Response to Schreiner on the Sabbath: #2
SubscribeI closed my first response to Dr. Schreiner with these words: “In my thinking, there is more to the Sabbath than a temporary function under the old or Mosaic covenant and a foreshadow of eschatological rest that “will be fulfilled on the final day when believers rest from earthly labors” (These are Dr. Schreiner’s words.). In order to see what this “more to the Sabbath” is, a wider, biblical-theological lens must be utilized. I hope to begin to explore the functions of the Sabbath with this wider lens in the next post.”
To be fair to Dr. Schreiner, he does suggest a third, practical use of the Sabbath for believers today. In his summary, he says, “It is wise naturally for believers to rest, and hence one principle that could be derived from the Sabbath is that believers should regularly rest.” (As a side note, though I appreciate Dr. Schreiner’s attempt to draw practical implications from the Sabbath, I find it interesting that such an attempt is made in a context where he spent most of his time dismissing the Sabbath as something required of believers. Is physical rest required of believers today because of the fourth commandment? And what about unbelievers and rest? If we can deduce the principle of physical rest for believers today from the Sabbath command, can we do the same with work and with a rest/work cycle? And if so, upon what basis? I think there is an inconsistency here in Dr. Schreiner’s argument. If the Sabbath as an institution of God, which required the old covenant people to physically rest, has been fulfilled in Christ and is not required of God’s new covenant people, I struggle to see how it is legitimate to draw the type of implication Dr. Schreiner did from it.)
Back to the functions of the Sabbath. It appears to me that Dr. Schreiner sees three functions of the Sabbath. The first is related to old covenant Israel. It was a sign between God and Israel. It was a shadow. It was temporary. It was fulfilled in Christ. The Sabbath no longer functions as it once did. The second function is eschatological. It is a foreshadow of eschatological rest that “will be fulfilled on the final day when believers rest from earthly labors” (These are Dr. Schreiner’s words.). It still functions this way. “The Sabbath, then, points [notice the present tense] to the final rest of the people of God” (Dr. Schreiner’s words). Its third function would be to require (?) regular physical rest for believers.
I am glad Dr. Schreiner brought up the eschatological function of the Sabbath. I think this is a subject worth pursuing and might be the key to understanding this admittedly complex issue. A wider, biblical-theological lens is necessary to understand how and why the Sabbath as an institution of creation and an abiding responsibility of the believer has been enshrined, for instance, in such documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Baptist Confession (i.e. 1689), and why such men as Owen, Edwards, Dabney, Hodge, Spurgeon, Warfield, Sproul, Duncan, Begg, and many others agree with the essence of these confessional formulations. The eschatological function of the Sabbath is a glorious doctrine. It points us to the eternal state. It reminds us that there is more to come for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. All believers look forward to the eternal state and need to be reminded of it often. But not all believers agree on how that is to be done. I think a wider-lens approach helps us consider all the relevant biblical data on this important issue. In order to begin to do that, I will offer a question to think about.
When did the eschatological function of the Sabbath begin?
I hope to offer an answer to that question (and others) in my next post.
Ah yes, the Ten Commandments have morphed into Nine Commandments and One Really Good Idea. I love the observation about unbelievers and rest by the way. I have a feeling that will become important later in your argument, if I know you at all.
Dr. Schreiner said, “It is wise naturally for believers to rest, and hence one principle that could be derived from the Sabbath is that believers should regularly rest.” I read this to a friend of mine who said, “It’s natural?” This leads me to ask, Is it grounded in creation some how? Rest, grounded in creation? If it is, is this creation-grounded rest like other creation-grounded institutions (marriage and labor) – perpetual, until the new creation comes in its fullness?
I would defend what Dr. Schreiner said. I believe that abiding principles can be drawn from the Sabbath without having to hold to the abiding validity of the Sabbath Law itself. Those aren’t mutually exclusive concepts. For instance, in Leviticus 23:22, we are told that the farmer is to leave a portion of his field for the sojourner. So, if a hungry man passes by, he can take a little food on his way. I assume that most would agree that this is a ceremonial law that has ceased in the New Covenant era. Yet, who would doubt that there are principals of love, equity, and a concern for social justice that can be drawn from such a law? Does the fact that one can derive principles from a law make that law a creation ordinance, or somehow universally moral? I don’t think so, nor do I think the Sabbatarian would want to say so, either. If that’s the case, we have more Old Testament Laws hanging around than just Ten. Can principles not be drawn from the laws concerning priests that apply to the people of God today? What about the laws concerning purity? Can no abiding principles be drawn from them, even though those laws have ceased? It’s often argued that the New Covenant Theologian cuts the Bible in half and only considers the New Testament relevant. However, if the reasoning given above is followed to its logical conclusion, it seems that the Covenant Theologian would be open to an equal criticism. It’s a false dichotomy. It seemed to be argued that abiding principles cannot be drawn from an Old Testament Law that has ceased. Either the Law continues in full force, or it has ceased and no principles abide. Now, I know Dr. Barcellos, and I know that he doesn’t believe that. I just wish that Schreiner wasn’t put on the horns of a dilemma that doesn’t really exist, even in the writer’s own theology. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Could it be that the author has fallen pray to theological prejudice? We’re all susceptible to that. May the Lord give us grace to resist it.
