Thread: Calvin on the 4th Commandment

In Book II, Chapter 8 Calvin exposits the Ten Commandments. I've noticed, particularly on the 4th Commandment, that the Puritans differ from Calvin on the nature of the Commandment. He states that the Commandment is fulfilled and abrogated in both its ceremonial and moral elements and that the reason for meeting one day in seven is more for the good ordering of the Church than anything else. It's also interesting that he allows for more frequent meetings of worship as men would allow (even daily if circumstances would permit).

I'm curious what historic tension this has brought between English Puritans and Continental Reformed because, even though there is general agreement, the specifics seem to be very contentious and one might argue that Calvin would think that some are wound too tight in insistence on certain Sabbath continuance.

I know this opens up a but I hope we can discuss this theologically and historically rather than contentiously.

Fourth Commandment.

REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY. SIX DAYS SHALT THOU LABOUR
AND DO ALL THY WORK: BUT THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY
GOD. IN IT THOU SHALT NOT DO ANY WORK, &C.

28. The purport of the commandment is, that being dead to our own
affections and works, we meditate on the kingdom of God, and in order
to such meditation, have recourse to the means which he has appointed.
But as this commandment stands in peculiar circumstances apart from the
others, the mode of exposition must be somewhat different. Early
Christian writers are wont to call it typical, as containing the
external observance of a day which was abolished with the other types
on the advent of Christ. This is indeed true; but it leaves the half of
the matter untouched. Wherefore, we must look deeper for our
exposition, and attend to three cases in which it appears to me that
the observance of this commandment consists. First, under the rest of
the seventh days the divine Lawgiver meant to furnish the people of
Israel with a type of the spiritual rest by which believers were to
cease from their own works, and allow God to work in them. Secondly he
meant that there should be a stated day on which they should assemble
to hear the Law, and perform religious rites, or which, at least, they
should specially employ in meditating on his works, and be thereby
trained to piety. Thirdly, he meant that servants, and those who lived
under the authority of others, should be indulged with a day of rest,
and thus have some intermission from labour.

29. We are taught in many passages [208] that this adumbration of
spiritual rest held a primary place in the Sabbath. Indeed, there is no
commandment the observance of which the Almighty more strictly
enforces. When he would intimate by the Prophets that religion was
entirely subverted, he complains that his sabbaths were polluted,
violated, not kept, not hallowed; as if, after it was neglected, there
remained nothing in which he could be honoured. The observance of it he
eulogises in the highest terms, and hence, among other divine
privileges, the faithful set an extraordinary value on the revelation
of the Sabbath. In Nehemiah, the Levites, in the public assembly, thus
speak: "Thou madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst
them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant."
You see the singular honour which it holds among all the precepts of
the Law. All this tends to celebrate the dignity of the mystery, which
is most admirably expressed by Moses and Ezekiel. Thus in Exodus:
"Verily my sabbaths shall ye keep: for it is a sign between me and you
throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that
does sanctify you. Ye shall keep my sabbath therefore; for it is holy
unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for
whosoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among
his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the
sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever does any work in the
sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of
Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their
generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the
children of Israel for ever," (Exodus 31:13-17). Ezekiel is still more
full, but the sum of what he says amounts to this: that the sabbath is
a sign by which Israel might know that God is their sanctifier. If our
sanctification consists in the mortification of our own will, the
analogy between the external sign and the thing signified is most
appropriate. We must rest entirely, in order that God may work in us;
we must resign our own will, yield up our heart, and abandon all the
lusts of the flesh. In short, we must desist from all the acts of our
own mind, that God working in us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle
also teaches (Heb. 3:13; 4:3, 9).

30. This complete cessation was represented to the Jews by the
observance of one day in seven, which, that it might be more
religiously attended to, the Lord recommended by his own example. For
it is no small incitement to the zeal of man to know that he is engaged
in imitating his Creator. Should any one expect some secret meaning in
the number seven, this being in Scripture the number for perfection, it
may have been selected, not without cause, to denote perpetuity. In
accordance with this, Moses concludes his description of the succession
of day and night on the same day on which he relates that the Lord
rested from his works. Another probable reason for the number may be,
that the Lord intended that the Sabbath never should be completed
before the arrival of the last day. We here begin our blessed rest in
him, and daily make new progress in it; but because we must still wage
an incessant warfare with the flesh, it shall not be consummated until
the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah: "From one new moon to
another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to
worship before me, saith the Lord," (Isaiah 66:23); in other words,
when God shall be "all in all," (I Cor. 15:28). It may seem, therefore,
that by the seventh day the Lord delineated to his people the future
perfection of his sabbath on the last day, that by continual meditation
on the sabbath, they might throughout their whole lives aspire to this
perfection.

