In my last post, I said, “In my next post I will interact with Wells, where he says, “[w]hen we look at those [i.e., verses in Moses’ writings concerning the Sabbath] we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26). On page 29, he makes a similar statement. Commenting on Exodus 20:8, he says, “This text, of course, contains the command to keep a Sabbath. It clearly addresses only Israelites and others who live within their land, so it does not seem to be relevant under the New Covenant.”
On one level, I can agree with these statements. The Pentateuch was written by Moses for Israel just prior to his death and their entrance into the Promised Land. It is not a moral manual for mankind, per se. It was a covenantal document for a single nation in covenant with God. On another level, however, I find Wells’ statements at least potentially troublesome. I say potentially because it all depends on what he means. If he means that the Pentateuch was written for Israel just prior to entering the Promised Land and it focuses primarily upon them and their vocation as God’s covenant nation in preparation for the coming of the Messiah and new covenant, I am fine with that. However, if he means, since texts in the Pentateuch address only “what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26), therefore utilizing them as containing or applying laws or commands which are relevant for all mankind is very dangerous and simply wrong, then I disagree. My hunch is that the latter is what Tom means. In other words, the Sabbath command, in any and all conceivable senses, is for God’s ancient covenant people while in the Promised Land and for them (and those in their land) exclusively.
Let’s assume that position (though not attributing it to Tom Wells). Let’s also extend it to other laws in the Pentateuch, even all pentateuchal laws. Here’s how that position would be formulated: Since Moses wrote the Pentateuch for Israel to be obeyed in the Promised Land, it contains laws exclusively applicable to them while in Canaan. Again, on one level I think this is right. Israel was God’s people under a national covenant with a distinct land for a distinct period of time and distinct purpose. However, it is one thing to affirm this and another to deny that at least some of Israel’s laws transcend her as God’s covenant nation and transcend her land. In other words, could it be that some of Israel’s laws transcend Israel and are actually laws applicable to all men that pre-dated Israel’s covenantal status and were incorporated into Israel’s law and are still applicable to all men? Or we could put it this way: Though Israel had a unique law for a unique vocation in the history of redemption, individual Israelites were considered by God on two levels – citizens of a covenantal nation and creatures created in His image. This would mean that God incorporated into Israel’s law some laws applicable to all men because all men are created in the image of God with the work of the law written on their hearts and accountable to God for the same essential things. To further clarify, this means that God incorporated into Israel’s national law some laws that all men are under because all men have at least two things in common – creation imago Dei and general revelation.
I can think of at least three ways that Israel’s law is used in the Bible which proves that, on one level, it contained at least some laws that transcended old covenant boundaries. First, pagan nations were indicted for breaking some of Israel’s laws. Leviticus 18:24 says, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things [the laws dealing with sexually immoral relationships stated in Lev. 1:1-23]; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.” At some level, the pagan nations mentioned were under the laws of Lev. 18:1ff.. If they weren’t, how could God punish them for violating laws they were not under and still be just? Though they did not break the old covenant by violating these laws, they still broke God’s law as His creatures. We are not told by Moses how they came into contact with these laws, but what we are told is that they were guilty of violating them.
There is a second way which shows that at least some of the laws of the old covenant transcended the national and geographic boundaries of the old covenant. New covenant believers are commanded to obey some of the very same laws as published in the Mosaic writings (cf. Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 6:4). These commandments first found in Moses’ writings are subsequently incorporated into the new covenant Scriptures. This further illustrates the fact that at least some laws first promulgated in the Pentateuch specifically for old covenant Israel in the land of Canaan transcend the old covenant both nationally and geographically.
And third (and very importantly), Christ is said to have died for Jews and Gentiles, redeeming them from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). Galatians 3:14 goes on to say that Christ redeemed us (Jew and Gentile) from the curse of the law “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” So here, on one level, the law of the Jews is the law that cursed Gentiles (as well as Jews) and under which curse Christ died. Elsewhere Paul argues forcefully that Jew and Greek are both “under sin” (Rom. 3:9) and “under the Law” (Rom. 3:19). The “Law” must be the law of the Old Testament, at least on some level. This, again, goes to show that the old covenant law as national law for Israel is only one of its functions, but not its only function. At least some of the laws of ancient Israel are common to all men because, once again, all men have at least two things in common – creation imago Dei and general revelation.
