The Sabbath/Lord's Day as a covenant sign

[Brownie]

In the last few weeks, I've seen two or three threads that dealt with the question why we keep the 1st day as the Sabbath (or Lord's Day, but to avoid lengthy typing and possible confusion, I'll refer to both the OT and NT holy day of rest as 'Sabbath') and not the 7th day. This reminded me of my own search, years ago. I accepted the change of the day, based on good and necessary consequence, but it always kept nagging that such an important change wasn't described more clearly.
About two years ago, I came across Eze. 20:12,20 and this also led me to Ex. 31:13:

Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them...And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God. - Eze 20:12,20.

Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. - Ex 31:13.

These texts show that the Sabbath is a sign that God sanctifies us. Under the OT, the most powerful sign that pointed to God was a 'sign of His rest' - His people would rest on the same day as He Himself did after creation. But the light of the NT tells us that we can only be sanctified by the completed work of God the Son, so the change of the day reflects the words of Eze. 20:12.

What does this line of reasoning mean for how we should see the Sabbath? Does this make the Sabbath a sign of God's covenant with us? And if so, does this mean that the morality of the 4th Commandment also encompasses the keeping of God's covenant?

 

[Brownie]

Bump.
Any thoughts?

 

[Sam Jer]

Does this make the Sabbath a sign of God's covenant with us?

I can not see any reason this would be limited to the Mosaic covenant.

 

[jwright82]

I can not see any reason this would be limited to the Mosaic covenant.

Agreed I think it's creational.

 

[Brownie]

I can not see any reason this would be limited to the Mosaic covenant.

It's not . That's why I mentioned in the OP I used the term 'Sabbath' for both the OT and NT holy day of rest. But is it a covenant sign? And if so, what does that mean for the scope of the 4th Commandment?
[automerge]1759770287[/automerge]

Agreed I think it's creational.

True!

 

[Poimen]

A Brakel deals with this in The Christian's Reasonable Service, Volume II, Objection 2. I have cited a portion below but the rest can be read here in English:

page 177

Objection #2: The Sabbath Is Part of the Ceremonial Law
"Moreover also I gave them My sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the
Lord that sanctify them" (Ezek 20:12).

(1) It appears that God, having declared the giving of institutions and judgments—which if a man do, he will live thereby—says subsequently: ―For that purpose I gave them My sabbaths,‖ thereby indicating that the sabbath is of a different nature than the other institutions.
(2) The sabbath is called a sign here, and it is thus a reflection and shadow of Christ. Consequently, the sabbath belongs to the ceremonial law and is presently not a rule of life for us.

Answer: This is contrary to their own proposition, for according to their own exposition they understand the ordinances to be ceremonial laws, and if then the word  (wagam = and moreover) were to indicate that the sabbaths were of a different nature, then the sabbaths would have a moral connotation. However, we shall answer the matter as follows:

 

[EvanF]

Does this make the Sabbath a sign of God's covenant with us? And if so, does this mean that the morality of the 4th Commandment also encompasses the keeping of God's covenant?

Keeping the covenant includes keeping every commandment. So it wouldn't make sense to say that keeping the covenant is specially encompassed in any single commandment of the set, although if I had to assign to one, I would suggest the first.

 

[Brownie]

A Brakel deals with this in The Christian's Reasonable Service, Volume II, Objection 2. I have cited a portion below but the rest can be read here in English:

page 177

Objection #2: The Sabbath Is Part of the Ceremonial Law
"Moreover also I gave them My sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the
Lord that sanctify them" (Ezek 20:12).

(1) It appears that God, having declared the giving of institutions and judgments—which if a man do, he will live thereby—says subsequently: ―For that purpose I gave them My sabbaths,‖ thereby indicating that the sabbath is of a different nature than the other institutions.
(2) The sabbath is called a sign here, and it is thus a reflection and shadow of Christ. Consequently, the sabbath belongs to the ceremonial law and is presently not a rule of life for us.

