Murray On The Sabbath

by on June 24, 2025 | Comment

2025 marks the fiftieth year since the death of John Murray, who was undoubtedly one of the most important Reformed theologians of the twentieth century. Murray contributed to Reformed theology in several significant ways, but one perhaps overlooked area is with respect to his doctrine of the Sabbath. In a day when men standing for ordination very often state differences with the Westminster Standards precisely on the subject of the Sabbath, Murray’s position is refreshing and clarifies misunderstandings.

It is worth noting that Murray was a strident advocate of the confessional doctrine of the Sabbath, but he was unable to pursue ministry in the denomination of his youth (the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland) because he believed that people should not be disciplined for taking public transportation to worship on the Lord’s Day.1 While Murray did not use public transportation on the Lord’s Day, he believed it was better for someone to be in worship than to not be in worship, and if public transit was the only way one could get there, then that should be seen as a work of necessity.

Given the ongoing relevance of this subject and the way in which it seems that the historic Reformed position on the Sabbath is constantly under debate, the purpose of this piece is simply to point to some highlights of Murray’s work on the subject and commend his writings to readers. On this subject, he certainly sought to promote Reformed theology, piety and practice. This article will briefly consider some highlights from Murray’s address, “The Sabbath Institution,” which deserves wide readership among our confessionally Reformed churches.2

In Murray’s address, he seeks to highlight the biblical warrant for continued Sabbath observance. It should be noted that far too often, the Sabbath observance historically common to Reformed and Presbyterian churches has been characterized as dour and joyless. But it is important to remember that the Scriptures tell us,

If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken. (Isa 58:13–14)3

As we look to Murray’s writing on the continuing validity of the Sabbath command, we ought to see this command as a blessing that is meant to be a gift to man and a cause of great joy and rejoicing.

As in all of his theological writings, Scripture takes a place of primacy in his argumentation. Murray believed that biblical exegesis was vital to the work of systematic theology.4 So here Murray offers biblical reasoning for why the Sabbath command has not been abrogated with the coming of Jesus. First, Murray argues for “the obligation” of the Sabbath command.5 Murray sets forth “the facts which indicate that it is of permanent application” by noting first that “the Sabbath was instituted at creation.”6 The Sabbath was set forth in clear terms in the creation account of Genesis; therefore, it does not come into being at first with the giving of the law. As Murray states, “The Sabbath is a creation ordinance and does not derive its validity or its necessity or its sanction, in the first instance, from any exigencies arising from sin, nor from any of the provisions of redemptive grace.”7

Not only is this the case, but also, “the Sabbath rests upon the divine example.”8 Murray argues that because God rested on the seventh day and still rests from the work of creation, we too are now to rest one day in seven (though now on the first day of the week in light of the resurrection of Christ).

Third, Murray highlights that “the Sabbath commandment is comprised in the decalogue.”9 The command to remember the Sabbath day and to keep it holy unto the Lord is found in the moral law itself. Just as we would say that the other nine commandments have not passed away, so too we ought to hold this as regards the fourth commandment. As Murray says,

The fourth commandment itself is an element of that basic law which was distinguished from all else in the Mosaic revelation by being inscribed on two tables of stone. The fourth commandment belongs to all that is distinctive and characteristic of that summary of human obligation set forth in the decalogue. It would require the most conclusive evidence to establish the thesis that the fourth command is in a different category from the other nine. That it finds its place among the ten words written by the finger of God upon tables of stone establishes for this commandment, and for the labour and rest it enjoins, a position equal to that of the third or the fifth or the seventh or the tenth.10

The moral law is still binding upon all people; therefore, the Sabbath command is still binding upon all people.

Fourth, Murray writes, “Our Lord has confirmed the relevance of the Sabbath institution.”11 Interestingly, people will often say that Jesus reiterated the other commandments during his earthly ministry, but never the Sabbath command. But that is simply not the case. In fact, Jesus did reiterate the Sabbath command by stating that he is in fact the Lord of the Sabbath (see Matt 12:8). He is the One who instituted the Sabbath Day and who rules over it. And “since he is Lord of the Sabbath it is his to guard it against those distortions and perversions with which Pharisaism had surrounded it and by which its truly beneficent purpose has been defeated.”12 Acknowledging the fact that Jesus in fact does rule over the Sabbath assists in guarding the day against man-made accretions. His words also secure the Sabbath Day’s position within the new covenant. “Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath—we dare not tamper with his authority and we dare not misconstrue the intent of his words.”13

Next, Murray turns his focus to “the sanctity” of the Sabbath.14 He points to two ways in which the day is to be sanctified. The first way is simply to set the day aside as different from the other days of the week. It is sometimes argued today that there is no obligation to observe the Sabbath day because it is no different from the other days of the week. We may hear it said that perhaps it is most practical to worship on the Lord’s Day because this is what the church has always done but that there is really no Scriptural basis for this. Murray addresses this very objection quite directly, noting that while many Christians do practically treat the Lord’s Day as a different day, this kind of practice ought to be grounded in biblical principle. Murray asserts that on biblical grounds, specifically in the moral law, we have a warrant to say that “the Sabbath day is different from every other day, and to obliterate this distinction either in thought or in practice is to destroy what is of the essence of the institution.”15