31. Should these remarks on the number seem to any somewhat
far-fetched, I have no objection to their taking it more simply: that
the Lord appointed a certain day on which his people might be trained,
under the tutelage of the Law, to meditate constantly on the spiritual
rest, and fixed upon the seventh, either because he foresaw it would be
sufficient, or in order that his own example might operate as a
stronger stimulus; or, at least to remind men that the Sabbath was
appointed for no other purpose than to render them conformable to their
Creator. It is of little consequence which of these be adopted,
provided we lose not sight of the principal thing delineated--viz. the
mystery of perpetual resting from our works. To the contemplation of
this, the Jews were every now and then called by the prophets, lest
they should think a carnal cessation from labour sufficient. Beside the
passages already quoted, there is the following: "If thou turn away thy
foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call
the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt
honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure,
nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the
Lord," (Isaiah 58:13, 14). Still there can be no doubt, that, on the
advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ceremonial part of the commandment
was abolished. He is the truth, at whose presence all the emblems
vanish; the body, at the sight of which the shadows disappear. He, I
say, is the true completion of the sabbath: "We are buried with him by
baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by
the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life,"
(Rom. 6:4). Hence, as the Apostle elsewhere says, "Let no man therefore
judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the
new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ," (Col. 2:16, 17); meaning by body the whole
essence of the truth, as is well explained in that passage. 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.

32. The two other cases ought not to be classed with ancient shadows,
but are adapted to every age. The sabbath being abrogated, there is
still room among us, first, to assemble on stated days for the hearing
of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and public prayer;
and, secondly, to give our servants and labourers relaxation from
labour. It cannot be doubted that the Lord provided for both in the
commandment of the Sabbath. The former is abundantly evinced by the
mere practice of the Jews. The latter Moses has expressed in
Deuteronomy in the following terms: "The seventh day is the sabbath of
the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son,
nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant;--that thy
man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou," (Deut.
5:14). Likewise in Exodus, "That thine ox and thine ass may rest, and
the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed," (Exod.
23:12). Who can deny that both are equally applicable to us as to the
Jews? Religious meetings are enjoined us by the word of God; their
necessity, experience itself sufficiently demonstrates. But unless
these meetings are stated, and have fixed days allotted to them, how
can they be held? We must, as the apostle expresses it, do all things
decently and in orders (1 Cor. 14:40). So impossible, however, would it
be to preserve decency and order without this politic arrangements that
the dissolution of it would instantly lead to the disturbance and ruin
of the Church. But if the reason for which the Lord appointed a sabbath
to the Jews is equally applicable to us, no man can assert that it is a
matter with which we have nothing to do. Our most provident and
indulgent Parent has been pleased to provide for our wants not less
than for the wants of the Jews. Why, it may be asked, do we not hold
daily meetings, and thus avoid the distinction of days? Would that we
were privileged to do so! Spiritual wisdom undoubtedly deserves to have
some portion of every day devoted to it. But if, owing to the weakness
of many, daily meetings cannot be held, and charity will not allow us
to exact more of them, why should we not adopt the rule which the will
of God has obviously imposed upon us?