Answer: This is contrary to their own proposition, for according to their own exposition they understand the ordinances to be ceremonial laws, and if then the word  (wagam = and moreover) were to indicate that the sabbaths were of a different nature, then the sabbaths would have a moral connotation. However, we shall answer the matter as follows:

Thanks for the link. However, please know that I am NOT in any way saying that the Sabbath is ceremonial in nature. It is most definitely moral, or at the very least also moral. This makes discussions about the Sabbath more difficult in my opinion. The fact that the Sabbath is both moral and a sign seems somewhat contradictory. After all, which other moral command is also a sign?
What I'm thinking of, is that keeping the Sabbath is (for lack of a better term) part of the 4th Commandment, just like not murdeing is part of the 6th. Yet, the 6th Commandment encompasses much more, like not hating and actively trying to preserve life. In the same way, I'm wondering if the 4th Commandment also encompasses keeping the covenant. That way the seeming contradiction disappears.
[automerge]1760206223[/automerge]

Keeping the covenant includes keeping every commandment. So it wouldn't make sense to say that keeping the covenant is specially encompassed in any single commandment of the set, although if I had to assign to one, I would suggest the first.

I understand what you're saying, but in that line of reasoning all Commandments fall under the first.
Let me give a very concrete example: baptism. It is a sign of the covenant and it definitely falls under one of the ten. I wouldn't put it under the 1st. You could put it under the 2nd, but is that worship as is meant by the 2nd Commandment? I can't quite put my finger on it, but that feels off to me. Encompassing keeping the covenant under the 4th Commandment gives a more natural place to (in this case) baptism.

 

[Northern Crofter]

...keeping the Sabbath is (for lack of a better term) part of the 4th Commandment,

Correct. The first part is "Six days thou shalt labor." Not working is as sinful as not resting.

Also, there were days other than the 7th day that were set apart as Sabbath days (sometimes it was an 8th day), and some of these are part of the ceremonial law. See places like Leviticus 23: "The tenth also of this seventh month, shall be a day of reconciliation....This shall be unto you a Sabbath of rest, and ye shall humble your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." (vv.27, 32). That specific day would fall on the first, third, or sixth day some years.

The Law (10 words/commandments) is as a whole part of the covenant: "Then Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the ordinances and the laws which I propose to you this day, that ye may learn them, and take heed to observe them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers only, but with us, even with us all here alive this day. The Lord talked with you face to face in the Mount, out of the midst of the fire." (Deuteronomy 5.1-4).

But the Sabbath is peculiar amongst the Law just as Israel was peculiar amongst the nations - it is the only one of the commands expressly tied to historical events ("Remember...") reminding God's people of their peculiar deliverance. I think it is a synedoche - its uniqueness in referencing specific acts makes it fitting to represent the whole of the Law and the covenant made between God and His people.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

You are making an important observation about an essential aspect of our witness. Preached this sermon when going through Exodus years ago and have emphasized it often since in discussions on keeping the Sabbath Day holy.

"Show the Signs of Covenant Life (Why the Sabbath is Revisited after the Tabernacle)": Exegetical Point: God wants His people to keep His priorities: building the Holy Place does no excuse them from keeping His Holy Day holy as the vital sign of their covenant body life in Him. Main Moves to the Homiletical Point (title in quotes above): To see the signs of covenant life, you won't do ordinary work on the Sabbath. When you rest and worship on the Sabbath, you witness your eternal life in Christ.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/119151352494

 

[Sam Jer]

This afternoon, I listened to a sermon by Craig Scott of the FCC's Presbytery of the United States on the change of the Sabbath, and there he made the point that the positive command (the identity of the day in question) can change, and that this aspect of the day is a sign. So it being on the seventh day was ceremonial, and now it has changed to the first/eighth day. The command itself though is moral and thus perpetual. He compares it to the fifth commandment, where the moral part (honour thy other and thy father) is perpetual whereas the positive part (that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee) was changeable.

Here is the sermon in question: The Change of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day (Westminster Presbyterian Church, Sun, February 9th 2025)

---

The Synod of Dort seems to have taken an identical view, though they do not explicitly say sign (Emphasis mine, text copied from ReformedStandards.com):

Rules on the observation of the Sabbath, or the Lord’s Day, with the agreement of the brothers from Zeeland the following concepts were explained and approved by Doctor Professors of Divinity.

I. In the fourth Commandment of the divine law, part is ceremonial, part is moral.

II. The rest of the seventh day after creation was ceremonial and its rigid observation peculiarly prescribed to the Jewish people.

