04. Fourth Commandment
The Fourth Commandment
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it. [Exodus 20:8-11]
Difficulties. There are four apparent difficulties in understanding the fourth commandment’s authority and relevance in society today:
1. The Sabbath’s institution. Was the Sabbath non-existent before Exodus 16:1-36 or simply unmentioned?
2. The Sabbath’s observance. Was observance of the Sabbath required in Paradise? Seemingly not, because no mention is made in Genesis 2:2-3 to man.
3. The Sabbath’s abiding validity. Nowhere do we read that Christ transformed the Sabbath into Sunday.
4. The early church’s inattention to the fourth commandment. They often worshiped on Sunday, but they worked too. Constantine proclaimed Sunday a day of rest in AD 321. Sunday was isolated for worship, but apparently not on the basis of the fourth commandment.
Celebrating the Sabbath. The Sabbath was never meant to be oppressive. It was not something from which Christ had to liberate the people, as so many argue. The Israelite was commanded to rest on the Sabbath in order to be refreshed (Exodus 23:12). The Sabbath was a commemoration both of God’s creation rest and of Israel’s liberation from Egypt. Just as the Sabbath commemorated liberation from Egyptian slavery, so Sunday commemorates Christ’s resurrection. The tone of celebration was always there. A song was written for this celebration (Psalms 92:1-15) and it is called, in Scripture, a delight (Isaiah 58:13). The Sabbath was not observed as ‘restrictive’ by Jesus who performed a variety of works on the Sabbath, including a variety of healings (Mark 3:2-5; Luke 13:11-17, etc.). Such works were in obvious conflict with the Jewish interpretation of the law (Halacha), but in accord with the joy and restoration characterizing the Sabbath day prescribed in the Old Testament. "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath!" (Mark 2:27). The Sabbath is a gift, to be commemorated without burdensome hindrances. Christ restored the Sabbath to its original beauty and luster.
Filling the Sabbath. Relaxation was not the only purpose for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man, but was identified by Yahweh also as His Sabbath (Exodus 31:13; Leviticus 19:3; Isaiah 56:4) etc. The fourth commandment describes it as a "Sabbath consecrated to Yahweh your God." Israel was to praise Him (Psalms 92:1-15), to exercise fellowship with Him, to bring sacrifices to Him (Numbers 28:9-10), to honor His sanctuary (Leviticus 19:30; Leviticus 26:2) and to hear His word (2 Kings 4:23). Resting therefore was accompanied by holding sacred assemblies and praising Yahweh. These two activities are combined in some passages (see Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 28:25). During the Exile synagogue worship was introduced - something Jesus customarily attended. Jesus also made use of the opportunity in this worship for extemporaneous sermons. The Sabbath is a joy for man, but man finds His deepest joy in pleasing the Lord.
Distorting the Sabbath - The Gross Distortion. The temptation often arose in Old Testament Israel to work on the Sabbath (see Amos 8:5; Isaiah 58:3; Nehemiah 13:15-22). The Sabbath, therefore, would often be trampled underfoot by profit-driven entrepreneurs. For people looking to please themselves, the law of God became a law of limitations rather than a law of liberty. Transgression of the fourth commandment in this way bore a special character. Why? The Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between Yahweh and His people (Exodus 31:12-17). The Sabbath day showed who Israel was: a chosen and liberated people who could relax for a day in view of the Lord’s providential provision. The relationship between the Sabbath and liberty is highlighted in the so-called sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee: the land was given rest and the slave freed (Leviticus 25:8-9). Observing the Sabbath required faith. Where faith is destroyed, the Sabbath is destroyed. One who violates the Sabbath violates the covenant. Sabbath violation in Israel was often the source of calamity (Nehemiah 13:18; Ezekiel 20:13).
One More Distortion - The Refined Distortion.The Jewish authorities distorted the Sabbath "in garments of piety" by immersing it in countless precepts. This may have been motivated by respect for the law, but eventually the traditions became more authoritative than the Scripture. In the development of this expanded casuistry, freedom was placed in bondage. The Mosaic Law, however, did required careful observance. While the feast days prohibited ‘servile labor,’ the Sabbath prohibited all work (cf. Leviticus 23:3 with Leviticus 23:7-8). But as a whole, the Sabbath was positive for the life of the Israelites (see Ezekiel 20:18-30). The following two proofs confirm that the Israelites were not in straitjackets on the Sabbath: Joshua led Israel around Jericho seven times on a Sabbath (Joshua 6:15-20) and the Shunammite woman consistently walked 20 miles to see the man of God on the Sabbath (2 Kings 4:23 - the command in Exodus 16:29 forbidding Israelite’s from exiting the camp was designed only for their trip to Canaan and was not a perpetual regulation.).
