Westminsterian Critical Review of Lee Irons on the Sabbath

[Dan....]

Are there any articles, from a Confessional perspective, that deal head on with the position of Lee Irons:
i.e. the position that the Sabbath is binding only on those who are in the covenant community and has no binding authority over those outside the covenant community.

Lee Irons' article may be found here: http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/sabbath_eschatological_sign.html

(10) Promise establishes obligation (Heb. 4:1). Thus, the Sabbath sign is to be observed only by the holy covenant community, for to it alone does the promise of eschatological consummation apply (Heb. 4:9-10; Luke 13:16).

(11) Conversely, since unbelievers have no promise of eschatological consummation, they have no obligation to observe the sign thereof.

(12) It is not biblically permissible for the covenant community to attempt to enforce Sabbath observance on those outside of the covenant community (e.g., blue laws), nor should believers refrain from certain activities solely on the ground that such activity may cause unbelievers to profane the Sabbath.



One obvious concrete application of this is that Christians should feel free to go out to eat at a restaurant on the Lord's Day as part of their rest.





The Sabbath, however, wasn't first and foremost part of Adam's duty toward God, as the other creation ordinances. The Sabbath was a (conditional) promise on the part of God to Adam. This does not mean that there was no duty involved, but the duty flowed from the promise: since Adam was promised the eschatological rest, if he fulfilled the covenant of works, therefore he was to observe the weekly sign of that promised rest. The duty never existed apart from the promise, but came to Adam precisely because of the promise. If promise creates duty, then the duty evaporates as soon as the promise is retracted. After Adam's fall, the promise of eschatological rest is no longer offered to all mankind, only to the covenant community in Christ. Therefore, since the unbeliever has no promise, he has no duty.



As long as the covenant probation was not yet closed in either failure or success, the weekly Sabbath was a sign to him of this great hope. After the fall, however, the covenant probation closed and became covenant curse for all mankind (apart from grace). Thus the unbeliever is under the covenant of works only in the sense that he lies under its condemnation inherited from Adam. The prospect of entering into God's rest by means of the covenant of works no longer remains. It is significant, I believe, that, unlike marriage and labor (Gen. 3:16ff), the Sabbath sign was not reissued after the fall when God established the common grace order for all mankind. The Sabbath sign is not reissued again until the giving of the Mosaic Law.



But aren't unbelievers still in Adam under the covenant of works? Wouldn't it be proper, then, to argue that the Sabbath requirement, as the sign of the covenant of works, remains binding on all men in Adam? This is a plausible argument, but we must distinguish between being under the probation of the covenant of works with its eschatological prospect (the post-fall sons of Adam today are not under that) and being under the curse of the covenant (they are under that). The covenant of works is not an ahistorical "do this and live" principle but a concrete historical administration of God's holy kingdom in time. The covenant breach of the federal head, Adam, changes the nature of the unbeliever's relationship to the covenant in significant ways.



On the other hand, granting all of this evidence pointing to the covenantal nature of the Decalogue, we must also recognize that, with the exception of the fourth commandment, nine of the commandments do constitute a summary of God's moral will - albeit in typological-covenantal form (as seen, for example, in the fifth commandment's promise of long life in the land of Canaan). Although we cannot say that the Decalogue per se is binding on all men, it is certainly legitimate to say that nine of the ten commandments overlap with the moral will of God revealed in creation and conscience.

Joseph Pipa's book (The Lord's Day) doesn't seem to attack this position head on. His work seems to focus primarily on those who hold dispensational or NCT positions of the Law.

One applicable argument from Pipa is that in Exodus 16, it is clear from the text that the Israelites were already observing the Sabbath and that the command "Remember" implies that the nation was already aware of the commandment well before the 10 commandments were given.

Thanks.





[Edited on 2-21-2006 by Dan....]

 

[Dan....]

Joseph Pipa's book (The Lord's Day) doesn't seem to attack this position head on. His work seems to focus primarily on those who hold dispensational or NCT positions of the Law.

Correction:
Actually Irons' position of the law seems to me to be very similar to that of NCT, only Irons', unlike NCT, teaches that the New Testament includes a Sabbath because of the "already-not yet" nature of the inter-advental period, and because a promise is still remaining for us of entering into rest.



[Edited on 2-21-2006 by Dan....]

 

[Peter]

I agree that the ""already-not yet" nature of the inter-advental period" is one reason for the NT Sabbath. That seems to be the implication of Heb 4.

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by Peter
I agree that the ""already-not yet" nature of the inter-advental period" is one reason for the NT Sabbath. That seems to be the implication of Heb 4.

I agree with that too; neither does Pipa disagree. Pipa also says,

In verse 10 the writer describes a rest that is already completed, while in verse 11 he makes it quite clear that the responsibility to enter that rest remains for the believer. Yes, we have begun to participate in God's rest, but we shall not fully enter into that rest until we are glorified with Christ in heaven.

pg 122.

