Confusion Around The Lord’s Day (1)

Rev. J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. March 1966

Preamble: Bill Deenick begins his response to Klass Runia’s articles, “Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour”. 

Confusion Around The Lord’s Day (1)

1. The point of tradition.

Professor Runia announced that I would contribute a few articles to Trowel and Sword on the sabbath question and that I would do so from the traditional point of view.

I do not know whether I am so happy about the word traditional in this connection. There are several different views of the sabbath which have each a long tradition. It seems to me that there is very little new about our present discussion of the fourth commandment and that the view of the sabbath which is defended today by a number of Reformed theologians has its roots deep enough in the past to call it just as traditional as any other concept of the sabbath. It will certainly not be on the question of what is, and what is not, the Reformed tradition that the issue of the sabbath and of the fourth commandment can be decided.

We must try to steer clear of traditionalism in any case. In the N.T. the pharisees were the traditionalists and the Lord Jesus ridiculed them for making void the Word of God for the sake of their traditions, Matthew 15:6; precisely as in the sixteenth century the defenders of Rome were the traditionalists. I am afraid that some of the defence of the Christian Sabbath to-day is more traditionalist than biblical and one of the problems with traditionalism is that emotionally it is so unbalanced; of which the crucifixions, burnings and excommunications of the past bear witness, and because of which every one who enters into a debate on the sabbath ought to restrain himself more than ever.

2. The point of loyalty.

The second point I would like to make is that, as the sabbath question cannot be decided on the issue of our traditions, no more can it be decided on the issue of our loyalty to certain theologies or to certain theologians. Professor Runia indicated that already in his first article (October) when he wrote that “it is not sufficient to go back to the theologians”. It certainly is not.

We noticed e.g. that, no matter how deep a respect we may have for the theology of John Calvin, there is little comfort in his writings for those who may look for an unambiguous defence of the Sunday as the Christian Sabbath to be observed according to the fourth commandment. Students of Calvin say that his views of the Sunday seem rather contradictory and the Rev. G.I. Williamson in an article in the “Peninsula Journal” speaks of the reformer’s view having two sides. No matter how difficult a journey the pilgrimage to the mediaeval Sorbonne might be for us, yet it appears that as twentieth century defenders of a “stricter view of the sabbath we would find more solace in the works of Thomas Aquinas, the Roman Catholic schoolman, than in Calvin’s “Institutes”. It was the catechism of John à Lasco more than the Genevan catechism that proposed the teaching of a stricter Sunday observance to England.

We also noticed that the staunchly Calvinistic theological professor Franciscus Gomarus, who in his time at the Synod of Dordt knew of no compromise with the teaching of Arminius, but defended the supralapsarian position, wrote several treatises in which he contended that the fourth commandment had been done away with and no longer applied to the N.T. church. Many of those who delight in the pronouncements of the Synod of Dordt will be puzzled to find Gomarus in the anti-puritan camp.

We further noticed that when in 1915 the “Lord’s Day Congress” met in Oakland, California, men like Benjamin B. Warfield and Abraham Kuyper found themselves on the same platform with Monseigneur Dr. M.J. Lavelle in the defence of the Christian sabbath as the day ordained by God in the creation and commanded through Moses at Sinai.

Many defenders of the Christian sabbath to-day would shrink from such co-operation, and far rather go it alone.

We finally noticed that Baptist and Baptist-minded Christians, who never had much of a theology on anything, and certainly not on the place of the law under the Gospel dispensation, are still today among the most faithful observers of the Christian Sunday, all of which goes to show how confusing the situation becomes when one would choose to approach it from the angle of loyalty to certain theological systems or to certain theologians.

In any case it would be somewhat overhasty to see the phantom of apostasy looming up when opinions are voiced that represent at least one side of Calvin and that were advocated by men like Franciscus Gomarus. It appears that in Reformed circles both views have found supporters; although historically it would certainly be correct to say that the other (stricter) side of Calvin found generally a great deal more favour among us.

