sunday
Mike Abendroth
John Bunyan on the Sabbath
By John G. Reisinger
On several occasions I have noted that John Bunyan was my mentor in
understanding the relationship of law and grace. This is not at all to suggest that
Bunyan believed everything I believe or visa versa. I merely mean that the basic
presuppositions that I hold about law and grace, especially in the area of law and
the Christian conscience, were obtained from Bunyan's writings. Bunyan also
helped me greatly to understand the Sabbath. He wrote a treatise entitled
"Questions About the Nature and Perpetuity of the Seventh day Sabbath" that
was especially helpful to me. In this work, he had a two fold goal. One was to
prove that the fourth commandment was not made known until Exodus 20 and
therefore that commandment could not possibly be what it is today termed a
"Creation Ordinance." The second goal was to prove that the "first day of the
week is the true Christian Sabbath." It is obvious, to anyone familiar with the
problems connected with the fourth commandment issue that Bunyan seems to
both agree and disagree with both sides. On the one hand he appears to be a full
blown sabbatarian, but at the same time, he is taking the foundation out from
under that very position.
The Editor's Advertisement (by the publisher) in the front of almost every
Bunyan work is very helpful. It tells us when Bunyan wrote that particular work;
it also tells us what occasioned him to write it; and lastly, it usually gives a short
outline of the material covered. In Bunyan's work on the Sabbath the editor
states that Bunyan's chief concern was to see "the day in which our Lord rose
from the dead much set by of Christians" (Vol II, p. 361 of the Baker Edition of
Bunyan's Works). There is no doubt that Bunyan's real goal was to establish the
believer's obligation to keep the "Christian Sabbath." The question is, does
Bunyan himself destroy the only foundation upon which a sabbath day of any
kind can be brought over into the church?
This book about the Sabbath was written in 1685. Nineteen years earlier (1666),
Bunyan wrote a lengthy work entitled "The Doctrine of the Law and Grace
Unfolded." Bunyan's view of the Sabbath changed in the time between the
writing of these two books.
In his 1666 work on law and grace, Bunyan's view of the Ten Commandments
is almost identical to the classical covenant theology of the Puritans. He clearly
believed that (1) The Ten Commandments were given to Adam and all his
posterity, and (2) that men, prior to Exodus 20, were punished for breaking all
ten of the commandments. He includes on the list the fourth commandment
concerning the seventh-day sabbath:
And we find the Lord rebuking his people for the breach of the fourth
commandment in Ex 16:27-29. Ibid, Vol, p.499.
However, in his treatise on the sabbath eighteen years later, Bunyan uses this
same passage in Exodus 16 to prove that this was new revelation hitherto
unknown by Israel or anyone else prior to that time. In this later work Bunyan
argues effectively that the sabbath commandment was not given to Adam or
anyone else before Exodus. The editor's advertisement explains why Bunyan
wrote on the subject of the Sabbath and gives us a basic outline. He first raises
the question of whether the Sabbath commandment is moral and eternal. He
emphasizes that the answers to that and all other questions must be "strictly
confined to revelation [Scripture], for there is no indication in nature, or in any
of its laws, of a day of rest." Ibid, Vol II, p. 359.
In other words there is not a stitch of evidence in creation or in man's conscience
that we should keep a weekly Sabbath. Such an idea is only known by a specific
commandment from God, and Bunyan insists that God never gave such a
commandment until Exodus 16.
The editor then shows that a weekly Sabbath cannot be part of an eternal moral
law for the following reason:
Our Lord taught us that 'the Sabbath was made for man,' and therefore did not
exist among angels, prior to the creation of man, as all moral or universal
obligations must have existed. Ibid, p.360.
He is asking, "How can a weekly Sabbath reveal 'the moral character of God' if
there is no weekly Sabbath observed in heaven by angels?" The advertisement
then gives a short history of the debate on the Sabbath at the time of the
Reformation:
The controversy upon this subject assumed a more public and definite form at
the Reformation. Sir Thomas More asserted that the seventh day was
superseded by the first, in obedience to tradition: it forms the first of the five
commandments of Holy Church- " The Sundays hear thou mass." William
Tyndale, in reply, contends that "we be lords over the Sabbath; we may change
it for Monday or any other day, as we see need, or have tow every week, if one
is not enough to teach the people." Calvin preferred a daily assembling of the
church, but if that was impossible, then at stated intervals; his words are-- "since
the Sabbath is abrogate, I do not so rest upon the number seven, that I would
bind the churches to the bondage thereof; neither will I condemn those churches
that have other solemn days for their meetings." Luther considers the observance
of the Jewish Sabbath one of the "weak and beggarly rudiments." Ibid, 359,60.
