CBTS Logo

Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (III)

by | May 19, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology

Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (II)

Matthew 12:1-14  

Wells references Matt. 12:1-14 several times in chapter 3[1] but offers no exposition of the passage.[2] I will offer a brief exposition.

In Matt. 12, we are told that “Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (Matt. 12:1). The Pharisees replied, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” (Matt. 12:2). Jesus then offers two examples from the OT; “…David… and those who were with him” (Matt. 12:3) and “the priests in the temple” (Matt. 12:5).[3] Concerning the priests, he says, “Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matt. 12:5). Whatever the priests were doing, the Pharisees’ logic implied it was a violation of the Sabbath. Their logic taught that the priests, David, and Christ’s disciples were profaning the Sabbath. But Jesus says the priests “…are blameless” (Matt. 12:5). Then he quotes Hos. 6:6. He says, “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matt. 12:7).[4] He pronounces his disciples “guiltless” by referencing two OT examples. In the next section of Matt. 12, the Pharisees ask, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matt. 12:10). Jesus concludes in v. 12, “Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” This clearly teaches that healing on the Sabbath was lawful as was preserving the life of a sheep (vv. 10-12). His disciples ate because eating is necessary to sustain human life. All of these actions, according to Christ, were lawful on the Sabbath according to OT law. Jesus was correcting faulty thinking about the Sabbath by consulting prior revelation.

Someone might want to offer Matt. 12 as an example of Jesus abrogating the Sabbath (cf. Mk. 2:23-28 and Lk. 6:1-11).[5] They might claim that Jesus advocates Sabbath-breaking thereby proving that he was abolishing it. But does this text bear this out? Did Jesus, in fact, advocate Sabbath-breaking during his earthly ministry? We have just examined Matt. 12:1-14 and seen Christ justifying works of necessity and mercy and concluding in v. 12, “Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” The “good” in the context of Matt. 12 involved not only what his disciples did and what he did, but what David and those with him and the old covenant priests did. The supposed violation of the Sabbath in this passage (and others) is actually an upholding of the Sabbath and in accordance with OT revelation. Jesus never advocated Sabbath-breaking during his earthly ministry. Jesus’ teaching upholds existing Sabbath law.

Those who offer this objection may claim that when Jesus says, “But I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple” (v. 6) and “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (v. 8), Jesus is claiming authority to abolish the Sabbath as he abolished the temple. In once sense, Christ did abolish the Sabbath. He abolished it in its various functions under the old covenant. And, in one sense, Christ abolished the temple. He did not, however, abolish the temple in all senses. His church is now God’s temple, where spiritual sacrifices are offered (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pt. 2:4-5). What does Jesus mean, when he says, “But I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple” (Mt. 12:6) and “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:8; cf. Mk. 2:28)? Fairbairn offers this explanation:

The Temple, He had said, has claims of service, which it was no proper desecration of the Sabbath, but the reverse, to satisfy; and ‘a greater than the Temple was there.’ ‘The Temple yields to Christ, the Sabbath yields to the Temple, therefore the Sabbath yields to Christ’–so the sentiment is syllogistically expressed by Bengel; but yields, it must be observed, in both cases alike, only for the performance of works not antagonistic, but homogeneous, to its nature. … He is Lord of the Sabbath, and, as such, has a right to order everything concerning it, so as to make it, in the fullest sense, a day of blessing for man–a right, therefore, if He should see fit, to transfer its observance from the last day of the week to the first, that it might be associated with the consummation of His redemptive work, and to make it, in accordance with the impulsive life and energy thereby brought in, more than in the past, a day of active and hallowed employment for the good of men.[6]

Just as the temple yields to Christ and is transformed to fit the redemptive-historical circumstances brought in by his death and resurrection/exaltation, so the Sabbath yields to Christ and is transformed to fit the redemptive-historical circumstances brought in by his death and resurrection/exaltation. The new covenant has both a temple and a Sabbath. This connects Christ’s teaching on the temple and the Sabbath with subsequent revelation.

Instead of Matt. 12 proving that Christ abolished the Sabbath, it actually argues that he upheld it and sought to correct the Pharisees’ faulty interpretation of Sabbath law. Fairbairn says, “Jesus grasped, as usual, the real spirit of the institution; for we are to remember, He is explaining the law of the Sabbath as it then stood, not superseding it by another.”[7] Christ upheld the Sabbath, cleared it of Pharisaic encumbrances, and set the stage for further revelation about it.

