As is my custom, I offer a rather free translation.  I try to capture the spirit of the Greek, and the paschal joy it contains.  That’s not quite possible in translation, of course, but I try nonetheless.

The Greek text is problematic in a few places, but I wasn’t able to find a manuscript online with which to compare.  

Χριστὸς ἀνέστη! 

English Text

Today is the day for all of us to shout David’s words, “who shall speak of the great power of the Lord? Who shall make his praises heard?” (Ps. 106:2/105:2 LXX).  For behold, the feast of salvation, for which we have yearned for so long, has finally come.  The day of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the foundation of peace, and the grounds for reconciliation! The conquest of war itself, the dissolution of death, and the devil’s defeat! Today men have mingled with angels, and those in the body henceforth bring praises along with the angelic powers.  Today, death’s tyranny is vanquished! Today, the bonds of death are destroyed, the victory of Hell abolished! Today is the day for us to declare the prophet’s words, “Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O hell, is your victory?” (Hos. 13:14).  Today our Lord Christ has crushed the bronze gates of our prison (Ps. 107:16/106:16 LXX), and abolished the role of death itself.  Why do I say ‘role’? Because he changed death’s role on the great cosmic stage[1].  This change shall no longer be called ‘death,’ but rather ‘rest,’ or ‘sleep.’  Before Christ’s coming, and the working-out of the cross, the name of death brought great fear.  For the first man, instead of receiving great honor, was condemned by hearing, “in the day you eat, you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17).  But the blessed Job foresaw this change and said, “death is rest for man” (Job 3:23 LXX).  The separation of the soul from the body is not only called ‘death,’ but also ‘Hades,’ as the patriarch Jacob says, “You all will take my old age down into Hades with grief” (Gen. 42:38).  Again, the prophet says, “Hades opens wide his mouth,” (Is. 5:14?) and another prophet says, “he delivers me from the lowest depth of Hades” (Ps. 86:13/87:13 LXX).  And so you’ll find many places where death and Hades are put together and made equivalent.  But since Christ our God has been offered as a sacrifice, with resurrection as the result, our Lord, full of loving-kindness, has completely transformed the roles of death and Hades.  He has introduced a new and foreign institution into our life.  Henceforth, instead of death, this change at the end of life shall be called ‘rest,’ and ‘sleep.’  How do we know this? Hear the word of Christ himself, “My friend Lazarus is in a state of sleep, but I am coming to wake him” (Jo. 11:11).  

[1] I have added “on the great cosmic stage” to bring out more clearly John’s theatrical metaphor.  

Greek Text

αʹ. Εὔκαιρον σήμερον ἅπαντας ἡμᾶς ἀναβοῆσαι τὸ παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου Δαυῒδ εἰρημένον· Τίς λαλήσει τὰς δυναστείας τοῦ Κυρίου, ἀκουστὰς ποιήσει πάσας τὰς αἰνέσεις αὐτοῦ; Ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡμῖν παραγέγονεν ἡ ποθεινὴ καὶ σωτήριος ἑορτὴ, ἡ ἀναστάσιμος ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ τῆς εἰρήνης ὑπόθεσις, ἡ τῆς καταλλαγῆς ἀφορμὴ, ἡ τῶν πολέμων ἀναίρεσις, ἡ τοῦ θανάτου κατάλυσις, ἡ τοῦ διαβόλου ἧττα. Σήμερον ἄνθρωποι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις ἀνεμίγησαν, καὶ οἱ σῶμα περικείμενοι μετὰ τῶν ἀσωμάτων δυνάμεων λοιπὸν τὰς ὑμνῳδίας ἀναφέρουσι. Σήμερον καταλύεται τοῦ διαβόλου ἡ τυραννίς· σήμερον τὰ δεσμὰ τοῦ θανάτου ἐλύθη, τοῦ ᾅδου τὸ νῖκος ἠφάνισται· σήμερον εὔκαιρον πάλιν εἰπεῖν τὴν προφητικὴν ἐκείνην φωνήν· Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον; ποῦ σου, ᾅδη, τὸ νῖκος; Σήμερον τὰς χαλκᾶς πύλας συνέθλασεν ὁ Δεσπότης ἡμῶν Χριστὸς, καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦ θανάτου τὸ πρόσωπον ἠφάνισε. Τί δὲ λέγω τὸ πρόσωπον; Αὐτοῦ τὴν προσηγορίαν μετέβαλεν· οὐκ ἔτι γὰρ θάνατος λέγεται, ἀλλὰ κοίμησις καὶ ὕπνος· πρὸ μὲν γὰρ τῆς Χριστοῦ παρουσίας, καὶ τῆς τοῦ σταυροῦ οἰκονομίας, καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦ θανάτου τὸ ὄνομα φοβερὸν ἐτύγχανε. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος ἀντὶ μεγάλου ἐπιτιμίου τοῦτο κατεδικάζετο ἀκούων· ᾟ δ’ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φαγῇ, θανάτῳ ἀποθανῇ. Καὶ ὁ μακάριος δὲ Ἰὼβ τούτῳ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτὸν προσηγόρευσε, λέγων· Θάνατος ἀνδρὶ ἀνάπαυσις. Καὶ ὁ προφήτης Δαυῒδ ἔλεγε· Θάνατος ἁμαρτωλῶν πονηρός. Οὐ μόνον δὲ θάνατος ἐκαλεῖτο ἡ διάλυσις τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ᾅδης. Ἄκουε γὰρ τοῦ μὲν πατριάρχου Ἰακὼβ λέγοντος· Κατάξετε τὸ γῆράς μου μετὰ λύπης εἰς ᾅδου· τοῦ δὲ προφήτου πάλιν· Ἔχανεν ὁ ᾅδης τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ· καὶ πάλιν ἑτέρου προφήτου λέγοντος· Ῥύσεταί με ἐξ ᾅδου κατωτάτου· καὶ πολλαχοῦ εὑρήσεις ἐπὶ τῆς Παλαιᾶς θάνατον καὶ ᾅδην καλουμένην τὴν ἐντεῦθεν μετάστασιν. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν θυσία προσηνέχθη, καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως προεχώρησε, περιῆρε δὲ τὰς προσηγορίας αὐτὰς ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Δεσπότης, καὶ καινὴν καὶ ξένην πολιτείαν εἰς τὸν βίον εἰσήγαγε τὸν ἡμέτερον· ἀντὶ γὰρ θανάτου λοιπὸν κοίμησις καὶ ὕπνος λέγεται ἡ ἐντεῦθεν μετάστασις. Καὶ πόθεν τοῦτο δῆλον; Ἄκουε αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ λέγοντος· Λάζαρος ὁ φίλος ἡμῶν κεκοίμηται, ἀλλὰ πορεύομαι ἐξυπνίσαι αὐτόν.

ἐν αὐτῷ,
ΜΑΘΠ 

• 101 – Father Figures: Introduction to Ancient Christian Philosophy
  
• 102 – Please Accept Our Apologies: the Greek Church Fathers
• 103 – Fall and Rise: Origen
• 104 – Let’s Talk Turkey: the Cappadocians
• 105 – Naming the Nameless: the Pseudo-Dionysius
• 106 – Double or Nothing: Maximus the Confessor
• 107 – Practice Makes Perfect: Christian Asceticism
• 108 – George Boys-Stones on the Greek Church Fathers
• 109 – Spreading the Word: the Latin Church Fathers
• 110 – Life and Time: Augustine’s Confessions
• 111 – Papa Don’t Teach: Augustine on Language
• 112 – Help Wanted: Augustine on Freedom
• 113 – Heaven and Earth: Augustine’s City of God
• 114 – Sarah Byers on Augustine’s Ethics
• 115 – Me, Myself and I: Augustine on Mind and Memory
• 116 – Charles Brittain on Augustine’s “On the Trinity”
• 117 – Born Again: Latin Platonism
• 118 – Fate, Hope and Clarity: Boethius
• 119 – John Marenbon on Boethius

In addition, I recently stumbled upon a history of philosophy course from Wheaton by Dr. Arthur Holmes (81 lectures in all). So far, I’ve been very impressed. Unfortunately, you have to download each episode individually from Wheaton’s website (either audio or video), but on the bright side, all of the metadata imports into your media player so you don’t have to spend an hour or so editing the information.

Another aspect that changed for all Christians was the worship of the Church.  Before Constantine some churches had been built around the graves of martyrs or in out of the way places.  The worship service was simpler.  When Christians were allowed to express their faith they started to add things to their worship, such as incense, processionals, and choirs.  The bishops also started to dress up, wearing special garments for the service.  Some Christians might think of all these things as ruining the simplicity of the worship service before Constantine.  However, I would suggest that with the freedom to worship as they liked the Christians developed these things not to appease the Emperor but to express their own faith and devotion to God.  The bishops still had control in the church and even if they might want to express thanks and loyalty to the Emperor they did not have the change their services to do this.  Constantine might have seen himself as over the bishops in some respects but he did not feel this way when it came to the issue of theology.  Liturgy and worship experience is a huge expression of theology.  As we say in the Anglican Church, we are what we pray.