On this point there is agreement between the two positions. The disagreement is in whether the Sabbath is moral law and binding on all men.


[Edited on 2-21-2006 by Dan....]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

On the face of it, and certainly the divines of Westminster thought this, the position of the Sabbath ordinance smack in the middle of the Decaloge is strong evidence of the moral aspect of the 4th commandment (not forgetting the positive and perpetual aspects). Clearly there are aspects of man's religious duty that flow directly out of his creaturliness, not merely from his supra-creational, covenantal relationship to his God.

 

[Rich Barcellos]

The WCF teaches that the Sabbath is moral law (21:7). The moral law was written on Adam's heart, then delivered by God on Mt. Sinai (19:1-2). Irons' position is not confessional.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
On the face of it, and certainly the divines of Westminster thought this, the position of the Sabbath ordinance smack in the middle of the Decaloge is strong evidence of the moral aspect of the 4th commandment (not forgetting the positive and perpetual aspects). Clearly there are aspects of man's religious duty that flow directly out of his creaturliness, not merely from his supra-creational, covenantal relationship to his God.

This point must be, I think, at the heart of any coherent response to Lee on this. I don't think he has accounted for the creational nature of the moral law.

The law binds all image bearers because the law that was republished at Sinai to a temporary, typical, national people for pedagogical purposes, was in substance the same law promulgated in the garden.

It is noteworthy that Exodus does not mention redemption (as Deut 5 does) in re the 4th commandment, but it mentions creation.

The sabbath is grounded in both. It is binding on humans as humans because of creation. It also binds Christians as redeemed people. For us, however, it contains a gospel promise of eschatological/consummate rest. For unbelieving image bearers it is only law. It demands that they keep the law personally and perpetually. For those who trust in Christ, who has entered into the rest, the Christian sabbath witnesses to the reality of that rest and of our participation in it by faith in Christ. So we have a foretaste of the eschaton each sabbath as we gather with Christ's people around Word and sacrament.

rsc

 

[Dan....]

Thanks Gentlemen.

I especially liked Pastor Buchanan's comment about "the position of the Sabbath ordinance smack in the middle of the Decaloge." Good point. It isn't like it was added on at the end: the first 9 are moral, this one, added at the end, is just covenantal in nature.

The more I think of it, the more arbitrary Irons' position becomes in my mind. What gives us the right to pick and choose which commands are moral and which are not?

Here is another reason, according to Irons for the Sabbath not being binding on fallen man. He teaches that the unbeliever is exempt from the Sabbath because he is unable to properly keep the Sabbath:

Although the unbeliever's "obedience" does not flow from a heart purified by faith, nor is it offered to the glory of God, nevertheless he can still keep the seventh commandment "for the matter of it" (WCF XVI:7). Abstaining from adultery itself is "doable" in some outward sense. But the Sabbath command is more like the first commandment. An unbeliever cannot avoid idolatry in some outward way. He must first become a believer. He can only worship the true and living God through Jesus Christ. Not worshipping Baal is meaningless unless it is replaced by worshipping Yahweh.

Since when is inability an excuse for not keeping God's moral law?

Another point to consider is when Irons says:

The prospect of entering into God's rest by means of the covenant of works no longer remains. It is significant, I believe, that, unlike marriage and labor (Gen. 3:16ff), the Sabbath sign was not reissued after the fall when God established the common grace order for all mankind. The Sabbath sign is not reissued again until the giving of the Mosaic Law.

Does this mean that between Adam's fall and the giving of the 10 commandments, that there was no promise concerning entering God's rest? Was there no promise for Abel, for Seth, for Enoch, for Noah, for Abraham, for Joseph? If the promise of entering God's rest were applicabale for these saints, then why would there be no Sabbath resting for them?

Also, Irons position seems to deny the free offer of the gospel.

Irons says:

(10) Promise establishes obligation (Heb. 4:1). Thus, the Sabbath sign is to be observed only by the holy covenant community, for to it alone does the promise of eschatological consummation apply (Heb. 4:9-10; Luke 13:16).

(11) Conversely, since unbelievers have no promise of eschatological consummation, they have no obligation to observe the sign thereof.

Is there no promise for unbelievers to enter God's rest, should they repent and believe the gospel? Should we put a "do not enter" sign on the church door? Should we build a wall around the covenant community to keep us separate from the world? Should we not "go ye therefore and teach all nations"? If the promise of eschatological rest is only for those who are presently in the covenant community, then why send missionaries to foreign lands? But if the offer of the gospel is for all men, then are not all men responsible to enter into God's rest?

