Perspectives on the Sabbath: Four Views (2011). Response to a Review by Fred Zaspel

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

1 July 2011

Perspectives on the Sabbath: Four Views (B&H Academic, 1 April 2011) is a book edited by Christopher John Donato, a senior associate editor of Tabletalk Magazine. Fred G. Zaspel is one of the pastors for a Reformed Baptist Church in Franconia, Pennsylvania and is also adjunct professor of Systematic Theology at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Zaspel wrote the book review and this review was sent to this author for perusal. What we did is to take the review and add our notes to the applicable sentences so that interaction and cross-checking is facilitated.

Four writers presented their views on the Sabbath. As Zaspel spelled it out:

“The four contributors are, in order:

Skip MacCarty, pastor, Pioneer Memorial Church, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, representing the Seventh-day Adventist position;

Joseph A. Pipa, president and professor of historical and systematic theology, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, representing the “Christian Sabbath” position;

Charles P. Arand, chairman, department of systematic theology, Concordia Seminary, representing the confessional Lutheran position;

Craig L. Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, representing the fulfillment view.”

The review was made by Fred Zaspel on June 23, 2011. We now present the review of Zaspel and this author’s notes on it. Italics  is the text of Zaspel and bold is our own notes on this writing.

“Not all “perspectives” or “views” books are equally rewarding. Their value hinges on the success of each contributor in representing his position well and arguing his case clearly and persuasively. A failure on this score, even in degree, quickly minimizes the value of the book. Because many of us who pick up a book of this type have already hammered out our position to one degree or another, we hope for good challenges to our thinking from all sides. In all these ways Perspectives on the Sabbath must be judged a success. Each of the contributors helpfully presents his case and, therefore, contributes to the Christian cause of learning.

Following the established “views” and “perspectives” approach, each author’s case is presented in turn, followed by responses from the others. One helpful innovation in this book is the space given to the author, then, to give a final word of response, rounding out the discussion well.

Of course arguing a case well and having a good case to argue are two very different things. And besides that, we all inevitably approach such books with a bias already in place, leaving it difficult to appreciate the full weight of every argument presented by each contributor. Confessing up front my sympathy with Blomberg on this issue, and not wanting to contribute to the degree of emotion and even rancor that has too-often accompanied this particular subject, I will offer some observations that I trust are objective. I will try to limit my comments primarily to exegetical matters.

Recapping and Evaluating the Positions

Blomberg shows an impressive grasp of the New Testament understanding of the Old Testament and in particular the significance of Christ as the “fulfiller” of the Old Testament law. His argument is heavily New Testament-oriented, highlighting the various passages that touch the Sabbath theme. He understands the Sabbath as a type of the rest realized in Christ. Blomberg’s first fundamental methodological flaw is that since the seventh day Sabbath, the “My Sabbath” of Isaiah 58:11 is going to be eschatologically applicable in heaven, (Isiaah 66), therefore talking about Sabbath as a type is sidestepping cardinal verses of the Bible on the Sabbath. Sabbath is not a type realized in Christ and never has been. From the very beginning, it was all about Christ and that is why the example was set to Adam that first Creation morning for him in Eden and that is why he remembered what happened there together with His Creator and that is why Exodus 20:11 link God’s rest on this day, which the Jews knows very well and is not just any day in seven, but Saturday the seventh day. Sorry Pipe.

 As I mentioned, I am in sympathy with this view, and the exegetical grounding Blomberg provides is clearly presented and, to my mind at least, compelling. He helpfully summarizes the arguments for his position, presenting Christ as the fulfiller of the Sabbath within the larger theme of Jesus’ fulfillment of all that was anticipated in the various types and shadows of the Old Testament. Blomberg do not understand the types and shadows of the sanctuary message. Again a methodological problem of Blomberg is that he misunderstood soteriology, a fundamental aspect of Systematic Theology, especially the biblical one, which is the doctrine of salvation. Salvation is there because there is sin. It is that simple. Adam was created perfect and he and God kept in Eden together than first morning the Sabbath and the surprise to him was that God, the Creator of the perfect Universe, rests on the Saturday Sabbath. He soon learned it was an example and that example was reminded again to the forgetful Israelites at Sinai in Exodus 20:11, because God created and rested. Note Blomberg and Zaspel, Sabbath was before Sin. The lapsis or sin or Fall only occurred afterwards when Eve was also created and formed. Therefore, sanctuary types that needs a Christ to fulfill it, was not yet in place while they enjoyed their Sabbath together in perfect harmony. For this reason, Sabbath is not a type and cannot be one. Added to the continuum of Creation is Eschaton, Eden to Eden, eternity to eternity theme, eschatology of the Old Testament and the Sabbath indicates that every week on the Sabbath all flesh will come to worship God, the Lord, Jesus, says Isaiah. The Lamb of God will be worshipped on an heavenly allocated time. Blomberg and Zaspel, the reviewer here, totally missed this.