“Official Theology” was another development that started under Constantine.  This was really more of Constantine allowing Christians to develop Christian doctrines which they could all agree on.  So really Constantine made the Church catholic (universal).  Christians had the same desire to see all Christians united under the same beliefs.  For so long church leaders could only communicate through letters or visits with neighboring regions.  However, Constantine in order to better organize Christianity’s belief systems brought all bishops (or their representatives) together in one place to discuss what beliefs were crucial to the Christian faith.  We call this meeting the Council of Nicea, which met in 325.  The bishops came together to discuss jurisdiction and the bishop’s power, they discussed the dating of Easter, and several other smaller matters.  However, what was meant to be one small matter about the beliefs of a priest from Alexandria became a large focus of the meeting.  I will discuss Arius’ beliefs in a different post.  But for now we can say that they were heretical and so many were led astray by them, the Nicene Creed was written to combat this heresy.  The Nicene Creed as it is commonly known in most churches today is not the actual Nicene Creed.  What most churches recite today is the Nicene- Constantinopolitan Creed, which has its bas in the original Nicene Creed, but has some statements flushed out a bit more.

So the unity of the Church and a basic set of beliefs can be said to be the impact of Constantine on the Church.  He did not do a whole lot directly in the Church, but he allowed for drastic changes to be implemented by the bishops of the Church.

For, allow me to tell you, you ought to doubt whether you should get drunk, but you get drunk before reflecting on the matter; and whether you ought to do an injury, but you do injury with the utmost readiness. The only thing you make the subject of question is, whether God should be worshipped, and whether this wise God and Christ should be followed: and this you think requires deliberation and doubt, and know not what is worthy of God. Have faith in us, as you have in drunkenness, that you may be wise; have faith in us, as you have in injury, that you may live.

ANF Vol. II, pg. 198-199.

The Zen masters say: A finger is excellent for pointing at the moon, but woe to him who mistakes the finger for the moon!

What we see here is that it is not the Catholics but the protestants who are stuck in paganism. They seem, like gentiles of old, to not be freed from worshiping signs of signs, thinking they cannot even “use the finger to point to the moon.” When a pagan worshipped before an idol, he may have worshiped this idol. But even if he did not, he worshiped some other created thing, this idol being a sign that pointed towards it.

But with a crucifix or an icon, we have a sign that points toward, not some other “thing” but to the true God, for example. We aren’t worshiping the sign, but rather, understand what a sign is for.

In fact, just a few lines later in the same chapter, Augustine continues

“But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom.”

This patristic text makes so much more sense out of John 6 which tells us “it is the spirit which gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” For the flesh of the Lord clearly is “of avail;” if it hadn’t gone to the cross, their would be no salvation for man.  But rather, seeing it in a worldly way instead of in the “freedom of the Spirit,” that would hinder us.

No wonder that a few chapters later Augustine can state simply “Now Scripture asserts nothing but the Catholic faith.” Whatever one may argue, there is no doubt that the Bishop of Hippo, who also appealed to the decisions of Rome for so many of his writings, meant it in no distant way than it would be taken to mean today.

The Longforgan Library was originally gifted to the Free Church at Longforgan, Dundee by Mr David Watson, son of the Rev Dr Charles Watson,  who was the owner of Bullionfield Paperworks at Invergowrie. The original deed of gift records that the books were given along with the bookcases and £100 invested in stocks and shares for the library’s upkeep(1). The library that was formally handed over to the Deacons Court at Longforgan Free Church (who acted as trustees) had its own printed catalogue in a bound volume, still in use at New College Library today. 

The next chapter in its history came in 1962  when ownership of the Longforgan Free Church Minister’s Library was transferred to New College Library. The move had been set in motion by the Revd James Torrance (who had been minister at Longforgan) and Professor T.F. Torrance (who was then curator of New College Library) (2).

Last week  we welcomed descendants of David Watson at New College Library, who shared details of the Longforgan Library’s original donor, and who were able to see David Watson’s lasting legacy here. The Longforgan Library is due to be catalogued online as part of the Funk Cataloguing Projects 2012-14.

(1) Gould, Four Churches of Invergowrie.  Dundee : 1997, p. 79

(2) Howard, John. In :  Disruption to Diversity. Edinburgh : 1996, p. 193.

Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology

Ayres, along with his associate Michel Barnes, has been at the front of the recent push back against social trinitarianism, and the reading of the patristics associated with it. It seems to me that the new researches into especially Augustine and the Cappadoccians from Ayres and Barnes (and also Rowan Williams) are overwhelmingly convincing, at least as far as historical judgments are concerned. Straightforward Harnackian accounts of the Church’s formative years would now require, you’d think, serious legwork to answer this new scholarship–though some post-Barthians evidently still do not think so.

This shift in patristic studies is the context from which Nicaea and Its Legacy emerges. Ayres’ book is a wonderfully written exploration of the period. Unlike Hanson’s enormous book on the same period, which I have only dabbled in, Ayres is not interested in exhaustive documentation nor an exhaustive scope. Rather, he wants to trace the character of the “pro-Nicene culture” in which and according to which the theology which we now recognize as orthodox was worked out. His concerns are obviously not purely historical, however, and his trenchant final chapter titled “In Spite Of Hegel, Fire, and Sword” pulls no punches in critiquing the contemporary practice of theology. Theology must be “Nicene”, Ayres insists, in more than just name.

Many readers will ask if we can identify in or between these four trajectories a Christian ‘orthodoxy’ against which we may judge the theologies competing in Alexandria and even the original decisions of Nicaea. Older narratives tended to assume that ‘heresies’ were novel creations divergent from a pre-existing orthodoxy. In such narratives what is later defined as orthodox comes to be projected back into earlier controversies to enable a clear narrative of an unchanging orthodoxy ever victorious against novel heresies. Thus, for example, we still sometimes find Athanasius presented both as the upholder of the Church’s unchanging tradition and as (necessarily) the representative of late fourth-century ‘Nicene’ orthodoxy—itself taken to be simply a restatement of the ‘Apostolic tradition’. The problems with reading early Christian thought from this perspective were identified with particular clarity in Walter Bauer’s seminal text from 1934, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Bauer’s book concerns the struggle over Gnosticism in the second century rather than the fourth-century controversies, and the specifics of his treatment have been much contested. Nevertheless, at least one general point from Bauer’s book has now become a key principle of critical scholarship: what later counts as heretical at times preceded what came to be counted as orthodoxy, and was itself seen as orthodox at that earlier stage. 

In recent scholarship this principle has been modified away from the idea that the development of orthodoxy necessarily involved a wholesale reversal. Recent scholarship has come to see late fourth-century orthodoxy, in particular, as emerging from tensions among existing Christian theologies. These tensions lead to conflicts from which emerge positions counted as orthodox and others typified as heretical. Thus, within the tensions of pre-existing Christian belief are found the precursors both of what will come to be counted heretical and what will come to be counted orthodox. In the course of these controversies what will count as orthodox emerges and defines the heretical in contradistinction to itself. The complexity of this process makes the task of identifying continuities in belief and all questions about the orthodoxy of options that are later counted as heretical extremely complex. (78-9)

And:

My argument is not that theologians do not treat the fourth century as authoritative, but that the fourth century is only allowed to be authoritative within modern systematics in ways already shaped by particular modern and supposedly necessary constructions of authoritative argument and thus only in ways that hide the true challenge of those models of authoritative argument present in fourth-century texts themselves… A deeper engagement with the legacy of pro-Nicene theology will involve both a deeper awareness of the deep structures of modern theological practice (which remain central even as the discipline(s) seems to become ever more diverse) and a rethinking of how appropriate argument within theology is to be envisioned. (403)

for with them [Christians] temperance dwells, self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed, chastity is guarded, iniquity exterminated, sin extirpated, righteousness exercised, law administered, worship performed, God acknowledged: truth governs, grace guards, peace screens them; the holy word guides, wisdom teaches, life directs, God reigns.

ANF, Vol. 2, pg. 115.

Songs of Zion

by Michael Bushell:

A Book Review

Reformed Orthobilly

For Christian Life (TH466), Master of Divinity Program

The North American Reformed Seminary

August 21st in the Year of Our Lord 2012

Michael Bushell’s work Songs of Zion¹ defends the exclusive use of the 150 canonical Psalms for use in worship song. In this defense, Mr. Bushell uses several lines of argumentation, including the sufficiency and superiority of the Psalter, the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW), the Psalms in Scripture, and the Psalms in history. In this powerful tour de force of the various aspects of the Psalter, Songs makes a convincing case for the Exclusive Psalmody (EP) position.