3. The point of consistency.

My third point is that, listening carefully to the arguments of what I would call the present day “new approach” to the Christian Sabbath, I have found that this new approach contributes significantly to the general confusion. It appears to me that it suffers from various obvious inconsistencies. Consistency has never been one of the strongest aspects of Christian theology, yet certain rules of logic ought to be observed.

a. What has been cancelled?

There is to begin with the question of whether the fourth commandment has been abrogated. Yes, it has been, says the new approach. At least Dr. Herman N. Ridderbos says so in his commentary (see T&S., November, page 6). Prof. Runia quotes: “The way Paul writes about the sabbath proves that for him the fourth commandment of the Decalogue has no continuing significance”. Well, that seems to settle the matter.

The fourth commandment has been cancelled. It has “no longer any continuing significance”. We may look forward to the day that someone will propose that we place the fourth commandment between brackets. Why should we further read it in the Sunday morning worship service? It has no longer any significance. It does no longer apply. All this is pleasingly clear.

Yet, we had better keep our horses for a while; things do not appear to be as simple as that. In defence of the ‘new’ view of the sabbath Calvin is often quoted as he writes (see T&S December, 7) “There is no doubt that by the Lord’s coming the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished”, That, naturally, changes the picture not inconsiderably. Not the whole of the fourth commandment but part of it has been cancelled, the ceremonial part.

But then, the new approach has still other strings to its bow. It is not the fourth commandment, or the ceremonial part of the fourth commandment, it is the sabbath itself as the day of rest and the obligation to rest from our work (T&S December, 8) which has been done away with. The fourth commandment still stands. It is merely the sabbath as day of rest that has been lifted out of the fourth commandment.

And finally, there is one more string to the bow. What has been cancelled from the fourth commandment is its aspect of law in the sense of a legal code, (T&S December, 8).

Thus we have four alternative cancellations: the fourth commandment itself, the ceremonial part of the fourth commandment, the sabbath as day of rest in the fourth commandment and the law aspect, in the sense of a legal code, of this commandment. Frankly, this confuses me. I have the impression that we are faced with four different new approaches to the sabbath.

b. What has changed?

This point of the fourth commandment and its obligations in the sense of a legal code fascinates me, because it is said that as such it has been cancelled and has been transmitted into the sphere of privilege. It seems to me that here two questions arise. First, was it really necessary for the law of God in any of its commandments to be transmitted by the coming of Christ into the sphere of privilege? Was not the law of God for His people from the very start, by its very nature as law of the covenant of grace, in the sphere of privilege? Is that really what the Lord Jesus came to do for the law, transmitting it into the sphere of privilege? Is it not so that under the covenant of grace from Adam to the return of Christ the whole law of God in all its legitimate parts and aspects and senses belongs inalienably to the sphere of privilege? And second, if the fourth commandment in all its aspects and parts came to the 0.T. church as a wonderful privilege and gift of the grace of God, was then not for all 0.T. believers the observance of the sabbath just as voluntary an observance as is for the N.T. church the observance of the N.T. day of worship? I ask this in connection with the observation in the Second Helvetic Confession (T&S November, 6) that we, under the N.T., keep the Lord’s Day “by a voluntary observance.” Is it legitimate to conceive of a not so voluntary obedience to a legal code under the 0.T. over against a voluntary observance of a privilege under the N.T.? This, it seems to me, would violate the doctrine of the one and only covenant of grace from Adam to the return of Christ.

c. What has been fulfilled.

Finally, the new approach contends that the sabbath has been cancelled because it has been fulfilled in Christ. The sabbath was merely a shadow pointing to Christ and His work. Here again I venture to place two question marks.

First, it IS true that the Lord Jesus came to fulfil the law in all its commandments, yet no one concludes that for that reason any of the other commandments has been abrogated. E.g. Jesus fulfilled the sixth commandment, yet we all believe that this commandment still stands as firm as ever with all its parts and aspects. Now, if in the case of the other nine commandments fulfilment in Christ does not mean cancellation on what ground should it mean cancellation for the fourth commandment?