Preliminary Assessment. From the above, we can locate these similarities between Sunday and Sabbath:
1. Both days possess a special character. The Sabbath points back to creation or liberation, Sunday to the resurrection of Christ.
2. Both days are feast days. Sunday celebration, which commemorated Christ’s resurrection and deliverance from sin, extends and expands Israel’s deliverance from Egypt.
3. Both days have worship in a central place. From ‘holy assemblies’ to synagogue worship to modern church services.
4. Both days can be violated in similar ways. People become enslaved to their own work and are unable to set aside a day for celebration.
One Day or Every Day? Calvin argues that the Sabbath was given for three reasons: to depict spiritual rest, to preserve ecclesiastical order and to provide relief to workers. Just as Israel was to observe a complete rest externally, so we should rest inwardly, putting to death our own will and allowing God to work in us. Christ, who is the full reality ending all Old Testament shadows, is no longer satisfied with one day, but wants the full span of our lives. Only because of human weakness do we still observe one day instead of seven as our Sabbath. Since the larger society has no time for such widespread worship, we must reserve at least one day. But the begging question is; why is one in seven a sign of weakness, especially if God rested one day in seven?
Calvin’s understanding, first of all, over-spiritualizes the Sabbath in emphasizing only our spiritual rest from evil works, thereby neglecting the external features, such as rest from physical work. The spiritual essence of the fourth commandment does exist apart from the physical rest, but within it. The ‘ordinary’ physical rest, by which we catch our breath and praise God, is in itself a spiritual enjoyment. Calvin’s understanding, secondly, eliminates the special character of weekdays to do God-glorifying, though perhaps menial labor. We have six days to do our work - that is Yahweh-serving too!
Ceremonial and/or Moral? Calvin’s understanding of the Sabbath is rooted in an earlier theological distinction between the literal and allegorical meanings of biblical expressions. Allegorical interpretation seeks deeper, spiritual meanings for ordinary, earthly events - e.g. Rahab’s red cord foreshadows Christ’s blood. For the most part, Calvin denounced this tradition with his sober exegesis. But here he capitulates, perhaps under the influence of Augustine, who interpreted external rest simply in terms of signifying the future rest Jesus identified in his gospel offer (Matthew 11:28). But how significant then, is resting from physical labor? Are we left then with but nine commandments? The distinction between literal and allegorical was later accompanied by the distinction between ceremonial and moral, where ceremonial refers to what is no longer binding and moral to what remains binding. The term ‘ceremonial’ can have at least three different meanings, all of which promotes confusion, rather than clarification. Aquinas argued that the Sabbath is ceremonial (1) in that it fell on Saturday - something has disappeared, (2) in that it adumbrates Christ’s rest in the grave - something now fulfilled is foreshadowed and (3) in that it points ahead to our heavenly rest - something unfulfilled is foreshadowed. The term ceremonial, therefore, is confusing. The distinction between permanent and provisional is much more helpful.
Hebrews 4:1-16.Hebrews 4:1-16 is often appealed to, to demonstrate the provisional character of the Old Testament Sabbath. The question of the Sabbath day in this passage is only indirectly present. What are in view are Sabbath places, more so than Sabbath days. Often we could translate the word ‘rest’ simply by ‘resting place.’ This activity of resting is not an exclusively Old Testament phenomenon - therein lies the mistake - it is also a New Testament phenomenon since we too rest on the Sabbath in anticipation of the heavenly and definitive rest. The relationship between the Sabbath of old and the Sunday of now is analogous to the Passover of old and the Lord’s Supper of now - we are still awaiting something: the eternal rest and the great banquet feast.
