Argument from Silence? On the pre-Law Patriarchs and the Sabbath

[The following was first posted here on 5/5/18. Now, I am teaching this coming Lord's Day on "the Christian Sabbath" from the Second London Baptist Confession.]

Some Bible commentators have argued that the Lord's "rest" on the seventh day, recorded in Genesis 2:1-3, was not immediately intended to set forth a pattern for people to follow and that Sabbath observance begins with Israel's wilderness experience, recorded in Exodus 16.

Dr. Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is one example of a scholar who argues against viewing Sabbath rest as a creation ordinance. In "Good-bye and Hello: The Sabbath Command for New Covenant Believers" from Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies, Schreiner notes that the word "Sabbath" is first used in Exodus 16 and that the record of the patriarchs' lives prior to the time of Moses (as detailed in Genesis-Exodus) makes no mention of Sabbath-day rest.

At first glance, the lack of material in the biblical account concerning the pre-Law patriarchs and the Sabbath might seem greatly significant. Under closer inspection, however, the evidential value of this argument from silence entirely falls apart. Consider: 1. marriage [defined biblically in terms of a monogamous, life-long relation between a man and a woman]; 2. Sabbath-keeping after the Law was given.

1. Concerning marriage, Dr. Richard Barcellos notes:

...the relative silence concerning monogamy as the will of God from creation in the early chapters of Genesis onward does not prove that monogamous marriage was not a creational institution. Schreiner is correct when he says, "Jesus argues from creation for the notion that marriage must be between one man and one woman..."

Following Genesis 2, God gives no explicit commands to the patriarchs concerning marriage involving only one man and one woman for life. Among the patriarchs, we even see counter-examples that may make it seem that polygamy was approved. Yet God's creative activity is seen [by Jesus, no less] as setting forth a pattern that people should have followed.

2. Concerning Sabbath-keeping after the Law was given, notice that (as Francis Turretin notes) there is no mention in the biblical record of Sabbath-keeping during the times recorded in Judges and Samuel. Yet we do not take this to mean that no-one kept the Sabbath. It certainly cannot be the case that silence concerning the keeping (or breaking) of the Sabbath indicates that Sabbath observance was not required for Israel during this time.

For more on the argument above, and on the Sabbath as a creation ordinance (beginning when God "rested" on the seventh day and sanctified it, as recorded in Genesis 2), I highly recommend the book Getting the Garden Right: Adam's Work and God's Rest in Light of Christ by Richard Barcellos.

“A Godly Man Is Very Exact and Careful About the Worship of God” – Puritan Thomas Watson on the Regulative Principle of Worship

As a Puritan, Thomas Watson sought not only to purify the doctrine of the Church of England according to Reformed theology, but also the worship practices of the Church of England according to the Regulative Principle of Worship. In his book The Godly Man’s Picture, within a section titled, “A Godly Man Is Very Exact and Careful About the Worship of God,” Thomas Watson offers an excellent explanation of the convictions that drive the Regulative Principle. That section follows: 

The Greek word for ‘godly’ signifies a true worshipper of God. A godly man reverences divine institutions, and is more for the purity of worship than the pomp. Mixture in sacred things is like a dash in the wine, which though it gives it a colour, yet only adulterates it. The Lord wanted Moses to make a tabernacle "according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount" (Exodus 25:40). If Moses had left out anything in the pattern, or added anything to it, it would have been very provocative. The Lord has always given testimonies of his displeasure against such as have corrupted his worship. Nadab and Abihu offered "strange fire" (other than God had sanctified on the altar), "and fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them" (Leviticus 10:1-2). Whatever is not of God’s own appointment in his worship he looks upon as "strange fire". And no wonder he is so highly incensed at it, for it is as if God were not wise enough to appoint the manner in which he will be served. Men will try to direct him, and as if the rules for his worship were defective, they will attempt to correct the copy, and superadd their inventions.

A godly man dare not vary from the pattern which God has shown him in the Scripture. This is probably not the least reason why David was called "a man after God’s own heart", because he kept the springs of God’s worship pure, and in matters sacred did not superinduce anything of his own devising.

Use: By this characteristic we may test ourselves, whether we are godly. Are we careful about the things of God? Do we observe that mode of worship which has the stamp of divine authority upon it? It has dangerous consequences to make a medley in religion.

1. Those who will add to one part of God’s worship will be as ready to take away from another. "Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8). They who will bring in a tradition, will in time lay aside a command. This the Papists are very guilty of; they bring in altars and crucifixes, and lay aside the second commandment. They bring in oil and cream in baptism, and leave out the cup in the Lord’s Supper. They bring in praying for the dead, and lay aside reading the Scriptures intelligibly to the living. Those who will introduce into God’s worship that which has not been commanded, will be as ready to blot out that which he has commanded.