The editor then gives the gist of the treatise. All of the emphases in the following
quotation is by Bunyan's publisher:
Bunyan's arguments are, that the appearances of nature show no difference of
days- that no Sabbath or other day was set apart for worship before the giving of
the law at Sinai. "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and madest
KNOWN unto them thy holy Sabbath, by the hand of Moses." Neh 9:13,14. "
The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any
work-and remember thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord
thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out
arm, THEREFORE the Lord commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day."
Deut.5:14,15.
While many crimes are mentioned in patriarchal times, there is no complaint of
Sabbath-breaking. We read of fratricide, drunkenness, lying, unbelief, theft,
idolatry, slave-dealing, and other crimes, but no hint as to sanctifying or
desecrating the Sabbath. At length, a few days before the giving of the law, a
natural phenomenon announced to the Jews the great change that was at hand -
the manna fell in double quantity on Friday, and none was found of Saturday.
So new was this that, contrary to the command, the people went on the seventh
day as on other days, and were rebuked but not punished for it. But no sooner is
the Sabbath instituted by Moses, than it is broken, and the Sabbath - breaker is
punished with a cruel death.
The Sabbath was instituted as a peculiar observation to distinguish the Jews from
all other nations - "The Lord has given YOU the Sabbath." Ex 16:39. "The
children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath." Ex 31:16,17. I gave them (the
Israelites who were delivered from Egypt) my Sabbaths to be a sign between me
and them." Ezek 20:12 Ceremonies were commanded on the Sabbath worship,
which cannot now be observed, see Lev 24. Num 28. Neh 13:22. Ezek 46:4.
The Jewish Sabbath was " a shadow of the things to come, but the body is of
Christ." Col 2:16,17. The shadows have fled away; we possess the substance.
The covenant of Moses was written on stone - the new covenant is written on
our hearts, Heb 8:9,10. Ibid, p.360.
The editor then shows that Bunyan was thoroughly convinced that God had
changed the day of worship from the seventh day, as first commanded at Sinai,
to the first day of the week for the Christian church. He will refer to this new
day as the "Christian Sabbath." It is essential to see that Bunyan accepts without
question the idea that the fourth commandment, with the day changed to
Sunday, is binding on Christians. He would disagree with our position at this
point. However, it is just as clear that for Bunyan the "seventh day
commandment" is (1) the fourth commandment itself given in Exodus 20, and
(2) that this commandment was not given to Adam or anyone else before
Exodus 16. No Covenant Theologian could possibly agree with Bunyan at this
point. Bunyan's arguments demolish the "Creation Ordinance" concept which is
essential to Covenant Theology. I totally agree with Bunyan on this point.
Bunyan himself has a short introduction entitled "To the Reader." He states what
he intends to prove. Here is part of his introduction:
I have here, by handling four questions, proved that the seventh day sabbath,
was not moral. Ibid, p.361
Now it is essential that we understand that Bunyan is not saying that nature does
not teach a man that he should worship God. Nor is he saying that there should
not be a day appointed for holy worship. He is saying that (1) no particular day
of worship was ever commanded by God before Exodus 16, and (2) that the
commandment to worship on the seventh day is not a "moral" commandment.
Bunyan clearly states that the Ten Commandments contain moral law but he
will insist that are not the "unchanging moral law" of God.
Bunyan can be very easily misread. No side of the Sabbath issue can honestly
claim Bunyan as "their man." He simply does not fit any place. In the first
section of hi Sabbath treatise, Bunyan destroys the very foundation of covenant
theology's view of law. His basic view of the nature and origin of the Sabbath
commandment is exactly what I believe. In the next section he makes a 180
degree turn and lays out covenant theology's doctrine of the "Christian" Sabbath.
I personally think Bunyan's "whole" position is totally untenable. He sets forth
two contradictory positions. I believe he contradicts himself simply because he
does not work out in detail the clear implications of the presuppositions that he
so carefully proved in the beginning. His treatise is a half and half mixture that
does not fit together. My covenant theology friends agree with my assessment.
We merely disagree on which half Bunyan was right and which half he was
wrong!