Other nations were indicted for breaking laws promulgated by Moses (actually by God via Moses) in the Pentateuch.[1] New covenant citizens are called to obey at least some of the very same laws as Moses penned for ancient Israel. And Gentiles, never under Israel’s law as a national covenant, were yet under the curse of the law, on some level. And our Lord Jesus bore the curse of the law for both Jew and Gentile. I think these factors lead us to this conclusion: At least some of the law of Israel is common to all men. Therefore, God incorporated moral law (i.e., law common to all men) into old covenant Israel’s national law as positive law for Israel under the old covenant.
I’ll close with this question: Could it be that the Sabbath law is part of God’s law common to all men? If it is, it would have to be connected to creation imago Dei and general revelation. It would need biblical links to both creation and to the work of the law written on the heart. As for me, I think those links are clear in the Bible.
[1] Some of the laws first promulgated in the law of Moses were assumed to be in place prior to the written law. Cf., for example, the case of Cain in Gen. 4:8 and 1 Jn. 3:12. Cain hated his brother to death. He murdered him, yet murder was not promulgated as sinful until way after Gen. 4:8. Here is actually another way (a fourth) in which a law of Israel, as God’s old covenant nation, is shown to transcend the old covenant. In this case, a law formally promulgated via Moses at Sinai is assumed to be valid prior to its formal, covenantal publication. The Sabbath command, by the way, also gets some press prior to the old covenant and its law in Exod. 16.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
Canonical structure can help us with interpreting the Bible. The shape in which the Bible comes to us appears to have a theology behind it. Though we do not believe that inspiration extends to the shape of the canon, this does not mean that we cannot gain insight from it in terms of how the books were viewed by those who put them together in the form that we have received them.[1] The first thing we should do is take note of the structure of the canon, then seek to explore why the canon might be so structured and how that might assist us in the process of interpretation.[2] In the posts ahead of us in this series, we will discuss two issues: A. Canonical Structure and B. Hermeneutical Implications of Canonical Structure.
[1] We will not discuss the historical issues related to the formation of the canon. That subject is discussed in OTI, NTI, and Doctrine of the Word.
[2] In one sense, canonical structure and hermeneutics is an historical issue. It is a consideration of the theology behind the shape of the canon, which itself is outside of the canon. But in another sense, it is inner-canonical and so very much a theological issue because we possess the Bible in the form it comes to us. Again, we are discussing the final shape of the canon not its process.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
Tonight we are launching a new series of weekly podcasts that will feature Q&A sessions with our resident professors, adjunct faculty, and special guests. Tonight, Dr. Waldron answers this question: Why do you like teaching at MCTS?
If you haven’t subscribed to our audio podcast already, subscribe to get the audio downloads or you can watch the video version of this podcast below.
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
Chapter two is entitled “The OT Witness.” Wells first discusses the argument from creation (i.e., Gen. 2:1-3) or what many call creation ordinances. I will quote him in full at this point:
Perhaps you have heard someone say that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance. What did they mean by that? Those who use the phrase appear to mean that at creation God gave commands to be carried out by all men and women throughout history. Often three are cited: marriage, labor and Sabbath. But if creation ordinance implies that all men and women must do these things, even if we suppose that Jesus needed to be an obvious exception, Paul shows us that it is not necessary that all normal people get married. In fact, he expressed a preference for singleness like his (1 Cor 7:7-8). So also the Sabbath could be an exception. (26)
I am not sure if any who advocate creation ordinances claim that marriage as instituted in Eden is a mandate for all men and women, no matter what circumstances might come onto the world-scene subsequently. If that were the case, then Jesus and Paul sinned in this area. This would be similar to arguing that the only legitimate vocation is that of Edenic garden-tending. I think the point is simply that if and when men and women unite in marriage, they are to do so monogamously. Also, though creation-based ethics (i.e., creation ordinances) are age-long ethics, the fall into sin does complicate matters. For instance, in Matt. 19, Jesus argues from the creation account to life-long monogamous marriage. However, he also acknowledges that sin has complicated matters and, thus, there is a modified application of the creation ordinance of marriage in a fallen world. In fact, due to the fall into sin and the curse, the creation ordinance of labor looks different in its post-lapsarian application (Gen. 3:17-19). Could it be the same for the Sabbath? Could it be that the Sabbath takes on various temporary nuances due to the presence of sin and God’s purposes in the unfolding drama of redemption? Obviously, I think this is the case. Due to God’s purposes in creation and redemption, the Sabbath takes on redemptive-historical nuances as it is applied in differing eras of redemptive history. Though sin may complicate or change the application of creation ordinances it does not negate them.