2. Those who are for outward commixtures in God’s worship are usually regardless of the vitals of religion: living by faith, leading a strict mortified life; these things are of less concern to them. Wasps have their combs, but no honey in them. The religion of many may be likened to those ears which all run to straw.

3. Superstition and profanity kiss each other. Has it not been known that those who have kneeled at the pillar have reeled against a post?

4. Such as are devoted to superstition are seldom or never converted: "publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" (Matthew 21:31). This was spoken to the chief priests, who were great formalists, and the reason why such person are seldom wrought upon savingly is because they have a secret antipathy to the power of godliness. The snake has a fine colour, but it has a sting. So outwardly men may look zealous and devout, but retain a sting of hatred in their hearts against goodness. Hence it is that they who have been most hot on superstition have been most hot on persecution. The Church of Rome wears white linen (an emblem of innocence), but the Spirit of God paints her out in scarlet (Revelation 17:4). Why is this? Not only because she puts on a scarlet robe, but because her body is of a scarlet dye, having imbrued her hands in the blood of the saints (Revelation 17:6).

Let us, then, as we would show ourselves to be godly, keep close to the rule of worship, and in the things of Jehovah go no further than we can say, "It is written."

Spurgeon contra Will-Worship

[The following post was originally published to this blog on October 20, 2022.]

The elders of Grace Heritage Church in Auburn, Alabama have expressed their philosophy of ministry as follows:

Worship is the corporate expression of the delight, awe, and thankfulness that come from knowing our infinitely glorious and sovereign God and Savior. Because the distance between God and His creatures is so great, the only acceptable way of approaching God in worship must be revealed to us by God Himself. Therefore, He may not be worshiped in ways invented by us. This principle protects us from idolatrous worship and focuses our energies on those activities through which God has called us to draw near.

This is a clear and beautiful expression of the teaching in Reformed theology known as "the regulative principle of worship."

In focusing on the necessity for God-revealed worship, previous generations of Reformed theologians would often criticize what they called "will-worship." The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines "will-worship" as follows:

worship originating in the human will as opposed to the divine, arbitrary religious acts, [acts of will-worship are] worthless despite their difficulty of performance.

In the second October 18 entry within his Morning and Evening Devotion, Charles Spurgeon wrote against "will-worship." His text was 1 Samuel 15:22, "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice." Spurgeon pointed out:

Saul had been commanded to slay utterly all the Amalekites and their cattle. Instead of doing so, he preserved the king, and suffered his people to take the best of the oxen and of the sheep. When called to account for this, he declared that he did it with a view of offering sacrifice to God; but Samuel met him at once with the assurance that sacrifices were no excuse for an act of direct rebellion. The sentence before us is worthy to be printed in letters of gold, and to be hung up before the eyes of the present idolatrous generation, who are very fond of the fineries of will-worship, but utterly neglect the laws of God. Be it ever in your remembrance, that to keep strictly in the path of your Saviour's command is better than any outward form of religion; and to hearken to his precept with an attentive ear is better than to bring the fat of rams, or any other precious thing to lay upon his altar... All the pretensions you make of attachment to your Master, and all the devout actions which you may perform, are no recompense for disobedience. "To obey," even in the slightest and smallest thing, "is better than sacrifice," however pompous. Talk not of Gregorian chants, sumptuous robes, incense, and banners... all your formalities shall profit you nothing. It is a blessed thing to be teachable as a little child, but it is a much more blessed thing when one has been taught the lesson, to carry it out to the letter. How many adorn their temples and decorate their priests, but refuse to obey the word of the Lord! My soul, come not thou into their secret.

This is a good reminder. Whether we look at this text or at 2 Samuel 6, when David and the people of Israel transported the Ark of the Covenant on a cart (which is not how God commanded it to be transported), and the LORD struck Uzzah dead for touching the Ark in order to steady it, we see that good intentions are not enough. We must carefully follow God's instructions for how He is to be worshiped, and we endanger ourselves when we worship Him in a different way. We will all fall short of worshiping God as He truly deserves–we all need a Savior–but this is no excuse for disregarding His Word, which is necessary, clear, sufficient, and authoritative.

An Introduction to Martin Luther's *On the Freedom of a Christian*

[The following post was originally published to this blog on 5/15/17 in preparation to teach through this material in Sunday school at Kosmosdale Baptist Church (KBC). This coming Lord's Day, I again have the opportunity to teach on Christian Liberty in Sunday school at KBC, this time from Chapter 21 of the Second London Baptist Confession.]

