054. Chapter 49: The Fourth Commandment
------------ CHAPTER FORTY-NINE ------------ The Fourth Commandment This is the commandment which is contradicted by many, and is assaulted with highly elevated shields. If many would have had it in their power, it would have long been forgotten and rejected. As is true for all other commandments, it is still read to the congregation on every sabbath day as a rule of life, in spite of all who regret this. The Basic Contents of this Commandment The words of this commandment contain: 1) a short exhortation; 2) a declaration; and 3) incentives for observance.
First of all there is a short exhortation: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8). At the very outset a nota bene is placed; that is, a word of great emphasis, which ought to make a deep impression upon our hearts. "Remember," that is, see to it that you do not contradict, reject, or forget this commandment. Remember it prior to the arrival of that day in order that you may order your affairs in such a manner that nothing will hinder you; prepare yourself for this day ahead of time. Be exhorted and be warned. The subject of this commandment is the sabbath day. This word is a derivative of the word shabat, which means to rest. The word "to rest" is used to indicate the cessation of something (Joshua 5:12). Wayyishbõth haman, that is, "And the manna ceased (rested)." "To rest" is also to desist from the activity with which you have been occupied, and to refresh yourself after your labor. This is said of God: "...He had rested from all His work" (Genesis 2:3). Moreover, it is also said of men: "So the people rested on the seventh day" (Exodus 16:30). The earth is likewise said to rest when it remains dormant, is neither plowed nor seeded, and consequently brings forth no fruit. "Even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths" (Leviticus 26:34). From shabath are derived ùÑáÌú (shabath) and ùÑáÌúåï (shabath), both of which signify rest. It also signifies a period of rest, be it when the word is used in isolation: "To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord" (Exodus 16:23), or that the day or year is added to this: "What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane (yõm hashshabat) the sabbath day" (Nehemiah 13:17). In this commandment the word "day" is added one time and not the other time. The word "sabbath" has different connotations.
(1) It sometimes signifies a week of seven days or years which then terminates with the sabbath day. "Fulfil her week" (Genesis 29:27).
(2) It signifies the sabbath years (being the seventh year) in which one was neither permitted to plow, sow, nor harvest (Leviticus 25:10) -- and also the fiftieth year (Leviticus 25:10).
(3) It signifies the sabbath of weeks, lasting seven consecutive days, being the three feast days -- Easter, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. There were also the sabbaths of days. These were the first and last days of the three feasts -- be it that they fell upon the sabbath or upon a different day. "On the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath" [Note: The Statenvertaling reads: "On the first day shall be a rest and the eighth day shall be a rest."] (Leviticus 23:39); there was the tenth day of the seventh month (Leviticus 23:27
First, the sabbath is not to be observed every three, four, ten, twenty, or thirty days -- or whenever it pleases the government or the church -- but on the seventh day. "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God" (Exodus 20:9-10). It must then be one of the seven days, and it ought not to be repeated any earlier or later.
Question: Is it immaterial which of the seven days one observes, and if not, which of the seven is the sabbath?
Answer: The commandment conveys that it is the seventh, which follows upon six days of labor. "Six days shalt thou labor." This is not a command to work (which belongs to the second table), but a stipulation as to how long one may work, and a direction when one must cease to labor and when the sabbath begins. It says as much as that whatever we are under obligation to do must be performed in six days, for the seventh day is a time of rest; it is the sabbath of the Lord thy God. God rested on the seventh day and has thus given us an example. He has set this day apart for sacred purposes and has commanded man to hallow this day to the glorification of His Name. Secondly, the manner in which this day is to be hallowed is as follows: "Thou shalt do no manner of work." We are enjoined to serve God in the first commandment, and this encompasses all our activity of soul and body at all times, during both day and night. The fourth commandment, however, requires the service of God in the full sense of the word, that is, with cessation of labor. Not to work, or to rest, can be interpreted as doing nothing, being quiet, and being idle. It can also refer to nonactivity due to an injunction of God, commanding us not to work. It can also mean 1) not to do a thing or 2) not to work so as to enable us to do something else, since we cannot do two things simultaneously; or it can also refer to resting conjoined with being engaged in a different activity.
(1) Doing no manner of work does not refer to being idle, for God cannot be pleased with idleness.
(2) We are also not commanded to be idle, for God has not commanded that anywhere.
(3) The commandment not to work has also not been given to enable us to do something else in its place -- something spiritual. The implication would then be that one is not to be active, but rather to be engaged exclusively in the spiritual service of God. The cessation of labor would then be necessary due to labor being a hindrance to spiritual exercises.
(4) The command not to do any manner of work is also not conjoined to another element of sabbath observance, as if being idle and serving God were conjoined as two collateral activities. This would suggest that he who would have done no work would have observed this commandment partially, and this would likewise be true for him who had served God spiritually and nevertheless had done some work.
(5) Rather, doing no manner of work and religious worship must be conjoined as being one injunction. Doing no manner of work must be understood in a spiritual sense, so that it refers to the manner of religious engagement, and thereby is distinguished from religion in the general sense of the word as it is enjoined in the first commandment. It is not rest which is commanded, but rather, a holy rest. "To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord" (Exodus 16:23); "... in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord" (Exodus 31:15). The work which is forbidden here is the labor of one‘s occupation, generally referred to as "work" -- be it traderelated labor, plowing, sowing, harvesting, business transactions, buying and selling, and all that whereby man earns his living. Not comprehended in this are:
(1) Religious labors, such as when ministers preach in the sweat of their brow, and whatever else transpires in the realm of religion. The priests killed the animals on the sabbath day and nevertheless did not sin.
(2) Works of absolute necessity, which are necessarily engendered by unexpected events on the sabbath -- be it that a fire breaks out, a person falls in the water, etc.
(3) Works of mercy, such as caring for the sick, and some of the labors of pharmacists, doctors, surgeons, and midwives (that is, as far as helping women in need and women giving birth to a child). This also pertains to feeding cattle in the winter, providing protection against the enemy, etc. Then it holds true: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" (Matthew 12:7); "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27).
Secondly, the persons by whom the sabbath must be sanctified are: "thy son ... thy daughter, thy manservant ... thy maidservant ... thy cattle ... thy stranger that is within thy gates" (Exodus 20:10). By this delineation, all men without distinction are forbidden to work. It is not sufficient that we rest ourselves, but we must also permit our children and servants to rest, and we must even oblige strangers who dwell or stay with us to rest. They are also men, and the commandment is applicable to them as well as to native residents and members of the church. Yes, even the cattle must rest, since they cannot perform work without the direction of man. God thus wishes to have complete silence upon the entire face of the earth. The third matter to be noted in this commandment is the added incentives. These are three in number.
(1) There is the example of God. God has created man after His image. This holy disposition of soul must also be manifested by man‘s deeds, and when he is thus active, he must be engaged in harmony with both God‘s commandment as well as His example. "Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children" (Ephesians 5:1). God, after being engaged in the work of creation for six days, rested upon the seventh day, and by so doing has designated this as an example to be followed. Man must be motivated by this to do likewise.
(2) The second incentive is taken from that which is to our benefit. "Therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath say." This does not imply that inherent efficacy was bestowed upon this day in order to render it profitable to man. Rather, it is a promise of blessing made to the conscientious observers of that day; that is, the receipt of comfort, joy, and holiness for the soul, and to render the physical labor of the six workdays to be more prosperous and profitable. For everything is dependent upon the blessing of the Lord, and without this all our labor is in vain (Psalms 127:1-2).
(3) The third incentive is derived from God‘s command and the appropriateness of obedience to it. He hallowed it. The Lord has set this day apart for sacred usage in order that man may solemnly and uniformly glorify and serve Him with a holy rest. No one may therefore make this day a common day by using it as other days and spending it by working. Rather, according to God‘s command, we must acknowledge it as having been set apart and spend it in a fashion which is consistent with the purpose for which God has set it apart and designated it. As is true for the other commandments, we must also consider the sins which are prohibited as well as the virtues which are enjoined. The Sins Prohibited The sins which are prohibited can be enumerated as follows: First, we sin when we do not, with joyous approbation, set the sabbath apart from the other days, and when we fail to acknowledge that this day has been set apart by God by virtue of His example and command, having appointed it to be a day of rest, refreshment, and glorification of God. This sin consists in disobedience and a despising of privileges.
Secondly, we sin when we make a workday out of this day -- if we occupy ourselves with the work of our profession; that is, to be engaged as brewers, bakers, laundry men, cooks, tailors, and shoemakers. Furthermore, we sin if, in order to finish remaining work, we then bring work home, even if it is toward noon. This also applies to barbers, those who load and unload ships, those who labor upon ferries, luggage porters, and garbage men; it pertains to all the labor whereby one earns a living. To this also belong miscellaneous activities which one postpones to the day of rest or does on this day to be prepared for the next day; such as mending, washing of children, to either prepare wash, send it to the laundry, or receive it at home, writing out bills, and going shopping -- in one word, all that by which one gains money and time. On this day God wants universal cessation of activity upon the entire face of the earth. This is evident from the commandment itself.
Thirdly, we sin when we transform this day into a market day. This pertains to buying and selling by merchants, store owners, sellers of fruit, vendors of all sorts of edible material, sellers of fish, etc. (cf. Nehemiah 13:15-16
Fourthly, we sin when we make this day into a day of worldly pleasure. The sabbath is a delight -- however, a delighting in the Lord. It is a dreadful desecration of this day, however, when we abuse it by delighting ourselves in worldly things and in the lusts of the flesh. This pertains to sailing, horse-riding, fishing, bird-hunting, playing tennis, playing ball, or to the entertaining of one‘s self with such things that are lawful at the appropriate time and place, in the appropriate company, and with the appropriate objective. This pertains even more to games of chance, playing cards, and playing with dice (cf. Isaiah 58:13-14). However, strolling in the fields or in gardens (be it alone or with others) does not belong to the forbidden sins, if we do so for the purpose of observing the works of God, to glorify Him thereby, and to be refreshed according to soul and body. Even if the world does this in a sinful manner, this cannot prevent the believer from doing it in a spiritual manner.
