Moreover I also gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.(Ezekiel 20.12)
The Sabbath was a covenantal sign that was to 'mark out' the
people of God as distinct from the Gentile nations. The Sabbath therefore was
not universal, it was not a law that was to be applied in all places and at all
times. This is actually fairly clear when one reads the Old Testament and it is
even explicit in places like Ezekiel 20.12. It was a covenantal sign and as
such was only binding upon those in union with Jehovah.
But this presents a real dilemma for some Christian groups
today.
First, for the Sabbatarian tradition. Many Sabbatarians want
the Sunday Sabbath imposed on the whole of society. They believe it should be
legislated. The shops should be closed and so forth. This notion is tied in
with the larger question of the Sabbath as part of the Moral Law and its
applicability to society at large. This will be further addressed momentarily.
But first I would consider the way in which Sabbatarians
treat this question in the context of a pluralist society in which they do not
hold political sway. They argue that Christians should not only obey the
Sabbath's prohibition of labour, but that they should not visit a shop,
restaurant or do anything that causes others to work and therefore break the
Sabbath commandment.
This seems plausible when taken prima facie, but actually it's a flawed argument as a close read of
Ezekiel 20 demonstrates. The Sabbath is a command meant for God's people alone.
Now a Christian could refuse to shop or eat out on Sunday (if we momentarily
agree for argument's sake that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath) and this could
be a kind of 'sign' to the lost world. And indeed Christians should refuse to
work on Sunday not because it's the Sabbath per se but because it's the day the
Church gathers and worships and the holy gathering should always take priority
over the mundane. Treasures being laid up in heaven always take precedent over
Earthly concerns.
However, as the lost people around us are not in covenant
with God, the Sabbath commandment has nothing to do with them – just as it did
not with regard to the Philistines, Moabites, or Egyptians. These nations are
castigated for their sin in general terms by the prophets but they're never
called to account for their neglect of the Mosaic Law – the sacrifices, dietary
laws, or the Sabbath – which despite the Westminster Confession's arguments to
the contrary was part of the larger Old Testament-Mosaic order.
The sin of the unbelieving nations and individuals is one of
unbelief that turns into idolatry. They were not under the obligations of the
covenant, in fact unless they were in the covenant order, for them to attempt
to do those things – sacrifice, follow the various dietary and purity laws, and
keep the Sabbath would have been blasphemous. By way of analogy we can safely
say, the fact that today's pagans are working on Sunday is (in the grand scheme
of things) more or less inconsequential.
But if the covenantal aspect of Sabbath keeping is fulfilled
in our Sunday worship, (again assuming the Sabbatarian position for the sake
argument) then the fact that we shop or eat out afterward is of no real consequence.
We're not in the land, in the covenanted society. We're merely out in Babylon
legitimately partaking of its Christian-appropriate wares as we would any other
day. If Christians choose not to, that's certainly fine but it cannot be made
binding.
But all of this really touches on the larger and more
consequential question of the Decalogue as the Moral Law. Usually we're told
that the Decalogue is the abiding eternal expression of the Moral Law. The
civil and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law have passed away and are
fulfilled – though many still attempt to use their equity in terms of civil
legislation. It's rather inconsistent and arbitrary as is the whole exercise.
One, there is no Biblical precedent for picking and choosing out of the Law.
It's either in effect or it's not. It's God ordained and negotiated as it were.
There's no precedent for nations or cultures taking it up of their own accord
(through some kind of misguided 'Covenanting' notion) and then applying it in modified-piecemeal
fashion to their present context – by means of ad hoc philosophical deduction and what often amounts to as
sophistry. In some sense it is argued these 'other' aspects of the Law (civic
penalties and Temple ordinances) are defunct but the Decalogue as the moral law
most certainly abides. But this principle is based on the same flawed
hermeneutics already demonstrated when it comes to the other aspects of the
Law.
Second, there's no precedent for the Confessional division of
the law into parts such as civil, ceremonial, and moral. It's a unit and the Westminster divisions are also arbitrary
as there is considerable overlap between the concepts. Read through the
Pentateuch and try in vain to parse out which laws belong to which category.
You simply cannot nor was the Law ever meant to be treated (let alone parsed)
in such a fashion. Neither the Old nor New Testament ever treat it in such
fashion or mark out these divisions. They are best described as scholastic
contrivances.
But this creates a dilemma for the larger
Scholastic/Protestant Christendom tradition and it is at this point that some
real hostility is engendered. If the Decalogue is the moral law then this Redemptive-Historical road (being argued
here) leads to the conclusion that the Ten Commandments are no longer in
effect. At this point the more hysterical elements of the Evangelical and
Confessional camp will argue this means that the position being advocated results
in an ethic that says it's okay to lie, murder, commit adultery and the like.