This objection assumes that the Sabbath in all senses was temporary, ceremonial law. Ceremonial laws are temporary laws for old covenant Israel and were a shadow of things to come (Col. 2:16-17). They were all abrogated by the coming of Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:7-18; Gal. 3-4; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:16; and Heb. 8-10 [cf. esp. 8:6-7, 13; 9:9-10, 15; 10:1, 9, 15-18]). If the Sabbath is ceremonial law in all senses, then it has been abrogated. But the Sabbath is not ceremonial law in all senses, as we have seen (cf. Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Is. 56:2, 4, 6; and Mk. 2:27). And if Jesus considered it as ceremonial only, one would think he would treat it like he did other ceremonial laws. Beckwith and Stott comment:

But if Jesus regarded the sabbath as purely ceremonial and purely temporary, it is remarkable that he gives so much attention to it in his teaching, and also that in all he teaches about it he never mentions its temporary character. This is even more remarkable when one remembers that he emphasizes the temporary character of other parts of the Old Testament ceremonial–the laws of purity in Mark 7:14-23 and Luke 11:39-41, and the temple (with its sacrifices) in Mark 13:2 and John 4:21. By contrast, …he seems…to speak of the sabbath as one of the unchanging ordinances for all mankind.[8]

Jesus neither abrogated the Sabbath in all senses in his earthly ministry nor did he predict its soon demise. He upheld it and gave evidence that it would continue under his lordship as the Son of Man (Mk. 2:27-28).

We will look at Mk. 2:27-28 in our next post.

[1] I counted 10.

[2] In fact, the book contains little exegesis. Wells cites many texts and makes many observations; but he does little exegesis or exposition of passages. There was much proof-texting surrounded by observations that put the reader in an interpretive strait-jacket. I found his theological-interpretive method not very sound.

[3] Notice that Jesus is referring to previous revelation.

[4] Here is another reference to previous revelation.

[5] I am not assuming Wells does this.

[6] Patrick Fairbairn, The Revelation of Law in Scripture (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 1996), 238.

[7] Fairbairn, Revelation of Law, 237.

[8] Roger T. Beckwith and Wilfrid Stott, This is the Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian Sunday in its Jewish and Early Christian Setting (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978), 26.

Family-Integrated Church 13: Why the family-integrated view dies the death of a 1000 (or at least a few) qualifications!

by | May 18, 2011 | Family-Integrated Church

Last time I commended A Weed in the Church for the important qualifications which it carefully (and commendably) states. But these qualifications in my view create difficulties for Scott Brown’s thesis. Let me explain why.

A Weed in the Church is arguing the case for eliminating age-segregated Sunday Schools and youth meetings. Here is one its concluding imperatives: “Bring the children into the worship service; eliminate youth programs; cancel Sunday School, children’s church, and the nursery.” (258). Why? Because age-segregated meetings are wrong. A few pages earlier the question is raised: “Can’t age-segregated youth ministry be reformed?” Scott answers this way: “To reform something you have to take it back to its biblical roots. Youth ministry as it is practiced today has no biblical roots, and no biblical affirmation, so how do you reform it?” (253-254)

Yet A Weed in the Church admits in several places that not all age-segregated meetings are wrong. “We are not suggesting that every function outside of regular worship must always include whole families.” (231) He also remarks: “… it is not our position that the whole family must always be together for celebration, instruction, or discipleship nor that a gathering is biblically ordered only when all ages are present, from babies to senior citizens. We do not maintain that all education in the church requires whole families to be present. For example, for gatherings inside the church, we do not believe that it would be wrong for elders in a church, with the blessings of the fathers, to teach matters of theology to young men in the church.” (61) Cf. also pages 63-65 for similar statements.

To these stated qualifications I respond, “Well said! The problem is that they contradict your thesis.” With the exception of the question of nursery (which I will discuss in a later blog), I agree that the meetings of the church for worship should not be age-segregated. I do not believe in children’s church. Children should be taken to worship and were clearly in the worship of the Old and New Testament churches. The questions for me are these two. May elders call meetings for ministry for members of the church other than its time of corporate worship? I think Scott would agree that they may. May such meetings be age-segregated? I say it with some surprise, but apparently from the above quotes Scott again agrees that they may!

