Zens Beloved 5

Paul was a unique person. He was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5) who became the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7). He was most fluent in the law, and yet spent much of his time among those “without law” (1 Corinthians 9:21). In order to unfold Paul*s view of law we must first be sensitive to two strands of thought in his writings (cf. Bandstra, chapter 4, “The Law*s Limited Validity and Its Ambivalence,” pp. 115-168).

Thus, it is “typically Pauline to affirm with respect to the Old Testament law, and practices based upon it, both its positive relation with Christ and its having become obsolete in Christ” (Bandstra, p. 91). Says Bolton, “we are not without some places of Scripture which declare the law to be abrogated, and not without some again that speak of it as yet in force” (p. 52). Fairbairn observes that there is a dual reflection upon the law as both good and bad (pp.148-149).

This ambivalence should caution us against extremities. Perhaps it would be fair to judge that generally the Anabaptists did not do justice to the positive aspects of Old Covenant law, and that the Reformed community has not done justice to its negative aspects. Dr. Andrew J. Bandstra*s in-depth treatment in The Law and the Elements of the World (a doctoral dissertation at the Free University of Amsterdam, 1964) is the most satisfying and balanced presentation I have read.

Romans 3:19-20 – “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are in the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”

Paul in verses 10-18 had quoted at length from several portions of the Old Testament. Thus, when he says, “what things so ever the law says,” he has in view not the “moral law” in particular, but the entire Old Testament in general (Murray, vol.1, p. 106). “It says to those in the law” is a proper rendering, rather than “under the law,” and thus both Jews and Gentiles are “in the sphere within which the law of which Paul had quoted samples had relevance” (Murray, vol. 1, p. 106).

Paul then indicates that by law-works no man shall ever be justified. This is indeed contrary to the law itself as he demonstrates in 4:3, 6-8, for the way of salvation has always been “the just shall live by faith,” not “the man that does them shall live in them” (Galatians 3:11-12). Thus, in saying “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (3:20), he “rests his doctrine as to the universality of sin even on the texts of Scripture he had previously cited” (A.B. Bruce, St. Paul*s Conception of Christianity, New York, 1894, p. 127).

Walter Chantry uses 3:20b, following the Puritan tradition, to prove that we must preach the Ten Commandments. “God*s law is an essential ingredient of Gospel preaching, for ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Today*s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic? Banner of Truth, 1976, p. 36). But F.F. Bruce takes issue with such an interpretation –

“The second use (of the law ‘as a summons to repentance’) is recognized by Paul as a fact of experience — “through law comes knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) — but not, it appears, as an aid to gospel preaching. It may be held, as a principle of pastoral theology, that confrontation with the law is a salutary means of leading the sinner to acknowledge his inability and cast himself upon the mercy of God. But there is no evidence that Paul ever used the law in this way in his apostolic preaching” (pp. 191-192).

Since it cannot be exegetically proven that Paul has the Ten Commandments in view when he employs the word “law” in 3:20b, it is certainly tenuous to use this text as proof that preaching from Exodus 20 is essential in gospel preaching cf. Chantry, p 39)

In 3:27, Paul uses the phrase “law of faith” as opposed to salvation by works. Some might suppose that this invalidates the Old Testament, so he indicates in verse 31 that his gospel upholds the law, for righteousness by faith was “witnessed by the law and the prophets” (3:21).

“‘. . . do we then overthrow the law by this faith? . . . By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.’ In the immediate context, in which Paul goes on to expound the narrative of Abraham’s faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness (Romans 4:1-25), it might appear that the law which is upheld by the gospel of justification by faith is the Torah in the wider sense — the Pentateuch, and more particularly the Genesis account of Abraham.

“That is so, but Paul goes on farther to show that the law in its stricter sense, as the embodiment of God*s will, is upheld and fulfilled more adequately in the age of faith than was possible ‘before faith came,’ when law kept the people of God ‘under restraint’ (Galatians 3:23). Only in an atmosphere of spiritual liberty can God*s will be properly obeyed and his law upheld” (p. 201).

I dealt briefly with this verse in “Crucial Thoughts,” p. 12, and will now open it up further. I think this is another case where an incorrect interpretation of a text has become fixed in the history of the Reformed tradition (cf. “What Can We Learn From Reformation History?” Baptist Reformation Review, Autumn, 1978, p. 10).

This text and Romans 3:20b, as far as I can tell, are the chief proof texts in the Epistles which have been used to teach that “the law as a preparation for the gospel, is also part of our ministry” (Bridges, p. 232). Bridges also quotes Archbishop Usher: “First, the covenant of the law is urged, to make sin, and the punishment thereof, known. After this preparation the promises of God are propounded” (Bridges, pp. 233-234).

Walter Chantry states that gospel preachers should “exposit the Ten Commandments until men are slain thereby (Romans 7:11). When you see that men have been wounded by the law, then it is time to pour in the balm of Gospel oil. It is the sharp needle of the law that makes way for the scarlet thread of the Gospel” (p. 43). Spurgeon says –

“I say you have deprived the gospel of its ablest auxiliary when you have set aside the law. You have taken away from it the schoolmaster that is to bring us to Christ. No, it must stand, and stand in all its terrors, to drive men away from self-righteousness and constrain them to fly to Christ. They will never accept grace till they tremble before a just and holy law, therefore the law serves a most necessary and blessed purpose” (“The Perpetuity of the Law of God,” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, #1660, p. 285).