III. Moral in fact, because the fixed and enduring day of the worship of God is appointed, for as much rest as is necessary for the worship of God and holy meditation of him.

IV. With the Sabbath of the Jews having been abrogated, the Lord’s Day is solemnly sanctified by Christians.

V. From the time of the Apostles this day was always observed in the ancient Catholic Church.

VI. This same day is thus consecrated for divine worship, so that in it one might rest from all servile works (with these excepted, which are works of charity and pressing necessity) and from those recreations which impede the worship of God.

 

[Ploutos]

I'm not sure I agree with this particular line of reasoning, as the creation story and the reference to it in Exodus 20 both make it clear that having the seventh day as a day of rest was an ordinance rooted in creation and not in the ceremonial law. To argue otherwise blunts the universality of the ten commandments and opens the door to the same kind of selectivizing of the moral law so popular today. It seems to me better to say that Jesus has begun remaking creation with his resurrection, and in so doing he explicitly supersedes that particular aspect.

I also don't agree that the land promises of the fifth commandment are superseded. I think they still have general applicability in the line of statements from Proverbs, but that they also point to a spiritual realization which would have been true under the Old Covenant and is even more true now.

 

[Sam Jer]

I'm not sure I agree with this particular line of reasoning, as the creation story and the reference to it in Exodus 20 both make it clear that having the seventh day as a day of rest was an ordinance rooted in creation and not in the ceremonial law. To argue otherwise blunts the universality of the ten commandments and opens the door to the same kind of selectivizing of the moral law so popular today. It seems to me better to say that Jesus has begun remaking creation with his resurrection, and in so doing he explicitly supersedes that particular aspect.

I also don't agree that the land promises of the fifth commandment are superseded. I think they still have general applicability in the line of statements from Proverbs, but that they also point to a spiritual realization which would have been true under the Old Covenant and is even more true now.

Perhaps you should listen to rev. Scott's sermon, he put it much better than my fumbled attempt. I think what both are trying to say is that there is a diffrence between the strictly moral aspect of having a sabbath, and the question of what day it is which God can change (God, not man), and in this sense can be called ceremonial.
But whether you take the time to listen to the actual sermon I shared or not, let me challenge you with this - are circumcission and household sacrifices (as practiced by Abel, Noah, Abraham and Job) ceremonial or moral?

 

[Ploutos]

Perhaps you should listen to rev. Scott's sermon, he put it much better than my fumbled attempt. I think what both are trying to say is that there is a diffrence between the strictly moral aspect of having a sabbath, and the question of what day it is which God can change (God, not man), and in this sense can be called ceremonial.
But whether you take the time to listen to the actual sermon I shared or not, let me challenge you with this - are circumcission and household sacrifices (as practiced by Abel, Noah, Abraham and Job) ceremonial or moral?

Are circumcision and household sacrifices mentioned in the ten commandments? If not, I don't really consider that question relevant.

 

[Sam Jer]

Are circumcision and household sacrifices mentioned in the ten commandments? If not, I don't really consider that question relevant.? If not, I don't really consider that question relevant.

Okay, I think that I now understand what you are talking about. I thought you were saying something else.

 

[Brownie]

You are making an important observation about an essential aspect of our witness. Preached this sermon when going through Exodus years ago and have emphasized it often since in discussions on keeping the Sabbath Day holy.

"Show the Signs of Covenant Life (Why the Sabbath is Revisited after the Tabernacle)": Exegetical Point: God wants His people to keep His priorities: building the Holy Place does no excuse them from keeping His Holy Day holy as the vital sign of their covenant body life in Him. Main Moves to the Homiletical Point (title in quotes above): To see the signs of covenant life, you won't do ordinary work on the Sabbath. When you rest and worship on the Sabbath, you witness your eternal life in Christ.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/119151352494

Thank you for this sermon! It really puts the 'sign' part of the Sabbath in perspective for me. But I am curious: if the Sabbath is a sign to ourselves and others, would that not make the Sabbath also a sacrament? After all, WLC 162 says:

'A Sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his Church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without.'

The Lord's Day is a holy day and changed to the 1st day by Christ and His church (the apostles), signifying to those within the CoG the eternal life and rest in Him (a benefit of His mediation), strengthens our faith, obliges us to keep the day and worship in obedience, testifies our love and distinguishes us from those that are without. So, should we see the Lord's Day as a sacrament and if not, then why not?

