of the Bible–each has its respective project and set of interests. I loathe culture wars, moralism and the institutional punishment of particular sinners as much as the next self-respecting two-kingdomite, but not at any cost such as an anemic doctrine of creation.
I don’t even know how you can see my alleged “two-kingdom” skirt, what with my theonomy skirt being so prominent…
Scott–
Why no interaction with my questions and points (comment #16)?
John
John,
1. I did interact a little above and implicitly in the original post.
2. It seems you already have your mind made up and weren’t really interested in discussion.
3. It seemed to me that you didn’t read the original post closely.
4. You seemed to be arguing, in part, against things I wasn’t saying.
5. You didn’t really address my fundamental point, which I’ve reiterated in the comments ad nauseam so arguing with you directly seemed pointless.
Dr. Clark,
Do you know if Michael Horton covers this in any of his books?
Thank you as usual Dr Clark.
Ron,
Maybe it’s because I am an optimist, not the pessimist everyone thinks. But if it makes you feel better, how about a doctrine-of-creation skirt? On top of a blind-spot for fulfillment, is there something in theonomy that even resists a compliment?
Merritt,
His earlier approach to the Sabbath is in The Law of Perfect Freedom. He has, however, revised his position and teaching on the sabbath since then. Thus, I don’t think the chapter is completely representative any longer.
Thanks. I can’t wait to read the chapter in your book. I have been looking forward to your book for a couple of months now and I think it is gonna be a great help to the faith. Thanks for all the answers and help with this. I hope to see you one day out at WSC.
Merritt
Zrim,
One man’s compliment is another man’s insult. 🙂
Theonomy has a doctrine of creation. We even believe in such things as natural laws or norms. But I think the theonomic tendency is to subject those general revelations to special revelation, while the w2k tendency is to do it vice versa.
Natural Law can only be understood rightly in light of special revelation. Even Frame holds this view over against the Klinianist view, and I wouldn’t consider him a theonomist.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2006NaturalRevelation.htm
Ron,
It’s not an either/or question. Yes, of course special revelation norms general revelation but historic Reformed theology has taught that the same natural law in special revelation is in natural revelation. At that point there’s no need to juxtapose the one with the other.
As to Frame and theonomy, well, I would say he’s an enabler.
Where in any two-kingdoms ethic have you seen a confessional Reformed writer norming special revelation with general revelation?
OTOH, you want to define “norming” carefully. I think it was John Frame who taught me that Scripture doesn’t tell me what a tree is. It assumes I know that. Scripture teaches me what a tree means, but natural law (the moral law) teaches all of us that I shouldn’t steal my neighbor’s tree.
What does natural law tell us the civil magistrate ought to do with one who steals a tree, or how about one who steals a child? Or would that fall under the category of special revelation?
Not according to Calvin. He thought that even pagan magistrates know what to do with thieves and murders. It was one of his chief proofs of the existence of natural law. He was well-read in the classics and knew the classical tradition in civil and natural law.
Ron,
Re your having a doctrine of creation, it must be similar to how the Dutch Reformed transformationalists also have one whereas the evangelicals really don’t. I’d rather cast my lot with the Dutchies who really do begin with a sound doctrine of creation but go quite south quite quick than to not even have one to begin with. I think what owes to both the theonomists and transformers mis-steps is the very norming mentioned above, a conflation or juxtaposing of creation and redemption. To my mind, it’s so confused it seriously wonders aloud if stealing children is a redemptive concern. But the higher stakes of a crime are no good reason to conflate the spheres. Natural revelation can handle it.
And, please, whatever you do, don’t make it worse by telling me I have to forgive my child’s abductor instead of press charges–that’s a confusion of law and gospel.
Clark –
How are my comments on your view of the Sabbath as Creation Ordinance evidence to you that I did not read the “post closely enough”? I’m interacting with your fundamental point, “For me the key was creation. This is the part of the equation that people often overlook.” I have not overlooked this point, but I was challenging your major premise.
You are probably right in #2, but some response seems required since your view is being challenged. I’m not expecting a full discourse, just a seat at the table :). You could say, John, I’m not sure why Jesus compares the Sabbath with a ceremonial law and not a moral law, or you could present why you think he does. Or you could refute that Jesus is making this comparison in the first place.
#4 may apply to me, but then again, you could have said so :).
I’m not going to let you get away with your statement in #5. Of course I have addressed your fundamental point. Your major premise for a Christian Sabbath is Sabbath as a creation ordinance. In order for the continuation of the Sabbath from Old to New to be valid, you need THE SABBATH command, the 1/6 pattern to be a pre-Fall reality. I may not be granting you this premise, but that’s different from missing the point of your post :).
You’re view has serious problems with it, but I would be interested in how you would answer some of my questions and comments directly.
John
John,
You mean the Reformed confessional view has serious problems with it?
The book is out. Read the chapter. I’m not going to repeat all the arguments here.
Did God “rest” after creation or not?
Does Exodus 20:8 appeal to God’s creational “rest” as the pattern for our resting?
Clark —
I will read the chapter. Yes, the confessional view has serious problems with it :).
God ceased from his labors, which may not be the same thing as resting. But the Father has been working from the beginning until now, according to Jesus in John 5.
Exodus 20:8 appeals to the pattern of creation, but the Sabbath day command is not revealed nor sanctified until Mt. Sinai. That’s the issue. God rested then, consequently now (‘al ken) [at Mt. Sinai], he has sanctified the Sabbath day.
Why is the Reformed tradition inerrant? And why is it legitimate in this case to make an appeal to its authority? Is this not a logical fallacy? The biblical evidence simply does not support the confession’s claims.
John
If Messiah came to *redeem creation*, is that a redemptive or creative concern? Check out Zechariah’s song in Luke 1. If Jesus saves us from the hand of those who hate us so we can serve God all our days without fear (vs 71,74) is that redemptive salvation or creative salvation? Is there even such a thing as creative salvation in w2k? I seriously don’t get it.
And no, I would not tell you to forgive the kidnapper. I would say the kidnapper should be executed, but I can’t get that from natural law. I get that from special revelation (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7).
Which reminds me. Dr. Clark, you never answered my question as to *what exactly* natural law tells us a civil magistrate should do with a kidnapper.
