The Force of the Fourth Commandment in the New Testament

by Rev. Martin Vander Wal

Audio of speech (1.2 MB)| Audio of discussion (3.4 MB)

Note: Audio files have been reduced in quality to reduce download time. The discussion audio has some 'hiss' due to the processing required to pick up audience contributions. Contact us if you would like higher quality audio.

Rev. Vander Wal is pastor of Hope Protestant Reformed Church here in Redlands, CA.

---

With this speech I acknowledge that I enter into controversy. That controversy is demanded by the title of the speech, “The Force of the Fourth Commandment in the New Testament.” As with any controversy, there are two sides. In taking a stand in this controversy, enemies and friends line up before me in a particular way. I readily admit that my enemies are great and numerous. Among them are the men John Calvin and Herman Hoeksema. Among documents with which I find myself at odds are the Second Helvetic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism (with the latter in what it does not say rather than what it does say). These enemies will be mine not only because my stand will be against certain parts of them, but also because I determine to expose their weaknesses.

I also, however, have friends in this controversy. These are friends with whom I am pleased to take my stand. These are friends who encourage me in that stand. These are the body of the Puritan writers and a multitude of Presbyterians, Benjamin B. Warfield among them. My friends are the Westminster Standards in their treatment of the fourth commandment. But my nearest and dearest friend in this controversy is the Rev. George Ophoff. His series of articles in volume four of “The Standard Bearer,” simply titled “The Sabbath,” is as thorough as it is outstanding, and I highly recommend it to my audience. I also hope to demonstrate that in my particular stance on the fourth commandment, I do find points of blessed friendship with my enemies.

My stand is that the fourth commandment of the moral law of God is still in force in the church of the New Testament dispensation. Particularly, my stand is that the fourth commandment does indeed make one day holier than the other. And my stand is that the first day of the week, Sunday, is the proper sabbath of the New Testament dispensation.

I hope to demonstrate that force in three main ways. The first way is to analyze the view that I will call “Reformed” and draw attention to its weakness and inconsistency. The second way is to demonstrate the particular obligation of the fourth commandment out of Scripture touching the day of rest. The third way will be to explain the nature of that obligation.

First, I present my analysis. Consider first the teaching of John Calvin in the following:

When certain days are represented as holy in themselves, when one day is distinguished from another on religious grounds, when holy days are reckoned a part of divine worship, then days are improperly observed. The Jewish sabbath, new moons, and other festivals, were earnestly pressed by the false apostles, because they had been appointed by the law. When we, in the present age, make a distinction of days, we do not represent them as necessary, and thus lay a snare for the conscience; we do not reckon one day to be more holy than another; we do not make days to be the same thing with religion and the worship of God; but merely attend to the preservation of order and harmony. The observance of days among us is a free service, and void of all superstition. [1]

Also in his Institutes Calvin adopts largely the same line:

Still there can be no doubt, that, on the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ceremonial part of the commandment was abolished...This is not contented with one day, but requires the whole course of our lives, until being completely dead to ourselves, we are filled with the life of God. Christians, therefore, should have nothing to do with a superstitious observance of days. [2]

The Heidelberg Catechism, in Lord’s Day 38, falls into the same line of thought:

Q. 103. What doth God require in the fourth commandment?
A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained; and that I, especially on the Sabbath, that is, on the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God, to hear His word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord, and contribute to the relief of the poor, as becomes a Christian. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath. [3]

We see two elements or aspects in this answer. The first is that the obligatory nature of the sabbath consists not in respecting a day of the week, but in the regular activity of divine worship. The second element is that the obligatory nature of the sabbath is sanctification of the believer “all the days of my life.”