We must remember why Bunyan wrote this particular treatise. He was fighting
seventh day Baptist. He was writing against people who believed the same
theology as the modern Seventh Day Adventist. Bunyan clearly saw that there
was no Biblical answer to the seventh day people if the fourth commandment
could be pushed back to creation. The phrase "Creation Ordinance" was not yet
in vogue but that concept is precisely what Bunyan was talking about. He was
arguing that God did not appoint any day of worship for Adam, or for anyone
else, prior to Mount Sinai. Neither the seventh day, or the first day, or another
day, or even one day in seven, is in any sense holy in and of itself. All God did
in Genesis was reserve a day for Himself and then much later, at Sinai, God
gave Israel His day as the sign of the covenant that He made with them at that
time. This is Bunyan's view.
Walter Chantry in his book God's Righteous Kingdom has seen the clear
implications of Bunyan's attack on the Sabbath as a Creation Ordinance. He
says:
John Bunyan wrote against seventh-day Christians, giving much attention to
what he considered the ceremonial element in the fourth commandment. It
would be difficult to endorse all of his specific arguments in this article. Some of
the same propositions used to assault the seventh-day sabbath would (if allowed
to stand) bear equal weight against any sabbath whatever. From: God's
Righteous Kingdom, Walter Chantry, p.138.
That is quite an admission by Chantry. He acknowledges that some of Bunyan's
propositions could, "if allowed to stand," destroy his own Sabbath position. I
agree with him. That is precisely what Bunyan's arguments do. That is why it
surprises me that Chantry left every one of Bunyan's arguments stand
unanswered! Nor did Chantry refer his readers to another writer who had
answered Bunyan. Quite frankly, Chantry is the first writer I ever read that even
acknowledged or admitted that Bunyan had even written on the Sabbath issue,
let alone try to refute the arguments. If Bunyan's clear arguments have ever been
answered, I would love to know by whom it was done and where such an
accomplishment is available. Bunyan's editor said:
Bunyan's book does not appear to have been answered; indeed it would require
genius of no ordinary kind to controvert such conclusive evidence. Ibid, p.360.
I agree! I think this explains why Bunyan's arguments have been "left stand" and
have never been answered.
Here are the four questions that Bunyan deals with in "proving that the seventh
day sabbath was not moral."
Question I. Whether the seventh day sabbath is of, or made known to, man by
the law and light of nature?
Bunyan gives four arguments to prove the answer is no. Neither natural
revelation nor conscience teaches anyone that there is any kind of a Sabbath.
Question II. Whether the seventh day sabbath, as to man's keeping of it holy,
was ever made known to, or imposed by, a positive precept upon him until the
time of Moses? Which from Adam was about two thousand years.
Bunyan then gives five proofs that the answer is no. If the identical question
were asked today it would read, "Was the Sabbath commandment a Creation
Ordinance given to Adam or was it first made known to Israel at Sinai?" This is
the key point in the whole argument. Covenant Theology's whole theology of
law hangs on the answer to this one question.
Question III. Whether when the seventh day sabbath was given to Israel in the
wilderness the Gentiles, as such, were concerned therein.
Bunyan again uses five arguments to prove that the Gentiles were not given the
sabbath commandment
Question IV. Whether the seventh day sabbath did not fall, as such, with the
rest of the Jewish rites and ceremonies? Or whether that day, as a sabbath,
was afterwards by the Apostles imposed upon the churches of the Gentiles?
Bunyan has eight arguments with many sub points proving (1) that the seventh
day Sabbath did indeed cease with Christ, and (2) that the Gentiles never were
put under "that day, as a sabbath." (At this point I believe it would be both
legitimate and essential to ask Bunyan on what grounds the Gentile Christians
could be put under the so-called Christian Sabbath? Either the first part of his
thesis is wrong and should be discredited or else his arguments in that section
are valid and thus destroys the necessary foundation for his Christian Sabbath.
If the first part of his thesis is correct, then he totally failed to build on the
things he proved, building instead on the very presuppositions of the classic
covenant theology that he just demolished. It seems to me that Bunyan cannot
have his cake and eat it too. I personally do not question that his arguments in
the first section are correct).
Bunyan then proceeds with a fifth question relating to the establishing of Sunday
as the day of worship for the Christian church. At this point he sounds like he is
teaching the Westminster Confession. However, if, as Chantry correctly
observed, Bunyan's earlier arguments are correct, then he has totally destroyed
the very foundation he now seeks to use for his Christian Sabbath.