Arand’s chapter surveys Luther’s treatment of the Ten Commandments, which I found to be fascinating and informative reading.

Note that Zaspel is very eclectic, pluralistic in his phraseology. He tries in very inclusive mannerism to overlook the differences and gloat over the commonalities that he can pull out of the Pandora box. Very ecumenistic. He softpad the errors, biblical errors that is, namely Arand’s position that Sunday is the holy day that needs to be made holy with Luther’s emphasis that gospel preaching exegetically on this day will make it holier, so is the Arand, Luther? and Zaspel view. “Don’t be angry with Arand, Zaspel pleads, he is just  . . . “ [even though it is biblically skew]. I can imagine someone saying to Elijah on Carmel, “don’t be angry with the Baal prophets, at least they are also worshipping”.

Luther’s understanding of the meaning and role of the first command (the first and second in the Reformed and more common evangelical enumeration) within the Decalogue offers valuable insight. And Luther’s emphasis on the role of the Word of God and the gospel preached on Sunday as what makes the day holy, strictly sustainable exegetically or not, is again a valuable insight. Arand’s position is not strictly Sabbatarian, although priority is given to Sunday as the day in which Christians are given opportunity to be sanctified by the preached Word. But at the end of it all, what Arand provides is merely an essay in historical theology and not an exegetical defense of any Sabbath position. Genuinely? (so Zaspel) helpful and enjoyable? (so Zaspel) as it is in itself in many respects (I am sure I will refer to it again in my exposition of the Ten Commandments), it does not constitute a formidable polemic. Softpadding Zaspel is relieved that it does not create any polemics. “How to dialogue with interfaith religions without polemics” should be Zaspel’s next book. Baal prophets in Elijah’s day would have been thrilled with the approach.  

MacCarty and Pipa have much in common. MacCarty argues that the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) remains binding on the new covenant believer. Pipa holds a similar view, the primary difference of course being that he holds that the Sabbath has been moved to Sunday, the first day of the week. Both heavily stress the opening verses of Genesis 2–that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day–and present the well-known argument that here God established Sabbath observance as a “creation ordinance,” obligatory to all humanity. The exegetical evidence for this–that God here imposes a Sabbath observance of any kind on humanity–is notoriously thin.

Zaspel wishes to see Creation Sabbath continuation in the Ten Commandments as a no-no. It is a pain in the neck for him since he would rather stick to everyday should be the same, theology, a self-created non-biblical position in modern times, giving secular and materialistic orientated people more line for entertainment activities anytime, anywhere, wherever. But here is exactly Zaspel’s methodological flaw. Not only once, but a number of times, Sabbath is indicated to Moses in 1448 BCE to be kept for Israel “because God rested on that day in Creation”. This phrase is a powerful link that is not “notoriously thin”, sorry Zaspel. It is even repeated in Deuteronomy. Zaspel’s use of exegetical here is a hoax comparing to what one see in true exegesis of Exodus 20 and Genesis 1.

And the argument advanced by Pipa that it is not “the seventh day” after all but simply “a day in seven” that is imposed is thinner yet. The text just doesn’t say all that this argument requires of it. At the very least we must admit that there just is not enough here to persuade any but the already convinced.

Pipe does not know which day is meant by Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:1. He postulates any day in seven. The solution is methodologically very simple. Exodus 20:11 includes this part of Genesis 2:1 and the rest is history. Just ask modern Jews which day is the seventh day. You will be surprised to know that as long as there was a Jew in history, that day was Saturday and that is the way calendars, the uncooked ones, have it.

Similarly, both MacCarty and Pipa appeal to “the alien who is within your gates” clause in the Sabbath command (Ex. 20:8-11) as evidence that the Sabbath is binding on Jews and Gentiles alike. But again, the text just doesn’t say that much. It is a command to Israel concerning the behavior of all those within her community. That it can be broadened to universal application is simply not something expressly warranted. And their argument that the death penalty assigned to the violation of the Sabbath indicates the perpetual character of the command or that sabbatismos in Hebrews 4:9 must refer to a Sabbath (day) observance, again, in context, will not be persuasive but to those already in agreement. And we might say the same in regard to the argument that the Sabbath is “eternal, moral law” because it is part of the Decalogue. These arguments simply lack compelling exegetical strength. Necessary as these arguments are to the case, surely something more weighty is needed to sustain them.

