By Angus Harley

I wrote parts of this article years ago for Facebook, but like a bad penny….

CALVIN’S COMMENTARY ON GENESIS

There is a creational rest day that all men must observe

His commentary on Genesis 2:3 is abundantly plain:

“Thus we may be allowed to describe the day as blessed by him which he has embraced with love, to the end that the excellence and dignity of his works may therein be celebrated. Yet I have no doubt that Moses, by adding the word sanctified, wished immediately to explain what he had said, and thus all ambiguity is removed, because the second word is exegetical of the former. For (kadesh,) with the Hebrews, is to separate from the common number. God therefore sanctifies the seventh day, when he renders it illustrious, that by a special law it may be distinguished from the rest. Whence it also appears, that God always had respect to the welfare of men. I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works. He had the same end in view in the appointment of his own rest, for he set apart a day selected out of the remainder for this special use. Wherefore, that benediction is nothing else than a solemn consecration, by which God claims for himself the meditations and employments of men on the seventh day. This is, indeed, the proper business of the whole life, in which men should daily exercise themselves, to consider the infinite goodness, justice, power, and wisdom of God, in this magnificent theater of heaven and earth…. “

For Calvin, the day is,

  • holy;
  • the purpose is for man to think upon God’s works;
  • more pointedly, it was God’s day of rest that was specifically made so that man would meditate on what God has done;
  • such meditation is man’s chief employment throughout all his days.

See Calvin’s method here: he begins with the assumption that the day is ‘neutrally’ holy; then moves to its purpose for man’s welfare; only to then state that it was, in actual fact, God’s day, but with the proper purpose of being for man’s meditation; but Calvin then tops it all by extending the principle of such meditation to the whole of man’s existence.

This is classic Reformed sleight of hand. Separating parts and words, like a defensive lawyer. Switching the purpose of the words. Realigning the actual stated purpose of Moses’ words to find another, ‘true’, purpose. To then ignore the stated purpose to underscore this fictional ‘true’ purpose. To conclude that above and beyond the stated and ‘true’ purpose is an even greater purpose. Raw eisegesis!

The context of Genesis does not specifically call the day of rest a ‘law’; but never fear Calvin the Reformer is here:

“God therefore sanctifies the seventh day, when he renders it illustrious, that by a special law it may be distinguished from the rest.”[1]

This law of a day of rest is equated to being a “command”:

“…for God did not command men simply to keep holiday every seventh day, as if he delighted in their indolence; but rather that they, being released from all other business, might the more readily Genesis 2:1 apply their minds to the Creator of the world….inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.”

Indeed, for Calvin, all God’s commands are ‘laws’, such as, for example, God’s command not to take from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “And the Lord God commanded. Moses now teaches, that man was the governor of the world, with this exception, that he should, nevertheless, be subject to God. A law is imposed upon him in token of his subjection; for it would have made no difference to God, if he had eaten indiscriminately of any fruit he pleased.”[2]

The Jewish sabbath day was temporary

Still in Genesis, Calvin many times refers to the Jewish sabbath as one-and-done:

“Besides, we must know, that this is to be the common employment not of one age or people only, but of the whole human race. Afterwards, in the Law, a new precept concerning the Sabbath was given, which should be peculiar to the Jews, and but for a season; because it was a legal ceremony shadowing forth a spiritual rest, the truth of which was manifested in Christ.”

The Jewish Saturday sabbath is over, he tells us. In its place is not another day of physical rest, according to the above statement, but spiritual rest in Jesus Christ.

However, Calvin does not let down the Reformed lads. He continues:

“Therefore when we hear that the Sabbath was abrogated by the coming of Christ, we must distinguish between what belongs to the perpetual government of human life, and what properly belongs to ancient figures, the use of which was abolished when the truth was fulfilled. Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live unto themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.”

Note Calvin’s hermeneutic, here. It is the same sleight-of-hand method as before, but this time incorporating the Law of Moses. For don’t forget, it is all about ‘law’ in the end! The Mosaic Law is divided into spiritual (lasting) and ceremonial (temporary) aspects. The Jewish sabbath as Jewish was ceremonial and temporary. The spiritual rest it embodied, or figured/shadowed, is ongoing. Indeed, it is the same day of rest that was commanded to man from the beginning. And there’s how Calvin connects all the dots together. All is creational; all is ‘law’; all is ongoing.