Fifthly, we sin when we make this day into a day of sin, attiring ourselves with all manner of hideous, worldly garb, and even daring to come thus to church and thereby before God‘s countenance. This pertains to drinking in bars and inns, where one can hear the violin, the vain chatter and jeering of drunkards, and the playing of drums. This pertains to having cold buffets in one‘s yard, elaborate meals in the home, and being engaged in all manner of foolish talk and gossip. This pertains to going courting -- as young men and women are accustomed to do in many villages. In one word, we sin if we spend this day in all manner of looseness and licentiousness. Such sins are double in measure -- yes, they provoke God in an extraordinary manner.
Sixthly, we sin by making this a day of idleness, [Note: à Brakel uses the graphic expression "ezelsdag" here, which literally means: "a donkey‘s day"!] spending the entire day in a lazy and slothful manner, sleeping the major part of the morning. Having nothing to do, one can then catch up on sleep.
Thus, there are many who sleep away the morning service, eat during the afternoon service, and walk away the evening service. Even if one has attended the worship services once or twice, he may possibly have slept there or have been occupied with other thoughts, and thus derived no more benefit from this than a donkey would. Such persons nevertheless imagine that they have spent the sabbath well, for they have rested and have been to church.
Seventhly, we sin when we reject and speak against the sabbath; draw others away from hallowing this day and give them liberty to do so; ridicule those who conscientiously hallow the sabbath according to God‘s command, railing at them by calling them ignorant, hair-splitters, and hypocrites (how abominable!); are unwilling to hallow the sabbath ourselves; draw others away from doing so; and mock with those who sanctify this day. The Virtues Enjoined The virtues enjoined in this commandment are comprehended in preparation, observance, and reflection. The necessity of preparation is apparent from the command: "Remember the sabbath day." That this was practiced in the church is evident from Mark 15:42, "It was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath." This is as yet practiced by the Lutherans in many localities -- which ought to convict the Reformed churches. To this preparation belongs:
(1) the knowledge of and acquiescence in our obligation to hallow this day, and the actual separating of this day from other days according to the command and example of God -- thus being engaged in an activity which is so delightful, beneficial, and God-glorifying;
(2) a spiritual desire for this day in order that one may quietly approach unto God and rejoice in Him, so that this day is a delight rather than a burden;
(3) prayer for strength and ability to hallow this day, so that in some measure we may be inclined toward spiritual things -- this in view of the aversion which the flesh has for this day;
(4) the timely cessation of one‘s daily labors, lest by working until late in the evening one render the body unfit, which in turn prevents the lively frame in which the soul ought to be, and lest there be no time left for preparation;
(5) the provision and preparation of food for the family for that day, so that no shopping need to be done on that day and there be little required as far as cooking is concerned.
Observation not only consists in resting -- as if that were the whole or part of its observance. It also does not consist in serving God ina more spiritual manner than on other days. Neither does it consist in a narrow-minded "touch not and taste not," nor in asking, "May I do this or may I do that?" The sabbath is not a snare, but rather a day of delight -- not, however, for sinful flesh. Those who are spiritually minded will almost always know what either favors or impedes the spirituality of the sabbath and the hallowing of this day.
Sabbath observance consists, first of all, in focusing upon the commandment and example of God which are held before us to be followed. This must be accompanied by obedient subjection and a love to imitate this.
Secondly, it consists in spending this day in holy resting and being completely withdrawn from the world, in being elated and joyful in God, and in holy jubilation.
Thirdly, it consists in occupying one‘s self in beholding the works of God in creation, preservation, and government. It furthermore consists in meditating upon the great work of redemption through Christ, in all this acknowledging and rejoicing in God‘s goodness, wisdom, power, truth, omnipotence (and of all that is revealed of God of this in our hearts), and thus glorifying and praising God. It is to be occupied with that sweet work of angels!
Fourthly, it consists in attending the public gatherings of God‘s people, as well as in rejoicing in the fact that one may be among them and with them, appear together before God‘s countenance, sing His praises, worship Him, hear the voice of the Lord come to our ears and hearts, and receive the benediction.
Fifthly, it consists in visiting the sick and the destitute, to bestow something of which they are deprived, to read something out of God‘s Word, and furthermore if they are unconverted, to convince them of sin and judgment and make them acquainted with the Lord Jesus. It also consists in comforting the converted and in stirring them up to be patient.
Sixthly, it consists in exercising the communion of saints; that is, in having sweet fellowship with godly acquaintances in private gatherings where they occupy themselves with the reading of God‘s Word, the singing of psalms and spiritual songs, and in mutual conversations, exhorting and comforting each other.
Seventhly, it consists in contributing, with a joyful and compassionate heart, something of one‘s profit -- earned in the previous workdays (or else something of one‘s belongings) -- to the poor, the common fund of the deacons, individuals with whom one is acquainted, and others whom the Lord causes us to encounter.
Reflection is also needful to preserve the sabbath disposition and blessing. First, this consists in reflecting upon how the day was spent publicly and privately, and upon the sins which one has committed; that is, laxity, listlessness, lack of spirituality, and the failure to abhor these. Confess this with sorrow before the Lord, and seek forgiveness through Christ.
Secondly, it consists in reflecting upon the good we have performed on this day, upon the upright objective to hallow the sabbath, and the efforts to do everything in such a manner as is pleasing to God. It furthermore consists in reflecting upon the blessings, refreshments, comforts, illumination, and quickening we enjoyed from the Spirit of the Lord. One must acknowledge this and rejoice in this, even if it were ever so little. Even if the insatiable desire of our soul has not been satisfied, we should yet thank the Lord for the good we received.
Thirdly, it consists in the acknowledgment of God‘s goodness to His church in giving her the sabbath, enabling her to gather publicly and conduct all her public worship services, and for the privilege to enjoy a holy rest.
Fourthly, it consists in yearning and longing for the rest which remains for the people of God (Hebrews 4:9), in rejoicing in this hope, in forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, pressing toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Blessed is he who thus begins, observes, and ends the sabbath.
Additional Incentives for a Proper Observance of the Sabbath
Even though the above mentioned matters will motivate a godly person to earnestly observe the sabbath, it will nevertheless be beneficial that we add some incentives in order to stir you up. They are derived from that which is detrimental to transgressors and from that which is beneficial to conscientious observers.
First of all, reflect attentively upon the harm that befalls desecraters of the sabbath -- that which pertains to the sin as well as the punishment. The desecration of the sabbath is a dreadful sin, for:
(1) it is a violation of God‘s commandment, and it is all the more sinful because one at the same time rejects the example of God which ought to be followed;
(2) it destroys external and common religion in its entirety, for all the commandments of the first table converge in this commandment;
(3) it is a despising of God‘s friendship and goodness from which the gift of the sabbath has proceeded, and which God demonstrates to His people upon the sabbath, letting them taste of this.
Secondly, God pronounces dreadful judgments upon the desecraters of His day.
(1) One robs himself of the spiritual and temporal blessings which God has promised to pour out upon those who hallow the sabbath.
(2) The general curses which pertain to transgressors of the law are applicable to such persons. "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Galatians 3:10).
(3) An entire register of plagues is pronounced upon desecraters of the sabbath (cf. Leviticus 26:2
(4) Set your heart upon the following passages as well: "What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city" (Nehemiah 13:17-18); "But if ye will not hearken unto Me to hallow the sabbath day ... then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (Jeremiah 17:27); "Yet also I lifted up My hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them ... because they ... polluted My sabbaths" (Ezekiel 20:15-16). Consider also Amos 8:11-12. God enumerates several sins in this chapter -- among others, an aversion for the sabbath. Thereupon several judgments are threatened, among which is the removal of His Word. "I will send a famine in the land ... and they shall wander ... to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it" (Amos 8:11-12). He who therefore fears such judgments as are mentioned in these texts, ought thereby to be discouraged from desecrating the sabbath -- this being the cause of these judgments. In the second place, meditate on the other hand upon the benefits which have been promised to those who hallow the sabbath. The commandment comprehends all this with the words: "Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day."
(1) It is a delight for a believer to hallow the sabbath, even if there were no other promises. "It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord, and to sing praises unto Thy name, O most High: to show forth Thy lovingkindness in the morning, and Thy faithfulness every night" (Psalms 92:1-2). This is the work of the sabbath and all that is good and sweet is inherent in this work.
(2) The work of the sabbath is to glorify God, and this is the highest form of felicity. That is the entire content of the above mentioned psalm for the sabbath. See this also in Isaiah 58:13, where we read, "If thou ... call the sabbath a delight," in order that the Lord, who is worthy to be honored, may be sanctified.
(3) It is then that God promises to come to His people, and He brings them to Himself. Felicity, all salvation, and refreshment for believers is to be found in this mutual approach unto, and fellowship with, each other. The Lord Jesus thus revealed and glorified Himself to His disciples, doing so even on two successive sabbaths (John 20:1
(4) God promises many blessings to those who hallow the sabbath day in soul and body. Regarding this, consider the following two passages: "Blessed is the man ... that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it. ... For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths ... even unto them will I give in Mine house and within My walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off ... every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of My covenant; even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon Mine altar" (Isaiah 56:2
He who therefore desires all these benefits ought to hallow the sabbath -- the promise being that they will be given on this day. The Fourth Commandment: Ceremonial or Moral in Nature?
It now remains for us to deal with the great point of contention -- a consideration which we wanted to append since we must express ourselves somewhat more comprehensively here in order to promote the honor of God, His holy service, and the observance of His holy day. The point of contention is this: Does the seventh-day sabbath, as proposed in the fourth commandment, belong to the ceremonial law given to Israel alone, so that it has thus been fulfilled and abolished by Christ? Or does it belong to the unchangeable rule for a holy life -- as is true for the other commandments of the law -- thus obligating all men of all ages to obedient observance, both prior and after the incarnation of Christ?
Many opponents present themselves, who, however much they may differ from each other in other matters, join focus in opposing the sabbath.
First, the Jews -- to whom must be added some heretics in the early church -- admit that the sabbath is of eternal duration. They insist, however, that the seventh day after creation (or the day which has always been observed by the Jews) is to be observed.
Secondly, the Socinians, Anabaptists, and Antinomians (opponents of the law) reject the entire law -- and thus also this commandment.
Thirdly, there are others who designate nine commandments as an eternal rule of life, but who fully eliminate the fourth commandment, considering it to be entirely ceremonial. They state outright that we now do not have ten commandments, but only nine. However, this sentiment has no adherents except ignorant people who neither know what they are saying nor what they are affirming.
