Survey Studies in Reformed Theology

Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies
Bob Burridge ©2011

Ecclesiology: Lesson 4 – Of Baptism
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2003, 2011

Lesson Index
The Meaning of Baptism
The Mode of Baptism
The Significance of Baptism
The Subjects of Baptism
The Efficacy of Baptism

The meaning of Baptism

Westminster Confession of Faith 28

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

Baptism is one of the two sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ for his church. In Matthew 28:19-20 he gave a three-fold commission to his apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. ”

Clearly these three commands are to continue in the church until the end of the world. In carrying out the duty of baptizing those evangelized it is obviously important to know how baptism is to be administered, who is to receive it, who is to perform it, and upon what conditions is it right and appropriate to do so.

Before we get into the details of those questions, ones which have sadly divided the evangelical churches, it is important to understand the basic meaning of “baptism” as presented in God’s word. There is a great deal of overlap of issues since what it represents partly determines how it is to be done, and to whom it is to be administered. Therefore, only at the conclusion of our study will all the individual parts come together to produce a consistent understanding of the sacrament.

In our last lesson we defined a sacrament as that which is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. It was directly instituted by Jesus Christ as a continuing practice for his church, represents Christ and his benefits, confirms our interest in Christ, and puts a visible distinction upon members of Christ’s church. Baptism qualifies in all these areas if it is rightly understood, administered, and received.

We will see how it meets the demands of these elements as our study continues. To begin with, it is clear from the verse quoted above that it was directly instituted by Jesus Christ as a continuing practice of his church.

As a sign and seal of membership in the covenant community baptism represents being a part of the visible church. All those properly baptized are to be considered as citizens of the covenant community. It is evident that not all who are baptized are truly members of the invisible church which is composed of only the elect of God. From the many warnings in the New Testament about false believers and the process of excommunication it is clear that some who are received as members of what we see as the church visibly, are not truly God’s redeemed people.

As a sacrament baptism is also a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins and of being given up to God through Christ to walk in newness of life. As we saw in the last lesson a sacrament does not in itself convey these spiritual blessings. It is a sign and seal of God’s promise concerning them to the proper recipients of the sacrament. We will see these issues clarified as we progress in the topics of this lesson.

The Mode of Baptism

Westminster Confession of Faith 28

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

Water is the outward element used to represent and seal baptism’s inward grace. While there is no significant debate about the use of water, the method of applying the water has divided some branches of the evangelical churches. The issue surrounds several areas of difference.

• The meaning of the words baptism and baptize
• The examples of baptism in the New Testament
• The significance of the act of applying the water

The meaning of the words baptism and baptize
Since no actual definition is given in the New Testament when the concept of baptism is first introduced, it is obvious that the words used had a meaning which was already understood. The Greek terms in the books of the New Testament are: baptizo (βαπτιζω), baptismos (βαπτισμος), baptisma (βαπτισμα), baptistaes (βαπτιστης), and bapto (βαπτω). Instead of being translated, where the English meaning or synonym is substituted, they are most often transliterated by dropping the Greek ending and using the English alphabet instead of the Greek letters. This often requires adjustment such as the adding of a final “e” to conform the English sound as closely with the Greek as possible.

The first is the verb baptizo (βαπτιζω) which is usually simply transliterated as “baptize”. This word is used approximately 80 times in the New Testament.

The second word is the noun baptismos (βαπτισμος) which is used four times and has reference to the ritual washings already practiced in Israel (Matthew 7:4, Mark 7:8, Hebrews 6:2, and 9:10). The subjects of these washings are cups and pots in the Gospel references. In the Book of Hebrews it is used to describe the Jewish ritual washings based on the prescriptions in the Old Testament law. It is usually either transliterated as “baptism”, or translated by using the word “washing”.

The third word, baptisma (βαπτισμα), is a noun related strongly to the previous one. It is used 22 times usually being transliterated as “baptism”.

The fourth word is also a noun. Baptistaes (βαπτιστης) is used 14 times and always in reference to John describing him as the baptist or more accurately “the baptizer”.

The fifth word is another verb bapto (βαπτω) which is used four times in the New Testament. It is usually translated by the word “dip” and has reference to dipping a finger in water, of Jesus dipping the sop at the last supper, and of clothing dipped in blood (Revelation 19:13).

Lexicons and dictionaries range from sound scholarly studies of how words are actually used, to slanted attempts to define words to defend a particular theology. Some who promote a single meaning for baptizo (βαπτιζω) tend to ignore many obvious places where it is clearly used in other ways. The meanings of words are determined by how they are used by those speaking the language naturally. Often words take on new meanings and drop old ones since languages grow with the cultures using them. An honest approach will seek to assemble the possible meanings a word may have, then let the context determine which definitions are allowable or ruled out in any particular place where the word is used.

The words for baptism are very ancient in the Greek language and are used by Homer, Lucian, and other classical writers from various eras. They show a wide variety of uses of the words all having to do with the basic idea of cleansing in some way. The range of uses include: sprinkling, washing, dying of fabrics, and often of immersing things in a basin or pool of some kind. But ancient meanings and those used by writers in pagan cultures are hardly a good standard for judging the way the words were understood by the first recipients of the New Testament message.

The meanings of the words for baptism when introduced in the New Testament are deeply rooted in how the terms were used by the Greek speaking Jews to whom the gospel was first given. The historically wide range of meanings for these words seems to continue as they are used by the Christians who authored the New Testament books. The basic and most literal idea is “to wash”, or “to cleanse’. This was done in the same way people have always washed things. They may dip them into some solvent (usually water) therefore immersing them. Often washing is done by pouring the solvent over something or rubbing it over the object to be cleansed. Sometimes washings were symbolic of a moral or spiritual purification in which case simply sprinkling the solvent on the object was sufficient to represent the cleansing.

These various types of cleansings were part of the Old Testament writings. When the Hebrew and Aramaic texts were translated into Greek in the Septuagint versions (often represented by the letters LXX), words based on the bapt- (βαπτ-) root were often used.

A summary of these uses is offered in this table:

passage	Hebrew	Greek LXX	use
Lev 11:32	בוא (bo’)	βαπτω (bapto)	to place into water (immerse)
Lev 14:6,51	טבל (taval)	βαπτω (bapto)	to dip one bird in the blood of another bird
Lev 14:16	טבל (taval)	βαπτω (bapto)	to dip a finger in oil to sprinkle it
Josh 3:15	טבל (taval)	βαπτω (bapto)	to step one’s feet into water
Ruth 2:14	טבל (taval)	βαπτω (bapto)	to dip a morsel of food in vinegar
Psa 68:23	חץ (makhats)	βαπτω (bapto)	to smite an enemy (figurative)
1Sm 14:27	טבל (taval)	βαπτω (bapto)	to dip the end of a rod in honey
2Ki 5:14	טבל (taval)	βαπτιζω (baptizo)	Naaman washed himself in the Jordan River
Isa 21:4	בעת (ba’at)	βαπτιζω (baptizo)	to terrify (figurative)
Dan 5:21	צבע (tsava’) ¹	βαπτω (bapto)	to wet with morning dew

¹(Aramaic)

The Levitical and traditional practices described in the book of Hebrews are summarized in 9:10 using the word baptismos (βαπτισμος) in the plural. They are all called “baptisms”. The actions described here are mainly sprinklings of the priests where the Old Testament passages primarily use the Hebrew words:
nazah (נזה): which means to sprinkle, spurt, spatter, or splash.
zaraq (זרק): which means to scatter, or sprinkle.

A complete analysis of each of these passages would simply repeat the careful work done by some of the best exegetes God had given the church. A very good summary is given by Dr. John Murray in his book Christian Baptism. A simple reading of the contexts of these texts shows that no one meaning can be forced into them. Those who insist that the words always have only just one meaning struggle with some of these passages. For example it’s hard to make the words always mean ‘to immerse” when a living bird is “immersed” in the blood of another sacrificed bird (Leviticus 14:6), or how the body of Nebuchadnezzar was “immersed” in the morning dew.

The most important question that demands an answer is how the words chosen by the Holy Spirit were used and understood in the Jewish contexts in which they first appear in the New Testament writings. The first reference to baptism in the New Testament is in relation to the baptism being performed by John prior to the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus.

John’s baptism was performed as a sign of repentance. It was to call God’s people from the corruption that surrounded them to a renewed commitment to trust and honor their Lord.

John’s activities soon got the attention of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem which sent a delegation to find out who he claimed to be (John 1:19-27). It is helpful to note that they were not sent to ask what he was doing. Baptisms were well known to the Jews as proper things for a priest of God to do. They were performed in various contexts including the sprinklings of the Temple services and cleansing rituals (Hebrews 9:10).

It is also wise to note that they weren’t concerned with identifying the name of this baptizer. They would certainly have known the son of the High Priest Zacharias. Their questions were about who he claimed to be with relationship to biblical prophesy, not about his human identity. It is as if they were asking him, “Just who do you think you are, baptizing people to repentance as you have been doing?”

If John had been introducing some new concept, such as immersing people rather than following the Levitical and traditional mode of sprinkling or pouring water in symbolic purification, it is strange that nothing is ever mentioned of this in the record of the New Testament. You would think that those looking to find something wrong in what John was doing would have latched onto that as a good argument that he was straying from the ways prescribed by God in his word.

The next baptism described in the New Testament is the baptism of Jesus. This is of a different nature than the baptisms John had been administering to show the repentance of the people of Israel who came to him. Jesus had nothing from which to be cleansed. There was nothing of which to repent. So John expressed his reluctance and lack of understanding. He should be seeking baptism from Jesus for the purification of his own soul.

Jesus answered in a manner that satisfied John that this baptism was to be for a different purpose. It was “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). John gave no further argument. He understood what Jesus was asking.

Righteousness is defined in Scripture as innocence before God’s law. In Deuteronomy 6:25 it defines it this way, “it will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the LORD our God, just as He commanded us.”

But what law would be fulfilled and honored by a baptism of Jesus by John? Jesus was about to begin his public ministry. In his ministry he would exercise the office of priest in several respects. He must therefore qualify in keeping with the law given to Israel if he was to be above reproach and was to be understood for what he was doing.

There were three basic requirements of the law that had to be followed for someone to assume the authority of a priest in Israel.

First, he had to be called of God in a manner consistent with the Scriptures. He was not of the line of Aaron as was John. Jesus was not going to circumvent the law and intrude upon the authority of the priesthood. There were several called specially by God in the Old Testament who were not identified as priests by their blood line. Melchizedek is an example of those called by special revelation. In Hebrews 7:17 it is directly said that Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek. The calling of Jesus was made clear by the revelations of angels at the time of his conception and birth. Many times the words of the prophets were quoted identifying him as the one who fulfilled the promises of the Messiah, the Anointed One. It was by this authority, not by his human heritage, that he was called to the office of a Priest of Israel.

Second, a priest must be at least 30 years old (Numbers 4:3). It is interesting that the gospels are very clear to state that at the time of his baptism Jesus was 30 years old (Luke 3:23). His age is not given again during any time after that in his ministry. This shows that here it must have had some particular importance. We need to remember that it isn’t that Jesus had to be 30 to qualify as much as it was God’s preshadowing of the priestly ministry of our Promised Savior that set 30 as the age for all priests in the Levitical system. Many of the details of the Mosaic law made little sense until the coming of our Redeemer where the shadows became a reality.

Third, a priest needed to be properly set aside by the forms of ordination. This was only valid if done by an already properly recognized and authorized priest. John was qualified since he was of Aaron’s tribe, son of Zacharais (Luke 1:5) of the division of Abijah, those charged with temple service (1 Chronicles 24:10). The mode of ordination was also specified in Scripture. Among the things required was the sprinkling with water mentioned in Numbers 8:7. “and thus you shall do to them, for their cleansing, sprinkle purifying water on them …”

It is reasonable to assume that the baptism Jesus was seeking from John fulfilled this requirement of God’s law, and therefore fulfilled all righteousness in preparation for his ministry which was about to begin.

In confirmation of this line of reasoning, we see that when the authority of Jesus was questioned as he cast the money changers out of the temple, he cited his baptism by John. Matthew 21:23 records, “when He had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him as He was teaching and said, ‘ By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?'” The answer of our Lord in verse 25 is instructive, Jesus answered, “The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” The accusers were left with no grounds for complaint that Jesus had abused priestly authority.

The writer of Hebrews makes this same connection with the priesthood of Jesus when he quotes the words spoken by God at his baptism. In Hebrews 5:5-6 he says, So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee”; just as He says also in another passage, “Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” The words “Thou art my Son” were spoken at Jesus’ baptism.

If Jesus had been baptized into the priesthood by an innovative ceremony, one that was at variance with the details of the law he was honoring, there would have been ample reason for the Pharisees at the temple to reject his argument. But they did not. The mode of the baptism of Jesus was most likely done by sprinkling water on him as he and John walked down into the waters of the Jordan river. Then after the baptism into the priesthood they came together up out of the water.

Jesus obeyed every part of the law in securing our righteousness. He did not dare to disturb even the shadows of the Levitical system lest any confusion should occur concerning the reality it prefigured. He partook of circumcision, temple presentation, Passover, and other of the biblical feasts. The baptism of Jesus is another example of his devotion to God’s law to encourage us that He is our righteousness. He kept the law in every point to be above reproach.

Other references to baptism in the rest of the New Testament build upon this same foundation. The words used come from the respected heritage of biblical law. There were also baptisms added by the Rabbis which Jesus and his disciples did not respect and follow. They did not come from God’s law but from human-invented superstitions and evil prejudices.

In several places it is recorded that Jesus and his followers did not follow the traditions of the Rabbis in washing their hands before eating (Matthew 15:2, Mark 7:2-5 and Luke 11:38). John Murray points out that the tradition of this Rabbis is described in the Talmudic tractate Yadayim in chapter 2, mishnah 3. It says, “Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the wrist. How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the wrist and poured the second water over the hands beyond the wrists and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands nevertheless become clean.”

Significantly, Mark 11:38 refers to this by using the word baptizo. There is no evidence that the critics of Jesus expected that Jesus and the disciples should have immersed themselves in water every time they ate, as if all good Jews did this. It is most reasonable to believe that this tradition of the Talmud was what they had in mind.

A similar reference is found in Mark 7:4 when the ritual cleansing expected of those returning from the market place is referred to by the word baptizo (βαπτιζω). Some Alexandrian Greek texts substitute the word hrantizo (ραντιζω) which means to sprinkle. This variation was probably introduced to clarify the type of Rabbinic practice to which the critics of Jesus referred. Even if we keep the more received reading of baptizo (βαπτιζω), the ritual it describes is unlikely that everyone returning from the market totally immersed himself in water.

There are these types of water baptisms in the New Testament:

• – The Levitical purifications and sacrificial sprinklings of God’s Law
• – The traditions of the Rabbis who added ceremonial washings of their own
• – John’s baptism, an established symbol of purification showing repentance
• – The baptism of Jesus as a priestly ordination following Numbers 8:7
• – a new kind of baptism which marked out the followers of Jesus Christ as the New Testament church which was established in fulfillment of the old Jewish order of the covenant.

In summary, the uses of the words transliterated as “baptism” in the New Testament have a wide variety of meanings. There is no support for the theory that they must always mean “to immerse”. The practice of the church in the sacrament of Christian Baptism must be defined not by a narrow assumed meaning for the words, but by the significance and purpose of the sacrament where that matter is discussed directly in God’s word. The mode will become more clear as we look to the passages which describe why believers are to be baptized.

The Significance of Christian Baptism

In this era, believers in Christ are marked out by Baptism. When people come to believe the gospel the common practice is to administer that sacrament to them with water in the name of the Triune God. This is one of the things Jesus commanded his disciples to do in the great commission recorded in Matthew 28:19-20.

God has always marked out his people by an outward sign ever since he constituted them as a covenant people in the time of Abraham. The sign he commanded in that era was circumcision. That practice continued until the Apostolic age when the New Testament church became established as the earthly representative of God’s continuing covenant people. The continuity of God’s church in both eras was dealt with in detail in previous studies. (See our syllabus notes on chapter 7 of the confession God’s Covenant With Man, and chapter 25 of the confession about the nature of The Church.)

The changes that took place in the covenant community after the coming of the Messiah were massive and dramatic. The old symbols of redemption were fulfilled and replaced with a system of practices that looked back upon the finished work which the earlier system prefigured. The change is well documented in the New Testament so that the church would have an authoritative record of them. God alone had the right to direct his people to stop doing what he had formerly commanded, then begin doing something different. The new system does not indicate a change in God’s plan of redemption. It reflects a completion of many of the promises made in his continuing covenant.

One of the noticeable changes was in how members of the covenant community were to be marked out as belonging to the people of God. Circumcision was no longer to be required. Instead the ancient concept of baptism would be used, but with deeper meaning attached. Yet its root meaning continued the primary symbolism it always carried. The practice of baptism would still illustrate washing and purification.

Obviously such a dramatic change would have to be explained. It is not surprising that the New Testament addresses this issue in several places. It was important that the church in its new form should understand this revised requirement. The change of initiatory practice impacted the life of every family among God’s people.

The change in the sign and seal of the covenant involved fulfillment of what the old sign and seal prefigured. The finished work of Jesus Christ as Savior by his death in the sinner’s place changed the practices that represented God’s dealing with the guilt and pollution of sin. The new sign also shows how the redemptive benefit of the atonement is applied by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the sinner to regenerate him and give him spiritual life where before there was death.

The replacement of circumcision with baptism is much more than just a change in outward practice. It represents the change brought about by the ending of the era of symbols where the physical nation of Israel represented the church of Christ. To understand this change it is important to briefly review the significance of circumcision.

1. Circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in the covenant community, the visible church of God at that time. It did not mean that every person circumcised, or every family member represented in the circumcision of the male head of the home, was chosen for redemption before the foundation of the world. It marked the recipients as part of the visible church, not as part of the invisible church which is made up of (and only of) the elect of God.

2. Circumcision was a bloody ritual representing the cutting away of sin and its pollution in the soul. Before the shedding of the blood of the Messiah God used bloody rituals to prefigure what had not yet taken place, but was still future by his promise.

3. Circumcision could only be administered to those outside the covenant community upon a credible profession of faith in, and submission to, the promises of God regarding redemption and his covenant. Believers’ circumcision was mandated in Israel. No one could receive this sign and be grafted into the visible body of the covenant people if the Elders had reason to doubt that his professed trust in the prefigured gospel was both informed and unfeigned.

4. Circumcision was a representation of an invisible and spiritual reality. Moses and the prophets repeatedly told the people they need to be circumcised in their hearts, not just in their bodies (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, etc.). The church was never to be imagined as being made up exclusively of the truly redeemed. There were provisions for removal from Israel of those circumcised members who showed by their rebellion or unbelief that they were not circumcised in the heart.

To see the changes in the New Testament along with the continuity of the underlying meanings, baptism can be described in similar statements.

1. Baptism is a sign and seal of membership in the covenant community, the visible church of God at this time. It does not mean that every person baptized was chosen for redemption before the foundation of the world. It marks the recipients as part of the visible church, not as part of the invisible church which is made up of (and only of) the elect of God.

God’s earthly representation of his kingdom was expanded. It no longer would be seen in just one nation, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That nation prefigured the New Testament church (Galatians 3:14,16, Ephesians 1:12, etc.). The male representation of the family, which prefigured the federal headship of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-31), faded so that wives and female children would receive the sign and seal of the covenant also.

2. Baptism is a non-bloody ritual representing the washing away of sin and its pollution in the soul. After the shedding of the Messiah’s blood God rescinded the use of bloody rituals since what they prefigured had been fulfilled.

3. Baptism is only to be administered to those outside of the covenant community upon a credible profession of faith in, and submission to, the promises of God regarding redemption and his covenant. Believers’ baptism is mandated for all those becoming members of the New Testament form of the church. No one should receive this sign and be grafted into the visible body of the covenant people if the Elders have reason to doubt that his professed trust in the gospel is both informed and unfeigned.

4. Baptism represents an invisible and spiritual reality. Jesus warned that in the New Testament church the tares and wheat are to grow together without attempts to judge the heart.

Excommunication recognizes that the visible church includes some baptized members who come to show no evidences that they are regenerated members of the invisible church of the redeemed. But we don’t judge the heart. We only remove those who openly deny the grounds upon which they were admitted in the first place. Baptized believers are reminded that it is the purifying of the heart, not of the body that is important in the eyes of God.

The spiritual import of the sign and seal of God’s covenant of grace continued even though the form of the initiatory rite changed. The connection is clearly referenced in Colossians 2:11-14.

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The outward acts of circumcision and baptism are not the issue here. Paul shows that they both relate to an inner change by which we are identified with Christ as our Sin-bearer. This atonement and its application to the believer is what the physical signs and seals represented in both eras.

There are many clear references in the New Testament showing that membership in the church after the time of Christ was a continuation of the same covenant and promises made to Abraham (see Acts 2:38-39; Romans 3:21; 11:16-17; Galatians 3:14,16,29; Acts 26:6,7; etc.).

Baptism represents the union of the believer in Christ’s victory over sin and its judicial effects. Since the true believer is identified with Christ who is his substitute, he is considered to be free from the penalty of sin which is death, the separation of the offending soul from the presence of God (see notes on the Work of Christ section of the syllabus notes on Jesus Christ, the Mediator from Confession chapter 8).

Sadly, many have missed the main point of Paul’s argument in the previous passage of Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:3-5 to hijack the words as an argument to support the mode of total immersion in baptism. A reading of the context shows that the manner of how water is applied neither supports that view, nor has any place in the Apostle’s line of reasoning. In reality the Apostle presents baptism in a sense that is most consistent with the covenantal view presented here.

The reference to being baptized into the death of Christ (Romans 6:3), and to being buried with him in baptism (Romans 6:4) is certainly not represented in immersion under water. Jesus was laid in a tomb, not buried in the ground. The concept that submerging a person under water and his emerging up as if coming out of a grave doesn’t picture at all what Jesus did in his being laid in a tomb with a rock over the door and his coming forth from that tomb. The argument falsely imposes our modern idea of burial upon the actual facts of how the body of Jesus was handled upon his death.

Another serious problem with that argument is that it isolates one image from other similar images in the New Testament. We are also said to be planted with Christ and to put on Christ. Since neither of these images supports immersion under water and emersion from it, they are not seen as promoting a mode of baptism while the Romans 6 passage is taken that way. This is an inconsistent approach to exegesis and should be transparently invalid.

The point of the Apostle is that by our baptism into Christ, we show our identity with his full and complete work as our Savior. Primarily that work is the purifying of the soul from sin and its pollution. That washing away of the offense of sin removes the penalty of sin which is death, that debt which was paid for in our place by the Savior. This ensures that we will be raised with him to walk in newness of life. The passage in Romans deals with the results of the applied work of Christ as the believer is given spiritual life in him by purification from sin. It has nothing to do with how water is to be applied to the believer when he is physically baptized into the church. The baptism is a symbolic act which in itself washes away nothing. It is a ritual cleansing with promises and conditions attached by God in his Covenant. Ritual cleansings all through the history of God’s people up through the time of the New Testament were commanded in the law of Moses to be done by sprinkling or by pouring.

Baptism then is an initiatory rite into the visible covenant community. It represents our union with Christ for the purification of the soul by his shed blood.

Water baptism also represents another kind of baptism mentioned in the New Testament, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This shows the coming of the Spirit upon a person to apply the work of Christ in cleansing them from sin. The presence of the Spirit imparts the life which is restored when our separation from God is repaired by the removal of the barrier of our offenses.

This was the promise of John the baptist (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:26, Acts 1:5). In Titus 3:5 Paul mentions this as “the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” Again, the mode is in most proper agreement with sprinkling and pouring since these are the terms that describe what this baptism of the Holy Spirit represents. It is the coming of the Spirit upon the believer. He is said to be “poured out,” “shed forth,” to have “fallen upon” God’s people. Even the symbolism of the Spirit’s coming at Pentecost is that of flames coming upon the people, not of immersing them in fire.

For such reasons we say that baptism, considering its import and meaning, is best represented by sprinkling and pouring rather than immersion under water.

The Subjects of Baptism

(Who should be baptized?)
Westminster Confession of Faith 28

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,
but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

Reformed Christianity has almost exclusively recognized the children of believers as members of the visible church, and therefore proper subjects of baptism. Those who do not baptize infants until they are able to make a credible profession of faith are classified as Baptists.

Theologically conservative Christians all agree that the Bible is God’s infallible and inerrant word. Therefore it alone must be the final and authoritative test of what is to be believed. It would be either naive or dishonest to assume that one group or another of these has knowingly rejected some biblical piece of information, or that all who hold to one of these views are ignorant of certain passages in the Bible. The difference in views among these conservatives about baptism depends upon how certain passages are interpreted and fit together into a system. The primary divergence between the historic Reformed view and that of the Baptist position relates to their view of how God’s covenant has changed or has remained the same in the time following the finished work of Christ. This impacts not only the question of who are the proper subjects of baptism, it also effects the meaning attached to baptism and its presumed efficacy.

We have already laid a good foundation for why most Reformed believers baptize their infant children. In this section we will try to put the pieces together as they relate to this particular issue.

The first and primary issue is the unity of God’s covenant with his people. The Baptist Confession of 1689 is largely based upon the Westminster Confession, but it differs in the section about baptism and about the nature of the church. In chapter 26 it does not include the children of believers as members of a visible church. Their explanations fall short of defining the visible church concept accurately. Rather than a codifying the admission of unbelievers into the church, as we are accused by some of them, the visible church merely admits that the church has the same basic composition as the symbolic church embodied in the nation of Israel by God’s own commandment. Jesus himself mandates this view as illustrated in his parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30).

In our study of chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession we included several diagrams which illustrate the biblical evidences supporting the visible/invisible distinction which has always existed in the earthly body of God’s called-out people.

One of the primary issues is to determine if God has made a change in the composition of his church. Does he now exclude infants of believers and deny them the sign and seal of his covenant? This sign during the age from Abraham to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (which was then circumcision) was commanded to be administered to two groups of people:
1. those outside the covenant community who come to make a credible profession of faith in God’s promises and salvation, and who demonstrate their sincerity by their desire to live by God’s principles and to submit to the God-appointed authority of the church.
2. the children of those already members of the covenant community. This sign was to be administered to all male children at the age of 8 days. This did not mean that they were also necessarily members of the invisible church which is the body of all those God actually regenerates by the work of Christ. The election and regeneration of any person, adults as well as children, cannot be determined by the church and is not what the sign of the covenant represents. The circumcision of children indicates that God considered them as members of the visible church then, otherwise he would not have permitted them to receive its sign and seal.

The changes made in the covenant are well documented in the books of the New Testament. The narrowness of the church before Christ was expanded beyond Israel so that it would include people from all nations. The sign marking members of the covenant was also enlarged so that both males and females were proper recipients. (The reason for this change likely involved the symbolic federal headship of the husband and father which was fulfilled by the completion of the work of Christ who is the second Adam, the federal head representing all who believe. This was taken up earlier in this lesson where we compared Baptism and Circumcision.)