 

[Brownie]

This afternoon, I listened to a sermon by Craig Scott of the FCC's Presbytery of the United States on the change of the Sabbath, and there he made the point that the positive command (the identity of the day in question) can change, and that this aspect of the day is a sign. So it being on the seventh day was ceremonial, and now it has changed to the first/eighth day. The command itself though is moral and thus perpetual. He compares it to the fifth commandment, where the moral part (honour thy other and thy father) is perpetual whereas the positive part (that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee) was changeable.

Here is the sermon in question: The Change of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day (Westminster Presbyterian Church, Sun, February 9th 2025)

---

The Synod of Dort seems to have taken an identical view, though they do not explicitly say sign (Emphasis mine, text copied from ReformedStandards.com):

Thanks! He explained it well and I understand his reasoning as it pertains to positive commands, but I don't agree on the 5th Commandment getting a different meaning. To the Israelites it would have sounded as Canaan, but is that what is actually said? I am placed upon The Netherlands and you upon present day Israel. I don't see a changing of the words or the meaning there, only a narrower interpretation by Israel, because of their situation. If you see how Paul uses it in Eph. 6:1-3, he doesn't seem to change anything.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I blogged on this years ago. I am returning to the board soon.
https://rpcnacovenanter.com/2012/12...he-sabbath-concerning-colossians-and-hebrews/

 

[Brownie]

I'm not sure I agree with this particular line of reasoning, as the creation story and the reference to it in Exodus 20 both make it clear that having the seventh day as a day of rest was an ordinance rooted in creation and not in the ceremonial law. To argue otherwise blunts the universality of the ten commandments and opens the door to the same kind of selectivizing of the moral law so popular today. It seems to me better to say that Jesus has begun remaking creation with his resurrection, and in so doing he explicitly supersedes that particular aspect.

The 4th Commandment as far as 6 days of work is rooted in creation, but I would say the Sabbath is rooted in the rest after creation. God didn't need to rest, obviously, so that makes the original ground of keeping the Sabbath also a sign. A sign of the eternal rest. That doesn't mean that the Sabbath isn't moral - God is due His portion of the time He graciously gave us - but it doesn't mean the Sabbath is purely moral. Keeping the 4th Commandment is moral, just like keeping the OT holy days was moral back then, even though the days themselves were ceremonial.
This is what makes the Sabbath so difficult. No other Commandment was changed. Jesus taught deeper meanings (which are often already found in the OT), but the 4th has an element of change. If it was worded as 'one day in 7', it wouldn't have been purely moral, but the explicit referencing of God's creating and resting makes it 7th day specific and therefor changed. The moral law doesn't change, so doesn't that imply a ceremonial aspect?

 

[Sam Jer]

but I don't agree on the 5th Commandment getting a different meaning. To the Israelites it would have sounded as Canaan, but is that what is actually said? I am placed upon The Netherlands and you upon present day Israel.

I do not have a plot of land alloted to my ancestors by lot, which I have unique title too, and that even if I sell it returns to me on the year of jubilee. There might be a plot of land somewhere that was my ancestors' inheritence, if I am not decended from a convert or Levite on my male line, but that ancestor lost that land 1,955 years ago and now somebody else rightfully owns it and even if I had some way to know which plot of land my ancestors owned (no one does) it wouldn't give me any right to disposses the people living there now.

 

[Brownie]

I do not have a plot of land alloted to my ancestors by lot, which I have unique title too, and that even if I sell it returns to me on the year of jubilee. There might be a plot of land somewhere that was my ancestors' inheritence, if I am not decended from a convert or Levite on my male line, but that ancestor lost that land 1,955 years ago and now somebody else rightfully owns it and even if I had some way to know which plot of land my ancestors owned (no one does) it wouldn't give me any right to disposses the people living there now.

That's not what I'm saying . I don't have any claim on land either. But if I honour my parents, I'll live longer and prosper where I live. Just like all of us (within some limits, obviously, like the WS say). God has given us a land to live in, just like the Israelites. We don't have an ancestoral claim, but that's not what the 5th Commandment says. I believe someone like Ezekiel, a believer forced into exile, would still receive the 5C blessings. It was never only about Canaan.