Next, Murray proceeds to explain that the Sabbath is sanctified because it is sanctified unto God. He explains what sort of rest this entails:

God rested on the seventh day from his work of creation but he continued to be omnipresently active in the work of providence. Hence our rest of the Sabbath is not one of inaction, of idleness, far less of sloth. It is the rest of another kind of activity. It is indeed rest from the ordinary employments of the other six days. There is cessation from that activity and the labour it entails. But it is also rest to or rest in; it is rest to and rest in the Lord. That must mean the rest of activity in the specific worship of the Lord our God.16

Far too often our discussions of how the Sabbath Day is to be kept holy devolves into nothing more than a list of what not to do on the Sabbath. While there are certain prohibitions, to treat the command this way only is to miss the point of the Sabbath Day altogether. It is a day of rest and worship, and a rest to the worship of God. We have the joy and the privilege of setting aside those things which would detract from our hearts and minds and affections being lifted above the dust of this earth to the things of God. We get the joy of a day with God, fifty-two times per year. When we focus simply on the prohibitions, we deprive ourselves of the joy of the day. Likewise, when we focus only on rest, we miss the point of the day. It is a day given to us for the enjoyment of God, which he knows we need. Mark 2:27 tells us, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” As Murray writes, “Rest from weekly labours and the exercises of specific worship are inseparable and they mutually condition one another. In a Sabbath of rest to the Lord we cannot have one without the other.”17

Finally, Murray considers the “observance” of the Sabbath. Why are we still under obligation to observe the Sabbath Day? Christ has died and been risen, so does this negate the responsibility of setting the Sabbath Day aside for the Lord? Murray notes that while ceremonial and civil regulations under the old covenant have passed away,18 nonetheless the Sabbath command still finds itself within the body of the Ten Commandments.19 This is a discussion not merely related to the fourth commandment, but indeed to the force of all the commandments. Murray argues,

And so we come to the real point at issue: may it be said that we are free to observe less strictly the fifth and seventh commandments? The abolition of certain Mosaic provisions guarding and promoting the sanctity of these commandments we must recognize. But has the sanctity of these commandments been in any way revoked or the strictness with which we observe them relaxed? . . . The fact is that the sanctity of these commandments is more clearly revealed and enforced in the New Testament than in the Old, and the depth and breadth of their application made more apparent.20

In this section of the essay, Murray argues against two errors that often go hand in hand: legalism and antinomianism. He deals with Christ’s own words of rebuke to the Pharisees found in Matthew 12 in order to show that the Pharisaic act of adding to the law of God is “the essence of impiety and lawlessness.”21 But that does not mean that the observance of the Sabbath itself is legalistic. Rather, “The law of God is the royal law of liberty and liberty consists in being captive to the Word and law of God.”22

Murray’s article concludes with a word about the glorious hope that awaits believers, to which the Sabbath day points us. Not only does it direct our thoughts to the “divine example” in creation but reminds us that the Sabbath “is the foretaste of that eternal rest which was secured by redemption once for all accomplished and will be dispensed in redemption consummated.”23

Thus, Murray duly exhorts us to remember that the Sabbath command is still in effect but also calls us to take comfort in the fact that it is designed to be a blessing. May we then recommit ourselves to joyful rest in the Lord and worship of him Lord’s Day by Lord’s Day, as we eagerly await that Sabbath rest promised to the people of God (Heb 4:9).

Notes

  1. For a brief account of this controversy, see Iain H. Murray, The Life of John Murray, in The Collected Writings of John Murray Vol: 3: Life; Sermons; Reviews, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 35–36.
  2. John Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 1: The Claims of Truth (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 205–17. There is a note that this was “An address given at Golspie, Sutherland, on August 12, 1953, and subsequently published—‘expanded at certain points and abbreviated at others’—by the Lord’s Day Observance Society, London” (footnote found on 205). See also Murray, “The Pattern of the Lord’s Day,” 219–24 and “The Relevance of the Sabbath,” 225–28.
  3. Also quoted in the King James Version in Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 217.
  4. For a fuller understanding of Murray’s position on the role of exegesis in systematic theology, see “Systematic Theology,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray: Vol. 4: Studies in Theology and Reviews (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 1–21. See also “The Theological Method of John Murray,” a lecture by Donald John Maclean, Colloquium, October 21, 2022. Posted by Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. Video, 43 min., 3 sec. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikquIEJi2oY. See also Daniel Schrock, “John Murray, Biblical Theology and Systematic-Theological Method,” Foundations: An International Journal of Evangelical Theology, 78. (May 2020): 32–55.
  5. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 206.
  6. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 206.
  7. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 206.
  8. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 206.
  9. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 207.
  10. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 207.
  11. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 207.
  12. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 208.
  13. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 208.
  14. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 208.
  15. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 209.
  16. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 210.
  17. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 210.
  18. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 211. See also Westminster Confession of Faith 19.3.–19.5.
  19. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 212.
  20. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 212.
  21. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 214.
  22. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution.” 214–15.
  23. Murray, “The Sabbath Institution,” 216.

©James Ritchey. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • James Ritchey
    Author Image

    James Ritchey is originally from Birmingham, Alabama and studied at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS (2018). James serves as mission developer and pastor at River City Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) in Little Rock, AR.

    More by James Ritchey ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.