However, we must also observe in the answer of this Lord’s Day mention of “the Sabbath,” and the explanation of that sabbath as “the day of rest.” (emphasis mine, MVW)

From Ursinus’ commentary on the Catechism, we are presented with his thoughts on the sabbath:

Hence the Sabbath, in as far as it has respect to the seventh day, was, together with the other ceremonies and types, fulfilled and abolished by the coming of the Messiah. So much briefly concerning the commandment itself. [4]

Or, to express it more briefly, we may say that the ceremonial Sabbath is two-fold: the one belonging to the Old, the other to the New Testament. The old was restricted to the seventh day: its observance was necessary, and constituted the worship of God. The new depends upon the decision and appointment of the church, which for certain reasons has made choice of the first day of the week, which is to be observed for the sake of order, and not from any idea of necessity, as if this and no other were to be observed by the church, concerning which we shall presently speak. [5]

Hoeksema, writing in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, gives his agreement in the following:

Yet, the exposition of the Catechism is no doubt correct. It proceeds from the thought that in the new dispensation one day is not holier than another day, and that to refrain from work is in itself no religious exercise whatsoever. Hence, the idea of the Catechism is that the God of our salvation in Jesus Christ our Lord has given us one day of the week which we may empty of all earthly cares and labors, in order to fill it with the things that pertain to the kingdom of God and of His eternal tabernacle. [6]

Herman Hoeksema, however, then administers these caveats:

Yet, although in the new dispensation we do not consider one day more holy than another, and although we do not consider it specially religious or of any value of merit to spend the sabbath day in idleness–yet, on the other hand, we should not fail to observe that the sabbath day is originally rooted in the creation ordinance, and that it was given to the New Testament church in order to be filled in a special measure with the things of the kingdom of God and of His everlasting covenant. [7]

Bearing this in mind, it cannot be denied that the desecration of the sabbath in our day is an evil that is assuming alarming proportions... With such a spirit of frivolous worldly-mindedness and practical materialism, the sabbath is no longer remembered, and desecration of the first day of the week has become customary. [8]

The Second Helvetic Confession is very clear that the force of the fourth commandment is not to be applied to a specific day:

In regard hereof, we see that in the ancient churches there were not only certain set hours in the week appointed for meetings, but that also the Lord’s Day itself, ever since the apostles’ time, was consecrated to religious exercises and to a holy rest; which also is now very well observed by our churches, for the worship of God and the increase of charity. Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day, or to any superstitions. For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself acceptable to God. Besides, we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and not the Jewish Sabbath, and that with a free observation. [9]

On the other hand, Hoeksema’s contemporary, George Ophoff writes:

True enough, the rest which our Saviour entered was projected, so to say, in time. The believer even as an occupant of his earthly tabernacle enters this rest. He does so, in that he ceases all the days of his life from his evil works and yields himself to the Lord to work by his Holy Spirit in him. Hence, this his life is a continuous sabbath and the beginning of the eternal rest. However, he who maintains that the Divine speech incorporated in the fourth commandment was not intended for the ears of the saints of this day errs grieviously (sic). We shall now proceed to prove that also in this epoch one of seven days must be singled out, set aside and hallowed.[10]

In light of these quotations, we observe two different principles in severe need of recognition and reconciliation. These two principles are at war with each other. The first principle is the abrogation of any obligation to keep the sabbath as a particular day, set apart by God. (For the sake of the argument we simple state that “setting apart” is tantamount to “sanctifying.”) Appeal is made to Scripture passages such as Romans 14:5, Galatians 5:10, Colossians 2:14, and the difference between the law as the Old Testament required and the New Testament application of the same. This principle is present in the recurring idea that one day is not holier than another in the New Testament.

But there is another, contradictory, principle afoot in these writings. That principle regards the day as set apart for the public worship of God. It gives a certain weight and significance to the day itself, and not merely times of public worship. According to that principle, the sabbath day is capable of being desecrated and abused and is.

This second principle also finds compelling force in our practices concerning the first day of the week. We teach our children that there are certain things that are not to be done on the first day of the week. We ourselves modify our behavior on Sunday. If someone in our churches would attend every single worship service and yet contract employment (besides that of necessity or mercy), that individual would be placed under Christian discipline. That discipline would be grounded upon the fourth commandment.

It ought to be obvious that these two principles are opposed to one another according to the simplest reading. Iain D. Campbell writes the following:

For Calvin and the other Reformers, the Sabbath was a Jewish sign which foreshadowed a future provision. In this sense, they argued that the Sabbath was abrogated, and that the Lord’s Day is not a Sabbath. Yet they still wanted to maintain that the fourth commandment is in some sense binding. James Packer is correct to describe this as ‘a standing puzzle’...[11]

These two principles need to be reconciled.