If this traditional understanding of Galatians 3:24 is mistaken, then this calls attention to a need for re-evaluating the distinction ingrained in the Puritan tradition between preaching “law” and “gospel.” The ablest commentators see Galatians 3:24 as referring to the progression of redemptive history, not a use of the Ten Commandments to convict men of sin before the gospel is presented John Brown states –

“‘The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.’ These words have often been applied to express this idea — that it is by the commands and threatenings of God*s law brought home to the conscience of the sinner that he is induced to believe the revelation of mercy. But this, though a very important truth, is obviously not what the apostle means (An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 174).

Ernest DeWitt Burton comments on Galatians 3:24 – “Nor is the reference to the individual experience under law as bringing men individually to faith in Christ. For the context makes it clear that the apostle is speaking, rather, of the historic succession of one period of revelation upon another and the displacement of the law by Christ (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, New York, 1920, p.200).

John Calvin*s opinion is, “I deny that Paul here (Galatians 4:1-4) treats of individuals, or draws a distinction between the time of unbelief and the calling of faith,” and he then goes on to assert that Paul here is comparing the demise of the old era and the appearance of the new era (quoted by John Brown, p. 391).

It is clear from the New Testament that men will indeed not flee to the Physician unless they are convinced they need the Doctor. The Reformed tradition believes that “law preaching” is the necessary means to bring about such conviction. But where do we find examples of such a use of the law in the apostolic preaching?

Thus, in light of the paucity of concrete evidence for something they assert is so crucial, I question the validity of dogmatically asserting that “the law is the forerunner, that makes room, and prepares welcome in the soul for Christ” (Bishop Reynolds, quoted by Bridges, p. 239). Such a doctrine has no exegetical basis in Galatians 3:24, and yet this is the text most often cited as vindicating it (Bridges uses 3:24 several times as proof of the necessity of “preaching law as a preparation for the gospel”. cf. pp. 232, 233, 238).

But, you may ask, what about Jesus* confrontation with the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17-22? Did not our Lord use some of the Ten Commandments to bring him to conviction of sin? Is this not a clear model for us to use? (Cf. Chantry, pp. 17-18, p.92 – “Remember our Lord*s dealings with the young ruler Let them guide your message and methods”).

Yes, the Lord used the law with this man. No, it cannot be a model for us with all men. Why? Luke 10:28 gives us the answer. Jesus used the law when dealing with people who were in bondage to the underlying principle of the Mosaic economy “Do this and you will live” (cf. Galatians 3:12, Ezekiel 20:11, 13) Did Christ ever use the law in the same manner with the few Gentiles He encountered?

It was, therefore, quite natural and right for the Lord to confront a man “under law” with the convicting character of that law in which he trusted, But Paul purposely distanced himself from a law-preaching methodology when dealing with Gentiles, for these people were “without law” (1 Corinthians 9:20-21, cf. Acts 14:15-17, 17:22-31).

Since conviction of sin is necessary, what is the medium of conviction if it is not law-preaching as a “preparation” for the gospel? The commission from the exalted Christ is that “repentance and remission of sins is to be preached among all nations,” and that the content of this evangelistic message is “all that I have commanded you” (Luke 24:47, Matthew 28:20).

In the Book of Acts, then, we find the specific form apostolic preaching took: they pressed the claims of the resurrected Christ upon Jews and Gentiles, and conviction was elicited by means of this proclamation (Acts 2:36-37, 10:42-44, 17:34). “We preach Christ crucified a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom He has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

Proper gospel preaching will produce conviction. What is more convicting than the total claim upon the life which Jesus demands (Luke 14:25-33)? What could be more searching than an exposition of the demands of kingdom life in Matthew 5.7? Obviously, as ministers of the New Covenant expound the Scriptures they must deal with the law. But to isolate the Ten Commandments consistently as a separate and necessary element “preparatory” for the gospel is without warrant in the New Testament.

As F.F. Bruce observes, “there is no evidence that Paul ever used the law in this way in his apostolic preaching” (p. 192). Apparently, Paul in his evangelistic endeavors with Gentiles was not concerned to bring the Torah into the picture, and lived among them as “in law to Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21).

We must preach the law as we hear it in the voice of Christ. But we must handle it naturally and contextually as it comes to expression in the Scriptures we preach, and always from a New Covenant perspective. I have simply sought to demonstrate that the concept of “law preaching” crystallized in Puritanism is unnatural, does not do justice to the advance of redemptive history, and has historically been based on very dubious interpretations of several key texts.

This context in Romans 7 has been used to teach that it is necessary to use the law in order to produce conviction of sin. However, there are some textual considerations that should cause us to re-evaluate the Puritan use of this passage, which is summarized in Bridges’ words – “was it (the law) not also the appointed means of bringing the Apostle to the spiritual apprehension of his sin?” (p. 224).

First, we must understand Paul’s perspective of redemptive history. Herman Ridderbos summarizes Paul*s viewpoint when he says – “Before everything else, he was a proclaimer of a new time, the great turning point in the history of redemption, the intrusion of a new world aeon. Such was the dominating perspective and foundation of Paul*s entire preaching (Paul and Jesus, Philadelphia, 1958, p. 64).

Thus, “he evaluates also the law (Philippians 3:5-6) completely from the vantage point of the new stage of the history of redemption in Christ” (Bandstra, p 77). “Paul*s doctrine of the law,” therefore, “is developed from a purely Christological point of view” (G B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, New York, 1892, p. 171)

“It is the cross of Jesus which determines for Paul his understanding of the content of the law. The whole of Paul’s thought revolves around the proposition that the crucified Jesus is the Christ. In the same way it determines his attitude toward the law. This alone provides an intelligible, inherently necessary, connection between his affirmation and negation of the law” (p. 106; cf. also p. 119).

