Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Foreword and Chapter 1

Subscribe

Nov 20, 2010 | Category: Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology

On Friday, November 19, 2010, I received a free copy of Tom Wells’ newest book, The Christian and the Sabbath. Thanks, Tom! It is a 141 page book, including bibliography and indices. I was glad to see my name referenced on four pages and Dr. Waldron’s name referenced on 16 pages (Dr. Waldron is much older than me so that makes perfect sense :-) ). Wells quotes from my In Defense of the Decalogue and Waldron’s unpublished Lectures on the Lord’s Day. I would have liked to see some interaction with our exposition of the new covenant in our book Reformed Baptist Manifesto and interaction with Waldron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, but I fully realize you can’t interact with everything.

In the Foreword, Wells shares some of his personal experience related to this issue, going back about 40 years. Though I enjoy autobiography, I thought the mention of some of the personal experience was unnecessary, but that’s probably just me. I noted on the first page that Wells sets up one of those unnecessary either/or dichotomies. He says, in effect, the Decalogue is eternal law or a gift to Israel (7). Why couldn’t it be both? More on this later.

Wells brings up the issues of probable arguments and arguments from silence. He is bold to say, “Both of us [Wells and those who differ with him] will lean heavily on probable arguments, including arguments from silence” (8). I want to assert that though I admit that all human exegesis is, to a degree, conjecture and setting forth what is most plausible (at least in the mind of the exegete), I do not want to give an inch to “arguments from silence.” I do not think it best, or even good, to argue from the absence of a word or concept to the presence of a doctrinal formulation. I did not find Wells’ words, at this point, helpful.

Wells states the burden of the book at least twice in the Foreword. He says, “My point is to show that there is no such command [i.e., Sabbath command] given to Christians. No one may insist on it for other adults” (10). He goes on and adds, “…I want to show that no one may command another adult Christian to keep a Sabbath” (10). I take this to mean that his book will prove that it is wrong for Christians to believe that there is a Sabbath to observe/render for the people of God under the new covenant. As a side note, I am not sure why Wells uses the word “adult.” Is it ok to insist on a Sabbath for Christian youth? I am probably making too much of a little thing.

At the beginning of chapter 1, Wells gives two reasons for writing this book: first, “the subject is important” (11) and the “second [reason] has to do with how the Old and New Covenants relate” (11). The rest of chapter 1 takes up the issue of the relationship between the old and new covenants. One of the things Wells discusses is the change that has occurred in light of the inauguration of the new covenant. He notes, commenting on 1 Pt. 2:5, 9-10, that the new covenant is a spiritual covenant. Whereas the old covenant had a physical house, the new covenant people of God are the house of God; and whereas “certain men from a certain tribe were priests, all Christians are priests” (13). “The OT priests had physical sacrifices to offer. We offer spiritual sacrifices” (13). So far so good. But I would like to insert one comment at this point. Since there is still a house of God, and since there is still a covenantal priesthood, and since that priesthood still offers sacrifices (granting that change has occurred), could it be that there is still a Sabbath to be rendered (granting that change has occurred)?

Wells makes a point that Israel was a sacral society. As a matter of fact, he takes seven pages to do so. He discusses the nature of the Ten Commandments as national legislation and in terms of its focus on externals. He says:

If you look at the Ten Commandments, unless you read into them what is not explicitly there, you will find only one command that apparently addresses motivation, the command, “You shall no covet!” All the rest cover easily measurable events. That is what national law does in all societies. (16)

I find this interesting, in light of how Jesus (Matt. 5) seems to highlight (my conjecture) what was implicitly there all along. Remember also that Paul said the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), not that it has now become spiritual. Again, I ask, could it be that Israel’s law is both a gift for national Israel and representative of moral law for all men?

While watching College football this afternoon I read over ½ of chapter 2. I was disappointed with aspects of it but will wait until next time to let you in on just what disappointed me.

