The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 7 - Sabbath Extracts

In part six, we concluded the main argument that Ross makes in his lecture and his book for why the threefold division of the should be continue to be the church's ongoing testimony of understanding the law of God.

Ross ended that part by looking at Ephesians 6:1 - 3 in light of some commentators who try to argue that Paul is not issuing an immediate call for obedience to the fifth commandment, but issuing a call from some other source for children to obey their parents. Ross ended the lecture by reaffirming that the moral law shapes our understanding of Christ's penal substitution on the cross, and by exhorting his listeners and readers that we must hold on to this doctrine to understand the Gospel.

However, I left out Ross' main two defenses of understanding Sabbath as still being the moral law, and I want to now include those sections of Ross' argument separate from the other six posts for a few reasons. The main reason being that I view Ross' examples of Christians arguing for or against the abiding validity of the Sabbath as a demonstration of the confusion that exists within the Reformed churches and the broader Christian church about how to understand all the laws that God gave in light of Christ's finished work on the cross. For me, the biggest contribution of Ross' research is about explaining that the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws are the only possible way to understand the whole of Scripture without having to sacrifice the parts of Scripture that don't fit. Therefore, defenses of any one particular commandment, while helpful, are in my opinion raising flags to get people to pay attention.

A number of Christians, however, today have trouble with how to understand the Sabbath, and furthermore, because of that problem will not consider Ross' book in the first place because of Ross' defense of the Sabbath throughout the book and in the lecture. Phil Johnson, who pastors with John MacArthur, while reviewing Ross' book cannot get past Ross' defense throughout his book of the Sabbath because of his dispensationalism and as a result the review becomes very difficult to follow and largely unhelpful. More generally, while Tom Shreiner believes that the threefold division is biblical, the presence of a commandment about the Sabbath raises questions in his mind about how to understand the division; Justin Taylor, while commending the threefold division, nevertheless does not think it "fully works" because of the commandment about the Sabbath. My point in separating the substance (problem) from the demonstration of the problem is that the argument for the division needs to be considered before some people will consider rather or not the Sabbath applies to belevers today or it does not.

There are other books which defend the Reformed position on the Sabbath, but none of them currently include much of a defense of the threefold division, but Ross' book does both because Ross believes, and I agree, that the rejection of the Sabbath and the threefold division are linked together. Just because, however, the link exists does not mean there is only one way to defend both truths. Ross chooses to lead out his defense of the threefold division by showing where the most heat against the doctrine is currently being generated. I, however, think it might be more helpful to lay out the doctrine then show how it practically affects other doctrines. I think it is more helpful because, as has been shown, the threefold division has had many different attacks from other angles in the past, that do not only originate with a rejection or acceptance of the Sabbath.

Despite whatever differences I might have with Ross about the structure of his presentation, I do agree with Ross about the abiding validity of the Sabbath for the Christian.

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

I will break this up into two parts in my one post and note where in the lecture the two different sections the extracts are from in the lecture. The first part is from the Introduction in the lecture.

----------------

According to Tim Keller, nearly all presbyters in the PCA subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 'with only the most minor exceptions (the only common one being with regard to the Sabbath).' (pg. 5)

If, however, such an exception amounts to a wholesale rejection of the Confession's approach to the Sabbath, then Ross suspects the Westminster Divines might have thought that to call it minor was probably understatement. (pg. 5)

If the WCF were a garment, you would not want to pull this thread, unless you wanted to be altogether defrocked. (pg, 5)

Ross wonders if the reason why some people pull at this thread is because they regard the Confession as more of a straightjacket than a garment. (pg. 5)

Unbuckle the Sabbath, and as far as Reformed Theology is concerned you are well on the way to mastering theological escapology. (pg. 5)

If this sounds like overstatement to rival Keller's understatement, Ross wants to remind his listeners that biblical law, with its Sabbath, is not an easily dispensable part of our doctrinal infrastructure. (pgs. 5, 6)

You cannot perform a precision strike on the Sabbath without producing an embarrassing amount of collateral damage. (pg. 6)

You cannot strike out the Sabbath without shattering the entire category of moral law and all that depends on it. (pg. 6)

If the Shorter Catechism represents Westminster theology in its most practical form, it would seem that any expurgation of biblical law from the theological framework it expounds, should lead to its complete unraveling. (pg. 6)

----------------

The next part is from the section titled Jesus and the Gospels

----------------

One thing that does not appear in Matthew 5 is anything about Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath.