Once More: the Difficulties.We wish to affirm that the fourth commandment remains intact for today. To do so, the objections mentioned in the beginning must be dealt with:
1. The institution of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was not given at creation as a universal human institution but was given to Israel (Ezra 20:10-12 [Ezra 10:10-12?]; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14; Exodus 16:29). The Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel (Exodus 31:12-17; Ezekiel 20:20). Not everything beginning with Israel ended with her. Yet while the Sabbath may not have been present from the beginning, the elements of the Sabbath certainly were (e.g. prayer, Genesis 4:26). The essence of the fourth commandment is permanent; its expression is from Sinai onward. Mankind always had to set aside time to worship (essence), but not always on the Sabbath (expression).
2. The observance of the Sabbath. Since the Sabbath was not instituted at creation, it was not intended to be observed then either. God sanctified the seventh day of the creation week for Himself. He set apart this day to rest. Later, He required the Israelites to do the same. The fourth commandment doesn’t say the Sabbath was instituted at creation, but simply grounded in God’s creation rest. Again, the question we ask is, why couldn’t a gift and a mandate that originated at a later time become so universally significant that it embraces our Sunday?
Texts from Paul’s Epistles.
3. The abiding validity of the Sabbath. The fourth commandment is not expressly maintained in the New Testament. In fact, the initial impression we get from some of Paul’s epistles is that it has expired with Christ.
A. It is true that nowhere is the fourth commandment explicitly maintained, but even more so, nowhere is it explicitly done away with.
B. Jesus, though resisting the pharisaical understanding of the Sabbath, upheld the Sabbath in His life, even emphasizing its festive character. Would this gift of refreshment and celebration and praise not be fitting for the new dispensation?
C. Paul’s remarks must be understood in terms of their context and his audiences. Such an investigation will lead to our conclusion that Paul is not disposing of the fourth commandment.
I. Romans 14:5. The days mentioned here are clearly days of fasting because of the context of eating and not eating. The Sabbath had to do with feasting, not fasting.
II. Galatians 4:10. Paul here, in addressing the Judaizers, is not rendering an isolated judgment about the fourth commandment, but is discussing the Sabbath in the context of matters like circumcision and the entire Jewishfestival cycle. This entire cycle was established by the Judaizers as an indispensable condition for sharing in the salvation of Jesus the Messiah. The Jewish Sabbath has ceased to be replaced by Sunday. The fourth commandment has abiding validity.
III. Colossians 2:16-17. Paul here is addressing a legalistic-ascetic religiosity of a Jewish-pagan brand. He explains that the Sabbath was a shadow - a vague outline of what Christ would bestow upon His church. With the coming of Christ, it is not longer possible to travel the old paths of circumcision, feast-days, Passover and Sabbath. Their shadows have disappeared and something more Christ-apparent has appeared it its place - baptism, the Lord’s Supper (no shedding of blood) and Sunday. From Sabbath to Sunday.
4. It is apparent that the early church did not view Sunday observance as a requirement of the fourth commandment. Some have argued, in line with this, that Sunday observance is an ecclesiastical ordinance rather than a divine one. With this we must agree, but in a qualified way. Sunday observance is an ecclesiastical ordinance, which inevitably followed on account of the Spirit of Christ who has led the church into all truth. The authority of this ecclesiastical ordinance lay with the Lord of the Sabbath. Sunday observance, therefore, was not merely an ecclesiastical ordinance. That’s why, beginning already with the Bible (Revelation 1:10) Sunday became known as ‘the Lord’s Day.’ The Didache, Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Tertullian and Dionysius of Corinth (ca.170), who spoke of the ’holy Lord’s Day, repeat this designation The question remains, why didn’t these early writers make the connection between Sunday and the fourth commandment? A number of reasons are possible: (1) the tension between Christians and Jews would have resulted in an aversion to attach a Christian activity to a Jewish precept; (2) the allegorical understanding of those, such as Augustine, who held that the significance of the fourth commandment for us today was purely spiritual - rest from our evil works. The early church may have been weak in this, but she no doubt received Sunday as a day of joy in line with the original intention of the Sabbath. The Provisional and the Permanent. The terms provisional and permanent are much more fitting than ceremonial and moral. The Sabbath was provisional in that Christ has fulfilled it. As a commemoration of liberation from Egypt, the Sabbath was a ‘shadow’ of what we now possess in Christ, who it its ‘substance.’ Our commemoration on Sunday focuses on Christ and His resurrection from the grave. Much about the Sabbath remains permanent:
1. Sunday looks back, like the Sabbath, to God’s seventh day rest - one day rest in seven;
2. Sunday looks forward, like the Sabbath, to our definitive rest from our evil works (Hebrews 4:10). The following elements were provisional:
1. The Sabbath is no longer observed on Sunday
2. The entire Sabbatical cycle is no longer observed because of its inseparable ties with Israel’s existence as a separate theocratic nation (e.g. regulations about working the land, releasing slaves, etc.)