As I mentioned before, this confusion is not hard to understand since Bunyan
was not at all involved in defending or destroying either "covenant theology" or
any other view, including the one that I hold. He was attacking "seventh day
Christians." The important thing to remember is that his first three questions deal
entirely with the basic presupposition of covenant sabbath theology, namely, that
the fourth commandment simply must be a Creation Ordinance, or unchanging
moral commandment, given to Adam. Bunyan's fifth question is totally involved
in proving the early church worshipped on Sunday, and is, in one sense,
immaterial to our discussion. However, the answer to both the fourth and fifth
question cannot be divorced from the arguments of the first three questions.
Everything hinges on whether the seventh day sabbath, or fourth commandment,
is a moral law given to Adam and not a ceremonial law given only to Israel.
Bunyan is clear as crystal that it is the latter.
Let me give a summation of Bunyan's arguments in his answer to the first three
questions listed above. All three of these questions deal with one basic question:
"Is the seventh day sabbath, given to Israel in Exodus 20:8-11, a moral
commandment that was first given to Adam in the garden, or is it a ceremonial
sign of the covenant that was given only to the nation at Sinai?" It is very
obvious that our understanding of the true nature and function of the tablets of
stone will be greatly influenced by our answer to this vital question. All of the
following quotations are taken from pages 359 - 367 of Volume II of the Baker
edition of Bunyan's Works. Here is the first question:
Question I
"Whether the seventh day sabbath is of, or made known to, man by the law and
light of nature?"
Bunyan first shows that "by the law and light of nature" he means that which a
man can know apart from Scripture or a direct revelation from God. He says:
I grant that by this law of nature, man understands that there is one eternal God;
that this God is to be worshipped according to his own will; consequently, that
time must be allowed to do it in: but whether the law or light of nature teacheth,
and that of itself, without the help of revelation, that the seventh day of the week
is that time sanctified of God, and set apart for his worship, that is the question.
Ibid, p.362.
It is important for us to see at the outset exactly what Bunyan is saying. The
specific point of importance to our discussion is that Bunyan's claim is that the
fourth commandment, not only commands a day of worship, but also clearly
commands that the seventh day is to be that specific day. Such knowledge of
this commandment can only be known from Scripture revelation. There is
nothing in nature, history, or man's conscience that will ever lead him to see
such a commandment as his duty except a clear revelation from God, and God
did not give any such revelation to anyone, including Adam, prior to Exodus 20.
What is Bunyan's proof?
First: The "law of nature" in Adam "as a man" was complete when God finished
creating him on the sixth day. At this point God had neither yet "rested' nor
"sanctified the seventh day." Bunyan correctly observes that (1) since the
seventh day sabbath can only be known by direct revelation, and (2) Adam was
not given that revelation, it follows that (3) Adam could have had no way of
knowing that.
God either did or would sanctify the seventh day of the week at all...Adam was
completely made the day before; and God did not sanctify the seventh day
before it was, none otherwise than by his secret decree. Therefore, by the law of
nature, Adam understood it not, it was not made known to him thereby. Ibid,
p.362.
Second: To say that the law of nature taught Adam, or anyone else, to keep the
Sabbath is to endow the law of nature with the office and ability of a prophet to
"foretell what shall be, and that without a revelation." The following is vintage
Bunyan:
Besides, to grant this, is to run into a grievous error; for this doth not only make
the law of nature the first of prophets, contrary to Gen. 3:10 compared with Jn.
1:1 but it seems to make the will of God, made known by revelation, a needless
thing. For if the law of nature, as such, can predict or foretell God's secrets and
that before he reveals them, and this law of nature is universal in every
individual man in the world, what need is there of particular prophets or of their
holy writings? And indeed here the Quakers and others split themselves. For if
the law of nature can of itself reveal unto me one thing pertaining to instituted
worship, for that we are treating of now, and the exact time which God has not
yet sanctified and set apart for the performance thereof, why may it not reveal
unto me more, and so still more; and at last all that is requisite for me to know,
both as to my salvation, and how God is to be worshipped in the church on
earth. Ibid, p.362
Third: If the law of nature gives all men a knowledge of the moral law of God,
and the Sabbath commandment is part of that moral law, then both Adam and all
his descendants would "by nature" be convinced of the necessity of keeping it,
even though they never read or heard of the revealed will of God in Scripture.
However, as Bunyan observes, "but this we find not in the world."
In actual fact, we have never discovered a single tribe or people anywhere in the
world that did not have a knowledge of morality very similar to the morality
contained in the Decalogue. This is Paul's argument in Romans 2:12-14.
However, we have never found a single tribe or person who believed in, or had
even heard about, a seventh day sabbath or any other kind of Sabbath. Such a
situation would be impossible if the Sabbath command was a moral
commandment "written in man's nature" like the other nine.