First, Bushell argues that the Psalms are sufficient for worship song. Not only are the Psalms the very Word of God, commanded to be sung, but, with Luther, we confess that “In it is comprehended most beautifully and briefly everything that is in the entire Bible.”² Whether we consider the original creation, Abraham’s call, Noah’s flood, Joseph’s descent into Egypt, the exodus from Egypt, the giving of the Law, the exaltation of David, the apostasy of the Jews, the captivity or the return from captivity, the incarnation of Messiah, His crucifixion, resurrection, Godhead, ascension into heaven, reign over the nations, or any other topic which concerns the Christian, they are all to be sung from the Psalter.³

Bushell also powerfully explains Psalm 19:

The law of the Lord, we are told, is perfect. It is sure. It is right. It is pure. It is true. It is sweeter than honey and more to be desired than gold. When we read this magnificent Psalm we should do so with the understanding that the Psalter is in these words praising itself. The Psalter itself is a repository, in lyrical form, of the law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandments and the judgments of the Lord. The Psalter is perfect, sure, right, pure and true. Ask yourself if it would ever be appropriate to heap such praise on the words of an uninspired man.⁴

That such a book of praise could be considered as insufficient for worship song is hard to comprehend.

Second, Bushell argues that the Psalms are superior to all other forms of worship song. Particularly, the inspired Psalms, commanded to be sung, are superior to man-made competitors.

The Psalms are the best because they come from the LORD. No single hymn or collection of hymns can say that. God has given them to us to sing so that we can have worship songs that are worthy of Him, songs that are the breath of the Holy Spirit, songs that burst open the doors of heaven as no human hymns can ever do. When we sing the Psalms we are only returning them to God who gave them.⁵

The origin, content and context of the Psalms guarantee their superior status.

In origin, the Highest Authority has given the Psalms His imprimatur. The Psalms are God-breathed. The content not only includes the doctrine and history cited earlier, but also entails the entire range of Christian experience:

I believe that a man can find nothing more glorious than these Psalms; for they embrace the whole life of man, the affections of his mind, and the motions of his soul. To praise and glorify God, he can select a psalm suited to every occasion, and thus will find that they were written for him.⁶

Moreover, the Psalms are superior set in their context. The 150 canonical Psalms are set among Scripture as a book of Scriptures to be sung. Bushell argues:

The inclusion of a collection of songs in the Canon of Scripture, without any demonstrable limits to its use, constitutes a divine command to use the whole of that book in services of worship. If the Lord hands us a book of Psalms, as He has in fact done, and commands us to sing Psalms, we have no right, without further instruction, to exclude certain Psalms from those that are made available to the Church.⁷

The place of the Psalter in Christian worship is derived from its place in Scripture, as a collection of divinely inspired songs.

The context of the Psalms also consists in the New Testament’s use of them as authoritative doctrinal gold-mines to be used in the worship of God. When one turns to Romans 3, the proof of total depravity is derived mainly from the Psalms (14:1, 5:9, 140:3, 10:7, and 36:1). Romans 4 proves justification by imputed righteousness from Psalm 32:1-2. Christ demonstrates His Godhead from Psalm 110:1 (cf. Mt. 22:44 et al.), and the Apostle His reign, session at God’s right hand and final victory from the same verse (Heb. 10:13). The incarnation is demonstrated from Psalm 40:6 (cf. Heb. 10:5). The list could be expanded to fill pages.

Christ likewise used the Psalms as significant strengths and supports for His ministry among men. He sang the “Hillel” or Psalms 113-118 after the Lord’s Table was instituted.⁸ On the cross, our Lord spoke the Psalms as the perfect depiction of His work for us (Ps. 22:1 with Mt. 27:46; Ps. 31:5 with Lk. 23:46). The Psalms, in the context of the New Testament, are thus seen as our Book for singing, not theirs.

In the theological context of covenant theology, this makes even more sense:

Theology books talk abstractly about the unity of the covenant but the Psalter is the best possible practical expression of that doctrine. If we can get out heads around the fact that when we take up the Psalter we sing the same songs that David sang, the same songs that the apostles sang, and the same songs that Jesus sang, we can begin to comprehend the importance of psalmody. It unites us to the church of all ages in a way that hymns cannot. We can also begin to understand why attacks on psalmody are so insidious. They are not just attempts to drive a wedge between the Psalter and the New Testament, though they are that. They are attempts to fragment the church.

These contextual considerations lend strength to the Psalmody position. The coming of the Christ did not abolish the use of the Psalter, it rather made the Psalter relevant as it never was before.⁹

Bushell also spends some time dwelling on the RPW as a proof of EP. Sadly, rather than a point of confessional “lowest common denominator” that can be taken for granted, the RPW has come under attack by men who profess to be Reformed. Thus, some amount of space is taken up refuting attacks by modern men, such as Doug Wilson and John Frame. Wilson, for example, argues that “the Lord Jesus… is our regulative Principal. [sic]”¹⁰ That Wilson’s argument sounds cool is without doubt; that it lacks in substance is equally certain.

The RPW, however, as derived from Scripture simply demonstrates for us that God has a natural and inalienable right to dictate the terms of the creature’s worship. God is God, and we are forbidden to engage in will-worship, or worship devised by human choosing, and not God’s choice. Whatever is not commanded is forbidden. That this is the historic Reformed position is beyond dispute, as Bushell cites:

God requires in the Second Commandment ‘that we in no wise make any image of God, nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word.’

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.¹¹

Thus the burden for determining what matter we ought to use in worship is entirely contingent on the command of God, whether explicit, or as may be determined by good and necessary consequence. The EP position simply boils down to this: 1. God has commanded us to sing Psalms in worship; 2. God has not commanded us to sing anything else in worship; therefore, 3. we may only sing Psalms in worship.

This brings us to the next point Bushell considers: the Psalms in Scripture. As alluded to above, the Psalms are a tie between the Old and New Covenants, between Moses, David, Christ, and the New Covenant saint. Yet a common objection to their use by Christians is that their spirit reflects something less than Christian. For example, David calls upon God to avenge him against his enemies (e.g. Pss. 69 and 109). However, in Scripture, the justice of God, even against our enemies, is never excluded by the mercy of God toward us. Moreover, the expressions of divine wrath through David are set in the backdrop of the glory of God and the praise of His Name, not in mere human feeling.

For example, Psalm 139, a famous Psalm in many ways, details the glory of God’s omniscience, providence, omnipotence, and omnipresence in verses 1-18. These verses (along with perhaps verses 23-24) of the Psalm are very familiar and beloved among professed Christians. However, this context couches one of the most profound and beautiful imprecations in all of Scripture:

Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies, (Ps. 139:19-22).

God is so glorious and holy, as revealed in the earlier part of this Psalm, that any who would oppose such a God are worthy to be punished with the worst sorts of punishment! Such people are not fit to live, and should be reckoned as our enemies.¹²

That this is not a lost concept in the New Testament is demonstrated by the incentives Paul gives to the Romans, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head,” (Rom. 12:19-20). God’s vengeance is increased by our acts of kindness, and this is to incentivize us to do good to our enemies.

Paul likewise cites the imprecation from Psalm 69 against the Jews in writing to the Romans:

David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always, (11:9-10 with Ps. 69:22-23).¹³

Thus, the suitable and just calling down of God’s wrath against His enemies, or the incitement of further vengeance against ours and God’s enemies is not contrary to the sweet spirit of the gospel. God’s mercy and justice are companion not competing virtues.

Moreover, the Psalms in Scripture reveal themselves to be “psalms, hymns and spiritual odes, or songs.” For instance, the Psalm titles in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Psalms use these and other terms to describe the Psalms.¹⁴ That this is the version of the Old Testament that the Greek-speaking Christians of Colossae and Ephesus would have used is hard to doubt. Likewise, as noted above, Christ’s singing of what was most likely Psalms 118 is referred to as “singing a hymn.” Thus, what we think of as “Psalms” are in fact “hymns.” And what we think of as “hymns” are in fact uninspired compositions not included in the list of commanded song; and therefore on the list of forbidden song.

Finally, Bushell makes a very powerful case from the use of Psalms in the true worship of God throughout history. As is clear from the inspired record, the Psalms were given by God to inspired prophets to be sung in the temple, and among the covenant people.¹⁵

Yet, as we saw above, the Psalms became even more relevant to God’s people with the coming of Christ, His work on earth for us, and His resurrection. This manifested itself in the almost exclusive use of Psalms in both the eastern and western churches for almost 400 years, and their recovery by the Reformed church for another 200 years. To avoid prolixity, I will cite a few of the choicest quotations from the fathers and the Reformed:

The Law instructs, history informs, prophecy predicts, correction censures, and morals exhort. In the Book of Psalms you find all of these, as well as a remedy for the salvation of the soul. The Psalter deserves to be called, the praise of God, the glory of man, the voice of the church, and the most beneficial Confession of Faith.¹⁶

The women, the children, and the humblest mechanics, could repeat all the Psalms of David; they chanted them at home and abroad: they made them the exercises of their piety and the refreshment of their minds. Thus they had answers ready to oppose temptation, and were always prepared to pray to God, and to praise him, in any circumstance, in a form of his own inditing.¹⁷

The Donatists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches, while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition, which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet of the battlefield. But when brethren are assembled in the church, why should not the time be devoted to singing of sacred songs, excepting of course while reading or preaching is going on, or while the presiding minister prays aloud, or the united prayer of the congregation is led by the deacon’s voice? At the other intervals not thus occupied, I do not see what could be a more excellent, useful and holy exercise for a Christian congregation.¹⁸

But what then ought to be done? Let us have songs that are not only decent but holy. These will incite us to pray and praise God, to meditate on his works, in order to love, fear, honour and glorify him. But what Augustine says is true, that no one can sing things worthy of God, unless he has received them from Himself. Therefore, after we have sought on every side, searching here and there, we shall find no songs better and more suitable for our purpose than the Psalms of David, dictated to him and made for him by the Holy Spirit. But singing them ourselves we feel as certain that God put the words into our mouths as if He Himself were singing within us to exalt His glory. Hence Chrysostom exhorts men, women and little children alike to become accustomed to sing them, in order that their practice might be as a meditation to associate themselves with the company of angels… only let the world be well advised, that instead of the songs partly vain and frivolous, partly dull and foolish, partly filthy and vile, and consequently wicked and hurtful, which it has hitherto used, it should accustom itself hereafter to sing these divine and heavenly songs with good King David.¹⁹

IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.