3. Capital punishment for Sabbath desecration has passed away. This sanction too was tied to Israel’s separate existence as a special people wholly dedicated to Yahweh, a people for which civil and ecclesiastical discipline was blurred.
4. Many limitations of Sabbath observance have also passed. Such carefully formulated prohibitions were fitting, whereas the New Testament is characterized as a period of freedom (Galatians 4:1-5). Not Overestimating Confessional Differences. The Westminster Catechism focuses on rest from daily work, while the Heidelberg Catechism focuses on resting from our evil works. The focuses on not working, the other on worshiping. But in order to worship, one can’t work so the differences are minimal. Besides, both catechisms operate on the assumption that the fourth commandment is abiding.
Celebrating Sunday. Enjoying Sunday presupposes a few important realities, such as:
1. Denying oneself-relinquishing our ordinary daily concerns. We must not be enslaved to any daily activity, be it our employment or our hobbies or our leisure.
2. Loving neighbor-cherishing other people. In the Old Testament, everyone was equal in that everyone rested - family members, slaves, work animals and the stranger. The celebration of the Sabbath is not an individual activity, but requires the communal celebration of our liberation through Christ Jesus. We must be, and act like, a communion of saints.
3. Serving God-devoting the day to God. Sunday was created for man, but it remains the Lord’s Day. We must do things on that day for the Lord that we can’t do normally on other days - going to church, but also singing and praying as a family and discussing our obligations as Christians.
Sunday must take on a special character, different even from a Saturday off work. Sunday involves rest, but rest is tied to consecration. Sunday rest therefore differs from holiday rest. We must be selfless on Sundays, rather than selfish.
Filling Our Sunday. On Sunday we celebrate the fact that we are free from ourselves because we are free for God. Excessive casuistry can downplay, even eliminate this celebration. Karl Barth suggested that we must always be in a position to celebrate Sunday as a true day of joy. And Christians cannot defend a uniform celebration of Sunday. Yet there is uniformity to the degree that we all seek to obey the same commandment. We must have uniformity in denying Sunday as a workday, for example, and in upholding Sunday as a ‘church-day.’ The writer to the Hebrews exhorts us not to forsake assembling together. That alone will give shape to our Sunday observance. School assignments, attending sporting events, long trips, etc. are not fitting exercises for Sunday. Wanting to spend the day in communal celebration will also give shape to our Sunday observance. We won’t want to spend it with pagans watching a ball game. We must always be asking the question, what kind of Sunday celebration are we pursuing?
Sunday is a day of consecration and rest. Precisely how we enjoy the Sabbath is a matter of Christian liberty. But Sunday boredom within families is often the result of the inability of families to celebrate Sunday together. Sunday may have a recreational dimension, enjoying things you are not enslaved to which allow for meaningful acknowledgment of the day as the Lord’s day.
Working on Sunday. Christians have always recognized that certain works are permitted on Sunday: works of necessity (pulling an ox out of the pit, Luke 14:5), mercy (healing, Mark 2:31 [Mark 1:31?]) and religion (Matthew 12:5). The work of necessity is the most difficult. Wouldn’t a farmer’s work of baling hay that might otherwise be destroyed by forecasted bad weather be a work of necessity? How about working for utility companies? Two points need to be mentioned: (1) Secularization increases Sunday labor; (2) Many work activities need not be done on Sunday. A nurse’s hours, for example, can be restricted. It would be better to speak of those tasks which might be necessary - work in the health care sector, in service and safety sector (police, telephone operators), work in industrial sector (round-the-clock shifts, long-distance trucking, perishable goods). We must be careful, however, that necessity and mercy don’t become economic productivity and profit. Some jobs simply must be refused in the confession that one who keeps the commandment keeps his soul (Proverbs 19:16). A refusal to work on Sunday may be scorned, but it may also be admired. A Few More Comments. Four questions:
1. Does the fourth commandment require us to work six days?
No, it simply says that we must perform our work within six days. Laziness comes under the eighth commandment.