Fourthly, there are others who are less offensive with their words, but in very deed reject the entire commandment. They maintain that there is something moral as well as ceremonial in this commandment (which foreshadows Christ). They consider the moral aspect to be the requirement of public worship without any reference to day or time, and that the seventh day is ceremonial, typifying the resting of Christ in the grave. Thus, it has been abolished with the resurrection of Christ.
Fifthly, there are others who interpret it as follows: Prior to the fall God obligated Adam to work all the days of his life. However, his work was to be neither burdensome, grievous, nor tiring. This remains the obligation of all men outside of the realm of the church, and they must do so with grief and pain as a punishment for sin. They maintain that God established the covenant of grace on the seventh day, accompanied by the promise of the coming of the Messiah. He thus would have given His partakers of the covenant a day of respite and relief: the seventh day. Prior to Christ‘s coming this would have typified the resurrection of Christ, and subsequent to His coming it would have been a memorial thereof. At the same time, it would have signified in both dispensations the benefits merited by Christ‘s resurrection -- both in this, as well as in eternal life. The church of all ages has been opposed to these propositions. We therefore maintain that this commandment is of the same moral nature as the other nine and does not typify Christ in the least. This commandment not only enjoins public worship, but also the hallowing of the seventh day following six workdays, and that this day be spent in holy resting. In enlarging further upon this we must make a distinction between the commandment and the incentives for observance. It is true that occasionally an incentive is taken from something which was peculiar to Israel alone, such as in Deuteronomy 5:15, "And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." These words were neither declared from Sinai nor inscribed in the tables of stone, but were used by Moses, as a faithful servant of God, upon repeating the law. He used this incentive to stir them up to let their servants rest on the sabbath.
It must also be noted that the word "ceremonial" is not found in the Bible and that one therefore ought not to dispute about this word. The common usage of the word signifies an ecclesiastical duty, or an external circumstance, deed, action, or transaction. In this respect there are also ceremonies in the church of the New Testament: preaching with either a covered or uncovered head, sprinkling once or thrice in holy baptism, either immersion or sprinkling at the administration of baptism, either sitting or standing when partaking of the Lord‘s Supper, etc. These are ceremonies which neither add to nor subtract from the essence of the matter. It is common among theologians, however, also to refer to the types of Christ as ceremonies due to their external mode of administration. We maintain, however, that there is no typification of Christ in the fourth commandment. It is in this sense that we maintain that there is nothing ceremonial in it. If, however, one considers an external circumstance which is changeable to be ceremonial -- the essence of the matter being preserved -- then we can indeed say that there is something ceremonial in it, understanding thereby only the change of day. In the Old Testament this was the last day of the week, and, as is surmised, the seventh day in reference to creation. I repeat, as is surmised; for one cannot be certain, as precise chronological calculations cannot be made retroactively to Adam. Furthermore, men‘s lives in the east or the west can differ twelve hours and thus half of a twenty-four-hour day. They especially cannot maintain that the sabbath which Israel observed was exactly the seventh day after creation, maintaining that there was no sabbath prior to Moses‘ time, and that no one was acquainted with such a day. This we deny, even though we would surmise that the hallowing of this day was sometimes very much neglected. Therefore, the essence of the sabbath did not consist in hallowing the exact seventh day after creation, thereby implying that the commandment is violated if one were to miss it by half a day. This has absolutely never been the intent of the fourth commandment; rather the intent is the hallowing of the seventh day which would follow six workdays. This does not imply that they had the choice to select one of the seven days arbitrarily, selecting a different one of the seven each time as it suited them; rather, Israel knew which of the days was the seventh day they had to observe and hallow. Thus it was prior to Christ‘s coming; but after Christ‘s coming the day was changed from the last day of the week to the first day of the week, according to Jewish calculation. This change of day did not come about by the will of man, however, but in consequence of the instruction of Christ and of the apostles (on behalf of Christ). The essence of the sabbath remained in full force, and it returns each time after six workdays.
We have thus identified the nature of the argument. It is now necessary to verify our sentiment and then to respond to the objections of opponents. The Sabbath, Having been Instituted Prior to the Fall, is Not Ceremonial
Proof #1. We derive this from the institution of the commandment which predates the fall. From this we make the following conclusion: If the commandment pertaining to the sabbath was given to Adam prior to the fall, it then belongs to the unchangeable rule of holiness -- just as the other commandments of the moral law do. It thus obligates all men of all ages, and neither belongs to the ceremonial law, nor has it been fulfilled and abolished in Christ. Instead, the sabbath has been given to Adam prior to the fall. Consequently, etc. The thrust and veracity of the first proposition is evident from the fact that Adam represented the entire human race prior to the fall. This was due to the covenant of works then in force, and because Christ was neither necessary, known, nor promised at that time. Thus neither the gospel nor the ministry of shadows could have any function. These matters are beyond all argumentation. The second proposition, namely, that the sabbath has been given to Adam prior to the fall, is evident from Genesis 2:1-3, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." In order to perceive the thrust of this argument, note the following:
First, consider the connection and the historical relationship between the first seven days apart from any intermediary issues. (It must be understood that there are no chapters in the Hebrew text, and therefore read the first and second chapters as one chapter.) It is related there what God performed on each day, and at the same time what function and approbation God attributed to each day. In thus arriving at the seventh day we observe the same sequence. We are told that there was then no work left to be done, but that it had all been completed in the previous six days. We are furthermore told that God rested on this day from His labors and that God -- as He did on the other days -- expressed His approval of the seventh day and assigned it its function. He blessed and hallowed it, not blessing Himself, but the day -- and He hallowed it. He did not do this to the natural day itself, but rather the day as having been designated for sacred usage -- as is pointed out in the fourth commandment. When His rest is given as the reason for blessing and sanctification, God has not only given a commandment to rest on the seventh day, and appointed this example to be followed, but He has established an express ordinance and has blessed and hallowed this day. What else can hallowing a day in this case mean but designation for a sacred purpose?
Secondly, note that this ordinance of the seventh day was made prior to the fall. This is evident for the following reasons:
(1) The sixth and seventh days are joined together (as the other previous six days were) without any intervening matters, and also without any reference to the fall. It is therefore audacious to insist on adding something to this.
(2) The fall is recorded as having occurred after the seventh day, for it is recorded in Genesis 3:1-24, subsequent to the first seven days and all that transpired in them, being described in a continual and uninterrupted fashion.
(3) The Holy Spirit bears witness that all was still very good upon the completion of the seventh day. "And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day" (Genesis 1:31). The fall had thus not occurred.
(4) The Lord rested on the seventh day; that is, He observed all His works with delight, rejoiced in them, and was refreshed. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed" (Exodus 31:17). When God saw the sin of man, it is written, "And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart" (Genesis 6:6). If man had fallen upon the sixth day, then God, rather than having been refreshed, would have had sorrow and grief of heart. This was not so, however, but He refreshed Himself. Instead of pronouncing a blessing, God would have cursed man and the earth. We thus perceive from all this that man did not fall upon the sixth day and that the sabbath was given him prior to the fall -- and thus the sabbath existed prior to the fall.
(5) Although this argument, when considered independently, carries no weight to either confirm or convince anyone, it nevertheless yields some further clarification when joined to the other arguments. It is not credible that man, having just opened his eyes upon this world, would have fallen immediately and that he would not have had time to delight himself in God and to rejoice in his holy and glorious state. It is credible, however, that God gave him some time to experience that which was good. Man, to some degree, was therefore already acquainted with God, for by the cool of the day he already recognized God‘s approach unto him (Genesis 3:8).
Evasive Argument #1: Is this text not the announcement of an event prior to its occurrence, [Note: à Brakel uses the peculiar word "voorverhaal" here. Since this word is probably a neologism, it can only be translated in a descriptive manner.] so that Moses, when speaking of the basis for the sabbath, uses this occasion to add to this commandment the institution of the sabbath as it occurred during his time? We do find more such prior announcements in God‘s Word.
Answer (1) By asking questions one can cause the unstable sentiments of himself and others to totter. Eve herself was deceived by questions. Instead, one ought to state that such is the case and that there is proof. We deny it, for where is the proof?
(2) It is true, as is often the case with historical documents of human origin, that such announcements prior to the fact relating to future events are also found in the Holy Scriptures. However, then the subject matter at hand demands this and its purpose is obvious. Here neither the one nor the other is true. Refrain from such reasoning as: It could be thus, for it is occasionally true elsewhere. Such are evil teachers who cause the soul to be prejudiced and unfit to perceive the truth.
(3) This cannot be an announcement prior to the fact. This is evident from the text itself, for it is stated what God did upon the first seventh day, and not what He did about 2400 years later. Furthermore, when God speaks of the sabbath at the time of Moses, He speaks of it in such a fashion as being a matter which had been instituted on the first seventh day (cf. Exodus 20:11). It is indeed contrary to all probability that God, commanding something after 2400 years, would derive a reason from something which had transpired so long ago, and of which there would have been no knowledge during all that time. Also, if the sabbath were only pointing to Christ, God‘s resting upon the seventh day in the past could not have been foundational for the sabbath.
(4) If this were an announcement prior to the fact, no original institution of the sabbath could be found in God‘s Word, for the sabbath was already observed prior to the giving of the law upon Sinai. It was already observed when the manna was given in the desert. Mention is then made of the sabbath as being a known institution, and thus, not instituted at that time.
(5) Such an announcement prior to the fact was devised for the purpose of designating the sabbath as ceremonial. However, this renders the announcement itself invalid. For this announcement would have been made at the occasion when a reason or argument was given for the sabbath, which looked retroactively at God‘s rest, and not forward to the Messiah.
(6) If such a statement were to have any semblance of validity, it would first have to be determined that the entire book of Moses -- and particularly the first chapters -- were written by Moses after the exodus from Egypt and subsequent to all that transpired at Horeb. However, there is no evidence of this whatsoever, and thus the notion of an announcement prior to the fact is without foundation.
Additional Evasive Argument: God intended at that time to give this day to His people, and had decreed to do so 2400 years later; but He did not enjoin Adam and his descendants to keep this day.
Answer: This is contrary to the text, which does not speak of an intention but of an actual institution. It is an ordinance which is comparable to the resting of God. God‘s resting was, however, not an intention to rest sometime in the future, but an actual resting. Likewise, the blessing and hallowing of this day were actual occurrences which did not pertain to God but to man. It was thus a commandment given to man, and this at the very outset of time.