This is little more than an attempt to win the argument by means of a
disingenuous use of reductio ad absurdum.
In addition to its slippery slope method of argumentation, it's frankly pretty ridiculous.
No serious person has ever suggested such an ungodly ethic and the New
Testament nowhere suggests the kind of libertinism they think will result if
the Decalogue is rendered fulfilled.
If the Sabbath commandment is no longer valid then yes, it follows
the Decalogue (as a unit in that form) is no longer in effect as the Decalogue. And yet it must also
be pointed out that the advocates for a contemporary Decalogue have already
defeated their own argument of inviolability in their modification of the
fourth commandment from the seventh to the first day. The Scriptural evidence
for this is at best circumstantial (and a stretch at that) but New Testament
doctrine as a whole actually militates against this as does the testimony of
the Early Church. Those that kept Sabbath kept a seventh-day Sabbath in
addition to Sunday but it's clear that most of the Church did not keep Sabbath
and did not view Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. Regardless, if it can be
changed then it does not stand as given. It cannot be the eternal expression of
the moral law and the New Testament only confirms this.
The Decalogue is 'a' form of the moral law. That point we can
grant. It was the prologue or legal summary of the Old Covenant. It was the
moral law presented in a form appropriate to the covenant and its context. It
is specifically wed to the 'out of Egypt' narrative (as in Ezekiel 20) and cast
in terms appropriate to its Bronze Age agrarian context. This is not to
diminish it in any way but the reality is the moral law in New Testament terms
is actually both more simple and far more demanding – focused far more on the
heart as opposed to mere external obedience. This deeper understanding and
heart-focused demand is also found in the Old Testament but it is elaborated
upon in the New and given preeminent focus and force. We are to love God with
all our being and our neighbor as ourself. This truth (also present in the Old
Testament) encapsulates and in fact exceeds the merely negative commands
presented in the Decalogue and we see further example of this in passages such
as the Sermon on the Mount – wherein Christ does not merely correct Talmudic misunderstandings
regarding the commandments but in fact reveals their true meaning in the
Kingdom context and as such expands their scope and the nature of their
calling.
So then what is the universal or eternal moral law? This is
not a Biblical-exegetical question per se but one driven by the systematicians
and their methodology. And here's the startling answer. It's never given to us
apart from a covenantal context. It is erroneous and eisegetical to state that
Adam had the Decalogue in the Garden. He did not have it (at least not in that
form) and there's no Scriptural evidence to suggest otherwise. In fact it's
absurd. Even if it is granted that Hosea 6 is referencing Adam and (as such) a
covenant relationship in Eden – it does not follow that the Decalogue was
present in the Garden. This is merely inferred by assuming the Decalogue is the
eternal expression of the moral law. Read the Decalogue and understand that the
Law in that form cannot be divorced from its post-lapsarian redemptive context.
Its very preamble (Exodus 20.2) disqualifies it from an Edenic context.
But Adam did have the moral law of which the Decalogue is an
expression. What then did Adam have? Well, apart from the commandments
concerning the Garden and the Trees, we don't know. We can attempt to read a
lot into these commands but that quickly falls prey to speculation and rests
more in reliance upon a theological system and philosophical argument than strict
exegesis. And we should certainly avoid the terrible (if popular) exegesis that
posits the creation mandate of Genesis 1 (with its call to dominion) is still
in effect. That positive command regarding the garden and the sanctification of
the labours within it cannot be applied 'as is' to the post-lapsarian
situation. Even Genesis 9 reveals its significant even essential modification.
Only the Second Adam in the context of a New Heavens and Earth may reinstate
the context in which the command can have meaning.
Loving God with all our being and our neighbour as ourself
assumes and demands all the commandments concerning life, truth, fidelity and
the like and again in the New Covenant context much more is expected of us.
It's not a case of merely 'thou shalt not' but rather 'do'. The idea that a
Christian framework without the Decalogue grants a kind of carte blanche ethical framework in which it is permissible to steal
or lie is a childish counter-argument as is the Theonomic argument that to live
without the Mosaic framework is to invite bestiality and any other sin not explicitly
specified in the New Testament. It is but one of many fallacies and false
dilemmas generated by the fiction that is Theonomy.
So to say the Decalogue is no longer in effect is not
antinomian. It can be and undoubtedly some who say so are guilty of this sin.
But in fact a proper understanding reveals the New Covenant demands much more
of the believer and leads us to understand that the Old Covenant form (while
impressive and in possession of a certain type of glory) was but a type and
shadow – in the Church Age, we have the substance. The old wineskins cannot
contain the new wine – the Kingdom life, ethic and expectations of the
eschatological New Covenant order.*
Finally, this covenantalising of the Sabbath command
demonstrates that the various attempts to impose the moral law on society at
large are in error. The commandments of God are covenantal and we're not to expect
the unbeliever to conform to them – nor indeed can they. Paul says as much in
Romans 8.