For though it is true that the law of nature is common to all, and that all men are
to this day under the power and command thereof; yet we find not that they are
by nature under the conviction of the necessity of keeping of a seventh day
sabbath. Yea, the Gentiles, though we read not that they ever despised the law
of nature, yet never had, as such, a reverence of a seventh day sabbath, but
rather the contrary. Ibid, 362.
Fourth: Bunyan argues that if the seventh day sabbath is not a part of the law of
nature, or moral law of God in man, then it follows that it is not obligatory upon
all men. Only those under that particular law are responsible to it.
Fifth: Bunyan clearly rejects the idea that "the seventh day sabbath" is a "moral"
commandment. His main reason is:
because though we read that the law of nature, and that before Moses, was
charged upon the world; yet I find not till then, that the profanation of a seventh
day sabbath was charged upon the world; and indeed to me this very thing
makes a great scruple in the case. A law, as I said, we read of and that from
Adam to Moses. Rom.5:13,14. The transgressions also of that law, we read of
them, and that particularly, as in Gen.4:8 & 6:5; 9:21,22; 12:13; 18:12-15; 19:5;
(Ez.16:49,50) Gen.31:30; 35:2; 40:15; 44:8-10. De.8:19,20; 12:2. Ps.106:35-37.
and Romans the first and second chapters. But in all the scriptures we do not
read that the breach of a seventh day sabbath was charged upon men as men all
that time. Ibid, 363
In typical style Bunyan concludes:
It follows therefore, that if the law of nature doth not of itself reveal to us, as
men, that the seventh day is the holy sabbath of God. That day, as to the
sanction of it, is not moral but rather arbitrary, to with, imposed by the will of
God upon his people until the time he thought fit to change it for another day.
Ibid, 363.
Question II
Whether the seventh day sabbath, as to man's keeping of it holy, was ever made
known to, or imposed by, a positive precept upon him until the time of Moses?
Which from Adam was about two thousand years.
Bunyan is one of those few writers who presupposes what an objector will say
and proceeds to stop their mouth before it is open. Before he proves this point
he makes sure we understand the point being discussed. He does not question
the fact that God sanctified the Sabbath day for Himself at creation. That is clear
from the text in Genesis. Bunyan says,
But the question is, whether when God did thus sanctify this day to his own rest,
he did also by the space of time above-mentioned [at Sinai], impose it as a holy
sabbath of rest upon men; to the end they might solemnize worship to him in
special manner thereon?" Ibid, 363
Bunyan then states his reasons for rejecting the claim that the fourth
commandment was ever given to anyone before it was given through Moses.
Here is Bunyan's first proof:
First, Because we read not that it was. And reading, I mean, of the divine
testimony is ordained of God for us to find out the mind of God both as to faith
and out performance of acceptable service to him.
In reading also, we are to have regard to two things.
I. To see if we can find a precept: or,
II. A countenanced practice for what we do.
For both these ways we are to search, that we may find out what is that good,
that acceptable will of God.
For the first of these we have Gen. 2:16,17 and for the second, Gen. 8:20,21.
(As to public worship but not on a stated day.)
Now as to the imposing of a seventh day sabbath upon men from Adam to
Moses, of that we find nothing in holy writ either from precept or example.
True, we find that solemn worship was performed by the saints that then lived:
for both Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob sacrificed unto God, Gen. 4:4;
8:20,21; 12:7; 13:4; 35:1, but we read not that the seventh day was the time
prefixed of God for their so worshipping or that they took any notice of it. Some
say, that Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, broke also the seventh day sabbath,
because he fell on that day; but we read not that the breach of a sabbath was
charged upon him. That which we read is this: 'Hast thou eaten of the tree,
whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?' Gen.3:11. Some say
also that Cain killed Abel on a sabbath day; but we read not that in his charge
God laid any such thing at his door. This was it of which he stood guilty before
God: namely, that his brother's blood cried unto God against him from the
ground. Gen. 4:10
I therefore take little notice of what a man saith, though he flourisheth his matter
with many brave words, if he bring not with him, 'Thus saith the Lord.' For that,
and that only, ought to be my ground of faith as to how my God would be
worshipped by me. For in the matters material to the worship of God it is safest
that thus I be guided in my judgment: for here only I perceive 'the footsteps of
the flock,' Ca.1:8; Ez. 3:11. They say further, that for God to sanctify a thing is
to set it apart. This being true; then it follows that the seventh day sabbath was
sanctified, that is, set apart for Adam in paradise; and so, that it was ordained a
sabbath of rest to the saints from the beginning.
