Thread: I'm Confused On What Calvin Is Saying About The Sabbath

This is not a thread concerning whether the Sabbath is to be observed or not. I believe it is. I'm just wondering what Calvin had in mind here.

Afterwards, in the Law, a new precept concerning the Sabbath was given, which should be peculiar to the Jews, and but for a season; because it was a legal ceremony shadowing forth a spiritual rest, the truth of which was manifested in Christ. Therefore the Lord the more frequently testifies that he had given, in the Sabbath, a symbol of sanctification to his ancient people. Therefore when we hear that the Sabbath was abrogated by the coming of Christ, we must distinguish between what belongs to the perpetual government of human life, and what properly belongs to ancient figures, the use of which was abolished when the truth was fulfilled. Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live unto themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.

Calvin's Commentary Vol 1 pg 106-107

It could just be my misunderstanding but he seems to be saying that the Sabbath was done away with but that the employment of worship still exists. Is this what you guys think he is saying?

that pretty much sums it up...

goes, I believe, with the statement of 'eternal sabbath' in the HC:

XXXVIII. LORD'S DAY.

Question 103. What doth God require in the fourth commandment?
Answer. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be [a] maintained; and that I, especially on the sabbath, [b] that is, on the day of rest, [c] diligently frequent [d] the church of God, to hear his word, to use the sacraments, [e] publicly to call upon the Lord, and contribute to the relief of the [f] 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 [g] begin in this life the eternal sabbath.
[a]: Deut. 12:19; Tit. 1:5; 1Tim. 3:14,15; 1Cor. 9:11; 2Tim. 2:2; 1Tim. 3:15
[b]: Lev. 23:3
[c]: Acts 2:42,46; 1Cor. 14:19,29,31
[d]: 1Cor. 11:33
[e]: 1Tim. 2:1
[f]: 1Cor. 16:2
[g]: Isa. 66:23

My understanding is that Calvin was not a strict Sabbatarian.

It sounds like Calvin is saying this: We are still required to keep the Sabbath, but it is no longer a figure of spiritual rest.

You might also consult this, concerning Calvin:

Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: Or Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? | Naphtali Press

Only because it may come up.

Originally Posted by Joshua

You might also consult this, concerning Calvin:

Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: Or Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? | Naphtali Press

Only because it may come up.

I'm not asking if Calvin believed in the Sabbath. This is not a thread debating the Sabbath observance so I don't need more of what Calvin said on the subject. I'm wondering what he means by this quote.

Originally Posted by Michael Doyle

My understanding is that Calvin was not a strict Sabbatarian.

I don't know if Calvin's doctrine on the Sabbath is less strict than ours or not, I am very sure that the actual practise of keeping the Sabbath must be much more stricter than we do nowadays.

Understood, Sarah. The post was for all who will read the thread, just in case someone's tempted to bring up the tired old accusation against Calvin.

Afterwards, in the Law, a new precept concerning the Sabbath was given, which should be peculiar to the Jews, and but for a season; because it was a legal ceremony shadowing forth a spiritual rest, the truth of which was manifested in Christ. Therefore the Lord the more frequently testifies that he had given, in the Sabbath, a symbol of sanctification to his ancient people. Therefore when we hear that the Sabbath was abrogated by the coming of Christ, we must distinguish between what belongs to the perpetual government of human life, and what properly belongs to ancient figures, the use of which was abolished when the truth was fulfilled. Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live unto themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.

It's as if he is saying there are two purposes at once in sabbath- one ceremonial, another in the necessity to set aside, cease and worship.

Calvin was not as clear on the Sabbath in his doctrine of it as he could have been, because he did not take enough account of the fact that the Sabbath and the Seven Day week was established before the Fall to be a type of the eternal rest to which Adam and Mankind were destined after the completion of the probation and the creation mandate.