In coming to Rom.7, then, we must be careful to observe the transition in Paul’s life from being “under law” to being “in law to Christ.” Before his conversion, Paul viewed himself as “blameless” with reference to the law (Philippians 3:6; cf. A.B. Bruce, p. 300). But in Romans 7 Paul views himself as “slain” by the law (v. 11).

We must ask, what brought Paul to move from being “blameless” to being “slain” by the law? Was it a separate preaching of the Ten Commandments he heard somewhere? No. We must locate this transition in reference to his confrontation with the gospel.

It was the entrance of the gospel into his life that brought about the action of the law upon his soul as described in Romans 7. Did Paul hear “law preaching,” or Christ-centered proclamation from the Old Testament, when he heard Stephen’s message and consented to his death (Acts 7:57; 8:1)?

Bandstra, I think, points us in the right direction when he says – “In Galatians 2:15-20, Paul unequivocally confesses that he, and his fellow Jewish Christians, found themselves to be sinners (‘slain’) when they sought to justified in Jesus Christ (2:17). Prior to this experience they could say that they were by nature Jews and not sinners out of the Gentiles” (p. 141, cf. F.F. Bruce, p. 189).

To be honest with the Romans 7 text, then, must we not assert that this passage represents the experience of Jewish Christians “under law” (7:1-6) who, having been confronted with the gospel, came to this perspective of the law (Bandstra, pp. 140-141)?

Or we could put it this way: could a Gentile believer have written Romans 7:7-13, especially since they were never, as John Brown put it. “subject to the law of Moses” (p. 258; cf. pp. 252, 254), and since Paul specifically spoke to those who “know the law” (7:11)?

Paul was “blameless” in the law until the gospel confronted him. It was not a prior law-work which drove him to the gospel, but rather the gospel, coming to him as “under law,” brought about his new-found conviction of sin by the law. Paul looked at the law through the gospel, he did not come to the gospel through the law.

1 Corinthians 1:21-21 – “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law I (though myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God*s law, but am in law to Christ), so as to win those not having the law.”

This passage is crucial for it summarizes Paul*s differing evangelistic methodologies respecting Jews and Gentiles. He indeed had only one gospel message, and would never compromise it for a moment. But he was very adaptable (being a man raised in Gentile Tarsus, but well-versed in the Jewish Torah), and was able to mix with those “under law” and “without law.”

Thus, to isolate Christ*s dealings with the rich young ruler (a man “under law”) as normative seems hardly accurate in light of the fact that Paul’s practice was to “become like one not having the law” among Gentiles. Would Paul have said to an Athenian philosopher, “you know the commandments . . . do this and live”? Obviously not (Acts 17:23-31).

“In order to guard against misunderstanding on the part of his readers, who might too easily take the reference to ‘not being under law’ and the reference to ‘without law’ as meaning unprincipled and degenerate behavior, the Apostle states that he is not lawless before God but bound to the law of Christ. As (C.H.) Dodd notes, ‘It is evident (in this place, at least) the Torah is not conceived as being identical, or equivalent, or at any rate co-extensive with the law of God, which is either a different, or a more inclusive, law than the law of Moses’” (p. 112).

It is clear that Paul does not reference his being “in law” to the Mosaic economy (which he specifically states he is not under, v. 20), but to the New Covenant economy, wherein Christ is the Prophet. I believe an accurate summary of “law” with reference to mankind would be structured as follows:

2. Covenantal Law (“on tablets of stone,” 2 Corinthians 3:3) — The Jews possessed inscripturated law as a unified covenant administration which they broke, and turned into a legalistic system, and are huponomic (”under law”).

3. Christ*s Law (“on tablets of human hearts,” 2 Corinthians 3:3) — Christians are neither under law nor without law, but possess the internalized law promised in the New Covenant, and are therefore ennomic (“in law”).

May we follow Paul, as he followed Christ, and be flexible in our methodologies with men. In light of this passage, it is overstating the case to say that “to preach the Gospel without the Law, would encourage self-delusion” (Bridges, p. 238). Expounding the gospel involves declaring all the teachings of Christ, and self-delusion will never be encouraged when passages such as Matthew 5-7 and 13:18-23 are opened up to men and applied to their consciences

The false teachers in Galatia were imposing dangerous burdens on the brethren. Paul exhorts them, therefore, to give themselves to the bearing of one another*s burdens, and in this way fulfill the law of love, which is “the law of Christ” (John 13:14). The background and concept of “burden” deserves further attention.

In Matthew 11:28, Jesus says, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” This text has been used by many to teach that the gospel invitation is directed only to those who are “burdened” by their load of sin as a result of conviction by the law (cf. Bridges, p. 236).

But this not Christ*s point at all. He has in view rather those people who are weighted down by the burdens placed upon them by the Pharisees – “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men*s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4), “you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry” (Luke 11:46). Christ is inviting folks burdened down with the innumerable traditions of the elders to come to Him and find rest.

Not only are the Pharisaical rules burdensome, but the entire Mosaic economy is viewed as “a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). Many in the Reformed tradition have limited this text to include only the “ceremonial law” (cf. Bolton, p. 137, J.G. Vos, Blue Banner Faith and Life, October/December, 1978, p. 9).

But such a viewpoint overlooks the fact that the Mosaic law was a unit (Galatians 5:3). The yoke of the Torah did not bring rest, but frustration (Hebrews 10:1). Thus our Lord bids men so burdened to “take my yoke upon you and learn from me” (Matthew 11:29), which again locates the focus of Christian obedience in the person and words of Christ.