CALVIN’S COMMENTS IN THE INSTITUTES

It is in Institutes 2.8.28 that Calvin formally begins his exegesis of ‘sabbath’. Here is his full comment:

“The purport of the commandment is, that being dead to our own affections and works, we meditate on the kingdom of God, and in order to such meditation, have recourse to the means which he has appointed. But as this commandment stands in peculiar circumstances apart from the others, the mode of exposition must be somewhat different. Early Christian writers are wont to call it typical, as containing the external observance of a day which was abolished with the other types on the advent of Christ. This is indeed true; but it leaves the half of the matter untouched. Wherefore, we must look deeper for our exposition, and attend to three cases in which it appears to me that the observance of this commandment consists. First, under the rest of the seventh days the divine Lawgiver meant to furnish the people of Israel with a type of the spiritual rest by which believers were to cease from their own works, and allow God to work in them. Secondly he meant that there should be a stated day on which they should assemble to hear the Law, and perform religious rites, or which, at least, they should specially employ in meditating on his works, and be thereby trained to piety. Thirdly, he meant that servants, and those who lived under the authority of others, should be indulged with a day of rest, and thus have some intermission from labour.”

So, the Jewish sabbath was, 1) typological of Christ’s advent; 2) the commandment of God; 3) a commandment to meditate upon the kingdom of God; 4) a day of physical rest to meditate, especially for those who as servants are under human authority.

As they say in Scotland, ‘You start off as you mean to go on.” As before, we have the spiritual and the ceremonial view of the Law of Moses. However, implied, but not fully stated, is the creational order of a day of physical rest for meditation upon God, especially for those who are servants. The creational day of rest is not explicitly stated, for we are seeing the true nature of Calvin’s sabbath teaching, which is not primarily about a creational pattern, but about ‘law’ and its continuation.

In 2.8.29, Calvin demonstrates the (Mosaic) Law-lens of his sabbath hermeneutic. His comment begins:

“We are taught in many passages that this adumbration of spiritual rest held a primary place in the Sabbath. Indeed, there is no commandment the observance of which the Almighty more strictly enforces. When he would intimate by the Prophets that religion was entirely subverted, he complains that his sabbaths were polluted, violated, not kept, not hallowed; as if, after it was neglected, there remained nothing in which he could be honoured. The observance of it he eulogises in the highest terms, and hence, among other divine privileges, the faithful set an extraordinary value on the revelation of the Sabbath.”

What seems like a kind of neutral statement about spiritual rest adumbrated in the sabbath commandment to Israel gives rise to a form of spiritual preeminence for the Law of Moses, for it is in this Law that the many commandments for the sabbath are given. That is why Calvin immediately follows on by citing instances in the OT of the sabbath in the Mosaic Law:

“In Nehemiah, the Levites, in the public assembly, thus speak: “Thou madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.” You see the singular honour which it holds among all the precepts of the Law. All this tends to celebrate the dignity of the mystery, which is most admirably expressed by Moses and Ezekiel. Thus in Exodus: “Verily my sabbaths shall ye keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that does sanctify you. Ye shall keep my sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever does any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever,” (Exodus 31: 13-17.) Ezekiel is still more full, but the sum of what he says amounts to this: that the sabbath is a sign by which Israel might know that God is their sanctifier.”

Only after rooting the spiritual rest of the Jewish sabbath in the Mosaic Law’s commandments does Calvin then finish off his thoughts by ‘tying the bow’ of spiritual rest in God. Again, what follows is immediately upon the previous comment:

“If our sanctification consists in the mortification of our own will, the analogy between the external sign and the thing signified is most appropriate. We must rest entirely, in order that God may work in us; we must resign our own will, yield up our heart, and abandon all the lusts of the flesh. In short, we must desist from all the acts of our own mind, that God working in us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle also teaches, (Heb. 3: 13; 4: 3, 9.).”

Notice, too, how this rest given by the Law leads to a form of sanctification that is essential to resting in God. Where is Christ in this? His cross? The emphasis is clearly upon following the sabbath commandment (in its spiritual form) to abandon the flesh, for only this will work in us so that we may rest in him. Thus, the sabbath day is dissected into steps and aspects: here it is a commandment to be observed; there the commandment is a driving form of holiness calling for our sanctification; next, it is a state that allows God to do his work; finally, it is the condition of rest in God. More rubber-band theology.