But I answer, as I hinted before, that God did sanctify it to his own rest. 'The
LORD (also) hath set apart him that is godly for himself.' But again, it is one
thing for God to sanctify this or that thing to a use, and another thing to
command that thing be forthwith in being to us. As, for instance: the land of
Canaan was set apart many years for the children of Israel before they possessed
that land. Christ Jesus was long sanctified, that is set apart to be our redeemer,
before he sent him into the world. De. 32:8; Jn. 10:36.
If then, by God's sanctifying of the seventh day for a sabbath, you understand it
for a sabbath for man,(but the text saith not so) yet it might be so set apart for
man, long before it should be, as such, made known unto him. And that the
seventh day sabbath was not as yet made known to men. Ibid, p.363,4.
In the second proof under this point Bunyan shows that the revelation of the
Sabbath commandment to Moses in Exodus had to be new revelation. It could
not possibly have been known before that time according to the facts in the
texts.
Second, consider Moses himself seems to have the knowledge of it at first, not
tradition, but by revelation; as it is. Ex.16:23,2 'This is that (saith he) which the
Lord hath said, (namely to me; for we read not, as yet, that he said it to anybody
else), Tomorrow is the sabbath of the holy rest unto the Lord.'
Also, holy Nehemiah suggests this, when he saith of Israel to God, Thou 'madest
known unto them thy holy sabbath (by the hand of Moses thy servant)' Neh.
9:14. The first of these texts shows us, that tidings of a seventh day sabbath for
men, came first to Moses from heaven: and the second, that it was to Israel
before unknown.
But how could be either the one or the other? If the seventh day sabbath was
taught to men by the light of nature, which is the moral law? Or if from the
beginning it was given to men by a positive precept for to be kept.
This therefore strengthens my doubt about the affirmative of the first question,
and also prepares an argument for what I plead as to this we have now under
consideration. Ibid, p. 364.
The Third proof is an expansion of the second proof. The argument here
concerns the connection of the known punishment of a commandment with the
giving of the commandment.
Third, this yet seems to me more scrupulous, because that the punishment due
to the breach of the seventh day sabbath was hid from men to the time of
Moses; as is clear, for that it is said of the breaker of the sabbath, 'They put him
in ward, because it was not (as yet) declared what should be done to him.' Num.
15:32-36.
But I think, had this seventh day sabbath been imposed upon men from the
beginning, the penalty or punishment due to the breach thereof had certainly
been known before now.
When Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
the penalty was then, if he disobeyed, annexed to the prohibition. So also it was
as to circumcision, the Passover and other ordinances for worship. How then
can it be thought that the seventh day sabbath should be imposed upon men
from the beginning; and that the punishment for the breach thereof should be
hidden with God for the space of two thousand years! Gen.2:16,17; 17:13,14;
Ex.12:19,43-48. Ibid, p. 364.
Bunyan then looks at the New Testament and the sabbath commandment:
And I think Christ Jesus and his apostles do plainly enough declare this very
thing. For that when they repeat unto the people or expound before them the
moral law, they quite exclude the seventh day sabbath. Yea, Paul makes that law
to us complete without it.
We will first touch upon what Christ does in this case.
As in his sermon upon the mount, Mt. 5-7. In all that large and heavenly
discourse upon this law, you have not one syllable about the seventh day
sabbath.
So when the young man came running, and kneeling, and asking what good thing
he should do to inherit eternal life, Christ bids him keep the commandments; but
when the young man asked which, Christ quite leaves out the seventh day and
puts him on the other. As in Mt. 19:16-19. As in Mk. 10:17-20. As in Lk.
18:18-20.
You will say, he left out the first, and second, and third likewise. To which I
say, that was because the young man by his question did presuppose that he had
been a doer of them: for he professed in his supplication that he was a lover of
that which is naturally good, which is God, in that his petition was so universal
for everything which he had commanded.
Paul also when he makes mention of the moral law, quite leaves out of that the
very name of the seventh day sabbath, and professes, that to us Christians the
law of nature is complete without it. As in Rom.3:7-19. As in Rom.13:7-10. As
in I tim.1:8-11.