Zaspel is a Sabbath dodger. This means that no matter what evidence will be placed on the table, he will always whine. Even clear evidence will be written off by him or classified in softpadded phraseology, “something more weighty is needed”. The Sabbath is eternal as Isaiah said in Isaiah 66.

Concerning the heathen keeping Sabbath, we have the same methodological approach. If heathens that accept Christ go to heaven then Sabbath is for heathens too. If Christ kept the Mosaic Sabbath Saturday in Luke 4:16 “as His [divine-human] custom was” then this is also the Saturday Sabbath present heathens accepting Christ should keep. Nehemiah 13 had Nehemiah chasing non-compliers out of the city on Sabbaths. Keepers could stay. What weight is more needed?

Similarly, in Colossians 2:16-17 and Galatians 4:10-11 Paul’s prohibits Christians to enforce the Sabbath, and when we are told that this refers not to Sabbath day observance but other “Jewish” or “legalistic” observances, we are left wondering if the original readers could have understood him in such a restricted way.

Ceremonial Sabbaths were very well understood by Judaism and early Jews and Israelites. Paul knew exactly what the shadows were of what was to come. The typical-antetypical system was well known to him and Paul took pains in his preaching to emphasize this fulfillment of Christ as the New Tabernacle or Sanctuary. Many ceremonial Sabbaths were part of it like the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16. If a neighbor Jew was complaining to the Christian Jew that he has to come to the Day of Atonement meetings on a allocated Sabbath, then Paul said, that neighbor Jew cannot judge the Christian Jew since Christ is the fulfillment of the Sanctuary Types which were shadows pointing to Christ. But, seventh day Sabbath was not part of it since soteriology started after the Fall and the Creation was before the Fall when Sabbath was instituted by God Himself, to a perfect world, with Adam keeping it with Him together. We can methodological backread from the Fall description that when God walked in Eden to look for the sin-ridden couple hiding, that it was “His custom” to sometimes walk with them regularly. Thus, He also walked on Sabbath with the perfect Adam in Eden. Zaspel, Pipe, Arend, and Blomberg need a major overall here. Do not try to be a Bible expert when you have not read long enough the text. You need daily reading of the Word of God, daily reflecting, daily comparing, daily delving into it. You cannot scratch the surface and then study journalism and reading books on dealing with pluralistic dialogue avoiding polemics, using flowery words to cow tow people into non-bibilcal views.  

The exegesis is just not compelling. So also, interpreting Jesus’ assertion that he is “Lord of the Sabbath” to mean merely that he has the right to interpret Sabbath law seems to fall far short of Jesus’ claim. B. B. Warfield stated it better: “It [the Sabbath] belongs to him. He is the Lord of it; master of it–for that is what ‘Lord’ means. He may do with it what he will: abolish it if he chooses.”

B. B. Warfield did not understand Isaiah 58:13 properly. Wonder if he read it at all. The Lordship of the Seventh Day Sabbath is embedded strongly in this verse by Isaiah, and it is only one in many, and thus the Lord Jesus Christ, will not Jesus will correct true keeping of His day, but He will not abolish it without similar clarity as Exodus 20:11 spells out. He didn’t in the New Testament and since it was such a strong command with strong backings in the Old Testament, abolishes demands equal clarity. Thus, abolish is not part of the equation. Warfield should have been more enlightened on such an important matter. We do not need smooth words to say this. It is the reality.

To be sure, Jesus does not at this point abolish the Sabbath, but interpreting his claim as something less authoritative leaves the reader suspicious either that the interpreter is unable to accommodate the possible attending implications and/or that the overall argument itself is unable to accommodate all the relevant exegetical data. The words “less authoritative” does not fit the scenario here. Zaspel may want to look into the situation again. Jesus backs Himself, the Trinity, the plan of salvation of the Trinity, His own essence, His own self. He will not abolish what the three of them by eternal covenant has established to be the norm for Judgment. It is the meeting rules of all creatures, Sabbath included, with God’s example repeated and embedded in the Ten Commandments, with Jesus following His custom in Luke 4:16 to abide by it. Abide is the word, “authoritative abiding and enticing others to abide as well” is a better choice of words than “authoritatively abolishing”.

On a related score–and this observation edges in to matters of hermeneutics also–the Old Testament emphasis in MacCarty and Pipa is telling. Is it too much, given a Christian Sabbatarianism, to ask that the New Testament provide us with instructions on how to keep the Sabbath in this age? Here Pipa responds to this need, surprisingly, with expositions from Isaiah. Certainly we must not deprecate the older revelation in any way. But again, is it too much to ask for New Testament instruction concerning the keeping of a day that otherwise seems to have been left behind?