I should have used the word “creational” rather than “creative”, to be clear…
John,
Whether the Sabbath was revealed before Sinai is a matter of much debate, but if God’s Word reveals God has “resting” and setting aside a day in creation, then there it is. It seems to me that your problem is not with the confessional view or with my view but with Ex 20:8.
Ron,
God instituted the state to punish criminals. Thieves are criminals. They are to be punished. The magistrate has never needed the Torah to teach him that. He knows it naturally, as a creature, as an image bearer.
Ron,
That’s right, I forgot, the Anabaptist tells me to forgive him and the theonomist tells me to kill him. And the transformationalist wants me to heal his brokenness, whatever that means.
I think the term in Reformed confessionalism for “creational salvation” might be “sanctification.” But that has only to do with the individual believer/corporate church. I think that is one of the differences between two-kingdomites and theonomists/transformers: 2K understands the KoG has intruded upon believers, not creation-at-large. Instead of seeing the cross as some sort of kick-off to a better life here and now (personal, political, etc.), we await the consummation by the hand of God alone. In the meantime, while the creation-at-large moans in expectation, we are nurtured by Word, water, bread and wine.
“Creational salvation” sounds a lot like the term “transformation.” I have found that in my own neo-Kuyperian circles whenever the term “sanctification” should be used it is switched out for the T-word and carelessly applied to not only the individual but creation-at-large. But Reformed formulations actually employ the S-word when it comes to what is happening right now.
Well, I’m not sure how to make this any clearer.
My starting point is Neh. 9:13-14, “You came down on Mt. Sinai to speak . . . you made known to them your holy Sabbath, and the commandments, statutes, and torah, which you commanded to them by the hand of Moses, your servant.” Did God reveal circumcision to Israel at Mt. Sinai? Of course not. But the Sabbath is something specifically mentioned as being revealed at Sinai.
When I read Gen. 2:1-3, there is no mention of the Sabbath day. There is a mention of the Seventh yom which has no morning nor evening. There is an assumption that the seventh day equals the Sabbath day on the part of the Reformed tradition. Furthermore, Hebrews 4:1-11 appeals to this Seventh yom to prove that a Sabbath rest still remains for the people of God. I don’t think he reads Gen. 2:1-3 as you are reading it, for he does not care about a 24 hour day, but an epoch of God’s rest, which believers may still enter.
Ex. 16 is the first chapter in Scripture which mentions the pattern to which you refer. Ex. 20:8 is by no means clear according to the Hebrew text. I’m making an argument based on the usage of ‘al ken in the Pentateuch which when one boils it down means that there is a prior action which then has a present consequence. Therefore, God ceased from his labor, consequently now Israel is commanded to remember the Sabbath to sanctify it. God himself had not sanctified it at creation. It is sanctified at Sinai, where it also becomes the sign of that covenant.
So I have no trouble with Ex. 20:8. Gen. 2:1-3 does not provide the support you claim since Sabbath is not mentioned and this day has no morning and evening. Hebrews picks up this theme and interprets Gen. 2 eschatologically and says the eschatological rest is still open.
You say, “Whether the Sabbath was revealed before Sinai is a matter of much debate, but if God’s Word reveals God has “resting” and setting aside a day in creation, then there it is.” I’m debating the second part, does God set the day aside at creation? I think the evidence indicates that he sets it aside at Sinai. Neh. 9:13-14 is clear, and the Hebrew syntax in Ex 20:8 supports it. Furthermore, Hebrews 4 views the “day” as something we may still enter into. Yom should be understood as something like epoch in Gen. 2:1-3. The text is not a reference to the physical seventh day.
John
John,
I do not follow your starting point. And isn’t the Sabbath a shadow of what is to come just like the story of David was a shadow of what Christ was to do for us or how Daniel shadowed Christ sleeping in the lion’s den for us and conquering it. The Sabbath points to something bigger than the Sabbath. The rest of which the Sabbath points to is not complete yet. We are living in an age of already but not yet. Christ’s kingdom is already inaugurated but it is not yet at completed. Just like the rest of the Sabbath has been inaugurated in Christ but we still do not have anywhere near the complete rest we will recieve when his kingdom comes. Where has the Sabbath rest been completed if we should not seek after it?
Merritt
Merritt,
Thanks for joining the conversation. I’m not opposed to typology, but I’m not sure where you are going. Let me try to explain my starting point (which was really Bunyan’s).
1. My “starting point” is a clear text, at least in my mind, stating when the Sabbath day became known and to whom it became known. Israel is the first recipient of the Sabbath command in history because the LORD revealed it to them at Mt. Sinai. The text does not say only to them, but I think we can surmise this conclusion since the Sabbath is also the sign of the Old Covenant according to Ex. 31. It is the sign which separates Israel from the rest of the nations. It marks them as God’s peculiar people.
2. I will answer your question if you answer mine. How does the sign of the Old Covenant outlast the Old Covenant itself? If the Old Covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13, 7:11-12), how do you propose that the sign continues? Ok, now to your question. First, I think you are confusing the questions. Should the Sabbath day command, given to Israel, be viewed typologically? and should the Sabbath day command be viewed through the “already not yet” scheme are really two different questions. I think the Sabbath day command is a type of God’s rest, which has already been fulfilled since it has reached its antitype, Christ (Heb. 4:3, 7-10). The land and the Sabbath were ways that Israel “entered” into God’s rest typologically. Ps 95 says they never entered according to David, even though Joshua actually did give them rest (Josh 21:43-45). However, Jesus is the new Joshua who gives us the ultimate rest, a rest from our works. Hebrews reads Gen. 2:1-3 together with Ps. 95 to show that the rest is still available to those who believe. The Sabbath rest for the people of God is then not the Sabbath day, but the eschatological rest, which we may enter TODAY!!
As far as the already not yet scheme is concerned, Hebrews simply says we are entering the rest (4:3) and make every effort to enter it (4:11). There is an already-not yet sense to the Rest theme, but what evidence from this text teaches us to keep the Sabbath command because of the ‘no yet’? This seems like an inference from a text which is not really talking about the fourth commandment, but the eschatological rest begun at Gen. 2:1-3 with God’s rest, which Israel failed to enter (in an antitypical sense), but which we may now enter by faith.
