Puritan and New Covenant Baptists: Co-Defenders of the Decalogue | Grace Baptist Church
Calvinistic Baptists are, more and more, identifying themselves as "New Covenant Theologians." What are your thoughts about this article?
Puritan and New Covenant Baptists:
Co-Defenders of the Decalogue
by Martin Rizley
Postscript: Toward a Meeting of the Minds
In recent years, the theological gap between "Puritan" and "New Covenant" Baptists seems to have widened as zealous representatives of each "school," wanting to stress the distinctives of their own theological perspective, have entrenched themselves in polarizing positions that fail to see any truth in the theological emphases of the opposing "camp." In my judgment, both "Puritan" and "New Covenant" Baptists could "tone down" the rhetoric of their polemical writings and enjoy closer fellowship as brethren in the Lord if each group could concede the validity of certain truths being stressed by the other group.
New Covenant Baptists could acknowledge the truth of these propositions:
1) That there is a valid theological distinction to be made between the "moral," "civil," and "ceremonial" aspects of the law, and that such distinctions help us to understand better the different ways in which the Lord Jesus brings to fulfillment the Law of Moses.
2) That the moral aspect of the Law stands out with greatest clarity in the tables of the Decalogue-- as well as in the two "greatest" commandments of the Law-- so that the Decalogue may rightly be described as a "revelation" of God's moral law, even though it is not identical to God's moral law in every way.
3) That Christ, in the New Covenant, establishes the moral aspect of the Law by His own teaching, clarifying the Law's intrinsically spiritual character by emphasizing the internal dimension of obedience to God's commandments. He makes explicit what to some degree was implicit within the Law of Moses itself.
4) That the Sabbath law served secondary functions, in addition to its primary function as a ceremonial "shadow," and that these secondary functions inform our understanding of Christ's law in the present day, even after the Sabbath has been abrogated as to its literal observance. We learn from the Sabbath law something about God's timeless concern for the physical and spiritual refreshment of human beings who, apart from some sort of regular intermission from the usual routine of labor, would be sorely oppressed by their labor and hardly have the time required to give adequate attention to the needs of the soul. We will share in these divine concerns if we are truly walking in the love of Christ, and will reflect that concern in the way we order our lives, both individually and as a community.
5) That there is a legitimate place for teaching and preaching on the Ten Commandments as a tool of evangelism and Christian ethical instruction, since the Ten Words enshrine timeless principles of the natural law and stand as an abiding witness and testimony to the Law of Christ, who reveals perfectly the substance of the moral law contained within the Decalogue.
Puritan Baptists, for their part, could acknowledge the truth of these propositions:
1) That the various parts of the Mosaic Law-- including the two tables-- form an indivisible covenantal unity, so that no part of that Law applies to Christians in an immediate or direct way, but only as ministered to believers by Christ, who is "the only Lawgiver of the New Covenant."
2) That disagreement with the Puritan view of the Lord's Day does not necessarily mean that one is "antinomian" or against the teaching of the Ten Commandments. One may hold to a non-sabbatarian position (as did Calvin and Luther), and still believe in the importance of teaching the moral norms contained in the Decalogue and the principles of regular rest and worship revealed in the fourth commandment.
3) That many non-sabbatarians agree that the Decalogue applies to Christians in moral substance, although they do not believe that it can be applied in all respects to Christians as it applied to the Jews, who were bound to keep literally everything that was written on the tablets of stone. Many non-sabbatarians speak of the Ten Commandments as "abrogated" for the same reason that Luther said that the Decalogue "does not pertain to us"-- because they recognize that a strict identification of the moral law with the Decalogue leads logically to seventh day sabbatarianism and fails to stress adequately the newness of the new covenant.
Issues for Further Discussion
Does NCT remove all Scriptural grounds for Christians keeping a weekly day of worship and refreshment?
