John Calvin on the Fourth Commandment

The following is from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (1541 ed.), Chapter 3, ‘The Law’, and the section on the Fourth Commandment. Note also the addendum, featuring a selection from Iain H. Murray’s booklet Rest in God: And a Calamity in Contemporary Christianity which notes how Calvin’s thinking on the Sabbath developed from the time he wrote the below (c. 1541) to the 1550s.

Remember to keep holy the day of rest. You shall labour six days and do
all your work. The seventh is the rest of the Lord your God. You shall do
no work, neither you, your son, your daughter, your manservant, your
maidservant, your cattle nor the stranger who is within your gate. For in
six days etc. (Exod. 20:8-11).

The aim of this commandment is to show that, being dead to our own desires and works, we should meditate on the kingdom of God, and that to help us in our meditation we should apply the means which he has ordained. Nevertheless, because this precept involves a special condition which is distinct from the others, it requires a rather different explanation.

The Sabbath: the principle of rest

The teachers of the early church were accustomed to call this commandment ‘shadow-like’, because it has to do with the outward observance of a day which was abolished at Christ’s coming, as were the other symbolic rites. That is certainly true, but it only deals with half the problem. Our explanation must thus begin higher up, and must consider the principles which are enshrined in this commandment.

By the Sabbath rest, the Lord sought to signify to Israel’s people spiritual rest. Believers are required to rest from their own works so as to allow God to do his work in them. In the second place, he wished there to be a fixed day on which they should come together to hear his law and to have access to his ceremonies. Third, he desired to give one day’s rest to servants and to workers under another’s authority, so that they might have some respite from their labours. However, as we see from many passages, the image of spiritual rest has first place in this precept. For God never required a commandment to be more strictly obeyed than this one (Num. 15:32-36; Exod. 31:13-16; 35:2-3). When, for example, he seeks to make clear through his prophets that all religion has been destroyed, he laments that his Sabbath has been polluted and transgressed, or that it has not been properly kept and sanctified (Jer. 17:21-23, 27; Ezek. 20:12, 16, 20-21; Isa. 56:2). It is as if to abandon this article would leave nothing by which he might be honoured. Moreover he greatly commends the keeping of this day, and accordingly believers prized the revelation of the Sabbath as a singular blessing, above all the others which had been conferred on them. Thus the Levites declare in Nehemiah: ‘You made known to our fathers your holy Sabbath, your commandments and your rites, and you gave them the law by the hand of Moses’ (Neh. 9:14). So we see how especially they esteemed this commandment above all the others.

All this shows how noble and pre-eminent the Sabbath was—something which is clearly propounded also by Moses and Ezekiel. This is what we read in Exodus: ‘Observe my Sabbath, for it is a sign between me and you in every generation, that you may understand that I am the God who sanctifies you. Keep, therefore, my Sabbath, for it must be holy to you. Let the children of Israel keep it and celebrate it in their generations, for it is a perpetual covenant and a sign for all eternity’ (Exod. 31:13-17). Ezekiel says the same thing at greater length, but the sum of what he says comes to this: it was a sign by which Israel should know that God was their Sanctifier (Ezek. 20:12).

Now if to be sanctified is to renounce our own will, it is obvious that a likeness exists between the external sign and the inner reality. We must rest completely in order that God may work within us; we must set our own will aside, resign our heart, deny and forsake all the desires of the flesh. In short, we must cease from everything which our own mind suggests to us, so that with God working within us we may be at one with him. That too is what the apostle teaches us (Heb. 3:10-11; 4:9-10). In Israel that was what the Sabbath rest represented, and in order to provide stronger religious sanction for the practice, our Lord confirmed his command by his own example. For it is no small stimulus for man to be taught that he may copy his Creator.

Why the seventh day?

If someone needs to know the secret meaning of the number seven, it is plausible to say that since in Scripture it stands for perfection, it was chosen here to signify perpetuity, which corresponds well with what we find in Moses. For having said that the Lord rested on the seventh day, he adds no further detail, thus fixing an end to God’s work. Another probable conjecture about this might also be suggested. Perhaps in specifying this number the Lord meant us to understand that the Sabbath for believers will never be perfectly fulfilled until the last day, for we only begin it here and daily pursue it, but because we are continually at war with our flesh there will be no end until Isaiah’s statement comes true, namely that in the kingdom of God there will be a Sabbath which goes on forever, that is, when God is all in all (Isa. 66:23; cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). It might therefore appear that the Lord intended the seventh day to be a symbol to his people of that Sabbath perfection which will be realized on the last day, so as to help them aim for that perfection by constant effort throughout this life.

If that explanation appears too involved and is therefore unacceptable to some, I have no objection if this simpler one were preferred: the Lord appointed a day by which the people were trained under the law’s tutelage to reflect on that spiritual rest which knows no end; he therefore set apart the seventh day, either thinking that it would be enough, or the better to urge the people to observe this practice, following his own example, or else to show them that the Sabbath’s only purpose was to make them like their Creator.