So Merritt, thanks for raising the typological issue, but I’m not sure it helps the Reformed cause in this case. Plus there are still many questions for the Reformed view to answer. Clark wants to say that the beginning of the Sabbath at Sinai is debated. Maybe, but I have presented him with some clear texts plus a clear reading of the syntax of Ex 20:8, which show at least plausibly that the Sabbath command is not introduced into redemptive history until Sinai.
John
First I don’t think it’s a sign in the same way that circumcision is. It’s only a sign in the sense that we recognize God’s sovereignty and his call to perfection. If that is a sign wouldn’t not having idols or honoring our father and mother be signs? Is everything we do in obedience a sign? In other words it is only a sign of God’s character not a sign of God’s covenant.
Second it is apart of the moral law, which is in place to show God’s character not as a means of redemption or salvation. Since God’s character is unchanging, wouldn’t the moral law be so. I think it is binding. We keep the law easily unless it is something that would make us go out of our way to obey. It is easy not to kill or commit adultery or not make false idols or graven images but should we really set aside a whole day for God? I mean isn’t that asking a whole lot? But in our fast paced culture how can we set aside a day? We conform it to fit how we feel and what is easiest for us to stay the most comfortable in our faith. I don’t think it is hard to see the continuity of the moral law here. It is harder to see the discontinuity. The moral law is forever binding not so we may merit salvation but so that character of God may be seen. Every typological issue is two things a shadow of a future event or person or thing and a real ongoing event person or thing. The Sabbath is a typological day that signals future rest, a rest that is still not complete. If it was completed by faith Abraham would have had it and Moses and Josua and David and the prophets and every other Isrealite who was apart of invisible Isreal. But yet they still held a Sabbath day. Then, the Sabbath man was coming, so it ended the week and now the Sabbath man has some so we do it at the beginning of the week. The rest has not been fulfilled in us or at least I hope it hasn’t because I wake up everyday with aches and pains and sorrows and miseries and I have hope in Christ and it rests my soul but I still need a day to sit back and worship the one true triune God and rest my mind and body even though my soul already has rest. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. We still need that rest.
Merritt,
You said, “First I don’t think it’s a sign in the same way that circumcision is. It’s only a sign in the sense that we recognize God’s sovereignty and his call to perfection. If that is a sign wouldn’t not having idols or honoring our father and mother be signs? Is everything we do in obedience a sign? In other words it is only a sign of God’s character not a sign of God’s covenant.”
Take it up with Moses, ” 12. The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
13.”But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My sabbaths ; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
14. ‘Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death ; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.
15. ‘For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD ; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.
16. ‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’
* 17. “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever ; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”
It’s exactly like circumcision or the rainbow.
Your second point proceeds from an assumption that there is a tripartite division of the law in the first place. Even still, what evidence do you bring from the text that the Sabbath is a moral law in the Reformed sense of the phrase?
Your still assuming that the Sabbath day is the focus of Heb. 4. The text says Sabbath rest, which I understand as a reference to the eschatological rest which believers have already entered, at least in part. The new covenant community has reached the rest, whereas the Israelites, even under Joshua did not. Your not reading the text according to the author’s argument, but rather you are inserting the Reformed tradition where your theory lacks evidence.
“The new covenant community has reached the rest,…”
Talk about an over-realized eschatology! Sheer nonsense.
We are invited to heaven weekly to meet with the One who has already entered his rest, and to rest–temporarily–with him, in anticipation of our own entering in. Its temporary because…
wait for it…
we aren’t in heaven yet. WOW! Did I hear that right? Is it true? We’re not in heaven? And here I thought I was perfect, and so was everyone else I saw every day–my neighbors who don’t go to church, my kids…
Yes, Virginia, we aren’t in heaven yet, and so we aren’t resting fully and finally yet. That’s why there “REMAINS” a sabbatismos, a “sabbath-keeping” for the people of God.
Joshua gave them rest (Josh 1:13; 11:23; 14:15; 22:4; 23:1), and yet he DIDN’T give them rest because the typological couldn’t possibly give them true rest in the heavenly city (Heb. 11:10, 16). Jesus has conquered for us, and he has gone on AHEAD (pioneered, Heb 6:20), and is preparing that place for us.
But we’re not there yet.
If the sabbath is part of creation, pre-fall, then as an institution it is a moral obligation. That’s it. If God wishes to take some part of creation–be it a physical like a rainbow, a human act like circumcision, or a preexisting moral requirement like the sabbath–and invest it with additional symbolical meaning, typology, etc., he’s entitled.
And just because Moses and the types of that administration are gone, along with superimpositions of the law, doesn’t mean that the original truths are also gone. This is Paul’s argument in Galatians re. Abraham. The Promise hasn’t gone anyplace, just because the Law that came 430 years after came and went.
So, the argument that the Sabbath is gone because it was a sign of the Mosaic covenant never addresses the creation aspect. All it does is mash the whole OT into a Siniatic blend, forcing an anachronistic reading of Gen1. Instead of Genesis being the foundation, Exodus-Leviticus is made the foundation, and the lens by which to read back into the creation account. And not merely that, but Abraham’s account too, and all the rest.
Unfortunately for that reading, that’s not how Paul read Abraham’s story. On his reading, the Jews were MISTAKEN to so read their Old Testament Scriptures (through the lens of Moses). And if the Jews were wrong, then so are any today who adopt the same posture.
Bruce,
You are all over the place, and not making sense to me. John is arguing that in Christ, seated with him in the heavenlies through the gospel, we have already reached that Sabbath rest, which I’m sure you wouldn’t deny. Yet he obviously believes the rest is not yet consummated.
His point, a valid one, is that Hebrews 4 does not speak of the weekly sabbath; you have to assume the author is Sabbatarian and assumes you are making the connection equating the weekly sign with it’s referrant (heaven), but it’s not there in the text.
Though John is doing a fine job questioning the sabbath position, I will add that I still do not see how Genesis 2 assures us that Adam understood a one-in-seven Sabbath pattern; after all, Moses wrote Genesis, not Adam. And the Nehemiah citation is one I would be interested in seeing refuted. The argument that non-Sabbatarians do not have a theology of creation is a weak one; we believe there are creation ordinances; the Sabbath is not one of them in our opinion.