Just because one does not believe that there are scriptural grounds for calling Sunday the "Christian Sabbath" or viewing it as a day of obligatory abstention from all servile labor-- as the seventh day was for the Jews-- that does not mean that one opposes the observance of a weekly day of rest on the grounds that such an observance could only stem from superstition or from legalistic bondage to the Old Covenant. On the contrary, many who hold to a non-sabbatarian view of Sunday believe in the wisdom of keeping one day a week as a day of "intermission" from the regular routine of labor on grounds other than those set forth by Sunday sabbatarians.
Many of those who believe that the Sabbath has been abrogated with respect to its literal observance, since it was a ceremonial law that foreshadowed the eschatological rest into which believers enter through faith, recognize that the observance of the Sabbath in ancient Israel rendered certain physical and spiritual benefits to the Jews of which all men stand in need. Many non-sabbatarians freely acknowledge that the Sabbath served a humanitarian purpose and a religious purpose, in addition to its primarily theological purpose, and that these secondary purposes of the Sabbath shed light on the content of the natural law and thereby inform our walk as those called to fulfill the "Law of Christ" through loving God and neighbor.
The primary purpose of the Sabbath was theological. It pointed forward to the "age of fulfillment" which would dawn in the first coming of Christ, in which God's people would begin to enjoy the eschatological rest which is the goal of God's redemption. The main concern of the Sabbath institution was not with making life easier for man in the present (although it did that), but with teaching God's people about the age to come, which God had prepared for them. In the age to come, man would be delivered finally from every form of arduous labor that was introduced into the human experience by sin. That deliverance begins with redemption from the unremitting, "servile" labor of sin itself, which unregenerate men perform constantly as "slaves of sin" under the lash of "Pharaoh Satan." Once we are brought out from under the dominion of sin and Satan, we must persevere in our spiritual rest from sin until that rest is brought to consummation in the state of glorification. Until then, our "resting" from sin engages us in constant warfare against the world, the flesh, and the devil, which oppose the work of God's Spirit in us. Only in glory will this constant warfare against our spiritual enemies finally cease. Then we shall be granted by God perfect rest from all our enemies in the land which He has promised us.
Thus, redemptive rest, begun in this life, is consummated in the next life. Christ is the Giver of Rest, and for that reason Paul calls Israel's sabbaths a "shadow" of things to come, cast by the "substance"-- not heaven itself, but Christ, who grants us spiritual rest in the present and will bring us finally into the consummate rest of heaven. Because Christ is the "substance" of Israel's sabbaths, these are all "fulfilled" in Him at His first advent, since shadows necessarily disperse once the substance comes into view. That is why the obligatory outward sabbaths imposed by the Law-- including the weekly Sabbath-- are not imposed in the NT on Christians who have entered into the new age. Since they are already laying hold of the true rest to which those outward sabbaths pointed, that are not obliged to cling any more to shadows.
At the same time, however, it can be clearly demonstrated from Scripture that the weekly Sabbath observance fulfilled other functions in Israel beyond its obvious theological function as a ceremonial sign. Its observance brought physical and spiritual blessing to the people by providing them with a regularly recurring day of "refreshment" on which their physical strength could be renewed and on which they were free to attend without distraction to the needs of their souls by gathering for public worship and teaching their children the Law of the Lord. They could not do these things as long as they remained in Egypt under the crushing yoke of Pharaoh. The Sabbath day was therefore a merciful provision of God, a day of great blessing because of the physical refreshment it brought to man and beast, and because of the spiritual benefit that came from separating a day to the public and private worship of God.
In light of the above, it is easy to see why someone who does not regard the Sabbath law as literally binding on the church, because of the fulfillment of its theological purpose in Christ, may still believe in the wisdom of taking a day off each week for physical and spiritual refreshment, in light of the practical benefits which the Sabbath conferred on God's people in the Old Testament. It is not a matter of keeping an express decree concerning the sabbatical observance of Sunday (something about which the New Testament is utterly silent). It is, rather, a matter of discerning in the fourth commandment-- in the light of Jesus' own teaching-- certain abiding principles of equity and righteousness that are in harmony with the spirit of the New Testament, and allowing those principles to shape one's own walk before the Lord.