7 Responses to Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Foreword and Chapter 1

  1. Mike Waters says:
    November 21, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Dr. Barcellos,

    It is absolutely tragic that a minister of the gospel would write a book against God’s holy day.

    Robert Murray M’Cheyne wrote a paper in 1841 against the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway on their choice to run trains on the Sabbath. He referred to them as “Guilty men! who, under Satan, are leading on the deep, dark phalanx of Sabbath-breakers, yours is a solemn position.”

    I do not say this of Mr. Wells. I believe him a good man (his practice is likely better than his thinking). But his position is similar and a fear it will have a similar result.

    “This is the day the LORD has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps.118:24). That is, the Christian’s Sabbath, the first day of the week. The Day God raised Jesus from the dead (cp.v22 and Acts 4:11).

    Mike Waters
    Heritage RBC

  2. Brandon Adams says:
    November 22, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Thank for blogging through the book for us Dr. Barcellos.

    Regarding Wells’ comment about the Mosaic law being outward for national obedience, rather than inward – I think he has a very important point.

    I think it is crucial to recognize the Mosaic covenant as a national covenant. As a national covenant, it does respect outward behavior. It requires obedience to the letter of the Decalogue – the most extreme outward manifestations of violations of the law.

    However, as I think you hinted at, that does not mean it does not also summarize the inward spiritual law that bound all Israelites as image bearers (rather than as Israelites).

    I think this dichotomy makes the most sense of Jesus’ discourse in Matt 5. I think v38-42 are especially illustrative of this. Here Jesus is rebuking Jews for misapplying instructions given for civil leaders. They were misapplying it by personalizing it, rather than recognizing its proper place in a national covenant. Jesus is not saying “an eye for an eye” is wrong – he is saying it is wrong to apply that principle to our personal lives.

    In my readings, I have found A. W. Pink to bring this out most clearly:

    “The national covenant with Israel was here (Ex. 19:5) meant; the charter upon which they were incorporated, as a people, under the government of Jehovah. It was an engagement of God, to give Israel possession of Canaan, and to protect them in it: to render the land fruitful, and the nation victorious and prosperous, and to perpetuate His oracles and ordinances among them; so long as they did not, as a people, reject His authority, apostatize to idolatry, and tolerate open wickedness. These things constitute a forfeiture of the covenant; as their national rejection of Christ did afterwards. True believers among them were personally dealt with according to the Covenant of Grace, even as true Christians now are; and unbelievers were under the Covenant of Works, and liable to condemnation by it, as at present: yet, the national covenant was not strictly either the one or the other, but had something in it of the nature of each.

    “The national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals: nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry, of any number of them, provided this was not sanctioned or tolerated by public authority. It was indeed a type of the covenant made with true believers in Christ Jesus, as were all the transactions with Israel; but, like other types, it ‘had not the very image,’ but only ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ When, therefore, as a nation, they had broken this covenant, the Lord declared that He would make ‘a new covenant with Israel, putting His law,’ not only in their hands, but ‘in their inward parts’; and ‘writing it,’ not upon tables of stone, ‘but in their hearts; forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more’ (Jer. 31:32-34; Heb. 8:7-12; 10:16, 17). The Israelites were under a dispensation of mercy, and had outward privileges and great advantages in various ways for salvation: yet, like professing Christians, the most of them rested in these, and looked no further. The outward covenant was made with the Nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience; and the covenant of Grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the Divine law. In case Israel kept the covenant, the Lord promised that they should be to Him ‘a peculiar treasure.’ ‘All the earth’ (Ex. 19:5) being the Lord’s, He might have chosen any other people instead of Israel: and this implied that, as His choice of them was gratuitous, so if they rejected His covenant, He would reject them, and communicate their privileges to others; as indeed He hath done, since the introduction of the Christian dispensation” (Thomas Scott).