In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord.

That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read. But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof.²⁰

Citations could be multiplied from such sources, as well as from historians who have studied such matters, such as Philip Schaff, who asserts that the eastern church had a decided aversion to anything but Psalms and long adhered to the Psalms as “first, middle and last in the assemblies of Christians.”²¹

Thus, in conclusion, Bushell makes a very convincing case for EP from the sufficiency and superiority of the 150 canonical Psalms, the RPW, the Psalms in Scripture, and the Psalms in history. As a personal note, I was, at one time, an opponent of EP on grounds that I now consider to be specious, at best. Yet through the singing of Psalms in worship as well as in private, and by contemplation of this topic through Mr. Bushell’s book, Songs of Zion, I have been convinced of the EP position, and delight in singing God’s law and gospel in the Psalms.

Sabbatum Redivivum

by Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer

Interaction with the Text

Reformed Orthobilly

For completion of Old Testament Theology (BS411),
Master of Divinity Program

The North American Reformed Seminary

November 23rd in the Year of Our Lord 2012

Sabbatum Redivivum¹ is an in depth treatment of the Fourth Commandment by two Westminster Divines, Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer. This work is divided into three books, covering topics as broad-ranging as the morality of the Sabbath, whether we can refer to the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath, the regulations made concerning the Lord’s Day by ecclesiastical councils and imperial edicts, what sort of recreations are lawful on the Sabbath and more. Due to the overwhelming number of quotations mined from this excellent treatment of the Christian Sabbath, I will concentrate my efforts on the top eight types of quotations (by percentage of the total quotations gathered). These will include the morality of the Sabbath (24.4%), Patristic treatment of this topic (11.1%), the Lord’s Day (7.2%), the sanctity of the Sabbath (7.2%), recreations (5%), imperial edicts, frequency of the Sabbath, and number versus order in the Fourth Commandment (each 4.4%).

First, Sabbatum spends a great deal of energy treating the topic of the morality of the Sabbath, or whether the Sabbath is a commandment that binds all men everywhere, at all times, in every spiritual condition. This question is handled from various angles, including the festival days of the Gentiles, the placement of the Sabbath in the Decalogue, the institution of a day of rest prior to Adam’s fall, etc. Concerning its placement among the Decalogue Sabbatum says:

It is a commandment of the Decalogue, partaking of all the privileges with the rest; viz. 1. the admirable majestical delivery; 2. the writing it with his own finger, in Tables of stone; 3. the reserving and keeping it in the Ark (of all which we spake at large in the first part of our discourse) ‘to signify’ (as one of them says) ‘the dignity of it above others, and to note the perpetuity of observance which was due unto it,’ as well as to the rest.²

Thus, by God’s special method of delivering and keeping this precept among the other nine, God wished to distinguish it from other merely ceremonial or positive laws given to Israel.

Concerning the festivals of the heathens, as recorded by Macrobius and Scaevola,³Sabbatum demonstrates that those unenlightened by Scripture yet knew that regularly recurring days were to be totally devoted to divine worship.⁴ In rebuking the lax, Sabbatum sums up:

Mark it, not only a time, but a day, a whole day was consecrated and observed in honor of their gods. Therefore for Christians to give less than a day, three or four hours, is to fall short of heathens.⁵

Men professing a better God should definitely devote as much zeal to the worship of the True God as heathens devoted to their false.

Concerning a day of rest instituted from the beginning, Sabbatum says:

It is moral natural that God must have a Sabbath of his own appointment, even from the beginning to the end of the world. Therefore, it’s more than probable that if God would make his own rest the reason or occasion of sanctifying a day, and in the Decalogue propound that rest as an example for man’s imitation, he did it then, when he first rested; but that was at the beginning.⁶

Thus, not only does the Decalogue contain the Sabbath, and the heathen observe days dedicated to their gods, but God instituted such set days of rest from the beginning.

Sabbatum also mentions this same Decalogue and Fourth Commandment as given to all mankind in our first father, Adam:

That Law which was given to Adam, as the root of all mankind, was given to all, and equally concerned all, both Jews and Gentiles; But the Decalogue, and in it the Fourth Commandment, was given to Adam; Ergo.⁷

This argument strongly argues the applicability of the Fourth Commandment to all men everywhere at all times.

Additionally, in order to establish the perpetuity of the Sabbath in the age of the Gospel, and its authority over Christians, Sabbatum demonstrates the harmony of the Decalogue with the Gospel, and the specific prophesy Christ made concerning a Christian Sabbath. Concerning the harmony of the Sabbath and the Gospel:

It is not only not repealed, but ratified in the Gospel; and that many ways. 1. In general, together with the Decalogue by our Savior, ‘Whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven,’ et contra (Mt. 5). But the Fourth Commandment is (to some at least) the least of those Commandments; so little that it is esteemed a merely ceremonial Commandment, and so no longer in force.⁸

Concerning the prophesy Christ made concerning a Christian Sabbath, Sabbatum cites Matthew 24:20:

Another argument is grounded upon Matthew 24:20, ‘Pray that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day,’ which text, if thoroughly searched, and rightly understood, will afford a strong argument for the morality of the Fourth Commandment for a weekly Sabbath. Thus we would proceed. If the Fourth Commandment had not been moral, but ceremonial, there can no sufficient reason be given why our Savior should teach and advise his Disciples to pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath day. But it is blasphemous to say, that our Savior would teach or advise them to pray without a sufficient reason.⁹

On a more general basis, Sabbatum demonstrates that when one examines merely natural reason, it would stand to reason that God could require all seven days a week for His worship, rather than merely one. Or at the very least, over half of the days of the week:

We conclude then, If it be more just to employ more, yea all our days in God’s service, then certainly less than one in seven cannot be sufficient, by the law and light of nature; and consequently this is moral natural, in the fourth Commandment, initially that one day in seven at least must be observed.¹⁰

Thus, even without Scripture, natural reason would teach us that at least one day in seven (demanded by a positive revelation from God) is binding on all men everywhere, in all places, at all times. Thus by many and varied reasons, the Fourth Commandment is demonstrated as a rule binding all men, everywhere, in all times and spiritual conditions.

A particularly delightful topic in Sabbatum was that treating the church Fathers’ explanation of the Lord’s Day, or Christian Sabbath. Sabbatum cites Fathers as varied as Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ignatius, Eusebius, Augustine, Isidore of Seville, Clement of Rome, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Ephrem of Syria, the Venerable Bede, and even Gregory of Nyssa. Citations cover topics as broad as the morality of the Fourth Commandment, the expiration of the Jewish Sabbath and the translation to the Lord’s Day, the manner of observing the Fourth Commandment, and more.

Of particular interest is the work of Athanasius, including a powerful work entitled On Sabbath and Circumcision. Athanasius grapples with covenant theology, and the continuity between the Old and New Testaments with respect to the Fourth Commandment. Concerning the morality of the Fourth Commandment, Athanasius says:

‘The Lord transferred the Sabbath to the Lord’s day.’¹¹

Thus the honor and laws of the Sabbath are transferred by the Lord Himself from the Jewish Sabbath to the Lord’s Day.

In On Sabbath and Circumcision, Athanasius discusses how the Sabbath is not for idleness, but for the knowledge of God:

‘God did not primarily give the Sabbath that man should idly rest upon it; for if he had so intended it, he would never have commanded the Levites to kill and offer sacrifices. For if rest or idleness do sanctify it, manifests that work defiles.’ And again, ‘The Sabbath doth not signify rest, but the knowledge of the Creator; Therefore the Sabbath was given for knowledge sake, not for idleness, so that knowledge was more necessary than rest.’¹²

Ephrem the Syrian admonished his hearers similarly:

‘Strive to honor the Lord’s Days studiously, celebrating them, not with vain shows, but divinely; not worldly, but spiritually; not like heathens, but like Christians.’¹³

Thus, according to these Fathers, the Sabbath of the Jews was transferred to our Christian Sabbath, which is to be observed with the same sacred solemnity of rest and holiness. In particular, the Lord’s Day is not a day for idleness or worldly pleasures, but one for learning about our Savior, and meditating on His Word.

