Dr. Waldron discusses issues related to a new book by Tom Wells on the Christian and the Sabbath. This issue has much to do with allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. Divine interpretation and application of Divine revelation is an important piece in this often confusing and miss-understood puzzle.
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
Wells interacts with Exod. 20:8 in less than one page. He offers what in my mind gives the appearance of a cavalier dismissal of this text with these words: “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” (29). He then adds, “Despite that fact many find an argument in the word “remember”” (29; emphasis mine). He assumes that an assertion is a fact. Something seems wrong-headed about that. As far as Exod. 20:8-11 goes, I have found these words by John Frame very helpful.
It is important to ask, what Sabbath does Ex. 20:11 refer to? Does “Sabbath” here refer to God’s rest after creating the world, or to man’s own Sabbath rest? The answer has to be, both. The first sentence of Ex. 20:11 refers to God’s own rest. But “Sabbath” in the second sentence must refer to the same Sabbath as in verse 8, the Sabbath God requires of Israel. Ex. 20:11 sees an identity between these. It teaches that when God took his own rest from his creative labors and rested on the seventh day, which he hallowed and blessed, he also hallowed and blessed a human Sabbath, a Sabbath for man (Mark 2:27). In other words, when God blessed his own Sabbath rest in Gen. 2:3, he blessed it as a model for human imitation. So Israel is to keep the Sabbath, because in Gen. 2:2-3 God hallowed and blessed man’s Sabbath as well as his own. (Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, unpublished edition)
This is why elsewhere the Sabbath is called God’s, because He instituted it and owns it (cf. Is. 58:13, “…the Sabbath…My holy day…”; Rev. 1:10, “…the Lord’s Day…”), and it is something that was made for man (Mk. 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man…”). The Sabbath is God’s because of His example and institution of it. The Sabbath is man’s because God made it for him. Surely “the everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary” (Is. 40:28). God did not make the Sabbath for Himself because He was tired and needed rest; He made it for man. His example at creation is imperatival for man and predates the Sabbath as incorporated into Israel’s law.
As far as Ex. 20:8-11 being relevant under the new covenant, I agree with Frame’s interpretation that the Sabbath was instituted at creation and because of this it is relevant for all mankind (see previous posts).
Wells discusses OT prophecy and the Sabbath (i.e., Is. 56:2-5 and 58:13-14). He notes that some Reformed theologians who believe in an abiding Sabbath under the new covenant believe OT prophecy about the Sabbath under the new covenant has to be understood as the prophets utilizing old covenant forms of worship (i.e., Sabbath, new moons, incense, sacrifices, etc.) to describe worship under the new covenant, though not intending it to be understood literally. He says, “Here in the judgment of the men I have cited, they [i.e., old covenant forms of worship in new covenant prophecies] stand for New Covenant realities that would replace the Old Covenant customs in the gospel era” (39). Though I think these men are right, I do not think this necessarily means these texts do not teach that an abiding Sabbath is to be rendered under the new covenant. In other words, I think the prophets utilize old covenant language, but I also think these texts prophecy a Sabbath under the new covenant. I think this for at least two reasons related to OT prophecies of the Sabbath connected to the new covenant. The first reason is because of Jer. 31:33. I think this text implies a Sabbath under the new covenant because the law being referred to is the same law God wrote on stone tablets (I will just assert at this point. Those interested in my exegesis of this text can read my In Defense of the Decalogue).
A second reason comes from my understanding of Isa. 56:1-8. That text says:
Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants — everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant — even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, “Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.” (Is. 56:1-8)
Several observations will assist us in understanding how this passage prophesies explicitly the perpetuity and continuation of a Sabbath under the new covenant. First, the section of the book of Isaiah starting at chapter 40 and ending with chapter 66 is pointing forward to the days of Messiah and in some places to the eternal state. This section includes language pointing forward to the time primarily between the two comings of Christ, the interadvental days of the new covenant. It is understood this way by the NT in several places (see Mt. 3:3; 8:16, 17; 12:15-21; and Acts 13:34).
Second, Isaiah 56:1-8 speaks prophetically of a day in redemptive history in which God will save Gentiles (see esp. vv. 7 and 8). The language of “all nations” in verse 7 reminds us of the promise given to Abraham concerning blessing all nations through his seed (see Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3:8, 16). This Abrahamic promise is pursued by the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20. Isaiah is speaking about new covenant days.
Third, in several New Testament texts, the language of Isa. 56:1-8 (and the broader context) is applied to the days between Christ’s first and second coming in the motif of fulfillment (Mt. 21:12-13; Acts 8:26-40; Eph. 2:19; and 1 Tim. 3:15). Compare Matthew 21:13, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” with Isaiah 56:7, “For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” This anticipates the inclusion of Gentiles in the house of God, a common NT phenomenon. Compare Acts 8:26-40 (notice a eunuch was reading from Isaiah) with Isaiah 56:3-5, which says:
Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. (Is. 56:3-5)
The old covenant placed restrictions on eunuchs. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.” Isaiah is prophesying about a day in redemptive history when those restrictions no longer apply.
In Eph. 2:19 the church is called the “household of God” and in 1 Tim. 3:15 it is called “the house of God…” The context of 1 Tim. 3:15 includes 2:1-7, where Paul outlines regulations for church prayer. Now listen to Isa. 56:7, which says:
Even them [i.e., the foreigners (Gentiles) of v. 6a] I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. (Is. 56:7)
The NT sees Isaiah’s prophecy as fulfilled under the new covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold here (Isa. 56) are transformed to fit the redemptive-historical conditions brought in by the new covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the new covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the new covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the new covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the new covenant. Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the old covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophesy looks like when being fulfilled. Jeremiah does this with the promise of the new covenant. What was promised to “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31), is fulfilled in the Jew-Gentile church, the new covenant people of God, the transformed/eschatological Israel of old testament prophecy.
With these considerations before us, it seems not only plausible but compelling to conclude that between the two advents of Christ, when the old covenant law restricting eunuchs no longer restricts them, and when the nations (i.e., Gentiles) are becoming the Lord’s and frequenting His house, which is His Church, a Sabbath (see Isaiah 56:2, 4, 6) yet remains. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of Sabbath keeping in new covenant days. The English Puritan John Bunyan, commenting on Isaiah 56, said, “Also it follows from hence, that the sabbath that has a promise annexed to the keeping of it, is rather that which the Lord Jesus shall give to the churches of the Gentiles.”[1]
The essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not the old covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God’s moral law.
Don’t worry, my review of chapters 3-10 will be much shorter. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.