2. Can we use the term ‘Sunday observance?’
Yes, we serve Christ every day, but on Sunday in a special, prescribed way. It is a holy, set apart day, both because we rest and because we go to church.
3. Is the transgression against the fourth commandment as weighty as the transgression against the sixth?
No, although it may have been in Israel since both were capital offences. Our context and situation, as being significantly different from Israel’s, leads us to this conclusion.
4. Must we rest other Christian feast days to preserve Sunday’s unique significance?
No, because these days can also be spent meaningfully commemorating their own redemptive significance in history.
EXTRACTS FROM CONFESSIONS Westminster Confession of Faith Question115: Which is the fourth commandment?
Answer: The fourth commandment is, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Question116: What is required in the fourth commandment?
Answer: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he has appointed in his Word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called the Lord’s day.
Question117: How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
Answer: The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.
Question118: Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
Answer: The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own.
Question119: What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties required, all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary of them; all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations.
Question120: What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it?
Answer: The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it, are taken from the equity of it, God allowing us six days of seven for our own affairs, and reserving but one for himself, in these words, Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: from God’s challenging a special propriety in that day, The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: from the example of God, who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: and from that blessing which God put upon that day, not only in sanctifying it to be a day for his service, but in ordaining it to be a means of blessing to us in our sanctifying it; Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Question121: Why is the word“remember”set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?
Answer: The word “remember” is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; and partly, because we are very ready to forget it, for that there is less light of nature for it, and yet it restrains our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; that it comes but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it; and that Satan with his instruments much labor to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.
Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 38
Question 103 Q. What does God require in the fourth commandment?
A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained[
[
5. Honor your father and your mother. Then you will have a long life in the land Yahweh your God is giving you. (Exodus 20:12).
5. Honor your father and your mother, as Yahweh your God commanded you. Then you will have a long life and it will go well with you in the land Yahweh your God is giving you. (Deuteronomy 5:16).
Both father and mother
Although this commandment includes the matter of honoring all in authority, we must begin by discussing the honor due to father and mother. The OT Hebrew specifically doesn’t mention a general phrase "parents", but "father and mother". The more general term "parents" is used in NT Greek, and is not really any different than the more specific phrase "father and mother". Mentioning the mother is no afterthought, for she deserves the same respect as the father. Often children misuse the fact that the mother is physically the weaker parent, yet even so they must honour her. Although the husband must lead the wife, children must show equal honor to both mother and father. The role of parents
Why do we have the fifth commandment? One theory is that children had to respect their parents in order to win in their struggle for survival, especially since children followed the occupational choices of their parents. According to this theory, the need that inexperienced children, who don’t know yet what is good for their own future, gave rise to the command that children honor their parents. In this view, since in modern times children depend less on parents for instruction, occupational preparation, etc, it is no wonder that they no longer respect their parents.
However, the fifth commandment wasn’t invented by people and the result of a necessary, evolutionary process, but given by God. Yet there is some truth in this theory: Scripture also indicates that parents are called to provide teaching (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).
Thus in Scripture the instruction-provider and instruction-receiver relationship is often described as the father and son relation (eg Proverbs). The NT also indicates that fatherhood involves instruction (eg Paul says to Corinthians he is their father, and calls Timothy et al his children). Christ also said that the genuine family relationship is characterized by listening to God’s Word, and so such are His mother, brothers, and sisters. In Israel, then, parenthood functioned properly when parents preserved God’s word in their own hearts and handed it on to their children. With this perspective, parents do more than transmit knowledge/skills that render an inexperienced child competent to function in the world. It also involves passing on knowledge that is decisively important for the quality of life, ie living with God.
Instruction was not exclusively the task of the parents - there were also guardians, and other forms of education. Yet even so, it is ultimately the parents who are responsible for their children’s instruction. The early years of a child’s life are very important, when it is exclusively the parents who nurture their children - by Bible stories, songs, prayers, and deciding which school will be used.