It scarcely matters, as long as the meaning of this mystery is preserved—which is that the people should be taught to cease from their works. That was the thought to which the Jews were always being directed by the prophets, in case they should think that they were blameless merely by refraining from manual work. Besides the texts which we have cited, this is written in Isaiah: ‘If you abstain on the Sabbath so as not to follow your own will on my holy day, and if you solemnly make the Sabbath a holy day and a delight to the Lord of glory, and if you glorify him by leaving off your work and your own wants are neglected, then you will prosper in God’ (Isa. 58:13-14).

The Sabbath fulfilled in Christ, but rest and worship to be preserved

Now there is no doubt that the ceremonial content of this precept was abolished by Christ’s coming, for he is the truth who, by his presence, makes all these symbols disappear. He is the body, in respect of whom the shadows flee away. He is, I say, the Sabbath’s true fulfilment, since buried with him in baptism, we are grafted into the fellowship of his death, in order that, as those who share in his resurrection, we may walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). That is why the apostle says that the Sabbath was a shadow of what was to come, and that its body is in Christ (Col. 2:17). He, as the passage well explains, is the real, solid and substantial truth. Now this is not simply a matter of one day; it affects our entire life to the point where, dying to self, we are filled with the life of God. Hence it follows that Christians should pay no heed to the superstitious observance of days.

Nevertheless, the remaining two purposes which the commandment has in view should not be included among the shadows of ancient times: they apply equally in every age. Although the Sabbath has been revoked, it does not prevent the custom among us of having certain days when, first, we gather to hear sermons, to offer public prayer and to celebrate the sacraments, and, second, when some relief is given to servants and to manual workers. There is no question that the Lord intended both things when he issued the Sabbath injunction. Ample evidence for the first is found in the practice of the Jews themselves. The second was mentioned by Moses in these words of Deuteronomy: ‘So that your servant and maidservant may rest as you do, remember that you were a slave in Egypt’ (Deut. 5:14-15). Again, in Exodus: ‘So that your ox, your ass and your household may have rest’ (Exod. 23:12). Who can deny that both these things are as relevant to us as they were to the Jews?

Church assemblies are enjoined on us by God’s word, and experience itself demonstrates how much we need them. Now if there were no appointed days, when could people meet? The apostle declares that everything should be done among us decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). But there is no way that propriety and order could be preserved without this weekly arrangement. If it did not exist we would immediately see incredible trouble and confusion in the church. So if the Lord would meet our needs in the same way as he did when he appointed the Sabbath for the Jews, let no one claim that this law is in no way meant for us. For it is quite certain that our kindly Father has provided for our needs no less than for those of the Jews.

Then why, it may be asked, do we not assemble every day in order to remove this distinction between days? I would be very glad if that were the case. The cause of spiritual wisdom would be well served indeed if there were some hour in the day reserved for it. But if the weakness of many makes a daily assembly impossible, and if love forbids us pressing them further, why do we not follow the reasonable course revealed to us by God?

Is Sunday observance legalistic?

We must spend a little longer on this question, because some erratic spirits are today making a terrible fuss about Sunday. Christians, they complain, are being fed a kind of Judaism, since they still continue to respect certain days¹The term ‘erratic spirits’ is ill-defined, but targets a broad range of antinomian views, including those of the Spiritual Libertines.. I answer that Judaism has nothing to do with the fact that we observe Sunday, for there is a big difference between us and the Jews. We do not observe it out of strict religious scruples, as if it were a rite replete with what we thought of as a spiritual mystery. Rather we use it as a necessary remedy so as to maintain good order in the church. Even so, they say, Paul denies that Christians should be judged by the observance of days, since that was a shadow of things to come. For that reason he fears that his work among the Galatians has been in vain, since they continued to observe certain days (Gal. 4:10-11; Col. 2:16). And he assures the Romans that to distinguish one day from another is superstition (Rom. 14:5).

Now what man of sound sense does not understand the kind of observance of which Paul is speaking? The Galatians were not setting out to respect the good government and order of the church such as we have described; their concern instead was to retain the feast days as the shadows of spiritual things, and thus to obscure Christ’s glory and the light of the gospel. They did not refrain from manual work because this stopped them reflecting on God’s word, but did so out of foolish devotion, fancying that by resting they were doing God a favour. It is thus against this perverse teaching that Paul protests, and not against the lawful ordinance established to preserve peace in the Christian fellowship. For it was for that purpose that the churches which he had built up kept the Sabbath, a point he proves by reserving that day as the one on which the Corinthians should bring their alms to the church (1 Cor. 16:2).

If we are afraid of superstition, it is more to be feared on Jewish feast days than it is now on Sundays. For since it was fitting that superstition be abolished, the day which the Jews kept was abandoned, and because it was necessary to maintain order, good government and peace in the church, another day was substituted. I do not insist on the numeral ‘seventh’ in order to subject the church to some sort of bondage, for I would not condemn churches which had different solemn days for their gatherings as long as no superstition was involved. And indeed there is none when the sole aim is to maintain discipline.