It's often assumed that Jesus disregarded the Sabbath and that the Gospel writers conveyed that.

But Ross thinks Géza Vermes is right, if the evangelists were seeking to do that 'they did a pitiful job'. (pg. 173)

Even the authors of From Sabbath to Lord's Day have to agree that Jesus did not brake the Sabbath. (pg. 167)

Ross think there is little point in going into detail with the book because of their conclusion in a summary written by Andrew Lincoln for the book (pgs. 171 - 172):

The veiled nature of Jesus' ministry accounts for the slight ambiguity in regard to His relation to the Sabbath and for the fact that for a time in the early church there were those who continued Sabbath observance while the full implications of the entry to the new age accomplished by Christ were being worked out.

Ross contends that Lincoln's conclusion makes little sense. In fact, it is inexplicable considering the dates for the Gospels range from A.D. 50 - 150. How much tome did they need to work things out? (pg. 172)

If Mark clearly understood that Jesus had declared all foods clean, why did He choose to leave his readers in the dark over so fundamental an issue as the Sabbath? (pg. 172)

Until someone does better than raise the anti-Sabbatarian case from the Gospels from the 'pitifil' to the ambiguous there is little to gain be engaging in this discussion.

The evangelists represent Jesus as a Sabbath-keeper, who does not undermine the ordnance by word, action, or yet-to-be-understood personal claims. (pg. 173)

----------------

While in this section Ross does not specifically deal with the Colossians 2:14 - 15 passage which both are the given reason for Taylor and Dr. Schreiner's caveat about the threefold division Ross did address the Colossian text in part five. Since I don't want to make in seem like I'm only picking on the Gospel Coalition or Baptists, I need to also include the Lutherans' Dr. John Theodore Mueller and Dr. Francis Pieper. Both men wrote very popular and still used works on Christian Dogmatics. Near the bottom of page 213, Dr. Mueller rests his entire case on the Ten Commandments not being identified with the moral law on the sole argument of the Sabbath commandment being the ceremonial feature of the Ten Commandments. Since Dr. Mueller's one-volume work is based on Dr. Pieper's four-volume work I assume that both men agree on this argument, but have not yet verified Dr. Pieper's position in print.

Now I'm really done with the whole lecture, but I do want to ofter a bit more coverage of Ross' book in relation to some other controversies in the Reformed world. One of, which, is about a claim made by a few Westminster California professors about the application of the first four commandments to the other nations than Israel in the time of the Old Testament.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 3 - Jesus and the Gospels

In part 2, we sketched out five presuppositions that run throughout the entire Old Testament (OT) that point the law given through Moses as not being an uniform united body of law. Ross concluded the second section by contending that if we don't see these distinctions that we will not, and cannot, make proper sense of the teachings of Christ in the four Gospels, in the Apostolic events in the Book of Acts and the Epistles written by the Apostles when they write about the law.

In this part we will focus on the words of Jesus as found in the four Gospel writings and try to understand how what Jesus says about the law and does during His first coming further develops the five observations made about the OT law.

These notes are based on an address that Phil Ross delivered to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales in March 2010.

Here's where we are in this series of posts relative to where we have been and where we are going:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

----------------

Ross wants to look at the teaching of Christ and the Apostles concerning the law in two parts divided chronologically by the veil of the temple that was torn in two (pg. 187):

1. What may we conclude from the Gospels? - From the words and deeds of Jesus up to the point where the veil was torn.
2. What, if anything, changes after the rending of the veil? - What do the Apostles and their Epistles have to say to all this?