"he that loveth another, saith he, hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not
commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet;
and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love works no ill to his
neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
I make not an argument of this, but take an occasion to mention it as I go. But
certainly, had the seventh day sabbath been moral, or of the law of nature, as
some would fain persuade themselves, it would not so slenderly have been
passed over in all these repetitions of this law, but would by Christ or his
apostles have been pressed upon the people, when so fair an opportunity as at
these times offered itself unto them. But they knew what they did, and
wherefore they were so silent as to the mention of a seventh day sabbath when
they so well talked of the law as moral. Ibid, p.365.
Bunyan does not argue from the "good and necessary consequences deduced"
by logic from a system of "one covenant and two administrations." Bunyan used
Bible verses to establish his points. If Bunyan were alive today he would be
accused of being a "Biblicist" who "argued like the Jehovah witness." I honestly
believe this is the reason that Bunyan has never been answered. He did not
quote creeds, Bunyan used the bible itself to defend his position! The following
material under his fifth proof is typical Bunyan:
Fifth, Moses and the prophet Ezekiel both do fully confirm what has been
insinuated by us; to wit, that the seventh day, as a sabbath, was not imposed
upon men until Israel was brought into the wilderness.
1. Moses saith to Israel, 'Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of
Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty
hand and by a stretched out arm: THEREFORE the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the sabbath day.' Yea, he tells us, that the covenant which God
made with them in Horeb, that written in stones, was not made with their
forefathers, to wit, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but with them. De.5:1-15.
2. Ezekiel also is punctual as to this: I caused them, saith God by that prophet,
'to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And
I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he
shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign
between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify
them.' Ez.20:10-12. Ex.20:8; 31:13;35:2.
What can be more plain? And these to be sure, are two notable witnesses of
God, who, as you see, do jointly concur in this; to wit, that is was not from
paradise, nor from the fathers, but from the wilderness and from Sinai, that men
received the seventh day sabbath to keep it holy.
True, it was God's sabbath before: for on the first seventh day we read, that
God rested thereon and sanctified it. Hence he calls it in the first place, MY
sabbath. I gave them my sabbath: But it seems it was not given to the church till
he had brought them into the wilderness.
But I say, if it had been moral, it would have been natural to man; and by the
light of nature men would have understood it, even both before it was and
otherwise. But of this you see we read nothing, either by positive law, or
countenanced example, or any other way, but rather the flat contrary; to wit,
that Moses had the knowledge of it first from heaven, not by tradition. That
Israel had it, not of or from their fathers, but in the wilderness, from him to wit.
Moses, after he had that whole law in which this seventh day sabbath is placed,
was given for the bounding and better ordering of them in their church state for
their time, till the Messiah should come and put, by a better ministration, this out
of his church, as we shall further show.
Here is Bunyan's summary of the second question:
The seventh day sabbath therefore was not from paradise, nor from nature, nor
from the fathers, but from the wilderness and from Sinai.
Having clearly proven from Scripture that the fourth commandment was not
known or given until Israel camped at Sinai, the next logical question concerns
the relationship of the Gentiles to the seventh day sabbath. The Gentiles surely
had the law of nature written in them, but Bunyan has already shown under
question one and two that this law did not include the fourth, or Sabbath,
commandment. In his third question, Bunyan argues that Scripture shows that
the law was not given to the Gentiles.
QUESTION III
Whether when the seventh day sabbath was given to Israel in the wilderness the
Gentiles, as such, was concerned therein.
Before I show my ground for this question, I must also first premise, that the
Gentiles, as such, were then without the church of God and pale thereof;
consequently had nothing to do with the essentials or necessary circumstances of
that worship which God had set up for himself now among the children of Israel.
Now then for the ground of the question.
First, we read not that God gave it to any but to the seed of Jacob. Hence it is
said to Israel, and to Israel only, 'The Lord hath given YOU the sabbath.'
Ex.16:29. and again, 'also I gave THEM my sabbath.' Ez.20:5,12
Now, if the gift of the seventh day sabbath was only to Israel, as these texts do
more than seem to say; then to the Gentiles, as such, it was not given. Unless
any shall conclude, that God by thus doing preferred the Jew to a state of
gentileism; or that he bestowed on them, by thus doing, some high Gentile
privilege. But this would be very fictitious. For, to lay aside reason, the text
always, as to preference, did set the Jew in the first of places. Rom.2:10. Nor
was his giving the seventh day sabbath to them but a sign and token thereof.
But the great objection is because the seventh day sabbath is found amongst the
rest of those precepts which is so commonly called the moral law; for thence it is
concluded to be of a perpetual duration.
But I answer: That neither that as given on Sinai is moral; I mean as to the
manner and ends of its ministration of which, God permitting, we shall say more
in our answer to the fourth question, whither I direct you for satisfaction. Ibid,
p.366.