Parenthood and freedom The fifth commandment involves freedom. First parents had to tell the story of Israel’s bondage and freedom from Egypt. Then they would say that God commanded observance of His commands so that He might preserve His people alive. Israel’s well-being was thus connected with listening to and obeying God’s commandments. Israel retained her freedom in the Promised Land when her sons and daughters obeyed their parent-teachers. The commandment with a promise The promise of a long life in the Promised Land must be seen in this light, and should neither be absolutized nor downplayed.
1. Not absolutized. In some cases an early death can be a blessing by sparing people of misery (Jeroboam’s son Abijah), and similarly a long life is not a blessing (Psalms 90:10). Sometimes the godless continue to live, and the oppressed righteous suffer. We are citizens of a commonwealth in heaven, and so the promise does remain valid.
2. Not downplayed. The exception doesn’t become the rule. The rule is still valid: anyone who honors his parents will receive benefits from doing so, both in the future as well as now in the present. For example, children are accident-prone, and parents can protect them by warning them about fires, cars, etc. Similarly, wise parents warn against a sinful and dangerous life (Proverbs). Foolishness, laziness etc lead to destruction, whereas righteousness leads to blessing and life. Wisdom thus has physical as well as spiritual benefits.
Parenthood and discipline
Discipline is thus important, not to let off steam, but applied in wisdom as effective medicine. Proverbs indicates that discipline is life-saving! Commands that aren’t supported by discipline become empty and ineffective (eg Eli!). Punishment is painful, but brings fruits later.
It is naive to allow children to make important life choices on their own. During childhood years, very significant decisions with lifelong consequences are being made for the children and not by the children (eg by taking the family to church, reading the Bible). We should thus not give plenty of freedom, for one is truly free only when he loves God and keeps His commandments. Parents commit themselves to this kind of child-rearing at baptism.
Even so, things can go differently, that children follow evil in spite of their good upbringing. Faith is a gift of grace, and children must believe for themselves. Further, in our modern world there are limits: a rebellious son can’t be stoned as he would be in Israel. Yet the underlying principle remains: He who despises the freedom God gives by disobeying parents is foolish, committing a serious sin, and is playing with his life.
Honoring parents
Someone who must be honored is someone of weight ("honor" = "heavy"). God places parents above children, and so they share some of the glory/honor belonging to God. The opposite of respect is disrespect, where something weighty is treated as if it were light. This is a serious wickedness, since we must always continue to honor our parents, even if they become old and useless.
Honoring parents involves several things:
1. Taking to heart their instruction.
2. Show deference toward them, by language and forms of address.
3. Loving them.
4. Being faithful, also providing for them (financially, spiritually) in their old age.
Honoring parents and choosing a spouse
Older commentaries speak about the parents’ task with respect to their children’s courtship and choice of marriage partner. Often there is conflict between parents and children regarding dating and marriage. In the past, the influence of parents in this choice was far greater. Although we don’t have arranged marriages today, parents do have a say about such a serious decision in their child’s life. Children must not see it as strictly private matters beyond parental control. Parents do have a right to be involved in the choice, especially when they see their child take a wrong spiritual turn in dating. Children honor their parents by accepting correction when their parents warn against making wrong choices (eg mixed courtships). Even if the parents are wrong by not accepting a proper partner, one must respect them by discussing openly and honestly with them, and by being as patient as possible. The limits and style of obedience
There are limits to the obedience that children must give. God stands over the parents, and sometimes children must choose for Him and against their parents. For example, when parents don’t teach their children about God and His service, children are not obligated to follow the instruction of their parents. We must love Jesus more than father and mother, says Christ. Obviously one should not too quickly deny obedience to one’s parents. This can happen when someone from a secular home comes to faith in Christ as an adult. Paul said it was possible for an unbeliever and believer to stay in a marriage (1 Corinthians 7:12-16), and so also a spiritual rift need not entail cutting all natural ties. Wisdom is needed in honestly expressing one’s faith convictions while seeking at the same time to maintain family relationships.
Sometimes children are abused. Generally speaking, however, problems between parents and children are rarely of the kind where a choice "for or against Christ" is required. Parents have weaknesses and inadequacies, with which children must be patient. When they get older, children must realize that all parents are sinners, and so within the families children must learn patience and accept the fact that also parents have faults. The limit of obedience thus is that children must obey their parents "in the Lord", ie as long as it is not against the Lord. The style of obedience is also "in the Lord", accepting parents with their weaknesses, just as Christ did. Honouring our parents means we must thus be willing to endure a lot.