It would be contrary to God’s enlargement of the covenant community if all the children of believers who were not old enough to believe on their own were no longer to be included. Only God can announce changes resulting from the fulfillment of his previous commandments. Considering this, it would be unprecedented and contrary to sound biblical interpretation to presume such a change when nothing is said of it in the Bible. No where in any of the New Testament books is such a change announced or shown by apostolic example.

Even a casual reading of the Epistles of the New Testament or the history of the early church in the book of Acts shows that the Inspired writers and the Apostles were diligent to advise the church about questions that would naturally arise among the Jewish believers as the covenantal changes took place. It would be astounding that no Jewish family in the decades covered by those books ever raised the question of their children’s inclusion in the covenant community. For thousands of years obedient parents placed the sign of the covenant upon their male children on the 8th day of their lives. If suddenly (with the change of the sign marking out believers from circumcision to baptism) children were to be excluded, their godly parents would have been informed. That no controversy or issue is recorded for the churches then, or for the churches using the New Testament as their guide in the years to come, is indicative that no such dramatic change took place. For lack of evidence to the contrary, God’s already revealed word must stand.

On the positive side of the issue, there is abundant evidence in the New Testament that the same practice of God’s people continued regarding the children of believing members of the covenant community, and regarding the families of those who believe and join the church.

The covenant promises which included the children of believers in the Old Testament were directly applied to the New Testament church.

In Acts 2:38-39 we read the words of Peter at Pentecost where he applied to the church the ancient promises made to Abraham and his descendants: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”

The Historically Reformed position has sometimes been misrepresented by well meaning Baptists regarding this passage. It is not claimed that the Genesis text directly addresses external membership in the church. But it does identify the covenant promise made to Abraham and his seed with the New Testament church as the proper heirs of the covenant nation promised to Abraham. That promise has to do with both the forgiveness of sin and the reception of the Holy Spirit. These are both central in the meaning of baptism as we showed in the previous section of this lesson.

The Reformed or Particular Baptists are more willing than other Baptists to see a connection between the Old and New Testaments, even between circumcision and baptism. But they misrepresent the infant baptism position as going too far in making an identity between the prefigurings and the fulfillments. Reformed infant-baptists limit the identity between circumcision and baptism by the changes clearly implied by the change in outward form. For example, both the pre-messianic shedding of blood and the limited application of the sign to only males anticipate the greater realities brought to completion by Christ (as explained previously).

The New Testament church and pre-messianic Israel are the same olive tree in Romans 11:16-17. Their unity does not deny basic changes directly explained by God himself. But the removal of children from the covenant community is no where commanded as a dispensational change.

To see how the New Testament church both understood and carried out the promise mentioned by Peter at Pentecost, we need to examine the examples of baptism in Scripture after the resurrection of Christ. There are only nine examples of baptism recorded in the book of Acts.

The first is the baptism of 3,000 at Pentecost. There are four baptisms where individual men were received into the church but families were not present. This leaves four baptisms where it expressly mentions the baptism of households along with the adult who became a believer. As Dr. Gregg Strawbridge observes, “… virtually every person who had a household had it baptized!”

If a person presumes that only adults who make a credible profession of faith can be members of the church and therefore can be baptized, he must also presume in all these cases that all the members of each household were not only old enough to understand the gospel but they each also believed and voluntarily submitted to baptism at the same moment. This is certainly possible. But it has nothing to do with the issue. We don’t know the ages of any children present in these families. But we do know that they were received as families without any qualifying comments being made.

If we set aside the presumptions, we would see these passages as a continuation of the practice commanded by God long ago for his covenant people. The including of the children was the common understanding every Jew would already have had. Both the Apostles who were sent out to baptize and the families to whom the gospel first came, would have known God’s instruction to mark out their children as members of the covenant community.

At this point the reader is directed to the excellent article by Dr. Gregg Strawbridge, Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach It? It would be redundant to reproduce here all the careful work he has done in reviewing the passages and arguments from Scripture that support the continuation of the inclusion of the children of believers in both the visible church and as proper subjects of the sign and seal of that membership.

The baptism of the infant children of believers does not save them, nor does it contradict the fact that babies are not able to believe before they are baptized. We will take up these and similar issues in the next section about the efficacy of baptism. The question does not fall down upon the fact that covenant children are commonly excluded from the Lord’s Table in most Reformed churches. We will take that up in the next chapter of the confession about that Sacrament.

The Efficacious Nature of Baptism

Westminster Confession of Faith 28

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

The issue of efficacy has been covered in the previous chapter in the section about the Sacraments as a Means of Grace.

It confuses the sign with what it represents if we believe that Baptism itself produces all that it represents and seals upon the recipients. The act of baptizing does not mean that the person receiving the sacrament is actually among the elect and therefore a member of the invisible church. As with circumcision in the time before Christ, it assures for every person being baptized only that he is a member of the visible church.

The grace represented is truly granted to (sealed upon) those qualified by the work of Christ under God’s covenant. Others receiving the sacrament who prove never to be regenerated by their lack of profession of faith and disobedience to God receive rightfully all the curses of that same covenant. This applies to adults as well as to infants who are baptized.

Similarly, if we look upon this act as merely an outward ritual or object lesson, we deny the promises God’s word attaches to Baptism. But since infants may not evidence the work of regeneration until later in life we say that the efficacy of baptism, the actual conveying of the graces signified, may not take place at the moment when the Sacrament is administered.

Since baptism represents the cleansing of sin and engrafting into the covenant body of the church it is rightly administered only once. There is no biblical justification or example of multiple baptisms of the same person.

Discussion Questions:
1. How can infants be baptized if they are not able to believe first?
2. What about infant salvation? Is it needed? Is it possible? Is it presumed?
3. Is there biblical justification for infant dedications?
4. Whose children may be baptized? Whose may not be baptized?
5. What if parents do not have their infant children baptized?
6. At what point in his life may a child no longer be baptized on the basis of the profession of faith by one of his parents?

Note: The Bible quotations in this lesson are from the New American Standard Bible (1988 edition) unless otherwise noted.

return to the top of this Page

Survey Studies in Reformed Theology

Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies
Bob Burridge ©2011

Ecclesiology: Lesson 2 – Of the Communion of Saints
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2002, 2011

Lesson Index
All true Christian are united to Jesus Christ
Every member has duties to perform for the good of all the members.
Though united, we do not cease to be individuals

Westminster Confession of Faith 26

I. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
II. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.
III. This communion which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of his Godhead; or to be equal with Christ in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous. Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.

A Union Together In Christ

Since we who are redeemed share in our union with the Lord Jesus Christ, we also have union with one another. This union is both a great blessing and an obligation.

All true Christian are united to Jesus Christ
Union with Christ is made possible by the election of God’s grace. We were once separated from God in a condition of spiritual death due to sin. Since no fallen man is able to do good in a pure and personal way, our reuniting with him must be a work of unmerited favor.

Ephesians 1 (particularly verse 4)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
8 which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight
9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him

That grace which unites us together in Christ applies the saving benefits of our Savior’s atonement to depraved and uncaring hearts by the special work of the Holy Spirit. It is appropriated by the regenerate individual through the exercise of the faith implanted into his otherwise spiritually dead heart. (For more detail see the syllabus notes on objective and subjective soteriology.)

Since spiritual death is our separation from God, spiritual life is by definition our union with him. That union produces a partaking of the blessings and enablements of God in our lives.

Several illustrations are given in Scripture to help us understand and appreciate the benefits and nature of our union with Christ.

In John 15 Jesus compares our union together in him with the relationship of a vine and its branches. The primary lesson is that fruit can only be produced when the branch draws its life from the vine. Those which do not bear fruit show that they have no real union with the vine and are cut off from appearing to be a part of it.

There is a sense in which this is similar to the work of the visible church. As a body of Christ and as individuals we are to produce evidences that show the redeeming work of the Savior upon our souls (Matthew 5:16). The church is also to exercise spiritual discipline. After diligent failed attempts to restore them they must be removed from membership. They show clearly and openly that they do not believe or care about the revealed principles and truths of God. If a person does not abide in Christ he shows evidence that he is not drawing life from him and is not in true union with him. Therefore he has no real spiritual union with those who do abide in Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 believers are represented as members of the body of Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 5:23 the church is likened to a bride married to our Lord who is the head.

These and other illustrations help us to understand the union we all have together by means of our union by grace in Christ.

Every member has duties to perform for the good of all the members.
There are general duties which obligate all believers, and special duties which are specialized in certain individuals for the good of the whole body of Christ.

Among our general duties are those of gathering for corporate worship and encouraging one another with an attitude of love. These ideas combine in the warning of Hebrews 10:24-25.

“and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near.”

As we learned in our study of Worship and the Sabbath (WCF chapter 21), loyal and faithful attendance at worship is an important Christian duty. We come as members of a local branch of the visible church to honor God in the ways he prescribes in his word. Worship ought to be the most unmovable item on our weekly calendars. Our planning for the week should include provisions to clear that one day for gathering as a spiritual family for the worship times called by the Elders. This is the most visible display to the world of the unity of believers as a body of Christ.

Our regular encouragement of one another in our spiritual maturity is another way our union is expressed visibly. We should look creatively and diligently for ways to stir our brothers and sisters in the Lord to love and good works. We do this when we gather for worship. We pray for one another with commitment and dedication. Paul prayed night and day for Timothy, as he said in 2 Timothy 1:3.

There are also special duties which are reflected in the special gifts and abilities God gives to individuals in his church.

The comparison of the church with a body in 1 Corinthians 12 is of special help to us in carrying out our duties and meeting our obligations to one another. Each Christian is a member of that body. Like the hand, or foot, each has specific responsibilities in using what God has given him. Some may have very humble and simple duties, but they should not be diminished in importance. Every person is important in making the body function as it should (1 Corinthians 12:22-24). This mutual dependence upon one another provides care for the needy, support in times of suffering and a sharing of joy in all the blessings of God on each person.

Our union in Christ places great value upon our individuality while it reveals the awesome blessing of our communion as a covenant people. Every gift our Lord gives to an individual believer is for the benefit of the whole church.

Though united, we do not cease to be individuals
Our union with Jesus Christ does not unite us with his incommunicable attributes. We remain finite, temporal, and changeable beings. There is no evidence that any attributes of deity are communicated to the redeemed.

We remain sinners saved by grace alone. We share only in those benefits secured for us by our Lord by his work of atonement, and by his continuing care for us as our Good Shepherd.

Though we were crucified with Christ, buried and raised with him, it is only by representation not by participation that we have union in these special works of redemption. Those represented by Christ add nothing from themselves to those acts except their need for salvation.

Our union together as believers does not eliminate the distinctions God has made in us as individuals. As we see in 1 Corinthians 12 and in other passages, we have differing abilities and blessings. No where are we told to forsake private ownership or individual achievement. But all we have should be used responsibly for the glory of God, and for the care of one another as loved family members in the church.

Sometimes Acts 2:44 is misused to promote a form of communism or socialism. This is not the correct interpretation of this passage and it does not reflect a socialistic economic or political sympathy in the early church. Clearly the mutual care they had was voluntary, not imposed by law or mandatory social order. The right of private ownership is presented as normative in the church when we consider the lie of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:4. The work and social ethics seen in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 also show that voluntary care was the policy of the Apostolic church rather than any form of socialism.

In our responsibilities together in the church we have the assurance that we belong to Christ and share in his life and promises. We, as members of his church share in one another’s burdens and joys.

It is good to examine our hearts and behaviors and ask, “How faithful are we each as members of the body of believers?” We should consider how we can be more faithful and effective in our worship, service, and fellowship.

Note: The Bible quotations in this lesson are from the New American Standard Bible (1988 edition) unless otherwise noted.

return to the top of this Page

Survey Studies in Reformed Theology

Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies
Bob Burridge ©2011

Nomology: Lesson 9 – Divorce
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2002, 2011

Lesson Index
Divorce: The Dissolving of the Marriage Bond
Sexual Immorality as a Ground for Divorce
Willful Desertion as a Ground for Divorce

Westminster Confession of Faith 24

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.

Divorce: The Dissolving of the Marriage Bond

The question of divorce is not merely a civil or social issue. There are moral principles which relate to the nature of marriage itself as ordained by God. Marriage is presented in Genesis 2:24 as the joining of two persons into one. This is a bond for life. The purposes of marriage are those stated in our last section of studies (WCF 24:1-4). If marriage is the binding of two into one, then divorce is a recognition that the bond has been destroyed in some fundamental sense.

Since God alone established the binding nature of marriage, only he can establish the situations that constitute a breaking of that bond. Since the marriage bond morally obligates both parties to life-long fidelity, there can be no grounds for divorce that recognizes both parties as innocent. Sin must have entered in, a sin so serious that it disfigures what marriage is and what it represents to the degree that the bond may be considered as broken if those specific conditions are met.

Two Grounds for Divorce
The only biblically revealed grounds able to dissolve the marriage bond while both partners are still living are sexual infidelity and willful desertion by an unbelieving spouse. If guilt regarding these sins is established by the court of the church, the innocent party, the victim of these specific offenses, may secure a legal decree of divorcement recognizing the obliteration of the marriage union.

Sexual Immorality as a Ground for Divorce
The first issue covered in the Confession is sexual immorality. First it deals with the discovery of sexual infidelity after a marriage contract had been agreed upon by the parties involved, and before the actual marriage takes place.

This presumes some type of direct contract of intent to marry made by the offending party. This would correspond with a betrothal or engagement. In such a case the innocent party of the contract may consider the agreement to be ended with no obligations remaining to marry the person who sinned in this manner.

Sexual immorality committed after the marriage is formally constituted provides legal grounds for the harmed partner to sue out a divorcement which formally ends the marriage obligations as if the offending party had died. Since marriage is only binding as long as both parties are living, this divorcement frees the innocent partner as if death had ended their marriage.

The Basic Biblical Principle
There are specific portions of Scripture which deal directly with the issue of divorce. One of the most important texts comes from Deuteronomy 24 where God clarifies the principle involved by a specific provision in the law as delivered by Moses. This portion is often misunderstood and misapplied. The confusion comes from the complex grammatical structure in the first four verses of that chapter.

1. When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,
2. and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife,
3. and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife,
4. then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

Notice that this entire section is one long sentence. First it sets up the conditions. Then it shows what God requires under those conditions, and the consequences of not doing what God requires. The conditions are laid out in the first three verses without any approval of any of the elements of the situation.

First the condition is explained. The circumstance is that a man marries a woman, and he finds she has some indecency in her, and as a result he divorces her and she marries another man, and her second marriage also fails by way of divorce, or it ends innocently by the death of her second husband.

Second the requirement is explained. The first husband may not take the woman again to be his wife. That is the only command made in this entire section.

Third the consequences are explained. The woman is to be considered as having been defiled. To marry her a second time after an intervening marriage is an abomination before the Lord. This practice would bring sin on the land given to Israel as her inheritance.

The Hebrew word translated as “defiled” in this translation is sometimes rendered “abomination”. It is a word that represents what John Murray calls “some kind of gross abnormality.” It is the same word used to describe homosexuality, sex with animals, the burning of children as sacrifices to idols, and other similarly offensive crimes. The purpose here is to describe the act of remarriage under these circumstances as something so horribly perverted that it should not be tolerated.

A few important observations must be made. First, there is no approval made of the divorces mentioned in this complex case. The second marriage may even have ended by the death of the husband which is without dispute a proper and moral end to a marriage contract.

All that we are warned against here is the remarriage of a person to an original spouse after the ending of an intervening marriage. This passage only regulates an extreme situation after a divorce. It does not establish grounds for divorce.

When Jesus commented on this passage, his words confirm this interpretation. In Matthew 19:7-9 some Pharisees presented a question to him,

7. They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

The reply Jesus made shows how the passage they cited in Deuteronomy 24 ought to be understood.

8. He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Jesus reworded their question. They had assumed that Moses commanded divorce. The root verb they used for commanded is entellomai (εντελλομαι) which means to command or to give an order. Jesus changed that to the verb permitted. He used the verb, epitrepo (επιτρεπω) which means to allow or to permit.

Jesus added that from the beginning it has not been this way. God’s creation ordinance (Genesis 2:24) established the union of marriage. By reference to this statement of Scripture, he clarified the biblical context of Deuteronomy 24. The divorce idea did not come from God. It is never set forth as a provision of the law. It could only have come from corrupted hearts bringing about conditions which diverge from those commanded by God.

Wrong things happen in our fallen world. When they do, God requires certain responses. When a person ends a marriage in an immoral way, the covenant community needs instruction about how to deal with such matters when they occur among them. There are limits even in God’s patience with sin among his people. While the sin of divorce had become a factor in their corrupted culture, they were not to let it progress to the point where they allowed remarriage after an intervening marriage.

Malachi 2:16 makes God’s attitude toward the concept of divorce very clear.

“For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

Though the law of Moses deals with many sins that effect a marriage, it never suggests or supports divorce as a way of dealing with the problems.

During the time of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, God gave a special directive to certain people to end their marriages. Some had married pagans which God had told them they were not permitted to marry. The leaders of Israel were concerned about the effects this was having on the people. We don’t know if these were polygamous marriages, or if other circumstances were involved. God’s directive to put away their wives and children was not established as a regular practice for God’s people. It was never referred to as a foundation for divorce by the prophets, by the Pharisees when they challenged Jesus on his principles, nor was it mentioned by Jesus when he explained how God’s word should be understood regarding divorce. It would be a serious misuse of these passages to use them to imply that God established grounds for divorce. This was a special circumstance settled not by God’s codified law, but by special revelation relating to just that one situation about which we have little information.

In the New Testament several passages address divorce directly. Jesus explained that the same moral principle which had been in place since the institution of marriage in Eden was still in place and binding. He often used the divorce principle as an illustration of how the law continues in his time.

In Luke 16:17-18 Jesus said,

“But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

In Mark 10:11-12 he said nearly the same thing.

“And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

In Matthew 19:3-6 Jesus showed that the principle of marriage established in Genesis continued to apply. Divorce had never been established by God.

And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

This passage forms the context of the comments Jesus made about the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:7-9 which we just reviewed. Mark 10 is very similar to the passage recorded in Matthew 19.

The basic doctrine of marriage as a union that continues until death is taught as God’s moral law all through Scripture. Any breaking of the marriage union other than by death could only be an act of sin.

According to the law of God, those sins that violate the marriage union were judged by various penalties. But none of them in the Old Testament provided for divorce as a solution.

In the case of adultery, which would have to be established before the elders by proper evidence, both offending parties were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-27). This would free an innocent partner from the union with the offending spouse by death, a provision consistent with the idea that marriage was binding only as long as both partners lived. Obviously a divorce judgment would not have been needed in the case of proven adultery since the marriage ended with the death of the executed party.

In a situation where adultery was suspected but not able to be proven by the laws of evidence, certain ceremonial rituals and cleansing laws were prescribed (Numbers 5:11-31), but the marriage was not terminated.

Other sexual offenses and their penalties are explained in Deuteronomy 22:13-29. Not one of them introduces the idea of a divorce.

An Exception
In Matthew 19:9 Jesus states an exception which implies that, while marriage continues to be a life-long union, there are circumstances which sinfully destroy that bond. These situations must be recognized for what they are and dealt with carefully. He said that to divorce and then to marry another person was adultery except in the instance of immorality.

Matthew 19:9, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In Matthew 5:32 Jesus similarly said,

“but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

The Greek word which in Matthew 19:9 is translated as immorality and as unchastity in Matthew 5:32 is porneia (πορνεια). This is a very broad term used for the various sexual misconducts forbidden in Scripture. In a marriage situation, it implies sexual intimacy with a person other than the spouse. This constitutes adultery. To engage in such behavior was, under the Mosaic Law, grounds for execution.

After the warnings of the ancient prophets had long been ignored, God judged Israel by removing her ability to sovereignly rule over her own territories. With the demise of the theocratic state and the imposition of pagan civil law, Israel was no longer able to carry out these civil penalties.

Under Roman rule, which dominated the region during the entire time of Jesus and the writing of the books of the New Testament, the Elders were no longer permitted to carry out any form of capital punishment. This is why, for example, the permission of Pilate was sought in the crucifixion of Jesus.

Since this change providentially eliminated death by execution as a means of freeing the victim partner from marriage to an adulterous spouse, an exception was in order. This exception was provided to ensure the continuing application of God’s immutable moral principles, and to preserve the image of the church seen in the relationship of marriage. Adultery effectively obliterates the marriage bond. Divorce recognizes and certifies for the innocent spouse that there remains no continuing obligations to the guilty party as if he had been put to death.

Death is recognized as an act that frees the living spouse to marry again as if the original bond no longer existed.

Romans 7:2-3, “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.”

Some have restricted the exception Jesus made merely to the granting of the divorce itself, but not extending to the permission to re-marry. The Roman Catholic church holds to this view as do some Protestant groups. They may grant a divorce in such cases, but the innocent party may not re-marry as if something of the original union still remained in the eyes of God. The grammatical grounds often cited for interpreting these verses in this way are invalid. It also leaves the concept of divorce without a clear definition. This restricted view of divorce becomes a mere permission to disregard the obligations to the original spouse but does not recognize the severing of the bond.

Reformed scholars recognize that divorce does not obliterate the union of marriage, it merely recognizes officially, by a court of the church, that such a severing of the bond has taken place. Therefore the innocent party is free to re-marry within the scope of what God would honor for any marriage, as if the partner was no longer alive.

Willful Desertion as a Grounds for Divorce
As the gospel brought God’s covenant beyond the boundaries of those who were physical descendants of Jacob, marriage was no longer restricted within those genetic lines. In the older dispensation of the Covenant, marriage was forbidden unless the spouse came under the civil and religious oversight of Israel. When new believers were brought into the Christian Church from among the Gentiles it was entirely possible that one spouse in a marriage would become a believer while the other did not.

This situation sometimes incited the unbelieving spouse to physically abandon the believing partner. Since the unbeliever was not a member of the covenant community, the courts of the congregation had no authority to deal with him or her. This willful desertion, if it could not be remedied by loving counsel and admonition, constituted a breaking of the bond of marriage. This is also grounds for issuing a divorcement which recognizes and certifies that the marriage union has been destroyed. Paul clearly explained this in his first letter to the Corinthian church. Though he was not directly quoting the Lord’s words spoken here on earth, the Apostle is expressing what the Holy Spirit instructed him to say for this newly developing situation.

1 Corinthians 7:12-16

12. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away.
13. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away.
14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
16. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

This portion of the Bible explains that believers are forbidden to abandon a spouse and must always seek to obey their marriage obligations regardless of the spiritual condition of the partner. There is a covenantal benefit to the spouse of a believer. This benefit does not mean they are regenerated or redeemed, but that they come under the blessings of God due to their partner belonging to the covenant community by faith in Christ. They are, in that sense, sanctified (set apart as special in some way) by union with a believing spouse.

Sometimes the believer’s faithful and loving testimony will be used by God, along with the message of the word of the gospel, to bring the unbeliever to Christ.

However, if the unbeliever abandons the believing spouse, the innocent partner is set free from the bond of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:15). This freedom can only be understood as being set free from their marital obligations and therefore the abandoned believer may marry another. In such cases a divorcement is in order to certify by proper authority that such is the case and that the bond of marriage had been severed through no fault of the innocent party.

There are many details of these exceptions which are helpful to study, but they go beyond the scope of these notes. The student is directed to the more complete handling of it in the book called Divorce written by John Murray.

Today, due to the influences of the values of a society which does not accept God’s word as its moral standard, some have suggested broadening the definition of abandonment to permit divorces among believers who separate, or who abandon one another mentally, or who believe they no longer love one another. This is covered by the confession when it concludes this section by saying that, “the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.”

The only permission given by God’s word relates to the abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. If both had professed faith in Christ and joined the covenant community by membership in the church through baptism and profession of faith, then abandonment is a chargeable offense against God’s law. The offending partner would be summoned before the church court to be admonished to repair the abandonment and resume his marriage obligations. If that person refuses to submit to the officers duly ordained and given charge over him or her according to God’s word, then the disobedient party may be removed from communicant membership and declared to give no evidence of being a believer. This is based upon Matthew 18:17-20 and is called “excommunication”. At this point the innocent party may consider the abandoning spouse to be an unbeliever and proceed under the directives of 1 Corinthians 7 to obtain a divorcement.

Mental abandonment goes beyond the statement of 1 Corinthians 7:15. The declaration that love has gone out of a marriage is no where permitted as a reason to end a marriage. We are commanded to love our spouses. To refuse to repair such a situation is open rebellion against the word of God and should be dealt with pastorally by the church.

The exceptions explained in these New Testament passages indicate that if a divorcement is issued for any other reason than adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, the divorce is invalid. Such people are not free to remarry. To do so would be adultery.

There is another issue that in practical situations often takes place. An unbelieving couple might get a divorce for unbiblical reasons, then a remarriage takes place. If one of those persons improperly remarries then becomes a believer and joins a church, where is his or her obligation?

Once a remarriage takes place, it is a valid bond with all the obligations of any marriage. Though adulterous in its origin and sinful, it is not invalid. Return to the original spouse (as some wrongly recommend) is absolutely forbidden in Deuteronomy 24. This author recommends that such a person should sincerely repent of his past sins and seek forgiveness in Christ who alone can remove the offense by his work of atonement. The current marriage should then be faithfully honored.

Note: The Bible quotations in this lesson are from the New American Standard Bible (1988 edition) unless otherwise noted.

return to the top of this Page

Survey Studies in Reformed Theology

Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies

Nomology: Lesson 6 – Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2001, 2011, 2013

Lesson Index
Truth is rooted in the nature of God
The Oath
The Vow

Westminster Confession of Faith 22 – Lawful Oaths and Vows

I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.
II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the new testament as well as under the old; so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.
III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. [Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.]
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt. Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.
V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.
VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.
VII. No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

Speaking the truth is a way of life
A person’s word is not always looked upon as being very reliable. Lying to serve one’s own purpose is very common. People regularly suspect they are being lied to in sales situations, when signing contracts, when being exposed to advertising, and in daily conversations. This should not characterize the Christian life style.

Truth is rooted in the nature of God

At the root of the problem is an understanding about truth which makes it independent of an absolute point of reference. Either there is an absolute determinant of reality, or there is not. If there is no such standard, then truth becomes a flexible matter to be fit into the way we perceive reality around us. This would mean that truth is different to different people at different times. Reality becomes what a person thinks it to be at the moment he speaks. Or it becomes what appears to fit best within his larger constructions of the universe. On the other hand, if there is an absolute measure of what is true, then either it is found in God as Creator, or in some other independent standard embedded in the physical universe itself.

Biblically we learn that God made all things and upholds all things. Therefore, truth is the way he knows things to be. What agrees with the mind of God on any matter is therefore “true” by definition. Reality is what God knows things to be.