That reconciliation is most evident from the Presbyterian side. We can take the Westminster Confession as normative for an explanation of the fourth commandment and its obligation:

As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.[12]

Many Presbyterian commentaries and the testimony of many Puritan authors lend their weight to the proper understanding of the force of the fourth commandment. In these authorities there are likewise two principles but those principles are found in a beautiful consistency. The first principle is prominent and flourishing. It is the commandment in its very form: the setting apart of one day for religious and spiritual exercises. The sabbath day is exactly that: a day of rest. The day does not appear in the foreground either as a concession or by dint of circumstances. This first principle is as evident as the commandment itself: the day is set apart as holy for the New Testament church of Jesus Christ. The second principle is then served by the first. The second principle is the activity of this day: rest. The consecration of the day maintains the proper and right spiritual nature of this holy day: cessation from labor in order properly to rest, and the proper work of entering the rest of God for His people in Jesus Christ.

We speak of three considerations of holy Scripture, bringing us to a proper understanding of the force of the fourth commandment in the New Testament.

First we treat such passages as are supposed to abrogate the fourth commandment’s sanctification of a day of rest. We enumerate the passages:

Romans 14:6—“He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.”

Galatians 4:10—“Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”

Colossians 2:16—“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.”

As far as these passages concern “sabbath days” and “days” their reference is to days set apart by the ceremonial law, including the Jewish sabbath of the seventh day of the week. These days as required by the ceremonial law belonged to the type and shadow of the law and were fulfilled by Christ. To cling to them is to deny that all salvation (especially righteousness) is found in Christ. It is impossible to suppose that such words can be said to abrogate the fourth commandment as established in the law of God. The ceremonial law and the moral law are both represented in the fourth commandment, but we may not suppose that the end of the force of the ceremonial law abolishes the moral law found in the fourth commandment touching the day of rest. George Ophoff writes to that end:

Whereas the sabbaths to be abolished are identified with the shadows, and whereas our day of rest is not the prolongation of any one of these rest periods but the projection in time of the rest eternal, it follows that the scriptures in question do not apply to our sabbath. [13]

Moreover, we find the careful work of the apostle Paul (not to mention the other apostles) to observe the first day of the week as the day of rest. We have Paul’s charge to the Corinthians to take up collections in the church on the first day of the week, I Corinthians 16:2. We have the record of Paul’s visit to Troas and the activities of those days, Acts 20. Explicit mention is made of the days of this visit. “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.” (Acts 20:6) Verse 7 has three important aspects, all of which suggest the observance of the first day of the week as a day of rest. The first aspect is the practice and habit of the disciples to come together to break bread on that first day. The second is Paul’s preaching to the congregation on that day in that assembly. The third is his readiness to depart on the morrow. Preparations had already been made for his departure for the sake of keeping this sabbath day free of such work.

Secondly we find the demand of a day of rest published first not in the moral law of God but in the very work of creation. The fourth commandment roots and grounds the rest of the seventh day enjoined upon Israel in the act of God following the creation of the heavens and the earth. “…and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:11) We note the similarity in language to the record of Genesis 2:2, 3, “…and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it…” The institution of the sabbath day is a creation ordinance of God. The sabbath was given to man by God prior to the giving of the ceremonial law, and even prior to the fall into sin itself. As a creation ordinance, it carries the same force and weight as the divine institution of marriage. As that creation ordinance touches the day itself, blessing it and sanctifying it, that day cannot be sanctified or set apart merely as a ceremonial law of God. It must be understood, then, that as long as the present creation stands, the sabbath day is to be observed by God’s people.

Thirdly, we find emphasis on the day of the sabbath throughout the New Testament concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We well begin with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The testimony of scripture is most clear as touching the day of the resurrection. We must find the testimony of its circumstances most striking, “Now upon the first day of the week...“ (Luke 24:1; cf. also Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; John 20:1) Not “the third day,” as might be supposed, the third day since Jesus was crucified. Not the day after the sabbath. But the record is very explicit: the first day of the week.

We must also consider how various works and teachings of Christ lay a most powerful groundwork for the change of the day of rest wrought by His resurrection from the dead.