Todd
John,
First I should address Todd as I see his question as a little easier to handle. I think Adam was in that creational Sabbath rest that we havein the heavenly kingdom promised in Christ until the fall. So in Genesis 2 there is no need for there to be a quote saying Adam understood the rest he was already in. It should be assumed he knows what rest he was in since sin was not an issue then. And as our representative before God he kept that rest until he sinned and now Christ
John I must be on my way back to you later on tonight but this is a good discussion it has made me ponder my stance and go back over what I believe and why I believe it.
Merritt
Merritt,
I’m not sure I get your response. How did Adam know about the Sabbath? I believe he knew about the escatological hope before the fall, but how would he know about the Sabbath sign?
Thanks,
Todd
Zrim, I never said, “You should kill him.” I said, “the kidnapper should be executed.” Please be clear lest one conclude falsely that theonomy advocates vigilante “justice”.
You also said,
But is that how we approach our personal sanctification? Don’t we cooperate with the Holy Spirit and work and strive in our sanctification? We don’t await our sanctification “by the hand of God alone,” do we?
What about our households? Do we sit around waiting for God to sanctify our households, or do we strive with the Holy Spirit to sanctify our households?
What about the Church? Is the Church at large undergoing a sanctification process “by the hand of God alone”, or are we to take part in the sanctification of the Church Body?
Why should we have a dissimilar attitude toward the sanctification of creation? Didn’t Jesus send us to the world in the same manner which the Father sent Jesus to us?
Dr. Clark. I’m sorry, but it seems to me that you are dodging my question. Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another. I asked (more than once) *what exactly* does natural law say the civil magistrate should do with a kidnapper? Your response is that natural law says *something* about what the civil magistrate should do with a kidnapper, but not *what exactly* natural law say the civil magistrate should do with a kidnapper.
Is it even possible for the civil magistrate to prescribing the wrong civil punishments in w2k theory? How would one support the justice of certain punishments via natural law? If one thinks natural law prescribes five years in prison for a kidnapper, and another thinks natural law prescribes the death penalty, how would each side go about defending his position?
Ron,
You speak of sanctifying “the world.” This is the language that seems to me to assume ideas I don’t share.
As I understand the biblical notion of “the world,” it’s usually used in an ethical context as in John 3:16. It refers to sinners alienated from God.
When you use it, however, it seems to refer to “the physical universe” or “creation.”
Is creation per se fallen? I Did Jesus die for dogs and cats or for sinners? This connects to my concern about some transformationalist language about “redeeming” this and that (things other than sinners for whom Christ died).
Implicit in this talk about creation, it seems to me (bearing in mind Paul’s language about creation “groaning”) borders on sub-Christian dualism.
As to dodging your question, not at all. I don’t accept the premise of the question. Read Calvin, Institutes, bk 4. Ask him what natural law teaches magistrates about punishing criminals.
NL teaches the magistrate to punish criminals. It may or may not teach exactly how they are to be punished.
The idea that there is a “right” or “wrong” punishment (in exhaustive detail) ask NL to work on theonomic premises. Can’t be done. Won’t be done. It’s a different paradigm. That’s why the theonomic paradigm is inherently QIRC-y.
Todd,
It doesn’t matter if Adam new about a future Sabbath rest because he was in the Sabbath rest. There wasn’t a weekly Sabbath rest because there was constant Sabbath rest so your question is irrelevant. He was in the exact place we hope to be one day.
Merritt
Ron,
I am not sure why you are assuming that what is true of “consummation” should also be of “sanctification.”
Even so, I understand God to be the chief agent in any sanctification, individual or corporate. That doesn’t mean we have no role to play; we are covenant-keepers endowed with the Spirit. It is the law which gives our sanctification structure and the Spirit its power, it’s what we do as God is sanctifying us.
The interesting thing is that evangelicals, transformers and theonomists all seem to share this relative impatience with such views on sanctification. It just isn’t quite good enough. They all want to see more onus on the human agent.
I’ll see RSC’s point about cats and dogs and raise some more: Jesus didn’t die for creational institutions like the state or family. To think so is actually a form of propserity gospel. I know that is usually understood to be about money and personal happiness, etc. But the principles are the same: Jesus didn’t so much die for sinners as he did for what they value in this temporal life. Where TV preachers value chintzier stuff, I think the genius of theonomy is that it appears to value something more substantive (the institutions of society) and is dismissed from the properity charge. But it is just as worldly and dangerous.
(My “kill” language was more a way to indicate my disdain for the theonomic view than to misrepresent it as being akin to “vigilante justice.” My point was that the NL/2K view is set over against forgiving, executing or healing in favor of simply punishing criminals. If it helps, that may include execution, but not for the same reasons theonomists hold.)
C’mon, Dr. Clark. If that is not a dodge, I don’t know what is. Telling me to go read a volume is not an answer to the question, is it? Telling me that there is some premise hidden in the question that you reject, without even identifying what said premise is, is not an answer to the question, is it? The fact that this is the fourth time I have asked the same question without getting an answer is evidence that the question is being dodged, is it not?
*What exactly* does natural law say the civil magistrate ought to do with a kidnapper? If no one can answer this simple question, I don’t see how Natural Law can be a valid standard by which civil lawmakers ought to operate.
Zrim, because the consummation is the consummation of the sanctification of creation. I don’t believe the consummation “just happens” any more than I believe my personal sanctification “just happens”. There is work to do.
You never responded to Zechariah’s song in Luke 1. If Jesus came only to forgive sinners and not to save them completely, including politically, why does Zechariah seem to indicate Messiah would be saving His people from much more than *their own* sin? Did Jesus come to deliver us from the sins of *others*? from the hands of those who hate us? Did He come to bring peace on earth? Or was He merely a fire insurance salesman? Was He really just concerned for people to “go to heaven” when they die?
Ron,
The old saying is wrong. There are stupid questions.
Yours is a stupid question.
Telling people to relieve themselves of their ignorance is what I do.
I’ll narrow down the reading assignment. Read Institutes 4:20. Calvin speaks to this issue there.
“…we have already reached that Sabbath rest, which I’m sure you wouldn’t deny.”
Todd,
Actually I’d deny it in a heartbeat, depending on your meaning.
In our “union with Christ,” we’ve reached it mystically because CHRIST has reached it.
We come to an intersection with heaven and earth when we come to worship God at his summons, aka a call to worship. That’s a “reaching” arrived at by FAITH.