Evasive Argument #2: The sabbath was not applicable to Adam prior to the fall for he neither had to work nor became tired. Furthermore, he glorified God every moment, so that the sabbath could not have been given to him then.
Answer (1) Adam had to work indeed. "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it" (Genesis 2:15).
(2) The purpose of the sabbath is to rest, that is, to cease from labor -- even if there is no fatigue. (3) Although Adam was able to glorify God every moment, it was nevertheless God‘s will that he would do so on the seventh day by ceasing from his labor and hallowing that day.
(4) The law was not given to Adam as an individual, but as being the father of the entire human race, which -- upon multiplication -- would be under obligation to celebrate this day by coming together before the countenance of God to unitedly praise and glorify Him.
Evasive Argument #3: Prior to Exodus 16:1-36 one does not read that either Adam or the fathers who followed him were either acquainted with or observed the sabbath. It is therefore not probable that the sabbath had already been given then.
Answer (1) Little is recorded of the first 2000 years. It has pleased God to record particularly what has transpired with Abraham and his seed. One cannot conclude, simply because it has not been recorded, what they have or have not known and done.
(2) It does not matter what Adam and the men following him have done, but rather, what they were obligated to do according to the commandment. Circumcision was also neglected in the wilderness, and yet it remained a command. This is also true of the sabbath.
(3) Men spoke of the seventh day prior to Moses. "Fulfil her week. ... And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week" (Genesis 29:27-28). It must be noted that in the original text the word shebua is recorded. This in turn is related to the word shebigni (i.e., the seventh), which is recorded in this commandment.
(4) When God gave the law, He spoke of this as a matter which already existed and was known. It reads:
"Remember (not the seventh day but) the sabbath day." It furthermore reads: "Therefore He blessed (not blesses) and hallowed (not hallows) it." And such was indeed the case. "And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning" (Exodus 16:22-23). The elders did not understand the reason why the bread had thus been multiplied. Moses, in instructing them, brings to mind the instituted and blessed sabbath, which (as they knew) would be the following day -- a day upon which God willed that they should rest, and that He therefore had provided for them ahead of time.
(5) Paul speaks of a rest and, pointing to Genesis 2:1-25, of a rest of the seventh day -- an institution which had been in place since the foundation of the world. "If they shall enter into My rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, and God did rest the seventh day from all His works" (Hebrews 4:3-4). From all this we can observe that since the time of Adam and prior to the giving of the law, man has had the institution and the knowledge of the sabbath.
Evasive Argument #4: If there is already mention of the hallowing of the seventh day in Genesis 2:1-25, does this pertain to the hallowing of that one day only, it being done once in reference to God rather than man?
Answer: No; this was the hallowing of the seventh day which chronologically reoccurs. It is very evident from Exodus 20:1-26 that this is for man‘s benefit, for there the hallowing of the seventh day in chronological order is commanded due to God having blessed and hallowed this day, solely because He -- in view of Genesis 2:1-25 -- rested on the first seventh day. This at once makes it evident that God has given this day to man.
Evasive Argument #5: It appears that God did as yet do some work on the seventh day, for Genesis 2:1 is the conclusion of the six-day creation, and in verse 2 mention is made of some work again: "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made." From this it can be concluded that God executed the work of redemption on the seventh day by restoring man.
Answer (1) This is an erroneous conclusion. It is not stated here that God did some work on the seventh day, but that on the seventh day He had already ended the work which He had made; it was finished at that time. To have ended work does not imply the doing of work, but rather the completion of work and the not doing of any work subsequent to that.
(2) This is expressly refuted in Exodus 20:11, for there it is stated that God rested on the seventh day, in contrast to His labor of six days. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."
(3) If God had done most of His work on the seventh day -- for the work of redemption excels the work of creation -- then God‘s example of resting on the seventh day after six days of labor could not be held before man as the reason for resting on the seventh day, as is the case here.
(4) If the thought would occur that God had accomplished the work of redemption on the seventh day, it would first have to be a known fact that man had already sinned. Not only is this not so, but the very opposite is proven.
All this proves it to be immovably true that the sabbath was given to Adam prior to the fall -- and thus to the entire human race. Consequently, it is not a ceremonial command, but of the same nature as all other moral commands which are a perpetual rule of holiness for all men. The Sabbath is Not Ceremonial: Its Observance is Regulated by the Moral Law
Proof #2: This is derived from the commandment inExodus 20:1-26. I draw the following conclusion from this: Whatever commandment is a commandment of the moral law, is not ceremonial, but belongs to the eternal rule of holiness, obligating all men. The fourth commandment is a commandment of the moral law, however, and it thus follows, etc. The first proposition is irrefutably true. The nature of the whole is also the nature of each part. If the entire law is moral in nature, also each commandment is moral in nature. The second proposition is confirmed as follows: The moral law is the law which God Himself declared from Horeb out of the midst of the fire in the ears of all Israel. God Himself engraved this law, which is the law of love (Matthew 22:1-46), into two tables of stone. This is the royal law (James 2:8-10) which contains in it the requirements of the covenant of works upon which, apart from the gospel, eternal life would follow (Romans 10:1-21). This law is the law of the ten commandments (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13). Every reader will have to agree with this. The fourth commandment is a statement from this law, however. This is evident from the record of the law in Exodus 20:1-26 and Deuteronomy 5:1-33, and it is dealt with in the same way as the other commandments. From this it follows, etc.
Evasive Argument: The law of the ten commandments is indeed the moral law, but one commandment must be removed, namely, the fourth--that is, to the extent that it is ceremonial and of a different nature.
Answer (1) This is not recorded anywhere.
(2) Then there would only be nine commandments. One must give heed not to subtract from or add to the law (Deuteronomy 4:2), nor to nullify the least commandment (Matthew 5:19).
(3) There is nothing in this commandment which resembles anything of a ceremonial nature. It cannot be demonstrated anywhere in the entire Scriptures that the seventh-day sabbath points to Christ nor in which respect it points to Christ. One could say that it points to Christ‘s resting in the grave, but 1) Christ was in the grave three days. 2) Furthermore, Christ‘s burial was a step of His humiliation and He was holden of death. 3) How could such a joyful, happy, refreshing, and God-glorifying rest on the seventh day be an example of Christ‘s state of death when there was to be nothing but mourning? 4) Scripture says nothing of this sort. 5) It is contrary to reason, for the commandment is given in reference to something which has preceded and not to something which was to be in the future. There is not even a semblance of this.
(4) The entire subject of the fourth commandment predicates its moral nature. The matter which is commanded is a holy and God-glorifying rest. The reason for this commandment is God‘s institution of this rest from the beginning. The example given us to follow is God‘s very own activity. To our knowledge, He has never made Himself an example in any ceremonial commandment. If we consider all these things together -- the substance of, the reason for, the example for, and the law of which this commandment is a part -- then it will powerfully convince the person (who listens more to the commandment of God than to his own confusing ideas) that the sabbath of the fourth commandment is not ceremonial, but moral in nature, and is thus obligatory upon all men at all times. The Eternal Duration of the Moral Law and thus of the Fourth Commandment
Proof #3: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:16-19). The objective of the Lord Jesus in this passage is to demonstrate that by His coming, conscientious godliness was not abolished. The reference here to the moral law can be determined for the following reasons:
(1) It is that law which is the rule for good works and thus for a holy life (Matthew 5:16).
(2) It is that law which Christ did not come to disannul, since He did come to disannul the ceremonial law.
(3) It is that law which Christ has fulfilled (Matthew 5:17), so that by His obedience we are made righteous (Romans 5:19).
(4) It is that law which will endure as long as the earth will remain (Matthew 5:18).
(5) It is that law which one was not permitted to break upon the coming of Christ, but which one was obliged to do and teach (Matthew 5:19).
(6) It is that law in which murder, the false and unnecessary swearing of oaths, revenge, and adultery are forbidden, and in which generosity and sincere love (even toward enemies) are commanded, this being evident from what follows in this chapter. However, this is the moral law -- the law of the ten commandments. Thus, the reference here is to the moral law. Now, neither jot nor tittle of this law will pass away as long as the heaven and the earth endure. Therefore, since the fourth commandment is a full-fledged commandment of that law, also this commandment will remain and not pass away. Consequently, this commandment is not ceremonial, but an eternal rule of life, as is true for the other commandments.
Evasive Argument #1: The reference here indeed is to the moral law, and the fact that it will not pass away. It cannot be concluded from this, however, that the sabbath will not pass away, for this does not belong to the moral law. Simply because it is listed among the ten commandments does not prove that it is moral in nature.
Answer: This has already been proven in our second proof. Examine the entire New Testament and you will observe that wherever the law is contrasted to the ceremonial law and the gospel, the focus is upon the law of the ten commandments. If one replies, "No, but the focus is upon the moral law," then I ask, "Where do we find the moral law? Is it not contained in the ten commandments?" If one says, "Yes, but with the exception of one," then I reply, "But where is that written?" It is nowhere to be found, and it is thus but an idle thought. The law of the ten commandments is called the moral law, and thus all ten commandments are moral in nature.
Evasive Argument #2: We do not deny that the fourth commandment belongs to the moral law and is thus of eternal duration. However, the moral aspect in it pertains to the public worship of God and not to its ceremonial aspect which is the hallowing of the seventh day.
Answer: This is a self-made fabrication. Let it be demonstrated once that public worship constitutes the moral content of this commandment. Not one jot or tittle can be produced in support of this. This argument is thus rejected as readily as it is advanced. The language of the commandment indicates that the essence of this commandment consists in the hallowing of the seventh day. We have sufficiently shown above that nothing of a ceremonial nature is comprehended in this. Therefore, if this commandment is of eternal duration -- which is according to the intent and understanding of this party -- then the entire commandment is of eternal duration. It cannot be viewed from a twofold perspective. The essence of this commandment is the hallowing of the seventh day after six workdays. The Observance of the Sabbath to Continue After the Abrogation of the Ceremonial Laws
Proof #4: "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day" (Matthew 24:20). It is evident from verse 3 that the return of Christ and the end of the world is discussed in this chapter. It is beyond controversy that the destruction of Jerusalem -- forty years after Christ‘s ascension -- is also discussed here.
Immediately upon Christ‘s death, resurrection, and ascension, the ceremonies had completely lost their efficacy, and from that very moment it was sin to use them in the Jewish manner, that is, as being shadows of the future Messiah. Nevertheless, the external performance in a general and religious sense was tolerated for some time in order not to hinder those that were weak in the faith, and thus to allow time for instruction to prepare them for their full abolition.
However, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Christian church had long separated itself from the Jewish church, and the ceremonies had become as dead to them. They were thus neither permitted to strive nor pray for this.
Nevertheless, we see it expressly stated here that there would still be both sabbath and winter, for no injunction can be given about something which does not exist. We do not maintain that there is an injunction here to hallow the sabbath, but that this injunction concerning the sabbath indicates that there would still be a sabbath. Thus, the sabbath is not ceremonial but of eternal duration.
It also needs to be noted that this chapter does not only speak of the destruction of Jerusalem, but also of the dreadful persecution which would come upon the church of the New Testament, which frequently has come to pass since then. At that time the ceremonies had indeed disappeared, and yet the sabbath, like the winter, would remain.
Evasive Argument #1: Was not this injunction to pray that their flight would not occur on the sabbath, made to Jews in order to inflict temporary misery upon them, since they were not permitted to flee on the sabbath?
Answer: They were permitted to flee, for this was not forbidden in the law. This is evident from various examples in God‘s Word.
Evasive Argument #2: Was not this injunction intended for weak Christians for whom it would be objectionable to flee on that day?
Answer: They were indeed permitted to flee, for the ceremonies had been abolished and one was no longer permitted to pray in reference to this.
Evasive Argument #3: Was not this injunction given to prevent the Jews -- who would see the Christians fleeing on the sabbath -- from killing them?
Answer: There is neither proof nor argument for this. The reference is here not to a general flight, but to flight which would occur as frequently as they would be pursued. The Jews no more concerned themselves with the Christians than they did with the Gentiles. Furthermore, Jews, Gentiles, and Christians were permitted to flee on the sabbath.
Evasive Argument #4: Why then did they have to pray that fleeing upon the sabbath be prevented? Answer: Since God had appointed this day for refreshment and the enjoyment of an extraordinarily joyous rest, they would then have to miss this, and lose the opportunity to praise God with the congregation and to both edify and be edified. Thus, fleeing on the sabbath would be double misery for the soul -- just as fleeing in the winter would be a double misery for the body. The Observance of the Sabbath: Practiced by Christ, the Apostles, and the Early Church
Proof #5: In addition to the proofs mentioned above that the sabbath is not ceremonial, but moral and of eternal duration, we wish to consider the practice of Christ, the apostles, and the early church. The Lord Jesus honored the gathering of His disciples upon the first day after His resurrection with His presence, this being the first day of the week. Eight days later the Lord repeated this (John 20:26). Concerning the journeys of Paul we read in Acts 20:6-7, "And we ... came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." Take note here that a different day is never mentioned in the New Testament, but that the first day of the week is mentioned repeatedly. It is stated as a matter of course that the congregation gathered on that day and that Paul preached on that day in their assembly, and that he would travel the following day. It can thus be clearly observed that they observed the sabbath on the first day of the week.
Consider furthermore what is written in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 : "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Again the first day of the week is mentioned as the familiar day for worship and assembly -- not for some private individuals, but for the congregations. The apostle John, having been banished to the island of Patmos after the destruction of Jerusalem, indicates that the Lord‘s day was celebrated in a sacred manner. This day he celebrated, calling it by the name familiar to all -- the Lord‘s day. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord‘s day" (Revelation 1:10). Concerning the sabbath, it is written in the fourth commandment: "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God" (Exodus 20:10). This is the day which the Lord has instituted, hallowed, and blessed.
Add to this the practice of the churches of Christ from the time of the apostles until today. Take as an example the testimony of ministers in the church who lived shortly after the time of the apostles.
Irenaeus: "God Himself has proclaimed the words of the ten commandments, and they therefore remain with us, having neither been diminished nor nullified by the coming of Christ" (Adv. Hoeres. lib. 4. cap. 31).
Basilius calls the Lord‘s day the sabbath (Epis. ad Caesar. Pater). Epiphanus: "The first sabbath is that day which God has decreed from the beginning and incorporated into the creation of the world, which from that day on (take note!) until now continues in the sequence of seven days" (Hoeres. 51).
Athanasius: "Formerly they of old greatly honored the sabbath, and this glorious day the Lord Jesus has changed into the Lord‘s day" (de Senin).
Eusebius: "Christ has obligated all men, wherever they are in the world on water and on land, that they congregate on one day of the week."
Augustine: "The apostles have instituted the Lord‘s day in the stead of the sabbath of the Jews" (Epist. 3 ad Magn). "One ought to know that not only has this been commanded by our holy forefathers, but rather by God Himself: we must rest upon the Lord‘s day" (Serm. de Temp. 251).
Justin Martyr: "Upon the day which is called Sunday, an assembly of all takes place" (Orat. ad. Aut. P.). Chrysostum: "This doctrine God has already revealed to us from the beginning, teaching that in the rotation of one week, an entire day must be set apart and be used for spiritual work" (Gen. Hem. 10).
Constantinus Magus: In "Teste Eusebio in vita constantini," he gives this injunction: "Let the entire soul be occupied on that day with the service of God, and that men rest from the work of the market, from legal transactions, and from plying a trade" (lib. 4. 18). The first Christians were also very conscientious in hallowing the sabbath. As the sabbath was previously a sign that God sanctified the Jewish church and took her to Himself as a people, the sabbath was likewise such a sign among the first Christians. The heathen would lie in wait on that day to overtake the Christians, and if they had caught someone, the person was asked whether he had also observed the Lord‘s day. They would then answer resolutely that they were Christians who had observed the Lord’s day with the proper religious zeal because one was not permitted to neglect the observance of this day.
Behold, there you have some evidence from the early churches. We can observe from this that they have celebrated the seventh day by divine ordinance. Now consider all this together. The seventh day has been instituted prior to the fall and has been commanded in the fourth commandment of the moral law -- of which neither jot nor tittle will pass away. Christ declares that the sabbath will endure after His time, and Christ, the apostles, and the early churches have observed the sabbath. How can anyone therefore reject this day with good conscience? Ought not everyone to be convinced of the eternal duration of the sabbath, be ashamed over his unsteadfastness and grieve over its desecration, and furthermore, be stirred up to a conscientious observance?
Various Objections Answered Objection #1: The Sabbath Does not Issue Forth from the Character of God
All commandments which are enduring moral rules, issue forth from the nature of God, are inherently virtuous, and have something of the image of God. These commandments are known from nature, obligate all men, and do not flow out of a voluntary institution which God can either command or not command. The sabbath, however, does not issue forth from the character of God, has no inherent virtuousness, nor anything of the image of God. This commandment is of a temporal nature, is not known by way of nature, and is not an obligation for all men. Since the heathen have no knowledge of this commandment, they also do not sin in violating the sabbath, which was given to Israel only. It rather issues forth from a voluntary divine institution, so that God potentially could have not commanded the observance of the sabbath. Consequently, the commandment of the sabbath is not an enduring rule of life, nor does it pertain to us in the New Testament.
Answer: Both the first and second propositions are not logical, and rest upon unfounded thoughts proceeding from a darkened and corrupt intellect.
First, we deny the first proposition, for it is not founded upon God‘s Word and is nothing but imagination. Whether a commandment issues forth from the character of God, it being impossible for Him not to give the command, or a commandment issues forth out of pure sovereign good pleasure, so that He could either give or not give it -- in either case it is equally binding upon man.
Secondly, it is injurious to the sovereignty of God to suggest that He would neither be permitted nor be able to issue commands at will -- commands not necessarily flowing forth from His character -- as an eternal moral rule for the entire human race. His will must be sufficient for the creature; He is the sovereign Lawgiver. You -- whoever you may be -- do not begrudge Him His right.
Thirdly, the darkened nature of man does not understand why God‘s laws are appropriate under given circumstances for rational creatures. He therefore cannot judge the appropriateness of the laws which he but observes in an external sense, without penetrating to the very essence of them. He is also not acquainted with the character of God, and thus cannot judge what would flow forth from the character of God relative to a creature under given circumstances. It is intolerable to think that such an ignorant creature would have the audacity to summon God before him and demand a reason as to why He has given such and such a law, and that such a fool would dare to establish a rule by which it can be determined what is of eternal duration and what is not.
Fourthly, man‘s corrupt nature is also not acquainted with all the commandments of the eternal moral law. Paul says concerning the tenth commandment: "For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" (Romans 7:7). One must make a distinction between the holy and the corrupt nature. We who are darkness do not know what a holy nature would teach us. Man‘s corrupt nature cannot judge in this, and is thus not the touchstone whereby commandments are to be examined. It furthermore suffices that God has placed the human race under obligation by way of a commandment. Irrespective of whether man has lost that knowledge through carelessness or still has that knowledge, it obligates him just the same.
Fifthly, man, in observing the commandments, must focus upon the will of God. If he then but perceives that the sovereign Lawgiver has commanded this and that it is His will that he do this, this ought to be sufficient for man, "... doing the will of God from the heart" (Ephesians 6:6). The second proposition is abominable: The sabbath does not issue forth from the character of God, does not inherently have any virtue or anything of the image of God, cannot be known by way of nature, has been given to Israel only, and is only a positive command which God can either give or take away. Since the first proposition does not agree with the truth, it is immaterial whether the sabbath is a necessary or voluntary command. One need but perceive whether or not we have been commanded to do so. In particular, it should first be stated that to say that the sabbath does not flow forth from the character of God is more easily said than proven. Our corrupt nature cannot be our judge in this respect. If you maintain that it pertains but to a limited time frame, I answer that this is invalid. It pertains to a holy rest at a given time, as God has exemplified this by designating His doings to be an example to be followed by us. And why would it not be possible that the circumstance of time be moral in nature, as well as the circumstances of persons or matters? And if the sabbath did not flow forth from the character of God (which we do not admit), then what? The sabbath can still therefore be both enduring and moral in nature. The will of God obligates man.
Secondly, we deny that the sabbath does not inherently have some virtue and something of the image of God in it. It is virtuous to hallow the sabbath for it is the doing of the will of God. Obedience to this commandment belongs to the image of God, for it is a loving acquiescence with the will of God -- yes, it is an act of imitation of and conformity to God, for God has rested upon the seventh day and has therefore given us that day in order that we would follow His example (Exodus 20:11). We are under obligation to be "followers of God, as dear children" (Ephesians 5:1).