It was in connection with the spread of the gospel to the nations that the law problem arose (Gutbrod, p. 92). The gospel went first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles (Romans 1:16). An inevitable question would be, what was to be the relationship of converted Gentiles to the Mosaic law?

The problem specifically surfaced when certain men from Jerusalem taught the brethren “that the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses” (Acts 15:1, 5). A decision was reached by the apostles and brethren: “The four regulations in the decree came from the Holiness Code in the Old Testament (Leviticus 17-18) and are found in the same order as in Acts 15:29 and 21:25” (Walter Schmithals, Paul and James, Naperville, 1965, pp. 97, 98; cf. F.F. Bruce, p.185).

If the traditional Reformed explanation is correct, namely, that Gentile believers are not under the abolished ceremonial and civil laws, but only the abiding moral law as a rule of life, then we must wonder why this reasoning was not employed at Jerusalem, for it would have quickly resolved the conflict described in Acts 15:1-6.

But this is not the New Testament answer The “law” binding on all Christians is placed in Christ*s hands, and the concern is to bear the yoke of Christ, not the unbearable yoke of the Torah. Indeed, under the New Covenant, “His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:4).

“In the Reformed tradition derived from Geneva, it has frequently been said that, while the man in Christ is not under law as a means of salvation, he remains under it as a rule of life. In its own right, this distinction may be cogently maintained as a principle of Christian theology and ethics, but it should not be imagined that it has Pauline authority. According to Paul, the believer is not under the law as a rule of life — unless one thinks of the law of love, and that is a completely different kind of law, fulfilled not by obedience to a code but by the out-working of an inward power . . . Again, it is sometimes said that Christ is the end of the ceremonial law . . . but not of the moral law. Once more, this is a perfectly valid, and to some extent obvious, theological and ethical distinction, but it has no place in Pauline exegesis. It has to be read into Paul, for it is not a distinction that Paul himself makes” (F.F. Bruce, pp. 192-193).

Returning to Galatians 6:2, Paul in the first phrase is saying, “I would have you to bear, not the burden of the Mosaic law (which none can bear), nor the burdens the false teachers are imposing on you, but bear one another*s burdens and fully fulfill the law of Christ.” What does Paul mean by the “law of Christ”? I think John Brown*s words are most instructive –

“‘The law’ here (Galatians 5:14) plainly does not signify the Mosaic law, but the law by which Christians are bound to regulate themselves; for, as the apostle elsewhere says, though completely free from the obligation of the Mosaic law, they are ‘not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.’ It is what the apostle calls ‘the commandment,’ when he says, ‘The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart,’ . . . and what the apostle James terms ‘the perfect law of liberty,’ and the ‘royal law,’ in opposition to the law of bondage . . . There seems to be a tacit contrast (in Galatians 6:2) between the law of Moses and the law of Christ. It is as if the apostle had said, ‘This bearing one another*s burdens is a far better thing than those external observances which your new teachers are so anxious to impose on you. To be sure, it is not like them, a keeping of the law of Moses, but infinitely better, it is a fulfilling of the law of Christ — the law of love’” (pp. 287, 326).

In light of the fact that, in his Galatian Epistle, Paul has in view the imposition of the Mosaic system on believers, his focus on “the law of Christ” is all the more significant, for it indicates where our attention is to be directed — not to a terminated economy, but to the new economy and its Prophet, whose voice we must hear.

I think that a lack of sensitivity to this perspective is revealed by the fact that Fairbairn in his classic Reformed treatment of the law never deals with 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 or Galatians 6:2, according to the index of “Passages of Scripture More Particularly Referred to and Explained” (p. 481). Yet these two passages are crucial for a proper understanding of law in the New Covenant aeon.

Galatians 1:15-16 – “Neither circumcision nor uncircunicision means anything, what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to as many as follow the rule (Greek, kanon), even to the Israel of God.”

I believe that these are very important texts, for in them Paul gives us in unmistakable language the “canon” or rule of the Christian faith. Only here and in Philippians 3:6 is the word “canon” used as a theological standard. Whatever this “canon” is, “the apostle obviously considered (it to be) of cardinal importance” (John Brown, p. 381).

Next, remember that a “canon” is like a yardstick. It is the standard by which things are judged. Verse 15, then, gives us the standard of the Christian faith “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, what counts is a new creation.” The importance Paul attaches to this “canon” is intensified when we consider that two other times he uses similar phraseology.

Putting these three passages together we will have a full-orbed view of the essential and necessary yardstick of the Christian faith. In Galatians 5:6, Paul says, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” In 1 Corinthians 7:19, he says, “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, keeping God*s commandments is what counts.”

Thus, Galatians 6:15 emphasizes the initiative of God in bringing forth a new creation (cf. Ephesians 2:l0); Galatians 5:6 emphasizes the foundational nature of love through which faith acts, and 1 Corinthians 7:19 emphasizes that faith and love are directed towards God*s commandments. This is what counts in Christianity, and stands in opposition to those who “want to make a good impression outwardly” by boasting in the flesh of others (6:12-13).

Walking in accordance with this “canon” is connected in verse 16 with enjoying the peace and mercy of the gospel. I am convinced that multitudes of professing Christians do not have the joy of Christ which gospel liberty brings because they are weighted down with non-gospel burdens imposed upon them by men. Even good men, I fear, are zealous concerning matters which are not weighty issues in the law of Christ.