In 2.8.30, Calvin then turns to the meaning of a seventh day in the Jewish system. It points to a complete cessation, as exemplified in our Creator’s example. Calvin then, as before, moves from an actual sanctified day to a lifestyle:

“It may seem, therefore, that by the seventh day the Lord delineated to his people the future perfection of his sabbath on the last day, that by continual meditation on the sabbath, they might throughout their whole lives aspire to this perfection.”

This brings us to 2.8.31. It begins with the usual introductory sabbath theology of rest that Calvin feels obliged to regurgitate for a new emphasis. For, Calvin has yet to connect this ongoing day of spiritual rest, captured typologically in the Jewish sabbath day, with Jesus’ advent. So he writes:

“Still 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 all the emblems vanish; the body, at the sight of which the shadows disappear. He, I say, is the true completion of the sabbath: “We are buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life,” (Rom. 6: 4.) Hence, as the Apostle elsewhere says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ,” (Col. 2: 16, 17;) meaning by body the whole essence of the truth, as is well explained in that passage. This is not contented with one day, but requires the whole course of our lives, until being completely dead to ourselves, we are filled with the life of God. Christians, therefore, should have nothing to do with a superstitious observance of days.”

Jesus’ advent meant the immediate end of the ceremonial part of the sabbath. But its spiritual meaning is found in Christ, for he, as Calvin says, “is the completion of the sabbath” by his death and resurrection. We must not judge people, then, by Jewish sabbath days, for they have been laid aside as to their observance. Indeed, one holy day is not to be our focus, since the whole of our lives must be filled with God.

In this statement, Calvin has to firmly nail an exegetical form to the mast that does justice to Paul’s comments. Note how in this ‘Christological’ form an actual day means nothing, and Calvin concludes that it is about a life being filled with God.

However, it is too little, too late. For as we saw, he opens his teaching on the sabbath with its value as a commandment enshrined in the Mosaic Law, which is in that form linked with Jesus’ advent. It is then he moves on, as noted before, to exegete the relevance of the Mosaic Law and its sabbath commandment. Only then, after all of this Law verbiage, does Calvin address the elephant in the room of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Concluding comments

It is true that Calvin does reject the notion that a ‘holy day’ in and of itself is a thing to be grasped. Nor is he quick to call God’s day of rest after creation a ‘sabbath’ for man. And, again to our benefit, he does not rush to call any holy day of worship a ‘sabbath’, for he gives that term to the Jews. He is not a Puritan, in other words. This is something we as NCTers can use to our advantage, no doubt, to demonstrate that the ‘Reformed’ position is far from being monolithic. But the reader should know this: most Reformed folks follow a Puritan-Dutch model of theology as later embodied in Murray, Berkhof and others. Calvin is ‘the man’ in general, but not as to structure and specific content. So, I forewarn you, the reader, you will get only so far with the Calvin card.

Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive anti-sabbatarian theology in Calvin. What some have rejoiced in is actually a mirage. There is no living Reformed follower who does not believe in a creational day of rest, or who does not consider the Jewish sabbath to be over with ceremonially speaking. Every Reformed person embraces the spiritual value of the Jewish sabbath; and all and each take us ultimately to spiritual rest in Christ, a rest that is meant to extend throughout one’s spiritual days.

One final comment- on Calvin’s hermeneutic. First of all, please, dear NCT brother or sister, don’t be naïve as to this ‘law’ language and model. It comes directly from the Reformed movement, and, they simply continued what the Roman Catholics started. Calvin was able to bounce from one thing to another because his ‘system’ of law (not covenants in his case) allowed him to do so. Commandment as such is not ‘law’, but commandment can be law, and often is. Secondly, don’t ignore the relevance of the Fall for hermeneutics. In essence, the Reformed model (which Progressive Covenantalism follows) draws a straight-line of continuity between pre- and post-Fall eras. Everything is monochrome: there was a prelapsarian ‘law’ and a postlapsarian one; a prelapsarian ‘covenant’ and a postlapsarian; a prelapsarian ‘temple’ and a postlapsarian. And so on and so forth. The Fall, like Israel’s exile, mark a contrast in history, a huge turning point. Before the Fall: no law, covenant, temple, or priesthood were necessary, for man did not need a mediating influence to cope with the presence of sin and evil. After the Fall, all these factors kicked in. Indeed, it is not until Genesis 26:5, and God’s dealings with Abraham, that we first read of ‘law’ (torah). Please, at the very least, question any hermeneutic that ignores the revolutionary impact of the Fall. Amen!

[1] Calvin’s commentary on Genesis.

[2] Ibid., Genesis 2:16.