I. Letter to Pope Leo X

A. Significance of the 95 Theses

Martin Luther began his treatise concerning Christian liberty with a letter to Pope Leo X. In that letter, he mentioned that he had "now, for three years, been waging war." As the letter was written in 1520, we know that the beginning of the three year period he mentions must refer to 1517. This means that, from an early time, Luther himself dated the beginnings of his public struggles for the Reformation to the posting of the 95 Theses Against Indulgences on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg. So this event was seen as significant not only to historians following the time of the Reformation. Rather, in Luther's own time (as the 95 Theses had been taken by his students, translated, given to the printing press, and then distributed across Europe), these Theses were seen as causing a huge stir within the Church, thrusting Luther's teachings into the spotlight.

B. Luther's Intentions Not Ad Hominem

In 1520, previous to writing his treatise concerning Christian liberty, Luther had written his treatise To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. In that earlier treatise, Luther had been quite polemical against the papacy, going so far as to name the pope as the anti-Christ. In a certain sense, Luther's letter to Pope Leo X at the beginning of his treatise concerning Christian liberty was intended to dial the rhetoric back a bit. Luther tries to make the point in his letter to Pope Leo X that he is not attempting to personally attack Leo X himself. While Luther has problems with the Roman Church and issues with the papacy itself, he wants to make the point that the issue is not with Pope Leo X as an individual.

C. Luther's Issues With Rome Not Focused on Morals but Doctrine

Along with his assertions that his aim was not to criticize Leo X on a personal level, Luther also wanted to emphasize that the reformation he desired was not a mere improvement of morality within the Roman Church. His critique was not primarily about the lack of good works exemplified by those following the pope, nor was his major concern focused on the 'lifestyle choices' (to use our current term) of those in Romanist leadership. Luther thus implicitly distinguished his objections to the Roman Church from those of others within the Roman system, such as Erasmus (the prominent scholar who had rendered a critical edition of the Greek New Testament), who had criticized the lax morals and abuses of power of some within Roman leadership. Whereas Erasmus did not want to fundamentally change the doctrine taught by Roman Catholic theologians, Luther saw his own call for Reformation as getting more to the heart of the problems within the institutional Church. Luther's call for Reformation involved a reformation of doctrine: specifically, a clarification on the teaching about how sinners could be counted right in God's sight.

D. A Proposed Solution

Luther called upon Pope Leo X to abolish the curia [the administrative body through which the pope governs the Roman Catholic Church]. As Luther had previously urged the German nobility to call a Church Council, he now urged Pope Leo X to call a Church Council. The idea that the pope would call a council that would in any way limit papal claims to authority or de-centralize the pope's role in the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation was highly dubious given the fact that various popes had spent centuries accumulating authority. It seems more likely that the contents of Luther's public letter to Pope Leo X were intended to help the German nobility see that they should indeed call a council, which would determine the degree of control that Rome could claim over the German churches.

E. Luther's Admission of Personal Fault

1. The Fault. At the beginning of his letter to Pope Leo X, Luther admitted that he had "a great beam" in his own eye. Luther said that he couldn't be "the first to cast the stone at the adulteress." Whereas Luther was fully convinced that he has taught no false doctrine in his struggle for reformation, he did admit that the way in which he had engaged in this struggle had, at times, been characterized by rashness, impiety, or intemperate speech.

2. A Defense. ON THE OTHER HAND, he did defend the idea that sometimes strong language IS APPROPRIATE when contending against false teachers. Luther referenced Philippians 3:2 as an example when Paul called his opponents "evil dogs." Luther wrote, "The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers that as soon as we perceive anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by not other pretense, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt if it were not pungent, or the edge of the sword if it did not slay?" The idea of 'snowflakes' or being overly sensitive to 'micro-aggressions' is not new to our own day (though the terminology may be), but Luther saw the people of his time as being too weak to realize that the New Testament writers themselves labelled false teachers as wolves or vipers.

II. Body of the Treatise

A. Confronting the Common Misconception That the Christian Life is Meant to be Easy 

Whereas many conceive the Christian life as an easy thing, Luther argued that true faith is attained through trials. Concerning his own life, Luther confessed that he had been "vexed by various temptations." However, Luther viewed these temptations, along with the required perseverance over temptation, as a help, rather than a hindrance, to his faith.

B. THESIS FOR THE WORK: "A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone." 

C. The Thesis Proven through a Consideration of the Word and Faith

1. The Word.

a. Precepts and Promises. The Word gives us precepts by which we are condemned. The Word then gives us promises by which we are justified. Justification comes by the authority of the Word of God alone; therefore, the Christian man is free from all other authorities.

b. The Doctrine of Scripture. NOTICE the four-fold Protestant doctrine of Scripture present within this text. Scripture is implicitly presented as authoritative in the way that Luther cites it; a mere citation of Scripture stands as proof by itself, needing no outside proof to back it up. Scripture is implicitly presented as clear in matters concerning salvation; Luther does not feel obligated to dive into extended exegesis of various gospel passages, but he feels that they are understandable on their face. Scripture is explicitly presented as singularly necessary for salvation; as Luther wrote, “One thing, and one alone, is necessary for life, justification, and Christian liberty, and that is the most holy word of God.” Scripture is explicitly presented as sufficient for the Christian’s spiritual life; as Luther wrote, “having the Word, [the soul] is rich and wants nothing.”