But no, actually nobody who is still on earth has reached his rest in a way that doesn’t leave him breathless, and waiting for fulfillment.
When this WANT is denied, well,… then its easy to see why someone really doesn’t need a sabbath. He thinks he doesn’t need what a sabbath offers–special communion with God, while he WAITS.
Over-realized eschatology doesn’t mean a person goes all the way, and thinks he’s actually in heaven right now, or perfect. That’s just the reductio. That’s what’s wrong with alleging that the New Covenant is totally perfect RIGHT NOW. Too much “already”; not enough “not-yet.”
John’s point, and apparently you agree, that Hebrews 4 isn’t speaking about a weekly sabbath is certainly an interpretation of the text–one that isn’t Reformed (if the Confessions, even the Baptist ones, and their historic context are going to determine what is “Reformed” or close-to-it).
I’m certainly not breaking new ground here connecting a sign and a thing signified. If someone from this side has done a better job exegetically on the topic in the last 400 years than John Owen, I haven’t read it yet.
And I did point to the text itself. When you assert “its not there in the text,” you haven’t presented one word of refutation that sabbatismos means anything other than a “sabbathrest-keeping,” according to LXX usage, or anyplace else.
Furthermore, you have not explained why “REMAINS” (also a word in the text) means something other than “abiding in the present”. The view John is advocating imports a strange, new meaning to the term–something like “awaits us somewhere up ahead.”
Your comment about Adam not knowing the facts of Gen1 is actually the view that assumes he lacked the revelation that Moses and we possess. Why is your assertion MORE plausible?
What you said after that: about Moses being the author and not Adam, simply validates EXACTLY what I said about the Judaical error of reading Genesis through the lens of Sinai. You are making Genesis a purely Siniatic document. This sounds like John H. Sailhamer’s view, and fits in well with the Baptist tendency to view everything in the OT through the eyes of the Mosaic administration.
Unfortunately, as I already pointed out, this is not the way PAUL read Genesis. Genesis may assume in certain respects an original “Exodus” audience in the inscripturated form we presently possess (thanks to Moses). However, trying to interpret it as though it is not dependent on Patriarchal “source” documents and prior prophetic revelation simply doesn’t do it justice. Were the people of God “flying blind” prior to Moses? Not according to the Pentateuch itself, they weren’t.
So your casual rejection of the plain wording of Gen1 as history and theology of that moment, and your own preferred interpretive pou stow at a place removed from either Creation or Sinai by at least 1300 years (Nehemiah), doesn’t strike me as particularly cogent.
You’ve already decided, on the basis of that late text, that there was no sabbath really any time prior to Sinai. Ex. 20:8 doesn’t shake you. Not even Ex.16, prior to Sinai, convinces you otherwise. This really isn’t about convincing the other guy with exegetical effort. Its about persuading the truly undecided which side handles the relevant data correctly.
Merritt,
Again, given the weakness of understanding email posts, I’m not sure what you are suggesting, or what side you are arguing. Are you suggesting there was no eschatology before the fall? Do you really think that Rev 21&22 is a return to the Garden, or the consummation the Garden only pictured? If we do not agree on this I doubt we’ll agree on the weekly Sabbath.
Thanks,
Todd
Ron,
The deal is that you are a theonomist and I am a W2Ker. We simply do not work from the same presupp’s. I don’t accept your premise of “creational sanctification.” Just like “transformationalism” is a fabricated stop-over between sanctification and glorification, “creational sanctification” is more creative than it is Reformed.
But more unsettling to me in all your dismissive “just happens” language is that you don’t seem to understand that sanctification, just like justification, is indeed God’s work alone. And are you seriously suggesting that the consummation comes not when the Father sends the Son back but when we have made his footstool acceptable?
It may not satisfy you, and you may determine it a dodge, but NL says to punish a kidnapper. I know you want to know how, but 2K is actually more concerned with questions of jurisdiction, authority and submission (you know, render unto Caesar and all that?) than in how authority decides to do that. So, if Caesar says put him to death, so be it. I know that scrapes against our western notions of justice, democracy and liberty, etc. But maybe that is part of the point. The Christian life can be summed up in one word: submit.
John, (your quotes in parenthesis)
(“In our “union with Christ,” we’ve reached it mystically because CHRIST has reached it.”)
I would be more comfortable with forensic language here. Through our legal justification we have entered that rest by faith, one day later by sight that we look forward to. Yes, the mystical follows the forensic.
(“We come to an intersection with heaven and earth when we come to worship God at his summons, aka a call to worship. That’s a “reaching” arrived at by FAITH.”)
I wouldn’t limit this truth to the worship service, but yes, I do believe in a category called public worship.
(“But no, actually nobody who is still on earth has reached his rest in a way that doesn’t leave him breathless, and waiting for fulfillment.
When this WANT is denied, well,… then its easy to see why someone really doesn’t need a sabbath. He thinks he doesn’t need what a sabbath offers–special communion with God, while he WAITS.”)
Are you suggesting that we non-Sabattarians do not long for heaven? We do believe in communion with God and love it, both in the worship service and daily. You seem to be stretching things here.
(Over-realized eschatology doesn’t mean a person goes all the way, and thinks he’s actually in heaven right now, or perfect.)
Whoever said that?
(John’s point, and apparently you agree, that Hebrews 4 isn’t speaking about a weekly sabbath is certainly an interpretation of the text–one that isn’t Reformed)
Yes, I understand this is not the classic Reformed position. Though Calvin writes on Hebrews 4
“But I doubt not but that the Apostle designedly alluded to the Sabbath in order to reclaim the Jews from its external observances; for in no other way could its abrogation be understood, except by the knowledge of its spiritual design. He then treats of two things together; for by extolling the excellency of grace, he stimulates us to receive it by faith, and in the meantime he shows us in passing what is the true design of the Sabbath, lest the Jews should be foolishly attached to the outward rite. Of its abrogation indeed he does expressly speak, for this is not his subject, but by teaching them that the rite had a reference to something else, he gradually withdraws them from their superstitious notions. For he who understands that the main object of the precept was not external rest or earthly worship, immediately perceives, by looking on Christ, that the external rite was abolished by his coming; for when the body appears, the shadows immediately vanish away. Then our first business always is, to teach that Christ is the end of the Law.”