Thirdly, it is an invalid argument that the sabbath cannot be known from nature. (1) Furthermore this is no reason to remove a commandment from the moral law. (2) We cannot maintain that man‘s holy nature would not have instructed him about the sabbath. We believe that man‘s holy nature, being acquainted with the example of God, would have been instructed to observe the sabbath as well as the other commandments. Man‘s corrupt nature knows very little of the spirituality of the moral law, except for some external and broad issues, thus excusing it.
(3) The heathen have already spent much time in celebrating special days -- yes, they are even acquainted with the seventh day.
Fourthly, we deny that the sabbath has been given to Israel only. It was given to the church, which at that time existed within the seed of Israel. However, it had previously been given to Adam and thus to all men.
Evasive Argument: Something is stated in this commandment, however, which can only have reference to Israel. "And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt ... therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day" (Deuteronomy 5:15).
Answer: One must make a distinction between the commandment and its circumstantial application. The first is always the same, but the second can be changed time and again. For if one were to conclude from the fact that the circumstantial application pertains to Israel alone, that then the entire commandment pertained to them only, by way of the same conclusion, one would then have to conclude that the entire law is not applicable to us due to the preamble which is applicable to Israel alone. The argument stated there -- which is here advanced in Deuteronomy 5:15 -- is the same: the deliverance from Egypt and from the house of bondage. One could thus conclude in like fashion that the fifth commandment also does not pertain to us, there being a promise which only pertained to Canaan (and thus Israel). Nevertheless, both the entire law and the fifth commandment are moral (Ephesians 6:2).
Objection #2: The Sabbath Is Part of the Ceremonial Law
"Moreover also I gave them My sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them" (Ezekiel 20:12).
(1) It appears that God, having declared the giving of institutions and judgments -- which if a man do, he will live thereby -- says subsequently: "For that purpose I gave them My sabbaths," thereby indicating that the sabbath is of a different nature than the other institutions.
(2) The sabbath is called a sign here, and it is thus a reflection and shadow of Christ. Consequently, the sabbath belongs to the ceremonial law and is presently not a rule of life for us.
Answer: This is contrary to their own proposition, for according to their own exposition they understand the ordinances to be ceremonial laws, and if then the word wagam (= and moreover) were to indicate that the sabbaths were of a different nature, then the sabbaths would have a moral connotation. However, we shall answer the matter as follows:
First, the word wagam (= and moreover) has as its primary meaning "and also," so that the word "moreover" must be understood in such a sense as meaning "and also." This does not constitute a contradiction, as if the one would be of a different nature than the other. Rather, it frequently indicates that two or three matters are being joined together, without there being an implication of the joining of natures. Such is the case in the following passages: "There is none that doeth good, no , not one" (Psalms 14:3); "And Joseph wept when they spake unto him. And his brethren also wept" (Genesis 50:17-18); "Let us go speedily to pray before the Lord ... I will go also" (Zechariah 8:21). Everyone can readily perceive that the little word "also" does not imply a contradiction of nature, but rather an enlargement of what has preceded. Thus, also here the words "moreover," "or," and "also" imply as much as, "I have given you My ordinances and judgments, and more specifically my sabbaths." The seventh-day sabbath belongs as much to the law -- which Stephen calls the living oracles in Acts 7:38 -- as the other commandments. It is expressly stated concerning the sabbath that, "the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths ... even unto them will I give in Mine house and within My walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" (Isaiah 56:4-5). Furthermore, we read in Isaiah 58:13-14, "If thou ... call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable ... then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father." It is thus evident that there can be no contradiction here between ordinances and judgments (life being attainable through them) and the seventh-day sabbath -- implying that life could not be obtained through it. Thus, a contradiction can neither be deduced from the word "sabbath," nor from the subject matter under consideration.
Thirdly, it is also evident that the reference is not to the weekly sabbath. It is generally referred to as sabbath, whereas the ceremonial ordinances are referred to as sabbaths. And even if they have the name in common, they are not equal in nature. Arguments would thus have to be presented that the weekly sabbath must also be comprehended in this. As far as the second objection is concerned, namely, that the sabbath is called a sign, this will readily disappear if one notes, first of all, that the entire moral law is also referred to as a sign. "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand" (Deuteronomy 6:8). Divine plagues are also referred to as a sign: "And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder" (Deuteronomy 28:46). Isaiah -- as is true for other prophets as well -- is likewise referred to as a sign. "Like as My servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia" (Isaiah 20:3). The Lord Jesus Himself is also referred to as a sign: "This child is set ... for a sign which shall be spoken against" (Luke 2:34). The extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit are also referred to as signs. "And these signs shall follow them that believe" (Mark 16:17). A sign does not always refer to something future, but also to something in the present. "Show me a token (or sign) for good" (Psalms 86:17). From all these texts it is sufficiently evident that all that is referred to as a sign is not necessarily a ceremony or shadow pointing to Christ, nor does it necessarily signify something in the future. It is expressly indicated here that this sign symbolizes a current matter: "a sign ... that I am the Lord that sanctify them."
Secondly, one matter can have many objectives. By stating one objective, one is thereby not negating another objective. Something which existed previously, but did not function as a sign, can become a sign of something while preserving its original function. Thus, the rainbow, which already existed previously, became a sign of the covenant established with Noah (Genesis 9:12). Such is also true for the sabbath, which already had been given to Adam. This day, while preserving its moral nature, could indeed become a sign, when God -- upon the entire world becoming ungodly -- took a people unto Himself from all nations. It was a sign that they were God‘s people and that it would be recognized by the observance of the sabbath, for sabbath-observance is very noticeable. It is the most unique and public of all religious observances.
Objection #3: The Sabbath was Abolished by Christ
"For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day" (Matthew 12:8). It appears that Christ defends His disciples as far as picking corn was concerned, by giving them liberty to do this on the sabbath. Since He was Lord of the sabbath, He thus showed that He was abolishing the sabbath. Or else man has been designated as lord of the sabbath and may do with this day as pleases him.
Answer: First, there is not one word which implies abolition. Simply because someone is lord of something does not mean that he therefore does away with it; rather, he preserves, uses, and governs it. Secondly, this is not a case of sabbath-desecration, for it was indeed permitted on the sabbath to walk through the field, to pick ears, to rub them in the hands, and to eat the kernels of grain. It was but a superstition of the Jews to consider this to be unlawful. This is evident from Matthew 12:3
We shall respond to the second objection as follows:
(1) It was Christ‘s common manner of speech to call Himself the Son of Man. Having referred to Himself by the one nature, He ascribes to Himself that which belongs to the essence of His other nature. It is He to whom the Father has given "authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man" (John 5:27). Thus, "the Son of Man" must be understood as a reference to Christ Himself, rather than to every man.
(2) By way of the Son of man the reference was to the entire human race, and thus the sabbath was given to the entire human race, and it is consequently a moral commandment which pertains to all men.
(3) To go a step further, if "the Son of man" signifies the Jews -- although such is contrary to Scripture and reason -- even if this were so, then what? Being the lords of the sabbath, they therefore could act as they wished. Then they would not have sinned if they transgressed the sabbath -- also not prior to that time. If this were understood as referring to the disciples who as lords would have abolished the sabbath, the type would have been removed prior to the coming of the anti-type or the fulfillment.
(4) There is here therefore only a defense of the fact that the disciples had not sinned, and that the plucking and eating of ears upon the sabbath was lawful. Even though it was not permitted without due cause, it would nevertheless be no sin here, since there was due cause, and it would be as much as to say that when those two come into conflict -- man and the sabbath -- injury must be done to one of the two. Either man would have to do something to the deliverance of another man, which, apart from this case, would not be lawful on the sabbath, or that person would have to perish. In such a case the deliverance of the person must have precedence and the sabbath must yield. Man is superior to the sabbath and mercy must have precedence over the sacrifice (Matthew 12:7) -- and thus nothing is stated contrary to the sabbath.
Objection #4: The Sabbath Is Detrimental to the Gospel
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it" (Romans 14:5-6); "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain" (Galatians 4:10-11); "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17). The difficulty which would present itself in these texts is this: It seems as if the distinction of days is removed so that one may not judge another about this. Furthermore, it appears that the keeping of days is detrimental to the gospel, and thus there neither is a sabbath in the New Testament nor may it be observed.
Answer: First, these texts cannot be used as an argument against the sabbath if one maintains that there is still a moral element in the fourth commandment, even though there was merely an obligation to set apart some time for public worship (irrespective of what time this may be and to what extent one may do so). This implies a distinction of time, even if it were but every twentieth day, if it were but a half day or some hours. Thus, according to that presupposition, these texts do not speak of a distinction between times or days which is enjoined in the fourth commandment -- and that is the point in question. And thus in harmony with the sentiments of the opponents themselves, these texts cannot be advanced as an argument against the sabbath.
Secondly, it is a well-known truth that the apostles commanded the churches everywhere to observe the Lord‘s day (refer to the above). It is common knowledge that there was neither any contention concerning that day, nor was there any intent to force or eradicate the observance of this day contrary to the wishes of the apostles. It is thus evident when the apostle, in the texts mentioned, opposes those who wished to introduce the observance of days, that he does not have the Lord‘s day in view, and that no one in the first congregations had any such thoughts as far as this day was concerned. Rather, everyone understood very well that the apostle did not speak of this day, but of other Jewish ceremonial days. If, however, the apostle does not speak in these texts of the Lord‘s day, one can neither make use of them to prevent the observance of the Lord‘s day, for one would thus miss the point of the question completely, which is: Ought one to observe the seventh day, which is the sabbath, and is called the Lord‘s day?
Evasive Argument: These texts are presented, not to prevent the observance of the Lord‘s day, but to demonstrate that one is not to observe this day by virtue of some divine commandment, and that we observe it only as an institution of men.
Answer: If the apostle does not speak of the Lord‘s day at all, then he also does not say whether it is to be observed either by virtue of a divine commandment or a human institution. Thus, neither proposition can be confirmed or refuted by these texts. The apostle is referring to the Jewish ceremonial days, so that one would first have to prove that the seventh day -- the sabbath or the Day of the Lord -- is a ceremony and shadow. Only then can one produce these texts in order to refute the observance of the sabbath. To maintain, however, that the apostle forbids the observance of ceremonial days, and that the sabbath is consequently ceremonial, is an invalid conclusion.