While discussing Gen. 2:1-3, Wells says:
To begin we see that there is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3 that commands a Sabbath for anyone. I have already said that the verses would fit in nicely with such a command. Does this prove that there was no such command? Of course not. Still there is no such command in the passage. People may imagine they hear one, but even a casual look shows that it is not there.
If we ask why people find a command here, they may tell us these verses do not stand alone but are joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings. When we look in those we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do. Moses is silent on others. (26)
First, concerning the argument that since there is no command there is no command, it sure does have a prima facie appeal to it. There is no command, therefore there is no command! Case closed, end of debate, right? Not so fast. There are many things not commanded in the creation narrative that most Christians believe were, none-the-less, commands (call them moral requirements or whatever) for Adam and Eve and for all subsequent men and women. For instance, would Wells want to argue that since there is no command in the creation narrative concerning truth-telling, truth-telling was not commanded or required of Adam and Eve and all subsequent men and women? There is nothing in the creation narrative that explicitly commands truth-telling. It would fit in quite well but there is none. People may imagine they hear one, but even a casual look shows that it is not there. The same goes for monotheism, idolatry, honoring God-ordained human authorities, coveting, etc. Here’s the point, Wells’ argument is a non sequitur – it does not follow – and it actually proves too much. Wells is asking too much of a narrative. The Genesis creation account tells the story of creation; it is not an explicit, detailed ethical code. As a matter of fact, the creation narrative is scant when it comes to ethical injunctions compared to many other portions of Scripture. And even though it is not an explicit ethical code, that does not mean it does not imply ethics. For instance, we know that being an image-bearer of God has ethical implications. This is hinted at in the creation narrative (Gen. 1:26ff.) and teased-out for us elsewhere in subsequent revelation (cf. Rom. 1-2; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Jms. 3:9). In other words, general revelation is implicitly imperatival. The act of creation warrants, even demands man’s proper response. “Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him,” says Ps. 33:8. But why? Verse 9 says, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” To what does “it” refer? “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made…” (Ps. 33:6a). In other words, the fact and act of creation is implicitly imperatival. This also shows us that subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was implicit in antecedent revelation. In other words, the Bible often expounds upon and applies itself, drawing out of previous revelation implications for the present that were always there (cf. Paul’s argument for gender-based ethics for the church in 1 Tim. 2:11ff.). And the implications it draws out are sometimes highly conditioned upon the era of redemptive history one lives in (i.e., Exod. 20:8ff.; Mk. 2:28; 1 Tim. 2:11ff.; Rev. 1:10). Wells seems to forget about general revelation and the ethical implications of creation imago Dei.
Second, Wells’ says, “these verses [Gen. 2:1-3]…do not stand alone but are joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings” and “[w]hen we look at those we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26). What are we to make of this? First of all, Gen. 2:1-3 is not only “joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings,” it is connected to and further explained by other portions of Holy Scripture. There are quotations/allusions to Gen. 2:1-3 outside of the Mosaic writings and these must be taken into account when seeking to understand it (cf. Mk. 2:27; Heb. 4:4, 9-10 [NOTE: Some day I want to trace the link between temple building and rest throughout the Scripture. My hunch is that I will find the first temple, the Garden, linked to rest, as well as Israel’s tabernacle/temple and the church. There was temple and rest in the Garden, there was temple and rest in Israel, there is temple and rest for the church, both in this age and in the age to come. But I digress.]).
Interestingly, Wells says elsewhere, “What could I tell others about the meaning of my keeping a Sabbath if all I had was Genesis 2:1-3?”(29). May I call a foul or throw a flag? This, too, is a non sequitur – it does not follow that since you can’t say much, therefore you can’t say anything. But also, we have much more revelation than simply Gen. 2:1-3 and limiting ourselves to it is simply dangerously myopic and a really poor hermeneutical move. The only infallible interpreter of the Holy Scripture is the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scripture. In other words, we must allow the Bible to speak concerning the canonical meaning of Gen. 2:1-3 lest we impose our own conjectures or arguments from silence upon it.