To summarize, then, the precept means this. As the truth was revealed to the Jews in symbolic form, so now, devoid of symbols, it is made known to us. Throughout our lives we must think of a perpetual rest from our works, so that God may work in us by his Spirit. Second, we should observe legitimate church order in the hearing of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and the offering of solemn prayers. Third, we should not place excessive burdens on those who are under our authority. In this way, there will be an end to the lies of those false teachers who in times past have fed poor common folk on Jewish beliefs, making no distinction between Sunday and the Sabbath except by saying that the seventh day, which was formerly in force, has been revoked, but that one day should nevertheless be kept. That is simply to maintain that the day has been changed to spite the Jews, and to remain wedded to the superstition which Paul condemns. It is to preserve some secret meaning, as was the case under the Old Testament.

To be sure, we can see what fruits their teaching has produced. Those who follow it surpass the Jews in their carnal belief in the Sabbath, so much so that the reproofs which we find in Isaiah apply more to them than to those whom the prophet rebuked in his own time (Isa. 1:13; 58:13).

Addendum: Calvin’s Correction²From Iain H. Murray’s ‘Rest in God: And a Calamity in Contemporary Christianity (https://banneroftruth.org/store/church-ministry/rest-in-god/)’

The authority of Calvin has often been quoted to support the view that the substance of the fourth commandment cannot be separated from the ceremonial law and that its authority is therefore ended for Christians. It is true this was Calvin’s belief. In his Institutes he rejects the teaching that while ‘the ceremonial part of this commandment has been abrogated . . . the moral part remains — namely, the fixing of one day in seven.’³Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, translated by F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), p. 400. McNeill helpfully indicated the dates when the various parts of the Institutes were composed but he failed to note the significance of the dates in connection with the fourth commandment. But what has not been sufficiently noticed is that this did not remain the reformer’s teaching. The passages on the fourth commandment found in the final edition of the Institutes of 1559 were written some years before that date and never revised. When preaching on Genesis, in 1559, Calvin very clearly takes the position which he earlier rejected:

Concerning the creation of God’s works, it is said that ‘God rested in order to consider his works’. How can that be? He did not need to, as we have stated, but he instructs us what we are to do, as if saying, ‘Behold, I want a day set aside for contemplation of my works.’ Therefore, we have a God who is resting to be a mirror and pattern so that we may conform ourselves to him . . .⁴Sermons on Genesis, Chapters 1–11, trans. Rob Roy McGregor (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2009), p. 123. Because we are so weak and fragile and fickle, God has given us a day to help us sustain ourselves for the remainder of the week . . . help will come to us from the day itself which is given to us, during which we abandon all occupations, all worldly cares and thoughts in order to give our minds to that holy meditation we mentioned . . . Now in the Law, God commanded the day of rest for another reason, and at this point we must carefully distinguish between the order God established in the creation of the world and this commandment which appears in the Law of Moses . . . to give another and differing view, namely that it is a shadow and figure of spiritual rest . . . But the fact remains that we have one definite day of the week which is to be completely spent in hearing God’s word, in prayers, and petitions and meditating upon his works that we may rejoice in him.

There are two facets of observance. For the present, it will suffice us to know that God continued in the Law what he had begun at the creation of the world . . . So let us learn to sanctify the day of rest in order to bring ourselves into conformity with our God’s example and preserve the order which he established to be inviolable till the end.⁵Ibid., pp. 128–130.

Calvin’s change of judgment had already taken place by the time his Commentary on Genesis was published in 1554.⁶J. K. Carter, in an unpublished doctoral thesis which I have not seen, traces the change in Calvin’s thought to the years 1550–59; ‘Sunday Observance in Scotland 1560-1606,’ Edinburgh, 1957. In that volume, on God’s blessing of the seventh day in Genesis 2:3, he said:

That benediction is nothing else than a solemn consecration, by which God claims for himself the meditations and employments of men on the seventh day. This is, indeed, the proper business of the whole of life, in which men should daily exercise themselves, to consider the infinite goodness, justice, power, and wisdom of God, in this magnificent theatre of heaven and earth. But, lest men should prove less sedulously attentive to it than they ought, every seventh day has been especially selected for the purpose of supplying what was wanting in daily meditation . . . he dedicated every seventh day to rest, that his own example might be a perpetual rule.⁷Commentary on Genesis (Calvin Trans. Soc.; repr. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), pp. 105-6. That the Genesis 2:2-3 pattern remains for us to follow today is again asserted in the reformer’s final commentary (1563), Commentaries of the Four Last Books of Moses, vol. 2 (Calvin Trans. Soc.), p. 437.There are variations of emphasis in Calvin’s thought which cannot be explored here. See Institutes of the Christian Religion, pp. 394-400. Also, Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture pp. 140-42, 513-21.

_______________________________________________________

Featured Photograph: Lionel Constable, 1828–1887, British, View on the River Sid, near Sidmouth, ca. 1852, Oil on paper on board, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, B1981.25.173.