33. I am obliged to dwell a little longer on this because some restless
spirits are now making an outcry about the observance of the Lord's
day. They complain that Christian people are trained in Judaism,
because some observance of days is retained. My reply is, That those
days are observed by us without Judaism, because in this matter we
differ widely from the Jews. We do not celebrate it with most minute
formality, as a ceremony by which we imagine that a spiritual mystery
is typified, but we adopt it as a necessary remedy for preserving order
in the Church. Paul informs us that Christians are not to be judged in
respect of its observance, because it is a shadow of something to come
(Col. 2:16); and, accordingly, he expresses a fear lest his labour
among the Galatians should prove in vain, because they still observed
days (Gal. 4:10, 11). And he tells the Romans that it is superstitious
to make one day differ from another (Rom. 14:5). But who, except those
restless men, does not see what the observance is to which the Apostle
refers? Those persons had no regard to that politic and ecclesiastical
arrangement, [209] but by retaining the days as types of spiritual
things, they in so far obscured the glory of Christ, and the light of
the Gospel. They did not desist from manual labour on the ground of its
interfering with sacred study and meditation, but as a kind of
religious observance; because they dreamed that by their cessation from
labour, they were cultivating the mysteries which had of old been
committed to them. It was, I say, against this preposterous observance
of days that the Apostle inveighs, and not against that legitimate
selection which is subservient to the peace of Christian society. For
in the churches established by him, this was the use for which the
Sabbath was retained. He tells the Corinthians to set the first day
apart for collecting contributions for the relief of their brethren at
Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:2). If superstition is dreaded, there was more
danger in keeping the Jewish sabbath than the Lord's day as Christians
now do. It being expedient to overthrow superstition, the Jewish holy
day was abolished; and as a thing necessary to retain decency, orders
and peace, in the Church, another day was appointed for that purpose.

34. It was not, however, without a reason that the early Christians
substituted what we call the Lord's day for the Sabbath. The
resurrection of our Lord being the end and accomplishment of that true
rest which the ancient sabbath typified, this day, by which types were
abolished serves to warn Christians against adhering to a shadowy
ceremony. I do not cling so to the number seven as to bring the Church
under bondage to it, nor do I condemn churches for holding their
meetings on other solemn days, provided they guard against
superstition. This they will do if they employ those days merely for
the observance of discipline and regular order. The whole may be thus
summed up: As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is
imparted to us without figure; first, that during our whole lives we
may aim at a constant rest from our own works, in order that the Lord
may work in us by his Spirit; secondly that every individual, as he has
opportunity, may diligently exercise himself in private, in pious
meditation on the works of God, and, at the same time, that all may
observe the legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing
of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer:
And, thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us.
In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who in
later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that
nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment, [210]
(this they term in their language the taxation of the seventh day),
while the moral part remains--viz. the observance of one day in seven.
[211] But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the
day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus
retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among the
Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such a
doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far as
the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism; so that the
rebukes which we read in Isaiah (Isa. 1:13; 58:13) apply as much to
those of the present day, [212] as to those to whom the Prophet
addressed them. We must be careful, however, to observe the general
doctrine--viz. in order that religion may neither be lost nor languish
among us, we must diligently attend on our religious assemblies, and
duly avail ourselves of those external aids which tend to promote the
worship of God.

My husband does not call The Lord's Day "The Sabbath."

Rich,
Have you read Woody Lauer's piece in the 2007 CPJ--John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues?

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Rich,
Have you read Woody Lauer's piece in the 2007 CPJ--John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues?

For the benefit of the others, can you give a summery Chris?

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Rich,
Have you read Woody Lauer's piece in the 2007 CPJ--John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues?

I'll need to re-read that Chris. Sometimes you need to learn some stuff in order for other stuff to make sense. This is the first time I've read the Institutes so I'm trying to put a lot of the stuff he wrote into context. I recognize he's one man but he was certainly formative for many. I see some "seeds" of a Sabbath in what he writes here but this is his mature expression in the Institutes and he seems pretty firm in some of his conclusions that are contrary to some Puritan convictions.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Rich,
Have you read Woody Lauer's piece in the 2007 CPJ--John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues?

I too am interested in the article. Also -- what is your opinion, Chris? Do you believe Calvin was a nascent/emerging Sabbatarian?

I agree with Rich that Calvin's wording in the Institutes is both strong, and strongly attached to his scriptural prooftexts. He would have had to do significant theological backtracking to acknowledge a Christian Sabbath. (Such things are not out of the question, I suppose.)

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

He states that the Commandment is fulfilled and abrogated in both its ceremonial and moral elements...

I find this interesting...that the moral elements of a command can be abrogated.

