by Richard Barcellos | Jun 9, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (V)
Conclusion: Gospel Texts on Sabbath-Keeping
A detailed examination of all the passages in the Gospels where Christ discusses the issue of the Sabbath will show that he never predicted its abolition, nor did he ever profane it. If fact, he could not profane it, nor advocate its profanation by others, without sinning. He was born under the law, not to profane it, but to keep it (Gal. 4:5). If Christ violated the Sabbath, then he sinned and would not be a suitable Savior for others. Instead, he advocated works of necessity (Matt. 12:1-8; Mk. 2:23-28; Lk. 6:1-5), mercy (Matt. 12:9-14; Mk. 3:1-6; Lk. 4:31-41; 6:6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; Jn. 5:8-10; 7:23; 9:13-16), and piety (Matt. 12:9; Mk. 6:2; Lk. 4:16; 6:6; Jn. 7:22-23) on the Sabbath by his teaching and example. He never violated it, advocated its violation by others, or prophesied its soon demise. In fact, Mk. 2:27-28 prophesies the perpetuity of the Sabbath under his lordship as Son of Man.
Both Matt. 12:1-14 and Mk. 2:27-28 contain transcovenantal principles relating to the Sabbath. Works of mercy and necessity are lawful on the Sabbath, linking Jesus’ teaching with revelation given prior to his earthly ministry (i.e., the OT). Jesus as Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, linking the Sabbath and its Lord with future revelation (i.e., the NT). Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath leaves us with the expectation that he will execute his lordship over the Sabbath in the future, during the inter-advental days of the new covenant. His teaching on the Sabbath is related to antecedent revelation (explicitly) and subsequent revelation (implicitly). It establishes a basis for its basic ethical perpetuity and yet in such a way as to expect changes in application due to the redemptive-historical shift that takes place due to his entrance into glory (i.e., resurrection/ascension).
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.
by Richard Barcellos | May 24, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (III)
Mark 2:27-28
Wells discusses Mk. 2:27-28 (48-57). He claims, and rightly so, “There is no command in these verses…” (49). He continues, “…but an argument for Sabbath keeping has been drawn from each of them” (49). He states the argument this way:
The argument is twofold. First, if God at creation made the Sabbath a blessing for mankind, He certainly did not do so only to abolish it later. Second, when the Lord Jesus announces Himself as Lord of the Sabbath, it seems unlikely to suppose that He intended to exercise His Lordship over it by doing away with it. (49)
Dealing with this twofold argument, Wells assumes “that God commanded man to keep the Sabbath at the time of creation” (49), though he does not believe that to be the case. Discussing the first argument, he says:
The first argument implies the impossibility of God later abolishing anything that He made for mankind’s benefit at the creation. But is this sound reasoning? It may be true or it may be false, but it is certainly not obvious. Where is it written that if God once made something a blessing for mankind at large that He would never suspend it? (49)
He then gives examples of many things God has made for man’s benefit that he subsequently takes from man (i.e., the Garden of Eden, many wonderful fruits, extinct birds and animals, the benefits of family life for some believers in Christ, etc. [49-50]). What shall we say to this?
Wells asserts, without citing anyone, that “The first argument implies the impossibility of God later abolishing anything that He made for mankind’s benefit at the creation” (49; emphasis mine). Does the first argument imply this? Is this the way those Wells is arguing against state their position? I think the answer to both questions is a resounding, “No!” Do those who believe that God instituted some things for mankind’s good at creation also believe in “the impossibility of God later abolishing” those things? Again, Wells cites no one. In fact, he over-states his case. Claiming that God instituted some things for man’s good at creation does not necessarily imply the impossibility of God later abolishing those things. The Garden of Eden is a case in point, as Wells says.
The argument Wells set up (i.e., that “God at creation made the Sabbath a blessing for mankind”) needs additional elements to necessarily imply what he claims. Those who argue this would need to state that it is impossible for God to institute anything for man’s benefit at creation and then abolish it later. I don’t know of anyone who would argue this way, though someone who does may exist.
But there is another problem with Wells’ response. The examples he uses of things instituted by God at creation for the benefit of man and later abolished are not identified as creation ordinances by those he is combating. Creation ordinances are not co-extensive with everything instituted by God for man in the Garden of Eden. Wells himself identifies what those who hold to creation ordinances identify as such. He says, “Often three are cited: marriage, labor and Sabbath” (26). In other words, for example, the Garden of Eden is not a creation ordinance in the minds of Wells’ opponents. Even though it appears that Wells does not adhere to the doctrine of creation ordinances, he is disagreeing with those who do and should have seen the problem with arguing the way he did. In effect, he put words in the mouths of those he is critiquing and then shows those words to be impossible to square with Scripture. I found Wells’ argument unconvincing and his method of argumentation, at this point, very sloppy.[1]
After extensive discussion, Wells denies that this verse teaches any sort of Sabbath perpetuity under the lordship of Christ as Son of Man. However, is it that simple? Let’s consider these verses in context in our next post.