And further, I think in this connection of the seventh commandment. In the institution of Christian marriage the unity of Christ and the church is symbolised (Ephesians 5). Under the 0.T. it was foreshadowed. Has the seventh commandment been cancelled, or the institution of marriage, since the 0.T. shadow materialised on the day of Pentecost? No, Paul says that Christian marriage continues to foreshadow the ultimate union of Christ and the church in life eternal. My question is: does not in that same manner the N.T. day of rest and worship foreshadow the final rest that remains for the people of God in life eternal (Hebrews 4)? In Christ we received a preliminary fulfilment of what the institution of the sabbath promised, precisely as we received in Him a preliminary fulfilment of what the institution of marriage promised. But are not both institutions valid and alive to-day foreshadowing the final glory which we will receive when Jesus returns (see K.Schilder, “What is Heaven?” chapter 8)?

4. Has anything been cancelled at all?

Now the question must arise why then the new approach is so preoccupied with this concept of the fourth commandment (or part of it) having been cancelled. The main reason, it seems to me, is to be found in the manner in which Paul speaks of the sabbath. It is contended that the way in which Paul speaks of the fourth commandment forces us to relinquish the theory that the sabbath was instituted by God at the creation of the world and should for that reason still be observed to day. But is this so?

The reader will understand that on this point the principle decisions are made. If indeed Paul declares the fourth commandment (H.N. Ridderbos), or part of the fourth commandment (Calvin), or the sabbath in the fourth commandment (Runia), or the legal code aspect of the fourth commandment (Runia), to have been cancelled then the matter would have been decided and we would have to relinquish the concept of a continuing sabbath institution no matter how dear that concept might be to us. I hope, however, to be able to explain why I believe that Paul did nothing of the kind; that on the contrary Paul confirmed the WHOLE law of God given in the decalogue as still applying to the N.T. church; and that as far as cancellations are concerned all that Paul declared to have been abolished are those rules and regulations and laws (civil, social and ceremonial) that applied specifically to Israel and their 0.T. situation. But that is nothing new and it is just as true concerning marriage regulations and leprosy laws as it is true concerning the sabbath.

Now, I would have rather left it at this for the moment, but I feel that I owe it to the readers to give them at least some indication of why I believe this to be so. Let us start with the most difficult text, as it seems.

In Colossians 2:16,17 Paul says: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

This text seems to confirm the notion that the sabbath, having been an 0T, shadow of what came with Christ, has been abolished with all other shadows, such as the new moon festivals and the various 0.T. rules for what an Israelite should and should not eat and drink and when he should fast. Yet, does Paul say this? To my understanding of the text, not at all. I must admit that in the past this text embarrassed me, but no longer.

Paul says: “These things are only shadows”. Which things? The sabbath, the new moon, food and drink? No, certainly not. Food never was a shadow of what came with Christ and food has not been cancelled in the N.T. Nor has drink been cancelled, nor has the new moon. Paul speaks of questions CONCERNING food, drink, sabbath and new moon. What Paul has in mind is that the Colossians were condemned by some people, not because of food and drink, but because of certain practices relating to food and drink and sabbath. And Paul says these RULES and PRACTICES concerning food, drink, new moon festival and sabbath day were shadows and have been cancelled. Food has not been cancelled and the new moon has not been cancelled. In the starry sky above the Warringah Shire in North Sydney the moon is quite clearly observable still in all its various stages. Neither the new moon nor the full moon has been cancelled. And the sabbath has not been cancelled. What has been cancelled concerning all four or five of them are the specific practices and rules to which, according to the law of Moses, the Jews attended until Christ came.These rules were specifically Mosaic and determined by the shadow character of Moses’ law. But the fourth commandment of the decalogue and the sabbath still stand as firmly as the 7th commandment and the institution of marriage.  So far for the moment. (In a second article I would like to say a little more about this, under the heading: the sabbath was made for man.)

J.W. DEENICK

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com