Chrysostom concurs:

‘God from the beginning insinuates to us this instruction, To set apart and separate m…an ¹mšran ¤pasan one whole day in the circle of the week is to be separated and set apart for spiritual exercises’ Then again in his fifth Homily upon Saint Matthew, to the same purpose, ‘Let us prescribe this as an immovable law to ourselves, to our wives, and children, to set aside one day of the week, and that wholly, to hearing and laying up of things heard.’¹⁴

For the Fathers, then, the Lord’s Day was the counterpart of the Jewish Sabbath, a day of rest and holiness. A day, not for worldly works, idleness or seeking our own pleasures, but a day for the “knowledge of the Creator,” to be spent “studiously,” in “spiritual exercises,” “hearing and laying up of things heard” by an immovable law for us and our households.

A sticking point for many ignorant Presbyterians is the so-called “recreation clause” of the Westminster Confession of Faith, often taken as an exception to this Confession. However, for the church Fathers, this clause was perfectly in accord with Scripture and plain reason. In addition to the mild hints above, Augustine goes so far as to refer to hunting on the Lord’s Day as “devilish.” Augustine likewise says:

‘This day is called the Lord’s Day, that in it, abstaining from earthly works, and worldly pleasures, we should only give ourselves to the service of God. Let us therefore, brethren, observe the Lord’s Day, and sanctify it, as it was commanded them of old concerning the Sabbath by the word of the Lawgiver, ‘From evening to evening ye shall celebrate your Sabbath.’ Let us see that our resting be not vain, but that from the evening of the Sabbath, to the evening of the Lord’s Day, we being sequestered from rural work, and all kinds of business, may be wholly taken up in the service of God. For so we rightly sanctify the Lord’s Sabbath, as the Lord has said, ‘In it thou shalt do no manner of work.’¹⁵

Clement of Rome admonishes Christians to abstain from “vain words and filthiness, pleasant jests, drunkenness, wantonness, broken and effeminate motions, intemperate dancings, with scurrilous discourses.”¹⁶

Ignatius exhorts us to abstain from “the Jewish Sabbath in sloth and idleness,” and likewise to:

‘keep the Sabbath spiritually, not in bodily ease, but in the study of the law; not eating meat dressed yesterday or drinking luke-warm drinks, or walking out a limited space, nor in dancing and senseless sporting, but in the admiration of the works of God’¹⁷

To borrow a thought from Sabbatum, “we cannot think what can be added more to the solemn and honorable observation of the Lord’s Day by the veriest Puritan that is (if he be not turned Jew).”¹⁸

Another major emphasis of the Fathers is on the resurrection of Christ as the occasion for the institution of the Lord’s Day, or Christian Sabbath. That it is a Christian Sabbath, Gregory of Nyssa makes abundantly clear:

‘From that Sabbath acknowledge thou this present Sabbath (the Lord’s Day) this day of rest, which God hath blessed above other days. For in this the only begotten Son of God did truly rest from all his works.’¹⁹

The Fathers, as orthodox Christians, acknowledged the authority of the Ten Commandments over their lives, including the Fourth.

The occasion of the change in days being the resurrection of Christ, the Lord’s Day is inherently superior to the old Sabbath:

‘The Apostle therefore ordained the Lord’s Day to be kept with religious solemnity, because in it our Redeemer rose from the dead, which was therefore called the Lord’s Day, that resting in the same from all earthly acts, and the temptations of the world, we might intend God’s holy worship, giving this day due honor, for the hope of the resurrection we have therein.’²⁰

The Lord’s Day is a day of rest and holiness, dedicated to the Lord, and dedicated by the Lord’s sacred rest from His work of redemption for us.

Ignatius propounded this thought hundreds of years before:

‘And setting aside the Sabbath, let every one that loveth Christ, keep the Lord’s Day holy, the Queen and Empress of all days, the Resurrection Day, in which our life was raised again, and death was overcome by our Lord and Savior.’²¹

Chrysostom confirms this opinion, stating that ‘On this day death was destroyed, the curse was dissolved, sin vanished, the gates of hell were broken in pieces.’²²

Chrysostom likewise demonstrates the morality of the Sabbath, as one whole day in seven, whereas God could have taken the majority of the seven for Himself:

‘The week contains seven days, these seven days God has divided to us. And he did not give himself the greatest part, and us the least; or rather, he did not take half, and give half. He took not three, and gave three, but he has given you six, and left but one for himself. And you cannot forbear your worldly business ™n taÚtV tÍÓlV, this whole day, but as they do, who steal holy goods (sacrilegious persons) that you dare do with this day, being holy, and separated fro the hearing of spiritual words, viz. violently take it, and use it to worldly cares.’²³

Note how reasonable the demand for one day in seven is portrayed, and how, once given, that day is separate, special, and dedicated to God; no portion of which is to be stolen away with sacrilegious boldness. Again, what more could “the veriest Puritan” ask for?

In summary, Sabbatum’s delightful treatment of the Patristic authors demonstrates the Fathers’ firm dedication to God’s moral Law in the light of the Gospel of Christ. The Fathers considered the Jewish Sabbath to be abrogated, but its observance and honor transferred to the Lord’s Day. They considered the glorious resurrection of our Savior, Christ to be the occasion of our resting (as he rested). They recognized that any day devoted to God must be completely so dedicated, without reservation for our own pleasures or works. In this, as in much else, the Puritans and Covenanters were merely the heirs of the best of the church Fathers.

The next topic I will discuss is Sabbatum’s discourse on the Lord’s Day. In proof of the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day, the morality of the Fourth Commandment is joined with the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, and specific passages from the New Testament are considered. The superiority of the Lord’s Day over the Jewish Sabbath is also considered.

First, then, we will consider Sabbatum’s proof of the first day of the week as the Christian man’s holy day. Having demonstrated the morality of the Fourth Commandment in the preceding pages, Sabbatum then takes up the thesis that the first day of the week is the specific, divinely sanctioned day to celebrate this commandment under the New Covenant:

When we say, we rest the first day of the week because of our Savior’s resurrection, we bring that as a reason, not of the number of the day, but the order–so that still we rest one in seven, because of God’s Commandment and example and the first of seven because of Christ’s resurrection.²⁴

The cause of one day in seven is the Fourth Commandment, and the occasion of the particular day is the resurrection of Christ.

Joined with the mighty resurrection of Christ is the abrogation of Sabbaths of the Jews (Col. 2:16). The uniquely appointed day for the old world had expired, but the Fourth Commandment could not, so another day must assume its prerogatives:

To conclude this point we say: upon the repeal, as some, or the expiration of the old Sabbath, as others, immediately the first day of the week succeeds to be the Sabbath as heir apparent thereof. Or if neither repeal nor expiration could be proved, yet upon the substitution or surrogation of a new day, the first day of the week, by sufficient authority the old Sabbath must necessarily be discharged by virtue of the Fourth Commandment, which requires one, and only one of seven. Upon expiration of the old, the new (like another phoenix) arises and succeeds it. Upon substitution of the new day, the old vanishes.²⁵

Sabbatum also deals with specific texts regarding the Lord’s Day, or the substitution of the first day of the week for the last. Sabbatum discusses the Day of Pentecost shortly after the resurrection of Christ, on which the Holy Ghost came down, Peter preached his first sermon, and 3,000 were baptized. It is then poignantly added:

that upon this day, all the disciples were assembled again together in one place, distinctly from the Jews (viz. the 120 person spoken of in 1:15). And that ÐmoqumadÕn, with one mind. Now why should they assemble themselves together in this manner, and not keep their Pentecost in the Temple with the other Jews?²⁶

What is clear is that the Apostles and early disciples were not clearly separated from the Jews in their festivals, etc. until decades later, but in this instance, they were not joined in the celebration of the Feast of Pentecost on the temple, but were separately observing the Lord’s Day.

After citing the Apostle’s ordination of collections on the first day of the week in Galatia and Corinth (1 Cor. 16:2), Sabbatum observes:

first, Here is a mention of an ordinance (dištaxa) not a bare example or practice. 2. That the collection was to be made upon (or against) the first day of the week, that is (as Beza renders it) ‘Every first day’ of the week, which implies the continuance of that duty. Whence thus we argue: If the Apostle ordained collections to be made upon or against every first day of the week, then he had before ordained the day itself. For it is not probable they would begin such a custom of themselves, the Apostles yet living.²⁷

Thus, not only were the disciples gathered together separately from the divinely ordered Feast of Pentecost, but the Apostles ordained ecclesiastical practices on the first day of the week, necessitating a previous ordinance of the Lord’s Day.