This means that truth is never created, it can only be discovered. The means of its discovery is revelation both general and special. Our senses, conscience, and reason are the means by which general revelation reaches our understanding. The problem is in the fallen state that processes what comes in to our senses. It is necessarily imperfect and is bound always to produce distortions. Special revelation gives those regenerated by grace an objective means for correcting the errors of their finite and fallen perceptions. (For definitions of these different kinds of revelation, see Unit One of this Syllabus, “Prolegomena”, the lesson on “Revelation”)

The revelation made by God is always our source of truth and is always reliable. It is directly stated in Titus 1:2 that God cannot lie. It would contradict his own nature and bring his attributes into internal conflict with one another if he spoke things which were untrue. If it could be conceived that God could lie, then there would be some absolute standard above and outside of God to which his words and knowledge must conform. Since there is no such authority higher than and external to God, we can know and rely upon his word as the infallible standard.

Since truth is such a fundamental attribute of God it must be honored by his creatures in all they represent as true. All rational beings are under obligation to reflect this divine attribute and are therefore required to be honest.

The ninth commandment summarizes this moral principle in warning us never to bear false testimony against another person. This fundamental moral obligation is often repeated in Scripture so that there can be no question about its nature.

Zechariah 8:16 “Speak the truth to one another”

Ephesians 4:25 “laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”

There can never be a time or situation when truth is not the morally right thing to declare. Dr. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology says, “A man who violates truth sins against the very foundation of his moral being. … Truth is at all times sacred, because it is one of the essential attributes of God. Truth is … the very substratum of Deity.” (Vol. III, chapter XIX, section 13)

Lying is a characteristic of Satan and his kingdom. This is openly declared by our Lord when in John 8:44 he said of the Devil, “… he is a liar, and the father of lies.”

Satan lied to Eve about God’s word concerning the forbidden tree. He tempts us to substitute immoral pleasure for moral pleasure as if it would be better for us. He calls us to believe doctrines that make God out to be other than he reveals himself to be. He would convince us to believe that we are not as corrupted by sin as God reveals. He would make us doubt that the gospel is sufficient to deliver us, or that it does not require a living faith and repentance as its certain evidences. He tries to convince us to behave either with a pious, judgmental legalism, or with a loose permissiveness. The redeemed in Christ must love truth, for truth is of God.

The Oath

(WCF 22:1-4)
An oath is a solemn promise or pledge made by one person to another. But it is more than a mere statement of intent. It includes a stated or implied judgment if the promise or pledge is not honored.

It is proper to take oaths.
As a foundation for understanding what part an oath ought to play in our lives, it is helpful to look to a few places where our Lord expounded upon the meaning and application of the moral law of God.

Matthew 5:33-37 Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; and anything beyond these is of evil.

This passage is often abused by some who would deny that oaths are proper for our age. They would read it to be an abrogation of a previously binding moral principle. But clearly Jesus was not changing the law in this address. His purpose was to clear up a false interpretation of the law which was being promoted at that time, and to reaffirm the moral principle behind the written words of Scripture.

Some Jews at that time had come to believe that only certain oaths were binding and that some were more binding than others. The Rabbis classified oaths into these three categories: binding, somewhat binding, and not binding.

They taught that the only binding oaths were those made in a particular form depending upon the authority by which they were sworn. The truly binding oaths were those made in the name of God. To avoid the burden of being obligated by one’s words, it became common to swear by lesser authorities such as by heaven, by earth, or by Jerusalem.

Similar expressions are used today as people swear that what they are saying is the truth. They bind themselves that it is truth by calling upon God as witness, or by calling upon lesser standards seeming to imply judgment upon them if they are lying. They might say, “I swear that its the truth,” or “I cross my heart…” perhaps even invoking death with words like, “I hope to die,” or “may lightning strike me.”

We have often learned to be most cautious around those who swear in such a manner. Usually it is because they do not have a reputation for loyalty to their word. Therefore they believe they need to put their words into some form of an oath in order to convince others to believe them.

Jesus reaffirmed the binding nature of oaths while correcting their abuse in Matthew 23.

Matthew 23:16-22 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.’ You fools and blind men; which is more important, the gold, or the temple that sanctified the gold? And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering upon it, he is obligated.’ You blind men, which is more important, the offering or the altar that sanctifies the offering? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. And he who swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.”

Notice the contrasts reflected in the way some viewed which authority as binding for an oath:

Not Binding	Binding
the temple	the temple gold
the altar	the sacrifice
heaven	God

Jesus pointed out the error of such impossible distinctions. The categories had not come from God’s word. They were derived from the convenient inventions of men who would like to excuse themselves from the binding nature of their promises.

In the Matthew 5 passage Jesus added that even when a person swears by his own head, God is not excluded as witness. No man can change the actual nature of the hairs of his head. God alone is sovereign over such things and therefore we involve him in the oath. Whenever we swear invoking some authority to back up our word we bring the Lord of the universe into our oath.

Fundamentally, Jesus is teaching that an oath ought to be reserved for specially solemn occasions and not simply used to convince people that we are not lying, which may be necessitated by our less than reliable reputation. In our ordinary activities we should avoid oaths. Our word should be sufficient without swearing by some authority. Our reputation should cause people to trust us. Our distinction as lovers of truth should declare our ultimate respect for the God of truth. We should simply speak truth without feeling the need to always put it in the form of an oath. Make sure our “yes” is a sincere “yes”, our “no” an honest “no”.

Jesus did not say that an oath, everything stronger than “yes, yes,” is sinful. He said that it comes from evil, not that it is evil. The need to strengthen the sound of our promises with oaths is the product of pervasive lying. This evil generates the perceived need for trivial oath taking to convince others to give their trust.

God’s word shows that oaths are very proper when taken on extraordinary occasions.

Numbers 30:2 “If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.”

Deuteronomy 10:20 “You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, you shall swear by His name.”

There is also an important warning in the law that oaths must be taken very seriously and given in sincerity. Leviticus 19:12 says, “you shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God;”

There are many examples of oaths in Scripture.
They were used by God in the disclosing of his covenant:

• Abraham (Genesis 14:22-24; 21:23,24; 24:3,9)
• Isaac (Genesis 26:31)
• Jacob (Genesis 31:53; 28:20-22)
• Joseph (Genesis 47:31; 50:5)
• Princes (Joshua 9:15)
• see also (Judges 21:5; Ruth 1:16-18; 2 Samuel 15:21; 1 Kings 18:10)
• Jesus used a common oath form when he said “Verily, Verily I say…”
• Jesus agreed to the oath proposed by the High Priest. (Matthew 26:63)

God’s own promises are often sealed with an oath made by nothing higher than himself. See Luke 1:73, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 3:11, 18; 4:3; and …

Hebrews 6:16-17, “men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath …”

As long as lying is a fact of our fallen world, oaths remain a proper form for solemn pledges made between humans. Nowhere has God told us that this law has been changed or canceled. While it is wrong to profane an oath by making trivial promises not intended to be taken seriously, a properly taken oath serves a godly purpose.

Perjury is specially forbidden.
Perjury is the act of willfully making a false oath. It is a false witness against a neighbor sealed with a solemn promise in direct violation of the 9th Commandment. This form of lying involves not only the intention to deceive, it also deprives another person the benefit of the truth when they are obligated to make a just decision based upon the facts. In a court it is a sin against the victim, against the state, and against God.

Psalm 24:3-4, “Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? and who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not sworn deceitfully.”

Psalm 15:3, “He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend.”

Zechariah 8:16-17, “Speak the truth to one another, judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I hate, declares the LORD.”

Partial truths are partial lies
There are times when a truth is given only in part. This withholding of important information can be intended to make a person draw wrong conclusions. Unspoken details and double meanings, or technically limited language can lead a person to impressions contrary to what is true. Such tools have been the instruments of deceivers all through the ages. Silence can be a form of deceitfully withholding truth.

Leviticus 5:1 “… if he does not tell it, he will bear his guilt.”

Psalm 101:5 “Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy”

There are oaths which are proper according to God’s Word.
Witnesses are often asked to take an oath in courts of law invoking the penalty of perjury if they do not tell the truth. Church officers are asked to take oaths at their ordinations and installations. Marriage is an oath taken between the bride and groom where they promise one another to be faithful for the remainder of their lives. Marriage also involves a vow to God before witnesses. Civil magistrates also take oaths upon assuming office. These are cases where the solemnizing of promises by an oath are proper and good. But we should not degrade the oath by swearing trivially in our ordinary dealings with one another as if our word without it would not be reliable.

To disavow an oath is sin
Once an oath is taken it calls judgment upon the oath taker if he should fail to fulfill the promises made. Ezekiel 17:19 says, “thus says the Lord GOD, ‘as I live, surely My oath which he despised and My covenant which he broke, I will inflict on his head.’ ”

Since an oath is considered as a solemn pledge to someone made before God, it must be kept even if it may prove to be inconvenient or a cause of discomfort to the oath taker. Psalm 15:4 says of the virtuous man, “He swears to his own hurt, and does not change.”

Treaties made with foreign nations are a form of an oath which must not be taken lightly, even if it proves to be inconvenient. In Joshua 9:19 God’s word says, “But all the leaders said to the whole congregation, ‘We have sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel, and now we cannot touch them. This we will do to them, even let them live, lest wrath be upon us for the oath which we swore to them.’ ”

There are improper oaths
All our oaths must be agreeable with the Word of God. An oath can not bind us to do something that is sinful. For example, parents who made a vow to raise their children in some false religion would not be bound to that pledge once they came to know the truth of God in Christ. The former vow is contrary to what God commands. It is wrong to make an improper oath to begin with. If it is made in ignorance, a person should not consider himself bound to it. It violates a higher law which cannot be set aside by our promises. The person who has taken a foolish or improper oath must repent of it to God, and humbly submit to the consequences of the judgment of men for what ever penalties he called upon himself for failing to do what he pledged to do.

No oath between men can invalidate our holy obligations to God. If we knowingly sin to keep a vow taken in foolish ignorance, we sin doubly against God.

The Vow

(WCF 22:5-7)
A vow is a solemn promise or pledge made directly by a person to God.

Vows are to be properly made.
We are warned in God’s word that our vows should be made with solemn consideration of the obligations we take upon ourselves. It is an offensive breach of respect toward God to frivolously obligate ourselves to things we do not seriously intend to carry out. We have a solemn obligation to be truthful in all the promises we make.

Deuteronomy 23:21-23 When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you. You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised.

God is the only authority by which we seal our oaths with one another. In the case of the vow, we make our pledge directly to him. Therefore God is a party to our vows, he is the judge over our faithfulness to them, and he is the formal witness to the promises made.

Psalm 116:14, “I shall pay my vows to the LORD.”

Ecclesiastes 5:2-5, “do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few. When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it, for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.”

There are some vows we make as directed by God’s word
Since these vows relate to the Christian community, they usually also involve solemn oaths we make with the other members of the congregation and the church officers.

We take vows of membership in the local church
Every Christian should unite together with spiritual brothers and sisters for mutual encouragement (Hebrews 10:24-25), and to be shepherded under the authority of those called by God to lead his church (Hebrews 13:17, Matthew 18:17-20). They must come together for Sabbath worship as the Elders call them. They should come for instruction in the word, and to unite in prayer.

When we enter into the earthly obligations and benefits of a local church fellowship we are pledging ourselves to God to be obedient to his commands given in our congregational duties. Whether it is formally spoken or not, it is a solemn vow when we join a church.

The specific wording of pledges made by members differs among the churches since God’s word does not specify the exact form. In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Book of Church Order requires members to promise before God, the officers, and the other church members that they will be faithful in their duties as part of the spiritual family they are joining. It is therefore both an oath and a vow.

Those joining are told in the presence of the congregation (BCO 57:5), “(All of) you being here present to make a public profession of faith, are to assent to the following declarations and promises, by which you enter into a solemn covenant with God and His Church.”

Then the prospective members are asked to assent to each of 5 questions:
1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

Such obligations are not to be taken lightly. This is not like membership in a club or agency invented by men. It is becoming a part of the local body of Jesus Christ under the authority of the officers called by God and ordained to serve as shepherds over God’s sheep. It means obligating one’s self to the loving brotherly care of every other member of the congregation even when it is difficult or inconvenient to do so. One can no more terminate a solemn vow of church membership, than a child can by mere choice decide to no longer be a part of his natural family and refuse the authority of his parents.

Most churches require membership classes so that these vows and oaths are made with a full understanding of the obligations engaged when a person joins. Church officers are wise to always examine each candidate for membership to determine that the oaths and vows they will take are being agreed to with full understanding and serious commitment.

Marriage involves a solemn vow before the Lord
Based upon the covenant bond of marriage (see for example Genesis 2:24, Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5), a man and a woman take on solemn duties when they agree to be husband and wife. This bond is a promise to God and an oath to one another. The covenant bond of marriage is not to be taken lightly or casually. The words spoken in a Christian wedding service spell out the duties both toward God and toward one another. Those duties are agreed to with a pledge from each of the partners to be faithful to one another as long as they both shall live. Because of its nature as a duty to God as well as to one another, marriage can not be viewed as a mere temporary agreement. It is also not simply a civil arrangement or cultural tradition.

Parents take a vow for their covenant children.
Based upon the covenant bond which defines the family of the believer (see for example Genesis 17:7 and Acts 2:38-39) parents promise before God and before his church that they will endeavor to raise their children in the hearing of the gospel, and within the boundaries of the moral principles God expects of all his people. They promise to teach their children the truths of the Bible, to live before them as godly examples, to pray for them and with them regularly, and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (PCA’s BCO 56:5).

Church officers take vows before the Lord
When the call of a man to the office of Elder or Deacon is confirmed, he is asked to make a vow before God which is witnessed by other officers in the presence of the people over which he will serve. He also makes certain promises as an oath to the body that holds his ordination. To violate those pledges is direct abandonment of a solemn duty to which the person has given his word.

Some treat oaths and vows as if they were trivial promises
In times of fear or threat people are sometimes tempted to rashly make a vow to God. They make solemn promises upon the condition that God delivers them from some danger or threat. It is certainly not forbidden to make such promises. However, it must be remembered that after the danger is passed, the duties remain. We do well to remember the warnings of God’s word in Deuteronomy 23:21-23 and Ecclesiastes 5:2-5 that it is better to say nothing, to make no vow, than to promise things you will not keep. Like our oaths before men, our word given to God must be made solemnly.

Some vows are not proper to make.
We may only promise what we have the authority to lay before God. A person can not make a proper vow that obligates someone else to a duty, and he cannot promise to do what he has no right to do. A child or other person who does not understand the duty to which he is asked to obligate himself should not be permitted to swear to an oath or vow.

Our promises must not presume upon God things he has not promised us. In some churches the people are asked to make financial pledges beyond what they expect to afford. Rather than giving the Tithe (10%) and more as the Lord blesses, they are told to trust God to provide more than what they expect to be able to give. However, God has not revealed that he will increase our giving based upon such an oath. To trust in what God has not promised is not biblical faith. It is an existential leap in the dark. Faith is a firm trust in what God has revealed. It is not a hope in what we would like him to do if we had our way. No one can know in advance what the Lord will give or take from him. We are warned against such an attitude by God’s word. For example, James 4:13-16 says, “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.’ Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord will, we shall live and also do this or that.’ But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.”

It is not proper to denounce God’s provisions by taking vows of poverty.
The ownership of personal property is not evil or worldly. It is very right to own things and to use them in lawful ways as we choose (see the example of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:4). The law forbidding us from stealing implies that it is right for individuals to own things for themselves. To vow against the enjoyment of things with which God blesses us is not a proper vow.

Vows of celibacy are improper impositions for religious orders.
Though God may call some to be celibate, he does not tie that calling with his call to serve in the ministry of the church. Those religious orders which require this of all who are ordained require vows contrary to the word of God. While some are to remain single, it does not make it a more virtuous life (see Matthew 19:11, 1 Corinthians 7:2). Individually, celibacy ought to be practiced only when in God’s providence marriage is not possible or desirable for the individual.

The case of Jephthah — a foolish, careless vow

Judges 11 is a very difficult chapter to interpret. It presents a vow foolishly made, and the consequences of it when circumstances within what seemed to be the scope of the vow turned in an unexpected way.

Judges 11:1-3 introduces the person of Jephthah.

Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a valiant warrior, but he was the son of a harlot. And Gilead was the father of Jephthah. And Gilead’s wife bore him sons; and when his wife’s sons grew up, they drove Jephthah out and said to him, “You shall not have an inheritance in our father’s house, for you are the son of another woman.” So Jephthah fled from his brothers and lived in the land of Tob; and worthless fellows gathered themselves about Jephthah, and they went out with him.

The next part of the chapter explains that after a time the Ammonites came to fight against Israel. The Elders of Gilead asked Jephthah to help them fight against Ammon. They vowed before God to make him chief over Gilead if he would help. Jephthah agreed and so swore before the Lord at Mizpah. Jephthah negotiated with the King of Ammon over the land dispute. But the King of Ammon disregarded the reasoning of Jephthah. In response Jephthah made a vow to the Lord;

Judges 11:30-31, And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, “If Thou wilt indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”

It was common at that time to have animals roaming freely on the property of those who owned them. Archaeological studies of lot layout of primitive homes show that some had a design where the living area opened into court yards connected with walled-in pens which would allow animals to come out of the entry when someone approached. It was probably a common sight when returning home.

The Lord gave victory to Jephthah over Ammon.

Judges 11:32-33, So Jephthah crossed over to the sons of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD gave them into his hand. And he struck them with a very great slaughter from Aroer to the entrance of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim. So the sons of Ammon were subdued before the sons of Israel.

Jephthah returned home with joy over his victory and with the expectation of thankfully fulfilling his vow to the Lord. But when he approached his house he was not greeted in the way he expected. The foolishness of his vow became evident to him.

Judges 11:34-35, When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came about when he saw her, that he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are among those who trouble me; for I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot take it back.”

The daughter understood the solemn obligations her father had placed upon himself and responded with full submissiveness. But she added a request about the timing of how the promise of the vow would be carried out.

Judges 11:36-38, So she said to him, “My father, you have given your word to the LORD; do to me as you have said, since the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the sons of Ammon.” And she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go to the mountains and weep because of my virginity, I and my companions.” Then he said, “Go.” So he sent her away for two months; and she left with her companions, and wept on the mountains because of her virginity.

When her time was completed she returned to her father as promised.

Judges 11:39-40, And it came about at the end of two months that she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

We are told in Judges 12:7 that Jephthah judged Israel six years.

The moral problem has to do with understanding how Jephthah carried out his vow in verse 39. Did he kill her and offer her as a burnt offering to the Lord?

Various interpretations have been offered:

1) She took a vow of celibacy being dedicated to the Lord in service.
This interpretation is based upon the comment in verse 39 that “she had no relations with a man.” Those promoting this view say that the father gave his daughter to the Lord by dedicating her to perpetual virginity. In this way she would not fulfill her life’s purpose as a woman and implies a kind of death and sacrifice in a non-literal way.

The problem is that this suggestion is based upon ideas not supplied in the text itself. If we could give figurative meanings to things we vow, making them mean things not stated and obviously not intended when the vow was made, then all our promises would be worthless if the payment proved difficult for the debtor.

2) The word “and” in verse 31 should be translated as “or”.
The Hebrew letter vav which is usually rendered “and” in this passage can sometimes be treated as the disjunctive “but”, and on occasions as “or”. This would mean that in the original vow Jephthah left himself with the choice of either dedicating what came out of the door to the Lord, or offering it up as a sacrifice. If this is correct, then Jephthah was only obligated to dedicate his daughter to the Lord in some special way. The Young’s Literal Translation takes this approach.

The problem with this view is that it hardly explains the extreme grief seen in Jephthah when he saw his daughter come out of the house. It is possible that the idea that he would never have grandchildren by her would make him grieve, but that would also assume that the dedication he had in mind was her perpetual virginity as in the previous theory.

But this is not the usual way this grammatical construction is used. Most translations which follow ordinary Hebrew idiomatic structures do not support this interpretation. The ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, Confraternity, and others reject this suggestion.

3) Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord.
This view takes the plain meaning of the text literally. It views the account as an historical record without moral commentary. Jephthah is never commended for what he did. No where in Scripture does it say that what he did was right or acceptable to the Lord.

The problem of course is that if he fulfilled his vow by killing her as a sacrifice, he would have violated clear mandates in God’s law. Human sacrifice is forbidden (see Deuteronomy 12:31).

However, in other historic accounts in the Bible characters do evil things which are not always identified as such. It is assumed that the reader would understand that it was sin since the law already had made it clear. The purpose of historical records is not to point out the wrongness of everything done, but to present an accurate history of how God used fallen men to further his plan of redemption and to make his glory known.

If Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter, it gives us a graphic illustration of a foolish vow. Since he was not morally permitted to kill his daughter the vow could not obligate him to do so. The vow was poorly and carelessly worded. A careless vow is sinful in itself and could not obligate a person to further sin in honor of the improper pledge. His vow should have been clearer about what he meant. He might have more properly said “… whatever comes out of the house that would please the Lord as a sacrifice would be offered.”

Yet problems remain if this is taken literally. It is hard to understand why the writer of Judges would condemn most of the immoralities of other judges, but in this case doesn’t even mention that such an abomination was wrong.

A sacrifice of this nature does not seem to fit the way sacrifices were to be made in the Levitical period. Since Jephthah was not a priest his sacrifices were to be taken to the Tabernacle. Only sacrifices that met the qualifications in God’s law could be presented there. Was Jephthah so concerned with keeping his vow but so unconcerned about the whole rest of God’s written law that he would make a forbidden sacrifice in a forbidden place and do it himself though he was not a priest?

Many also note that Jephthah’s personality does not seem to go along with rash actions. He had carefully negotiated before he accepted the job offered to him by the Elders before he left to fight the Ammonites. His careful negotiations with Ammon are considered to be a model of superb diplomacy. Only after he had exhausted every avenue of reason did he decide to go to battle. He was a good military strategist who planned carefully for his victory. And his vow was not made during a stressful moment. It was made in a time of careful deliberation before the Lord.

No real moral problem
Since the Bible doesn’t interpret this account there is no real problem presented to us other than our inability to understand the story fully. What ever actually happened may not be known to us for certain unless the Lord should someday explain it in glory. There is no moral conflict since we are only told the facts as a narrative. If he did kill his daughter, it was wrong and the Bible implies nothing that would justify his actions. If he did not kill her but did something else, then we can only speculate as to what that was.

There are portions of Scripture that are hard to fully understand. The defect is not in the Bible, since such portions accomplish their purpose even if some of the details remain a mystery to us. But stories of this nature are still useful. They teach us the history of God’s people. They show that the characters God used in unfolding his plan were real, fallible people like those we know in our own era. From accounts like this one we see how sin yields tragedy. Unclear texts often drive us to search the Scriptures and think through what is taught.

What do we learn from this account?
From this lesson we are reminded dramatically that we must be careful not to take an oath or vow carelessly. We should never make deceptive promises we hope we will not have to keep. We should not presume upon God things he has not promised us. We must not make vows that denounce the richness of God’s blessings in our lives. We should not feel obligated to keep sinful or immoral promises which should be repented of rather than carried out. And we must not vow to do things beyond our authority or ability to perform them.

We are better off not to make pledges at all than to obligate ourselves to ones we break. We ought to keep all lawful oaths and vows even if we will suffer hardships in fulfilling our obligations. We must speak as those who love the God of truth, who desire to show the value of truth, and who strive to faithfully keep the commitment we make to God and to others.

[Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (1988 edition) unless otherwise noted.]

Survey Studies in Reformed Theology

Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies

Nomology: Lesson 5 – The Sabbath Day
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2000, 2011, 2013

Lesson Index
Meaning of the word “Sabbath”
Two Kinds of Sabbath
Historical Evidence
Was the Creation Sabbath Abrogated in the New Testament?
Upon Which Day of the Week Should the Sabbath Be Kept?
How are we to Keep the Sabbath Day?

Note: Since this is such a complex subject with many interconnected elements there are times when things previously mentioned and defined are restated to apply them to various implications of the principle being expanded upon.

Westminster Confession of Faith 21:7

As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

Meaning of the word “sabbath”

The word “sabbath” translates the Hebrew word shabbat (שבת). It comes from the verb shavat which means “to cease,” “to desist from something,” “to rest.” It is related to the Assyrian verb sabatu “to cease”, “to be complete”. The related Assyrian noun is sabattum.

The root meaning shows that a sabbath day means “a day of ceasing,” It is a day of rest from that which was being done on the other days of the week. This is the contrast made in God’s word.

Some have made the mistake of thinking that the word means “seventh”. The Hebrew word for “seventh” is shevi’i (שביעי). It is related to the Assyrian sibittu. Other than having two letters in common, the roots and spellings of these words are totally different from the word used for sabbath.

The modern Hebrew Shabbat is kept from sun-down on Friday to sun-down on Saturday. That delimitation seems to have been practiced all the way back to the Roman period not long before the time of Jesus. We do not know how much farther back that practice goes. Many different calendars were in use down through history as various cultures and empires influenced the way years, months and days were reckoned.

The Moral Law as summarized in the Decalogue tells us to, “Remember the Sabbath day” using the same term. The reference is to “the ceasing day”. The words do not in themselves mean the “seventh day.” Attachment to some absolute corresponding universal calendar day used by everyone to mark off a week is not the essential moral issue as the inspired word states it. One day in every seven is designated by God for Shabbat as a creation ordinance. That day was to follow six days of labor, regardless of how that fit in with the calendar being used by society in general at that time.

Two Kinds of Sabbath

God’s work of creation established the seven-day cycle. The Sabbath Day was a memorial binding upon Adam and the whole human race descending from him. The Bible clearly teaches that this obligation is perpetual. Much later when God’s plan was expanded to Israel by Moses, other uses of the sabbath principle were imposed upon Israel to prefigure the redemptive work of the Messiah. Therefore we ought to recognize two separate levels of law included in the Sabbath principle at the time of Christ:

1. Creation Sabbath: binding perpetually upon all humans since Creation – commemorative of Creation
2. Levitical Sabbaths: binding upon Israel until fulfillment in Christ – revelatory of Redemption

Before this distinction is expanded upon, the student is urged to review our studies on The Law of God, the first lesson of this Syllabus in the Nomology Unit. In that section we concluded that moral law is characterized by particular properties which help us to categorize the principles revealed in Scripture such as the various levels of Sabbath law. They are as follows:

1. Since basic moral principles express the nature of the Creator, it is not possible for these principles to be variable or optional in a creation intended to declare the Creator’s glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Therefore we say that the moral laws are each necessary and cannot be abrogated without confusing or denying aspects of God’s unchanging nature.

2. Since the nature of God is eternal and unchangeable, so also must the moral principles of his creation be perpetually binding.

3. Since God made all of Creation to declare his glory which includes his holiness and justice, therefore God makes known his moral principles obligating all moral creatures to obey them perfectly and personally for as long as creation exists.