If we are not zealous to maintain this “canon” of the faith. we run the risk of falling prey to those who desire to boast in the following they have (minus the persecution for the cross of Christ, 6:12), or of falling into the bondage of elements from which we have been freed (Galatians.5:1). Indeed, the “Israel of God” will walk according to this “canon,” for Paul was confident through the Lord that the elect would reject the false teachers and cleave to the true gospel of free grace (Galatians 5:10).

This, then, is the New Covenant perspective on what is important to the believer. This is the standard of true Christianity, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). In light of these texts, we must therefore maintain that, from a redemptive-historical viewpoint, even the “moral laws” of Moses do not constitute the “canon” for the new “Israel of God,” which is the church.

Colossians 2:16-17 – “Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, or a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”

With reference to these verses I would like to deal with the Fourth Commandment and its alleged connection with the Lord*s Day. As William Barclay notes, the Fourth Commandment “has been, and is, and no doubt will continue to be the centre of much dispute and controversy,” but nevertheless “a rethinking of the whole position (of identifying Sunday with the Sabbath) has long been overdue” (The Ten Commandments For Today, Eerdmans, 1973, pp. 31, 44).

One opinion which must be dispelled immediately is the misleading and mistaken assertion by A A. Hodge that history reveals a monolithic identification of Sunday with the Sabbath in “the whole historical Christian world, Catholic and evangelical,” and that those who reject this “faith of the universal Church” are “small and transient parties” (“The Day Changed and the Sabbath Preserved,” Banner of Truth, December 1978, p. 14).

Such is simply not the case, and Hodge*s dogmatism betrays a calm examination of historical realities. Much could be said to refute Hodge*s distortion. but I think the following statement from Patrick Fairbairn is sufficient corrective for our purposes here –

“The character of universal and permanent obligation, it is argued, which we ascribe to the decalogue, can not properly belong to it, since one of its precepts enjoins the observance of a merely ceremonial institution — an institution strictly and rigorously binding on the Jews, but, like other ceremonial and shadowy institutions, done away in Christ. It would be impossible to enumerate the authors, ancient and modern, who in one form or another have adopted this view. There can be no question that they embrace a very large proportion of the more learned and eminent divines of the Christian Church, from the Fathers to the present time (The Typology of Scripture, vol. 2, p. 107, cf. William Barclay’s excellent historical overview in The Ten Commandments, pp. 31-54).

We must come to grips with the fact that Puritan Sabbatarianism arose in a historical context in which certain political and practical pressures played a critical role in theological development. As H.O. Wakeman observes –

“This intimate connection between politics and religion is the essential characteristic of the history of England during the seventeenth century. It is impossible to understand the controversies of the day unless their double (political/religious) character is always borne in mind” (The Church and the Puritans: 1570-1850, London, 1912, p 90).

“It must, of course, be remembered that one does not find in Calvin some of the later elaborations of the covenant idea. For example, Calvin does not teach the doctrine of the covenant of works. This was a later development in the so-called federal theology — though we may agree with Abraham Kuyper that the spiritual truths underlying this doctrine are found in Calvin. We should note that the doctrine of the so-called pactum salutis or covenant of redemption — the pre-temporal agreement between the Father and the Son in which the redemption of God*s people was planned from eternity — is not found in Calvin. This doctrine, too, was developed later, during the latter part of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century (”The Covenant of Grace in Calvin*s Teaching,” Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 2, no.2, November, 1967, pp. 133-134).

I would thus concur with the judgment of Edward 0. Morris that the Puritan theological development at crucial points was guilty, unfortunately, of “elaborating . . . to a degree beyond what either the language or the inferential suggestions of Scripture would warrant” (Theology of the Westminster Symbols, Columbus, 1900; p.259; cf. “Inferential Theology,” Robert H. Countess, Journal of Psychology and Theology, 1977, 5(3), pp. 220-225).

“It is a well-known fact that the great Reformers, Luther and Zwingli and even Calvin and Knox were not at all strict in regard to the Sabbath. Calvin was stricter than Luther, and Knox, more strict than Calvin. Their too lenient view of the Sabbath can undoubtedly be explained from the reaction of the Reformers to the Romish idea of attributing a certain merit to the observance of holy days . . .

“If we know then that Reformation ideas had come to England from the Continent, we are not surprised to find in England before the Sabbath controversy arose an almost general laxity in regard to Sabbath observance . . . The lenient view of the Reformers had undoubtedly something to do with the laxity in regard to Sabbath observance. The Puritan Sabbath arose largely as a reaction against these conditions, and the Puritans evidently concerned themselves little with the lenient view the Reformers entertained regarding the Sabbath . . .

“But there were also other contributing causes. One . . . was that the desecration of the day was rather encouraged than opposed by the ecclesiastical authorities. This increased both immorality and Puritan opposition . . .

“As a last reactionary cause of Sabbatarian growth we can mention Anabaptism. The Anabaptists in spiritualizing everything denied also the importance of Sabbath observance. They ascribed only ceremonial significance to the Sabbath and since the ceremonial law was no longer of force, the Sabbath had also been abrogated. In the New Testament dispensation, the Sabbath lost importance. And so many Anabaptists caused offense by working on Sunday . . .

“A Treatise on the Sabbath by Dr Richard Bound, which first appeared in 1595, is ‘one of the most remarkable books, so far as its influence is concerned, that has ever been written’ . . . As to the working out of Bound*s theory in practice . . . let a summary of the book by Heylin suffice . . . ‘And for the rest upon this day, that it must be a notable and singular rest, a most careful, exact, and precise rest, after another manner than men were accustomed, p. 124. Then for particulars: no buying of victuals, flesh or fish, bread or drink, 158; no carriers to travel on that day, 160; nor packmen or drovers, 162; scholars not to study the liberal arts, nor lawyers to consult the case and peruse men’s evidences . . . no man to travel on that day, 192; that ringing of more bells than one that day is not to be justified, 202 . . . no man to speak or talk of pleasures, 272; or any other worldly matter, 275 . . .’