We find our Savior’s method given us clearly in John 5 and in John 9, His miracles of the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethesda and the healing of the man who was born blind. There were many other miracles which Jesus deliberately performed on the Sabbath. We might think of the woman bowed over with the spirit of infirmity and the man with a withered hand. But the benefit of considering the miracles of John 5 and John 9 is Jesus’ discourse concerning them. Our Lord made the particular point of showing the legitimacy and righteousness of these works in that they are the works of God. “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” (John 5:17) These particular works God gave Him to do. In the midst of the power of God expressed and shown in these wonders, Jesus also taught that He was the Son of God, making Himself equal with God. That teaching was verified by these wonders themselves. We note the testimony of the man born blind. “If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.” (John 9:33) In specific connection with the miracle recorded in John 5, we have the word of resurrection. That word touches not only the resurrection of regeneration (vs. 24, 25) and the resurrection of the dead at Christ’s return in glory (vs. 28, 29), but also the life of the Son of God Himself. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)

From the above chapters we are taught to look for the works of God in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son. In those works of Christ we are called to rest. Since He is the One sent by the Father into the world, by Him alone do we have eternal life. We are called to look to Him for the works of God and to rest in His works. In fine, we are to believe on Him, whom the Father has sent into the world.

This thought must bring us to the death and the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week. His resurrection is the new work of God to which the whole church must now have respect. His resurrection on the first day was the beginning of a new, spiritual and heavenly creation. Christ is the firstfruits of that new creation as the first begotten from the dead. His resurrection on the first day is the principle which through regeneration breaks the power of depravity, delivering the church from the bondage of sin and Satan. It is therefore the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead which makes for a new day of rest.

In the resurrection of Christ from the dead we have two points of the force of the fourth commandment given us. We have a force that changes the particular day of the sabbath of the commandment from the seventh day to the first. But we also have another force. This second force not only maintains the original idea of resting from man’s works in order to rest in God’s works by remembrance. But this second force also elevates and improves that sabbath in order to make it heavenly and far more blessed.

The New Testament scriptures provide evidence of that elevation and improvement of the sabbath of the first day of the week. The apostle John testifies in Revelation 1:10, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” Here a day is mentioned as belonging to the Lord. It has been made particular and unique from the other days of the week. That day is of regular, orderly occurrence. John ties his vision of the risen ascended Christ to that historical day: it was on the Lord’s Day that he received it. It was a day appropriate for receiving the heavenly vision, a vision of great comfort and assurance for the church. On that day was a vision of promise that the church shall be certainly brought to its heavenly rest, even through great tribulation.

In the scriptures of the New Testament we have set before us the heavenly rest appointed to us. Grounded in part upon God’s creation ordinance, Hebrews 4 presents an inspired argument for this heavenly rest. “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.” (v. 9) This rest has been given us, for, “For we which have believed do enter into rest.” (v. 3) Therefore our sabbath day, properly observed and kept, keeps before our minds this goal and the calling to persevere to its end. “Let us labor, therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” (v. 11)

We must properly reckon with this idea of force as understood in the title of this speech. We speak of obligation or duty. We may well refer to the way the matter is introduced by B. B. Warfield in his speech, “The Foundations of the Sabbath in the Word of God”:

I am to recall to your minds–it may seem somewhat brusquely–to the contemplation of the duty of the sabbath; and to ask you to let them rest for a moment on the bald notion of authority. I do not admit that, in so doing, I am asking you to lower your eyes. Rather, I conceive myself to be inviting you to raise them; to raise them to the very pinnacle of the pinnacle. After all is said, there is no greater word than “ought.” And there is no higher reason for keeping the sabbath than that I ought to keep it; that I owe it to God the Lord to keep it in accordance with his command. [14]

In the same vein we must consider the word of Jesus Christ to His disciples, “Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while.” (Mark 6:31) This calling we must hear from our Lord, whenever we hear the law of God read: Come, rest a while!

Those who call for an abrogation of the fourth commandment sanctifying one particular day in seven miss a very important point. Upon this earth we are simply not allowed to keep the sabbath all our days. The continuous sabbath is reserved for heaven. Now we labor to enter into that rest. In the world we must take up a worldly vocation so that we can support the gospel ministry and the Christian schools. We must work six days so that we can keep one day holy to the Lord. In the world we are also at war. This war prevents us from resting. We are called to battle against sin. There are the temptations of the devil and the world which we face especially in our worldly places and vocations. Our depravity is an enemy against which we fight all the days of our life. Fighting this battle is the Christian’s way of perseverance. We keep in mind that this earth is a desert wilderness in which we sojourn while looking in hope for “the city that hath foundations.” (Hebrews 11:10) This life is a life of toil with intermittent rest.

