What is the Sabbath?
I really appreciate what Geerhardus Vos wrote about the Sabbath in his Biblical Theology:
The Sabbath is not only the most venerable, it is likewise the most living of all the sacramental realities of our religion. It has faithfully accompanied the people of God on their march though the ages. (139)
And even better:
Before all other important things, therefore, the Sabbath is an expression of the eschatological principle on which the life of humanity has been constructed. There is to be to the world-process a finale, as there was an overture, and these two belong inseparably together. To give up the one means to give up the other, and to give up either means to abandon the fundamental scheme of Biblical history. Even among Jewish teachers this profound meaning of the Sabbath was not entirely unknown. One of them, being asked what the world to come would be like, answered that it would resemble the Sabbath. (140)
Among other things, then, the Sabbath is a sacrament. In the garden, Adam kept the Sabbath as a reminder of the rest–God’s permanent, eternal rest–that he was to achieve after successfully fulfilling the covenant of works. It was a sign of God’s promise to bring him into a state of confirmed integrity (or, non posse pecare) should he succeed the probation. While he was in covenant, the promise stood. And while the promise stood, so did its sacramental sign: the Sabbath.
I’m just throwing an idea out there, but what if that “remember the Sabbath” didn’t mean “remember the Sabbath that you’ve been keeping until now — except now it’s codified into your national law”? What if, instead, that “remember the Sabbath” was a joy-producing re-instatement of the promised sign of confirmed blessing way back in the garden? Would the Jews have seen this as a “second chance” to succeed where Adam had failed? Would they have been awestruck by the revived opportunity to finally enter God’s eternal rest? I guess what I’m getting at is, what if the Sabbath (pre-Christ) is strictly tied to the covenant of works? There was “no [codified, theocratic] law” between Adam and Moses. Wouldn’t it make sense that, if the Sabbath were a sign of the promise of reward upon successful completion of the covenant of works, the promised sign would cease when the covenant–and the promise–did?
Now, of course, we celebrate the Sabbath in remembrance of Christ’s work–in joyfully calling to mind his victorious obedience (”even unto death”) in his covenant of works, having merited heaven for us. Unlike Israel, we celebrate the Sabbath first, then we work six days in response: we do not work to enter, we work because we have entered (and do enter). And it is still a sacramental reminder of the promised state of permanent, eschatological glory to come. It was Christ who fulfilled the covenant of works, and only Christ (and those “in him”) who can rightfully claim enjoyment of the promise in the sacramental Sabbath.
Some might object that the Sabbath, like marriage, was a creation ordinance. Yes, but if it is truly a sacramental reminder of the promised state of glory, if it really points to the goal of man’s obedient existence coram Deo, then must it not be wholly covenantal? Wouldn’t its celebration only be vaild for those in covenant with God, and therefore who could stake a claim in that very substance of which it is merely the shadow, namely, eschatological life and glory?
So, among other things, I realy think the Sabbath is a sacrament. And, like the other sacraments, I think the blessings of the Sabbath, maybe, ought to be reserved only for those in covenant with Christ.
I am way open to challenges and correction here…thoughts, anyone?
[Update: I feel I should point to something I read about a year ago that I’d completely forgotten about. The article is called The Sabbath as an Eschatological Sign of the Covenant, and was written by Lee Irons. I came across it again today, and found him arguing a very, very similar position to what I’d written in the post above. So, in the interest of full disclosure, I must’ve been influenced by these ideas…because apparently they stuck. Anyway, now you know.]
gmail.com
11 responses so far ↓
1 Aron // Dec 20, 2007 at 12:17 am
What’s more, the tree of life in the garden was also a sacramental reminder of man’s potential reward for obedience. Before Adam fell, he had access to that sacramental reminder of eschatological blessing–he was still in covenant, and he still had potential to succeed. But once he failed, he was excommunicated and exiled not just from the Garden and the presence of God but also from the sacramental symbol of the promise. The broken covenant meant no more sacramental comforts.
I have in mind here, of course, the notion that all men everywhere are subject to Sabbath-keeping (see WCF XII.vii - “binding all men in all ages.”). Given what I’ve written, and for other reasons, I just don’t think so. But again, I’m way open for discussion here. Any thoughts are appreciated.
2 greg // Dec 20, 2007 at 2:37 am
Didn’t Vos also say (somewhere) that ALL men are in covenant with Christ - some keepers and some breakers?