2. Faith.

a. Justification. Justification comes by faith alone, bringing the soul of the Christian man into direct communion with God; therefore, the Christian man is free from all other authorities.

b. Faith vs. Works. Faith yields freedom for the Christian because any work that could be commanded could do nothing to bring a person into right standing before God; whereas, by faith, the Christian is already certain of right standing before God. Luther argued that works cannot be added to faith as the basis of our justification, because faith and works are antithetical; adding faith to works is halting “between two opinions.” Luther wrote, "Faith, which is the brief and complete fulfilling of the law, will fill those who believe with such righteousness that they will need nothing else for justification."

c. The Benefits of Faith. Faith takes hold of the gospel promises. Faith glorifies God, and it unites the soul to Christ. UNION WITH CHRIST was key to Luther’s argument in this treatise. Drawing on Scripture, Luther pointed to the direct analogy between the bride’s union with her husband and the Christian’s union with Christ. Luther wrote, “The believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its own whatever belongs to the soul that Christ claims as His.” Whatever riches that Christ has gained in His work, the believer has a share in those things. Luther understood a right consideration of union with Christ to PROVE both components of his thesis. In Christ, the Christian has victory over sin and death. United to Christ, who is King of Kings, the Christian is free from all other authorities. United to Christ, who was a suffering servant during His earthly ministry, the Christian is the most dutiful servant of all.

3. The Faithful Preaching of the Word. The right manner of preaching is NOT teaching the life of Christ as mere historic fact. It is NOT teaching the “laws of men and the decrees of the Fathers.” It is NOT an attempt to move our affections to sympathize with Christ. INSTEAD, the faithful preacher promotes faith in Christ, through teaching why He came.

III. Conclusion to the Treatise

A. Consideration: What role do works play in the Christian life?

B. Objection from Luther’s Opponents: “If faith does everything, and by itself suffices for justification, why then are good works commanded. Are we then to take our ease and do no works, content with faith?”

C. Flesh and Spirit

The outer man must be brought into conformity with the inner man. The inner faith of the Christian must impact every aspect of the Christian’s life. The flesh struggles against the spirit. The flesh must “be purified from its evil lusts.”

D. Similes for Understanding the Relationship of Faith and Works

1. Adam in the Garden. The state of the working believer is like unto the state of Adam working in the Garden. When Adam was placed in the Garden, before he fell into sin, he was in a right relationship with God. He did not have to perform some work to bring himself into a right relationship with God. Yet, before sin entered the picture, he was given works to perform (in naming the animals, tending the garden, etc.), and he would have performed those works out of loving obedience to his Lord.

2. A Pastor in the Church. The state of the working believer is like unto the state of a pastor serving his church. Having been ordained to the pastorate, the pastor does not do his works in order to earn his position in the church. Rather, the pastor’s good works are an outworking of his calling.

E. Further Examples of Luther’s Thesis

1. The purification of the Virgin Mary (Luke 2:22-23; 39).

2. The circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3, though Titus was not circumcised, Gal 2:3-5).

3. Peter paying tribute money (Matt 27:27).

4. In each of the above cases, the works mentioned did nothing to bring the person performing them into a right standing before God; rather, they were performed out of love for God and consideration toward others.

F. Works Proceed from Nature

A good tree produces good fruit, not vice-versa. A good builder makes good houses, not vice-versa. People are justified in the sight of other people by good works, but many are deceived [and deceiving] by appearances. “[H]e who wishes to do good works must begin, not by working, but by believing, since it is this which makes the person good.”

G. Our Works Are NOT the Grounds for Our Justification Before God

Works are condemnable when they are taken as “grounds for justification.” The wrong view, that works are grounds for justification, is “invincible when sincere faith is wanting” (sinners naturally tend toward this wrong view), and the wrong view is strengthened by wrong tradition. True Christian works are performed for the purpose of bringing the body under subjection to the spirit or for serving our neighbors; they are never for the purpose of obtaining justification. The person with faith is “free from all law, and in perfect freedom does gratuitously all that he does.” The Christian freely works for, and subjects himself to working for, the good of his neighbor (cf. Phil 2:1-4). Luther resolved, “[I] will do nothing in this life except what I see will be needful, advantageous, and wholesome for my neighbor, since by faith I abound in all good things in Christ.” This is what it means to be a Christian [NOT seeking after merit].