“Schaff, who is an authority on creeds, says of chapter XXI of the Westminster Confession, ‘Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day,’ that it (was) the first symbolical (Confessional) endorsement of what may be called the Puritan theory of the Christian Sabbath which was not taught by the Reformers and the Continental Confessions. . .

“Calvin and the Puritan both acknowledged that a Jew sinned if he did any work on the Sabbath, but while the Puritan regarded it as sin in us also if we work on Sunday or seek any recreation, Calvin and the Synod of Dort judged that for us Sabbath desecration can only then be alleged when our work or pleasure on Sunday hinders divine services and religious exercises, or through its material character draws us away from the spiritual . . .

“We appealed to these authorities to show that there is a difference between Westminster and Dort, between Puritan and Calvinist. This difference is in the conception of the Christian day of rest, and is not an incidental one. It is a difference which lies at the basis of Puritanism and Reformed theology. What determines the Puritan attitude toward the law in general is probably brought out most clearly in the Sabbath doctrine.

“The crux of the whole matter lies here. The Puritans regarded the Sabbath rest as an end in itself. The Reformed emphasized the Sabbath rest as a means to an end . . . The Reformed position is that not only the ceremonial character of the (Sabbath) law has been abrogated . . . but that also the character of the Jewish Sabbath has been removed” (The Essence of Puritanism, Goes, Holland, 1929, pp. 163-176).

Many brethren have had the idea that Sabbatarianism is “the faith of the universal Church” so engrained in their thinking that when someone questions the identification of the Sabbath with Sunday they are thought to be on the brink of apostasy or antinomianism.

But such is not the case, and we must realize that the verdict of church history on this subject is not monolithic. It is more accurate to say that opinion has been divided on this question. But, in any event, history is not our touchstone for truth. Let us, therefore, look at Colossians 2:16-17.

The heresy at Colosse involved a combination of philosophy (centering in Gnosticism and asceticism) and Jewish elements (Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, Rome, 1977, p. 346). Adventist Bacchiocchi tries to disassociate the reference to “sabbath” in the text from the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment because of this admixture of philosophy and religion (pp. 346, 368).

However, it is clear that Paul would not designate a philosophic new moon or sabbath observance as a “shadow,” the reality of which is Christ. He has in view, therefore, the particularly Jewish institutions which are called “shadows” in the New Testament (Hebrews 8:5).

This is further substantiated by observing the parallel elements in Isaiah 1:13-14 — “Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me, New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations — I cannot bear your evil convocations. Your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates.”

Thus, there can be little question that Colossians 2:16 indeed refers to the Jewish Sabbath, which is called in verse 17 a “shadow” of which Christ is the reality (Fairbairn, Revelation of Law, p. 472; cf. P.K. Jewett, The Lord*s Day, pp. 44-45, note 20; Bandstra, pp. 90-93) Fairbairn summarizes his understanding of the text thusly –

“Thus the distinctively sacred days appointed in the Mosaic law, together with its stated festivals, its distinctions of clean and unclean, and other things of a like outward and ceremonial nature, are here placed in one category, and declared to be no longer binding on the consciences of believers, or needful to their Christian progress.

“And for this reason, that they were all only shadows of things to come, while the body is Christ they were no more than imperfect and temporary prefigurations of the work He was to accomplish, and the benefits to be secured by it to those who believe, and as such, of course, they fell away when the great reality appeared” (p. 472).

“Since the reality is here, the things of the shadow no longer constitute a norm for judgment. Evidently, Paul judges that the Old Testament regulations on food and feast days were not binding for the New Testament church.

“This was even true of the Sabbath commandment, and Paul*s negative evaluation soon led to a new interpretation in the early church, namely, that Christians should not observe one day of rest, but that every day should be set aside and dedicated to the Lord . . . Christ himself gives the reality of rest, of which the Sabbath was the shadow.

“Likewise, Paul speaks of Christ as the true food and drink present in some measure in the old dispensation . . . Paul*s main point in Colossians 2:17 is to show that since the reality of Christ is present, the things of the shadow no longer form the norm for judging Christians” (pp. 92-93).

Fairbairn quotes Alford*s opinion that the Sabbath concept, as connected with a day, is no longer of significance under the New Covenant – “(If) the observance of the Sabbath had been, in any form, of lasting obligation on the Christian Church, it would have been quite impossible for the apostle to have spoken thus” in verse 17 (p. 473).

However, Fairbairn felt that even though the Sabbath was fulfilled in its “shadow” aspect, its New Covenant counterpart is the Lord*s Day (p. 474). He bases this on the alleged parallel of the shadow of circumcision being replaced by baptism in the new age (p. 474).

This brings us back to a more basic hermeneutical question, Are we going to base doctrines on the “silence” of the New Testament? Or will we allow the New Covenant revelation be our guide in all things? For example, Henry Verduin argues in this way to vindicate infant baptism –

“There is no direct command in the New Testament to baptize infants. This objection is usually offered with a great deal of gusto as if it settled the whole matter in one sentence. And it sounds very conclusive to a great many people. But the truth of the matter is that it is worth nothing for the settling of the matter at hand. For we who believe in Infant Baptism can match this true statement with an equally true statement, which runs thus: Neither is there a direct command in the New Testament to withhold baptism from infants . . . There is no direct command in the New Testament either way. Therefore the question of the validity of Infant Baptism has to be decided on indirect evidence” (The Reformation Sentinel, vol. 1, no. 1, October/December, 1917, pp. 17-18, emphasis mine).