Also of interest is the notion that the old Sabbath was not instituted until Moses (since no practice is mentioned until then), and that the Lord’s Day was not instituted by Christ (since no institution is mentioned in the New Testament). Sabbatum, claiming that those who argue such “deal injuriously with God,” concludes that, “institution in the Old Testament argues the practice. And practice in the New argues the institution.”²⁸

Thus, the moral law, binding all men everywhere, at all times, requires one day in seven for a day of rest and holiness unto the LORD. In the old world, God appointed the last of seven, rooted in God’s work of creation; in new world, God appointed the first of seven, rooted in Christ’s work of redemption. The old Sabbath’s institution is clearly seen from creation, and the new Sabbath’s practice is clearly seen throughout the New Testament.

Concerning the superiority of the Lord’s Day over the Jewish Sabbath, Sabbatum discusses how both are regulated by the Fourth Commandment, for a holy and solemn celebration of one day for seven. Yet:

Our motives are far greater, and more efficacious: Our day has many privileges above theirs, as those honorable titles given to it by the Fathers intimate, of which we heard before; Theirs was celebrated for the memory of the Creation, ours for the great work of Redemption. Theirs for their deliverance out of Egypt; ours from hell.²⁹

With motives far greater and more efficacious, how much more devout and solemn must our observance of the Lord’s Day be? Not with superstition, but with godly fear. Thus, we must not give the Lord an hour or two of that sacred day of rest, but must give the entirety of the day to His worship, public, private and family, except so much as is taken up with works of necessity and mercy. As Sabbatum says it so eloquently, “If but a part, then it is not a day, but part of a day, and we must not call it the Lord’s Day, but the Lord’s part of a Day, or half-holy-day.”³⁰

Not only does Sabbatum deal with the morality of the Sabbath, the Patristic writings on the topic, and the Lord’s Day, but also covers the sanctity of the Sabbath, or the inherent holiness of the Sabbath, and how it is to be sanctified in practice. Sabbatum cites Wolfgang Musculus regarding this sanctity:

‘There is,’ as Musculus observes, ‘a twofold sanctification of the Sabbath: For both God sanctified it, and Israel sanctified it. God sanctified it when presently from the beginning he deputed and consecrated the seventh day unto rest. Israel’s sanctifying was the keeping holy that day, which God had long before deputed to be kept.’³¹

On the divine side, God made the day holy, “not by any inherent holiness, but by destination of it to holy uses, and that day being so applied by us, to holy works, is to us most holy.”³²

Also on God’s part, He placed the Fourth Commandment as the “keeper” of the rest of the Decalogue. Citing Andre Rivet, Sabbatum notes:

‘The sanctification of the Sabbath being placed between the two Tables, and that as the sinew both of the understanding and obedience of the other precepts… so that this precept being neglected, all the rest had also fallen with it.’³³

Sabbatum illustrates:

The moral duties whereby the Sabbath was to be sanctified were partly presupposed in the former Three Commandments, and therefore needless it was to repeat them here. This Commandment (to differ from the former) was only some way or other to determine the time of God’s worship to be spent and employed in those duties. ‘Remember to sanctify the Sabbath day.’ How? In such duties of piety as by the Three former Commandments are required; and add to them (as occasion is offered) works of charity, in the Six last Commandments. For this is the very end of the Fourth Commandment.³⁴

This is why, in certain cases, the prophets would sum up the entirety of God’s worship, and love for our neighbor in terms of the Sabbath (Lev. 19:3 and 30, Isa. 56:2, etc.).

For our part, God requires us to sanctify the Sabbath by rest and holiness; that is, as we saw in the treatment of the Patristics, by ceasing from all worldly works and pleasures, and by devoting ourselves to the worship and knowledge of God. More than this, the rest is required for the sake of holiness, not merely in its own right. Thus, idleness is not commanded in the Fourth Commandment, but the knowledge of God, as Athanasius put it.

Sabbatum reasons that since the primal creation is the ground of the old Sabbath, the contemplation of God and His works would naturally shape the activities of the Day.³⁵ The dispersion of the Levites is likewise marshaled as proof of the dispersion of the knowledge of God among the Israelites, especially on the Sabbath:

This might be the cause, or one cause at least, of the dispersion of the Levites into all the tribes; that so they might assist the people in the sanctification of the Day, either by reading, or expounding, or both; however some deny it. The reasons of their dispersion, amongst others, were these: First, to instruct the people, and teach them the difference between the clean and the unclean (Lev. 10:10-11). Secondly, to teach them all the statutes which the Lord had spoken by Moses (Deut. 33:10)… Now if the priests and Levites were to teach the people in the Law, when more probably than on the Sabbath, and holy days?³⁶

Added to this was the duty to constantly train one’s children in the Law of God, and the proposition of a Sabbath of knowledge and worship is easily demonstrated. If every day was to be taken up in teaching the Law, how much more the day of rest from regular works?³⁷

Shall Jews receive clerical instruction and devote themselves to the worship and knowledge of God on their Sabbath, and Christians (with such greater benefits!) be behind them in instruction, worship and knowledge on theirs?! Sabbatum discusses the helps in sanctifying the Christian Sabbath:

But as for us, we have abundance of helps, both for public and private devotions. For public first, we have the Word read, singing of Psalms, preaching, catechizing, etc. For private, we have the Word, Old and New Testament, many expositors upon them, many good books written. We have, or may have, repetition, conference, singing, instructing our families. Variety of actions besides, we have (or a shame for us) more knowledge, more grace afforded us in the gospel, to pray, meditate, etc. Now, it’s but great reason, where more means, more duty should be expected and yielded.³⁸

More grace, more knowledge, and more means bow to this maxim: “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”

Also respecting the sanctification of the Day on our part, Sabbatum discusses the vain notion that public worship is all that God requires of us:

Now then, besides the time spent in the public worship, unless some be allotted to the preparation of the heart for it, men will come with their shoes on their feet, their worldly business, barns, bargains, sports in their heads and hearts, and so not worship God at all in spirit and truth, but only outwardly, which is to offer the sacrifice of fools. Again, after the public worship, if suddenly men return to other thoughts, whether business or sports, will not the greatest part, if not all the effect and end of the public service performed, be lost?³⁹

Any profit we would derive from public worship must have preparation preceding and meditation following. Again, God did not call us to sanctify a “half-holy-day,” but an entire day.

But is this not a grievous burden to be born? Is not such “sanctification” a return of the Pharisees’ flaying of consciences? Is not Christ’s yoke easy, and His burden light?

It’s true, the yoke of Christ is sweet and easy, but to whom? Not to every swinish drunkard or gotish adulterer, etc. but to those that are born again (1 John 5:3) that have a new heart, and a new nature given them. For to an unregenerate man nothing is more hard or heavy than the yoke of Christ, and no one thing more than the right sanctification of the Lord’s Day.⁴⁰

The Sabbath day is a delight, the holy day of the LORD, honorable; a day for the worship of the true God, taking His Name reverently, and loving our neighbor as we love ourselves. What more could a Spirit-filled soul desire?

In light of the sanctification of the Day, Sabbatum discusses recreations on the Lord’s Day. To clarify what are being referred to as recreations, Sabbatum distinguishes:

The word recreation therefore is equivocal, and so deludes the reader. There is a recreation which is a mercy, that is, necessary refreshment of the body, as eating, drinking and resting itself, to those that are hard labored; yea, to a sickly body, some ordinary, moderate, inoffensive recreation may be as necessary as food or physic. But of this he does not, or should not mean it. There is a recreation, such as we call sports and pastimes, when there is none of the former necessity, and such he pleads for, but to allow these is no work of mercy, and therefore God will have sacrifice, and not such kind of mercy, and in such a case we must be better friends to sacrifice than to vain and pretended mercy.⁴¹

Recreations, then, are not such necessary activities as sustain man’s life, but such as are not necessary, and merely subserve to prepare man’s mind and body for labor.

Such recreations prepare the mind and body for labor, and are therefore impediments to the sanctification of the Lord’s Day of rest:

And then thirdly a minore ad majus, if honest labor be forbidden, much more honest recreations; for recreation is but the means to prepare and fit men for labor. Therefore if labor, which is the end of recreation, be forbidden, much more recreation, which is but the means to labor. And indeed (which may be added) recreation is a weekday’s work, as well as labor; ‘Six days shalt thou labor, and do all that thou hast to do.’ But moderate recreation is a work we have to do on the weekdays, otherwise we are cruel to ourselves and ours.⁴²

The lesser (minore), recreations serve the greater (majus), work. How can the principle be forbidden while the accessory is permitted? If bearing false witness is forbidden (the greater), is lying permitted (the lesser)? Of course not, since lying is a lesser manifestation of the greater, public lying in open court.