Other forms of authority Can we exegetically defend including "all in authority over me" (eg government, elder, teacher)? The Biblical concept of "father" allows this, for the term "father" could apply also to elders, the king, etc. In these relationships of authority, the concept of fatherhood indicates the possession of wisdom and insight. The honor due to father and mother must therefore be given to all those other "fathers" and "mothers". The elderly, the king, etc are all to be shown deference and honour. The honor due to parents, the elderly, judges, princes, and teachers includes the duty to obey. For example, after mentioning this commandment, Paul speaks about the obedience that slaves must give to their masters, wives to husbands, children to parents, etc. Although authority today is less patriarchal, honor and obedience must still be given to those who exercise authority.
Different forms, different words The husband wife relation has now changed, and wives no longer call their husbands "lord" as Sarah did. Although "obey" is no longer in the Dutch form for marriage, the term "follow" contains the notion of a certain rank and authority relationship. Although the fundamental structure remains, cultural changes can necessitate choosing other words.
We see similar changes in the master-servant relationship, and although the texture of the relationship has changed, the concept of authority in the employer-employee relationship remains.
Although authority relationships in the political sphere have changed with democracy, yet a government still rules the people, and an authority relationship remains.
We must take the changes that have taken place into account in our usage. Although we can use terms like "subjection" in the context of parent-child relations, we don’t use it anymore in the context of husband-wife relations. Similar remarks can be made about the employer-employee relationship.
Authority and power The concepts of authority and power aren’t identical: one can possess authority without having the power needed for carrying out his authority (Dutch queen during war). The reverse is also possible.
Power is in itself not bad, but good and necessary. Although it can be abused, in itself it is not brutal or demonic, eg we speak about the power of the word, of love, of numbers. Power is necessary and wholesome for the proper development of society. Defined, it is "the ability to do something."
Authority, defined, is "the authorization for the (appropriate) use of power."
1. It must be "appropriate", ie have a serving character. Those in authority must use their authority appropriately, that is, it must be functional. Is it still authority if it is not used appropriately? Yes. Authority is thus misused, but the authorization for using power is still there. Parents don’t become ex-parents by raising their children inappropriately. Of course, no earthly power is absolute, and can be stripped. There are means in which the authority of parents, office-bearers and governments can have their power taken away.
2. Authority must also be limited by its purpose. eg an employee is only under the authority of his employer during working hours. In this sense, authority is always a limited authority. Even though all authority comes from God, it is not thus untouchable - it has either a wide and narrow scope, of long or short duration. As such, those who possess authority should be respected, even if they are unable to use their power appropriately.
Max Weber (1864-1920) distinguished between authority: a) Charismatic authority characterizes the prophet, hero or leader who speaks to the heart of the people. This authority is easy. b) Traditional authority rests upon "sacred" traditions, such as caste or office. Often this authority is untouchable, though it can also be oppressive. c) Legal authority has no face, and is characterized by laws and bureaucratic institutions.
Although Weber is helpful, he does not take a normative approach. The real basis for respecting authority flows neither from emotions, traditions, or rationality, but from God. People are clothed with authority by God. Although the forms of authority have changed, we are under other people, and this means they have been appointed by God to be over us, and so we must respect them. Regardless of the form of authority, or whether it functions well or badly, one must submit to legitimate authority.
Crisis of authority and handling suffering The influence of and respect for authority has declined in recent times. There is a cry for change, and for greater freedom. The contemporary emphasis describes authority as functional, to the extent that where the appropriate use of power is absent, the authority is also rejected. The result of this view is that authority depends on the person who exercises power, and the God-given origin is forgotten. Consequently, those under authority are the people who determine whether authority functions, and thus whether it can be legitimated. In the case of a negative judgment, then authority no longer exists. Consistently applied, this would mean that children could dismiss their parents, pupils their teachers, etc. The error here is that one can’t conclude from a misuse of authority that the right to exercise authority no longer exists. There may be legitimate means to terminate badly functioning authority. But while in authority, they must be respected, no matter how difficult that might become for us.
How can we explain the drastic lowering of respect for authority?
1. The matter of respect for authority has always been a problem.
2. People often fail to see why defective authority is always better for society than unbridled freedom. In the climate of secularism with its distaste for authority, the entire "capitalist" system with its authority structures is endangered.