Why would one choose to rest one day out of seven, rather than one day out of ten, if the Sabbath has been abrogated? Well, if we ourselves have need of the same practical benefits which were conferred on Israel by the Sabbath observance-- namely, regular time for unhindered worship, reflection, and refreshment-- then it would seem a matter of wisdom (rather than legal obligation) to follow a pattern for which there is a biblical precedent, rather than arbitrarily adopting a different pattern of our own invention. If God gave His people in the Old Testament one day in seven for rest, and that day served them well for providing regular refreshment, neither instilling in them a spirit of laziness, nor overtaxing them with too infrequent rest, it makes sense that the same pattern of regular intermission would serve us ideally, as well. At the same time, because of the silence of the New Testament regarding sabbatarian decrees, we must not become judges of one another in this matter of day observance. God does not command strict abstention from all servile labor on any day of the week under the New Covenant, since the reality foreshadowed by such strict abstention from labor has come in Christ.
In conclusion, I fully support, as a non-sabbatarian, the practice of using the Lord's Day for purposes of worship and refreshment because such a practice, though not mandated by express apostolic decree, is certainly in keeping with biblically revealed principles of righteousness. Such a practice encourages a disciplined and orderly lifestyle, and thus, promotes fulfillment of the apostolic admonition to do all things "decently and in order."
Additionally, the use of the Lord's Day for public worship is a practice supported by the example of the apostolic churches. The evidence of Scripture suggests that the practice of coming together on the first day of the week for the observance of the Lord's Supper, for listening to preaching and teaching, and for the giving of offerings, was common and widespread (or even universal) among the churches founded by the apostles.
Did Christ Bring in a Higher Law?
Did Christ bring in a higher law? If so, in what sense is His law "higher"? Does the term "higher law" suggest that Christ raised the standard of morality from a merely external standard that concerns outward actions only to an internal standard that touches attitudes as well as actions? What does the evidence of the Law itself indicate-- was God concerned only with the outward actions of His people under the Old Covenant, or also with their heart attitudes? (Clearly, God was concerned with their heart attitudes; He criticized the Jews for failing to recognize that the demands of a spiritual Lawgiver are necessarily spiritual in nature.) Christ did not bring in a "higher law," therefore, in the sense of substituting a spiritual standard of righteousness for a merely external standard. God's standard of righteousness has always been spiritual.
Is there any sense, therefore, in which Christ can be said to have brought in a "higher law"? Has he "raised" the standard of righteousness revealed in the Law from what it was previously under Moses?
A careful study of the New Testament reveals that Christ did two things with the Law of God:
1) First, Christ clarified the Law's spiritual standard, by making explicit the positive spiritual duties implied by Law's negative prohibitions. For example, Jesus pointed out that a man who does not commit the outward act of adultery is still guilty of violating the seventh commandment in spirit, if he looks on a woman to lust after her. The man who refrains from the outward act of murder is still guilty of breaking the sixth commandment in spirit, if he harbors unrighteous anger toward his neighbor. Because such internal violations of the Law went unpunished by the civil authorities in ancient Israel-- since the civil penalties only touched outward violations of the Law-- many concluded that God was unconcerned with the attitudes of the heart and mind, and that His Law was given for the sole purpose of governing the "outer man." Christ shows that such an understanding of the Law is sorely mistaken, for the central duty of God's Law has always been to love God with all one's heart, soul, and strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself. It is impossible to love one's neighbor and harbor evil attitudes toward one's neighbor. The tenth commandment, in particular, reveals God's concern with the attitudes of the heart. The commandments of a spiritual Lawgiver are always spiritual in their intent.
Jesus did not make lust and unrighteous anger sinful for the first time by raising a previously carnal standard to a spiritual level. Rather, He clarified the fact that God's Law judges, not only the outward actions, but the inner attitudes of the heart, as well. Lust and unrighteous anger have always constituted internal violations of the law of God, even if such violations went unpunished by the civil authorities in the Jewish theocracy.