[1] I am sure I have been guilty of the same thing.
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.
by Richard Barcellos | 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.
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.
by Richard Barcellos | May 10, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Practical Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (I)
Let me make a few necessary comments on the genre and interpretation of the Gospels. The Gospels contain narrative accounts of various aspects of Christ’s earthly ministry. He taught in a very distinct redemptive-historical context and the Gospel authors each had theological purposes for choosing what they narrated and what they commented upon. We must remind ourselves that OT and NT narratives do just that – they narrate, they tell us what happened, though with theological purpose.[1] We must grant that some of the teachings of Christ in the Gospels are perpetually binding and not to be left on the shelf of narrated history. I say some because Christ commanded things to individuals that are not meant to be perpetually binding on others (cf. Matt. 26:36, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”). But to demand a distinct type of teaching in order to justify ethics (what Wells did in the previous post) and then claim that the Gospel passages don’t contain that type of teaching is simply a wrong-headed, constricting hermeneutical procedure. What if there are other grounds for considering Christ’s teachings on the Sabbath as applicable to Christians? A much better approach would be to read the Gospels looking for teaching related to prior and subsequent revelation and then to determine ethical perpetuity based on how Christ’s teaching is related to its broader, canonical-ethical/redemptive-historical context. The Gospels are full of allusions to and echoes of previous revelation. And the Gospels set the stage for further revelation which will explain both the redemptive acts and words of Jesus Christ (Jn. 14:26; 16:13-15). We must never interpret the Gospels as an end in themselves. Two passages in the Gospels are especially instructive in light of this – Matt. 12:1-14 and Mk. 2:27-28. These texts both reach back in redemptive history, alluding to and echoing previous revelation, and set the stage for further revelation. We will look at each passage briefly in the next post.
[1] This is not to suggest that OT narratives and the Gospels are one and the same genre on every level. Whether the Gospels are seen as theological biographies, covenantal treaty documents, or a complex of different genres the presence of narrative is still true.
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.
by Richard Barcellos | May 5, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Practical Theology
Chapter 3: Gospel Texts on Sabbath-Keeping
In chapter 3, Wells combs the Gospels for teaching related to the Sabbath. He makes this assertion: “There is not one syllable of positive teaching by the Lord Jesus peculiar to the Sabbath in any Gospel passage” (42).[1] What he means by “positive teaching” is “teaching that tells Christians or Jews what they must do, or not do on any Sabbath” (42). What he means by “peculiar to the Sabbath” is “teaching that is true for the Sabbath that is not also true for every other day of the year” (42). In Wells’ thinking, this would mean that if the Gospels do not contain teaching that either commands or forbids specific activities on the Sabbath or commands or forbids things that apply on any other day, then it was never Jesus’ intention “to command anyone to keep a Sabbath” (47). Do you feel the pressure of these twin pillars? If there is no “positive teaching…peculiar to the Sabbath,” Jesus was not commanding Sabbath observance. I find these constricting hermeneutical hedges both interesting and wrong-headed. It is as if Wells sets up for us in advance what kind of teaching on the Sabbath must be present in order to justify any kind of Sabbath observance for Christians or Jews from the lips of our Lord. Wells knows, as does any casual reader of the Gospels, that the Sabbath command was something already in place at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. Jesus simply assumes its validity. Wells also knows, as does any casual reader of the Gospels, that Christ sought to correct the faulty understanding and practice of some first century Jews concerning the Sabbath. The Sabbath was already an ancient institution, predating Jesus and his contemporaries but had been abused. Requiring Jesus to present us with “positive teaching…peculiar to the Sabbath” seems to exclude any other type of teaching that might lead us to the conclusion that the Sabbath transcends the old covenant and has ethical tentacles that reach into the new covenant.
Let’s assume Wells’ position for a minute. Jesus’ teaching was not for the purpose of identifying what Christians or Jews can or can’t do on the Sabbath or Lord’s Day (45). Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath did not command or forbid anything either commanded or forbidden on any other day. Does that prove that there is no Sabbath or Lord’s Day for the Christian to obey? Assuming the validity of Wells’ equation, all it would prove is what it asserts – nothing more and nothing less. Again, Jesus was correcting the faulty teaching of his day on the Sabbath that added to and took from the word of God – commanding and forbidding things God did not. Jesus advocated a return to Sabbath-keeping as it had been revealed by God. Also, Jesus did say, “So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:12). This sure seems like “positive teaching” to me.
[1] Italics are Wells’.
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.