Considering these properties, it will become evident as we go through the details in God’s word that the Creation Sabbath fits the category of Moral Law, and that the Levitical Sabbaths do not. They fit into the category of Ceremonial Law. All law is “fulfilled in Christ” but not all in the same way since they had different purposes.

The Creation Sabbath is primarily related to the work of bringing the physical universe into being. Since all humans owe their existence to that event, and since this principle was imposed prior to the fall of man into sin, this day was set aside as special for all humans for all time. It has no specific redemptive element, though it lays the foundation for the means of salvation by establishing the Sovereign authority of God over all he made. It is nowhere stated in Scripture that the atoning work of Jesus fulfills the duty of everyone to honor God as Creator. Genesis records the introduction of Sabbath to the representative head of the entire human race in Eden:

Genesis 2:1-3, “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.”

The Sabbath represents God’s ceasing from his work of creating all things out of nothing. The main element was not recuperative rest, since God needed none. The “rest” is that of ceasing from what he had been doing. Therefore the primary focus of the Creation Sabbath is ceasing from our labors and remembering the Sovereign Creatorship of God to whom all glory belongs. This makes it a perpetual day of worship as long as the created heavens and earth remain. Therefore it is moral in its nature.

The Levitical Sabbaths were made binding upon Israel after the Exodus as part of the system later abrogated by Christ. That system of symbols, ceremonies, and sacrifices were instituted to reveal the redemption Messiah would accomplish and the benefits of that redemption. It was administered by the tribe of Levi.

These Levitical Sabbaths commemorated the rest granted to Israel upon her deliverance from Egypt and foreshadowed the rest promised in the land pledged to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That represented the greater rest we find in Jesus Christ as our Savior. They also marked out Israel from the nations as a covenant community by the special requirements they made upon their culture and calendar. It was a foreshadowing of the way God marks out all his people he ordained to be redeemed by Christ.

These temporal Sabbaths began in the deliverance from Egypt and were layered upon the moral principle given at creation rather than being an essential part of it. The rest promised was essentially fulfilled in the finished work of Christ. Therefor these special days, like the other special feast days established under Moses, have no place in the Messianic era that followed the ascension.

Since the sabbaths of the Levitical period deal with redemption from sin, they are only moral in the sense of revealing God’s grace and justice during a particular time segment of history and are therefore not moral in nature, but are better categorized as ceremonial law.

Historical Evidence

Evidence shows that the Creation Sabbath is a perpetual, unchanging commandment, binding upon all humans to reveal the creation power and glory of God, and is therefor moral in nature.

1. The Creation Sabbath in Eden prior to the fall of man.
The sabbath principle was established at creation. Therefore it is a Creation Ordinance. Genesis 2:3 directly states this principle before the corruption of the human race through Adam.

2. The Creation Sabbath in the Pre-Mosaic period after the fall
Very little is recorded of the daily lives of God’s people during the earliest ages of human history. The whole period between Adam and Noah covers many lifetimes, yet it is summarized in only two chapters of Scripture. Obviously God did not intend to record much detail about this time other than what was important for his purpose in showing the major events of redemptive history. Yet even here we see indications that the basic creation sabbath principle was in effect.

a) A seven-day cycle was assumed.
Even in the brief description of the life of Noah we see that twice the period of time he waited for the doves to return after the flood ended was seven days (Genesis 8:10,12). This is an unusual choice since such a period does not follow natural sun or moon cycles. The sabbath ordinance, already stated just a few chapters earlier by Moses, the same author, gives a contextual foundation that accounts for the time reference.

b) The manna gathering provisions assume prior knowledge of sabbath.
Exodus 16:4-5,13-30 shows that manna was not to be gathered on the Sabbath. Twice the needed amount was provided on the sixth day in the labor cycle so that no labor for provisions needed to be done on the seventh day.

16:23 “…Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD.”
16:26 “six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the sabbath, there will be none.”

These manna provisions were explained before the ten commandments and the other Levitical laws were given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Yet the manna arrangements clearly assumed that the people would understand what he meant without explanation. They must already have had some concept of the practice of keeping the Creation Sabbath by ceasing from labor.

c) The fourth commandment implies a prior knowledge and practice.
When the Sabbath law was codified in the Ten Commandments as recorded in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 the people were told to remember the Sabbath, and to keep it holy. It is hard to read these words as having no reference to something the people previously knew and practiced.

Moses did not institute or begin the idea of sabbath at this time. No explanation was given. There was no implied need to help the people know what a Sabbath was. It should be noted also that none of the other commandments represent a new moral idea either. Moral law did not begin at Sinai. It is a serious error to limit the moral law of the Creator to the Ten Commandments. They were only a summary of moral principles to clarify them for the covenant people of God.

3. The Creation Sabbath in the Mosaic / Levitical period
No one seriously questions the proper application of the Creation Sabbath in the time of Moses. The Fourth Commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15 is the longest and most detailed of the Ten Commandments.

a) Time of the Kings and Prophets (the later Levitical period)
Many references in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the books of Kings, Chronicles, Nehemiah and elsewhere show the vital importance placed upon the Sabbath by God’s prophetic messengers. Isaiah 58:13-14 speaks of keeping Sabbath as a major blessing to God’s people. Many of our most respected Bible scholars have shown that this text primarily looks forward to the time of Messiah’s rule (Hodge, Calvin and others).

b) In the Life of Jesus (the end of the Levitical period)
Jesus regularly attended the synagogue on the Sabbath day showing his own respect for the principle underlying this ordinance in its then present Levitical form. Luke 4:16 “… as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read.”

When Jesus reproved the Pharisees for their wrong attitude toward Sabbath, and when he corrected their attempts to accuse him of breaking Sabbath, he never said that the Sabbath law did not apply anymore. Nor did he ever say that a time would soon come when it would be eliminated as he did with the Samaritan woman concerning the place of worship (John 4). Instead Jesus used Scripture to show them where they were wrong in their understanding and application of the Sabbath law and its underlying principles. For example in Matthew 12:1-13 he used several Old Testament references to show his accusers that they should have given better heed to the law of Moses and its interpretation by David (1 Samuel 21:6).

With all the man-made rabbinic regulations that Jesus corrected, it would have been so easy if He just said, “the Sabbath was for an age that is now passing.” But Jesus did not take that approach. Neither did Paul in his epistles, nor did the writer of Hebrews as he detailed the changes in biblical regulations for the gospel era. Instead, Jesus took great care to correct the errors of the Jews where they had drifted from the Old Testament commandments. He constantly supported the keeping of the Sabbath while he opposed its abuses.

4. The Creation Sabbath in the Apostolic Period
After the ascension of Jesus we often find the Apostles attending and taking part in regular Sabbath worship during that transitional period. At Thessalonica Paul regularly took part in the Sabbath services without any indication that they had become obsolete. Acts 17:2 “according to Paul’s custom, he went to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures.”

Note: We will take up the change from the seventh day to the first day of the week in a later section of this study.

Though the Sabbath law was not re-stated or commanded anew during the New Testament period, the Creation Sabbath principle was either recognized or regulated in each socioeconomic setting. There is no support in the Bible that God would have to regularly repeat himself in order to cause his laws to remain in effect. We must presume a continuation without expiration of what God commands unless he in his word gives us direct revelation to the contrary.

5. The Creation Sabbath in the Church possessing a complete Bible
While the Scriptures are our only authoritative word concerning the proper keeping of Sabbath, subsequent records show that the church kept the Creation Sabbath throughout the major periods of its history. Only in recent times have some churches actually championed the open rejection of the fourth commandment.

While the practices and interpretations of law have varied, the Sabbath has been honored by the church in the time of the early church fathers, the Roman Period, the time of the Reformation, the era of Puritans and Separatists in England, and all who have adhered to a complete and inerrant Bible.

Virtually every main branch of Christianity has recognized the Creation Sabbath requirements. The confessions and catechisms of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians (including the Methodists, and Anglicans), the Roman Catholic churches, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Baptists (the London Confession of 1689 and the Philadelphia Confession of 1720) all attest to the continuing force of the Creation Sabbath along with all the other creation ordinances and moral laws.

Sabbath keeping as with all Moral Law did not begin at Sinai. It was recognized from the time of pre-fall Eden and throughout all of biblical history. To show how important it is, God at Sinai put the Creation Sabbath law into covenant form, and included it with his summary of the other commandments that together summarize the principles of moral law.

The Sabbath commandment was present from Eden to Sinai where it was dramatically engraved in stone by the finger of God. It is evident through the times of the prophets, and into the era of Messiah and his apostolic church. Today every moral commandment is still respected by those who love and trust in the grace of God as made known in his inerrant word.

Was the Creation Sabbath Abrogated in the New Testament?

Fundamental to our conclusion that the Creation Sabbath was an expression of moral law rather than of ceremonial law, is the condition of its being perpetual. Some claim that the New Testament Scriptures set all of Sabbath law aside after the completion of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. If this could be supported then all other arguments must be re-evaluated in the light of that information. God alone may change his requirements. If he does, then we must follow the changes he institutes and confess our finite understanding as unworthy of challenging the sovereign will of our Creator. But if such an abrogation cannot be supported, then we must likewise abandon attempts to dismiss obligations previously laid upon us in the binding word of God.

As each passage is considered we must keep in mind the principles we have already derived from the Bible concerning the nature of biblical law. We have previously examined how Jesus interpreted the continuing value of God’s law in Matthew 5:17-20 (see our first study in this unit, The Law of God).

In that text, Jesus denied that he came to abolish or to destroy any part of the law or the words of the prophets. He came instead to bring them to their full measure. This is the meaning of the word plaerosai (πληρωσαι) which he used in that passage. As the application of that principle is seen throughout the New Testament, it becomes clear that the ceremonial law added to prefigure the coming of Jesus as the Lamb of God was completed at the cross and finished as to its purpose. A sign of something to come is no longer needed once that to which it points has arrived. But the moral principles embedded in creation to declare the holiness and nature of God were not set aside, nor could they be without violating their purpose.

In each text that speaks of Sabbath in the New Testament, we must first determine if it is speaking of the Creation Sabbath, which was prior to Moses, or of the Levitical Sabbaths added at the time of Moses to prefigure the coming of the Messiah and the redemption he secured for his people.

Colossians 2:16-17

“Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day — things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

The Greek word here is the plural, “sabbaths” sabbaton (σαββατων). In itself that is not determinative. The plural in the Hebrew language, which this Greek expression represents, is often used to show majestic or high regard for something. The Creation Sabbath may be referred to in that way even though it is but one kind of Sabbath. But it is also consistent with the fact that in the Levitical set of laws there are many different Sabbaths.

The term “sabbaths” in this verse is surrounded by other examples of ritual laws all associated with the Levitical period prior to the coming of Christ. There are the direct comments in Acts and the Epistles that the dietary regulations given to Israel in the time of Moses were temporary and did not continue to be binding after the fulfillment of the work of Christ. Therefore they are not moral in nature, but ceremonial. The Hebrew calendar was also set aside since the elements that made it up were prefigurative of the work of Christ. The day of Atonement was fulfilled in the atonement it pointed toward. Jesus was declared to be the Passover of God. All the feasts and celebrations of new moons were clearly ceremonial and not of a perpetual moral nature beginning in Eden and extending on as long as the earth and heavens persist.

The text categorizes all the elements in this statement as mere shadows of what was to come, the substance belonging to Jesus Christ. The Creation Sabbath was commemorative of the completion of Creation and was revealed prior to the need for redemption. It was not a shadow of the work of Messiah. In contrast, the Levitical Sabbaths were mere shadows attached to the priestly and temple system of sacrifices.

One of the problems Paul was dealing with in the early church was the influence of the Judaizers who wanted to impose all the Levitical ritual laws upon the new Gentile converts to Christ. That troubling problem at the time would account for the need for the comment made in Colossians 2:16 as well as in other similar passages.

In conclusion, the context, historical setting, and theological facts surrounding this verse argue strongly against it having any reference to the Creation Sabbath in this abrogatory statement. The Apostles and early church clearly continued to honor the weekly Creation Sabbath which would also support the interpretation given here.

If we are to conclude that God has set aside both the Levitical Sabbaths and the Creation Sabbath as well, we would need a far clearer revelation from God, the Lord of the Sabbath, than what this verse offers.

Romans 14:5

“One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.”

This portion never mentions Sabbaths so it should not be used as a direct argument by anti-sabbatarians. Sadly it is often used that way. Some apply the general principle taught here to the more specific issue of the Creation Sabbath. There is certainly a general principle being taught. The question the honest exegete of Scripture must answer is, “to what does this general principle apply?” Nothing must be excluded that God intends to include, and it must not be extended to anything that God does not intend to include.

The context makes it clear that the issue here is much like that addressed to the Colossians in the previously considered verse. It warns that we should not make laws binding upon the conscience of men that God himself does not require.

There were two relevant influences in that era. The pagan Greeks had a mixed culture. Many indulged in anything they desired without any moral concern that it might be wrong. They commonly consumed meat and wine that had been consecrated to their idols. This caused concerns for the Jews and the Christian believers who felt that doing so in some way gave their consent to the idolatry behind it. In contrast, some Greek sects like the Neo-Pythagoreans reacted against the moral looseness and chose to abstain from many things.

The Jews who still held to the Mosaic ordinances continued to follow the Levitical dietary laws, even though God’s vision to Peter (Acts 10:9-16) specially revealed that those particular laws no longer applied. Certain Rabbis had added volumes of regulations which went far beyond the regulations of Scripture. There were even some in that day who became vegetarians as a moral issue, and abstained from all wine.

It was in this mixed climate of conflicting rules about food, drink, holy days, and rituals that the early church struggled.

The word of God was clear regarding the Levitical rituals, diets, holy days, and sacrifices. The fulfillment of the ceremonial law was made known in the earliest days of the post-Pentecost church. One example is the Acts 10 vision where God commanded Peter to “kill and eat” foods that were formerly forbidden in the Scriptures. God made it clear that the Levitical laws given to Israel had changed with the coming of the new era. He said, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”

The same principle was articulated by Paul in his epistles to the churches in Corinth, Galatia, Colossae and here to the Romans. In his later Pastoral letters Paul said,

1 Timothy 4:4, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude;”

Titus 1:15, “To the pure, all things are pure … ”

This general principle applies to the ceremonial laws which were given to Israel alone. They were only to be applied during the time under the Levitical priests.

There is nothing wrong with personally and voluntarily keeping a day as holy, or choosing to limit one’s diet. The problem is when we make it to be a law of God when no such requirement exists. We cannot presume such things to be binding upon the conscience of others who for their own reasons have not chosen to follow our custom. This is how Paul follows the verse we are examining.

Romans 14:6 “He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.”

There is no mention in the entire context of anything on the level of moral law. The weekly Creation Sabbath falls into a different category. It was not limited in time to the nation of Israel under the Levitical priests. It was established and practiced from the time of creation.

It was God who had commanded it, not for just one era or for just one nation. Only God could declare it to be no longer binding. But the Bible does not present even one reference to the abrogation of the moral principle of Creation Sabbath.

Galatians 4:9-11

“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.”

Again, this portion is written to the early church struggling in a society begging them to adopt the ascetic practices of the pagan Neo-Pythagoreans, or those of the Rabbinic Jews who made restrictions mandatory which God never mentions in his word. Paul was concerned that this kind of superstitious practice would tempt believers away from the freedom Christ ensures to them, a freedom which releases them from the ordinances of men, even from the symbolic limits related to the Levitical practices imposed by God before the time of their fulfillment by the Messiah.

The days, months, seasons, and years mentioned have nothing to do with the weekly Creation Sabbath which the Apostles and early church were faithful to observe at every mention of it in the Bible.

There is a liberty we have now in Christ

Fallen hearts look to restrictive human rules as if somehow they could make them more holy or draw them closer to God. Superstition is an element of the fallen nature and a part of our fallen culture. It drives people to abstain from good things thinking they will be better for it. They also tend to judge those who do not abstain as if they were inferiors. This has no place in the believer’s life.

The Jews were set free from the ceremonial practices which God himself had imposed for that one segment of their history. Some of them not only bound their conscience against good things, they also judged others for engaging in what God had pronounced as pure. They condemned those who did not keep their strict calendar which no longer had meaning since what it represented had now been completed on the Cross. There is only one perpetual holy day set aside by God. The weekly Sabbath was sanctified from the time of creation.

God never promised that we would be set at liberty from his moral law. Those ordinances laid upon us at creation and which continued in every era of human history are here for a different reason. They do not foreshadow the cross. They represent the eternal and unchanging moral nature of the Creator as it is revealed in creation. God would no more rescind his law against polytheism, idolatry, using his name in vain, disobeying parents, murdering, committing adultery, stealing, lying, or coveting, than he would rescind the obligation of pausing after six days of labor to remember the completed work of Creation which declares his power and glory.

Entering the Rest of Hebrews 4
This portion speaks of the rest of God into which we enter by our Lord’s promises which are made ours through the work of the Messiah. The rest into which God entered on the day after he completed his creation was not a recuperative rest. God needed no recuperation. It was a time of ceasing from his former work, the work of creating things. He did not resume the work of creation on the next calendar day.

The lesson is figurative, not to be measured in hours or days. Through Christ we enter a rest from our works and sufferings.

In Hebrews 3 we see that unbelieving Israel was not permitted to enter Canaan which was symbolic of the rest we have in Christ. That rest we have in the promise of a Savior is a ceasing from the sinful works of creature-centeredness and all the tension it generates. In regeneration believers enter the state of reliance upon the Creator who provides for righteousness in Christ. This brings the true believer into the state of earthly gospel peace which continues in eternal glory. The regenerate enter this rest (typified in Canaan). The unbelievers do not enter that rest. God calls it “my rest” because he provides it, not because it is his own resting.

The promise continues. Just as the Creator ceased from his work of creation when all was completed, so also believers enter into the state of ceasing from sinful works of creature-centeredness, to enter a state of reliance upon the Creator. The stress of believing that works are the means of salvation, and the sense of guilt are both removed. The believer stops (ceases) from resting in self, to find his rest to be upon the completed work of the Savior.

This is clearly a redemptive promise, not one having to do with remembering the completion of God’s creation on a weekly day of ceasing from labor. The writer of Hebrews proves that this rest was not fulfilled in the entering into the land of Canaan promised by Moses. He shows that there remains yet a rest for the people of God. Nothing could be more clearly redemptive.

Some twist this passage around to mean that in Christ we are no longer to keep God’s Creation Sabbath. They imagine that in some way we have entered into the kind of rest through Christ which causes the duty of honoring God as Creator to have expired. There are even some who say that this church age is a mere parenthesis in God’s plan and not a real part of it. They teach that in this parenthesis age the obligation to the Creation Sabbath is suspended until the resurrection when we enter a perfect Sabbath rest in glory.

The problem arises when people blend the redemptive prefigurings of the Levitical Sabbaths with the Creation concept of Sabbath.

In the Hebrews passage the rest we have entered by redemption in Christ is typified by God’s Sabbath rest. But it has to do with relief from our struggles when we find deliverance in the Savior. There awaits a yet greater deliverance in glory. To make that to be a suspension from the moral requirement to honor God on one day each week in remembrance of Creation violates the entire context and purpose of the passage.

Did Jesus and his disciples set the Creation Sabbath aside?
There are many passages showing the relationship of Jesus and his disciples with the Creation Sabbath. We can derive basic principles by a careful study of one of those passages.

In Luke 13:10-17 we see that Jesus following his usual custom came to a synagogue one Sabbath Day, and took part in the teaching portion of the worship. The many lessons and details of this passage will not be addressed here so that we can focus more specifically upon the Sabbath issue.

A Synagogue official became upset when Jesus healed a woman there who had a sickness for many years.

Luke 13:10-14, “And He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And behold, there was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. And when Jesus saw her, He called her over and said to her, ‘Woman, you are freed from your sickness.’ And He laid His hands upon her; and immediately she was made erect again, and began glorifying God. And the synagogue official, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, began saying to the multitude in response, There are six days in which work should be done; therefore come during them and get healed, and not on the Sabbath day.”

The response given by the synagogue official has two parts. First, he correctly stated the basic sabbath law. God ordained six days for our usual labors which are to provide for our ordinary needs and pleasures. One day following those six is for us to cease from our labors and personal pleasures as a remembrance of God’s completed work of creation.

Then the official misapplied the Creation Sabbath principle by extending it to forbid acts of mercy and necessity. God only forbids the kind of work done to secure our provisions. God specifically provides that good should be done at all times. He never said that good deeds and mercy would be among the things from which we must rest after six days of labor.

Jesus answered by clarifying God’s Sabbath law.

Luke 13:15-16, “But the Lord answered him and said, ‘You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall, and lead him away to water him? And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?’ ”

Jesus made it clear that those who believed what the synagogue leader said were hypocrites. They said they cared about keeping God’s sabbath law, but they violated its primary purpose, the honoring of God as Creator.

To allow a part of creation to suffer unnecessarily is to abdicate responsible dominion. They were desecrating the Sabbath. They allowed animals to be helped to protect their own investment, but forbid giving help to humans who were created in God’s image. Their concern for honoring God’s Sabbath was false and hypocritical.

Jesus clarified what the Scriptures said about the Sabbath. He brought out the larger context of the law of Moses. The narrow limitations forbidding our labor were never intended to be extended to our other duties as assigned to us at Creation. On another occasion Jesus used a similar example.

Matthew 12:11-12 , “And He said to them, ‘What man shall there be among you, who shall have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it, and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.’ ”

We must be careful when we refer to allowed activities as exceptions to the Creation Sabbath law. Things that were never forbidden can never be called exceptions in the normal use of the word. They actually clarify God’s original intent in setting aside this one day for his own glory.

There are three categories of Sabbath activities that should never be considered as forbidden.
1. the work of worship
Worship is central in remembering God’s glory in the work of Creation. God always provided that his ministers and priests would be very busy on the Sabbath conducting the worship of the people. All that is connected with worship that could not be prepared on the other six days of the week is not only permitted on Sabbath, it is expected and necessary.

2. work necessary to preserve life
It was provided in the law that sanitary conditions should be kept up on Sabbath, food could be prepared for families and their guests, armies could defend against attacking enemies, and animals could be cared for and rescued on the Creation Sabbath. By extension of this principle Jesus showed that obviously God never intended man to outlaw acts needed to keep himself and others safe, healthy, and alive.

3. works of mercy
Caring for one another is a mandate that knows no calendar. In this text and in many others Jesus showed how the principles provided in the law obligate us to do good on the Sabbath. Certainly administrative things that could as well have been done on the other days of the week should not be saved for the Lord’s Day. But feeding the hungry, healing the sick, explaining the gospel to the lost, and other such acts of mercy were never part of our daily labor to bring forth our provisions from the earth. Our regular labor for provisions is the only prohibited activity for the Creation Sabbath as part of the moral creation ordinance.

There is some overlap in each of these categories, but it is clear that such things are right activities for the day designed for us to cease from our labors and to remember the honor of our Creator.

Having exposed the hypocrisy and error of the synagogue leader, the people present rejoiced.

Luke 13:17, “And as He said this, all His opponents were being humiliated; and the entire multitude was rejoicing over all the glorious things being done by Him.”

The question we must ask concerning any regulation is, “What has God said?” All of his law must be kept as he gave it. No rule of man should be allowed to stand on equal ground.

The same principles apply to the case of the disciples who were picking grain on the Sabbath for their own food, and to other cases from the life of Christ which are often cited by those who reject the continuing obligations of the Creation Sabbath.

There are no biblical grounds for abrogating the Creation Sabbath once it is properly understood. There are no grounds for confusing this law with the ceremonial Levitical Sabbaths which were introduced later and clearly set aside along with the rest of the ritual laws when Jesus completed what they represented.

Upon Which Day of the Week Should the Sabbath Be Kept?

Though God’s moral principles are unchanging they must be applied to changing needs. The most significant act of God toward man after his creation was the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. While that did not free man from his duty of remembering God’s creation, it did effect the way that law was applied to the circumstances of God’s unfolding plan.

At the root of the creation ordinance of Sabbath is the duty to labor for six consecutive days, then to cease labor for a full day of remembering God’s work and glory. Within the context of changing human circumstances there is an unavoidable detail that must be agreed upon. We must know which of the seven days should mark the beginning of the work week.

Before the atonement of Christ, the covenant people of God were told to keep the Sabbath on the seventh day of the labor cycle. The post-resurrection church keeps the Sabbath on the first day of the labor cycle. This is a circumstantial change only. It does not reflect a modification of the moral principle itself.

Meaning of the word “sabbath”
We have already established at the beginning of this lesson that the Hebrew word for Sabbath is shabbat (שבת). It comes from a verbal root which means “ceasing and desisting”. It does not mean seventh. The Hebrew word for “seven” is sheva’, and for “seventh” is shevi’i (שביעי). The roots and spelling are totally different. The Sabbath is the seventh day only in the relative sense that it follows the six days of labor. It is not the seventh as an absolute designation of the day of the week.

Did the original Sabbath fall on Saturday?
The modern Hebrew Sabbath is kept from sun-down on Friday to sun-down on Saturday. That delimitation seems to have been practiced in the time of Jesus. The Sundown start fits with the Levitical practice and calendar in Leviticus 23:5. We do not know for certain how much farther back in history that practice goes. We do not know how the weekly cycle of days in the time of Moses would overlay our modern rotation of week days. Many different calendars have been in use down through history as various cultures and empires influenced the way years, months and days are reckoned. God gave Israel a calendar to follow, but it was nothing like the type of calendar we use today. The only perpetual and universal guide was in the principle of six day work cycles separated by a day of ceasing from labor on which God was to be worshiped.

In its original statement, the sabbath principle was linked with God’s creative acts. God designated the seventh day to mark his ceasing from any more acts of creation (the work he had been doing previously).

When the moral law was summarized in the Ten Commandments the reason stated for the weekly sabbath law was God’s sanctification of the day following the completion of creation (Exodus 20:11). We have no idea as to how that fit into the current designation of days of the week.

Curtis Clair Ewing points up some interesting problems in his work Israel’s Calendar and the True Sabbath. The biblical descriptions of the special sabbaths and feasts of the Levitical period show that there were times annually when the first day of the week became a Sabbath in addition to the seventh (Leviticus 23). This would mean there was a double Sabbath every year which would shift the actual calendar day by one week day for the following year.

Did Israel then work six days as commanded after this 48-hour Sabbath and then rest on the next day? If so, then the seventh day after the six work days was actually what in the previous week would be the 8th day. Since the weekly cycle mandated that the next Sabbath would begin after six days of work, then that would mean that for the next year the Weekly Sabbath was actually kept on what had been the first day of each week. The following year it would be on the second day, and so on. There was no external week-day structure imposed upon Israel to force its Sabbaths to be consistently on the same calendar day each year. Ewing suggests that the Sabbath rotated year to year if superimposed on our modern calendar. (see also: R. J. Rusdoony on the Fourth Commandment on his “Institutes of Biblical Law”).