“Knowing the zeal of the Lord for the holiness of His covenant, we dare not withhold baptism from our little children . . . if God says they are in the kingdom we must say so too . . . The children of believers are said to be holy (based on 1 Corinthians 7:14, which H. Ridderbos denies has relevance for the question at hand in Paul — An Outline, p. 4l3) . . . (to withhold baptism) robs the little lambs of the fold their just rights. And it puts the conscience of parents to sleep. It causes them to think that they have done well by their children when they have done ill by them” (pp. 23-24).

2. imposing it on the brethren as “law.” This kind of movement will always tend to move people away from the “canon” found in Galatians 6:15-16. The New Testament positively speaks of the proper subjects of baptism, namely, believers, and also interprets the Sabbath in its relation to Christ. We are not left in total silence on this matter. I submit that since Colossians 2:17 tells us that the Sabbath is a shadow of which Christ is the fulfillment, that in the New Covenant age the Sabbath is connected no longer with a day, but with union to the person of Christ. By vital union with Christ we enter into a rest which is enjoyed everyday. Hebrews 4:8-11 teaches us that just as Joshua led the people into a physical rest (which many through unbelief did not enter), so Jesus will surely lead His people into the rest (sabbetismos) that yet awaits them in eternity.

Although in is true to say we have begun this rest in union with Christ now, the exhortation of verse 11 places the emphasis on a future rest. Thus, on earth we must labor (persevere) in order to enter the rest that awaits us.

“The author who has so much to say about the better hope and the better way of life in the new covenant cannot be understood as enforcing the observance of the Mosaic Sabbath. The rest that he speaks of is not a thing they are keeping but something that can be entered (vs. 1, 3, 6, 10, 11). . . This rest . . . will be like the keeping of a Sabbath. As God in the beginning entered His Sabbath, they too will enter theirs — ‘that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them’” (Revelation 14:13; Neil Lightfoot, p. 97).

There are, in my opinion, some insurmountable problems associated with connecting Sunday and the Sabbath. First, the “creation ordinances” of work and marriage were specifically given to Adam. Sabbath-keeping is nowhere specifically enjoined upon Adam, or the rest of mankind between Adam and Moses, as a “creation ordinance.” Fairbairn observes that after the fall of Adam concerning –

“. . . devotion, as consisting in specific acts of religious worship, the record of man*s creation, it must be admitted, is altogether silent, nor does anything appear in the form of command for ages to come . . . (but there were) indications of the Divine will as were sufficient to guide the truly humble and God-fearing men in the earlier ages of the world” (pp. 68, 70).

Thus, all that Fairbairn can say regarding this issue is that Adam should have “of his own accord taken the course” of Sabbath-keeping (p. 52). That is a very dubious inference for such a weighty matter, especially since such reasoning is not employed for the other “creation ordinances.”

I would suggest that the “hallowing” of the seventh day was with reference to God Himself, just as the rainbow had primary reference to God (Genesis 9:13-15, cf. Hebrews 4:3-4). The first time the Sabbath ever became a sign between God and men is with the nation Israel (Exodus 31:17). And it must be remembered that Moses wrote Genesis from the vantage point of Exodus 20:8-11 (cf. John Gill, Body of Divinity, vol. 2, “Place and Time of Public Worship,” p. 719).

Also, in the Genesis account, there is a clear distinction made by Moses between the summary of God*s actions (2:1-4, “thus the heavens and the earth were finished”) and God*s dealings with Adam (2:4 ff., “these are the generations of the heaven and the earth,” [v. 4a] . . . And the Lord God commanded the man,” v. 16).

Secondly. it is assumed by the Sunday Sabbatarians that the duties of the Fourth Commandment are transferred to Sunday. But this can nowhere be proven exegetically from the New Testament. Herman Ridderbos sees the following as an implication arising out of Colossians 2:17 –

“The fact that Paul speaks in this manner concerning the Sabbath proves that for him the fourth commandment of the Decalogue no longer had any abiding significance. In addition, as appears probable, the observance of the first day of the week was not viewed as the New Testament*s prolongation of the Old Testament Sabbath” (quoted by Bandstra, p. 92, note 79).

“The Lord*s Day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was wholly abrogated, and the Lord*s Day was merely of ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because for almost three hundred years they together kept that day which was in that commandment (Saturday).

“The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord*s Day, even in times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none (Part 1, ii. 2, rule 6, sections 51, 59, vol. IX, 1850 ed., pp. 458, 464; quoted by Carlyle B. Haynes, From Sabbath to Sunday, Review and Herald, 1928, p. 90).

“There was and is a commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges, and sanctions.

“Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament, absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week” (quoted by Haynes, pp. 91-92).

The New Testament is indeed silent on this alleged transferral, yet a gigantic inferential leap is taken to connect Sabbath and Sunday. Thus, to be confidently dogmatic about this matter, as are those who hold to the “Christian Sabbath” crystallized in Puritanism, is unwarranted, for, as Binney*s Theological Compend Improved (Methodist Episcopal) states, “there is no positive command for infant baptism - Nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week” (quoted by Haynes, p. 93).

Thirdly, if it cannot be proven satisfactorily that Sunday is the new Sabbath, then Sunday Sabbatarians must face the question: “Why do I not worship on Saturday?” The strength of Sabbath obligation is unequivocally stated, for example, by Jonathan Edwards in commenting on Matthew 24:20, “pray that your flight will not take place on the Sabbath;” “. . . it is plainly implied in these words of the Lord, that even Christians were bound to a strict observance of the Sabbath” (quoted by Haynes, p. 94).