(“Furthermore, you have not explained why “REMAINS” (also a word in the text) means something other than “abiding in the present”. The view John is advocating imports a strange, new meaning to the term–something like “awaits us somewhere up ahead.”)
Exactly – rest of New Heavens and Earth. Not walking away now from the hope of the gospel assures us that rest is ours.
(“Your comment about Adam not knowing the facts of Gen1 is actually the view that assumes he lacked the revelation that Moses and we possess. Why is your assertion MORE plausible?”)
It wasn’t an assertion as much as a question. What evidence is there that Adam understood that one day in seven he was to rest from his labors and worship?
(“So your casual rejection of the plain wording of Gen1 as history and theology of that moment,”)
What plain wording of Gen. 1 are you referring to that I am rejecting?
(“Not even Ex.16, prior to Sinai, convinces you otherwise.”)
Actually, Ex. 16 may be the best argument for the Sabbath as a creation ordinance. Of course, even if the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, that does not require the fourth commandment to continue into the New Covenant, but I’m not sure Ex 16 requires me to believe it was a creation ordinance. Calvin also writes on this passage,
“Thus the seventh day was really hallowed before the promulgation of the Law, although it is questionable whether it had already been observed by the patriarchs. It appears probable that it was; but I am unwilling to make it a matter of contention.”
Peace,
Todd
Todd,
That’s not what I am suggesting at all. All I am suggesting is that God created all things and on the seventh day he rested. And since Adam was created at this point and was walking with God daily in the garden he knew the rest we have to hope for. He was with God on the day God rested because he was already created. So of course he knew the Sabbath rest was my point.
John,
I never denied that it was a sign but what it signifies is much different from that of circumcision and the rainbow. It signifies exactly what it says it signifies “that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctifies you.” It did signify something that God was sanctifying them. In the same way that when they honored their father and mother it showed God sanctifying them. The Sabbath is mentioned here because it is right after the description of the tent of meeting. It is no different from them not making any graven image or idol as a sign that God is the one true God who has delivered us and keeps us and sanctifies us.
Second yes there is a tripartite division of the law. There are the moral, judicial, and ceremonial parts to the law. You would say as Christians we believe that morally we shouldn’t say kill, or commit adultery, or bear false witness, or have any other gods before our God, or make any idols, or covet our neighbors things, or take the Lord’s name in vain, or we should honor our parents, or we shouldn’t steal. You would say because of Christ and the standard he set forth in his life we should not do these things. Because of the indicatives of the Gospel we should obey the imperatives or the moral code. Well what is the moral code you might say the law of Christ well what is the Law of Christ. Most would say well the sermon on the mount. What is he explaining? the decalogue. Bringing me back to my original point if Christ upheld the decalogue as our standard then how can we accept just nine of them. If we throw out one because Christ has fulfilled it for us then we must throw them all out because he has done it all for us. He has been my non-murderer and my parent honorer. As for Hebrews 4 is extremely complicated. I am still going through it so I will have to get back to you about it sometime.
Merritt
Todd,
I think you meant to respond to Bruce and those are his quotes in parenthesis. More to come…
John
John,
Oops, you are correct, I meant Bruce.
Thanks,
Todd
Calvin on the 4th Commandment, from
Benjamin W. Farley, transl.
John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments (Baker, 1980; paperback reprint 2000), preached in the summer of 1555.
From the Introduction:
“Second, Christ is the end of the Law. This is especially true of Calvin’s understanding of the “ceremonial law,” with its “figures” and “foreshadows” of the clearer revelation to be given in the gospel.48 But the “shadowy” nature of the Law is not limited to ceremonial law. The moral law is also proleptic; it points forward to the Christ and has its end in him.49
“In the sermons, few themes receive as much attention as the “shadowy” nature of the Law whose end is Christ. But what Calvin stresses is the enduring and permanent worth of the moral law, whose authority is in no way mitigated by the shadowy nature of the ceremonial law. As Calvin states in ‘The Thirteenth Sermon’:
“‘Now in particular he waned to write … [the Law] on two tablets of stone that it might endure, for it was not given [to last] for just a brief period [of time] as something transient. It is true that the ceremonies have ended, which is why the Law is called temporal, but what we must keep in mind is that this order, which was established among the ancient people to serve until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, has now been abolished and the things have become perfect, indeed to the extent that we are no longer under the shadows and figures which prevailed then. In any event, the truth and substance of the Law were not [confined] to one age; they constitute something permanent which shall abide forever.50′” (p.25)
from “The Fifth Sermon”, which, along with “The Sixth Sermon”, address the 4th commandment:
“Now from the foregoing we see what attitude68 we hold all Christianity and the service of God. For what was given to us in order to help us approach God, we use as an occasion for alienating ourselves from him even more. And as a result we are led astray. We must recover it all. Is not such a diabolical malice in men? Would to God that we had to look hard for examples and that they were more rare. But as everything is profaned, we see that the majority hardly care about the usage of this day which has been instituted in order that we might withdraw from all earthly anxieties, from all business affairs, to the end that we might surrender everything to God.
“Moreover, let us realize that it is not only for coming to the sermon that the day of Sunday is instituted, but that in order that we might devote all the rest of the time to praising God. Indeed! For although he nurtures us every day, nevertheless we do not sufficiently meditate on the favors he bestows on us in order to magnify them…. But when Sunday is spent not only in pastimes full of vanity, but in things which are entirely contrary to God, it seems that one has not at all celebrated Sunday [and] that God has been offended in many ways. Thus when people profane in the manner the holy order69 which God instituted to lead us to himself, why should they be astonished if all the rest of the week is degraded?”
Are the Westminster divines so far from Calvin’s position?
No.
Good discussion, Bruce and Todd thanks for joining the group.
Bruce,
Just a word to you. You come out too strong, thinking you have everyone’s views pegged. Try asking some qualifying questions, and also make sure you have read what has been written. I know it is very difficult to do the latter in a setting like this one, but let’s try to understand one another and be gracious with one another.
Bruce, you say, “Talk about an over-realized eschatology! Sheer nonsense.”