In keeping the Sabbath on Saturdays, the Jews of that time just before the birth of Jesus were abandoning of the biblical way of keeping track of the Sabbath. In its place they adopted the cultural practices connected with the calendars set up in the time of the Greek and Roman Empires.

God’s word gives no indication about an absolute solar or lunar day upon which the Weekly Sabbath should fall. Its association with Saturday, or more accurately Friday evening and Saturday until sundown, is more a circumstantial artifact of the calendars in use by the Roman Empire and the Jews of that same period, than any moral principle laid down at creation.

What is clearly evident in the moral part of the law is a cycle of six work days followed by a seventh day of ceasing from labor for our provisions. This basic fact is undisputed.

The Moral Law as summarized in the Decalogue states, “Remember the Sabbath day”, it does not say “the 7th day.” The day of the week as our modern calendars define it is not the essential moral issue. One day in seven is designated by God for Sabbath as a creation ordinance. Creation reveals this ceasing of creation by God and is remembered in the established 7-day cycle.

The day set aside as sabbath is not to be set by man. If the 7-day cycle is the key moral idea, then can anyone pick his own Sabbath to fit his own convenience and desires? The Scriptures do not give us that liberty. Quite to the contrary, the law and the prophets made it clear that the day was to be the same for all of God’s covenant people. The Sabbath is God’s day. Only he can set the required conditions that will meet the demands of the moral principle underlying the anthropomorphic aspects of the law.

Exodus 20:11 makes it clear that the Weekly Sabbath before the cross was set to what they then understood as the day that followed the six-day work cycle. There was no external calendar so it was simply referred to relatively as the “seventh day”. From the time of Moses and extending to the resurrection of Jesus, the setting of the day was governed for the entire nation by the Priests and their work at the Tabernacle or Temple following the Levitical calendar.

In Deuteronomy we have the covenant form of the law. There Moses gives the deliverance from Egypt in the Exodus as a reason for sabbath. This redemptive idea was added as the whole array of restorative rules and rituals became part of what we know as the Levitical period.

The church after Pentecost (Acts 2) began to keep Sabbath on the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. The term “First Day” directly translates the common Hebrew designation yom rishon (יום ראשון) which was at that time the name the Jews attached to “Sunday” on the Roman calendar.

The day of our Lord’s resurrection was very important. All four gospels record that this took place on the first day of the week (Mt 28:1, Mk 16:2, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1, 19). His resurrection was the turning point of all history. It marked the end of the Levitical symbols of expectation, and the beginning of the era of fulfillment when the things promised became facts of history. It took an event as great as creation itself to make the circumstantial change in attaching the celebration of the Creation Sabbath to a particular calendar day.

We are not left without direction as to the fixing of the day in each redemptive era. Prior to Sinai, the Sabbath was very simply whatever day followed the six days of labor. Many calendars came and went as various neighboring cultures came along in the long era before Moses. After the Exodus, the Levitical calendar set up a special ordering of days. They applied to that one era only.

Jesus commissioned his Apostles to act as his agents in laying the foundation for the church of the Messianic age which is directly stated in Ephesians 2:20. In a secondary but very real sense the Apostles are the foundation of the church as the called ministers of Christ. He is always the true foundation, but directly assigned the Apostles to represent him in the transition of the Covenant People from the era of symbols looking forward to the Cross, to the era of completed promises which had been illustrated in the Levitical forms.

By their example and leadership the early church was directed to begin the week with a Sabbath day and then to work six days. By our Lord’s completing of the temporary redemptive laws, the old calendar set by God for the era of Mosaic practices was set aside. The variable calendar was no longer needed and for the first time since Sinai the day of ceasing could be set to a fixed rotation of days. There was no 48-hour Sabbath to effect the 7-day cycle.

The references to the worship of the New Testament church are God’s preserved record that the Apostles in laying the foundation as commissioned, directed the early church to make this change from the seventh day following labor, to the first day of the week as identified by the Roman calendar.

Acts 20:7, “on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread …”

1 Corinthians 16:2, “on the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.”

Revelation 1:10, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day…”

The phrase “on the Lord’s Day” is based upon the idea expressed throughout the Old Testament where the Sabbath is referred to as a day belonging to the Lord. For example, in Isaiah 58:13 the Lord calls the Sabbath “My holy day”. In Ezekiel 20 when the prophet warns about the neglect of Sabbath and its effects upon their children the Lord repeatedly makes reference to “My Sabbaths.” It has always been His day, the Lord’s Day. It is therefor inaccurate to make a dispensational distinction calling this day “Sabbath” in the Old Testament, and “the Lord’s Day” in the New as if it was no longer based upon the same creation ordinance. Both terms are used both before and after the birth of our Savior. The New Testament use of the term “Lord’s Day” is a proper designation based upon its use in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Practice of the Early Apostolic Church
The earliest records of the church confirm that the Sabbath was kept faithfully by the church on the first day of the week in remembrance of the Lord’s resurrection. These historical records are not authoritative in and of themselves. Only Scripture directly teaches us what God expects of us. However the views of the earliest teachers in the church show us how the Apostolic teachings were understood and were being implemented at that time. What we find is consistent with what we have already seen in the New Testament record.

Ignatius of Antioch (believed to have been a personal friend of the Apostles) said, Christians “no longer observing the seventh day, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again, by Him and by His death.”

Justin Martyr said, “on the day called Sunday is an assembly of all who live either in cities or in rural districts … because Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead upon it.”

How are we to Keep the Sabbath Day?

WCF 21:8 “This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. “

Preparations for the Sabbath Day
There are two parts to the summary of the Creation Sabbath law in the Fourth Commandment. Besides instructing us to cease from labor on the one day God has set aside each week specially for his worship, it also commands that we spend the other six days doing our labor and all our work.

Work is honorable and was given as a duty to man before his fall into sin (Genesis 2:15). Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 said that those who will not work should not eat. A person who does not provide for his own family is said to be worse than an infidel in 1 Timothy 5:8. As noble as it is to carry out our work, if we believe we need to extend our work into the time God has set aside for himself we violate this basic Creation Ordinance. If we do, perhaps it is because we have not been as faithful as we ought to have been in making responsible use of the other six days.

Much Sabbath breaking is caused by failure to schedule wisely the time God gives us on the other six days of the week. It is our obligation to finish each week’s obligations before the Lord’s Day begins.

God gave us an example of this principle in his provision of the manna in the wilderness. A double portion was provided on the day before the Sabbath so that the gathering would not have to be done on the Lord’s special day (Exodus 16:23).

Following the moral principle taught in this biblical example we should make sure we have completed our weekly tasks before Sunday. Work such as lawn care, house work, home work, business deals, inventories, shopping, gassing up the car, ironing our clothes, and other such chores should not need to be carried out on the day we are to cease from our labors.

Most people plan, prepare and pack in advance to be ready to leave on time for vacation trips so they won’t miss a minute of their time off. They plan for days off by working hard to get office work out of the way. They plan for months to prepare for weddings, for the birth of babies, and for holidays. But do we as God’s thankful children go through the simple preparations needed to keep the Sabbath Day holy? Do we plan how the day will be spent so that we do all God says we ought to do that day?

What a wonderful tradition for our families, to show our children a good example of Sabbath preparations. Before the Passover season God instituted preparations for families to engage in together so that all would appreciate the solemness of the occasion. Similarly, we should be sure our clothes are ready and laid out the night before, that simple meals are planned to reduce housework that day, and a Sabbath-Eve family prayer could be said to prepare our hearts for keeping the day holy.

All of this should be finished in time so that all will get a good night of rest. No one should be late for Sunday classes and worship, or come unnecessarily tired and struggling to stay alert.

Some scoff at such notions of respecting the Sabbath. They piously excuse themselves from such preparations and practices saying that to them every day is the Lord’s day. But that’s not the way God sees it. While all our lives belong to him, it was our Creator, our Redeemer, who calls us to set aside one day in seven as a Sabbath Day to honor him specially. Though all is his, we are called to demonstrate this ownership and priority by sanctifying one day for special worship and holy duties.

This is not a vain tradition of men. It is the holy word of God. It is a principle so important that it was written with the divine finger as one of the Ten Commandments engraved on the tablets of stone. It was instituted in the first moments after the creation of the world. Its neglect was among the most repeated warnings of the ancient prophets. Its beauty was commemorated in many of the Old Testament Psalms. Our Lord Jesus Christ untangled the confusing rules added by the corrupt Rabbis. It was honored by the Apostles and the early church.

May our Lord forgive us for our apathy toward his special day. And may he enable us to learn to prepare for the Sabbath regularly so that we will honor it in ways that please him, lifting up our hearts in grateful praise for his glory.

How are we to keep the Sabbath Day Holy?

The Sabbath is first mentioned as a creation ordinance showing its most basic principles in Genesis 2:1-3. When the “heavens and the earth… and all their host” were completed, three actions of the Creator are mentioned:

1. Following day six, God ceased from his work of creating.
2. At the completion of his work of creating, God affirmed on the sixth day that it was all “good”.
3. God blessed the day following the sixth and sanctified it. He set that day aside as something different, unlike the other days. It was to be a blessing and was designated for sacred purposes.

The basic moral principle of Sabbath keeping was clearly established even before the entry of sin into the human race. It was part of how the created world was to show forth the glory of its Creator.

Since the work God did was that of creating, and it was from that work that he ceased after day six, we must infer that man, the only creature made morally able to obey this sanctifying of the day, was also to cease from the work he was assigned.

Man’s work was that of labor, the exercise of dominion over the rest of creation under the ultimate dominion of God, man’s Creator and Lord. Therefore man’s dominion is derivative and administrative. It was not original with his own desires and personal determinations (Genesis 1:27-30). All his labor in responsibly bringing forth his provisions is to be done in just six of the days in each seven day week.

It is not up to us to decide what is or is not proper activity for the Sabbath. God alone may specify how this day is to be holy, different from the other days.

It is our duty to discover from Scripture what limits God has set. He has revealed these boundaries both by direct instructions, and through his application of the creation principles to the human experience. Once we understand how this principle ought to apply, then we may move most freely within those boundaries.

On the Sabbath we are to observe a holy rest
The primary things we rest from are our daily labors. This is not a license for laziness on God’s holy day. God’s word specifies what things we are to cease from. We should remember that the rest spoken of here is not to be taken in the sense of recuperation or getting extra sleep. The term used in Scripture is applied to God’s rest after creating all things. Certainly he did not need sleep or relaxation from stressful labor. If we are tired on Sundays and need to recover from excessive pressure or exhaustion from our work, then we need to better manage the other six days of the week to prepare for the Sabbath.

The primary meaning of the Hebrew word used is cessation. In musical notation we often come across a symbol which is called a “rest.” It means that the instrument or voice is to stop for a moment and cease making the sound it had been making. It doesn’t mean the musician is to close his eyes, take a nap, or recuperate in any other way. The Sabbath rest is not set aside to be your day for relaxing. That is not the meaning of the term.

On the Sabbath Day we are to cease from the works, words, and thoughts related to our worldly employments. The chores we cease from are those that have to do with maintaining the world we live in, with exercising our dominion over our areas or responsibility in bringing forth our provisions from the earth.

This is to be done for a whole twenty-four hour day. God did not set aside a Sabbath Hour or a Sabbath Morning. He calls us to sanctify one entire day, one just as long as each of the other six days when we work. This is why many churches have worship not only on the Sabbath morning, but also at a later time in the day. It helps the Christian community to remember that after lunch the Sabbath does not deteriorate into a day of personal recreation, entertainment, and sleep where the wonders of our Creator are forgotten.

It is nothing special to cease from sinful works, words, and thoughts on Sundays. Things offensive to God should not be done on any day of the week. Those who presume to honor God by ceasing from lusts, drunkenness, wild parties or other worldly habits on the Sabbath only make themselves out to be hypocrites. We do not honor God by setting aside our normal indulgences one day a week as if that should satisfy our Creator and Redeemer. God does not call us to be good one day a week. Holy living is our duty all the time. He calls us to specially consecrate this one day to his worship in the ways he has specified.

There are always jobs that need to be done in our sin infected world. God ordains six days for this. The boundary day that separates each group of our six days of labor is his. On it we must cease from all matters directly related to our regular bringing forth of our daily provisions. All week long we struggle in our labor against the “thorns and thistles” imposed upon our work by God’s curse as we maintain our homes, our jobs, and our investments. On the Sabbath we set all those aside in honor of the one who made us and who in Christ strengthens us in the struggles attached to our creaturely duties.

On sabbath we are to cease from our recreations
Words often change their meanings with time. Our recreations today are certainly different from those in the time of Moses, or those when the Westminster Assembly drafted this chapter of its confession. Many become confused at this expression and imagine that it means we are to avoid any enjoyment on Sundays, any fun activities with our children, or all appreciation of God’s creation at a beach or park. I’ve heard some pastoral candidates mistaken in their understanding of this concept openly declare that they do not agree with these particular words of the Westminster standards.

Some historical background is needed so that we can appreciate what was intended by this sentence. One of the issues at the time the confession was written was the abuse by the Church of England in its imposition of the Book of Sports which demanded attendance at state sponsored events which encroached upon keeping the Sabbath Day holy and sacred. It was aimed at keeping people from attending unauthorized sermons on Sundays in addition to the King approved messages mandated for Sabbath morning worship.

After a time when submission to the Book of Sports had been rescinded, King Charles the First proclaimed that again all Pastors must read an edict commanding all citizens to engage in the state sponsored Sunday activities. Most Bible believing English clergymen refused to read the King’s decree in the Sunday worship service.

Ben Franklin tells about an English clergyman who, to his congregation’s horror and amazement, agreed to read the royal edict in his church service. But that’s not all this clergyman did. He followed the reading of the King’s order with the words of the Fourth Commandment, “Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.” Then he added this challenge, “Brethren, I have laid before you the commandment of your king, and the Commandment of your God. I leave it to you to judge which of the two ought rather to be observed.”

Today there is no king or dictator commanding that we violate God’s law, or trying to silence our Sunday Bible studies with conflicting activities. But there are the dictatorships of financial greed, selfish indulgence in our own ways and comfort, and a willful ignorance of God’s law, that call us to lay aside one of the Ten Commandments written in stone by the finger of God.

Understanding this historical context, we see that the use of the term “recreations’ in the confession means that we must cease from our own activities as they interfere with our proper Sabbath activities, and as they may be opposed to the principles of our Creator.

The primary text cited by the Westminster Assembly in support of the wording they chose is from the warning of the Prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 58:13-14, “If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot from doing your own pleasures on My holy day, and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD honorable, and shall honor it, desisting from your own ways, from seeking your own pleasure, and speaking your own word, then you will take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; and I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

Here we are warned to honor and delight in the Sabbath by turning our feet away from doing our own pleasures on his holy day. We must desist from our own ways, from seeking our own pleasures, and from speaking our own words on this day. These concerns are contextually contrasted with calling the Sabbath a delight, holy and honorable.

The point is clearly that we are forbidden to despise what God has commanded and to replace those things with our own desires. When the Sabbath is thought of as a chore that interferes with our own agenda we sin and take from God a day that does not belong to us.

This verse does not teach that all enjoyment and pleasure should be avoided on the Lord’s Day. Just the opposite is commanded. We need to find our pleasure in appreciating the glory of our Creator and Redeemer. It does not mean that we cannot speak words that are not a direct quotation of Scripture. That would make no sense and would contradict the practice of the Prophets, Priests, Jesus, and the Apostles.

The evil is in putting our ways over the ways of the Lord. As long as our Sunday activities avoid our regular labor for our provisions, and keep God’s glory central in our thought, and as long as they don’t keep us from the things commanded for the Sabbath, then we are not violating this part of the moral principle.

It is interesting to note that Calvin, Charles Hodge, Gesenius and many others in their exposition of this passage are convinced that this section of Isaiah is making reference to the era of the New Testament church. Those who take exception to this part of the Confession are in a real sense taking exception to the inspired words of Isaiah.

Today we might use the term recreation for taking a walk along a beach or nature trail. If such activities turn our thoughts to God and do not hinder our faithful keeping of the Sabbath, then they are fine things to do, and no where forbidden in Scripture or by our Confession rightly understood.

Our Obligations To Encourage Sabbath Keeping
The Creation Sabbath was instituted before any children were born to our first parents. At that time there were no racial or national divisions. It was imposed covenantally upon all of humanity in Adam. The Levitical Sabbaths were imposed much later and were limited to Israel in their obligations. They were abrogated by fulfillment when Jesus completed the promises of redemption. In contrast, the Creation Sabbath continues to bind all people everywhere and in all times since all were represented in Adam.

It has been established that considering the nature of God’s Law, the Ten Commandments are a summary of moral principles showing how they apply in the most general sense. These form an ethic which is binding upon all who are created in the image of God.

In each statement of the Sabbath commandment, there is a stated obligation to encourage others to keep the Sabbath holy. This includes visitors to our homes, and those who do work for us. It even includes those who may not be covenant people. They are all created people and were represented by Adam.

Exodus 20:10, “but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.”

Deuteronomy 5:14, “but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.”

Our first obligation is obviously to honor the Sabbath personally. However, there is also a stated obligation toward others over whom we have an influence in bearing the authority God grants to us in our leadership roles on earth.

Parents have a duty to see that their covenant children, their sons and daughters, keep the Sabbath holy and pure. They need to teach and train them both by word and example to honor all of God’s moral principles. If parents enable their children to neglect their Sabbath duties, either by apathy or active disobedience, they have broken this part of the commandment.

Those who stay in our homes as guests come under the covenant of God during their time with us. There are great advantages in being a guest in a covenant home. Even unbelievers can enjoy the influence of the pervasive peace of Christ upon believers, their hope in the gospel, the humble desire they have to obey God’s law, and their quick willingness to admit to wrongs done and to confess them thankfully through the Savior.

Though no home is perfect, every covenant home ought to strive to provide this testimony to all who live there and to all who visit. Our hospitality should be far more than mere food and a place to sleep. While others are under our hospitality and care, God also obligates us to encourage them to keep the Sabbath holy. We should do nothing to encourage violation of the Sabbath by anyone. It is not always a thing guests appreciate or will accept. But if done in love and as humble servants of the Lord, your guests will see a testimony of the blessings God promises to those who keep the Sabbath holy. Sadly many homes go in the opposite direction and allow unbelieving guests to keep the covenant family from honoring the Sabbath as God requires of us for the whole day.

It is interesting to see that the text also commands us to impose the Sabbath rest from labor upon our animals. The ones listed here are used to help us bring forth our provisions from the earth. They are parts of God’s creation which we use in our labor. They were not to be employed in doing work on the Sabbath. Our dominion duty is to impose the day of ceasing upon creation around us to the best of our ability. The principle might well be extended today to our machines and instruments which we use to do the things that ought to be done on the other six days. Labor saving devices can become a way of mechanizing the breaking of the Sabbath by automated manufacturing or maintenance. They can enable a detached violation of the call of the Lord’s Day.

Cultural changes have transformed labor and servanthood. The male and female servants mentioned would have included all those employed to do our work for us. Today they would include employees we hire to help us in a business we might own or manage. They would also include those we pay to mow our lawns, baby-sit, serve us in restaurants, wait on us in stores, or entertain us in professional sports. This commandment makes it our duty to avoid support for such people who are breaking the Sabbath. Some criticized Jews who were said to have hired Gentiles to light fires for them on Sabbath. How are we any less hypocritical if we, knowing that we should not be working on Sabbath, pay and encourage others to do these things for us for our pleasure and comfort in our homes, restaurants, malls and professional sports arenas.

What Does God Prescribe for Sabbath Activities?
The focus of the Sabbath principle was originally upon the wonder of God’s completed work of creation. One day of seven was to be sanctified, set aside as holy, special, and unique in contrast with the other days on which our provisions were to be brought forth. On that day we are specially to remember the completion of God’s work of creating the universe which declares his glory.

After the resurrection of our Savior, another focus was added to the Creation Sabbath as it took on recognition of all the Levitical Sabbaths represented. By attaching the remembrance to the first day of the week the accomplishment of the atonement was to be honored. Along with our ceasing from labor, we consecrate this day as marking the ceasing of our bondage to sin.

This is the positive side of the Fourth Commandment. Sometimes people pay more attention to debates about what we should not do on Sundays, than about what should be taking up our time and occupying our thoughts on that day. There are things we should not neglect to do on every Sabbath Day so that we will honor it in the way prescribed in Scripture. These activities are sometimes called “exceptions” to the Sabbath commandment. In reality they are not exceptions to the prohibitions. They are the reason why there are prohibitions. They are the things commanded which are undermined if we engage in the duties that ought to belong to the other six days. We cease from our labor only so that we might, by our ceasing, enter into the joy of the completed work our God had performed. It is important that we declare what Sabbath is, rather than simply defining it only by saying what it is not.

In an earlier section of this study we saw that there are three general areas of proper Sabbath activity which clarify what this principle is about.

1. Time ought to be spent in Worship on the Sabbath
The center of the whole day should be the remembering of God’s work of creation, and the triumph of the cross as seen in the resurrection of Jesus. This should move us to engage in all levels of worship on Sundays, both private and public. The elements prescribed for congregational worship should be engaged in when they are led by those God appointed to be responsible for the oversight of worship.

Some have criticized Pastors for telling others not to work on the Sabbath when it’s the day when their own work is most visible to the congregation as a whole. Most often the comment is an attempt at humor. But when it is made as a serious excuse for violating of God’s law, it exposes a tragic misunderstanding of the Sabbath principle and of the nature of the ministry of the word. The work associated with public worship on the Sabbath was never forbidden in God’s word. It is enjoined upon us. To cease from the work of worship, or to make our Sunday worship no different than that of any other day, violates the commandment’s central moral principle.

Many times Jesus taught that a plain, unbiased reading of the law should not lead to a complex, inconsistent, and prohibitive system like that of the Pharisees. He said, “have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent?” (Matthew 12:5). He obviously did not mean that the priests were violating God’s commandment. Since God appointed their Sabbath duties in his word, the criticisms brought against the Christians were unfounded. They were inconsistent with the good things God’s law required on Sabbath, such as those related to the worship of the Creator.

In our era there is much work done to support worship and the study of God’s word on the Sabbath by Pastors, Elders, Deacons, instrumentalists, custodians, Sunday School teachers, and others in the church. Of course the work they do should only be that which is necessary for the proper Sabbath activities of the church and which could not be done on the other six days. There is no excuse for doing routine office work, lesson planning and other things on the Sabbath if they could be done on another day.

In our study of worship we showed the necessity of the gathering of God’s people in holy convocations under the leadership of called men of God for regular Sabbath worship. One biblical example that shows the importance of this principle is stated in Leviticus 23:2-3,

“… The LORD’s appointed times which you shall proclaim as holy convocations – My appointed times are these: For six days work may be done; but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a sabbath to the LORD in all your dwellings.”

The words translated “holy convocation” in this passage are the Hebrew words miqra’ey qodesh (מקראי קדש). The root word miqra’ come from the verb qara’ (קרא) which is a common word for “calling out or shouting out”. Here it is made into a substantive and combined with the word for holy qodesh (קדש), which means “something weighty”. Together the expression means “a solemn assembly called together”. The call is issued by the Elders, those God has called to shepherd his people.

It is the responsibility of the people of the congregation to respond obediently and joyfully to every call of the Elders for Sabbath worship (Hebrews 13:17). It is sinful to avoid a called gathering unless God prevents it providentially.

Hebrews 10:25 “not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near.”

This assembly is not just any gathering of the saints anywhere, at any time of their own choosing. Some who wish to minimize the authority of the Elders and the biblical structure of the church are quick to quote Matthew 18:20 “where two or three have gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst.” They intend this to be proof that when any two or more believers gather in the name of Christ, he is there in their midst to sanctify the gathering as proper corporate worship. Quite simply this is a gross misuse of the verse.

An examination of the context shows that it is not about God’s people gathering for worship (on their own or otherwise). The verse describes the end of the discipline process (Matthew 18:15-20) when personal admonitions fail and the matter is brought before the church for its final judgment. When the Elders meet and agree upon the judgment, Christ is there in their midst to bless the delegated authority he has vested upon his ordained leaders.

This is the kind of distorted understanding of God’s word that often emerges when those not studied in biblical interpretation attempt to create their own theology of worship and of church government.

Since gathering for the corporate worship of the church is of such high importance in God’s word, we must not let vacation plans, travel plans, special sports events, television shows, or visitors in our home keep us from gathering together when the Elders call the congregation to worship on the Lord’s Day.

The worship of the congregation on the weekly Sabbath provides a time for the administration of sacraments which are a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.

Acts 20:7 on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day… “

In Acts 2:42 the gathering of the body of the church included: teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer.

1 Corinthians 11:20,33 instructs us to partake of the Lord’s Supper when we come together as a congregation. We should never celebrate the sacraments in private. It is only for the holy convocation issued by the Elders to the body of believers covenanted together as a local spiritual family.

The holy convocation on the Sabbath is the primary time and place were the church is taught and instructed in God’s word. It was in the Synagogue on the Sabbath that the law and prophets were read and the people were exhorted.

Acts 13:14-15, “But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, ‘Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.’ ”

The Sabbath should also include worship time engaged in by individuals and by Christian families in their homes. This is specially a good time for the instruction for our covenant children. When the children of God’s people rebelled against the Lord, one cause the prophets gave was that they had not been well instructed or trained about the Sabbath. (Ezekiel 20:20-25).

Sabbath provides the proper time for the collecting of God’s tithe and our offerings (1 Corinthians 16:2).

Clearly, one practice that should not be neglected on God’s holy Sabbath is convocational worship, and the private reading, conversing, and thinking about the things God has made known concerning himself and his works.

2. Duties of necessity should not be neglected on the Sabbath
God has created us to have basic daily needs to preserve life and property. We need a proper amount of sleep, food, drink, sanitary conditions, and safety from lawbreakers. Sabbath was never intended as a time when such things are to be suspended for twenty four hours.

In Matthew 12:1-4 Jesus and his disciples were picking grain to eat for themselves on the Sabbath as they passed through a field. His answer to the Pharisees who found fault in this was neither an attack upon the Sabbath principle, nor an implication that Sabbath was just a temporal ordinance soon to be ended. His answer was to explain that the law never forbade such things. Jesus showed from the word of God itself that the law provided that it is right to prepare food and to take care of our other necessities on the Sabbath.

Similarly the vigilance of armies and of public law enforcement agencies is not to be suspended on Sabbath. However, they should only continue such duties as are necessary to preserve life and property, duties which could not be done on the other six days.

3. Time should be spent in works of mercy on the Sabbath

Matthew 12:11-12, “What man shall there be among you, who shall have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it, and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

Charity and care for the poor and needy are not among the activities of labor that are forbidden on Sabbath. Hospitality was to be shown on Sabbath (Mark 3:4). It is also a good time to give help to the needy (Luke 6:6,10). These are all good Sabbath activities which have their foundation in creation principles. They are clearly articulated in the Levitical laws as they build upon those Creation Ordinances, and were affirmed by Jesus to be very proper for the Lord’s Day.