3. People are preoccupied with their own individual rights, but forget about their responsibilities. Authority is seen to restrict a person, and hinder individualism.
4. There is less willingness to endure pain. Pain used to be seen as coming from God’s hand, but today even smaller amounts of pain and suffering are endured with much protest.
The authority of the state
Scripture clearly teaches that there must be civil government, contra Anabaptists. Yet the government itself doesn’t have absolute power, but is subject to divine justice and to the laws of the land. The state also has the power to bear the sword. Although ministers and church members can’t defend Christian teaching with physical force, the government may employ force in defending or restoring public order. This understanding accords with Scripture in Romans 13:1-14. Christians in the past have generally operated with a favorable view of government. Politics need not be dirty and ugly, and political power is not a suspicious matter in itself. Although there can be abuses of power, we should not see politics as so thoroughly stained that one can’t avoid getting his hands dirty.
Must we readRomans 13:1-14differently?
Some say that the church has misunderstood Romans 13:1-14, and that a submissive attitude towards the state can’t be deduced from this chapter as is traditionally done.
One evangelical writer says that a person must submit (hupotasso, Romans 13:1) to the powers above him, which is different from obeying (hupakouo). Powers that exist have been ordained "under" (not "by") God. The government is thus a human ordinance, which God did not create, install, or appoint, but ordered and put under Himself. Although the state bears the sword, Romans does not say that this is good - Paul is merely observing a fact. This is part of an order that is passing away. The "good" that Christians must do relates not to obedience to the law, but to the "good" actions of Romans 12:1-21. With this contemporary interpretation, one wonders how much loyalty toward the state was actually left. In fact, this view is incorrect. The word "submit" presupposes an attitude of obedience, as is clear from the use of the word elsewhere in the NT. "Submitting" thus includes "being obedient to". This obedience must be rendered because governments are ordained by God. This is clear from the fact that the government exists in the service of God (v4). The theme of Romans 13:1-7 is that since governments are ordained by God, we must live under them. Resisting the government is thus resisting the ordinance of God. Consequently, we can simply continue to say that the government has been instituted by God. Although the state bears characteristics of the provisional and the passing (eg the sword), it is a present characteristic instituted by God, and so the use of the sword and the use of force is legitimate. Moreover, the context makes clear that the "good" refers to showing loyalty towards the state, such as by honoring its tax laws. So where does this new interpretation comes from? It has its origin in Anabaptism, in which Christ is excluded from worldly politics. They have a theology of a suffering God, whose power consists in a capacity to tolerate everything. This ends up with a theology of revolution, for although they swear off using the sword, they need it to usher in the new and more just order! In contrast, we maintain Romans 13:1-14, which sees the state as instituted by God in order to reward good and punish evil. Although governments do abuse their power (eg Paul imprisoned), the state must be honored. The right of revolution
Although the 5th commandment requires us to respect political authority, resistance is permissible in emergency situations. Sometimes we must obey God rather than man (eg Egyptian midwives), although such actions don’t represent revolution against the government. Religious persecution can be the basis for justifying revolution, but even then freedom of religion is just one of the rights being defended and sought. Other instances can be if a government continually and brutally violates the elementary rights of citizens.
It is necessary that a revolution against the state be conducted by people with political authority. Lesser governments, or leaders recognized by the people, should lead it. In summary, there are three conditions that must be met in order for the right of revolution to exist:
1. Elementary rights belonging to citizens are brutally and continually violated by the government.
2. Persons who may be considered to represent the people are the ones leading the revolution.
3. The probability of success for such a revolution must be high, so that possible bloodshed remains limited.
Civil disobedience
Civil disobedience refers to "publicly visible conduct that consciously violates the law in order to change a law or government regulation by means of what is intended to be nonviolent compulsion." It bears a public character, in the form of sit-ins, blockades, etc.
Objections against civil disobedience:
- In practice, it rarely succeeds in remaining nonviolent.
- It undermines parliamentary democracy.
Christians should avoid civil disobedience. We should use every legal means at our disposal, but not take the law into our own hands by walking outside the fence of the law and try to force our will upon others.
Disobedience to the government can be necessary; but civil disobedience, in terms of both its definition and its well-known practice, looks entirely different from the disobedience commanded for Christians in extreme situations.