I’m not sure how to respond to this one. I said “The new covenant community has reached the rest.” In one sense we have. Read Heb 4:3 understanding that the verb is a present tense. We enter the rest. Also, keep in mind that I have emphasized the Author’s word choice, which he picks up from Ps. 95 “Today.” Hebrews 4 emphasizes the here and now AND the ‘not yet’, “Let us make every effort to enter the rest” (4:11).
In conjunction with this point, you say to Todd later, “Furthermore, you have not explained why “REMAINS” (also a word in the text) means something other than “abiding in the present”. The view John is advocating imports a strange, new meaning to the term–something like “awaits us somewhere up ahead.””
You seem to believe that sabbatismos refers to the Sabbath day observance because it is this day that REMAINS for Christians to keep. However, you have completely misunderstood my interpretation of both sabbatismos and REMAINS. The latter certainly refers to the present. That is my main point. “Today”, by faith we enter the eschatological rest of God opened up for us by Christ’s work. Whereas Ps 95 is a commentary on the closing of God’s rest to the Israelites, Hebrews 4 is saying that it is now open. So we agree on the meaning of the verb.
But the meaning of the sabbatismos is another issue. You say to Todd, “And I did point to the text itself. When you assert “its not there in the text,” you haven’t presented one word of refutation that sabbatismos means anything other than a “sabbathrest-keeping,” according to LXX usage, or anyplace else.”
Let’s be clear on one fact: sabbatismos does not occur in the Greek Bible except in Heb. 4. There are no LXX occurrences of this word, and so the morphology of the noun and the immediate context is all we have to go on.
The noun derives from sabbatizo, which may mean simply “to rest” or “to keep sabbath.” It seems to be a transliteration of the Hebrew word. The -mos termination indicates a verbal noun meaning “resting” like baptismos “washing.” Either way your translation “sabbathrest-keeping” cannot be arrived at on the basis of the form of the word itself. Thus we are all dependent on the context of Heb. 4.
Bruce, where do you see a specific reference to the fourth commandment in Heb. 4? Where do you see a reference to the Sabbath COMMAND generally in these verses? The Author is talking about the Land and the Rest of God on the SEVENTH day. Where is your evidence of the Sabbath Command anywhere in these verses?
I see the flow of the argument as follows: Israel was denied access to the rest of God, since their corpses are in the desert to this day. But by faith we are entering into the rest (4:3). What rest is this? The Author views Ps. 95 (the rest typified in the land) as the same rest as God’s rest in Gen. 2:1-3. Thus there is a typology of rest via the LAND and God’s rest. The larger theme is REST and we have it TODAY, not SABBATH COMMAND or SEVENTH DAY SABBATH or FIRST DAY SABBATH. Thus when I come to sabbatismos, I’m inclined to read the word as referring to the REST of God which God has left for us to enter into TODAY. The text does not say rest on a particular day, but simply Today. I think that is a much better reading of the context than what Merritt and you are suggesting. You read Sabbathrest-keeping (which is Sunday) into the text.
Regarding the charge of an “over-realized eschatology.” Bruce, do you go on sinning to remind you that you have not entered into the final state? Of course not!! Actually you should be ordering your life now in a way which is consistent with your resurrection in Christ (Rom. 6). We are called “new creation” according to Paul. Does Paul have an over-realized eschatology in this respect? Of course not. Rather the precedent seems to be to try to order your life in accordance with what we will be, not to hang on to commands and signs of the past. Of course we do this imperfectly now, but it does not mean that we give up. Just because we sin, does not mean that we go on sinning.
Does this make sense?
Thanks again for the discussion.
John
John,
What are the imperatives of the Gospel if there is no moral law?
Merritt
Merritt,
I’m not sure I understand your question. I do hold to a moral law, I just don’t believe that it is restricted to the 10 Words or necessarily consists of the 10 Words. Of course I believe that 9 of the 10 are in effect today, but that does not mean that I must accept the fourth command as a moral command for the Christian.
John
Or that I must accept it as a creation ordinance.
Bruce,
It is Calvin’s exegesis of the pertinent passages we were discussing that I was pointing to. Calvin did not see a weekly Sabbath in Hebrews 4, nor did he agree with the Sabbatarian exegesis of Col. 2:16 that the weekly Sabbaths were not included in Paul’s thought there as a shadow. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, just pointing it out.
Todd
My question is what are the imperatives? If the indicative is the Gospel what are the imperatives? The commandments we pick and choose? The sermon on the mount?
As to Hebrews 4 explain verse 11 to me. The write says in verse 3 that we who have believed enter that rest. Yet in verse 11 he says let us therefore strive to enter that rest.
Merritt,
I have commented on verse 11 already. I’m not denying the already not yet of the BIG REST theme in Scripture. We have entered the eschatological rest (4:3) and we are making every effort to enter it (4:11).
My main points in this entire discussion have been twofold: 1) Is the Sabbath command a creation ordinance or was it first revealed to the people of Israel on Mt. Sinai, where it was also the sign of the Old Covenant? I’m in favor of the latter, and no one on this thread has convinced otherwise. 2) Does Hebrews 4 teach the perpetuity of the Sabbath command? I say no. A sabbatismos remains for the people of God, but not a sabbaton (the word for the Sabbath in the LXX). Hebrews 4 treats the Land and the Sabbath day as types which are no longer needed, since TODAY by faith we may enter the antitypical rest, God’s rest.
If the Sabbath command has any validity for today it is this: TODAY, by faith, enter the Rest of God and make every effort to enter it. That is the means by which we keep the Sabbath today, not by running back to the signs of the Old Era and Christianizing them by changing the command of last day of the week to the first.
Re. the ignorant charge of “Christianizing”:
We don’t arrive at a Christian Sabbath by beginning at Sinai. We don’t even arrive at First-day observance by an appeal to pragmatism, or even to the Resurrection, qua. Much less by some appeal to church-authority.
Since we believe in the regulative principle of worship–the view that sinful man cannot approach God by any way other than by invitation, and according to his close prescription–then we don’t get to change the day GOD calls the meeting with his people. If God doesn’t change His day, then we should still be meeting Him on Saturday.
On the other hand, since Jesus is GOD, and it’s HIS day (the Lord’s Day–and he is the “Lord of the Sabbath”), he can change it. His prerogative.
The New Testament keeps recording the resurrected Christ, in the flesh, meeting with his people on … the first day of the week.