We will in this post address the first question and then over the course of following two posts Ross will address his second question.

Jesus' subjecting himself to the law was basic to his humiliation.

One passage matters above all others when it comes to discussing Jesus' attitude to the law, namely Matthew 5.

Some say we should take the word commonly translated 'abolish' in a absolute sense. (pgs. 195 - 197)

Others use the word commonly translated 'fulfill' to determine that 'abolish' means anything but abolish. (pgs. 197 - 199)

When translators/interpreters focus on the lexical definition of 'fulfill' it generally leads them to seeing Jesus' fulfillment of the law and the prophets in the following three ways (pgs. 201 - 202):

1. Eschatological - He fulfills the law by his teaching.
2. Soteriological - He fulfills the law by bringing salvation.
3. Moral - He fulfills the law by doing what the law commands.

Ross doesn't want to suggest totally disregarding the lexica, but contends that we will understand Jesus' words when we read them with the church, in the context of Matthew as a whole, and with the OT background in view. (pg. 199)

Pope Leo the Great and John Calvin may not have had much in common, but they both thought it was proper to connect the sermon on the mount with Jeremiah's new covenant prophecy. (pg. 199)

Their case is strengthened if we also accept that Jesus fulfilling the law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17 is a piece of his fulfillment of all righteousness in Matthew 3:50. (pgs. 199 - 200)

We might hear echos of this relationship when we line up the voice that says 'This is my beloved Son' with the same voice in Jeremiah 31:20 saying 'Ephraim my beloved Son'. May we not then see Jesus standing with his people, and in their place, 'here's the beloved Son that Israel failed to be. (pg. 200)

Read Matthew 5 in that context and we may then see Jesus' fulfillment of the law as eschatological, soteriological, and moral. (pg. 202)

To illustrate the relationship between the elements in Matthew 5 and Jeremiah 31, Ross wants to call attention to the following four components in Jeremiah's prophecy. (pg. 203)

1. 'I will put my law within them' - According to Deuteronomy 6:4 - 9 the law was always meant to be internalized. Jesus promotes this intention as he calls for obedience to the great commandment, he promotes it in his exposition of the law throughout Matthew 5, and He fulfills it by exemplifying in his own life what it means to obey the law and be the obedient Son par excellence (meaning 'the best of its kind'). (pgs. 203 - 204)
2. The promise, 'I will be their God, and they shall be my people.' That theme permeates Matthew from beginning to end. Matthew 1:23, '... God with us.' We know that the Shekinah who dwelt in the bush and in the tabernacle now dwells in the flesh and fleshy blood. Immanuel's closing promise is, 'I am with you always.' Christ's being with his people in fulfillment of the law and the prophets is the dominant idea, but moral fulfillment can't be excluded from that. His instruction, 'teach them all that I've commanded you' presupposes ongoing obedience as an indispensable concomitant to God with us. (pgs. 204 - 206)
3. 'They shall all know me', is sometimes linked with Matthew 23:8 - 10 where Jesus says, 'You have one teacher'. We can hear in that passage a precise echo of the shama. Only one teacher fulfills Jeremiah's prophecy; he is the one who is one who will teach the New Covenant community. There is also a connection between Jeremiah 31:25 - 26 and Jesus' invitation to the laboring and heavy laden to come for rest (Matthew 11:28). He delivers the rest promised in the law and the prophets to those whom the Father reveals Jesus and to whom Jesus reveals the Father. (pgs. 206 - 211)
4. 'For I will forgive their iniquity', is the absolutely indispensable (Ross uses the term, 'sine qua non') promise of the first few promises in Jeremiah 31. Note the preceding three. There's not much question that Matthew 26:27 - 28 recalls this. 'Drink of it, all of you.' The 'all' recalling the 'all' of Jeremiah 31:34 as Matthew once again draws several OT threads together to show that forgiveness of sin and God's presence are conjoined in Jesus. If Jeremiah is in the background, then sin is transgression of the Decalogue because that's generally how Jeremiah defines 'transgression'. (pgs. 211 - 214)