In my next post I will interact with Wells, where he says, “[w]hen we look at those [i.e., verses in Moses’ writings concerning the Sabbath] we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26).
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
On Friday, November 19, 2010, I received a free copy of Tom Wells’ newest book, The Christian and the Sabbath. Thanks, Tom! It is a 141 page book, including bibliography and indices. I was glad to see my name referenced on four pages and Dr. Waldron’s name referenced on 16 pages (Dr. Waldron is much older than me so that makes perfect sense :-)). Wells quotes from my In Defense of the Decalogue and Waldron’s unpublished Lectures on the Lord’s Day. I would have liked to see some interaction with our exposition of the new covenant in our book Reformed Baptist Manifesto and interaction with Waldron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, but I fully realize you can’t interact with everything.
In the Foreword, Wells shares some of his personal experience related to this issue, going back about 40 years. Though I enjoy autobiography, I thought the mention of some of the personal experience was unnecessary, but that’s probably just me. I noted on the first page that Wells sets up one of those unnecessary either/or dichotomies. He says, in effect, the Decalogue is eternal law or a gift to Israel (7). Why couldn’t it be both? More on this later.
Wells brings up the issues of probable arguments and arguments from silence. He is bold to say, “Both of us [Wells and those who differ with him] will lean heavily on probable arguments, including arguments from silence” (8). I want to assert that though I admit that all human exegesis is, to a degree, conjecture and setting forth what is most plausible (at least in the mind of the exegete), I do not want to give an inch to “arguments from silence.” I do not think it best, or even good, to argue from the absence of a word or concept to the presence of a doctrinal formulation. I did not find Wells’ words, at this point, helpful.
Wells states the burden of the book at least twice in the Foreword. He says, “My point is to show that there is no such command [i.e., Sabbath command] given to Christians. No one may insist on it for other adults” (10). He goes on and adds, “…I want to show that no one may command another adult Christian to keep a Sabbath” (10). I take this to mean that his book will prove that it is wrong for Christians to believe that there is a Sabbath to observe/render for the people of God under the new covenant. As a side note, I am not sure why Wells uses the word “adult.” Is it ok to insist on a Sabbath for Christian youth? I am probably making too much of a little thing.
At the beginning of chapter 1, Wells gives two reasons for writing this book: first, “the subject is important” (11) and the “second [reason] has to do with how the Old and New Covenants relate” (11). The rest of chapter 1 takes up the issue of the relationship between the old and new covenants. One of the things Wells discusses is the change that has occurred in light of the inauguration of the new covenant. He notes, commenting on 1 Pt. 2:5, 9-10, that the new covenant is a spiritual covenant. Whereas the old covenant had a physical house, the new covenant people of God are the house of God; and whereas “certain men from a certain tribe were priests, all Christians are priests” (13). “The OT priests had physical sacrifices to offer. We offer spiritual sacrifices” (13). So far so good. But I would like to insert one comment at this point. Since there is still a house of God, and since there is still a covenantal priesthood, and since that priesthood still offers sacrifices (granting that change has occurred), could it be that there is still a Sabbath to be rendered (granting that change has occurred)?
Wells makes a point that Israel was a sacral society. As a matter of fact, he takes seven pages to do so. He discusses the nature of the Ten Commandments as national legislation and in terms of its focus on externals. He says:
If you look at the Ten Commandments, unless you read into them what is not explicitly there, you will find only one command that apparently addresses motivation, the command, “You shall no covet!” All the rest cover easily measurable events. That is what national law does in all societies. (16)
I find this interesting, in light of how Jesus (Matt. 5) seems to highlight (my conjecture) what was implicitly there all along. Remember also that Paul said the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), not that it has now become spiritual. Again, I ask, could it be that Israel’s law is both a gift for national Israel and representative of moral law for all men?
While watching College football this afternoon I read over ½ of chapter 2. I was disappointed with aspects of it but will wait until next time to let you in on just what disappointed me.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits.
By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. Do not sell my personal information.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