Thirdly, if all distinction between days had been forbidden here, the apostles could not have instituted the Lord‘s day. The church would then also not be able to either institute or observe the Lord‘s day, prayer days, or days of thanksgiving, as the distinction of days of which Paul speaks in this text is harmful to the gospel. Such observance would thus be contrary to the command of the apostles, and would be such will-worship as is condemned in Matthew 15:9. Indeed, since the distinction of foods is here placed on the same level with the distinction of days, the former being a sign of the antichrist and a doctrine of devils -- "commanding to abstain from meats" (1 Timothy 4:3) -- then the institution of the distinction of days (if the apostle were condemning this in a general sense) would lean greatly in that direction. It is thus very evident that the apostle does not speak in a general sense against the observance of times and days, but he speaks against the observance of Jewish and ceremonial days. One can thus not conclude that the distinction of days, and thus also the sabbath has ceased. And as long as one has not proven that the observance of the sabbath or the Lord‘s day (by virtue of God‘s command) is Jewish and ceremonial, one may not advance these texts as an argument against it. If, however, such were the case, only then would they be applicable, and not any earlier.
Fourthly, if we may not judge each other in the observance of this day -- indeed, if those were the strongest in the faith who do not observe such a day and if such observance were injurious to the gospel -- then no one is under obligation. Yes, the best thing to do would be to work on the Lord‘s day and let those go to church who wish to do so. However, no one will admit to that. It is thus evident that these texts are not general, but refer to the Jewish ceremonial days. However, then they do not pertain to the question whether or not the Lord‘s day should be observed by virtue of God‘s command or by virtue of human institution; for this is an entirely different question. We readily subscribe to and contend for the interpretation that the apostle speaks of Jewish ceremonial days, and that they may not be instituted again. What proof does this yield, however, in opposition to the sabbath of the fourth commandment, which had already been instituted prior to the fall (Genesis 2:1-25)? The proof derived from these texts is thus: The Jewish days must be abolished and consequently the sabbath must be abolished. The Jewish days are ceremonial in nature and thus the sabbath is ceremonial. Who cannot see that such a conclusion is invalid? One would first have to determine that the sabbath is Jewish and ceremonial and then conclude that it must be abolished. However, the first cannot be proven from these texts, as we have demonstrated. Let us now consider each text in particular. As far as Romans 14:5-6 is concerned, the question is whether the observance of all days should be tolerated. The believers among the Gentiles (who constituted the church) understood correctly that one was not bound to the Jewish days, and that the distinction of foods had also ceased. The weak believers among the Jews, who had joined themselves to the congregation, understood indeed that the ceremonies were to be eliminated, for they confessed that Christ had already come; however, they deemed that the Jewish days still had to be religiously observed, and that one as yet was not permitted to eat all foods. The believers among the Gentiles could not tolerate this. Paul exhorts that for the time being one must bear with those who are weak, and that the ceremonial days were not observed in a ceremonial sense, but engaged in as religious exercises. They would thus observe them unto the Lord, which could be tolerated for some time. The Jews, in turn, had to tolerate that the Gentiles did not observe these days. Thus, this text does not apply in the least to the Lord‘s day, that is, the sabbath.
Let us consider Galatians 4:10-11. Rather than tolerating the weak believers among the Jews (Romans 14:1-23), the apostle does not want it to be tolerated that the Jews would forcefully defend the entire ceremonial service (and thus also the Jewish days), reintroduce it, and compel others to do likewise, as the Jews attempted to do (cf. Galatians 3:1, etc; Galatians 4:9). That which can be tolerated in someone who himself is weak but quiet, cannot be tolerated when someone becomes bold thereby and forces his errors upon others. Not one word is mentioned here as to whether the sabbath is either ceremonial or moral, or whether it ought to be abolished or remain in force. In these general answers it has now been demonstrated that these texts are not to be interpreted in a general sense, and that from a general proposition concerning all Jewish days nothing can be concluded in opposition to the sabbath.
Evasive Argument: This must be understood as a reference to all the holy days of the Jews -- even of the weekly sabbath. Mention is made here of years (to which belonged the seventh year and the year of jubilee), and of times, which are the three solemn feast days Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. It also mentions months (which are the new moons), and days, which can be nothing else but the seventh day, that is, the sabbath.
Answer: First, it must be proven that the apostle understood by these words the feast days mentioned. Secondly, even if it were admitted that it refers to years, months, and times, it nevertheless does not follow that one must understand "days" to refer to the sabbath of the fourth commandment -- unless they, in addition to the times mentioned (years, months, and seventh day) had no other days. However, they had other high-days in addition to those, as is to be observed in Leviticus 23:1-44 and will soon be demonstrated from Colossians 2:1-23. The other feast days were of the same nature as those times, years, and months. Thus, by reason of the mention of "days" here, it does not follow that the sabbath must be counted among them. Since the seventh-day sabbath is, however, not of the same nature as the other days, but is moral, and is advantageous rather than detrimental to the gospel, it is evident that the apostle does not speak of the sabbath here. Add to this the answers given to the general questions.
Let us consider Colossians 2:16-17. In order to understand this text, it must first be noted that the Jews had many sabbaths. There were the fifteenth day of the first month (Leviticus 23:2-7), the last day of the Passover, and in Leviticus 23:21 yet another feast day is mentioned. Furthermore, there are the first day of the seventh month (Leviticus 23:27-25), the tenth day of the seventh month (Leviticus 23:27-28), and the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:36). All of these were ceremonial in nature. In addition to these there was, however, one which already had been there from the beginning, and which has been commanded in the fourth commandment of the moral law. This sabbath was of an entirely different nature; it was of a moral nature.
Secondly, matters of a different nature may have the same name. Judas the traitor and Jude, the author of a powerful epistle, have identical names. In Dutch these two names are identical in spelling. Nevertheless it may not be said of both what is said of Judas. One may thus also not say of all sabbaths what is said of the sabbath, for they are distinct. There are ceremonial sabbaths -- which bear the name sabbath together with the moral sabbath, due to having rest as a common focus -- as well as the moral sabbath.
Thirdly, an unrestricted manner of speech may not be made applicable to all matters which bear a given name; rather, one must limit himself to the subject matter under discussion. This will be understood by every intelligent person. In order to demonstrate this to the inexperienced, however, let us take note of this text. The words "food" and "drink" are used here in the same unrestricted sense as the word "sabbaths." It can readily be understood, however, that under the words "food" and "drink" not all food and drink must be comprehended, even though it bears the name of food and drink. Rather, it only refers to that food and drink in question, which are not vegetables, bread, etc., but the foods forbidden in the ceremonial law, which the apostle gives them the liberty to use. Once more, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" (1 John 5:3). One may not conclude from this that he ought to keep the ceremonial laws in the New Testament merely because they bear the name of commandments. Rather, one must understand this to refer to the commandments which are now in force. And thus there are numerous texts in which unrestricted usage must be interpreted according to the context, and it must not be extended to all that bears that name. If you apply this rule to the word "sabbaths," the difficulty will have been removed. In the Old Testament there were many sabbaths. Matters of a different nature do bear the same name. From an unrestricted manner of speech one may not make applications to all that bears that name. This being irrefutable, it is likewise irrefutable that one may not come to the conclusion that the seventh-day sabbath has been abolished simply because the apostle uses the word "sabbaths" in an unrestricted sense. Rather, one must apply this to those sabbaths which are of one and the same nature as food and drink, that is, which were ceremonial and typical, as is to be observed in Leviticus 23:17. One may thus not conclude that the seventh-day sabbath is a shadow merely because there are food, drink, feast days, and sabbaths which are shadows.
Fourthly, it can readily be observed that it is not the apostle‘s intention to prove what is typical and what is not, but rather what needs to be abolished due to being typical. Among them he mentions the sabbaths, but neither does he say "all sabbaths" or "such and such a sabbath," for it is evident to which sabbaths he refers here. It is likewise understood which sabbath he did not refer to, since the seventh-day sabbath was observed by the congregation, and there was no question concerning this. One ought therefore first to prove that the weekly sabbath belonged to the shadows, and then this text will be applicable as far as abolishing the sabbath is concerned.
Fifthly, consider furthermore that it reads "sabbaths," and not "sabbath," since the seventh-day sabbath is generally referred to in God‘s Word by the singular form "sabbath"; if "sabbaths" occurs, then it occurs due to the continual repetition of every seventh day. It also needs to be considered that Paul is not speaking here to Jews who were external to the church, so that Christians would be contrasted with Jews and he was thus rebuking their religion, but to those who were within the church and by whom the weekly sabbath, also called the Lord‘s day, was observed.
Objection #5: The Sabbath is Typical of the New Testament Dispensation
"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as He said, As I have sworn in My wrath, if they shall enter into My rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all His works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into My rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: again, He limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To-day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would He not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief" (Hebrews 4:1-11). The apparent strength of the argument lies herein:
(1) The rest which remains is understood to be the deliverance from the ceremonial law, and thus represents the New Testament dispensation.
(2) This rest -- said to be the New Testament dispensation -- was depicted by God‘s rest on the seventh day and by the rest in Canaan.
(3) Since the New Testament dispensation is now upon us, the seventh day -- being a shadow which no longer exists -- has been entirely eliminated. Answer: First, these texts cannot be advanced by those who hold to some moral dimension in the fourth commandment, and who consider the continuation of a day of worship a necessity. For this text absolutely denies the seventh day and all rest -- except the other rest which yet remains.
Secondly, we absolutely deny that by "the rest which remaineth” is understood the abrogation of the ceremonies, that is, to the New Testament dispensation.
Neither in the matter itself nor in the text is there the least proof; instead, heaven is understood by this.
(1) Each and everyone whom the apostle addresses here (also unbelievers) was already discharged from the ceremonial law. Christ had already abolished all shadows and thus all would then enjoy this rest. Nevertheless, the apostle declares that no one but true believers and all the people of God shall enter into this rest which remains.
(2) The apostle exhorts the godly -- who already had been delivered from the ceremonies -- that they should give diligence to enter into this rest which yet remains and is yet in the future for God‘s people.
Thirdly, the apostle here speaks of such a rest of which they also who lived in the Old Testament could become partakers if they believed, and from which they were deprived by nothing other than unbelief (Hebrews 4:2). Thus, this rest is not a discharge from ceremonies, but something else which one could obtain while partaking of the ceremonies, and which one, due to unbelief, could come short of subsequent to having partaken of the ceremonies, that is, come short of heaven.