 

[Casey]

Originally posted by Dan....
...
The more I think of it, the more arbitrary Irons' position becomes in my mind. What gives us the right to pick and choose which commands are moral and which are not?

Here is another reason, according to Irons for the Sabbath not being binding on fallen man. He teaches that the unbeliever is exempt from the Sabbath because he is unable to properly keep the Sabbath:

Although the unbeliever's "obedience" does not flow from a heart purified by faith, nor is it offered to the glory of God, nevertheless he can still keep the seventh commandment "for the matter of it" (WCF XVI:7). Abstaining from adultery itself is "doable" in some outward sense. But the Sabbath command is more like the first commandment. An unbeliever cannot avoid idolatry in some outward way. He must first become a believer. He can only worship the true and living God through Jesus Christ. Not worshipping Baal is meaningless unless it is replaced by worshipping Yahweh.

Since when is inability an excuse for not keeping God's moral law?
...

"Arbitrary" seems to be the key word. Unregenerate man is unable to keep any of God's Law. Just because the breaking of some commandments may be less obvious (e.g., lusting after a women vs. outright murder), this doesn't mean one command is kept "more" than the other. If his logic were correct here, unregenerate man would seem to have no duty before the face of God.

 

[crhoades]

Can someone tell me
1. Is this kline's view as well?
2. If not, it is it a necessary consequence of it.
3. Or is this just iron's innovation?

I'm aware that Cocceius had a similar view of the Sabbath and that Voetius opposed him on it.

Trying to figure all of this out...

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by crhoades
Can someone tell me
1. Is this kline's view as well?
2. If not, it is it a necessary consequence of it.
3. Or is this just iron's innovation?

I'm aware that Cocceius had a similar view of the Sabbath and that Voetius opposed him on it.

Trying to figure all of this out...

It depends, I think, on whether one looks at Meredith's earlier or later work. Meredith himself has always been a strong sabbatarian, but in more recent decades has spoken of the decalogue in ways that are not far from Lee's view.

As to Cocceius' view of the sabbath, I would not trust implicitly what folk say about him. The list of people who've actually read Cocceius in the last 100 years (since he's never been translated) is very short indeed.

rsc

 

[Rich Barcellos]

Dr. Clark,

Is Willem J. Van Asselt trustworthy on Cocceius? I have his "The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius."

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
Dr. Clark,

Is Willem J. Van Asselt trustworthy on Cocceius? I have his "The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius."

Which is where I picked up aforesaid views...

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
Dr. Clark,

Is Willem J. Van Asselt trustworthy on Cocceius? I have his "The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius."

Yes!

Van Asselt is terrific. It's an expensive book, but the only thing in English and the only really serious modern study of Cocceius. It's in the Muller mode.

I doubt that beyond Van Asselt many other folks beside Van Asselt, Brian Lee (one of our grads, who did his PhD on Cocceius' commentary on Hebrews at Calvin under Muller) and Muller have read Cocceius in recent decades (centuries?). There's a lot of talk about Cocceius, but very little genuine (first hand) knowledge.

rsc

 

[Casey]

Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
Dr. Clark,

Is Willem J. Van Asselt trustworthy on Cocceius? I have his "The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius."

Where'd you manage to pick that up? Whooo, that's an expensive book!

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by StaunchPresbyterian]

 

[VanVos]

I don't think Irons is any more "arbitrary" with his two fold division of the Law then the Westminster confession is with the traditional three fold division. I think this is the main issue; Is the Law two fold or three fold? And if two fold is it as Kline defines it?

See here:

http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/kline's_analysis_law.doc
http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/three_enshrinements.doc

Also he does explain why he believes the Sabbath is different to the other creation ordinances, and therefore not immediately binding on the unbeliever.

Objection # 1:

"How do you reconcile your acknowledgment that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance with your view that the Sabbath is exclusively for the covenant community?" [6]

The phrase "creation ordinance" brings to mind certain duties that are given to all mankind, such as marriage, labor, and the dominion mandate. [7] Most of these creation ordinances are applicable, not just to the covenant people of God, but to all mankind by virtue of their being rooted in the creation order. It would seem, then, that the Sabbath too is of universal morality.


The Sabbath, however, wasn't first and foremost part of Adam's duty toward God, as the other creation ordinances. The Sabbath was a (conditional) promise on the part of God to Adam. This does not mean that there was no duty involved, but the duty flowed from the promise: since Adam was promised the eschatological rest, if he fulfilled the covenant of works, therefore he was to observe the weekly sign of that promised rest. The duty never existed apart from the promise, but came to Adam precisely because of the promise. If promise creates duty, then the duty evaporates as soon as the promise is retracted. After Adam's fall, the promise of eschatological rest is no longer offered to all mankind, only to the covenant community in Christ. Therefore, since the unbeliever has no promise, he has no duty.