If the sermon on the mount introduced new law then spoke of forgiveness in relation to the old law, how could Matthew's notion of atonement be coherent? Sin would be a moving target. (pg. 215)

The point is to say that for Matthew, Jesus' fulfillment of the law and prophets is eschatological, soteriological, and moral. He is a mighty savior, whose assumptions about the law he shares with the prophets, whose full assumptions land on the Pentateuch. (pgs. 214 - 215)

So Jesus leaves untouched the embryonic framework that saw some laws as a 'pattern'; some to be obeyed 'in the land'; but the Decalogue as the controlling influence. (pg. 215)

When Jesus says, 'not a jot or a tittle shall pass away', his statement is in harmony with the framework because it only makes sense if we recognize that the law had built in limitations. (pgs. 215 - 220)

Even before the entry into Cana, they had the mana laws, which were of temporal jurisdiction/duration. Yet these laws remained but did not bind in the same way they abide as memorial and foretoken. (pgs. 218 - 219)

Everything that Jesus says about the law is in continuity with the intent of the law, and Ross rejects outright the universal description of what follows in Matthew 5:21 - 48 as the antithesis. (pgs. 220 - 236)

Despite all the arguments that Jesus is overturning the law in these verses, its demonstrable that everything Jesus says reflects a correct and proper understanding of the laws; his views of hatred, lust, divorce, oaths, the lex talionis - law of retaliation -, and love for enemies do not reflect abrogation of the law, but co-ordination with the law. (pgs. 236 - 237)

What was Jesus' attitude to things that were not of the weightier matters of the law? (pgs. 173 - 174)

One person wants to say that because Jesus touched a leper He made himself unclean and therefore held the purity laws in contempt, while another wants to defend him against accusations of uncleanness at all costs. (pgs. 174 - 177)

So was Jesus ever unclean? Well, of course he was. What Jew who ever sucked at his mother's breast was not unclean? But, so what? (pg. 178)

The law makes no straightforward equation between guilt and ceremonial uncleanness. (pg. 178)

So matters of:

1. The woman bleeding who touched Jesus (Mark 5:27) is simply not a issue. (pgs. 174 - 177)
2. Mark doesn't introduce us to an antinomian Jesus when he records Jesus' comments in Mark 7, 'nothing that goes into a man can defile a man'. Perhaps Jesus is reflecting creational norms: Nothing is intrinsically unclean. The Levitical law concurs - eating unclean foods could not itself defile. Jesus' statement is in continuity with the law. Looking back, Mark makes the kind of statement he should have made about the Sabbath if the anti-Sabbatarians are correct that the Sabbath ought to not be part of a Christian's life. (pgs. 179 - 187)

When we see Jesus at the end of his earthly life it's instructive to think about these events in the light of Leviticus 20:24 - 26. There the Lord separates Israel to himself, separates certain foods to uncleanness as a sign of Israel's separation to a God whose separation was marked by the temple veil. (pgs. 184 - 187)

Then when the veil is torn in two, it signifies not the departure of the Shekinah, as some argue. It signifies that the separation has ended. (pgs. 189 - 190)

Viewing this event through the lens of Isaiah 64, God has rent the heavens and come down, and the rent veil proclaims that from this point onwards no symbolic uncleanness can separate them from Emmanuel. (pg. 190)

In the Gospels we meet a Savior who lived in conformity with the law. He taught us to obey it in its own terms. Fulfilled its shadows. Evangelists confirm, rather than overturn, the presuppositions outlined from the Pentateuch. They do not abort the embryonic form of the threefold division that appears in the OT. (pgs. 190 - 191)

----------------

A lot more material this week than in the last post. Ross is summarizing chapters four and five in his book, which is 93 pages. In our next post in this series we will consider how the Apostles interpreted the law, as recorded in the book of Acts. We will start to develop a better idea about what actually changed in the church after the rending of the temple veil.