Calvin had a theory that the Sabbath was stricter for the Jews than for us, because total rest on that day was a type for them of the rest from sin and sinful attempts to justify ourselves which the believer enjoys perpetually. Dabney in his Systematics does a good analysis of Calvin's view of the Sabbath, and says that this idea has rather slim biblical backing. It seems that if some Old Covenant verses about lighting fires and cooking are interpreted wrongly, it seems as if the Jewish Sabbath was meant to be stricter. If they're looked at correctly and in the light of our Saviour's words on the Sabbath in all ages, the Sabbath for the Jews was not meant to be stricter than our own.

Fairbairn says that this view of the Sabbath by Calvin and other continental Reformers eventually led to a looser Sabbath on the Continent than in the British Isles.

Calvin and other Continental Reformers, it is clear from their sermons and other writings, were in practice strong Sabbatarians, but their rationale for the Sabbath was weaker than that of the British and the Puritans.

Richard Gaffin has devoted a book to Calvin's view of the Sabbath, which is very instructive:-

Calvin and the Sabbath: The Controversy of applying the Fourth Commandment: Amazon.co.uk: Richard Gaffin: Books

The Sabbath as originally constituted (a day of rest and worship) couldn't have been a type of Man's rest from sin/sinful attempts to justify himself

(a) Because man had no sin

(b) Because God's example of rest from creative work was rest from work as work, and of course God cannot rest from sin.

The Sabbath took on additional meaning to this, when the Jews were delivered from Egypt. See the 10C in Deuteronomy.

Aswell as reminding them of God's rest at creation and of the anticipated eschatalogical rest in Heaven, it reminded them of their redemption from slavery and the anticpated rest in Canaan.

Jesus's rising on the first day of the week and entering into His rest from the work of New Creation (Re-creation) /Redemption picks up these themes. But as the writer to the Hebrews indicates, there remains the keeping of a Sabbath-rest for the people of God, because although Christ's redemption and new creation is here in principle, we haven't yet entered our full eschatalogical rest, where the aspects of work, play, worship and rest will be re-ordered in the best of all possible worlds for Christ and His people.

See Walter Chantry's "Call the Sabbath a Delight" (BoT) for a very good exposition of Hebrews 3 and 4.

There is a real sense in which as believers, we do rest from sin and sinful attempts to justify ourselves everyday. And believers in the OT also did.

But that doesn't eliminate the need for a Day completely devoted to entering into and enjoying the rest that Christ has already entered for us, as the Jews completely devoted a Day to entering into the rest which God had entered into after Creation and the rest which they enjoyed because God had redeemed them from slavery.

Christ had no sins of His own to rest from on that Resurrection Lord's Day, but from carrying our own. Now that He has dealt with and put off the burden of carrying our sin, we enjoy a wonderful rest from sin. but we still need the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for Man.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.

Calvin's Commentary Vol 1 pg 106-107

It could just be my misunderstanding but he seems to be saying that the Sabbath was done away with but that the employment of worship still exists. Is this what you guys think he is saying?

He says "it is right that it should continue to the end of the world" -- it referring to the Sabbath. Hence the Sabbath continues. All Sabbatarians, even the strictest, recognise elements of discontinuity in the Jewish Sabbath.

It seems to indicate he counts the rest aspect of the Sabbath as fulfilled, but the day of worship aspect as binding. Either way, he rested on the day (as the thread Mr. Hicks linked above points out), but the distinction in views is still there. In my studies, I have seen little difference between his view of the Sabbath and that of the Augsburg Confession.

I am interested in seeing other comments on his meaning, though.

-----Added 10/5/2009 at 09:33:45 EST-----

Hmm...the first sentence in your quote, Sarah, indicates that he is saying that the Mosaic Covenant added elements to the Sabbath, which in Calvin's view were temporal. He seems to be making the point that those added things, in his view, are fulfilled, while the day as instituted from creation continues. In other words, he seems to be saying that even though (in his view) the details added under the mosaic covenant (not in the decalogue, but in the applications later) are fulfilled, the day itself has reverted to its original form, although it has also been sanctified by Christ's resurrection.

Thoughts anyone?