In his second proof under this point, Bunyan uses arguments that I had never
heard anyone else use. His argument is as follows: (1) God gave Israel the
Sabbath commandment along with specific "ceremonies that were essential to
the right keeping of the sabbath;" (2) If the Sabbath is a moral law, then
obviously God gave it to the Gentiles as well as the Jews; (3) but it is perfectly
evident that God did not given the Gentiles the ceremonial rites and ceremonies
which were essential to correctly keep the Sabbaths; (4) here is Bunyan's
response to these propositions:
...To say that God gave this seventh day sabbath to the Gentiles, as such, (and
yet so he must, if it be of the moral law) is as much as to say that God hath
ordained that sabbath should be kept by the Gentiles without; but by the Jews,
not without her ceremonies. And what conclusion will follow from hence, but
that God did at the one and the same time set up two sorts of acceptable
worships in the world: one among the Jews, another among the Gentiles! But
how ridiculous such a thought would be, and how repugnant to the wisdom of
God, you may easily perceive. Ibid, p.366.
Yea, what a diminution would this be to God's church that then was, for one to
say, the Gentiles were to serve God with more liberty than the Jew! For the law
was a yoke, and yet the Gentile is called the dog, and said to be without God in
the world. De.7:7. Ps.147:19,20. Mat.15:26. Eph.2:11,12. Ibid, p.366
Bunyan shows the Book of Nehemiah proves the fact that God gave the Sabbath
commandment only to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. Notice again that
Bunyan is using Scripture texts and not logic.
Third, When the Gentiles, at the Jews' return from Babylon, came and offered
their wares to sell to the children of Israel at Jerusalem on this sabbath; yea, and
sold them to them too: yet not they, but the Jews were rebuked as the only
breakers of the sabbath. Nay, there dwelt then at Jerusalem men of Tyre, that
on this sabbath sold their commodities to the Jews, and men of Judah: yet not
they but the men of Judah were contended with as the breakers of this sabbath.
True, good Nehemiah did threaten the Gentiles that were merchants for lying
about the walls of the city, for that by that means they were a temptation to the
Jews to break their Sabbaths; but still he charged the breach thereof only upon
his own people. Ne.13:15-20.
But can it be imagined, had the Gentiles now been concerned with this sabbath
by law divine, that so holy a man as Nehemiah would have let them escape
without a rebuke for so notorious a transgression thereof; especially considering,
that now also they were upon God's ground, to wit, within and without the walls
of Jerusalem. Ibid, p.366
The commands to obey the Sabbath were addressed specifically to the Nation of
Israel.
Fourth, Wherefore he saith to Israel again, 'Verily my Sabbaths YE shall keep.'
And again, 'YE shall keep the sabbath.' And again, 'The children of Israel shall
keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout THEIR generations.'
Ex.31:14-16; and 16:29. [Bunyan's editor adds the following footnote: The Lord
hath given YOU the sabbath.' See also 31:17, 'It (the observance of the sabbath)
is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever.']
What can be more plain, these things that standing in the testament of God, than
that the seventh day sabbath, as such, was given to Israel, to Israel ONLY; and
that the Gentiles, as such, were not concerned therein! Ibid, p.366
Bunyan's fifth proof shows that he not only clearly understood that the Sabbath
was the sign of the old covenant that God made with Israel, but also that the
Sabbath pointed to Christ Himself and the rest we have in Him.
Fifth, The very reason also of God's giving of the seventh day sabbath to the
Jews, doth exclude the Gentiles, as such, from having any concern therein. For it
was given to the Jews, as was said before, as they were considered God's church
and for a sign and token by which they should know that He had chosen and
sanctified them to Himself for a peculiar people. Ex.31:13-17. Ez. 20:12,13.
And a great token and sign it was that He had so chosen them: for in that He had
given to them this sabbath, he had given to them (His own rest) a figure and
pledge of His sending His Son into the world to redeem them from the bondage
and slavery of the devil: of which indeed this sabbath was a shadow or type.
Col.2:16,17 Ibid, pgs. 366,7
Postscript
If my theological system absolutely depended on the fourth commandment being
a Creation Ordinance, I would do with Bunyan's thesis on the Sabbath exactly
what covenant theologians do - I would not touch it with a ten foot pole. I
would "let it stand" and pretend it had never been written!
Thomas Watson, "[Jesus] alone is the Prince of Preachers. He alone is the best of expositors."