We're not here to rule but to bear the cross. Pilgrims don't
rule lest they cease to be pilgrims. At that point they are enfranchised and
invested – terms and concepts incompatible with the notion of being a stranger
(foreigner) and exile – the citizen of another land. These lands are the
unbeliever's lands – for the present. The coin is Caesar's as our Lord made
clear. We use these things as that which is passing away. Our Kingdom is
eternal, transcending the worldly order. It's eschatological and knows no
boundaries that can be reckoned in space-time. It's spiritual and observable
only by those who have been granted eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to
understand.
This order shall pass away in the fires of Judgment. In the
New Testament the Sabbath concept is broadened. We are not like children told
how to eat, dress and when to stand up and sit down, or even when to worship. We
are the Church in the age of redemptive-historical maturity, we engage these
things responsibly or ought to. This argument made by Paul in Galatians also
elucidates the Sabbath discussion and demonstrates why it (with the whole of
the Mosaic order) is obsolete. The Sabbath's relevance is further discovered in
Hebrews where we learn that it's not a seventh day rite (that was but a type)
but a reality that overshadows every day – Today
is the Sabbath and that's true every day. It's a call to perpetual vigilance, repentance,
and right worship. It's a call to live as if every day is the Day of the Lord
and that certainly affects how we live, how we spend our time, the things we
seek after and how we think about this life and what tomorrow might bring. And
in addition to the doctrine taught in the epistle to the Galatians, the
redemptive-historical framing of theology within Hebrews utterly rejects and
decimates the Protestant-Scholastic system and method and its Judaizing attempt
to retain aspects of the Mosaic order.
The Sabbath is not for society at large, just as the moral
law is not – in the sense of being imposed by the Church or by individual
Christians holding political office. The world is lost. Yes, they are judged
for breaking God's laws but their keeping them (as if they could anyway) will
not bring about justification, reconciliation, expiation, or propitiation. It
would only condemn them all the more. Their main sin is their unbelief. Our
hope is to bring them to faith and this is not accomplished by a sham conformity
to an ad hoc legal-covenantal
structure. We cannot bring the gospel to them if we are threatening them with
the point of a sword, trying to force them to conform to a moral order that is spiritual in nature – and thus
closed to them apart from the Holy Spirit. We warn of the coming sword of
Christ as Judge but it's not our task to wield that sword before the fullness
of time. The only sword we wield is the Word of God.
We can still condemn theft, murder, sodomy and the like.
Indeed individual commands out of the Decalogue are sometime utilised by the
apostles to make a point but they're never treated in effect as a unit – for
that whole paradigm is fulfilled and has (as such) been replaced or superseded.
Again, this is a main doctrinal plank within the epistle to the Hebrews. The
commands reflect God's righteousness and in terms of principle, the commands
are unchangeable. But the form is temporal. For example, adultery doesn't
really have meaning in heaven, neither does honouring one's father and mother.
The Sabbath also fails to have meaning because the 24 hour cycle has little import
or significance when divorced from the sun. The Decalogue reflects the eternal
moral law but it is not that law.
Theologians have attempted to elaborate upon these laws and
tease out all the aspects of their meaning – for example that the fifth
commandment is really about submission to authority and the like. There is
definitely some value in these commentaries but it's limited and often flawed
by the underlying assumptions of the Decalogue's universality as the Decalogue and in the assumptions
regarding its application to the non-covenanted realm.
This is the tragic error on display in all the flawed and
foolish attempts to carve the Decalogue on to public buildings, display it in
courtrooms, classrooms and the like. These are sometimes well meant gestures.
In other cases they are political stunts. But the impulse represents a flawed
theology and a hermeneutic that is guided more by scholastic method than a
Christocentric unfolding of redemptive-history.
----
*This angle is further complicated by contemporary
expressions of Sola Fide doctrine which have taken on a decidedly antinomian flare.
While some of these elements argue for the Decalogue in the public square, they
will at the same time express hostility to the idea that the gospel contains
imperatives or provisional clauses, or in other cases even essential concepts
like repentance become somewhat optional. The real confusion is generated when
these same groups claim the mantle of the Reformation even while their
particular (and frankly antinomian) schema is not actually found in the
Confessions or the theology of either traditional Lutheranism or Calvinism –
but is instead a synthesis of Baptistic theological trajectories (like Born
Again-ism) and trends at work within modern Evangelicalism and its misguided
and unbiblical attempts to magnify grace – but instead result in a cheapening
of it.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/05/sabbath-and-dominion-new-calvinism-and.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2014/08/sabbatarian-hermeneutics-and-some.html