Calvin is not Puritan certainly; the operative word with Lauer is Nascent. He's more Puritan than given credit is Lauer's point, and not just the Practical Sabbatarianism already shown by men like John Primus. If I have time I'll try to put something up; right now I have CPJs to get out and I'm fighting muscles seezing up and only 4 hours sleep last night.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Rich,
Have you read Woody Lauer's piece in the 2007 CPJ--John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues?

I too am interested in the article. Also -- what is your opinion, Chris? Do you believe Calvin was a nascent/emerging Sabbatarian?

I agree with Rich that Calvin's wording in the Institutes is both strong, and strongly attached to his scriptural prooftexts. He would have had to do significant theological backtracking to acknowledge a Christian Sabbath. (Such things are not out of the question, I suppose.)

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Rich,
Have you read Woody Lauer's piece in the 2007 CPJ--John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues?

I'll need to re-read that Chris. Sometimes you need to learn some stuff in order for other stuff to make sense. This is the first time I've read the Institutes so I'm trying to put a lot of the stuff he wrote into context. I recognize he's one man but he was certainly formative for many. I see some "seeds" of a Sabbath in what he writes here but this is his mature expression in the Institutes and he seems pretty firm in some of his conclusions that are contrary to some Puritan convictions.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

He states that the Commandment is fulfilled and abrogated in both its ceremonial and moral elements...

I find this interesting...that the moral elements of a command can be abrogated.

I don't think Calvin says that in that sense, at least not in the snippet Rich posted.

Calvin seems to be characterizing the argument he disagrees with as saying that a ceremonial part is obsolete, but a moral element remains. I cannot imagine Calvin saying that we can discard any part of the moral Law of God.

The whole may be thus
summed up: As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is
imparted to us without figure; first, that during our whole lives we
may aim at a constant rest from our own works, in order that the Lord
may work in us by his Spirit; secondly that every individual, as he has
opportunity, may diligently exercise himself in private, in pious
meditation on the works of God, and, at the same time, that all may
observe the legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing
of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer:
And, thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us.
In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who in
later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that
nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment, [210]
(this they term in their language the taxation of the seventh day),
while the moral part remains--viz. the observance of one day in seven.
[211] But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the
day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus
retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among the
Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such a
doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far as
the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism; so that the
rebukes which we read in Isaiah (Isa. 1:13; 58:13) apply as much to
those of the present day, [212] as to those to whom the Prophet
addressed them. We must be careful, however, to observe the general
doctrine--viz. in order that religion may neither be lost nor languish
among us, we must diligently attend on our religious assemblies, and
duly avail ourselves of those external aids which tend to promote the
worship of God.

From what I understand, if one can prove that the Sabbath idea was given prior to the Fall then it applies to all and is for all time and is not strictly related to the civil or ceremonial law.

Vos seems to say that there is an eschatological aspect to the Sabbath, that it points to rest in Christ and according to Hebrews 4:3 the "work" or Sabbath was complete from the foundation of the world.

I have heard that Calvin believed that the Sabbath could be celebrated everyday.

Palmer says that the three things given to Adam prior to a Fall are the Sabbath, marriage and labor. If this is the case the Christ coming would have nothing to do with it being abrogated.

Originally Posted by shackleton

From what I understand, if one can prove that the Sabbath idea was given prior to the Fall then it applies to all and is for all time and is not strictly related to the civil or ceremonial law.

Ignoring for a moment the question of whether one can prove that, why must it be so? Why is it inconceivable that God would give a ceremonial command at creation, to be set aside later?

Originally Posted by shackleton

I have heard that Calvin believed that the Sabbath could be celebrated everyday.

The spiritual Sabbath, yes. The typical Sabbath he regarded as an obsolete shadow.

Brothers,

I think one point to keep in mind is that although Calvin was a mighty man of God, and used greatly for His Kingdom, it is helpful to realize that he was not consistent with all of his own premises; none of us are.

What I mean by that is that Calvin's covenant theology should have been enough to teach him about the abiding continuity of the Law of God in its moral and civil teaching. Thus, the Puritans helped (in my opinion) to shore up what was loose in Calvin's thinking, and correct some of his inconsistencies, even as the Reformers did the same thing for Augustine, Bernard and Anselm.

In sum, I would say that Calvin's thoughts about the sabbath can't be consistently argued for in a scheme of thought which believes that all commandments stand unless abrogated. I believe this to be the major contribution of the Puritans and those that followed them.