The labor performed by doctors, nurses, fire-fighters, paramedics, and other such mercy and safety professionals, is not forbidden on the Sabbath based upon this principle. Yet these kinds of labor may only involve the actual work that is necessary to extend merciful care. Routine administrative duties that could be done on other days ought to be avoided on the Lord’s Sabbath.

[Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (1988 edition) unless otherwise noted.]

Survey Studies in Reformed Theology

Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies

Nomology: Lesson 4b – The Elements of Regulated Worship Part 2
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2000, 2011, 2013
Westminster Confession of Faith XXI (continued)

Lesson Index
The Reading and Preaching of God’s Word
The Singing of Psalms
Due Administration and Receiving of the Sacraments
Other Elements of Proper Worship
Religious Oaths and Vows
Confessions of Faith
Solemn Fastings and Thanksgivings
The Gathering of God’s Tithe and Our Offerings
Benedictions
The Places of Worship

Part B – the Elements of Regulated Worship (continued)
Westminster Confession of Faith 21:5

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

The Reading and Preaching of God’s Word

While some elements of worship are the response of the people to the revealed glories of God, the inspired word presents the revelation that produces that response. Since all we do in worship is consequential to what God has made known, his word ought to be central in biblical worship. We must hear and understand God’s word before we can reasonably respond in praise and thanksgiving.

There are two ways in which the confession specifies that God’s word is to be directly incorporated into our worship. It is both to be read and explained to the people.

The church of the Middle Ages had drifted into rituals which replaced the centrality of the word. Symbolically that loss was represented by a screen that was erected to separate the people from the work of the Priests. It was called the rood screen. The word rood comes from the crucifix, an image of Christ being sacrificed, which was suspended on a wooden or metal screen between the chancel area where the altar was placed, and the congregation. It represented the re-sacrificing of Christ by Priests as the ritual needed to intervene between the simple believers and their eternal hope. When the ritual became central, the pulpit was moved to the side of the sanctuary and the sermon was reduced to a brief homily or devotional lesson.

In the Reformation churches the rood screen was removed and the pulpit brought back to the center and made the most prominent feature of the place of worship. The sermon was expanded into an exposition of Scripture. Between the people and the minister a Bible was usually placed. It was often laid on the table which was formerly used to represent the altar where in the mass Christ was re-crucified.

The centrality of God’s word has always been a mark of a true church. It was central in the worship of the Tabernacle and Temple. There the inspired Psalms were used regularly in worship and the Lord’s works and promises were declared to all the people (1 Chronicles 16).

In the time of the kings there was the revival under Josiah when his men found one of the scrolls of God’s law in the temple. It was restored it to its place as their guide in worship (2 Kings 22).

In the time of Ezra the book of God’s law was read to the people, once more restoring it as the guide to true worship and daily living (Nehemiah 8).

Jesus expound the word when he came to the Synagogue on the Sabbath in Luke 4:16-21. We are told that it was his custom to be in regular attendance at Synagogue worship. The Elders at times invited him to participate in the ministry of the word. The scroll was handed to him. He read and expounded upon its meaning.

After the resurrection of Jesus, the Apostles repeatedly reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures in the Synagogues as they took the gospel to the places to which God led them.

Maxwell comments in his book An Outline of Christian Worship (pages 2,3):

“From the beginning the reading and exposition of the Holy Scriptures in a setting of praise and prayer has been one of the essential elements in Christian worship. This is a direct inheritance from the Jewish Synagogue” … “The primary purpose of the Synagogue was to enable men to hear the Law read and expounded. The central act in its worship, therefore, was the reading of the Law, first in Hebrew, then in the common tongue accompanied by an exposition.”

Paul made it clear that this was to be the central part of worship in the church when he wrote in 1 Timothy 4:13, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.”

It is only by centering on the faithful teaching and hearing of the word of God that all the rest of our worship, and all of what we do outside of worship, can be known to honor our Lord. The word specifies the right manner and objects of prayer. It defines the right administration of the sacraments. It is the foundation of our confessions. All elements of what pleases our Heavenly Father can be known only through the revealed word.

It is right and necessary for every individual to read and study the word of God on his own when he is able to do so. It is the duty and right of heads of homes to lead their families in the regular and daily study of the Scriptures. The expounding of God’s word in called public worship is the duty and responsibility of the Elders, those called of God and set aside to the ministry of the word.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, questions 158-159 summarize this principle as follows:

Question 158: By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
Answer: The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.

Question 159: How is the Word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto?
Answer: They that are called to labor in the ministry of the Word, are to preach sound doctrine, diligently, in season and out of season; plainly, not in the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power; faithfully, making known the whole counsel of God; wisely, applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers; zealously, with fervent love to God and the souls of his people; sincerely, aiming at his glory, and their conversion, edification, and salvation.

It was implicit in the command given to Israel about including the reading of God’s word in worship, that those doing the reading were to be the ordained worship leaders, the Priests (Deuteronomy 31:11-13). As those divinely called to be shepherds, they were responsible for the faithful instruction of the covenant people. The prophet Ezekiel delivered God’s warnings of judgment to the Elders of the nation. They were held to account for the ignorance and lack of a holy standard among the average citizens, the sheep (Ezekiel 34). God’s calling of the ordained leaders includes granting to them the authority and responsibility of declaring the word accurately and faithfully.

It was the Priest Ezra, not just a skilled public reader, who delivered the word to the people after their return from captivity (Nehemiah 8).

Even the heathen nations were told by the Prophets to come to Israel for instruction in the word of God. They were not simply told to seek God on their own.

As the apostles founded new synagogues of Christians they ordained Elders in every city. These men were held responsible for the spiritual growth and instruction of the church. They were to teach the people about the word of God’s grace just as the Apostle had done. (Acts 20:32).

When Paul wrote to Timothy he made it clear where the authority and responsibility of preaching and teaching was placed. The ability to administer the word was among the special qualifications set for those who were to serve as Elders in the churches. They must be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2). Timothy was to consider this when he trained others to enter into the ministry of the word.

2 Timothy 2:2, “And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”

Timothy was to consider this calling as a gift from God to be managed wisely and responsibly.

1 Timothy 4:13-14, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.”

2 Timothy 4:2. “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.”

This implies a tested ability (a confirmed divine calling) for those who dare to administer the word to the people. Even Elders are not always faithful and therefore must be held accountable to one another. This is one of the things about which Jesus warned the Pharisees and Sadducees (ex. Mt 22:29-32).

There is a clear danger when those not properly instructed, tested, and ordained are allowed to teach the people. They tend to be judged by their popularity and speaking skills, rather than by their faithfulness to the true understanding of the Bible. What is enjoyable and draws people in becomes the test of preaching rather than its adherence to the careful and responsible exposition and application of what God has said.

1 Timothy 1:6-7, “For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.”

2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires;”

This same responsibility goes beyond just formal preaching. There is interpretation of the Bible whenever it is used. When we read a passage, some degree of judgment decided which passage to read, and which translation to use. The attitude projected by the reader can influence how the words are taken. This is one of the reasons why the trained and ordained Elders were the ones held accountable for the effective teaching of the Scriptures in the church.

PCA scholar Louis DeBoer (once an editor of the American Presbyterian Press) writes this referring to the reading of Scripture during times of called public worship,

“Who may read the Scriptures? In our antinomian age that probably seems like a ridiculous question. What could possibly be wrong with reading the Scriptures? But that was the doctrine of Cain. He too thought what could possibly be wrong with bringing a sacrifice. That was also the doctrine of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram who rebelled against Moses and Aaron and intruded into the priesthood. It was also part of the arrogant apostasy of later Kings of Israel and Judah such as Jeroboam and Uzziah.”

The authority to teach in the public worship, and to set men aside to proclaim the word of God is no light matter that a layperson can appropriate for himself.

Hebrews 5:4-6, “And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was. So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee’; just as He says also in another passage, ‘Thou art a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.’ “

Dr. Henry Krabbendam (a graduate of the Theologische Hoogeschool Kampen in Holland, and ThD from Westminster Theological Seminary, OPC Elder, teacher at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and Covenant College) wrote,

“Preaching is (1) the authoritative, purposeful and timely communication of God’s truth as deposited in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; (2) based upon a thorough contextual and textual study and in the form of a carefully structured message; (3) through the personality of human instruments, commissioned by God, as a gift of Christ, anointed by the Spirit, molded by the Word and committed to prayer; (4) the gospel of and the keys to the kingdom with discriminating, applicatory and healing power with a view to regeneration, justification and sanctification; (5) through the minds, to the hearts and into the lives of any and all audiences, sinners and saints, men and women, old and young and presented in a well articulated, imaginative and persuasive fashion; and (6) all of these things in dependence upon, for the sake of and to the praise of the Triune God.”

Those who listen to the word during worship:
There is also a serious duty which rests upon those who listen to the word of God as it is read and preached. The Westminster Confession of Faith ties listening and preaching together when it says that godly worship must include, “The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence …” (WCF 21-5),\

The Westminster Larger Catechism, questions 160 asks,

What is required of those that hear the Word preached?
Answer: It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer; examine: What they hear by the Scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God; meditate, and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.

This means that the attender at worship must not listen casually but be diligent, expecting a blessing from God in the word as a means of grace. He must follow along attentively and strive to take in the sense of it. He must come prepared, physically rested and with Bible in hand. He must seek the meaning with prayer remembering that it is God alone who gives the understanding. As the word is proclaimed and explained it should be examined as that which authoritatively judges what is true and right in our lives.

This truth of God is to be received not just for information and not just for its emotional effect. It is to be accepted in faith, trusting it as that which must be believed, in love submitting to the mercy of God in giving it to us, in meekness humbling us all before its every challenge and command, with readiness of mind open and pliable to its teachings, and as the very word of God not merely as the words of man.

Once delivered to us, the word of God must be meditated upon, not quickly forgotten as we go our way. We must confer of it. That is, we must inquire of it what it says to us. We must hide it in our hearts in order that its truths, promises, and principles will be remembered. We must also bring forth fruit from that life-giving word so that our lives are conforming more and more to the perfect standard of God.

The Word of God is a great blessing in our worship. By it we can know what is true about God and what He requires of us. It is a great privilege to be entrusted with the word of God’s love and the revelation of his covenant and character. We must be able to say with the Psalmist,

Psalm 1:2, “his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night.”

Psalm 119:97, “O How Love I Thy Law…”

The Singing in Worship

The Scriptures clearly teach that song is a proper element of worship. There are several problems we must answer in obeying this mandate. We must define what a song is, and determine what boundaries are set by Scripture for its use in called times of worship. There are several components of song. They include the lyrics, the melody (and often harmonies), and rhythm. To use song we must also have some kind of musical arrangement determined by the way each component is employed and what vehicles will be used to supply each component.

God instituted song in worship in the time of King David. The occasion of the formal institution of song in public worship was the return of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. The account is given in 1 Chronicles 15 and 16.

The chief interest of this occasion was to correct Israel’s past errors of disobedience relating to the treatment of the Ark. This time it was brought back to Jerusalem in a manner prescribed by God and therefore pleasing to him. Song was among the things done to honor the Lord. David spoke to the chiefs of the Levites and told them to appoint from among their relatives singers and instrumentalists to raise sounds of joy to accompany the ark.

1 Chronicles 15:16, “Then David spoke to the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their relatives the singers, with instruments of music, harps, lyres, loud-sounding cymbals, to raise sounds of joy.”

It is helpful to note that those presenting the music before the people were all of the Priestly family of Levi. They were not there to entertain the people or to heighten their sense of emotional enrichment. They were to express Israel’s joy toward God in the blessing of the returned ark. They acted within the authority given to them to represent the people before God, and God before the people.

It is beyond the scope of this study to explore the details of this fascinating account. The specifics of the events, the actual lyrics used, and the instruments employed are worth the student’s extended study. One must keep in mind that the accompaniment used does not relate to our modern instruments. They have to do with very ancient devices producing sounds unlike those familiar to us in either our Western or Eastern cultures.

It is also helpful to see that the Levites who lead in the music were not the only ones involved in its use. David and the people appear to have been involved in the sounds of joy presented to the Lord.

1 Chronicles 15:27-28, “Now David was clothed with a robe of fine linen with all the Levites who were carrying the ark, and the singers and Chenaniah the leader of the singing with the singers. David also wore an ephod of linen. Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting, and with sound of the horn, with trumpets, with loud-sounding cymbals, with harps and lyres.”

Upon the arrival of the ark in Jerusalem, sacrifices were made, David pronounced a blessing upon the people, food was distributed, and some of the Levites were appointed to lead the people in thankful praise to God. One of the elements was the use of song.

1 Chronicles 16:5-6, “Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, then Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with musical instruments, harps, lyres; also Asaph played loud-sounding cymbals, and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests blew trumpets continually before the ark of the covenant of God.”

The lyrics used in 1 Chronicles 16:8-36 are the same as those preserved for us in the Book of Psalms, chapters 96, 105, and 106.

The use of song in worship continued as a regular practice in Israel after that occasion.

1 Chronicles 16:37 So he left Asaph and his relatives there before the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to minister before the ark continually, as every day’s work required;

The use of songs as a part of worship continued in the New Testament. It is mentioned on special occasions where individuals responded to God’s work as he revealed it to them as the program of covenantal redemption unfolded. Mary responded with the Magnificat which is recorded in Luke 1:46-55. Zechariah responded with his Benedictus in Luke 1:68-79. The Angels presented the Gloria in Excelsis in Luke 2:14 although that may or may not have been a song. Simeon responded to God’s revealed blessing in the Nunc Dimittis of Luke 2:29-32. The names of those songs are taken from the first words in the Latin translation of the New Testament.

Singing continued to be a part of worship occasions. For example, our Lord and his disciples sang a song before they departed from the observance of Passover when Jesus laid the foundation for the New Testament form of that Sacrament on the night before he was crucified.

The Purpose of Songs in Worship
As with all the elements of proper worship the object toward which it is directed is God. His glory is the prime objective. We conclude then that no parts of worship should be directed toward mood setting for the people, or for enhancement of the appeal of worship to unbelievers. Those who advertise musical performances to attract people to attend for personal pleasure or entertainment have clearly violated a basic principle of biblical worship.

The various themes of worship in Scripture set the boundaries limiting what all songs in worship should include. Our songs declare the nature of God, his attributes, his mercies, his judgments and his works. Songs may also express our humble thankfulness, joy, praise and repentance.

Questions Relating to Songs in Worship
Since the musical elements of worship songs are not preserved in Scripture, we do not have inspired examples of melody, harmony, or rhythms. The meter of some of the Psalms show us little of how the actual musical elements would have sounded in the Tabernacle in the time of King David. We know that some instruments were used at that time and that various groups of voices appear to have combined in some ways. How these compare with the use of instruments and arrangements familiar to us in our modern cultures remains an issue of discussion among Bible scholars.

One of the most controversial issues has to do with the use of songs other than the inspired Psalms in worship. The resolution of this matter is far beyond the scope of this study. In 1946 and 1947, the 13th and 14th General Assemblies of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) received a report from a study committee on this subject. The majority report defended the inclusion of songs beyond only the Psalms, while a minority report (written by Dr. John Murray) defended exclusive Psalm singing.

Another issue has to do with who does the singing. Few argue against the joining of the congregation in singing. The main controversy today centers around the leadership of song in worship. Again, the scope of this issue is beyond what this syllabus intends to cover. It relates to the whole matter of leadership in the regular worship services of the church.

The OPC articles also deal with some helpful issues relating to the scope of the Regulative Principle in laying out what belongs in worship. It reminds us of the important but sometimes hard to define distinction between elements of worship and the circumstances required in their implementation. The use of songs in worship is an issue that often presses our understanding of the Scriptures in the practical application of the Regulative Principle. The following quotation from one of those articles gives us a well deserved word of caution:

“Admittedly, a gray area emerges here; it is not always possible to distinguish cleanly between the material and formal in worship, between the elemental and the merely circumstantial. This accounts, at least in part, for the fact that issues of worship were among the most controverted at the Westminster Assembly, and that the Assembly did not undertake, as a few of its members initially desired, a thorough revision of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. They produced a directory, rather than a fixed, prescribed liturgy. In so doing, although some continued to hold that a established liturgy of prayers was permissible, even preferable, it wisely adopted a kind of middle ground between the more strictly regulated liturgical approach of earlier Reformed worship in Scotland, Geneva and elsewhere on the continent, and some Puritan Independents who were opposed even to a directory. A clear and firm commitment to the notion of the regulative principle enabled them to achieve this balance.”

Due Administration and Receiving of the Sacraments

The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be discussed more fully in our notes on chapters 27, 28 and 29 of the Confession. The important point here is that both Sacraments are properly included in the convocational worship of the church. The Lord’s Supper is in one aspect a communion of the covenant body with Christ the Bridegroom. Baptism is the placing of the covenant sign and seal of membership in the body of Christ upon the recipient. Neither retains these important representations if done outside the solemn calling together of the body of believers in the specially manifest presence of God.

The Sacraments ought not to be administered in private or family worship for reasons that will be expanded upon in chapters 27 through 29. Aside from the covenant community aspect, the Elders presiding as a Session ought to have direct oversight over how these elements are to be administered. Also, the removal from and admission to the sacraments is clearly placed under the authority of the ordained Elders in Scripture.

Other Elements of Proper Worship

The Confession adds a general statement that other elements are also properly part of regulated worship.
“… beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.”

Larger Catechism, question 108, adds more specificity to that list.

Answer: The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Therefore regulated worship also may at times include the following elements:

Religious Oaths and Vows
Oaths and vows will be covered in specific detail in chapter 22 of the confession. For our purpose here we should understand that an oath is a solemn promise we make to another person or group of persons which is sealed by calling upon God as witness and submitting to his judgment if the promises or pledge are not kept faithfully. A vow is a solemn promise made directly to God.

When having to do with membership in or leadership of the covenant community, a solemn oath or vow is a proper element for corporate worship. These promises are in a sense worship by their very nature. They affirm and call upon God’s justice, power and sovereignty as it relates to the gathered covenant body of the church.

Included in such oaths and vows would be the promises made at baptism and membership in the church. In these, faithfulness is promised to the whole of the body of Christ locally and to its officers as shepherds over their lives. The oaths and vows said in the ordination and installation of Elders and Deacons are properly a part of worship for this same reason.

Marriage is constituted before God in the form of a solemn oath and vow made before God and men. It creates a new structure in the covenant community as a new family is joined together. This therefore makes it also a proper element of corporate worship. Though it is commonly done on occasions other than the regular Sabbath worship, a proper marriage ceremony begins with a calling upon God and ends with a Benediction. It includes prayers and the expounding of God’s word done by a properly ordained minister.

The modern secular and romantic notions of marriage disconnect it from the covenant structure and therefore ignore its importance as a solemn promise before God. The elements of worship are therefore often left out of marriage ceremonies in favor of more romantic elements inserted by man. It is the conviction of this author that only proper elements of Christian worship should be permitted within the time between the calling upon God and the final benediction. Minimally, the service should include prayer, some exposition of or exhortation from God’s Word, and the reciting of the oaths and vows relating to the marriage union. Other elements may be added before and after the called marriage ceremony. All elements of the marriage service should be approved by the minister as overseer of worship, This would include the wording of the oaths made between the partners and the vows they make before God.

Confessions of Faith
The central idea of confession is our affirmation before the church, and in the sight of God, of belief and submission to the nature and works of God as revealed in his word. In Scripture there are examples of confessions of faith. They may be a simple affirming of basic truths such as the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6:4) or of the Lordship of Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:3). Or they may be a more expanded confession as in Romans 1:3-4, 4:24-25, 8:34, 10:9-10, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Peter 3:18-22 and those in other places.

Today we often use the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicean Creed to publicly affirm our submission to God as revealed in Scripture. This confession of his name and nature by our lips is not limited to the convocational worship of God in the church, but ought to be continually offered as praise to God (Hebrews 13:15) in our private devotion and in our families.

The creeds accomplish much more than the affirming of our faith before God. They also instruct us with careful summaries assembled by the Councils of the Elders of the ancient church and tested by scrutiny over the ages in comparison with Scripture for their faithfulness to its teachings. They clarify truths that might otherwise remain unclear. They help us teach our children and new believers to remember the basic nature and work of God. They also testify publicly what God has made known to us about himself.

Solemn Fastings and Thanksgivings
In special times of blessing and need, the church has at times fasted as a covenant body reflecting a practice taught in Scripture. While this is not to be a regular part of every called time of worship, there are biblical grounds that support the use of occasional fasts and thanksgivings as called by the church and charged upon the congregation. These should not become outward displays of piety or regular obligations. Such abuses were rebuked by Jesus Christ and rejected by the Reformers in the light of Scriptural warnings.

Thanksgiving ought to be a part of every element of worship. As we hear God’s word, pray, or sing his praises, the response of the redeemed heart is gratitude for what is heard and for the grace that enables us to understand it. Special prayers and special services of thanksgiving are well attested by Scriptural example. Clearly by its very nature thanksgiving to God for his wonder and grace is the heart of worship itself.

The Gathering of God’s Tithe and Our Offerings
There are two parts to the collections taken during the public worship of the Church; the tithe and the offering. The tithe is a fixed ten percent of whatever we earn. It is evidenced in the earliest chapters of the Book of Genesis predating the establishment if Israel as God’s Covenant People. It is mentioned without abrogation in the New Testament. It is given thankfully as a testimony that God is the one who enables us to labor and who causes our work to prosper. It is his portion and is not to be withheld or redirected to other charities or agencies than the church. To do so is to steal from God (Malachi 3:8). The offering is our free gift of thanks to the Lord as he prospers us beyond the meeting of our basic needs. There is no fixed percentage for the thank offering in this post-levitical era. The amount is left to the giver. Both the tithe and the offering are to be given to God and to his kingdom through the church according to the principles the Scriptures command.

Contrary to the perverted ideas of our modern age, the offering is not a tip we give the pastor for a good sermon, or dues paid for membership in the church. It is not a version of fund raising or simply to meet budgetary demands and keep the lights on and air-conditioner working. It is not given to entice God to bless us. Giving should be the thankful response of humble believers to the provisions of our Sovereign God, and is therefore to be treated as an act of worship.

Under the Old Testament priestly system the tithes and offerings were to be brought to the Priests who acted as Elders of Israel to provide for and to oversee the worship, to counsel and discipline the members, and to care for the needy in the covenant community. The admonition of Malachai 3:10 to bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, reminds us that the tithe is to be distributed and used under the authority of God’s church. It is not to be managed by the individual giver.

In the New Testament this same principle continues with no change except that the temple services and priestly work were completed in Christ. The day of worship was set by the Apostles to the first day of the week based upon the Roman calendar that was in use at the time. Therefore we see the worshipers instructed to bring God’s tithes and their offerings to the Sabbath worship of the church (1 Corinthians 16:1,2 and 2 Corinthians 8-9).

Benedictions
The word benediction means “good speaking”. It is a blessing pronounced on behalf of God upon his covenant people by duly appointed ministers. The classic passage that summarizes this duty is found in the Aaronic Blessing of Numbers 6:22-27.

“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, “Thus you shall bless the sons of Israel. You shall say to them: The LORD bless you, and keep you; The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance on you, And give you peace.” So they shall invoke My name on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them.’ “

The Lord says that this is a real pronouncement given with his authority and promise. It is not just a mere ritual exercise or a wish for blessing. It is effectual because God has given it as a means by which he shall truly bless the people.

The blessing was to be given by those ordained as agents of God to shepherd his people. In the period of the patriarchs the heads of households were the authorized Elders over the people. They, as mediators of God’s covenant with their families, spoke words of promise to their children and their children’s children. The head of the home was not just the husband, but the elder head of the entire extended family which was not ended as the children married, but was extended. This is illustrated in the blessing of Isaac upon Jacob and Esau in Genesis 27. The words of the family elder were seen as binding by virtue of God’s authority behind them.

In the Levitical period God centered spiritual leadership over the entire family of Israel in the Priests of the order of Aaron. They were commanded to pronounce the benediction upon the people of God.

In the time of the earthly ministry of Jesus, he also blessed his people when leaving them as to his special presence. At his ascending into heaven he lifted his hands and blessed them as recorded in Luke 24:50-53.

In the Apostolic era, Paul, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews spoke blessings from God upon their readers. Their words are often used by pastors today in Benedictions to close the worship service. (See 2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 4:7, 1 Peter 5:14 and Hebrews 13:20-21.)

The teachings of the New Testament affirm that continuing authority in the ordained Elders of the church, particularly those trained in the word as Pastors, to continue to administer this blessing.

The Benediction is particularly fitting as the people leave corporate Sabbath worship where God’s special presence is manifest. Paul Engle, in his book “Discovering the Fullness of Worship” defines the Benediction by saying it is “a farewell blessing in which God’s name is placed upon his people who leave corporate worship …” (Romans 12:1, Colossians 3:17).

The blessing should be received by the worshipers with a full expectation of God’s blessing, reflective of their faith in his promise given in his word.

The Places of Worship

Westminster Confession of Faith 21:6

Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: but God is to be worshiped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or willfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by his Word or providence, calleth thereunto.

There was a time when God centralized corporate worship in certain places. In the era that followed the finishing of the work of Christ in his atonement on the Cross, all the symbolisms of having just one place for the congregation to worship as a body of believers have been fulfilled and no longer apply.

In John 4 Jesus made it clear that the time of the Temple worship was ending. God no longer required his people to worship him in the one place on earth he had designated. Certainly the places invented by those in rebellion against the Temple during the time of the Kings and Prophets were never sanctioned in God’s law.

In contrast, Christian worship is to be characterized as being done “in spirit and in truth”. (For a review of the ending of the Levitical laws regarding persons, places and seasons of worship see the Confession chapters 7 and 19.) In our period of God’s redemptive history we do not need to report to any special place to engage in any of the elements of worship.

The church buildings of our era provide a convenient place for us to meet together on the Sabbath and at other times without having to travel to Jerusalem, or to meet outdoors or in private homes when we are gathered as a congregation. The essence of worship is not in the place, but in the hearts of believers. At the call of the Elders, the people assemble solemnly at designated times, particularly on every Sabbath, to honor God in the ways he has prescribed.

Individuals may pray and honor the Lord in any place. Families may and ought to worship daily wherever they are assembled.

The transition to this greater liberty of worship is not a matter of us arbitrarily selecting which parts of Scripture continue today, and which elements no longer apply. We have the clear teaching of our Lord in his earthly ministry and the expounding of that teaching in the letters of the New Testament. These show us how the basic principles adhere to all called worship times. They give us the fundamentals of what pleases God in our worship.

Discussion Suggestion: Go over the 4th chapter of the Gospel of John which records the lesson of Jesus to the Samaritan woman at the well.

[Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (1988 edition) unless otherwise noted.]

Survey Studies in Reformed Theology

Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies

Nomology: Lesson 3 – The Regulative Principle of Worship
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2000, 2010, 2013

Lesson Index
The Mandate of Worship
The Prescriptive Principle of Regulated Worship
Worship and our Liberty in Christ
The Object of Worship

Westminster Confession of Faith XXI

The Mandate of Worship (WCF 21:1a)

I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might…

God is wonderful and has done wonderful things. He is the Creator of all that exists. We have already studied in Confession chapters 3 and 4 that all things were made by him for his own glory and purposes (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20, Revelation 4:11). We saw in Confession chapters 3 and 5, that God upholds all things by the power of his might by his works of providence. His sovereign power is infinite (Psalm 135:5-6). And we have also studied in Confession chapters 6 though 18, that God has redeemed his people by the gracious atonement made by Jesus Christ.

Since God made and upholds all things and orders them for his own glory and for the blessing of his redeemed people, we are duty bound to respond to him appropriately. Our proper response is worship.

The word worship represents three basic words in the Bible. In the Old Testament the primary word in Hebrew is shakhah (שחה) which most fundamentally means “to bow down”. The main New Testament word is proskhuneo (προσχυνεω) which literally means “to kiss toward’. It is believed that its origin was of a humbled subject bowing before the person to be honored and kissing his feet. It is used mostly in Scripture to represent the Hebrew term and therefore takes on the meaning “to bow down”, or “to prostrate one’s self”. Another term often translated worship in the New Testament is the Greek word latreuo (λατρευω) which primarily means “to serve” and often has a ritual sense to it as in serving God in specific acts of worship.

Dr. Morton Smith traces the English word “worship” to the Anglo-Saxon term woerthscipe, which means “worth-shape”. He says, “It denotes worthiness of an individual to receive special honor in accord with that worth.”

The terms used in Scripture confirm that worship is not centered upon man and his own feelings. Rather it is centered upon the glory of God as it produces a humbling of the worshiper before him in subjection, honor, and gratitude.

Therefore worship is our obligation in response to God’s revealed glory as it is expressed in his decrees. The humble attitude of our response is due to the awesome nature of his glory. The Hebrew term for glory is cavod (כבד) which means “heavy, a weighty matter”. God’s nature is made known as something weighty. It is awesome, and ought to impress us who know him that we have a duty of the greatest importance. It is a heavy matter demanding our respect.

Worship is the natural response of the redeemed when God’s glory is beheld. There are many examples in Scripture that confirm that conclusion.

At the dedication ceremony of the temple under King Solomon the Priests, the Levitical singers, and the trumpeters were to come forth saying in unison …

2 Chronicles 5:13-14 “… praise the LORD saying, ‘He indeed is good for His lovingkindness is everlasting,’ then the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God…”

2 Chronicles 7:3 “…seeing the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the house, bowed down on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped and gave praise to the LORD, saying, ‘truly He is good, truly His lovingkindness is everlasting.”

Other examples can be found in the Song of Moses (Exodus 15), and the Song of Deborah and Barak (Judges 5). How else but in humble praise could the redeemed react? The majesty of God’s holy nature instills this humble response in his children.

The PCA’s Directory of Worship in its Book of Church Order (47-3) says, “The end of public worship is the glory of God. His people should engage in all its several parts with an eye single to His glory. Public worship has as its aim the building of Christ’s Church by the perfecting of the saints and the addition to its membership of such as are being saved — all to the glory of God. Through public worship on the Lord’s day Christians should learn to serve God all the days of the week in their every activity, remembering, whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, to do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).”

Since worship is so important, how we worship ought to deeply concern every child of God. We want to honor him in ways that please him. The only way we can know with certainty how God is to be worshiped is by his word. This leads us to the study of how proper worship is to be regulated.

The Prescriptive Principle of Regulated Worship

(WCF 21:1-6)
Westminster Confession of Faith 21:1b

I. … the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

Among humans, honor is given in many different ways. Some would be honored in ways that might offend another person. A formal handshake might be considered very cold as an anniversary wish from a husband to a wife. A hug and tender kiss on the lips would likely be deeply offensive if given by a boss to an employee as thanks for landing a new account. To some people a blue-grass band might please them at a party celebrating their birthday, while another would prefer classical music by a string quartet. The key is to know how we can please the person who is to be honored.

The only way to know how to worship God is to consider what he has made known to us in his word. This is called the prescriptive regulative principle of worship. This means that we do only what God directly prescribes to us in the Bible. Another approach is the proscriptive regulative principle of worship. This method of designing worship excludes things God specifically forbids in his word, but presumes that all other things we do might be pleasing to him.

All Christians regulate worship in some manner. Certainly no believer would allow human sacrifices in worship and would never consider priestly prostitution as a proper way to honor our Lord. These would be things clearly forbidden in God’s word. All concur that worship should be regulated to avoid these extremes. But beyond what is directly forbidden, how can we know what pleases God if he does not tell us? Our own imaginations may lead us to do what pleases us, but worship is to be centered on its object (God) not upon the subjects (the worshipers).

God’s Word involves many positive instructions about worship. It does not just give broad principles to be applied subjectively. Under the Mosaic economy before the coming of the Messiah worship was closely regulated so that it would give an accurate picture of how the Savior would redeem his people and set them aside as his holy nation. The Books of Law are taken up in large part by very detailed prescriptions about how God expected to be worshiped in that era. He did not just give guidelines to the priests then set them free to do whatever felt right to them. Quite the opposite is the case. They were told not to innovate, but to obey very strictly what God prescribed. God’s worship did not follow things already present in their culture. It provided a unique form designed to honor God as he wants to be honored. The Priests did not know fully how the elements of Temple worship prefigured Christ and his work of atonement. If they tampered with what they did not fully comprehend they would have tampered with the heart of the gospel itself.

In this era following the life of Christ we are no longer under the Mosaic regulations for worship. That is made very clear in the writings of the New Testament. But there are worship principles that came before Moses, principles that go back to the earliest days recorded in the Bible. These principles relate to the nature of God the Creator and Preserver so they apply at all times. Some elements relate to the redemptive work of the Savor but take on different forms in each period of biblical history.

Today we know much more than the Old Testament believers knew, but we still only know the nature of God and of his work by way of his revelation. His being and plan are still infinitely above our finite understanding. How we please God is only known by his direct revelation to us in his word.

This admission should caution us against introducing human innovations into worship. But God has not left us to derive what is fit for his worship by our own reason and feelings. He has made it clear in his word by direct precept and recorded example. There is offense to God and danger to ourselves when we dare to imagine what God would be pleased with beyond what he has revealed. Therefore the regulative principle of worship is not only proscriptive, it is more precisely prescriptive.

Cain and Able
From the earliest records in Scripture we see how important it is to offer up worship as God has asked for it. The incident involving Cain and Able shows us that this is a moral principle imposed at creation, not a later ritual law for Israel only.

In Genesis 4 God records how Cain did not bring the offering God regarded as acceptable. He brought things he had grown in his gardens instead of animal sacrifices. Though it seems that God revealed the need for blood offerings to Adam and to Able, it is possible that Cain for some reason did not understand the significance of it. But there can be no doubt that he understood that God had respect for the blood offerings of Able but did not respect the fruit offerings he brought. Yet he insisted on worshiping in his own way regardless of what God approved. Cain is even described as becoming very angry when God did not accept his offerings.

When God spoke with Cain he told him that the issue was that he was not doing well in his worship. He was told to go and do what was right and warned that his present course was sin. But Cain’s answer was to kill his brother rather than to conform to the revealed wishes of God in worship. Sin is compounded by persistent sin. In this case the sin of wrong worship revealed a heart in which more sin was “crouching at the door”. It issued in the horrible sin of murder.

The Ten Commandments
The summary of the moral precepts of God in the Ten Commandments begins with four principles about how God is to be honored.

First, the one true God is to be honored alone. There are to be no other gods in our hearts than the one Creator. He alone deserves our undivided allegiance and worship.

Second, no physical images or likenesses of God are to be made or imagined by us, nor should such images be worshiped. Those who say they make images to remind them of God but do not worship them, show a misunderstanding of the impelling nature of God’s revelation. When we are confronted with that which represents God or his work (such as his written word, or the elements of the Lord’s Supper) we ought to be stirred to worship. To say that an image makes us think of God but does not elicit worship is to deny the very response God requires of us as we behold him.

Third, the name of God, the terms by which the divine nature is expressed and made known, should not be taken in vain. When we speak of God our minds must not wander off. We should have a conscious awareness of his glory when we speak of him. How many times do people sing words of praise to God in worship while their minds drift off to other things. In this manner we deeply offend God in the midst of called worship itself. The heart of true worship as reflected in the words used for it in Scripture is a deep humble and respectful awe whenever God enters our minds or is mentioned by our lips.

Fourth, one day in seven must be set aside to remember the work of God in creation. This is a creation ordinance first seen in Eden, continued all through the Scriptures even in the establishment of the post-resurrection church. Though the ritual sabbaths of the era of Mosaic law were temporal and were fulfilled in Christ, the Creation Sabbath continues to be a special day for the consecrated worship of God’s people.

Aaron’s Golden Calf
As the Law of God was being engraved on stone for the people of Israel, while Moses was up in the Mountain of God with Joshua receiving the details of how the Lord was pleased to be worshiped, his brother Aaron had an innovative idea to calm the restless rebellion of Israel and to motivate them in their worship of Jehovah who had led them out of Egypt (Exodus 32:4-5). Everyone knew that God required sacrifices of animals. The calf of the ox was not only a familiar form of pagan worship back in Egyptian, it was also a form which God himself had authorized in the sacrifices representing the Messiah who would one day come and die for the sins of his people. So what could be wrong with taking their precious gold jewelry and melting it down to make a statue of a calf by which the true God could be worshiped in a familiar way? They vainly justified their sin imagining that God would be pleased with their innovation and he would understand their need and good intentions. To combat the discouragement of the people while they waited for the return of Moses the gold was collected and a beautiful monument to Jehovah was made and a feast was proclaimed in his honor.

There was one problem, it did not please God. In fact it was a deep offense. Their imagined good intentions were no excuse at all. They were in defiance of the true spirit nature of God, and were focusing upon things not prescribed by him as proper forms of worship. They openly did things forbidden in the Commandments delivered at that very mountain not long before.

When Moses and Joshua returned from the mountain and found Israel engaged in such licentious behavior and a golden calf being worshiped, they sent the Levites out in judgment. 3,000 were slain for that rebellion against the Lord. The calf was burned and ground into powder which was scattered on the waters from which Israel was made to drink. Clearly God was angry with their innovation in worship. It did not please him.

Nadab and Abihu
Moses also records the tragic story of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. This is an incident not only of defiance of revealed truth, but of innovation in worship beyond what was prescribed by God.

Leviticus 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. (2) And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.

These men fired up the incense offering in a manner that provoked God to immediately judge them by execution. The Fire of the Lord had just descended to consume the offering of Aaron consecrating his priesthood and inaugurating the worship God himself had meticulously prescribed by direct revelation through Moses (Leviticus 9:24). In that context a violation of the just imposed law of worship would have undermined the importance of God’s regulations. This is why this incident was so dramatically and immediately severe.

Instead of following that which God himself called for, these rebellious sons of Aaron used fire which was called strange. The Hebrew term used here is zarah (זרה) from the root word zur (זור). It is a term commonly used for the expression “to be a stranger”. It means “strange” in the sense of being foreign, unusual, or not what is expected.

There are many theories about what was strange about this firing of the incense offering. Some suggest they failed to take the coals from the altar fire (though this was not directly commanded for the incense offering). Others suggest they didn’t bother to prepare the incense according to God’s word in Exodus 30:9. Some suggest that they offered it at a time other than at the morning or evening sacrifice, and some say it might have been some innovation not touching on matters specifically recorded in Scripture. The common element in all these theories is not the heart or intent of these men, but that in some way the offering deviated from what God had so carefully commanded of the details of how he was to be worshiped. The only distinction between what they did and what was acceptable, according to the inspired text itself, is that it was strange, foreign to what God had recommended.

If the regulation of worship is only a matter of proscription, we would expect the text to say they brought fire that had been forbidden. But that is not the term the Holy Spirit chose. He said it was something foreign, strange. We can accurately say that it was something God had not prescribed.

The fire of Jehovah that had just miraculously fallen upon the offering of Aaron, now fell upon these presumptuous sons who neglected to obey the prescriptive regulative principle of worship. Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”

David and Uzzah
There is the incident recorded in 2 Samuel 6:6-7 where Uzzah reached out to steady the ark being brought back to Israel on a cart. The oxen pulling it nearly upset the cart so Uzzah steadied the ark to keep it from falling. There were a number of regulations of God being defied in the whole process. First, the ark had been lost because of the rebellious and superstitious reasons for which it had been brought into battle. Second, David had chosen to transport it back to Israel in an improper way. The ark was only to be moved by the exact method prescribed in God’s law. It was only to be carried by the sons of Kohath of the tribe of Levi. Third, touching the ark was a crime that was to be punished with death.

Even David became angry with the Lord when Uzzah was immediately struck dead on the very spot where he touched the ark. David had developed an attitude that was innovative rather than obedient. He failed to treat this important object of Old Testament worship in exactly the manner God prescribed. His good intentions, and the intentions of Uzzah, did not excuse them from the principle of prescriptive regulated worship.

David learned his lesson and made it clear to Israel in 1 Chronicles 15. He admitted that the ark had to be treated only in the manner exactly prescribed by the God it was designed to honor.

To these examples we could add many more where the wrath of God is directed against those who defied his prescribed ways of worship.

The innovative changes in worship by King Jeroboam after the division of Israel into two nations show a similarity with the innovative thinking of Aaron back in the wilderness. He made golden calves to become helps to worship through which the people could honor the God who brought them out of Egypt (1 Kings 12:28ff).

There were the intrusions into the priestly office by Korah and his family (Numbers 16), by King Saul (1 Samuel 13), by King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26), and by King Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28). Though each thought they had a good reason to modify what God had prescribed, they were each clearly condemned and judged. They did not abandon worship or reject the sacrifices. They merely made some innovation in how worship in their era was to be conducted.

What About Our Liberty in Christ?

Some have argued against the prescriptive principle of regulated worship on the grounds that we are set free in Christ. However, in the past chapter we saw that Christian liberty is not the removal of boundaries but the enablement to move more easily within them. Clearly the New Testament books of Hebrews and Galatians specially show that the old forms of worship connected with the Levitical priesthood, the Temple, and the sacrifices are now obsolete. Their purpose is fulfilled in the work of Christ and therefore the forms are not binding in the post-incarnation era.

It should be kept in mind however as we studied under Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 19, that while the outward forms of the Mosaic law are changed in Christ, the principles they represented are not eliminated. They are brought to a greater level of clarity and blessing. The overwhelming evidence of the New Testament shows us that God is still very concerned that we worship in acceptable ways, only in ways revealed to us by the one who is to be worshiped. Many references in the New Testament detail the elimination of the priesthood, of the sacrifices, of the many holy days, of the dietary laws and other temporal regulations. But these passages never tell us that is has become acceptable to introduce man made innovations into worship. Only God may change and institute worship forms.

In speaking against the confused views of the Scribes and Pharisees, Jesus showed that the traditions that help us keep in line with what is right must be God given not man invented.

Mark 7:6-9, “And He said to them, ‘Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.’ He was also saying to them, ‘You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.’ “

The foundation for the prescriptive principle of regulated worship is seen here very clearly. The concern of our Lord was to ensure that our practices, particularly our methods of worship (7:7) are bounded only by traditions that preserve what is prescribed by the Lord for his people. Traditions that perpetuate human innovations are not to be our guide.

Jesus spoke directly of the changes in worship that his coming would bring. In his discourse with the woman at the well in Samaria, he affirmed that the outward forms previously required by God would be done away. But his reasoning with her does not imply that he meant an elimination of the prescriptive principle of regulated worship. Rather, his comments affirm its continuance. The woman asked about a specific difference between the worship she knew as a Samaritan and that of Israel.

Jesus answered in John 4:20, “Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”

John 4:21-26, Then Jesus said, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

John 4:25, The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.”

John 4:26, Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

There are several relevant points made here that serve to direct us in this new era after the completion of the Mosaic law in Christ.

First, God’s revelation is alone the source of how he is to be worshiped. The Samaritans were in error because their innovation was in ignorance while the practice of the Jews had been in accord with what God himself had made known (4:22).

Second, the modes of worship can only change when God gives further revelation directly. Only one who was a true prophet could announce such a change. Jesus as the Messiah had even greater authority than a mere prophet.

Third, the eliminating of the Jerusalem Temple as the only authorized place of called worship did not mean that all concern for what God specified was changing. It only meant that the specifications were changing. The fulfilled form was not to be less careful about offending the unknown aspects of God’s nature. It was to be just as committed to revealed truth. So Jesus said not only that the new era of worship would be more oriented to the non-physical part of man as led by the Holy Spirit. He also insisted that it would be a worship in truth. That is, in accord with what God has made known.

Contrary to the issues in the Samaritan debate with the Jewish Rabbis, true worship would not be determined by man made traditions. It would not be set by individual convictions about what helps them feel as though they were honoring God. It was to be in accord with direct revelation. Again, the prescriptive principle is the only way to account for the way Jesus answered the questions at the well.

Why Were Worship Abuses Sometimes Tolerated?
Some try to soften God’s displeasure over innovative worship by pointing out that God does not treat all violators with death as he did in the cases of Cain and Uzzah. They surmise that other factors must have been involved of which we are not aware, factors other than mere innovation in worship. The problems with such reasoning are rather obvious.

We should base our interpretations upon what the Bible actually says in the accounts of God’s judgments, not upon suspected unrevealed issues. There are always matters beyond what we know. However, if God gives us a reason for his judgment, we should accept it as such. When we begin surmising about unstated extenuations we open the door that confuses every statement of human language and make the Bible an obscure book.

God has purposed to make himself known in the Scriptures. He has not failed. His words are our sufficient guide even though they may at times teach things we would rather not face as true.

The more serious error is to presume that forbearance implies approbation. God many times spoke of how he had allowed sin to abound as men heaped judgment upon themselves. It is certainly true that Aaron was not executed for making the golden calf. Many times kings, priests and false prophets turned the masses of Israel from the true worship of Jehovah to idols. In almost every case, though not always resulting in immediate death, God’s displeasure is beyond doubt. Often the purpose of a biblical passage is simply to record the historical facts about what happened leaving the moral principles to be explained in passages where they are directly taught. The perversion of God’s worship by introducing the innovations of man is sinful. The instances recorded are enough to establish this point clearly.

We must also keep in mind that God’s ordinary way of dealing with sin is by means of human instruments. He instituted offices of authority to carry out his judgments on earth. Authority is given to Elders to oversee his church, and to various types of governors to rule in the state as his ministers of what is good as stated in Romans 13:4. In that same verse civil government is said to bear the power of the sword by God’s appointment. This is why God does not intervene supernaturally to execute murderers or rapists on the spot. He has entrusted that duty to the rulers of the state.

Similarly God does not strike all false worshipers down supernaturally. That judgment is the duty of the Elders of the church. One of their difficult jobs is to follow the detailed process of church discipline as laid out in the Scriptures. In some cases they may have to remove an unrepentant and contumacious member of the covenant community from the table of the Lord. The lack of supernatural intervention in temporal judgments is not a denial of the fact of the sin, but an affirmation of the process God instituted by which justice is ordinarily to be administered.

The Prescriptive Principle Summarized
As long ago as the time of Moses God had clearly summarized the basic principle of Sola Scriptura (that Scripture alone is our absolute rule in matters of faith and practice). The prescriptive principle for the regulation of worship is nothing more than an application of that principle.

Deuteronomy 4:2, You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

The Object of Worship

Westminster Confession of Faith 21:2

II. Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to him alone; not to angels, saints, or any other creature: and, since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone.

That God alone is to be worshiped is fundamental. The First Commandment makes it clear that no other person or other created thing should receive the honor due to the Creator. To attribute the special characteristics of deity to any but the true God, or to credit original good any other than him, be it to a person, to a force, or to the mathematical laws of probability, is to defy our purpose as humans.

That we cannot approach God in worship other than by a Mediator who could be none other that our Savior Jesus Christ, was covered under our study of that topic in the eighth chapter of the Confession.

The obvious question that remains is, “What has God prescribed for worship in this era after the completing of the promises in Jesus Christ?” This is the topic taken up in the following lessons.

[Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (1988 edition) unless otherwise noted.]

Survey Studies in Reformed Theology

Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies

Nomology: Lesson 1 – The Law of God
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2000, 2010, 2013

Lesson Index
The Nature of Law
The Place of Law in God’s Creation
The 10 Commandments
Categories of Law
Does God’s Law Apply Today?
The Sum of Saving Knowledge
Law and Grace

Westminster Confession of Faith XIX

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.
VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

The Nature of Law

A right understanding of law must begin with a right understanding of the infinite, eternal and unchangeable God. His nature unlike our own depends upon nothing outside of himself. Some have used the term asceity to define this self-existence of God. The Latin term asceitas implies the self-origination of God. L. Berkhof (Systematic Theology pg 58) points out that “Reformed theologians quite generally substituted for it the word independentia (independence), as expressing, not merely that God is independent in His Being, but also that He is independent in everything else: in His virtues, decrees, works, and so on.”

That God is independent is most fundamentally evident from his own self-revelation preserved for us in Scripture. He alone is eternal, and is the origin of all things that exist outside of himself. He does not change with the progress of time as to his being, his knowledge, and his decrees. Therefore God is complete in himself. He is not becoming anything more than he always is.

This self-completeness of God confirms the unity of his being as One God who is indivisible into parts which could be conceived as existing independently from any other part. Therefore his attributes themselves are individualized only in their revelation to us finite beings who cannot comprehend his nature as an infinite and seamless whole.

Nothing in God can be separated out for independent study and examination without considering this unity. If we do, we would be violating what he is. In God there is no doctrine of mercy in distinction from the doctrines of justice, holiness, eternality, truth, and the other characteristics of the godhead.

When we study about God it is our information that is organized into categories that can be labeled and fit together into a system. Our finite minds must handle masses of data this way to simplify concepts for us componentally divisible creatures. To the degree that our study agrees with what God has said about himself in Scripture, our understanding corresponds with absolute truth as the Eternal Lord knows it.

Law is a concept many tend to isolate and examine as if it had an existence of its own. We tend to think of individual precepts and rules that bind us morally or civilly as various conditions arise. However, law ultimately has its origin in the unified and independent nature of God. It is what pleases him. It is what is consistent with his purpose as Creator and Sustainer. It defines what is moral and right.

Since God alone is eternal there was a moment in time, as we perceive it, before which nothing else but God existed. Since no other beings existed there was no sin except in its abstract definition. Since there was no one to whom God could communicate his truth and glory, there could be no revelation except in its decreed potential. Since there was no need for boundaries to be set so that others would understand what pleased God, there was no law in the sense of precepts and rules. Yet in the eternal mind of God moral principles persisted with no change. These moral principles that exist forever in the godhead provide the only absolute foundation for the idea of law.

The Place of Law in God’s Creation

When God created the universe, regardless of what parts of it we comprehend as being first, the infinite began to make itself known in the finite. With the appearance of rational creatures moral law appeared as part of the Creator’s handiwork reflecting his eternal and indivisible nature. The purpose of creation is made clear in Scripture as being declarative of the glory and nature of God:

Psalm 19:1 “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament is declaring the work of His hands.”

Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

From the moment other thinking and moral beings came into existence, it was right that they should have and honor no other gods than the one who made them for his own glory. The spirit nature of God being revealed in what was made ought never to be confused by making physical images of him. The name of God became something that was to be guarded against vain use. These first three summaries of moral law in the Ten Commandments are therefore not mere temporal rules. They flow from the very nature of God himself and are based upon eternal and unchangeable principles. It is impossible that any created moral being should exist upon whom these principles were not binding.

With the completion of the material creation, God ceased bringing new things into being and commanded that the Sabbath Day be sanctified to remember his work. Since all things were made to reveal his divine glory it would be immoral for any moral being not to respond to that revealed glory in worship that fits the ways in which God says he is to be worshiped. Therefore the Sabbath law is also creational and proceeds from the nature of the Creator as he relates to his creation. It is not a redemptive revelation given much later to only Israel. There were applications of the Sabbath principle that were revelatory of redemption, but the Sabbath concept itself is a principle that persists as along as creation itself exists.

When man was created other things had to be regulated to preserve the perception of the mark of the eternal Artist upon his handiwork. God told him that he must work to exercise his appointed and representative dominion over the rest of creation.

God commanded that one man and one woman should become one flesh in a special covenantal union to produce children and to populate his world. This precepts was also not temporal, but flowed from the eternal nature and plan of God revealing himself as Creator to those made in his image. Up to this point mankind had not fallen into sin. Again, this aspect of law is not limited to the progressive revelation of redemption which came after the fall. It is a precept that applies as long as men and women populate the earth prior to their death or the final resurrection. This union of a man and a woman was not intended to continue to reveal God’s nature beyond the present union of body and soul.

A Covenant of Works

God Sovereignly revealed his promises to Adam as the one appointed to federally represent all his posterity descending from him by natural generation. Since the nature of creaturely obligation proceeds necessarily from the nature of God and his purpose in creation, obedience must be complete and individual. Adam was bound to various creational ordinances revealed to him. These included the observance of the Sabbath Day which also required six days of faithful labor to exercise dominion over creation, fidelity to his wife. and the producing of godly offspring to fill the earth. He was also commanded to abstain from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God promised life to Adam as our federal head if he obeyed; and threatened death if he transgressed. These elements confirm the use of the term covenant (the Hebrew word berit means “a bond in blood sovereignly administered”) in describing this imposed relationship. We generally call this the Covenant of Works. Meredith Kline and O. Palmer Robertson prefer the term Covenant of Creation. (on the Covenant of Works see our Syllabus, Unit Three, Objective Soteriology.)

There is nothing to lead us to believe that the duty imposed upon Adam was beyond his capacity in his original created state. As we see in the events that followed, he also had the ability to transgress. In the sin of Adam we behold the greater plan of God in creating man as a finite, mutable, and fallible creature. We also see the principle of federal headship which treats mankind representatively, not only in the fall, but also in the federal redemption by Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Grace.

The Law After the Fall of Man

The sin of Adam corrupted the moral inclinations of all mankind. To present an objective record of the moral corrections to his impaired perception God made known various specific precepts. In a much later time the Creator himself dispensed them in summation statements handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai. What we call the Ten Commandments did not originate any new moral principles. They state in summary form the moral principles that ought to prevail in God’s creation so that it will reflect the glory of his holiness.