Part of that fight involves understanding the very clear duty, obligation, and responsibility to observe the first day of the week as a holy day of rest. That express idea of duty comes to us in the midst of our sinful tendency to cling to the things of this world, to find in them our rest, our joy, and our peace. We need to be called apart to rest one day a week, not only to remind ourselves that in worldly engagements there is no true rest, but also to remind us of the true rest which remains.

To that end we need to bring the force of the fourth commandment to be of great positive, everlasting value to the church of Jesus Christ. By the fourth commandment our gracious God has given to us an entire day. He has set apart the first day of the week, its hours and moments, to be holy time. He has sanctified it to a holy use: Himself and the glory of His power shown in the resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. Having separated it by that wonderful work of our salvation, He has given it to His people for their rest.

We want to end with a happy consistency between the two principles we had mentioned in the beginning. That happy consistency is for the protection and maintenance of the rest reserved for the people of God through Jesus Christ. The fourth commandment must be observed: the sabbath day of the first day of the week must be kept holy. The sanctity of the entire day supports and strengthens the activities and labors of inward, heartfelt, spiritual resting. The day is reserved for the Word of God, the remembrance of the wonderful works of God in that Word. That day is reserved for us to rest in those works of God, having the whole day to keep them separate from worldly recreations and worldly vocations.

In this speech I have demonstrated that the force of the fourth commandment in the New Testament does pertain to a specific day, setting the first day of the week apart as a day of rest. I will leave it to the following speakers to demonstrate the wonderful blessedness of that day.

I hope that the officebearers of our churches will be able to press this obligation upon our congregations and upon themselves as examples. In their preaching and teaching, ministers ought to be able boldly and fearlessly to press upon the people of God the need properly to observe the sabbath day. They ought to be able sharply to admonish against its desecration in sports, entertainment, and worldly labor. They ought to do so without fear that they are either falling into legalism or resurrecting the ceremonial law of God. In their labor with members’ desecration of the sabbath, elders should feel free to urge the claim of the fourth commandment upon those members, that the entire day must be kept holy.

But this force of the fourth commandment of which I have spoken must lead us to another force: that of the grace of God. I refer to the statement made by Augustine in the form of a prayer: “Lord, give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.” When we properly understand the force of the obligation of the fourth commandment, we are then ready to make our supplication to God that He give us what He has commanded. By that provision of God, may our sabbath days be filled with the rest and peace of His works and a blessed foretaste of the coming sabbath-rest that has no end.

Footnotes

1. Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians, John Calvin (William Pringle, trans.), Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, 1864, p. 124.
   - back to article -
2. Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (Henry Beveridge, trans.), William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids: 1953, vol. 1, p. 341. - back to article -
3. The Confessions and the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches, Protestant Reformed Churches in America, 2005, Grandville, p. 128. - back to article -
4. The Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, (G. W. Williard, trans.), Scott & Bascom, Printers, Columbus, 1852, pp. 557, 558. - back to article -
5. Ibid., pp. 562, 563. - back to article -
6. The Triple Knowledge, Herman Hoeksema, volume viii, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1955, p. 266.
   - back to article -
7. Ibid., p. 268. - back to article -
8. Ibid., p. 269. - back to article -
9. The Creeds of Christendom, Philip Schaff, ed., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids: 1990, vol. 3, p. 899. - back to article -
10. “The Standard Bearer”, Reformed Free Publishing Association, “The Sabbath,” George Ophoff, vol. 4, p. 486. - back to article -
11. On the First Day of the Week, Iain D. Campbell, Day One Publications, Leominster, 2005, p. 164. - back to article -
12. The Creeds of Christendom, Philip Schaff, ed., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids: 1990, vol. 3, pp. 648, 649. - back to article -
13. “The Standard Bearer”, Reformed Free Publishing Association, “The Sabbath,” George Ophoff, vol. 4, p. 511. - back to article -
14. Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield—I, John E. Meeter, ed., Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Nutley, New Jersey, 1970, p. 308. - back to article -