Cheers,

Adam

I guess it could have been a civil or ceremonial law. I guess the notion is that if it was one of those it either pertained to the formation of the nation of Israel or pointed to Christ and therefore would not be necessary in either case. But if it was given to Adam prior to falling, as sort of a mandate, then it would not be fulfilled by anything. It would be like saying that marriage or labor could be fulfilled. If it has an eschatological aspect then it is still pointing to the fulfillment after the Second Coming.

If Vos is right in that it has an eschatological aspect and was given to Adam prior to falling, what does that say about the plan of God and the Fall.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

In sum, I would say that Calvin's thoughts about the sabbath can't be consistently argued for in a scheme of thought which believes that all commandments stand unless abrogated. I believe this to be the major contribution of the Puritans and those that followed them.

Calvin held that the command was abrogated, and presented scripture readings establishing the same. I'm sure he did not see his position as inconsistent in this manner.

"...Calvin's covenant theology..."

What was Calvin's covenant theology?

In this connection, this pamphlet is informative:

Remembering the Lord's Day

This is all I have time to do; first two pages of Woody Lauer's article referenced above.

Originally Posted by JM

"...Calvin's covenant theology..."

What was Calvin's covenant theology?

Originally Posted by Dearly Bought

Originally Posted by JM

"...Calvin's covenant theology..."

What was Calvin's covenant theology?

Topic for another thread. I understand it wasn't developed thoroughly. He did mention some Prelapsarian Covenantal understanding. And of course he did hold to a Covenant of Grace.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss Calvin's CT. Thanks.

Here's an excerpt from Calvin's commentary on Mark 2:27:

Those who think that Christ was here abrogating the Sabbath for good are, as I think, mistaken. He is simply teaching its proper use. For although He had asserted just before that He was Lord of the Sabbath the full time of its abrogation was not yet come, for the veil of the Temple had not yet been rent.

I'm not an expert on Calvin, but from this excerpt he seems to imply that the ceremonial aspects of keeping the Sabbath were abrogated at Christ's death, which is consistent with the passages that Rich posted.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Here's an excerpt from Calvin's commentary on Mark 2:27:

Those who think that Christ was here abrogating the Sabbath for good are, as I think, mistaken. He is simply teaching its proper use. For although He had asserted just before that He was Lord of the Sabbath the full time of its abrogation was not yet come, for the veil of the Temple had not yet been rent.

I'm not an expert on Calvin, but from this excerpt he seems to imply that the ceremonial aspects of keeping the Sabbath were abrogated at Christ's death, which is consistent with the passages that Rich posted.

Heb 9:16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
Heb 9:17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
...
Heb 8:5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain."
Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
...
Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Calvin held that the 4th commandment was wholly ceremonial, and was therefore fulfilled and abrogated in Christ. There is an editorial note in the Institutes in this regard that gives indication that Calvin may have been reacting pretty strongly against what he took to be Judaistic thinking in the church of his day, and so, unlike Ursinus after him, he would not even allow for a fulfilled ceremonial aspect while yet acknowledging some continuing moral force. It's probably in the quote Rich posted from the institutes, but he accuses those theologians who would hold to a dual aspect of the 4th commandment as being sophists who replace with their right hand what they took away with their left, or something along those lines.

It's pretty clear in reading Calvin that his view differs from the later WCF. In light of his statements in the Institutes, I believe he would have accused the WCF as being a Judaizing document at that point. I think that Calvin may have gone overboard with his statements, but do believe, along with reformers such as Ursinus, that there is an abrogated ceremonial element to the commandment, and so do not think that describing our worship on the Lord's Day as being something strictly bound to Sunday in the manner of the "Christian Sabbath" to be wholly felicitous language. I sometimes wonder if the development of a strict sabbatarian view of the Lord's day was not in some way responsible for a curtailment of much of the earlier practices of weekday preaching and services as was seen in Geneva during the Reformation. It seems that if a binding necessity is attached to one day, such as Sunday, it may weaken enthusiasm for preaching and services throughout other days of the week. It would be great to see something like that occur in our own day, but I think that our current situation has less to do with a sabbatarian view that may hinder the appreciation of weekday services, as much as the fact that our paganized culture doesn't care enough even to show up on Sunday, much less so on any other day of the week.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Calvin held that the 4th commandment was wholly ceremonial, and was therefore fulfilled and abrogated in Christ. There is an editorial note in the Institutes in this regard that gives indication that Calvin may have been reacting pretty strongly against what he took to be Judaistic thinking in the church of his day, and so, unlike Ursinus after him, he would not even allow for a fulfilled ceremonial aspect while yet acknowledging some continuing moral force. It's probably in the quote Rich posted from the institutes, but he accuses those theologians who would hold to a dual aspect of the 4th commandment as being sophists who replace with their right hand what they took away with their left, or something along those lines.