Yet some recreations are required by God; namely, such as fit men for communion with the living and true God:

There is indeed, a spiritual recreation, which is an holy joy, rejoicing, delighting in God, in his service, in his ordinances, etc. and this is the recreation not only permitted, but required on the Sabbath (Isaiah 58), and is (as we may so say) the spirituality of the Fourth Commandment.⁴³

Distinguishing what is meant by recreations helps to understand which sort are lawful and which are not. Such as are mere preparations or fittings to labors must be forbidden, since labor itself is forbidden.⁴⁴

But labor is expressly forbidden, while recreations only by consequence. Certainly we should not be as dogmatic on points not expressly forbidden within the Decalogue; or should we?

the Seventh Commandment expressly and by name forbids adultery; Ergo, much more incest, which yet is not named. Again, the Third Commandment forbids the taking of God’s Name in vain, which is or may be in a slight and careless using of the Name of God without due reverence; Ergo, much more positive and downright blasphemy, which yet is not expressed. So we think it is in this Fourth Commandment: it forbids labor as an impediment of the body, chiefly from the service of God; much more some recreations, which are greater impediments, and that of the mind, which God chiefly requires in his service.⁴⁵

In addition to more theological concerns, Sabbatum also reviews the Christian Sabbath from a historical perspective, looking into the imperial and regal edicts of pious emperors and kings throughout Christendom. The first large-scale example of such was Constantine the Great, who issued an edict:

‘That every one who lived in the Roman Empire should rest from labor that day, weekly, which was instituted to our Savior. And moreover that all judges, citizens, artificers should rest on the venerable day of Sunday.’⁴⁶

Constantine, however, made exceptions for farmers, and abuses also began to arise in the following decades.

In response, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius continued reforms in 384 A.D. forbidding all shows on Sundays, arbitration of litigious causes or exacting any public or private debts.⁴⁷ In 415 A.D. Theodosius the Younger caused all circuses and theaters to be closed on the Lord’s Day that the people’s minds may be taken up with the worship of Almighty God.⁴⁸ By 469 A.D. Emperor Leo went one step further toward the biblical position, stating that “We will have holy days, dedicated to the supreme Majesty, spent in no kind of pleasures.”⁴⁹ It is plain, then, that Christian magistrates considered it their duty to sanctify the Lord’s Day with rest from labors, dedication of our minds to God’s worship, and taking part in no earthly pleasures or recreations. As was asked regarding the church Fathers, would the veriest Puritan ask any more?

Charlemagne more explicitly grounds the observance of the Christian Sabbath in the “Law of God,” and the good things the Lord our God has done for us:

‘We do ordain, according as it is commanded in the Law of God, that no man do any servile work on the Lord’s Day,’ which he explicates by many particulars, ‘husbandry, dressing vines, ploughing, making hay, etc. and almost all kind of manufacturers, hunting, etc. but that they come unto the church, to divine service, and magnify the Lord their God for those good things, which on that day, he has done for them.’⁵⁰

Both church and state then stood with King Jesus, recognizing the authority of His Law, and rejoicing in the great things He has done for His people.

The penalties inflicted by some of the kings of this time are even more interesting. Around 662 A.D., Clothaire III, King of France ordered that violators of God’s holy Day, if slaves, would be beaten, and, if freemen, after three admonitions, would lose a third of their estate.⁵¹ In the seventh century, King In of West Saxony stated that if a servant worked at the behest of his master, he was to gain his freedom, and his master to forfeit 30 shillings; if at his own will, he was to be scourged or fined. Freemen were to either be made bondmen, or to pay 60 shillings.⁵²

Latest in time was Leo Philosophus, Emperor of the East, who, in 886 A.D. countermanded Constantine’s previous liberty granted to farmers:

Taking into consideration the grant of liberty to husbandmen on the Lord’s Day: ‘and seeing that the general ground thereof would not bear so general and large indulgence as had been granted, does by a contrary edict reverse, and severely censures his predecessor’s remissness, saying, We ordain, according to the true meaning of the holy Ghost, and of the holy Apostles, by him directed, that on that sacred day, wherein we were restored to our integrity, all do rest, and surcease from labor; that neither the husbandmen, nor others put their hand to forbidden work. For if the Jews did so much reverence their Sabbath, which was but a shadow of ours, are not we which inhabit the light and truth of grace, bound to honor that day which the Lord himself has honored, and has therein delivered us, both from dishonor and death? Are we not bound to keep it singular and inviolable, sufficiently contented with a liberal grant of all the rest, and not encroaching upon that one which God has chosen to his own honor? Were it not a wretchless neglect of religion, to make that very day common, and think we may do with it as with the rest?’⁵³

What is noteworthy is that Leo used the same foundational arguments as Sabbatum in making the case for the biblical and “Puritan” doctrine of the Sabbath: the sacredness of the Lord’s Day due to Christ’s resurrection, the cessation from all worldly works, the divine institution of the Lord’s Day, its superiority over the Jewish Sabbath, the generous grant of six days for our labor, and the sanctity of that day. The notion that the Sabbath as taught (for instance) in the Westminster Confession of Faith is unique to such a period in history is total nonsense, or perverse blindness.

Concerning the frequency of the Sabbath, Sabbatum does an excellent job of reasoning through the alternatives to one day in seven:

If nature requires most of our time to be dedicated to God, and our soul’s good, then less than one day in seven is not sufficient. But nature requires most of our time to be dedicated to God, etc. Therefore less than one in seven is not sufficient, by the very light and Law of Nature. The sequel is evident by this; because upon that ground, that nature requires most of our time for God and our souls, it may be inferred that more is necessary, and that one day in seven is not strictly sufficient, unless God be pleased so to make it.⁵⁴

Will the depravity of man know no bounds or reason? If we carp at one whole day in seven, what would we do if God demanded His right to all or the majority of our time for His worship? One in seven is more than reasonable.

In terms of the specific meaning of the Fourth Commandment as delivered in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, the question arises as to whether “the seventh day” has reference to the order or number. Is it the seventh, as in the last day of the week, or the seventh, as in one of seven days (indifferent to order per se). One of the most helpful illustrations used in Sabbatum was that of the tithe, or tenth:

As first, that Leviticus 27:30, ‘All the tithes, or tenths, of the land are the Lord’s, holy to the Lord.’ Where it is not necessary to take it for the tenth in order, but for any part of the ten, the whole being equally divided into ten parts… The like instances are Leviticus 27:31, ‘If any man would redeem his tithe, he must add a fifth,’ that is, any part of the five, not necessarily the last in order.⁵⁵

Thus, God demands a proportion, and not a specific order.

It is also reasoned that no greater force of persuasion inheres in the divine concession of “six days” in the Fourth Commandment, unless we take it for number rather than order:

To allow God one for six (whether he requires the last of the first) is more equal and just; but to allow him the first or the last for six before, or six after his Day, carries with it no great equity, or force of reason.⁵⁶

In summary, Sabbatum embraces a whirlwind tour of the Sabbath question, whether exegetical, theological, historical, or in various other ways. We have interacted with its treatment of the morality of the Sabbath, as binding all men everywhere, at all times and in all conditions, rooted in its role in the Decalogue and the Law of Nature. We have discussed the overwhelming force of the church Fathers’ treatment of the sanctity and significance of the Christian Sabbath. We have discussed the abrogation of the old Sabbath, and its replacement by the Lord’s Day, as the light of the sun overwhelms the light of a candle. We have looked at the divine and human sanctity of the Sabbath. We have considered the question of lawful recreations on the Sabbath, imperial edicts regarding the sanctity of the Lord’s Day, the frequency of the Sabbath, and the question of number versus order in the actual Fourth Commandment itself. Sabbatum’s treatment is thorough, scriptural and edifying, and I would recommend it to any serious student of Scripture.

It’s been far too long since my last update. I’ve been fairly busy since the holidays with work and school. I’m teaching twice a week now at my church, Tuesday morning and Thursday evenings, for our in house Bible school program. It functions as a sort of catechesis/discipleship group and I have a good group of students. The highlight of the past few months was my trip to Princeton to attend the Florovsky Symposium on the Patristic Doctrine of Scripture. There were some amazing lectures and I came away with much to think about in regards to how I read and interpret Scripture. I’ll be graduating from seminary in June with my M.Div and have begun to seriously contemplate my post graduate school plans. I’d appreciate any prayers you may feel inclined to offer. Ok! Back to St. Athanasius and On the Incarnation. (by way of reminder I’m reading and quoting from the V. Rev. Dr. John Behr’s translation published by St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press).

In chapter six, St. Athanasius concluded that it is right for God to not allow human beings to be carried away by corruption because this would not be worthy of his goodness if he did not do so. It is with this in mind that we move to chapter seven. He asks what was God to do in response to human sin? Should he demand repentance? St. Athanasius then notes that repentance can only halt sin, it does not recall human beings from the consequences of the fall. In order to answer this question he writes that since God the Word (Jesus) created the world, then the Word alone is able to recreate the universe, suffer, and intercede for humanity before the Father. He does this in order to make what has been corrupted into something incorruptible. This also saves the consistency of the goodness of God in relation to his creation.

In chapter eight St. Athanasius moves to The Word’s incarnation. Rather than try to summarize, I’ll post a piece of what he says because he says it beautifully, and more completely than, I can.

“For seeing the rational race perishing, and death reigning over them through corruption… and seeing the excessive wickedness of human beings… and seeing the liability of all human beings to death – having mercy upon our race… and condescending to our corruption, and not enduring the dominion of death… he takes for himself a body not foreign to our own.”