I am not sure how Scott would like to respond at this point. It does seem clear to me, however, that he admits that meetings with a startling similarity to youth meetings or Sunday School classes may sometimes be appropriate. Is it then merely a matter of the frequency of such meetings? Is it a matter of the competence of those teaching in them? Fine! But then the issue is not whether such meetings are right or wrong in themselves, but whether they are conducted with proper regard for other biblical principles. And then the counsel to “eliminate youth programs; cancel Sunday School” seems both a little extreme and somewhat indefensible.

How Should the Books of the OT Be Ordered? Dr. Jim Hamilton

by | May 18, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology

Here is an interesting post by my friend Dr. Jim Hamilton. He asks and answers the question of the order of the OT in light of various, important factors. Read the post here.

The Covenant of Creation

by | May 16, 2011 | Audio/Video, Biblical Theology, Books, Eschatology, Hermeneutics, Historical Theology, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology

The guys at Reformed Forum discuss the Creation Covenant with Dr. Roland S. Ward. I highly recommend Ward’s book  God & Adam: Reformed Theology and the Creation Covenant. It is a wealth of information on this important issue.

Rejoice that Osama Bin Laden Is Dead—Or Not? (Part 5 of 5)

by | May 14, 2011 | Current Events, Sermons

What practical conclusions should we draw from Proverbs 11:10 (you can also listen to or download my message on Bin Laden from our church’s web site)?

Proverbs 11:10 When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, And when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.

(1) Men rejoice and ought to rejoice in the judgment of the wicked.

This is why a blanket or general condemnation of all rejoicing over the killing of Osama Bin Laden is not biblical or balanced. The Bible teaches that God’s judgment of the wicked and the freedom it gives us from their oppression and danger ought to make us praise God. It is both unnatural and unrighteous if it does not.

(2) This delight in the judgment of the wicked justice confirms the justice and righteousness of God’s judgment of the wicked.

Rejoicing, being glad, and feeling satisfaction at the judgment of the wicked is the natural, instinctive, and necessary response of creatures made in the image of God of justice to the demise of men like Hitler, Stalin, and Bin Laden. It cannot be repressed and ought not to be suppressed. This satisfaction and joy is the inner and self-attesting confirmation that God’s judgment on wicked is both righteous and just.

Those newspaper headlines which read something like, Rot in hell, may be public and published violations of the command not to rejoice in the fall of our enemies. I think they are! But they are also something else. Here’s what they make me want to say: Oh, so now we believe in hell! We believe in hell for Osama Bin Laden. So now the question is not whether hell is just. Now we admit that hell is just for some people. Now the only question is not whether there is a hell, but who should go there?

So our innate response of satisfaction at justice being done on Bin Laden ought not to be condemned or repressed, but it ought to make us admit that we do believe in hell. There is something deep and indelible in our natures which affirms that hell is just and right.

(3) This innate sense of the justice of God’s judgment on the wicked confirms the propriety of our sense of guilt when we know ourselves to be sinful.

But now let me come even closer to us personally. This undeniable sense of satisfied justice that we feel in the killing of Bin Laden means that our own feelings of guilt for our sins are not false feelings of guilt. They are the authentic expressions of the work of the law written on our hearts. When your heart tells you that you deserve punishment for sins you have committed, when it accuses you of not loving God and not loving your neighbor in all sorts of clear and flagrant sins, listen to it! It is literally the voice of God to you. It is not feelings of false guilt. It is the echo of the justice of almighty God.

(4) All this confirms that we understand by nature the necessity of a substitionary curse-bearer if we are ever to be saved.

This just sense of guilt and condemnation is a primary assertion of our natures as made in the image of God. This indelible sense of guilt tells us that we need someone to bear the punishment and curse of our sins if we are ever to be saved. We do not know the gospel by nature. We do not know that there is such a substitutionary curse-bearer by nature. We could never hope that there is such a Savior from nature. But we do know by nature that we need such a Savior, such a curse-bearer, such a substitute, and such a gospel. The great news is that such a Savior exists and will receive us if we will to Him acknowledging your guilt and need.

Pin It on Pinterest