It is really unwise to pit Calvin against himself on this issue. One should always seek to harmonize his statements; and if his view seemed actually to change over time, one should look for corroborating indications of this. Otherwise, his comments should be narrowly construed in whichever context and unto whichever point he is making.

Please read Calvin expositing Scripture directly, the 4th commandment:
Calvin on the 4th Commandment
Calvin's view on the Sabbath

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

It is really unwise to pit Calvin against himself on this issue. One should always seek to harmonize his statements; and if his view seemed actually to change over time, one should look for corroborating indications of this. Otherwise, his comments should be narrowly construed in whichever context and unto whichever point he is making.

Please read Calvin expositing Scripture directly, the 4th commandment:
Calvin on the 4th Commandment
Calvin's view on the Sabbath

Reading the first sentence of the quote, does it seem to you fair to say that Calvin believed the Mosaic Covenant added something to the original creation day? I get that impression from the first sentence especially, but I want to make sure that is not a faulty interpretation.

-----Added 10/5/2009 at 09:46:49 EST-----

The basis of that interpretation is that Calvin regards the Sabbath as already existing, yet he mentions a new precept for the Jews in the quote in the OP. The new precept cannot be the Sabbath itself, which already existed, so it seems to be a new precept regarding how it is to be observed. What does everyone think?

One thing that was added to the Sinaitic Sabbath was that for the Jews, as well as resting in God as Creator as Adam did and being invited to enjoy and enter into His rest with Him in a special way on the Seventh Day in anticipation of the eschatalogical kingdom, the Jews rested in God as their redeemer from Pharaoh (Satan), Egypt (the world that lies in the Wicked One) and sin (slavery). On their way to the type of the eschatalogical kingdom, they were invited to enjoy and enter into God's rest from His work of redeeming them on the Seventh Day. There were also special ceremonials for the Sabbath that have fallen away.

Fairbairn, James Alting (Jacobus Altingius) and Thomas Shepard, to name some, did not believe that the Jewish/Sinaitic Sabbath was intended to be any stricter than Adam's Sabbath, the Patriarchal Sabbath or the Christian Sabbath (Lord's Day). The Pharisees of course messed it up.

See the latter posts in this thread:-

Is cooking/preparing food on the Sabbath Day an issue or non-issue?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.

Calvin's Commentary Vol 1 pg 106-107

It could just be my misunderstanding but he seems to be saying that the Sabbath was done away with but that the employment of worship still exists. Is this what you guys think he is saying?

He says "it is right that it should continue to the end of the world" -- it referring to the Sabbath. Hence the Sabbath continues. All Sabbatarians, even the strictest, recognise elements of discontinuity in the Jewish Sabbath.

I'm glad you pick up on this sentence bc it's the one that seems odd in its Grammatical construction. According to today's Grammatical construction, this is how this sentence looks:

So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season;

what is for a season? well it can't be "a figure of rest" bc he in the sentence before stated that "a figure of rest" was the mortification of the flesh (once the flesh is completely mortified in our glorious state we have achieved spiritual rest which will last forever thus it can't be for a season) which means he is stating that the Sabbath was for a season.

but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.

what was commanded from the beginning? Both the Sabbath and worship was commanded by God from the beginning. How do we know for sure that "it" is the Sabbath or if "it" is worship? Grammatically speaking the word "but" introduces a new exclusive thought (as opposed to "and" introducing a new inclusive thought) which shows that He is picking up on another idea that of "worship". So is he saying that we should worship until the end of the world, which I don't think he means since we all know that we will be worshipping God forever, or is he saying that we should observe the Sabbath until the end of the world, which is more in line with what Sabbatarians believe? Of course worshipping God is part of what we do on the Sabbath but only one part. So in order to exclude worship from being "it" one would have to acknowledge that worshipping God will be preformed longer than "to the end of the world". But we have the problem with him saying the Sabbath is only for a season in his first statement. Here is where I think the key lies. If we define season as being "to the end of the world", then the two sentences are harmonious in that the Sabbath is for a season (that defined as being to the end of the world), and that it should be observed "to the end of the world" and the new "exclusive" thought of worshipping God is just part of the definition of the Sabbath. How does that strike you? I think many ppl think he defines "season" as the time from the Garden to the coming of Christ. But it clearly can't be that since he states "to the end of the world" and we've excluded worship being "to the end of the world"