And Mr. Etherington, with all due respect, when you said “Ah yes, the Ten Commandments have morphed into Nine Commandments and One Really Good Idea. “, that was probably a bit under-handed. If you disagree, disagree fairly and without scorn. The dissenter could easily say, “Ah yes, the Ten Commandments are all moral and abiding, but one of them has undergone a curiously radical transformation after some 4,000 years of alleged consistency, and is the only one of the Ten to have done so.”. That kind of slander is just not helpful. Disagree honestly, textually, exegetically, thoughtfully, humbly. Don’t resort to mere finger pointing and name calling. We’re held to a higher standard than that, brother, and it can be hurtful when you’re the man at the other end of that dagger.
An unconvinced brother,
First, in my first post, I said, “Before I interact with what Dr. Schreiner wrote, let me say that any assessment remains a bit premature until the book comes out and it is read in its entirety and allowed to shed its light on Dr. Schreiner’s fuller position on the Sabbath.” My comment above about Dr. Schreiner drawing practical implications from the Sabbath was a side note, something I struggled to understand in light of what Dr. Schreiner said. I put it in (…) so the reader would understand that it was just a side note, something I was thinking about but needed more light on to understand Dr. Schreiner’s fuller position. If he can justify how he ends up believing in the abrogation of the fourth commandment/Sabbath and yet sees some abiding moral principles in it for present believers, wonderful! I simply did not see an argument that justified his deriving of principles from a temporary, old covenant ceremonial law. I saw only assertions. I hope he goes into this more fully in his book which I plan on reading and reviewing.
What you are describing in your comment is the concept of general equity as it applies to old covenant judicial laws. The equity that an old covenant judicial law might possess does not come from the particular old covenant judicial law itself, however. It is simply an application of moral/natural/universal law to Israel’s unique, covenantally conditioned national life. So, there may be principles in particular old covenant judicial laws (you mentioned “love, equity, and a concern for social justice”) that transcend the old covenant. I agree with you on this. But the temporary law you mentioned does not establish what constitutes equity, it is a unique illustration/application of it. Hence, the equity predates and even transcends the old covenant.
In the case of Dr. Schreiner drawing practical implications (i.e., ethics [?]) for new covenant believers from an institution he says has served its purpose (i.e., as sign between God and old covenant Israel), he must hold that there is some sort of general equity (he might call it something else) in the forth commandment/Sabbath. If he doesn’t, my next question would be: Then upon what basis are you suggesting “It is wise naturally for believers to rest, and hence one principle that could be derived from the Sabbath is that believers should regularly rest”? Is the basis for this the common, agreed upon wisdom of man in general, believers only, Christian ethicists, etc.? Or does the basis of this assertion have something to do with what is “natural,” assuming that natural has something to do with nature or creation? Or is the basis related to the biblical theology of rest? Or is it a combination of these or something else? My point is this, if there is general equity in the fourth commandment/Sabbath, it is universally binding upon all men at all times. And if that is so, where has God revealed that to be the case, since general equity predates and transcends temporary old covenant laws?
Assuming Dr. Schreiner would argue this way, I would think that we are closer on this issue than what might appear at first glance. I fully affirm that the fourth commandment/Sabbath has some unique, temporary old covenant functions. But I also assert that it both predates and transcends the old covenant (more on this in later posts). If aspects of the fourth commandment/Sabbath predate and transcend the old covenant, upon what basis are those aspects established and what do those aspects look like under the new covenant? These are very important issues, indeed.
I am curious how you would respond to Dr.Schreiner,s assertion: “The Lord’s Day was not viewed as a day in which believers abstained from work, as was the case with the Sabbath. Instead, it was a day in which most believers were required to work, but they took time in the day to meet together in order to worship the Lord.” If true, were these early Christians living in violation of the fourth commandment? Did God accommodate them similar to Adam and Eve’s children marrying siblings and latter being a violation of Mosaic law? How then does that fit with the fourth commandment being perpetually binding?
Secondly, Matthew 5:19 states “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Is it not a relaxing of the fourth commandment to remove the death penalty associated with violation of this commandment?
Perhaps church discipline now replaces the death penalty, but is it not crossing the line into pharisaic legalism when the church hoists up regulations upon believers? I think of real example of a brother (now a pastor) being rebuked by another brother for asking him on Sunday how his fishing trip went on the previous Saturday. This same man was threatened with church discipline for after attending Sunday School going to a brunch with his boss from work and then attending the PM service.
He may need to take more into account the creation ordinances, but I have deep, deep respect for the honesty of Tom Schreiner. Hope you don’t tear him to shreds.
Pingback: Old Covenant Laws and General Equity « Contrast
Pingback: Resources for Studying the Sabbath « Contrast