It's pretty clear in reading Calvin that his view differs from the later WCF. In light of his statements in the Institutes, I believe he would have accused the WCF as being a Judaizing document at that point. I think that Calvin may have gone overboard with his statements, but do believe, along with reformers such as Ursinus, that there is an abrogated ceremonial element to the commandment, and so do not think that describing our worship on the Lord's Day as being something strictly bound to Sunday in the manner of the "Christian Sabbath" to be wholly felicitous language. I sometimes wonder if the development of a strict sabbatarian view of the Lord's day was not in some way responsible for a curtailment of much of the earlier practices of weekday preaching and services as was seen in Geneva during the Reformation. It seems that if a binding necessity is attached to one day, such as Sunday, it may weaken enthusiasm for preaching and services throughout other days of the week. It would be great to see something like that occur in our own day, but I think that our current situation has less to do with a sabbatarian view that may hinder the appreciation of weekday services, as much as the fact that our paganized culture doesn't care enough even to show up on Sunday, much less so on any other day of the week.

Thanks for the clarification. It's pretty obvious that, in the Institutes, he is reacting against Rome and their form of Sabbath observance but I wonder sometimes how Calvin would have reacted to later developments.

I've noticed that, on this board, it is always those that follow the English Puritans that are arguing for strict Christian Sabbath while the Dutch Reformed are usually either ambivalent or silent in the matter. I am not studied enough in the various streams to tell whether my suspicion that Presbyterians have a much stricter tradition than others bears out. I do find it interesting, though, that folks like J.I. Packer really love the Puritans but take certain elements of their development while they leave others.

I find it difficult to contrast Calvin and Puritanism for the simple reason that they are arguing two different principles. I agree with Calvin that the holiness of "days" is abrogated. I agree with Puritanism that the morality of sanctifying one whole day in seven to the Lord is binding. Why should the two views be brought into competition? The first day of the week is a positive commandment. Calvin held that the church positively enacted it; the Puritans maintained that the Head of the church enacted it, but by a process which included the church. Again, I find it difficult to contrast the two, since the later tradition is saying more than Calvin without contradicting him.

You don't see a contradiction between one party that views the 4th Commandment as a perpetual moral law and one that does not?

I'm not trying to make mountains out of molehills but it seems a bit dismissive of the difference to ignore where the views diverge. I don't believe Puritans have to enlist Calvin to their side if they believe they are on firmer Scriptural ground but I merely want to explore where some of the historical tributaries that might have developed have led.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

You don't see a contradiction between one party that views the 4th Commandment as a perpetual moral law and one that does not?

Reading section 1 on one's way to sections 28ff instills the principle that "the public worship of God once prescribed is still in force." Any reading of Calvin's treatment of the fourth commandment which empties the commandment of its binding force cannot be regarded as honouring his own fundamental principle. Section 28 announces what is the binding force of the fourth commandment. 1. Spiritual rest. 2. A stated day for assembling. 3. Physical rest for those under authority. The subsequent exposition maintains this threefold application under the New Testament.

Any reading of Calvin's treatment of the fourth commandment which empties the commandment of its binding force cannot be regarded as honouring his own fundamental principle.

The public worship of God was performed with the blood of bulls and goats as well, yet we do not abandon the RPW when we assert, along with the author of Hebrews, the obsolescence of animal sacrifice. I think that like Adam above, you are ungenerous to Calvin not to recognize his use of scripture that (at least in his opinion) unambiguously abrogates the ceremony of Sabbath observance for Christians.