He comments on how the Word, though being the powerful creator of the universe, took on human flesh through the womb of Mary. He does this so that he can, in his love, offer himself in his incorruptible flesh on behalf of all humanity to the Father so that the law of corruption in all humanity can be undone. And the grace of the resurrection “banishes death from them (humanity) as straw from the fire.”

I like that last quote, namely that God the Word banishes death from us as “straw from the fire.” Fire burns through straw quite quickly and this makes a powerful image about how the work of Christ should burn through us removing all impurities as we turn our hearts towards God. We can only do this because God the Word condescended to humanity first out of his goodness and love for human beings. Because of this we can be healed and freed from our bondage to sin and death. Quite a profound thought and one worth meditating on this week.

(not sure if the fire picture is a stock photo. Found it at geringcitizen.com)

The technical language of theology is an interpretive language, and its interpretation is carried out with reference to the biblical text. The words chosen for the process of interpretation are available words, selected because they are endowed with a meaning that permits inserting them into true propositions. Because words with meanings do not exist in isolation but within languages and, in the case of concepts, within theories (whether established in rigid form, as in the case of the Aristotelian theory of ousia, or more flexibly, as with the general ideas about ousia in the philosophical koine of late antiquity), no terminology can of course enter theological usage without carrying traces of its pretheological usage, with the latter perhaps having some influence on the former. But because theological usage itself is established by reference to the biblical text, the first question must concern the elementary logical or ontological requirements of the Christian faith as these emerge from the reading of the Bible. Thus, the homoousios of Nicaea articulates in a rigorous form what is already said in John 10:30—“I and the Father are one.”

Jean-Yves Lacoste. “Being” in Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, 182

Disciplining Christians: Correction and Community in Augustine’s Letters
Jennifer V. Ebbeler, 2012

Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World
Beate Dignas and R. R. R. Smith, 2012.

Oxford Scholarship Online Classical Studies titles  published in 2012, and any published so far in 2013 are now available on trial access to University of Edinburgh Users. Access is available on campus and off campus via the VPN. The trial ends on 12 March. See the eresources trials web page for more information.

I must say, the book’s beautiful cover caught my attention, and then the title made me take it home. My recent reevaluation of Christian theology has me reading more philosophy and theology than usual these days, and I’m glad that this book was pretty enough for me to read (that’s why everyone reads philosophy books, isn’t it?).

All kidding aside, the book is well-written. Zimmermann teaches English and German at Trinity Western University, his main interests being literary theory, theology, and philosophy; so he knows what he’s doing. He argues that a great deal of Christianity has lost touch with its roots. The two thousand years of theological and philosophical thought from the first century until now has taken it’s toll. The western church seems confused about it’s main purpose. Is it exalting Christ? His birth? His life? His death? Is it saving lost souls? Is it feeding the poor? Is it retaining a traditional liturgy? Is it social action? There are many more possibilities, but Zimmermann recommends that the church re-embraces the incarnational humanism promoted by the church fathers.

Even uttering the word humanism concerns many of the laity, since they usually relate humanism directly to secular humanism. Though he doesn’t say it outright, I think that is part of Zimmermann’s point. The fact that this misconception is widespread indicates that the church has forgotten its most important mission: the restoration of humanity. The incarnation event heavily influenced the early church and promoted humanism. So Zimmermann spends most of his time tracing the main ideas about humanism from the early church to the present.

While the idea of a deity becoming flesh was certainly not new in the first century, the Christian story of the incarnation represented a tremendous paradigm shift: we are not like the gods, but the holy God–the one who is completely other and separate from humanity–has become like us. We are not like the gods, but rather God infinitely condescended to become like us. Not born to royalty, but to poverty. Not born to prestige, but to the lowly. Humanity had now achieved a special level of dignity because God had ensconced himself in a human form and triumphed over sin and death for the sake of the rest of the world. God had achieved the victory that man could never win. He did that while he was a human being made of flesh. Thus, Christianity promoted the dignity of humans. Christ had proved that the world can be redeemed, so Christians ought to redeem the world. They should seek the betterment of humanity through education and social action. Furthermore, the church fathers made a sharp distinction between Neo-Platonism and Christian humanism. The truth of Christianity was more relational than cerebral (though truth and facts were very important).

Later, the Enlightenment and Reformation championed personal knowledge and independence. Philosophers such as Kant and Hegel equated knowledge and logical thought with humanity. Dignity had more to do with the cerebral instead of being itself. The reformers had legitimate and serious concerns with Rome, but also championed ideas and ideals over some of the more mysterious elements of Christianity. The Eucharist had to be modified in Protestant circles to accommodate to new ways of thinking. Even Luther modified his view of the bread and wine based on enlightenment thought. The center of Christian worship–the moment acknowledges the mysterious union between spirit and flesh–the Eucharist became segmented. To many, they became symbolic. The bread was just bread and wine was just wine. A Neo-Platonic separation between flesh and spirit thus became standard doctrine for many churches. So human beings were similarly segmented into flesh and spirit beings.

Later, philosophers such as Nietzsche, Foucault, and Heidegger negated the “spiritual” side of humans. Beforehand, people assumed that there was a common and even divine expectation for all human beings to fulfill, but these philosophers identified such expectations as elements of control that impeded the freedom of human beings. Thus, the cerebral element to humanity is really irrelevant; being is the only issue relevant to humans. So, expression becomes important for humans with no prescription for normality. Humans are not obliged to be anything or to act in any specific way. They simply are what they are. Later postmodern philosophers developed these concepts even more. As a result, the uniqueness and dignity of humanity became a misnomer. Humans no longer had innate value or dignity.

Zimmermann argues for a return to an incarnational humanism promoted in the Christian Church. Such an approach emphasizes the Eucharist as the embodiment of human dignity. It is the center of Christian worship which reminds the congregation of the incarnation event when God became human. This event brought ultimate victory for all humanity. It also represented divine struggle with human travail. It is God’s goodwill toward humanity. It teaches us that all human beings are valuable because all are in God’s image and God became flesh to save us all. God’s efforts should be our own. We should take on a similar mission when we partake in the Eucharist.

Zimmermann is quite fond of Dietrich Bonhoeffer‘s approach to humanity and the Church’s mission. The Church must participate in the current state of the world (the penultimate) with a view to bring about the world’s ultimate redemption (the ultimate). Thus, the church seeks to bring about common good and divine good in the world, unabashedly involved in social action. We ought not be legalists who consistently separate ourselves from the world and huddle triumphantly in our local congregations; neither should we be antinomians who have no stance on morality.

What a great aspiration! Zimmermann points us in a nice direction, but what kind of that church would that be? How does that look practically? Zimmermann doesn’t offer much practical guidance with these questions (except for some broad comments here and there). He remains philosophical overall.  I also wish that Zimmermann interacted with the theologians who had similar concerns in the twentieth century. There are no references to Barth or Tillich, for example. That was very surprising for such a well-documented book! There are also very few biblical references. To make his case among those who hold the scriptures in high regard, Zimmermann would need more biblical support to make his case.

On the other hand, Incarnational Humanism, represents a fantastic history of humanism from the first century until now. The writing becomes rather heady at times, particularly when he discusses the postmodern period, but the discussions are rich and enlightening. It is a strong philosophical argument that modern church academics should consider in an era where church identity can be hard to define.

English Translation of Oration 41.15-16

15. They were speaking in foreign languages, not their own, and this was a great miracle, that the message was being spoken by those who were not instructed. This was a sign to the unbelievers, not to the believers, as it is written, “‘in different languages and in strange lips I will speak to this people, and thus they will not hear me,’ says the Lord.” But these were hearing. Look here for a bit, and puzzle over how to divide the speech: the reading has an ambiguity, which arises from punctuation. Were they each hearing in their own language, such that we might say that one language flowed forth, but that many were heard? To speak more clearly, as the word traveled through the air, did one language became many? Or, should we place a period after “they were hearing,” and join “as they spoke in their own languages” to what follows, so that it becomes “as they were speaking in languages, the ones of the audience,” or more simply “foreign.” I prefer this arrangement. In the former case, the miracle would belong primarily to the audience, not to the speakers, but in the latter case the miracle would chiefly belong to the speakers. Even as they were being accused of drunkenness, clearly they were working miracles through their voices by the Spirit.

16. Now, the old division of tongues is certainly worthy of honor. When those evil and atheistic schemers were building the tower (as some dare to do even now), their plot was undone by the scattering of their language, and it ruined their attempt. Yet this present, miraculous division of tongues is even more worthy of praise, because it flows from one Spirit out to many people, but brings them once more into one harmony, and because it is the type of gift that requires another gift to interpret this better division. Since all divisions of tongues have something praiseworthy, one may even call good that division about which David says, “Drown, O Lord, and scatter their tongues.” Why? Because “they have loved all the words of destruction, with a deceitful tongue.” He all but names them openly as he declares his charge against those who mangle the godhead. But that is enough on these matters.

ἐν αὐτῷ,
ΜΑΘΠ