The creation ordinances cannot be understood apart from their covenantal context. Certain creation ordinances were reissued after the fall for mankind in general (e.g., marriage and labor). But the fall must also be taken into account in terms of the effects it has on the way these ordinances get applied in the post-fall situation. For example, the dominion mandate is still in effect, but it no longer has any eschatological promise attached to it. Man as man, both believer and unbeliever, exercises a certain dominion over creation, and is involved in the general task of procreation and filling the earth. But the eschatological fruition of that labor has been frustrated by death and man's dominion produces only temporal goods mixed with thorns and thistles. Man's post-fall cultural labor is part of common grace - it is not holy, i.e., it will not enjoy eschatological consummation. [8]


Similar considerations apply to the pre-fall Sabbath ordinance. It was connected directly with the eschatological aspect of the covenant of works. If man successfully moved beyond covenant probation to the state of confirmation in righteousness, he would then have entered into God's own eternal rest. As long as the covenant probation was not yet closed in either failure or success, the weekly Sabbath was a sign to him of this great hope. After the fall, however, the covenant probation closed and became covenant curse for all mankind (apart from grace). Thus the unbeliever is under the covenant of works only in the sense that he lies under its condemnation inherited from Adam. The prospect of entering into God's rest by means of the covenant of works no longer remains. It is significant, I believe, that, unlike marriage and labor (Gen. 3:16ff), the Sabbath sign was not reissued after the fall when God established the common grace order for all mankind. The Sabbath sign is not reissued again until the giving of the Mosaic Law. [9]


But aren't unbelievers still in Adam under the covenant of works? Wouldn't it be proper, then, to argue that the Sabbath requirement, as the sign of the covenant of works, remains binding on all men in Adam? This is a plausible argument, but we must distinguish between being under the probation of the covenant of works with its eschatological prospect (the post-fall sons of Adam today are not under that) and being under the curse of the covenant (they are under that). The covenant of works is not an ahistorical "do this and live" principle but a concrete historical administration of God's holy kingdom in time. The covenant breach of the federal head, Adam, changes the nature of the unbeliever's relationship to the covenant in significant ways.


There is a sense in which the weekly Sabbath command confronts the unbeliever by virtue of his covenantal union with Adam. This is so because man, even after the fall, remains a creature in the image of God, created for eternal rest with God. The Sabbath command in this sense is unfulfillable, just as the covenant of works as a whole is unfulfillable.


However, the manner in which the Sabbath command continues to confront fallen mankind in Adam is somewhat different than the manner in which the command, say, to not commit adultery confronts him. Although the unbeliever's "obedience" does not flow from a heart purified by faith, nor is it offered to the glory of God, nevertheless he can still keep the seventh commandment "for the matter of it" (WCF XVI:7). Abstaining from adultery itself is "doable" in some outward sense. But the Sabbath command is more like the first commandment. An unbeliever cannot avoid idolatry in some outward way. He must first become a believer. He can only worship the true and living God through Jesus Christ. Not worshipping Baal is meaningless unless it is replaced by worshipping Yahweh.


So with the Sabbath. The unbeliever may attempt to keep the Sabbath in some external manner, but all his attempts will be futile and in fact sinful, unless he first puts his trust in Christ. First of all, if he tried to keep the Sabbath as an unbeliever under the creational covenant of works, he would be placing himself under the impossible requirement of perfect obedience. Second, he would be obligated to keep the seventh day holy - an activity that, after the coming of Christ, is nothing less than a sinful denial of Christ (Col. 2:16-18). Third, even if the unbeliever were to attempt to keep the first day of the week holy, he would still be unable to keep it properly, since not working in itself is meaningless unless it is a rest from one's labors in the knowledge that Jesus has performed the labor for us and given us the rest. The Lord's Day isn't about what you do or don't do on that day. It's about faith - it's about our eschatological hope secured by Christ.


Thus, although the curse of the covenant of works is still in effect, its offer of eschatological consummation has been retracted. To be sure, the promise of the eternal Sabbath is now held out to all men in Christ. But that means the only way in which the Sabbath command confronts the unbeliever is through the free offer of the gospel. "Come unto me all you who labor and I will give you rest. And as a pledge of that rest I will also give you the privilege of setting aside the cares and concerns of your labor-filled week as you gather together with God's people to rejoice in the heavenly rest that Christ alone can give."

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian

Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
Dr. Clark,

Is Willem J. Van Asselt trustworthy on Cocceius? I have his "The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius."

Where'd you manage to pick that up? Whooo, that's an expensive book!

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by StaunchPresbyterian]

there are two copies at amazon for $95 each.
it is also at the University of Arizona which means anyone in the US can interlibrary loan it from there. (don't do it yet however, i want to look at it first *grin*)