Therefore, I agree with John MacArthur when he writes that Jesus "came to strip the rabbinic barnacles off the law of God to make it as pure as it was when God gave it by lifting it back to where it belonged. God had always been concerned with attitudes-- that wasn't anything new. It was just that the people of Israel had lowered the standard and consequently needed to be reminded of that. They were justifying themselves by what they didn't do, while their hearts were full of murder, lust, lies, hate, and anger. To appear righteous, they were forced to lower the standards to accommodate their sin. This is why Jesus lifted it right back where it belonged, emphasizing that thoughts are just as important as deeds."
2) At the same time, however, Christ definitely raised the Law's social standard, by establishing a stricter standard of socially tolerated behavior within the community of God's people. Because the Law of the Old Covenant was given to a largely unregenerate community and was designed to govern their life as an earthly nation, God "tolerated" certain behaviors within that community which are not to be tolerated within the New Covenant community. Through certain "laws of toleration," God regulated certain sinful behaviors, in light of the hardness of peoples' hearts, without indicating His approval of those behaviors. For example, under Moses, a man could divorce his wife for trivial reasons and still remain a member in good standing of the covenant community. He could put away his wife for burning the toast and suffer no civil penalty as an adulterer, even though his action constituted a violation of the seventh commandment on a spiritual level. The fact that unrighteous divorce went unpunished by the civil laws of Israel did not mean that God approved of such behavior as "righteous." In a similar manner, the fact that God tolerated the practice of polygamy by regulating that practice (Exodus 21:10, Deut. 21:15-17), did not mean that He approved of polygamy as an inherently righteous way of life.
Because the New Covenant community is a wholly regenerate community, God expects something more of His people now, in terms of the social standards of the community, than He expected of fleshly Israel. Therefore, Christ raises the standard of what will be socially tolerated within the New Covenant community. If a professing Christian divorces his wife for burning the toast, he should be put out of the church as an unbeliever. The standard of socially tolerated behavior has been raised, but the spiritual demands of the law have been clarified. God's positive standard of righteousness is always the same-- nothing less than loving Him with all of one's heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving one's neighbor as oneself. Such love, in every age and among every people, moves a person to abstain, not merely from ungodly actions, but from ungodly attitudes. In every age, a person moved by love will not only abstain from the outward act of adultery, but from "heart adultery." Job understood that in the Old Testament (Job 31:1); so did David (Psalm 51:6); so the issue of heart purity is nothing new. In the Old Testament, as well as in the New, true love pursues nothing less than righteousness of heart.
In sum, Christ elevates the social standard of the Law (by raising the standard of socially tolerated behavior within the covenant community), but He clarifies the spiritual standard of the Law. By elevating the social standard, we mean simply that the grounds for church discipline under the New Covenant are much stricter than were the grounds for being punished by the civil authorities under the Old Covenant. Under Moses, people were not punished by the civil authorities for unkind attitudes toward one another-- for gossip or harsh words or unwillingness to reconcile with each other-- however, such offenses are matters for church discipline, and ultimately, for excommunication, under the New Covenant. God tolerated acts of unrighteousness, therefore, under the Mosaic administration, by not imposing a civil penalty for those acts, which are not to be tolerated with the New Covenant community.
How does Calvins's view of the Law shed light on the current controversy between "Puritan" and "New Covenant" Baptist?
Calvin's teaching on the Law in the Institutes sheds light on the current debate between "Puritan" and "New Covenant" Baptists, because one finds the theological concerns of both groups reflected in various statements that Calvin makes about the Decalogue and the Sabbath.
On the one hand, Calvin strongly insists on the perpetuity of the moral law (by which he means the Ten Commandments) as a rule of life for believers that teaches, admonishes, rebukes, and corrects them. For example, in chapter 7 of Book 2, paragraph 15, Calvin writes,"The (Moral) Law has lost none of its authority, but must always receive from us the same respect and obedience." But he goes on in paragraph 16 of the same chapter to insist that the ceremonies of the Law have been abrogated "not in effect but in use only." He explains that "if the use of them had not ceased, it would, in the present day, be impossible to understand for what purpose they were instituted. Accordingly, Paul, in order to prove that the observance of them was not only superfluous, but pernicious also, says that they "are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:17).