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

One thing that was added to the Sinaitic Sabbath was that for the Jews, as well as resting in God as Creator as Adam did and being invited to enjoy and enter into His rest with Him in a special way on the Seventh Day in anticipation of the eschatalogical kingdom, the Jews rested in God as their redeemer from Pharaoh (Satan), Egypt (the world that lies in the Wicked One) and sin (slavery). On their way to the type of the eschatalogical kingdom, they were invited to enjoy and enter into God's rest from His work of redeeming them on the Seventh Day. There were also special ceremonials for the Sabbath that have fallen away.

Fairbairn, James Alting (Jacobus Altingius) and Thomas Shepard, to name some, did not believe that the Jewish/Sinaitic Sabbath was intended to be any stricter than Adam's Sabbath, the Patriarchal Sabbath or the Christian Sabbath (Lord's Day). The Pharisees of course messed it up.

See the latter posts in this thread:-

Is cooking/preparing food on the Sabbath Day an issue or non-issue?

I think this is exactly what Calvin's talking about being fulfilled - the Sinaitic additions to the day.

God's work of New Creation (Re-creation) and Redemption in Christ is far greater and more glorious than His work of creating the Old Creation and redeeming the Israelites from Egypt, so it is appropriate that the day changes to reflect the day on which Christ rested from this work, Resurrection "Sunday".

So then, there remains the keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God [in the New Covenant as in the Old], for He [Christ] that is entered into His rest, He also has ceased from His own works, as God did from his. (Hebrews 4:9-10)

Once we become believers, we rest in Christ as our Re-creator and Redeemer every day. We rest from our sins and sinful attempts to justify ourselves every day, because Christ has put off the burden of our sins at Calvary and we are justified by His blood and righteousness, and we are in Christ. But God invites and commands us to enter into and enjoy that rest in a special way each Lord's Day, until we go to Heaven.

The same was true for Adam before he sinned, although he only rested by faith in God as his Creator/Sustainer/Providential Governor and not as his Redeemer.

Before he heard about the flood, Noah, as a believer would have rested in His God every day as Creator/Sustainer/Providential Governor and Saviour-Redeemer and on the Sabbath God invited him to enter and enjoy that rest in a special way.

From the time that Noah was told to build a boat to be saved from judgement and the ungodly world he was in, he rested in His God in this capacity also, and to the extent he observed the Sabbath - and since we are told he was a godly man he must have sought to observe the Sabbath - the Sabbath would have this additional typological meaning to him as an anticipation of the rest he was to enter after the flood.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

what was commanded from the beginning? Both the Sabbath and worship was commanded by God from the beginning. How do we know for sure that "it" is the Sabbath or if "it" is worship?

The relationship of the clauses indicates that the pronoun is referring back to the pronoun and not to the noun.

but inasmuch as it [the Sabbath] was commanded to men from the beginning

that they might employ themselves in the worship of God,

it is right that it [the Sabbath] should continue to the end of the world.

The first clause is conditional, and is only completed by the third clause. The second clause is purely incidental.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

what was commanded from the beginning? Both the Sabbath and worship was commanded by God from the beginning. How do we know for sure that "it" is the Sabbath or if "it" is worship?

The relationship of the clauses indicates that the pronoun is referring back to the pronoun and not to the noun.

but inasmuch as it [the Sabbath] was commanded to men from the beginning

that they might employ themselves in the worship of God,

it is right that it [the Sabbath] should continue to the end of the world.

The first clause is conditional, and is only completed by the third clause. The second clause is purely incidental.

I'm pretty sure this is what I said except that I think I explained it better. Unless, of course you have a problem with what I said? If so please point it out where you think I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

I'm pretty sure this is what I said except that I think I explained it better.

My apologies.