    The above quotation contains the most lucid, comprehensive, and yet simple analysis of the Sinaitic covenant which we have met with in all our reading. It draws a clear line of distinction between God’s dealings with Israel as a nation, and with individuals in it. It shows the correct position of the everlasting covenant of grace and the Adamic covenant of works in relation to the Mosaic dispensation. All were born under the condemnation of their federal head (Adam), and while they continued unregenerate and in unbelief, were under the wrath of God; whereas God’s elect, upon believing, were treated by Him then, as individuals, in precisely the same way as they are now. Scott brings out clearly the character, the scope, the design, and the limitation of the Sinaitic covenant: its character was a supplementary combination of law and mercy; its scope was national; its design was to regulate the temporal affairs of Israel under the divine government; its limitation was determined by Israel’s obedience or disobedience. The typical nature of it—the hardest point to elucidate—is also allowed. We advise the interested student to reread the last four paragraphs.

    Much confusion will be avoided and much help obtained if the Sinaitic economy be contemplated separately under its two leading aspects, namely, as a system of religion and government designed for the immediate use of the Jews during the continuance of that dispensation; and then as a scheme of preparation for another and better economy, by which it was to be superseded when its temporal purpose had been fulfilled. The first design and the immediate end of what God revealed through Moses was to instruct and order the life of Israel, now formed into a nation. The second and ultimate intention of God was to prepare the people, by a lengthy course of discipline, for the coming of Christ. The character of the Sinaitic covenant was, in itself, neither purely evangelical nor exclusively legal: divine wisdom devised a wondrous and blessed comingling of righteousness and grace, justice and mercy. The requirements of the high and unchanging holiness of God were clearly revealed; while His goodness, kindness, and long-suffering were also as definitely manifested. The moral and the ceremonial law, running together side by side, presented and maintained a perfect balance, which only the corruption of fallen human nature failed to reap the full advantage of.

    The covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai required outward obedience to the letter of the law. It contained promises of national blessing if they, as a people, kept the law; and it also announced national calamities if they were disobedient. This is unmistakably clear from such a passage as the following: “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee. Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee. And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee” (Deut. 7:12-16).

    In connection with the above passage notice, first, the definite reference made to God’s “mercy,” which proves that He did not deal with Israel on the bare ground of exacting and relentless law, as some have erroneously supposed. Second, observe the reference which the Lord here made unto His oath to their fathers, that is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; which shows that the Sinaitic covenant was based upon, and not divorced from, the Abrahamic—Israel’s occupation of Canaan being the “letter” fulfillment of it. Third, if, as a nation, Israel rendered unto their God the obedience to which He was entitled as their King and Governor, then He would love and bless them—under the Christian economy there is no promise that He will love and bless any who live in defiance of His claims upon them! Fourth, the specific blessings here enumerated were all of a temporal and material kind. In other passages God threatened to bring upon them plagues and judgments (Deut. 28:15-65) for disobedience. The whole was a compact promising to Israel certain outward and national blessings on the condition of their rendering to God a general outward obedience to His law.

    The tenor of the covenant made with them was, “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:5, 6). “Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries” (Ex. 23:20-22). Nevertheless, a provision of mercy was made where true repentance for failure was evidenced: “If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; and that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies: if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham. . . . These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses” (Lev. 26:40-42, 46).

    The Sinaitic covenant in no way interfered with the divine administration of either the everlasting covenant of grace (toward the elect) nor the Adamic covenant of works (which all by nature lie under); it being in quite another region. Whether the individual Israelites were heirs of blessing under the former, or under the curse of the latter, in no wise hindered or affected Israel’s being as a people under this national regime, which respected not inward and eternal blessings, but only outward and temporal interests. Nor did God in entering into this arrangement with Israel mock their impotency or tantalize them with vain hopes, any more than He does so now, when it still holds good that “righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to nations” (Prov. 14:34). Though it be true that Israel miserably failed to keep their national engagements and brought down upon themselves the penalties which God had threatened, nevertheless, the obedience which He required of them was not obviously and hopelessly impracticable: nay, there were bright periods in their history when it was fairly rendered, and the fruits of it were manifestly enjoyed by them.