Calvin quotes Colossians 2:17 to prove that the use of the Jewish ceremonies has been discontinued by Christ's coming; later in his exposition of the fourth commandment, he clearly indicates that the reference to "sabbaths" in this verse refers to the weekly Sabbath (see Book 2, chapter 8, paragraphs 31 and 33). If the reference to sabbaths in Colossians 2:16 & 17 refers to the weekly Sabbath, then that means that for Calvin, the weekly Sabbath is among the Jewish ceremonies whose use has been discontinued by the first advent of Christ.
This position is crystallized in his exposition of the fourth commandment. Although Calvin exposits the fourth commandment in a chapter entitled "Exposition of the Moral Law," it is clear that, for Calvin, the fourth commandment cannot be described as a purely moral law, because it contains what he calls "the external observance of a day which was abolished with the other types on the advent of Christ." To dispel all doubt concerning whether the fourth commandment contained a ceremonial duty that was abrogated upon the first advent of Christ, Calvin makes the following statement: "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 the emblems banish; the body, at the sight of which the shadows disappear. He, I say, is the true completion of the Sabbath" (paragraph 31). He then goes on to observe certain abiding principles of equity revealed in this law, which remain valid, after the duty to keep the seventh day itself has been abrogated: "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 laborers relaxation from labor. It cannot be doubted that the Lord provided for both in the commandment of the Sabbath." These applications of the Sabbath law to Christian living do not stem from any ongoing obligation to keep the seventh day, or any day, as a fixed, obligatory Sabbath. They stem, rather, from a "common sense" recognition that the Sabbath day served a humanitarian and religious purpose, in addition to its primarily ceremonial purpose, which we cannot sensibly ignore. The fact that the Jews met regularly on the Sabbath to worship God corporately, and the fact that they gave refreshment to their laborers on this day clearly flowed out of the fundamental moral duty to love God and neighbor. Who will willingly neglect public, corporate worship if he loves God? Who will willingly oppress servants with unbroken labor if he loves his neighbor as himself? Calvin simply recognizes that the Sabbath law served other functions beside its most prominent ceremonial function as a promissory sign of eschatological rest. He refuses to impose Sabbath-keeping on Christians, since he recognizes that the promissory sign has been fulfilled in the advent of the One to whom it pointed. But at the same time, he is jealous to guard the moral instruction this law provides us, by highlighting the abiding principles of righteousness exhibited in this commandment. He wants to instruct believers out of the fourth commandment in the duties of righteousness, without imposing a rigid Sabbath observance on them, since there is no evidence in the New Testament that God has transferred the strict sanctions against servile labor associated with the seventh day to another day.
He concludes his teaching with these words: "As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is imparted to us without a figure." It is clear that Calvin viewed the fourth commandment as containing a "shadowy ceremony" that has been fulfilled along with all the ceremonies of the Law. This tells us something about Calvin's view of the Decalogue, which has not always been recognized by those in the Reformed community. Although Calvin called the Decalogue "the Moral law" and insisted on its perpetuity as a rule of righteousness, at the same time, he believed that the typical, ceremonial ordinance imposed on the Jews by the fourth commandment should not be imposed on Christians. That is because the Decalogue represents a "partly shadowy" revelation of God's moral law, not a "shadowless" revelation. The moral truth conveyed by the fourth commandment is conveyed "without a figure" only to Christians who live under the New Covenant, not to Jews who lived under the Old Covenant.
Calvin's teaching at this point anticipates what many who hold to New Covenant Theology believe about the Sabbath and the Decalogue. The moment one admits that there is an abrogated ceremonial observance in the Decalogue, one must also admit that what was written on the tablets of stone does not represent the final or climactic revelation of God's moral law, but a preliminary and preparatory revelation that must be interpreted and applied to Christians only in the light of subsequent revelation that abrogates what is temporary and ceremonial within the earlier revelation. That subsequent revelation comes only through Christ and the teaching of the apostles.
Calvinistic Baptists are, more and more, identifying themselves as "New Covenant Theologians." What are your thoughts about this article?