“Left behind” is in the eye of the beholder and in his heart, that is in Zaspel’s heart. Jesus did not leave the Sabbath behind when He came. Christ is not in opposition with the Old Testament, neither is He rephrasing it. He gave the Old Testament its editorship and therefore what He sanctioned as good for salvation then was equally upheld by Him and the apostles to be good for the New Testament. The Second Revelation period after the cross is not in opposition and in conflict with the First Revelation period. Zaspel’s methodology needs “slightly reworking”. We think of Gerhard Hasel on these issues, Walther Kaiser, Hengstenberg and others, even in the Calvinistic persuasion.  Gerhardus Vos is also a good one on the relationship between Old and New Testaments.

The specific New Testament teaching given to the church regarding the Sabbath–e.g., Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 4:10-11–seems at first blush, at least, plainly to indicate that Sabbath observance is no longer a Christian duty.

Zaspel may want to do proper exegesis of Romans 14. It is not talking about Saturday Sunday keeping here. It is talking about labor days on a qualitative or quantitative evaluation system. A labor dispute with two burocrats watching, all Christians are at stake here. Zaspel’s “plainly” is wishful thinking.

We are asked, however, to understand these passages in ways that are not immediately evident, and this not on the force of a New Testament command but on presuppositions which themselves rest on the thinnest of Old Testament exegesis.

Zaspel does not seem to be an exegete himself. Familiarity with the Old and New Testament is absolutely essential to be an exegete. Otherwise one gets confused and entangled as Zaspel seems here in his phraseology.

New Testament passages such Matthew 5:17ff and 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 point us in a better direction. New covenant believers ought to look first to Christ (and, by extension, his apostles) for the right understanding and application of Moses. In terms of the Sabbath this means that we now understand the Sabbath day to have been a shadow pointing forward to a reality now enjoyed in Christ (Col. 2:16-17).

Zaspel came to understand it that way. The shadow aspect of the Sabbath is unbiblical and illogical since the Sabbath was there before shadows to solve sin was there.

 Coming to Jesus we find the rest (Matt. 11:28) that was previously anticipated but not fully realized in the observance of a day (Heb. 3-4)—a theme Blomberg traces out clearly and compellingly.

Clearly and compellingly is two Thesaurus words too strongly promoting something.

It might have been helpful to Blomberg’s case if he had addressed more fully the question of why Christians worship on Sunday. He highlights this up front in his article, and in most respects his answer is sufficient. However, more would be helpful for those looking on from a Sabbatarian perspective. There are of course good reasons for “going to church” on Sunday, even if these reasons are not tied to the Sabbath command. It would serve a non-sabbatarian position well to cover this base as thoroughly as possible in order to satisfy questions and concerns Sabbatarians inevitably will have. Indeed, perhaps he could borrow (and tweak) a page from Luther here!

Weight of Considerations

Perspectives on the Sabbath is an enjoyable read throughout, certainly the best of the various views available in a single volume. And I think the various representatives generally present the best case possible for their views. But the weight of exegetical considerations in this argument seem clearly to favor the view that Christ soteriologically fulfills the Sabbath–what was previously prefigured only typologically. This book bears out this impression.

Zaspel missed the systematic theological position, which is also the biblical doctrinal one, that Sabbath was at perfect Creation before the Fall and before it became imperfect, sinful and in need of soteriology. Zaspel is putting the cart before the horse. This is unbiblical and not even Jesus did it, as we said and Luke 4:16, “as His custom was”. No abolishment agenda, not even a taint of it.

I should mention something also in regard to the pleasant tone that prevails in this volume (the only exception to this being the unnecessary charge of “antinomianism” that once made its way into one of the responses). It is, after all, an in-house debate, and the overall courtesy of the authors reflects this well. Their interaction is direct and pointed at times, as it must be in a book like this, but the mutual respect remains.

Niceties and phraseology is not important when cardinal issues of reality of the past and present are overlooked in biblical analysis. At the end of the day, it is not how beautiful you are whether you are rightful or truthful, it is how real your description reflects the biblical content of the text.

The disagreements among Christians on this issue are not likely to go away, but in this regard the authors helpfully model ongoing discussion. Because of its format and the overall substance and tone of the arguments presented, Perspectives on the Sabbath helpfully contributes to the discussion.

When nice phraseology quiets the brain of the reader to such an extent that there is no wakeup call, then Jesus words became a truth: they (all virgins) fell asleep. Quetism is a disease not a cure. Quietistic evangelism is no evangelism at all.  It is the same in systematic theology of the bible, doctrines of the bible, Old Testament Theology, New Testament Theology, Textual Criticism, Pastoral Theology and other related subjects.

Source:

http://tgcreviews.com/reviews/perspectives-on-the-sabbath/