    …

    The Sinaitic covenant, then, was a compact promising to Israel as a people certain material and national blessings on the condition of their rendering to God a general obedience to His laws. But at this point it may be objected that God, who is infinitely holy and whose prerogative it is to search the heart, could never be satisfied with an outward and general obedience, which in the case of many would be hollow and insincere. The objection is pertinent and presents a real difficulty: how can we meet it? Very simply: this would be true of individuals as such, but not necessarily so where nations are concerned. And why not, it may be asked? For this reason: because nations as such have only a temporary existence; therefore they must be rewarded or punished in this present world, or not at all! This being so, the kind of obedience required from them is lower than from individuals, whose rewards and punishments shall be eternal.

    But again it may be objected, Did not the Lord declare, “I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God” (Ex. 6:7)? Is there not something far more spiritual implied there than a national covenant, something in its terms which could not be exhausted by merely outward and temporal blessings? Once more we must insist upon drawing a broad line between what pertains to individuals and what is applicable to nations. This objection would be quite valid if that promise described the relation of God to the individual soul, but the case is quite different when we remember the relation in which God stands to a nation as such! To ascertain the exact purport and scope of the divine promises to Israel as a people we must take note of the actual engagements which we find He entered into with them as a nation. This is quite obvious, yet few theologians have followed it out consistently when dealing with what is now before us.

    …

    Running parallel with God’s suffering all nations (the Gentiles) to walk in their own ways, was another experiment (speaking from the human side of things, for from the divine side “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world”: Acts 15:18), conducted on a smaller scale, yet quite as decisive in its outcome. The Jews were placed under a covenant of law to supply an answer to this further question, “Can fallen man, when placed in most favorable circumstances, win eternal life by any doings of his own? Can he, even when separated from the heathen, taken into outward covenant with God, supplied with a complete divine code for the regulation of his conduct, conquer indwelling sin and act so as to secure his acceptance with the thrice holy God?” The answer furnished by the history of Israel is an emphatic negative. The lesson supplied thereby for all succeeding generations of the human race is written in unmistakable language: If Israel failed under the national covenant of outward and general obedience, how impossible it is for any member of Adam’s depraved offspring to render spiritual and perfect obedience!

    In the spirit of it, the Sinaitic covenant contained the same moral law as the law of nature under which Adam was created and placed in Eden—the tenth commandment giving warning that something more than outward things were required by God. Yet only those who were divinely illumined could perceive this—it was not until the Holy Spirit applied that tenth commandment in power to the conscience of Saul of Tarsus that he first realized that he was an inward transgressor of the law (Rom. 7:7, etc.). The great bulk of the nation, blinded by their self-sufficiency and self-righteousness, turned the Sinaitic compact into the covenant of works, elevating the handmaid into the position of the married wife—as Abraham did with Hagar. Galatians 4 reveals that, while the Sinaitic covenant was regarded as subservient to the covenant of grace, it served important practical ends; but when Israel perversely elevated it to the place which the better covenant was designed to hold, it became a hindrance and the fruitful mother of bondage.

  3. Rich Barcellos says:
    November 22, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Brandon, you hit on something important – the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue. It’s not either or, but both and.

  4. Brandon Adams says:
    November 22, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    What particularly stood out to me about Pink’s quote is the recognition that the obedience required was not at the same level for both functions. This is a point that Owen dismisses as Roman Catholic. What do you think?

  5. Richard Barcellos says:
    November 22, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    What, Owen claimed that Pink was RC? :-) I have not read the entire quote yet, when I do, I’ll think about it.

  6. Brandon Adams says:
    November 22, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    :-) Well of course if he had heard Pink, he would have changed his mind.

    But Owen did comment on a variation of the view expounded by Pink (Old Covenant required only outward obedience) held by Rome. Page 199 of the Coxe/Owen compilation.

  7. Pingback: Resources for Studying the Sabbath « Contrast

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.