Then, when he’s physically departed, we keep seeing the gathered church gathered for worship on … the first day of the week.
We have a pattern here. “Approved example,” we call it.
Does the Bible ever mention a different DAY of rest? Yes, listen to the preacher as he exposits and applies his text (Ps 95:7-8):
Heb 4:8 “For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.” Followed immediately by the invitation to draw the conclusion “There remains a rest for the people of God…” (v9). Followed by the invitation to enter and rest with Christ by faith (v10). And the exhortation to “be diligent to enter that rest” (v11).
The “diligence” mentioned there is properly understood in the sense of 2Tim.2:15, “Study”. This is especially important to realize in light of the fact that v10 sets up this contrast between rest and work. It is not the “diligence” of 2Pet.3:14, in which the apostle exhorts his hearers to “work” at putting off sin.
When we commune with Christ in the Rest he has already attained, we are literally “ceasing” from our labors as well. Only, (as I keep saying) we aren’t bodily in heaven yet, and so we aren’t entirely ceasing. But in the worship to which he calls us, we are resting as well as we can in this life. And we are able to make such simple and repetitive attendance our “study.”
The question isn’t whether or not Christ is resting, or if our ideal rest is not waiting in heaven for us, but whether or not we are fully at rest yet. We aren’t, but how can we get as close as possible before then? By accepting the invitation/summons.
By the way, Ps. 95 is encouraging the OT Israelites to “enter the antitypical rest, God’s rest.” So, apparently this is an UNCHANGED element in believer’s behavior that crosses the Covenant eras.
Bruce,
I’m not saying that Ps. 95 is speaking directly about the antitypical rest of God. It speaks indirectly about God’s rest.
Ps. 95 is a commentary on the failure of the Exodus generation, David’s commentary on the matter.
The significance is that David is still commenting on the failure to enter, even though Joshua has already brought Israel into the Rest. David realizes that not even he has entered the rest, in fact no Old Covenant saint has. That’s the point of the Author.
A real redemptive switch has happened and now by faith members of the New Covenant do enter the rest.
Your interpretation of v. 8 misses the mark. He leaves another day, TODAY!! He does not leave another day, meaning Sunday or the First day of the week. You have read Sunday Lord’s Day observance into the text, and thus you have missed the Author’s point and the point of the Sabbath day command. To fulfill that command today as a Christian, means to strive to enter the ultimate rest of God which as a believer you have already entered and you are entering.
PS Dr. Clark,
I did check out the section on the Sabbath in your new book. Probably needless to say, I remained unconvinced of your position, but what is Vos saying in that lengthy footnote? It looks like you disagree with his reading of Hebrews 4 as well. Or Vos disagrees with the Reformed position :).
Thanks for the dialogue.
Dr. Clark,
You say:
I have to say that it is nice to read something from you and feel that we are wholeheartedly on the same team! I have listened to your talk on this that you gave at the WSCAL conference on law (twice), I’ve read the chapter dealing with this subject in RRC, and read all the way through this post. (This is all recently). Years ago I was introduced to Joseph Pipa’s book on this subject which I notice you footnote at least once.
But, I have a question or two for you. These are really just for clarification on my part, if you don’t mind. In the lecture, you mention telling someone “no,” who knocks on your door on Sunday asking “trabajo?” Here you mention not to shop at the Gap. You also mention that since this is a creational norm, that it isn’t ‘just’ to be observed by Christians, even though Christians have added benefits to it.
In your talk you also say that you won’t create a list ‘for’ people that ask you for one. I think this is wise. But will you answer questions about how you and your family personally observe the Christian Sabbath? I assume that you won’t hire someone to work for you on Sunday and that you won’t go shopping at the Gap, so does that mean you also won’t ‘normally’ patronize a restaurant or travel on Sunday?
Next, I am curious how your local congregation deals with this matter. Is it completely left to the members as a matter of conscience? Or, does your consistory have some sort of oversight in this area? For example, what if one of your members comes to worship only on Sunday mornings?
Lastly, do you have a problem with the magistrate, apart from church input of course, creating and enforcing “blue laws?”
Forgive me if these answers are already in your book. I am not fully finished with it, but I think I read all of the sections that pertain to this matter.
Blessings,
Kazoo
Kazoo,
I can’t speak for our entire congregation. The only thing consistory requires is that people attend to the means of grace. We have congregants who perform works of mercy and necessity (e.g. firefighters and others). We don’t lord it over people’s consciences as to how they spend the Sabbath but we do teach them that it is the Sabbath and not just another day. We exhort and even remonstrate with members to attend to both services and refusal to attend to the means of grace has been grounds for discipline in our congregation. There may be good reason for one or some to absent themselves from the second service but this should be an exception rather than the rule.
No, we don’t shop on the Sabbath and we don’t hire people to work for us. When traveling to speak/preach I have eaten at restaurants. As a former restaurant worker myself I try to avoid enslaving others on the Sabbath but in hotels it is almost impossible. It’s also important not to be become pharisaical about it.
As to travel on Sabbath, in my vocation and situation, avoiding all travel on the Sabbath is virtually impossible. Here I appeal to the Synod of Dort and their injunction about not keeping the law with Jewish strictness. We live 30 minutes or so from church and so, unhappily, we spend a good deal of the Sabbath on the freeway but church planting requires sacrifice. Sometimes we stay in Escondido for the 2nd service in order to minimize travel and maximize Sabbath rest. Sometimes I have to fly on Sun evening after the Lord’s Day services in order to meet Monday obligations. I try to avoid it. The main thing is to attend to the means of grace and rest, but on Sundays when I’m preaching and teaching and traveling rest usually has to wait until Monday.
Blue Laws, depending on definition and particulars, are problematic on a variety of levels. Nevertheless, I think the magistrate has a creational/natural right to set aside a day of rest for workers. This exists, in effect, in the 40-hour work week etc. These are civil recognitions of the human finitude and the need for rest.
It is more important for the church to recognize the Sabbath! It isn’t the civil magistrate who makes Christians skip services (or simply cancel them even though there is not a hint a civil persecution!) or shop or waste the sabbath or enslave others.
Dr. Clark,
Thank you for such a great answer. You addressed all my questions and you did so with great detail. I very much appreciate it, and am very close to you in your views.
Praise God for His Son, the Lord of the Sabbath!
kazoo