Or was that Kline? Hmm, I could be way off… could have been Bahnsen or Van Til.
confusedly yours,
G
3 Aron // Dec 20, 2007 at 3:09 am
I haven’t read much of Vos yet (only half way through BT), so it may have been him. I don’t know. Might’ve been Bahnsen or Van Til. Kind of sounds like Van Til…but doesn’t sound like Kline to me. He might say something like, “How is an adultress, divorced wife still in covenant with her cuckold of a husband? When the covenant is broken, it’s just that–broken. All that now remains is the application of the covenant’s curses.” Or something like that.
4 Some call me....Tim // Dec 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm
This discourse may make more sense to me if you define what you mean by sacramental and sacrament. Two different things in my crazy world.
Just curious…
5 Aron // Dec 20, 2007 at 10:56 pm
The Westminster Confession of Faith would be a great starting place for a definition of “sacrament”:
– Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVII, Of the Sacraments.
By “sacramental,” I mean, “of, or pertaining to, a sacrament.” (See Webster on both.)
[Update: Btw, a discussion of the sacraments and other “means of grace” might be an interesting one for us to have.]
6 Some call me....Tim // Dec 21, 2007 at 9:49 am
Comparing that to the RCC Catechism was interesting.
See Webster? Nice…
Looking forward to the discussion on means of grace. That one is easy.
7 Mike // Dec 21, 2007 at 10:30 am
If I understand you rightly, the Sabbath is a sacrament because it is signatory of the promise of eternal rest (salvation), and therefore it is a grace which only members of the new covenant can legitimately enjoy.
I think the argument has some real merit, Aron. What do you think of the implications for those outside the covenant? For example, would an atheist be free to do business on a Sunday without being held accountable by God for not honoring the Sabbath? If we view the Sabbath as a purely sacramental grace then doesn’t that limit it insofar as it now becomes something which is amoral (for the non-believer). My point is this: God is not going to judge someone for failing to participate in communion; just as he won’t judge them for working on the Sabbath. In fact, because Hebrews 4 says that some are excluded from His rest (which is signatory of the promise as you have argued) then aren’t these people unfortunately bound to work (in the most literal sense) 7 days a week? Just as communion in the highest sense represents the forgiveness we have in Christ and the non-believer is forbidden to participate (and therefore benefit from that grace) the non-believer is also excluded from rest in the highest sense by therefore being excluded from actually resting on Sunday.
8 Aron // Dec 21, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Before I respond to any more comments, I feel I should point to something I read about a year ago that I’d completely forgotten about. The article is called The Sabbath as an Eschatological Sign of the Covenant, and was written by Lee Irons. I came across it again today, and found him arguing a very, very similar position to what I’d written in the post above. So, in the interest of full disclosure, I must’ve been influenced by these ideas…because apparently they stuck. Anyway, now you know.
Tim: Yes, the RCC’s formulation is much different. Which parts did you read, btw? I’m not quite as confident as you are that it would be an easy conversation. But I certainly wouldn’t mind brushing up on both positions, so I would welcome it–perhaps we could even argue each others’ position? Might be fun…
Mike: Yes, it looks like you’ve understood the basic idea–and articulated it very well (as usual!). Great questions, too. I had written a couple of paragraphs in response to you earlier today, before I came across Lee’s article again. I should probably point you to the article above instead of answering as if this was my idea. But please, by all means, drop any follow-up thoughts or questions here if you’d like. I’d certainly enjoy the interaction!
9 Mike // Dec 22, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Aron,
Thanks for the link, it was very helpful in developing a better understanding of the argument. It looks like he agrees with me. He believes that those who aren’t in covenant have no duty or obligation to keep the Sabbath (based on the assumption that the Sabbath is in fact a sacrament).
The objection that the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, and therefore binding to every human being, doesn’t hold any water. First, God never gave Adam a directive to rest every seventh day (pre- or post-fall). The ability to imitate the imago dei pattern was rendered ineffective by sin. The Sabbath was part of the covenant of works, found in the decalogue, anyway.
10 Nicki // Dec 26, 2007 at 7:41 pm
so are you married now?
11 Mike // Jan 8, 2008 at 10:53 am
As an afterthought - this reminded me of Augustine’s City of God. The political theory of The City of God actually has two distinct cities, one in which people willingly follow divine mandates, and one in which secular mandates have preeminence. It follows that if the Sabbath is a sacrament then only the celestial city has a divinely mandated day of rest. The argument and the implicit distinction inherent in the proposal would have been very intriguing to Augustine.
Leave a Comment