Fourthly, we deny at the same time that the New Testament dispensation was typified by the rest in Canaan and by the rest of the seventh day. For 1) God‘s Word states this neither here nor elsewhere. 2) To designate God‘s rest on the seventh day as being typical of the New Testament dispensation, and of the abolition of the ceremonies of the Old Testament -- which must necessarily be maintained by those who wish to advance this text contrary to the sabbath -- is without proof, too farfetched, and too brazen an assertion. Since the seventh day existed prior to the fall, it could be no ceremony of something which points to Christ and the New Testament dispensation. It is thus evident that the seventh day was not a depiction of the days of the New Testament.
Fifthly, the apostle demonstrates here that neither Canaan nor the sabbath was the true rest, but that believers must have a different rest in view -- a rest which they as yet did not possess: the eternal rest in heaven, which believing souls would enjoy as soon as they depart from this life. "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them" (Revelation 14:13). This blessed rest is declared by the gospel to both the church of the Old Testament and also now in the days of the New Testament (Hebrews 4:2, etc.).
Objection #6: The Sabbath Is to Be Observed on the Seventh Day Following Six Workdays
If the fourth commandment were to belong to the moral law -- and thus be binding upon us -- then the seventh day after creation ought to be celebrated. However, not this day but rather the first day of the week is celebrated.
Answer: To remove the burden of this difficulty, the following matters ought to be noted. First, in one and the same commandment various things which belong to each other can be commanded, yet in such a manner that the focus is primarily upon one matter. The others being subservient to this are commanded as well. For example, a government commands a specific individual to pay certain taxes on a given day. Three matters are commanded there: the time, the tax, and who will receive them. Everyone can perceive, however, that the tax is the primary issue, even though the other two injunctions must also be obeyed. Such is also the case here. Time and matter are commanded in the fourth commandment, that is, holy rest and the seventh day to that end. The holy rest has the primary position in the commandment. "Remember (not the seventh day, but) the sabbath day to keep it holy." The time is indicated subsequent to this: "The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord." These two may not be separated; nevertheless the holy rest is of primary importance.
Secondly, there is no mystery concealed in the moment as to when the seventh day after creation occurs, for when God commanded the human race in Paradise to hallow the seventh day, it would have been impossible for all men occupying the globe to begin the sabbath at the very same hour. It must have differed as much as twelve hours. Thus, when the one part of the world began and observed its sabbath, the other part was still permitted to work twelve hours, and whereas the other portion was finished and had again begun to work, the other was still observing the sabbath. For when it is day for one portion of the world, it is night for the opposite portion. We also know that during the time of Joshua there was a week which was approximately twenty-four or twelve hours longer, and thus an entire day longer than other weeks (Joshua 10:13). Consequently, all sabbaths subsequent to this came twenty-four or twelve hours later than the previous sabbaths. It also has never created a problem for the dispersed Jewish church that the one began and finished the sabbath a few hours earlier than the other, this being contingent upon whether they were dispersed toward the east or toward the west. We thus observe that there is no mysterious element in the moment itself -- be there a difference of twelve hours -- and that such can occur while the matter itself remains in force in its entirety.
Thirdly, one must make a distinction between the commandments and the circumstances surrounding the commandments. The circumstances indeed change, but the matter nevertheless remains.
(1) For example, the second commandment dictates the manner of worship. However, in the Old Testament God wanted to be served by external elements, as being shadows. God abolished this entire method in the New Testament and replaced it by an invisible manner of worship -- without this ceremonial framework -- although the commandment remained in force. This change is significantly greater than the continuation of some hours. Even though it is not expressed in the commandment, it is a known fact that the ceremonial laws, in regard to their foundation, must be related to the second commandment.
(2) Once more, the fifth commandment promises a long life in Canaan; this only was applicable among the Jews. God abolishes this in the New Testament and replaces Canaan by everyone‘s residence (Ephesians 6:3), and thus the commandment remains in full force. One must therefore in the fourth commandment also make a distinction between the matter which is commanded, and the attending circumstances. Likewise also here the matter itself can be preserved, even though there is some continuation of some hours, or of one day.
Fourthly, one must strictly observe this commandment and neither add or take away anything, due to prejudice, nor give anything a different meaning. If we thus approach the fourth commandment, we shall find there the injunction, application, and argument for observance. The injunction is: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God." Not a word is mentioned here of the seventh day in the order of creation, but only of the seventh day which follows after six workdays. However, how will one know which seventh day? Is it a matter of indifference? Is this left to the freedom of each man? No. God had already made known since Adam that He wanted the seventh day observed (consistent with the order of creation) -- which is to be observed from the reason added to this commandment. Thus, this attending circumstance of the seventh day as being in precise harmony with the sequence of creation does not belong to the essence of the commandment. If God thus causes the commandment to remain in force -- that is, the hallowing of the seventh day -- and He changes something in the attending circumstance which preserves the holiness and the hallowing of the seventh day; and if by the advancement of some hours on a given day it no longer is the seventh day in chronological order from creation, no change occurs in the essence of the commandment, but only to a small degree in the circumstances. However, God has indeed advanced the sabbath by one day, so that the sabbath is no longer the seventh day from creation in a chronological sense, but it nevertheless remains the seventh day which follows six workdays. This change has not come about by human initiative, but by the initiative of Christ and His apostles. This is first of all evident from Christ‘s appearance on that day to His gathered disciples and the repetition thereof on the subsequent first days of the week. We do not read of an express institution here, but it shows, nevertheless, that since the resurrection of Christ, the first day of the week has been observed according to the reckoning of the Jews.
Secondly, consider furthermore the ordinances of the apostles -- who were moved by the Holy Spirit -- and of Christ who instructed them in the forty days prior to His ascension in those things which they were not able to bear prior to that. Consider also the continual practice of the church during the apostolic age, as is to be observed in Acts 20:7, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." Why is mention made here of the day, that is, of the first day of the week? Why did the church gather on this given day and celebrate the Lord‘s Supper? Why is it recorded that Paul preached on that day? Why is it added that he was ready to depart on the morrow? This confirms that the sabbath was observed on the first day of the week.
Consider furthermore 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 : "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." Why was it the first day of the week? Why were alms gathered then? Does not this again clearly indicate that the sabbath was the first day of the week, and that the work pertaining to the sabbath had to be performed? By what other argument and on what other basis did they observe this day, except the institution of Christ commanded to His disciples, be it orally or by His Holy Spirit? For the apostles would not have tolerated any human institutions.
Add to this Revelation 1:10, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord‘s day." Observe again how this day is acknowledged. But why is it called "the Lord‘s Day"? This is so because the Lord has instituted it. For the same reason it is called the sabbath of the Lord, and the Holy Supper is called the table of the Lord. It is also suggested that this day is called the Lord‘s day because Christ arose from the dead on that day. To this I reply that the matter is indeed true, for the first day of the week is indeed the day of Christ‘s resurrection. It will never be proven, however, that the apostle focuses only on this in the text. This manner of speech, in harmony with God‘s Word, points to its institution.
Thirdly, consider also the continual and common use of this day from the resurrection of Christ until this day -- as recounted in the foregoing. From all this it is evident that the change of this day is not a human but a divine institution. It therefore remains unchangeable, and not a single specific church has had the heart to change that day.
Evasive Argument: Should not the change in the New Testament have been conveyed by an express command?
Answer: We have no right to give God directions. If we did not wish to adhere to this commandment, and did not understand its meaning due to our blindness, would God then be obligated to give us that command by renewal, doing so with words which we ourselves would formulate? That one commandment ought to be sufficient for you, for it is not a new commandment, but only a change in circumstances. Thus, if you presently do not observe the sabbath, you are transgressing the commandment. If there is a sabbath, would you then desire any other day except the day which Christ and His disciples have observed and imposed upon the church -- this being confirmed by the practice of the church for a duration of seventeen hundred years?
Question However, what is the reason for the change of this day?
Answer: It is foolishness to demand a reason from the sovereign Lawgiver. If His commandment is not sufficient for you, no reason will satisfy you. In the entire New Testament I observe a very great change in the entire manner of worship. I observe that the Redeemer of the world has risen on the first day of the week. I observe that by the observance of the first day of the week the church is separated from the Jews, Muslims, and heathen. I observe that thereby the entire Jewish religion stands condemned, and that the heathen ought to be convicted of their ungodliness. This suffices for me and ought to be satisfactory to everyone.
Objection #7: The Sabbath is a Ceremony Typifying Spiritual Worship Would it not be possible to say that we ought to observe the sabbath in the New Testament by reason of the fourth commandment, doing so because it is a ceremony -- the ceremonies being examples of the spiritual worship of the New Testament? Does not the fourth commandment obligate us in that respect to a spiritual rest and a public glorification of God?
Answer: From every angle this objection is fraught with errors and absurdities.
(1) If one maintains and teaches that we must observe the sabbath by reason of the fourth commandment, and one keeps silent about his perception as to the manner in which this is to be understood, he is deceitful by way of aequivocatio, or allusion, for he appears to be orthodox, whereas his sentiments are entirely to the contrary.
(2) One establishes a false foundation, namely, that the fourth commandment is ceremonial. It is, however, entirely moral in nature and literally has nothing ceremonial or typical in it, which we have demonstrated comprehensively. The foundation being contrary to truth, all that is built upon this argument is contrary to truth.
(3) It is also untrue that the ceremonies of the Old Testament are exemplary of the spiritual worship of the New Testament. We are entirely and completely free from the ceremonial law, and are under no obligation to it in any part or in any respect. The ceremonies were typical examples of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, and have been fulfilled and abrogated in Him. One can indeed learn many things from the ceremonies about God, Christ, and the duties of true partakers of the covenant, and cause them to bear upon us by way of application, "for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning" (Romans 15:4); however, they do not place us under obligation. Not the ceremonial law, but the moral law is our rule -- our perfect rule. Only the moral law obligates us to all that is spiritual and to all that must be performed by us; we must live according to that law and not according to the ceremonial law.
(4) To maintain that, by reason of the fourth commandment, we must observe the sabbath in such a sense, is to fully subject us who are in the New Testament to the ceremonies again by observing them from the very beginning. For every ceremony would then obligate us to such and such a spiritual duty -- whatever one can deduce by way of application. The duty can be good, but the efficacy which obligates us proceeds from the moral law; or else, it would again become touch not and taste not.