“This is a fact that deserves special notice. We live in times when the obligation of the Sabbath upon Christians is frequently denied by good men. They tell us that it is no more binding on us than the ceremonial law. It is difficult to see how such a view can be reconciled with our Lord*s words on this solemn occasion He seems intentionally to mention the Sabbath, when He is foretelling the final destruction of the Temple and the Mosaic ceremonies, as if to mark the day with honor. He seems to hint that, although His people would be absolved from the yoke of sacrifices and ordinances, there would yet remain the keeping of a Sabbath for them (Hebrews 4:9). The friends of a holy Sunday ought carefully to remember this text. It is one which will bear much weight (Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Baker Books, 1977, vol. 1, p. 319).

Now it is obvious in the passage that Christ has in view, not the Sabbath transferred to Sunday, but the existing Jewish Sabbath itself. Thus, to be transparently consistent, men like Edwards and Ryle should have worshipped on Saturday, the day actually referred to in the text. But if the Jewish Sabbath is seen as fulfilled by Christ as taught in Colossians 2:17, then this entire problematic evaporates. P.K. Jewett remarks in this regard –

“Christians would never have come to worship on another day, apart from this freedom respecting the observance of the Sabbath, a freedom bequeathed to them by the Lord himself, whose presence was the fulfillment of the Sabbath rest (The Lord*s Day, p. 43).

Fourthly, since the Sabbath set Israel apart from the nations, and since the Lord*s Day sets the church apart from the world, I have trouble with the assertion of the Westminster Confession that Sabbath-keeping is a universally binding duty, thus making it a crime for which all guilty parties will be judged (Chapter XXI, Sect. 7). To me, this is like saying that the Lord*s Supper is binding on all men.

Indeed, there is a universal obligation of men to love God with all their hearts. Time set apart for the worship of God is an aspect of loving God. Thus, is it not more accurate to say that men will be judged for not loving God, rather than for Sabbath-breaking? Paul focuses on the fact that Gentile worship of the creation rather than the Creator resulted in the list of crimes he gives in Romans 1:19-32, and in that list Sabbath-breaking is absent.

4. that the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ, and that the Lord*s Day, by apostolic sanction, is now the day of gathering under the New Covenant. According to the principles of Romans 14:5-6, all these positions should be able to co-exist. But in practice they cannot, for positions 1 and 2 connect non-Sabbath-keeping with violation of the Decalogue.

I am convinced that many people who have been taught positions 1 and 2 have been burdened with apprehensions and fears surrounding the worship-day that do not arise out of the law of Christ. For instance, in the 1860s the following account of what took place on the “Sabbath day” was common–

“On Sundays Mary and Laura must not run or shout or be noisy in their play. Mary could not sew on her nine-patch quilt, and Laura could not knit the tiny mittens she was making for Baby Carrie. They might look quietly at their paper dolls, but they must not make anything new for them. They were not allowed to sew on doll clothes, not even with pins.

One Sunday after supper she could not bear it any longer. She began to play with Jack, and in a few minutes she was running and shouting. Pa told her to sit in her chair and be quiet, but when Laura sat down she began to cry and kick the chair with her heels “I hate Sunday!” she said. Pa put down his book “Laura,” he said sternly, “come here” (Grandpa then begins to tell her a story about when he was a boy).

“‘When your Grandpa was a boy, Laura, Sunday did not begin on Sunday morning, as it does now. It began at sundown on Saturday night. Then everyone stopped every kind of work or play. Supper was solemn. After supper, Grandpa’s father read aloud a chapter of the Bible, while everyone sat straight and still in his chair. Then they all knelt down, and their father said a long prayer. When he said “Amen,” they got up from their knees and took a candle and went to bed. They must go straight to bed, with no playing, laughing, or even talking.’

“‘Sunday morning they ate a cold breakfast, because nothing could be cooked on Sunday. Then they all dressed in their best clothes and walked to church. They walked, because hitching up the horses was work, and no work could be done on Sunday. They must walk slowly and solemnly, looking straight ahead. They must not joke or laugh, or even smile.’

“‘When church was over, they walked slowly home. They might talk on the way, but they must not talk loudly and they must never laugh or smile. At home they ate a cold dinner which had been cooked the day before. Then all the long afternoon they must sit in a row on a bench and study their catechism, until at last the sun went down and Sunday was over’” (Little House in the Big Woods, by Laura Ingalls Wilder, 1932, reprinted by Harper & Row, 1971, pp. 84-69).

“Whosoever shall profane the Lord’s Day by doing unnecessary work, by unnecessary travelling, or by sports and recreations, he or they who so transgress shall forfeit forty shillings, or be publicly whipped, but if it shall appear to have been done presumptuously such person or persons shall be put to death, or otherwise punished at the discretion of the court . . . No one shall run on the Sabbath day, or walk in his garden, or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting (church) . . . No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath Day” (quoted by J.A. Hessey, Sunday – Its Origin, History, and Present Obligation, New York, 1880, p. 212).

If people are taught that such things as cooking and traveling are “sinful” Sabbath violations, they have moved away from the canon” of Galatians 6:15-16. As Bolton put it, “sometimes conscience charges us falsely. It will perhaps tell us that those things are sin which are not sin. In this case it is an erroneous conscience and we are not to listen to it” (p. 37). It is therefore imperative that our consciences be well-instructed in the will of Christ, lest we slip into bondage (Galatians 5:1-2).