Some have debated the meaning of the term moral law. By it we don’t mean an independent set of rules imposed at some point in human history. The well known Ten Commandments are a summation of larger principles that exist eternally and unite into the concepts of righteousness and holiness in the infinite mind of God. They are expansions of principles revealed at creation and related later to the fallen estate. To limit the concept of moral law to the Ten Commandments is to misunderstand the term.

The 10 Commandments

The Ten Commandments are recorded in Exodus 20:3-17 and again in Deuteronomy 5:7-21. Since these precepts are revelatory of moral principles in the eternal nature of God as Creator, their violation is a crime against the purpose of the universe which is to glorify God.

When challenged, Jesus further summarized the moral law in two statements. He used the words of Moses to show that his summary was not a new concept but had already been clearly revealed. His answer to his critics came from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.

Matthew 22:37-40 “And He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets.”

The first four commandments show our creaturely obligations toward God. They are reflected in Jesus’ summary from Deuteronomy 6:5 “And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”

The last six commandments show our obligations toward one another as God’s creatures. They are summarized in Jesus’ quote from Leviticus 19:18 “… you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.”

In our modern society where the God of Scripture is denied and his law is despised the moral principles are inverted. The following corruptions of the Ten Commandments represent the moral values that are growing in today’s culture:

1. They say you shall not recognize one God only.
Any opposition to Pluralism is considered bigotry and is seen as wickedly immoral. The only religion deemed unworthy of toleration by the lost world is one that considers that there is but one true God who alone deserves obedience and worship.

2. They say the physical universe is all that is to be treated as real.
Since only what can be physically measured meets the test of man as the highest judge of truth, the concept of spiritual reality is ridiculed and despised. What is thought of as spirit is necessarily reduced to physical representations as seen in the modern view of angels, Satan, and the person of Jesus. They imagine that making images of God is not only acceptable, but is in fact necessary.

3. They say the name of God is not to be held in special honor.
Profanity, blasphemy, and crude language have become the expected and accepted idiom of the day.

4. They say the Sabbath is a human-centered day not a God-centered one.
Since the creature is honored over the Creator (Romans 1:25) the memorial to creation is denied and hated. The Sabbath becomes a prime day for commerce, particularly in support of restaurants, special sales of merchandise, professional sports, and entertainment. The day aside from commerce is to be taken up in personal recreation and self-gratification.

5. They say there is no right for some people to have authority over others.
Children become answerable to the state and society rather than to parents. Headship in the home is not to rest particularized in the husband. They say that leadership in the church must include both sexes and those of various sexual orientations. Extreme egalitarianism is considered mandatory, applying it to all people in every station and situation.

6. They say that human life is only honored when it serves a person’s or society’s interests.
The unborn are put to death if they are not wanted or would cause a burden upon the parents or the community. Inconsitently criminals who have taken the lives of others for their own selfish reasons are set free rather than executed as God’s principle of Justice requires.

7. They say that sexual freedom is not to be regulated.
Marriage has become optional if not archaic. It is seen merely as a romantic or legal event. If that’s all it is, those who want alternative unions to be called “marriage” cannot understand why anyone would oppose that modification. Divorce is granted upon the simple desire to abandon our oaths and vows.

8. They see private ownership as economic immorality.
Theft is treated as the fault of society or of the victim’s own greed for possessing things while others do not have them. The state, not the individual, strives to control the rightful distribution of wealth and ownership.

9. They deny that truth is ever absolute.
Lies are seen as an artifact of perception. Even what is perceived as truth ought not to be told if it causes an unpleasant outcome.

10. They promote coveting as a necessary means for personal growth and advancement.
Self-esteem has become the highest good. Aggressive self-centered greed is the attitude most prized and rewarded in our economy and culture.

For a more biblical exposition of the Ten Commandments see my commentary on the Westminster Catechism, questions 45-81. Also you may wish to study good commentaries on The Westminster Larger Catechism (questions 91 – 148), The Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day 34 – 44), and various authoritative commentaries on those historic symbols.

Conclusions about the moral law
1. It is necessary: Moral principles derive from the nature of the Creator. Therefore it is not possible for these principles to be unimportant or optional in a creation intended to declare the Creator’s glory, eternal power, and divine nature.

2. It is perpetual: Since the nature of God is eternal and unchangeable, so also must the moral principles of his creation which flow from his nature be perpetually binding.

3. It is revelatory: Since God made all of Creation to declare his glory, which includes his holiness and justice, therefore God makes known his moral principles obligating all moral creatures to obey them perfectly and personally.

To honor God, and to live at peace with his creation (including other humans) requires that God’s revealed moral law should be obeyed.

Categories of Law

Moral Law
Moral Law as it originates in the eternal and holy nature of God and as it relates to the nature of creation in its various moral estates is the foundation for all other categories we speak of in connection with law. It is common to divide the law into three categories: moral, ceremonial, and judicial (civil).

These are the categories used in the Westminster Confession as well as in many other historic statements of faith. It should not be assumed that these represent three independent and separable types of law. If moral law is the principial base of all ethics and reflects the holiness of the Creator, then we should presume that the other categories are designated to show how it applies in creation from various considerations. The ceremonial laws were instituted to reveal the redemptive work of Christ in restoring fallen men to a right standing under the moral law, and the judicial is exemplary of how moral law ought to govern human society.

Ceremonial Law
The moral law shows us what is holy and condemns us when we are unholy. God decreed that not all humans would continue in their fallen condition. To display his grace, he determined that a Messiah would come to take the place of his people in suffering their penalty and in meeting all the demands of divine holiness and justice for them. The details of that work were revealed progressively from the time of man’s expulsion from Eden all the way to the completion of the New Testament. In this sense the Ceremonial Law readies us for God’s work of redemption.

To prepare his people to understand what he would do to rescue them from sin, God imposed a whole set of regulations at Sinai. These temporal laws prefiguring the work of Jesus Christ as Redeemer are often called “Ceremonial Laws”.

Some of those temporal laws were to set apart the people of Israel as distinct from the rest of humanity. These laws included dietary regulations, purification methods, ordinances about the design of their clothes, and other daily matters that marked them out from the Gentiles. The distinguishing of Israel illustrated God’s election by grace of some to salvation. It was not the same as that election, and regeneration. It exemplified it.

Other temporal laws were imposed to regulate a system of sacrifices and temple worship. These were designed to demonstrate the special work of the Messiah as the Lamb of God who was to come to suffer, to live a perfectly holy life, and to give his life as a payment for sin on behalf of those God had decreed to save. The purpose of these temporal laws was to show the work of redemption from the consequences of violating moral law, and to show how God would restore some who had fallen into sin.

When the work illustrated by these laws was accomplished in history, the temporal regulations no longer had a purpose, and were set aside by direct revelation from the God who imposed them. These abrogations are recorded in objective form in the New Testament. They are not left up to being derived by Theologians, or by Theological Models.

Judicial Law
The Westminster Confession describes a category of law which God gave to ancient Israel as a body politic. They were for the ordering of a godly society. These regulations were called judicial because they directed the civil magistrates in determining the guilt or innocence of those accused of crimes, and in imposing just penalties upon those found guilty.

These regulations are not in themselves moral law. They were to show what moral law should looked like when applied to specific cases of abuse. They are not ceremonial because they were not specifically illustrative of the work of redemption except in showing the need for satisfying the eternal principle of justice.

The Confession states that various judicial laws expired along with the the special place of Israel as God’s covenant nation. They were given at Sinai in the context of the Levitical order of the rule of Elders and Priests who served on both spiritual and civil courts as shepherds of God’s people. Many of the procedures described in them relate to the unique authority structure of the sacrificial system and the specific tribes assigned duties within the covenant nation.

With the completion of the work of atonement and the rejection of Israel as God’s special covenant people, many of the details of these laws which were connected with the ceremonial system became obsolete.

The Confession adds that though some details of certain judicial laws expired there remains an obligation required by general equity.

General equity is a legal term taken from English law. It was a concept recognized judicially at the time the Westminster Confession was written. It has to do with the principle a particular law intends to preserve. A law is written in a particular form and with a particular wording so that it will enforce some more general principle equitably in various situations that are anticipated to arise in a society. A court is obligated to consider the intent of a law so that its specific wording could not be used to excuse the violation of its purpose by taking it too narrowly, or by limiting it to just certain groups of citizens.

These larger principles expressed in and applied by the judicial laws of the Bible were not linked to Israel as a body politic and were not themselves tied to the structure of the sacrificial system. By the judicial laws, the eternal moral principles of the Creator were applied to the daily life of living as neighbors. They directed the community in its obedience and in its judgments, and in its punishment of disobedience by those bearing rightful authority to do so.

There are obvious difficulties that arise in identifying the principles of general equity that are expressed in particular judicial laws, and in properly knowing how to put them into practice today.

Some details of the laws were bound to the technological situation of the time. The specific form they took had to do with particular methods of construction, means of transportation, standards of measurement, tools for agriculture, and other similar matters unique to the age in which the laws were written.

It is our duty to identify and maintain the general principles expressed in judicial law while recognizing the changes in specifics that must take place. To discover those general principles of equity, consider the following:

1. Consider the demise of the civil structure of ancient Israel when God finally judged her as a nation, and removed her place as his covenant people.

2. Consider the completion of atonement by Jesus Christ which eliminated the sacrificial system and the priestly authority structure associated with it.

3. Consider the changes that have been made in technology and customs regarding the particular practices regulated.

Does God’s Law Apply Today?

There are statements in the New Testament that explain how certain aspects of God’s law are now fulfilled with the completion of the work of Jesus Christ and the removal of Israel as God’s special covenant people. Some have taken these passages in ways that confuse the issue. Either they degrade the whole of God’s law by excusing things today that were not abrogated by God’s word, or they retain fulfilled aspects of law which would deny our Savior’s full satisfaction of what these laws depicted.

To deal with all such passages would take many volumes of analysis. For the purposes of this study we will examine a few of these passages to establish the principles that guide us an understanding how the law of God continues to be important for the New Testament believer.

Matthew 5:17-20
The ancient sects of the Scribes and Pharisees had departed from a right understanding of God’s law and confused its use. They made it into a superficial set of regulations which they saw as a means of salvation, and as a cause for personal pride and judgmentalism. Jesus explained to them how their attitude toward the law was wrong. The context of Matthew 5 contrasts their perversions of moral law with what God had actually said and intended. He also countered the charge that he in any way degraded the ancient law given through Moses. He said …

17. Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
18. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
19. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus denied that his coming was intended to abolish or to destroy the law or the words of the prophets. The Greek term he use in 5:17 is kataluo (καταλυω), which means to throw down, destroy, demolish, abolish, or annul.

He immediately added the positive side showing what his purpose was regarding the law. He came to fulfill it. The word he used for fulfill is plaerosai (πληρωσαι), which means “to fulfill, accomplish, complete or to bring something to its full measure.”

John Calvin stated in his commentary, “Christ, therefore, now declares, that his doctrine is so far from being at variance with the law, that it agrees perfectly with the law and the prophets, and not only so, but brings the complete fulfillment of them.”

Jesus accomplished this in his three offices. As Prophet he brought the law to it fullest revelation by showing us the meaning underlying the symbols and practices of the ceremonial law. As Priest he was the Sacrificial Lamb satisfying the demands of the law in the place of his people. He represented them by keeping the law perfectly, and by suffering and dying to satisfy the demands of divine justice for their sin. As King he pronounced the curse of the law upon those who remain the enemies of God and of God’s Kingdom, and he declared the redemption of those chosen by his own sovereign powers.

The perpetuity of the law is compared with the persistence of the created universe. Beginning with the solemn declaration “truly” (αμην), he said that the law would last as long as the universe lasts. It would remain until the heaven and earth pass away. Those who imagine that Jesus was declaring the elimination of the law should observe the stars and mountains and conclude that such an end to the law has not yet taken place.

He then showed that the law as a whole persisted. Not even the smallest parts were being canceled out. He illustrated with references to the forms of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, the language of the law and the Old Testament. The Hebrew references are represented in Greek by the gospel writer.

The smallest letter in Greek is called the iota (ι). It is like our letter “i”. Matthew uses this to represent the Hebrew letter yodh (י) , (translated “jot” in the KJV). It is a small mark raised above the line representing the letter “y”, or as a helping consonant to lengthen the vowel “i”. The “stroke” he spoke of is the keraia, a Greek word representing the little extension on some forms that distinguish between certain Hebrew letters. For example the “b” (ב) in Hebrew and the “c” (כ) look similar. The difference is the hook or projection on the bottom right which is called the “tittle” in the KJV.

The analogy in English would be to say that not a dot over an “i” or a cross on the “t” would pass away from the law until all has been accomplished. That is the attitude of Jesus regarding the stability of God’s law.

To clarify even further Jesus condemned as least in the Kingdom of Heaven anyone who would dare annul and teach the annulment of even the least of these commandments. The rabbis had divided the law into 613 commandments. They identified 248 of them as stated positively and 365 as stated negatively. They debated which were the heavier or lighter commandments. According to many the lightest was found in Deuteronomy 22:6-7 which says that if you find a bird’s nest with young or eggs, and the mother of the bird is with them, you may take the eggs but you may not take the mother. The most weighty was generally agreed to be Deuteronomy 6:5 which requires that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and might. In Luke 10:27-28 Jesus accepted the answer about the weightiest law when it was offered to him by an expert in the law.

The comments of Jesus clarify what he meant by not coming to destroy the law but to fulfill it. All the points of God’s moral law expanded upon in the context of Matthew 5:21-48 are perpetual and are not annulled or set aside in the coming of Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus came to complete the law for us, not to take it away.

We must lay hold of the law in its true sense as a moral and perpetual revelation of God’s commanded holiness. This ought to make us live more honorably to the Lord who has transformed us by grace, than those hypocritical critics, the Scribes and Pharisees.

John Calvin comments, “If we intend to reform affairs which are in a state of disorder, we must always exercise such prudence and moderation, as will convince the people, that we do not oppose the eternal Word of God, or introduce any novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care, that no suspicion of such contrariety shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men shall not be emboldened by a pretense of novelty.” (Calvin’s Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, table 1-43)

Though Jesus seemed to disobey the law, it was really only the perverted interpretations of the law that he disobeyed. He did not abolish the law by fulfilling it. This is directly denied by his own words. Instead of abolishing the law he fulfilled it.

Romans 10:4
In this verse the Apostle Paul makes the following statement, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

If Jesus did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17), then what does Paul mean when he said that Jesus Christ is the end of the law? Does Paul take a different view than Jesus himself? Does he somehow understand that the coming of Christ has canceled the requirements of the moral commandments summarized for us on Mt. Sinai? Is there some way that sin is no longer to be defined by the law of God? Absolutely not!

While Jesus used the word plaerosai (πληρωσαι) meaning that he came to fulfill the law, Paul uses another word. He says that Jesus, in his accomplishing his work or redemption, has become the telos (τελος) of the law. It is in that one sense that he is the end of the law. This word means to bring something to its goal, to arrive at the intended end product or final state of a plan. This fits exactly with what Jesus said in Matthew 5, that he had come to bring the law to its full measure.

This same word “telos” is used by Peter in his discussion of saving faith in 1 Peter 1:9, “Obtaining as the outcome (telos) of your faith the salvation of your souls.” The King James Version translates it, “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.”

Certainly Peter did not mean that the salvation of our souls comes by ending or eliminating our faith. That meaning of the word “end” would be completely out of place. The translators rightly have used the word “outcome” to show that faith, when brought to its full work in us, is God’s means of salvation. Salvation is what faith issues as its fruit in us. It is the goal of our belief in the promise of the gospel.

Jesus is no more the eliminating of the law, than that our salvation comes by the eliminating of our faith. That is simply not the meaning of the word used here. Jesus may be said to be the outcome of the law. He is that toward which the law was directing us who love and obey it. He is the goal of the law.

The law shows our sin and failure to have righteousness on our own. It shows us how Jesus lived a holy life in our place. It convicts the regenerate soul, and drives it to the Savior.

Jesus used this same word on the cross. John records how Jesus completed the work the Father had given him. He had reached the goal of the promise of the covenant of redemption. In John 19:30, when Jesus had received the sour wine (vinegar), He said, “It is finished!”

The word used by Jesus for “finished” is tetelestai, a form of this same word telos. Jesus was not indicating that its over. But that the work he came to do was “finished”, completed, consummated.

The writer of Hebrews uses the same word for the completion of our salvation in Christ in Hebrews 6:1 and 10:14. Jesus is the perfection of the law. He is its goal and end product. As Savior he accomplished what the law promised and made it possible that redeemed sinners would be enabled to live obediently with the glory of God as their true motivation.

Verse four of Romans ten carries this same meaning. Jesus is not the cancellation of the law, he is not its cessation. He is its completion, its goal, its consummate enablement, its perfecter. By his completed work he brings righteousness to all who believe. The law is exalted by Paul. It is in no way degraded.

In what sense does God’s law persist?
Clearly these examples show us that there are some aspects of God’s law that are temporal and some that continue throughout this age. The moral principles that represent the Creator’s holiness can never be eliminated, but the redemptive foreshadowings of redemption cannot continue in the same form after their completion by the Savior. Regarding the application of moral law to society, this must continue to reflect the same eternal moral principles in every era, though the circumstances to which they apply and the details of their practice, necessarily change.

Moral law clearly must apply to every moral creature in every era. This category of law is the revelation of eternal principles as God’s nature shows itself in creation. Therefore these principles cannot become obsolete or be laid aside. It can never become acceptable to worship other gods, to dishonor God’s name, to bear false witness against a neighbor, to murder a human created in the image of God, or to violate any of the other moral necessities imposed at creation and summarized at Sinai.

The only sense in which moral law is fulfilled is that Jesus paid its eternal penalty in place of his people. He kept the law perfectly for them granting them perfect holiness in God’s eyes, and by regeneration and sanctification he enables them to be dying daily unto sin and growing more and more into personal obedience.

Ceremonial law is primarily redemptive and points toward the coming of the promised Messiah and the atonement he would make for his people. The New Testament, particularly the books of Hebrews and Galatians, directly point out how that which is ceremonial is done away in the completion of the work of Jesus Christ. It persists in value for us today as a lesson to demonstrate and to confirm how the promises of God were fulfilled at the cross.

Judicial law as it applies to the temporal details of Israel as God’s covenant people has been done away by being completed in the establishment of the New Testament Church. But the general equity of the judicial law must apply in every era since it is an application of eternal moral principles. It is our duty in studying the judicial laws of the Old Testament to understand the moral issues applied in them, and to responsibly bring our own judicial laws into agreement with those moral principles.

John Calvin writes, “With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.” (Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew 5:17)

The Sum of Saving Knowledge

Along with the Confession of Faith and its Catechisms several attachments were drawn up and appended to the Westminster Standards. Among them was The Sum of Saving Knowledge. It is believed to have been authored by David Dickson with the cooperation of James Durham. Though The Sum has often been printed with the standards, it was not formally adopted by the Westminster Assembly to become part of their official work. This document shows how important and practical the law continued to be in the understanding of the scholars of Westminster.

The formal title is: “The Sum of Saving Knowledge; or, A Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine, contained in the Holy Scriptures, and holden forth in the fore said confessions of faith and catechisms; together with The Practical Use Thereof.”

The document was divided into four main sections, each divided again into four sub-headings as follows:

1. The Sum of Saving Knowledge
a. The woeful condition wherein all men are by nature, through breaking of the covenant of works.
b. The remedy provided for the elect in Jesus Christ by the covenant of grace.
c. The means appointed to make them partakers of this covenant.
d. The blessings which are effectually conveyed unto the elect by these means.

2. The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge
a. For convincing of sin by the law.
b. Of righteousness by the law.
c. Of judgment by the law.
d. For convincing of sin, righteousness, and judgment by the gospel. Of righteousness to be had only by faith in Christ. For strengthening a man’s faith, &c.

3. Warrants to Believe For building our confidence upon this solid ground
a. God’s hearty invitation.
b. His earnest request to be reconciled.
c. His command, charging all to believe.
d. Much assurance of life given to believers, &c.

4. The Evidences of True Faith
a. That the believer be soundly convinced, in his judgment, of his obligation to keep the whole moral law, all the days of his life: and that not the less, but so much the more, as he is delivered by Christ from the covenant of works, and curse of the law.
b. That he endeavor to grow in the exercise and daily practice of godliness and righteousness.
c. That the course of his new obedience run in the right channel, that is through faith in Christ, and through a good conscience, to all the duties of love towards God and man.
d. That he keep strait communion with the fountain Christ Jesus, from whom grace must run along, for furnishing of good fruits.

Summary of the Practical Importance of God’s Law

To summarize the practical importance of the law of God for believers living in this age of the ascended Savior, a few principles may provide a helpful guide.

1. God’s moral law reveals what is pleasing to the Eternal King.
It shows us what is right and true. The revealing of the nature of God is presented in Scripture as the prime purpose of all things made (Psalm 19:1-6; Romans 1:20). Therefore making himself known must also be a prime purpose of his specially revealed moral law. The more we understand God’s law, the more we will respond with proper worship regarding his glory.

Psalm 119:27 “Make me understand the way of Thy precepts, So I will meditate on Thy wonders.”

2. God’s law exposes our fallen nature and inability to please God.
The more we understand God’s law, the more we are humbled before the perfectly pure holiness and justice of our Heavenly Father. It shows how unworthy we are of his blessing, and how impossible it is for us to keep the law sufficiently to please God, even in one little point.

Romans 7:7 “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ ”

Romans 7:12 “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”

3. God’s law foreshadows the work of Jesus as the Messiah.
The ceremonial law illustrates dramatically that our sin deserves death. It teaches that unless God provides a substitute for his people by a gracious covenant, there is no hope for anyone. The symbolic animal sacrifices of the Old Testament foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Since his death for his people has been completed, the rituals of the Levitical code have ceased to have a purpose. But what was required by divine justice remains: Death for sin is required of everyone descending from Adam by ordinary generation. The only satisfaction in place of the sinner would be a perfect Redeemer who was also the infinite God who was the party offended. The ritual laws continue to drive us to Christ as we study the principles underlying them which are now made clear in the New Testament.

Galatians 3:24 “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 “he became sin for us .. that we be made the righteousness of God in him”

Hebrews 9:12 “and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”

Hebrews 10:4 “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

4. God’s law is a perfect guide for showing us how we ought to live.
The believer is made alive spiritually. This compels him by the renewed disposition of his heart to give thankful obedience to his Savior. The law of God shows what is pleasing to the object of our love. Otherwise we would not know how to honorably show our gratitude.

Psalm 119:9 “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Thy word.”

Psalm 119:97 “O how I love Thy law! It is my meditation all the day.”

Psalm 119:171 “Let my lips utter praise, For Thou dost teach me Thy statutes.”

5. God’s law restrains sin for the benefit of the covenant people.
The general effects of the law are applied by God to society in general to provide a restraining effect that keeps depravity from expanding into total moral chaos. Ungodly societies have laws against murder, civil violence, theft, and such crimes that would disrupt societal tranquility. These laws are not imposed by them to honor the true God, but to benefit their own peace and prosperity. There is no true benefit to this kind of obedience for the unbeliever. The beneficiary of this restraint is the redeemed people of God.

Proverbs 19:21 “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the Lord, it will stand.”

Proverbs 21:1 “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”

God’s law continues to have great uses and benefits today. Though some legal duties may have only temporal applications, there is an eternal element to all of God’s law. The moral principles underlying the revealed precepts are never done away. We need to learn to honor that law and to be holy even as the Lord our God is holy (Leviticus 19:2).

Law and Grace

There is often a tragic false opposition set up between law and grace. Some speak of grace as if it was a new principle introduced for the New Testament era to replace the previous idea of law. Those holding to this Dispensational concept fail to rightly understand Paul’s statement to the Roman Christians that they are no longer under law but are under grace.

Our previous studies have shown that both concepts flow from the nature of God and neither can be set aside. Law is an expression of the eternal principles of holiness, justice, goodness and truth. Grace is that unmerited redemptive favor which is also a divine attribute. At no time since creation is the moral law of God unimportant. Its uses are clearly valuable to us today as they have been in every previous era. Only the temporary ritual laws foreshadowing the work of Christ are set aside as no longer obligating us since the purpose for which they were given has been completed. Grace has always been operative since the fall of Adam. Otherwise not one of his descendants would have been able to have become a believer.

Romans 6:14
In Romans 6:14 Paul expands upon how sin is no longer to be considered our master. That verse reads, “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.”

The obvious question is, “in what way are we under grace and not under law?”

In the context of this verse Paul had been talking about being under the mastery of either sin or righteousness. So while under law may mean other things in other places, here it seems to have to do with mastery. But why then explain being under sin or righteousness in terms of being under law or grace? Paul was bringing his whole argument together to unite his themes.

He had made a reference to law in the previous chapter. There he was explaining that since sin was imputed to mankind ever since Eden, long before the giving of the Law of Moses, therefore law itself must have been in the world from the beginning. It could not have been something that began at Sinai. The law’s work of condemning sin was ancient. Romans 5:13 “for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

The Apostle’s concern in chapter six was to encourage believers to stop sinning as defined in the law of God. Clearly this could not mean that somehow we are to do what the law says, while at the same time the law has stopped saying anything to us.

The problem was that some had come under the heavy burden of legalism, the idea that a personal keeping of the law qualified a person for forgiveness, that salvation was the result of human merit. Paul did not want to encourage that view. Merit was never a way of salvation for fallen sinners.

Paul was showing that the true purpose of the law is to reveal what is holy and to expose by contrast what is not holy. It condemns all who violate the eternal moral principles God has made known to us by his word. So to be alive to sin, is to be condemned under the judgment of the law. To be struggling in futility for a salvation by works, which can never be, is to be under a most cruel mastery, a mastery of sin and death. This is the pain of being under the law’s condemnation and without hope.

God’s grace through the death of Christ is what makes us righteous. His atonement declares us to be free of the condemnation we learn that we deserve through our study of the law. So to be under the mastery of righteousness, means to come under the liberating power of grace.

Paul isn’t saying that once we were obligated to obey God’s law, and now we are not. That could never be. We are always commanded to do what is right in God’s eyes. Rather he’s saying that at one time we were under the law which justly condemns us for our attempts to be saved by our own merits. But now we are forgiven by grace so that righteousness becomes our master. We are now therefore under grace as our eternal hope. The unmerited redeeming favor of our Lord and Master has set us free from the bondage of an impossible task.

Law should not be viewed as an inferior form of religion. It is a God given form which displays his nature and glory, exposes our own need, and points us to the amazing accomplishment of our Redeemer’s victory.

When believers sin, instead of looking at their failures as if they were still in bondage to them, they need to remind themselves of this promise.

We need to consider ourselves to be dead to sin, separated from its mastery, and made alive to God as slaves to the mastery of righteousness. We need to remove every opportunity for sinning and press on to improve holiness. We need to expect the promise of our Savior to bring progressive victory using our prayers and honoring the grateful obedience he stirs in our hearts.

(The Bible quotations in this syllabus are from the New American Standard Bible (1988 edition) unless otherwise noted.)