Here is an expansion of the verses Calvin felt were determinate in this matter:

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

- Questions of food and drink -- God revealed to Peter that what had been considered unclean was now made clean. Hebrews asserts that the Old Covenant dealt with food and drink and various washings, rites and ceremonial observances merely affecting the body. Pork is now in. You may now eat a raven or a snake if you want to, although Calvin might not have recommended it.

- Festival -- We are no longer obligated to observe the Old Covenant festivals, or to gather in physical Jerusalem.

- New moon -- The calendar God set up in the Torah was lunar, thus it was actually a matter of obedience to God in times past to be aware of the occurrence of the new moon.

- Sabbath -- The most common Sabbath, of course, was the observance every Saturday. But there were other ceremonies called Sabbaths also -- Yom Kippur, the leaving of land as fallow for a full year, etc. I presume Calvin would have considered any of the above to be an appropriate understanding of this verse.

Note: It seems clear that Paul is not here referencing the superstitious traditions of men (as a few verses later), because: (a) each item he presents is backed by legitimate commands from the Torah, and (b) he says they are a "shadow of things to come", which would be an exceedingly strange thing to say about man's idolatrous innovations.

Gal 4:10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
Gal 4:11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Does the above apply to the Sabbath? Calvin thought so.

Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else?s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Here the apostle, who had the authority to be forceful, is instead gentle with the flock entrusted to his care, and surely serves as an example for elders today. Clearly, Paul envisioned that we'd have a situation wherein some Christians would see one day as "more sacred" than another, and advocated brotherly restraint and non-condemnation of one another in case of disagreements. If this passage doesn't apply today to Christians who observe a modern Sabbath versus Christians who don't categorize the Lord's Day that way, I would be interested to hear why.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Any reading of Calvin's treatment of the fourth commandment which empties the commandment of its binding force cannot be regarded as honouring his own fundamental principle.

The public worship of God was performed with the blood of bulls and goats as well, yet we do not abandon the RPW when we assert, along with the author of Hebrews, the obsolescence of animal sacrifice. I think that like Adam above, you are ungenerous to Calvin not to recognize his use of scripture that (at least in his opinion) unambiguously abrogates the ceremony of Sabbath observance for Christians.

Calvin is speaking in the context of the ten commandments, not the law of ceremonies.

I have stated unequivocally that I agree with him that the ceremonial Sabbath is abrogated.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Calvin is speaking in the context of the ten commandments, not the law of ceremonies.

I have stated unequivocally that I agree with him that the ceremonial Sabbath is abrogated.

In other words (just to understand you here), you assert that the Sabbaths regarding fallow land or Yom Kippur are obsolete, but the fourth commandment Sabbath is not? Or do you view (part of?) the fourth commandment Sabbath as ceremonial as well?

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

In other words (just to understand you here), you assert that the Sabbaths regarding fallow land or Yom Kippur are obsolete, but the fourth commandment Sabbath is not? Or do you view (part of?) the fourth commandment Sabbath as ceremonial as well?

I haven't asserted anything with regard to my view of the Sabbath; I have only been commenting on Calvin's view. In historical theology one must be competent to distinguish one's own beliefs from the historical figure who is being examined.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I've noticed that, on this board, it is always those that follow the English Puritans that are arguing for strict Christian Sabbath while the Dutch Reformed are usually either ambivalent or silent in the matter. I am not studied enough in the various streams to tell whether my suspicion that Presbyterians have a much stricter tradition than others bears out. I do find it interesting, though, that folks like J.I. Packer really love the Puritans but take certain elements of their development while they leave others.

I, for one, consider myself a follower of the English, Dutch, Scottish and Irish Puritans when it comes to Fourth Commandment. The Dutch Puritans were known as the Nadere Reformatie, and their strict view of the Fourth Commandment is indistinguishable from the English Puritans, both with respect to the Christian Sabbath, and its prohibition against recreation, for example, and with respect to opposition to man-made holy days such as Christmas, which is a Fourth Commandment issue. The Dutch Reformed as a group include the Nadere Reformatie (examples include Gisbertus Voetius, Jacobus Koelman, Willem Teellinck and Wilhelmas a'Brakel, and the 1574 Provincial Synod of Dordrecht); the Cocceians (followers of Johannes Cocceius), who believed the Sabbath was Jewish and no longer binding on Christians; and those whose views are reflected in the Heidelberg Catechism and the statement of the 1619 Synod of Dort on the Fourth Commandment, which also allowed for the observance of man-made holy days in its Church Order. Thus, there is a range of views among the Dutch Reformed historically, which ought to be kept in mind when comparing the Dutch Reformed and English Puritan traditions. For some interaction on these themes, see the threads below:

Continental View of the Sabbath
Continental reformed vs. Puritan reformed

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I haven't asserted anything with regard to my view of the Sabbath; I have only been commenting on Calvin's view. In historical theology one must be competent to distinguish one's own beliefs from the historical figure who is being examined.

OK. Didn't mean to be argumentative, I was just asking out of curiosity, after you said:

I have stated unequivocally that I agree with him that the ceremonial Sabbath is abrogated.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I haven't asserted anything with regard to my view of the Sabbath; I have only been commenting on Calvin's view. In historical theology one must be competent to distinguish one's own beliefs from the historical figure who is being examined.

OK. Didn't mean to be argumentative, I was just asking out of curiosity, after you said:

I have stated unequivocally that I agree with him that the ceremonial Sabbath is abrogated.

That of course was after you had charged me with being "ungenerous to Calvin."

Here is an excerpt from the Deuteronomy Sermons (I transcribed on another occasion) preached in the summer of 1555:

“Now from the foregoing we see what attitude68 we hold all Christianity and the service of God. For what was given to us in order to help us approach God, we use as an occasion for alienating ourselves from him even more. And as a result we are led astray. We must recover it all. Is not such a diabolical malice in men? Would to God that we had to look hard for examples and that they were more rare. But as everything is profaned, we see that the majority hardly care about the usage of this day which has been instituted in order that we might withdraw from all earthly anxieties, from all business affairs, to the end that we might surrender everything to God.

“Moreover, let us realize that it is not only for coming to the sermon that the day of Sunday is instituted, but that in order that we might devote all the rest of the time to praising God. Indeed! For although he nurtures us every day, nevertheless we do not sufficiently meditate on the favors he bestows on us in order to magnify them…. But when Sunday is spent not only in pastimes full of vanity, but in things which are entirely contrary to God, it seems that one has not at all celebrated Sunday [and] that God has been offended in many ways. Thus when people profane in the manner the holy order69 which God instituted to lead us to himself, why should they be astonished if all the rest of the week is degraded?”

From “The Fifth Sermon”, which, along with “The Sixth Sermon”, address the 4th commandment. Benjamin W. Farley, transl., John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments (Baker, 1980; paperback reprint 2000)

Calvin's view on the Sabbath

I know this is tedious, but I can't help myself. There's a chapter on the Sabbath, including a discussion of Calvin on the Sabbath relative to other Reformed writers in RRC.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

I know this is tedious, but I can't help myself. There's a chapter on the Sabbath, including a discussion of Calvin on the Sabbath relative to other Reformed writers in RRC.

Just added it to my "books to get list"...it better be good

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

You don't see a contradiction between one party that views the 4th Commandment as a perpetual moral law and one that does not?

Reading section 1 on one's way to sections 28ff instills the principle that "the public worship of God once prescribed is still in force." Any reading of Calvin's treatment of the fourth commandment which empties the commandment of its binding force cannot be regarded as honouring his own fundamental principle. Section 28 announces what is the binding force of the fourth commandment. 1. Spiritual rest. 2. A stated day for assembling. 3. Physical rest for those under authority. The subsequent exposition maintains this threefold application under the New Testament.

But would the Puritans agree with this from Rich's passage?

Why, it may be asked, do we not hold
daily meetings, and thus avoid the distinction of days? Would that we
were privileged to do so! Spiritual wisdom undoubtedly deserves to have
some portion of every day devoted to it. But if, owing to the weakness
of many, daily meetings cannot be held, and charity will not allow us
to exact more of them, why should we not adopt the rule which the will
of God has obviously imposed upon us?

I might be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but wouldn't the Puritans disagree with this on the grounds it is a violation of the RPW?

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

I might be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but wouldn't the Puritans disagree with this on the grounds it is a violation of the RPW?

They maintained that daily meetings are to be held in "the church in the home" -- family worship.